FBI Investigating Potential Fraud by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman, AIG

[Biernutz]

FOXNEWS.CON

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

WASHINGTON — The FBI is investigating four major U.S. financial institutions whose collapse helped trigger a $700 billion bailout plan by the Bush administration, The Associated Press has learned.
Two law enforcement officials said Tuesday the FBI is looking at potential fraud by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and insurer American International Group Inc. Additionally, a senior law enforcement official said Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. also is under investigation.
The inquiries will focus on the financial institutions and the individuals that ran them, the senior law enforcement official said.
The law enforcement officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigations are ongoing and are in the very early stages.
Officials said the new inquiries bring to 26 the number of corporate lenders under investigation over the past year.
Spokesmen for AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not immediately return calls for comment Tuesday evening. A Lehman spokesman did not have an immediate comment.
Just last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller put the number of large financial firms under investigation at 24. He did not name any of the companies under investigation but said the FBI also was looking at whether any of them have misrepresented their assets.

Over the past year as the housing market cratered, the FBI has opened a wide-ranging probe of companies across the financial services industry, from mortgage lenders to investment banks that bundle home loans into securities sold to investors. Mueller has previously said the FBI's hunt for culprits in the nation's subprime mortgage crisis focused on accounting fraud, insider trading, and failure to disclose the value of mortgage-related securities and other investments.
The investigations revealed Tuesday come as lawmakers began considering whether to approve emergency legislation that would give the government broad power to buy up devalued assets from troubled financial firms.
The bailout proposed by the Bush administration is aimed at helping unlock credit and stabilize badly shaken markets in the United States and around the globe.
In the past two weeks, the government has taken over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the country's two biggest mortgage companies, with a bailout plan that could require the Treasury Department to put up as much as $100 billion for each of them over time if needed to keep them afloat as mortgage losses mount.
Last week, the Federal Reserve provided an emergency $85 billion loan to AIG, which teetered on the brink of bankruptcy. Lehman Brothers was forced to file for bankruptcy after attempts to engineer a private rescue fell apart. All the companies were laid low from bad bets on complex mortgage-related securities.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke made the joint decision last week that the only way to stop the carnage was to deal with the root cause of all the troubles, billions of dollars of bad mortgage debt sitting on the books of major financial companies. This debt has triggered the worst credit crisis in decades, causing credit markets to essentially freeze up despite the fact that the Fed joined with major central banks around the world to pump billions of dollars of reserves into the financial system.
Additionally, the FBI is investigating failed bank IndyMac Bancorp Inc. for possible fraud. Countrywide Financial Corp., formerly the nation's largest mortgage lender and now owned by Bank of America Corp., is also under scrutiny.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426783,00.html

[Yonivore]

I guess they'll be visiting the Obama campaign headquarters...where a few of the Freddie and Fannie execs now work.

[Shastafarian]

I guess they'll be visiting the Obama campaign headquarters...where a few of the Freddie and Fannie execs now work.

You just love lying don't you? That isn't true in the slightest.

[ElNono]

I wonder when the FBI is going to start looking at Goldman Sachs. You know, the company Paulson used to run?

[Yonivore]

You just love lying don't you? That isn't true in the slightest.
Rules 'bent' to provide Obama advisers loans
Fannie Mae CEOs Raines, Johnson got exemptions from standard requirements (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75998)
Slightest? I don't know, you decide.

Were Gaines and Johnson at Fannie Mae during a time when the crisis was brewing? Do they now, or did they at any time, advise the Obama campaign?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You just love lying don't you? That isn't true in the slightest.

:lmao

Yes, it's not like Franklin Raines ($90 million, Fannie Mae - Obama financial advisor), Jamie Gorelick ($25 million, Fannie - Obama financial advisor), and James Johnson ($21 million, Freddie, - Obama advisor and vetted Obama's VP candidates before advancing Biden for the pick) are involved in the Obama campaign in any way.

Dumbass.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I wonder when the FBI is going to start looking at Goldman Sachs. You know, the company Paulson used to run?

