O'Reilly falsely claimed that Rep. Frank "sat by" while "Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae made bad loans"
SUMMARY: In a column, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that Rep. Barney Frank "sat by as mortgage brokers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made bad loans." Also, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace did not challenge a similar claim by Sen. Jon Kyl that efforts by the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress to regulate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae "were stopped at every turn by Democrats." In fact, more than a year ago, Frank sponsored a bill to create the Federal Housing Finance Agency, granting that agency "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and directing it to reform the two companies' business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk.
In a September 18 column, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) "sat by as mortgage brokers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made bad loans" and asserted that "[i]nstead of demanding responsible business practices from Fannie and Freddie, Frank continued to pound the table to extend even more credit to 'low income' families." In fact, Frank did not "s[i]t by." He sponsored H.R. 1427, a bill to create the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), more than a year ago, granting that agency "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and directing it to reform the two companies' business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk. In May 2007, the House passed H.R. 1427. Also, on the September 21 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace did not challenge a similar claim by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) that efforts by the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress to regulate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae "were stopped at every turn by Democrats."
Among other things, Frank's legislation, titled the "Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007," directed the FHFA director to "ensure" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "operate[] in a safe and sound manner, including maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls" and to establish standards at those two entities for "management of credit and counterparty risk" and "management of market risk." The legislation also required the FHFA director to "establish standards by which the portfolio holdings, or rate of growth of the portfolio holdings, of the enterprises will be deemed to be consistent with the mission and the safe and sound operations of the enterprises." In addition, it authorized the director to "require" a regulated entity "to dispose of or acquire any asset, if the Director determines that such action is consistent with the purposes of this Act or any of the authorizing statutes."
The bill was introduced on March 9, 2007, and the House Financial Services Committee passed it on March 29, 2007, less than three months after Frank assumed the chairmanship of the committee when Democrats took over the House of Representatives in January 2007. The full House subsequently passed it by a vote of 313-104 on May 22, 2007. The Senate did not act on the legislation. The FHFA was eventually created after Congress incorporated provisions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said were "similar" to those of H.R. 1427 into the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which the president signed into law on July 30.
The White House Office of Management and Budget described the bill in a May 16, 2007, Statement of Administration Policy, which noted objections to some provisions but nevertheless "support[ed] House passage of H.R. 1427":
The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1427 is an improvement over current law. The bill enhances the regulatory oversight of the housing GSEs [government sponsored enterprises, which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were at the time] by establishing a new Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and providing this new housing GSE regulator with: (1) greater authority to set capital standards; (2) authority to place a troubled GSE into receivership (mandatory in some cases); and (3) authority to approve new activities and oversee mission compliance. In addition, H.R. 1427 grants the new housing GSE regulator specific authority to regulate the retained mortgage portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This authority is grounded in considerations regarding the mission of and safe and sound operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but would also authorize the new regulator to consider all potential risks posed by the portfolios. This provision helps to address the systemic risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to our financial system and ensures that they will better address their core affordable housing mission.
On Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Wallace did not challenge Kyl's claim that "from 2002 right on through until recently, the Bush Administration and Republicans have sought to further -- or have sought to put regulations on the government-sponsored entities, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- the groups that I think everybody agrees started this whole problem by the securitization of these mortgages -- and they were stopped at every turn by Democrats." Kyl further claimed that the "bottom line is, Republicans have been calling for regulations on Freddie Mae -- Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae since 2002. Democrats have resisted it." Wallace did not point out that it was a Democrat-led Congress that passed regulatory reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
From O'Reilly's September 18 column:
Once again the federal government has left Americans in a precarious state as a terrible storm is passing through the U.S. economy. Like Hurricane Katrina, some folks thought the government could keep them from harm, but, as in New Orleans, things have gotten out of control quickly as bad housing loans have shredded the economy.
[...]
Congressman Barney Frank also sat by as mortgage brokers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made bad loans even though Frank, as head of the House Banking Committee, certainly knew the score. Instead of demanding responsible business practices from Fannie and Freddie, Frank continued to pound the table to extend even more credit to "low income" families. The mortgage companies were happy to accommodate him, giving big money to folks with little collateral.
[...]
That could happen this time around. Poor leaders like [Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Christopher] Cox and Frank are just a small part of a corrupt system that is now harming honest Americans. Whoever the next President is must put an end to this.
From the September 21 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
KYL: What I would note is, that from 2002 right on through until recently, the Bush Administration and Republicans have sought to further -- or have sought to put regulations on the government-sponsored entities, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- the groups that I think everybody agrees started this whole problem by the securitization of these mortgages -- and they were stopped at every turn at Democrats.
My point here is that if we're talking about the free market and regulations this is one area where Republicans were willing and desirous to regulate, Democrats were not.
WALLACE: We've got less than a minute left, and I give it to you.
