If corporations are people?

On Oct 30, 9:26*pm, Sancho Panza > wrote:

> So you want to say now that Frank and H.U.D. did not review banks'
> participation in such loans and did not exert pressure to expand such
> operations. Another revision and cleansing of unpleasant but real
> history. No surprise there!-

No where did you cite any reliable source (cut 'n paste doesn't count)
where the govt FORCED banks to make the irresponsible loans that they
did.

Creating the mess was the banks marketing lousy loans as good ones, as
described he

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

" The news was that Citigroup had to pay a $285 million fine to settle
a case in which, with one hand, Citibank sold a package of toxic
mortgage-backed securities to unsuspecting customers — securities that
it knew were likely to go bust — and, with the other hand, shorted the
same securities — that is, bet millions of dollars that they would go
bust. "

On 10/31/2011 9:14 AM, deanej wrote:
> On Oct 30, 10:18 pm, Sancho > wrote:
>> On 10/30/2011 9:55 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:44:07 -0400, Sancho Panza
>>> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>
>>>> On 10/30/2011 9:34 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:26:27 -0400, Sancho Panza
>>>>> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>
>>>>>> On 10/30/2011 9:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:07:32 -0400, Sancho Panza
>>>>>>> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/30/2011 7:55 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Remember that Barney Franks required banks to make loans to people who
>>>>>>>>>> had no ability whatsoever to repay them.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Something that we all know did not happen, but the right-wing crazies
>>>>>>>>> keep repeating that lie as if it were true. Why is that? Where do you
>>>>>>>>> get this nonsense from?
>>
>>>>>>>> "The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the
>>>>>>>> Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C.
>>>>>>>> § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage
>>>>>>>> commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of
>>>>>>>> borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and
>>>>>>>> moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977
>>>>>>>> to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income
>>>>>>>> neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
>>
>>>>>>> I know what the CRA is,
>>
>>>>>> But you were just too shy to mention it.
>>
>>>>>>> but, of course, we all know that the CRA never
>>>>>>> required any banks to make loans to people who had no ability whatsoever
>>>>>>> to repay them. Remember that this was law a quarter of a century before
>>>>>>> the banks decided to play games with mortgages.
>>
>>>>>> Under pressure from Frank and H.U.D.
>>
>>>>> That's the lie the right-wingers tell. The evidence does not support
>>>>> their reactionary claims, but facts never stopped right-wingers from
>>>>> making unsupportable claims before.
>>
>>>> The Boston Globe, by no means a conservative foe of Frank and big
>>>> government, explains it for even the most obtuse:
>>
>>>> "While the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of
>>>> private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just
>>>> how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the
>>>> ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points
>>>> notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding
>>>> to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make
>>>> ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the
>>>> truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and
>>>> demanding that they do so - or else.
>>>> The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was
>>>> when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began
>>>> accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks
>>>> were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
>>>> The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with
>>>> weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community
>>>> Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to
>>>> "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed
>>>> neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting
>>>> standards and making increasingly shoddy loans.
>>
>>>> The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and
>>>> Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more
>>>> "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for
>>>> home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
>>
>>>> All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among
>>>> minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound
>>>> business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of
>>>> Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense.
>>>> "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the
>>>> Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare
>>>> payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify
>>>> for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.
>>
>>>> As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was
>>>> good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial
>>>> whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean
>>>> when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked
>>>> in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving
>>>> risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs .
>>>> . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city,
>>>> which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and
>>>> regulators plans to take the credit?"
>>
>>>> Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and
>>>> time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good
>>>> shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration
>>>> proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant
>>>> that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any
>>>> kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk
>>>> for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank
>>>> complained that the administration was more concerned about financial
>>>> safety than about housing.
>>
>>>> Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to
>>>> all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this
>>>> mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and
>>>> private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the
>>>> political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a
>>>> culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror."
>>
>>> So, how did Frank persuade the banks to junk their standards for the big
>>> bubble while the GOP ran Washington? Sorry, but that accusation is still
>>> indefensible. Jeff Jacoby has no idea because he doesn't care. He has a
>>> story, not facts.
>>
>>>>>> So you want to say now that Frank and H.U.D. did not review banks'
>>>>>> participation in such loans and did not exert pressure to expand such
>>>>>> operations. Another revision and cleansing of unpleasant but real
>>>>>> history. No surprise there!
>>
>>>>> They never exerted pressure on them to make loans that were not
>>>>> consistent with safe and sound operations. You have no evidence to calim
>>>>> otherwise.
>>
>>>> SSSuuuurreee. Banks eagerly extend loans that are bound to lose money.
>>>> That's some sound economic logic. Ha!
>>
>>> Once again, until you provide evidence to back up your claim, your
>>> argument shows that your claim is not valid. No banks were forced to
>>> intentionally write bad loans just to comply with the CRA.
>>
>> You report that you are unable to read pertinent passages like "Time and
>> >> time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good
>> >> shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration
>> >> proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant
>> >> that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any
>> >> kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk
>> >> for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank
>> >> complained that the administration was more concerned about financial
>> >> safety than about housing.
>>
>> But you have no problem putting words in others' mouths. No one said
>> "forced intentionally." But Frank, as the Congressional point man on
>> housing, was "empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet
>> the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed
>> neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting
>> standards and making increasingly shoddy loans.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Remember that this is an opinion column by Jeff Jacoby, not actual
>>> reporting. Jeff was wrong on Sept. 28, 2008, and if he stands by that
>>> column, he is still wrong today.
>>
>> It's too bad that you are abjectly unable to refute or even dispute a
>> single point in the quoted piece. But what is at best intellectual
>> laziness was always expected.
>
> The banks were required by nobody to create a subprime mortgage
> category with very high adjustable interest rates (tough for all but
> the rich to repay), securitize the mortgages, and then hope for
> foreclosure so they could sell the house at a higher price. If they
> had just made the same loans to these people that they do to regular
> borrowers (as the liberals probably intended... remember, liberals put
> fairness ahead of greed and are very idealistic), things would have
> been much better. The banks should have re-negotiated loans about to
> foreclose... instead they just took the house hoping to sell it for
> more money when the crisis passes. That's how we got into this mess.
>
> Even if the banks act like banks this wouldn't have been this bad had
> the Glass-Stegal act hadn't been repealed. If you think the banks
> would have made subprime loans (rather than giving prime loans to
> subprime borrowers) if they couldn't securitize them, you're out of
> your mind. Securitization was the bases for the whole business model
> (and should be illegal; banks should be forced to keep all loans they
> make... that would force some responsibility).

