How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

[bigdavediode]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

As usual biddave is spewing the obama talking points of the day. Oh no, McCain was in favor of some sort of bank deregulation 15 years ago, so he must be a dirtbag.

Umm.... actually I think he's a decent guy who is well over his head, not a dirtbag at all.

However, I believe he didn't read the bill that he cosponsored (as most Senators don't). That's why I posted it above. It appears to advance deregulation which is something that he's advocated repeatedly over the years, and just said yesterday that he feels that deregulation helped "grow" the economy.

Now, naturally, he's for more government intervention.

I would say it's because deregulation didn't work, but even if you disagree, his philosophy is whatever it needs to be at the moment. He's for less government intervention, then is for writing $700 billion dollar checks. He's for more deregulation, then wants to create a new government department to regulate. He's for more regulation and supervision, and the bill you wrote about gets rid of two supervisory departments.

At least Obama will have advisors who know a lot about the problems, since they created them. How he can retain Franklin Raines, kicked out of FNM in disgrace, and Jim Johnston, another FNM hack, and criticize McCain is beyond me, but I guess having the media cheerleading for you helps.

Actually Raines has never been involved in the Obama campaign and has stated this himself.

It's easy to lead people by the nose if they don't bother to research.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from Arnie:

You don't need to go back 15 years. Here's one a little more current..........

John McCain: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Quick Info
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status: Dead (on party line vote in committee-Dems had majority)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Defend your incompetent hero, Bush, at any cost, you Kool Aid Gulper!!!!!!!!!!! You are a MORON!

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from bigdavediode:

...
Actually Raines has never been involved in the Obama campaign and has stated this himself.

It's easy to lead people by the nose if they don't bother to research.

From Politico, back in July before Raines joined Rev. Wright, Obama's grandmother, Hillary clinton and others under the bus:


July 16, 2008
Categories: Barack Obama

Advice from Raines

An ill-timed -- for Obama -- profile of former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, forced out in an accounting mess a few years ago.

The Style Section piece reports that he's recently been taking "calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

Hard to find anybody in the mortgage industry who's looking real great right now, but Fannie Mae's critics, in particular, seem to have been vindicated.



By Ben Smith 11:42 AM

*******************

The quote came from a Washington Post article. Now the Post is trying desperately to untangle itself from its own story.

If Raines wants to come out and said he was also lying to the Post reporter, as well as to regulators, shareholders and the financial press, and she naively reported it as fact without checking it, OK, I'll accept it. I find it more believable however that he is part of Obama's circle of wealthy black political, entertainment industry and legal advisors, not all of whom are palatable to the public.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The Style Section piece reports that he's recently been taking "calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

The Style section? You really wrote that?

If Raines wants to come out and said he was also lying to the Post reporter,

Here's the Washinton Posts' correction:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html

"I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." -- Raines

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from bigdavediode:

The Style section? You really wrote that?



Here's the Washinton Posts' correction:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html

"I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." -- Raines

"McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."


It was a business reporter, not a Style reporter, not that it should make any difference to such an arrogant and sanctimonious liberal paper as the Post. I don't see the Post issuing a "correction", as you claim. Instead, they criticize McCain for believing an article in the Post. They accuse HIM of stretching the truth when he was quoting the exact words of the Post article. So bsically, we are left to conclude that the Post is saying McCain should have known (a) that Raines was a bald-faced liar or (b) the Post cannot be trusted to report quotations from ex-government officials accurately. Either way, McCain was in the wrong.

This dissembling actually came from the Post's "Factchecker" blog. Factspinner would be more accurate.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

"McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

You'd agree, of course, that the number of repetitions has zero to do with proving something is true.

It was a business reporter, not a Style reporter, not that it should make any difference to such an arrogant and sanctimonious liberal paper as the Post. I don't see the Post issuing a "correction", as you claim. Instead, they criticize McCain for believing an article in the Post. They accuse HIM of stretching the truth when he was quoting the exact words of the Post article. So bsically, we are left to conclude that the Post is saying McCain should have known (a) that Raines was a bald-faced liar or (b) the Post cannot be trusted to report quotations from ex-government officials accurately. Either way, McCain was in the wrong.

This dissembling actually came from the Post's "Factchecker" blog. Factspinner would be more accurate.

Well McCain did claim that he was an advisor, something that the original article did not, although it's a subtle difference.

Either way, this is all discredited, so I wouldn't waste too much time worrying about it. McCain may have made an honest mistake in not verifying his ad's information (I believe that was probably the case given that he's a hands off leader like Bush) rather than just lying about it. But either way, that's the kind of leadership we can expect.

 

[OldTrader]

Quote from bigdavediode:


Either way, this is all discredited, so I wouldn't waste too much time worrying about it. McCain may have made an honest mistake in not verifying his ad's information (I believe that was probably the case given that he's a hands off leader like Bush) rather than just lying about it. But either way, that's the kind of leadership we can expect.

