Brand Spanking New Election Thread

[aricandover]

 

[kidsmoke]

I like Barack better as Super Duper Man.

[Elixir Sue]

his adherence to marxist principles.

If only. Unfortunately, someone far enough left for my taste will never be a viable candidate.

[bleedorange]

The funny thing about the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae crisis is that despite Obama's rhetoric on the subject and the "failed Bush policies" he is running against, Republicans weren't the ones in charge. And five years ago, it was Bush that tried to regulate these companies.

 

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (9/11/03)

 

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.

 

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

 

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

 

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.

 

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

 

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

 

''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.

 

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

 

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

 

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

 

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

 

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

 

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

 

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

 

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

 

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

 

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

 

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

 

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.''

 

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.

 

And Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and countless others gave themselves tens of millions of dollars in compensation while doing it. And the tool used by ranking democrats to prevent this kind of oversight was the appeal for providing houses to poor people that couldn't pay for them (as these congressmen and executives were lining their pockets).

[viatroy]

If only. Unfortunately, someone far enough left for my taste will never be a viable candidate.

 

 

sistah!

[bleedorange]

And here was McCain as co-sponsor of Senate Bill 190 (FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005) on the floor in 2006.

 

GovTrack: Senate Record S. 190: Floor Speeches

 

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'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.

 

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

 

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.

 

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

 

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

 

At least Chuck Hagel, McCain, Elizabeth Dole, and John Sununu could see this coming three years earlier only to see the bill die in committee.

[MrRain422]

The funny thing about the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae crisis is that despite Obama's rhetoric on the subject and the "failed Bush policies" he is running against, Republicans weren't the ones in charge. And five years ago, it was Bush that tried to regulate these companies.

 

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (9/11/03)

 

 

 

And Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and countless others gave themselves tens of millions of dollars in compensation while doing it. And the tool used by ranking democrats to prevent this kind of oversight was the appeal for providing houses to poor people that couldn't pay for them (as these congressmen and executives were lining their pockets).

 

That article has some nifty quotes from Dems, but it was in fact Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress in September '03.

[Elixir Sue]

sistah!

[Party @ the Moontower]

[John Smith]

Not a comeback. Just a comment/joke. Apparently, a bad one.

 

I got the joke, apparently mine was not quite up to par.

 

What evidence do you have that Obama is a Marxist?

 

The only evidence they have is that he does not adhere to conservative principles. Anyone who runs against conservatives ultimately gets labeled "marxist" "socialist" "most Liberal" etc... emeber with Conservatives today it is black of white, with us or against us so you are either with them or so far left that they can't even see you, regardless of your true policy advocacy and phillosophy.

 

The funny thing about the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae crisis is that despite Obama's rhetoric on the subject and the "failed Bush policies" he is running against, Republicans weren't the ones in charge. And five years ago, it was Bush that tried to regulate these companies.

 

The funny thing about the fannie/freddie issue is that it did not simply arise this year, it simply reached crisis proportions. The issue/problem has been brewing for a few years now. But if you want to pin this one on the democrats since they held both houses of congress, then surely 911 is all Bush? Or is this one of those yes it applies in situation a , but not situation B?

 

That article has some nifty quotes from Dems, but it was in fact Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress in September '03.

 

An inconvienient truth.

[Sal]

I got the joke, apparently mine was not quite up to par.

 

 

 

The only evidence they have is that he does not adhere to conservative principles. Anyone who runs against conservatives ultimately gets labeled "marxist" "socialist" "most Liberal" etc... emeber with Conservatives today it is black of white, with us or against us so you are either with them or so far left that they can't even see you, regardless of your true policy advocacy and phillosophy.

 

 

 

The funny thing about the fannie/freddie issue is that it did not simply arise this year, it simply reached crisis proportions. The issue/problem has been brewing for a few years now. But if you want to pin this one on the democrats since they held both houses of congress, then surely 911 is all Bush? Or is this one of those yes it applies in situation a , but not situation B?

 

 

 

An inconvienient truth.

 

 

Good post.

[bleedorange]

That article has some nifty quotes from Dems, but it was in fact Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress in September '03.

 

Ah, yes. By wide and vast margins -- two seats in the Senate, about 20 in the House.

 

And I've never really known the NY Times to cherry pick quotes, but whatever.

[Sal]

The funny thing about the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae crisis is that despite Obama's rhetoric on the subject and the "failed Bush policies" he is running against, Republicans weren't the ones in charge. And five years ago, it was Bush that tried to regulate these companies.

 

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (9/11/03)

 

 

 

And Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and countless others gave themselves tens of millions of dollars in compensation while doing it. And the tool used by ranking democrats to prevent this kind of oversight was the appeal for providing houses to poor people that couldn't pay for them (as these congressmen and executives were lining their pockets).

 

 

What's done is done. I am more concerned about what each candidate is going to do to fix the situation. All McCain had to say today was that we need to set up a commission, translation. . . he is going to do nothing.

[bleedorange]

The funny thing about the fannie/freddie issue is that it did not simply arise this year, it simply reached crisis proportions. The issue/problem has been brewing for a few years now. But if you want to pin this one on the democrats since they held both houses of congress, then surely 911 is all Bush? Or is this one of those yes it applies in situation a , but not situation B?

