Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Most people on this board have probably seen this, I never had. Very telling and a good timeline of what's gone down the last few years.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25153904/XeChem-Docket-263
Suckers are those that give up in life. So, speak for yourself and scram.
What's the connection between my post and Rick Warren?
First Peggy, now us. What can't this man do? Thank you so much Mr. President.
Fiscally conservative- sounds good to me.
I can honestly say this has changed my life. My worst times have been during the last 3 yrs, not just because of Xechem. Win or lose, I will never forget these times.
It's been 3 long yrs. we're more than due. I rarely speak up, but been through all of the bad times.
GO XKEM, MONTY, AND ALL ON THE BOARD.
Agnew reminds me of our current V.P. Man I wish the people of the great U.S. of A would learn to wise up with elected officials. I can't wait for a powerhouse third party to shake things up, for the people. I'm having a hard time trusting anybody on the political scene these days.
Anybody a member and able to sign in? It won't allow me to sign up.
http://www.diamondbank.com/investor-relations/shareholder-services/new-issue.html
NBC with Brian Williams? There's your problem.
GO XKEM
Fiat, you said there would be no 35/1 split. Do you by chance know what it would be?
Thanks
When it's all said and done, it wouldn't surprise me if their plan is Basu's plan. (All on the same team)
If Basu's plan is accepted, the committee is corrupt. As well as Basu. (Just my opinion)
I too am here, and waving with my right hand.
Same thing that's saving your post spinman.
Go XKEM
What does Obama's power grab have to do with XKEM?
The ideas that have me riled up are not new ideas. They have been tested and have failed many times throughout history. By the way, I am not here to defend my position or change your mind.
I have no problem offering up articles, but very rarely get personally involved in any conversations. Up until recently, I steered absolutely clear of politics on these boards.
My life supports my positions and I will not share any of it on Ihub.
Why are you disguising the fact that you tend to lean to the left. I've never met a righty that hid it or was ashamed of it.
By the way, I am not and have never been in the mccain camp.
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2008/09/barney-frank-op.html
September 25, 2008
Barney Frank opposed regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, but no one reminds him
I’m not going to give John McCain campaign tips (I'm leaning toward Obama), but how does McCain let such Democrats as Rep. Barney Frank get away with telling the press that McCain and President Bush opposed regulations on financial institutions, when it was Frank himself who long opposed those regulations?
Frank 'no crisis.' The New York Times reported on Sept. 11, 2003:
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
McCain warning. On the other hand, McCain on May 25, 2006, backed specific legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a year before Frank finally caved in and called for reform only after it was too late.
"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation," McCain said. "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
Yet I saw Barney Frank interviewed several times yesterday, accusing Bush and McCain of blocking financial reforms, and not one reporter asked him about his own long and loud record of willful neglect. As Power Line's John Hinderacker asks today:
Maybe it's too much to expect anyone to remember the distant past -- 2003 -- but still, it seems remarkable that Barney Frank can make the rounds of the television talk shows, pontificating on the current crisis, without being reminded of his own role.
Democrats' responsibility. Frank's audacity is bizarre. The press is equally stunning in its oblivious silence. McCain has made some attempts to tell voters about this, but McCain's words have been obscured or omitted in news accounts.
President Clinton put it best today to Chris Cuomo of ABC News:
"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
Frank and others like him might have had good intentions in pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home loans for low-income, high-risk customers. But from the 1990s to 2007, the Democrats simply closed their eyes to the mounting threat that these reckless, highly secretive operations posed to our entire financial system.
Frank Warner
Update: More information that Barney Frank was destabilizing Fannie Mae as early as 1991:
Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, ... the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.
Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank.
The Boston Globe, Nov. 22, 1991:
The federally chartered mortgage company Fannie Mae yesterday agreed to modify its rules restricting purchases of two-family and three-decker homes -- rules that housing advocates contend unfairly exclude low- and moderate-income families from buying homes in Boston.
After a nearly three-hour meeting with members of the Home Buyers’ Union, a local advocacy group, and representatives of Mayor Flynn and Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy 2d (D-Mass.), Fannie Mae officials agreed to substantially alter rules to allow what one termed “hundreds if not thousands” of buyers a chance to own two-family homes and three-deckers. …
Fannie Mae national spokesman David Jeffers said yesterday that the mortgage company restricted purchases of mortgages on multi-family homes after it saw many such mortgages go into default during the real estate slowdown.
He said the default rate on mortgages on two-family homes is twice that of single-family homes, and the rate for three-deckers is five times the rate for single-family dwellings.
But Jeffers said that after discussions with area homeowners, housing advocates, Kennedy and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Fannie Mae officials agreed to purchase the mortgages made under the state’s “soft second” program, the primary source of mortgages for first-time homebuyers of low and moderate means.
* * *
Temporary sanity. In 2002, Frank was on the right track for about a half day, but then returned to his policy of allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to continue operating with loose rules and little supervision.
Citizens Against Government Waste, Sept. 25, 2002:
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today marveled at the arm-twisting acumen of one of Washington’s premiere lobbies, home mortgage behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
After a speech this week, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the House Financial Services Committee's ranking member, let fly with characteristic bluntness regarding the Government Sponsored Enterprises’ (GSEs) $4.5 billion combined lines of credit with the U.S. Treasury. When asked whether he would consider revoking the lines of credit to the two Wall Street powerhouses, Frank frankly replied, “I would take a look at it. I don't think it (the line of credit) makes a lot of difference.”
