Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Who got more money from Freddie Mac & Freddie Mae; McCain or Obama?; Dems guilty for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae; and the lack of oversight
Topic Started: Sep 17 2008, 08:49 AM (317 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^

No lie about that, but the media is ultimately responsible for not giving air time to those who were trying to hold those GSE's accountable.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Why isn't the main stream media telling American and the world about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapse?


Democrats are guilty of this as sure as the sun rises in the east.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Here's another New York Times article that really drives home the point that this WHOLE FIASCO is the making of DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!

9-30-1999 / New York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Quote:
 
September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''


Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.




This is despicable!

Democrats, along with shareholders of some mutual fund management company who were lured into potential revenues of the housing boom, pressure Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to reduce their standards, in order to increase the number of sub-prime loans.

AND CONSERVATIVE, FREE MARKET THINK TANKS PREDICTED THE CHAOS IT WOULD CREATE!

This is democrat interference plain and simple.

It's really this simple, democrats and Pres. Clinton made changes to the Community Reinvestment Act which increased the number of sub-prime loans 39% between 1993 and 1998. Then the democrats and Pres. Clinton started a pressure campaign Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to reduce their standards on sub-prime loans. This in turn with the growth of the sub-prime market, placed pressure on the shareholders of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to get a piece of the growth, which then resulted in pressure on the management to accept the rules changes.

That doesn't mean no one tried to stop them. As the NYT article from 1999 clearly states, the American Enterprise Institute warned about this in no uncertain terms...

"From the perspective of many people ... this is another thrift industry growing up around us. If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry."

President Bush and republicans in general tried to get the rules changed so there was great over-sight, but of course, the democrats opposed.

WHY IN THE :censored: DO AVERAGE AMERICANS THINK DEMOCRATS CAN RUN AN ECONOMY BETTER?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Sep 19 2008, 06:16 PM
Dwayne
Sep 18 2008, 06:37 PM
Of the 25 listed,

16 Democrats received $966,778

9 Republicans received $364,348

I'm not a big fan of "less guilty". If these were bribes specifically to allow Freddie and Fannie to continue to operate without oversight, then they're all guilty.

Some contributions may be bribes, others may be legitimate. Who knows which is which.


RTW,

Thanks for that objectivity. For once we're in agreement. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dwayne
Sep 19 2008, 10:38 PM
^^^

Whoever... D or R, I don't care... If any elected official was taking money and then looking the other way, they need to go NOW.
You don't care? Really?

Topic subtitle:
"Dems guilty for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae; and the lack of oversight"


R-i-i-i-i-g-ght!

And then there's this one:
Quote:
 
Here's another New York Times article that really drives home the point that this WHOLE FIASCO is the making of DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!
Edited by ImpulseEngine, Sep 26 2008, 11:17 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
That was about who had taken money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so I'm not excusing anyone who took money... that's what I was talking about.

No, actually I don't care who goes down, but as long as the media goes about portraiting democrats as some altruistic crusaders for the poor and downtrodden, the more that just gets under my skin.

But more than that, THIS WHOLE FIASCO HAS DEMOCRAT POPULISM ALL OVER IT and the democrats ARE GUILTY.
Edited by Dwayne, Sep 26 2008, 11:22 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dwayne
Sep 18 2008, 06:37 PM
Democrats!!!
Nope. Clearly it doesn't matter to you at all. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
DEMOCRATS ARE GUILTY!

And you can't prove otherwise.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dwayne
Sep 26 2008, 11:22 AM
DEMOCRATS ARE GUILTY!
Yes, but that's only HALF the truth because Republicans are ALSO guilty. This isn't a partisan issue.

Quote:
 
And you can't prove otherwise.
And I'm not going to try because I can't be bothered with these ridiculous accusations, but you can't prove ONLY Democrats are guilty.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ImpulseEngine
Sep 26 2008, 11:25 AM
Dwayne
Sep 26 2008, 11:22 AM
DEMOCRATS ARE GUILTY!
Yes, but that's only HALF the truth because Republicans are ALSO guilty. This isn't a partisan issue.

Quote:
 
And you can't prove otherwise.
And I'm not going to try because I can't be bothered with these ridiculous accusations, but you can't prove ONLY Democrats are guilty.
Really?

So who changed the CRA to increase the number of sub-prime loans?

Who pushed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to purchase more sub-prime loans?

Who tried to get stricter regulation over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?

Who was opposed to that stricter regulation?

Any response from you that doesn't answer these easily answered questions only proves you have nothing.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Obama... rotting from the top...
Quote:
 
Emanuel Was Director Of Freddie Mac During Scandal
New Obama Chief of Staff, Others on Board, Missed "Red Flags" of Alleged Fraud Scheme


By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
November 7, 2008

President-elect Barack Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot "red flags," according to government reports reviewed by ABCNews.com.

According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002.

Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint (click here to read) but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) (click here to read) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."

In a statement to ABCNews.com, a spokesperson said Emanuel served on the board for "13 months-a relatively short period of time."

The spokesperson said that while on the board, Emanuel "believed that Freddie Mac needed to address concerns raised by Congressional critics."

Freddie Mac agreed to pay a $50 million penalty in 2007 to settle the SEC complaint and four top executives of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation were charged with negligent conduct and, like the company, agreed to settle the case without admitting or denying the allegations.

The actions by Freddie Mac are cited by some economists as the beginning of the country's economic meltdown.

The federal government this year was forced to take over Freddie Mac and a sister federal mortgage agency, Fannie Mae, pledging at least $200 billion in public funds.

Freddie Mac records have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department as part of its investigation of the suspect accounting procedures.

Emanuel was named to the Freddie Mac board by President Bill Clinton in 2000 and resigned his position when he ran for Congress in May, 2001.

During the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to the SEC, Freddie Mac substantially misrepresented its income to "present investors with the image of a company that would continue to generate predictable and growing earnings."

The role of the 18-member board of directors, including Emanuel, was not addressed in the SEC's public action but was heavily criticized by the oversight group (OFHEO) in 2003.

The oversight report said the board had been apprised of the suspect accounting tactics but "failed to make reasonable inquiries of management."

The report also said board members appointed by the President, such as Emanuel, serve terms that are far too short "for them to play a meaningful role on the Board."

As a Congressman, Emanuel recused himself from any votes dealing with Freddie Mac until just this year.

In dealing with the nation's economic crisis, the new White House chief of staff will almost certainly be involved in discussions about the house and mortgage markets.

Emanuel's spokesperson said, "As White House chief of staff he will work with President-elect Obama and his economic advisers to help ensure we protect taxpayers and homeowners."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6201900


This is a profound conflict of interest in my opinion and Rahm Emanual ought to recuse himself, but then he doesn't have any shame, so I doubt he ever will.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus