Rules of Next Republican Debate Are Unveiled

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

HR1461 PASSED IN 2005 WITH BI PARTISAN SUPPORT in the House

Dubya threatened a veto


STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY


...The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.


George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005


He supported S109 in 2005 that died in the Senate BECAUSE a GOP lobbying firm lobbied the GOP. That bill never came up for vote, it would've crushed F/F

Thanks for that information. It pretty much shows that the goal was not to reform the GSEs but to gut them.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

Not Congress bubs, that was Dubya, the executive branch responsibility. Weird you don't get that?


BUT GSE'S WEREN'T THE PROBLEM (Yep, Dubya's policies hosed F/F however)


Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law

Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said "it just isn't credible" to blame the law CRA for the crisis.

"Institutions that are subject to CRA - that is, banks and savings asociations - were largely not involved in subprime lending," Davis said. "The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA."


Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register




DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


WHY? OH YEAH

2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."

Game. Set. Match. Bravo.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

He dodges a lot too

Complaining is the way he dodges.

 

[JonK]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

No, but the big banks wanted GS eliminated and they got what they paid for.

Sure, that's why the lobbied for 30 years, but most of what they did, wasn't related to that repeal, it was the "innovation" wall street brought to the table, CDO's where you could take a dollar and magically turn it into $30 by putting crap loans into quality loans in the MBS's that created the CDO's. When MBS's slowed down, they "created" synthetic CDO's to bet with!

 

[digitusmedius]

Actually, I have a drop box FILLED with data on the Subprime Crisis and have had that SEC data for sometime

I'm sure you do and I'm just as sure what the source for all that "data"* is.

* i.e., BS by another name.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

Funny, all those quotes there were calling for regulation, management of the systemic risk. Too bad congress was getting paid millions by the GSEs to keep raising their subprime purchase targets, in essence, keep buying those nice toxic mortgages that were the bubble.

So where in the constitution does it specify that there should be GSEs, and that these GSEs should buy subprime mortgages?

Hell with the constitution on this point. Where in common sense does this make sense to allow this to happen? It doesn't.

This would be the part of the blame that should fall on congress. There's parts of this blame that should fall on Bush, and Clinton, and all the private sector people that made the supply chain go, and go like hell.

All of these people had a contributory impact on the mortgage bubble.

This comment should be embarrassing to you now (but it won't be) that JonK has revealed what happened to the regulatory bill that actually passed the House. Regulation, my a@@. It was a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing attempt to gut the GSEs.

 

[American]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

how much do you have
i will bet it ... that hillary did not know all of the questions to be asked before hand

I guess you don't have the faith in Hillary that I do. I'm surprised at you.

 

[Fenton]

GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market. The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.



....Or check out the FHFA study that compares, on an apples-to-apples basis, GSEs loan originations with those for private label securitizations. The study segments loans four ways, by ARMs-versus-fixed-rate, as well as by vintage, by FICO score and by loan-to-value ratio. In almost every one of 1800 different comparisons covering years 2001 through 2008, GSE loan performance was exponentially better. On average, GSE fixed-rate loans performed four times better, and GSE ARMs performed five times better.

Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%.

And yet, large numbers of people remain convinced that Fannie and Freddie's underwriting standards caused the mortgage crisis. Why is that?

GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance | Bank Think



John Robbins, long-time industry executive and former chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association

During the lending boom, the industry developed products that were "extremely risky that were pushed by everybody up and down the food chain," Mr. Robbins said. "We forgot about our customers, and making money and our commission checks were more important," he said.


Scott Stern, CEO of Lenders One

The truth is that many of us in the industry were deeply distressed by the growing practice of pushing high risk loans on borrowers who had no reasonable expectation of being able to repay the mortgage. Disclosures were often less than adequate, and faced with a bewildering array of loan terms, borrowers tended to trust their mortgage banker or broker. The broken trust that resulted has damaged borrower confidence in the mortgage industry. I liken the situation to that of a doctor and patient dealing with a medical procedure. The patient bears some reasonable risk. But they don't bear the risk of malpractice by the doctor. In our industry, we have frankly seen too much mortgage malpractice.

The 2011 SEC filings contradict that hack narrative completely.

Why would the GSEs chose to omit hundreds of Billions of dollars from 2005-2008 in " well performing " loans ?

