Discussion:
No one went to jail over Fannie and Freddy - The DimocRAT Party protected Franklin Raines who stole $90 million and gave out $500K bonuses
(too old to reply)
CB
2011-06-13 06:18:01 UTC
Permalink
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-government-runs-58-bln-may-budget-
deficit-2011-06-10
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) ? The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of
about $58 billion in May, down more than 50% from a year ago, mostly due
to lower estimates for the cost of the bank-bailout plan, data showed
Friday.
A bank-bailout plan that was enacted during the Bush administration.
Caused by Democrats giving unqualified blacks homes they couldn't afford.
The usual racist garbage.
You Libs Progressively use the race card to intimidate people into
sitting down. It's what Barney Fwank used to get banks to loan money
to under qualified people which lead to Goldman Sachs bundling high
risk mortgages into securities and sold on Wall Street. It was a
ponzi scheme in which Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jamie Gorelick,
Maxine Waters, Franklin Raines, Chuck Shumer, Gregory Meeks and The
Congressional Black Caucus all participated in.

DemocRATs blocked all attempts at regulating and auditing Fanny and
Freddy

How-Congress-Failed-To-Protect-Our-Economy-Obama-Bombshell


Bill Clinton admits Dims fought against finding the RATs in Fanny and
Freddy 5:50 into the clip.

They'd give them selves $500K bonuses on a $500K salary!

No one went to jail in Congress, at Freddy or Fannie, not in Goldman
Sachs. Dims think the tax payers are suckers to leech off of.

When 47% of America pay no taxes you can count on them not paying
attention to what Barney Fwank is up to...no good.
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-06-13 18:02:38 UTC
Permalink
discussion archived here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/5e7d90fdac8230e8#

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
MCT

By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a
conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a
government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class
Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and
the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage
finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal
government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and
minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the
private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was
behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers
during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime
lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

•More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by
private lending institutions.


•Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low-
and moderate-income borrowers that year.


•Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject
to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic
weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz1PBCva3ud

thomaswheat1975
Post by CB
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-government-runs-58-bln-may-budget-
deficit-2011-06-10
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) ? The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of
about $58 billion in May, down more than 50% from a year ago, mostly due
to lower estimates for the cost of the bank-bailout plan, data showed
Friday.
A bank-bailout plan that was enacted during the Bush administration.
Caused by Democrats giving unqualified blacks homes they couldn't afford.
The usual racist garbage.
You Libs Progressively use the race card to intimidate people into
sitting down. It's what Barney Fwank used to get banks to loan money
to under qualified people which lead to Goldman Sachs bundling high
risk mortgages into securities and sold on Wall Street. It was a
ponzi scheme in which Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jamie Gorelick,
Maxine Waters, Franklin Raines, Chuck Shumer, Gregory Meeks and The
Congressional Black Caucus all participated in.
DemocRATs blocked all attempts at regulating and auditing Fanny and
Freddy
http://youtu.be/M8LA8hPgQtI
Bill Clinton admits Dims fought against finding the RATs in Fanny and
Freddy 5:50 into the clip.
They'd give them selves $500K bonuses on a $500K salary!
No one went to jail in Congress, at Freddy or Fannie, not in Goldman
Sachs. Dims think the tax payers are suckers to leech off of.
When 47% of America pay no taxes you can count on them not paying
attention to what Barney Fwank is up to...no good.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Beam Me Up Scotty
2011-06-13 18:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Jigme Wheat
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/5e7d90fdac8230e8#
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
MCT
By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a
conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a
government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class
Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and
the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage
finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal
government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and
minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the
private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was
behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers
during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime
lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.
•More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by
private lending institutions.
["""[The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refers to the
placing into conservatorship of government sponsored enterprises Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac by the U.S. Treasury in September 2008. It was one
financial event among many in the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis.]"""]


["""[The combined GSE losses of US$14.9 billion and market concerns
about their ability to raise capital and debt threatened to disrupt the
U.S. housing financial market. The Treasury committed to invest as much
as US$200 billion in preferred stock and extend credit through 2009 to
keep the GSEs solvent and operating. The two GSEs have outstanding more
than US$ 5 trillion in mortgage backed securities (MBS) and debt; the
debt portion alone is $1.6 trillion.[6]"""]


["""[the Enterprises own or guarantee 56% of the single family mortgages
in this country, or $5.4 trillion of the total $11.9 trillion in
outstanding mortgage debt; their combined share of mortgages originated
in the first quarter of 2009 was 73 percent;]"""]

Fannie and Freddie were coerced to buy sub prime loans from private
lending institutions by the Government(Clinton and Andrew Cuomo with
ACORN and Obama). It was a policy created as a back door welfare program.

It imploded and we are now paying for it.
Nickname unavailable
2011-06-14 04:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by CB
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-government-runs-58-bln-may-budget-
deficit-2011-06-10
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) ? The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of
about $58 billion in May, down more than 50% from a year ago, mostly due
to lower estimates for the cost of the bank-bailout plan, data showed
Friday.
A bank-bailout plan that was enacted during the Bush administration.
Caused by Democrats giving unqualified blacks homes they couldn't afford.
The usual racist garbage.
You Libs Progressively use the race card to intimidate people into
sitting down. It's what Barney Fwank used to get banks to loan money
to under qualified people which lead to Goldman Sachs bundling high
risk mortgages into securities and sold on Wall Street. It was a
ponzi scheme in which Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jamie Gorelick,
Maxine Waters, Franklin Raines, Chuck Shumer, Gregory Meeks and The
Congressional Black Caucus all participated in.
DemocRATs blocked all attempts at regulating and auditing Fanny and
Freddy
http://youtu.be/M8LA8hPgQtI
Bill Clinton admits Dims fought against finding the RATs in Fanny and
Freddy 5:50 into the clip.
They'd give them selves $500K bonuses on a $500K salary!
No one went to jail in Congress, at Freddy or Fannie, not in Goldman
Sachs. Dims think the tax payers are suckers to leech off of.
When 47% of America pay no taxes you can count on them not paying
attention to what Barney Fwank is up to...no good.
liar.

