The Obama Boom.

[aquaadverse]

you were alluding to carter? yikes.

carter didn't run a campaign against nixon, he never uttered nixon's name. carter ran a campaign against the "washington establishment", which btw included his own party.

your point is wrong.

Nope. There are many similarities, mishandling of an unpopular war, trampling of constitutional rights etc...He didn't have to use his name.

Saying Watergate, the Saturday Night Massacre, his very new practice of taping conversation etc....had little to do with Carter getting elected is wrong. I voted in that election and remember it well. People didn't vote for Carter as much as they showed disgust with the actions of the Nixon administration. He continually hammered on scandals, broken faith. Ford pardoning Nixon sealed a loss. Saying he got elected because of a general campaign against the Washington establishment is ludicrous.

The fact that he didn't want to seem unpresidential by savaging Nixon and his staff directly doesn't change the fact it didn't require mastery of nuance and the fine points of subtle inference to know what he was referring to with a reference of mishandling a tragic and wasteful war, loss of trust because of secrecy and scandal, and people in high office feeling above the law.

http://www.observer.com/2008/turning-obama-jimmy-carter

There are numerous similarities in the dynamics between the two campaigns. I'm not saying they are exactly the same or that Obama is going to end up like Carter.

what the heck are you saying? the economic "meltdown"? it was in full swing in november, and is one of the reasons obama won (remember mccain ceasing his campaign due to the "severity of the crisis"?)

I'm saying if the events of September had happened at the end of October or July Obama might have lost. The race was a statistical dead heat with McCain making up ground after the DNC. If the big crash that saw Lehman Brothers going under and the huge drops in the market had occurred after the election instead of the end of September it would have been closer. Obama got a break when the issue bitched slapped the public and the time frame was perfect for him. He got to point the finger of blame without needing to float a solution.

pelosi is almost inmvisible right now, and I do not know how you have missed the weekly press interviews and public speeches obama has been conducting. you even take one of his quotes...odd that on the one hand you'd say he "has no contact with the press" while you then turn around and produce a quote.

there's a fairly long interview in fact on the nyt wesite today.

obama's ratings have stayed up because he is communicative and getting lots of time in the news

Pelosi is invisible because the bill is done. Obama is still trying to appear a centrist and a uniter. Pelosi was styling herself as the keeper of change. This is not a new strategy and there are many examples in our history with different parties in power.

And I don't know how you missed this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28808756/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17833.html

He hasn't made any meaningful explanation that ties this huge round of back loaded deficit spending to a recovery. He talks about making federal building energy efficient and replacing the Federal Fleet with hybrids because it's difficult to argue against it. He didn't address the subject of housing in detail because he didn't want to preempt his Treasury Secretary press conference two days later. He continues to toss out slogans about 4 million jobs and other highly generalized comments because he doesn't want follow ups. Try to find any widely distributed comments by him addressing the lack of positive reaction by the financial sector to his strategy. Try to find any widely distributed comments about his seeming inability to find senior staff without tax issues. Try to find comments by him justifying waivers clearing people with lobbyist ties to serve on his staff.

I'm not really slamming him over it. It's a smart strategy and it obviously works.

He remains popular because a large chunk of our population are unable to name any of his cabinet besides Hillary and Biden and probably couldn't find Afghanistan on a map if their lives depended on it. Millions buy boy band and Hanna Montana music and concert tickets but it hardly means it's because they have demonstrated great depth in interviews.

There is a difference between exposure and access. He is very intelligent and media savvy. That is very different from communicative. Quotes by him are easy to come by. Answers of any depth aren't. He is popular because he is very careful of what he says and the image he portrays. If you think a photographer was just kind of wandering by and got lucky snapping pictures of him frolicking in the surf in Aloha land you're mistaken.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Nope. There are many similarities, mishandling of an unpopular war, trampling of constitutional rights etc...He didn't have to use his name.

Saying Watergate, the Saturday Night Massacre, his very new practice of taping conversation etc....had little to do with Carter getting elected is wrong. I voted in that election and remember it well. People didn't vote for Carter as much as they showed disgust with the actions of the Nixon administration. He continually hammered on scandals, broken faith. Ford pardoning Nixon sealed a loss. Saying he got elected because of a general campaign against the Washington establishment is ludicrous.

The fact that he didn't want to seem unpresidential by savaging Nixon and his staff directly doesn't change the fact it didn't require mastery of nuance and the fine points of subtle inference to know what he was referring to with a reference of mishandling a tragic and wasteful war, loss of trust because of secrecy and scandal, and people in high office feeling above the law.

http://www.observer.com/2008/turning-obama-jimmy-carter

There are numerous similarities in the dynamics between the two campaigns. I'm not saying they are exactly the same or that Obama is going to end up like Carter.

the obama campaign had no "nuance" nor "innuendo". obama ran against bush and the bush republican party.

carter ran against the washington establishment, and ran against his own party's establishment. that focus alienated the rest of the democrat party and all but doomed the carter presidency all on its own.

I'm saying if the events of September had happened at the end of October or July Obama might have lost. The race was a statistical dead heat with McCain making up ground after the DNC. If the big crash that saw Lehman Brothers going under and the huge drops in the market had occurred after the election instead of the end of September it would have been closer. Obama got a break when the issue bitched slapped the public and the time frame was perfect for him. He got to point the finger of blame without needing to float a solution.

the economy aided obama, and if mccain had any credibility with the public on his economic credentials it would not have benefitted obama as much.

as mccain didn't have any economic cred, I'm not sure that the timing of the recession would have ever been a positive for mccain.

Pelosi is invisible because the bill is done.

but you said that "pelosi is taking most of the heat", now you're agreeing that she is invisible. a bit contradictory there...

Obama is still trying to appear a centrist and a uniter. Pelosi was styling herself as the keeper of change. This is not a new strategy and there are many examples in our history with different parties in power.

but didn't you just agree that pelosi is invisible? talk about inconsistency...yikes.

And I don't know how you missed this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28808756/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17833.html

and? photographers complaining is somehow confirmation of your assertion that "obama has no contact with the press"???? you have got to be joking, right?

He hasn't made any meaningful explanation that ties this huge round of back loaded deficit spending to a recovery. He talks about making federal building energy efficient and replacing the Federal Fleet with hybrids because it's difficult to argue against it. He didn't address the subject of housing in detail because he didn't want to preempt his Treasury Secretary press conference two days later. He continues to toss out slogans about 4 million jobs and other highly generalized comments because he doesn't want follow ups. Try to find any widely distributed comments by him addressing the lack of positive reaction by the financial sector to his strategy. Try to find any widely distributed comments about his seeming inability to find senior staff without tax issues. Try to find comments by him justifying waivers clearing people with lobbyist ties to serve on his staff.

I'm not really slamming him over it. It's a smart strategy and it obviously works.

easy to refute.
obama press conference feb 9

obama interview on al arabiya

obama interview with nyt

interview on air force one

He remains popular because a large chunk of our population are unable to name any of his cabinet besides Hillary and Biden and probably couldn't find Afghanistan on a map if their lives depended on it. Millions buy boy band and Hanna Montana music and concert tickets but it hardly means it's because they have demonstrated great depth in interviews.

yeah, those same circumstances didn't exist for bush...wait, they did!....and boy it really helped his popularity, didn't it?

There is a difference between exposure and access. He is very intelligent and media savvy. That is very different from communicative. Quotes by him are easy to come by. Answers of any depth aren't. He is popular because he is very careful of what he says and the image he portrays. If you think a photographer was just kind of wandering by and got lucky snapping pictures of him frolicking in the surf in Aloha land you're mistaken.

read through the links above, you'll find answers to these questions you want addressed.

it's very apparent you just haven't been listening.

[aquaadverse]

The obama campaign had no "nuance" nor "innuendo". obama ran against bush and the bush republican party.

carter ran against the washington establishment, and ran against his own party's establishment. that focus alienated the rest of the democrat party and all but doomed the carter presidency all on its own.

Bull. The number one reason Carter was elected was Nixon and his record. You can keep talking about running against the establishment but Watergate and impeachment and our tail between the legs exit from Vietnam got him elected. If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon he would have won. If the campaign had lasted a month or so longer Ford would have won. Ford had caught Carter after starting down 33 points.

That election had a new format that saw an increased number of primaries and a larger number of Democrats seeking the nomination than normal. No doubt this was unrelated to the first President to resign to avoid impeachment and had little to do with the odds of success being much greater to the Party.

