Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > December > 05 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USTelling the Bair truth at FDIC
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sheila Bair, a Bush appointee as head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, has been one of the few Washington figures ahead of the game on the housing crisis. To her credit, she has also been willing to speak out publicly in favor of tougher restrictions in the Wall Street bailout, and has been an early champion of an aggressive federal effort to help struggling homeowners, not just big financial firms.
Others, including Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, are now belatedly coming around to her point of view.
But according to Bloomberg, that candor has made Bair some enemies. They report that Timothy Geithner, President-elect Obama’s choice for Treasury secretary, is trying to push Bair out of office because she’s a little too independent for his taste.
Too bad, Timmy. Bair must stay.
The American people already fear that the taxpayers’ $700 billion Wall Street bailout is being run by Wall Street insiders for the benefit of other Wall Street insiders, even though Wall Street is responsible for a lot of this mess. Dumping Bair, one of the few influential voices who has dared to challenge that little Wall Street club, would send exactly the wrong message.
On a side note, Bair also came out Thursday to make clear that the Community Reinvestment Act, the conservatives’ favorite villain, had little or nothing to do with creating the housing crisis.
““I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty,” Bair said Thursday.
“Point in fact, only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending. The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.”
“Let me ask you,” she proceeded. “Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? Nowhere.” The facts are simple, Bair said. The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices.
John Dugan, another Republican and a Bush appointee as comptroller of the currency, agrees with Bair. “CRA is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the market place,” he said in a recent speech.
Dugan and Bair are far from alone. Housing and financial experts agree almost unanimously that CRA is not at fault. In fact, it’s hard to find anybody with any credentials in that field who blames CRA. The only people making that argument are politicians, for political reasons.
Services »
Comments
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 5, 2008 7:36 AM | Link to this
I’m afraid it will take a lot more than Dugan and Bair to kill the conservative Zombie Lie about the CRA.
In fact, I can guaran-damn-tee that someone in your comments threads will use it in the next day. Possibly accompanied by some Hank Williams, Jr.-inspired bits of lyrical flourish.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 5, 2008 7:50 AM | Link to this
Liar-
“Point in fact, only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending. The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.”
Anybody want to put up a big wad of money that Fannie Mac bought a whole lot more than CRA-covered bank loans?
I’ll match whatever you wager.
The federal government is like a parasite upon itself, a mandate for one minor department turns into a cancerous growth on the whole shooting match in no time flat.
You have no idea the extent of the damage, there are federal agencies out there that exist solely to fund other federal agencies that fund still more federal agencies, it’s like holding a mirror up to a mirror.
We are governed by an incestuous orgy.
By TW
December 5, 2008 7:51 AM | Link to this
While Geithner’s concerns may be valid, I’m afraid Bair is to be the first casualty of the stain Sarah Palin left on the professional female reputation.
By Taxpayer
December 5, 2008 8:03 AM | Link to this
Andy’s calling someone a liar. I think Andy is the one that needs to put up or shut up. So, Andy, paste your references that prove that whoever you are calling a liar truly is a liar. Is it Bair? Bookman? Or, are you deliberately vague with your accusations and claims like so many Republicans.
By leni
December 5, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this
It will be interesting to see if Prez-elect less then zero has the integrity to stand by one of these positions—Geithner’s or Bairs—regardless of the effect on his popularity.
By Paul
December 5, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this
TW
It’s official: we’ve changed from “everything is Bush’s fault” to “everything is Palin’s fault.”
Jay
I feel like I’m in a time warp. I thought “disagree, don’t be a team player, get fired” was the charge against the Bush Administration?
Thanks for more info on this case. First I heard was she was more interested in protecting her agency than anything. Framed that way, it’s a case of ‘get rid of the bureaucrats who won’t change.” Clever. But if, as Rep Frank says, it’s more a case of challenging the Old Boy’s Club, well, that is troubling. Geithner should wait, put the new Administration’s plans into action, then if key members refuse to follow the plan, or work against it, fire them.
And hope Republicans don’t hold endless hearings decrying “firing for political reasons.”
By Joey
December 5, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this
TW (7:51): “…first casualty of the stain Sarah Palin left on the professional female reputation.”
RW, you are wise to be afraid of Governor Palin. You should continue the effort to finish her off now. Alas, that effort will fail.
By Bud Wiser
December 5, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this
Palin, Palin, Palin; you leftist clowns cannot get over Palin, can you? newsflash - the election is over …McCain/Palin lost … her time has flown by, yet you always drag it back. Do you not have the mental capacity to focus on current issues or events? Or do you sit at home at night and watch your purchased-on-the-internet dvd’s of JFK, MLK, NFL Films, or whatever, dreaming about the long ago?
I guess I have my answer though, when I had not one response yesterday to my 2:40 post on Jay’s thread about Detroit, Congress playing chicken, comparing the current auto companies crisis with that of the airlines crisis a few years back. No one either had the stones or the intellect to refute or even argue with my point. It must have struck pretty close to the heart to have that effect. All you Chicken-Littles out there got your cheap air tickets yet to see Grandma at Christmas?
You all disgust me. All style (mostly wicked poor at that), no substance. The dumbing down of America through its public education system, combined with the me-first entitlement mentality has assured most of you a very dismal future.
Suck on that this holiday, my friends.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 5, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this
Figure it out for yourself, Taxpayer.
~~~~~
That brings up an interesting point and a follow up to my dissertation on how liberals are so incestuous; one little obscure pinko can put forth a bald faced lie and all of it’s other pinko brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles go out and regurgitate this lie all across the Pinko Nation and soon enough, it becomes The Truth to little zombies like Taxpayer.
Is it any wonder that their offspring are so deformed?
By Taxpayer
December 5, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
I didn’t expect any better from you, Andy. All mouth and nothing to back it up so you attack people that challenge you. You are the little Zombie, boy. Once again, Andy, I ask you to put up or shut up. What is the “lie”, who said it, and where is your proof. Come on. Are you a coward? Show me what you’ve got.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 5, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
I’ve stated my case, lemming, it’s up to you to sort it out.
I am not your personal guide to better governance.
I will, however, out of the goodness of my heart, offer a clue; what exactly do you think the “bailout” is other than a perverted extension of the CRA?
By Taxpayer
December 5, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this
I see Bud has had his bowl of Wheaties, Breakfast of Whiners, today as well. What’s the matter Bud. Having trouble getting into the holiday spirits this morning.
By TW
December 5, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this
Joey - so rattled you forgot who you were talking to? Geez…or were you taking a shot by confusing me with RW? That hurts.
Afraid of Palin?
All Simple Sarah does is provide another avenue for Obama donations - both checks assure the same result. She’s the face of the rightwing cult - a proven loser (see Nov. 4, 2008). And nobody likes a loser.
Oh, she’ll continue to sound good in the states that stuck out like a herpes flare by voting red, but the real world, the majority, she’s nothing but Springer Show material.
You betcha!
By Taxpayer
December 5, 2008 8:44 AM | Link to this
I have proved my points about you then, Andy. Good job.
By Joey
December 5, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
O.K. Jay, it was not the Community Reinvestment Act itself that was a major cause of the loan problems. It was the way Bureaucrats abused the power given them by the CRA.
Isn’t this always the case. “Do Good Law” leads to abuse of law by Bureaucrats.
By AmVet
December 5, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer, you’re wasting your time.
The track record is amazingly long, diverse and incoherent. Across three AJC blogs. Two cogent thoughts in a row is remarkable for your average Cobb County, Bush boot licker.
And you want evidence??? Data??? Facts???
Dream on…
Alas, poor Sarah.
My final thoughts regarding her have not changed in the past few weeks.
She is a delightful woman. And a good American.
And was/is imminently unqualified for any position remotely close to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
That she is the new substance-less darling of the reality-challenged lunatic fringe says MUCH more about their stuck on stupid mentality than about her.
She needs to stay home and take care of that semi-dysfunctional family of hers…
By Bosch
December 5, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
I saw Bair on CNN last night. Glad she’s stepping up to the plate, no one else seems to be.
By getalife
December 5, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this
Bad sign Tim wants her gone.
The unemployment numbers are starting to look like a depression.
Panic is setting in.
This will not end well.
By Paul
December 5, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
Jay,
The other day you cited a Goldberg piece describing Newt Gingrich:
“There he was on the O’Reilly Factor a couple of weeks ago, warning of “gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us.”
While I don’t disagree with your guess that he’s using the Christian Right as a base for his livelihood, I saw Goldberg’s Newt reference played out elsewhere to make the same kind of point. I’ll offer the writers either missed the point of the remark or misconstrued it to fit into their writing.
Bill O’Reilly and Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker have been having a little dust-up over one of Hertzberg’s columns, similar to Goldberg’s.
Intro: BOR: “Press dishonesty and standards of reporting. I spoke with Newt Gingrich about militant gays assaulting and invading churches in reaction to the defeat of gay marriage in California.”
“We had a woman with a cross smashed out of her hand, we had a church in Michigan invaded by gay activists, a guy in Sacramento fired from his job, he have boycotts called on restaurants. It’s getting out of control so very few days after the election. How do you assess this?
Gingrich: “I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us.”
There’s the context. Here’s what happened when Fox question Hertzberg about his New Yorker article.
BOR lead: “The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg distorted Gingrich’s words, writing they apply to the actual vote on gay marriage, not to the violent reaction to it.”
Producer to Hendrik: “Did you ever watch the segment where Newt Gingrich was talking about gay violence?
Hendrik: “Uhh, Christ, I don’t know.”
Producer: “What he (Gingrich) was talking about was a certain circumstance where gay militants invaded a church and attacked Christian parishioners.”
Hendrik: “He was suggesting there’s some sort of gay plot, that the people who want gay marriage are violent terrorists of some sort, wasn’t he?”
Producer: “No, he wasn’t.”
Hendrick: “I’m calling him a bigot?”
Producer: “Yes, you said he was a vicious bigot in the article. I have it right here. And you don’t understand how Newt was talking about people going into a church, screaming obscenities in front of children, throwing things around the congregation –“
Hendrik:: “Gay and secular fascism? That does not exist. That is a slander and it is bigotry. And I dare you t use that bit on your show. You’ll probably just use the parts where I’m wondering what the f*ck is going on because some a@@hole comes up to me in the street.”