 

 

I think you completely missed the point. Of course, it is something that has been brewing for years. The desire for all people to own their own homes regardless of whether they could afford them. That's what started it all. Of course, there was no accounting for the criminal executives that cooked the books that enabled them to make loans with no real regard for the future while raking in millions in personal compensation. The fact that these were all democrats or democratic appointees seems to be immaterial to some.

 

There is evidence that the Bush Administration appealed for reform in 2003 and John McCain co-sponsored a bill in 2005 addressing this very issue regarding Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and GSEs in general. But nothing got done and now here we are.

 

But it's all the Republicans' fault.

 

I'm not sure what you mean with your 9/11 reference. I'm merely looking at who was in charge of these companies and the politicians who tried to exercise some kind of reform and oversight to these companies and the politicians who are quoted as saying it isn't a big deal.

[viatroy]

Yeah, fuck the businesses too. They don't pay in nearly enough.

 

 

Treasury Department figures show that actual corporate income tax revenues fell to $132 billion in 2003, down 36 percent from $207 billion in 2000.

 

As a result of these low levels, corporate revenues in 2003 represented only 1.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (the basic measure of the size of the economy), the lowest level since 1983, the year in which corporate receipts plummeted to levels last seen in the 1930s.

 

Corporate revenues represented only 7.4 percent of all federal tax receipts in 2003. With the exception of 1983, this represents the lowest level on record (these data go back to 1934).

 

 

 

Who are you anyway, Jack Welch?

[bleedorange]

What's done is done. I am more concerned about what each candidate is going to do to fix the situation. All McCain had to say today was that we need to set up a commission, translation. . . he is going to do nothing.

 

 

Yeah, let's not have a commission. Let's focus our efforts on silly commissions and hearings over things like steroids and baseball. But when it comes to executives of government sponsored entities stealing millions and ultimately forcing taxpayers to bail them out and then the congressmen who benefited the most from these shady operations...let's not investigate that or look into it.

[bjorn_skurj]

Who are you anyway, Jack Welch?

Heh.

[viatroy]

What would actually be useful would be to establish some regulation and oversight, after Bush gutted that SEC function at the beginning of his term. McCain was the self-proclaimed king of deregulation of the markets, handily aided and abetted by Phil Gramm.

[Sal]

Yeah, let's not have a commission. Let's focus our efforts on silly commissions and hearings over things like steroids and baseball. But when it comes to executives of government sponsored entities stealing millions and ultimately forcing taxpayers to bail them out and then the congressmen who benefited the most from these shady operations...let's not investigate that or look into it.

 

 

The only commission that ever really accomplished anything was the commission that investigated the mafia. Commissions are good if you have years and years to find an answer, not good if you need action immediately. Bush even refused to enforce any of the 9/11 commission findings. So what good would a commission be for the economic situation. Mainly it would create more government and we may have an answer say around 2011.

[MrRain422]

Ah, yes. By wide and vast margins -- two seats in the Senate, about 20 in the House.

 

And I've never really known the NY Times to cherry pick quotes, but whatever.

 

I'm not accusing the NY Times of cherry picking quotes, I'm accusing you of attributing too much meaning to those quotes. Yes, the Republican majorities were small, but you said "Republicans weren't the ones in charge" which is false.

 

Frankly I think there's enough blame to go around for both parties, but I think Obama's proposed economic solutions make more sense than McCain's insistence that the economy is doing great.

[bjorn_skurj]

Every time I hear the word "deregulation," I want to reach for my revolver. "Deregulation" is code for "rip off and/or imperil the public some more."

[Party @ the Moontower]

in case anyone still believes that Obama is going to raise their taxes...

 

 

this chart is effective because it give proportional space for each income bracket (the tiny slivers at the top are the ultra wealthy who will indeed have their taxes raised). the majority of us will see lower taxes under Obama than McCain.

 

http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/taxplans/

 

Thanks! I wish Obama had come out strong on this early on. McCain has strongly convinced people otherwise

[fatheadfred]

Volunteer for what? People in NYC couldn't even volunteer. The blood banks were overflowing with people looking to donate, and you couldn't get below 14th street without ID.

 

Perhaps helping families that lost family members. Helping with clean up. Helping with business continuity. And while I wasn't in the area, I would assume there is much more that could have helped people in the area. Oh, and it also could've helped if they had more environmental engineers to determine the safety and, therefore, the precautions of the actual clean up. I don't mean to one up you, I just wish more money and effort were given to community building instead of retaliation.

[fatheadfred]

i wish obama was as honest and forthright as you guys and proudly admit his adherence to marxist principles.

whatever dude

[Sal]

Perhaps helping families that lost family members. Helping with clean up. Helping with business continuity. And while I wasn't in the area, I would assume there is much more that could have helped people in the area. Oh, and it also could've helped if they had more environmental engineers to determine the safety and, therefore, the precautions of the actual clean up. I don't mean to one up you, I just wish more money and effort were given to community building instead of retaliation.

 

 

Didn't you watch the RNC? They are against community organizing.