Tracking down where it started

[jgaffney]

Another piece of the puzzle falls into place with this item about Rep. Barney Franks's involvement...so to speak:

Barney Frank Hit Over Boyfriend’s Fannie Mae Role

Critics are crying “conflict of interest” over Democratic Rep. Barney Frank’s live-in relationship with Fannie Mae executive Herb Moses while Frank was on the House Banking Committee.

Moses was Fannie Mae’s assistant director for product initiatives from 1991 to 1998.

He was also openly gay Frank’s live-in boyfriend during that time, while the Massachusetts lawmaker was on the committee that had jurisdiction over government-sponsored Fannie Mae, Fox News’ Bill Sammon reported.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the center of the recent financial meltdown, the relationship is coming under increased scrutiny.

“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute.

“He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?

“But everyone wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard.”

A top Republican House aide told Fox News: “He writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws? No media ever take note?”

Frank and Moses met in 1987 and lived together in Washington, D.C., until they split up in 1998.

National Mortgage News disclosed that Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”

Critics charge that such programs led to the mortgage meltdown and the recent government takeover of Fannie Mae, according to Fox News, which noted that Fannie Mae and its financial cousin Freddie Mac “are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.”

In 1994, Frank thwarted efforts by President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development to impose new regulations on Fannie Mae.

Source

So, between the rainbow politics of Barney Frank and the racial politics of Maxine Waters, the Dems beat back any effort by the Reps to get a look at what Fannnie and Freddie were doing. All in the name of affordable housing.

This issue is taking us over the cliff, folks.

[jgaffney]

On Sept. 30, 1999, the NY Times, hardly a conservative rag, published this:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Can you say "prescient"?

Where have you heard Franklin Raines' name recently? Oh, that's right - he's an economic advisor to Sen. Barack Obama!

So, in the name of racially-charged affordable housing, Fannie and Freddie are taking us over the cliff. Did you ever wonder why Congress passed the bailout bill so quickly, without any hearings at all? The Dems don't want their failings on parade for everyone to see, right before an election. Maybe later next year, early enough in the 111th Congress that it will be a forgotten issue before the 2010 elections. Culpability is definitely not the stock in trade on the Left.

[Mink]

Gaffney:
"So, between the rainbow politics of Barney Frank and the racial politics of Maxine Waters, the Dems beat back any effort by the Reps to get a look at what Fannnie and Freddie were doing. All in the name of affordable housing.

This issue is taking us over the cliff, folks."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's not forget the Republicans in this mess. They are just as guilty if not more with the hugh national deficit to boot! Thanks bush!

[jgaffney]

Oct 12, 2008 18:33:44 GMT -5 Mink said:

Let's not forget the Republicans in this mess. They are just as guilty if not more with the hugh national deficit to boot! Thanks (B)ush!

The newspapers are filled every day with "commentators" discussing the failures of the Bush (with a capital B) administration to prevent and/or deal with the economic crisis caused by the failure of Fannie and Freddie. However, coverage of Democrat culpability in this issue, despite the clear trail in the Congressional Record and even the NY Times, is thin, indeed, right, Mink?

[Mink]

Oct 12, 2008 18:45:48 GMT -5 jgaffney said:

Oct 12, 2008 18:33:44 GMT -5 Mink said:

Let's not forget the Republicans in this mess. They are just as guilty if not more with the hugh national deficit to boot! Thanks (B)ush!

The newspapers are filled every day with "commentators" discussing the failures of the Bush (with a capital B) administration to prevent and/or deal with the economic crisis caused by the failure of Fannie and Freddie. However, coverage of Democrat culpability in this issue, despite the clear trail in the Congressional Record and even the NY Times, is thin, indeed, right, Mink?

So, are you admitting Bush is just as guilty or trying to make sure he doesn't get all the blame?

[The Big Dog]

Oct 12, 2008 18:59:39 GMT -5 Mink said:

So, are you admitting Bush is just as guilty or trying to make sure he doesn't get all the blame?

You are utterly and completely hopeless. What a lame attempt to spin it in a different direction.

[bolverk]

Oct 12, 2008 18:59:39 GMT -5 Mink said:

Oct 12, 2008 18:45:48 GMT -5 jgaffney said:

The newspapers are filled every day with "commentators" discussing the failures of the Bush (with a capital B) administration to prevent and/or deal with the economic crisis caused by the failure of Fannie and Freddie. However, coverage of Democrat culpability in this issue, despite the clear trail in the Congressional Record and even the NY Times, is thin, indeed, right, Mink?

So, are you admitting Bush is just as guilty or trying to make sure he doesn't get all the blame?

The constitution is quite clear on whose fault this is Mink. And, in the last two years especially, it has been about getting Bush, not doing the countries business. Politics over substance, by the Democrats baby.

