About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

O'Reilly falsely claimed Frank "wanted to give mortgages to everybody"

February 12, 2009 8:22 am ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Fox News' Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that Rep. Barney Frank, "who was supposed to be in charge of oversight, running the House Finance Committee, he didn't do his job because he was ideologically blinded. He wanted to give mortgages to everybody." In fact, Frank has advocated for policies that emphasize low-income home rentals as opposed to homeownership.

75 Comments

During the February 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) "wanted to give mortgages to everybody." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Frank has advocated for policies that emphasize low-income home rentals as opposed to homeownership. Indeed, in a 2005 speech on the House floor, Frank stated: "I always want to make it clear to people that while homeownership is very important, it should not be considered all of our goal in the housing area. A large number of people, for economic reasons and other reasons, will be renters." Further, in a profile of Frank for the January 12 edition of The New Yorker, staff writer Jeffrey Toobin wrote: "According to Frank, at the root of the real-estate crisis was a misguided notion that homeownership should be available to all people -- what President Bush has called 'the ownership society.' " Toobin quoted Frank saying in a speech that homeownership "is not suitable for everybody."

O'Reilly stated during the show, "When you have a guy like Barney Frank, who was supposed to be in charge of oversight, running the House Finance Committee, he didn't do his job because he was ideologically blinded. He wanted to give mortgages to everybody. So he's in charge of oversight. He didn't provide it."

In fact, during a July 25, 2006, House floor debate on the Federal Housing Administration's Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act of 2006, Frank stated:

FRANK: Mr. Speaker, we have a national goal of increasing homeownership. Homeownership is very important. I always want to make it clear to people that while homeownership is very important, it should not be considered all of our goal in the housing area. A large number of people, for economic reasons and other reasons, will be renters. It is a good thing if we can help people become homeowners, but we should not neglect the legitimate interests of renters.

Additionally, in a June 27, 2005, House floor statement, Frank said:

FRANK: Homeownership is an important part of our policy, but it is not the entire housing policy of the Federal Government; nor is it the entire housing need of the Nation. Some people will never own. There will be people who choose not to own; there will be people who for their economic circumstances will not be able to own. And there is no conflict between promoting homeownership and recognizing that decent, affordable rental housing will also be very important indefinitely for tens and tens of millions of Americans.

Further, in his profile of Frank, Toobin wrote:

According to Frank, at the root of the real-estate crisis was a misguided notion that homeownership should be available to all people -- what President Bush has called "the ownership society." "The 'I told you so' here is that homeownership is a nice thing but it is not suitable for everybody," Frank said at Boston College. "There are people in this society who don't have enough money to be homeowners, and there are people whose lives are not sufficiently integrated for them to take on the responsibility to be a homeowner. And we did too much pushing of people into inappropriate mortgages and into homeownership." He said that many people would always be renters, and that there was nothing wrong with this. "We need to get back in the business of building rental housing and preserving the housing we have," he said.

Additionally, while O'Reilly asserted that Frank "didn't provide" oversight from his position on the House Finance Committee, as Media Matters has documented, Frank has supported efforts to strengthen oversight of Fannie and Freddie, including:

  • In 2005, Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, worked with then-committee chairman Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have established the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to replace the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) as overseer of the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After voting for the bill in committee, Frank voted against final passage of the bill on the House floor, stating that he was doing so because an amendment to the bill on the House floor imposed restrictions on the kinds of nonprofit organizations that could receive funding under the bill.
  • In early 2007, as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank sponsored H.R. 1427, a bill to create the FHFA, granting that agency "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and directing it to reform the companies' business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk. 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 for "management of credit and counterparty risk" and "management of market risk." 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, 2008.

Indeed, in his profile, Toobin wrote:

In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing -- into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. Frank and Michael Oxley, who was then chairman of the Financial Services Committee, achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it. "If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley told me. "Barney, to some extent, is misunderstood -- with this image of him as a fierce partisan. He is an institutionalist. He believes in the House and in the process. He eschews the grandstanding style that so many members use and prefers to work behind the scenes and get something done."

As Media Matters has documented, media conservatives have repeatedly made false accusations to argue that proponents of the expansion of affordable housing -- including Frank -- are responsible for the financial crisis.

From the February 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: I don't trust any of these guys, Doctor. I don't trust Barney Frank; I don't trust the Wall Street pinheads; I don't trust -- I don't think anybody, including President Obama, knows what this giant spending package is going to do, and I think most of the folks in America agree with me. No confidence in any of these people. It's out of control. So, do you have any advice for people? What should we do to protect our financial well-being?