The banks knew that they had to spread the risk. The problem ended up
with Goldman Sachs and Lehman, among others, and they began playing
around with bundling the garbage and selling those bundles alongside the
more mixed packages. But nothing legally -- criminally or regulatory --
has befallen any of those people for, say, their actions in the frauds
despite all the BS and overblown rhetoric about financial regulation.

Yes, Lehman closed, but those people all ran off with their millions,
just like what happened at Merrill Lynch, Countrywide, Wachovia, WaMu
and a slew of others. Now HSBC, Citibank and Bank of America are trying
to face their music. Goldman Sachs, thanks to its buddies in both
administrations, not only escaped scot free, but has also been blessed
by the current administration to flourish and expand.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:18:38 -0400, in misc.transport.road
Sancho Panza > wrote in
>:
>On 10/30/2011 9:55 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:44:07 -0400, Sancho Panza
>> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>
>>> On 10/30/2011 9:34 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:26:27 -0400, Sancho Panza
>>>> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/30/2011 9:21 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:07:32 -0400, Sancho Panza
>>>>>> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/30/2011 7:55 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Remember that Barney Franks required banks to make loans to people who
>>>>>>>>> had no ability whatsoever to repay them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something that we all know did not happen, but the right-wing crazies
>>>>>>>> keep repeating that lie as if it were true. Why is that? Where do you
>>>>>>>> get this nonsense from?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the
>>>>>>> Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C.
>>>>>>> § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage
>>>>>>> commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of
>>>>>>> borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and
>>>>>>> moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977
>>>>>>> to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income
>>>>>>> neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know what the CRA is,
>>>>>
>>>>> But you were just too shy to mention it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but, of course, we all know that the CRA never
>>>>>> required any banks to make loans to people who had no ability whatsoever
>>>>>> to repay them. Remember that this was law a quarter of a century before
>>>>>> the banks decided to play games with mortgages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Under pressure from Frank and H.U.D.
>>>>
>>>> That's the lie the right-wingers tell. The evidence does not support
>>>> their reactionary claims, but facts never stopped right-wingers from
>>>> making unsupportable claims before.
>>>
>>> The Boston Globe, by no means a conservative foe of Frank and big
>>> government, explains it for even the most obtuse:
>>>
>>> "While the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of
>>> private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just
>>> how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the
>>> ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points
>>> notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding
>>> to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make
>>> ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the
>>> truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and
>>> demanding that they do so - or else.
>
>>> The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was
>>> when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began
>>> accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks
>>> were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
>>> The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with
>>> weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community
>>> Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to
>>> "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed
>>> neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting
>>> standards and making increasingly shoddy loans.
>>>
>>> The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and
>>> Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more
>>> "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for
>>> home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
>>>
>>> All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among
>>> minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound
>>> business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of
>>> Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense.
>>> "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the
>>> Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare
>>> payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify
>>> for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.
>>>
>>> As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was
>>> good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial
>>> whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean
>>> when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked
>>> in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving
>>> risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs .
>>> . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city,
>>> which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and
>>> regulators plans to take the credit?"
>>>
>>> Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and
>>> time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good
>>> shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration
>>> proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant
>>> that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any
>>> kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk
>>> for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank
>>> complained that the administration was more concerned about financial
>>> safety than about housing.
>>>
>>> Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to
>>> all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this
>>> mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and
>>> private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the
>>> political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a
>>> culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror."
>>
>> So, how did Frank persuade the banks to junk their standards for the big
>> bubble while the GOP ran Washington? Sorry, but that accusation is still
>> indefensible. Jeff Jacoby has no idea because he doesn't care. He has a
>> story, not facts.
>>
>>>>> So you want to say now that Frank and H.U.D. did not review banks'
>>>>> participation in such loans and did not exert pressure to expand such
>>>>> operations. Another revision and cleansing of unpleasant but real
>>>>> history. No surprise there!
>>>>
>>>> They never exerted pressure on them to make loans that were not
>>>> consistent with safe and sound operations. You have no evidence to calim
>>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>> SSSuuuurreee. Banks eagerly extend loans that are bound to lose money.
>>> That's some sound economic logic. Ha!
>>
>> Once again, until you provide evidence to back up your claim, your
>> argument shows that your claim is not valid. No banks were forced to
>> intentionally write bad loans just to comply with the CRA.
>
>You report that you are unable to read pertinent passages like "Time and
> >> time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good
> >> shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration
> >> proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant
> >> that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any
> >> kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk
> >> for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank
> >> complained that the administration was more concerned about financial
> >> safety than about housing.

I report that Jeff Jacoby is a conservative _opinion_ columnist for the
paper. He is not a reporter. I have no reason to trust his
unsubstantiated claims.

>But you have no problem putting words in others' mouths. No one said
>"forced intentionally." But Frank, as the Congressional point man on
>housing, was "empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet
>the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed
>neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting
>standards and making increasingly shoddy loans.

That is the claim. The facts show us that it is not true.

>> Remember that this is an opinion column by Jeff Jacoby, not actual
>> reporting. Jeff was wrong on Sept. 28, 2008, and if he stands by that
>> column, he is still wrong today.
>
>It's too bad that you are abjectly unable to refute or even dispute a
>single point in the quoted piece. But what is at best intellectual
>laziness was always expected.