Carter was an unknown with a fresh face and a record of racial progressiveness as the Governor of Georgia that removed the stigma of the segregationist Southern Pols. He grabbed the early primaries, including finishing second to uncommitted in Iowa. He traveled 50,000 miles, visited 37 states and gave 200 speeches before any of the others started.

The media noticed him and his quirky little Plains family that played well in a nation looking for change. It's true he was anti-Washington establishment figure. It's also true that an ABC, anyone but Carter movement was started by Western and Norther Dems because he was considered too conservative for the Party to grab the election. Ford was a moderate and well respected who decided to use a Rose Garden strategy of Statesman taking care of the peoples business and didn't start hitting the trail until October. It was pretty successful. The more people got familiar with him the further the shine of new tarnished.

Carter killed his own Presidency. Tip O'Neal wanted a much more liberal agenda. Carter was over his head. He got some early support, did some nice early work domestically and went off the rails. He asked for the resignation of his entire cabinet during a time of crisis with no hope of getting new people on board and up to speed. He might as well have setup a printing press in Iran and printed "US-The Great Satan" cards with his handling of The Shah and the hostage situation. He porked our amateur athletes with his stupid boycott of the Olympics to protest the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Panama Canal.

I could keep going for a long time. His party abandoned him because he was inept and they got as far away as possible because they wanted to be reelected.

the economy aided obama, and if mccain had any credibility with the public on his economic credentials it would not have benefitted obama as much.

as mccain didn't have any economic cred, I'm not sure that the timing of the recession would have ever been a positive for mccain.


It wasn't the recession. It was the abrupt crash and knee jerk fear of people losing half the value of their 401Ks that helped Obama. Prior to that he had zero anything but big promises. McCain was gaining ground.

It took a nuclear financial event to move Obama ahead for good. If more time had remained and we started talking about a 1 trillion dollar stimulus bill instead of the 300 billion one he maintained he wanted until after the election he may have lost. Obama ran his whole campaign on the theory you can't prove a negative. He had no record. He had never run a business, he had never served in the military. He became a millionaire writing books and a short political career.

but you said that "pelosi is taking most of the heat", now you're agreeing that she is invisible. a bit contradictory there...



but didn't you just agree that pelosi is invisible? talk about inconsistency...yikes.

Not really. She was front and center during the stimulus bill gyrations and took the heat for the amount and the content. She went away when it passed. She will again be visible when she is cracking the whip ramming legislation through or saying something stupid. This is not a difficult concept.

and? photographers complaining is somehow confirmation of your assertion that "obama has no contact with the press"???? you have got to be joking, right?



easy to refute.
obama press conference feb 9

obama interview on al arabiya

obama interview with nyt

interview on air force one



yeah, those same circumstances didn't exist for bush...wait, they did!....and boy it really helped his popularity, didn't it?



read through the links above, you'll find answers to these questions you want addressed.

it's very apparent you just haven't been listening.

What's obvious is you have difficulty admitting that someone can look at the same situation as you and listen to your opinion and disagree with your conclusions. I tried to counter you points with links and and why I thought my conclusions had merit. You typed condescending comments with vague pronouncements. It would seem you want a food fight. I don't.

Have a nice day.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Bull. The number one reason Carter was elected was Nixon and his record. You can keep talking about running against the establishment but Watergate and impeachment and our tail between the legs exit from Vietnam got him elected. If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon he would have won. If the campaign had lasted a month or so longer Ford would have won. Ford had caught Carter after starting down 33 points.

why do you believe that the public blamed nixon for vietnam? are you unaware that nixon ran (and won) in 68 as the candidate that would get us out of vietnam?

carter's lead vanished bcause he made public comments about pardoning draft deserters and the famous "lusted in my heart" interview.

ford was just as inept, with the ridiuclous assertion that there was no domination of eastern europe by the soviets.

if the pardon of nixon was the reason ford lost, why then did ford almost catch carter while he was steadfast in saying the pardon was the right thing to do?

It wasn't the recession. It was the abrupt crash and knee jerk fear of people losing half the value of their 401Ks that helped Obama. Prior to that he had zero anything but big promises. McCain was gaining ground.

"it wasn't the recession. It was..people losing half the value of their 401Ks"??? so it wasn't the economy tanking, it was the results of the economy tanking?
okey dokey....that makes a ton of sense.

It took a nuclear financial event to move Obama ahead for good. If more time had remained and we started talking about a 1 trillion dollar stimulus bill instead of the 300 billion one he maintained he wanted until after the election he may have lost. Obama ran his whole campaign on the theory you can't prove a negative. He had no record. He had never run a business, he had never served in the military. He became a millionaire writing books and a short political career.

uh huh, that's why he overcame the clinton machine. right.

Not really. She was front and center during the stimulus bill gyrations and took the heat for the amount and the content. She went away when it passed. She will again be visible when she is cracking the whip ramming legislation through or saying something stupid. This is not a difficult concept.

it's way too difficult to follow you on pelosi, first you say she "Pelosi take the most of the heat while she seems content with the role of keeping the agenda left of center and consistent with traditional Dem values", now you say she "went away".

What's obvious is you have difficulty admitting that someone can look at the same situation as you and listen to your opinion and disagree with your conclusions. I tried to counter you points with links and and why I thought my conclusions had merit. You typed condescending comments with vague pronouncements. It would seem you want a food fight. I don't.

Have a nice day.

surprisingly, you seem to be disturbed that someone challenges your views by providing history and facts.

if you don't like being challenged and defending your comments, you shouldn't post in an online forum. if you want to take your ball and go home, sobeit.

thanks for playing.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

why do you believe that the public blamed nixon for vietnam? are you unaware that nixon ran (and won) in 68 as the candidate that would get us out of vietnam?

carter's lead vanished bcause he made public comments about pardoning draft deserters and the famous "lusted in my heart" interview.

ford was just as inept, with the ridiuclous assertion that there was no domination of eastern europe by the soviets.

if the pardon of nixon was the reason ford lost, why then did ford almost catch carter while he was steadfast in saying the pardon was the right thing to do?



"it wasn't the recession. It was..people losing half the value of their 401Ks"??? so it wasn't the economy tanking, it was the results of the economy tanking?
okey dokey....that makes a ton of sense.



uh huh, that's why he overcame the clinton machine. right.



it's way too difficult to follow you on pelosi, first you say she "Pelosi take the most of the heat while she seems content with the role of keeping the agenda left of center and consistent with traditional Dem values", now you say she "went away".



surprisingly, you seem to be disturbed that someone challenges your views by providing history and facts.

if you don't like being challenged and defending your comments, you shouldn't post in an online forum. if you want to take your ball and go home, sobeit.

thanks for playing.

Cutting and pasting from Wikipedia articles without crediting them is pretty "Bush".

You obviously have no idea of what went on during Nixon-Carter era if you're making comments asking why Nixon was blamed for Vietnam and yammering about Ford pardoning and the effect on the campaign.

There's a reason every single credible account mentions the pardon as the biggest reason Ford was unable to catch Carter. Nixon was hated by many in a way that puts the current W detractors in the irritated category.

I remember being at a friend's when some of the footage from the fall of Saigon and his Mom bursting into tears. My friend's brother was a casualty of that war along with 50,000 others and the way it ended made the deaths pointless. Ford was in the big chair when it ended, but no one mentions him with Vietnam because he couldn't do much about it. Congress refused to approve money for it. The public wouldn't accept carpet bombing which was about all that was left. The pardon didn't just piss people off about Watergate, it also made the prosecution of war crimes impossible.

Hillary had no military, business or executive experience either. The difference is she tried to act like she it. "Ready from day one " and her other slogans implying she was a co-president which was ridiculous. He defeated the Clinton machine because of what he symbolized and having no record to attack. You want to ignore her history and the well documented polarizing effect she had prior to the campaign, fine. He was the highly touted backup quarterback who had never taken a professional snap when the current started was despised

Pelosi was front and center during the Stimulus Bill, flew to Europe when it was done and attention turned to the housing market, the ever falling financial market and Obama being unable to find senior staff and cabinet members who pay their taxes. I really don't see why this is so difficult for you understand. Unless there is legislation being debated or she is attached to something like this stupid time wasting blathering about military aircraft flying her back and forth. It is perfectly logical and consistent to talk about her responsibilities and profile in that context.

I have no problem being challenged and I enjoy discussions where reasonable people debate. You gave me neither.

Yikes.

[fluid.forty.one]

Big rally on Wall Street
Major gauges surge as Citigroup helps charge up a rally following the recent bloodletting.


