Obama Flip-Flops

[Mikell]

Well it sure didn't take long.


Senate confirms former lobbyist as Pentagon No. 2

By ANNE FLAHERTY – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to confirm William Lynn as deputy defense secretary, endorsing President Barack Obama's decision to waive ethics regulations by putting a former defense lobbyist in charge of day-to-day operations at the Pentagon.

Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Charles Grassley of Iowa expressed reservations before the Senate voted 93-4 to approve the nomination.

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was disappointed Obama would backtrack on his promise to keep lobbyists out of the federal government.

On his first day in office, Obama issued an executive order forcing individuals to wait two years before they could be hired for the agencies they had lobbied and to remove themselves from involvement in issues related to their former employers.

"Obviously the American people were promised one thing but delivered another," said McCain, Obama's opponent in the presidential election.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g1nccaTgQnfxU02hADWNN9X8aydAD969LEV83

[Ojnod]

I thought this was going to be a thread about these:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3085/2803572560_256065915a.jpg

[Lou Cypher]

Yep, one set of rules for me, and another set of rules for the rest of ya.
Another flip-flop you may not of heard about is, Obama is continuing the practice of "Rendition" of terrorists by signing an executive order.
During the campaign he made a promise to stop such practices, at least he's consistant.


Lou :globe:

[pcfreak]

Sounds like Obama is indeed just another politician:D:

[Terry Penrod]

.

This story (copied below) actually broke a couple of weeks ago and I've been following it with more than a little interest, hoping that Obama would offer a better explanation for why he broke his promise to bar all lobbyists from holding official positions that could constitute a clear conflict of interest.

So far, I have been sorely disappointed.

I've also been disappointed with his vetting process for several other nominees, who seem to share the same problem - paying their taxes on time.

As I've repeated all along, politics makes for strange bedfellows, all politicians play games and every single presidential election in my lifetime has come down to choosing the lesser of two evils.

Time will tell if electing Obama was as big a mistake as electing George Bush. I sure hope not though, because this country needs strong, smart leadership and a LOT of new ideas - not more of the same.

Cheers, Terry


William Lynn, Obama's First Ethics Exception, Causing Massive Headaches

January 29, 2009 08:14 PM

By Sam Stein, Huffington Post
Stuart Whatley was a contributing writer to this story

The nomination of William Lynn as Deputy Secretary of Defense has placed Barack Obama under the burn of political heat just days into the presidency.

Having lobbied the government on behalf of the defense industry giant Raytheon, Lynn's appointment violates the newly-instituted ethics guidelines that the president applied to his staff shortly after taking office. Questioned about the transgression, the White House said Lynn was being granted a waiver.

But there is a second layer to the Lynn issue that also is leaving a bad taste in the mouths of Democrats, good government groups and Republicans eager to cry hypocrisy. Raytheon is no mom-and-pop defense contractor shop. It is the type of industry behemoth that protesters of the Iraq invasion bemoaned for profiting off of the war and encouraging militarization. And as the man who led "the company's strategic planning and [oversaw] the government relations activity," Lynn was intimately involved.

A former employee of DFI International -- a D.C. consulting firm -- Lynn joined Raytheon in August 2002 and was elected an officer in May 2005. The firm and its subsidiaries are a major force on Capitol Hill, having spent more than $14.5 million on federal lobbying activities during the six years Lynn was working there, according to a review of lobbying records. Raytheon worked to lobby the House, Senate, DARPA, Defense Department, Energy Department, Treasury Department, State Department, and others on issues ranging from long-range guided munitions, sea based missile defense and joint standoff weapon systems.

The government outreach efforts seemed to pay dividends. Raytheon Company received more than $54 billion in contracts from the federal government during that time period, according to fedspending.org, a project of OMB Watch. This doesn't include the potentially billions more that the company was awarded as a subcontractor or part of a group contract.

During the time period, Raytheon provided a myriad of important services in US war zones. However, it was not immune to its share of controversy, some of it involving allegations of improper billing practices, some focused on the work the company did for foreign governments. The Project on Government Oversight has documented at least 17 instances of fraud on Raytheon's part that cost the company more than $475 million in settlements.

Lynn, who on Friday pledged to drop his stock holdings in the company should he end up at Defense, was an advocate for more transparency when it came to accounting practices. He told the Defense News in January 2003 that putting defense contracts online would allow the Pentagon to provide "a measure of your quality of information."

"It is an internal test of your information system and reassurance to the public that taxpayer dollars are being spent well," he said.

And yet, for Democrats and good government groups alike, his nomination represents the very pitfall that Obama's ethics policy was meant to avoid. Moreover, they ask, if Obama were going to make an exception, why choose such a high-powered lobbyist whose government work overlaps significantly with the interests of his former firm.

"If that is the policy you are going to announce you have to actually live with it," said one incredulous Democrat, "and for your first exception to be a defense contractor from Raytheon?"

Added Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics In Washington: "I feel this is inconsistent and inappropriate and I think they need to pull Bill Lynn. And, again, it is not personal thing. It is the standard being set. Hold yourself to the standard. If you can't live with it than change it."

