More Obama Admin Hijinks - Hires Fannie Mae/Goldman Sachs Lobbyist as Natl. Security Advisor

[epicSocialism4tw]

"He was a top lobbyist at Fannie Mae during the housing bubble, when Fannie fought — with Democratic help — to avoid any restrictions or curbs on its work to inflate home values and get more people under mortgage. Before that, Donilon was a lobbyist at O’Melveny and Myers, where Fannie was a client.

In 2008, according to his financial disclosure forms, Donilon was a paid consultant for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Apollo Investments"



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/why-is-obama-putting-a-fannie-maegoldman-sachs-lobbyistconsultant-as-nsa-105059764.html#ixzz131JDSJ2p

[mhgaffney]

Never thought I'd ever agree with McSkillet.

But Obama's picks from Wall Street have doomed his presidency -- this and the war.

[Obushma]

"He was a top lobbyist at Fannie Mae during the housing bubble, when Fannie fought — with Democratic help — to avoid any restrictions or curbs on its work to inflate home values and get more people under mortgage. Before that, Donilon was a lobbyist at O’Melveny and Myers, where Fannie was a client.

In 2008, according to his financial disclosure forms, Donilon was a paid consultant for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Apollo Investments"



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/why-is-obama-putting-a-fannie-maegoldman-sachs-lobbyistconsultant-as-nsa-105059764.html#ixzz131JDSJ2p

Does it really surprise anyone anymore? A top lobbyist for crooks is now working in national security, makes me feel safe.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Too bad McSpammer can't read and is allergic to facts - otherwise he'd realize the premise upon which he builds his "case" is pure bullsh*t.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:


More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

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 reported Friday.

Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/10/13/16/791-20081013-ECONOMY-subprime.small.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages."I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.
About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.

Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"He was a top lobbyist at Fannie Mae during the housing bubble, when Fannie fought — with Democratic help — to avoid any restrictions or curbs on its work to inflate home values and get more people under mortgage.


You are a pathological liar.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"He was a top lobbyist at Fannie Mae during the housing bubble, when Fannie fought — with Democratic help — to avoid any restrictions or curbs on its work to inflate home values and get more people under mortgage.

Another bald-faced lie. tsk tsk

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.



During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

[epicSocialism4tw]

LABS is coming hard with the spin today, folks!

You have to pan through three posts of spam to continue on in the thread.

He obviously wants you to pass this issue by without looking at it, and that should be enough for anyone to want to look at it more intently.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABS is coming hard with the spin today, folks!

You have to pan through three posts of spam to continue on in the thread.

He obviously wants you to pass this issue by without looking at it, and that should be enough for anyone to want to look at it more intently.

You obviously can't read.

Either that, or you're just sitting there with your blindfold on and your fingers in your ears.

Your claims about FM&FM being the main culprits in the crisis have been exposed as total BS.

[shakenbake]

How do you feel about the person he put in place as the Natl. Security Advisor?

[barryr]

Thank goodness Obama kept his word about not hiring lobbyists. Oh, maybe he meant he wouldn't hire over 100 of them.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Everyone can see for themselves right here:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hxMInSfanqg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hxMInSfanqg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Everyone can see for themselves right here:


Ha ha ha! Ha!

Where does this challenge anything in the article I posted?

[ak1971]

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans

so shut off the flood gates....when FNMA/FRE started buying everything ala Eddie Murphy at the end of Trading Places....well we all now how that ended

[shakenbake]

Thank goodness Obama kept his word about not hiring lobbyists. Oh, maybe he meant he wouldn't hire over 100 of them.

Thats it, I am canceling that parade for having 16,000 less than expected new people applying for unemployment benefits for the first time.

How could he do this! He gave us his word... I remember clearly "No Lobbyists"

[epicSocialism4tw]

Here's more of Frank. Everyone take a look for yourself.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iW5qKYfqALE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iW5qKYfqALE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

This is stuff that LABF doesnt want you to see. He knows that its the death knell for his party. He'd rather you keep these incapable people in power who are directly at fault for the housing bubble than to risk a democrat not holding that position.

