  |
Media Mum on Barney Frank’s Fannie Mae Love Connection — Geez, this stuff just writes itself.
Are journalists playing favorites with some of the key political figures involved with regulatory oversight of U.S. financial markets?
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews launched several vitriolic attacks on the Republican Party on his Sept. 17, 2008, show, suggesting blame for Wall Street problems should be focused in a partisan way. However, he and other media have failed to thoroughly examine the Democratic side of the blame game.
Prominent Democrats ran Fannie Mae, the same government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that donated campaign cash to top Democrats. And one of Fannie Mae’s main defenders in the House – Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989 – was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive.
The media coverage of Frank’s coziness with Fannie Mae and his pro-Fannie Mae stances has been lacking. Of the eight appearances Frank made on the three broadcasts networks between Jan. 1, 2008, and Sept. 21, 2008, none of his comments dealt with the potential conflicts of interest… The Washington Post reported Frank, who is openly gay, had a relationship with Herb Moses, an executive for the now-government controlled Fannie Mae. The column revealed the two had split up at the time but also said Frank was referring to Moses as his “spouse.” Another Washington Post report said Frank called Moses his “lover” and that the two were “still friends” after the breakup.
#24 Mister Mustard
Don’t forget Barney’s deep throat that has seen more traffic than I-40.
#17 bobo said, “No reason to give “free speech rights” to corporations.”
Or, Unions. Right?
Barney Frank was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive? Dvorak sounds jealous!
#13, Brock,
If you are going to quote someone else, please provide the source and where that quote ends. Otherwise you become responsible.
Bullshit. There is no law forcing any bank to lend to “un-creditworthy” borrowers. What Federally regulated banks are NOT allowed to do is discriminate by any civil rights definition. If the bank would offer a loan to a majority (white male) person, they must also offer the same loan to a similar minority on the same terms. There is no part that states banks must lend to un-creditworthy customers.
Redlining was where banks would not lend to minorities in a specific area even though they would accept their deposits. Your comment that this forced the banks to incur higher risk is crap the wing nuts like to use to put the blame on minorities.
Not true. The Fed makes the rules and answers to Congress, not the President. The Fed may work closely with the Treasury Department, but the President doesn’t make the rules.
I don’t watch Good Morning America. How did Democrats block reform when the Republicans controlled Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court? BTW, that reform would have moved oversight from an independent agency to the Treasury Department and thus under Mr. Oversight, the President.
#31 – Alex
The theory is that if nothing is done, then the credit markets will lock up as the lenders don’t have the capital to make new loans. Since there is no demand in the markets for these mortgage-backed securities, the lenders can’t sell them off to free up capital. Everyone paints the picture of people not being able to purchase a home, but the real danger with frozen credit markets is in the business world. New businesses would be very hard to start as it would be near impossible to get a loan to start up. Seasonal businesses would fold up as they couldn’t obtain lines of credit to get through down times. Companies would have difficulty meeting payroll, job loss, and then the downward spiral into recession and possibly depression.
Again that’s all in theory. It’s possible also that the businesses that are hurting could be allowed to fail, and the ones that have been prudent could snatch up those assets for pennies on the dollar, ala JpMorgan Chase.
Now, I’m no economist, but the bailout plan as it has been presented, seems like bad news. We’re gonna buy up these, for all intensive purposes, worthless securities, and hope they regain their value? While at the same time pumping more money into the system, thereby turning the dollar into a peso? So many of these securities are based on over-valued homes. There’s no way we could make back 100% of what we put in.
So I was thinking yesterday, and again I’m not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, so this could be (and probably is) not a good idea at all. Instead of buying these MBS’s, let’s establish a value for them and then freeze trading on any that were issued before today’s date. At the same time, the treasury can open up a loan window to these institutions, taking a controlling portion of the companies stock as collateral.
Now, some of the institutions would probably have to further write down their books based on the established value, but the loans would give them the capital needed to start loaning themselves again. And the freeze on trading these would keep that value locked until everything is stabalized. Only a small portion of mortgages will default in the end anyway.
This would also give congress time to figure out how to stop this from happening again (yeah right).
