Old Trader, the corruption is on both sides from what I know at this point. Yes, choosing Raines who showed his corruptness by making false accounting so he could have a bigger bonus, is a bad choice for Obama. What this thread title is saying is McCain wanted to reform fannie and freddie, but dems blocked it. Ok, but McCain also has Phil Gramm for his advisor. Phil Gramm is the one who started the deregulation of banks. He put in a bill to keep the SEC and commoditites futures regulators from having any power. This created (swaps) These swaps created overleverage, and huge loss of money on bad bets. I do not see either side of this campaign as uncorrupt. Who is the least corrupt, and who is less dangerous for the economy?
You don't seem to understand how things work in Washington, DC. FNM and FRE were democrat institutions. FDR created them. Their executive suites and boardrooms were stuffed with pout of work political hacks. Republicans, as usual, got a few table scraps but democrats got the main course. As Old Trader siad, this is not opinion, it is fact. Everyone went along with it until they became too greedy under Frank Raines. FNM's accounting was manipulated to hide losses on derivatives so the execs could qualify for huge options grants and bonuses. Raines and most of his staff were canned when it came to light. He is disgraced, as much as the Enron guys who are in prison. Jim Johnston is little better, just a bit smarter and less greedy than Raines. The Bush administration became alarmed at teh rapid growth of FNM's balance sheet. The regulator had little power to control them. FNM and its army of lobbysists ran to Chris Dodd or Barney Frank whenever the regulator tried to crack down. John McCain and others tried their best to rein them in, but they faced solid democrat opposition and enough corrupt republicans to prevent action. I have severely criticized Bush, McCain and other republicans on many issues, but they were in the right here. It is an outrage that the democrats are trying to weasel out of their responsibility here.
You are right, I am no expert on politics. But with fannie and freddie, these loans were not subprime. These loans were made with down payments, and a check on qualifications. Why fannie and freddie were exposed to the risk and became almost bankrupt? Because the other lenders (unregulated) who made liar loans (and sold) created the defaults that are happening today. So no one is getting paid back for the (liars loans) they made. Foreclosures happen. Home prices go down. And the home prices of the fannie and freddie loans depreciate too. Now fannie and freddie have loans to people who owe more than the house is worth. So deregulation has effected fannie and freddie even if they did not make liar loans.
Where do you get such nonsense? Here's a quote from the 1992 Republican platform: "LIBERATION THROUGH DEREGULATION -- . . . We support President Bush's freeze on new regulations. We applaud his Competitiveness Council, under Vice President Quayle, for fighting the regulatory mania, saving the public $20 billion with its initial 90-day moratorium on new regulations and billions more under the current 120-day freeze." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...93BA2575BC0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 Here's from their 2000 platform: "Futures trading should be deregulated." "The Republican Congress has moved to deregulate the electricity industry and empower consumers through a competitive market â but congressional Democrats are holding up the process." "Tariffs should be cut further. The United States can back private sector efforts to streamline common standards and deregulate services, from finance to filmmaking." http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/ You should be a comedy writer. "McCain Supported A Banking Bill Because It Eliminated âThe Tremendous Regulatory Burden Imposed On Financial Institutions.â While speaking in favor of bank deregulation on the floor of the senate, John McCain said, âThis legislation takes a small but important step toward eliminating the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institutions⦠One principal reason banks are unable to make loans is the bewildering array of statutory and regulatory restrictions and paperwork requirements imposed by Congress and the regulatory agencies. While a case can certainly be made that every law and regulation is intended to serve a laudable purpose, the aggregate effect of the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community.â [Congressional Record, 11/19/93; emphasis added]
I am talking about efforts to rein in the democrat slushfunds otherwise known as FNM and FRE. It is just a fact they were run for decades by democrat party hacks like Franklin Raines, that they engaged in shoddy or corrupt accounting, that they misstated earnings so that execs could reap huge bonuses and that Bush, McCain and other republicans tried to rein them in. The second largest recipient of FNM lobbying funds was one Barrack Hussein Obama, even though he was a freshman senator. His financial advisors incredibly are Franklin Raines, the same guy who was canned from FNM and who is as corrurpt as anyone from Enron, and Jim Johnston, former head of FNM. Against this backdrop of corruption and bad judgment, the democrats have the audacity to try to blame republicans because of deregulatory efforts in the early 1990's? Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
The fact that they were run by people who support democrats is just gossip talk compared to the above quotes which point to the obvious republican advocacy of deregulation. Deregulation='small government'. It's simple, and judging by the quotes from above, obvious.
So in six years of Republican rule of the Senate, Congress, WhiteHouse and judiciary, the Democrats must have filibustered the poor Republicans on this. Perhaps you can point us all towards a bill number, because the one that started this thread died in a Republican committee. Okay, when? Actually no. The funds received to Obama were from employees, or people who are related to employees of FNMA. He has been pretty good about refusing PAC money. That's terrible -- except that according to the Obama campaign McCain lied about this in his ad, and Raines has never advised the Obama campaign about anything ever. So you'll have some quote (other than the disavowed Washington Post article) that verifies your accusation, right? You're a thoughtful guy so I'm confident that you're not just some stupid flack who would repeat a lie he's heard and not verified, of course. I'm confident you've verified this, and I'm confident that you'll be able to show us verification. Raines said "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." Yeah, it will, because it's primarily the Republicans' fault. The Republicans advocated for deregulation and unfettered capitalism, just as they advocated just a couple of years ago that the elderly should invest their money in the stock market -- and now that it hasn't worked out, they want to blame the saps, err... I mean, the Democrats. You don't have to lie about the Democrats, I'm sure they'll screw themselves up.
There must be a large number of liars around, because Raines has been mentioned as an advisor in article after article. LOL. But I can certainly see that the well-known conservative paper, the Washington Post, would purposely mis-state the facts eh? No comment at all until just now from Team Obama. Amazing. But what might be more interesting is when McCain brings up James Johnson. I wonder what Team Obama has to say then? There seem to be alot of these FNM guys around Obama. LOL Oh, by the way, this is from the LA Times...another conservative paper. LOL. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/12/nation/na-johnson12 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.
This is The Washington Post's take on the McCain video linking Obama to Raines. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903604.html