Digg

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Fannie & Freddie: The Real Story Behind The Economic Crisis watch!

youtube.com — *****

Bury

1KrazyKorean 59 days ago

250 diggs
digg it

24 Comments
Who Dugg It?

dan360man, on 10/06/2008, -0/+30Fannie and Freddie. Sounds like a sitcom.
- WordsnCollision, on 10/06/2008, -0/+15Unfortunately, it is.
- sockpuppets, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2This reminds me of the time I paid off my neighbor's mortgage for him while I struggled to make ends meet.
- steelsmack, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1A sitcom where the Obama receives more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them. Blinders anyone? Oh I see you already have them on...
TruthinessHurts, on 10/06/2008, -28/+4More right wing/Republican lies.

The crisis was caused by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, sponsored by McCain's campaign advisor Phil Gramm.
Gee, do you think that's why the Republicans are pretending that black people are the cause of the crisis?
Gramm created this mess by removing oversight and regulations, creating the backrooms where these greedy banks created ways to cheat Americans.

If the GOP was telling the truth instead of racist lies, then the mortgage crisis would have been confined to minority areas.
Get it? If minorities buying homes caused it, then the homes would be in minority areas.

But the Republicans are lying about this, since it's clear that the mortgage crisis did NOT affect only minorities.
This video is just more of the Republicans trying to weasel out of their responsibility, and them trying to find someone else to blame for it.

It's sad when white Republicans try to blame minorities for the policies the GOP enacted.
Buried as wildly inaccurate, basically just a flat out lie.

It's sad the GOP has no honor and can't be honest about this.
I
- TRMarchesano, on 10/06/2008, -2/+13Yeah, republicans keep blacks from paying their bills, I always knew it! damn whitey! LOL
- deathsythe, on 10/06/2008, -1/+12Oh yeah, its right wing lies that Dobbs and Obama mark the top paid politicians out of F&F.
  
  Its also a big right wing lie that Obama has the CEOs on board as paid economic advisors to his campaign....
- ThinkOutTheBox, on 10/06/2008, -1/+12Your comment covers all the left talking points, Point the finger of blame to the people that tried to stop it, call them liars, then pull the race card.
- Azlen, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4Read this article before you blame the Gramm-Leach-Billey act.
  http://www.newsweek.com/id/161936
  There is more than enough blame to go around for everyone.
- civilizedevil, on 10/07/2008, -1/+7"It's sad when white Republicans try to blame minorities for the policies the GOP enacted.
  Buried as wildly inaccurate, basically just a flat out lie."
  
  Excuse my language, but your comment is ***** absurd.
  Don't get me wrong, this video is very one sided, but are we all so brainwashed by our parties that we can't admit fault of any sort? The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act opened the door for this sort of thing to occur, but are you so biased that you can't admit Raines or any other Democrats pushed for the lowering of lending standards that helped cause it? I just don't follow the logic, if rape were made legal would you place the entirety of the blame on the lawmaker and let the man who ***** everyone walk free? I swear, everybody's bias on this issue is absurd, nobody can admit that there is blame to go around on both sides. This video may be one-sided but your views are far more narrow minded. To call it "a flat out lie" and then completely ignore the issues in order to make racist generalizations is absurd. Thank god I don't affiliate with any party, I'd be embarrassed to be put in the same category as you.
- SuperVepr308, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2Anyone who doesn't believe that the Dem's support and love of Freddie and Fannie didn't play a major part in this fiasco is either uninformed or flat out dishonest. It ain't about race, its about forcing companies to extend credit to people that haven't earned it. The race of the applicants doesn't change the situation one bit.
bernandoo, on 10/06/2008, -10/+10Franklin Raines was an African American... it seems to me that's the most likely reason the Democratic Congressman are defending him.
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Doesn't matter why they're defending him. The fact of the matter is, their politics are more important to them than potentially risking trillions in taxpayer dollars. If, in a Senate/House committee meeting, your goal is political posturing (and if you watch C-Span at all, you know this is the case 99% of the time), then you should be removed from office, period.
  
