Stock Market Crash Expected In 2008 To Be Worse Than 1929

[Soldier4Christ]

The Bailout and Socialism

I don’t know much on economics, but I know enough to know that a partially socialized system created this mess and bailing it out with money from my pocket will only encourage what caused it in the first place. It won’t fix anything, only dip more into socialism and actually make things worse. You can’t fix bad government with more government…or as Ronald Reagan said, “government is not the solution…government is the problem.” A real economist explains it much better:

    The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

    Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

    In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This “moral hazard” generates enormous distortions in an economy’s allocation of its financial resources.

    Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.

    Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.

    Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street’s hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

    The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration’s claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.

    If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.

    The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.

    Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.

    So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

    The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

[HisDaughter]

Oct 1, 3:36 AM EDT
Senate to vote on financial rescue plan

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's plan to rescue U.S. financial markets is headed for a Senate vote Wednesday night after leaders there agreed to add tax breaks for businesses and the middle class and increase deposit insurance in an attempt to revive the legislation rejected by the House.

The surprise move by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appeared likely to win a big vote in the Senate that would put pressure on the House to go along and send the measure to the White House.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and his GOP rival, John McCain, planned to fly to Washington for the Senate vote, as did Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Adding a set of popular business tax breaks and legislation to prevent more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from feeling the bite of the alternative minimum tax promised to win House GOP votes for the plan even as it angered moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats concerned about the tax cuts adding to the deficit.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., issued a statement that suggested she does not like the move but did not reveal her plans. Another House vote on the rescue plan could come by week's end.

"The Senate will vote tomorrow night and the Congress will work its will," Pelosi said Tuesday. The expected support of both Obama and McCain, however, makes it difficult for Pelosi to ship the measure back to the Senate with a different set of vote-getting add-ons.

The Senate legislation also will contain an increase in the government's $100,000 cap on insured bank deposits, part of a move by lawmakers, Bush and the two presidential candidates to try to reassure markets that the plan will pass this week.

The measure failed in the House on Monday in a stunning vote that shook the stock and credit markets. Though the Dow Jones industrials rebounded Tuesday, supporters of the administration's plan said passage by week's end still was a must.

The House vote was a stinging setback to leaders of both parties. The administration's proposal, still the heart of the legislation under consideration, would allow the government to buy bad mortgages and other deficient assets held by troubled financial institutions. If successful, advocates of the plan believe, that would help lift a major weight off the already sputtering national economy.

Bush renewed his efforts Tuesday, speaking with McCain and Obama and making another statement from the White House. "Congress must act," he declared.

The tax plan passed the Senate last week on a 93-2 vote. It included AMT relief, $8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana, and some $78 billion in renewable energy incentives and extensions of expiring tax breaks. All told, it would cost about $112 billion over five years.

In a compromise worked out with Republicans, the bill does not pay for the AMT and disaster provisions, but does have revenue offsets for part of the energy and extension measures.

Earlier Tuesday, House Democratic leaders discussed adding an extension of unemployment benefits, while Republicans pressed to make it easier for financial institutions to hold questionable long-term assets. House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., floated the idea of boosting a recently passed property tax deduction for homeowners who don't itemize on their returns.

The Capitol was mostly quiet because of the Jewish new year, but there were plenty of behind-the-scenes talking and telephone conference calls on the bailout.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., emerged from one meeting to tell told reporters, "I'm told a number of people who voted 'no' yesterday are having serious second thoughts about it."

Reid and McConnell appeared in the early evening to enter into the Senate agreement on the floor. The idea took House Democratic leadership offices by surprise but it was unclear whether Pelosi was truly sandbagged. Aides to Reid and Pelosi clammed up when asked whether they were in synch on the Senate power play.

The move to temporarily raise the federal deposit insurance limit, now $100,000 per account, to $250,000 won bipartisan support. McCain and Obama both endorsed the change, as did the agency that runs the program.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairwoman Sheila Bair said the move could help ease a crisis of confidence in the banking system.

