posted April 30, 2010 05:46 PM         

Further, just because a corporation...name..is ordered liquidated that doesn't mean it doesn't reorganize under yet a different name and proceed to do business in the same business sector doing the very same kinds of business...with the very same individuals at the top...whom everyone in the business world already knows.

posted May 11, 2010 05:02 PM         

These are the 2 utterly corrupt lending institutions which contribute large amounts of cash to demoscats...and, it's the same corrupt lending institutions which kicked off the meltdown in the financial sector by buying up loans from ACORN and other lenders who knew the borrowers couldn't make the loan payments.

So, why you must wonder are Fannie and Freddie not part of the Financial Institutions Reform Bill now in the Senate of the United States.

1. They're both corrupt.

2. They both made lots of loans to unqualified borrowers.

3. They both cooked their books to hookwink investors...who wound up with nothing when the feds had to take them over.

4. They both have outstanding loans counted in trillions of dollars in US taxpayer liability.

5. They were both used as places to slot out of work demoscats to make them tons of money in top level positions. Franklin Raines, Jamie Goerlick and Tim Johnson come to mind...and they're the same demoscats who bilked Fannie and Freddie out of more than $150 Million in unearned bonuses by cooking the books.

If you chose number 5 on the list; give yourself a gold star. Demoscats never intended to end bailouts...not for their friends and campaign contributors on Wall Street...and not for their friends and campaign contributors at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Now, Fannie and Freddie both need another bailout at taxpayer expense...and their friends, the leftist demoscats have already obligated the US taxpayer to pick up their losses. Nice, very nice.

CNBC’s Rick Santelli Rips Key Democrat For Ignoring Fannie/Freddie Reform
Dems’ Financial “Reform” Leaves Taxpayers on the Hook for Government Mortgage Giants

Washington, May 11

Democrats still don’t get it, and they refuse to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government mortgage companies that sparked the meltdown by giving high-risk loans to people who couldn’t afford it. Standing up for American taxpayers, CNBC’s on-air editor, Rick Santelli teed off on Rep. Paul Kanjorski’s (D-PA) claim that Democrats’ couldn’t reform Fannie & Freddie in their financial regulation bill because it was “too complicated,” asking: “It’s too complicated? You think taxpayers that go to work to pay the money you are subsidizing, it will end up a half a trillion, do you think they think complicated is an excuse?”

The exchange couldn’t have come at a worse time for Rep. Kanjorski and Congressional Democrats, because Fannie and Freddie simply won’t go away. As the Financial Times reported today:

“Fannie Mae said on Monday it would need an additional $8.4bn in aid, as the US government-controlled mortgage finance company continued to suffer heavy losses on its bad loans…Fannie Mae’s appeal for help comes on the heels of a similar plea last week by smaller rival Freddie Mac, which asked for an additional $10.6bn cash infusion. The latest requests for aid bring the total amount of taxpayer dollars drawn down by these companies to $148bn since the 2008 government-led bail-out.

“Anthony Sanders, a senior scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, called Fannie and Freddie ‘our own Greek tragedy.’ Mr. Sanders estimated that total taxpayer liability was about $8,000bn for the combined companies, including public debt and loan guarantees.”

But the unlimited bailout that the Administration has bestowed on Fannie and Freddie doesn’t seem to bother Democrats, though the latest giveaway may come at an “inconvenient time,” as the New York Times noted today:

“Fannie Mae’s request on Monday for another $8.4 billion in federal aid comes at a politically inconvenient time for the Obama administration, which is pressing to pass sweeping financial legislation without resolving the company’s future…. Democrats want to defer an overhaul of federal housing policy until next year, after the midterm elections. But Republicans have seized on the continuing losses to argue that a plan for the two companies should be a priority of the current legislation.”

Republicans have been pressing for an end to bailouts that would get the government out of the mortgage business once and for all. But Democrats are not only unwilling to reform Fannie and Freddie, they are doubling down on the failed government mortgage companies – burning through hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in the process. As the Washington Post noted in a report today: “Under the terms of the government's 2008 emergency takeover of Fannie and Freddie, the Treasury must pump money into either firm whenever its worth, as measured by assets minus liabilities, goes into the red. Late last year, the Obama administration pledged unlimited backing.”

