Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Both Sides of the Financial Crisis [FR mentioned]
The American Spectator ^ | 10/03/2008 | By Lawrence Henry

Posted on 10/02/2008 10:36:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

Of late, at least in conservative quarters, reports have made clear how much of the current financial crisis may be laid at the feet of Democrats and their social engineering policies.

Jeff Jacoby, the lone conservative columnist at the Boston Globe, wrote Sunday, "Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so -- or else."

Charles Hurt, in his "Inside Washington" column in Monday's New York Post, wrote, "It's not that taxpayers refuse to dig deeper to avoid an even bigger catastrophe. It's that they're all puking over the notion that it's the same bums in Washington who caused the mess by allowing it to fester who are now demanding their money to fix it." Last week, the website Free Republic posted a 1999 story from the New York Times, detailing how the Clinton administration implemented policies at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage home loans to people with low credit worthiness. It all came under the rubric of encouraging "minority home ownership" and "ending redlining."

Free Republic crashed, whether because of overloading or sabotage. I got the story when a money manager circulated the whole text.

The next to last paragraph of that story makes clear how the mortgage pool deteriorated, and why it deteriorated so fast:

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org:80 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Free Republic; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 110th; bailout; banking; clintonlegacy; corruption; democrats; tas
"In July [this is 1999, remember], the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups."
1 posted on 10/02/2008 10:36:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

WOW! bump!


2 posted on 10/02/2008 10:40:31 PM PDT by TEXOKIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Great post JR. We need to hammer this home, then hammer it again, then weld it. Sarah did good tonight, but McCain needs to push this. Here we are in a huge economic crisis, 100% the fault of the democrats, easily shown with videotape and quotes - it’s a gift from above. We must make this a war cry.


3 posted on 10/02/2008 10:41:39 PM PDT by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh (I cling to guns and religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Free Republic crashed, whether because of overloading or sabotage.

That must have been when the admin accidental deleted the indexing file! LOL

4 posted on 10/02/2008 10:42:54 PM PDT by chaos_5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Last week, the website Free Republic posted a 1999 story from the New York Times...

A very timely historical fact.

5 posted on 10/02/2008 10:43:13 PM PDT by DTogo (I haven't left the GOP, the GOP left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TEXOKIE

Here’s the FR thread. It was brought to my attention by FReeper Rodger Schultz:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086781/posts


6 posted on 10/02/2008 10:45:09 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
In her September 24 column, Ann Coulter cracked, "Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn't a joke -- it's a fact."

The sickening thing is that a very large majority of the American public still believes that the Clinton administration was a great success--when in fact they were laying a series of time bombs that detonated after Bill had safely left office: The mortgage time bomb, the 9/11 time bomb, the Russian time bomb, etc.

I shudder, physically shudder, at the thought of the damage that an Obama administration will do to this country.

7 posted on 10/02/2008 10:49:11 PM PDT by denydenydeny ("[Obama acts] as if the very idea of permanent truth is passe, a form of bad taste"-Shelby Steele)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

BTTT for both threads...!!!


8 posted on 10/02/2008 10:51:11 PM PDT by Bradís Gramma (Typical Whitey Gramma just like Obamies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chaos_5

LOL. Why shoot down a perfectly good conspiracy theory.


9 posted on 10/02/2008 10:53:21 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

“Charles Hurt, in his “Inside Washington” column in Monday’s New York Post, wrote, “It’s not that taxpayers refuse to dig deeper to avoid an even bigger catastrophe. It’s that they’re all puking over the notion that it’s the same bums in Washington who caused the mess by allowing it to fester who are now demanding their money to fix it.” Last week, the website Free Republic posted a 1999 story from the New York Times, detailing how the Clinton administration implemented policies at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage home loans to people with low credit worthiness. It all came under the rubric of encouraging “minority home ownership” and “ending redlining.”

Free Republic crashed, whether because of overloading or sabotage. I got the story when a money manager circulated the whole text.”

Wow!

I just hope the congresscritters don’t cave.


10 posted on 10/02/2008 10:56:19 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Last week, the website Free Republic posted a 1999 story from the New York Times, detailing how the Clinton administration implemented policies at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage home loans to people with low credit worthiness."

NYT 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

11 posted on 10/02/2008 10:58:12 PM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Can you believe that, 50%? Amazing. The fact this was on Free Republic and caught someone’s attention was great. The word got spread far and wide, not just on FR. Excellent.

As large as Fannie Mae goes that year, 50% of the loans were to potentially problematic individuals. That is shocking.

This is what political pandering on the left leads to. I don’t think I’ve seen a more clear example of what that pandering leads to when taken to it’s final conclusion.

In this instance it actually threatens our complete economic system. Of course a Democrat can’t be found today that remembers what they were hawking back in the 90s.

These people are enemies of our way of life.


12 posted on 10/02/2008 10:59:52 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (McCain, the Ipecac president... Obama the strychnine president...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Thank you so much

ping for later


13 posted on 10/02/2008 11:04:08 PM PDT by Glacier Honey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Bump!. Needs to be broadcast far and wide. Must be time to write another letter to the editor providing a link to the articles.


14 posted on 10/02/2008 11:07:37 PM PDT by Diver Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
The fact this was on Free Republic and caught someone’s attention was great.

Don't fool yourself. Anybody who is anybody reads FR daily.

Just another reason to donate and keep FR running.

15 posted on 10/02/2008 11:09:54 PM PDT by umgud (In a crisis, dump gold, buy lead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: chaos_5

I saw a thread or two about DOS attacks on Free Republic.


16 posted on 10/02/2008 11:10:57 PM PDT by BlueVelvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
I'd put the blame about 70% on the deamonRats

To be certain they are wholly responsible for the Fannie/Feddie sub-prime slushfund; which was completely exploited by predatory lenders upon the rest of the citizenry once they realized liar loans & reverse amortization was SOP. Not to mention a will public who, due to the housing bubble, could not afford to conventionaly buy a house on their average salaries.

The other 15% I would assign to (R)s who played along so they would not be called racist and the 15% goes to the WMD-packing-financial-terrorists who have gamed/cornered the Default Credit Swap markets which have sucked out much of the oxygen from cCredit markets {see small businesses who can't meet payroll because their usual cash flow has vanished for no fault of their own}.

Please keep in mind BillyJeff Clinton, upon Robert Rubin's recommendation, signed the law that made Credit Swap regulation illegal in 2000.

17 posted on 10/02/2008 11:13:42 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (When BH0 was 8 he attended his mosque in jakarta; Bill Ayers was simultaneously bombing the Pentagon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so -- or else."

Exactly. And I'm sick and tired of the truth of this not getting out to the public. It should be laid at the feet of democrats. Disgusting that more voters trust the democrats, who do not believe in free market principles, to handle the economy and this economic crisis.

18 posted on 10/02/2008 11:17:30 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Governor Palin won the debate hands down!!! Just beautiful! : ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

I like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs


19 posted on 10/02/2008 11:53:05 PM PDT by M-cubed (Why is "Greshams Law" a law?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Thanks. I agree with your take on it, and second your comments on donating.


20 posted on 10/02/2008 11:53:52 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (McCain, the Ipecac president... Obama the strychnine president...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

BTTT.


21 posted on 10/03/2008 12:45:57 AM PDT by newzjunkey (CA YES: Prop 4 - Family notification. NO (Bonds): 1A, 3, 12. Vote McCain/Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Can you believe that, 50%? Amazing.

FWIW, I'm fairly certain I saw a chart recently either here or on the web that showed Fannie's exposure was, get this, 65% of their MBS's in subprime and Alt-A(between subprime and prime) loans. Lota shirt tail blowin in the breeze.

22 posted on 10/03/2008 1:14:45 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

The very idea of this is so against the grain to me. It’s shocking. How could we allow that? Heck, our government encouraged it. Those who think our government leaders are trying to sabotage this nation, have a very good case study here.


23 posted on 10/03/2008 2:23:45 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (McCain, the Ipecac president... Obama the strychnine president...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Woo Hoo hoo!

bumperoo!


24 posted on 10/03/2008 4:04:54 AM PDT by roaddog727 (BS does not get bridges built - the funk you see is the funk you do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

What surprises me is that reporters (and I use that word loosely) think they’ve just discovered something new. All that’s required to uncover this mess is 5 minutes with google or Lexis-Nexis. The genesis of this mess could have been discovered (and was on FR) weeks ago.