MARC LAMONT HILL (Fox News political contributor): Right. And, see, Bill, once again, you're almost right on this. I think you're right to the extent that people don't trust the government and people don't trust Wall Street, and I agree that they shouldn't trust Wall Street at this moment. But there's a difference between saying that people can't trust the government and saying that people shouldn't trust the government.

You know, the argument that you're making is often taken up by conservatives as an excuse to deregulate and have hands-off government, when in fact what we need to do is have more regulation and more oversight so that we can create a government that we do trust.

O'REILLY: But here's the problem --

HILL: And that's why I think Barney Frank is right on the money.

O'REILLY: Here's the problem with that. When you have a guy like Barney Frank, who was supposed to be in charge of oversight, running the House Finance Committee, he didn't do his job because he was ideologically blinded. He wanted to give mortgages to everybody.

HILL: Untrue.

O'REILLY: So he's in charge of oversight.

HILL: That's not true, Bill.

O'REILLY: He didn't provide it.

HILL: That's not true.

O'REILLY: What isn't true?

HILL: That's actually not true.

LARRY ELDER (syndicated radio host): Well -- well, Bill, and --

HILL: A lot of -- a lot of --

O'REILLY: Wait, wait, wait.

ELDER: And Bill, it wasn't -- it wasn't just --

O'REILLY: Go ahead.

ELDER: But, Bill, it wasn't just Barney Frank. The FCC fell down, the FDIC fell down --

HILL: No --

ELDER: -- the head of the Fed in New York, who's Timothy Geithner -- he's one of the cops -- he fell down. The bottom line is, when you have government involved in this, you're going to have all sorts of mismanagement, oversight shenanigans --

O'REILLY: I -- listen. I don't have any kind of --

ELDER: -- but the bottom line question is what should we --

O'REILLY: If they were -- if they were Elliot Ness --

HILL: No, no, no, no, no.

O'REILLY: If they were Elliot Ness --

HILL: Bill and Larry --

O'REILLY: -- I would say OK. Look, I got 20 seconds, Doctor, you take the last word.

HILL: Look, here's the -- you guys are both dead wrong on this. It's easy to blame, like, the Community Reinvestment Act and other things, as if poor -- giving loans to poor people were -- was the problem. The problem here wasn't that; most of those loans performed quite well. The problem here was a lack of oversight, it was corporate greed, and it was irresponsibility by the rich and the government.

O'REILLY: All right, gentlemen, always a pleasure. Directly ahead, Kellogg fires Michael Phelps for smoking dope and the pot people are outraged. They want to boycott the cereal.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by worrierking (February 12, 2009 8:31 am ET)
         

      O"REILLY: "...and I think most of the folks in America agree with me."

      Let that thought roll around in your brain and try to tell me that doesn't scare you.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (February 12, 2009 8:46 am ET)
           

        I don't have the recent Rasmussen and Gallup polls handily in front of me so I'll wing it. My understanding is that Barck Obama has enormous support (well over 60%) in his handling of the financial crisis. However, one of the polls shows a majority are not satisfied with the stimulus package. Considering that Congress, particularly Republicans, were given lower marks in that regard, different interpretations are possible. People may be unhappy that Republicans were unsuccessful in interjecting their (tax cuts) ideas or people are unhappy because too many (tax cuts) Republican ideas were included in the package. I think it's a reach for O'Reilly to assume that everyone agrees with his interpretation. Very presumptuous on O'Reilly's part... After all, who does Bill O'Reilly think he is...Rush Limbaugh?  ;>)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Back2Basics (February 12, 2009 10:18 am ET)
             

          I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the current support for the "stimulus" bill is dropping into the 30s and below.

          The more people see how this bill has absolutely nothing to do with anything is scaring people's support from Obama and his great "economic plan"

          Much less, Tax evasion Tim has resorted to publically attacking cities like Las Vegas to discourage "people spending tax dollars to enjoy a conference there" which has likewise left a bitter taste in everyones mouth.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by IRONY 101 (February 12, 2009 10:41 am ET)
               

            ...but the current support for the "stimulus" bill is dropping into the 30s and below.

            According to whom? And what poll refutes support for President Obama?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (February 12, 2009 11:08 am ET)
                 

              This poll was conducted scientifically by polling right wing talk show callers.  80% of them think the bill of rights is "too liberal."