Already some have begun questioning whether the Lynn nomination will survive congressional scrutiny, and wondering why Obama chose him in the first place. Raytheon, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, donated slightly more than $100,000 to the president's campaign and the DNC -- a pittance both for the company and the campaign.

Lynn was not, prior to this week, a widely known political figure. But his background, outside of Raytheon, is extensive and impressive. He served for four years as the Under Secretary of Defense, was the director of program analysis in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and was awarded three DoD medals for distinguished public service. In addition, he has extensive history on Capitol Hill, having served for six years under Sen. Ted Kennedy.

On Thursday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called him a "uniquely qualified" individual who shouldn't be precluded from serving "the public interest in these critical times." On Friday, Gibbs added that the waivers like the one granted to Lynn to serve in the Obama White House would be "limited" in their number.

FROM: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/23/william-lynn-obamas-first_n_160512.html

.

[Mighty Pirate]

All I know is, the view looks very different when you're on the mountain top to when you're still climbing.

And I'd rather have a pragmatist in power who could take the appropriate decision even if it reflected badly on him, than one who 'stuck to his guns' despite knowing it wasn't the best option.

Let's see how he does on the BIG issues. Iraq, Afghanistan, Education, Health, Economy, etc.

[Lou Cypher]

Terry IIFC there about six people that worked as lobbyists that have gotten waivers from the Administration.
Also, since President Obama refuses to give up his blackberry he is breaking the law.


"Obama did not divulge just how he will overcome legal constraints, given the requirement of the post-Watergate Presidential Records Act of 1978 to keep a record of every White House communication."


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.852ed043ba894036ed6e9d0ade0b40a 6.7f1&show_article=1




Lou :globe:

[The Plainsman]

Terry IIFC there about six people that worked as lobbyists that have gotten waivers from the Administration.
Also, since President Obama refuses to give up his blackberry he is breaking the law.


"Obama did not divulge just how he will overcome legal constraints, given the requirement of the post-Watergate Presidential Records Act of 1978 to keep a record of every White House communication."


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.852ed043ba894036ed6e9d0ade0b40a 6.7f1&show_article=1




Lou :globe:

Your article link is dated early January. Here's a more current article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4395175/Barack-Obama-reunited-with-Blackberry.html

You look bad, Lou. You look bad hating on Obama. Get your facts straight. Obama has not broken the law.

[Lou Cypher]

Plainsman, I don't hate Obama, I just disagree with his stances on many issues.
And thanks for the link, I stand corrected.
So what do you think of his Flip-Flop on rendition of terrorists?

Lou :globe:

[Mikell]

You look bad, Lou. You look bad hating on Obama. Get your facts straight. Obama has not broken the law.

No but he has bent the hell out of it.
And what happened to "The change we need doesn't come from Washington, it comes to Washington"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gze7JBOgrU

[Mighty Pirate]

Who in their right mind would want to be President? Too many rules, too many 'courtiers' telling you what you can't do. And every little comment, decision or incident is reported and criticised to death.... aaaarrrrggghhh.....

Why shouldn't he keep his blackberry? Is this America, land of the free or what?

[shizakapayou]

Lots of security risks - hacking, intercepting wireless communication, using it to figure out where he is, etc. Some of it is a long shot, sure, but he's extremely important now, they play a lot of better safe than sorry with the President. Most security people hate anything wireless.

At least unlike normal celebrities just making noise, what he says matters and should be reported (most of the time, he deserves privacy too).

[Mighty Pirate]

Both George Bush snr and jnr have visited Australia as President. They brought a huge retinue of gun-toting secret service men, all wired for sound and big black bullet-proof cars to speed around in and generally try and impress a rather indifferent population.

Sorry chaps. I understand the need for security but I think you take it too far - way over the paranoid line.

[chip5541]

Considering it wasn't long before that an unexploded hand grenade had been found near were the president was speaking in another country I don't blame him for being covered by the secret service. Besides I do not believe in his personal security he has a choice. There are others that decide how things will be.

Does anyone else see the loss of civil liberties that is building up under Obama? and what the heck is the Census Bureau moving to teh Whitehouse all about? This seams more like something would happen in Venezuela than in the US. Then e have an attempt to re institute "The Fairness Doctrine". Since when is free speech supposed to be tempered?

[RHooks]

You look bad, Lou. You look bad hating on Obama.

You mean, like your blind devotion to him?

[Mikell]

Considering it wasn't long before that an unexploded hand grenade had been found near were the president was speaking in another country I don't blame him for being covered by the secret service. Besides I do not believe in his personal security he has a choice.

Not to mention flying shoes.
:lol:

Lots of security risks - hacking, intercepting wireless communication, using it to figure out where he is, etc. Some of it is a long shot, sure, but he's extremely important now, they play a lot of better safe than sorry with the President. Most security people hate anything wireless.