I don't have to refute Jacoby's unsubstantiated claims. When he provides
evidence, I will listen. The story he tells isn't consistent with what
we know about what the banks did.

Republicans don't listen to facts: only their lies, bull**** and rhetoric

Republicans also believe in slander and twsiteing people's word.

And a former so-called journalist doing it is lower than low.

On 10/31/2011 6:08 PM, Free Lunch wrote:

> I report that Jeff Jacoby is a conservative _opinion_ columnist for the
> paper. He is not a reporter. I have no reason to trust his
> unsubstantiated claims.

You just don't have anything to support your assertions. Nothing new there.
>
>> But you have no problem putting words in others' mouths. No one said
>> "forced intentionally." But Frank, as the Congressional point man on
>> housing, was "empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet
>> the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed
>> neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting
>> standards and making increasingly shoddy loans.
>
> That is the claim. The facts show us that it is not true.

You just are unable to produce any of them. Nothing new there either.

>
>>> Remember that this is an opinion column by Jeff Jacoby, not actual
>>> reporting. Jeff was wrong on Sept. 28, 2008, and if he stands by that
>>> column, he is still wrong today.
>>
>> It's too bad that you are abjectly unable to refute or even dispute a
>> single point in the quoted piece. But what is at best intellectual
>> laziness was always expected.
>
> I don't have to refute Jacoby's unsubstantiated claims. When he provides
> evidence, I will listen. The story he tells isn't consistent with what
> we know about what the banks did.

With what you think you know "what the banks did." You have failed to
offer even one source (of course we wouldn't expect objectivity) to back
up anything you have posted in this thread. Nothing new there.

In article >, US 71 says...

>Republicans also believe in slander and twsiteing people's word.

This is rich, coming from the undisputed king of twisting people's words.

Just wanted to correct the blatant lie you posted. The facts are on our side in
this one. Sorry to burst your bubble.


--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictorplate"

"H.B. Elkins" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, US 71 says...
>
>>Republicans also believe in slander and twsiteing people's word.
>
> This is rich, coming from the undisputed king of twisting people's words.
>
> Just wanted to correct the blatant lie you posted. The facts are on our
> side in
> this one. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And the fact is that a corporation is a person? You really believe that?
That's as childish as believing in the tooth fairy.

In article >, Beef Supreme says...

>And the fact is that a corporation is a person? You really believe that?
>That's as childish as believing in the tooth fairy.

That's a wild leap.

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen...ion_Commission

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), was a
landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First
Amendment prohibits government from censoring political broadcasts in candidate
elections when those broadcasts are funded by corporations or unions."

The First Amendment doesn't bestow rights; instead, it limits the ability of the
government to restrict or limit rights.


--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictorplate"

On 10/30/2011 10:32 PM, US 71 wrote:
> "Sancho > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 10/30/2011 10:09 PM, US 71 wrote:
>>> Of course he has no facts. Republicans don't believe in facts: only lies,
>>> bull**** and rhetoric
>>>
>>>
>> Another expert whose limited capacity extends only to wild-eyed presumptions
>> and who is unable to deal with a single point in the discussion. No surprise
>> there, either!
>
>
> I don't see any evidence, bupkis. Only your bull****.
>
> Thanks for proving me correct.
Here are the results of some of your buddy's pillow talk:

Media Mum on Barney Frank's Fannie Mae Love Connection
Democratic House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while
former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive.

By Jeff Poor
Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:00 PM EDT



Are journalists playing favorites with some of the key political
figures involved with regulatory oversight of U.S. financial markets?

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews launched several vitriolic attacks on the
Republican Party on his Sept. 17, 2008, show, suggesting blame for Wall
Street problems should be focused in a partisan way. However, he and
other media have failed to thoroughly examine the Democratic side of the
blame game.

Prominent Democrats ran Fannie Mae, the same government-sponsored
enterprise (GSE) that donated campaign cash to top Democrats. And one of
Fannie Mae’s main defenders in the House – Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a
recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since
1989 – was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive.

