chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Dec 2, 2011 15:21:30 GMT -5
Newt fits in very well with the group that lies and denies and blames everyone else. Even when they get caught on tape.
such as...His own adultery while blaming Lambasting Democrats is legendary such as...When Newt Gingrich was asked in the November 9 CNBC presidential debate what he did to earn $300,000 from mortgage giant Freddie Mac, Gingrich claimed: "I said to them at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible..
here is a piece of Gingrich's Freddie interview ( This group might dismiss it as a hoax but since the source is this mornings Wall Street Journal I would guess this is acceptable to even the FoxNews Crowd) The Wall Street Journal reports yesterday on a 2007 interview, which had appeared on Freddie Mac's website, in which Newt Gingrich said broadly nice things about the government-backed mortgage giants.
GINGRICH: So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.
Q: This is not a point of view one normally associates with conservatives.
GINGRICH: Well, it's not a point of view libertarians would embrace. But I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development. Look at our own history. The government provided railroad land grants to encourage widespread adoption of what was then the most modern form of transportation to help develop our country. The Homestead Act essentially gave land away to those willing to live on it and develop it. We used what were in effect public-private partnerships to bring telephone service and electricity to every community in our nation. All of these are examples of government bringing about desired public purposes without creating massive, taxpayer-funded bureaucracies. To me that is a pragmatic and effective conservative approach
FYI - GSE is short for Government Sponsored Enterprise. In this case Freddie Mac
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Dec 2, 2011 15:35:00 GMT -5
Man, once again, when the election comes around, it looks like voters will have the difficult task of grabbing a turd by the clean end. It would be refreshing someday to have a presidential election where it was not necessary to choose between bad and worse *sigh*.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Dec 2, 2011 15:41:45 GMT -5
Wow Charlie, You're good ! Only took you 15 days to dig up that little bit of dirt. Where did you find that at ? The Huffington Post ?
I continue to point to our present " Commander in Chief ", and the Communists, Marxists and socialists that he grew up surrounded with, and continues to surround himself with. Try digging that out of your liberal news organizations. They don't, and won't talk about it. But facts are facts. --- Don
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Dec 2, 2011 16:33:57 GMT -5
Wow Charlie, You're good ! Only took you 15 days to dig up that little bit of dirt. Where did you find that at ? The Huffington Post ? LOL...I'm guessin' Politico.com... right Charlie? ;D
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Dec 2, 2011 16:51:45 GMT -5
Today at 16:41, jakesrocks wrote: Wow Charlie, You're good ! Only took you 15 days to dig up that little bit of dirt. Where did you find that at ? The Huffington Post ? LOL...I'm guessin' Politico.com... right Charlie?
As Sister Mary Josephine said to us when we were young "Ignorance is Bliss".
Too funny for words...People never cease to amaze me - Don't you even read the posts before getting your dander up.
charlie
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Dec 2, 2011 17:05:34 GMT -5
As I've stated many times before and will state until the Liberals are gone from the Whitehouse, anything and I do mean ANYTHING will beat what we have now.
Curt
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Dec 2, 2011 17:09:58 GMT -5
Oh, sorry Charlie. I missed a post. My bad !! Only took you 2 days to dig up your liberal dirt. But don't forget, that dirt falls on both sides of the fence. I stand by my statement about Obummers affiliations. Once a Socialist, always a Socialist.
Don
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Dec 2, 2011 17:19:44 GMT -5
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Dec 2, 2011 17:58:01 GMT -5
Boys, boys, boys
You can cling to all the straws you want ..when the Wall Street Journal (owned by Rupport Murdoch) jumps on the bandwagon and its not about a Liberal...the story is worth a look or two
Personally, most Dems salivate over the possibility or Newt or Herman running as they cannot be elected dog cather in the USA. Most of the leaked stories about these guys come from your side, not mine
charlie
Charlie
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Dec 2, 2011 18:08:36 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, Charlie! I don't dispute the validity of the story, Newt did support govt. involvement in home loans, as did Bush 43. How much he knew about the sordid details of what Freddie was up to is unknown, though he was an adviser of theirs. Besides, when the message sucks, it's time to pick on the messenger...just yankin' your chain as it were.
It looks like this election may be one where both sides say "my guy ain't as sleazy as your guy!" Good campaign slogan for Gingrich: "I may be a Sleazedog, but I'm no Socialist!"
Bill
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Dec 2, 2011 18:12:04 GMT -5
Somethin’ wrong with the original source? Horse’s mouth, after all. © 2008 Freddie Mac......... i.e. Newt’s Sugar Daddy one of Newt's Sugar Daddies. bit.ly/vylJJi
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Dec 2, 2011 18:26:16 GMT -5
Rich and Charlie, As for me, I don't have a problem with govt backed home loans. As we all know, it was the fact that Fannie and Freddie gave loans to people that did not make enough money that upset the apple cart.
It's a simple matter of poor management and a lack of oversight. Bush tried to get more oversight over them but was shot down. I pretty much agree with most points Newt made in the full interview. The boney finger of indignation is best pointed at those responsible for the poor decision/policy making.
It was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans. Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority home ownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Bill
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Dec 2, 2011 18:31:55 GMT -5
Off to dinner but . . . "As we all know, it was the fact that Fannie and Freddie gave loans to people that did not make enough money that upset the apple cart." Please elaborate, specify and or document. I'm all ears. ;D
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Dec 2, 2011 19:05:13 GMT -5
Rich, you are joking... right? If not, here is some background on Fannie and Freddie's contribution to the housing bubble. I should have added that besides the risky loans, fraudulent financial reports were also filed by executives. Subprime lending was a major contributor to the increase in home ownership rates and in the overall demand for housing, which drove prices higher. Subprime loans have a higher risk of default than loans to prime borrowers... Community Reinvestment Act: "Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending: Let's begin: How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?
