Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Foreign investors. China and Russia insisted on Fannie Mac bail out.

Posted By: They own many mtg backed securities on 2008-10-01
In Reply to: German Chancellor - hang on a minute

dd


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

However, if foreign investors own some of those...
mortgages, then I guess we are...in a way. Need to do some more research on that.
That's right China. We basically support China in everyway, and
don't hear two words uttered about their communist society. But, no mention of any wrong doing from China, I mean where else can you get a shirt made for ten cents?

Robertson though has hijacked a good Christian show (I guess it's his show), but it would be a good show to watch if he wasn't on there throwing politics everywhere. I don't like the mix.
None of them insisted on covering
a Christian symbol, so it seems this president is extra concerned with appearances when it comes to Muslims, was my point.  One would expect a US president to object to speaking in front of a swastika (or to be seen as endorsing what it stands for) or some other symbol of hatred but to give a Christian symbol at a Catholic university that classification, especially when he says he is a Christian, is mystifying. 
They said they didn't like China.....that China would
--
Saddam insisted on euros for Iraq's oil. sm
About six months to a year before 911 happened, Saddam started insisting on payments for their oil in Euros instead of dollars. This did damage to the dollar. The US was furious. I remember Bush Sr. making the comment the American way of life is non-negotiable or something like that.
The reason is because FL insisted on moving up the primary, despite being told NOT to. nm
x
Yes, investors have a lot to lose....
and investors are not just "the rich." Many companies' 401Ks for their employees are in the stock market. People should be VERY careful about what they think they want...the effects could be disastrous for an already weak economy.
Because investors are getting wise to the whole
Count me OUT 4-ever.
Since they cheated the investors, those contracts should

Investors Business Daily (see link)

Decide for yourselves.


Link Below:


 


Brilliant investors who endorse Obama
You'll have to consult your usual right-wing rant rags to get the answer you want to hear. Learned a while back that trying to engage you in any sort of intelligent dialog is a waste of time and energy.
UBS: American Investors' Identities To Be Revealed
The curtain is being peeled back on the infamous secrecy of Swiss banks.

The largest bank in Switzerland, UBS, agreed Wednesday to reveal the names of wealthy Americans whom the authorities suspect of using offshore accounts to evade taxes.

The change in policy is the result of UBS' admitted role in conspiring to defraud the Internal Revenue Service. As part of the agreement, the bank will pay $780 million in damages, and also close all offshore accounts of its American clients.

It is not clear how many names will be divulged, but the Feds have been looking into roughly 19,000 accounts, according to the New York Times.

The deal could mark the end of Swiss banking as we know it, as many offshore clients may no longer trust the anonymity of the country's banking system.

Prosecutors suspect that UBS helped its American clients hide $20 billion from the government, or about $300 million a year in taxes, from late 2002 to 2007. UBS has admitted that some of its employees "participated in a scheme to defraud the United States"

don't stock investors have a lot to loose if dems get in the white house again?
just asking because this company's business is investments and stocks
Russia
Was wondering what you all thought of Russia's response to President-elect Obama.  Are any of you concerned about that guy more so now than before?
Can they see Russia from their house?

I have always been worried about Russia
There was a great quote from 40 or 20 years ago, from a Russian professor, I'll have to search for it. But, basically it said something like, "We will bring them in with good will and kindness, and then we will crush them with our iron fist!"

However, the issue with Russia doesn't raise any concerns over Obama with me. Maybe he can use a little diplomacy instead of just trying to bomb everything off the map, lol!
Yes, I am worried about Russia.

I do not mean to sound churchy, but I have been brought up that it states in the Bible that Russia (known as another name in Bible, but shows it on a map where Russia is) to be very worried.  When the country Russia comes into play, need to worry about Amargeddon, The End Times.  Not the countries of Iran, North Korea, etc., but Russia.   Yes, I am concerned about Russia.


Russia's opinion

We never believe a word they say unless it somehow coincides with our own opinions, huh?


 


I brought up Russia............sm
because it was an example of basically an exact opposite from what America is. You seem to want to live completely opposite than Americans have lived for the 150 (give or take) years before Madelyn Murray O'Hare started raising Cain (no pun intended) about prayer in schools, etc. While I realize atheists did exist prior to her time, for the most part, they pretty much "lived and let live" much as Christians did with respect to co-existing with them. That is more what I would call "tolerance" rather than getting all up in arms because God's name appears on the currency that puts a roof over your head, food on your table and clothes on your back.

