Saturday, March 21, 2009
Frankly Disgusting
How is it, folks, that this Barney Frank guy continues to skate? I mean, seriously, is the media that far in the tank for the Dems that they won't even take a look at him? And the fact that Bill O'Reilly is the only one who seems to be able to see through him. THAT is especially embarrassing.............................................................Oh, and if you think that I'm over-selling the case against Mr. Frank, think again. Just look at his own frigging words, for Christ! Back in 2000, Mr. Frank said that concerns about Fannie and Freddie were "overblown' and that there was "no federal liability whatsoever." In 2002, he said that "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems" and added that he "regarded them as great assets." In 2003, he said that there was "no federal guarantee of Fannie and Freddie obligations" and in 2004 that it was "no threat to the treasury.".............................................................And, no, folks, it isn't just his words, either. Mr. Frank has received over $40,000 in campaign contributions from these entities and, yes, had a romantic relationship with one of its executives, too. Can you say conflict of interest/dirty, stinking, lying politician? I can. Apparently the mainstream media cannot - at least they can't with a Democrat, anyway. To qute the famous request of LIBERAL commentator, Orson Scott Card, "Would the last honest reporter please turn on the light?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
At least SOMEBODY watches the videos on my blog...
LOL
You were one of the people out in the lead on this one. Kudos.
Well Will, it's just comforting to know that Barney Franks is leading the charge to prosecute those responsible.
One word - chutzpah.
Wow I see you've resorted to censorship.............guess that makes it EASIER to rewrite history for the Right Wing huh?
Will said "think again. Just look at his own frigging words, for Christ! Back in 2000, Mr. Frank said that concerns about Fannie and Freddie were "overblown' and that there was "no federal liability whatsoever." In 2002, he said that "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems" and added that he "regarded them as great assets." In 2003, he said that there was "no federal guarantee of Fannie and Freddie obligations" and in 2004 that it was "no threat to the treasury."."
Hey Will you ever consider that back in 2000 concerns over Freddie and Fannie WERE overblown.
First of Greenspan didnt start blow the "Housing Bubble" till around late 2002 to early 2003-2006 when he tried to reflate the speculative dot com bubble with a speculative housing bubble fueled by recklessly low interest rates, and reckless lending.
Secondly the SubPrime mess wasnt a Fannie or Freddie operation at all because they didn’t buy those loans, WALL STREET did, and wall street pumped for more bad loans they could fraudulently repackage and sell year after year from late 2002 to 2006 when the housing bubble began to inflate.
So you see Will from 2000-2002 Fannie and Freddie very likely WERE great assets and in 2003 and even 2004 when the bubble and speculation was really starting to get going they werent a threat to "treasury" because we arent a socialist nation that socilizes the losses or reckless and incompetent Wall Street Elites.
See Will the TRUTH is Barney Frank doesnt have supernatural SUPERPOWERS................sure Wall Street, Hedge Funds and the Mortgage Industry should have been regulated much more strictly.................but the GLARING TRUTH you seem unwilling to acknowledge for some reason Will is that from 2001-2006 the repugs controlled both Congress and the Whitehouse with an iron fist and Barney Frank was powerless to do ANYTHING THEY did not WANT DONE.
, Fannie and Freddie didn’t receive the repackaged loans since the wall street investment banks were the ones buying the no doc, alt A and sub prime loans for Wall street to combine slice tranches off and sell as triple A investments, in 2002-2006 which are the loans which began the collapse of the housing bubble.
I guess you really DO NOT know what really happened but are still trying to recycle RNC stupid daily talking points which have been shown disconnected from reality again.
Freddie and Fannie do NOT buy wall street investments they are in the mortgage business NOT the casino game wall streeters played with everyones 401k money.
Fannie and Freddie DID not sell the sub-prime , alt A, no doc loans as investments like Wall Street did in 2002-2006
Wall Street banks which all no longer exist as stand alone agencies, were the ones who sold the investors the toxic trash CDO’s as triple a investments.
Will you CLAIM to be non biased and non partisan............so i'll wait and see how you respond to the facts i posted..........but looking at this article it seems like Voltron the far right wing partisan extrordinaire has been "phoning in" the talking points.