Why would they omit over a hundred billion in CountryWides loans if they were " well performing " ?

They wouldn't.

They omitted them because they were the primary purchaser of worthless Subprime loans and couldn't risk tanking the markets by disclosing them.

 

[JonK]

The 2011 SEC filings contradict that hack narrative completely.

Why would the GSEs chose to omit hundreds of Billions of dollars from 2005-2008 in " well performing " loans ?

Why would they omit over a hundred billion in CountryWides loans if they were " well performing " ?

They wouldn't.

They omitted them because they were the primary purchaser of worthless Subprime loans and couldn't risk tanking the markets by disclosing them.

NOPE, ANOTHER right wing LIE. Shocking


June 2007

In 2000, interest-only and payment-option mortgages amounted to only 2% of the market. However, by the first half of 2006, these types of non-traditional mortgage products represented approximately 40% of all loan originations.

Similarly, in 1998, subprime lending represented about 5% of the marketplace. By 2005, sub-prime borrowing was about 20% of the market. Meanwhile, the GSEs and FHA saw a concurrent decline in their market share as borrowers flocked to products with low initial payments that masked high costs and increased risk.

In recent months, we have seen the beginning of the fallout - for borrowers, lenders and the mortgage market - from lax underwriting standards and credit policies.


Scott Stern is the chief executive officer of Lenders One, a national cooperative of 100 mortgage bankers, based in St. Louis, and is the chairman of the National Alliance of Independent Mortgage Bankers.



MortgageOrb: Wanted: An Independent And Strong GSE Regulator

 

[imyoda]

This is truly bad news for the candidates. They will get only softballs from the FarzNooz mannequins so they can't attack the moderators (or can they?). They don't have NBC to kick around any more (or won't that stop them?).



http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-debate-are-unveiled/

Yes, this debate process needs more tight control. Letting people ask these morons tough questions is killing us.

CNN debate was more like a political circus

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...n-substance/ek91OtVDcaNBRWiKqpfrzJ/story.html


Nothing new here………….other than this time there are many more clowns than last time


The GOP is digging its own grave: How their debate tantrum hastens the party’s demise

The GOP is digging its own grave: How their debate tantrum hastens the party?s demise - Salon.com

Can anyone name 3 of those on stage that is qualified to be POTUS..........what has this world come to?...........it sure seems to be what the founding fathers dreaded in this great experiment called democracy........

the tyranny of the masses......where the ignoramuses take control of all using "Common Sense as the governing rule...........GD help us all

 

[Fenton]

This comment should be embarrassing to you now (but it won't be) that JonK has revealed what happened to the regulatory bill that actually passed the House. Regulation, my a@@. It was a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing attempt to gut the GSEs.

Barney Frank stuck a " affordable housing slush fund in HR1461, and hr1461 put off a 3rd party Regulator for a year.

Question, how many Democrats in the Senate Banking commitee voted FOR sb190 ?

And what happened in 2007, when sb190 was pushed back through the Senate Banking committee as sb1100 ?

This was after the Democrats won control of the Senate

 

[Fenton]

HR1461 PASSED IN 2005 WITH BI PARTISAN SUPPORT in the House

Dubya threatened a veto


STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY


...The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.


George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005


He supported S109 in 2005 that died in the Senate BECAUSE a GOP lobbying firm lobbied the GOP. That bill never came up for vote, it would've crushed F/F

In the Senate Banking commitee how many Democrats voted FOR s190 ? ( not 109, you cant even get THAT right )

S190 was pushed back through the Senate Banking Comitee in 2007 as s1100.

AFTER the Democrats won the Senate back

What happened to s1100 ?

And FF were already " crushed ". Didn't you read the SECs filings ?

By 2005 they were refusing to disclose hundreds of billions of no doc loans to their investors and the SEC.

 

[JonK]

Barney Frank stuck a " affordable housing slush fund in HR1461, and hr1461 put off a 3rd party Regulator for a year.

Question, how many Democrats in the Senate Banking commitee voted FOR sb190 ?

And what happened in 2007, when sb190 was pushed back through the Senate Banking committee as sb1100 ?

