But fine, let's set aside Mr. Raines for the moment.
(Los Angeles Times) Barack Obama advisor Jim Johnson quits under fire
The former chairman of Fannie Mae was one of three advisors considering vice presidential candidates. He resigns after questions are raised about favoritism he may have received from Countrywide.
By Johanna Neuman June 12, 2008
Jim Johnson, the former chairman of Fannie Mae who was one of three advisors tapped by Democrat Barack Obama to vet vice presidential candidates, resigned today after questions were raised about favoritism he may have received from Countrywide Financial Corp.
Key McCain advisors were lobbyists for shady lender BY DAVID SALTONSTALL DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT
Monday, March 31st 2008, 4:00 AM
Altaffer/AP Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain on a campaign stop Sunday in Mississippi. When Sen. John McCain addressed the nation's burgeoning mortgage mess last week, he insisted it was time for a little "straight talk."
"I will not play election-year politics with the housing crisis," the GOP presidential hopeful insisted while unveiling his plan, which many have since described as friendlier to the mortgage industry than the Democrats' proposals.
What McCain did not say - which some believe smacks of politics - is that two of his top advisers were recently lobbyists for a notorious lender in the mortgage meltdown.
John Green, the senator's chief liaison to Congress, and Wayne Berman, his national finance co-chairman, billed more than $720,000 in lobbying fees from 2005 through last year to Ameriquest Mortgage through their lobbying firm, disclosure forms reviewed by the Daily News show.
Ameriquest, which since has been bought out, was forced to settle suits with 49 states for $325 million. More than 13,680 New York homeowners got taken for a ride by the company, records show.
"They would be defined as the most blatant and aggressive predatory lenders out of everybody," said Bruce Marks, head of the nonprofit Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America.
Despite their past familiarity with the issue, neither Green or Berman had any input into McCain's plan for dealing with the lending crisis, aides to the Arizona senator said last week.
"Sen. McCain has never done anything that would violate the public trust and he has never done favors for special interests or lobbyists," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bonds.
While far from a bailout for the mortgage industry, McCain's plan focuses on less regulation for lenders - in sharp contrast with proposals by Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - and suggests as a first step convening a big meeting of top mortgage lenders.
But the migration of Green and Berman to McCain's campaign comes as the Arizona senator faces criticism on other fronts for aligning himself with lobbyists, whom McCain often derides - but relies upon to staff his campaign.
They include McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, a former telecommunications lobbyist, as well as Thomas Loeffler, McCain's national finance co-chairman, who recently helped Europe's Airbus consortium land a deal for Air Force tankers.
This is not a time to be making snarky partisan comments.
i agree. someone please tell Pelosi & Co. to stop blaming Bush.
the blame game is a distraction, and prevents us from moving forward.
i would support the bailout if they would change the banking laws that got us into this mess. FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LOANS ARE NOT RACIST. if you qualify, and still can't get a loan, then there is a problem. lowering the requirements does not fix the problem, it has created a new problem.
a few years ago, Madison's new fire chief lowered the physical requirements for hiring, in an effort to hire more females. if my house is on fire, i don't care if it's a male or a female that comes in to rescue me...i just want them to be able to do the job!! i weigh most of 200lbs, and there is no way a 5'8" 105lb person could haul my fat ass out of the fire. IMO, it's just a matter of time before this becomes a matter of life or death for the fire dept, and the victim of a fire.
equal rights is one thing, but FAIR is another. madison's hiring process is not fair to the fat bastard who needs to be rescued. the currently offered bailout plan is not fair to those of us smart enough to sign a good loan that we could afford, and make our payments on time.
What is wrong with hiring skilled lobbyists to help you win an election?
The American people can easily see the glaring difference between hiring a corrupt greedy former CEO of Fannie Mae, which is now central to the mess we're in, versus a lobbyist, someone who is paid to promote their client's agenda.
One is a greedy crook who helped plunge us into the current mess. The other is just a guy doing his job for his client.
Nothing wrong with having skilled corporate lobbyists help run your campaign if you are going to represent corporate interests as president. Some people may prefer a president who represents the interests of main street, not wall street or corps like Ameriquest
We have had a republican treasury secretary and head of the SEC as well republican executive branch for the last 8 years, as well as a republican majority congress for 6 1/2 as this problem unfolded.
Who do we hold responsible for the welfare of this nation? George Bush? Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?
Garry, I guess you didn't bother to read Blake's posting from the New York Times in regards to President Clinton's complicity in the current financial mess. Furthermore, I guess you failed to take notice of Democrat efforts to include funds for ACORN in the current bailout bill. In all fairness, there is enough blame to go around, including main street Americans who thought the party would last forever.
(Message edited by ferris_von_bueller on October 01, 2008)
John McCain's record speaks for itself. If anything, McCain is a man of integrity.
What exactly are the lobbyists doing for the McCain campaign? I have no idea. I know that Johnson, former crooked CEO of Fannie Mae was a top advisor to Obama and at one time in charge of vetting his VP running mate.
I have no problem with lobbyists as long at they play by the rules. The big problem in Washington DC is not lobbyists but that the rules need fixing.
No more earmarks would probably solve the entire problem.
There is one and only one of the candidates for President who received over 20 times more campaign donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the past four years than any other politician. That'd be Barack Hussein Obama.
Only one of the candidates sponsored a bill that would have prevented the current mess. That'd be John McCain. And only one candidate didn't lift a finger to help get the legislation passed. That'd be Obama.
But of course the only one candidate is a former ACORN activist/mentor who taught those folks how to intimidate (a legal shake down) banks so that they would get on board with the sub-prime mortgage scheme. That would be Barack Obama.
It takes a real staunch partisan to ignore that kind of hard factual evidence.
I hold them all responsible, George Bush and his administration and all the Republicans and Democrats in congress as well. I also hold President Clinton responsible as he's the one who signed into law the measures that really kicked off the sub-prime market. There's plenty of blame to go around.
What is hard to swallow though is that a bill was introduced in 2005 to address this very issue but it was intentionally KILLED by the Democrat leadership.
But for that one unfortunate partisan act, we might not be in this mess right now, at least not as deeply as we are.
'Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending' By STEVEN A. HOLMES Published: September 30, 1999, The New York Times
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(Obama Advisor), 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.''
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.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
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 hold them all responsible, George Bush and his administration and all the Republicans and Democrats in congress as well. I also hold President Clinton responsible as he's the one who signed into law the measures that really kicked off the sub-prime market. There's plenty of blame to go around.
What is hard to swallow though is that a bill was introduced in 2005 to address this very issue but it was intentionally KILLED by the Democrat leadership.
But for that one unfortunate partisan act, we might not be in this mess right now, at least not as deeply as we are.
Ron Paul made several speeches about this all the way back to 2001. A few other smart guys from both politcal sides warned us about this for years now.
Many people (citizens, home builders, realtors, mortage brokers) all enjoyed the bubble. They made huge profits many refianced a house and bought nice new SUV.
What happend was the old Pryamid scheme. A lot of people made huge profits and got out of the game. Many are stuck in the middle of the pryamid and will loose some money. Those on the bottom have got screwed. We need more people to become suckers and get in on the bottom. Thus the govt wants more suckers to assume more debt.
Most conservatives are fairly dissapointed in Bush and the last two Republican congresses. For exactly the opposite reasons that liberals are angry. (but make no mistake, they think Bush screwed it up less then Kerry or Gore would have).
Most conservatives thought Bush and Congress did a decent job on protecting the country (which sometimes means war), and did an *awful* job being a fiscal conservative and being the party that sets a new bar for integrity.
The way money was bleeding out of Washington, and the way the politicians interests were put ahead of the countries interest, many conservatives feel they might as well have had Democrats in power.
What happend was the old Pryamid scheme. A lot of people made huge profits and got out of the game. Many are stuck in the middle of the pryamid and will loose some money. Those on the bottom have got screwed. We need more people to become suckers and get in on the bottom. Thus the govt wants more suckers to assume more debt.
BINGO
Most conservatives thought Bush and Congress did a decent job on protecting the country (which sometimes means war), and did an *awful* job being a fiscal conservative and being the party that sets a new bar for integrity.
I still say it's a better idea to take that $700B and divide it up amongst every adult citizen. I heard that it would be around $200,000 each after taxes, but I haven't done the math.
Normally I wouldn't be in favor of such a thing but it pisses me off that as a taxpayer, I'm having to pay for this fiasco in addition to making my own mortgage payments.
Indy - that rumor got started by an e-mail sent out by someone who couldn't accurately complete a 2nd grade math problem, and somehow 3 zeros got added to the end of the result. All the numbers in that e-mail made no sense.
To answer your question, $700B split amongst the 250M adults in the U.S. would be about $2800 per person.
It'd be nice to have (especially now), but I'd rather the government put a stop to useless and meaningless spending to give a break in taxes.
If I have to pay taxes (and apparently as a responsible adult I do) then I want to designate where they go, and I want some damn accountability for the funds.
And that 1% for art wouldnt be getting a dime, the rest of the entitlements can stand in line on the chopping block to wait their turn.
Where do people think that 700+ billion is coming from? It's going to come out of trees. In other words, it's going to be printed and thereby adding to the national debt and increasing inflation at the same time. Ironically, inflation deflates debt, which is one option, albeit painful, course of action.
The Bailout simply buys a few months of time to allow those who are capable and smart enough to move assets around and avoid loosing their asses. Once they do that the taxpayers and common man will be stuck holding the smoking gun.
I think that would be a risky move Ryker. Gold is up; stocks are down. Price of gold will likely retreat as stocks eventually rebound. If I had a bunch of cash, right now I'd be buying more stocks/mutual funds.
I would (am am) going stocks rather than gold . . but I'd never be an advisor to motorcyclists on risk.
The Treasury Department injected about $2 Trillion in liquidity last week. At least for the $700,000,000,000 they get assets, albeit perhaps over valued.
One rare twist to this is that we are in kind of a velocity trap. . . .there is LOTS of money available . . it's just not moving.
Here's some more: But how many know that in the same signature President Bush signed into law the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008? Well, it's Division C, Title IV, Subtitle B of the bill.
Oh and then there's the continuation of national disaster relief for Hurricanes Ike, Katrina and the floods of the Heartland. Division C, Title VII, Subtitles A and B.
How about the renewed tax incentives for movies made in America? The increased benefits for Exxon Valdez recipients? Or the tax reduction for companies making small wooden arrows for children? Or the extension of tax reductions for wool production and research, investment in Washington, D.C., racetrack owners or rum produced in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands?