As to the issue of Christian gays and lesbians, I really feel that is a subject more for the Faith forum and would happily discuss it with you there sometime as I have opinions on that as well. (are you surprised? LOL)

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman period. Unless you are married to a woman, then of course I feel your marriage is valid and certainly not worthless. You are really stretching the limits of common sense on this subject with your suppositions.

Your next to last statement is absolutely correct. There is only one way for true Christianity and that is based solely on the teachings in the Bible. People who do not believe the Bible do see it as divisive and intolerant, but like Paul said "the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who do not believe." Again, another fascinating subject for the Faith forum, but I would state that it is not Christians who seek to divide this nation but unbelievers who do because of their unbelief.

With all that said, JtBB, I will say this. I find you a very interesting person and really enjoy debating issues with you and hope you realize that just because our opinions clash some, okay most, of the time does not mean that I don't like you. :o)
Based on what is going on right now with Russia and georgia...
I would say looking in his eyes and seeing KGB is pretty much on the mark. McCain knows who and what Russian "management" are. You can see what they think about negotiations. Basically told the world up yours, if we want Georgia back we are going to take it. Why doesn't Obama go visit them like he did Germany and give a speech about how he is a citizen of the world and see how far it gets him. Sigh....Careful what YOU ask for.
It ain't Russia I'm immediately worried about...
xx
These remarks from Iran and Russia may not
RE: Response to Obama's election by Iran: What I see here is an opening for dialog in the recognition that there is a capacity for improvement of ties, not exactly the "Death to America" sentiments expressed in the past, this despite Obama's statement directed at those who would tear the world down (we will defeat you). I also see several implied preconditions. After all, preconditions are a two-way street:

1. I would be curious to have Aghamohammadi expand on what he means by Bush style "confrontation" in other countries. He is the spokesperson for the National Security Council in Iran, has been involved with the EU, Britian, France and Germany as a nuclear arms negotiator and would be directly involved in any dialog with the US on the subject of nuclear arms nonproliferation. We hardly have a leg to stand in this arena with our current "do as I say, not as I do and never mind the nuclear stockpiles in Israel we financed" approach. My guess would be he is condemning military invasion and occupation, hardly a radical position for any sovereign nation to take. In his own capacity, he should understand the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, so it is impossible to know in the absence of dialog what alternatives to military invasion may be possible. It might be worth a look-see.
2. His implied request for the US to "concentrate on state matters" might be seen by some as a little progress, especially since, at the moment, we do not even have an embassy in Iran. This also implies a possible opening to US business interests there (which were abundant under the Shah), a staging ground for diplomacy and establishing an avenue for articulating US foreign policy within their borders.
3. Concentrating on removing the American people's concerns would imply a desire on his part to repair and improve Iran's image abroad.

A well thought out response to these implied preconditions would be a logical place for Obama to start when speculating on his own preconditions.

RE: Russia's recent behavior and rhetoric is worrisome on many levels to more than a few countries in the region. Cold war with Russia is in NOBODY'S interest, including Russia's I fail to see how turning our backs, isolating ourselves or ratcheting up bellicose rhetoric toward them would do anything except give them a green light to proceed. It's an ugly world out there and Obama will inevitably be taking either a direct or an indirect diplomatic role in addressing this issue. Russia has expressed that same expectation.

I agree with you and find humor in the remarks from Sudan. Anyway, wait and watch is all we can do at this point. It certainly beats the heck out of prognostications of failure or defeat.

That is the modus operandi of Russia....
and probably one of the early tests Biden was talking about. I don't think it came as a surprise to him. I am not concerned about Russia's response...I am concerned about Obama's response to them, but we will have to wait awhile to find that out, I am assuming, since he has not formally taken the job yet.

I do think, however, that Russia's response to a McCain win would have been different. They don't need to test him...they already know where he stands (I looked in his eyes and saw KGB).
The commend from Russia was directed at the new...
administration, not the current one. So it is not Bush's problem. Bush admin reacted the way they should have to the aggression in Georgia...and yes, I think Georgia was aimed at the election. Do you not remember Joe Biden going over there because he "friends" with the Georgian President? Came back denouncing the invasion. How long after that was he pegged for VP? Yeah, I would say the Russians were doing a little water testing.