The media coverage of Frank’s coziness with Fannie Mae and his
pro-Fannie Mae stances has been lacking. Of the eight appearances Frank
made on the three broadcasts networks between Jan. 1, 2008, and Sept.
21, 2008, none of his comments dealt with the potential conflicts of
interest. Only six of the appearances dealt with the economy in general
and two of those appearances, including an April 6, 2008 appearance on
CBS’s “60 Minutes” were about his opposition to a manned mission to Mars.

Frank has argued that family life “should be fair game for
campaign discussion,” wrote the Associated Press on Sept. 2. The comment
was in reference to GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and her
pregnant daughter. “They’re the ones that made an issue of her family,”
the Massachusetts Democrat said to the AP.

The news media have covered the relationship in the past, but
there have been no mentions since 2005, according to Nexis and despite
the collapse of Fannie Mae. The July 3, 1998, Reliable Source column in
The Washington Post reported Frank, who is openly gay, had a
relationship with Herb Moses, an executive for the now-government
controlled Fannie Mae. The column revealed the two had split up at the
time but also said Frank was referring to Moses as his “spouse.” Another
Washington Post report said Frank called Moses his “lover” and that the
two were “still friends” after the breakup.

Frank was and remains a stalwart defender of Fannie Mae, which is
now under FBI investigation along with its sister organization Freddie
Mac, American International Group Inc. (NYSE:AIG) and Lehman Brothers
(NYSE:LEH) – all recently participants in government bailouts. But Frank
has derailed efforts to regulate the institution, as well as denying it
posed any financial risk. Frank’s office has been unresponsive to
efforts by the Business & Media Institute to comment on these potential
conflicts of interest.

While the relationship reportedly ended 10 years ago, Frank was
serving on the House Banking Committee the entire 10 years they were
together. The committee is the primary House body which along with the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) has jurisdiction
over the government-sponsored enterprises.

He has served on the committee since becoming a congressman in
1981 and became the ranking Democrat on the committee in 2003. He became
chairman of the committee, now called the House Financial Services
Committee, in 2007.

Moses was the assistant director for product initiatives at Fannie
Mae and had been at the forefront of relaxing lending restrictions at
the company for rural customers, according to the Feb. 23, 1998, issue
of National Mortgage News (NMN).

“Herb Moses, who helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable
housing and home improvement lending programs, has left the mortgage
industry,” Darryl Hicks wrote for NMN. “Mr. Moses - whose last day was
Feb. 13 - spent the past seven years at Fannie Mae, most recently as
director of housing initiatives. Over the course of time, he played an
instrumental role in developing the company’s Title One and 203(k) home
improvement lending programs.”

Hicks explained in his story how Moses orchestrated a
collaborative effort between Fannie Mae and the Department of Agriculture.

“The Dartmouth grad also played a crucial role in brokering a
relationship between Fannie Mae and the Department of Agriculture,”
Hicks wrote. “This led to the creation of Fannie Mae’s rural housing
program where the secondary marketing agency agreed to purchase small
farm loans insured through the department.”

While Moses served at Fannie Mae and was Frank’s partner, Frank
was actively working to support GSEs, according to several news outlets.

In 1991, Frank and former Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-Mass., lobbied for
Fannie to soften rules on multi-family home mortgages although those
dwellings showed a default rate twice that of single-family homes,
according to the Nov. 22, 1991, Boston Globe.

BusinessWeek reported in its Nov. 14, 1994, issue that Fannie Mae
called on Frank to exert his influence against a Housing & Urban
Development proposal that would force the GSE to focus on minority and
low-income buyers and police bias by lenders regardless of their
location. Fannie Mae opposed HUD on the issue because it claimed doing
so would “ignore the urban middle class.”

Moses left Fannie in 1998 to start his own pottery business.
National Mortgage News called Moses a “mortgage guru” and said he
developed “many of Fannie Mae's affordable housing and home improvement
lending programs. Moses ended his relationship with Frank just months
after he left Fannie.