I see now why many of these writers don’t want to confront the people they write about (let alone check source material before they begin writing). Context, as we learned from the Rev Wright episode, is important. And would be the end of many articles before they were even written.
By tcoach
December 5, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
What What what, I thought we were told that when Obama was elected that he would not put people in positions who were going to conduct politics as usual.
With Obama being such a great leader and uniter, should he not step in and correct this kind of talk from a member of his cabinet. We were told this was about change, exactly what kind of change is this, a change toi the past?
By Morningstar
December 5, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
By getalife December 5, 2008 9:09 AM The unemployment numbers are starting to look like a depression
You betcha. Just noted the terrible verdict on CNN, and also checked the AJC. 533,000 jobs lost Nov. 2008, the most in 34 years.
When the building industry starts to collapse, the trickle starts. Whacha bet there’ll be few new autos purchased in 2009, regardless of which country makes them. No jobs, no money for anything.
Unfortunately there’s NO trickle down of the wealth from the top, but there’s plenty of trickle up disaster from the bottom.
Just keep in mind this is still on Bush’s watch.
By getalife
December 5, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
Morningstar,
Yeah and Paulson is in China getting lectured on capitalism.
The riots have started there and China is scared.
w should bailout auto but he is too busy working on his legacy.
Jim Wooten calls him a jewel, I call w a pos.
By BDAtlanta
December 5, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
We were sightseeing in DC on Saturday and my conservative Uncles were laughing that “there’s no lights on in that building…no work going on there the past 8 years.”
Funny how all the federal financial institutions have offices within a short hop of the White House.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 5, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
Morningstar: I know you are a lib so let me give you a few pointers on how the federal government is run.
In 2006, democrats took control of Congress, where all spending and regulatory legislation is originated. Curiously enough, this 2006 date coincides with the beginnings of the housing collapse, which Republicans seemed to have managed just fine up to that point.
Now couple this with the fact that the stock market collapse began on the very day that Bruno Clinton conceded from the democrat primary, your weak minded “Bushie’s problem” seems just a bit out of place.
I thought the democrats were going to save us?
By AmVet
December 5, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
Paul,
The ever-accurate O’Leilly noting that someone presented information out of context???!!!
Wow, that’s newsworthy.
The two recent consecutive GOP electoral bloodbaths only drives up the ratings for idiots like him, Limberger, Pretty Boy, Mannish Coulter, ad nauseum.
The sheeple luvs their oracles.
And the rest of the nation who has no time or patience for these myopic nut jobs, just keep laughing at those who do…
CHICAGO — With his national security and economic teams largely in place, U.S. President-elect Barack Obama is turning his attention to filling top energy and environmental posts, although Nobel Peace laureate Al Gore appears to be out of the mix.
Obama, who takes over for President George W. Bush on January 20, has made it clear his White House tenure will signal a break from his predecessor on climate change and other environmental policy issues.
MORE bad news for the stuck on stupid and dangerous wackos in the Reich-wing…
By Morningstar
December 5, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
By getalife December 5, 2008 9:39 AM w should bailout auto but he is too busy working on his legacy
They’re ‘holed up’ in DC trying to reinvent/rewrite history, in an attempt to salvage the Bush legacy. Methinks all that ‘stuff’ on tapes will outlive the rewrite.
By Taxpayer
December 5, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
AmVet,
I still like that Stuck On Stupid descriptor for Republicans. It just seems so fitting with all these big businesses failing left and right after getting the Republican party to give them the free rein of an unregulated business environment and seeing them coming back to the Democrats in Washington and begging for help. “May I have some more porridge?” Where are those that touted the need for no regulation. Why aren’t the Republicans standing united against the likes of AIG and all other businesses begging for a taxpayer-funded bailout. At least the auto companies are starting to look sincere in their requests. The executives from companies such as AIG, Citi, etc., still look like arrogant jerks that walked away from the destruction that they created with their millions in unearned retirement still intact. SOS, more Republicans in need of rescue from self-inflicted wounds.
By Paul
December 5, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
AmVet
Actually, I think it was more a case of him noting how some writers of a particular persuasion weave random references into their writing to make their ideological point. Would rather be like:
Professor: “In your paper on Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, you assert Lincoln gloried in the bloodshed because he hated Southerners. Did you ever read the Gettysburg address?”
Student: “Uhh, Christ, I don’t know…”
I’ve no love for Gingrich, but as is so true in so many cases, there’s plenty to challenge him on based upon what he actually meant, without misrepresenting. Then again, it’s also true many writers aren’t interested in what someone actually said. They merely want to use it to further their agenda.
The second part of your post: last night, while talking to Barbara Walters, BOR spoke at length of how he admired Obama. Somehow, I don’t think that’s an example of “The sheeple luvs their oracles.” Quite the contrary.
