Thursday, February 2, 2012
Note to Mr. Gingrich/Resident Historian
Give the money back, Newt. You took 1.6 million from a company that needed $154,000,000,000 worth of taxpayer money simply to stay afloat. That, and the fact that you really didn't do anything for it (or maybe you did and you're concealing it), for Christ! I mean, come on, dude. Do it; the right thing, for once in your life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Obviously he did not provide a very good "historical" perspective.
Mr. Gingrich was paid $30,000 a month for one hour of work. He also claims that he warned the officials at Fannie and Freddie of an impending housing bubble - this, despite the fact that not one single person at either of these agencies has come forth to substantiate this. I mean, I really like to give people the benefit of the doubt and all but, Jerry, youza, huh?
Hey,look here.If someone offered either one of you 30,000 grr a month for easy work.....Come on and tell me you would'nt take it.If you say you would'nt I'll say you fib.
..can't give it back, spent it all at Tiffany's..
I was thinking that, too, BB Idaho - a lot of it being around his wife's neck and in her jewelry box.............Yeah, I would take the easy moolah, too, Russ. But if I hammered Mr. Frank for taking $40,000, then I also have to hammer Gingrich for taking damn near 40 times that amount.
Newtie... That paragon of virtue and honesty?
LMFAO
I wonder why Daniels didn't get in, Les. Too sane?
Will: [Gingrich] warned the officials at Fannie and Freddie of an impending housing bubble...
They should have listened to Barney Frank. He warned of the housing bubble too (although his warning was real, not made-up after the fact). Also, his advice wasn't quite so expensive.
Will - From what I understand Daniels wife wasn't on board. Too bad really, he has a lot on the ball.
Wd - LMFAO...
Les, I've gone though this before with wd. I asked him to produce just one in-time piece of evidence that Mr. Frank warned ANYBODY about the housing bubble and I'm still waiting patientyly for it. The only thing that he came up with was some 2010 PR after-the-fact crap from the Congressman's own damned office. Incredible, huh?
Barney Frank Lies on Larry King. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UZ9l_AxKjA
And on CNBC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UZ9l_AxKjA "You're not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble." Barney Frank 2005. Oh, yeah, wd, the man was a real warning machine.
WD said: "Also, [Gingrich's) advice wasn't quite so expensive."
Frank's bad actions, probably outright lies, and bad advice and resistance to reforms which would have prevented the housing collapse have cost the nation trillions. Gingrich's wages from them are nothing compared to this.
Barney Frank did nothing that "cost the nation trillions". This is a part of the Rightwing conspiracy theory that dmarks gullibly buys into. It says the government, via "over-regulation", "forced" banks to make bad loans. It's all a bunch of bullpucky. dmarks is referring to things that never happened.
Barney Frank did attempt to warn Congress of the problems deregulation might cause at F&F. The Republican controlled House and Senate ignored him. bush was busy pushing his "ownership society".
If the Republicans had been willing to do what was in the best interests of the nation, instead of doing what would make the rich contributors even richer, the housing bubble could have been averted. I blame them.
Barney Frank is a national treasure who will be sorely missed when he retires. It's doubtful that whoever replaces him will be as tireless a champion for the American people. Even if he is replaced by a Democrat. I'm depressed just thinking about it.
I have yet to see an instance of one bank that was forced to make a loan that it did not want to make.
"Force" might be a strong word, true, Jerry.
But the bad policies of two government agencies, Fannie and Freddie, strongly encouraged banks to make bad loans.
Something that simply would have not happened if this had been left to the free market.
OK, you've backed away from forced. Now, how did they strongly encourage banks to make BAD loans?
By backing them up. Remember F&Fs mission to give loans to undeserving people who could not pay them back.
dmarks: Remember F&F's mission to give loans to undeserving people who could not pay them back.
Only a Rightwing dupe could "remember" a mission that never existed.
"Remember F&Fs mission to give loans to undeserving people who could not pay them back."
And where is some proof of that statement, or is it just your opinion?
Jerry Critter: And where is some proof of that statement, or is it just your opinion?
He read it on a Rightwing website. The assertion is false, as pointed out by The Campaign for America's Future, which says...
Myth: The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to make loans to all low-income families and people with poor credit, fining banks that refused to comply.
