Just in case anyone's forgotten

[Drysdale]

That so-called idiot Bush tried to reform Freddie & Fanny in 2003 and it was killed by the democrats... The last paragraph is telling...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted =print

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

[Wildane]

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

Fucking love that line. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, eh? Well, I guess we've all now seen what happens when you wait for it to break.

[AjTaliesen]

oops.

[Ini]

Nobody has brought this up in the news?

[Martigan]

Rush spent time on this today. He said that the Bush administration tried at least 9 times since 2003 to force some oversight on this industry, each time the Dems fighting against it using "affordable" housing for the poor as their excuse.

[Pafuna]

Originally Posted by Ini

Nobody has brought this up in the news?

Been on Fox Report in the evenings... twice.

[Wildane]

Only Rush and Fox? Wonder why that is.

[Hormadrune]

Do the elitist liberal puppet-masters fly around in sky-blue/cloud-white helicopters during the daytime? You guys seem like you might know.

[Wildane]

Does the Steam Vent's resident blowhard have anything relevant to offer?

[AjTaliesen]

No. We've been through this...lets save the time and run through the basic outline: Horm calls us all paranoid whackjobs for thinking that most news organizations are biased, wobbles a bit, then finishes by pointing out that he doesn't watch any of these organizations either becuase they are crap.

[Pafuna]

Originally Posted by Hormadrune

Do the elitist liberal puppet-masters fly around in sky-blue/cloud-white helicopters during the daytime? You guys seem like you might know.

Just for your edification, sir -

From an article at Journalism.org politics and party affiliation in the media:

In findings likely to fuel the raging debate over the issue of media bias, a new book concludes that the nation’s journalists have moved a bit to the right since the 1990s, but are still considerably more liberal than the general public.

Even in a slight-right shift in the newsroom, the press is still on the left of the general public.

If newsrooms have moved slightly rightward, the research shows, however, that journalists are still more liberal than their audiences. According to 2002 Gallup data in “The American Journalist,” only 17% of the public characterized themselves as leaning leftward, and 41% identified themselves as tilting to the right. In other words, journalists are still more than twice as likely to lean leftward than the population overall.

Just so we're clear on the the research, it was corroborated by the Pew Research Center. In effect, the liberal researchers have confirmed what we've known all along - the press is liberal and left:

The research from Weaver and his colleagues echoes the findings of a Pew Research Center survey from 2004 revealing that while the majority of journalists described themselves as moderate, they were clearly to the left of the public.

So, here it is - the liberal press is telling us all that, in fact, they are left leaning liberals and their very own research tells us so.

I'm curious, Horm, do you think we make this stuff up?
When reporters are cheering along with the delegates at the Democrat National Convention?

When a major news network anchor in his zeal to throw an election to the Democrats buys false documents and false allegations about Bush hook, line and sinker ?

Media bias is there, and it's on all the networks, the major news websites, and it cloaks itself in 'journalistic integrity'.

What does the political director of ABC have to say about all this?

ABC News political director Mark Halperin stated that as individuals most journalists, and news producers, hold liberal political views, and that these views affect their reporting.[14] In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.[15] This leaves 24% undecided or Independent.

61%??? 6 out of ten reporters??

Are you kidding me? And people have the gall to bitch about Fox? What about ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and most printed news sources in the country?

I'm not a tinfoil hat guy, Horm, and I'm super glad when the local news investigative team goes after someone for stiffing people on their insurance policies. I think that's great....

But if you remotely think that such a thing as 'journalistic integrity' still exists in the media market today... well, I got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

[Hormadrune]

I see I touched a nerve, ladies. I'll wave to you from the 'copter while aiming my thought control beam this evening. 3rd shift is the best.

"GRAWRGHEGHSGHSERGH! MEDIA BAD 'CEPT RUSH & FOXY FOX! RAWGHERGHERURALLTURDBURGLERSRAWR!"

[Wildane]

Wow Horm, you surprise me. That was so incredibly not clever of you. I guess maybe you're trying to fill in some sort of troll gap on the boards, but could you at least try to be funny?

[AjTaliesen]

http://www.erollisimarr.com/forum/sh...ad.php?t=36425

To save time here's the last time Horm did this.