 

[nChrist]

NEW YORK TIMES

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 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.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

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.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

Please read the article ABOVE AGAIN!  READ IT SLOWLY AGAIN!

Please keep in mind that there are no secrets in this day and age of mass communications. Something this HUGE is impossible to LIE about because all kinds of documentary evidence exists to nail down exactly what happened and when. However, we have piles of politicians who have lined their pockets with CASH since the above article was written. It was DIRTY, involved PAY-OFFS, involved FRAUD, involved MASSIVE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, involved what's known as GRAFT, involved what's known as ORGANIZED CRIME, involved what's known as CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, and currently involves BLATANT LIES from those that are responsible and those that knew about it!

If you can add two plus two, you should be able to figure out what happened and when. There's tons of documentary and video evidence of nearly all stages. It's not hard to determine that HIGH RANKING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS knew about this problem YEARS AGO and did absolutely NOTHING! A ten-year-old with a Big-Chief writing tablet and a number two pencil could have figured out this was ORGANIZED CRIME if given just a few minor details. A smart ten-year-old would come to the same conclusion without the pencil and pad! BUT, THE BEST FROM WALL STREET RAN THIS AND GOT BY WITH IT BECAUSE CONGRESS AND A PRESIDENT TOLD THEM TO! CONGRESS AND HIGHER POLITICIANS TOLD THEM TO BECAUSE THEIR POCKETS WERE LINED WITH BIG BUCKS CONSTANTLY!

This MASSIVE CON GAME worked beyond anyone's wildest imagination, so groups around the country signed on to make it bigger. They might have called themselves COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS! ACORN was one such group, and the first proposed BAILOUT had ACORN getting 20 BILLION MORE DOLLARS! I really made this math problem more simple than adding two plus two. If you get a little bit more information between the time of this article and now, DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT YOU CAN FIGURE THIS OUT?

[Soldier4Christ]

Let's add the following information to your post for intent.

http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=23229.0

[nChrist]

Let's add the following information to your post for intent.

http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=23229.0

Brother, I've just skimmed over this material and made copies for a harder look. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT EVERYONE READ THIS! It can't be ignored, and it would provide the perfect explanation for the Housing and Wall Street CRASH! If so, MANY OBVIOUS VIOLATIONS OF CRIMINAL LAW ARE INVOLVED BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!

[HisDaughter]

No time to read this now so I've printed it out to read on the bus.
If BEP is worked up about this I want to read why...

[Soldier4Christ]

Greens Exploit Wall Street Bailout

Will the Wall Street bailout be the beginning of the New (Green) Deal?

Environmental activists are trying to figure out ways to advance their global-warming-regulation agenda by exploiting the current financial crisis, including the Wall Street bailout bill to be voted on by the House.

The good news for them is that they may not need to succeed, since someone with a very Green agenda will be in charge of implementing the bill should it become law.

As reported by Carbon Control News (Sep. 24), "Environmentalists and some Democrats are seizing upon the financial sector crisis to call for major federal investments in energy efficiency and improvements in the electricity grid as a way to address climate change and spur a lagging economy."

Michael Moynihan, former Clinton administration economic adviser and director of the Green Project for the New Democrat Network, has called for a national infrastructure bank to fund clean energy projects.

Following up on this idea, two house Democrats introduced a bill last week to establish a "Clean Energy Investment Bank."

Although Moynihan claims this would be an improvement over the current earmark system, the bank seems to be little more than a permanent Green earmark.

The activist group Friends of the Earth (FoE) is lobbying for the Treasury Department to conduct global-warming impact reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — the federal law requiring federal agencies to conduct environmental-impact studies of their actions.

Through its citizen-lawsuit provisions, the Greens often use NEPA to block energy, highway and logging projects that involve federal agencies and lands.

FoE claims that as the Treasury Department becomes a significant shareholder in financial institutions that it bails out, it would be obligated to carry out environmental impact studies since, to some extent, the activities of those financial institutions would also be activities of the Treasury Department.