25 posted on 10/03/2008 5:27:29 AM PDT by saganite (Obama is a political STD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-democrat-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-financial-crisis-949653.html


26 posted on 10/03/2008 6:32:58 AM PDT by XHogPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

And that 44% was during the inflation of housing prices during the housing bubble. $100,000 homes were going for 200-300-400 thousand.

The bottom line is that these homes, now that the inflationary bubble has burst, can NEVER be resold at their selling price.

Not only were we requiring that low income folks receive loans, but we were allowing them to qualify for grossly over-priced homes through interest only loans.

It’s like selling a poor man a $12,000 Ford Focus for $60,000 and sucking him in by saying he has only a $50 payment for 2 years. The Fed comes to the bank and says, “You’ve got to give him the loan or you’re discriminating....and look...he can afford the payment.”

Who’s on the line for that Focus? It isn’t the poor man. He’ll default when the real payment comes due. The bank is on the line. They’ll never, ever be able to get 60,000 out of a 12,000 dollar car.


27 posted on 10/03/2008 7:24:50 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
How could we allow that? Heck, our government encouraged it.

Yes indeedy. Bent Willey and the Dim congress stepped in and applied their superior intellect to "improve" a "fix" to a problem that didn't exist. This is their MO. This is what socialists do. They know better than hard-nosed business people how to run their businesses. They know better than the people in the trenches every day how to dig a ditch. At the root of their control freak mentality is pure unadulterated arrogance. Anyway, we could all go on for a long time about the hubris of our leaders in DC without addressing the reason these idiots are there in the first place. A manipulated and uninformed electorate, lazy and apathetic to its core is why these morons are in DC dragging this country, barely kicking and screaming, into the abyss.

Those who think our government leaders are trying to sabotage this nation, have a very good case study here.

You've heard the expression, "Never attribute to malice that which could best be explained by stupidity". I think there's a fair portion of both. My God, it distresses me to no end to realize we are leaving the hollow shell of a once great nation to my grandkids.

28 posted on 10/03/2008 7:45:18 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: All
FRANKLIN RAINES Letter to Shareholders----2003 Fannie Mae Annual Report

FR Posted on 09/30/2008 by PAR

EXCERPT ...Ten years ago, for example, the typical conforming mortgage required a down payment of 10 to 20 percent, and low-down payment mortgages were considered too risky. But then we helped to standardize the 3 to 5 percent down payment loan, brought it to global capital markets, and made it available to lenders and communities nationwide. Now low-down payment loans are commonplace. And we just adopted a new variance in our underwriting standards that will make the $500 down payment loan widely available as well...

In 1994, we pledged to provide $1 trillion in capital to ten million underserved families by the end of 2000. Thanks to our housing and industry partners, we met that goal early. Then in 2000, we launched our American Dream Commitment, a pledge to provide $2 trillion in capital to 18 million underserved families by the year 2010, including $400 billion targeted specifically for minority families (later raised to $700 billion in response to President Bush’s Minority Homeownership Initiative). After four of the strongest years in housing and mortgage finance history, we’ve already surpassed the top-line goals of this commitment. But our work is far from complete.

So in January 2004, we announced our Expanded American Dream Commitment and pledged significant new resources to tackle America’s toughest housing challenges. Our new commitment has three main goals.

First, we will expand access to homeownership for six million first-time home buyers in the next ten years, including 1.8 million minority first-time home buyers.We also will help raise the national minority homeownership rate from 49 percent to 55 percent, with the ultimate goal of closing it entirely.

Second, we will help new and long-term homeowners stay in their homes through a series of initiatives, and commit $15 billion to preserve affordable rental housing and $1.5 billion to support the revitalization of public housing communities.

Third, we will increase the supply of affordable housing and support community development activities in at least 1,000 neighborhoods across the country through our American Communities Fund, and through targeted investments like Low-Income Housing Tax Credits that help finance affordable rental housing.

It is because of initiatives like our Trillion Dollar Commitment and our American Dream Commitment that we have exceeded our HUD affordable housing goals for ten consecutive years. And we have increased our financing of mortgages to African Americans by over 400 percent and to Hispanic Americans by 470 percent in the past ten years, compared with a 205 percent increase in overall financing. Our Expanded American Dream Commitment will help us do even more.

29 posted on 10/03/2008 9:37:59 AM PDT by Liz (Taxpayer: one who works for the govt but doesn't have to take a civil service test. R. Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: All
FR POSTED http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2086744/posts?page=1 CIRCA 2004, with 2006, 2008 updates.