I don't censor, Mike. That is yet another lie. I had to put this control on because your buddy was leaving some of the most vile and disgusting attack shit I've ever seen. If a comment doesn't have this nonsense, I post it UNCENSORED. Thank you for your interest, though.
This Fannie and Freddie thing was predictable, Mike. They were lending to people who couldn't pay them back and Barnie Frank was a big part of this "loosening" process.
The Republicans messed up, too. The Iraq War alone put us (deficit-wise) in a world of hurt. I just don't like the way that guys like Frank and Dodd act as if they're totally innocent here.
Mike, I'm on record as saying that Hank Paulsen is the worst Secretary of the Treasury in U.S. history. That's not bipartisan enough for you? And it was BUSH who stated this whole bail-out bullshit. Obviously, there's more than enough blame to go around.
Oh, and Mike, the "right-wing" talking-points (yet another of those hackneyed counters of yours) that you're referring to, I got them out of an article by the LIBERAL commentator, Orson Scott Card. The article is called, "Will the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Light". Google it. You just might learn something.
Will your ignorance is astounding;
Fannie NOR Freddie loaned to NO ONE, it is NOT what they are authorized to do.
They are NOT a savings and loan bank nor a mortgage broker, but instead The Federal National Mortgage Association , commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government sponsored enterprise (GSE), but founded in 1938 during the Great Depression. The corporation's purpose is to purchase and securitize mortgages in order to ensure that funds are consistently available to the institutions that lend money to home buyers.
Freddie is a clone of Fannie created so the appearance of competition existed.
They buy mortgages from brokers and bankers who do loan money to individuals to but real estate. Until a man named Daniel Mudd was appointed by Bush they COULDN'T buy the toxic trash which crashed the housing market and began the recession in 2006.
Mike is right, the bad mortgages which caused the bubble to burst were written between 2002-2006, when Fannie couldn't buy them;
This changed in 2006,
Mr. Mudd made a fateful choice. Disregarding warnings from his managers that lenders were making too many loans that would never be repaid, he steered Fannie into more treacherous corners of the mortgage market, according to executives.
For a time, that decision proved profitable. In the end, it nearly destroyed the company and threatened to drag down the housing market and the economy.
Dozens of interviews, most from people who requested anonymity to avoid legal repercussions, offer an inside account of the critical juncture when Fannie Mae’s new chief executive, under pressure from Wall Street firms, Congress and company shareholders, took additional risks that pushed his company, and, in turn, a large part of the nation’s financial health, to the brink.
Between 2005 and 2008, Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers — more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined, according to company filings and industry data.
‘You Need Us’
Shortly after he became chief executive, Mr. Mudd traveled to the California offices of Angelo R. Mozilo, the head of Countrywide Financial, then the nation’s largest mortgage lender. Fannie had a longstanding and lucrative relationship with Countrywide, which sold more loans to Fannie than anyone else.
But at that meeting, Mr. Mozilo, a butcher’s son who had almost single-handedly built Countrywide into a financial powerhouse, threatened to upend their partnership unless Fannie started buying Countrywide’s riskier loans.
Mr. Mozilo, who did not return telephone calls seeking comment, told Mr. Mudd that Countrywide had other options. For example, Wall Street had recently jumped into the market for risky mortgages. Firms like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs had started bundling home loans and selling them to investors — bypassing Fannie and dealing with Countrywide directly.
“You’re becoming irrelevant,” Mr. Mozilo told Mr. Mudd, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting who requested anonymity because the talks were confidential. In the previous year, Fannie had already lost 56 percent of its loan-reselling business to Wall Street and other competitors.
“You need us more than we need you,” Mr. Mozilo said, “and if you don’t take these loans, you’ll find you can lose much more.”
Then Mr. Mozilo offered everyone a breath mint.
Investors were also pressuring Mr. Mudd to take greater risks.
On one occasion, a hedge fund manager telephoned a senior Fannie executive to complain that the company was not taking enough gambles in chasing profits.
“Are you stupid or blind?” the investor roared, according to someone who heard the call, but requested anonymity. “Your job is to make me money!”