What it looks like to me is that Obama and his campaign went for literally months without correcting the Raines/Washington Post comments, eh? Maybe they don't read the Washington Post. LOL.

Either way, why don't you address the Jim Johnson situation. Ex-CEO of Fannie Mae for 7 years. As an aside, he was also with Lehman Bros. Gets around doesn't he.

A 2006 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.

On May 22, 2008, Democratic Party officials confidentially divulged that Obama had asked Johnson "to lead the process" for selecting Obama's running mate. On June 4, 2008, Obama announced the formation of a three person committee to vet vice presidential candidates, including Johnson.

Oh, he also was implicated in the Angelo Mozzillo, Countrywide scheme, where he got a loan from Mozzillo on let's just say on favorable terms.

Maybe you guys could address why Obama keeps coming up with these relationships with guys who are ex-FNM CEOs.

OldTrader

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from OldTrader:

What it looks like to me is that Obama and his campaign went for literally months without correcting the Raines/Washington Post comments, eh? Maybe they don't read the Washington Post. LOL.

Sorry, no, there is no such thing as "proof by duration." The Obama campaign has stated that this is false. The guy involved has stated that this is false. The original paper stated that this is false, with the explanation which I've posted.

Not sure how this case can get any more closed than that.

Either way, why don't you address the Jim Johnson situation. Ex-CEO of Fannie Mae for 7 years. As an aside, he was also with Lehman Bros. Gets around doesn't he.

He wasn't a financial advisor either. He was hired to vet VP candidates.

A 2006 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.

Yes. Thus I find it interesting that McCain cosponsored a bill specifically to eliminate the OFHEO.

Maybe you guys could address why Obama keeps coming up with these relationships with guys who are ex-FNM CEOs.

OldTrader

Well I'd suspect it's because he has a lot of relationships with CEO's. Also, based on McCain's employee receiving two million dollars to lobby for him, I'd say it's because these guys want to ingratiate themselves with politicians.

 

[OldTrader]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Sorry, no, there is no such thing as "proof by duration." The Obama campaign has stated that this is false. The guy involved has stated that this is false. The original paper stated that this is false, with the explanation which I've posted.

Not sure how this case can get any more closed than that.

Perhaps closed for you....but not for some of us.

Here's some other information:

Last Friday, the Washington Post "factchecked" the McCain ad and concluded that the campaign had been "clearly exaggerating wildly" in order to link Obama to Raines and that the "latest McCain attack is particularly dubious."

Factchecker Michael Dobbs wrote that McCain's evidence that Raines had advised Obama was "pretty flimsy"--not a description that probably endeared him to Anita Huslin, the reporter who wrote the story this summer. But Dobbs did talk to Huslin. Here is his account of their conversation:


Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of the quote. She explained that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said 'oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,' I asked, and he said 'no.')"


By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and they had some general discussions about economic issues.

Got that? Huslin stands by her reporting--that Raines had given advice to the Obama campaign about mortgage and housing policy matters--and yet the McCain campaign is faulted by the Washington Post for relying on information that comes from the Washington Post.

More amusing, though, is that in the rush to accuse the McCain campaign of lying, Dobbs glosses over a major discrepancy between the story that appeared in his paper and that of the Obama campaign. Obama spokesman Bill Burton claims that the campaign "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter." It is possible, of course, that Raines simply made up the conversations he described to the Post reporter. But it seems more likely, given the toxicity of Raines, that the Obama campaign would simply prefer that those conversations had never taken place.

Dobbs concludes: "I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls and will let you know if I receive a reply."

That's reassuring, since Dobbs has already decided that the McCain campaign has been dishonest. Two things are clear with six weeks left in the presidential race. Barack Obama will practice the old-style politics that he lamented throughout the Democratic primary. And the media will give him a pass.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from OldTrader:

Perhaps closed for you....but not for some of us.

Here's some other information:

That's not new information, that's the same information that I just posted as part of the article.

He is not an advisor to the campaign and he is not an advisor to Obama. Simple as that. Just because he says he talked to someone on the phone once about the economy, does not make him an advisor. I'll repeat this, since you're having trouble with this -- a lot of trouble -- he is not advising Obama, and is not advising the campaign. He even says he isn't. The campaign says he isn't. The Washington Post says he isn't.

Here's what McCain's ad said:

"Another CEO for Fannie Mae, Mr. Raines, has been advising Senator Obama on housing policy."

He has not.

In fact, you have zero evidence that he has been -- even the original article didn't say he's been "advising Senator Obama on housing policy" as McCain's ad claimed.

Barack Obama will practice the old-style politics that he lamented throughout the Democratic primary. And the media will give him a pass.

Why should the press nail him to the wall for something that is so clearly false?