Goldman should be on the list, but won't be because of Paulson. And that sucks.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20080923/capt.cps.nrj65.230908203126.photo02.photo.default-512x341.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=QbUdzz9dLQBmO1a1vtPr_Q--

[ElNono]

:lmao

Yes, it's not like Franklin Raines ($90 million, Fannie Mae - Obama financial advisor), Jamie Gorelick ($25 million, Fannie - Obama financial advisor), and James Johnson ($21 million, Freddie, - Obama advisor and vetted Obama's VP candidates before advancing Biden for the pick) are involved in the Obama campaign in any way.

Dumbass.

I wouldn't go there. Read up the story I'm about to post, titled: "McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac"

[Yonivore]

I wouldn't go there. Read up the story I'm about to post, titled: "McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac"
McCain Aide's Firm was Paid by Freddie Mac? What does that mean?

Raines, Gorelick, and Johnson WORK for Obama.

[ElNono]

McCain Aide's Firm was Paid by Freddie Mac? What does that mean?

Raines, Gorelick, and Johnson WORK for Obama.

Johnson stepped aside after the mortgage scandal.

And...
Rick Davis, William Timmons Sr and Mark Buse WORK for McCain.

[Shastafarian]

:lmao

Yes, it's not like Franklin Raines ($90 million, Fannie Mae - Obama financial advisor), Jamie Gorelick ($25 million, Fannie - Obama financial advisor), and James Johnson ($21 million, Freddie, - Obama advisor and vetted Obama's VP candidates before advancing Biden for the pick) are involved in the Obama campaign in any way.

Dumbass.


The McCain campaign cited a July Washington Post profile of Raines as the source for his connection to Obama. In that profile, it was reported that he had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." In a statement issued by the Obama campaign late Thursday, Raines strongly denied having provided counsel to Obama, saying: "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters."

Please show me where there is any proof Raines or Gorelick are part of the Obama campaign. The only one who WAS part of it was Johnson. He was on a committee to find a running mate (not exactly running the campaign you fucktard) and was asked to step down shortly after. I would love to tell some aggie jokes but I fear we'd get off topic.

[Yonivore]

Johnson stepped aside after the mortgage scandal.
That was nice. Another Obama acquaintance thrown under the bus.


And...
Rick Davis, William Timmons Sr and Mark Buse WORK for McCain.
K Street is full of lobbyists who will work for money...imagine that. McCain called for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be reigned in something like 18 times in the past few years...(all efforts were obstructed by Democrats, including Obama)...If Davis, Timmons, et. al. were lobbying McCain on behalf of Freddie and Fannie, their efforts were falling on deaf ears.

[Shastafarian]

K Street is full of lobbyists who will work for money...imagine that. McCain called for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be reigned in something like 18 times in the past few years...(all efforts were obstructed by Democrats, including Obama)...If Davis, Timmons, et. al. were lobbying McCain on behalf of Freddie and Fannie, their efforts were falling on deaf ears.

Those deaf ears that continually voted to de-regulate the mortgage sector. Makes sense.

[Yonivore]

Those deaf ears that continually voted to de-regulate the mortgage sector. Makes sense.
Deregulation isn't what caused the problem...Democrats and their inability to quick monkeying with free enterprise, in the name of equity and fairness, is what caused the problem.

[ElNono]

K Street is full of lobbyists who will work for money...imagine that. McCain called for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be reigned in something like 18 times in the past few years...(all efforts were obstructed by Democrats, including Obama)...If Davis, Timmons, et. al. were lobbying McCain on behalf of Freddie and Fannie, their efforts were falling on deaf ears.

The problem is that Rick Davis was getting a nice $15K monthly paycheck from Freddie until last month when the government took over. All this while he was campaigning with McCain.

I'm going to ask you the same question you posed earlier, with just a smaller change:

Were Davis and Timmons Sr at Freddie Mac during a time when the crisis was brewing? Do they now, or did they at any time, advise the McCain campaign?

[Shastafarian]

Deregulation isn't what caused the problem...Democrats and their inability to quick monkeying with free enterprise, in the name of equity and fairness, is what caused the problem.

Well that's all I needed to know about you.

[ElNono]

Deregulation isn't what caused the problem...Democrats and their inability to quick monkeying with free enterprise, in the name of equity and fairness, is what caused the problem.

:rollin

What law forced all these private investment banks to pile up this shitty debt in collateral? C'mon, Yoni, you're on a roll. I'm sure it will take you no time to find it.

[Anti.Hero]

Look at this shit. So partisan they can't admit their lovebuddies were in on it.