[[MORE bad news for the stuck on stupid and dangerous wackos in the Reich-wing…]]
Are you speaking of those who hang on every scientific pronouncement of Al Gore? Yeah, I guess the incoming administration is bad news, then…
By Ray
December 5, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Although probably one third of the loans made by CRA regulated banks were made to those who were not able to pay them back, a large percentage of non-regulated CRA loans were sold on the sub-prime market to Fannie and Freddie in a effort to make lots of money without regard to their regulation mode or to their quality. CRA regulated loans did not fare any better than non regulated loans because they all ended up in the same bag at the end of the day, mostly at Fannie and Freddie. The original purpose of the act was to open a market that, up to then, had minimal exposure due to it’s financial risk. From the original passing of the act in 1977 to present day, many modifications were made in the act but most of the focus, at least in the political speeches was on the so called disadvantaged borrower who was not living the American Dream. Very fruitful ground for politicians and building a voter base.
All out greed and failure to regulate were the main culprits. Even though non CRA loans were made by many banks, there was great pressure by the Clinton and the Bush Administrations for them to loan sub-prime money. Bair is right about the loan distributions. About 2/3 of the loans were made by middle and upper middle class families who were stretched to the limit and would not be classed as “disadvantaged”, at least not until now. Bair is not speaking the party line and that can get you into trouble. It will be interesting to see how the Annointed One will handle this.
By mm
December 5, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
Bush is trying to rewrite history for the better, just like AJC/DNC Manglement does everyday. Fiction at it’s finest.
By Paul
December 5, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer 9:56
[[with all these big businesses failing left and right after getting the Republican party to give them the free rein of an unregulated business environment]]
There’ve been more than a few critical of, and warning to, Democratic leaders for their lack of regulation and control over the bailout funds.
By mm
December 5, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
Ray,
Get over it. It’s not the Annointed One. It’s the Elected One. You and the lunatic fringe lost. Go pound sand.
By mike hussein smith
December 5, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
Wise up, Bud. Nobody but me reads your stuff! And I find your prose to be headache-inducing and usually riddled with lies and errors.
By getalife
December 5, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
“Krugman, on his blog, wrote:
The economy is falling fast. We’ll see what tomorrow’s employment report says, but we could well be losing jobs at a rate of 450,000 or 500,000 a month.
Infrastructure spending will take time to get going — a new Goldman Sachs report suggests that projects that are “shovel-ready” are probably only a few tens of billions worth, and that a larger effort would take much of a year to get going. Meanwhile, it’s very questionable how much effect tax rebates will have on consumer demand. So it may be hard for stimulus to get much traction until late 2009 — and that’s even if Congress goes along, which may be a problem given all the bad analysis and disinformation out there.
So here’s what I’m wondering: will it, in fact, even be possible to pull the economy out of its nosedive before unemployment goes into double digits? I’m starting to wonder.”
Rewrite that Andy.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 5, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) — Barack Oblahma’s record-breaking fundraising gave him four times as much cash to spend as rival John McCain in the final months of the presidential campaign.
Oblahma brought in $291 million between Sept. 1 and Nov. 24 and spent $349 million, helped by funds left over from a primary battle that began in February 2007, his campaign said. McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona, spent $78.9 million of the $84.1 million he received in public financing.
All of this in an election in which Republicans were “hated,” 4,000,000 Conservatives stayed home because of the weak minded moderate that the Republicans ran and Wonder Boy Thee Tax Cutting Conservative only won the election by 7% after spending 4 times more than the opposition?
Talk about ripe.
By mike hussein smith
December 5, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
ac/dc mismanagement — If the housing collapse began in 2006 — THE REPUBLICANS WERE STILL RUNNING CONGRESS. So, that’s something I’ll agree with you on: In 2006, the Republicans caused the housing market to tank.
By Paul
December 5, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
getalife
I think I have to agree with Krugman on this. This is not the time for faint measures. In an earlier column he wrote “take your biggest number of what will be needed. Then double it.” Either that’s an economist speaking or someone who know gov’t programs always end up costing lots more when all is said and done.
Either way, thing’s are going to look a lot worse before they get better. And even if they do take two or three years to turn around - Obama enters 2012 with the economy improving. Then he will again quote Reagan “are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
By Morningstar
December 5, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
AJC/DNC @9:41AM
As I recall, it was a Republican congress under Clinton’s administration that initiated the big deregulation in 1999. And of course we all know who are usually the big players in deregulation.
I didn’t see the Republicans breaking their necks to try and place the brakes on the banking industry, while the money was good. In fact, neither the D’s nor the R’s did anything.
Good ole Phil Gramm was instrumental in turning down the SEC’s requests for more funds to police Wall Street.
The point is deregulation and no money to ‘police’ simply does not work. Accountability must exist. Private sector companies must be subjected to auditors, as well as rules and regulations prompted by the government. State and Federal agencies must also be accountable.
I’m not sure the Democrats can ‘save us,’ but we’d better hope and pray they can do better. Otherwise someone’s kiddies and grands may be sinking down lower on the food chain.
By Paul
December 5, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
AJC/DNC Management
About that money Obama raised: Morris reports in his Dec 1 column, “Obama’s myths: young voters and small donors:”
“we were fooled by Obama’s propaganda. In a story by Fred Lucas, CNSNews reports that the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) found that only 26% of the donors to Obama’s campaign gave $200 or less, compared to 25% for President Bush’s campaign in 2004. How did Obama fund his campaign? The old fashioned way, from fat cats. CFI found that he got 80% more money from large donors (over $1,000) than from those who gave less than $200.
