hmmm..who fought oversight of fannie mae/freddie mac?

[gardenweasel]

very interesting article from ,of all places the nyt`s dating back to 2003....

bush saw this coming and the dems,who are knee deep in this fannie mae/freddy mac boondoggle,blocked any reform....

check barney frank`s comments at the bottom(chair of the house financial services committee,btw)......

NOW,the dems are crying about lack of oversight?....they`re hypocrites...with short memories...

and guess who`ll be overseeing the investigation into this crisis?...chris dodd....the guy that received more contrictions from fannie/freddie since 1989...

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008



Name
Office
Party/State
Total

1. Dodd, Christopher J
S
D-CT
$133,900

2. Kerry, John
S
D-MA
$111,000

3. Obama, Barack
S
D-IL
$105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary
S
D-NY
$75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E
H
D-PA
$65,500

6. Bennett, Robert F
S
R-UT
$61,499

7. Johnson, Tim
S
D-SD
$61,000

8. Conrad, Kent
S
D-ND
$58,991

9. Davis, Tom
H
R-VA
$55,499

10. Bond, Christopher S 'Kit'
S
R-MO
$55,400


and check barack obama....he`s only been in the senate for 4 years..quite a nice haul there,bocky...

endless welfare and giveaways...you reap what you sow...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

 

[djv]

Penuts. But Mc Cain is one that brags he's the deregulater. If there was ever a need for regulation the failures of late show that was needed badly. John was wrong. Still is.

 

[Terryray]

so ho-hum and predictable events...

so ho-hum and predictable events...

Fannie and Freddie are nearly perfect textbook examples of what you get when profit is privatized while risks and losses are socialized; such perverse incentives, devised by the geniuses in Congress, are nearly guaranteed to mess things up big time.

I've seen hearing warnings about Fannie and Freddie for 10 years. The fellows heading the White house's Council of Econ Advisors have practically been screaming last few years. Many folks advocated reforms years ago, in both parties. Sen. Dodd always opposed them.

If more "oversight" and "regulation" is what we need, by these clowns in Congress, then we are most certainly doomed.

Here's a quote from Bush's 2005 budget on Fannie, Freddie and other GSEs "are highly leveraged, holding much less capital in relation to their assets than similarly sized financial institutions. . . . A misjudgment or unexpected economic event could quickly deplete this capital, potentially making it difficult for a GSE to meet its debt obligations. Given the very large size of each enterprise, even a small mistake by a GSE could have consequences throughout the economy."

AIG's problems are an example of "consequences throughout the economy."

Here's a good piece by a Havard economist on why more firms should fail and ever more regulation by these silly folks in Congress is a bad idea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502532.html

Here's a good piece in WA Post about all the years of warnings I've heard ad nauseum. Such old news and all this is so unsurprising!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html

 

[bryanz]

liberal truth

liberal truth

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9663_mccain_fannie_freddie.html

 

[Spytheweb]

One could argue, quite accurately, that John McCain is responsible for the Nation's economic crisis. McCain has worked his entire career to deregulate the financial industry - with disastrous results.

* In the 1980's McCain was a key figure in deregulating the savings and loan industry. McCain parlayed it into highly profitable graft for himself. That led to wholesale theft and the collaspe of many S&Ls. McCain got caught in the the ensuing scandal but successfully used his POW line to wiggle free.
* McCain's economic guru, Phil Gramm, slipped the "Enron Loophole" into legislation in the year 2000. This deregulatory loophole was used by that infamous company to game the electricity markets so egregiously that it led to Enron's own collapse. Since then, McCain has blocked every effort to close the loophole which is now being used by energy traders to game gasoline prices.
* The current banking crisis traces back to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. Again Phil Gramm get direct blame for deregulating banks. Again, John McCain followed Gramm like an servile puppy in the effort. The effect is an economic crisis the world has not seen in 75 years.
* McCain has said he will make Phil Gramm Treasury Secretary.
* McCain's son, Andrew, ran an Arizona bank into bankruptcy earlier this year under curious, at least, circumstances.
* Not content with ****ing the nation's economy, McCain is campaigning on a platform of deregulating health care.

It is true that, as of today, John McCain is urging reregulating the financial markets. Of course that would mean undoing his life's work. But, John McCain wouldn't lie, would he? He wouldn't say one thing now to get elected and do another thing after he gets in office, would he?