RAINING MONEY - Franklin Raines fired for cooking the books---walks away w/ $90 million tax dollars

Franklin Raines reigned for 5 years following Clinton's appointing him as CEO of Fannie Mae, the US' quasi-governmental mortgage house, has now been ousted.

There are several ongoing investigations of Fannie Mae's operations and accounting practices covering the last 5 years in order to determine when accounting irregularities started and the magnitude of the financial shortfalls. Current estimates indicate that there was a $9 billion misstatement of earnings and accounting irregularities between 2000-2004.

(POSTER'S NOTE: Can you say offshore wire transfer?)

Former chief executive Franklin Raines received more than $40 million in bonuses and other pay as a result of falsely inflated earnings at the US' largest mortgage finance company. This is according to a supplement of a lawsuit filed by Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro. Fannie Mae added "tens of millions of false revenue" to meet "Raines' 1999 publicly announced goal to double" earnings over the next five years, Petro's November 23, US District Court in Washington alleges. The filing alleges that, "Raines personally profited by over $40 million by this false earnings history.

Update -- 2/22/2006: Former Senator Warren Rudman's team of investigators and auditors selected from his law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, and from Huron Consulting Group presented their 600-page report calling Fannie Mae's accounting systems "grossly inadequate." It is based on a review of millions of documents.

The report found that accounting obfuscations were intended to increase stock valuations, thus increasing executive bonuses.

Raines was one of the most influential and politically savvy figures in Washington is identified by the Rudman investigation as not directly knowing that Fannie Mae's accounting practices violated rules. The report does state, "We did find, however, that Raines contributed to a culture that improperly stressed stable earnings growth and that... he was ultimately responsible for the failures that occurred on his watch".

Raines will continue to live well being supported by Fannie Mae's shareholders. Some relevant facts include:

-- Raines and his wife will be paid $114,393 a month as long as they live.

-- Stock options: Raines holds vested stock options worth roughly $5.7 million.

-- Stock bonuses: Raines was granted awards, payable in stock, for reaching performance goals. Under the program, he got 69,577 shares... half of what Fannie determined he should receive in January. At Monday's close, the shares are worth $4.9 million. It is unclear if he will receive the rest.

-- Deferred pay: For tax planning while employed by the company, Raines was allowed to put off the receipt of payment. These deferred past payments total $8.7 million

Future salary: Although Fannie Mae says Raines' retirement was effective December 21, 2004, he is seeking to have it effective as of June 22, 2005, and thereby receive $600,000 more in pay.

Mr. Raines followed a well-worn path in the United States during the later half of the 20th century. His humble beginnings were in Seattle. He won a scholarship to Harvard and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. He worked on Wall Street for over a decade in the prestigious firm Lazard Freres. He was a member of President Clinton’s cabinet and director of his Office of Management and Budget. In 1999, Clinton selected him for the position of Fannie Mae CEO.

Following revelations of the financial scandal, Mr. Raines took early retirement from Fannie Mae so that he could collect a compensation package including $1 million per year for life and $11 million in vested stock. In 2003 Mr. Raines was paid $20 million in salary and bonus.

Fannie Mae is facing criminal investigations by the Justice Department, operational investigations by the SEC, and various Congressional investigations. There are questions regarding earnings statements being incorrectly inflated. In 2003, if derivative and other losses had been included, no bonuses would have been paid to top executives. However, deferral of the losses allowed declared earnings to reach a level which triggered maximum executive bonuses.

It is a far stretch to imagine that Franklin Raines actually was capable of satisfying the requirements of the positions he held from Harvard to Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. If he had been competent enough to hold those positions, how could he have been Fannie Mae's CEO for 5 years and allowed, not known about, or not understood that $9,000,000,000 was being mishandled.

===============================================

9/26/08 UPDATE: LA grand jury probing Countrywide VIP loans
LAtimesblogs via WSJ ^ | September 25, 2008 | Peter Viles

FR Posted on 09/26/2008 5:50:44 AM PDT by stockpirate

The Wall Street Journal reports that a federal grand jury in Los Angeles is investigating the so-called "Friends of Angelo" loan program at Countrywide Financial, under which influential borrowers received preferential terms on home loans. The reported borrowers under the program have included U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), former Fannie Mae Chief Executive Franklin Raines, and California state appeals court judge Richard Aldrich. (Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...