"Subjecting entities that receive financial backing from taxpayers to NEPA could provide a hook for environmentalists to force greater scrutiny of actions by those entities that increase greenhouse gas emissions, including the underwriting of fossil fuel projects," reported Carbon Control News (Sep. 26)

Anti-nuclear Greens are trying to use the recent bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers to block the construction of the first nuclear reactor built in the U.S. in 30 years.

This column previously reported on how the Greens are trying to stop Maryland from permitting the construction of a third reactor at Constellation Energy's Calvert Cliffs power plant by arguing that emission-less nuclear power actually worsens global warming.

Lehman's bankruptcy raised concerns about the financial health of Constellation, leading to a buy-out offer from the Warren Buffet-led Mid-American Energy Holdings Company.

The Greens called for the project to be halted "in light of the nation's worsening financial crisis and serious concerns about the stability of the company building the project," according to Carbon Control News (Sep. 26).

Monday's rejection of the Wall Street bailout bill by the House has opened the door for the alternative-energy industry to again try to renew the tax credits about to expire for wind power projects such as the Pickens Plan.

The Senate bill passed Wednesday night extends the much-lobbied-for tax credit.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman called on Congress to "Green the Bailout" (Sep. 28).

Friedman quoted a green-collar jobs proponent who said, "You can't base a national economy on credit cards. But you can base it on solar panels, wind turbines, smart biofuels and a massive program to weatherize every building and home in America."

Finally, even if none of these provisions make it into the bailout bill, the Greens will likely be able to count on Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to implement their agenda for them.

The former head of Goldman Sachs — who simultaneously headed up the Nature Conservancy and recently told Fortune magazine that action on global warming is crucial to the U.S. — is no stranger to using "other people's money" to implement the Green agenda on land secured by distressed debt.

Paulson could use bailout money to purchase debt securities that are secured by property either coveted by Greens or targeted for energy or natural resource development projects that the Greens oppose.

Once the U.S. Government owns the securities (and, thereby, the property) an omnipotent Paulson could essentially take the land out of circulation by "preserving" it as public land.

He could even claim — through the economic device of "contingent valuation" — that the acquired land has more value as pristine public land than as, say, an energy or logging project.

Contingent valuation uses opinion surveys to value intangible assets for which there is no market, such as scenic views and crystal-clear air.

Respondents are asked hypothetical questions like, "How much would you pay to preserve a seashore view from oil drilling?" or "How much is it worth to keep a forest pristine and un-logged?"

Though the whole process is pretend — the respondents know they won't actually spend any of their own money for this preservation — the government uses the method to establish monetary values of preserved lands.

It doesn't take too much imagination to see how contingent valuation could be used to gin up phony bailout profits through land preservation.

Paulson has already said that he would bequeath the bulk of his fortune — in the neighborhood of $500 to $800 million — to Green causes.

Imagine what he would be willing to do with your money.

[Soldier4Christ]

Besides all of the useless non-associated pork that was added into this bill they also added in useless carbon garbage for the false global warming agenda. Anything to further ruin the economy.


Sneaky: Current Credit Bailout Bill Contains Carbon Tax Provisions!

If you look at page 180 of the 451-page monster bailout bill that easily passed the Senate yesterday , you will see that it includes at Section 116 language about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide.” It also provides, at Section 117, for a “carbon audit of the tax code.”

What could a provision about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide” and another provision about doing a “carbon audit” of the tax code possibly have to do with restoring confidence in Wall Street’s troubled credit and banking markets?

The answer: NOTHING.

This appears to be an attempt by global warming alarmists to lay the foundation for a carbon tax in the middle of another crisis, hoping nobody will notice.

[nChrist]

THE BOSTON GLOBE
JEFF JACOBY
Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco

By Jeff Jacoby , Globe Columnist  |  September 28, 2008

'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

[nChrist]

Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest

Friday , October 03, 2008
By Bill Sammon

WASHINGTON —
Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefited from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.

So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.

Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.

"It’s absolutely a conflict," said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. "He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?

"If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have - or at least what’s not in the stock market - that this would be considered germane," added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. "But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard."