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Markets surged Tuesday afternoon, recovering from multi-year lows, after Citigroup cooled some worries about its solvency and talk resurfaced that the SEC could reinstate a key trading rule.

Investors also considered comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about the need for an overhaul of the financial system.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) gained 300 points, or 4.6%, with around 2-1/2 hours left in the session. The Dow ended the previous session at its lowest point since April 15, 1997.

The S&P 500 (SPX) index gained 35 points, or 5.3%, after ending the previous session at the lowest point since Sept. 12, 1996.

The Nasdaq composite (COMP) climbed 74 points or 5.9%, after ending the previous session at its lowest point since Oct. 9, 2002.

Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) shares jumped 34%, leading a broader rally in the financial sector. Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) and Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500) were among the stocks rallying. The KBW Bank (BKX) sector index climbed 9%.

But the rally was broad based, with all 30 Dow components rallying. In addition to the Dow's financial stocks, other big gainers included Alcoa (AA, Fortune 500), Caterpillar (CAT, Fortune 500), General Electric (GE, Fortune 500) and General Motors (GM, Fortune 500).

A variety of big tech shares jumped, too, including Cisco Systems (CSCO, Fortune 500), eBay (EBAY, Fortune 500), Dell (DELL, Fortune 500), Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) and Dow component Intel (INTC, Fortune 500).

"Citigroup got us started but then Barney Frank came out and said that the uptick rule could be reinstated and that helped a lot too," said Tom Schrader, managing director at Stifel Nicolaus.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the head of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee told reporters Tuesday that the Securities and Exchange Commission would restore the "uptick rule."

The uptick rule -- which was in place until July 2007 -- limits short sellers from adding to the downward momentum of a stock that is already plunging. In short selling, traders make money when the price of a stock falls.

Critics say the ending of the uptick rule has added to the selling in the financial sector stocks over the last year and a half.

Stocks were also bouncing back in response to the recent bloodletting in the markets.

0:00 /1:33Waiting for the bears
Year-to-date, the Dow and S&P 500 were down around 25% as of Monday's close, while the Nasdaq was down around 17%. In light of the massive selloff, analysts have been saying for some time that the market is due for a sharp, bear market rally. That seemed to be taking hold Tuesday morning.

The rally is an oversold bounce off these recent levels, Schrader said, but it also has the potential to usher in a bigger advance within the ongoing downtrend. That was also the case after the stock market hit lows in both October and November of last year.

"There's a chance that if this gets enough gas, it could move up a lot more," Schrader said. "There's tons of cash sitting in money markets and if people start to think they're going to miss out, they're going to want to jump back in."

The Dow and S&P 500 ended at fresh 12-year lows Monday after Merck's $41 billion purchase of Schering-Plough failed to distract investors from worries about the economy.

March 10 is a dubious holiday for the Nasdaq. It's the 9-year anniversary of the day it hit its all-time high of 5048.62 at the height of the tech boom. As of Monday's close, the tech-heavy index was down 75% from its peak. (Full story)

Banks: Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) CEO Vikram Pandit, in a letter to employees, said the bank was profitable year-to-date and that it is confident about its capital position. The letter, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was a relief to investors who have been watching Citi's share price break the buck as the company has struggled to stay afloat.

The government has stepped in repeatedly to bolster Citi, most recently last week when it agreed to take up to a 36% stake in the company. Pandit's letter said that, so far, the first quarter of 2009 has been the best since the third of 2007, the last time Citi was profitable. Yet, the letter did not specify how much credit losses and other one-time items would offset the profit. (Full story)

[fluid.forty.one]

Since everything bad that happens in the market is Obama's fault, he has to get a little credit here, right? Right??

[mcsluggo]

no, no... you missed this earlier portion of the story:

Despite Tuesday’s slight optimism, investors remain watchful about developments in the world’s banks, which have seen their balance sheets ravaged by the financial crisis and the deepening global economic downturn.

Earlier most Asian stock markets climbed, but Japanese shares sank to a new 26-year closing low amid ongoing worries about the economic crisis. Japan’s Nikkei 225 stock average fell 31.05 points, or 0.4 percent, to 7,054.98 _ the lowest closing level since Oct. 6, 1982 when the index finished at 6,974.35

The Obama administration was just distracted away from screwing the US economy, by turning their attention to screwing the Japanese economy... (over the last 26 years)

Never you fear, Obama will get his priorities straight return to savaging the US economy soon...

[u2sarajevo]

How did Citi post a profit? That goes against everything the media is telling us is happening, right?

It was refreshing to get a glimpse of what good news is like.

[dude1394]

Another ignorant person...daring to criticize theOne.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031003211.html

Mr. President, Time to Rein In The Chaos


By Andrew S. Grove
Wednesday, March 11, 2009; Page A15

There is nothing more difficult . . . than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.

-- Niccolò Machiavelli

Machiavelli's 500-year-old warning notwithstanding, we elected a president who is committed to "change." The economic meltdown in which our country finds itself at the start of his administration makes his difficult task even more daunting. In less than two months, the hopeful enthusiasm that welcomed the Obama administration has given way to growing worry and frustration. I find myself wringing my hands, not over the goals President Obama has set but over the ineffectual ways the administration has pursued them. I have no qualifications to judge how well the Obama team manages the political dynamics, but as a business executive with 40 years' experience, much of it managing change, and a part-time academic dedicated to studying why so few corporations succeed in navigating change, I feel compelled to comment not on the what of the Obama team's efforts but on the how.

I have found that to succeed, an organization must travel through two phases: first, a period of chaotic experimentation in which intense discussion is allowed, even encouraged, by those in charge. In time, when the chaos becomes unbearable, the leadership reins in chaos with a firm hand. The first phase serves to expose the needs and options, the potential and pitfalls. The organization and its leaders learn a lot going through this phase. But frustration also builds, and eventually the cry is heard: Make a decision -- any decision -- but make it now. The time comes for the leadership to end the chaos and commit to a path.
ad_icon

We have gone through months of chaos experimenting with ways to introduce stability in our financial system. The goals were to allow the financial institutions to do their jobs and to develop confidence in them. I believe by now, the people are eager for the administration to rein in chaos. But this is not happening.

Until the administration does this, we should not embark on attempting to fix another major part of the economy. Our health-care system may well be ripe for a major overhaul, as are our energy and environmental policies. Widespread recognition that all of these reforms are overdue contributed to Barack Obama's victory in November. But if the chaos that resulted from initiating such an overhaul were piled on top of the unresolved status of the financial system, society and government would become exhausted. Instead, the administration must adopt a discipline; not initiating a second wave of chaos before we have a chance to rein in the first.

[fluid.forty.one]

the markets are loving obama right now

if he gets all the blame, he gets the credit too, right?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

the markets are loving obama right now

if he gets all the blame, he gets the credit too, right?

The markets are loving that CitiBank reported a profit. Has nothing to do with Obama.

Wait and see. This market is not determined at this point. Even crashes show upward spikes while falling

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The markets are loving that CitiBank reported a profit. Has nothing to do with Obama.

Wait and see. This market is not determined at this point. Even crashes show upward spikes while falling

well ffone, you've got the answer.....

see, in williams world, the bush administration gets no blame, nada, for what happened while they were in office, nor for the consequences of their policies, which we are now seeing unfold.

likewise, all that is bad, all that is wrong, is obama's fault. anything positive that happens is not due to obama, it is in spite of obama. problems of the past and present are all the work of obama.

and some people thought his supporters were unrealistic...they have nothing on the detractors.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

well ffone, you've got the answer.....

see, in williams world, the bush administration gets no blame, nada, for what happened while they were in office, nor for the consequences of their policies, which we are now seeing unfold.

likewise, all that is bad, all that is wrong, is obama's fault. anything positive that happens is not due to obama, it is in spite of obama. problems of the past and present are all the work of obama.

and some people thought his supporters were unrealistic...they have nothing on the detractors.

All right, I'll put the ball in your court.

1)Did the subprime mortgage crisis cause the economic crash? If Yes, how is Bush responsible for it? If no, then give me your logic for the problem and how it is Bush's fault.

2)Did not the Bush tax cuts stimulate the economy up until the subprime mortgage crisis? If yes, then why do we think moving in the opposite direction under Master Obama will work? If you do not think the Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy effectively up until the subprime mortgage crisis, then detail your logic for the failure of the tax cuts.

Time to stop whining and start explaining

[Mavdog]

1) your preoccupation with "subprime" shows your lack of understanding of the economic crisis we find ourselves in. subprime class mortgages have never been the largest block of loans made, and it is only a part of the issue. debt swaps, derivatives, off balance sheet lending, arms...

google "bush ownership society" and educate yourself.