THEY ARE POLITICIANS. You owe no allegiance to them nor should you spend hours defending them!

[ElNono]

Look at this shit. So partisan they can't admit their lovebuddies were in on it.


THEY ARE POLITICIANS. You owe no allegiance to them nor should you spend hours defending them!

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2784691&postcount=2

[Yonivore]

:rollin

What law forced all these private investment banks to pile up this shitty debt in collateral? C'mon, Yoni, you're on a roll. I'm sure it will take you no time to find it.
The Democrats, under Clinton, "strengthened" a Jimmy Carter-created monster called the "Community Reinvestment Act." This law was then used by "activists" and "community organizers" to coerce lending institutions to make these bad loans ... millions of them.

Democrat Barney Franks has spent the past few years thwarting Republican efforts to kill this beast and stop the madness.

[ElNono]

The Democrats, under Clinton, "strengthened" a Jimmy Carter-created monster called the "Community Reinvestment Act." This law was then used by "activists" and "community organizers" to coerce lending institutions to make these bad loans ... millions of them.

Democrat Barney Franks has spent the past few years thwarting Republican efforts to kill this beast and stop the madness.

Sure. Bankers making bad bets on rising home prices had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes
Again, the 'Community Reinvestment Act' mentions absolutely nothing about FORCING all these debts into the company's collateral. It only allows them to do it, but doesn't force them to. You see, all companies have taken bad debt at one point or another in American history. They just never did the clusterfuck accounting they've done this time, moving all that debt into securities, etc.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Deregulation isn't what caused the problem...Democrats and their inability to quick monkeying with free enterprise, in the name of equity and fairness, is what caused the problem.

Quit being such a partisan bitch Yoni. Both sides are responsible for this mess. Both sides got paid off by financial lobbyists.

[Yonivore]

Sure. Bankers making bad bets on rising home prices had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes
Again, the 'Community Reinvestment Act' mentions absolutely nothing about moving all these debts into the company's collateral. You see, all companies have taken bad debt at one point or another in American history. They just never did the clusterfuck accounting they've done this time, moving all that debt into securities, etc.

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)


The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. ...

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them. Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Commission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even "on the page" of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a "world-class regulator" that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie "continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road," he said. "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. We now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000. ...

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
And, this was all instigated by ACORN-sponsored amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 mandating lenders to relax qualifying criteria, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

The housing market wouldn't have exploded if this law hadn't created a bazillion new home owners. And, lenders wouldn't have resorted to financial shell games in an effort to stay solvent.

[Yonivore]

Quit being such a partisan bitch Yoni. Both sides are responsible for this mess. Both sides got paid off by financial lobbyists.
Obviously Republican helped get the bill to Clinton's desk in the 90's but, Democrats and, Barney Franks in particular, are responsible for obstructing all efforts to address the problem in this century.

[romsho]

Deregulation isn't what caused the problem...Democrats and their inability to quick monkeying with free enterprise, in the name of equity and fairness, is what caused the problem.

Paulson himself pointed to "inadequate" regulation as a major part of this entire financial collapse...oversight, protection, transparency- that's what is being called for now, finally- by all parties involved, Republican and Democrat. You are trying to lay this financial shitstorm on Democrats? Gotdamn you are a douchebag.

[Yonivore]

Paulson himself pointed to "inadequate" regulation as a major part of this entire financial collapse...oversight, protection, transparency- that's what is being called for now, finally- by all parties involved, Republican and Democrat. You are trying to lay this financial shitstorm on Democrats? Gotdamn you are a douchebag.
Did the Community Reinvestment Act do what I claim?

Did Barney Franks obstruct efforts to address the crisis earlier?

[ElNono]

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)


And, this was all instigated by ACORN-sponsored amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 mandating lenders to relax qualifying criteria, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

The housing market wouldn't have exploded if this law hadn't created a bazillion new home owners. And, lenders wouldn't have resorted to financial shell games in an effort to stay solvent.

Kevin Hassett is senior fellow at the think tank American Enterprise Institute where he directs economic policy studies. He regularly appears on Bloomberg Television. He advised President Bush in his campaign, and he currently serves as a senior economic adviser to the John McCain 2008 presidential campaign.

Can you get a non-partisan hack source?