 that is a lie. back it up with real facts, and you will be the first
to collect a $100,000.00 reward that has been offered for proof of
your conservative lie. go ahead liar, i will give you the info, go
collect the money, then get back to me liar.
Get Me ReWrite! 
By Barry Ritholtz - May 13th, 2010, 7:20AM 
My
approach to everything I have written, studied and analyzed in 
this
space is pretty straight forward: Start with the data and 
evidence
and 
go forward from there. Figure out what the “Truth” is; 
try to
get as 
close to the objective reality beneath the noise in 
order to
make 
intelligent investing decisions for myself and my 
clients.
There are others who do not share this objective. Their goals are
either political (winning the next election) or ideological (having
their belief system become dominant). Truth is irrelevant to these
people. 
Not surprisingly, these folks — many of whom contributed to
the 
crisis 
in a might way — are desperately trying to duck
responsibility 
for 
what happened. Those who helped cause the crisis
are engaged in 
an 
ongoing effort to rewrite its history. 
Their
goal? Exonerate their own bad behavior, throw off any 
responsibility
to the collapse, blame anything but their own ideology 
and horrific
decision making. They want to keep pushing their tired 
political
agendas, despite the damage they may have caused. 
When writing
Bailout Nation, I tried to steer clear of partisan 
finger 
pointing.
I kept the focus on what actually occurred, what 
could be 
proven
mathematically. I blamed Democrats and Republicans — 
not 
equally,
but in proportion to their what they did. Unsupported 
theories,
tenuous connection, loose affiliations were not part of the 
analysis.
Every legislative change, each regulatory failure, all 
corporate
actions, to be blameworthy, had to manifest themselves in 
actual
mathematical proof. 
This led me to ascertain the following 30 year
sequence: 
    -Free market absolutism becomes the dominant
intellectual 
thought. 
    -Deregulation of markets, investment
houses, and banks 
becomes a 
broad goal: This led to Glass Steagall
repeal, Derivative 
exemptions, 
Investing house leverage exemptions,
and a new breed of 
unregulated 
non bank lenders. 
    -Legislative
actions reduce or 
eliminate much of the regulatory 
oversight; SEC
funding is weakened. 
    -Rates come down to absurd levels. 
    -
Bond managers madly 
scramble for yield. 
    -Derivatives, non-bank
lending, leverage, 
bank size, compensation 
levels all run away from
prior levels. 
    - 
Wall Street securitizes whatever it can to
satisfy the demand for 
higher yields. 
    -”Lend to securitize”
nonbank mortgage writers 
sell enormous 
amounts of subprime loans to
Wall Street for this 
purpose. 
    -To meet this demand, non bank
lenders collapse lending 
standards, 
leading to a credit bubble. 
   
-The Fed approves of this 
innovation. 
    -Housing booms, then
busts 
    -Credit freeze, 
market collapse recession. 
You will note
that the CRA is not part of this sequence. I could find 
no evidence
that they were a cause or even a minor factor. If they 
were, the
housing bubbles would not have been in California or S. 
Florida or Ls
Vegas or Arizona — Harlem and South Philly and parts of 
Chicago and
Washington DC would have been the focus. 
Nor do I blame Fannie and
Freddie. Now understand, there is no love 
lost between myself and the
GSEs. For years, I have called them 
“Phoney and Fraudy.”  Since
George Bush and Hank Paulson nationalized 
them, I have accused the
government of using these two as a backdoor 
bailout for banks — a
hidden PPIP/TARP used to buy all the garbage 
mortgages that banks are
desperate to get off their balance sheets. 
Longtime readers will
recall we very publicly shorted Fannie based 
upon their fraudulent
practices and horrific balance sheet. 
But even I cannot reconcile the
movement to place all of the world’s 
troubles at the feet of the
GSEs. Not, at least, according to the 
data. 
That lack of evidence,
however, doesn’t stop ideologues from making 
the attempt. Consider
this attempt at rewriting the causes of the 
credit crisis by Kevin
Hassett: 
    “The worst financial crisis in generations was set off
by a 
massive government effort, led by the two mortgage giants, to
make 
loans to homebuyers no matter whether they could make the
payments. 
Lenders were willing to lend money to just about all
comers, no 
matter 
how low their income. Why? Because the lenders
knew Fannie and 
Freddie 
would purchase the loans from them for a
high price before 
bundling 
them into securities to sell to
investors.” 
Now, this makes for a fascinating narrative that plays
into a number 
of different ideological beliefs. It exonerates the
radical free 
market deregulators, it ignores what the private sector
did, and it 
somehow ignores the fact that Congress was controlled by
a very 
conservative GOP from 1994 to 2006 — the prime period of time
covered 
leading up to and including the beginning of the crisis. 
But
worse than all of that, the data supporting Hassett’s position 
simply
isn’t there. 
Over the past 2 years, I have repeatedly asked the
people who push 
this narrative to provide some evidence for their
positions. I have 
offered a $100,000 if they could prove their case.
Specifically, I have requested some data or evidence that DISPROVED
the following facts: 
    -The origination of subprime loans came
primarily from non bank 
lenders not covered by the CRA; 
    -The
majority of the underwriting, at leats fro the first few 
years of the
boom, were by these same non-bank lenders 
    -When the big banks
began chasing subprime, it was due to the 
profit motive, not any
mandate from the President (a Republican) or 
the the Congress
(Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw. 
    -Prior to 2005,
nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought 
by 
Wall Street — NOT
Fannie & Freddie 
    -In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not
permitted to purchase 
non-conforming mortgages. 
    -After 2005,
Fannie & Freddie changed their own rules to start 
buying these non-
conforming mortgages — in order to maintain market 
share and compete
with Wall Street for profits. 
    -The change in FNM/FRE conforming
mortgage purchases in 2005 was 
not due to any legislation or marching
orders from the President (a 
Republican) or the the Congress
(Republican controlled). It was the 
profit motive that led them to
this action. 
These are data supported facts I pounded on in BN. 
Of
course, folks like Hassett hate this factual history, as it 
conflicts
with their goals and politics. Rather than produce 
evidence, 
they
create story lines unsupported by facts.  But Monkeys 
love a good
narrative, and so they give that to them. 
However, as an investor, I
demand evidence, data and facts. The blame 
Fannie & Freddie crowd
have managed to remain blissfully data free. 
They have steadfastly
ignored all calls for proof. 
Its way past the time to call out their
intellectual dishonesty. If 
you cannot show any data, if you cannot
prove what you are alleging 
with actual facts, you need to be called
out for what it is you 
actually are: Proponents of a failed
philosophy. 
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/05/rewriting-the-causes-of-the-cred...
-
Nickname unavailable
2011-06-14 04:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by CB
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-government-runs-58-bln-may-budget-
deficit-2011-06-10
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) ? The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of
about $58 billion in May, down more than 50% from a year ago, mostly due
to lower estimates for the cost of the bank-bailout plan, data showed
Friday.
A bank-bailout plan that was enacted during the Bush administration.
Caused by Democrats giving unqualified blacks homes they couldn't afford.
The usual racist garbage.
You Libs Progressively use the race card to intimidate people into
sitting down. It's what Barney Fwank used to get banks to loan money
to under qualified people which lead to Goldman Sachs bundling high
risk mortgages into securities and sold on Wall Street. It was a
ponzi scheme in which Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jamie Gorelick,
Maxine Waters, Franklin Raines, Chuck Shumer, Gregory Meeks and The
Congressional Black Caucus all participated in.
DemocRATs blocked all attempts at regulating and auditing Fanny and
Freddy
http://youtu.be/M8LA8hPgQtI
Bill Clinton admits Dims fought against finding the RATs in Fanny and
Freddy 5:50 into the clip.
They'd give them selves $500K bonuses on a $500K salary!
No one went to jail in Congress, at Freddy or Fannie, not in Goldman
Sachs. Dims think the tax payers are suckers to leech off of.
When 47% of America pay no taxes you can count on them not paying
attention to what Barney Fwank is up to...no good.
liar,


Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits
Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 26, 2008
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/...


There s a dangerous and misleading argument making the rounds about
the causes of our current credit crisis. It s emanating from
Washington 
where politicians are engaging in the usual blame game but
this time the 
stakes are so high that we can t afford to fall victim
to political 
doublespeak. In this fact-free zone, government
sponsored mortgage 
giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the real
estate bubble and 
subprime meltdown. It s completely false. Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac 
were victims of the credit crisis, not culprits.
Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5
trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or
Freddie. That s right most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or
Freddie s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no
interest 
for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made
without checking a 
borrower s income or employment history? All made
in the private sector, 
without any support from Fannie and Freddie.
Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking from 2003 to
2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie and Freddie dropped
from 
$2.7 trillion to $1 trillion. Meanwhile, in the private sector,
the 
amount of subprime loans originated jumped to $600 billion from
$335 
billion and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in
2003. 
Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn t accept crazy floating rate
loans, 
which required income verification and minimum down payments,
were left 
out of the insanity.
There s a must-read study by staff members of the Federal Reserve
Bank 
of New York analyzing the roots of the subprime crisis that came
out in 
March. I don t think it got much attention then as the
conclusions 
seemed uncontroversial at the time. But now that
Washington politicians 
are trying to rewrite history, it should be
mandatory reading for every 
American interested in knowing how we got
here.
The study identifies five causes of the subprime meltdown: 
-
Convoluted loan products that consumers didn t understand. 
-Credit
ratings that didn t do a good job highlighting the risks 
contained in
subprime-backed securities. 
-Lack of incentives for institutional
investors to do their own research 
(they just relied on the credit
ratings). 
-Predatory lending and borrowing (which I think means fraud
perpetrated 
by borrowers). 
-Significant errors in the models used by
credit rating agencies to 
assess subprime-backed securities.
You ll note in the Fed s five causes that there s some culpability
for 
lenders, borrowers, investors and credit raters. There s no blame
for 
Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae which had little or nothing to do with
the 
entire situation.
It s certainly fair to criticize Fannie and Freddie over real issues
that contributed to their downfall. The companies had numerous
accounting problems and inadequate safeguards covering their own
investment portfolios. Those weaknesses came home to roost when the
real 
estate market cratered. Fannie and Freddie purchased billions of
dollars 
of subprime-backed securities for their own investment
portfolios and 
got hit just like every other investor. But it s some
kind of crazy, 
politically inspired CYA to blame for the mess we re
in.
Nickname unavailable
2011-06-14 04:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by CB
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-government-runs-58-bln-may-budget-
deficit-2011-06-10
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) ? The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of
about $58 billion in May, down more than 50% from a year ago, mostly due
to lower estimates for the cost of the bank-bailout plan, data showed
Friday.
A bank-bailout plan that was enacted during the Bush administration.
Caused by Democrats giving unqualified blacks homes they couldn't afford.
The usual racist garbage.
You Libs Progressively use the race card to intimidate people into
sitting down. It's what Barney Fwank used to get banks to loan money
to under qualified people which lead to Goldman Sachs bundling high
risk mortgages into securities and sold on Wall Street. It was a
ponzi scheme in which Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jamie Gorelick,
Maxine Waters, Franklin Raines, Chuck Shumer, Gregory Meeks and The
Congressional Black Caucus all participated in.
DemocRATs blocked all attempts at regulating and auditing Fanny and
Freddy
http://youtu.be/M8LA8hPgQtI
Bill Clinton admits Dims fought against finding the RATs in Fanny and
Freddy 5:50 into the clip.
They'd give them selves $500K bonuses on a $500K salary!
No one went to jail in Congress, at Freddy or Fannie, not in Goldman
Sachs. Dims think the tax payers are suckers to leech off of.
When 47% of America pay no taxes you can count on them not paying
attention to what Barney Fwank is up to...no good.
liar.