SEN. CHARLES E. SCHUMER: You know, John McCain in one week went from sounding like Milton Friedman to Huey Long. That kind of language that he used, you've never heard it from him before, and I would just say in this last week John McCain's economic pronouncements have been erratic. The first day he says -- Monday he says the economy is strong, the second day he is against the bailout of AIG, third day he is for the bailout of AIG, fourth day he calls for the firing of Chris Cox without saying what the policy changes are. Chris Cox is just --
WALLACE: The head of the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission].
SCHUMER: Head of the SEC, but he's an appointee of the president. And the fifth day he has the populist rhetoric, which we've never heard from him, and he sounds like Huey Long. I don't think it gives people confidence in John McCain's stewardship of the economy.
WALLACE: All right. Real quick.
KYL: But bottom line is, Republicans have been calling for regulations on Freddie Mae -- Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae since 2002. Democrats have resisted it. My friend Chuck Schumer, in fact, even said that the new regulator that we finally got into place shouldn't come into being until next year. Thank God he was in place to find out what the books of those companies were really like.
WALLACE: Senator Kyl, Senator Schumer, we're going to have to leave it there.
Several of the Mc Group are already on board the lets blame the democrats train. MSM will encourage this. The name Phil Graham will not get much expsure while they look for GOP approved scapegoats.
This is just another GOP Lie, The Wall Street Journal has also been targeting Barney Frank. Not suprising since it is now part of News Corp. Rep Frank had a nice piece on Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/iwall-street-journali-edi_b_126923.html
Is EVERYONE going to let the GOP get away with claiming to be champions of regulation when they have a decade-long history of choking off any attempts to control markets.
Had I known then that GW Bush was going to bail them out with " my money "
The MSM can't come to terms with the fact that the last 7 years of Bush saying "the economy is strong" were based on his house of cards built on the phantom equity in the housing market made possible through deregulation and speculation on mortgage securities. Now it has collapsed. All Bush did was try to buy time til he was out of office. He almost made it.
Where the hell was O'Reilly when the administration was crowing about the new "OWNERSHIP SOCIETY".
Did he question how according to his hero, GW, more people were now homeowners than at any other tine in our history?
Boy, isn't that the real truth.
This low life's tombstone should be a porta potty. It should be mandatory that every American over 18 years of age use this porta john. Kids would just create too many traffic jams.
Our ship is sinking
Vote for: Porta John and Keep on Palin 08
Well, just as long as they put that porta potty up there in the Kennebunkport family complex. I don't want Jr. stinkin' up my part of Texas anymore than his god danged library at SMU already will. Punk.
Sorry, you can't use the word "punk" anymore. It's a gay slur, according to Bobthep.
Did Bob get tired of people calling him a punk? :-)
Well, as you know boys, I'm not the most PC gal in the world. :-) And since when did punk become a gay slur? And that begs the question, does that mean I think Bush is gay? Naw. I can think of lots of other adjectives for Jr. , but that's not one of them.
You CAN'T use bobthep any more as it is a slur against those suffering from neuron and dendrite necrosis and spongiformencephalopothy
We also CAN'T use "W" anymore as it denegrates those suffering from Copra Phagic Hebra Phrenia (That goes for George and bush)
It wasn't just any old OWNERSHIP SOCIETY, either. Remember? He also claimed that minority home ownership was the highest in history. He hasn't made that claim in quite some time, I've noticed.
I've noticed that too. I seem to remember him patting himself on the back about how the inner cities were being reclaimed by "new homeowners".
Here's irony for you...
So it all falls on Barny Frank. Yup thats how we blame it all on liberals.
Meanwhile it seems the big boys are holding a gun to the head of congress and the rest of the political class. Do these emergency measures or else it all falls apart and it will be your fault for not accepting the emergency package NOW.
Thats it folks, no deliberation, no lengthy debate, no second look. It does not sound like things really ever belonged to we the people. It seems like everything belonged to the financial people and now that they are about to drown, we better be obediant and bail them out or else.
...and thank you BO. If I don't feel so swell about all this, I can target Barney Frank. That saves me a lot of time and effort. I don't need to figure out why things are going to hell and figuring it all out it is like untangling a muddy garden hose. Nope BO gave me a name and thats all i need. Back to sleep...
So it all falls on Barny Frank. Yup thats how we blame it all on liberals.
Better yet, balme it on a gay liberal...a point which I am sure was not lost on many of Billo's ardent followers. ;>)
Irony, you've been here long enough... and have witnessed enough Savage Weiner threads... to know that our nation is secretly being run by a gay mafia. Don Barney, we now know, is the boss of that unusually flamboyant family. Don't believe me? Fine. One of these days, though, Don Barny will make you an offer that is just too FABULOUS to refuse.
You left out some important info: This country is actually run by a group of gay, black chinese dwarfs with blond hair and blue eyes that practice scientology. Tom Cruise knows all about them but remains silent on the subject. When Tom was jumping up and down on Ocra Winfree's couch, it was because he was elected their leader. They are rarely seen in public as this would cause mass lycnhings after they are put to work rebuilding the railroad system and harvesting the rice fields. I have one of them living across the street from me and he only comes out after 3am.