Tactical GPS Surveillance: Using a Mobile Internet empowered cellular phone, you can watch where your target is while you are outside. You do not need to be sitting down at your computer connected to your office internet connection. You can be outdoors, several blocks or miles from the target, sitting in your vehicle, or in transit, and view live GPS surveillance from a portable perspective.
http://www.spyzone.com/ccp0-prodshow/tacticalgpstrackingsystems.html

[Mighty Pirate]

Well why not give him a Blackberry in someone else's name? If it's just for his close friends I don't see the problem. The man must have some remnants of a personal life.

[pcfreak]

I don't think the security of the president is overblown, after all he is automatically made the target of just about every extremist group in existence as soon as he is sworn in. To kill a serving president would be the ultimate for these groups and he needs protecting from them. Personal security for famous people and leaders is a neccessity nowadays. Even the ex Pope had potshots taken at him, so that shows that no-one in the limelight is free from threat.

As a leader of any country, you have to be accessible to the public in some way, such as meet and greets and walk abouts. It's only right that these leaders are protected when carrying out civil duties. If they weren't, then who in their right mind would want to go for the job?

[shizakapayou]

Well why not give him a Blackberry in someone else's name? If it's just for his close friends I don't see the problem. The man must have some remnants of a personal life.

Too easy for that to get out. Honestly, taking the job means knowing what you give up.

[pcfreak]

Too easy for that to get out. Honestly, taking the job means knowing what you give up.

Yes and they always have the option to quit too

[Rob]

It is a Blackberry people. I wouldn't have a problem if Bush used it, I do not have a problem with Obama using it. Clinton would just have used it to store his booty call list, but the point is it is a form of today's communication. Have you read the reports of the antique computers Obama had removed from the White House when he arrived? Our government should not be stuck using yesterday's technology.

[Mikell]

All I know is, the view looks very different when you're on the mountain top to when you're still climbing.

And I'd rather have a pragmatist in power who could take the appropriate decision even if it reflected badly on him, than one who 'stuck to his guns' despite knowing it wasn't the best option.

Let's see how he does on the BIG issues. Iraq, Afghanistan, Education, Health, Economy, etc.

I was going to let this go but I can't.
You don't consider ethics a BIG issue?
It's all in the details. I agree with you that W "stuck to his guns" to the detriment of the American people. I believe he had more Presidential Orders than perhaps any other President in history.
Mostly to cover his a$$.

[shizakapayou]

I don't have a problem with him using a Blackberry, but you have to acknowledge it introduces a lot more security issues, no matter what he uses it for. Wireless gets a lot more tricky. They may as well deal with it now though, as it was certainly only a matter of time before a President used something similar.

[chip5541]

I suppose we should also say Congress has also flip flopped as well. These people voted on the stimulus bill that no one has read and they refused to post online for 48 hours prior to a vote to allow people to read it.

[Mikell]

I suppose we should also say Congress has also flip flopped as well. These people voted on the stimulus bill that no one has read and they refused to post online for 48 hours prior to a vote to allow people to read it.

Exactly Chip5541, The pork is still there.
Three republicans voted for it.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2009/02/14/bash.stimulus.vote.cnn

[Lou Cypher]

I suppose we should also say Congress has also flip flopped as well. These people voted on the stimulus bill that no one has read and they refused to post online for 48 hours prior to a vote to allow people to read it.
Chip, do you really think it would of made a difference?


Lou :globe:

[chip5541]

In teh end? no but this does show, among statements by many leading democrats, the utter contempt they have for teh american people.



and you all can just call me Chip.

[Mighty Pirate]

You don't consider ethics a BIG issue?


Yes Mikell I do. Obviously I don't get to hear all the details that you guys do.

[chip5541]

Yes Mikell I do. Obviously I don't get to hear all the details that you guys do.

and that is the major problem with News now days. To compound the problem is the internet and people treating what some fool thinks as fact.

[Mighty Pirate]

Which is why forums like this can be wonderful: real people with on the spot information and personal understanding and appreciation of the nuances of things. :):

[NotSoFast]

$30 billion to build a high speed train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.

$50 million for out-of-work artitsts.

$7.2 billion to expand broadband internet access in rural areas.

$198 million to Filipinos who fought in WW2.

$1 billion for "summer activities" for youths up to the age of 24.

Cuts in Defense and Veterans Administration.

The promised tax breaks for families making $250k or less drops to $150k.

$524 million to create what the appropriations committe says will be 388 jobs in the IT field. Hey, that's only $150 million per job.

Damn, it's a good thing the saviour promised there would be no pork in the "economic stimulus" package. Every one of these things are guaranteed to perk the economy up immediately...right? :rolleyes:

The above list may be helpful things for our country, but they have NO place in the stimulus package, which is "supposed" to be about an IMMEDIATE form of relief for our financial woes of late.

Any of you Obama brown-nosers care to even try to justify the things mentioned above?

It's been said that only 10% of the money set aside in the package actually deals with fixing the economy as it was intended. Of course, Obama didn't say it, so it must all be lies, right?:sleep:

[Terry Penrod]

.

$30 billion to build a high speed train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.

$50 million for out-of-work artitsts.

$7.2 billion to expand broadband internet access in rural areas.

$198 million to Filipinos who fought in WW2.

$1 billion for "summer activities" for youths up to the age of 24.

Cuts in Defense and Veterans Administration.