[ElNono]

Obviously Republican helped get the bill to Clinton's desk in the 90's but, Democrats and, Barney Franks in particular, are responsible for obstructing all efforts to address the problem in this century.

Really? Even though Republicans controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches for years? History is not on your side.

[Yonivore]

A brief history of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess is in order. Back in the days when a Bank or Savings and Loan approved a home loan, they did so with lending standards that had historically led to only safe loans. They had to because they kept the loan and were responsible if it failed. These standards included 3 major parts.

First, the mortgage payments could be no greater that a set percentage of your income, usually about 40 percent.

Second, a down payment was required of about 10 percent or above so the new owner would immediately have some equity in the home.

Third, A good credit rating was required to prove you had a history of paying your bills.

Some adjustments could be made, for example people that had poor credit could get a loan with a larger down payment so if the loan failed, the bank could still resell the house and cover the loan.

With the well intentioned goal of increasing the level of home ownership in lower income and minority groups, Lenders were encouraged to make home loans that did not meet normal standards with the promise that Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy these loans and the lenders were not responsible if they failed.

The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis has its roots in the Community Redevelopment Act signed into law during the Carter Administration. President Clinton, influenced by multiculturalism, encouraged it further by dictating where mortgage lenders could lend. Tough new regulations required that lenders increase their lending in high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make loans that sound business practices had previously rejected. And again, Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac bought these loans, which means taxpayers were ultimately responsible if these loans failed.

As long as home values rise, failed loans could be covered by selling the house. If however, home values fell as they did during and after the 1973 Arab oil embargo when energy prices doubled, just as they have today, these failed loans caused a huge financial impact on Lenders and Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac. The huge increases in energy costs are an indisputable part of this financial crisis.

In 2003 the huge level of risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had come to represent for both taxpayers and financial institutions was becoming apparent. The Bush Administration attempted to reign in the problem by raising standards for loans that Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteed. Congressional Democrats blocked this reform so that minorities and low-income groups could continue to buy homes that by most standards they could not really afford.

From the New York Times 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.

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, and 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.
John McCain saw the huge Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac train wreck coming in 2005 and lead a reform effort to again raise lending standards and protect taxpayers from what could become catastrophic costs from failed loans.


From the Congressional Record:
FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATOR REFORM
ACT OF 2005The 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 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.

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.
These efforts were blocked by Congressional Democrats. Obama never lifted a finger to help any Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac reform effort. Perhaps that’s why Obama received $105,849, Nancy Pelosi $47,000 and Harry Reid $60,500 from Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists and John McCain got none.

In a truly amazing insult to our intelligence (but, obviously not yours), Obama campaigns daily on the premise that Bush and McCain are responsible for this mess! If Obama wanted to truly be a bipartisan leader he would distance himself from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who closed down Congress to go on vacation rather than allow any votes on the energy crises, and Barney Frank who fought Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac reform.

[Yonivore]

Really? Even though Republicans controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches for years? History is not on your side.
History isn't on anyone's side...it is what it is.

[Biernutz]

Financial Crisis: Beware Of The Phrase "Both Sides Are To Blame"
by Sher Zieve
Sep 23, 2008


Anytime we hear the members of the press say or write "both sides [Democrat and Republican] are to blame", we can be certain of one thing-the Democrats have been caught red-handed with both of those hands in the cookie jar. So, in order to protect their own and lessen the scrutiny on the Democrat perpetrators, the mainstream media has to blame both sides. And as the media is diligently working 24/7 in order to get their candidate Obama elected, this is precisely the tactic that they are employing. Even Fox News is now broadcasting the "both sides are to blame" mantra. Even if not true, I guess that's the "fair and balanced" way!


I have been one of those in the forefront of bringing up Republican lunacies and debacles when accurate and appropriate. But, with the possible few minor exceptions, the current financial fiasco can be planted firmly at the feet of Democrats. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) ensured there was limited oversight and scrutiny of both Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC. After the Freddie MAC accounting scandal was brought to light (a year before another accounting calamity was uncovered with Fannie Mae), the Union Leader reports that Frank stated: "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis." Until the Democrats' Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC house of cards recently came crashing down, taking the rest of us with it, Frank remained instrumental in blocking all Republican attempts at reforming the agencies. The Leader also reports "The Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Frank "pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements -- which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall."