He agrees that media is crap, but everyone else is paranoid and crazy for actually ever saying it.

Seriously, even Axgar understands his own stuff better.

[Pafuna]

Originally Posted by Hormadrune

I see I touched a nerve, ladies. I'll wave to you from the 'copter while aiming my thought control beam this evening. 3rd shift is the best.

"GRAWRGHEGHSGHSERGH! MEDIA BAD 'CEPT RUSH & FOXY FOX! RAWGHERGHERURALLTURDBURGLERSRAWR!"

Here's the point, Horm -

WE ALL, all of us, are underserved by any 'news' organization with agenda reporting.

Getting the issues is their job, and many times, those very issues conflict with their agenda. This isn't about demanding McCain or Palin get 'kid glove' treatment, it's about demanding the same tenacity and attention to detail from the "journalists" on the same serious issues when confronting their candidate Barack Obama. Instead, the cheerleading from the fucking NEWS anchor chair on these same networks for Obama is apalling.

I'm not talking about the nitwits on The View, or the conservative imposter O'Reilly. I'm talking about the news anchor chair. Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann were selected as the anchors for the RNC? Isn't that like picking Bill O'Reilly as the anchor for the DNC? He's an opinion guy, not a fucking journalist. And here's the dirty little secret - Olbermann, Matthews and Maddow's coverage of the RNC was the dead-last in ratings. Why? Because they are all fucktards who can't function without drinking the Oh'bama KoolAid and the viewers want BETTER than that. Their ratings suffered because of it and Brian Williams had to go and lend some of his 'gravitas' just to get the network back on track. Holy fuckin' shit, what kinda circus is that?

It's not about crying for 'fairness', it's about getting a straight story, and I have yet to get a straight fucking story from the vast majority of media outlets.

I'll let you in on a little 'secret' - I listen to NPR frequently, especially shows like All Things Considered. They are all liberal cocksuckers, every one of them... but I can actually get a straight fucking story from some of those people. Amazing, huh? Big, bad "neocon" like me listens to pansy-ass Robert Segal. And when I see Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Mara Liasson, and Juan Williams tossing around issues with Brit Hume, I'm pretty comfortable with the information I get because their is at the very least a modicum of intelligent discussion.

Lining up Sean Hannity with Alan Colmes, two stereotypes of the right and left, is not journalism, it's a left-handed Mongolian clusterfuck. Listening to Rush Limbaugh and ONLY Rush Limbaugh for all your news is such a bad mistake, I can't even quantify it unless I can use the term 'indoctrination'. It's an OPINION show, not a NEWS show. I listen to Glenn Beck because he's fuckin' funny but I'll never, ever mistake his shtick for journalism.


We deserve better than what media has been handing us. I don't want a 'yes' man for McCain, I want a hard-ass motherfucker asking Oh'bama why the fuck are you consorting with a guy who used to plant fucking bombs. I want somebody sticking a mike in Oh'bama's face and ask him if he plans on throwing the election using ACORN! I want to know if McCain has got it through his thick skull that amnesty for illegals is FUCKING WRONG!

Who the fuck is Tony Rezko, Oh'bama?

Why didn't you vote for the reform bill for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, Biden?

Why the fuck did you two idiots vote TWICE for the bridge to nowhere?

And, Sarah Palin, why the fuck did you bother with the bridge in the first place?


I'm pissed about this shit because the very people who claim to be on our side, the 'heroic press', is fucking us just like the politicians.

Media people? Just like lawyers. Worse, because at least I have an off chance of never seeing a fucking lawyer in my lifetime.

How do you know when a reporter is lying? His lips are moving.

What do you call a thousand reporters at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.



We are getting shafted, Horm, by the hacks who couldn't give two shits about you and me but will lie, sensationalize, and omit those pesky facts because the 'inconvenient truth' will not get them that oh-so-lucrative book deal.

Fuck the media, before they fuck you.

[Karthanon]

Can I marry you, Paf?

Well, my wife might object. Can I clone myself, and my clone can marry you?

[Pafuna]

Originally Posted by Karthanon

Can I marry you, Paf?

Well, my wife might object. Can I clone myself, and my clone can marry you?

Your clone can marry my clone - seems I have a wife, too...

[Ini]

Holy shit I think Pafuna just won the intraweb!