Even after the relationship ended, however, Frank was a staunch
defender of Fannie Mae even as other experts suggested there were
serious problems building in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

According to an article by Kathleen Day in the Oct. 8, 2003,
Washington Post, Frank opposed giving the Bush administration the right
to approve or disapprove business activities that “could pose risk to
the taxpayers.” He told the Post he worried the Treasury Department
“would sacrifice activities that are good for consumers in the name of
lowering the companies’ market risks.”

Just a month before, Frank had aggressively thwarted reform
efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept.
11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated,” a
gross miscalculation some five years later with costs estimated to be in
the hundreds of billions.

“These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing
any kind of financial crisis,” Frank said to the Times. “The more people
exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these
companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Frank has also reaped campaign contribution benefits from Fannie
Mae and its counterpart Freddie Mac. According a front page story in the
Sept. 19, 2008, Investor’s Business Daily by Terry Jones, Frank has
received $40,100 in campaign cash over the past two decades from the GSEs.

Frank is ranked 16th on a list that includes both houses of
Congress and fifth among his colleagues in the House. According to data
from the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org, political
action committees financed by both Freddie and Fannie have contributed
$3,017,797 to members of Congress since 1989. And according to the July
16 issue of Politico, the two entities have spent a whopping $200
million to buy influence – including not only campaign donations to
members of Congress, but also presidential campaigns and lobbying efforts.

In a July 23 op-ed, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul
Gigot put the blame for the GSEs’ collapse firmly on the members of the
liberal establishment who took money from Freddie and Fannie. “Fan and
Fred also couldn't prosper for as long as they have without the support
of the political left... This includes Mr. Frank and Sen. Chuck Schumer
(D., N.Y.) on Capitol Hill, as well as Mr. [Paul] Krugman and the
Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein in the press.”

Frank was asked by CNN’s John Roberts on the Sept. 22, 2008
“American Morning” about this and his opposition to reform Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. Originally, he claimed he didn’t think the two GSEs
were facing any problems when the issue first surfaced in 2003. He
instead blamed the Republican-controlled Congress for their ultimate
fall, failing to mention his friendly relationship with Fannie Mae and
the contributions it had made to his campaign over the years.

“Yes, I did not think we were facing a crisis in 2003, but that
didn't mean we didn't have to have reform,” an animated Frank said when
confronted with the question. “Here’s the deal, the Republicans
controlled Congress from 1995 through 2006. They did zero to reform
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

However, on Sept. 17, 2008, former Bush administration Deputy
Chief of Staff Karl Rove elaborated on the Bush administration’s efforts
to curb abuses at the two GSEs in 2003. He told Fox News’ “Hannity &
Colmes” that Frank was among the most aggressive opponents of White
House attempts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“All of this bad stuff on Wall Street happened because people got
greedy and the greed started at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Rove said.
“And I know this because five years ago, the administration was alerted
by the regulator, James Lockhart, that there was insufficient authority
and that these institutions – particularly Fannie – were out of control.”

Rove said the Bush administration’s efforts to reform Fannie and
Freddie were opposed by congressional Democrats – specifically Frank and
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.

“And I got to tell you, for five years, I was part of an effort at
the White House to fight this and our biggest opponents on the Hill who
blocked this every step of the way were people like Chris Dodd and
Barney Frank. And Fannie and Freddie are the $200 billion contagion at
the center of this.”

Frank has been quick to blame deregulation for some of the
problems in the financial environment, as he did on Bloomberg
television’s Sept. 19 “Political Capital with Al Hunt.” However, as
earmark crusader Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. pointed out – it’s not
deregulation, but it was the structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
that had been guarded by Frank and other members of Congress.

“Some people point at deregulation,” Flake said to the Business &
Media Institute on Sept. 23. “It’s not deregulation at all. We have for
far too long shielded Fannie and Freddie for example, with the implicit
and now explicit guarantee. I just found it humorous.”