I wish I shared your optimism about Obama. In sincerely wish I did. I sincerely wish he would take a look at Russia and realize that Marxist socialism does not work. But every torchbearer of Marxism that has come down the pike really believes that he will be the one to make it work. Sigh. Those who do not learn from mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

All that being said...again. I wish I shared your optimism. But history should tell you, Russians are not interested in diplomacy. They are interested in world domination and they want to see if Obama will allow them to swallow it up, one little piece at a time. We shall see.
Venezuela and Russia are going to hold

military manuevers near Venezuela.


 


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457106,00.html


This is what Russia thinks will happen

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457550,00.html


Because of our economy, United States will be split:  The Pacific area, The South, Atlantic area, etc.  As for Alaska?  Could be Russia's for the taking. 


What is amazing to me about Alaska is Palin.  Palin was not to be our next VP, but it sure shows Russia who she is and how she tries to fight for Alaska.  Of all states, Alaska came out of no where during the election and shows what Alaska has to offer including Palin who will fight for her state against Russia.   


You might find Russia more to your liking......... sm
I'm sure they don't have a church on every corner, "in Gdo we trust" isn't on their money, and if you are lucky enough to even have a TV then I doubt there is a preacher on it. Can't say for sure if their leader knows his anatomy from that of Mother Earth's or not, though.

As for what the right is sacrificing, how about our children being taught in school that homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle, that it is just as acceptable as a heterosexual lifestyle and not an amoral, sinful lifestyle. Or how about having to tell you daughter 'no' when she wants to buy a 'toy' out of those vending machines so thoughtfully placed in every gas station restroom across the country and then have to explain to her why she can't have one. We have to explain to our children what they are seeing when the news runs a story about 2 men or 2 women getting "married" and why it is not acceptable to us.

If gay people want some kind of legally binding union, fine. Let them have it. I'm not the one who has to answer for it, but please don't parade it around on television for the rest of us to have to look at and please don't call it a "marriage." Call it a civil union or domestic partnership or whatever other PC term you want to call it.
Russia's laughing at us, too. Thanks, Obama!
So much for those hopes of Obama 'repairing our image' in the world.

China's laughing at us.

France and England are scolding us.

And Russia's already written our obituary.

"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people."

"The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe."

Here's a link to the article in Pravda:

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/
More on Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac...

Freddie found itself in Justice Department crosshairs in 2003, after it finally admitted to years of accounting schemes to underreport its earnings...to the tune of $5 billion.  Freddie paid a $125 million fine to federal regulators, more than $400 million in shareholder lawsuit settlements, and $3.8 million in civil fines to settle Federal Election Commission charges of improper political fundraising.


Freddie's creative accounting was nothing compared to Fannie's.  As determined by two separate federal reports in 2004 and 2006, Fannie Mae out-and-out cooked the books so the bigwigs at the top could rake in millions in windfall profits.  The Washington Post reports that Fannie misstated its earnings by about $10.6 billion from 1998 through 2004.  all so fraudulent multimillion dollar bonuses could kick in for Fannhie's bigwigs.


Those Fannie Mae bigwigs who cashed in on the cooked books?  Chairman Franklin Raines, Bill Clinton's OMB director...A whopping $52 million.  Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick (remember her from the 9-11 Commission hearings), Clinton's deputy ATTORNEY GENERAL, $15 million.    Chairman and Chief Executive James A. Johnson, liberal lobbyist (the one who was kicked off Obama's VP vetting committee...looks like they should have vetted their committee) due to his role in the Countrywide financial scandal...$1.9 million.  Raines and the CFO of Fannie Mae were ousted.


Dems, loathe to clean up Fannie and Freddie houses even though Greenspan said preventitive action needed to be taken "sooner than later," came up with a "reform bill" in early 2005.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandated that Fannie and Freddie had to start handing out mortgages to "minority and moderate income buyers."  Whether these new customers were creditworthywas of little concern; Congress had race and bean-counting to achieve.  And now they basically owned half of the US housing market.


And now the American taxpayer is bailing out BOTH of these companies.


Is Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac the Democrat's Enron?  Sure looks like it to me.


And incidentally, Franklin Raines has been advising the Obama campaign on the mortgage and housing issues....ahem.


Fannie Mae's CEO & Obama
Fannie Mae's CEO (Daniel Mudd) calls Obama and the Democrats the "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae.