Obama did benefit from small donors slightly more than other campaigns, but not enough to make the historic statement it appeared at the time that was taking place. CFI notes that 47% of Obama’s total fund raising came from large donors, compared to 60% for McCain, 60% for Bush in 2004, and 56% for John Kerry. This trend represents a movement in the right direction, but hardly the revolution that has been mythologized.
These revealing stats are more than a footnote to history. They represent the denouement of a carefully cultivated myth. Obama sold America on the idea that his campaign was animated by hordes of small donors who we’re attracted online. It now appears that this line was nothing more than a convenient smoke screen to mask his dependence on the traditional forces that have always funded presidential campaigns. And it puts into a new perspective the massive amount Obama raised and his brazen reversal of his public pledge to accept the limits imposed by public financing of campaigns.
Now that we know that Obama funded his campaign the old way – from rich people and special interests – it is reprehensible that he did so to the tune of over $600 million. When it looked like he was using the money of small donors to buy the election, it was excusable. But now that it becomes clear that he was getting money the same way other politicians always have done so, his vast outspending of McCain, all based on his chicanery in not taking public financing, puts his victory into a sharply more negative light.
And the fact that he and his staff cultivated the myth of the small donor, even as they realized what a distortion it was and used the myth to cover their attempt to buy the White House with special interest funding, lends a decidedly cynical aspect to their triumph.
We were fooled.”
Dang. I thought we were told it was all those folks sending in all those $25 and $100 donations. Wonder if that portrayal meets Jay’s standard of a “lie”?
By David S
December 5, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
Hey,
Ron Paul has been screaming about the Federal Reserve inflationary policies and the bubbles they were creating since he got to Congress in the 70’s. He and Peter Schiff have been screaming about the tech bubble and the housing bubble since the 80’s.
Now you give kudos to some jerk in the government inner circle who finally has the guts to state the obvious. No wonder america is ill-informed by paying attention to the main stream media.
Why weren’t you folks and the AJC bothering to listen?
By AmVet
December 5, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
Paul, we’ve discussed the Faux News numbskull numerous times before.
I have never contended he has not done some good - children’s issues, etc.
Notwithstanding his ploy to improve his ratings even further with this transparent “move to the center” via his admiration for Obama BS, I simply say he is a neo-con lunatic, first and foremost. He championed the bungled Iraqi invasion/occupation, he wanted NO protests over it and he is an inveterate liar. Other than that, what’s not to like?
Touché, Gore is also an oracle to some, to be sure.
But the huge difference is that even without him, the MOUNTAINS of evidence that the flat-earth bible-thumping dopes in the lunatic fringe view as some sort of vast left wing conspiracy to destroy this country and her economy still exists and is exceptionally persuasive on its own…
4,000,000 Conservatives stayed home…???
Talk about making sh!t up on the fly and hoping it sticks…
By Ray
December 5, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
Paul,
Every one of those donations has strings attached to it. No one gives that much money without banking on getting something back for it. Latest figures go close to 1B when all of the dust settles.
We need to eliminate this kind of political bribery and give each candidate an equal amount of citizen donated dollars gained through our income tax returns. Each person that files gives $2 to be equally distributed to each presidential candidate. Any more is a felony offense with jail time.
Wouldn’t it be a hoot if this lawsuit challenging Mr. Wonderful’s citizenship is taken up by the Supreme Court? Lot’s of disappointed “donors”.
By Taxpayer
December 5, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
Paul,
Now I think you’re just being silly. Are you actually picking on the Democrats about their lack of priority on focus on regulating the bailout money while they’re in crisis mode and trying to keep us out of a depression. I’m just glad that they’ve been able to keep the dominoes standing and we are still not out of the woods. If there had only been proper regulation of that nasty CDS market…Oh well.
[[[By Paul December 5, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer 9:56
[[with all these big businesses failing left and right after getting the Republican party to give them the free rein of an unregulated business environment]]
There’ve been more than a few critical of, and warning to, Democratic leaders for their lack of regulation and control over the bailout funds.]]]
By mm
December 5, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
Ray,
People call Bush names for good reason. He ran this country into the ground for 8 years.
What’s your excuse for calling Obama names? Because he’s black? Because he’s a democrat? He’s not even in office for crying out loud.
By Paul
December 5, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
AmVet
He (gosh, this is a blog, I have to say it) along with many Democrats, rah-rahed the invasion.
Unlike others, he very clearly and loudly said “I was WRONG.”
On the financial meltdown: he not only castigated the Bush Administration and leaders of Congressional committees, he very clearly said “I didn’t see it coming. I should have. My job is to look out for the folks and I let you down.”
I think some who portray him as liberal or conservative (he regularly puts up mail on a segment wherein one letter writer calls him a neocon hack and another a spineless liberal) fail to grasp his characterization of most issues as ‘traditional’ or ‘secular progressive,” noting one can be traditional and liberal, or more difficult but possible, conservative and secular progressive.