Fact: The CRA encouraged banks to lend fairly and responsibly... [it] does not impose fines; it periodically examines FDIC-backed banks and issues them a CRA-compliance rating. To receive a high rating, banks must meet the financing needs of as many members of their community as possible and must not discriminate against racial and ethnic groups or certain neighborhoods.
However, a bank cannot receive a high rating unless it is also maintaing "safe and sound banking practices". In other words, the CRA requires banks to lend to working-class families and people of color, but only when those people have been deemed credit-worthy.
"the CRA requires banks to lend to working-class families and people of color, but only when those people have been deemed credit-worthy."
Ah the smoking gun that the CRA is racist. This outfit claims it seeks to lend to coloreds. And besides, there's junk language in there (in fact the working class includes all people who work, which makes mentioning it in the "fact" pointless, since it is hard for the unemployed to get loans).
Only a racist agency would single out "coloreds" for loans. A truly fair agency would give zero regard to skin color.
That directly contradicts the earlier line: "The CRA encouraged banks to lend fairly and responsibly.."
Sorry, WD. Those are not facts. That's an editorial from a partisan political pressure group.
As for my factual account, WD. You are lying actually. I have sourced it in the past, and never from a "rightwing" web site. The best account I have found about how the creation of the CRA caused the economic meltdown I have seen is from the Village Voice. That is a leftist newspaper: click here.
Next time, WD, you might want to do a little research. And your quotations actually undermine your side since the editorial you chose points out that the intent of the CRA was racist.
dmarks: ...in fact the working class includes all people who work, which makes mentioning it in the "fact" pointless...
Another example of dmarks making up his own word definitions. "Working class" has a specific meaning, and it isn't what dmarks says...
Working class, definition: (also, lower class or laboring class) is a term used in the social sciences and in ordinary conversation to describe those employed in lower tier jobs... as measured by skill, education and lower incomes..."
Mentioning it is not "pointless".
dmarks: Only a racist agency would single out "coloreds" for loans. A truly fair agency would give zero regard to skin color.
The CRA is referring to the FACT that African Americans and working class people have been discriminated against (and had loans denied to them for no other reason then being black and/or working class). The practice is known as redlining (I suggest you do a little research on this).
The CRA simply says BANKS can't discriminate/employ redlining. This isn't "racist"; it's anti-racist.
In regards to the Village Voice, Wikipedia notes that, "Since being acquired by New Times Media in 2005, the publication's key personnel have changed and the content has become increasingly mainstream".
The Village Voice isn't "leftist" any longer. Also, you've never mentioned the Village Voice before, and you've never said anything about Andrew Cuomo being in any way responsible (as the Village Voice article asserts). My comment about your "forced loans" claim being based on information from Right-wing sites was based on your previous statements. I was not "lying".
Mark Zandi, an economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, a widely-cited source of economic analysis, says, "Fannie and Freddie don't deserve blame for bubble".
Still waiting for the evidence that Barney Frank warned ANYBODY about Fannie and Freddie, wd. In the mean time, I guess that we'll just have to go with these bald-faced lies that he told on Larry King and CNN.
I already gave you the evidence. Multiple times.
YouTube Video: Rep. Barney Frank Sets The Record Straight On Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and Subprime Mortgages.
THIS is what Mr. Frank ACTUALLY said back in 2005. He was clueless then and he's even more clueless now. "You're not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble." He couldn't have possibly been MORE wrong. I mean, my God, wd.
Will: You gave me bullshit! You gave after the fact cover your ass crap from Mr. Frank himself.
I gave you the facts. I don't give a bullshit if you don't like them/refuse to accept them. Also, I don't know what the hell you *think* Rep Frank lied about... but I don't give a bullshit about that either.
I stand by what I wrote on my blog. The post is titled, "Republican Lies About Fannie, Freddie, And Frank".
The Republican lies I'm referring to are many of the same things you're now saying.
Give me ONE in-time statement by Barney Frank in which he warns ANYBODY about the housing bubble and/or Fannie and Freddie. ONE! Once again, wd, this is what the fellow ACTUALLY said in 2005; "You're not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble."............And, yes, wd, Mr. Frank lied on Larry King and then on CNBC. He said that he never pushed for home ownership for lower income people AND HE DID! The smoking gun - www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UZ9l_AxKjA I'm sorry, but your hero is a liar.
Post a Comment