              Report Abuse
              • Author by IRONY 101 (February 12, 2009 11:12 am ET)
                   

                Well, 92% of Lou Dobbs' CNN audience is against the stimulus package according to a call-in poll he conducted... which means absolutely nothing.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by neon desert (February 12, 2009 11:34 am ET)
               

            Much less, Tax evasion Tim has resorted to publically attacking cities like Las Vegas to discourage "people spending tax dollars to enjoy a conference there" which has likewise left a bitter taste in everyones mouth.

            Interesting that conservatives think that discouraging spending taxpayer-funded bailout money for conferences in Las Vegas is reprehensible.  Do they find it as reprehensible as spending tax dollars to build homeless shelters?

            One of our local mouth-breathers on the radio was whining this morning about how Las Vegas had been "dissed".  Mayor Oscar Goodman wants an apology from Obama.  I have to confess - the conservative ideals are waaaaaay more complicated than my caveman brain would be able to assemble into consistent practice.  I'm staying a liberal.  It's much easier.  One only has to adhere to the tenets of truth and logic.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by magnolialover (February 12, 2009 4:02 pm ET)
                 

              Thing is, Obama and Geithner didn't say DON'T go to Vegas, but maybe, just maybe, it's not a good idea that taxpayer money not be spent on Vegas boondoggles by financial executives who can't seem to be trusted. 

              Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (February 12, 2009 1:29 pm ET)
               

            It doesn't really matter now does it? Since the bill has been passed, and it has been reconciled between the House and Senate. All we need now is President Obama's signature, and it's good to go. It kills you guys to think that this will help doesn't it? I still haven't seen these numbers that you speak of, because Obama's numbers are still very good.

            Geithner did not attack Las Vegas, he attacked the banking CEOs, who once again, thought it prudent to go somewhere fancy, and somewhat extravagant to have a meeting, and most of the American people seem concerned about that use of our tax money as well. I'm not sure what bitter taste that this has left in other people's mouths, but the folks that I have talked to seem to think that these bankers shouldn't have had their conference there at all in this situation. Again, Geithner did not attack Las Vegas, but the corporations holding a meeting there. 

            Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (February 12, 2009 9:12 am ET)
           

        O"REILLY: "...and I think

        That part is false, why should I bother reading the rest?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by neon desert (February 12, 2009 9:50 am ET)
             

          Because it's O'really funny.  Seeing O'Really's flight of imagination solely based on a premise that is subsequently pointed out to be completely false once again by one of his guests always makes me laugh.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (February 12, 2009 8:41 am ET)
         

      In one way... they are right.... many of us don't trust the government... but of course... these morons won't mention that its because of private money being part of it!

      Come now... Dick Cheney's personal wealth grew from less than $10 million to well over $100 million in the eight years he was supposed to be our elected representative... yet he owned stock in Haliburton...

      While its true that many Dems either are or can be dirty... compared to this new breed of Republican today... even the worst of the Dems don't come close to the best of this new form of Republican...

      While I don't suspect that it will all get cleaned up even under Obama... I think it is rather safe to say that the days of 'in your face' cronyism is gone... unless the Republicans and their enslaved media can find a way to destroy hope.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (February 12, 2009 8:43 am ET)
         

      Here we go again. Trying to blame Barney Frank for our entire economic disaster. What a joke these guys are. Not only is Frank liberal, but he's gay. The perfect target for chuckleheads like Bill O, and the other list of idiots that are with him. How did Frank ruin our entire economy singlehandedly anyway? They never mention how he was able to pull off this astonishing feat. And it's not the loans that got us into trouble, it's how the loans were sold off here there, and everywhere, then re-sold, and traded, and generally made a mess of.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (February 12, 2009 8:52 am ET)
           

        How did Frank ruin our entire economy singlehandedly anyway?