The recent bank failures were caused by the Housing Crisis, which was caused by Mortgage Lenders handing out BILLIONS of Dollars in bad loans and the biggest offenders: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae and Congress, THE DEMOCRATS, failed miserably and now WE the Tax Payers are stuck paying for their screw-ups.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are semi-private lending institutions crated by the Clinton administration and the Congressional Democrats, designed to make mortgages available and more affordable to more people and to act as moderators for the mortgage industry. They DO NOT follow the same STRICT government regulations that other lenders must follow. They have huge MULTI-MILLION dollars budgets to lobby congress and to pay large political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.


The TOP THREE U.S. Senators getting BIG political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are DEMOCRATS and the #2 recipient was none other than BARACK OBAMA.

    1. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT).. $165,400 (Chairman of Senate Banking Committee)
    2. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)....... $126,349 (Only 4 yrs in the Senate)
    3. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).......... $111,000
What is it about Barack Obama that makes him the #2 recipient of pay-offs even ahead of John Kerry and others, even though he is only a Freshman in the Senate?

Many Washington Democrats have gone to work at Fannie and Freddie after leaving Washington and have mad MILLIONS of Dollars in the process.

As early as 2005 the Congressional Black Caucus and Barack Obama KNEW that Fannie Mae was failing but "THE FAMILY" Democrats and OBAMA took payoffs to do NOTHING about it.

Obama was in the room during this speech. He heard about the problems that faced Fannie Mae and yet he did NOTHING about it.

During the THREE years following the day when he heard this speech about Fannie Mae's problems, Obama received $126,349 in payoffs from Fannie Mae to keep quiet and DO NOTHING about their disastrous lending practices. Now Obama blames John McCain for the Housing Crisis and the bank failu res and says that HE can fix it.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got a Federal bailout when it became obvious that they were bankrupt. Yet the Federal Government allowed Lehman Brothers to collapse pushing our economy over the edge.

Obama has been attacking McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. However,
"...Senator Obama was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks."
__________________

We own AIG, Fannie and Freddie

Maybe the international community wants their money back now.  Maybe that is why credit markets are frozen.  Since AIG and Fannie and Freddie are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, the world is lining up for their securitized mortgages to be repaid. 


Maybe this bailout is not to buy up bad debt, but to pay off bad debt the government has already bought, insured, and now needs to ask us money for to pay.  WE ARE BEING LIED TO AGAIN! 


freddie and fannie

SHOT IN THE FANNIE MAE


The History of a Financial Disaster


1997



Fannie Mae is a GSE (Govt. Sponsored Entity) regulated by Congress.


Fannie Mae buys mortgages from other companies.


It is backed by the taxpayers for all losses, but keeps all profits.


President Clinton loosens Home Loan Requirements.


1998



Banks begin making thousands of bad loans,0 down, no documentation, for 120%! (1998 – 2008).


Executives at Fannie receive huge bonuses if loan targets are met.


Franklin Raines and Jamie Garelick from the Clinton Administration are appointed to run Fannie Mae.


2003



President Bush proposes a new oversight committee to clean up Fannie Mae, but Democrats derail the effort.






Rep. Melvyn Watt, (D-NC) Committee on Financial Institutions & Consumer Credit. stated, "I don’t see much other than weakening the bargaining power poorer families to get affordable housing."


1999 - 2004



Raines earns $100 million in bonuses.


Garelick earns $75 million in bonuses.


In 2004, Enron collapses, congress investigates, Executives Skilling & Lay go to jail, for fraudulent bookkeeping.


Congress responds with the Sorbanes-Oxley Act, more heavy regulation of corporations.


2004



An OMB investigation finds massive fraudulent bookkeeping at Fannie Mae.


False numbers triggered executive bonuses every year.


Congress holds no hearings, no one goes to jail, or is punished.


WHY NOT?


1999 -2005



Fannie Mae gives millions to Democratic causes, examples: Jesse Jackson & ACORN.


Fannie Mae pays millions to 354 congressmen and senators, from both parties.


Who got the most money?


Top 4 Recipients


Top 4 Recipients


2005



Franklin Raines & top execs are forced to resign from Fannie Mae.


They do not go to jail.


There is no media "perp. walk."


They keeps all of their bonuses


They finally pay $31.4 million in civil fines.


2005



The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act is sponsored by:


2005



None of the top 4 recipients support the legislation.