MERS, a creation of the free market to circumvent law, to defraud,
cheat on taxes, maybe the un-dueing of wall street:)the housing bubble
was solely a private sector affair to defraud, engage in criminal
activity, and racketeering



http://www.truth-out.org/homeowners-rebellion-recent-rulings-could-shield-62-million-homes-from-foreclosure62448

Homeowners' Rebellion: Recent Rulings Could Shield 62 Million Homes
From Foreclosure
Thursday 19 August 2010
by: Ellen Brown, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

Over 62 million mortgages are now held in the name of MERS, an
electronic recording system devised by and for the convenience of the
mortgage industry. A California bankruptcy court, following landmark
cases in other jurisdictions, recently held that this electronic
shortcut breaks the chain of title, voiding foreclosure. The logical
result could be 62 million homes that are foreclosure proof.
In a Newsweek article a year ago called "Too Big to Jail: Why
Prosecutors Won't Hit Wall Street Hard in the Subprime Scandal,"
Michael Hirsch wrote that we were unlikely to see trials and
convictions like those in the savings and loan scandals of the 1980s,
because fraud and blame have been so widespread that there is no one
to single out and jail. Said Hirsch:
"The sad irony is that in pleading collective guilt, most of Wall
Street will escape whipping for a scheme that makes Bernie Madoff's
shenanigans look like pickpocketing. At the crest of the real-estate
bubble, fraud was systemic and Wall Street had essentially gone into
the loan-sharking business."
"Unfortunately," he added, "prosecution of fraud is the only way
you're going to get reform on Wall Street."
Sure enough, a year later we got a banking reform bill that was so
watered down that Wall Street got nearly everything it wanted. The too-
big-to-fails, rather than being whittled down to size, have grown even
bigger, circumventing antitrust laws; and they are being allowed to
carry on pretty much as before. The Federal Reserve, rather than being
called on the carpet, has been given even more power; and the Consumer
Protection Agency - the main part of the bill with teeth - has been
put under the Fed's watchful eye. Congress and the Justice Department
seem to have bowed out, leaving no one to hold the finance industry to
account.
But the best laid plans even of Wall Street can sometimes go awry. In
an ironic twist, the industry may wind up tripping over its own
Achilles heel, the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or MERS.
An online computer software program for tracking mortgage ownership
and rights, MERS is, according to its web site, "an innovative process
that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are
originated, sold and tracked. Created by the real estate finance
industry, MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments
when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans." Or as Karl
Denninger puts it, "MERS own website claims that it exists for the
purpose of circumventing assignments and documenting ownership!"
MERS was developed in the early 1990s by a number of financial
entities, including Bank of America, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and
Freddie Mac, allegedly to allow consumers to pay less for mortgage
loans. That did not actually happen, but what MERS did allow was the
securitization and shuffling around of mortgages behind a veil of
anonymity. The result was not only to cheat local governments out of
their recording fees, but to defeat the purpose of the recording laws,
which was to guarantee purchasers clean title. Worse, MERS facilitated
an explosion of predatory lending in which lenders could not be held
to account because they could not be identified, either by the preyed-
upon borrowers or by the investors seduced into buying bundles of
worthless mortgages. As alleged in a Nevada class action called Lopez
v. Executive Trustee Services, et al.:
"Before MERS, it would not have been possible for mortgages with no
market value ... to be sold at a profit or collateralized and sold as
mortgage-backed securities. Before MERS, it would not have been
possible for the Defendant banks and AIG to conceal from government
regulators the extent of risk of financial losses those entities faced
from the predatory origination of residential loans and the fraudulent
re-sale and securitization of those otherwise non-marketable loans.
Before MERS, the actual beneficiary of every Deed of Trust on every
parcel in the United States and the State of Nevada could be readily
ascertained by merely reviewing the public records at the local
recorder's office where documents reflecting any ownership interest in
real property are kept.…
"After MERS, ... the servicing rights were transferred after the
origination of the loan to an entity so large that communication with
the servicer became difficult if not impossible... . The servicer was
interested in only one thing - making a profit from the foreclosure of
the borrower's residence - so that the entire predatory cycle of
fraudulent origination, resale and securitization of yet another
predatory loan could occur again. This is the legacy of MERS and the
entire scheme was predicated upon the fraudulent designation of MERS
as the 'beneficiary' under millions of deeds of trust in Nevada and
other states."
MERS now holds over 62 million mortgages in its name, including over
half of all new US residential mortgage loans. But courts are
increasingly ruling that MERS is merely a nominee, without standing to
foreclose on the collateral that makes up a major portion of the
portfolios of some very large banks. It seems the banks claiming to be
the real parties in interest may have short circuited themselves out
of the chain of title entitling them to the collateral.
Technicality or Fatal Flaw?
To foreclose on real property, the plaintiff must be able to produce a
promissory note or assignment establishing title. Early cases focused
on MERS' inability to produce such a note, but most courts continued
to consider the note a mere technicality and ignored it. Landmark
newer opinions, however, stress that this defect is not just a
procedural. but a substantive failure, one that is fatal to the
plaintiff's case.
The latest of these decisions came down in California on May 20, 2010,
in a bankruptcy case called In re Walker, Case no. 10-21656-E-11. The
court held that MERS could not foreclose because it was a mere nominee
and that as a result plaintiff Citibank could not collect on its
claim. The judge opined:
"Since no evidence of MERS' ownership of the underlying note has been
offered and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the
underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it
could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying
note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of
Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a
trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under
California law."
In support, the judge cited In re Vargas (California Bankruptcy
Court), Landmark v. Kesler (Kansas Supreme Court), LaSalle Bank v.
Lamy (a New York case) and In re Foreclosure Cases (the "Boyko"
decision from Ohio Federal Court). (For more on these earlier cases,
see here, here and here.) The court concluded:
"Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the
owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is
unable to assert a claim for payment in this case."
The broad impact the case could have on California foreclosures is
suggested by attorney Jeff Barnes, who writes:
"This opinion ... serves as a legal basis to challenge any foreclosure
in California based on a MERS assignment; to seek to void any MERS
assignment of the Deed of Trust or the note to a third party for
purposes of foreclosure; and should be sufficient for a borrower to
not only obtain a TRO [temporary restraining order] against a
Trustee's Sale, but also a Preliminary Injunction barring any sale
pending any litigation filed by the borrower challenging a foreclosure
based on a MERS assignment."