Want MORE proof they didn't hold the toxic debt from the sub-prime bubble; here is the resolution of their CDS vs the only wall street bank to go thru the process;
Settlement of Fannie and Freddie Credit Default Swaps, (the number is the cents on the dollar in settlement)
2008-10-06 Fannie Mae - Senior 91.51
2008-10-06 Fannie Mae - Subordinated 99.9
2008-10-06 Freddie Mac - Senior 94
2008-10-06 Freddie Mac - Subordinated 98
The ONLY Wall street bank so far to settle;
2008-10-10 Lehman Brothers 8.625
So who bought all those no doc sub prime loans and LOST money in the long run?
Whose balance sheets were leveraged 15 to 1 will?
Seems as usual you are light on the facts and big of unsupported bloviating JUST like O'Rielly.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
This Fannie and Freddie thing was predictable, Mike. They were lending to people who couldn't pay them back and Barnie Frank was a big part of this "loosening" process."
Hey Will you mind telling me EXACTLY HOW Barney Frank "mystically" forced lenders to lend to people who couldnt pay their loans back and played a big role in "loosening" the process WHEN THE REPUGS CONTROLLED BOTH CONGRESS AND THE WHITEHOUSE with an iron hand from 2001-2006.
Thats a nice trick will wonder why Frank didnt use these mystical "superpowers" YOU and the Right Wing attribute to him to stop the Iraq war, push through health care and bring about world peace............seems you prefer to deal in Right Wing lies and spin rather than facts,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Oh, and Mike, the "right-wing" talking-points (yet another of those hackneyed counters of yours) that you're referring to, I got them out of an article by the LIBERAL commentator, Orson Scott Card. The article is called, "Will the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Light". Google it. You just might learn something."
Right Wing talking points seems to be your stock and trade lately Will Iraq not withstanding..............and Orson Scott card while having a few redeaming qualities namely being a good author is a Right Wing homophobe and a bigot/rascist............he's no more "left wing" than thyt idiot Katie Couric you CLAIM is left wing just because she didnt carry water for Palin and exposed her for the incompetent IDIOT she was with real difficult hardball questions like what newspapers do you read...................BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Mike, I'm on record as saying that Hank Paulsen is the worst Secretary of the Treasury in U.S. history. That's not bipartisan enough for you?"
Since when is stating the truth because of facts "bipartisan".............newsflash Will the truth and facts are the truth they are NEITHER partisan or bipartisan.
the fact that YOU would equate claiming Paulson is the worst Treasury Sec which i'm not disputing as EVIDENCE of bipartisanship calls into question your credibility as well as your bipartisanship.
Thats what i'm talking about when i say you view everything through a partisan prism..............for ONLY a right wing partisan would think that admitting a right wing treasury sec who based on facts is the worst ever is some kind of altruistic and benevolent act of 'bipartisanship"
Funny how you attribute some right wing homophobe to the left as well.
Time Magazine places Franklin Raines as the #4 man responsible for the financial crisis. Are they light on the real facts, too, Clif?
If I were a real partisan, Mike, I'd be defending Paulsen, I'd be defending Bush, I'd be defending Cheney (Cheney's a frigging nut-bag, for Christ!), I'd be defending Rumsfeld (rather that praising Powell instead), I'd be defending Limbaugh (instead of being critcal of him), etc.. And I would have voted for McCain (the guy I've constantly referred to as an Uber-Bush) last year, too. I don't know what to tell you, Mike, you're going to think what you're going to think. You'd probably be better served, though, if you examined your own 99.9% support of Democrats before you accued others of partisanship. And why are you throwing frigging Palin in my face? Now THAT is a frigging straw-man!
I just find it hilarious that this this Cramer guy (who his critics always ridicule for his small 43 person audience) gets hammered for his poor prognostication skills and Frank doesn't.
Keep dancing Will..........isnt it INTERESTING that you are talking about your alleged partisanship, McSame, Franklin Raines, Dick Cheney..........ESSENTIALLY EVERYTHING BUT BARNEY FRANK the focus of the article and my main response to you.
