BS: The Bailout

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 12:37 AM

"During those same explosive three years, private investment banks � not Fannie and Freddie � dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages,"

How can that be when Freddie and Fannie hold half of the mortgages in the US? Are they not responsible to check them to see they are good when they buy the mortgages?

NYT: The bailout plan for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now hold or guarantee about half of the country’s mortgages.

At a 2004 hearing of the Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee, then-Chairman Rep. Richard Baker, Louisiana Republican, predicted the collapse of Fannie Mae if nothing was done. Baker called for more regulation, something Democrats claim Republicans never wanted.

President Bush was calling for more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in his first year as president, though he also praised efforts to expand minority homeownership at a time when bad credit risks were straining the system.
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said in a Sept. 25, 2003, hearing of the House Committee on Financial Services, "We do not have a crisis at Fannie Mae and in particular Freddie Mac under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines."
It was Raines who took close to $100 million in "compensation" from Fannie Mae during his tenure as its CEO.
In the 2004 hearing, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., called the investigation that found illegal activity at Fannie Mae a "lynching," an incendiary word, as both Clay and Raines are African-American.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 10:37 PM

BROTHER, CAN YOU SPARE A DIME?
(E.Y. Harburg and J. Gorney)

They used to tell me I was building a dream
And so I followed the mob
When there was earth to plough or guns to bear
I was always there, right on the job

They used to tell me I was building a dream
With peace and glory ahead
Why should I be standing in line
Just waiting for bread?

Once I built a railroad, I made it run
I made it race against time
Once I built a railroad, now it's done
Brother, can you spare a dime?

Once I built a tower, up to the sun
Bricks & mortar & lime
Once I built a tower, now it's done
Brother...

(bridge) Once in khaki suits, gee we looked swell
Full of that Yankee-Doodly-duni
Half a million boots went slogging through Hell
And I was the kid with the drum

Say, don't you remember, you called me "Al"
It was "Al" all the time
Say don't you remember, I was your pal
Brother...

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: reggie miles
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 10:27 PM

My latest offering just posted to YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCdWEHqZJuw

Wall Street Bail Out Blues by Reggie Miles © 2008

Everybody's talkin' 'bout
The economic downturn
Who's getting' bailed out
And who's gonna get burned

Wall Street millionaire
Vultures comin' home to roost
They want more corporate welfare
To pad their golden parachutes

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
Bear Stearns and AIG
A blank check is all they lack
For their next spending spree

Everybody's frettin' 'bout
The stock market crashin' down
Who's gonna get a handout
And who they're gonna let drown

Fat cats with hats in hand
Swimmin' in toxic debt
A little help is all they ask
And, 700 billion should cover it

They're cryin' help us Main Street
Our market shares are fallin' fast
You may be losin' your house next week
But we're all about to lose our ass

Everybody's bloggin' 'bout
The 2008 recession
It's a who's who of who's lost everything
And who's gonna get possession

They want cheap cash to make it right
To fuel their speculation
Free from any oversight
And any regulation

We all know who the real losers are
You can see them very clear
No, you don't have to look so far
Just check out any mirror

Everybody's freakin' 'bout
The credit crunch crisis
Who's down for the count
And who's going to survive this

Welcome to your plutocracy
Government by and for the rich
Who made this mess for all to see
Thank George that S-O-B and the GOP

Will the greedy kings of Wall Street
Run out of credit this time
Or will they keep panhandlin' Main Street
Hey buddy can you spare a dime

Everybody's worried 'bout
Our financial situation
But I guess it don't apply to me
In my present occupation

When you ain't got nothin'
There's nothin' left to lose
That's why I'm sittin' here on Main Street
Singin' these Wall Street bail out blues

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 05:47 PM

Despite conservatives claiming otherwise, federal records show that the subprime lending boom which led to the current financial crisis was initiated by "the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies" like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The subprime lending crisis was enhanced "by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages" a federal report found Friday.


