Financial flashback?

[Maximus84]

The Democrats blame the subprime meltdown on the Republicans. The record suggests otherwise.

Transcripts of Senate hearings in the early 2000's show that the Bush administration (Secretary of the Treasury Snow) tried to prevent Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac from taking on all of the sup-prime loans. The Republicans on the banking committee agreed and voted 100% with the administration. The Democrats voted 100% to continue to allow the questionable loans to be made. Committee Democrats prevented the vote from getting to the floor for a full vote.

Senator Dodd (minority leader on the committee) was the #1 recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. Senator Obama was the #2 recipient of Fannie Mae contributions. Senator Schumer of New York was also one of the top recipients. All three of these guys are trying to re-write history and claim they played no role in getting us into this mess.

[Oz]

You clearly don't understand the underlying causes of the current financial turmoil. It's all in the leverage and lack of regulation.

Irresponsible policy from the Bush administration in the early 00's is where the snowball effect started.

These articles might help you.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news...ion=2008092614

http://www.economistblog.com/2008/09...f-regulations/

[Maximus84]

Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear.

http://housingdoom.
com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ .

The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting s tatements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner." These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.

Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books.

The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,"

On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bo nuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.

Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!

Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.

Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor

TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama

JIM JOHNSON? Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee

IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street ?

[drunken monkey]

What about the FNMA related McCain advisors?

Are you aware that for every piece of anti-Obama progaganda you can find, there is more than likely an equal piece of anti-McCain propaganda?

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

What about the FNMA related McCain advisors?

Are you aware that for every piece of anti-Obama progaganda you can find, there is more than likely an equal piece of anti-McCain propaganda?

Well,lets see it. Talk like yours,is cheap!

[ericn1300]

As an Independant I'm amazed at the partisan name calling and declarations of blame by people like Maximus who listen to too much right wing radio.

15 years ago Rush was a funny guy, and entertainer trashing all in a non-partisan manner as a true conservative. To bad he left that persona and became just another apologist for the social conservatist's that high jacked the republican party.

I respected, and would have voted for, the McCain that ran for president in 2000, but that maverick is no longer here. When McCain lost by failing to get the social conservative vote he changed. Again. It's a pattern through out his life.

Read the devasting story here.

Originally Posted by Make-Believe Maverick
A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty

In his current campaign, however, McCain has become the kind of politician he ran against in 2000. He has embraced those he once denounced as "agents of intolerance," promised more drilling and deeper tax cuts, even compromised his vaunted opposition to torture. Intent on winning the presidency at all costs, he has reassembled the very team that so viciously smeared him and his family eight years ago, selecting as his running mate a born-again moose hunter whose only qualification for office is her ability to electrify Rove's base. And he has engaged in a "practice of politics" so deceptive that even Rove himself has denounced it, saying that the outright lies in McCain's campaign ads go "too far" and fail the "truth test." http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...maverick/print

[drunken monkey]

first of all read this.

then read this.

and any of the 8 previous links

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

some links
link 1
link 2
link 3
link 4
link 5
link 6
link 7
link 8
see how easy it is to find bad things people say about politicians?

[freakray]

Originally Posted by Maximus84

Well,lets see it. Talk like yours,is cheap!

So you are acknowledging that you have no true counter argument?

Come now, this is a forum to debate views, I would love to hear more from you.

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by ericn1300

As an Independant I'm amazed at the partisan name calling and declarations of blame by people like Maximus who listen to too much right wing radio.

15 years ago Rush was a funny guy, and entertainer trashing all in a non-partisan manner as a true conservative. To bad he left that persona and became just another apologist for the social conservatist's that high jacked the republican party.

I respected, and would have voted for, the McCain that ran for president in 2000, but that maverick is no longer here. When McCain lost by failing to get the social conservative vote he changed. Again. It's a pattern through out his life.

Read the devasting story here.

WHAT! You say I'm the one name calling! I was attacked by about 6 people immediately after my 1st post.I never attacked anyone back personally for quite some time after that,until recently. You guys stated I need to read the rules.Why? You didnt! If you'll read your own rules. -->> Although emotions can run high when debating something that you feel strongly about, remember that you are not debating someone else's intelligence (or lack thereof), background or location, but rather the topic itself and their position on the topic. --->Personal attacks will just get threads closed or worse, so avoid attacking the messenger and stick to attacking the message -

[freakray]

Originally Posted by Maximus84

WHAT! You say I'm the one name calling! I was attacked by about 6 people immediately after my 1st post.I never attacked anyone back personally for quite some time after that,until recently. You guys stated I need to read the rules.Why? You didnt! If you'll read your own rules. -->> Although emotions can run high when debating something that you feel strongly about, remember that you are not debating someone else's intelligence (or lack thereof), background or location, but rather the topic itself and their position on the topic. --->Personal attacks will just get threads closed or worse, so avoid attacking the messenger and stick to attacking the message -

You bring a valid point.