        It's part of the gay agenda...  The stimulus package requires all Americans to engage in at least one homosexual act in order to qualify for any federal relief under the stimulus package. The stimulus package doesn't actually say that but, you know, it's so broad that it could be easily interpreted that way. ;>)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (February 12, 2009 9:15 am ET)
             

          I forgot about those hidden provisions in there, like how the government is going to take over your health care when this passes. Seems reasonable though I guess.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by IRONY 101 (February 12, 2009 9:21 am ET)
               

            Reasonable...? It's communism...gay communism! And from now on only gay doctors, too. I'm sure that's in the stimulus package too...gay, frisbee-playing doctors under the control of the federal government denying your necessary treatment. Shameful...   ;>)

            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (February 12, 2009 9:24 am ET)
                 

              Let's not forget the ban on worshipping our Risen Saviour. That's in there too.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (February 12, 2009 9:42 am ET)
                   

                And replace all the Gideon Bibles with Korans.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by IRONY 101 (February 12, 2009 10:48 am ET)
                   

                I didn't know about that...but it's not surprising. FWIW, did you know that major infrastructure construction projects have been earmarked for gay construction companies? Prepare yourself for gay roads and bridges. ;>)

                BTW, if you want a good laugh go to the forums at hannity.com where the hot topics have been civil war and/or secession...I am not joking. They are really upset over what they've been led to believe is in the stimulus package.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by worrierking (February 12, 2009 11:10 am ET)
                     

                  I might go there for a few laugh's.  I do know for a fact that any new construction jobs in New york now must use the pink asphalt. And the Soprano's types in the carting industry in NJ are being replaced by real sopranos.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by IRONY 101 (February 12, 2009 11:14 am ET)
                       

                    And rest stop bathrooms all along the Interstate Highways are being redesigned for more privacy, too. Shameful...just shameful.  ;>)

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 12, 2009 11:18 am ET)
                         

                      We're joking about this (hopefully not too offensively) but if someone started one of those e-mail campaigns that right wing goobers are so fond of, laying out as fact what we've jokingly suggested, I suspect it would catch on like wildfire in right wing goober-land as gospel truth.

                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 12, 2009 11:21 am ET)
                         

                      I can't believe how blind I've been.It's got the words stimulus and package right up front, and I didn't figure out it was a Gay Agenda Trojan horse.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by worrierking (February 12, 2009 12:27 pm ET)
                           

                        Trojans for horses?

                        Better not let Barney hear that. You know how the pope feels about condoms.

                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 12, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
                       

                    You had to tempt me. I went to the Hannity site, and had to check out the one about "How did you end up here (at the Hannity Forum)"

                    Most were pretty straightforward "me like Hannity on radio, me log on", but my fave was the guy who jumped ship from  BilldO's forum, because 1. he was tired of paying O'Reilly to post there, and 2. BilldO's moderators were "too PC".

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by worrierking (February 12, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
                         

                      I saw the ""How did you end up here ?" question and I thought it was rhetorical.

                      Like the person asking the question, thought I had sunk so low I could sink no further and then I asked myself, "how did I end up here?" and I got the hell out of there, quick.

                      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 12, 2009 9:32 am ET)
         

      There is a documentary on CNBC tonight called "House of Cards" which supposedly explains how we got here.  It might be worth watching.

      I think it's safe to say that sub-prime lending is at the base of this "house of cards", but I think it's equally safe to say that the paper skyscraper Wall Street built on top of that shaky foundation is what has collapsed the world economy.

      Based on the snippets I've heard from the CNBC reporters, a big part of the problem was an out of control Mortgage Brokerage industry.  I guess you can blame those in government who encouraged broader home ownership, but it looks like the people making these sub prime loans found a loophole in the law and drove a flaming Mack truck right through it.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (February 12, 2009 10:16 am ET)
           

        I think we'll find out that we got here through an industry which purposefully greased the skids of the whole home-buying/mortgage lending process.  The deregulation of mortgage-backed securities made it possible for the lending industry to make money more accessible creating greater consumer competition, combined it with inflated real estate appraisals, and came up with creative financing plans all based solely on the speculation that real estate appreciation would continue and be a hedge against debts which could not be met.

        I'm not one usually to argue on speculative scenarios, but the bottom line here is that had Barney Frank, for example, attempted to create legislation which would cool down this process, the Republicans and conservatives would have been screaming at the top of their lungs about the liberals impeding capitalism and free trade.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 12, 2009 10:31 am ET)
             

          Of course they would have Neon. I don't think that's too much speculation.

          But it didn't go that way, so Barney Frank instead is one of the busiest mortgage brokers in the country. I think the goal of the Gay Agenda is pretty obvious here.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by neon desert (February 12, 2009 11:18 am ET)
               

            And it was with the backing of teh Gay Mafia and their threats of cutting off the supply of Brioni suits who strong-armed all those poor brokers into giving mortgages to people they knew could never afford them.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (February 12, 2009 10:33 am ET)
             

          Gimping the free hand (what is it doing with the other one?) of capitalism. Frustrating shrubs ownership society.