The reform act is blocked by Democrats, never even making it out of committee.


None of the politicians return any of the money, tainted by fraud.


2008



Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac go bankrupt and the govt. takes them over completely.


Lehman Brothers, goes bankrupt from investing in bad mortgages.


AIG get $85 million in loan guarantees, after insuring bad loans & projects.


Taxpayers will ultimately pay BILLIONS.


2008



Franklin Raines is now an advisor to the Obama Campaign which wants the govt. to take over more of the economy.


Did government involvement in the mortgage market work out?


How will even MORE government involvement make it better? Do you want to be Sweden?


McCain favors revising regulations & loan standards, selling off Fannie & Freddie.


SOURCES



Congressional Record, 5/25/06


"Hannity & Colmes," Fox News, 9/16-9/17/08


Herald Tribune, 4/18/08


New York Times, 9/13/03


www. govtrack.com, 9/17/08


Fannie Mae/NY Times
Check out the date on this. Of course, this came as no surprise to me. It's surprising to ever find an objective article from the NY Times, but sometimes they surprise us.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999
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 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.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.



I heard this morning russia is buying up
iceland's debts, guess they are in real trouble. supposedly could be a change in the balance of power (not a good one if you know what I mean)...?
More Czars than Russia...or The King and his Court.
The disturbing thing about these "czars" is that they are not answerable to anyone other than Obama himself, and yet are positioned to usurp some of the powers of the Congress, who did not approve their appointments.

You're looking at a man who is concentrating power in his own hands and setting up a banana-republic type of dictatorship.

We already have a census czar. The logical next step is an "elections czar" - whose position will be justified on the basis of "problems" in past elections. He will "help" us "get it right" this time.

When you see that, folks, the end is near.
Obama on Freddie and Fannie
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5WlF
Fannie CEO is Daniel Mudd
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gPfdSGL82ufTASVrfgCbKslcCYPgD92M2NI03
Bush orchestrated Fannie Mae F-up
The former chief executive officer of Fannie Mae says the Bush administration helped orchestrate an accounting scandal that cost him his job and that he wants to use White House documents to defend himself in a shareholder lawsuit.

Franklin Raines, who served as President Clinton's budget director, argues in court documents that the Bush administration felt the government-chartered agency wielded too much power in the mortgage industry. His attorneys say the White House pushed regulators to weaken Fannie Mae and triggered a $6 billion accounting scandal.


Raines subpoenaed the White House for documents in July. Justice Department lawyers will go before a federal judge Thursday to fight it.


Relying primarily on articles by financial journalists and the testimony of industry analysts, Raines describes in court documents an unofficial task force dubbed "Noriega" that was formed to weaken Fannie Mae and drive down its stock price.


Fannie Mae is the largest U.S. buyer and backer of home loans. It was created by Congress but is publicly traded. Raines says the Bush administration wanted to undermine confidence in the agency so it could push for tighter government controls.


McCain and Fannie and Freddie
Contributions from Fannie and Freddie's boards of directors and lobbyists, who are technically not employees. That analysis found Fannie and Freddie-related contributors gave $169,000 to John McCain and his related committees, compared with $16,000 to Obama and his related committees.

The other money Obama received was from employees and their families, not the corporation.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/727/
You think O is a good guy? He profited from Fannie
nm
Well, it would not have been necessary to bail out...
FM/FM had the Democrats running it not stolen it blind, and the "reform" bill the Dems passed that nailed the coffin shut.

Obama dogged and hounded by the media? Are you JOKING? Any interview he did was on the softball channels where he never got a real question...were you even watching? He would not go on Fox where he knew he would have to answer the tough questions until this week. Hounded by the press my eye...only to fawn over him. Sheesh...lol
do you think they should just bail out
what kind of solution do you propose?
we bail out ceo's ......
It's okay to pump billions into the auto industry and wall street but not into our own people?
So what happens when we bail them out?

See!  We bail out the big guys and the money goes straight to the CEOs that ran the company into the ground, rewarding their incompetence!  Oh, lets hurry and bail out the automakers too!


WASHINGTON - American International Group is paying out millions of dollars in executive bonuses to meet a Sunday deadline. But the troubled insurance giant has agreed to administration demands to restrain future payments.


The Treasury Department determined that the government did not have the legal authority to block the current payments by the company that has already received more than $170 billion in U.S. support.


AIG declared earlier this month that it had suffered a loss of $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of last year, the largest corporate loss in history.


Here's what happens when we bail them out: sm
AIG accepted our money after losing 60 billion, and guess what?  They are paying out 167 million in bonuses.  Why is this allowed to happen?  How can you lose that much money, accept money in bailouts, and then have the unmitigated gall to pay yourselves bonuses? This is UNACCEPTABLE!!  Out and out thievery!!
Russia against sanctions for Iran and North Korea. Therefore:

U.S. and Russia to Enter Civilian Nuclear Pact
Bush Reverses Long-Standing Policy, Allows Agreement That May Provide Leverage on Iran



By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01


President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, administration officials said yesterday, reversing decades of bipartisan policy in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow but could provoke an uproar in Congress.


Bush resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf. But U.S. officials have shifted their view of Russia's collaboration with Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin has become a more constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations for nuclear weapons.


The president plans to announce his decision at a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg next Saturday before the annual summit of leaders from the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, officials said. The statement to be released by the two presidents would agree to start negotiations for the formal agreement required under U.S. law before the United States can engage in civilian nuclear cooperation.


In the administration's view, both sides would benefit. A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran. And it would be critical to Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place to send the used radioactive material.


At the same time, it could draw significant opposition from across the ideological spectrum, according to analysts who follow the issue. Critics wary of Putin's authoritarian course view it as rewarding Russia even though Moscow refuses to support sanctions against Iran. Others fearful of Russia's record of handling nuclear material see it as a reckless move that endangers the environment.


You will have all the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it, and you will have the Russian democracy center concerned about it too, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.


Since Russia is already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once drafted, presumably would conform to the Atomic Energy Act and therefore would not require congressional approval. Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.


Administration officials confirmed the president's decision yesterday only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts privy to the situation. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the agreement before the summit.


The prospect, however, has been hinted at during public speeches in recent days. We certainly will be talking about nuclear energy, Assistant Energy Secretary Karen A. Harbert told a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event Thursday. We need alternatives to hydrocarbons.


Some specialists said Bush's decision marks a milestone in U.S.-Russian relations, despite tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbors. It signals that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're someone we can try to work with on Iran, said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now directs the Carnegie Moscow Center. It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before.


But others said the deal seems one-sided. Just what exactly are we getting? That's the real mystery, said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Until now, he noted, the United States has insisted on specific actions by Russia to prevent Iran from developing bombs. We're not getting any of that. We're getting an opportunity to give them money.


Environmentalists have denounced Russia's plans to transform itself into the world's nuclear dump. The country has a history of nuclear accidents and contamination. Its transportation network is antiquated and inadequate for moving vast quantities of radioactive material, critics say. And the country, they add, has not fully secured the nuclear facilities it already has against theft or accidents.


The United States has civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with the European atomic energy agency, along with China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries. Bush recently sealed an agreement with India, which does require congressional approval because of that nation's unsanctioned weapons program.


Russia has sought such an agreement with the United States since the 1990s, when it began thinking about using its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Estimating that it could make as much as $20 billion, Russia enacted a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90 percent opposition in public opinion polls.


But the plan went nowhere. The United States controls spent fuel from nuclear material it provides, even in foreign countries, and Bunn estimates that as much as 95 percent of the potential world market for Russia was under U.S. jurisdiction. Without a cooperation agreement, none of the material could be sent to Russia, even though allies such as South Korea and Taiwan are eager to ship spent fuel there.


Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush refused to consider it as long as Russia was helping Iran with its nuclear program. In the summer of 2002, according to Bunn, Bush sent Putin a letter saying an agreement could be reached only if the central problem of assistance to Iran's missile, nuclear and advanced conventional weapons programs was solved.


The concern over the nuclear reactor under construction at Bushehr, however, has faded. Russia agreed to provide all fuel to the facility and take it back once used, meaning it could not be turned into material for nuclear bombs. U.S. officials who once suspected that Russian scientists were secretly behind Iran's weapons program learned that critical assistance to Tehran came from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.


The 2002 disclosure that Iran had secret nuclear sites separate from Bushehr shocked both the U.S. and Russian governments and seemed to harden Putin's stance toward Iran. He eventually agreed to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council and signed on to a package of incentives and penalties recently sent to Tehran. At the same time, he has consistently opposed economic sanctions, military action or even tougher diplomatic language by the council, much to the frustration of U.S. officials.