Article. I. - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[Mink]

Gaffney: The constitution is quite clear on whose fault this is Mink. And, in the last two years especially, it has been about getting Bush, not doing the countries business. Politics over substance, by the Democrats baby."
___________________________________________________

You are saying the current financial crisis has happened basically "overnight", so to speak by implying it happened in the last two years.

The reason the Democrats were elected to Congress in the last two years is due to no oversight in Congress in the prior 6 years, which is Bush's terms of office, hence the "getting Bush"......it is called accountability. The people spoke.

The reason the Democrats came up short, is due to the fact that their majority was not filibuster or veto proof, hence nothing accomplished. In the meantime, Bush/Cheney are skating their way in and out of office........and leave this country in a mess.

[jgaffney]

Thanks for attributing the quote to me, Mink. However, the author was Bloverk.

I think we can all agree that the current financial crisis started with the subprime mortgage meltdown. Is there any disagreement on that? I think we can all agree that the subprime mortgage meltdown was caused by borrowers getting mortgages that they really shouldn't have gotten, for various reasons. Those reasons included reduced qualification requirements by the lenders, falsification of application data by the buyers, and relaxed credit requirements overall.

So, where did the trend come from to relax the credit requirements? The lenders were not as concerned with the future of the mortgage loan because they knew that they would be able to package the loan with others and sell it to Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie, in turn, would bundle the mortgages and resell them as mortgage-backed securities, thus making a ton of money for Fannie and Freddie, both privately-held corporations.

So, why were Fannie and Freddie buying up the subprime mortgages? There was a push from the White House in 1998 and 1999 to expand federally-backed mortgages to marginally-qualified borrowers in order to expand home ownership in America, a laudable goal. So, a program that started out with good intentions ended up in the subprime mortgage meltdown that we have all witnessed over the past year, with the resultant damage done to the entire financial sector.

I don't have a problem with the efforts of the Clinton White House to expand home ownership. I'm in that industry, so expanded home construction benefits me. I have 2 daughters that I hope will someday be able to afford a house in Sonoma County. However, I do have a big problem with the way that the Democrats in Congress blatantly blocked any effort to exert Congressional oversight over Fannie and Freddie, as has been documented here. If the Republicans had been successful in passing the legislation in 2005, how might that have forestalled the crisis we are currently experiencing? Mink, can you show me that the Republicans participated in the blatant racial profiling of the regulators who reported to the House commmittee in 2004? Can you show me a Republican who claimed at the hearing, as Rep. Barney Frank did, "There's nothing wrong here"?

[bolverk]

Hey Mink, take a look at this nifty little invention:



If you click it and then post, you will never pick the wrong author.

And no, I am not saying that the melt down began in the last two years. I am saying that in the last two years the pending meltdown was not addressed by Congress in any way, shape or form. And, in the last two years the Democrats have been pouring acid on the President in the form of stating "his economic policies have failed." Well, excuse me, but the Congress is responsible for the economy, as the Constitution clearly states. And all we have seen from the Congress in the last two years is campaigning for the Democrats to win the White House and a complete and utter ignoring or their duties to the people.

[Mink]

Oct 14, 2008 13:39:10 GMT -5 @bolverk said:

Hey Mink, take a look at this nifty little invention:



If you click it and then post, you will never pick the wrong author.

And no, I am not saying that the melt down began in the last two years. I am saying that in the last two years the pending meltdown was not addressed by Congress in any way, shape or form. And, in the last two years the Democrats have been pouring acid on the President in the form of stating "his economic policies have failed." Well, excuse me, but the Congress is responsible for the economy, as the Constitution clearly states. And all we have seen from the Congress in the last two years is campaigning for the Democrats to win the White House and a complete and utter ignoring or their duties to the people.

What I have been saying is, it is not just the Democrats fault on this issue. They are all to blame as our reps. but it seems most of you put 99.99% guilt on Democrats.

Had this happened under Clinton's watch, guess who's fault it would be solely?

[bolverk]

Oct 14, 2008 23:14:17 GMT -5 Mink said:

Oct 14, 2008 13:39:10 GMT -5 @bolverk said:

Hey Mink, take a look at this nifty little invention:



If you click it and then post, you will never pick the wrong author.

And no, I am not saying that the melt down began in the last two years. I am saying that in the last two years the pending meltdown was not addressed by Congress in any way, shape or form. And, in the last two years the Democrats have been pouring acid on the President in the form of stating "his economic policies have failed." Well, excuse me, but the Congress is responsible for the economy, as the Constitution clearly states. And all we have seen from the Congress in the last two years is campaigning for the Democrats to win the White House and a complete and utter ignoring or their duties to the people.

What I have been saying is, it is not just the Democrats fault on this issue. They are all to blame as our reps. but it seems most of you put 99.99% guilt on Democrats.

Had this happened under Clinton's watch, guess who's fault it would be solely?

And what I am saying is absolutely nothing has been done about anything in the last two years of Congress. They have only been piling on Bush, that is it. They have neglected their duties for political gain, period, end of story. They got power and abused it.