While not binding on courts in other jurisdictions, the ruling could
serve as persuasive precedent there as well, because the court cited
nonbankruptcy cases related to the lack of authority of MERS, and
because the opinion is consistent with prior rulings in Idaho and
Nevada Bankruptcy courts on the same issue.
RICO and Fraud Charges
Other suits go beyond merely challenging title to alleging criminal
activity. On July 26, 2010, a class action was filed in Florida
seeking relief against MERS and an associated legal firm for
racketeering and mail fraud. It alleges that the defendants used "the
artifice of MERS to sabotage the judicial process to the detriment of
borrowers"; that "to perpetuate the scheme, MERS was and is used in a
way so that the average consumer, or even legal professional, can
never determine who or what was or is ultimately receiving the
benefits of any mortgage payments"; that the scheme depended on "the
MERS artifice and the ability to generate any necessary 'assignment'
which flowed from it"; and that "by engaging in a pattern of
racketeering activity, specifically 'mail or wire fraud,' the
Defendants ... participated in a criminal enterprise affecting
interstate commerce."
Local governments deprived of filing fees may also be getting into the
act, at least through representatives suing on their behalf. Qui tam
actions allow for a private party or "whistle blower" to bring suit on
behalf of the government for a past or present fraud on it. In State
of California ex rel. Barrett R. Bates, filed May 10, 2010, the
plaintiff qui tam sued on behalf of a long list of local governments
in California against MERS and a number of lenders, including Bank of
America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, for "wrongfully bypass[ing]
the counties' recording requirements; divest[ing] the borrowers of the
right to know who owned the promissory note ...; and record[ing] false
documents to initiate and pursue non-judicial foreclosures and to
otherwise decrease or avoid payment of fees to the Counties and the
Cities where the real estate is located." The complaint notes that
"MERS claims to have 'saved' at least $2.4 billion dollars in
recording costs," meaning it has helped avoid billions of dollars in
fees otherwise accruing to local governments. The plaintiff sues for
treble damages for all recording fees not paid during the past ten
years and for civil penalties of between $5,000 and $10,000 for each
unpaid or underpaid recording fee and each false document recorded
during that period, potentially a hefty sum. Similar suits have been
filed by the same plaintiff qui tam in Nevada and Tennessee.
Axing the Bankers' Money Tree
Most courts continue to look the other way on MERS' lack of standing
to sue, but the argument has picked up enough steam to consider the
rather stunning implications. If MERS is not the title holder of
properties held in its name, the chain of title has been broken and no
one may have standing to sue. In MERS v. Nebraska Department of
Banking and Finance, MERS insisted that it had no actionable interest
in title, and the court agreed.
An August 2010 article in Mother Jones titled "Fannie and Freddie's
Foreclosure Barons" exposes a widespread practice of "foreclosure
mills" in backdating assignments after foreclosures have been filed.
Not only is this perjury, a prosecutable offense, but if MERS was
never the title holder, there is nothing to assign. The defaulting
homeowners could wind up with free and clear title.
In Florida, Jacksonville Area Legal Aid attorney April Charney has
been using the missing-note argument ever since she first identified
that weakness in the lenders' case in 2004. Five years later, she
says, some of those homeowners are still in their homes. According to
a Huffington Post article titled "'Produce the Note' Movement Helps
Stall Foreclosures":
"Because of the missing ownership documentation, Charney is now
starting to file quiet title actions, hoping to get her homeowner
clients full title to their homes (a quiet title action 'quiets' all
other claims). Charney says she's helped thousands of homeowners delay
or prevent foreclosure and trained thousands of lawyers across the
country on how to protect homeowners and battle in court."
If courts overwhelmed with foreclosures decide to take up the cause,
the result could be millions of struggling homeowners with the banks
off their backs and millions of homes no longer on the books of some
too-big-to-fail banks. Without those assets, the banks could again be
looking at bankruptcy, as was pointed out in a San Francisco Chronicle
article by attorney Sean Olender following the October 2007 Boyko
decision:
"The ticking time bomb in the US banking system is not resetting
subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability
of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans
at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.
"... The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest US
banks combined and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability
sufficient to cause even the largest US banks to fail...."
Nationalization of these giant banks might be the next logical step -
a step that some commentators said should have been taken in the first
place. When the banking system of Sweden collapsed following a housing
bubble in the 1990s, nationalization of the banks worked out very well
for that country.
The Swedish banks were largely privatized again when they got back on
their feet, but it might be a good idea to keep some banks as publicly-
owned entities, on the model of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
For most of the 20th century, it served as a "people's bank," making
low interest loans to consumers and businesses through branches all
over the country.
With the strengthened position of Wall Street following the 2008
bailout and the tepid 2010 banking reform bill, the US is far from
nationalizing its mega-banks now. But a committed homeowner movement
to tear off the predatory mask called MERS could yet turn the tide.
While courts are not likely to let 62 million homeowners off scot-
free, the defect in title created by MERS could give them significant
new leverage at the bargaining table.
Nickname unavailable
2011-06-14 04:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by CB
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-government-runs-58-bln-may-budget-
deficit-2011-06-10
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) ? The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of
about $58 billion in May, down more than 50% from a year ago, mostly due
to lower estimates for the cost of the bank-bailout plan, data showed
Friday.
A bank-bailout plan that was enacted during the Bush administration.
Caused by Democrats giving unqualified blacks homes they couldn't afford.
The usual racist garbage.
You Libs Progressively use the race card to intimidate people into
sitting down. It's what Barney Fwank used to get banks to loan money
to under qualified people which lead to Goldman Sachs bundling high
risk mortgages into securities and sold on Wall Street. It was a
ponzi scheme in which Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jamie Gorelick,
Maxine Waters, Franklin Raines, Chuck Shumer, Gregory Meeks and The
Congressional Black Caucus all participated in.
DemocRATs blocked all attempts at regulating and auditing Fanny and
Freddy
http://youtu.be/M8LA8hPgQtI
Bill Clinton admits Dims fought against finding the RATs in Fanny and
Freddy 5:50 into the clip.
They'd give them selves $500K bonuses on a $500K salary!
No one went to jail in Congress, at Freddy or Fannie, not in Goldman
Sachs. Dims think the tax payers are suckers to leech off of.
When 47% of America pay no taxes you can count on them not paying
attention to what Barney Fwank is up to...no good.
liar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28309.htm

A Beginners Guide to Shadow Banking, Financial Crisis and Repo 

By
Mike Whitney

June 12 2011 "Information Clearing House"  What if I
told you that the financial crisis could be explained in just two
words? Would you believe me?