The promised tax breaks for families making $250k or less drops to $150k.

$524 million to create what the appropriations committe says will be 388 jobs in the IT field. Hey, that's only $150 million per job.

Damn, it's a good thing the saviour promised there would be no pork in the "economic stimulus" package. Every one of these things are guaranteed to perk the economy up immediately...right? :rolleyes:

The above list may be helpful things for our country, but they have NO place in the stimulus package, which is "supposed" to be about an IMMEDIATE form of relief for our financial woes of late.

Any of you Obama brown-nosers care to even try to justify the things mentioned above?

It's been said that only 10% of the money set aside in the package actually deals with fixing the economy as it was intended. Of course, Obama didn't say it, so it must all be lies, right?:sleep:

I'm not defending any specific line items in the bill NotSoFast, but you appear to have listed a series of individual expenditures from the various preliminary versions of the package from both the House and the Senate. Those original proposals have (reportedly) been altered in many ways and the final text of the bill they just passed on Friday is evidently not yet available for public viewing in a searchable form.

The complete, final text is linked from the following website. However, it is evidently a scanned image of a 1,419-page, printed PDF totaling over 100 MBs.

http://readthestimulus.org

Final Language Posted

Posted at 11:00 pm on Thursday, February 12, 2009

The final language has been posted; you can find links to the various docs at the Speaker's website. Update: The speaker's website is apparently down. Imagine that. Docs are also available here.

The total size of the four major files is over 100MB, and consists of 1419 pages. Three of the four files are huge "scanned" PDFs, meaning they were created by printing the original document and then scanning it in again --- and therefore contain no real "text" that can be easily searched. This will make our parsing process difficult and more time consuming, so we most likely won't have our versions ready until midday tomorrow. But we'll see...

My question then is, have you read that massive file and if not, how do you know exactly what is and is not in the final bill? The main media outlets are still trying to weed through it all and so far as I can tell, not even their top legislative experts have finished reviewing it.

Cheers, Terry

[The Plainsman]

You mean, like your blind devotion to him?

I'm devoted to competence. The opposite of what we had in the White House the last eight years.

For the short memory crowd: BUSH-CHENEY got us into this fix, not Obama! And they were aided and abetted by a rubber stamp Republican Congress for six of the eight years. And you people actually want to listen to the ideas of these same Republicans in Congress now? These same stooges?

Please tell us what gives these stooges credibility now that they didn't have for eight years? Do these stooges have instant credibility simply because the POTUS is now a Democrat? LMAO.

Please explain how these very same stooge Republicans who did NOTHING to stop Bush-Cheney for eight years all of a sudden have credibility with you, especially when they are singing the same tax cut and de-regulate song that got us into this mess in the first place?

Who wants to be first? Lou? Gary? Pcfreak? Mikell? RHooks? The GOP has no fresh ideas, but you think they're right to criticize Obama's attempt to fix their misdeeds? How is that logical?

Please list the great economic policy achievements of these same Republithugs so the rest of us can believe in them too, instead of naively preferring to trust in our new President. Please explain why you were willing to give the Republithugs eight years but you're not willing to give the new President eight weeks, especially when he's proposing a different direction than the clowns who got us into this mess.

To take advice from the people primarily responsible for getting us into this catastrophe is the definition of insanity. The Republicans had it their way for eight years. They had their boys running every government agency from the FEMA disaster to stocking the Justice Department with third rate law school grads soley because they were Dobson-Falwell nutjobs who worshipped Bush. Today they want to continue to have it their way. People, if we let them, we're crazier than they are.

They FAILED. It's time for a different direction.

[chip5541]

I'm devoted to competence. The opposite of what we had in the White House the last eight years.

For the short memory crowd: BUSH-CHENEY got us into this fix, not Obama! And they were aided and abetted by a rubber stamp Republican Congress for six of the eight years. And you people actually want to listen to the ideas of these same Republicans in Congress now? These same stooges?

Please tell us what gives these stooges credibility now that they didn't have for eight years? Do these stooges have instant credibility simply because the POTUS is now a Democrat? LMAO.

Please explain how these very same stooge Republicans who did NOTHING to stop Bush-Cheney for eight years all of a sudden have credibility with you, especially when they are singing the same tax cut and de-regulate song that got us into this mess in the first place?

Who wants to be first? Lou? Gary? Pcfreak? Mikell? RHooks? The GOP has no fresh ideas, but you think they're right to criticize Obama's attempt to fix their misdeeds? How is that logical?

Please list the great economic policy achievements of these same Republithugs so the rest of us can believe in them too, instead of naively preferring to trust in our new President. Please explain why you were willing to give the Republithugs eight years but you're not willing to give the new President eight weeks, especially when he's proposing a different direction than the clowns who got us into this.

Wrongo bucko. It was the democrats that didn't want any regulation for the banking institutions to loan money to people who could not afford anything. Bush and McCain warned congress on this issue and what did the democrats do? Called them racist. It's a broken damn record. Any time a Republican says anything they are called racist.

How about in their own words

_MGT_cSi7Rs

I'm devoted to competence.