          Ownership might be another one of those words that neocons determined needed a new definition. Something like, the people take this risks, the companies take any profit.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (February 12, 2009 10:34 am ET)
             

          My sister-in-law worked as a mortgage broker for one of these institutions. She's a conservative who always preached about her industry creating wealth, etc. Seems she took advantage of one of her own low interest flexible rate mortgages.

          They've got until April 1 to vacate their home.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (February 12, 2009 10:52 am ET)
               

            Sorry to here about her families misfortune. Its a hard lesson,maybe could have been avoided, but the how, of that avoidence is probably not simple.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (February 12, 2009 11:07 am ET)
                 

              Especially since she was roping in people with the same net that eventually dragged her and my brother into bankruptcy.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by coachslife3331 (February 12, 2009 10:35 am ET)
         

      This young brother that IS an educated person, told these other two Repub defenders the truth and they just kept on going with the Rush, Sean, and Fox News Talking Points!  They are ALL brain DEAD!

      "Look, here's the -- you guys are both dead wrong on this. It's easy to blame, like, the Community Reinvestment Act and other things, as if poor -- giving loans to poor people were -- was the problem. The problem here wasn't that; most of those loans performed quite well. The problem here was a lack of oversight, it was corporate greed, and it was irresponsibility by the rich and the government." Stated by 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dicebucket (February 12, 2009 11:46 am ET)
         
      WHY IS IT THAT VIRTUALLY NO ONE KNOWS THIS STORY?!!! The Underlying causes of The 2009 Collapse of World Financial Markets and Economies On September 30, 1999, a New York Times article included this early warning: “Fannie Mae … has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people…” The article, recognizing the risks of this policy, warns: ”In moving…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.” (Note that George Bush was the Governor of Texas at the time.) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260 During a 2004 Congressional hearing on clearly needed improvement to regulatory structures for Freddy Mac, and for Fanny Mae which was led by Franklin Raines, Democrats poo-poo a regulator from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (“Oh-Fey-Oh”) who is recommending improved regulations to make sure improper conduct is brought under control. From the perspective of today’s financial crisis, this piece is profoundly disturbing. Franklin Raines is heard saying that “these assets are SO-O-O “riskless”…!” Democrats in Congress emphatically refuse to allow the consideration of more regulations. Afterwards, Bill Clinton is shown stating that “The responsibility Democrats have is resisting efforts by Republicans in Congress and by me to put some standards and tighten up a little bit on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” www.breitbart.tv/?p=184743 On September 18, 2008, an obsequious sycophant interim CIO of Fannie Mae promises the Congressional Black Caucus that “Fannie Mae is determined to keep tearing down the barriers to deliver on the American Dream.” He promises no let-up in issuing more and more sub-prime loans. www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/fannie_mae_and_congressional_d.html On September 25, 2008, Michelle Bachmann presents a succinct wrap-up of the nexus of today’s world-wide financial catastrophe. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JsfMicOgufA Every citizen of the U.S., no matter what party, should be exposed to these reports. There is NO news organization (not even Fox News!) that is re-running this information to the American public more than once. It should be out there continuously!!!. We will certainly perish without an informed electorate!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (February 12, 2009 12:05 pm ET)
           

        A couple friendly, helpful suggestions:

        Next time, just the link, please.

        And if you're going to cut and paste, go back and proofread and reconfigure your paragraph breaks and things so that they replicate the original.  Otherwise, you end up with an illegible, incoherent mess - like the above - that most will ignore.

        That might be why virtually no one knows that story.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 12, 2009 12:13 pm ET)
             

          Buried in there are out -of-context excerpts from the NYTimes article that's been linked to & copy/pasted a hundred times here, and beat to death by the media.This edited  version (even the less crazy looking one with paragraphs & stuff) is aimed at the dimwit audience who thinks Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac issue loans.

          So, many have seen "this story", only a minority of Americans have fallen for it.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by neon desert (February 12, 2009 12:30 pm ET)
               

            Baby steps, Lefty.  Baby steps...

            First we help him assemble the bike, THEN we teach him how to ride it.  But I sympathize with your fatigue.  Perhaps their literary structure is an indication of what's actually happening in their brains?  There's a theory here that's nagging me...