I kinda admire Gore. Anyone who can sound the alarm, have it embraced by millions (who simultaneously denounce conservatives as ‘fearmongers’), switch so smoothly from “global warming” to “climate change” and starts a three quarters of a billion dollar investment fund to profit from the technologies that will be mandated to combat global warming,,, wait, I mean”climate change”… hey, what’s not to admire?
And you know I don’t discount the changes or their effects. I’m still puzzling over all the ‘how much is man, how much nature, what effect if we do this and the Indians and Chinese don’t, etc” stuff. But my next car’s gonna be a hybrid. Even if gas is a buck a gallon. I’m more about getting out of the Middle East than most of the progressively Progressives around here -
By Paul
December 5, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer
I guess you’ve surmised I occasionally like to have fun here. Not this time. It’s kinda like family values conservative Reps getting caught with their pants down. Decry others then do the same. Yes, there’s an emergency. But after all the talk about Republican lack of regulation and oversight Dems passed a huge bill and have had numerous officials tell them they aren’t keeping their eye on the ball.
Isn’t that the same argument some used to excuse Halliburton and the other war profiteers at the start of the Iraq war? “Hey, there’s a war on. They can’t be worried about green eyeshade bookkeeping…”
Yes, they can. And they should. It’s part of the public trust, IMHO.
Ray,
I agree. I’ve often called for full Federal funding of elections. With more than two parties. As far as strings attached, I’ve noted I don’t see much difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe. People don’t generally give out of starry-eyed idealism - as you noted, they want something in return.
By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
December 5, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
Jay, you’re out of your league on this one, Bair is simply incompetent.
While I could provide 100 reasons, let three suffice for the purpose of brevity.
The FDIC has been a horribly incompetent regulator. Let’s look at an example close to home, Alpha Bank. The bank was open less than 32 months from inception to failure, and, as a Georgia State Bank, FDIC was a primary regulator. The bank had more than 90% of its loans in speculative real estate and more than 95% of its funding sources were in brokered or internet cd’s and other forms or “hot” or noncore deposits. When one adds to the mix an inexperienced, weak skilled management team and board, it is apparent that the FDIC, and by extension, Bair, was asleep at the wheel. Particularly since this same scenario has played out countless times (some have yet to fail) in metro Atlanta and across the nation.
Bair has failed horribly in managing the FDIC’s inherent conflict between its regulatory side and the deposit insurance side. As an example, at a time when the Treasury, under Sec. Paulson’s able leadership in combating and unprecedented and complex series of problems, is pumping liquidity into the market Bair’s FDIC has created a new insurance assessment schedule that may limit the use of the FHLB system as a liquidity source. Why, when liquidity is a premium and perhaps the key to avoid failure, does Bair’s FDIC act to impair a good liquidity source, because the FDIC regulators/liquidators mistakenly believe that FHLB structured advance unwind fees result in less value and higher cost (which is ridiculous since this is not a for profit endeavor) to the FDIC insurance fund. This is, perhaps, one of the greatest tail wagging the dog examples ever know to mankind.
Bair horribly twice botched the Wachovia and Citibank situation. First, the Fed has provided liquidity to bridge troubled banks to an optimal resolution. Bair was the one who did not want to bridge Wachovia and indicated that the bank would be failed absent a Monday morning sale. Wells Fargo was in the diligence phase and asked for up to two weeks to make a decision, a reasonable bridge period for the Fed. Bair wanted in the headlines and issued her ultimatum; in the end this vaporized $30 billion in value that Wachovia shareholders held in college accounts, retirement accounts, and stock portfolios. If that were not enough, every first year associate at a merger firm knows that when a mandate is granted losers must return the diligence information. Bair and her incompetents did not require Wells to do so, Wells continued diligence and then outbid Citi (which was shackled by the terms of the original deal) and in the end, this was a major contributing factor to Citi’s second bailout. In all, by my count, perhaps as much $70 and $100 billion in value has been evaporated through Bair’s incompetence.
Bair has not been a team player and has acted in her own rather than the nation’s best interest. A mortgage level bailout has been considered from day one, but it is fraught with problems because so many of the mortgages are held in bond and the bondholders, which are all not regulated institutions, have contract rights that cannot be abridged. Who among us would believe it best to bailout Citizen A because Citibank holds his mortgage, but not Citizen B because his mortgage is held in a bond owned by the retirement accounts of Ms. Tucker and Mr. Bookman. Bair has complicated the very complex problem that our nation faces, with her half-baked “solutions” designed to keep her face in the news.
Jay, you got my email address. If you and the AJC want to do some good (and perhaps win a real Pulitzer) by reporting on this, like Delta used to be, I’m ready when you are.
By Taxpayer
December 5, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
Paul,
Dems passed a huge bill without the Republicans having any say in it. Wow, Paul. As I recall, there were regulations imposed and Congress is supposed to be getting feedback from members of the Bush administration. How has that been working out. By the way, haven’t you heard, the surge worked. So, where are all those long overdue explanations from the likes of Halliburton and others. Times a wastin’. Anyway, apparently my hope that your were just being silly has been quashed. Oh well.