For years, Republicans raised red flags about Fannie and Freddie’s financial condition and proposed responsible reforms only to be thwarted by Democrats who have deep political ties to the worst offenders. These same powerful Democrats are now pushing for a financial reform bill that doesn’t even address the need to fix these government mortgage companies. As the Wall Street Journal wrote last week, “reforming the financial system without fixing Fannie and Freddie is like declaring a war on terror and ignoring al Qaeda.”

posted May 20, 2010 09:00 AM         

On another front, O'Bomber is bailing out a bank with taxpayer money with the assistance of other banks which were the recipients of large infusions of cash...from taxpayer pockets.

This bank has connections to O'Bomber's administration through one of his close advisors. Oh, but not to worry. This is a "community bank" and everyone knows "community banks" serve a worthwhile purpose in making bad loans to people who do not qualify for loans and can't make the payments.

So, on the one hand, O'Bomber and demoscats are saying "no more bailouts for banks"...which is a lie and trying to pass a bill to...continue to bail out banks.

On the other hand, and is spite of what O'Bomber says publicly, O'Bomber is bailing out a bank in Illinois...with taxpayer funds which has ties to his administration.

There is a criminal enterprise in charge of the US federal government and November 2, 2010 is not too soon to dismantle this "enterprise".

Monday, May 17, 2010
Lenders Agree to Prop Up Ailing ShoreBank
By Charlie Gasparino

Some of the nation's largest banks have agreed to contribute enough money to save Chicago-based ShoreBank, the community lender with strong ties to the Obama administration, FOX Business has learned.

The banks have agreed to contribute $140 million to bail out the bank, while the federal government will donate tens of millions more, according to people close to the talks. In addition to major Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs (GS: 139.98, 0, 0%), which agreed to contribute $20 million to the bailout effort, as well as Citigroup (C: 3.82, 0, 0%) and JPMorgan (JPM: 38.88, 0, 0%), General Electric's (GE: 17.25, 0, 0%) GE Capital will also contribute $20 million to the rescue effort. All the firms have either received massive government assistance during the financial crisis or, in the case of Goldman Sachs, are facing multiple regulatory investigations into their business practices.

The bailout has been controversial. Senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett served on a Chicago civic organization with a director of the bank, and President Obama himself has singled out the bank for praise in lending to low-income communities.

But the bank has made its share of bad bets, and some of the Wall Street firms that have given money have said they've received political pressure to contribute to the bailout of a business that under normal circumstances would have been left to fail.

It's still unclear how much the federal government will contribute to save the bank because it's unclear exactly how much is needed to save the institution, which without the bailout would have been taken over by the FDIC.

posted May 21, 2010 12:18 PM         

This article explains part of the story, though there are others that add other details:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

This one states one of the details I'm trying to find more info on: They were politically pushed into buying more risky loans:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2010-04-09-fannie-exec-hearing_N.htm

posted May 21, 2010 10:22 PM         

Experts have been calling this provision more important than:

• Merkley-Levin-- to separate commercial and investment banking and stop Goldman Sacks-style double crossing.
• Than: Franken’s credit ratings agencies amendment.
• Jack Reed’s hedge fund amendment.
• every other amendment..

Mother Jones

quote:

---

The most heated fight in the financial reform battle right now involves a provision blandly named Section 716. This provision, introduced by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), is arguably the most aggressive of the reform bill’s crackdowns on the $600 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market, the home to the opaque yet lucrative financial products that allow big banks and gutsy traders to bet on swings in the financial market.

---

Wall Street Journal

quote:

---

[i]Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln is fighting to shake off the nickname "Bailout Blanche," bestowed by her more-liberal rival in the May 18 primary campaign. Her main weapon: a provision she wrote in the financial-overhaul bill that would trim the sails of Wall Street banks by strictly limiting their derivatives trading.

---

quote:

---

Nonetheless, with Volcker wiki in opposition, the odds are now stacked heavily against Lincoln's provision. Later this week, Sens. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) are expected to offer an amendment that would do away with 716, and it's unclear whether any new lawmakers will come to its defense—or whether the proposal will be left, like other tough provisions, on the cutting room floor.

---

Rob Reich->

quote:

---

For years the big banks have relied on taxpayer-funded deposit insurance to backstop their lucrative derivative businesses. Obviously they want the subsidy to continue. And all the powerful interests are falling into line: Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke have now joined Republicans and weak-kneed Democrats to argue that the subsidy should stay. (Lincoln has signaled she may even join them, once she’s rid of her primary challenger.)

---

MotherJ- The closed door derivatives war