2) the tax cuts coupled with huge deficits contributed to an overstimulated economy, along with cheap money and easy leverage. the result is a breakdown in the markets.there's an inabilty to understand true value of assets.

we'll know in the next few quarters if the increase in money supply is going to solve the issue, at this point it's uncertain.

one thing for sure, there's going to be a huge bill due when it's over.

and a large part of the blame for our country's situation falls squarely on the lap of the bush administration.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

1) your preoccupation with "subprime" shows your lack of understanding of the economic crisis we find ourselves in. subprime class mortgages have never been the largest block of loans made, and it is only a part of the issue. debt swaps, derivatives, off balance sheet lending, arms...

google "bush ownership society" and educate yourself.

2) the tax cuts coupled with huge deficits contributed to an overstimulated economy, along with cheap money and easy leverage. the result is a breakdown in the markets.there's an inabilty to understand true value of assets.

we'll know in the next few quarters if the increase in money supply is going to solve the issue, at this point it's uncertain.

one thing for sure, there's going to be a huge bill due when it's over.

and a large part of the blame for our country's situation falls squarely on the lap of the bush administration.

The mortgage crisis was the cause of the breakdown in the economy. Pointing out that there were more categories than the subprime category does not change the point really. Bush had nothing to do with the causes of the mortgage crisis.

As to the ownership society, from Wikipedia:

Ownership society is a slogan for a model of society promoted by former United States President George W. Bush. It takes as lead values personal responsibility, economic liberty, and the owning of property. The ownership society discussed by Bush also extends to certain proposals of specific models of health care and social security.

History
The term appears to have been used originally by President Bush (for example in a speech February 20, 2003 in Kennesaw, Georgia) as a phrase to rally support for his tax-cut proposals (Pittsburgh Post - Gazette, Bush OKs Funding Bill for Fiscal '03, Feb 21, 2003 Scott Lindlaw). From 2004 Bush supporters described the ownership society in much broader and more ambitious terms, including specific policy proposals concerning medicine, education and savings.

The idea that the welfare of individuals is directly related to their ability to control their own lives and wealth, rather than relying on government transfer payments, is a longstanding one, particularly in British conservatism.

In a modern form its implementation was developed as a main plank of Thatcherism, and is traced back to David Howell, before 1970, with help from the phrase-maker Peter Drucker.

In political practice under Margaret Thatcher's administration, it was implemented by measures such as the sale at affordable prices of public housing to tenants, and privatization.


[edit] Ownership and control
As formulated by the Cato Institute (see original quote and external link below), the desiderata are that

patients have control of [decisions on] their personal health care,
parents control [i.e. have power over] their children's education, and
workers control [i.e. have some responsibility for the investment of, or explicit property rights in] their retirement savings.
Here the comments in brackets are an interpretation or paraphrase, consistent with a generalised idea of ownership. The conceptual link here is by means of the idea that private property, the most familiar and everyday form of ownership, is being extended. Control is closely associated with ownership in that sense.

This Cato Institute formulation is not, however, in terms of positive policies. It is more accurately a definition of ownership by taking the state out of the loop. So, for example, in health care ownership is not being defined just on the basis of informed consent.

There is no real originality, politically speaking, in the connection made between individual ownership of property and political stake-holding. This was an idea discussed in Europe and America in the eighteenth century. (For example that the franchise should only be for property holders.)

The novelty of the Cato Institute formulation would lie in the extrapolation. In the case of savings, for example, the extension would be an assertion of property rights in money held in savings or collected tax revenues.

The first desiderata was part of John McCain's campaign platform as the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. McCain's website says, "John McCain believes [that] the key to health care reform is to restore control to the patients themselves."[1]


[edit] Political consequences and unexpected consequences
Consistently with the basic tenet, proponents of an ownership society usually support inherited wealth, and oppose inheritance taxes and wealth taxes. They are also likely to favour a pattern of property ownership based on the purchase, rather than rental, of accommodation.

The consequences for health and education are heavily dependent on details of implementation. For example, ownership in one's child's education, for a parent, might be in the form of an education voucher, a vote in the running of a school, influence on the school curriculum, or a generalised 'right' to have a child educated in line with one's own values.

One example from the UK of an unexpected or unintended consequence of government policy favouring direct share ownership, through some oversubscribed privatisation issues, was the holding of small parcels of shares by individuals numbered in millions. This broad-based ownership created an administrative overhead, for example in relation to every shareholder vote.


[edit] Quotations
We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew, with the past cut off and the future ignored. - John Major conference speech 1991.

...if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country. - President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004

We're creating... an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property. - President George W. Bush, October 2004. [2]

Individuals are empowered by freeing them from dependence on government handouts and making them owners instead, in control of their own lives and destinies. In the ownership society, patients control their own health care, parents control their own children's education, and workers control their retirement savings. - Cato Institute

Many people don't have the time, inclination, or expertise necessary to take full responsibility for their own well-being in areas that are so complex as assuring they have sufficient income for retirement or choosing a health plan appropriate for their circumstances. - Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.

...the key to health care reform is to restore control to the patients themselves. - John McCain's campaign website, 2008

Now, I see nothing in the idea of an ownership society that we can blame for the mortgage crisis. Bush nor any other conservative said that we should give houses to persons who can't afford them.

If you want to research the policies of providing housing mortgages to persons who can't afford them and who could not obtain them under the usual rules of credit qualifications, then your research will take you back to Bill Clinton. The changes to assure mortgages were changes instituted from the top in that time period with Freddie and Fannie Mac buying the bad paper in a form of guarantee.

Bush and McCain both warned of the impending crisis and a Dem Congress ignored them...

Is Bush at fault for not doing more in regards to the running of Freddie and Fannie Mac? I won't argue with you if you make that stance.

But, it is disgusting how the people than ran Freddie and Fannie left with millions in bonuses (not subject to the AIG 90 percent tax rate on bonuses) and joined up on Obama's Cabinet/staff/etc. throughout his administration.

The ideal of providing houses to persons who could not generally get them was a Democrat party push and creation.

The idea of an ownership society is not an idea of the government giving people ownership that they can't afford...

+++++++++++++++++

2) the tax cuts coupled with huge deficits contributed to an overstimulated economy, along with cheap money and easy leverage. the result is a breakdown in the markets.there's an inabilty to understand true value of assets.

we'll know in the next few quarters if the increase in money supply is going to solve the issue, at this point it's uncertain.

one thing for sure, there's going to be a huge bill due when it's over.

I have several problems with this statement...

1)an overstimulated economy????
You think that an overstimulated economy caused a market breakdown due to altered valuations in products/goods/etc???

Bush's tax cuts came in response to 911 economic contraction, the later crash/contraction of the spring of 2002, and the later difficulties associated with high oil prices...

There was no over stimulation. That is a crazy idea.

2)But, if we follow your logic and accept it, then you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are calling the stimulus package an increase in money supply. Again this is flawed logic, but I will follow with you a minute. If the stimulus package is an increase in money supply, then it will "over stimulate". Same logic for which you assailed Bush...

3)Now, the stimulus bill is not an increase in money supply. Most of it is scheduled to be released gradually over time. Most of it hits in 2010 to 2011. That is funny since the optimists in the system think we will out of the recession by then.

It is also not an increase in the money supply to print money and the Fed admitted they were printing a new one trillion dollars. That is a false increase in money supply which spells "over stimulation" (to use your logic) and produces inflation eventually if not sooner.

It is not an increase in money supply to borrow money and spend it. That doesn't work in your own home economics and it does not work anywhere else either.

The only entities that create true new money/wealth are industry and enterprise in the market.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The mortgage crisis was the cause of the breakdown in the economy. Pointing out that there were more categories than the subprime category does not change the point really. Bush had nothing to do with the causes of the mortgage crisis.

huh? your exact quote was 1)Did the subprime mortgage crisis cause the economic crash?, and the answer (as i correctly pointed out) is no, subprime mortgages" were not the cause, overleveraging was the cause.

please try to at least be consistent in your approach.

Now, I see nothing in the idea of an ownership society that we can blame for the mortgage crisis. Bush nor any other conservative said that we should give houses to persons who can't afford them.

there is no obligation, there is not a single law or regulation in america, that says a lender must give a loan "to persons who can't afford them".

to make like conservatives were immune from the lending binge is not only inaccurate it is dishonest.