(The Progressive)

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 03:54 PM

Sept. 1929
"There is no cause to worry. The high tide of prosperity will continue." Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury

Oct. 14, 1929
"Secretary Lamont and officials of the Commerce Department today denied rumors that a severe depression in business and industrial activity was impending, which had been based on a mistaken interpretation of a review of industrial and credit conditions issued earlier in the day by the Federal Reserve Board". New York Times

Dec 5, 1929
"The Governments business is in sound condition." Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury

Dec. 28, 1929
"Maintenance of a general high level of business in the United States during December was reviewed today by Robert P. Lamont, Secretary of Commerce, as a indications that American Industry had reached a point where a break in New York stock prices does not necessarily mean a national depression." Associated Press dispatch

January 13, 1930
"Reports to the Department of Commerce indicate that business is in a satisfactory condition, Secretary Lamont said today." News Item

January 21, 1930
"Definite signs that business and industry have turned the corner from the temporary period of emergency that followed deflation of the speculative market were seen today by President Hoover. The President said that reports to the Cabinet showed the tide of employment had changed in the right direction." News dispatch from Washington

Jan. 24, 1930
"Trade recovery now complete President told. Business survey conference reports industry has progressed by own power. No Stimulants Needed! Progress in all lines by the early spring forecast." New York Herald Tribune

March 8, 1930
"President Hoover predicted today that the worst effect of the crash upon unemployment will have been passed during the next sixty days". Washington Dispatch

May 1, 1930
"While the crash only took place six months ago, I am convinced we have now passed the worst and with continued unity of effort we shall rapidly recover. There is one certainty of the future of a people of the resources, intelligence and character of the people of the United States-that is prosperity." President Hoover

June 29, 1930
"The worst is over without a doubt." James J. Davis Secretary of Labor.

Aug. 29, 1930
"American labor may now look to the future with confidence". James J.Davis Secretary of Labor.

Sept. 12, 1930
"We have hit bottom and are on the upswing" James J. Davis Secretary of Labor.

Oct. 16, 1930
"President Hoover today designated Robert W. Lamont Secretary of Commerce, as chariman of the President's special committee on unemployment." Washington dispatch

Oct. 21, 1930
President Hoover has summoned Col. Arthur Woods to help place 2,500,000 persons back to work this winter." Washington Dispatch

Nov. 1930
"I see no reason why 1931 should not be an extremely good year." Alfred P. Sloan Jr. General Motors Co.

Jan 20, 1931 "The country is not in good condition"- Calvin Coolidge.

June 9, 1931 "The depression had ended"- Dr. Julius Klein, Assistant Secretary of Commerce.

Aug. 12, 1931 "Henry Ford has shut down his Detroit automobile factories almost completely. At Least 75,000 men have been thrown out of work" - The Nation

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 01:34 PM

Krugman (Nobel winner on Economics) says that it's important to inject funds into the bank like they are doing in Britain.

However, the taxpayer is left to hang out to dry.

McCain is a deregulator. He is responsible (with Phil Gramm) for the economic condition
we find ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 08:57 AM

There seems to be evidence that a trillion dollars has ALREADY been exponged from the goverment to deal with the economy.

As for fannie and freddie, no matter what was done even 8 years ago the housing bubble was so big that Greenspan called it FROTH.

What Allan did was continue the bubbles growth by lowering interest rates and grow the problem exponentially hoping it would pop in the next administration.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 07:09 AM

When They Say 'Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac', They Mean 'Brown People'

"'Operation Hide Behind The D**kies', my ass!"

If you've been wondering why the Republicans have been yammering about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being the alleged root of the financial meltdown when they really weren't, there's a passage in this McClatchy article (h/t Atrios) that provides a clue:

    WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

    Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Ah, but is this true, or is this yet another GOP effort to blame poor brown people for things rich white people did? Signs point to the latter being the case:

    Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

If the GOP's bogus arguments sound familiar, it's because they used the same easily-debunked nonsense to try and blame the current crisis on the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (because it allegedly forced nice upstanding bankers to give money to black people! Quelle horreur!) -- even though the vast majority of the bad loans out there had nothing to do with the CRA. In other words, it's like the "Operation Hide Behind The D**kies" scene in the South Park movie, with the main difference being that it was a lot easier for the maligned black people in the movie to successfully fight back.

The reason the Republicans are dipping into the race-baiting barrel once again isn't just because it's their favorite thing to do. It's because they have to hide their lead role in ripping out all the finance-industry laws that had saved America from stock market meltdowns during the latter half of the last century. Phil Gramm, John McCain's go-to guy for financial wisdom, is the lead villain of the piece, as he successfully pushed to kill the Glass-Steagall Act that had kept us and our money safe for so many decades. If most Americans understood this -- and that Gramm would likely be Treasury Secretary in a hypothetical McCain administration -- then not only would McCain go down in flames, so would the GOP's downticket races, effectively handing firm control of Congress to the Democrats for a generation. So out come the sleazy race-based bogosities on the CRA and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's their only hope.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/10/13/operation-hide-behind-the-darkies-redux-when-they-say-fannie-maefreddie-mac-they-mean-brown-people/

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 07:05 AM

Part 2...