Prominent Democrats, including former head of Fannie Mae Franklin Raines and former Vice Chair of Fannie Mae Jamie Gorelick, made fortunes-said to have acquired over $100M each-by working for and ostensibly raiding one of the Democrats' personal slush fund; AKA Fannie Mae. As a side note, despite Obama's rage after the New Media brought it up, Franklin Raines has been tied to Obama as one of his "advisors." Perhaps he's "advising" Obama on how to further scam the system?

Another Democrat and former CEO of Fannie Mae who made millions-Jim Johnson-is yet another advisor to Candidate Obama! Obama asked Johnson to begin a search for his VP running mate.

So, as the leftist mainstream media and Obama adherents continue to redirect the blame from this possibly-the-biggest-Democrat-scandal-and-debacle-in-history (that has placed the US and the world into financial crisis) onto others, just remember where it started and who kept it going. Also remember who is expected to bail the Democrats out again-We the people, of course!

http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212174172.shtml

[ElNono]

Financial Crisis: Beware Of The Phrase "Both Sides Are To Blame"
by Sher Zieve
Sep 23, 2008


Anytime we hear the members of the press say or write "both sides [Democrat and Republican] are to blame", we can be certain of one thing-the Democrats have been caught red-handed with both of those hands in the cookie jar. So, in order to protect their own and lessen the scrutiny on the Democrat perpetrators, the mainstream media has to blame both sides. And as the media is diligently working 24/7 in order to get their candidate Obama elected, this is precisely the tactic that they are employing. Even Fox News is now broadcasting the "both sides are to blame" mantra. Even if not true, I guess that's the "fair and balanced" way!


I have been one of those in the forefront of bringing up Republican lunacies and debacles when accurate and appropriate. But, with the possible few minor exceptions, the current financial fiasco can be planted firmly at the feet of Democrats. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) ensured there was limited oversight and scrutiny of both Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC. After the Freddie MAC accounting scandal was brought to light (a year before another accounting calamity was uncovered with Fannie Mae), the Union Leader reports that Frank stated: "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis." Until the Democrats' Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC house of cards recently came crashing down, taking the rest of us with it, Frank remained instrumental in blocking all Republican attempts at reforming the agencies. The Leader also reports "The Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Frank "pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements -- which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall."

Prominent Democrats, including former head of Fannie Mae Franklin Raines and former Vice Chair of Fannie Mae Jamie Gorelick, made fortunes-said to have acquired over $100M each-by working for and ostensibly raiding one of the Democrats' personal slush fund; AKA Fannie Mae. As a side note, despite Obama's rage after the New Media brought it up, Franklin Raines has been tied to Obama as one of his "advisors." Perhaps he's "advising" Obama on how to further scam the system?

Another Democrat and former CEO of Fannie Mae who made millions-Jim Johnson-is yet another advisor to Candidate Obama! Obama asked Johnson to begin a search for his VP running mate.

So, as the leftist mainstream media and Obama adherents continue to redirect the blame from this possibly-the-biggest-Democrat-scandal-and-debacle-in-history (that has placed the US and the world into financial crisis) onto others, just remember where it started and who kept it going. Also remember who is expected to bail the Democrats out again-We the people, of course!

http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212174172.shtml

Sher Zieve is an author, political commentator, Staff Writer and Program Director for The New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org). Zieve firmly believes that if Leftists ran the country (and left to their own inane devices), it would be the end of the United States as a sovereign nation.

[spurster]

I'm glad the FBI is investigating the true criminals of this affair. Both Democrats and Republicans are their enablers. I will take any GOP hacks seriously if they bring up the 2007 bill passed by the House and killed by the Senate GOP, but somehow time stopped in 2005.

[ElNono]

History isn't on anyone's side...it is what it is.

Finally we're getting somewhere...
Both parties fucked up, and they're both just as responsible for this bullshit that our kids and grandkids are going to have to pay one of these days.

[Biernutz]

Sher Zieve is an author, political commentator, Staff Writer and Program Director for The New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org (http://www.thenma.org)). Zieve firmly believes that if Leftists ran the country (and left to their own inane devices), it would be the end of the United States as a sovereign nation.

Did she misquote the WSJ?

That better! Well did she?

[ElNono]

Did he misquote the WSJ?

Actually, it's a she: Sherrie Zieve

[Viva Las Espuelas]

it's about time. i don't care if they're democrats or republicans. single out their ass and let 'em hang. i'm anxious to see who get's fleeced.