Well, that goes without saying.
Exactly. The way they're trying to shove this bailout package through without giving congress time to even discuss it reminds me of the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, FISA reform, etc. What I would like to see in this package is a complete ban on CEO bonuses with every penny of what would have been a bonus being repayed to the govt rather than passed on to share holders, a reasonable salary cap for any company that gets bailed out and an temporary increase in capital gains tax so that the people who benefit most from the bailouts are paying more.
it is like a bloody ticker tape on the bottom of the scream at CNBC, isn't it, bloody blokes.
Speaking of blokes, billybob o'really is a skid mark on the boxers of life. He is always saying: "I just go by the facts". It was a "fact" at one time the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the solar system. fox facts=fake facts. This is one dangeous potato head!!! He is an educated derelict.
Try typing, then hitting enter.
Then hit the space bar, then hit enter again.
That should do it.
whole lot better than my answer
but not nearly as entertaining.
Thanx people.
I was goning to use UK text speak but l can't actually stand the bad grammer!!!
He's the author of the Gramm Guts America Act.
More evidence that liberalism is synonymous with reality.
Only after reality hits him in the face does O'Reilly attack a democrat for not being liberal enough.
Am I in Bizzarro world? Even if the democrats did block regulation, wouldn't that have been republican's wet dream? Aren't they the ones always talking about free market this, and free market that, and that the free market will correct itself without government regulation? What the hell is going on over here? All of a sudden, the republicans care about sexism, care about regulation, and all of the things that, you know, they never cared about until about a week ago. Jeesh...
LIESLIESLIES - I'm so farking sick of it.
This article from Politico really says alot about McCain hipocracy...
Fannie Mae vet protests McCain ad
By: Politico Staff
September 19, 2008 06:28 PM EST
A former Fannie Mae executive has written to The New York Times in an effort to escalate Democrats' pushback to a McCain campaign ad accusing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of guilt by association with former officials of the mortgage giant.
The McCain ad, called "Advice," says: "Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers? Stuck with the bill. Barack Obama. Bad advice. Bad instincts. Not ready to lead."
The former executive's letter, not yet published, was provided to Politico:
To The Editor:
Yesterday, Senator John McCain released a television commercial attacking Barack Obama for allegedly receiving advice on the economy from former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. From the stump, he has recently tried tying Senator Obama to Fannie Mae, as if there is some guilt in the association with Fannie Mae's former executives.
It is an interesting card for Senator McCain to play, given that his campaign manager, Rick Davis, was paid by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac several hundred thousand dollars early in this decade to head up an organization to lobby in their behalf called The Homeownership Alliance. ...
I worked in government relations for Fannie Mae for more than 20 years, leading the group for most of those years. When I see photographs of Sen. McCain's staff, it looks to me like the team of lobbyists who used to report to me. Senator McCain's attack on Senator Obama is a cheap shot, and hypocritical.
Sincerely,
William Maloni
Fannie Mae Senior Vice President for Government and Industry Relations (1983-2004)
Great catch, Snoopy!
In the final few months of the Bush administration, we're about to have what must be the single largest transference of money from the U.S. Treasury to the private sector, than has ever happened in U.S. history... than has ever happened in the world!
Has any government ever considered transferring $700 billion (possibly a trillion dollars) of public money to the private sector?
No war or social program has ever cost this much, not in the history of the world... and yet in what is relative suddeness, the Bush administration is presenting a full-court press against Congress and the American People, to do just that, and transfer a truly mind-boggling sum of money to the private sector.
There are two questions of enormous importance to consider here: one, to whom is this extraordinary amount of money going to, and two, what expense or loss is this money supposed to be covering?
And what the answer to the first question seems to be, is NOT to me and you!
We the American People are NOT the beneficiary of this extraordinary sum of money being drawn from the U.S. Treasury... it is by all accounts going to private companies (financial services and investment companies and banks, all privately-owned and operated), and NOT to the population at large, or to any significant fraction of it... WALL STREET is where this money is going, to put it in a single term: WALL STREET!
And the other question's answer, about why this money is going there, and exactly what losses are being covered by this extraordinary world-record-breaking amount of public money that is being siphoned off to the private sector?
There is a widespread rumor (and who is spreading this rumor?) that all of this money is covering "bad home loans"...
Are you kidding me?
Does someone expect us to believe there are nearly a trillion dollars of non-performing mortgages as the exclusive reason behind these extraordinary losses of these financial service companies and investment funds and banks even?
BULLCHIT!
We need to talk about this!
This needs to be an intense subject of public debate!
We're in no mad rush here... it's not like a house is on fire, or a ship is sinking... we can be cautious, and take time, in making this step... a trillion dollars being siphoned out of the U.S. Treasury, in the name of WALL STREET?
We need to look at the books of these companies... we need to know exactly what it is they've lost so much money on... I don't believe for a minute, that it's all or even mostly "bad home loans"
STOP THE MADNESS, and take time to think: this looks like maybe the greatest looting of any public treasury in the world!