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.

Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 07:02 AM

Part 1...

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

    * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

    * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

    * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.

"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 11:46 PM

ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC) was instrumental in its passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which has plagued the mortgage markets since 1977. The U.S. Congress through the CRA compelled banks and lending institutions to make loans to "communities of color" disregarding sound economic and risk guidelines. CRA encouraged the relaxing of "outdated" risk-management protocols and underwriting obligations by lending institutions. In the name of ending discrimination, no longer were "communities of color" required to provide verification of income, employment, credit history, ability to pay homeowner bills, or down payment. In response, many banks and mortgage groups bundled trillions of dollars of "subprime" loans and sold them to investors here and abroad. It is these bundled Community Reinvestment Act mortgages, doomed to fail, that are today causing financial strain in U.S. and global financial markets.

In short, a Democrat Congress and President demanded that banks change the rules of good banking and open the Pandora's Box of mortgage defaults and foreclosures now coming to a head. This home-parity concept of the radical left was mobilized by ACORN resulting in a purchase of a property without any credit, income, employment, and a zero down payment.

In 2003, Fannie Mae home-parity funding in Chicago reached $600 billion. When Franklin Raines, former chair and CEO of Fannie Mae, stepped down in 2004 but managed to take with him a multimillion-dollar parachute and a monthly pension of $114, 393 for life, and should he die, for his wife's lifetime. Until recently, Raines was an advisor to Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 11:35 PM

"Democrats are the ones who are for more regulation, and the Republicans are the ones who are for less regulation"

Read the bill that Sununu, Hagle, Dole and later McCain proposed. Then read their speeches and tell me where they wanted to deregulate.

Then tell me what Mr $13+mil doantion recipient, Dodd did to regulate other than to ignore the proposed bill calling for regulation.

Tell me which of the ten requests from the administration calling for regulation was heeded.

Tell me one damned thing Democrats have done to regulate.

GLBA strengthened the CRA which forced banks to give loans to people that could not afford them.

"Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act"

What was strengthened?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: heric
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 06:54 PM

Look at what we have here. How can it possibly have come to this???

The Secretary of the Treasury says: "Quickly, I need $700 billion. I need it within days. There will be meltdown if you don't let me do exactly what I want without oversight, review or repercussions."

But sir, how could you have let it come to the point where you need such an unfathomable sum in such a short time?

"It just happened, and I know what to do. I am going to buy deflated, almost worthless assets that are sinking the investment banks, to free up credit. I will not be buying stakes in the companies – that's not what's needed."

$700 billion, sir? The entire budget is only around $2 trillion. You're going to raise it by almost a third?"

"Yes, trust me. Let me do this."

A bit later, after we have taken the time to think about this, and said okay:

'Mr. Paulson, Germany and the UK both are going to buy stakes in the banks with their bailout money."

"Yes, okay. That's the right thing to do. I will do that, too."

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 06:20 PM

"What utterly astonishes me is that after doing all of that, there are still people who are stupid enough to support them..."


      When it comes to the presidential race, the alternative is worse!

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 05:23 AM

What, specifically, were Bush and the other Republicans trying to regulate within Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Because what I have been reading is that what they were trying to regulate had nothing whatever to do with the problems in those companies that caused their eventual meltdown.

At any rate, the Republicans wanted to increase regulations on only those two things... Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But those two companies only comprise a very small percentage of the problem. And it was deregulation of all of the rest of the banking industry that, A. the Republicans not only supported, but that was their initiative from start to finish, and B. that is responsible for the vast majority of the problems that caused the start of the whole crisis.

I will reiterate: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not issue the kinds of mortgages that are responsible for the problems. The problem mortgages did not originate with them. So when people try to make it look like it was Democrats trying to get loans for poor people through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they are lying.

The reason Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac went under wasn't because of the kinds of loans they were issuing. They went under because of the kinds of bad loans made by other companies that they were buying from other people. Or rather, the kinds of investment products they were buying that included bad loans that were issued by other people.