[Yonivore]

AHj8-HSi5AA

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Yes, it's not like Franklin Raines ($90 million, Fannie Mae - Obama financial advisor), Jamie Gorelick ($25 million, Fannie - Obama financial advisor), and James Johnson ($21 million, Freddie, - Obama advisor and vetted Obama's VP candidates before advancing Biden for the pick) are involved in the Obama campaign in any way.

Dumbass.
Yep, funny how these people recieved the largest shares of contributions.


I wouldn't go there. Read up the story I'm about to post, titled: "McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac"


The problem is that Rick Davis was getting a nice $15K monthly paycheck from Freddie until last month when the government took over. All this while he was campaigning with McCain.

I'm going to ask you the same question you posed earlier, with just a smaller change:

Were Davis and Timmons Sr at Freddie Mac during a time when the crisis was brewing? Do they now, or did they at any time, advise the McCain campaign?
Davis was not at Freddy Mac. He was a consultant, or something else of an outside business nature. This would have limited his knowledge of the happenings in Freddy Mac. A person can only ASSume what he knew. Like I pointed out in the other thread, he did not get paid since 2005 or 2006. That $15K was to the company that he currently has distanced himself from.

Read the story again. If does not say Davis received the $15K! They negotiated that for the company before he left. The story simply supports your confirmation bias. Please start using critical thinking.

[Purple & Gold]

Deregulation isn't what caused the problem...Democrats and their inability to quick monkeying with free enterprise, in the name of equity and fairness, is what caused the problem.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[cool hand]

smoke screen. make us believe these guys won't get off scott free................and approve the 700 billion........americans are so gullable.

[Yonivore]

:lmao :lmao :lmao
Ancient History, Apparently.

2003, that is, when the New York Times ran this (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&scp=1&sq=%22barney+frank%22&st=nyt) article on proposed reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac:


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. ...

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session. ...

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies. ...

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."
Maybe it's too much to expect anyone to remember the distant past--2003--but still, it seems remarkable that Barney Frank can make the rounds of the television talk shows, pontificating on the current crisis, without being reminded of his own role. Oh wait...that's right, he's a Democrat.

[ElNono]

Davis was not at Freddy Mac. He was a consultant, or something else of an outside business nature. This would have limited his knowledge of the happenings in Freddy Mac. A person can only ASSume what he knew. Like I pointed out in the other thread, he did not get paid since 2005 or 2006. That $15K was to the company that he currently has distanced himself from.


Not true. Did you actually read the article?

From 2000 to the end of 2005, Mr. Davis had received nearly $2 million as president of the coalition, the Homeownership Alliance, which the companies created to help them oppose new regulations and protect their status as federally chartered companies with implicit government backing.

and then

One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.


Read the story again. If does not say Davis received the $15K! They negotiated that for the company before he left. The story simply supports your confirmation bias. Please start using critical thinking.

He owns the company getting the check. He gets a check from that company. I think the only conclusion I can gather is that you regressed terribly in reading comprehension.

[Wild Cobra]

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Davis was not at Freddy Mac. He was a consultant, or something else of an outside business nature. This would have limited his knowledge of the happenings in Freddy Mac. A person can only ASSume what he knew. Like I pointed out in the other thread, he did not get paid since 2005 or 2006. That $15K was to the company that he currently has distanced himself from.Not true. Did you actually read the article?

From 2000 to the end of 2005, Mr. Davis had received nearly $2 million as president of the coalition, the Homeownership Alliance, which the companies created to help them oppose new regulations and protect their status as federally chartered companies with implicit government backing.

and then

One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.
Yes, I didn't say otherwise. He does in fact own the firm. I never said otherwise. However, that money doesn't automatically become a payment to him like implied.



Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Read the story again. If does not say Davis received the $15K! They negotiated that for the company before he left. The story simply supports your confirmation bias. Please start using critical thinking.He owns the company getting the check. He gets a check from that company. I think the only conclusion I can gather is that you regressed terribly in reading comprehension.
Yes, he owns the firm, but he doesn't get the money. That is a part completely left out. He is currently getting no money from the firm, that is how far he distanced himself in the interest of avoiding a conflict of interest. Other people are running it in a manner he has no say in.