[[[By Paul December 5, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer
I guess you’ve surmised I occasionally like to have fun here. Not this time. It’s kinda like family values conservative Reps getting caught with their pants down. Decry others then do the same. Yes, there’s an emergency. But after all the talk about Republican lack of regulation and oversight Dems passed a huge bill and have had numerous officials tell them they aren’t keeping their eye on the ball.
Isn’t that the same argument some used to excuse Halliburton and the other war profiteers at the start of the Iraq war? “Hey, there’s a war on. They can’t be worried about green eyeshade bookkeeping…”
Yes, they can. And they should. It’s part of the public trust, IMHO.]]]
By David S
December 5, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
Ray,
First of all, the problem is not in how much is given, but how much can be distributed by government to its friends. How about if we try the approach of eliminating the income tax and scaling government size back to that which is defined by the constitution. What a concept. With that small a government and that little revenue, we will have little to worry about how much is being given away. You know, this is what the founders envisioned - radical huh?
Second, so you force me to pay $2 out of my income potentially to a candidate I don’t support. So who gets this money? Does the Libertarian candidate get the same as the rep. or dem. What about the green? What about the hundreds of candidates that start off the presidential run? What about the congress or the senate? Are you going to make sure if there are “hurdles” to getting the money that they are fair, or does it become fair so long as YOUR candidate gets money? Se the problems? Everyone throws out public financing as if it is a solution, but all it will do is further exclude ideas. Don’t we have enough of that with the exclusionary debates that the two clowns engage in?
When you total the money spent, it is less than Coke spends on advertising for a year. Incumbents get free air time all throughout their time in office. Plus free mail to constituents, etc. The only way a challenger can compete is by raising as much money as they can to counter this advantage. That’s why McCain/Feingold was called the Incumbent Protection Act.
Its my money. It is my mechanism of “speaking” my mind. Why would you restrict my speach? I only support candidates that want to get rid of government and want to eliminate all government corporate or private welfare. My candidates are not about “giving back”, but rather eliminating the taking in the first place. Why should they be silenced?
If you are happy with the people in power right now, then your plan will be a great way of making sure they never leave office.
By Midori
December 5, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
Every one of those donations has strings attached to it. No one gives that much money without banking on getting something back for it.
That’s what I’ve always said about Bush.
And his donors sure got more bang for the buck, didn’t they?
Seems to me Bush was the reason for Obama’s fundraising success — people are/were so sickened about Bush’s ineptitude, and dug deep in their pockets in support of someone competent and intelligent to replace the incompetent drunkard.
I’m curious about something, Ray.
As I’m African American, do you consider me a “buckwheat” as well?
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 5, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this
Paul, that smelling-to-high-heaven “Obama’s donors are BIG FATCATS, REALLY!” report being hyped by Fox News and their toadies is nicely raked over the coals here.
By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
December 5, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
Midori 11:44 AM
“Incompetent drunkard”? It is my public knowledge that President Bush has not had a drink in decades. That you would refer to this great nation’s President in such an inaccurate and scurrilous manner says far more about you than him.
Just imagine the righteous outroar were I to axes, “Let’s wait and see how Kunte does under fire. Dodd and Frank are already expressing angst at both his absence of involvement and his suplus of “jess wordts”.”
By Abomi Nation
December 5, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this
Dodd and Frank are already expressing angst at both his absence of involvement and his suplus of “jess wordts”.
Good for them!! Its about time that we had congressmen that understand their role. Their role is not be be a lapdog to the President even if they are in the same party.
Things are looking up!
By Midori
December 5, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
yeah, right WBH.
“your” public knowledge. uh huh.
do you pass out from fighting with pretzels, too?
take your “outrage” and “dismay” and shove it
and just WHAT IS IT WITH YOU WINGNUTS?????
Why do you all have to butt into other’s conversations?
I wasn’t talking to you. My inquiry was directed to Ray.
As a matter of fact, after scrolling past your many droll rambling, unintelligent posts, I make it a point to stay far away from you.
By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
December 5, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
Midori, who makes $12,000 per year?
By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
December 5, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
Midori, lets review the facts.
Who among us has selected a screen name that is the name of melon liquor swill;
Even the wildly partisan and inaccurate Huffington Post that is your source acknowldedges that, “…he could easily be drinking a non-alcoholic Pisco Sour in this shot.”
When you write, “Why do you all have to butt into other’s conversations?” don’t you realize that this is a public message board? You want private, trade emails.
Finally, you’re statement that, “I’m African American” taken together with you absence of insight and muddy logic is but another breadcrumb on the trail that leads to an inexorable conclusion about why majority black governments (see Detroit, Atlanta, Liberia, Zimbabwe, et al…) are failures.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 5, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
Oh, come now, Wyld. Don’t leave us hanging with the “bread crumbs” business.
Why do you believe “majority black governments are failures?”
Do tell.
By Paul
December 5, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer 11:24
Pres Bush and the Democratic Congress worked together on the bailout. We already knew the Bush Administration’s track record on oversight and regulation. We expected more from a Democratic Congress. Didn’t get it. Congress doesn’t have to wait for input from the Administration to do some oversight. ‘nuff said.