Let's look closely at the losses of these companies... let's look at the books.
And the not so funny thing is, that whatever true "bad home loans" there are in these losses that this public money is supposed to cover, the unfunny truth is that that money isn't going to those homeowners, and isn't going to save their homes... they already lost their homes, and none of this money goes to them!
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
>>>>I’m certainly no expert---I get dizzy trying to follow it but I think they did do what had to be done. It’s not the loan defaults alone. It’s the defaults in combination with the way they invented of slicing and dicing packages of these loans into securities which are apparently so complicated it’s hard for even the owners to put a value on them. Banks were even scared to lend to one another fearing the other banks might go under because they can’t evaluate then others’ solvency with any degree of confidence. Just my 2 cents on the matter.
So it was like a bunch of fraternity guys screwing everyone else with no protection and some of them get AIDS. Now no one touches the other guy and it is our duty to get screwed?
Interesting way to put it.
I would say the fraternity guys didn't just giver each other AIDS, they went further and busted up the all the buildings, stole the school endowments funds and embarrassed the school in the eyes of America and the world with other improper conduct around campus. Then they convinced their fraternity brothers around the country to do the same to their schools.
Then the alumni all had to pitch in to try to fix the situation or the colleges would all just go out of business and all the students would have to go home, etc.
Of course it's worse than this becuase unlike the higher education business the companies involved in the financial markets affect so many businesses and consumers which in turn affect so many more businesses and consumer. And not just domestically as these fancy derivitives were sold all around the world. The risk is a giant downward cascade of the economy both here and abroad. And this country depends on foreign counntries to buy it's bonds........and boy does it get complicated.
It would be nice if it was possible to punish the people who did and enabled all this and fix the problem that way, but the damage is already done and can't be undone that way. The horse is out of the barn and the barn is on fire..
Feeling more confident about my support listening to Bill Cunningham live and Michael Reagan (I think live) on their radio shows lambasting the 700 billion RTC-like bailout.
Eddy & 4cents, I think the two of you have boiled down the past few decades of Repooplicken power very nicely.
Actually, the Republicans are more like THIS guy - Mr. Crosote:
Occurred to me you may think me boastful in declaring myself able to stomatch not just one right wing radio guy but two simultaneouisly. My secret is to also have soothing music on in the backgound. For me it's an uplifting Mozart golden oldy.
Well, there are no Mozart newies...
Actually there is one.
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7623663.stm
(Do-over)
---------------
Actually there is one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7623663.stm
What would be nice would be if we DIDN'T FRIGGING REWARD THEM. I mean the golden parachutes on these guys are ridiculous.
It's unjustifiable!!! I have to struggle to make ends meet and this is what I am still going to be stuck with:
I agree. Stunning set of facts and figures you present.
I agree.
There is no need to hurry and save these fat cats like there is no tomorrow. Similar doomsday projections by the current administration got us into the Irqa debacle.
If we are spending >700B of tax revenues to bail private companies out, let's spend whatever is needed to fix the whole economy.
And while we are at it, let's reconize that McCain is an opportunist and nothing else.
THIS IS INSANE!
Do you realize the unparalled powers that the Secretary of the Treasury (a Bush administration officila) is seeking, in the final few months of the Bush administration: they are seeking an unreviewable and unlimited power to spend nearly a trillion dollars of our money, on WALL STREET!
The so-called "fact sheet" that the Secretary of the Treasury released yesterady, includes no specific description of the "troubled assets" that he and his co-conspirators in the Bush administration want to spend $700 billion of our money on...
These "troubled assets" are also referred to in the so-called "fact sheet" as "distressed assets" and "illiquid mortgages"... that's it, there's no more specific description of what it is that's supposedly so important that nearly a trillion dollars must be siphoned off from the U.S. Treasury NOW!
And that's the other thing here, of how unbelievably urgent these Bush administration officials are portraying this situation, as we and our Congress must get on board a trillion dollar's worth NOW, IMMEDIATELY, THIS WEEK AND NO LATER!
Why are they acting as though a house is suddenly on fire, or a ship is suddenly sinking?
Hasn't the losses of these financial companies and investment funds (we're being told we need to bail out investment and hedge funds, NOW!)... hasn't all of this been happening as most things happen in finance, over time and gradually?
Why is the Bush administration trying to convince us that the world is not turning gradually, but is about to tip over NOW!
This is insane. The Secretary of the Treasury, a Bush administration official, in the last couple of months of the Bush administration, wants unrestricted unlimited powers to siphon off nearly a trillion dollars from the U.S. Treasury (NOW!), and his so-called "fact sheet" describes no specifics at all as to what exactly these "troubled assets" are...
Like, where are all these supposedly "bad home loans" from: Texas?
And what is the nature of these "bad home loans": are they commercial real estate developement schemes?
What are the specific and exact holdings of these investment funds that have lost so much money, and want us to make up those losses?
This is crazy... this is way too much public money to give to the private sector, for reasons so vague and undescribed, as nothing more than "troubled assets"...