The Republicans have good reason to want to run away from their records. They are responsible for seriously damaging the economies of quite a few countries (including the US), and killing at least one. And they are responsible for a hell of a lot of people losing a hell of a lot of money.

What utterly astonishes me is that after doing all of that, there are still people who are stupid enough to support them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 04:14 PM

This from CBS News:


(US News) Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 03:05 AM

And by the way, the GLBA didn't have anything to do with people pushing sub-prime mortgages. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not issue sub-prime mortgages.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 03:02 AM

The Community Reinvestment Act simply prevented the kinds of discrimination that was known at that time as "redlining".

Most people are not aware that a lot of people who ended up with the sub-prime mortgages were actually eligible for the regular kind of mortgages, but that predatory lenders were not being honest with them about what they were eligible for, preferring, instead, to convince them to take out the sub-prime mortgages. The kind of deregulation that made that possible was not the result of the GLBA. It was the result of other efforts on the part of the Republicans.

I'm no fan of the Democrats, but the Democrats are the ones who are for more regulation, and the Republicans are the ones who are for less regulation. Anyone who wants proof of that only has to look at the campaign rhetoric of any number of Republicans from previous elections.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 12:47 AM

Dodd and Countrywide

WSJ:

Former Countrywide Financial loan officer Robert Feinberg says Mr. Dodd knowingly saved thousands of dollars on his refinancing of two properties in 2003 as part of a special program the California mortgage company had for the influential. He also says he has internal company documents that prove Mr. Dodd knew he was getting preferential treatment as a friend of Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide's then-CEO.

That a "Friends of Angelo" program existed is not in dispute. It was crucial to the boom that Countrywide enjoyed before its fortunes turned. While most of the company was aggressively lending to risky borrowers and off-loading those mortgages in bulk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Mr. Feinberg's department was charged with making sure those who could influence Fannie and Freddie's appetite for risk were sufficiently buttered up. As a Banking Committee bigshot, Mr. Dodd was perfectly placed to be buttered.

In response to the charge that he knew he was getting favors, Mr. Dodd at first issued a strong denial: "This suggestion is outrageous and contrary to my entire career in public service. When my wife and I refinanced our loans in 2003, we did not seek or expect any favorable treatment. Just like millions of other Americans, we shopped around and received competitive rates." Less than a week later he acknowledged he was part of Countrywide's VIP program but claimed he thought it was "more of a courtesy."

Mr. Feinberg, who oversaw "Friends of Angelo" from 2000 to 2004, begs to differ. He told us that as the loan officer in charge he was supposed to make sure that the "VIP" clients knew at every step of the process that they were getting a special deal because they were "Friends of Angelo."

"People are referred into that department as 'very important people.' You're told that your loan is priced from Angelo. As the 'Friends of Angelo department,' [the department] has to give them a sense of importance and explain the reduction of fees and the rate as a result of being a 'Friend of Angelo,'" he says. According to a report by Dan Golden in Condé Nast Portfolio in August, other VIPs included Senator Kent Conrad. Mr. Golden reported that "Countrywide also offered special discounts to congressional staffers involved in housing issues."

As to Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feinberg says he spoke to the Senator once or twice and mostly to his wife and that like other FOAs Mr. Dodd got "a float down," which means that even after he had a preferred rate, when the prevailing rate dropped just before the closing, his rate was reduced again. Regular borrowers would pay extra for a last-minute adjustment, but not FOAs. "They were aware of it because they were notified and when they went to the closing they would see it," Mr. Feinberg says, adding that he "always let people in the program know that they were getting a very good deal because they were 'Friends of Angelo.'" All of this matters because Mr. Dodd was one of those encouraging Fan and Fred to plunge into "affordable housing" loans made by companies like Countrywide.

One indicator of his influence is the $165,400 in campaign contributions -- more than to any other politician -- that Fan and Fred have given him since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. These contributions are legal. But favors like those Mr. Dodd is alleged to have received may not be. Mr. Feinberg says he went public with his story because when he heard Senator Dodd on TV talking about predatory lending, he felt it was "hypocritical" and he says, "I just thought, 'This is wrong.'"

Mr. Dodd hasn't yet released his copies of the mortgage documents, though he promised to do so more than two months ago. His office told us this week they'd get back to us on that. Meanwhile, presumably the Justice Department can have Mr. Feinberg's Countrywide documents, if it's interested.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 11:19 PM

"He was up to his wispy little comb-over in the deregulation of our banking industry."