I hope that was a joke. So far he isn't rating very high in that considering how many people he has been trying to get into office with legal issues. This actually goes back to my original concern about Obama and the Ayers, Wright, Rusco and god knows who else. His judgment sucks. His choice of people he wants to surround himself with are questionable at best and criminal at worst.

[pcfreak]

Who wants to be first? Lou? Gary? Pcfreak? Mikell? RHooks?

Plainsman, if you wish to continue this debate, maybe you would be better finding a politically themed forum. It has worn thin now, on both sides of the argument. I for one am sick of hearing about Obama, and I am sick of you continuing this argument. If you feel so strongly about this matter, then why not do something about it instead of ranting about it here?

And for your information, I am neither a republican or a democrat supporter. I got involved in the debate over the letter Obama wrote, and that was my only interest in the whole Obama episode we have seen here. I am British and I honestly don't care who runs the US, I am more interested in what is affecting my own country. So please do refrain from including me in your ranting.

Also, why have you ignored my previous questions to you? You are pushing for answers but can't be bothered to answer yourself!

[The Plainsman]

Wrongo bucko. It was the democrats that didn't want any regulation for the banking institutions to loan money to people who could not afford anything. Bush and McCain warned congress on this issue and what did the democrats do? Called them racist. It's a broken damn record. Any time a Republican says anything they are called racist.

How about in their own words

_MGT_cSi7Rs



I hope that was a joke. So far he isn't rating very high in that considering how many people he has been trying to get into office with legal issues. This actually goes back to my original concern about Obama and the Ayers, Wright, Rusco and god knows who else. His judgment sucks. His choice of people he wants to surround himself with are questionable at best and criminal at worst.

Nice try, but no go. That vid was about deregulation of FAnnie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are GSE's, government sponsored enterprises. They are involved in the secondary mortgage market. My complaint is about the banks, both retail and investment. The deregulation of derivatives trading led to this disaster, and it's the fault of the Republican Congress and the previous Republican administration:

Here's a short article from last October that contains a very pithy explanation for what happened: http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A52634

[Terry Penrod]

.

I agree. Trading against hyper-inflated value (a.k.a. gambling with make-believe money) is what created this financial disaster - NOT the core program to make modest housing more affordable to people in lower income brackets. If those people still had jobs and inflation wasn't so high, they would be able to keep making regular mortgage payments.

Besides, it's the flood of middle to high end mortgage defaults that are creating the biggest negative impact on the housing market. It is hundreds of thousands of over-sized and/or over-valued homes and condos that were built / bought on speculation that prices would keep rising endlessly. Also at fault is the impact of other unrealistic speculations, total fraud, and outright credit card abuse on a mind-boggling scale.

That said, the executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disregraded the rules. On that, Bush & Company were 100% right in raising a red flag and calling for stricter regulation / tighter oversight. Unfortunately, that's about the ONLY thing they got right.

Cheers, Terry

[pcfreak]

Also, why have you ignored my previous questions to you? You are pushing for answers but can't be bothered to answer yourself!

Hello Plainsman, are you still avoiding my questions? Show some respect to myself and the other members here and we would be more willing to try and understand your point of view! If you are going to try and harass people into replying to your questions, you really must start answering them yourself.:mad:

[chip5541]

Wow, I am impressed a no name editorial from a small paper in Charleston :rolleyes:

From roughly 2002 to 2004, the Federal Reserve Bank kept the federal funds rate below 2%, adopting a policy of easy money. In doing so, the Fed departed from the moderate policy of the preceding couple of decades--decades that had produced stability and growth. "[N]o greater or more persistent deviation of…Fed policy," Taylor writes, "had been seen since the turbulent days of the 1970s."

The easy money drove housing prices up. It also confused the entire financial system.

On Main Street, mortgage underwriters eased their guidelines as delinquency and foreclosure rates dropped. Some homeowners began working longer hours. Others forfeited other forms of consumption. One way and another, millions responded to the rising prices of their homes by making darned good and certain that they made their mortgage payments in full and on time. And with easier guidelines, underwriters began making riskier loans.

On Wall Street, financial engineers responded to the boom by combining mortgages into enormous pools, then using the pools to back complicated financial instruments. The wizards who created these instruments, the ratings agencies that assessed them and the big, prestigious institutions that purchased them all failed to grasp the risk they entailed.

Why? At least in part, for the same reason that mortgage underwriters eased their guidelines--and, for that matter, that many Americans who couldn't really afford homes bought them anyway. Easy money and rising prices in the housing market. The Fed inured us all to risk.

When the Fed reversed itself in mid-2004, raising the federal funds rate at last, the boom was bound to go bust. Housing prices began to fall. Delinquency and foreclosure rates rose. Mortgages across the country soured.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/john-taylor-financial-crisis-opinions-columnists_0213_peter_robinson.html

Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

* "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

** "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

*** "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing. By then it was too late.



Ooops I see some responses since I started and stopped typing.

[chip5541]

.

I agree. Trading against hyper-inflated value (a.k.a. gambling with make-believe money) is what created this financial disaster - NOT the core program to make modest housing more affordable to people in lower income brackets. If those people still had jobs and inflation wasn't so high, they would be able to keep making regular mortgage payments.