A top GOP House aide agreed.

"C’mon, he writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?" the aide told FOX News. "No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if Frank’s political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxley’s wife or [GOP presidential nominee John] McCain’s wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the nation’s housing and banking laws."

Frank’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress.

"I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus," Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. "On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover."

The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."

Critics say such programs led to the mortgage meltdown that prompted last month’s government takeover of Fannie Mae and its financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.

Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.

Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.

"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Clinton said recently.

Bill Sammon is FOX News' Washington Deputy Managing Editor.

[Soldier4Christ]

So Barney was trying to protect his "Fannie" connection.

Many articles on the internet claim that Herb Moses has left the mortgage industry. This is not true. He is currently working for Wells Fargo as a Home Mortgage Consultant where he is still continuing to do the same kind of damage that he did at Fannie Mae.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/7/41/bab

I rather enjoyed the Bill Oreilly interview yesterday of Barney Frank. Oreilly hit it right on the head with his comments toward Frank.

[nChrist]

Hello Pastor Roger,

Brother, I watched this interview also, and I enjoyed it. We need MORE NEW MEDIA with the guts to call things like they are, ask the tough questions, and hold people responsible for what THEY HAVE OR ARE DOING!

It's sickening to see what the mainstream news media has totally ignored and what they choose to spend their efforts on. A perfect example is the attempted lynching of Sarah Palin with anything they can CONJURE up. All the while, they ignore FACTUAL matters that the public needs to be informed of - LIKE BARNEY FRANKS. There are HUGE STORIES with TONS OF FACTS that are simply IGNORED because they don't fit their AGENDA. Can't we use a tiny bit of COMMON SENSE and say that the mainstream news media is now a part of the LEFT-WING, SOCIALIST MACHINE? YES IT IS!

[Soldier4Christ]

Every nation that has fallen to socialism has either been done by an all out war of nation against nation or it has been done from within. Those that have fallen from within have always had the news media used as a tool to help implement it. If not for the internet the availability of the truth would not be so readily available.

[Barbara]

Koenig's Eye View October 3, 2008

Executive Summary

by Bill Koenig

While Russia and it's Islamic allies are tightening the noose around oil supplies and are developing extraordianary weapons buildups, the American landscape has been inundated with the proposed $700 billion plus bail out of Wall Street, which in reality is a government takeover of both real property and the financial industry.

The senate, with only 25 dissenters, passed a bill that would make America a socialist nation. It abandons the practices of the free market; and despite hundreds of thousands of phone calls from constituents demanding they vote against this government power grab, these senators ignored the wishes of the people they represent and voted for socialism. They behaved just like the Politburo of the former Soviet Union.

...The next step may be government control of what takes place in homes with government owned mortgages. Can anyone spell "separation of church and state"?

Bailout Consequences

- Bank of America, J P Morgan Chase, Citibank and Wells Fargo (with the purchase of Wachovia) will now account for just under 40% of all bank deposits in the US

- "These three entities will be so large that it's virtually unthinkable to let them fail," said David Ruder, a professor emeritus of law at Northwestern University and former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission

- This means taxpayers will essentially become guarantors for each company's global operations

- Bank of America owns Countrywide, the largest mortgage company in the US, and Merril-Lynch -- one of the largest Wall Street investment firms

- JP Morgan Chase has just taken over Washington Mutual (WAMU), the largest savings and loan in the US

- Citibank bought Wachovia Bank, the nations fifth largest bank

- The two largest remaining Wall Street firms, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, have now become banks

- These financial organizations will cast long shadows over the markets for credit cards, mortgages and retail brokerage services

- The US Federal Gov't will now have $5 trillion of home mortgages under control, just short of 50% of the US $11.5 trillion mortgage market

- The Federal Gov't has given AIG an $85 billion loan and taken 80% ownership in the largest insurance company in the world

- Congress is over it's head, it doesn't have a clue what it is doing with the nation's finances. the federal gov't budget under Bush has climbed to $3 billion per year; the federal deficit is $9.8 trillion and climbling

-