And all of it NOW! As though a house were on fire, or a ship was sinking...
People need to STOP, and take a breath, and start talking about what these specific "troubled assets" really are.
I mean, if WALL STREET truly wants this money, then they can open up the books on these companies and investment funds (hedge funds!), and describe in detail for us, the locations and particular conditions (such as mortgage type, commercial or residential, and mortgage amount, not in total, but itemized: are there any million dollar mortages we're talking about here? Multimillion dollar mortgages?)...
Does anybody here at this late date, really trust the Bush administration and it's officials this much, to give them a trillion dollars NOW, for WALL STREET, for something that they aren't even describing in detail, let alone itemizing...
THIS IS INSANE.
THIS IS INSANE.
Exactly...how are we going to pay for the invasion of Iran, let alone finish "winning" the war in Iraq in the next 10 years or so? ;>)
You found a silver lining to the mortage meltdown---no more super expensive wars.
---no more super expensive wars.
Don't be so sure about that...my friend. Insanity knows no bounds...
McCain on 60 Munites tonight told a story about a woman giving him her deceased son's dog tag and he held up the tag and ominously said "This is what being President is about.".
In my observation and opinion John McCain still has unresolved issues about Viet Nam, which I find disturbing, particularly when placed in the context of his family's history of military service and his POW experience. IMO if McCain is elected there's about a 65% chance, at least, that we're going to invade Iran...
I'm pretty sure I would. It's not that alone though. His history from before even being on active duty shows a belligerent temperment and mean streak.
Voters tired of war have to ask themselves do they want any more blood on their hands. I don't know if this study on a million Iriquis killed in iraq from 'September 07 has been introduced to this board before:
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78
I'd say the likelihood of going to war if McCain is elected POTUS is much higher. In fact, I'd say its just about a dead certainty. The neocons are not going to abandon their bizarre, imperialistic scheme of achieving dominating world control of a rapidly dwindling resource. They are murderously detirmined that every drop of oil to be found from Saudi Arabia to Uzbekistan will be THEIRS to parcel out... AT WHATEVER PRICES THAST THEY CHOOSE... to the international market.
When Republicans chant "drill, baby drill", they ain't just talking about wildlife refuges and environmentally sensitive offshore locations.
In my observation and opinion John McCain still has unresolved issues about Viet Nam, which I find disturbing
John McCain has guyilt issues from sitting out the war in a prison cell, and singing like a canary while he was there. McCain did not experience the on-the-ground day to day. He's trying to make it sound like he has great experience, but basically he flew planes, crashed them, was captured the last time he crashed, and was then out of action in a prison.
His experience of war was as an outsider, and he desperately wants that experience.
That's why he wanted to walk the streets of Baghdad, although he didn't really want the experience of doing it without 100 soldiers and three Apache helicopters as bodyguards.
I respect his service, but he has no memory of the actual details of the Vietnam war. Which is why he thinks he can "win" in Iraq drawing on the experience that he doesn't have.
"guyilt" should be guilt.
"This is what being President is about.".
I saw that too. I'd like to think being president would be about seeing a kid's college graduation photo, or seeing a young person starting a business, or a family, or buying a home on a working wage. Apparently it's about a glamorous and heroic death happening way too early.
Apparently it's about a glamorous and heroic death happening way too early.
Does that, by any chance, remind you of another culture? One that is presently held in great disfavor because of the actions of its most extremist elements? Perhaps there are characteristics of human nature which are universal...
Yep, Irony. And unfortunately too difficult to see for our own religious zealots, who call the other kids who have been talked into giving their all for God & country "Madmen"..
Does that, by any chance, remind you of another culture?
-----------
Klingons?
O'reilly, Hab SoSlI Quch! Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam.
McCain on 60 Munites tonight told a story about a woman giving him her deceased son's dog tag and he held up the tag and ominously said "This is what being President is about."
Obama has one too, also given to him by a deceased soldier's mother. Why isn't that common knowledge? Obama doesn't bring it up as a campaign point.
Having one of those bracelets and the restraint to not make a big "LOOK AT ME!" fuss about it: What being President is really all about.
"Obama has one too, also given to him by a deceased soldier's mother. Why isn't that common knowledge? Obama doesn't bring it up as a campaign point."
Maybe it's because he doesn't have one with his own name, service number, and blood type on it to make it a mathching set...
Last time I checked, serving in the US Armed Forces, was not a requirement of anything. You don't have to have served to respect the people in uniform.
Dem,
You're right..this IS insane. Allowing people to qualify for home loans that they had no hope of repaying is the ULTIMATE in greed. As much as it fits into your seering hatred of George Bush, it is the dems who are responsible.
It was as obvious as a full moon, that my comment was entirely about opposing (or at least limiting) this unbelievable looting of the U.S. Treasury, and the siphoning off of nearly a trillion dollars of our money to private investment firms and funds, on WALL STREET...
As obvious as a full moon, my opinion is.