Besides, it's the flood of middle to high end mortgage defaults that are creating the biggest negative impact on the housing market. It is hundreds of thousands of over-sized and/or over-valued homes and condos that were built / bought on speculation that prices would keep rising endlessly. Also at fault is the impact of other unrealistic speculations, total fraud, and outright credit card abuse on a mind-boggling scale.

That said, the executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disregraded the rules. On that, Bush & Company were 100% right in raising a red flag and calling for stricter regulation / tighter oversight. Unfortunately, that's about the ONLY thing they got right.

Cheers, Terry

Had the core programs not given loans to people who in no way would be able to afford it then this issue we find our selves in now would be no where near as bad. I hold those democrats and few republicans who blocked and demeaned the investigators liable for this mess.

Bush signed into law the National Amber alert and also tripled the aid to Africa.

[Lou Cypher]

Ok Plainsman I'll ask again....

How do you feel about Obama's Flip-Flop on the Rendition of Terrorist suspects?

During the campian(sp) he vowed to end it.

Lou :globe:

[pcfreak]

And I will add to that Lou, if I may? What is your stance on unmarried parents? Do you consider out of wedlock marriages to be a sin? Do you think single parents are acting immorally?

You are quick to shout 'GIVE ME ANSWERS' but seem slow to give any yourself!

[RangerRick]

And I will add to that Lou, if I may? What is your stance on unmarried parents? Do you consider out of wedlock marriages to be a sin? Do you think single parents are acting immorally?

You are quick to shout 'GIVE ME ANSWERS' but seem slow to give any yourself!

His anwers will most likely be " it's ok, no, and no', to reflect the liberal dems thoughts! :yes: :yes: :yes: :joker:
I suspect that's because he doesn't have any real answers, or thinks for himself.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Had the core programs not given loans to people who in no way would be able to afford it then this issue we find our selves in now would be no where near as bad. I hold those democrats and few republicans who blocked and demeaned the investigators liable for this mess.

Bush signed into law the National Amber alert and also tripled the aid to Africa.

But Chip, all the loans on all the low-income, low-end housing units in America don't add up that much money. It's a lot, but not compared to the millions of large suburban homes and luxury condos plus huge residential resort developments that sprung up like weeds and then gained tremendously in value over a short span if time. There was also a great deal of speculative commercial / office / retail / industrial development that increased the total inventory of properties. We're talking mega millions of square feet that are currently sitting idle - not just here in the USA, but all over the world.

Central Mexico alone built-up massive industrial complexes and complete supporting infrastructures during the NAFTA era and then half the work and money went to China. At the same time, India emerged as an IT support behemoth. Together they took millions of jobs away from Americans, Europeans and others. The steel industry was also devastated and OPEC's stranglehold on the industrialized world tightened even more.

The international trade scene aside, it was all the bankers and higher income investors along with middle to high-income home buyers and credit-card abusers that did the most damage. If all we faced was a spike in low-income home mortgage defaults, this country would be in pretty damned good economic shape.

Cheers, Terry

[RangerRick]

.



But Chip, all the loans on all the low-income, low-end housing units in America don't add up that much money. It's a lot, but not compared to the millions of large suburban homes and luxury condos plus huge residential resort developments that sprung up like weeds and then gained tremendously in value over a short span if time. There was also a great deal of speculative commercial / office / retail / industrial development that increased the total inventory of properties. We're talking mega millions of square feet that are currently sitting idle - not just here in the USA, but all over the world.

Central Mexico alone built-up massive industrial complexes and complete supporting infrastructures during the NAFTA era and then half the work and money went to China. At the same time, India emerged as an IT support behemoth. Together they took millions of jobs away from Americans, Europeans and others. The steel industry was also devastated and OPEC's stranglehold on the industrialized world tightened even more.

The international trade scene aside, it was all the bankers and higher income investors along with middle to high-income home buyers and credit-card abusers that did the most damage. If all we faced was a spike in low-income home mortgage defaults, this country would be in pretty damned good economic shape.

Cheers, Terry


How true Terry, but the housing market problems was not just low end as you stated, but all loans given out to those who overextended. And then when the ballon payments came along, there was big trouble in River City!!!

[Terry Penrod]

.

That's right Rick. This problem was caused by people from every walk of life and every income level.

At the very top though was unbridled greed, rampant corruption, and an astonishing degree of incomptence in every sector. Not just banking / investing but all across the market. Big Oil and OPEC sucked us dry. Enron alone destoyed so many lives it's horrible just thinking about it and all the little people out there spent tons of money they never had with plastic on a bunch of status-seeking, instant-gratification crap adding billions more in debt to all the bottom-lines.

So focusing only on screw-ups in the low to middle housing market simply doesn't come close to assigning all the blame where blame is due. Matter of fact, I don't blame most low to middle-income people that took advantage of low-interest home loans. Most of them tried their best to keep working, keep making timely mortgage payments, and keep paying their taxes. But when the economy tanked and so many lost their jobs, well... what else were they supposed to do, print money in the basement or become bank robbers?

