Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77898)	1/21/2010 2:29:04 PM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224871

The public saw Barney Frank and black caucus members on video rebuffing warnings from the Bush administration. Some even said they were pissed off that the administration thought they should curb there practices. Barney Frank insisted there was nothing wrong. Your rhetoric doesn't fly Kenneth.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77898)	1/21/2010 4:38:17 PM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224871

Krauthammer's Take [NRO Staff] On the election of Scott Brown: The Democrats, starting with the president, want to explain it all away. ... [as] the result of some kind of anger. ... Every time the Republicans succeed, it's all about anger and irrationality. When you had the Gingrich revolution 16 years ago, it was called "the year of the angry white male" and Peter Jennings declared on the evening news that the country had thrown a tantrum — as if when conservatives win it can only be an expression of irrationality and emotionalism. Of course, when Obama wins in '08, it's hope and change and peace and light and all the goodness in the American soul. This was an election about substance and the Democrats lost on substance. On the homeland security hearings on Capitol Hill on the treatment of the Christmas bomber as a civilian and the lack of interrogation by the HIG: On Day One, literally a year ago today ... the president signed an executive order ostentatiously against torture. And involved in that was establishing a way to interrogate important detainees. And that was established in midyear — this HIG [High-Value Interrogation Group], which is in the FBI, but the oversight is provided in the White House. Now, we learned — now a half a year later — that the HIG isn't even in place. And secondly, what we just heard [that the HIG was intended to be used abroad only], that nobody had even thought of what happens if you capture a terrorist in the United States. ...This is absolutely unbelievable. The real scandal here is not that a guy with a bomb got on a plane. It can happen in any bureaucracy, [any] administration. But the scandal is what happened after — treating him as an ordinary criminal. The Corner on National Review Online (21 January 2010) corner.nationalreview.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77898)	1/21/2010 7:16:27 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224871

Fannie & Freddie were & are run by Democrats, Ken. There's a video of Barney Frank telling the Bush Adm that their concern about those 2 organizations was ridiculous.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77898)	1/21/2010 7:21:30 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	6 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224871

The New York Times reported on Sept. 11, 2003: ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." McCain warning. On the other hand, McCain on May 25, 2006, backed specific legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a year before Frank finally caved in and called for reform only after it was too late. "I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation," McCain said. "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." Yet I saw Barney Frank interviewed several times yesterday, accusing Bush and McCain of blocking financial reforms, and not one reporter asked him about his own long and loud record of willful neglect. As Power Line's John Hinderacker asks today: Maybe it's too much to expect anyone to remember the distant past -- 2003 -- but still, it seems remarkable that Barney Frank can make the rounds of the television talk shows, pontificating on the current crisis, without being reminded of his own role. Democrats' responsibility. Frank's audacity is bizarre. The press is equally stunning in its oblivious silence. McCain has made some attempts to tell voters about this, but McCain's words have been obscured or omitted in news accounts. President Clinton put it best today to Chris Cuomo of ABC News: "I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." Frank and others like him might have had good intentions in pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home loans for low-income, high-risk customers. But from the 1990s to 2007, the Democrats simply closed their eyes to the mounting threat that these reckless, highly secretive operations posed to our entire financial system. Frank Warner Update: More information that Barney Frank was destabilizing Fannie Mae as early as 1991: Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, ... the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively. Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. The Boston Globe, Nov. 22, 1991: The federally chartered mortgage company Fannie Mae yesterday agreed to modify its rules restricting purchases of two-family and three-decker homes -- rules that housing advocates contend unfairly exclude low- and moderate-income families from buying homes in Boston. After a nearly three-hour meeting with members of the Home Buyers’ Union, a local advocacy group, and representatives of Mayor Flynn and Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy 2d (D-Mass.), Fannie Mae officials agreed to substantially alter rules to allow what one termed “hundreds if not thousands” of buyers a chance to own two-family homes and three-deckers. … Fannie Mae national spokesman David Jeffers said yesterday that the mortgage company restricted purchases of mortgages on multi-family homes after it saw many such mortgages go into default during the real estate slowdown. He said the default rate on mortgages on two-family homes is twice that of single-family homes, and the rate for three-deckers is five times the rate for single-family dwellings. But Jeffers said that after discussions with area homeowners, housing advocates, Kennedy and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Fannie Mae officials agreed to purchase the mortgages made under the state’s “soft second” program, the primary source of mortgages for first-time homebuyers of low and moderate means. * * * Temporary sanity. In 2002, Frank was on the right track for about a half day, but then returned to his policy of allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to continue operating with loose rules and little supervision. frankwarner.typepad.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77898)	1/22/2010 9:29:35 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224871

TRADING WITH WAXIE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's time to speak out... Posted: 21 Jan 2010 09:39 PM PST I can no longer sit idly by on the sidelines, today's dog and pony show was just too much to bear. Once again we have idle promises and smoke and mirrors. Worst of all it's outrageous, and wrong. First we have to hear our illustrious President talk about the evil banks and how "if those financial folks (when did a bank become a folk? hmmm) want a fight, I'll give them a fight". What's wrong with this picture? Aren't these the same evil banks that the US taxpayer bailed out to the tune of 100s of BILLIONS? Aren't these the very same banks that didn't get into trouble due to hedge funds and real derivatives, but rather derivatives that came about by the very same soon-to-be NON banks like GS that now will reap the rewards of not being a bank, when they chose to be one when it was good to do that? Of course they are, and of course this is all nonsense, total rubbish. I'm sorry, but its a little late to the party to be telling anyone that you'll fight those financial FOLKS. You should have fought them before you bailed them all out and before you helped create another bubble with GS up 150%, MS up 400%, BAC up 400%, C up 200% and the list goes on and on and on, from their bottoms. This "plan" is nothing more then a blatant attempt to mask a dozen other bad decisions and try to appease main street, or the good people who don't invest in the market, of which over 50% of the country doens't. Everything has a very big agenda that isn't even cloaked anymore, its all right out there as though we are idiots and don't realize what's going on. Well, we do and I'm tired of it. Once again the institutions who need the reigning in will benefit from this, making GS and MS and others in that sector even more powerful. It's very scary, indeed. Item #2 is this Supreme court decision which effectively allows corporations to try to buy elections, and which skirts all the donation laws. For example, if JPM wants O'Bama or anyone for that matter, reelected they could run smear campaigns and instead of only being allowed to donate up to a specific amount, they can now throw the campaign limits out the window and engage in any ads they want. This is the exact opposite of what we voted in as a nation = CHANGE. Right now the only thing I see is more of the same. We are run by a few select corporations, and its not good. Not good at all.