RDF:![[Valid RSS]](http://validator.w3.org/feed/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Another Day, Another Heap Of Democrat Communist Lies (UPDATED)
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in Democrat Arses11:14 AM
…and, as always, the duty of mucking out the stables falls upon the tired shoulders of His Imperial Majesty. But, then again, catching Democrats in lies and calling them out on them, while just about the least challenging pastime known to man, is quite amusing.
This time, we would like to first of all thank LC Russ Vaughn for the catch.
As we’re sure you know already, the Democrats Communists are busy blaming Republicans for the mess that is Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, trying desperately to airbrush actual historical facts out of the way in order to support their, as always, 100% Fact Free Narrative™.
Granted, the facts in this case are 5 years old, so it’s a fair bet that most people would have forgotten by now, something that Democrats Communists rely on heavily in order to get away with their constant stream of mendacious nonsense. Unfortunately for them, the Internet is forever no matter how much the pinheaded pusbags fail to grasp that simple fact, something that Kindergarteners know.
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATONThe Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken.
Something they recognized, and we repeat, 5 years ago. Would increased oversight have been helpful in avoiding the unholy mess we’re in now? The Democrats Communists sure seem to think so now, considering their calls for hearings into just about everything now that the damage is done.
Unfortunately, they didn’t see much of a reason to do anything about it back then. As a matter of fact, they were downright against it:
Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”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.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said. [Emphases ours -- Emp. M.]
So it all came to naught, thanks in part to the efforts of one Democrat Communist brickhead who really ought to stick to letting his boyfriend running male prostitution rings out of their love nest in D.C.
The rest, as they say, is history, and we’re watching the consequences right now.
UPDATE: Oh, and guess what? Whassisface? tried to prevent the present collapse once again in 2005 while precisely predicting what happened recently if no measures were taken.
Guess who kept his proposal from even leaving committee? You guessed right. Democrats Communists again.
Entries (RSS)
The communists make sure EVERYBODY, even if they can’t pay for it, has a house, now they are defaulting on these loans and my kids and grandkids are gonna pick up the tab.
Got it!!
Is it time to grab the pitchforks, and march up fuckin capitol hill and put everone of these assclowns in jail.
And no Dj I don’t give a fuck what letter they have behind their name. all of them who are responsible for this need to go to jail.
Everbody was willing to scalp Ken Lay for what he did to Enron and nobody is holding these clowns accountable?
Fuck em I’m done.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:30 AMUsing
Side note, 2 previous people who ran Freddie and Fannie are now Obama’s “economic advisors”. I apologize I can’t remember their names at the moment. These people did their part to destroy these “institutions” while walking away with over 100 million dollars in bonuses from the two mortgage companies.
These are the “experts” Obama wants to rely on. Oh yeah, he’s really going to bring CHANGE we can believe in. Bread lines and tent cities as far as the eye can see.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:55 AMUsing
OK, let’s not forget that by and large, the current mess was CAUSED by government regulation. Many of us may associate John Lott with guns, but he is, in fact, an economist, and a brilliant one at that (as well as a hell of a nice guy). John blogged about this very issue a few months back. It’s worth reading.
Specifically, this bit:
Are we getting the picture yet?
For more, read Walter Williams’ column. Specifically, this bit:
I can’t imagine that creating yet ANOTHER layer of government bureaucracy that would, in effect, NATIONALIZE two mortgage companies (Let’s call it what it is, shall we?) as an answer to a problem created by the government in the first place. Sorry folks. More government is not the solution.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:03 PMUsing
The Democrats are calling for hearings to expose … themselves?
:em01:
September 17th, 2008 at 12:13 PMUsing
Of course not, their “fuzzy logic” protocols will spin the hard and irrefutable facts and turn the actual reasons of why something failed and morph them into fairy tales. They won’t even blame the deadbeats who didn’t pay their mortgages. The two mortgage giants were the piggybank for the democrapic party and many of their retarded initiatives (apologies to those who are medically retarded).
September 17th, 2008 at 12:19 PMUsing
Marinia -
You’re probably correct, but they’re still morons worthy of ridicule. :em93:
September 17th, 2008 at 12:28 PMUsing
Oh, looky here! ANOTHER bailout in the works! Tell me again how there’s this huge difference between the Republican socialists and the Democratic ones!