It's true, and oddly enough, neither of
the words is "subprime".

So, what are the words?

Bank run. The
financial crisis was actually a run on the banking system. Only it
wasn't a run in the usual sense of the word where jittery depositors
line up on the street waiting to withdraw their savings, but a run on
the shadow banking system where traditional banks get their funding
via short-term loans in what's called the "repo market". (short for
"repurchase agreement") The shadow banking system has become a
critical part of the infrastructure of the modern financial system. It
provides a way for banks to move credit risk off their balance sheets,
thus reducing the amount of capital they need to support their
operations. The banks argue that this new system has made credit
cheaper for borrowers which, in turn, generates more activity and
growth in the economy. But, of course, the risks are much greater too,
as we can see from trillions of dollars that were lost following the
meltdown of 2008. These risks cannot be contained as long as shadow
banks remain unregulated.

So, when did the crisis actually begin?
Well, most people would point to September 15, 2008, the day that
Lehman Brothers defaulted and markets went into freefall. But that's
not when the trouble actually started. The trouble began a full year
earlier on August 9, 2007, as Pimco's Paul McCulley recalls in his
comments at the 19th Annual Hyman Minsky Conference. Here's an excerpt
from the speech:

"On August 9, 2007, game over. If you have to pick a
day for the Minsky Moment, it was August 9. And, actually, it didn’t
happen here in the United States. It happened in France, when Paribas
Bank (BNP) said that it could not value the toxic mortgage assets in
three of its off-balance sheet vehicles, and that, therefore, the
liability holders, who thought they could get out at any time, were
frozen. I remember the day like my son’s birthday. And that happens
every year. Because the unraveling started on that day. In fact, it
was later that month that I actually coined the term “Shadow Banking
System” at the Fed’s annual symposium in Jackson Hole.

...while the
run commenced on August 9th of 2007, it was pretty much an orderly run
up until September 15, 2008. And it was orderly primarily because the
Fed.... evoked Section 13-3 of the Federal Reserve Act in March of
2008 in order to facilitate the merger of under-a-run Bear Stearns
into JPMorgan. Concurrently, the Fed opened its balance sheet to the
biggest shadow banks of all, the investment banks that were primary
dealers, including most important, the big five. It was called the
Primary Dealer Credit Facility....

The Fed created a whole host of
facilities to stop the run. In fact, they expanded the Primary Dealer
Credit Facility to what are known as Schedule 2 assets, which meant
that dealers could rediscount anything at the Fed that they could
borrow against in the tri-party repo market.

Concurrently, the FDIC
stepped up to the plate, doing two incredibly important things. Number
one, they totally uncapped deposit insurance on transaction accounts,
which meant that the notion of uninsured depositors in transaction
accounts became an oxymoron. If you were in a transaction account,
there was no reason to run. And then the FDIC effectively became a
monoline insurer to nonbank financials with its Temporary Liquidity
Guarantee Program (TGLP) allowing both banks and shadow banks to issue
unsecured debt with the full faith and credit of Uncle Sam for a 75
basis points fee. No surprise some $300 billion was issued.

So,
bottom line, you had the Fed step up and provide its public good to
the Shadow Banking System. You had the FDIC step up and do the same
thing with its public good. And as Paul Volcker was noting this
afternoon, you had the Treasury step up and provide a similar public
good for the money market mutual funds, using the Foreign Exchange
Stabilization Fund." ( After the Crisis: Planning a New Financial
Structure, Paul McCulley, 19th Annual Hyman Minsky Conference, Zero
Hedge)

This is a great description of what happened, but McCulley is
a Managing Director at the country's biggest bond fund, so naturally
his perspective is different than yours or mine. From a working man's
point of view, this is what happened: The banks had been creating
dodgy loans that they knew would never be repaid because the mortgage
applicants weren't truly qualified to borrow as much money as they
did. (Many of the applicants were called Ninjas...aka--"No income, no
job, no assets") But the regulators and ratings agencies looked the
other way because there was a lot of money involved and everyone was
getting very rich. The dodgy loans were chopped up into securitized
bonds (mainly Mortgage-Backed Securities) and sold to insurance
companies, retirement funds and foreign investors. Then, on August 9,
2007, the Merry-go-round ground to a halt when Paribas Bank (BNP)
stopped redemptions on assets that no one really knew how to value.
(So, the crisis wasn't really a "panic" as much as it was a repricing
event. The market had not yet repriced these toxic assets which were
plunging in value on the ABX index.)

The problem was that the banks
had been using these toxic assets to secure funding in the repo
market. Now that their value was plunging, the banks were becoming
increasingly less liquid and less inclined to deal with other banks
that they knew were also in trouble. Keep in mind, that "according to
Thomson Reuters, nearly $14 trillion worth of complex-securitized
products were created," through this process which put the entire
global financial system at risk. So, it wasn't just subprime mortgages
(which only amounted to $1.5 trillion) that caused the meltdown, but
the trillions of dollars in complex securitized bonds that had been
traded through shadow intermediaries. As Anat R. Admati, Professor of
Finance and Economics, Graduate School of Business at Stanford
University said, "Housing policies alone, however, would not have led
to the near insolvency of many banks and to the credit-market freeze.
The key to these effects was the excessive leverage that pervaded, and
continues to pervade, the financial industry." ("Fed scholars: A run
on the repurchase market caused the financial crisis and will probably
happen again", Repowatch)

Understanding how the repo market works is
crucial, but it's also hard to grasp. So, let's use an analogy.

Let's
say I need some cash to finance some other business operations I have
going. So, I go down to the local pawn shop with my custom-built
Maserati, my original Chagall oil painting, and my collection of
Renaissance gold coins. The pawnbroker takes one look at my trove and
says he can lend me $25,000 for a week, but I'll have to pay him
$26,000 to get my stuff back. I say, "Okay", and borrow the money.
This allows me to keep my other business operations running. Then, a
week later, I return to the pawn shop and repay the money I borrowed.
Okay, so far?

