As the World Turns- Newt linked to Freddie Mac

No need to send me the link; I know that both freddie and fannie bought influence everywhre and anywhere....but you don't deny that in 2003 Bush wanted legislation passed to regin in Freddie and Fannie, do you???????.

And Barney Frank's denial is five years after the NYTimes article quoting him as opposing Bush's reforms of Freddie and Fannie; after the financial collapse of 2008 ! I hope you don't believe Frank; his denials would be more believeable if they occured contemporaenously with the NY Times story in 20003 !!!!!!

To say Bush wanted to do anything other than shake down Frannie and Freddy for donations is absurd. I will provide another link if you like showing just how much these companies donated to each party.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...nd-freddie-mac
Originally Posted by WTF

You are missing the point = without the Fannie and Freddie pipeline there would have been no CMBS meltdown on wall street !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reign in Fannie and Freddie (in 2003 as proposed by Bush) and the meltdown of CMBS in 2008 would have not happened at all, or at the least it would have been manageable.

You are missing the point = without the Fannie and Freddie pipeline there would have been no CMBS meltdown on wall street !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reign in Fannie and Freddie (in 2003 as proposed by Bush) and the meltdown of CMBS in 2008 would have not happened at all, or at the least it would have been manageable. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Reign them in?

Did you even read your on link?

There was an accounting scandal...they did nothing, nothing to regulate loans. Remember, the GOP hates regulations.


"The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws"

No need to send me the link; I know that both freddie and fannie bought influence everywhre and anywhere....but you don't deny that in 2003 Bush wanted legislation passed to regin in Freddie and Fannie, do you???????.

And Barney Frank's denial is five years after the NYTimes article quoting him as opposing Bush's reforms of Freddie and Fannie; after the financial collapse of 2008 ! I hope you don't believe Frank; his denials would be more believeable if they occured contemporaenously with the NY Times story in 20003 !!!!!! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

He was responding to an article in 2008 that linked the 2003 NYT article.

''Dealey then cites comments I made in 2003 that the GSEs are not in trouble as evidence that I did not support reform. Wrong. I supported reform then, I support reform now and I delivered. Dealey also fails to report that the Bush Administration did not support the reform efforts of Republican former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley, who recently told the Financial Times that the White House gave him "the one-finger salute" for his efforts to bring about GSE reform.''


I told you it was complicated. But what you seem to be saying is that it is your mothers fault for something bad you did. Had she not had you, you would not have done bad. That is a silly argument. Yes the government wanted GDP to grow, both parties did. But had the Rating Agencies done their job, nobody would have bought these loans. Bankers through their greed sold faulty CDS. I am not saying that Freddy Mac should not be dismantled but you will not have any kind of housing boom and falsely inflated GDP....that is what Bush wanted. No way he wanted to kill that goose. Had he, he probably would not have been re-elected in 2004.

The south is gonna rise again......Obama loses North Carolina, Florida, Virginia. Republicans pick off Ohio and maybe Pennsylvannia. Say good night Irene...

The Tea Party is more organized, monied, and energized than in the 2010 cycle. Look at the historic Republican wins since the 2010 election - Weiner's seat; Virginia, Mississippi. All strong democratically held bastions that Republicans blew out !

Republicans control the Mississipi statehouse for the first time since Reconstruction - that is historic ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

mississippi is in the twilight zone

Reign them in?

Did you even read your on link?

There was an accounting scandal...they did nothing, nothing to regulate loans. Remember, the GOP hates regulations.


"The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws" Originally Posted by WTF

This part is worth repeating, remember this is from the 2003 nyt article, before there housing market blew up....So how can you with a straight face say Bush tried to fix Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae? They were proposing how the board of directors get appointed.



"The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws

saw his explanation on Greta concerning his charges to fannie and freddie for the "services" he rendered...something all about how they were reasonable and at the low end of the scale for similar charges to similar large organizations blah blah blah

what he was, was cover to the criminal enterprises of the democrats and he was bought off so they could say..see? we have republicans raping you too... and he was bought relatively cheaply...compared to the 80 and 90 million dollar a year rapes commited by the likes of franklin rains et al....not to speak of the trillions of dollars of destruction to the housing market and u.s. taxpayer by the worst socialistic tendencies of the good hearted dems. to them spending is just another tax increase.

newt is smart and can talk..he just has this uncontrollable streak of nefariousness that courses inseparably throughout him

newt is smart and can talk..he just has this uncontrollable streak of nefariousness that courses inseparably throughout him Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

sounds like you and you idiotic understanding/explaination of fannie mae and freddie mac. The nuts do not fall far from the tree it appears

Horse shit! So many IDIOTS and so little time. The CRA was passed under Carter in 1979. Not until the development of derivatives called Credit Default Swaps that took the place of accredited and actuarially-sound mortgage default insurance were dishonest banksters, brokers, realtors, developers and investment cartels able to circumvent the regulations that served so well for so many years.

The National Association of Homebuilders leans far more Republican than Democrat. Bob Perry helped Bush get elected by being a big backer of the Swift Boat Veterans ads that hurt Kerry. The Perry's were Bush Pioneers.

You have to go back to Republican Phil Gramm to find the guy who was most responsible for pushing and guiding the deregulation of the mortgage and finance market.

You guys should really quit blabbering about the accountability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As far as "guaranteeing" loans, I defy anyone here to find any part of the CRA that says lending institutions or investors had to lend money to those who could not pay it back or to deadbeats.

ALL of those things FOLLOWED the substitution of the derivatives called Credit Default Swaps! Their foolhardy acceptance by lenders and investors as adequate "coverage" against widespread mortgage defaults in place of traditional, actuarially-sound insurance was the cause of the entire collapse.

Now, prove I'm wrong.

1. His affair in the middle of Clinton's impeachment for, as the chief law enforcement officer in the United States, lying under oath in an attempt to defeat an American of her constitutional rights after having sworn to uphold the constitution. He muddied up the situation enough to give cover to the win at any cost party.

2. His sucking up to Jesse Jackson in several instances including apologizing to Jackson for a remark by J.C. Watts (who only spoke the truth).

3. His sucking up to Al Sharpton, the most obfuscatingly reactionary in the country.

4. His support of the evil George Soros' candidate, Dede Scozzafava.

5. His idiotic making of a global warming commerical with, of all people, Nancy Pelosi. (the only worst person he could have chosen would have been the pompously clownish Al Gore).

6. Calling Paul Ryan's brave and courageous and up-front attempt at fixing the budget woes and social security of this nation "right-wing social engineering".

7. Now we find he was paid $1.6 million over several years to allow the democrats to be able to claim bi-partisan corruption in what is mostly an all-democrat evil enterprise, one that almost single-handedly is responsible for our current woes. He came cheap, while the likes of Franklin Raines ($90 million), Jamie Gorelick ($26 million), and Jim Johnson ($20 million) were drawing down millions and I'm sure making all the appropriate political contributions, all he did was what he did during Clinton's lying, give cover to dispicable people and ideas. Maybe he isn't so smart after all.