September 17th, 2008 at 12:45 PMUsing
If this current government had been in existence when T. Rex was alive, we would still be being eaten by them now. “Why look at the size of this. He is too big to fail.”
we the people have to take back the congress.
Ted
September 17th, 2008 at 12:50 PMUsing
Barney is today’s whipping boy because of the hearing he chaired, but let’s not forget about Franron’s point man in the Senate: Chris Dodd. His fingerprints are all over their rotting corpses as well.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:33 PMUsing
And we’re supposed to be surprised by this? When all else fails circle the wagons and Blame Bush, right?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:48 PMUsing
And Barney Frank is still defending himself
But it seems that some of us do have longer memories than the average American Idol fan.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:00 PMUsing
You can expect a few of the political boys to clean up in the foreclosed housing market in the near future I suspect.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:19 PMUsing
Deathknyte,
or run to join Obama’s campaign like the fannie mae and freddie mac heads did.
Ted
September 17th, 2008 at 2:42 PMUsing
Did you happen to notice on that list of campaign contributions that McCain received ALL of his measly $21,550 of contributions from individuals - not one penny from PACs.
But, of course, the only way McCain could possibly win is because of White Privilege.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:13 PMUsing
White privilege is about being told how guilty we are for not having a good tan.
White privilege is about being berated by others who dislike all the things you worked hard for.
White privilege is about being told constantly that disliking disreputable people who happen to be a minority is racism.
White privilege is about having others do everything to destroy your Judeo-Christian beliefs and not being about to do anything about it.
White privilege is about people claiming you control the whole world through some secret whites only society.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:23 PMUsing
The only consideration about this deal is who loses if Fannie and Freddy go belly up. 1. Wall St. execs who put their kids trust funds in mortgage bonds: 2. Chicomms who did the same. This reminds me of the S & L bailouts where any bank or S & L with government paper in their portfolios were made whole, and those which did not were left to rot. Go figure.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:02 PMUsing
Where can I get some of this white privilege stuff? I’m white. Don’t I qualify?
September 17th, 2008 at 4:08 PMUsing
Hell, these revelations tend to make GWB look good - and that’s tough to do.
Pumas for McCain
September 17th, 2008 at 4:12 PMUsing
The only white people who are priveledged are those of us with enough wealth to insulate ourselves from liberal power and institutions. Unless you’re single, you need to be liquid to the tune of 8 figures.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:20 PMUsing
[...] Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Another Day, Another Heap Of Democrat Communist Lies (UPDATED) [...]
September 17th, 2008 at 4:33 PMUsing
This government bailout business is a dangerous and slippy road. Like all government handouts they are easy to make because what you give or pledge as a politician is other people’s money.
But the actual moral problem with bailing out companies is two-fold:
Losses are socialized while gains are privatized. Why in the name of all that is holy should the taxpayer take on the risk of doing business while the gains of it are taken in by the shareholders. Both the potential gains and losses should lie with the same person(s). Only then will the market be able to accurately and fairly price the risk of doing business and conduct business prudently.
The subprime mess could only come about because the general consensus among both mortgage lenders and investment banks was that they would be bailed out if their bets would turn out the wrong way.
Which is the 2nd problem. Like welfare creates legions of peons dependant on further handouts and alimentation by the state, bail-outs create the expectation of further bail-outs and with this expectation actually make them happen through poor pricing of risk and even poorer decision making.
What the market and the economy needs is less regulation and the clear message that nobody will be bailed out. This would not only make the big players more careful and prudent but also make their clients, all the small town banks, all the pension funds of normal people, all those really vulnerable market participants more risk-aware and could in the long run help to avoid such a mess the next time.
Sorry for the monologue, but working in the industry hasn’t been fun for the last year.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:49 PMUsing
The problem with the linked enlightenments(or verifications) of the gummint interferences is that WE already know and/or believe that’s the problem in the first place. Those who believe that government is the cure-all won’t read these things to be enlightened by them. They’re too bone-headed to agree, and won’t go to one of those horrible right wing capitalist blogs to see the truth of it. “There is none so blind as he who will not see”. How do we prop their heads up and point their face at the answer?
September 17th, 2008 at 7:39 PMUsing
cmblake6
I would suggest duct tape, two by fours, a slap stapler, and a nailgun…
September 17th, 2008 at 9:10 PMUsing
[...] Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Another Day, Another Heap Of Democrat Communist Lies (UPDATED) [...]