Why do you ALWAYS run from FACTS just like Right wingers ALWAYS DO.
Will YOU attacked Lydia viscously for not retracting a statement that was not factually correct yet here you go posting BS repug lies and talking points that are fantasyland BS you cant back up.
Will IF you are as fair and balanced and nonpartisan as YOU CLAIM you need to either provide FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE ECACTLY HOW BARNEY FRANK MYSICALLY "FORCED" a repug controlled Congress and a repug controlled White House to do ANYTHING.............you cant just make nonsensical sht up Will the repugs held ALLTHE CARDS they controlled Congress with an iron fist and controlled the White House and Barney Frank was POWERLESS to do ANYTHING the repug congress and GWB didnt want done.
so please explain did
A) Barney Frank use the Vulcan mind meld technique to get GWB and the repug Congress to to his bidding
B) Did he use rendition and torture to scare the Right Wing into swearing fealty to him and mindlessly obeying his every command
C) Was the Right Wing calling the shots because they controlled EVERY fascet of government from 2001-2006 and they own this one.
I'd REALLY like to know EXACTLY HOW Barney Frank forced the mighty "DECIDER" GWB and a repug controlled congress that ruled with an iron fist to allegedly do things against their will...........thats a nice trick Will too bad its right out of Right Wing fantasyland.
YOU NEED to either back up your claim with factual evidence or else man up and retract what you said.
You are totally mischaracterizing what I'm trying to say here (what else is new?). I NEVER said that Frank was "mystically" able to stymie George W. Bush and the Republicans. And I NEVER said that he was the only one opposed to regulating these entities (or that Republicans WEREN'T culpable). My point, Mike (and, please, take YOUR partisan blinders off), was that, since Mr. Frank 1) had a clear conflict of interest here and2) had been the biggest (and longest, dating back to 1991) opponent of regulating these entities, maybe the fellow needed an extra special dressing down. If you don't agree with that, fine but please, keep your moronic little labels off me, boy!
I'm quoting the guy, for Christ's sakes!!! My God!!
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
You are totally mischaracterizing what I'm trying to say here (what else is new?). I NEVER said that Frank was "mystically" able to stymie George W. Bush and the Republicans. And I NEVER said that he was the only one opposed to regulating these entities (or that Republicans WEREN'T culpable). My point, Mike (and, please, take YOUR partisan blinders off), was that, since Mr. Frank 1) had a clear conflict of interest here and2) had been the biggest (and longest, dating back to 1991) opponent of regulating these entities, maybe the fellow needed an extra special dressing down. If you don't agree with that, fine but please, keep your moronic little labels off me, boy!"
Willy your saying "IM" mischaracterizing YOUR WORDS..........it seems thats EXACTLY what YOUR trying to do to Barney Frank..........show me a single place in those quotes where it clearly shows Frank is AGAINST regulation.........Frank stated that concerns about Fannie and Freddie were overblown and there was no federal liability in 2000, he stated they were great assets in 2002 and in 2004 there was no threat to treasury and those statemnents were ALL TRUE...........yet NOWHERE in those statements is there any indication Frank was opposed to regulation.
Here are the actual quotes from your article YOU show me where he stated he was AGAINST regulation Will?
"Oh, and if you think that I'm over-selling the case against Mr. Frank, think again. Just look at his own frigging words, for Christ! Back in 2000, Mr. Frank said that concerns about Fannie and Freddie were "overblown' and that there was "no federal liability whatsoever." In 2002, he said that "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems" and added that he "regarded them as great assets." In 2003, he said that there was "no federal guarantee of Fannie and Freddie obligations" and in 2004 that it was "no threat to the treasury."...
Sure your quoting him Will............Then your creating a strawman position FOR HIM out of the context of his ACTUAL words..................you CLAIM you hate it when peopleassign YOU a strawman position then why are YOU assigning Barney Frank a strawman position in partiular a Right Wing Strawman position..........not very fair and balance Wi;ll!
Barney Frank wasn't against regulating Fannie and Freddie? That's your position, Mike? My God! Read some of my other quotes of his in the other posts. He wanted to roll the dice, Mike!!
Post a Comment