Cheers, Terry

[Impresario]

Had the core programs not given loans to people who in no way would be able to afford it then this issue we find our selves in now would be no where near as bad.
I find it difficult to parse liability regarding a systemic meltdown. Sure, we'd be better off if risky loans hadn’t become de rigueur, but limiting the analysis to that one component doesn't encapsulate the totality and enormity of the meltdown.

For me, any inquiry has to begin with the question: Why was there an insatiable appetite for risky debt and how did risky debt become the instrument that fueled a credit bubble of unimaginable proportion?

Tranched CDO's required a constant influx of risky debt to sustain a return on investment. That insatiable demand was a green light to the mortgage lenders to lend to anyone b/c all the debt that could be produced would be bought up. The government went along for the ride because illusory growth and prosperity looks good until the unimaginable happens. The insurance scheme (CDS) that allegedly secured all those leveraged instruments was as bogus as the rest and came crashing down like a house of cards. I remember reading a while back that at one point the credit derivates market totaled something like fifty-one trillion dollars.

The underlying reckless assumption that was necessary to sustain the credit bubble was that housing prices would continually appreciate and never depreciate. Hubris and greed blinded those controlling the markets to a foreseeable reality--that eventually residential real estate prices would reach such inflated levels that they would outstrip real wages; to such a degree that even incredibly relaxed credit policies couldn't sustain the bubble.

Ultimately, housing prices reached their zenith and the purchaser's dried up. What followed was conjoined; the credit derivative markets catastrophic collapse and housing prices began a steep and ongoing decline. The assets that secured the CDO's were worth much less than the mortgages taken out on the properties. Consequently, millions of people wound up owning residential properties purchased at artificially inflated prices. Ergo, a tidal wave of foreclosures tied to unsellable properties.

There's plenty of blame to go around but the story is much bigger than just the over-reaching schnook who bought a house that he or she couldn’t afford. This is a disgraceful chapter in American history and more than likely has ruined the country for many years to come. Expecting Obama to have immediate answers to systemic problems of this kind is wishful thinking. The new President IMO should be afforded the benefit of our patience b/c similar to Lincoln he’s facing an unprecedented upheaval.

--Brian

[chip5541]

Of course other sectors were involved. It wasn't a strictly Republican or Bush fault like some are portraying. The reason why I was focusing on Fanny and Freddy was because of all those behind this issue, these are the few that actually was protected by Congress by personally attacking those that questioned the business practice.

Over course I blame those that took advantage of the system, rich and poor, governmental and private citizen alike. Every one of these people have affected not only my children but with the short falls, their schooling, future jobs, health care and everything else. I have nothing but condemnation for all of them.

Brian, I just caught your post. I do want it to be fixed and I am a realist enough to know it won't happen over night or for years for that matter. I do hope he can get the economy turned around, for my kids sake, however I do not believe he nor his people know what to do. It doesn't help with teh people he is getting to fill positions are having legal issues.

[RHooks]

Who wants to be first? Lou? Gary? Pcfreak? Mikell? RHooks?



Most of the seeds of our current problems were started when Slick Willie was in office. Go figure. The Republicans can be rightly blamed for doing nothing about it. Perhaps if you read something besides People, US Weekly, or the Charleston Penny Trader it might broaden your outlook.

I would refrain from directing comments in my direction in the future. I'm still waiting for the definition of PWT.

[pcfreak]

I think a PWT is somewhere below an umarried parent, but higher than a republican, in the world of the plainsman and his pecking order :lol:

Seems like you really are leaving alot of unanswered question plainsman, is it because you don't have the courage to stand up for your convictions I wonder? Or is it you daren't admit you are a hypocrite? Oh wait, I know the answer I will get...........

................
............
.........
....
.
Yup, silence:lol:

[Mighty Pirate]

Urban dictionary defines PWT as poor white trash. I didn't know either, not my kind of lingo.

Read it here (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwt)



And I'd like to make it known here and abroad, that I personally had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with causing the current world credit crunch. So you can all stop with the 'we're all to blame' sort of comments. I am not.

I live an exemplary life, pay my bills on time, drive a 9 yr old car, teach my kids their manners and own neither a share nor a property portfolio. I'm blaming the banking sector and Greedy Americans, so there. :p:

[dos4ever]

I think the fact that all these cabinet members are being busted for tax evasion is actually proof that Obama wants a clean admin. Do you think all the members of previous admins were squeaky clean? Of course not. But the vetting process is there to catch these things. And they're apparently catching a lot this time.
I am disappointed in the retention of the rendition program but I guess he might never sign an order to do it. Presumably he's leaving the door open ...just in case.

Obama's a smart guy. And a Constitutional scholar. That can either be a very good thing or a very bad thing. I still think Obama is one of the good guys. And for the sake of the country, most of the rest of you should hope so, too.

[Gary V.]

Of course we hope he's a goodguy. The problem is I don't believe in socialism.