Now, what the freak does your comment have to do with that?
I mean, truly, is there any hidden opinion in your comment, for or against this bailout looting of the Treasury?
If so, I don't see it... if so, it's as though it were hidden behind, and eclipsed by, the moon.
(And what's my "seering hatred of George Bush" got to do with my sounding the alarm at what may be the crime of the century?)
Dem, just wait until people catch on that this bailout contemplates foreign entities as well. Why should we pay for their losses? So they can afford to buy up more American assets?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/22global.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Goofyfella, are you saying that Republicans just "stood by" as unqualified people got loans? Why didn't they stop this outrageous chain of events? Just kidding, I know you're just repeating what Rush Limbaugh told you.You don't really expect anybody here to fall for the stuff you swallow, do you?
Here some items from the New York Times during the CLINTON years:
This one from October 1994
Minority Home Loans Rise, But Many Are Still Rejected
Or this one from November 1993:
Fed Stops Bank Merger; Cites Lending Concerns
Read the articles carefully and you'll find the seeds of the financial crisis we're in now.
Nice try rewriting history, but the seeds were planted by Phil Graham and pushed through the senate by McCain. Another little fact for ya:
A study of CRA loans shows:
Wrong. Now you're re-writing history. You can blame Graham, after all he did write the legislation, but Billy Clinton singned it into law. He could have VETOED it. He didn't. The SEED that was planted was when clinton adjusted the Communtiy Reinvestment Act. This allowed preditory lenders free reign on the poor.
Everyone seems to miss the obvious also. Alan Greenspan is at least in part responsible for cutting short-term interst rates to incredibly low levels over the years. When the market bubble burst in '01 the housing bubble popped up. People were able to acquire more house than they could afford. This covered the spectrum from poor to affluent. Especailly those who were trying to "flip" houses and first time buyers that wouldn't, couldn't or shoudn't have.
Minority Home Loans Rise, But Many Are Still Rejected
So, the number of loans to "people who were unqualified" didn't happen as often during the Clinton Adminnistration as you tried to lie us into thinking.
You said, "Allowing people to qualify for home loans that they had no hope of repaying is the ULTIMATE in greed." According to the story you posted as "evidence," many were rejected.
Why is it that wingnuts never post corroboration that actually corroborates?
How does stopping a bank merger promote bank mergers? Even the headlines you cite contradict your tales.
Yeah, Goodfella, you're absolutely right! The Democrats ARE responsible for this fiasco.
And Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia.
Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to keep you. Its almost time for your Two Minutes Hate.
More like his 24-hour hate.
Wait a minute...how am I the 'hater'? I never said I hate anyone. Read your own posts to find the hatered.
That whooshing noise was both of our posts flying right over the top of your skull.
Wrong. It is the Republicans that made the laws that allowed such loans to be made.
Allowing people to qualify for home loans that they had no hope of repaying is the ULTIMATE in greed.
So, giving someone $400,000 for a home that is worth $200,000, knowing that person would default and even if they got the home back it was only worth half the money that was paid out is Greed?
Next time you feel greedy, please come and stand next to me. The money you throw into the air should be fairly easy to catch.
GREED by unscrupulous and predatory mortgage companies
Repeating the stupidity doesn't explain how losing $200,000 is greedy.
And for the benefit of those who are interested in this unbelievably expensive and bold scheme of the Bush administration, to siphon off nearly a trillion dollars from the U.S. Treasury into the private sector, specifically to WALL STREET (and I guess George W. Bush was bound and determined to get that money for WALL STREET, after we stopped him from privatizing the Social Security Trust Fund)...
For those who are interested, McClatchy is about the best source I've found on the Internet Wire, for the best and most critical (read "specific and detailed" for "critical") reporting of this monsterously expensive and bold scheme of the Bush administration, as it wraps up the final few months of eight year's worth of bold schemes...
Right now, McClatchy is running on it's fron page a nice profile of Treasury Secretary Paulson, titled "Can You Trust A Wall Street Veteran With A Wall Street Bailout?"
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/52856.html
The first two paragraphs:
"Making the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson repeatedly said today's financial problems were long in the making. He should know. He was part of the Gold Rush that has brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse.
Paulson presided over one of the most profitable runs on Wall Street as chairman and chief executive officer of investment banking titan Goldman Sachs & Co. from 1999 until President Bush nominated him on May 30, 2006 to take over the Treasury Department."
Now, are you reading anything anywhere about this scheme, as good as just those two paragraphs alone?
Further down in the article, we have:
"At a minimum, there's irony in Paulson being in charge of so large a bailout.
In the last annual report at Goldman that Paulson signed off on in November 2005, a year in which he received $38 million in compensation, investors were clearly told that the federal government wouldn't be there to save them from bad investments."
Go to McClatchy, they're pretty good, read the whole article, and the others they are offering... they're pretty good, it's timely stuff, it's real Journalism: they may be the only ones out there right now, in the business of real Journalism.