[Wildane]

Very nice post, Paf. I don't want to fucking marry you or anything, I'll just settle for a handshake. I'm sure Horm will come back with his cliched stance that he was the one that got you worked up.

[Ini]

Almost forgot

Paf 1
Horm 0

[Michael Cumberlan]

Originally Posted by Pafuna

WE ALL, all of us, are underserved by any 'news' organization with agenda reporting.

Getting the issues is their job, and many times, those very issues conflict with their agenda.

Love your passion, couldn't agree more with the thoughts ... but ... you are WRONG!!

The media has NEVER been about "Journalistic integrity." That line of crap has been paraded around for decades as a great way to bullshit the population into believing there is some objectivity in reporting. True, SOME journalistists believe it, but the reality is that newspapers are just as capitalistic as anyone else - MAKING MONEY is their job.

Look back through the history of this country ... Tories vs. Revolutionaries ... yellow journalism ... it's always been pretty biased by the folks that own the papers, it's just that some asshat decided the best way to lend some credibility to the business was to claim they actually had a "CODE" and therefore could be trusted to be "FAIR." HAH!! HAH HAH!!

Small snippet of Wiki link to journalism

Main article: Freedom of the press
In the 1920s, as modern journalism was just taking form, writer Walter Lippmann and American philosopher John Dewey debated over the role of journalism in a democracy. Their differing philosophies still characterize a debate about the role of journalism in society and the nation-state.

The history of journalism is such that they didn't even have a code oth ethics until the early 20th century ...

I think my point in this is that you should trust your journalists only a little more than you should trust your politicians ... only because your journalists make money when they expose your politicians for the corrupt S.O.B.s they are, whereas politicians are making money until they get caught ...

[Hormadrune]

And the circle jerk goes on and on and on and on. You fellas must eat a lot of protein.

Best part of this thread are the absurdist assumptions some of you make in the course trying to paint me as little spoon to the media's big spoon. I'll reiterate: if you have such issues with the media. Don't. Fucking. Watch/read/listen/*. And encourage your friends to do the same. Because you know when the media will change? When their ratings/subscriptions/hits, and thereby their ability to sell ad space/time, tell them to change. By continuing to consume their products we're telling them they're doing a good job whether that's our opinion or not. By whining about it here all while continuing to support them through consumption, earns you my heart-felt poo-flinging.

[FafnerMorell]

Originally Posted by Hormadrune

And the circle jerk goes on and on and on and on. You fellas must eat a lot of protein.

Best part of this thread are the absurdist assumptions some of you make in the course trying to paint me as little spoon to the media's big spoon. I'll reiterate: if you have such issues with the media. Don't. Fucking. Watch/read/listen/*. And encourage your friends to do the same. Because you know when the media will change? When their ratings/subscriptions/hits, and thereby their ability to sell ad space/time, tell them to change. By continuing to consume their products we're telling them they're doing a good job whether that's our opinion or not. By whining about it here all while continuing to support them through consumption, earns you my heart-felt poo-flinging.

The ironic thing is that's how Rush & Fox have become such a success. They spotted a void, and filled it. The rest of the media can complain about how terribly they do their job and that their claims "Fair and Balanced" are the ultimate in deception, but... no one else is even trying to serve that 30-40% of the market, so they've got it all to themselves.

Drudge is another interesting case study.

[Wildane]

Originally Posted by Hormadrune

And the circle jerk goes on and on and on and on. You fellas must eat a lot of protein.

Best part of this thread are the absurdist assumptions some of you make in the course trying to paint me as little spoon to the media's big spoon. I'll reiterate: if you have such issues with the media. Don't. Fucking. Watch/read/listen/*. And encourage your friends to do the same. Because you know when the media will change? When their ratings/subscriptions/hits, and thereby their ability to sell ad space/time, tell them to change. By continuing to consume their products we're telling them they're doing a good job whether that's our opinion or not. By whining about it here all while continuing to support them through consumption, earns you my heart-felt poo-flinging.

If you have such issues with posts whining about the media. Don't. Fucking. Read.

[Drysdale]

Oh c'mon Wild... Horm's being a GREAT Bumbles replacement! I expect him to break out the "Connieboyz" at any moment!