This was after the Democrats won control of the Senate

NOT the "slush fund" BS? Hint Barney didn't even VOTE for HR 1461 though he supported it's goals. lol

S190 in 2005? Oh right the one where the GOP wanted GSE's to ONLY have securitized, not individual loans? The one where the GOP speaker refused to bring for a vote in the Senate? WHY? lol


2007 the DEMS GOT REFORM THROUGH FOR F/F



TIMELINE FOR FANNIE/FREDDIE REFORM

1995-2006 No legislation to further regulate GSEs is passed by a Republican-controlled Congress.


October 7, 2004 -The House Financial Services Committee Chairman Michael Oxley (R-OH) cancels a markup on legislation to reform GSEs at the request of President Bush.
According to CBS Marketwatch: “Strong opposition by the Bush Administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

May 25, 2005 - The House Financial Services Committee, under control of House Republicans and Chairman Oxley, passed a GSE Reform bill, H.R. 1461, by a vote of 65-5. Every Democrat on the Committee voted for the bill. Five Republicans, arguing that the bill did not go far enough, voted against H.R. 1461: Reps. Ed Royce, Ron Paul, Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling, and Scott Garrett

July 28, 2005 - The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, then chaired by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), passed S. 190, the Bush Administration’s bill, out of Committee. The bill was passed by a party-line vote of 11-10. The bill did not reach the Senate floor for a vote


October 26, 2005 - On the day the House was scheduled to vote on H.R. 1461, the Bush Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing the House Republican GSE bill.


October 26, 2005 - H.R. 1461 passes House by a vote of 331-90, with 122 Democrats voting in favor.

Note: Frank voted against the bill when it reached the floor, but not because of any opposition to reforming the GSEs, but because the Republican leadership decided to cut out funding for faith-based charities that provide low-income rental housing from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund




September 2006 - Oxley and Frank send a bipartisan letter to Senator Shelby urging GSE reform.
Many Democrats and Republicans signed this letter urging the Senate to act


January 2007 - Democrats take control of the House and Senate; Barney Frank is named Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee


March 28, 2007 - The House Financial Services Committee passes H.R. 1427, the GSE reform bill, by a vote of 49-15. The legislation had the support of the Bush Administration and represented a tougher bill than the 2005 effort. Incredibly, 15 Republicans opposed the bill



May 22, 2007 -The House of Representatives passes H.R. 1427, by a vote of 313-104. All opposition came from Republicans



January, 2008 - Chairman Frank offers to insert both GSE reform and FHA reform into the stimulus bill that was being negotiated by Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration. Secretary Paulson declined, citing opposition from the White House



May 8, 2008 - House of Representatives passes H.R. 3221, which contains GSE reform provision, after receiving the Senate amendments to the original bill


May 20, 2008 - The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee passes a bill containing GSE Reform provisions- The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008.



July 11, 2008 - The United States Senate passes GSE reform as part of a bigger bill.



July 30, 2008 - President Bush signs GSE reform as part of H.R. 3221

 

[JonK]

In the Senate Banking commitee how many Democrats voted FOR s190 ? ( not 109, you cant even get THAT right )

S190 was pushed back through the Senate Banking Comitee in 2007 as s1100.

AFTER the Democrats won the Senate back

What happened to s1100 ?

And FF were already " crushed ". Didn't you read the SECs filings ?

By 2005 they were refusing to disclose hundreds of billions of no doc loans to their investors and the SEC.

You mean Bush's bill to GUT F/F to allow ONLY the securitization of loans, in the Senate version Bubs? lol



NEVER will YOU ADDRESS THE PERFORMANCE OF GSE'S loans HUH? lol

 

[Fenton]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

Game. Set. Match. Bravo.

:lamo :lamo :lamo

It all started after 2004 and CRA had nothing to do with it ?? :roll:

1993....
" In 1993, James Johnson ( Fannie Mae Executive and prominent Democrat ) committed the GSEs to 1 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases. ... further and their Quota for the purchase of CRA loans was raised to 40 percent."

1995...
Clinton's National Home-ownership strategy officially co-opts the GSE's into the Sub-prime market by giving them a 42 % " affordable lending " quota. Clinton changes the CRA law to force banks into creating Sub-prime loans.

1997....
Freddie Mac Jumps into Subprime Mortgages - American Banker 175th Year Flashback Article - American Banker 175th Year Flashback

" Freddie Mac is diving into subprime lending, ending months of speculation over how deeply the agency would go into the burgeoning market."