Within hours, however, the usually pugnacious pol was falling over himself to backtrack. In a written statement, Frank meekly clarified that, “I apparently spoke imprecisely and gave an inaccurate impression of my views regarding federal policy governing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” To complete the pirouette, he stated that in fact, "I start from a position in favor of the existing arrangements with regard to both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." …
“Despite his hasty retreat this week, Rep. Frank took an important step by saying aloud what so many think: that it is questionable whether Fannie and Freddie, hugely profitable as they are, should continue to be implicitly backed by Uncle Sam while able to duck full transparency requirements,” [CAGW Vice President Leslie] Paige [said]. “If only Frank had had the chutzpah to stick to his guns.”
'Roll the dice.' Check out what Barney Frank said about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at congressional hearings in 2003. He certainly wasn’t favoring more regulation. In fact, he seemed aware he was gambling with the money in those institutions (and eventually, taxpayers' money).
At a House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003, Frank said:
"I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing...."
* * *
Then. The New York Times, Sept. 30, 1999, reporting that the Clinton administration was sewing the seeds of a national financial disaster:
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. …
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
Now. The New York Times on Dec. 20, 2008, blaming the financial disaster on the Bush administration and everyone else except the Democrats:
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.
Then. The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, reporting on President Bush’s proposal to end the high-risk lending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and noting that Rep. Barney Frank opposed Bush’s call for reform:
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. …
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken.
Now. President Clinton, in that somewhat self-serving statement Sept. 25, 2008:
“I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
In The New York Times’ Dec. 20 report, Clinton’s Sept. 25 statement isn’t mentioned. The Times censors all evidence of the Democrats’ central role in destroying the economy.
In the Times, the president who tried to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s lending practices in 2003 is accused of opposing regulation. As usual, the newspaper’s whorish writers give the criminally reckless Democrats a free pass.
FW
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html
So many great quotes from high rankings leftists in here.
What They Said About Fan and Fred Article
Video
more in Opinion »Email Printer Friendly Share:
Yahoo Buzz
facebook
MySpace
LinkedIn
Digg
del.icio.us
NewsVine
StumbleUpon
Mixx
Text Size
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .
AP
Clockwise from top left: Sen. Thomas Carper, Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Robert Bennett, Rep. Maxine Waters, Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Charles Schumer.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:
Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?
* * *
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:
Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .
* * *
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:
Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we would be here in the first place.
Fannie Mayhem: A History
A compendium of The Wall Street Journal's recent editorial coverage of Fannie and Freddie.
And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job. . .
Ofheo Director Armando Falcon Jr.: Congressman, Ofheo did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. Ofheo did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency's engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac. Let me just correct the record on that. . . . I have been asking for these additional authorities for four years now. I have been asking for additional resources, the independent appropriations assessment powers.
Brian Carney of the Editorial Board on the hearings Congresspeople don't want to remember. (Oct. 2)
This is not a matter of the agency engaging in any misconduct. . . .
Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week's hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .
Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?
Mr. Raines?
Mr. Raines: No, sir.
Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?
Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .
Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .
Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.
Mr. Raines: But more importantly, banks are in a far more risky business than we are.
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:
Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): What is the wrong that we're trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we're trying to avert?
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Well, I think that that is a very good question, senator.
What we're trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets. . . .
Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.): [T]he federal government has [an] ambiguous relationship with the GSEs. And how do we actually get rid of that ambiguity is a complicated, tricky thing. I don't know how we do it.
I mean, you've alluded to it a little bit, but how do we define the relationship? It's important, is it not?
Mr. Greenspan: Yes. Of all the issues that have been discussed today, I think that is the most difficult one. Because you cannot have, in a rational government or a rational society, two fundamentally different views as to what will happen under a certain event. Because it invites crisis, and it invites instability. . .
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don't want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that's been done here. And that shouldn't be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005:
Sen. Schumer: I'll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I think Fannie and Freddie need some changes, but I don't think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Change some of the accounting and regulatory issues, yes, but don't undo Fannie and Freddie.
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:
Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don't overreact.
I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let's not do nothing, and at the same time, let's not overreact. . .
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, "Let's dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie," when that is not what's called for as a result of what's happened here. . . .
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): Mr. Chairman, what we're dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of -- the best we can say is, "It's no Enron." Now, that's a hell of a high standard.
History is also very telling, and what we're living reminds of past goings-on. I hope I'm wrong.
The weak voted for Obama. In 4 yrs. The voters will be stronger as a result of the shitty Obama yrs. The strong do not vote for the weak. Obama's done.
It will have been caused by Obama, but made possible by the American people. One of the few possible positive outcomes from the next 4 yrs.
I disagree. Obamalism is going to unintentionally create a new wave of conservatism in this country. We are, imo, going to start seeing a split between the republican party and conservatives. That is my hope anyway.
Libs and Cons have both proven to be absolutely worthless for the last couple of decades, all of them lie about what they stand for, and their actions contradict their words.
Democrats - yes
Republicans -yes
True Liberals - yes
True Conservatives - (Not too many these days)no
laughing German Midget
Thank you. In the past, I always stayed away from politics on the boards. However, I'm so sick of the bullshit going on, I have reconsidered. Always nice to be around others that feel as I do.
So true, check this out.
Just found this board. Why the hell isn't it rockin' in here. So much shite going on.
So true, check this out. Don't know why, but I can relate to this guy.
So true, check this out. Don't know why, but I can relate to this guy.
So true, check this out.