If you want to research the policies of providing housing mortgages to persons who can't afford them and who could not obtain them under the usual rules of credit qualifications, then your research will take you back to Bill Clinton. The changes to assure mortgages were changes instituted from the top in that time period with Freddie and Fannie Mac buying the bad paper in a form of guarantee.

again, there is no law, no regulation, either during bill clinton's term or beyond, that requires a lender to give a loan to an borrower 'who can't afford them".

the lebders gave loans because they made money doing such. lenders approved a borrower on their own volition. period.

Bush and McCain both warned of the impending crisis and a Dem Congress ignored them...

but bush approved the policies that allowed the leverging to exceed its limits,

Is Bush at fault for not doing more in regards to the running of Freddie and Fannie Mac? I won't argue with you if you make that stance.

But, it is disgusting how the people than ran Freddie and Fannie left with millions in bonuses (not subject to the AIG 90 percent tax rate on bonuses) and joined up on Obama's Cabinet/staff/etc. throughout his administration.

such as...just who are you referring to?

The ideal of providing houses to persons who could not generally get them was a Democrat party push and creation.

The idea of an ownership society is not an idea of the government giving people ownership that they can't afford...

the idea of the mortgages being handed out like candy to anybody who wanted one is neither a democrat or republican policy, it is the policy of the lenders who made the loans.

again, there is no law, no regulation of any kind, that forced a lender to fund a loan to a person who is unqualified and cannot repay that loan.

the reason the lenders made the loans is twofold: first, they made barrells of money doing it, and second because the mbs were inadequately regulated and underwritten, the lender making the loan didn't own it when it went south.

I have several problems with this statement...

1)an overstimulated economy????
You think that an overstimulated economy caused a market breakdown due to altered valuations in products/goods/etc???

Bush's tax cuts came in response to 911 economic contraction, the later crash/contraction of the spring of 2002, and the later difficulties associated with high oil prices...

There was no over stimulation. That is a crazy idea.

go look at when the bush tax cuts were proposed, it was not in reaction to the above. the tax cuts were mentioned in his first state of the union address.

they had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with high oil prices.

you seem to have a problem with history.

2)But, if we follow your logic and accept it, then you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are calling the stimulus package an increase in money supply. Again this is flawed logic, but I will follow with you a minute. If the stimulus package is an increase in money supply, then it will "over stimulate". Same logic for which you assailed Bush...

again, you fail to have a grasp of history.

the bush tax cuts were given in an economic situation that has no, absolutely NO, analogy to what the usa faces today.

why is it "flawed logic" that the money supply has increased 30% over the last 24 mos? it's reality.

the affect of the increased m1 can be a problem if not resolved in the irght way. as recovery (please, please may we have recovery soon..) is seen in employment and production increases, the fed needs to react. if they don't, we'lll see the return of inflation.

3)Now, the stimulus bill is not an increase in money supply. Most of it is scheduled to be released gradually over time. Most of it hits in 2010 to 2011. That is funny since the optimists in the system think we will out of the recession by then.

funny, there isn't the phrase "stimulus bill" in my response. why do you interject it now? nice try.

It is also not an increase in the money supply to print money and the Fed admitted they were printing a new one trillion dollars. That is a false increase in money supply which spells "over stimulation" (to use your logic) and produces inflation eventually if not sooner.

It is not an increase in money supply to borrow money and spend it. That doesn't work in your own home economics and it does not work anywhere else either.

The only entities that create true new money/wealth are industry and enterprise in the market.

are you serious? wow, I had no idea you knew so little about economics.

money supply does not equate to wealth. completely different. in fact, they can be in opposition. too much money in circulation erodes wealth. it lessens the value of the currency.

yes, the fed has increased the money supply in order for it to put all the $ out they have committed to spend. it IS an increase in the money supply when the fed prints new currency, after all who the heck do you think the fed would "borrow money and spend it" from? the answer is themselves!

money supply data

[chumdawg]

winn, the crux of Bush's "ownership society" had to do with people owning their homes. This was clear in the speeches he gave--regardless what you think of his policies.

[wmbwinn]

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House. One is from Chicago, another is from Tennessee, and the third is from Minnesota.
All three go with a White House official to examine the fence. The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the
Job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."
The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."
The Chicago contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700."
The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"
The Chicago contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence."
"Done!" replies the government official.

And that, my friends, is how the new stimulus plan will work.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House. One is from Chicago, another is from Tennessee, and the third is from Minnesota.
All three go with a White House official to examine the fence. The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the
Job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."
The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."
The Chicago contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700."
The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"
The Chicago contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence."
"Done!" replies the government official.

And that, my friends, is how the new stimulus plan will work.

It sounds so romantic, when you say it that way.

[wmbwinn]

I am going to have to post a lot of stuff to educate you. It is clear that a simple response is not going to work. Your responses show a great depth of ignorance about how Fannie and Freddie work and what happened in the mortgage crisis. So, you will have to give me some time to gather enough data to teach you what is going on.

Here is a start. This article was posted in the New York Post in the summer of 2008 long before the "November Surprise" of the economic collapse.

+++++++++++

The stock of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell sharply this week. The drop not only shows how far they've fallen in investors' esteem - it calls into question both how the government regulates the companies and plans in Congress to milk the two to cover other housing outlays.

Fannie and Freddie were originally chartered by the federal government - and that's a big reason they've prospered for decades. Both buy mortgages from lenders and package them into securities that are sold around the globe, and also invest in mortgages and mortgage-related securities. But their borrowing costs are greatly lowered because it's assumed that the feds stand behind their debt.

But the subprime crisis has investors nervous about any mortgage-linked investment. Triggering Monday's sudden sell-off was a research report suggesting that an accounting-rule change would force both to raise tens of billions of dollars of new capital.

The drop was brutal: The two companies lost roughly 20 percent of their value. Then Jim Lockhart, the head of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, stepped in to calm the fears. He pointed out that his agency decides whether Fannie and Freddie are adequately capitalized - and the stocks regained about half their losses the next day.

But the real damage has been done. Investors are starting to see what some have warned about for years - namely, that both Fannie and Freddie are far riskier propositions than many, especially in Congress, have thought.

This "revelation" is long past due. Together, these entities underwrite about 80 percent of the mortgage-backed securities market. The failure or severe mismanagement of either one could have major consequences for the rest of the economy.

Why have years of warnings about Fannie and Freddie's financial condition largely fallen on deaf ears? Mainly because the two have built auras as invincible, all-knowing and essential parts of the economy. Their lobbying muscle is legendary in Washington. Even a series of major accounting scandals, which forced senior managers in both companies to resign, failed to really dent this image.

Increased investor scrutiny and regulatory oversight is long past due, and we can all be grateful if Monday's panic leads to this. The one good part of the Senate's housing bill would impose a stronger oversight of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which now is even more important if the two are to regain investor confidence.

Monday's price drop also shows how foolish it is for Congress to rely upon the two to pay for a deeply flawed housing bailout. Both the House and Senate are working on bills that impose a small fee on the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie hold in their investment portfolio. The Senate wants to use the money to refinance about 500,000 bad mortgages into ones with a federal guarantee; the House wants it for low-income housing programs.

Lawmakers were figuring the Freddie/Fannie investors wouldn't miss the money. But with investor confidence quite shaky after Monday, that looks like a terrible bet.

Instead of relying on those funds, Congress should modernize and strengthen both firms' regulator. That improved oversight would help to reassure the markets that future housing problems won't develop into crises that could threaten the viability of either firm or require a massive bailout with taxpayer dollars.

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are behemoths whose financial health is fairly precarious. As the market knows, both need tens of billions of dollars more in capital than they have. Monday's stock-price drop is a warning.

David C. John is a senior research fellow in economic-policy studies at The Heritage Foundation.

First appeared in the New York Post
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed071408a.cfm

++++++++++++++++++++++

OK, so note a few facts that can be gleaned from this article:

1)Fannie and Freddie were chartered by the Federal Government as pseudo "private" entities under heavy federal control.
2)Fannie and Freddie underwrite at least 80 percent of all home mortgages in the nation
3)The government oversight was failing
4)the government was so clueless about the impending disaster that they actually thought they could take more money that was in Fannie/Freddie and use that to arrange a sort of bail out/buy out of bad papers on bad mortgages in the market place. So, it is clear that the government and Wall Street knew that the bad paper/mortgage problem was out there. But, the government who oversees Freddie/Fannie was clueless about the weakness of Freddie/Fannie because they thought Freddie/Fannie could bail the system out.