 

[bryanz]

fox

fox

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html

 

[gardenweasel]

i was wrong....barack was actually second most egregious money grabber from fanny/freddie.....

kerry was 3rd...

good thing he had nothing to do with lobbyists....who knows how much he could have glommed from them....

top 5 are dems.....hmmmmm?.....

good thing dodd`s in the catbird seat......


btw...sec of labor under clinton ,robert reich,,had a moment of clarity on pmsnbc last night......

reich: " In the latter years of the Clinton administration -- when I was not there any longer, I should add -- there was an attempt by Alan Greenspan and Bob Rubin and a few others to deregulate financial markets, and they did. They split commercial banking off from investment banking. And many people say, "Well, that was the beginning of the problem," and then, of course, in 2003-2004, Alan Greenspan reduced short-term interest rates to the point where every single bank wanted to lend money. I mean, if you could stand up straight you could get a bank loan because there was so much pressure to get that money out the door. Money was so cheap. So, yes, there is some responsibility on Democrats, some responsibility on Alan Greenspan and the Fed."

hello?....right out of his own mouth....

big trouble ahead if they open pandora`s box...theres tons of this stuff out there.....

better bring hillary on board....i don`t think biden`s gonna make it till november....:lol:

and what if she turned him down?.....

whoa nelly!!

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Wonder if O gives back any of the 1.5 million Lehman executivess donated to him?

Actual both are politicians with hands out and very small diff on amount each have received from financial institutions--but believe we have only one "professing" to be mr clean and only one that can make legit claim per earmarks catagory.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

heres article i was looking for---so don't be snowed by either side--



By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 6 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Some of John McCain's and Barack Obama's biggest fundraisers are executives from the stricken financial services industry, which will need all the help it can get from whoever wins the White House.


Merrill Lynch & Co.'s chief executive, for example, has raised more than $500,000 for McCain's campaign. Obama has received at least $1.5 million collected by three senior executives at Lehman Brothers.

McCain and Obama each are considering how to avoid future collapses and the need for further costly government bailouts, steps that may include tougher banking and investment regulations. But executives from the same companies in the crosshairs of such decisions are helping these candidates get elected.

Obama is promising more regulation, as is McCain, and if the winner of the November election acts on the tough talk, a battle with banks, securities and investment firms and insurance companies could follow.

The tough talk is coming from candidates who have fueled their campaigns with Wall Street money. Securities and investment firms gave $9.9 million to Obama and $6.9 million to McCain through July, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a private group that tracks money spent in politics. The industry is McCain's No. 3 contributor and Obama's No. 4 contributor, according to the center.

Wall Street-based firms were among the most active at "bundling" contributions for the two candidates.

Three executives from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have raised at least half a million dollars for Obama. That firm is Obama's top source of campaign money overall; its employees have contributed more than $690,000 to his campaign, according to the center.

Merrill Lynch's chief executive, John Thain, has raised more than $500,000 for McCain. Merrill's workforce likewise is McCain's top donor, giving nearly $300,000.

Separately, employees from the commercial bank and insurance sectors gave McCain's campaign $3.6 million and Obama's campaign $3.4 million.

So, how can candidates who accept money from Wall Street be expected to crack down on it?

"Industries sink their tentacles into these candidates," said Taylor Lincoln, a research director at Public Citizen, a non-partisan watchdog group.

Congress collects considerable money from Wall Street, too. Democratic candidates have accepted nearly $37 million from securities and investment firms in the current election, and Republicans have accepted nearly $29 million.

The industry's contributions to all federal candidates and political parties: $101 million so far in this two-year election cycle.

Merrill Lynch and its new owner both will be looking for help from the White House. Merrill Lynch jumped into the arms of Bank of America Corp. over the weekend to avoid becoming the next Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy protection Monday.

Following a weekend that reshaped Wall Street, Goldman Sachs is the larger of the nation's two remaining major independent investment banks. The other is Morgan Stanley, where employees have contributed $300,000 to Obama and $217,000 to McCain.

It's still early, but Wall Street's institutions may have good reason to worry about a new president, once they get past the life-and-death issue of financial survival.

In March, before the latest round of financial carnage, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he anticipated the next president and the next Congress would address Paulson's blueprint for the biggest overhaul of government financial regulation since the Depression.

It would give the Federal Reserve more power over investment banks, collapsing banking agencies into one superagency. Now, more drastic plans are under consideration.

"We've gone from the point of thinking about consolidation of regulatory agencies to some fundamental change," said Don Kettl, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "It seems impossible to escape at this point."

 

[gardenweasel]

and lehman,too?.....

yes...

"Since 1989, Lehman Brothers's employees and political action committee have given $9.2 million to federal candidates, parties and political action committees, with 54 percent of that going to Democrats. In the current Congress, 271 lawmakers have collected nearly $3 million since 1989, with 72 percent going to Democrats. Democratic presidential candidates and senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama top the list of all-time recipients for the company, collecting $410,000 and $395,600 respectively. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of both the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, hauled in $181,450, while Sen. Chris Dodd, chair of the Senate banking committee, has collected $165,800. The top recipient of PAC money from Lehman Brothers has been Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over banking and the securities industry. Castle has collected $38,500 from Lehman's PAC since 1993.""


to be fair,mccain got some money...presidential candidates always do.... ...but,less than a third what bock got...

but thats impossible.... bock`s against ALL lobbyists......

this is why the dems don`t want a comprehensive investigation...

 

[Jabberwocky]

investigate what?