September 17th, 2008 at 9:21 PMUsing
Maybe I’m just dense, but could someone explain to me the PRACTICAL difference between these “bailouts” and NATIONALIZING these companies and/or industries?
When the government uses taxpayer money to BUY the debts of a company or industry, do they not, then, OWN it?
McCain has already stated that he will “bail out” the Auto Industry. Where will it stop? Or, will it?
September 17th, 2008 at 11:51 PMUsing
I believe that the United States of America can be declared DEAD.
Deceased.
Defunct.
Departed.
Extinct.
Finished.
Finis.
Kaput.
I see no way to return the nation to Constitutional Principles, Constitutionally-Based Government, or a Free Market Economy. It’s done.
Matter of fact, I think the fear over what Barack Obama might do to this country is now silly. An outdated concern.
Just my opinion, but, before you pile on me, just keep watching the news. See if the evidence that I’m right doesn’t mount day by day and year by year. Keep your eyes & ears open, and tell me the day you hear news that proves me wrong.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:03 AMUsing
Eyas
The two are close together and often go hand in hand. But they do not necessarily mean the same thing. In economic terms a bailout means rescuing an economic entity from bankruptcy. This can be done in several ways: Injecting liquidity by offering capital or by granting a loan or also by underwriting or guaranteeing debt that the entity already has in order to avoid bankruptcy through non-payment on the debt.
Nationalization means that the government takes ownership of a company and then acts as single or major stockholder and makes the economic decisions. Of course, as you have pointed out, they can often mean the same thing, especially in case of capital injection where the company issues new stock that the government then buys to provide the company with capital. If the government then owns a sufficient amount of shares, it would become the main shareholder and the company would be nationalized in practical terms.
I hope that helps.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:21 AMUsing
“Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.”
In other words, it would have kept a bunch of poor-assed, undereducated, never-in-hell-able-to-qualify-for-a-home-loan homies out of their overpriced homes, thus limiting the subprime debacle.
Some years ago, The Bell Curve demonstrated that such subgroups have lower IQs. I would love to have seen Murray, et al., have administered the tests to their champions in Congress…my guess is, they would have blown the damn bell curve.
FEURE FREI!!!!!!!!!
September 18th, 2008 at 9:58 AMUsing
Freddie and Fannie were never a private entity. They have always been “nationalized”. Financial oversight that is madatory for private firms were never allowed to audit the two. Oddly, GOVERNMENT oversight was never allowed to audit them either. Amazing what happens to a financial institution when Democrats are allowed to run it from it’s creation. Hell, at least Lehman brothers failed after 150+ years. The mortgage companies lasted what, less than 30?
September 18th, 2008 at 12:00 PMUsing
Fanny Mae may have been founded as a government enterprise under the new deal, but it became a stockholder-owned corporation in 1968. So no, it hasn’t ALWAYS been socialized.
Freddie Mac is a bit more complicated, as it was created by Congress, but as a private corporation.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:25 AMUsing
Panzerman, you hear that the gubmint’ is now talking about buying all the REO??!!!!! My God!!!!!! These politicians have lost it!!! I’ve been in the default industry for years and that would cause a complete meltdown of the real estate industry.
:em98: :em98: :em98:
September 19th, 2008 at 8:46 AMUsing
Hmmmm, the “New Deal” huh? Just how much of the collapse of America DOES go back to the late 20-early 30s? Most if not all?
September 19th, 2008 at 8:46 AMUsing
LC cmblake6 - quite a bit, I’m afraid.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:35 AMUsing
Thanks Panzerman,
I understand the technical distinction; but, I think it’s a distinction without a difference.
Besides, I don’t think that nationalization takes place, or has ever taken place, by a government simply buying a majority of shares of stock in a company. Was the Soviet government simply the largest stockholder of most companies on the Russian Stock Exchange?
The Government can, at any time, call the shots for any or all companies by passing laws; but when the government owns all of the debt of a company, they call the shots — without the need of that pesky practice of passing laws. The stockholders no longer get to decide what goes on in that company, the government does. You can say that the stockholders (and the Board, and officers) still control, and this may be true; but, they only control until the Federal Government says they don’t.
I’m also having trouble finding the Article of the U.S. Constitution that allows the Federal Government to absorb all of the debt of a company at taxpayer expense.