And I'd remind again about the money being siphoned off from the U.S. Treasury (a trillion dollars) in the name of WALL STREET: this money is not going to a single home-owner, nor is it going to stop anyone from losing their home... this money goes to WALL STREET, and nowhere else... this may be the crime of the century in the making... you better get caught up fast on what's going on... McClatchy is a really good start, I say.
Dem
Your post today are coinciding eerily with the groing misgivings that I'm having over this entire bailout plan. In what is claerly a slowl developing situation, we are suddenly being told that WE MUST ACT, AND WE MUST ACT NOW! There's no time being alloted to the American people to digest these events, and there is certainly no time for debate. We must put TOTAL AND COMPLETE TRUST IN THIS REPEATEDLY DISCREDITED NEOCON ADMINISTRATION TO SAVE US FROM THE CRISIS THAT THEY'VE WHOLLY BROUGHT ABOUT!
It seems seems more than a little coincidental that this crisis has hit just as the Bush Maladministration is about to lose power. I have to wonder... and wonder HARD... if this is simply a case of them exercising their last chance to loot the national treasury as they exit the political stage, like an avaricious hotel guest stuffing towels, bath robes, and even a flat screen TV into his luggage just before checking out.
Talk radio host Mike Malloy has often refered to the Bush Maladministration as the Bush Crime Family. I now think that this characterization is grossly unfair to the Mob. I can think of no mafia family with as egregious a history of greed, corruption, bloodshed, and total and complete indifference to human suffering.
If God does indeed exist, then these ruthless thugs will burn in hell.
In the meantime, however, Leavenworth Federal Correctional Facility will do.
It's the shock doctrine one last time for old time sake.
Disaster capitalism.
Naomi Klein has these pigs dead to rights.
Indeed she does, Roundhouse.
Indeed she does.
I love when Mike malloy calls this administration the Bush Crime Family. Very fitting. And in addition to "The Shock Doctrine" there's another comprehensive book by Kevin Phillips called "Bad Money" that you and RH might be interetsed in.
http://www.bad-money.com/
Okay, here's a good article by Thom Hartmann as well.
http://airamerica.com/thomhartmannpage/blog/2008/sep/17/why-could-be-worse-republican-great-depression
Thanks JJ. I'm off to work so I'll have to read those a little after midnight.
Here's a good read for you, too. James Galbraith's Predator State.
Thanks back, RH. Checking it out right now.
Irony,
Ironcally, you're the first to point out that Frank is gay. Isn't that convenient...when all else fails, blame homophobia.
"..more than a year ago..." is WAY too late.
Look...the fact is that it was the DEMOCRATS that encouraged the loosening of credit standards that led to this mess. Let's not try to change history.
How many of Billo's viewers do you think there are who, when Barney Frank's name is mentioned, the first thing that comes to mind is that he's gay? And not in a good, happy sort of way, either... I just found it amusing that Billo blamed someone who is already considered to be an immoral monster by right wing FOX viewers. And if you believe that Democrats...excuse me, I mean DEMOCRATS...are solely to blame for the economic crisis then you are indeed hopelessly clueless. We had a Republican Congress for over ten years and a Republican President for the past eight...for whom regulation was a nasty word. What have they been doing...besides making the rich folks richer?
"...Democrats...excuse me, I mean DEMOCRATS...are solely to blame for the economic crisis..."
-------------------------
Expect to hear plenty of this...apparently Chaos Central Command has told them what they think........I'm hearing it right now from two right wing radio guys live.
"...it's our fellow Americans(Like Goodfella) who roll over and have their bellies rubbed with the stuff that are responsible for the mess." CHS
I don't even get that...
But as I said, I can see failure on both sides of this: The desire to have anyone and everyone own a home, no matter thier abiltiy to pay. And the unregulated financial institutions that exploited the situation.
Can you not see it that way at all? Or is it yet another reason to hate Bush because it is 100% his fault. Come on...How tired it that?
It looks like you find failure on BOTH sides when it is convenient to you, and choose to ignore failures when only one side could be possibly blamed (from 200 to 2006).
200 = 2000
You're utterly pathetic fella. Take some some of that Goddamn personal responsibility you cons are always talking about and own this nightmare of deregulation and CEO worship.
The right wing mantra of "personal responsibility" was never intended for application to them, RH.
It was intended exclusively for the rest of us suckers.
I didn't say that there is no republican culpabilty here.
But lets face facts: It started with the loosening of credit standards for those who shouldn't be owning a home because they can't afford it. That was during the CLINTON administration. It was the greed of mortgage companies and lending institutions during the Bush administration that magnified the problem and put us in the mess we are now. There's plenty of blame to go around.
Baloney. Clinton definitely screwed up with NAFTA, but this, "we don't need no stinking badges," cowboy capitalism as legislated by Phil Gramm is at the heart of this crisis.
Loosening credit standards is about broad prosperity, it enables more people to own a home and claim their constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With prudence and ethics from lenders, this could have worked well. But no. The market fundamentalists had to have no oversight or restraints because the market is perfect and always work best when left alone.