"Monday's price drop also shows how foolish it is for Congress to rely upon the two to pay for a deeply flawed housing bailout. Both the House and Senate are working on bills that impose a small fee on the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie hold in their investment portfolio. The Senate wants to use the money to refinance about 500,000 bad mortgages into ones with a federal guarantee; the House wants it for low-income housing programs.

Lawmakers were figuring the Freddie/Fannie investors wouldn't miss the money. But with investor confidence quite shaky after Monday, that looks like a terrible bet."

The article's author was right. Not only was there no money in Freddie/Fannie, the Fed had to do what it had promised: Back up Freddie/Fannie. The Fed had to pump money into Freddie/Fannie rather than taking money from there to fix the problem...

Clueless goverment oversight....

5)"Fannie and Freddie were originally chartered by the federal government - and that's a big reason they've prospered for decades. Both buy mortgages from lenders and package them into securities that are sold around the globe, and also invest in mortgages and mortgage-related securities. But their borrowing costs are greatly lowered because it's assumed that the feds stand behind their debt."

The Feds stand behind the debts of Fannie and Freddie. That is terribly important to understand

6)"Then Jim Lockhart, the head of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, stepped in to calm the fears. He pointed out that his agency decides whether Fannie and Freddie are adequately capitalized - and the stocks regained about half their losses the next day."

"Increased investor scrutiny and regulatory oversight is long past due, and we can all be grateful if Monday's panic leads to this. The one good part of the Senate's housing bill would impose a stronger oversight of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which now is even more important if the two are to regain investor confidence."


Again, you can see good evidence that there is a government agency set up to monitor this and oversee Freddie and Fannie. Freddie and Fannie are goverment puppets.

7)"Monday's price drop also shows how foolish it is for Congress to rely upon the two to pay for a deeply flawed housing bailout. Both the House and Senate are working on bills that impose a small fee on the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie hold in their investment portfolio. The Senate wants to use the money to refinance about 500,000 bad mortgages into ones with a federal guarantee; the House wants it for low-income housing programs."

Quoted again to focus on another issue:

The Senate wanted to use Freddie/Fannie money to knock out 500,000 bad mortgages (toxic paper) into one bail out of sorts and have shock/toxicity swallowed by Fannie/Freddie. Why is that important to understand? You have to understand that Fannie/Freddie serve this purpose. They are used to insure the housing mortgage system.

Now, the House wanted to use the money they thought was available in Freddie and Fannie to use for "low income housing programs". Now, we are getting to one of the issues I noted that caused some heated disagreement:

The government uses Freddie/Fannie to guarantee loaning programs for the poor who otherwise can't get a home mortgage. This was started in the days of Bill Clinton. I will have to do some more digging for you for references on that starting time period.

So, when I say that they were forcing banks to make loans to people who can't pay them, this is what is meant:
1)Freddie/Fannie get a government mandate to guarantee mortgage loans made to poor people who normally can't get a home mortgage.
2)Freddie/Fannie and Government regulators go to banks with the program.
3)Some banks look at it as easy money: make the loans to a big eager population. sell the notes off to various programs which eventually ends up as bundled financial products that are owned by Freddie/Fannie OR which are insured/backed by Freddie/Fannie.

Now, I will have to do some more homework for your benefit. I need to find the issue of Clinton starting this program of "affordable housing for all Americans" and I need to find the names of all the crooks who left Freddie/Fannie with big bonuses and ended up in Obama's cabinet/administration.

[wmbwinn]

"why is it "flawed logic" that the money supply has increased 30% over the last 24 mos? it's reality.

the affect of the increased m1 can be a problem if not resolved in the irght way. as recovery (please, please may we have recovery soon..) is seen in employment and production increases, the fed needs to react. if they don't, we'lll see the return of inflation."

increasing the money supply in this example is taking money that is either borrowed or printed.

If borrowed, then it is not an increase in the money supply. If I take a home improvement loan for 100K then I have 100K to spend. But, I owe 100K plus interest and so the effect is to shrink my money supply.

If printed, then the money supply has been increased but inflation is the cost. The only way to avoid the inflation cost would be to retract the printed money (reduce the money supply) before the inflationary run occurs.

[wmbwinn]

Dated September 9, 2008 (still long before the "November Surprise" announcement of the failed economy).

Fannie and Freddie: Time to Clean up the Mess and Move Forward
by J.D. Foster, Ph.D., David C. John and Stephen Keen
WebMemo #2055
After years of warning and months of high drama, the Treasury Department recently took the unfortunate but necessary step of seizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Fannie and Freddie). Treasury placed the two institutions into conservatorship and provided the means and terms by which Treasury would recapitalize them as necessary. The cost to the taxpayer is unknown at this time and represents payment for serious mistakes made years ago and repeated regularly.

The Treasury's actions were unfortunate because the problems with Fannie and Freddie could have been avoided had previous Congresses heeded the many warnings about their systemic risk.[1] The actions were necessary, however, because the collapse of either or both of Fannie and Freddie would have had devastating repercussions for the housing market, credit markets, and the economy generally. By acting as it did, Treasury chose the lesser of two evils.

The takeover of Fannie and Freddie was a vital move toward reform, but this should be seen only as the first step. Fannie and Freddie are the result of outdated "Great Society" programs, and they should be wound down—not replaced, reformed, or rejuvenated. The private sector can and should be allowed to perform the roles formerly exercised by Fannie and Freddie. At the very least, as Congress crafts future legislation it must ensure that neither Fannie and Freddie nor any successor institution ever again becomes a systemic risk by becoming "too big to fail."
The First Step

Placing Fannie and Freddie into a conservatorship is not an end unto itself but a first step toward the final breakup. Unfortunately, the vital step of settling the long-term policy will have to be left to the next President and Congress.

Looking to the future, the worst action Congress could take would be to retain the current structure whereby Fannie and Freddie are quasi-governmental entities with conflicted goals and distorted incentives. This system has failed at an as yet untold cost to U.S. taxpayers.

The Treasury's current plan is to shrink Fannie and Freddie's portfolios of mortgage-backed securities gradually over the coming years. Just as important is denying Fannie and Freddie the authority to continue securitizing mortgages in the future. Many years ago the private sector could not have picked up this business, which is why Fannie Mae was created in the first place. However, the private sector today is already a major participant, rising to a market share that reached 56 percent in 2006. Fannie and Freddie should be forced to step aside and allow private-sector participants to perform this role. If preserved in any form, Fannie and Freddie should be so constrained in their activities that they can never again be suspected of being too big to fail.

Going Forward

First, clean up the mess. Then, implement real reform. The Treasury Department was put in a tough spot, and Secretary Henry Paulson did what was necessary. Decades of policy mistakes creating and protecting Fannie and Freddie finally led the predicted system risk to become a dangerous financial reality. However, once the market is stabilized, free-market reform must be implemented to prevent a recurrence. The next President and Congress should allow Fannie and Freddie in their current form to wither to extinction. The private sector is ready, well-prepared, and subject to the proper incentives to continue to ensure a steady flow of correctly priced capital to America's housing markets.

J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy, David C. John is Senior Research Fellow in Retirement Security and Financial Institutions, and Stephen A. Keen is a Research Assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2055.cfm

++++++++++++++++

But, of course, the Obama plan is not to kill Freddie and Fannie but to prop it up and continue its "Great Society" goal of providing home mortgages to all Americans regardless of credit worthiness and ability to pay...

Again, the above article is education

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I am going to have to post a lot of stuff to educate you. It is clear that a simple response is not going to work. Your responses show a great depth of ignorance about how Fannie and Freddie work and what happened in the mortgage crisis. So, you will have to give me some time to gather enough data to teach you what is going on.

yawn.

OK, so note a few facts that can be gleaned from this article:

1)Fannie and Freddie were chartered by the Federal Government as pseudo "private" entities under heavy federal control.
2)Fannie and Freddie underwrite at least 80 percent of all home mortgages in the nation

2 is absolutely false.

3)The government oversight was failing
4)the government was so clueless about the impending disaster that they actually thought they could take more money that was in Fannie/Freddie and use that to arrange a sort of bail out/buy out of bad papers on bad mortgages in the market place. So, it is clear that the government and Wall Street knew that the bad paper/mortgage problem was out there. But, the government who oversees Freddie/Fannie was clueless about the weakness of Freddie/Fannie because they thought Freddie/Fannie could bail the system out.

the problem was the underwriting of the loans.

1)Freddie/Fannie get a government mandate to guarantee mortgage loans made to poor people who normally can't get a home mortgage.
2)Freddie/Fannie and Government regulators go to banks with the program.
3)Some banks look at it as easy money: make the loans to a big eager population. sell the notes off to various programs which eventually ends up as bundled financial products that are owned by Freddie/Fannie OR which are insured/backed by Freddie/Fannie.

that is NOT the "mandate" of either freddie or fannie. you are totally wrong.

Now, I will have to do some more homework for your benefit. I need to find the issue of Clinton starting this program of "affordable housing for all Americans" and I need to find the names of all the crooks who left Freddie/Fannie with big bonuses and ended up in Obama's cabinet/administration.

good luck finding what doesn't exist.

[chumdawg]

What I'm hearing from you is that Bill Clinton as much as said: "Let's let the niggers have houses, too."

Is that right?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What I'm hearing from you is that Bill Clinton as much as said: "Let's let the niggers have houses, too."

Is that right?

once again, you insert a race card where no race card existed...

[wmbwinn]

"Together, these entities underwrite about 80 percent of the mortgage-backed securities market. The failure or severe mismanagement of either one could have major consequences for the rest of the economy."

The above quote is from the earlier linked article. You can jump on me for not wording it exactly the same way as they did. My statement that Freddie and Fannie back 80 percent of all home mortgages was a statement I made based on the quote above. I am not exactly correct but now you know what I meant.

[wmbwinn]

Quote from wmbwinn:

1)Freddie/Fannie get a government mandate to guarantee mortgage loans made to poor people who normally can't get a home mortgage.
2)Freddie/Fannie and Government regulators go to banks with the program.
3)Some banks look at it as easy money: make the loans to a big eager population. sell the notes off to various programs which eventually ends up as bundled financial products that are owned by Freddie/Fannie OR which are insured/backed by Freddie/Fannie.

Quote from Mavdog:

that is NOT the "mandate" of either freddie or fannie. you are totally wrong.

again, you can divide straws and pick apart the words. Agreed that the above is not the only mandate/role of Freddie/Fannie. Disagree if you think that Freddie and Fannie do not play the role I stated.

The articles I have dropped in support my position. And, if you disagree with me, then give me some evidence rather than just your angry opinion

[wmbwinn]

from wikipedia,

House Financial Services Committee

[edit] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[42] He clarified in 2009 that Fannie and Freddie were not in crisis at the time and many financial institutions, like Lehman Brothers, also fell into crisis from 2003 to 2008.[43]

Conservative groups criticized Frank for campaign contributions totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. They claim the donations from Fannie and Freddie influenced his support of their lending programs, and they blame Frank for not playing a stronger role in reforming the institutions in the years leading up to the Economic crisis of 2008.[44][45] Frank's former partner, Herb Moses, was an executive at Fannie from 1991 to 1998, where Moses helped develop many of Fannie’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs. In 1991, Frank pushed for reduced restrictions on two- and three-family home mortgages. During the time that Frank was in a relationship with Moses, he blocked tougher regulations on the banking companies while voting for the Government Sponsored Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1991 and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.[46] Frank and Moses' relationship ended around the same time Moses left the company.[47]

In a response to these criticism Frank pointed out that "during twelve years of Republican rule no reform was adopted regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2007, a few months after I became the Chairman, the House passed a strong reform bill; we sought to get the [Bush] administration’s approval to include it in the economic stimulus legislation in January of 2008; and finally got it passed and onto President Bush’s desk in July 2008. Twelve years of Republican rule produced no reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We were able to adopt it in nineteen months, and we could have done it much quicker if the [Bush] administration had cooperated."[48] In 2009 Frank again responded to what he called "wholly inaccurate efforts by Republicans to blame Democrats, and [me] in particular" for the subprime mortgage crisis which is linked to the financial crisis of 2007-2009.[43] He outlined his efforts to reform these institutions and add regulations but was thwarted by Republican efforts with the main exception a bill with Republican Mike Oxley that died because of opposition from President Bush.[43] Once control was turned over to Democrats, Frank was able to push through the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915) both in 2007.[43] Frank also pointed out the neglect of overlooking the Republican-led Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, opposed by Frank), which removed the wall between commercial and investment banks.[43] The statute, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, has been criticized for having contributed to the proliferation of the complex and opaque financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis.

Barney sounds like a great guy to put in Obama's administration, right?

And, will you continue to argue with me that Freddie and Fannie are not used to create home loans for those who usually can't get home loans???

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

once again, you insert a race card where no race card existed...

Please. If you are a Republican, who else was responsible?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Please. If you are a Republican, who else was responsible?

I don't understand your question

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I don't understand your question

Yeah, you really do.

[wmbwinn]

From Wikipedia....

Franklin Delano "Frank" Raines (born January 14, 1949 in Seattle, Washington) is the former chairman and chief executive officer of the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, who served as White House budget director under President Bill Clinton. His role leading Fannie Mae has come under scrutiny.

Early life
The son of a Seattle janitor [1], Raines graduated from Harvard College, Harvard Law School; and Magdalen College, Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar.


[edit] Career
In 1969, Raines first worked in national politics, preparing a report for the Nixon administration on the causes and patterns of youth unrest around the country related to the Vietnam War.[2] He served in the Carter Administration as associate director for economics and government in the Office of Management and Budget and assistant director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff from 1977 to 1979. Then he joined Lazard Freres and Co., where he worked for 11 years and became a general partner. In 1991 he became Fannie's Mae's Vice Chairman, a post he left in 1996 in order to join the Clinton Administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, where he served until 1998. In 1999, he returned to Fannie Mae as CEO, "the first black man to head a Fortune 500 company."[3]
On December 21, 2004 Raines accepted what he called "early retirement" [4] from his position as CEO while U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigators continued to investigate alleged accounting irregularities. He is accused by The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the regulating body of Fannie Mae, of abetting widespread accounting errors, which included the shifting of losses so senior executives, such as himself, could earn large bonuses [5].

In 2006, the OFHEO announced a suit against Raines in order to recover some or all of the $90 million in payments made to Raines based on the overstated earnings [6] initially estimated to be $9 billion but have been announced as 6.3 billion.[7].

Civil charges were filed against Raines and two other former executives by the OFHEO in which the OFHEO sought $110 million in penalties and $115 million in returned bonuses from the three accused.[8] On April 18, 2008, the government announced a settlement with Raines together with J. Timothy Howard, Fannie's former chief financial officer, and Leanne G. Spencer, Fannie's former controller. The three executives agreed to pay fines totaling about $3 million, which will be paid by Fannie's insurance policies. Raines also agreed to donate the proceeds from the sale of $1.8 million of his Fannie stock and to give up stock options. The stock options however have no value. Raines also gave up an estimated $5.3 million of "other benefits" said to be related to his pension and forgone bonuses.[9]

An editorial in The Wall Street Journal called it a "paltry settlement" which allowed Raines and the other two executives to "keep the bulk of their riches." [10] In 2003 alone, Raines's compensation was over $20 million.[11]

A statement issued by Raines said of the consent order, "is consistent with my acceptance of accountability as the leader of Fannie Mae and with my strong denial of the allegations made against me by OFHEO."[12]

In a settlement with OFHEO and the Securities and Exchange Commission, Fannie paid a record $400 million civil fine. Fannie, which is the largest American financier and guarantor of home mortgages, also agreed to make changes in its corporate culture and accounting procedures and ways of managing risk. [13]

In June 2008 The Wall Street Journal reported that Franklin Raines was one of several public officials who received below market rates loans at Countrywide Financial because the corporation considered the officeholders "FOA's"--"Friends of Angelo" (Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo). He received loans for over $3 million while CEO of Fannie Mae. [14]

[edit] Role in the subprime mortgage crisis
See also: Subprime mortgage crisis
In accordance with the mission of Fannie Mae to enable home ownership by a greater proportion of the population, Franklin Raines, while Chairman and CEO, began a pilot program in 1999 to issue bank loans to individuals with low to moderate income, and to ease credit requirements on loans that Fannie Mae purchased from banks. Raines promoted the program saying that it would allow consumers who were "a notch below what our current underwriting has required" to get home loans. The move was intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners.[15] Some observers have noted that the expansion of easy credit to home buyers with a lesser ability to pay them back was one of the major contributing factors to the subprime mortgage crisis.[16] Although under Raines, Fannie Mae invested in some securities backed by subprime loans, it didn't start buying subprime and Alt-A loans directly (and bundling them into securities) until late 2004 after the accounting scandal. Purchasing of subprime and alt-A mortgages expanded exponentially under the guidance of Raines's successor Daniel H. Mudd.[17][18] (See also Subprime lending.)