1998...
Janet Reno gives a speech to the Community reinvestment coalition bragging about the effectiveness of Clinton's CRA changes and the DOJ suing Banks who refused to lower their standards...

03-20-98: REMARKS OF THE HONORABLE JANET RENO TO THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION
" I have found, and I think and I hope that you have found, that lenders have listened and learned. Bank commitments, as we have noted, have increased within the last four years. The figures are staggering: an 86 percent increase of all bank commitments under the Act since it went into effect more than 20 years ago."

"You've noted that since the inception of our fair lending initiative in 1992 the Department has filed and settled 13 major fair lending lawsuits. We are going to continue these efforts under the Acting Assistant Attorney General Bill Lann Lee in every way that we possibly can. We will continue to focus on discrimination in underwriting, the process of evaluating the qualifications of credit applicants"

BANKS WERE FORCED....Go figure.

1999....
Clinton Library's Doc Dump Reveals CRA Role In Subprime Mess - Investors.com

Clinton's treasury secretary, Robert Rubin in a 1999 Memo...

"Public disclosure of CRA ratings, together with the changes made by the regulators under your leadership, have significantly contributed to ... financial institutions ... meeting the needs of low- and moderate-income communities and minorities," Rubin gushed. "Since 1993, the number of home mortgage loans to African Americans increased by 58%, to Hispanics by 62% and to low- and moderate-income borrowers by 38%, well above the overall market increase.
"Since 1992, nonprofit community organizations estimate that the private sector has pledged over $1 trillion in loans and investment under CRA."

1999...
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2011/comp-pr2011-267-fanniemae.pdf

"In July 1999, Fannie Mae and Countrywide Home Loans entered into an alliance agreement, which included a reduced documentation loan program called the "internet loan," which was soon thereafter re-branded by Countrywide as the Fast and Easy loan. This loan program featured a streamlined documentation process, which allowed mortgage-loan applicants with a qualifying FICO credit score to be preapproved for a mortgage loan without providing documentation to verify income or assets."

1999....
HUD Archives: Cuomo Announces Action to Provide $2.4 Trillion in Mortgages for Affordable Housing for 28.1 Million Families
Andrew Cuomo commits the GSE's to 2.4 Trillion dollars in Sub-prime purchases. Fannie Mae creates a automated underwriting process known as " DU " ( Desktop Underwriter ".

Continued....

 

[Fenton]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

2000.... HUD details how the GSE's purchases of Sub-prime would eventually help blur the lines between what's prime and what's sub-prime.
http://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/gse.pdf

" Because the GSEs have a funding advantage over other market participants, they have the ability to under price their competitors and increase their market share. This advantage, as has been the case in the prime market, could allow the GSEs to eventually play a significant role in the subprime market. As the GSEs become more comfortable with subprime lending, the line between what today is considered a subprime loan versus a prime loan will likely deteriorate, making expansion by the GSEs look more like an increase in the prime market. Since, as explained earlier in this chapter, one could define a prime loan as one that the GSEs will purchase, the difference between the prime and subprime markets will become less clear. This melding of markets could occur even if many of the underlying characteristics of subprime borrowers and the market’s (i.e., non-GSE participants) evaluation of the risks posed by these borrowers remain unchanged.’"

2000....
The Fannie Mae Foundation issues a statement on it's partnership with CountryWide.

" Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the GSE programs. …
When necessary—in cases where applicants have no established credit history, for example—Countrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the GSEs "

2002...
HUD releases report called... "Subprime Markets, the Role of GSEs and Risk-Based Pricing,"

" The agencies are increasing their presence in the subprime market by rolling-out new subprime mortgage products through updated versions of their automated underwriting systems. . Fannie Mae sellerlservicers now offer loan products to· three groups of credit-impaired borrowers under two new programs. Fannie
Mae's Expanded Approval program allows lenders to approve borrowers who would have been formerly classified as 'Refer with Caution' ... by Fannie Mae's Desktop Underwriter (DU)"

=============================================================================
Contiued....

 

[Fenton]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

HUD releases data on the GSE's " affordable lending " initiative from 1998 to 2003. The GSE's are exceeding their goals of purchasing loans from low to moderate income borrowers..