[Mikell]

Just wait until this administration starts pushing amnesty for illegal aliens. It would be political suicide in the current climate but Obama has already said he supports it. Bank of America and Wells Fargo led the way in giving home loans and credit cards to illegals.
What moron would give a loan to someone who is in the country illegally, can't provide credit or job history and could be deported at any minute? In fact, some of them got a home equity line of credit, ran it up and fled the country.
I see a credit card crash coming next. Along with another bailout.
:mad:

[chip5541]

Considering my CC company just raised my interest from 13% to 32% and severla others only not as drastic, they deserve to go belly up. With teh way things are, now is not the time to be bleeding people who are already down.

[Mikell]

Mine went up by 1% for no reason and for the first time in my life I have to pay taxes on April 15. Nothing has changed with me from last year. I usually get a good tax rebate check. I guess I can thank Wall Street and Freddie Mac for that. And 32% interest is usury in my book. Anyone's book.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Mine went up by 1% for no reason and for the first time in my life I have to pay taxes on April 15. Nothing has changed with me from last year. I usually get a good tax rebate check. I guess I can thank Wall Street and Freddie Mac for that. And 32% interest is usury in my book. Anyone's book.

Mikell, you do realize that the new administration had nothing whatsoever to do with the current income tax code / rates don't you? I assume you also understand that the recovery bill just signed by the new president actually reduces taxes for millions of lower to middle-income people and extends unemployment benefits while creating some badly needed new jobs in a number of key areas.

As for the recent skyrocketing interest rates and fees for credit cards, I agree that it's outrageous. Hopefully, they will at least pass a new bill swiftly requiring banks to inform people in advance - as reported in the following news article.

"Congress is now considering bills that would require banks to notify customers before they change rates or fees."

FROM: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=4274652

Otherwise, all I can say is that more people need to seriously reign in their credit card spending and treat plastic more like cash or personal checks. Except for genuine emergencies, most people should use them only for purchases they can actually afford to pay for within a few months tops. That whole situation is a ticking timebomb and everyone knows it.

So while the rate increases are sickening, maybe they will finally snap people out of their fantasy mode and back to financial reality.

Cheers, Terry

[Rob]

My credit cards are through my bank which is a nation wide. Not sure who your credit cards are through, but I have twice negotiated my interest down to a 6 month 0% interest introductory offer and 6.99% afterwards. And when they randomly shot mine back up to 15.99%, I went back in there and conviced them I needed another 6 month introductory offer. Usually the threat of I already have other credit card options will do the trick. Over the last year with most or all of my payment going to principal, I went from $14,000 to $2,700 in debt. Should be just a few more months until I am completely credit card debt free. You should give it a shot.

So while the rate increases are sickening, maybe they will finally snap people out of their fantasy mode and back to financial reality. That is the other key to my credit card puzzle. We pay everything in cash now. No cash, no purchase. That has made a HUGE difference in our spending habits.

The credit crisis hurts, very much so, but how much worse would it be if we went on with intense and unchecked spending for another 10 years and then had the credit crisis?

[Mikell]

"Mikell, you do realize that the new administration had nothing whatsoever to do with the current income tax code / rates don't you?"

Yes Terry I'm aware of that. Must be something Bush slipped in at the last minute.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Exactly Rob.

Another decade of wild credit-card spending, mortgage balloon loans, ever-inflating home prices, rampant corporate crime, and insanely greedy investment schemes, and America would literally cease to be a viable economic entity.

As it is we will be very lucky to claw our way back to a manageable level of personal and national debt. Balancing the federal budget, let alone rebuilding a healthy surplus may not be possible again for a looooooong time.

I'll tell you what though, if this country keeps pressing hard for energy independence, stops acting like the world's police force, modernizes public schools, implements a decent healthcare system, and adopts a more sober attitude toward business in general, we can in fact work our way out of this hole within ten years.

More encouraging IMO is the fact that more average people are finally beginning to wake up to these new realities and longstanding racial barriers are crumbling as we sepak.

Those two things alone could change the course of America from now on - in a very positive direction. Less gluttony, vanity, and selfish greed plus higher tolerance for basic human differences and a generally cleaner envoronment with more energy self-sufficiency would equate to a FAR better nation for our grandchildren to grow up in.

Cheers, Terry

[Terry Penrod]

.

"Mikell, you do realize that the new administration had nothing whatsoever to do with the current income tax code / rates don't you?"

Yes Terry I'm aware of that. Must be something Bush slipped in at the last minute.

That or perhaps it's just an adjustment in the Bush's tax cuts, which were never made permanent by Congress. They are in the process of expiring little by little with all of them scheduled to expire by January 1, 2011.

For instance, the last thing I read about the standard deduction for joint filers is that it would revert back to a lower amount in 2005 - essentially creating a new marriage penalty. Not sure what else has been changed since then, but it very well could be impacting your income bracket / tax liability. The capital gains rate was also supposed to rise from 10% to 20% the first of this year, which could effect short-term liability a number of ways. Same goes for the rate on income from dividends. But those things should not affect your 2008 tax return.

All the above however is subject to change in this current economic climate with Congress already passsing the huge recovery bill and other emergency measures probably on the near horizon. So stay tuned because things are far from settled on the whole income tax scene.

Cheers, Terry