Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Why Democrats will LOSE the HOUSE...maybe the SENATE...they lost american jobs!  (Read 1042 times)

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
...independents know that the democrats had a chance to stop the machine of sub prime lending...but they didn't...and that inadvertently lost jobs all over the country...the incumbant democrats are to blame for our financial mess as THE SOURCE....and many are going to be voted out and in their place...anyone...especially this new breed of NEO-POPULISTS...like chris christie and scott brown...and the dude who will be replacing Russ Feingold...and Bernie Frank...he'll be gone soon enough...lets vote bernie out when his time comes...lets kick the bums out!


How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett


Commentary by Kevin Hassett - September 22, 2008 00:04 EDT Email Share
Share Business Exchange Twitter Delicious Digg Facebook LinkedIn Newsvine Propeller Yahoo! Buzz Print

 Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the U.S. Federal Rese

 A security guard stands inside the AIG building

 Bear Stearns Cos. in New York
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
If you prick us, do we not bleed?  
  if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison  
  us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not  
  revenge? m.of v. w.shaka                                             speare

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27222
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
numbnuts plagiarist.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
...well...aye was right again...aye know you hate me julie fern.

SUCK IT!

how is russ feingold doing...did he collect his unemployment check?

so are you going to vote for chris christy or mitt romney?

oh yeah, you hope the radical feminist sarah palin run.  she your choice candidate. you foam mouth at thought she run. you dream she run.

why ad libs cry so much these days?  no more power?

 ;)
If you prick us, do we not bleed?  
  if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison  
  us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not  
  revenge? m.of v. w.shaka                                             speare

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
aye addressed this issue back in 2008 you puerile dimmy.
numbnuts plagiarist.



uncle fannie and aunt freddie created a kiosk in the marketplace...they created this market...they bought junk mortgages...subprime mortgages...this is the vortex of the cause of the financial mess we are now experiencing...

the treasury department asked congress to buy these mortgages...

the democrats did not allow reform legislation to become law in 2005..


...in 2005 the pubs controlled the senate banking committee and sketched out a tough as nails regulatory bill for uncle fannie and aunt freedie...committee "donkees" rejected the bill unanimously...the enactment of the bill became impossible because of the opposition of democrats before it reached the floor...they tabled it...before it could be voted on by the senate...

john mccain endorsed the bill on the senate floor...check it out...he was out there on the floor...energized...and working hard...warning...warning that there could be problems down the road...fighting for his convictions...


what was obama doing...pondering his campaign for a job he is severely under-qualified.

yes...there has been deregulation in the economy over the last thirty some years...but NOT with regard to wall st....nor does it have anything to do with this pressing crisis...obama is WRONG... .almost all financial legislation was adopted after the savings and loan problem in 88 and 89 and 90...and has to do with the regulation of banks...like the improvement act of 1991...


the continued mantra by democrats and surrogate democrats...and some pubs...of the repeal of bits of the glass-steagall act in 1999--has nothing to do with the current financial crisis except that it suffered banks to be affiliated with firms which underwrite securities...with this sufferage...bank of america corporation acquired merrill lynch + co. and j.p. morgan chase + co. bought bear stearns cos....these transactions saved the federal government the additional costs of a buyout which would have caused the market and the feds...additional headaches...bill clinton signed it...he doesn't agree with obama...



obama was putting  blame on phil grahmm in an attack which was a blatent lie...obama was creating a lie and trying use this financial hurricane to make political gains...


and who pushed fanny mae and freddie mac to give mortgages to anyone with a heartbeat..that's right BERNIE FRANK AND HIS ILK...many are gone now...bye bye RUSS FEINGOLD..
...liberal democrats are to blame primarily...many of them are now gone...too bad



florida and now pa and the northwestern usa will not be voting for obama next time around...

he was good with national security however..much props.
If you prick us, do we not bleed?  
  if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison  
  us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not  
  revenge? m.of v. w.shaka                                             speare