View attachment 67192301

Homeownership rates in 1993...63%
Homeownership rates in 2000...68%

Under Bush Homeownership rates rise another 1 % and fall dramatically after 2004, you know, during your " Housing Bubble "

In 2011 the SEC starts its investigation into Fannie and Freddie's tendency to hide massive amounts of worthless debt....you know, because their loans were so " well performing "...:lamo
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2011/comp-pr2011-267-fanniemae.pdf

Fannie Mae omits over a Hundred Billion dollars in CountryWide Loans....
"By the end of the third quarter of 2008, Fannie Mae had $133.4 billion worth of Fast and Easy loans on its Single Family book ofbusiness. None of these loans, or other similar Lender-Selected reduced documentation loans, were ever disclosed to investors when the Company quantified its Alt-A exposure. "

Fannie Mae omits hundreds of Billions of dollars in " well performing " No-Doc Loans...

2005 k
Fannie Mae's reporting of its Alt-A mortgage loans omitted approximately $219 billion and $201 billion worth of Fannie Mae's Single Family mortgage credit book of business which consisted of reduced documentation loans as of March 31, 2007, and December 31, 2006, almost equal to the volume of Single Family loans ($263 billion and $257 billion) that were disclosed as Alt-A.

2006-K
At the time ofthis disclosure, Fannie Mae's total exposure to loans with "lower or alternative documentation" (Alt-A) was actually 22% of its total Single Family mortgage credit book of business, not 12% as disclosed. Farinie Mae's reporting of its Alt-A omitted approximately $238 billion worth of Fannie Mae's Single Family mortgage credit book of business, which consisted of reduced document loans as of June 30, 2007- almost equal to the $296 billion that was disclosed as Alt-A.

2007-K
Fannie Mae's total exposure to loans with "lower or alternative documentation" (Alt-A) was actually 22% of its total Single Family mortgage credit book ofbusiness, not 12% as disclosed. Fannie Mae's reporting of its Alt-A omitted approximately $267 billion worth of Fannie Mae's Single Family mortgage credit book of business which consisted of reduced document loans as of September 30, 2007- almost equal to the $306 billion that was disclosed as Alt-A.

2008
Fannie Mae's total exposure to loans with "lower or alternative documentation" (Alt-A) was actually 22% of its total Single Family mortgage credit book ofbusiness, not 11 % as disclosed. Fannie Mae's reporting of its Alt-A loans omitted approximately $323 billion worth of mortgage loans in Fannie Mae's Single Family mortgage credit book of business that consisted of reduced document loans as ofMarch 31, 2008- more than the $300 billion that was disclosed as Alt-A.

2008...
The GSE's were taken into Conservator-ship with over 5 Trillion dollars in debt between them...because they only purchased " well performing loans "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac

The FED as part of it's QE initiative sets out to purchase 1.2 Trillion dollars in MBSs. ( Bank bailout ) All of these are GSE backed Securities distributed out into the financial markets with a " AAA " rating by the two most corrupt and influential Financial entities involved in the Sub-prime Crisis. They were buying up Trillions in Sub-prime loans, bundling them and selling them on. They were meeting and exceeding their CRA " affordable lending " quota's.

 

[Fenton]

NEVER will YOU ADDRESS THE PERFORMANCE OF GSE'S loans HUH? lol

:lamo Oh the irony !! That's why they hid hundreds of billions of dollars in no-doc and country wide loans from investors and the SEC...Because they were so " well performing ". No I'm not going to address the retarded assertion that the INSOLVENT GSE's only purchased " well performing " loans.

You mean Bush's bill to GUT F/F to allow ONLY the securitization of loans, in the Senate version Bubs? lol

George Bush 2003....
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com

Democrats respond.... 72 House Democrats sign THIS letter and send it to Bush in 2004...
“

2006.....
The SEC fines Fannie Mae 400 Million dollars. The LARGEST fine meted out to a financial institution in America history..
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/business/23cnd-fannie.html?_r=0

 

[Threegoofs]

ok, the NFL gambling question was stupid, but i don't believe that is what the republican candidates are whining about
they appear to resent their bad actions/statements being the topics of inquiries

now, if i am mistaken, please offer examples of the kinds of questions the politicians are actually complaining about

I don't understand why it's stupid. It was a 'lightning round' question- didn't need extensive elaboration, and it's a real contemporary issue.