That's what i expected from you, fella. Nothing.
kind of like a rape case. The rapist is not to blame, or only partially, right?
Ironcally, you're the first to point out that Frank is gay.
You mean besides Frank himself and the thousands of news and TV articles written and published over the last twenty years?
Now, that's irony for ya.
Actually, I meant that he, IRONY was the first in the comments thread to point out the Frank is gay as if that had some bearing on the story.
Actually, the irony is that you, of all people, attempted to lecture anyone about rewriting history.
ETRW,
I've lectured nobody.
You've lectured nobody?
Liar.
"But let's face the facts," has been the launching pad of countless monotonous lectures on any given topic.
The DEMOCRATS in Congress better get ahold of this freight train because it has Hurricane Katrina and "New Orleans had 2000 buses" written all over it. The Repugnuts are trying to frame the debate, poison the social consciousness, call it what you will. But if this perception takes hold, and if left to it's own devices, it will, then this is the "Cadillac driving welfare queen" Redux.
The right wing talkers are ALL over this. Every single last one of them is "this is all the fault of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Frank Raines and his buddy Barack Obama."
Get your guns out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn right. But I'll tell you what. I have to applaud the Dems for framing this disaster from day one for what it is: A disaster of Republican deregulation.
This will be a battle the Republicans lose.
Republican economics has its fingerprints all over this.
And Faux News is hard at work scouring those fingerprints off this whole fukcing FUBAR.
They lack even Pravda's sense of journalistic ethics.
Just a side note, I really enjoy this new format.
Me, too. It's easier to tell who's replying to whom.
Its hard to really figure out what your saying T. Tentitivly, your your opposed to more regulations. If so what stops bad loans, market forces. Is there some further toy that the financial folks wanted that would have avoided this meltdown? Surfhood, indentured positions, selling ones soul to the finance company store?
For a start we could eliminate the silly dreams and aspirations of lower income people...it's downright un-American. ;>)
Bad loans aren't from a lack of regulation. They are from the Clinton administration forcing banks to underwrite bad loans or face certain consequences. This was done to reduce "redlining." If someone can't afford a loan then the rest of us shouldn't have the pick up the tab later.
A little proof and evidence T. I'm aready holding my breath on an other issue,but go ahead wade in there.
Bad loans aren't from a lack of regulation.
They are when the regulations specifically prohibit those loans.
Surfhood? You mean regular people trying to surf the financial tsunami?
Or serfhood....regular people trying to surf the elitism of "let them eat cake"
The later, but I'm thinking more or the russian model of surfdom.
Nobody told the banks to suspend all due dilligence.
The Bush administration and the GOP congress did the best they could to allow the banks to avoid any oversight of the loans they made.
By allowing banks to sell their loans to wall street all regulation of the loans were circumvented.
if you prohibited lenders from ever selling their loans, or to whom they could sell the loans, they would never make the loans in the first place. That is no loans of any type.
"if you prohibited lenders from ever selling their loans"
Remember the "ownership society"?
The fact is that BOTH the Clinton and Bush administrations wanted people to own houses.
If the program was set up correctly they would have made sure that fraud was minimized. Instead, Bush and the GOP congress decided to trust big business to do the right thing (does that sound familiar)?
In return for the GOP's misplaced trust, big business turned the program into a free-for-all.
Well that's free-for-all-but the taxpayer.
The Bush administration and the GOP congress did the best they could to allow the banks to avoid any oversight of the loans they made.
Which is precisely what John W. McCain did during the Keating Five scandal, except it wasn't banks, it was the Savings and Loan industry that he helped destroy.
Does anyone still think FOX is a News Organization and not just a "State News Organ"? FOX has been taking lessons from these guys
"Well, it is certainly worth looking into his actions, or lack there of, for the cause of all of this."
I agree, it's good to get it all out.
That said, I think this is a GOP attempt to scapegoat Frank.
Bottom line is there is culpability on both sides but by far the undying goal of the GOP to cut regulations opened the door to the abuses. The GOP needs to recognize this before it happens again.
Umm, he's only been chair of this committee since January of 2007. Who was in charge of said same committee before him and since 1994? Yes, republicans. Because he's in charge of it now, all of this happened in a year and a half? I think not...
I certainly think they had as much to do with all of this as anyone. I'm not saying he's the only one at fault, but he's certainly one that possibly deserves blame. Your statement is similar to those who say Clinton's economic stances were flawless as the country had a booming economy, however, many claim it was the groundwork laid by Reagan and Bush I that paved the way for Clinton's years. I'm not pointing fingers, but as unfortunate as it is, Frank is the sitting chairman and he must take some responsibility for some of this. I also think it's worthy of conversation to discuss regulations handed down by the federal gov't forcing loan companies and banks to approve loans to unqualified individuals.
I found the following article thru Google. It's from Economist's View back in April, and shows how the GOP is trying to blame the mess they created when they controlled both houses of Congress on previous Congresses and administrations:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/04/yet-again-it-wa.html