  But somehow it's so much more important to vote Bush out of office, than everyone's local Senator/Representative.
  Watch this election... Congress will have a greater than 80% incumbent win percentage, all while having an approval rating that has consistently been lower than Bush.
Reclinatron, on 10/06/2008, -2/+14Clearly nothing has been taken out of context in this video.
- mfdoomm, on 10/07/2008, -0/+3Of course not.
BigManOnCampus, on 10/07/2008, -6/+5I would get a kick out of people arguing which party is more responsible for this economic crisis if it weren't so horrifically disturbing to watch Americans care more about bashing their political opponents than doing what is right for the country they live in.

If you're a Democrat or Republican who defends Democrats or Republicans for what they did and did not do to help this country collapse economically, ***** you, get the ***** out of my country, I'd grab a gun and kick all of you assholes out past the border if it weren't illegal. It's your ***** ignorant bickering that is the cause of these *****. Watch those Youtube videos again and look at how those dems and repubs only care about towing the party line above doing what is right, and you ***** have the gall to defend them. ***** you.
Shedoblyde, on 10/07/2008, -1/+10I think you guys are missing something here. You are all saying that there is plenty of blame to spread around on both parties, but the most important, fundamental point is that this ECONOMIC problem was caused by POLITICAL actions. That shouldn't happen, guys - we're America, we're supposed to have a free market. And how do BOTH parties propose to solve problems caused by government regulations? More regulation! Great idea, guys.

So please remember that no matter which party you blame, or even if you agree that both parties are to blame, that POLITICIANS meddling in the MARKET are ultimately the problem. The solution to detrimental regulations is not more regulation, it's a free (or at very least, freer) market - i.e. one in which there is no artificial incentive to buy bad loans.
- toliman, on 10/07/2008, -2/+1point 1. politics, like money, influences people. while you might imagine politics is something manageable like money, it's very hard to ask someone with a lot of power, to hand it back. arguing that the solution to commercial failure is to let someone back into the game so they can win it all back, is presumptive on so many levels, mostly that the market works if you keep letting people back in if they fail.
  
  how do you 'supposed' it happened that politicians meddling in the market was the cause, solution or problem, and that the answer is now, opening up controls to a handful of investors and brokers who don't have anyone's interests except their own ?
  
  you need to step back a step, and preface your argument for each point, since it's obvious to you that a free-market economy is vital, but it's ultimately questionable as to wether or not the current political system can handle a truly free-market economic system. can it ?
  
  you might believe in free-market economics, but what's your definition of one ? is it the imaginary one they teach in textbooks, or the same system that has previously failed to operate without outside influences in previous situations. plus, how 'free' (as in free speech) is a free-market ? should we have the military being operated by wal-mart or vice versa ? should government's assets and paychecks be floated on the NYSE,
  
  if it's all open and free, should that mean that we don't need to think about the gravity of large corporations having incredible influence over thousands of business decisions, including the government at large ?
  
  and if the free-market is attached to the functioning of the national government, should a business be allowed to fail naturally if it cannot maintain growth, or should others help it out, i.e. partnerships or government influence, etc. that's not really a free-market economy if there's a decentralised heirarchy of businesses attached to the success and growth of other businesses, ie. banks, governments, and brokers of varying factions in each heirarchy of control.
  
  plus, can you truly separate politcs from economic influence ?
  
  i.e with the lobbyist system having been exploited by corporately funded lobbyist groups forcing politicians to hold views they dont feel comfortable with or feel honestly about, does that infer that market forces should influence political decisions, or that political forces should influence economic decisions. or is it entirely symptomatic of a free market, i.e one without those safeguards or restrictions present in the current system.
  
  if you're arguing for a freer market would be able to handle it, wel, that's why we do have the problems we have now.
- Spuy767, on 10/07/2008, -0/+3 There are regulations to prevent improper conduct, and there are regulations which dictate how a company must operate. The CRA is the latter. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae SHOULDN'T EXIST in a free market, they exist solely because of companies being forced to give out ***** loans to under qualified buyers, and those loans would be impossible without a guarantor. Sure, in the free market, the poor wouldn't be able to afford houses. Well, allow me to rephrase that, in the free market, no institution would be so foolish as to give loans to someone who couldn't afford to pay that loan back.
  