30 posted on 10/03/2008 9:49:21 AM PDT by Liz (Taxpayer: one who works for the govt but doesn't have to take a civil service test. R. Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

I don’t like what I’m seeing either. Our government seems to be a real mess. Right now they are lining up to blame all these problems on problematic CEOs, when they themselves forced this mess upon them.

That honestly makes me angry. It’s one thing for the socialist idiots to demand something that crashes our financial markets. It’s another for them to then blame someone else on penalty of law.


31 posted on 10/03/2008 11:23:11 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (McCain, the Ipecac president... Obama the strychnine president...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

A belated thanks for the link to that thread!


32 posted on 10/03/2008 3:01:33 PM PDT by TEXOKIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Liz

1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law.The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improvepoor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime,investment, jobs, etc. Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help. How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.

1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger thatFannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public atlarge to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few. 1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s rulesturning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalizedmonopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks & handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix ledinevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.

1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-OwnershipStrategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.

1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican,Clinton orders Robert Rubin’s Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt.Rubin’s Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-primeand minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key toexpansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis ofrace and little else.

1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, thenSecretary of Housing and Urban Developement, allowing Freddie and Fannieto get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank & Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits andallowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs.10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks theirenterprises boomed. With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poorcommunities, often “no doc”, “no income”, requiring no money down and noverification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie becamehome to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians gotbig campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had beenspent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990’s Fannie & Freddieenjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, most of it going toprincipals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed. Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeownersbut many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates areshrinking fast.

1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannieand Freddie’s excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothingwas done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmenand radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. “Wemanage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit andinterest rate risks,” Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clintonofficial and current Barrack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.

2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congressseeking an end to the “special status”. Democrats raised a ruckus as didFannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO’s who knew how to rewardand punish. “We think that the statements evidence a contempt for thenation’s housing and mortgage markets” Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. Itwas the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.

2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie andFreddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep.Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were hugebeneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.

2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called “the most significantregulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings andloan crisis a decade ago”. Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie tooverstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democratskilled reform.

2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: “We are placingthe total financial system at substantial risk”. Sen. McCain, with twoothers, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, “If congress does not act,American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk thatFannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overallfinancial system and the economy as a whole”. Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;oftrying to “cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission ofexpanding homeownership” The bill went nowhere.

2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suiteswere top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St.to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing marketfell in ‘07, sub prime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. Thecrisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.

2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bushurged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats’ talking pointsabout this being a “Republican” disaster. A few Republicans are complicitbut Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats,largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That’s why taxpayers are nowbeing asked for $700 billion


33 posted on 10/11/2008 9:14:29 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Both sides play gub policies from the ‘90s it seems.


34 posted on 10/12/2008 5:27:58 AM PDT by Tribune7 (Obama wants to put the same crowd that ran Fannie Mae in charge of health care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Both sides BLAME gub policies from the ‘90s it seems.
35 posted on 10/12/2008 5:28:54 AM PDT by Tribune7 (Obama wants to put the same crowd that ran Fannie Mae in charge of health care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; The Mayor; NYer; mewzilla; EQAndyBuzz; stockpirate; Grampa Dave; TADSLOS; ...
1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then HUD Secy, allowing Freddie/Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank & Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks......the enterprises boomed......banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, requiring no money down and no verification of income.

Rumors still abound that Cuomo (now NY AG and angling for the governorship) profited bigtime with all the inside information.

Could be Cuomo was the facilitator to make sure Clinton and the Boys all got their cut of the blizzard of $billions........wire transfers musta been going offshore 24/7.

36 posted on 10/12/2008 8:19:08 AM PDT by Liz (Taxpayer: one who works for the govt but doesn't have to take a civil service test. R. Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Great post, Jim.

A pop quiz for the quizzlings, who want to blame the Fannie/Freddie Scamgates on Republicans;

Who was president in 1999:

1. George Bush

2. Bill Clintoon

3. GW Bush


37 posted on 10/12/2008 8:23:48 AM PDT by Grampa Dave ( I do not want to know the type of person, who does not like Sarah !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Liz; SierraWasp; BOBTHENAILER; PhilDragoo; tubebender
In 2006 some really wise so called republicans/conservatives* decided that we needed to "teach the country a lesson" by handing power over to the Dem/Commies, assured that the resulting shambles would bring about the next great conservative revolution. We got the shambles all right, but somehow, no one seems to make the connection as to who got us here.

