“Spare some change, please? Forget that. Hand over another $8.4 billion to “Fannie Mae and sister company Freddie Mac.” “The Obama administration,” reports “My Way,” had “pledged to cover unlimited losses through 2012 for Freddie and Fannie, lifting an earlier cap of $400 billion.”
This via Jeff Tucker, in case you forgot who and what contributed to this affirmative-action driven downturn, here’s a New York Times’ story from 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….
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.
Back in 2008, some analysts had quipped that only North Korea and Cuba were more socialist than the US in the wake of the Fannie and Freddie bailouts. This space has regularly excoriated Republican hacks for referring deceptively to our cherished “American freedoms.” (Also see BAB’s “Fascism Rising” series of posts.)
As Jim Rogers pointed out, you have a free market in housing in China. If you watch this clip, be reminded not only of Bush socialism, but of the socialism of Palin, “Bush In A Bra.” Rather than shutting F&F down, a solution to which Repbulicans are now paying lip service, Palin wanted to fine tune the mortgage miasma; make it smaller and smarter.
I would add that, as a prelude to the discussion of our economic woes, it has become fashionable for commentators to condemn socialism for the rich; this makes one look benevolent. As execrable as corporatism is, it is no reason to ignore the massive wealth transfer from taxpayers to the poor in the context of F & F, a commitment that has contributed immeasurably to the economic meltdown.
“In response to CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux’s concern that the Arizona immigration-enforcement law, SB 1070, has made “a lot of people very angry, very upset” [a life threatening condition, apparently], the upstanding Antenori demanded: “What about my constituents whose homes are ransacked? What about the ranchers who’re shot at while patrolling their fence lines; whose cattle are being slaughtered ? there are millions of dollars of economic damages ? what about them? What about their civil right?”
Bad move.
Although not as rude as Chris Matthews and his malevolent MSNBC colleagues, Malveaux was only mildly interested. To grab her attention, Antenori ought to have begun what to Malveaux was a white, hot, racist rant with the story of a dog ? a dog that was shot by one frequent “visitor” to Arizona.
The same marauder who beat a retreat to Mexico killed the dog’s faithful companion, Rancher Robert Krentz. A pillar of the Cochise County community, Krentz had for decades raised cattle along the Arizona-Mexico border.
The violent death of a dog on the border is more likely than that of his owner to rate a mention in mainstream media.
State Senator Russell Pearce might also have mentioned a mutt—or even better, a Mulato family member—to justify the ‘racist’ law he sponsored
Washington does not want immigration laws enforced. And it matters not that its open-house policy is costing American lives and livelihoods. This applies to Barack Hussein Obama as well as to his predecessor, George W. Bush. …
Put more accurately: Arizona is doing the work Washington doesn’t want done. …”
Update II (May 1): In my column, I mentioned that “One of the finest minds on matters pertaining to immigration and the Constitution is Kris W. Kobach.” The NYT, no less, ran an op-ed by Kobach, “Why Arizona Drew a Line,” refuting the misinformation put out by bimbos and politicos who’ve not read the law—the former because they can’t read (Shakira); the latter (American Civil Liberties Union/The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund) because they can get away with lying. He concludes:
President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.
Update III (May 2): While the activists make demands, patriotic residents of the “The Grand Canyon State” “Clean up our trashed border.” Via Michelle Malkin.
Charles Krauthammer points out that BHO’s financial-reform bill is a move toward a further increase in the overweening powers of the Executive branch, which will now be able to seize a firm it designates as systemically risky. Where was Krauthammer during the Bush administration? It invented the doctrine of an overreaching executive. Still, he is right.
Michele Bachmann sums up the impetus of the bill: privatizing profits; socializing losses. (By the way, Bachmann is infinitely superior in intelligence to Palin who’s only growing more ignorant with notoriety. The more I see of Bachmann, the more impressed I grow with her demeanor and unshakable command of the facts.
Update I (April 27): As Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has been pointing out, the bogus lawsuit against Goldman-Sachs, a major donor of Obama and the beneficiary of a bailout, is political theater designed to prepare the public for the passage of enormously intrusive financial regulation.
“Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration want to create a permanent bailout mechanism all [the] while spouting their rhetoric of getting tough on Wall Street, but if you look at who is already lining up to support their ‘reform’ measure it’s a who’s who of the big banks that have already received the taxpayer bailout the first time.” … “Wall Street supports this measure. Why? Because big investment houses realize they’ll get bailed out and would have less reason to worry about risky behavior.”
“Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.) crafted the Senate version of so-called ‘Financial Reform’ with the support of the President. The procedure used to date resembles the non-transparent and secretive tactics used to pass ObamaCare. The Senate Banking committee marked up the bill in 22 minutes, with no amendments offered and no debate allowed. …
“There are two specific problems with the Senate approach to ‘reform.'”:
“First, this legislation would create a new $50-billion bailout slush fund controlled by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Very big banks and other ‘eligible financial companies’ would be taxed by the FDIC to build up this fund. As with any tax, though, it’s consumers–you and me–who would eventually pay this levy.
The Obama Administration this weekend requested that the $50 billion pre-funded bailout money be removed from the bill. But according to Foxnews.com, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner advocated last year that any bailout funding should be addressed post bailout through a tax on big Wall Street firms. If Senate Democrats only take out the $50 billion slush fund and leave the bailout authority intact, then the taxpayers will still be on the hook for any future bailouts.
Another problem with this bill is that it would bail out the creditors of companies and wouldn’t require any creditor to take a loss after a company starts to fail. If the bailout slush fund is tapped, the FDIC would have the power to reimburse creditors. That could allow the FDIC to pay creditors more than they invested (pursuant to Section 210 of the Dodd bill).
Think about that. If creditors know they aren’t likely take a loss, and risk has been eliminated from an investment, its taxpayers who are assuming all the risk. Of course, taxpayers get none of the rewards if the investments pay off–we would simply be on the hook if they fail. Taxpayers could expect no reward for having insured transactions and protected wealthy investors from any risk. The AIG bailout is a great example of this model.”
Update II: BUDDING BUREAUCRACIES. Senate Republicans are, so far, blocking debate, and thus a vote, on The Bill, which makes them look like obstructionists to a moronic populace.
“Republicans say the bill would set up a permanent bailout of Wall Street banks and create bureaucracies … Dodd’s legislation would create a consumer financial protection bureau at the Federal Reserve with authority to write rules and enforce them at banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets. … The bill would limit the Fed’s regulatory authority to banks with assets of at least $50 billion, transferring its powers to monitor smaller lenders to other regulators. It would also set up a council of regulators to monitor the economy for systemic risk and ban proprietary trading at U.S. banks.”
If democracy means anything, it is the right of localities to a measure of autonomy over how and with whom they live their lives. How wrong were the residents of Arizona to imagine that they would be granted that luxury. Polls show Arizonians do not want the crime and lawlessness associated with hordes of illegal immigrants streaming into their state. Her constituents support “Gov. Jan Brewer signing of a bill that requires police to question people about their immigration status – including asking for identification – if they suspect someone is in the country illegally.”
The murder last month of Arizona Rancher Robert Krentz—he had raised cattle in the area of Cochise County for decades—by one peaceable, illegal invader shook that community.
Another overreacting, overreaching law-enforcement activist, Russell Pearce’s motives are suspect, hints the NYT, because “his son, a Maricopa County sheriff’s deputy, was shot and wounded in 2004 by an illegal immigrant and Mr. Pearce, a former sheriff’s deputy, was shot and wounded while arresting gang members 20 years ago.”
Only the Times would construe the sobering effects of experience as a bias. What will we do when the Pearce kind of patriot; tough old-timers, die out?
What won’t die out any time soon are the powerhouse advocates for illegals immigrants converging on the Grand Canyon State. They won’t be dying out as long as they can use the political machine to bilk the politically powerless (you and me) for the benefit of their clientele. sadly, Arizona will be tied up in the courts by the proxies for the powerful (open-border advocates).
The Arizona law, SB1070, resembles the law the federal branch of government has chosen to flout. SB1070 is a species of negative law that takes back from the federales the right to accept or repel invaders. By default, the Bush/Obama-run federal government had decreed that the states ought not be permitted to repel invaders and must assume the costs in blood and treasure of the invasion. The central government did so by way of ignoring laws only it was permitted to enforce.
Arizona has repossessed its sovereign right to determine if it wants unfettered immigration with Mexico and the rest of Latin America.
State sovereignty? Naturally, our illiberal president would take the most severe tone with such notions, supplemented by stern actions to curtail this show of independence from his outlying territories.
Earlier Friday, President Obama called the Arizona bill “misguided” and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it’s legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open to “irresponsibility by others.”
“That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe,” Obama said.
Update I (April 25): David Smith (see Comments Section) points out another instance in which Glenn Beck has gone wrong in exhorting a sitting-duck pacifism. Via WikiAnswer:
“… taken from a letter Jefferson wrote to William Smith in 1787 in reference to an uprising in Massachusetts after the American Revolution. A more full quote:
“Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s [sic] motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s [sic] rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Jefferson is referring, specifically, to the Shays’ Rebellion. If you look at the context of the quote, it appears that Jefferson actually believed the men who took arms were essentially wrong about the facts, but he still considered them patriotic for making their voices heard. Jefferson felt it was important that the government be kept in check, even if those keeping them in check were not necessarily in the right. It wasn’t being in the “right” that kept the people free, but rather the fact that they had a voice and used it.
Update II (April 26): “You run into civil-rights issues whenever you try to enforce any law,” says Tucker Carlson. “That’s just the nature of enforcing laws.” Too true. And, “This Bill asks law enforcement officials to enforce the law. If by so doing you undermine basic notions of fairness, as the president alleged, let’s just give up on enforcing any law. It’s an absurd thing to say.”
Update III: The god-awful Chris Matthews, who makes no pretense at objectivity any longer, pummeleda mild-mannered John Huppenthal, a senator from Arizona. The Republican state senator explained that since the get-tough-on-illegals policies were implemented the murder rate in Arizona went from 250 in 2006 to 125 (the following year?). Half.
But what’s a hundred or so lives among liberals?
Matthews then went from bombastic to farcical. After being told that his guest has documented an association between illegality and crime, he demanded to know how did stopping a person because you think he is here illegally reduce crime. Patiently, Huppenthal explained that given the causal connection just mentioned, deporting a person caught in the act tends to do the trick.
Poor Huppenthal, clearly a good fellow working to make his community more tolerable, was then insulted andcalled. … a racist.
Is there anything more repulsive than a liberal man?
“…Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the streets against the new Arizona law. Let him go.
Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might otherwise go to them or their children, will march to defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the heaviest price.
Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million jobs, the U.S. government – Bush and Obama both – issued 1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in only four other years in our history.
What are we doing to our own people?
Whose country is this, anyway?
America today has an establishment that, because it does not like the immigration laws, countenances and condones wholesale violation of those laws.
Nevertheless, under those laws, the U.S. government is obligated to deport illegal aliens and punish businesses that knowingly hire them.
This is not an option. It is an obligation.
Can anyone say Barack Obama is meeting that obligation?”
Update V (April 27): BROTHER BUSH. Jeb “Bush … opposes the Arizona immigration bill, too.” WaPo: “Right after his not-so-secretly preferred U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio comes out against Arizona’s new immigration reform law [and for amnesty, or as it’s called in political locution: comprehensive immigration reform], Jeb Bush lends his name to an under-the-radar conservative campaign for federal immigration reform this year.”
One of our readers prefers that I remain mum about the Republican treason lobby. Sorry. Truth will out. With my help.
Update VI: AZ State Senator Frank Antenori fighting for his community. “What about my constituents,” he asks. He was responding to the CNN Woman’s idiotic question: “There are a lot of people who are very angry, very upset [a life threatening condition, clearly] that if they drive into Arizona [read, enter it illegally], they will be pulled over. How do you convince them not to be worried?” Apparently, laws in defense of life and private property must be tailored to suit the trespassers.
Antenori: “What about my constituents whose homes are ransacked? What about the ranchers who’re shot at while patrolling their fence lines; whose cattle are being slaughtered; there’s millions of dollars of economic damages… what about them? What about their civil right?
I have one correction to Sen. Antenori (a veteran): the rights he is trying to protect are not civil rights; they are the right to life, liberty and property. In defense of Suzanne Malveaux, she let it rest there, rather than give more time to the opponents, or try and humiliate the man, as is the habit of the hacks at MSNBC. [Look at how this dogmatic dodo insists on getting her opinion in.]
