We think: Congress needs to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Isn't it convenient that people can forget all the liberals in Congress and even our own past and present Presidents urging the relaxation of standards and setting up special mortgage systems to enable first time home buyers to obtain a house?

The mortgage lenders simply followed what the Government urged them to do. Perhaps they "overdid" it in some cases, but the "lead" came right from Washington. Everyone deserved to enjoy the "American Dream" regardless of their ethnic backgrounds and even special worker classes were specifically mentioned like ex servicemen and women, teachers, policemen, firemen, nurses, etc. as being high on the list for 'easing the pain of getting into their own house".

The Sentinel's version of "fair and balanced" is to always name President Bush as the wrong doer when ever possible. But when it comes to failures by the legislative branch they just say Congress and never mention democrats Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi by name. Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury of the Bush Administration, recommends more controls of Fannie and Freddie just as the Sentinel does. But you never see Paulson's name in the opinion. How fair and balanced. Hurry up and leave Jane Healy. There are jobs open at other Tribune newspapers in LA and Chicago. Aren't you good enough to be offered one?

How many more "bailouts" can the taxpayer be liable for?

I think you dont have a clue as to what is happening and write articles just to create the illusion of being informed.

I agree that Congress shares equal blame for this mess - right along with the mismanaged GSE's, the real estate developers and agents, the flippers and homeowners, and the Executive branch. They all encouraged The American Dream - at any price (or loss, as it turns out)!

Even now, as Congress tries to get on stable ground regulation wise, they can't resist adding more (taxpayer risky) "riders" to continue this failed "social engineering experiment".

The American Dream should be for sound fiscal behaviour; not spend to the max and go under - which is where we're headed if things don't radically change.

SentinelBlather wrote:

The Sentinel's version of "fair and balanced" is to always name President Bush as the wrong doer when ever possible. But when it comes to failures by the legislative branch they just say Congress and never mention democrats Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi by name. Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury of the Bush Administration, recommends more controls of Fannie and Freddie just as the Sentinel does. But you never see Paulson's name in the opinion. How fair and balanced. Hurry up and leave Jane Healy. There are jobs open at other Tribune newspapers in LA and Chicago. Aren't you good enough to be offered one?

Sorry, who ran congress when the scandals at Fannie and Freddie came out? Who ran congress when the hearings were held but nothing was done?

And exactly where did it say in the opinion that Bush was to blame? All it said, and not clearly, is that he's using OUR TAX DOLLARS to bail out this private company....again, just like he did with Bear Sterns. But you won't hear it put like that in the 'liberal media'. Espically when the collapse of the housing market has already hurt advertising so much.

Stop your mental circle jerking and focus on the real problems in this country instead of spending so much time here trying to protect 'your' politicans and for God's sakes, get over your obsession with Jane Healy. What ever she did to you, get a job and move on.

6 actual wrote:

How many more "bailouts" can the taxpayer be liable for?

I'm afraid we're going to find out the answer to that question. And we're going to see how many until the answer is 'not any more'.

Privatize the profits, and socialize the losses.

All present and former executives of both companies should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by the Justice Department. How else will Americans regain confidence in the system and it's leaders? At least Lou Pearlman didn't bribe Federal officials so that he could swindle Americans.

Confidence is another name for Liquidity. During the great depression interest rates were low, standards were high and few people even applied for loans.

Lawmakers need to quickly bringing the two mortgage giants under control? These buffoons can't bring their interns under control. Expand the Treasury's line of credit for the two companies? Let them go under. Discounted loans from the Federal Reserve? Let them go under. Congress created the two companies decades ago? Then Congress can close them down now. Government will be forced to guarantee their debt, the will put taxpayers on the hook for it and it will double the debt held by the public in one fell swoop and it will send shock waves through the economy. People who could buy a house have and are making their payments. People who never could buy a house and the companies who loaned them the $ should both have their arses kicked big time.

Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich- and Cheat Everyone Else
http://tinyurl.com/ydf6r6 / April 18, 2004
One of the country's top investigative reporters reveals how the richest people within the top 1 percent of the country has rigged the tax code and other laws in its favor.
Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter David Cay Johnston has been breaking pieces of this story on the front page of The New York Times for nine years, work for which one business school professor calls him ìthe de facto chief tax enforcement officer of the United Statesî. With Perfectly Legal, he puts the whole shocking narrative together in a way that will stir up media attention and make readers angry about the state of our country. And he has sound advice on what to do.
http://www.booknotes.org/Program/...

==========
Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense
(And Stick You with the Bill) January 18, 2008
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston joins us to talk about his new book,“Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill).” Johnston reveals how government subsidies and new regulations have quietly funneled money from the poor and the middle class to the rich and politically connected.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/18/free_lu...

Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense / Video
(And Stick You with the Bill) January 18, 2008
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston joins us to talk about his new book,“Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill).” Johnston reveals how government subsidies and new regulations have quietly funneled money from the poor and the middle class to the rich and politically connected.
http://play.rbn.com/...

THE CONSERVATIVE NANNY STATE
How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer
By Dean Baker / http://tinyurl.com/e7gyr
This book is written in frustration and hope. People in the United States who consider themselves progressive must be frustrated over the extent to which conservative political ideologies have managed to dominate public debate about economic policy in the last quarter century. Even when progressives have won important political battles, such as the defeat of efforts to privatize Social Security, they have done so largely without a coherent ideology; rather, this success rested on the public’s recognition that it stood to lose its retirement security with this “reform.” It also helped that the public was suspicious of the motives of the proponents of Social Security privatization. However, success in the goal-line defense of the country’s most important social program is not the same thing as a forward looking agenda.