So, next week I go back to the pawn shop and try to get
the same deal. Only this time, the dealer has done a little research
and discovered that my custom Maserati is actually a late-model Yugo
with a flashy paint job; my original Chagall is actually a paint-by-
numbers fake I picked up at a flea market, and my collection of
Renaissance gold coins, is actually a scattering of slot-machine slugs
with a pyrite finish. So the dealer gets all huffy and says he'll only
lend me half of what he had before, ($12,500) But that's a big problem
for me, because now I don't have the money to fund my other operations
or pay my employees. So I have to dig into savings (bank capital),
which makes it harder for me to lend money to anyone else. As time
goes on, I am forced to sell more of my personal belongings (assets)
just to stay afloat.

This is precisely what happened to the banks
during the financial crisis. Financial firms that had been providing
full-value for securitized bonds (my Maserati) got worried that those
bonds might contain toxic subprime loans (my Yugo). So they reduced
the amount of money they would lend on the bonds. These so-called
"haircuts" set-off a slow-motion panic that lasted for over a year,
draining nearly $4 trillion from the shadow banking system. The
problem was compounded by the fact that no one knew which bundles held
the worst mortgages or which banks had the biggest pile of bonds. So,
interbank lending slowed to a crawl, LIBOR skyrocketed, and the credit
markets went into a deep-freeze. When Lehman Brothers defaulted on
September 15, 2008, the downward spiral accelerated and the entire
financial system crashed. That's why Fed chairman Ben Bernanke stepped
in and provided blanket guarantees on the financial assets of banks
and shadow banks alike.

The essential problem with shadow banking is
that it allows private industry (financial institutions) to generate
as much credit as they want, thus, adding to the money supply,
increasing economic activity, inflating gigantic asset-price bubbles,
and setting the stage for a catastrophic meltdown. Economist James
Hamilton explains how this works in a recent post titled "Follow The
Money". Here's an excerpt:

"If you buy a mortgage-backed security (or
collateralized debt obligation constructed from assorted MBS), you
could then issue commercial paper against it to get most of your money
back, essentially making the purchase self-financing. This was the
idea behind the notorious off-balance sheet structured investment
vehicles or conduits, which basically used money borrowed on the
commercial paper market to buy various pieces of the mortgage
securities created by the loan aggregators. The dollar value of
outstanding asset-backed commercial paper nearly doubled between 2004
and 2007.

“Yale Professor Gary Gorton has also emphasized the
importance of repo operations involving mortgage-related securities.
If I buy a security, I can then pledge it as collateral to obtain a
repo loan, again getting most of my money back and allowing the
purchase to be mostly self-financing as long as I keep rolling over
repos. Although I have not been able to find numbers on the volume of
such transactions, it appears to have been quite substantial.

“The
question of how the house price run-up was funded thus has a pretty
clear answer: Other People's Money. Because of so much money pouring
into house purchases, the price was driven up." ("Follow The Money",
James Hamilton, Econbrowser)

This is how Wall Street pumped up
leverage to ungodly levels and steered the financial system off the
cliff. The debt-instruments and repo market were used to create a
humongous debt pyramid balanced precariously atop a few crumbs of
capital.

Consider this, from an article titled “Liquidity Crises –
Understanding sources and limiting consequences: A theoretical
framework,” by Robert E. Lucas, Jr. and Nancy L. Stokey:

"In August
of 2008, the entire banking system held about $50 billion in actual
cash reserves while clearing trades of $2,996 trillion per day. Yet
every one of these trades involved an uncontingent promise to pay
someone hard cash whenever he asked for it. If ever a system was
“runnable,” this was it." (RepoWatch)

Are you kidding me? "$2,996
trillion" in daily trading was propped up an a paltry $50 billion in
cash reserves!?! No wonder the system crashed. Even the slightest
trace of doubt in the quality of the collateral being exchanged in the
repo market, would automatically set off alarms and trigger a panic.
And it did!

So, what is the likelihood of that happening again? Are
we still in danger?

Yes, we are. In fact, another crisis is probably
unavoidable since congress has done nothing to address the repo
problem or to make the necessary changes in regulation.

Policymakers
need to raise capital requirements, toughen lending standards, and
ensure that trading takes place on public platforms that can be
monitored by government regulators. Also, financial institutions that
function like banks must be regulated like banks. Otherwise, the banks
will create more structured instruments that will (eventually) spark
another bank run forcing the public to bail out the system once more.
As economics professors T. Sabri Öncü and Viral V. Acharya, professors
say, "Leaving the repo market as it currently functions is not an
alternative; if this market is not reformed and their participants not
made to internalize the liquidity risk, runs on the repo will occur in
the future, potentially leading to systemic crises." (RepoWatch)

The
only way to prevent another financial crisis is to fix repo, but Dodd-
Frank doesn't do that.
 
Bret Cahill
2011-06-14 05:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by CB
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-government-runs-58-bln-may-budget-
deficit-2011-06-10
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) ? The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of
about $58 billion in May, down more than 50% from a year ago, mostly due
to lower estimates for the cost of the bank-bailout plan, data showed
Friday.
A bank-bailout plan that was enacted during the Bush administration.
Caused by Democrats giving unqualified blacks homes they couldn't afford.
The usual racist garbage.
You Libs Progressively use the race card to intimidate people into
sitting down. It's what Barney Fwank used to get banks to loan money
to under qualified people which lead to Goldman Sachs bundling high
risk mortgages into securities and sold on Wall Street.
Dumbya had eight (8) years to straighten out Fannie and Freddie.

Bush was too busy running up $trillions in debt struttin' around on
aircraft carriers.