As was all but 7 of the Democrats that voted for GLBA and all of the Democrats that ignored the warnings from the administration, McCain, Hagel, Sununu and Dole.

And whatever you do, don't mention The Community Reinvestment Act, brainchild of Democrats starting with Carter.

If you did admit to that then it would mean that both Democrats and Republicans are at fault and partisan bickering is fueling them on.

And physical features have what to do with government unless you want to use that as a tool to back up a shaky position.

FDR was in a wheel chair so he must have been a real geek.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: heric
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 10:52 PM

"There's all kinds of stuff stacked up on docks right now that can't be shipped because people can't get letters of credit," said Bill Gary, president of Commodity Information Systems in Oklahoma City. "The problem is not demand, and it's not supply because we have plenty of supply. It's finding anyone who can come up with the credit to buy."

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=866310

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 04:43 PM

Here's the original quote that I posted all that long time ago that we have been arguing about ever since...

It is doubly interesting though, because McCain voted for the bill that deregulated Wall St


This quote is a true statement. McCain did vote for the bill that deregulated Wall Street. He voted for S. 900 in May of 1999. The only thing that changed about that bill from when he voted for it and when it was made into law, was the addition of the part that strengthened the Community Reinvestment Act. So, in fact, it's only the part that strengthened the CRA that he didn't vote for. He voted for all of the rest of it in May.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 04:29 PM

The original quote that we have been arguing about all this time did not say he voted for the Gramm Leach Bliley act. The original quote did not name the bill, it only described what the bill did. And McCain, when he voted for the bill in the Senate in May, did vote for a bill that was as described in my original quote.

But whether or not he voted for the Committee Report for S. 900 is entirely irrelevant to the question of McCain's involvement in the deregulation of our banking industry. He was up to his wispy little comb-over in the deregulation of our banking industry.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 02:37 PM

"You can blame the Republican or the Democrats but both are responsible and if they can divide the US people into thinking one or the other is right, they will continue the bullshit partisan politics that benefit one part of the American people by screwing the other."

BINGO!

Therein lies the genius of the partisan adversarial $ySStem. It works just like a football playoff series...every time...and no matter which team wins, the League still runs the game, owns the stadium, fleeces the divided public, and reaps the rewards.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 02:32 PM

"it was, from beginning to end, a Republican initiative, and it was the Republicans who crafted it and pushed it along until it became law."

That is true but in the end all but 7 democrats voted for the final version of the bill which was changed from the original bill voted for on May 6th. Evidently they wanted it to become law.

And McCain did not vote for the final revised CRA enriched bill on Nov when it passed. Maybe he would have if he was there but he did not.

And who heeded Chuck Hagle's bill for regulation "This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence that investors and the markets require." and McCains speech in support of that bill calling for regulation "American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."? They hit the nail right on the head.

Democrats had the majority then. Theheir bill never got out of committee because Chris Dodd "Friend of Angelo" and recipient of $13,163,356 in contributions from the finance, real estate and insurance sector, was Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. See any conflict of interest there?

And who heeded the 10 calls for regulation by the Bush administration from 2001 to 2007?

You can blame the Republican or the Democrats but both are responsible and if they can divide the US people into thinking one or the other is right, they will continue the bullshit partisan politics that benefit one part of the American people by screwing the other.

I think I am turning into one of the Purple People.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 04:07 PM

what upsets the Europeans and the foreigners is that the US plan has done nothing at all about the debt crisis itself. It's bailed out the creditors, but not a penny of the actual debts, the subprime mortgage debts, are addressed. Without any of the media knowing, the Federal Reserve over the last few months has given $850 billion of cash for trash already. This is what the $700 billion discussion in Congress was supposed to be about, but the Fed, without anyone knowing, has already been exchanging these securities. And the securities essentially have been swapped by the US bankers to their pals and not done anything at all to write down the actual subprime debts. There's a big attempt to blame the victim now. And if you add up all of the subprime bad loans and defaults, that's altogether $1 trillion. So far, the government has given away $6 trillion already to Wall Street. That's much more than any of the subprime debt. And the volume of derivative trade has been estimated at $450 trillion, an unbelievable amount. So nobody has any idea about how much money is at stake.