  I chuckle every time Waters refers to "affordable housing" when what she means is, the ability to secure financing on a house which you cannot afford. This entire crisis and the current state of the economy has a single root problem, the housing market. The devaluation of the dollar stems from the ease of access to paper money. Houses comprise the majority of each citizen's net worth, and when most people who've bought houses recently owe far more money on them than what the market can bear, there is a serious problem.
  
  Predatory lending is a misnomer. The only predatory lenders out there are quick-cash and "paycheck advance" loan houses. There is no such thing as a predatory home loan, only a stupid enough buyer to not be able to realize what they can and can't afford to pay, and being utterly unwilling or incapable of reading and understanding the terms of the loan. Lending institutions did what they had to do to meet federal mandates on how many underqualified borrowers they had to lend money to. The CEOs of Fannie and Freddie saw buying crap loans at 50-70 cents on the dollar as a way to pad the bottom line artificially and get themselves larger bonuses.
  
  In my typical form, I've rambled until my original point is lost, but if you can make sense of it, there are some things to be learned from my post.
Meadow113, on 10/07/2008, -7/+6Rains said ONE Time in a Washington Post STYLE article that the Obama campaign had called him lol That is so lame of a connection.
McCains campaign manager, Rick Davis was still taking Fannie and Freddie money last month through his lobbying firm.

So many lies out there, they keep saying Barney Frank and Dodd Blocked McCains efforts as early as 2003. The democrats did not have control of anything until 2007. Barney was not in a position of power in the house, he had no way to block them. As soon as he took power in 2007, he got a regulation bill passed by May. HB 1427.

McCain DID cosign S190, but not in 2005, it was May of 2006 before he signed on to that, it set in the senate and never went anywhere, and repubicans controlled the senate banking committee, AND the Senate until Jan of 2007. I don't see much real federal regulation in it, actually it removes federal control to put an independent advisory board in from the way that I read it. There are lies that Obama voted against this, or that he voted Present. Obama didn't vote at all on it, it never made it to the senate floor. Ask Richard Shelby why. Call me partisan and digg me down, but someone needs to tell people to look and see what party was in charge.

Democrats did plenty wrong, Clinton signed and Biden voted for the Gramm/Leach/Bliley act that threw out Glass/Stegall regulations, and allowed banks into the insurance business. Gramm also stuck the Commodities Futures Modernization Act into the 2000 spending bill in Dec, Clinton signed it too, most voted for it. This one ensured that Credit Default Swaps would not be regulated ever. And those credit default swaps are the problem here sinking these financial holding companies, it's not the mortgages, it's the thousands of people who were allowed to buy into the insurance against default on each one. Gramm was very proud to have been able to kick out regulation though.

But Democrats tried 10 times to get regulation reintroduced, Carl Levin FINALLY succeeded in June of 2008 with the Farm bill, Bush vetoed it, McCain voted against it, but the veto was overridden. This is why we are seeing oil prices fall. It was the same basic principle, those without the money to pay up really were allowed to put up 3 percent margin calls and buy oil futures. It drove the price up. Now we see the fall. Unfortunately pension funds were allowed back into the mix.It looks to me like Dodd held up Barney Franks counterpart to 1427 in the Senate Banking Committee, I am still looking about that. If so lets get rid of him. I am not going to scream and defend him, he needs to be replaced, but Barney Frank just wanted to get poor people into homes, he may have made mistakes and had bad judgement, but he DID pass a bill very quickly upon taking control of the House banking committee. HB 1427 to regulate.
- jonnyboy1544, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1I think you mean cosponsor, not cosign. Unless McCain was taking out a loan.
Heapbasket, on 10/07/2008, -4/+4I'm all for good regulation, the kind of regulation that makes sure the corporations aren't screwing over the common person. These politicians don't want to take responsibility for their mess.
- SuperVepr308, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2The problem is over-regulation or misguided regulation. That is what we saw with Fannie and Freddie and you can see where that got us. Carter's overregulation of fuel in the 70's is another great example. It just doesn't work.
- bryanedds, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2There is no such thing as government regulation that helps society as a whole. It can only benefit a portion of society at the expense of the rest. Thus, there is no such thing as good regulation. Austrian economics demonstrates this - http://jim.com/econ/chap01p1.html
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Fannie & Freddie: The Real Story Behind The Economic Crisis watch!

Login or register to add a comment