The key flaw in the stance that most progressives have taken on economic issues is that they have accepted a framing whereby conservatives are assumed to support market outcomes, while progressives want to rely on the government. This framing leads progressives to futilely lash out against markets, rather than examining the factors that lead to undesirable market outcomes. The market is just a tool, and in fact a very useful one. It makes no more sense to lash out against markets than to lash out against the wheel.

The reality is that conservatives have been quite actively using the power of the government to shape market outcomes in ways that redistribute income upward. However, conservatives have been clever enough to not own up to their role in this process, pretending all along that everything is just the natural working of the market. And, progressives have been foolish enough to go along with this view.

The frustration with this futile debate, where conservatives like markets and progressives like government, is the driving force behind this book, along with the hope that new thinking is possible. We shall see. http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.htm...

Testimony of Ralph Nader
Before the Committee on the Budget U.S. House of Representatives
June 30, 1999
CORPORATE WELFARE
http://tinyurl.com/rdsoq
http://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html

Lou Dobbs: Congress stiffs working Americans
http://tinyurl.com/muc89
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/20/dobbs.june21...

Tom Delay & Bush Republicans Only Benefit The Wealthy
http://gobnf.org/v/td/tomdelaymovie_tease_sm....
----------
Under The Influence
60 Minutes' Steve Kroft Reports On Drug Lobbyists' Role in Passing Bill That Keeps Drug Prices High
http://tinyurl.com/ytolh8
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/60m...

Spending on Lobbying Thrives
Drug and health products industries invest $182 million to influence legislation
http://tinyurl.com/394mnn
http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx...
----------
The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill
http://tinyurl.com/n7ofd
On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed into the law the energy bill; on July 28,the U.S. House of Representatives voted 275 to 156 to approve the energy bill; and on July 29, the U.S. Senate voted 74 to 26 to approve the energy bill.
Since 2001, energy corporations have showered federal politicians with $115 million in campaign contributions—with three-quarters of that amount going to Republicans. This cash helped secure energy companies and their lobbyists exclusive, private access to lawmakers, starting with Vice-President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force, whose report provided the foundation of the energy bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush on August 8.
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuc...

----------

Bush’s 2005 Inauguration Celebration:
Brought to You by Corporate America
http://tinyurl.com/yp779w
An analysis of Bush’s Presidential Inaugural Committee records reveals that $17.1 million, or 96
percent, of the $17.8 million raised so far came from corporations or their senior executives,
including two corporations that effectively skirted the $250,000 cap on contributions by giving
multiple checks through subsidiaries. The analysis also shows that these same special interests
are the ones that played a leading role in funding Bush’s campaigns—nearly half of the
contributors to the inaugural belong to, or employ, an elite class of Bush fundraisers known as
“Rangers,”“Pioneers” and “Super Rangers.
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/documents/In...

Hey Chris, the Blog name for Jane Healy, you are back and still defending yourself. If you did not write this wonderful opinion why don't you have the writers name attached? Otherwise you either wrote it or approved it. Jane, try to remember that FDR 1st started Fannie in the 1930's and President Johnson and the democrats added Freddie and forgot to add Treasury or Federal Reserve controls back in the 1960's. When the S&L crises started in the late 1970's was that Jimmy Carter who was President. Jane, or Chris, I'm sorry you have such a problem with reading comprehension and substitute ideology for facts. My opinion of you Jane is not based on one item but your career lack of understanding when I compare your items to items in the Wall Street Journal or Investors Business Daily. Good Bye Chris or Jane.

SentinelBlather wrote:

Hey Chris, the Blog name for Jane Healy, you are back and still defending yourself. If you did not write this wonderful opinion why don't you have the writers name attached? Otherwise you either wrote it or approved it. Jane, try to remember that FDR 1st started Fannie in the 1930's and President Johnson and the democrats added Freddie and forgot to add Treasury or Federal Reserve controls back in the 1960's. When the S&L crises started in the late 1970's was that Jimmy Carter who was President. Jane, or Chris, I'm sorry you have such a problem with reading comprehension and substitute ideology for facts. My opinion of you Jane is not based on one item but your career lack of understanding when I compare your items to items in the Wall Street Journal or Investors Business Daily. Good Bye Chris or Jane.

Why don't you put your name up here? Afraid to have it associated with something so stupid as the opinions you profess in this 'blog'?

I don't blame you.

So now Jimmy Carter controlled the thrifts and the Fed? But Bush had nothing to do with the current mess? FDR is more responsible?

A reading comprehension problem? You've got a reality problem my friend.

The point is that the special operating privileges granted to Freddy/Fanny should never have been allowed. These pseudo private companies had competitive advantages (cheaper borrowing interest due to the implicit backing of the federal gov't and the higher credit rating that went along with it and; different reserve requirements)that allowed them to become the bloated behemoths they were when competing against true private sector companies.
Keep gov't out!! A private sector bank failure due to bad management happens. It hurts a little but weeds out the inefficient and the non-performers, life goes on. If a these oversized quazi-gov't entities fail it's beyond huge. Let true capitalism work. The gov't needs to stop picking winners and losers in business.

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
http://tinyurl.com/5tjkx May 19, 2003
Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.
What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?
A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done – people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.
The "right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP)– an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Like Wolfowitz, Shulsky is a student of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher named Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky's alma mater, the University of Chicago, before his death in 1973.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935

It isn't about congress and what congress needs to do. It's about public awareness. Congress does what the public wants. The public wanted a pirate economy. The public has a pirate economy. If you don't like it, why did you vote in a right wing pirate government?