And what really triggered a lot of this was the way in which Lehman went bankrupt. The day-and this has not been discussed either in America, but it's all over the European press. The day before Lehman went bankrupt, it basically looted all of its foreign offices. For instance, in England, it emptied out the English account of a few billion dollars, leaving the English employees only with the money they-the little cards they had to use in the vending machines. No salaries were paid. The London office was closed down immediately. And the next day, Lehman used the money that it took from London to pay its closest associates to redeem the derivative trades that it had done. So the English bankers came out and said, in England, we have an ethic: it's lend to the person, not against the asset. And they've come to the conclusion that the American bankers-well, we won't say "crooks," but let's say they're cronies who deal among themselves and are willing to screw the foreigner.

And this has created such mistrust abroad that Europeans and Asians and OPEC country investors are simply pulling their money out of the US, because they don't have a clue as to the solvency of the banks. We're seeing the end result of the Alan Greenspan deregulatory revolution, where he said markets are all self-regulating. Right now, you're seeing the markets self-regulate themselves. And the result is a wipeout of the American pyramiding." And there's more here (1)

Government keeps saying that this is only financial, and that our industries and businesses are still sound-that is a blatant lie! This could not be happening here if the US had a manufacturing or an industrial base of any kind: But our once formidable American commercial infrastructure has been outsourced, with the full approval and encouragement of this government; causing massive loses in American jobs for those American workers that have now been thrown on the trash-heaps of history.

Any 'Republic' that no longer has a system of checks & balances or anything remotely resembling 'oversight' of what they create to run the nation, is no longer a country-it is only a fascist police-state in waiting!

"Senator Chris Dodd, the banking committee chair has no plans to subject the new Bailout Czar, Neel Kashkari to conformation hearings. Kashkari is the thirty-five year old Treasury official, tapped by Henry Paulson, to oversee the more than 700 billion-dollar bailout. Like Paulson, Kashkari is a former employee of Goldman-Sachs. Kashkari graduated from business school six years ago."

Given this fact: it is now clear that we can forget about the political campaigns because whoever "wins" that farce will not even come close to having the kind of power that this 35 year old insider will be able to have, when he begins handing out "450 Trillion dollars" to the money-changers at the expense of every one of us! There's a huge difference between the $850 Billion they told us about and the $450 Trillion that is the actual amount of the problem! That's more money than any economy could ever envision, much less ever have: and yet that's the payoff that this Depression was designed to create!

And Senator Dodd does not think that we even ought to have a hearing to see if this Goldman-Sachs insider is even qualified for anything, much less this job that will clearly make the US presidency into the standing joke that it already is!

Americans at all levels of this nightmare are hurting badly, some far more than others. The meltdown has cut into 401K's, into investments, retirement funds, savings accounts, mutual funds, and stock option plans not to mention the number of homes and jobs that will be lost in this massive war against the people of the United States, and by extension the world. Hundreds of Trillions will be doled out before this is done, but not one cent will be given to real people to protect them in any way from what has already destroyed over twenty percent of the retirement savings that had to be earned over many decades!

According to CBS News this morning "we have lost $8 Trillion so far this year, and the markets have fallen 40% from where they were just one year ago today." This Depression is not remotely near the end, as the automotive and airlines and the insurance shortfalls will also be demanding bailouts ­ notwithstanding the fact that the subprime mortgages have still not even been addressed. What happened to Impeachment or anything to do with challenging these people on anything they've done! This is happening - because we have remained silent and obedient throughout the last eight years of this completely criminal regime, in the face of war-crimes by the hundreds, and outrages that defy all the human sensibilities on which the community of nations was built.

So much money being paid out-all in secret of course-and nothing to help real people survive the coming depression. Once more the global money-changers are being bailed-out with no thought at all to saving the very people that are being forced to pay off these eternal bandits that have declared "All out War" upon the global economy and the global- population who will suffer or die because of this new outrage!

This situation screams for resolutions: yet all we get are platitudes amid the chaos of failing markets, and no one in authority is even remotely in any danger of even getting fired! If 'resolutions' fail then the only choice left to the real people of this world will be a global demand for Revolution, along with total control over all bankers and politicians of any stripe-forever!

If this sounds impossible or implausible then please just think about this completely other proposal, from Benjamin Fulford:

"With a brand new financial system built from scratch, it would be possible to end world poverty and stop environmental destruction within a month. The reason is simple, we have been blinded from reality by a hypnotic pyramid scheme known as the world financial system. The financial system is nothing more than the process of deciding what humanity will do in the future. In other words, it is fundamentally nothing more than mass psychology. Thus, if humanity changed their collective psychology about how to run the planet, it could decide, within a few days, to care for the poor and stop destroying nature. It is simply a matter of making the collective decision to do so. That is all."

If this Depression is not averted, then we must act, because there's a total lack of responsibility in the continued fleecing of the public and of everything we have all worked for all our lives! This must not be allowed to reach its designed conclusion ­ not that is ­ if we are planning to have a future of any kind, for our selves or for any of our descendants!

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bee
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:49 AM

Regardless of how fiscally responsible Canada has been, our economy is taking a beating as a result of the American debacle. Our trade surplus relies quite a lot on Americans having money to purchase our commodities. This is why we should be much more diversified as to trading partners.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:40 AM

However, it was, from beginning to end, a Republican initiative, and it was the Republicans who crafted it and pushed it along until it became law.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:37 AM

And McCain voted for it (S. 900) when it passed in the Senate. McCain supported the bill, and helped it to become law.

The Community Reinvestment Act basically requires that any bank that receives FDIC insurance must comply with anti-discrimination guidelines (which means they were no longer allowed to engage in "redlining").

As we can see, S. 900 easily passed in both the House and Senate without any help at all from the Democrats. They knew it was a done deal and S. 900 was going to become law. So they made a deal and agreed to vote for the bill in return for an agreement from the Republicans to help them strengthen the CRA. So, in essence, they voted against S. 900, and for strengthening the CRA. Perhaps the Republicans were looking for a veto-proof majority. Clinton didn't like S. 900 (although he warmed up to it a bit after the agreement was made to strengthen the CRA).

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:20 AM

If GLBA would have passed regardless of the vote on Nov 4th, Why was a vote needed?

I see nothing official to substantiate the claim that the bill would have passed anyway.

All I see is a vote. When a vote is taken it indicates that the voters are deciding if something passes or not.

If Democrats objected to GLBA and it voting for GLBA was wrong, Democrats should have voted against it Nov 4th 1999, even if they were only voting on the language of the bill which they should have disagreed with if the bill was wrong.

Wikipedia:
The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The bills passed the Senate on a 54-44 vote along party lines   Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed). After adopting Democratic proposals for negotiations with the Senate, the House passed the bill on an uncounted voice vote. The bill then moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act [This was after May 6, 1999] and address certain privacy concerns. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57. This "veto-proof" legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

Obviously the Democrats changed their minds do to some CRA goodies put in the bill after May 6th and before Nov 4th.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:12 AM

It swung back up 600 points in 30 seconds,

wow ain't computers great!

I wonder who bought?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:00 AM

If it goes to 4500 I would be astonished. There is too much inate hope in the human spirit to go that low.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:57 AM

Went to 79xx, now at 8365....

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:52 AM

after 30 minutes its only down 600

I am going to guess it bottoms out at 7,000 by closing bell.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:36 AM

the DOW is going down a 100 points a minute this morning.

the whacky Cramer advised everyone to sell yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 08:04 AM

On the right track because Alaska is still part of the US? That's true, it is, but no thanks to the Palins.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 08:02 AM

So it looks like Palin is on the right track. Too bad we can't get her into office sooner.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:14 AM

Nobody's praising Canada for having a trade surplus. Canada is being praised for being fiscally conservative. The trade surplus is simply helping them have more money to manage responsibly. But it's the responsible management (being fiscally conservative), combined with strict regulation of the banking industry that is the reason Canada's banks are in such good shape.

The US, on the other hand, has been engaging in reckless deregulation and criminal fiscal irresponsibility, and that's why the banking system in the US is in the toilet, Alaska's trade surplus notwithstanding (Alaska is still a part of the US, as far as I am aware).

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 06:33 AM

So let me see..


Canada is wise and to be praised as more knowledgable than the US finacially for having a trade surplus- But Palin is to be criticised and condemned as unknowledgable finacially for Alaska having a trade surplus.


Must be logical to somebody.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 12:28 AM

They didn't change their vote from nay to yea. The first vote was on the merits of the bill, and on the passage of the bill.. They voted nay on the merits of the bill and on the passage of the bill.