Why is Dvorak constantly shilling for the neocons? 40k over 20 years is less than what McCain’s campaign manager took in 3 months. If I was a conservative group I would make sure I gave small donations like that to the other side (keeping my big money for the people I really support) so that hacks could blog about how the people I’m against are taking the money too.
#37 “Why is Dvorak constantly shilling for the neocons?”
I don’t know. Maybe because the rest of his bloggers shill for the socilist’s?
Or, maybe it seems that way as he’s the only one that posts stuff his blogger’s don’t want to see the light of day?
#38 – O’Furniture
>>Or, maybe it seems that way as he’s the only
>>one that posts stuff his blogger’s don’t want
>>to see the light of day?
Like what? That Barney Frank took $40/week in campaign contributions, while McBush’s lackey was raking in $6,000,000.00 over a 5-year period??
I’m as happy as a pig in shit that this information is seeing the light of day!!
I’ll put Barneys $2105/yr against McBush’s ONE POINT TWO MILLION a year any day of the week.
I think there are a lot of things Barney Frank can be criticized for, but taking $5.71/day from the mighty banking empire is not one of them.
When I ask myself “why [I] have to read this stuff on a blog”, the answer I come up with is “nobody gives a shit anywhere else”.
#37 “Why is Dvorak constantly shilling for the neocons?”
Human nature. Dvorak wants decisive leaders who can boil down issues into seven word soundbites, stick to their guns through hell and contravening new information, look and play the part of a Hollywood screentest winner, and speak in well-modulated oval tones.
He wants an idealized version of himself. And much of that happens to look neo conish.
John…you missed the best part of this story! Heard today on Laura Ingraham’s radio show that Moses left Fannie to start…
a pottery business.
It just doesn’t get any better than that.
Keep trying Fusion. Bill Clinton says the Dems blocked reform. Very convenient as he also says he pushed for it. Not above him to throw the party under the bus for his own legacy.
How can they block reform? If one party is unified against something, it doesn’t happen in Washington, especially when you have a filibuster in the Senate.
The whole issue of redlining was exactly that. The Justice Department and other agencies were pushing minority and majority as equally credit-worthy, which is not true. They would claim a bank was violating civil rights if they didn’t have equal percentages. Of course you knew this already, but just want to shill for your party.
I haven’t lived in Mass for over 20 years; but, everyone knew back then that Barney was gay. I guess that’s a shock to JCD’s non-christian morality.
But, we’re supposed to be equally upset because the dude he broke up with over 10 years ago worked for Fannie Mae. Should we worry about who he diddled in college, too?
WTF – before I met my better half, there were time I couldn’t remember who I was fucking 10 years before. Was that supposed to be important enough to blog about?
I found this enlightening:
http://tinyurl.com/49hd7n
#44 Mark.
An excellent video. This video excellently lays out exactly what happened and who was responsible.
Does anyone but me realize that passing out these bad loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was the equivelent of money laundering? Passing a bad loan through Freddie Mac with the government promise of financial backing to make the loan “good” is similar to passing dirty money through a bank to make it “clean”?
You should really try using sources other than right wing hit piece sites for sources, John.
#35 Fusion
Here’s a tip – Learn how to research and read about history.
Here’s your proof, but of course you’ll never view it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
What we need is a big overhaul of the way our Government is run! Our term limits need to be changed to no more than eight years. We need to remove special interest and lobbyist out of Washington. Our elected Congress and Senate need go to work for all Americans and their best interest. The politicians in Washington are looking out for them selves and not for us.
The Fannie Mae and the Freddie Mac mess need to be investigated and the guilty need to be brought to Justice. The people that allowed the U.S. citizens to buy homes that were beyond their means should be dealt with, hopefully with a penalty. The fact is some good people have lost their homes the rest of us are penalized now and for years to come! The people that received millions of dollars in an undeserved bonus -“Golden Parachutes” owe the money back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Do these people have no pride in how they conduct them selves. Is this
no better than stealing? Why should anyone receive political donations from this government ran a huge nightmare that no one wants to take the blame for?