If those brilliant peoples's minds* were right, the Dems should be cowering in hidey-holes like Sadaam for fear of the public's retribution. Instead, they are poised to destroy America once and for all.

Nancy to Barney and Harry, "As long as we control the mediots and so called conservatives, who suffer from BDS and blame Bush for everything, we elite/rich/white liberals in Congress will have no problem. Just remember everything is Bush's fault! Heh! Heh!"

*Now the same idiots filled with same bs, want Sarah and John to lose to really teach America a lesson.

38 posted on 10/12/2008 8:30:59 AM PDT by Grampa Dave ( I do not want to know the type of person, who does not like Sarah !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; Jim Robinson; DoughtyOne; Liz; Jeff Head; ntnychik; potlatch; devolve; MeekOneGOP; ...

39 posted on 10/12/2008 8:49:34 AM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; Jim Robinson; Liz; SierraWasp; PhilDragoo; tubebender; Jeff Head; Travis McGee
Nancy to Barney and Harry, "As long as we control the mediots and so called conservatives, who suffer from BDS and blame Bush for everything, we elite/rich/white liberals in Congress will have no problem. Just remember everything is Bush's fault! Heh! Heh!"

Excellent post GD. There has been so much PURITANISM going around, that the left has seeped into all the cracks left open by the my way or the highway crowd. In the meantime, we're faced with a potential loss that will change the face of this country for at least a decade.

Maybe then we'll find out if these true conservatives"; you know, the ones wishing for the cleansing of the ranks in order to get to political purity, are truly ready, willing and able to step into the breach and reverse the destruction.

That will be the only course left to us after the leftist enemies of freedom and this Republic get finished with their plans to destroy America.

40 posted on 10/12/2008 9:33:32 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in small groups or in whole armies, we don't care how we do it, but we're gonna getcha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo; Grampa Dave; Jim Robinson; DoughtyOne; Liz; Jeff Head; ntnychik; potlatch; devolve; ...

Jail NOT Bail is RIGHT!

And make sure it’s HARD TIME, too.

NOT a Country Club Fed Prison!

- - - - - - - -

This is a GREAT article, btw !


41 posted on 10/12/2008 8:54:49 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Obama, WHO is Bill Ayers and WHY are you still friends with him? Please RSVP asap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo

Thanks for the shout out for JnB MrDragoo.


42 posted on 10/12/2008 9:47:36 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Is Obamanation what our founding fathers, our fallen men in combat, and Ronald Reagan had in mind?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; MeekOneGOP

Yes it is a great article. The only thing missing is the prosecution of that one lending institution in 1994, where they had to pay out something like $10,000. Janet Reno trashed the firm and it promised to immediately start loaning to poor people who couldn’t service the loans.

Reno made it clear she was on the war path, so what were lending institutions to do?

When the dust settles, the Democrats are going to come off looking like the idiots of the ages on this one.


43 posted on 10/12/2008 10:04:56 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Is Obamanation what our founding fathers, our fallen men in combat, and Ronald Reagan had in mind?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

How many of those loans were to illegal aliens using fake/stolen IDs? The number, five million, has been mentioned:

The Timeline Project / Link List of Bailout History
[post 66]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2093845/posts?page=66#66

How many millions of fraudulent loans did Fannie/Freddie own?

[I’ll link this to the Timeline. FRegards ....]


44 posted on 10/13/2008 2:27:05 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March ("Never tell me the odds!" -- Han Solo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

How many of those loans were to illegal aliens using fake/stolen IDs? The number, five million, has been mentioned:

The Timeline Project / Link List of Bailout History
[post 66]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2093845/posts?page=66#66

How many millions of fraudulent loans did Fannie/Freddie own?

[I’ll link this to the Timeline. FRegards ....]


45 posted on 10/13/2008 2:28:53 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March ("Never tell me the odds!" -- Han Solo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Well I know this will certainly make your day!!! (/sarcasm)
46 posted on 10/13/2008 8:44:59 AM PDT by SierraWasp (Obama... Just another lying Commonist Communutty Organizing thug from the south side of Chicago!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson