Category Archives: Bush

Freddie & Fannie Come Calling … Ad Infinitum

Affirmative Action, America, Bush, China, Debt, Economy, Fascism, Sarah Palin, Socialism

“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.

Freddie & Fannie Come Calling … Ad Infinitum

Affirmative Action, America, Bush, China, Debt, Fascism, Sarah Palin, Socialism

“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.

Update III: Tell Establishment Media A Dog Died On The Border

Barack Obama, Bush, Crime, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, IMMIGRATION, Nationhood, Private Property, Republicans, States' Rights

The excerpt is from my new, WND.COM column, “Tell Establishment Media A Dog Died On The Border”:

“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. …”

The complete column is “Tell Establishment Media A Dog Died On The Border.”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

Update I (April 30): BREAKING. Coincidence or way of life? Arizona “deputy shot by illegal immigrant.”

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.

Update II: Further Financial Centralization (Budding Bureaucracies)

Bush, Business, Democrats, Economy, Federalism, Law, Regulation

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.

Here is The Wall Street Journal’s “Factsheet: Senate Financial-Regulation Bill”

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.

The Heritage Foundation on “The Dodd Bill:

“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.

Bloomberg:

“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.”

What pigs do with power ….