BDAtlanta 12:37
But alas, Pres-elect Obama said he wouldn’t tackle Social Security and Medicare for ten years.
ch-ch-ch-chaaaaange…..
Wyld Byll
[[Midori, who makes $12,000 per year?]]
Anyone who makes more than $11,999.99? (Midori - I just read your 12:33 - sorry for butting in).
DB 12:13
What is it with you and Fox News? My gosh, they’re the secret cabal behind everything, aren’t they? The information was from CNS News (okay, they have three letters in their name, Fox has three….). The material was cited by Dick Morris on his web page.
By the way, you linked to Editor and Publisher. I think them a credible source and their writing should be taken seriously. But I’m confused. Your wrote the report is “being hyped by Fox News and their toadies.” Editor and publisher said the report was cited in ” USA Today, The New York Times and Los Angeles Times.”
The New York Times and Los Angeles Times are toadies of Fox News? Wow. Who’da’ thunk?
But the E&P analysis turns around the definition of “small” as being under $200. I thought I remembered Pres-elect Obama regularly citing how his rejection of Federal funding wasn’t a problem because his campaign was being financed by the public - through all these millions in little donations. Well, he did have millions in little donations - probably more than anyone has ever had. But he had gazillions from the traditional fat cats - and he gave absolutely no indication that was going on.
By Midori
December 5, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
Paul,
no problem - always nice to hear from you and to talk to you.
now I’m off to figure out how to manage my $19,999 yearly salary.
That guy upthread has serious anger management and reality issues — besides being a full blown knuckle dragging neanderthal.
He also has a Carnac the Magnificent personality disorder.
The salary comment was just one more example of him trying to pass off his misconceptions and delusions as “facts”.
By Midori
December 5, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
Who among us has selected a screen name that is the name of melon liquor swill;
I forgot to point out your monumental ignorance on that “fact” as well — my name happens to be Japanese. It means “green”.
Try getting out more. Then you would have something other than ignorant misconceptions and racist attacks to back up your “facts”.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 5, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
Paul, you were quoting Dick Morris; he’s been on the FNC payroll in the past, I figured he still was.
By Paul
December 5, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
DB
I cited Morris as I read it in his column and it was distilled from the CNS report. CNS reported the numbers, Morris provided his interpretation.
He does get $$$ from Fox for regularly appearing. So does Howard Wolfson, who was Hillary’s communications director for Hillary’s Presidential run.
And again, I distinguish between the political entertainment shows and the hard news shows.
out for a while -
By Taxpayer
December 5, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this
No Paul,
Members of Congress just has to sit there twiddling their thumbs waiting for the Bush Administration’s folks to come before them and do some serious explaining and I expect that’s exactly what they’ll do before they get the next 350 billion. Don’t you think that is the sort of oversight that’s expected and that we’ll see. In the mean time, I think they’re doing a decent job of grilling the auto makers. So, maybe they’re actually doing some of that oversight stuff, huh.
By Bud Wiser
December 5, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this
By mike hussein smith
December 5, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
Wise up, Bud. Nobody but me reads your stuff! And I find your prose to be headache-inducing and usually riddled with lies and errors.
Find a lie in there and I’ll eat it. Other wise, a suggestion: why don’t you keep your yap shut sometimes and let people only guess how stupid you are, instead of opening it and confirming it to everyone?
By sunshine and thunder
December 5, 2008 10:22 PM | Link to this
JAY
Any bureaucrat who doesn’t understand the seed role that CRA played in creating the mortgage crisis doesn’t understand markets and business.
The CRA made it mandatory for banks to issue sub prime loans. They had to be CRA “compliant” and in order to do that they had to show that a certain percentage of loans went to low income borrowers.
Fannie and Freddie began to lower their standards as well, buying up sub prime garbage and packaging it through intermediaries on Wall Street who could sell the stuff globally.
And the rating agencies (government mandated monopolies) approved of the whole mess by designating a lot of the junk AAA.
When you have an atmosphere like that you are truly encouraging anybody with a pulse to become a mortgage lender and literally patting them on the back for making bad loans.
Following Fannie and Freddie’s lead Wall Street insitutions began buying and packaging the crap themselves for resale to domestic and international investors.
Selling a huge package of mortgages after they have been sliced and diced into tranches from investment grade all the way down to toxic waste is very profitable when you are selling the final product for more money than the aggregate amount of mortgages therein. Especially when Fannie and Freddie has created such a market and global investors felt safe buying the stuff.
In the kind of atmosphere that was fostered because of the combined influences of CRA, congress, FNMA and FHLMC it isn’t surprising that these sub primes loans were made a billion times over.
Anybody could make a buck and get cogratulated by the “regulators” for their efforts.
By Brilliant
February 22, 2009 7:55 PM | Link to this
Hi everyone. For me, it’s that I contributed, … That I’m on this planet doing some good and making people happy. That’s to me the most important thing, that my hour of television is positive and upbeat and an antidote for all the negative stuff going on in life. I am from Salvador and learning to read in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Paint will make your ramp faster! Duct tape, airplane or electrical tape or aluminum strips.”
Regards :-D Brilliant.