The second vote was on the language of the bill that had already been passed on its merits. On the second vote, they were agreeing to allow the Committee Report (on the language of the bill) to pass.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 10:41 PM

"Looks like Canadians are the real fiscal conservatives, while the US government (under both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses) are the ones who are fiscally irresponsible."

Canada has a $6.3 billion trade surplus. It exports more than it imports. They have lots of money to spend on socialized medicine etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 10:37 PM

"This is what I have been saying repeatedly"

What you haven't been saying at all is why the Democrats changed their votes from Nay to Yea.

If voting Yea is some Sort of wrong thing to do, why did they do it?

How can you vote on the wording of something without voting on the meaning of the wording.?

And why was there a need to vote on it at all, as if you say, it would have passed anyway?

This is a flip flop Kerry defense.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 06:47 PM

Bobert, You are 100% orrect that there was no respondisibility, oversight or regulation.

I hope others will soon understand that this was worse than deliberate. The actual financial instruments that were invented such as the double derivitives and the credit default swaps were created and scientifically modeled to do exactly what they have done.

I could repeat that but I believe it is clear enough.

Treasury Secretary Paulson of Goldman Sachs appointed his buddy Neel Kashkari to dole out the bail out. Neel was VP for Goldman Sachs and helped model some of these weapons of financial of mass destruction , which is exactly what Warren Buffet calls them.
You see he had nuclear physics math to aid his economic modeling.

Guess who the first people were to get the bail out money. AIG? Yep but they immediatly gave it to Goldman Sachs which is who AIG was most deeply in debt.

The first 200 billion flies out the door and already we don't hav clear accounting of where it goes after person 1 gets it.

Bobert, we have seen natural disasters, this is not one of them.
This is murder in the first degree with forthought.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 06:10 PM

Actually, George Bush spent alot of energy in 2000 trying to talk the economy down....

But nevermind that... The major problem with the last 8 years is that there was no fiscal responsibility by either the corporatist or their puppet government... The so-called growth of the economy was false as it was based on borrowing...

Any accountant worth his or her salt will tell you that if you borrow and borrow that doesn't mean that you are healthy from a financial point... We've had 8 years of "bogus growth" and now we're going to have to pay for it... Same thing happened when Reagan was president... Didn't work then and it ain't worked this time either... Time for a new model... This one is badly flawed...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 05:54 PM

The purpose of that vote was not the passage of the bill itself, but to agree on the language of the bill, as I have repeatedly said. They were not voting on the merits of the bill. They were voting on how the bill would be worded. The merits of the bill were voted on in May when the Democrats voted against the passage of the bill. This is what I have been saying repeatedly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 01:37 PM

Joseph Stiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties," The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02:

"...the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier...
... during the Clinton Administration the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped, deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to..."

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 01:35 PM

"The votes from the Democrats were not needed " So what was the reason for the vote?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 09:30 AM

OVER AND OVER AGAIN

we were told we do not have 7 billion dollars to cover health care for the children in America.
we do not have 7 billion dollars to cover health care for the children in America.



Our treasury Secretary easily and quickly slipped 180 billion dollars to help AIG corporation pay off some of the winners of investment bets that firms like Goldman Sachs made.

Yep AIG made bets to good ol Goldman Sachs the same corporation that our Treasury Secretary raked in $500 million in "salary".

What kind of bets? Bets like Lehman Bros. will not be able to cover their bets...after a month of whispering rumors.
The parasites and predators turned on each other as if it was sort of Highlander game. There can only be one.




Sorry we can't spare the $7 billion to children's health care...fuck em...
AIG NEEDS MORE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and AIG got more. They claim they are too big to fail. Children are too little to bail out of accident and disease.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 09:28 AM

Oh, I think Clinton was way better than George W. It was Pappy Bush I was referring to in my previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 09:17 AM

Indeed Clinton sucked jobs out of this country by the millions.

I always thought he sucked. He demanded others suck up to him since he sucked up to every new world bank order to globalize our jobs and minimize jobs for all Americans who did try to retrain. WHile millions tried to retrain, he felt our pain.

His wife sadly belongs to the same foreign relation commitee, tri lateral commision and world bank scheme as Bill.

After all the sucking up the Clintons did, you would think he would have gotten more credit than to be sickeningly impeached by overt perverts who titillated themselves vicariously with the Starr report.