As far as the GSEs (Fannie & Freddie), they were Communist institutions from their inception, in that they ran as private entities with the promise of Government guarantees of the loans should things go wrong. Well, things went wrong, and things went wrong right away. These GSEs provided loans that no bank in a Free Market would (or could) provide and survive. Their collapse, and the takeover of their debt by the Government, was inevitable because the GSEs never operated on free market principles.
Most importantly, this is not the same as a privat entity buying or controlling all of a company’s debt. The Government has no money. The Government has NEVER had any money. The government REDISTRIBUTES your money, our money, my money. Now they’ve done it without consent, without Congress (the ONLY Branch that might potentially have the Constitutional Authority to do this), and without LAW.
When the Government uses your money to back the Financial Sector, AND the Insurance Industry, AND the Auto Industry, AND the Airline Industry, AND (maybe) the Oil Industry — when taxes fund the continued operation of most (or all) major industries — then will it be nationalization? When industries utterly cease to be a part of the free market because they can continually operate at a loss because they’re funded (”backed”)by taxpayer money, then will it be nationalization? Who bears the losses? Who bears the risks? It’s not the companies. It’s not the stockholders. And, it most certainly is NOT the Government (they have no money to lose). — It is only the taxpayer.
When the Government gains all the reward (interest on it’s “loans”), and bears none of the risk; and when the company may temporarily gain some reward, but bears none of the risk; and when the taxpayer gets NONE of the reward, and bears ALL of the risk — then will it be nationalization?
Or perhaps you think that the companies/industries will rapidly pay off their loans, and that will put an end to government involvement in those companies?
Not trying to be rude; and I truly did appreciate your explanation. But I don’t like to split hairs about the supposed “distinction” between Socialism and Communism; and I don’t see a fundamental difference between a “bailout” and “nationalization” in terms of the control Government wields over the means of production in this country, and the END of free market capitalism in these industries.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:51 AMUsing
Bailouts… nationalization… whatever. Fact of the matter is that the feds seized control of two entities (originally created by them) that did not belong to the government.
When a government takes over something that didn’t belong to it before, we can accurately call it nationalization.
Interesting article, here, by the way. You may not agree with everything it says, but it’s a good read.
September 19th, 2008 at 11:45 AMUsing
LC Ranger 6
What can I say… Professional Politicians of all colors just love times of crisis like that. They can portray themselves as heros and make the most hair-brained proposals and will still be taken seriously and people are less likely to see those ideas as what they are… power grabs. I had not previously heard of that proposal, it would however be catastrophic in effect. It would simply be one more step of introducing moral hazard. One more step of shielding economic entities from the consequences of their actions, in this case banks from the fallout of their lending practices.
Eyas
In my earlier post I might have concentrated too much about procedural and technical differences between what we call bailout and what we would consider nationalization. You are completely right, in most cases the two are exactly the same and the bailout is simply an euphemistic term to garnish an ugly truth… nationalization.
In effect, there are few realistic scenarios I can imagine and even fewer I can describe well enough in a blog comment where there would be a practical difference. Especially since a nationalization always provides for new and extended powers of politicians. New well-payed posts that can be awarded to each other, new all expenses paid trips and vacations etc. etc.
At the end of the day, the story in my book is pretty simple: the government has no business in meddling with the economy. They should set the environment, as in provide a working, fair and dependable justice system, laws, external and internal security and just as much regulation as is required to make the whole process fair and open. Apart from that, everybody with a letter behind his name should keep his paws off and his nose our of the whole affair. The market is for private entities acting on their own behalf and not for government to act with other people’s money.
If I had had any say in the matter, Fannie and Freddy and other troubled institutions should have simply failed on their bad debt. I see simply no basis for government to act as such a decicive market force. But more importanly, it creates a great amount of problems: It is a great misappropriation of taxpayer funds, it disrupts market forces and prevents the correction of a market and it creates the basis for the next market bubble/imbalance by causing an anticipation of future government intervention.
I think you are right in extending the current situation into the end or at least in the severe limitation of free market forces in the financing industry for some time to come. The basis for such a catastrophe has been layed this week. I cannot say where it’s gonna lead, but from where I stand at the moment, it doesn’t look pretty. Unfortunately, none of the two presidential candidates look like they have much interest in reversing the new massive government influence any time soon.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:43 PMUsing