In the New York Times John Steele Gordon wrote an opinion criticizing Raines' contribution to the 2008 financial crisis caused by the failure of Fannie Mae. "He cooked the books at Fannie to increase his compensation (more than $90 million)." [19]
On December 9, 2008, he testified before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Capitol Hill regarding Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and financial market instability.[20][21][22]


[edit] Question of Raines and Obama connection
On 16 July 2008 The Washington Post reported that Franklin Raines had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." [23]. Also, in an editorial in August 27, 2008 titled "Tough Decision Coming", the Washington Post editorial staff wrote that "Two members of Mr. Obama's political circle, James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, are former chief executives of Fannie Mae."[24] On September 18, 2008, John McCain's campaign published a campaign ad that quoted the Washington Post reporting regarding Raines and Obama. The ad also notes that "Raines made millions and then left Fannie Mae while it was under investigation for accounting irregularities".[25]

Neither Raines nor the Obama campaign had disputed the Post's reporting before the ad. The text in question consisted of one sentence in each article. After McCain's attack ad however, both denied that Raines was or had been a provider of advice to Obama or the Obama campaign.[26][27][28].

In later commentary the Washington Post (the original source) described McCain's attempts to connect Obama with Franklin Raines based on their reporting as "a stretch" and said all reporting they did about the matter actually stems from a single conversation a reporter had with Raines in which she recalls Raines said he "had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign". When the reporter queried Raines to the nature of the calls he said "oh, general housing, economy issues".[29]

Additionally, an email hoax falsely claims Raines was made "Chief Economic Advisor" for the Obama presidential campaign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines

I bolded the areas that add support to my general arguements...

I am not tying Raines to Obama. I am supporting the role of Freddie/Fannie in the worldwide economic collapse that began with our mortgage crisis. And, I am reiterating that Freddie/Fannie were under government guidance to loosen home lending practices.

[Mavdog]

uh, barney frank is an elected us representitve, he is not in the obama administration.

neither is raines, and in fact raines was never involved with the obama campaign either.

you like to cut and paste from wiki, go look up fannie mae and see what they say is its primary function . hint: it is not "to guarantee mortgage loans made to poor people who normally can't get a home mortgage".

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

uh, barney frank is an elected us representitve, he is not in the obama administration.

neither is raines, and in fact raines was never involved with the obama campaign either.

you like to cut and paste from wiki, go look up fannie mae and see what they say is its primary function . hint: it is not "to guarantee mortgage loans made to poor people who normally can't get a home mortgage".

no disagreement with you anywhere.

I already said that the issue of putting those into houses who can't really afford them is not the primary mandate of Fannie/Freddie. But, if you act like they aren't used for that, then your head is in the sand.

the articles support my position.

[wmbwinn]

From Wikipedia,

Rahm Israel Emanuel[1] (born November 29, 1959) is an American politician currently serving as White House Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama. He served previously as Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Illinois's 5th congressional district from 2003 until his resignation in 2009 to take up his current position in the Obama Administration.

Emanuel was chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2006 mid-term elections and remained a top strategist for House Democrats during the 2008 cycle. After Democrats regained control of the House in 2006, Emanuel was elected chairman of the Democratic Caucus. This made him the fourth-ranking House Democrat, behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn.[2] Two days after Obama's election victory, he was announced as Barack Obama's designate for White House Chief of Staff.[3] Emanuel resigned from the House on January 2, 2009[4] and began his current job on January 20, 2009, the day of Obama's inauguration.[3]

Emanuel is an influential member of the New Democrat Coalition. He is noted for his combative style and his political fundraising abilities.[5]

Career in finance
After serving as an advisor to Bill Clinton, in 1998 Emanuel resigned from his position in the Clinton administration. He then became an investment banker at Wasserstein Perella (now Dresdner Kleinwort), where he worked until 2002.[27] In 1999, he became a managing director at the firm’s Chicago office. Emanuel made $16.2 million in his two-and-a-half-year stint as a banker, according to Congressional disclosures.[27][28] At Wasserstein Perella, he worked on eight deals, including the acquisition by Commonwealth Edison of Peco Energy and the purchase by GTCR Golder Rauner of the SecurityLink home security unit from SBC Communications.[27]

Emanuel was named to the Board of Directors for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") by then President Bill Clinton in 2000. His position paid him $31,060 in 2000 and $231,655 in 2001.[29] During the time Emanuel spent on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities.[30] The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) later accused the board of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention." Emanuel resigned from the board in 2001 when he ran for congress.

Emanuel declared in April 2006 that he would support Hillary Rodham Clinton should she pursue the presidency in 2008. Emanuel remained close to Bill Clinton since leaving the White House, talking strategy with him at least once a month as chairman of the DCCC.[11] However, Emanuel's loyalties came into conflict when his home-state senator Barack Obama expressed interest in the race; asked in January 2007 about his stance on the Democratic presidential nomination, he said: "I'm hiding under the desk. I'm very far under the desk, and I'm bringing my paper and my phone."[38] Emanuel remained neutral in the race until June 4, 2008, the day after the final primary contests, when he endorsed the eventual winner Obama.[39]

Emanuel easily won re-election to the House, defeating Republican candidate Tom Hanson. Open Secrets reported that Emanuel "was the top House recipient in the 2008 election cycle of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry".

So, there is your example of an ex Freddie/Fannie crook in Obama's cabinet...

[wmbwinn]

ok, I have given you everything I said I would except for the issue of going back to Clinton to show that the changes in Freddie/Fannie began then which changes started putting people in houses who couldn't afford them.

I'll find that also


But, I'm going to bed now.

I don't drop by here every day. But, I'll come back and finish the research you said I couldn't find.

I'll show you the rest of the data to support my views.

But, for now, I am sure you learned some things that you didn't know even if you won't admit that you did.

and, Chum, nothing about this is racial in any sort of sense. a disproportionate share of some races are poor. But, the arguement is not about race. the arguement is about putting people in houses they can't afford.

and, the big problem was not even with poor people. the big problem was the side effect. Government wanted to put poor people in houses and so they changed the credit rules to make it happen.

people who were better off used the same rule changes to move into houses they couldn't afford. the real problem is the middle class that tried to move up to a higher income neighborhood. It was the guy making 60K who took a house worth 600K that caused this mess.

It was not the guy making 20K buying a 40K house. But, the problem started with changing the rules.

You seem to think I am a racist pig. Really, I am not.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

From Wikipedia,

Emanuel "was the top House recipient in the 2008 election cycle of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry".

So, there is your example of an ex Freddie/Fannie crook in Obama's cabinet...

are you serious? THAT is your example of someone from freddie mac or fannie mae in obama''s administration?

the word inaccurate comes to mind, but that's too mild. disingenious? dishonest?

maybe just wacky.

try again. emanuel was never a part of these two firms, he was an elected representitive.

ok, I have given you everything I said I would except for the issue of going back to Clinton to show that the changes in Freddie/Fannie began then which changes started putting people in houses who couldn't afford them.

you have done nothing. you haven't shown how lenders were forced to give mortgages to people who can't afford them, you have not shown anyone from fannie or freddie who is in the obama administration, you haven't been able to show that fannie's mission is "to guarantee mortgage loans made to poor people who normally can't get a home mortgage".

you've failed on all counts. good job....

[DirkFTW]

Interesting counterpoint

Yes, the Community Reinvestment Act Really Did Help Cause the Housing Crisis
March 17, 2009 09:42 AM ET | James Pethokoukis | Permanent Link | Print

There has been a lot of push back against the idea that the Community Reinvestment Act nudged banks to give mortgages to people who should have not gotten them. But then here comes this fantastic story, courtesy of the Boston Business Journal, about East Bridgewater Savings in Boston:

Yet the FDIC has turned up the heat on Petrucelli's bank, giving it an apparently rare "needs to improve rating," for not making more risky loans under the Community Reinvestment Act. Here is how the FDIC puts it: “There are no apparent financial or legal impediments that would limit the bank’s ability to help meet the credit needs of its assessment area. The FDIC examiners also faulted East Bridgewater "for not advertising and marketing its loan products enough. The bank, which does not have a Web site, offers fixed-rate mortgages."

Me: How many East Bridgewaters are out there that knuckled under to the pressure and started handing out mortgages to whomever? I am not saying that CRA is the only factor here. There is plenty of blame to go around, regulators, Alan Greenspan, derivatives desks on Wall Street. But to let CRA and its enablers off the hook is ridiculous.

Link

[Flacolaco]

The FDIC gave his bank a crappy rating for being responsible?