The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.
Why would changes in the mid-nineties result in a mortgage boom a decade later? Throughout the nineties banks, as banks lowered their mortgage standards, mortgage rates remained high. The laxity was spreading but the incentives for borrowers to re-finance even under relaxed standards remained low. New buyers often still didn’t know that some of the loosey-goosey mortgages existed. Speculators had an internet bubble, so they weren’t yet attracted to real-estate. Treasury rates were not yet so low that investors seeking yield would pour into mortgage backed securities. Securitization levels were low enough that banks weren’t yet willing to fully embrace the loose standards. The historical data on default and loss rates from the lax lending were not yet available, so they weren’t embraced by banks or the broader market. To be fair, initially Bush was a major proponent of the kind of mortgages that banks had started making under the CRA. He urged low-to-no doc mortgages and the elimination of down payments, just like the CRA regulators had long done. “We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to."
However, by September of 2003 bush had seen the light at the end of the tunnel was a train. Bush and McCain Proposed Oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Dateline: " September 11, 2003 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.
”There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,” Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. ”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. ”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
And it is more than a little disturbing that there was no mention of John McCain’s words before congress in 2006:
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
The United States Senate May 25, 2006 Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac. The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, 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. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
The Democrats killed this measure in Committee preventing the full Senate Vote."
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Dec 2, 2011 19:22:06 GMT -5
;D
Curt
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Dec 2, 2011 19:24:20 GMT -5
Rich, I'm sure you'll correct me if this is not correct but I think what Gray was referencing was about 13 years or so ago, Bill Clinton directed Fannie and Freddie to start underwriting home loans to people of modest means and folks with damaged credit. I think these loans were also offered with much less than the traditional 20% down which previously allowed homeowners to have chips in the game. The goal was to increase home ownership but Clinton and the F&F folks did not take into account just how risky these loans were and how some folks simply do not make enough money consistently to pay a monthly mortgage. Problem is ( and what upsets the apple cart) is when folks of low income get into a house with little or nothing down, they have no chips in the game so it's easy to simply default and walk away from the mortgage because they had little equity in the home in first place. The homes these folks walk away from, or have been foreclosed on, flood the market, make the housing bubble burst and banks or mortgage holders, investors etc. are caught with a low value inventory they do not want, thus screwing up the banks or mortgage holders asset portfolios.
I put our California homes up for sale right during this bubble burst and had to contend with competing foreclosed homes first hand and it was not a pretty thing. My main house in southern California dropped a bunch in value while I was in Texas buying the new place. All due to banks and outfits like Fannie and Freddie selling homes to folks who could not afford to buy them and lost them, thus flooding the market making home sellers compete with lots of cheap foreclosures. In my book, that's upsetting a pretty big apple cart that the country has still not recovered from and banks realize this as they are now back to demanding that 20% down and good credit ratings to make sure folks are buying what they can afford .....Mel
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Dec 2, 2011 19:48:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Dec 3, 2011 0:40:37 GMT -5
No, I wasn’t joking, Gray, since neither Freddie nor Fannie ever gave a loan to anyone. Nor did they, or the CRA, cause the financial collapse in 2008. (They may be blamed for a lot of things, but this ain’t one of ‘em.) www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.htmlwww.washingtonpost.com/business/what-caused-the-financial-crisis-the-big-lie-goes-viral/2011/10/31/gIQAXlSOqM_story.html?tid=pm_business_popI see you added a link to a Manhattan Institute article from 2000. Ironically, “After the financial collapse of 2008, Paul Singer, chairman of the Manhattan Institute, called for regulation of all investors and traders. Singer wrote that the failures were in the private market, not government.”
online.wsj.com/article/SB123871848344884871.html Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2009
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Dec 3, 2011 9:24:35 GMT -5
Rich, OK first off I wasn't talking about the financial crisis in general, just the housing bubble which burst. Though it all does go together. Nor was I defending the banks which were the initial issuers of the bad mortgages with Clinton's and other administrations encouragement.
However, Fannie and Freddie were to blame in the sense that they acted as secondary market mortgage buyers who bought up crappy mortgages the banks issued, bundled them into neat little packages and sold them back to banks as high paying securities they guaranteed. The banks, since treasury notes paid like hardly any interest due to the Feds interference in keeping interest rates super low, bought these crappy investments that Fannie and Freddie said were not crappy and guaranteed, as a way of keeping their profits up.
As we all know now, it turned out these touted Fannie and Freddie mortgage based security bundles were primarily the highest of the high risk for default mortgages. So the banks ( due to the need to make more money of course) were caught with a bunch of Fannie and Freddie generated high risk, low value securities on their books which of course got them in a lot of trouble because a bank filled with crumby assets is in severe financial straits.
So Rich, you're right, Fannie and Freddie did not sell the mortgages the first time. They just encouraged the greedy banks by being a willing consumer of the crappy mortgages the banks sold, then told everyone, "Hey these crappy mortgages are great investments. We think they are so great we guarantee them." Then F & F gift wrapped and sold all those mortgage backed securities right back to the banks and screwed them good *L*...Mel
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Dec 3, 2011 13:02:20 GMT -5
|
|