Flake specifically named Frank as one of the members behind
letting allegations of transgressions at the two GSEs for slipping by
without oversight from Congress.

“Just a few minutes ago, a reporter was asking me about this and
saying, ‘Barney Frank is saying that’s just – because there were
allegations,’ correct ones – ‘that Fannie and Freddie have been the
playground for politicians for years and now the other side is saying
Fannie and Freddie were just a small part of this and this goes far
beyond.’ It does, but these same people a couple of weeks ago said, ‘You
got to bail out Fannie and Freddie because they touch everything out
there. They touch nearly every mortgage out there.’ And because of that
explicit guarantee – that we would come and bail them out, nobody has
been subject to market discipline.”

Frank claims differently, according to a letter to the editor
published in the Sept. 17, 2008 Wall Street Journal. Frank noted that
in 2005 he supported regulating compensation for Fannie and Freddie
executives.

“In fact, my reform efforts had begun when we were still in the
minority. In 2005, I joined Michael Oxley, then chairman of the House
Financial Services Committee, in supporting legislation to increase the
regulation of Fannie and Freddie that passed the House by a vote of 330
to 90,” Frank wrote. “When former Congressman Richard Baker proposed to
examine the compensation structure of Fannie and Freddie's top
executives, and some members of Congress tried to block him, I
explicitly spoke out in support of his right to do that and our right,
as a Congress, to examine the GSE’s compensation practices.”

The red flags were raised long before the government bailed out
the two GSEs in August 2008. The first egregious scandal involving
Fannie Mae occurred in 2004. A 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial was
first to point out claims in an OFHEO report that showed accounting
malpractices by the GSE.

“For years, mortgage giant Fannie Mae has produced smoothly
growing earnings. And for years, observers have wondered how Fannie
could manage its inherently risky portfolio without a whiff of
volatility, the Oct. 4, 2004, editorial, “Fannie Mae Enron?” said. “Now,
thanks to Fannie’s regulator, we know the answer. The company was
cooking the books. Big time.”

On 10/30/2011 10:32 PM, US 71 wrote:
> "Sancho > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 10/30/2011 10:09 PM, US 71 wrote:
>>> Of course he has no facts. Republicans don't believe in facts: only lies,
>>> bull**** and rhetoric
>>>
>>>
>> Another expert whose limited capacity extends only to wild-eyed presumptions
>> and who is unable to deal with a single point in the discussion. No surprise
>> there, either!
>
>
> I don't see any evidence, bupkis. Only your bull****.
>
> Thanks for proving me correct.
>
>
Here is your hero flipping and flopping around when his butt is on the line:

January 24, 2010
Barney Frank's flip flop on Fannie and Freddie oversight
Ethel C. Fenig
That was then:

Six years ago, in September 2003, when then President George W. Bush (R)
proposed placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the supervision of a
new agency within the Treasury Department because of deep concern
whether its $1.5 trillion mortgage debt was properly run and because of
charges of accounting irregularities, Rep Barney Frank (D-MA), head of
the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees these two
government backed agencies, retorted, as reported by the NY Times:

''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.''

This is now:

Less then a week after Senator elect Scott Brown (R-MA) overturned
politics in Massachusetts (yes, even I can spell it without spell check
although I don't live in the state and am not running for office there),
including capturing Barney Frank's district , Jordan Fabian of The Hill
informs us that Frank now proposes:

"I believe this committee will be recommending abolishing Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form and coming up with a whole new
system of housing finance," he said at a committee hearing. "That's the
approach, rather than the piecemeal one."

As Fabian so delicately explains.

Frank's words cast doubt on the future of two two (sic) mortgage
giants, which have received over $110 billion in government assistance
after they nearly failed during the flood of defaulted mortgages during
the housing crisis.

The Massachusetts Democrat earlier this month said that Fannie and
Freddie are now serving as a public policy arm of the government.

Is that Bush's fault also?

Grab those tea bags and tea party on! The revolution has begun!

Change so many of us can really believe in."