Opening negotiations for a formal nuclear cooperation agreement could be used as a lever to move Putin further. Talks will inevitably take months, and the review in Congress will extend the process. If during that time Putin resists stronger measures against Iran, analysts said, the deal could unravel or critics on Capitol Hill could try to muster enough opposition to block it. If Putin proves cooperative on Iran, they said, it could ease the way toward final approval.


This was one of the few areas where there was big money involved that you could hold over the Russians, said George Perkovich, an arms-control specialist and vice president of the Carnegie Endowment. It's a handy stick, a handy thing to hold over the Russians.


Bush has an interest in taking the agreement all the way as well. His new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions promoting civilian nuclear power around the world and eventually finding a way to reprocess spent fuel without the danger of leaving behind material that could be used for bombs. Until such technology is developed, Bush needs someplace to store the spent fuel from overseas, and Russia is the only volunteer.


The Russians could make a lot of money importing foreign spent fuel, some of our allies would desperately like to be able to send their fuel to Russia, and maybe we could use the leverage to get other things done, such as getting the Russians to be more forward-leaning on Iran, Bunn said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701588.html?sub=new


© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Piglet: Kasparov calls Russia's elections...s/m

meaning the recent Putin reelection.....the *dirtiest* in their history.....


http://newsfromrussia.com/news/russia/03-12-2007/102126-kasparov_elections-0


Dems and the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fiasco...

Collapse or the Democrat Swindle of the U.S. Taxpayer


In 2006 an election year, the Democrats were still trying to lay the Enron scandal on Bush and the Republicans. With the help of the press a cover up of a larger financial scandal was taking place. A scandal that we are paying for today. In 2006 a 3 year investigation into fraud at Fannie Mae was concluded. It revealed a level of financial misconduct by Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and others that grossly overstated earnings by 10.6 Billion dollars. To gain bonuses.


 For those who don't know both Raines and Gorelick were high ranking officials in the Clinton Administration.


http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html


http://eddriscoll.com/archives/013595.php


Hillary supporter's take on fannie/freddie....

I hope you haven’t just eaten, because what you are about to read will disturb you–and well it should. It’s proof that John McCain foresaw the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae disaster in 2006– and tried against all Obama-Like minds to ward it off.


Below are John McCain’s remarks urging the passage of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which he co-sponsored and which was rendered “Dead” in Congress.


Guess who prevailed and didn’t take heed? Or more appropriately, guess who deliberately “looked the other way”?


This is all we need to know to understand exactly WHICH candidate in this election is willing to break some eggs when it comes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–two organizations that, with the help of certain Democrats, deliberately redistributed wealth the easy way. Now we are all paying for it, as intended all along. Just as John McCain warned below.


As we view the carnage, this is all we need to know to understand exactly WHICH candidate foresaw this carnage we are witnessing,  and which candidate worked to convince the other candidate to help avoid it. It is all we need to know to recognize exactly WHICH candidate had the right judgment and was looking out for the rest of us.


Joe Biden? It’s time for US to be Patriotic? No. It’s time for YOU to be patriotic. In fact, it’s too late. As for you saying, “It’s time to be part of the deal”. We want no part of this “deal”. And what a “deal” it was!


May 26, 2006


Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.


The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.


The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.


For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.


Quick Info


S-90 Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005


Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.


Status: Dead


I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.


I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.


Update: Well looky here. Here’s a glowing Wall Street piece on Obama, written in June 2008. You would think Mr. “Regulator” Obama really is Jesus looking out for us! But…..here’s the paragraph that hooked me–the paragraph that haunts today:


He characterized the senator as a quick study on financial services, citing his early support of efforts by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank to empower the Federal Housing Administration to help struggling homeowners.


Oh they “empowered” all right. The Democrats killed this bill while Dodd, Frank and Obama fiddled and helped Fannie and Freddie cook their books, continue to tank, all the while keeping the regulators out of their way. These are the guys who killed the bill that McCain fought for. The bill that would have avoided the financial disaster we witnessed during the past two weeks. In the meantime, take a look at which senators were feeding at the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac trough. My party is not what it used to be. My party has not only let me down, but it has also screwed me and my country in the process.


Note:  All of these facts can be independently confirmed if you are interested in the truth of this matter.


More on Barney Frank and fannie/freddie...
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx
you tube video on freddy and fannie