If you have information to show me in error, I would like to se it. However, nothing you say here makes my statements in error otherwise. To think I am wrong is to jump to conclusions not stated as fact.

[ElNono]

Yes, I didn't say otherwise. He does in fact own the firm. I never said otherwise. However, that money doesn't automatically become a payment to him like implied.


Yes, he owns the firm, but he doesn't get the money. That is a part completely left out. He is currently getting no money from the firm, that is how far he distanced himself in the interest of avoiding a conflict of interest. Other people are running it in a manner he has no say in.

If you have information to show me in error, I would like to se it. However, nothing you say here makes my statements in error otherwise. To think I am wrong is to jump to conclusions not stated as fact.

Even if he refused to receive compensation from the company (which is unknown at this time), it's still his company. Every time the company earns a profit, the company value obviously grows, and so does the value of his stake on the company.
This is a fact and very basic economics.
If he wanted to avoid a conflict of interest, he would have sold his stake on this company or severed the relations between his company and Freddie.

[Wild Cobra]

Even if he refused to receive compensation from the company (which is unknown at this time), it's still his company. Every time the company earns a profit, the company value obviously grows, and so does the value of his stake on the company.
This is a fact and very basic economics.
If he wanted to avoid a conflict of interest, he would have sold his stake on this company or severed the relations between his company and Freddie.
Now you are into a matter of opinion that others don't share. Thing is, he has no legal say in the company right now. He could wake up one day and the people running his company could bankrupt it. They could make a big profit. Either way, he is not in charge.

By the way. Retainers are common in he corporate world.

[ElNono]

Now you are into a matter of opinion that others don't share. Thing is, he has no legal say in the company right now. He could wake up one day and the people running his company could bankrupt it. They could make a big profit. Either way, he is not in charge.

Please, you are a lot smarter than this. I know that much.
That he has any say in the company right now does not matter in the slightest.
Answer me this: Does he pays taxes on that Company, being that he's part owner, and even though he has no 'legal say'?


By the way. Retainers are common in he corporate world.

Don't be silly. A retainer is a work for hire contract. He's not contracting for the company. He OWNS part of the company.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, now we are getting into an area I have to make some guesses in. Here's my best shot;



Please, you are a lot smarter than this. I know that much.
That he has any say in the company right now does not matter in the slightest.
Answer me this: Does he pays taxes on that Company, being that he's part owner, and even though he has no 'legal say'?

No. He does not pay taxes on it, except for stock dividends, but that is also dependant on how he managed them. As an owner, it will be in shares of stocks. They may or may not pay dividend income, and then that may or may not be rolled into more stocks. As long as the stocks are not sold, there is no income.

All stockholders are part owners of a corporation, and there are more than one class of stocks. I don't know the breakdown in this case, nor do I care. The facts as I do know them are simple, legal, and there is no conflict. Again, if I am in error, I need to see factual data. Not unsubstantiated allegations. So far, I have seen nothing to show John McCain's statement on the matter in error. Only unsubstantiated allegations.

Where's the beef?



Don't be silly. A retainer is a work for hire contract. He's not contracting for the company. He OWNS part of the company.

The retainer is between his company and (what was it?) Freddy Mac, right? Not between him and his company. His company received the $15,000 payments. Not him. Now I'm not sure why this retainer would be in place, but my guess is that it will keep his company legally bound to Feddy so that they cannot consult for a company that would be in conflict with Feddy. Just that simple. Just that simple, or some other simple reason.

Rather than make me guess, lord knows, I don't have the time to find the truth. Why can't you accept the 'innocent till proven guilty' concept unless you are going to find some real evidence? Since a reasonable explanation exists that there is no wrongdoing here, I leave it to you to show wrongdoing past unsubstantiated allegations.

I dare you. Show me I'm wrong. You've done so before.

[ElNono]

OK, now we are getting into an area I have to make some guesses in. Here's my best shot;

No. He does not pay taxes on it, except for stock dividends, but that is also dependant on how he managed them. As an owner, it will be in shares of stocks. They may or may not pay dividend income, and then that may or may not be rolled into more stocks. As long as the stocks are not sold, there is no income.

All stockholders are part owners of a corporation, and there are more than one class of stocks. I don't know the breakdown in this case, nor do I care. The facts as I do know them are simple, legal, and there is no conflict. Again, if I am in error, I need to see factual data. Not unsubstantiated allegations. So far, I have seen nothing to show John McCain's statement on the matter in error. Only unsubstantiated allegations.