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 12, 2009 12:38 pm ET)
                 

              I hope it doesn't involve knitting or racist satire. You know what that'll get you.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by dicebucket (February 12, 2009 12:46 pm ET)
             

          What I pasted was perfectly formatted.  It got reformatted to what you see on the way in.

          Obviously you haven't reviewed all four of the links.  If you are too lazy (or too afraid of what you'll read there) to paste the link to your browser, I'll clean them up for you here:  Of particular interest are the last three...  The least you could do is screw up the courage to pay attention to them (I won't tell anybody you saw them! <g>)

          http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260

          www.breitbart.tv/?p=184743

          www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/fannie_mae_and_congressional_d.html

          (Please, on the one above, the SOURCE doesn't matter.  The content is incontrovertible)

          http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JsfMicOgufA

          (Ditto on this one...)

          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (February 12, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
               

            Anytime someone tells me how obvious something is, I tend to lose interest and then when the same person says that the source doesn't matter because the content is irrefutable I know exactly the kind of person I'm dealing with and I ignore them.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by rtwmd1230 (February 12, 2009 1:05 pm ET)
               

            American Stinker: the source doesn't matter?

            If you want a laugh, check this out:

            February 09, 2009

            "Needed: anti-Obi gestures

            Joyce Capron
            Today at tennis, after I made a hard point, my partner offered the Obama fist bump.

            "I don't do that," I said, and I gave her a stern look.  It's not the first time I've run into Obamabots on the courts; the game attracts argumentative, competitive types (of which I may be one).  I didn't stop and lecture the O'Bot, because Wasting Indoor Court Time is a Sin.  I just high-fived her with my racquet, and went on playing.

            I'm into civil disobedience these days, now that we Right-Thinkers are in the minority, living in fear of Obamification.    In small ways, I resist.

            1)  I refuse to do the fist bump.  We Right Thinkers need our own hand jive, a nonverbal way to say, ‘I'm Anti-Obi'.  I'm open to suggestions.

            2)  I turn His face around.  Whenever I'm standing in line in a store, and find coverboy Obambi staring at me, I turn the offensive magazines around to face backwards.  During Inaugural week, there was commemorative ideoporn everywhere. Obama market penetration has receded somewhat, but it's still hard to visit a Target or a grocery store without having to look at The One.  By hiding His image, I may be slightly interfering with commerce, but if I can prevent one more person from being suckered into socialism, I'll do it. . . ."

            The rest can be found on the Stinker page for February 9.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (February 12, 2009 1:21 pm ET)
                 

              Our dicey friend is in for a long painful life. Can you imagine how a Nixonite has been feeling every time he has to stand in line at a store and see tabloid stories about the Kennedy family? It's been 49 years and shows no sign of ending anytime soon.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 12, 2009 1:21 pm ET)
                 

              That's hilarious, RT. How much you want to bet the writer believes in Bush Derangement Syndrome?

              And don't right wingers already have their own hand gestures?

              http://yooha.meepzorp.com/der-feurher/index_files/der-feurher.jpg

              Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 12, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
               

            These have all been posted here before, Dice, so I'll only take up space mentioning the one I went to this time (the American Thinker link),

            One second into the video, the text says that the bank failures were caused by mortgage lenders handing out bad loans.

            it says that FM & FM were the biggest offenders.

            They don't hand out loans.

            Now, if this had gone 2, maybe three seconds without a lie, I think you may have a better case for "incontrevertible". Most people here have seen this stuff, they just recognize bulls**t when they see it.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 12, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
           

        Did the Clinton administration force Wall Street speculators to slice up these mortgages and repackage them into investments, then sell and resell them all over the world?  I don't think so.

        If this problem were limited to people who couldn't pay their mortgages, it would be relatively easy to fix.  Unfortunately, the Wall Street geniuses have turned this into a giant tar baby of global magnitude.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by achrispage6992 (February 12, 2009 12:09 pm ET)
         
      Is MMFA actually asserting that O'Reilly literally meant that Frank wanted to give mortgages to everybody? As much as I can't stand O'Reilly I realize his statement wasn't that literal. MMFA can do better than this.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (February 12, 2009 12:22 pm ET)
           

        O'Really?'s "everybody" included and implied those who didn't deserve mortgages.  Because O'Really? knows that his audience is gullible enough to believe that Barney Frank is:

        a) so ignorant that he doesn't realize that loaning to people who can't pay it back is a bad thing

        b) so stupid that he doesn't balance defaulted loans with the liberal ideals of helping undeserving people own homes

        c) so audacious that he thinks he knows more about the mortgage industry than the people who work in it.