Bret Cahill
CB
2011-06-14 23:03:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:41:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by CB
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-government-runs-58-bln-may-budget-
deficit-2011-06-10
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) ? The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of
about $58 billion in May, down more than 50% from a year ago, mostly due
to lower estimates for the cost of the bank-bailout plan, data showed
Friday.
A bank-bailout plan that was enacted during the Bush administration.
Caused by Democrats giving unqualified blacks homes they couldn't afford.
The usual racist garbage.
You Libs Progressively use the race card to intimidate people into
sitting down. It's what Barney Fwank used to get banks to loan money
to under qualified people which lead to Goldman Sachs bundling high
risk mortgages into securities and sold on Wall Street.
Dumbya had eight (8) years to straighten out Fannie and Freddie.
Bush was too busy running up $trillions in debt struttin' around on
aircraft carriers.
Bret Cahill
You Libs are Progressively stupid


Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing
crisis; meltdown
Nickname unavailable
2011-06-15 00:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by CB
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:41:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by CB
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-government-runs-58-bln-may-budget-
deficit-2011-06-10
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) ? The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of
about $58 billion in May, down more than 50% from a year ago, mostly due
to lower estimates for the cost of the bank-bailout plan, data showed
Friday.
A bank-bailout plan that was enacted during the Bush administration.
Caused by Democrats giving unqualified blacks homes they couldn't afford.
The usual racist garbage.
You Libs Progressively use the race card to intimidate people into
sitting down. It's what Barney Fwank used to get banks to loan money
to under qualified people which lead to Goldman Sachs bundling high
risk mortgages into securities and sold on Wall Street.
Dumbya had eight (8) years to straighten out Fannie and Freddie.
Bush was too busy running up $trillions in debt struttin' around on
aircraft carriers.
Bret Cahill
You Libs are Progressively stupid
http://youtu.be/cMnSp4qEXNM
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing
crisis; meltdown
bush was in control of the regulatory regimes for 8 years, and did
nothing, except, more deregulation. he named christopher cox to the
securities and exchange commission, a confirmed ayn rand self
regulation, anti-regulation nut case.
the housing bubble happened on his watch, and crashed on his watch.
CB
2011-06-14 23:05:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:41:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by CB
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-government-runs-58-bln-may-budget-
deficit-2011-06-10
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) ? The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of
about $58 billion in May, down more than 50% from a year ago, mostly due
to lower estimates for the cost of the bank-bailout plan, data showed
Friday.
A bank-bailout plan that was enacted during the Bush administration.
Caused by Democrats giving unqualified blacks homes they couldn't afford.
The usual racist garbage.
You Libs Progressively use the race card to intimidate people into
sitting down. It's what Barney Fwank used to get banks to loan money
to under qualified people which lead to Goldman Sachs bundling high
risk mortgages into securities and sold on Wall Street.
Dumbya had eight (8) years to straighten out Fannie and Freddie.
Bush was too busy running up $trillions in debt struttin' around on
aircraft carriers.
Bret Cahill
Stupid, stupid stupid


Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-06-17 22:26:53 UTC
Permalink
What I find appalling about the financial real estate crisis of 2008
that we are still in, is how racially skewed conservative opinion is
towards the role that Fannie Mae Played in the collapse of the market.
The fact is Wall Street banks recieved more than 500 percent more
bailout funds then Fannie Mae recieved, and Conservative bigots
overlook this and target Fannie Mae as being the cause of the
collapse, when the fact is over 80 percent of all subprime lending
(loans to People with less than perfect credit scores) directly
responsible for banks and other lenders assuming toxic assets,
(defaulted mortgage loans) were issued by private lenders and not
Fannie Mae. What got Fannie Mae in trouble was a few of its executives
got greedy, and began buying billions of dollars in collateralized
debt obligations from companies like CountryWide, now owned by Bank of
America, even though CountryWide knowingly falsified income earnings
amounts of borrowers to the account managers in order to increase the
borrowers loan amount and their own commissions on the loan. (pg. 192)
They, offered these fraudulent contracts to low and middle income
people, white or minority race alike.

These mortgages, over half were zero down Adjustable Rate Mortgages,
in which interest rates skyrocketed later on during the loan cycle.
The contract weere written in incomprehensible legalese that even a
PHD in finance probably wouldnt know what he was signing., So with the
collapse of the market starting in november of 2007, due to
speculators cashing in their default futures options (credit default
swaps), companies invested in these mortgage backed securities, seeing
their bottom line under assualt began laying off millions of workers,
home prices dropped to almost 10 year lows, people suddenly owed more
on their home than it was worth,and with job losses accruing, and high
interest payments required from these ARM loans, of which
CountryWideBofA was the second largest issuer of these "toxic assets"
in the nation, fraudenly screwing millions of people, who had no
choice but to default, and all of these factors caused the collapse of
the housing market.

I got all of this info from a book Iam reading written
by Pulitzer prize winning New York Times reporter Gretchen Morgenson.
The
Book is titled , "Reckless Endangerment,"

http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Armageddon/dp/0805091203/
discussion archived here

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/8fa5c50b560648fb?lnk=raot#8fa5c50b560648fb
Post by CB
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-government-runs-58-bln-may-budget-
deficit-2011-06-10
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) ? The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of
about $58 billion in May, down more than 50% from a year ago, mostly due
to lower estimates for the cost of the bank-bailout plan, data showed
Friday.
A bank-bailout plan that was enacted during the Bush administration.
Caused by Democrats giving unqualified blacks homes they couldn't afford.
The usual racist garbage.
You Libs Progressively use the race card to intimidate people into
sitting down. It's what Barney Fwank used to get banks to loan money
to under qualified people which lead to Goldman Sachs bundling high
risk mortgages into securities and sold on Wall Street. It was a
ponzi scheme in which Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jamie Gorelick,
Maxine Waters, Franklin Raines, Chuck Shumer, Gregory Meeks and The
Congressional Black Caucus all participated in.
DemocRATs blocked all attempts at regulating and auditing Fanny and
Freddy
http://youtu.be/M8LA8hPgQtI
Bill Clinton admits Dims fought against finding the RATs in Fanny and
Freddy 5:50 into the clip.
They'd give them selves $500K bonuses on a $500K salary!
No one went to jail in Congress, at Freddy or Fannie, not in Goldman
Sachs. Dims think the tax payers are suckers to leech off of.
When 47% of America pay no taxes you can count on them not paying
attention to what Barney Fwank is up to...no good.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...