The problem is, you've yet to actually express any particular view other than your disdain towards the other members of this forum. You have, however, successfully copied lots of other people's unsubstantiated views to this forum.

[Oz]

But you're not debating with anyone - you're spouting rhetoric from other parts of the interweb as if you came up with them yourself and ignoring what anyone else posts.

[ericn1300]

Originally Posted by Maximus84

WHAT! You say I'm the one name calling! I was attacked by about 6 people immediately after my 1st post.[/b][/u]

Were they personal attacks on your clothing, your hygiene, your place in the evolutionary order, or any other personal problem you might be embarrassed about?

If you use declaratory terms like "liberal" or even worse the evil "conservative" you are open game. Look at McCain's and your trash talking and tell me why we can't attack you while letting you attack whomever you want.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by Oz

You clearly don't understand the underlying causes of the current financial turmoil. It's all in the leverage and lack of regulation.

Irresponsible policy from the Bush administration in the early 00's is where the snowball effect started.

These articles might help you.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news...ion=2008092614

http://www.economistblog.com/2008/09...f-regulations/

Yeah right. Obviously the financial meltdown occurred under Bush's watch with a Democrat majority Congress but there is plenty of blame to go around contrary to your misplaced belief. It looks like many of us do not understand the real underlying cause(s) and to do so at this point in time is sheer speculation at best.

So let me see if I have this straight. You post two links. One from one of the most liberal biased cable news networks (CNN) to include Fortune magazine and then from a blog to support your misplaced position Bush is all to blame for this financial mess or irresponsible policy? And neither one of them mention Bush as the sole cause.

You might want to do some more research or homework. There is plenty of blame to go around and it is not limited to Bush but goes back further to the Clinton Administration where the real seed was planted and deregulation by a Republican majority Congress but with a Democrat President Bill Clinton who signed the bill back in 1999 mostly likely responsible for this mess. IMO the real blame rests with Wall Street greed and these businesses which includes the various commercial banks and investment banks that went under and ones still in business that the 700 billion dollar bailout is supposed to help. Plus obviously both parties have blame and the latest bailout bill that many Americans disagreed with was passed in a bipartisan nature.

Even though the Democrats or Obamabots won't admit it Bush attempted to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac early on during his first term which went no wheres. Put the blame where it really belongs.

NOTE: This is from a liberal rag/source.

New York Times
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Article

Truth or Fiction? Bush Administration Proposed a New Agency to oversee Housing Industry in 2003

The Truth:
Stephen Labaton wrote this story for the New York Times and it was published September 11, 2003 and it is still archived at the newspaper.

According to the article, the Bush administration introduced the plan and it was well recieved by Fannie Mae and its leading rivals. It was criticized by the Democrats in Congress and National Association of Home Builders who feared "that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing."

Congressman Barney Frank stated that they two major lenders were not facing any financial crisis at the time.

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Yeah right. Obviously the financial meltdown occurred under Bush's watch with a Democrat majority Congress but there is plenty of blame to go around contrary to your misplaced belief. It looks like many of us do not understand the real underlying cause(s) and to do so at this point in time is sheer speculation at best.

So let me see if I have this straight. You post two links. One from one of the most liberal biased cable news networks (CNN) to include Fortune magazine and then from a blog to support your misplaced position Bush is all to blame for this financial mess or irresponsible policy? And neither one of them mention Bush as the sole cause.

You might want to do some more research or homework. There is plenty of blame to go around and it is not limited to Bush but goes back further to the Clinton Administration where the real seed was planted and deregulation by a Republican majority Congress but with a Democrat President Bill Clinton who signed the bill back in 1999 mostly likely responsible for this mess. IMO the real blame rests with Wall Street greed and these businesses which includes the various commercial banks and investment banks that went under and ones still in business that the 700 billion dollar bailout is supposed to help. Plus obviously both parties have blame and the latest bailout bill that many Americans disagreed with was passed in a bipartisan nature.

Even though the Democrats or Obamabots won't admit it Bush attempted to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac early on during his first term which went no wheres. Put the blame where it really belongs.

[/i]

Truth or Fiction? Bush Administration Proposed a New Agency to oversee Housing Industry in 2003

[/i][/b]

Hey,thanks for checking in. Thought I was the only one stating facts around here & fending off personal attacks! LOL

[blazee]

The current economic problems go alot further back. The creation of the Federal Reserve.... debasement of the currency...one of the main problems now are Credit Default Swaps, which is a result of the banks being shady, and not either political party.