        O'Really is a pompous idiot with a talent of manipulating a gullible segment of the American tv viewing audience for living, and who got smacked down big time in this segment by Hill, but not before spewing rhetoric intended to villify Barney Frank.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 12, 2009 12:24 pm ET)
           

        Frank has advocated for policies that emphasize low-income home rentals as opposed to homeownership.

        I think that's the part that MM is pointing out.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (February 12, 2009 12:27 pm ET)
           

        Is MMFA actually asserting that O'Reilly literally meant that Frank wanted to give mortgages to everybody?

        Precision of thought or expression is not O'Reilly's specialty...apparently that is not required at FOX News.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by puttforever4682 (February 12, 2009 1:29 pm ET)
         

      Maybe I am wrong, but the defaulting on mortgages might be the result of people losing jobs----especially manufacturing jobs that have been disappearing at alarming rates.  I do not think this point is considered enough.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (February 12, 2009 2:18 pm ET)
           

        It is not considered enough because mainstream media is hosted by people who make multi-million-dollar salaries.  News anchors and commentators simply don't identify with the middle class anymore.  There was a time when they used to, when networks provided the news as a public service, but today, it's an business division unto istelf geared to generate huge profits and provide exhorbitant salaries for media personalities.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 12, 2009 3:04 pm ET)
           

        I think that's a valid point.  It's part of the downward spiral that Obama has mentioned a few times.

        Of course this doesn't fit into the Republican myth that this whole problem was caused by Democrats giving mortgages to poor people (i.e. minorities; let's be honest)  who couldn't afford them.  

        A lot of these foreclosures are middle class people who were suckered into buying half-million-dollar houses that they normally wouldn't even consider, but the deal was too good to pass up.  Plus, it was assumed within the industry that housing values would continue to climb indefinitely.  A lot of people have been sucked under by the vortex.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (February 12, 2009 3:28 pm ET)
             

          Many people bought houses that they could afford. But circumstances and housing values change. What do the conservatives say to the people who bought houses and put down twenty percent and got an affordable mortgage, only to find a few years later that their home was worth a lot less than what they still owed for it?  

          And then what happens when both of the workers in the family with the house with negative equity lose their jobs when the towns biggest employee goes under, taking down other businesses with it.

          These people who've declared war on the un-wealthy see everything as black and white and caused by those with absolutely no way of controlling the downward spiral their lives have become. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (February 12, 2009 3:36 pm ET)
               

            Well, it's because they MUST convince themselves that people who are in financial difficulty are there because they are immoral or made bad decisions.  Otherwise, their Social Darwinism would be impossible to defend.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (February 12, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
                 

              Darwinism indeed.  The only kind of Darwinism our Gawd-furrin' conservatives believe in, especially if they think they're going to be on the winning side...

              Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (February 12, 2009 4:59 pm ET)
                   

                If you'll notice, the people most loudly preaching this doctrine are either rich people, like Rush Limbaugh, or dumba$$es like Joe the Plumber.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by YouTubeJEFF9K (February 12, 2009 11:21 pm ET)
                     

                  I think it's okay to use the term "dumb ass."  It's in the Bible (II Peter 2:16)

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by fmbanker87 (February 12, 2009 7:05 pm ET)
         
      if this were china, frank, dodd, and especially the stupidest member of congress, waters, would be stood up against a wall. i'd volunteer for the firing squad.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (February 12, 2009 7:16 pm ET)
           

        >>if this were china, frank, dodd, and especially the stupidest member of congress, waters, would be stood up against a wall. i'd volunteer for the firing squad.

        Yes, that's one stupid way to try to win an argument: say that you'd like to kill those who don't agree with you. If you llike China's methods so much, why don't you move there? You don't like America's way of dealing with problems in a democratic way?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by fmbanker87 (February 12, 2009 7:36 pm ET)
             

          not really.  too many stupid people in the electorate.  doesn't work.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (February 12, 2009 7:39 pm ET)
               

            >>not really.  too many stupid people in the electorate.  doesn't work.

            Nor really what? You don't like democracy? Then maybe you should move to China.

            Oh, and stupid people? Have you read your own post?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 12, 2009 7:51 pm ET)
                 

              I think that's why FM is volunteering to move to China. To raise the average IQ of the American electorate.

              Now, if we could get 50 million or so more wingnuts to get on the boat with FM...

              Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.