 

[Sabanist]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

If I am in any way representative of the average voter, the GOP is in big trouble. I came into this election season itching to vote for a Centrist other than Hillary. But, all I see coming at me from the R side is a buffoon named Donald, a brain surgeon who thinks like a 5-year old, and a bunch of bobbing heads who can't gain any traction. Rubio sounds intelligent, as does Cruz. But, both hold positions which are too far Right for my taste, especially on abortion.

So...I will hold my nose and vote in Hillary.

Youre not centrist if you are even thinking of voting for hillary. Her presidency would be an extension of obama's. Which is arguably the most liberal in history

 

[calamity]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

Youre not centrist if you are even thinking of voting for hillary. Her presidency would be an extension of obama's. Which is arguably the most liberal in history

Obama and Hillary are both Centrist. Bernie is Leftist. And, all the Republicans are far to the Right. Some are off the charts Right. Kasich, Jeb, Rubio, the most moderate of the bunch, are all Right of where Reagan stood. Cruz, Walker, Trump...they are Right of Pat Buchanan. And, Carson, your front-runner, is a biblical babbling idiot, much like Huckabee.

Carly maybe qualifies as Centrist.

 

[Sabanist]

CNN debate was more like a political circus

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...n-substance/ek91OtVDcaNBRWiKqpfrzJ/story.html


Nothing new here………….other than this time there are many more clowns than last time


The GOP is digging its own grave: How their debate tantrum hastens the party’s demise

The GOP is digging its own grave: How their debate tantrum hastens the party?s demise - Salon.com

Can anyone name 3 of those on stage that is qualified to be POTUS..........what has this world come to?...........it sure seems to be what the founding fathers dreaded in this great experiment called democracy........

the tyranny of the masses......where the ignoramuses take control of all using "Common Sense as the governing rule...........GD help us all

Perhaps i am misunderstanding your question. There are numerous candidates qualified to be potus. Bush, kasich, jindal, huckabee, kristi, are all governors, successful ones. Some of them in states larger than most countries. What other qualification would you want?

Trump, fiorina, bush are all business people, successful ones. Executives. Decision makers. The ones who the buck stops with.How many presidents in our countries history have been business people?

Paul, rubio, graham have all been congressmen. The weakest in the bunch sure but people seemed to go bonkers over bho with less.

 

[Threegoofs]

Perhaps i am misunderstanding your question. There are numerous candidates qualified to be potus. Bush, kasich, jindal, huckabee, kristi, are all governors, successful ones. Some of them in states larger than most countries. What other qualification would you want?

Trump, fiorina, bush are all business people, successful ones. Executives. Decision makers. The ones who the buck stops with.How many presidents in our countries history have been business people?

Paul, rubio, graham have all been congressmen. The weakest in the bunch sure but people seemed to go bonkers over bho with less.

Wait...Fiorina is a successful business person?

On what planet?

And Bush's business qualifications are that his dad and brother were President, which isn't hard to turn into consulting money.

 

[calamity]

Perhaps i am misunderstanding your question. There are numerous candidates qualified to be potus. Bush, kasich, jindal, huckabee, kristi, are all governors, successful ones. Some of them in states larger than most countries. What other qualification would you want?

Trump, fiorina, bush are all business people, successful ones. Executives. Decision makers. The ones who the buck stops with.How many presidents in our countries history have been business people?

Paul, rubio, graham have all been congressmen. The weakest in the bunch sure but people seemed to go bonkers over bho with less.

Good grief. Your list is a who's who on who not to elect for president. Jindal, Huckabee, another Bush...Christ. Trump? You've got to be kidding me.

BHO has done a fine job resurrecting what Bush the Junior destroyed.

 

[imyoda]

Perhaps i am misunderstanding your question. There are numerous candidates qualified to be potus. Bush, kasich, jindal, huckabee, kristi, are all governors, successful ones. Some of them in states larger than most countries. What other qualification would you want?

Trump, fiorina, bush are all business people, successful ones. Executives. Decision makers. The ones who the buck stops with.How many presidents in our countries history have been business people?

Paul, rubio, graham have all been congressmen. The weakest in the bunch sure but people seemed to go bonkers over bho with less.

I stated no question.............but shared my opinion about the state of affairs that some believe to be quality debating.......... possibly I have some more demanding belief in what constitutes meaningful debate.........