Where's the beef?


This is not a corporation or a publicly traded company.
This is a lobbying firm. Not stocks, bonds, etc.
He owns a percentage of the firm, period.
Do you own a company? When taxes time comes around, you have to pay based on the company income. When you pay those taxes, is it your money or not?

And I'm not arguing about McCain's statement. I never did.
My outrage is that all these guys (both Reps and Dems mentioned in this thread and others) are caught with their hands on the Freddie and Fanny cookie jar, after spending years fighting for them not to be regulated, all the while these two monsters keep piling up the shitty debt that got us into this mess. The original argument in this thread was that only Dems had Fannie/Freddie guys in their campaigns. Not true.



The retainer is between his company and (what was it?) Freddy Mac, right? Not between him and his company. His company received the $15,000 payments. Not him. Now I'm not sure why this retainer would be in place, but my guess is that it will keep his company legally bound to Feddy so that they cannot consult for a company that would be in conflict with Feddy. Just that simple. Just that simple, or some other simple reason.


Then why not show the agreement? I mean, if it's really that innocent of an issue, just show the retainer agreement and this would be a non-issue.



Rather than make me guess, lord knows, I don't have the time to find the truth. Why can't you accept the 'innocent till proven guilty' concept unless you are going to find some real evidence? Since a reasonable explanation exists that there is no wrongdoing here, I leave it to you to show wrongdoing past unsubstantiated allegations.

I dare you. Show me I'm wrong. You've done so before.


Because they're politicians and lobbyists. I'm sure you learned your lesson by now. This is not a matter of legal wrongdoing. This is about conflict of interests. This is a guy who's in a political campaign championing how they're going to end the politics of excessive lobbying.

[Yonivore]

While y'all parse the facts over whether or not Davis has anything at all to do with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or whomever...

Democrat Barack Obama still gets advice from former Fannie Mae chairman Jim Johnson.

Oh sure, Johnson was kicked under the bus after the press disclosed that Johnson received loans directly from the CEO of Countrywide Financial.

Without Johnson heading that VP search committee, Obama selected the Dan Quayle of Delaware to be his running mate. (See what I did there? See what I did?)

But Ben Smith of Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Johnson_to_lead_Obama_briefing.html)reported Johnson never really went away. He’s been advising Obama all along.

And the New York Times thinks it is bad because the firm of Republican John McCain’s campaign manager represents Fannie Mae?

Here is the architect of the self-destruction of Fannie Mae constructing the Obama presidency.

Speaking of Dan Quayle: "The media theme is Palin is unprepared and has zero knowledge of foreign affairs while Biden has decades of experience. So why does Biden sound like a complete idiot? . . . Dan Quayle is still a punchline 20 years later. Joe Biden gets a free pass." (http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2008/09/another-day-another-biden-gaffe.html)

[ElNono]

While y'all parse the facts over whether or not Davis has anything at all to do with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or whomever...

Democrat Barack Obama still gets advice from former Fannie Mae chairman Jim Johnson.

Oh sure, Johnson was kicked under the bus after the press disclosed that Johnson received loans directly from the CEO of Countrywide Financial.

Without Johnson heading that VP search committee, Obama selected the Dan Quayle of Delaware to be his running mate. (See what I did there? See what I did?)

But Ben Smith of Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Johnson_to_lead_Obama_briefing.html)reported Johnson never really went away. He’s been advising Obama all along.

And the New York Times thinks it is bad because the firm of Republican John McCain’s campaign manager represents Fannie Mae?

Here is the architect of the self-destruction of Fannie Mae constructing the Obama presidency.


I agree the blame falls on both sides of the aisle. That is exactly the point I was trying to make.



Speaking of Dan Quayle: "The media theme is Palin is unprepared and has zero knowledge of foreign affairs while Biden has decades of experience. So why does Biden sound like a complete idiot? . . . Dan Quayle is still a punchline 20 years later. Joe Biden gets a free pass." (http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2008/09/another-day-another-biden-gaffe.html)

I not going to argue that Biden is an idiot. But I will argue that Palin might be an even bigger idiot. Thus the reason for only 3 interviews so far, and attempts to cancel the VP debate.