These people destroyed the economy. Everyone should want them out. They are literally destroying the country, and thats not even an overstatement. You cant cause the housing market collapse and NOT be destroying the country.

Throw the bums out.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Ha ha ha!
Where does this challenge anything in the article I posted?

Your article is garbage, just like all the left wing propaganda you post.

[ant1999e]

"He was a top lobbyist at Fannie Mae during the housing bubble, when Fannie fought — with Democratic help — to avoid any restrictions or curbs on its work to inflate home values and get more people under mortgage. Before that, Donilon was a lobbyist at O’Melveny and Myers, where Fannie was a client.

In 2008, according to his financial disclosure forms, Donilon was a paid consultant for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Apollo Investments"


Are any of these companies on that list?

[ant1999e]

Ha ha ha! Ha!

Where does this challenge anything in the article I posted?

Uh, were you the OP? I think this backs up his point. You just went off on your own rant like always.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your article is garbage, just like all the left wing propaganda you post.

You have yet to challenge even one factual assertion in the article.

You are the ultimate ostrich.

[ant1999e]

Here's more of Frank. Everyone take a look for yourself.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iW5qKYfqALE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iW5qKYfqALE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

This is stuff that LABF doesnt want you to see. He knows that its the death knell for his party. He'd rather you keep these incapable people in power who are directly at fault for the housing bubble than to risk a democrat not holding that position.

These people destroyed the economy. Everyone should want them out. They are literally destroying the country, and thats not even an overstatement. You cant cause the housing market collapse and NOT be destroying the country.

Throw the bums out.

"You’re not going to see a collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble."

:confuzzle Obviously he doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is stuff that LABF doesnt want you to see. He knows that its the death knell for his party. He'd rather you keep these incapable people in power who are directly at fault for the housing bubble than to risk a democrat not holding that position.

These people destroyed the economy. Everyone should want them out. They are literally destroying the country, and thats not even an overstatement. You cant cause the housing market collapse and NOT be destroying the country.


The facts say just the opposite.

But we're used to you getting things bass-ackwards.

It's what you do.

[ant1999e]

You have yet to challenge even one factual assertion in the article.

You are the ultimate ostrich.

You're avatar fits you well with all the "spinning" you do.Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"You’re not going to see a collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble."

:confuzzle Obviously he doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

I put proof that Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered the crisis right in front of your face, and you refuse to look at it.

But that's what faith-based, ideologically-driven nutjobs like you and McSpammer do.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're avatar fits you well with all the "spinning" you do.Ha!

The only "spinning" is you avoiding the facts:

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/10/13/16/791-20081013-ECONOMY-subprime.small.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

[epicSocialism4tw]

You have yet to challenge even one factual assertion in the article.

You are the ultimate ostrich.

Why would anyone dignify your garbage propaganda with a response?

You think that the average people who come into these forums are too stupid to see through your posts. You think that they'll see an article and think "wow, this guy makes a great point".

Well this may come as news to you, but these people arent that stupid. They dont take your leftwingpropaganda.com articles at face value. Everyone here knows that you are posting trash from far left info clearinghouses and that your word is about as good as the old Iraq information minister's.

You have worn your welcome here.

Take your Soros-fueled propaganda elsewhere.

[ant1999e]

I put proof that Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered the crisis right in front of your face, and you refuse to look at it.

But that's what faith-based, ideologically-driven nutjobs like you and McSpammer do.

I guess you didn't read the title of the thread. "More Obama Admin Hijinks - Hires Fannie Mae/Goldman Sachs Lobbyist as Natl. Security Advisor".

Why don't you address the issue at hand instead of spinning it?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bhYD8_L0nV8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bhYD8_L0nV8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[ant1999e]

The only "spinning" is you avoiding the facts:

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/10/13/16/791-20081013-ECONOMY-subprime.small.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

In 2008, according to his financial disclosure forms, Donilon was a paid consultant for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Apollo Investments"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why would anyone dignify your garbage propaganda with a response?

Translation: "I can't deny any of the facts he listed - must file under 'propaganda' with all other inconvenient and uncomfortable realities."



You have worn your welcome here.


Having more delusions of grandeur here, Adolf?

Who the f*ck do you think you are?

The board admin?

[ant1999e]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2SlBlvirqA0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2SlBlvirqA0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
"They will not work in my whitehouse."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In 2008, according to his financial disclosure forms, Donilon was a paid consultant for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Apollo Investments"

Which does absolutely nothing to change the fact that Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered the crisis.

[ant1999e]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XtuIByPe7ic?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XtuIByPe7ic?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[ant1999e]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OaIzrZg5cV8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OaIzrZg5cV8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[ant1999e]

Which does absolutely nothing to change the fact that Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered the crisis.

Again, not the point the OP made in creating this thread dipshyt. You're a stubborn bastard aren't you?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I guess you didn't read the title of the thread. "More Obama Admin Hijinks - Hires Fannie Mae/Goldman Sachs Lobbyist as Natl. Security Advisor".

Why don't you address the issue at hand instead of spinning it?


You really have some serious comprehension problems, don't you?

There was more to the OP than just the thread title you're quoting here.

I suggest you go back and read the OP - then you might have a better idea re: which specific claims I was objecting to.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Again, not the point the OP made in creating this thread dipshyt. You're a stubborn bastard aren't you?

You are a f_cking clueless half-wit. :oyvey:

From the OP:

"He was a top lobbyist at Fannie Mae during the housing bubble, when Fannie fought — with Democratic help — to avoid any restrictions or curbs on its work to inflate home values and get more people under mortgage. Before that, Donilon was a lobbyist at O’Melveny and Myers, where Fannie was a client.

As you can see, the OP is making assertions that go beyond the simple observation that Obama hired this individual.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You are a f_cking clueless half-wit. :oyvey:

From the OP:

As you can see, the OP is making assertions that go beyond the simple observation that Obama hired this individual.

I posted a quote from the article, moron.

Maybe you should read it instead of trying to ruin this discussion for everyone else by spamming this thread to death like all of your other spam jobs.

Maybe we should all do a mass ignore on LABF.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I posted a quote from the article, moron.


Duh!

And I just indicated which part of that quote I was challenging, dumb sh*t. :wave:


Maybe we should all do a mass ignore on LABF.

"We," eh?

What's the matter, spam monkey?

Can't do this without backup?

[ant1999e]

You are a f_cking clueless half-wit. :oyvey:

From the OP:



As you can see, the OP is making assertions that go beyond the simple observation that Obama hired this individual.

So you just pick out the one sentence that you like so you can regurgitate some bull**** you posted in a previous thread?

OK. So he was a lobbiest for FM/ right?

And the Dems did fight to avoid any restrictions or curbs on its work to inflate home values and get more people under mortgage right? (post #'s 11 and 15).
So, what's your point? You know what, nevermind. I'm sure you're just going to spin this some more. After all, that's what you do.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Duh!

And I just indicated which part of that quote I was challenging, dumb sh*t. :wave:



"We," eh?

What's the matter, spam monkey?

Can't do this without backup?

No, we just want you to go away so that you dont derail our threads with a bunch of spam.

[ant1999e]

What's the matter, spam monkey?



LOL That's funny **** coming from the queen of spam.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, we just want you to go away so that you dont derail our threads with a bunch of spam.

Notice how McSpammer always uses the "royal we?"

This sort of bandwagon appeal is invariably a cover-up for the fact that he knows his position is weak.

[ant1999e]

No, we just want you to go away so that you dont derail our threads with a bunch of spam.

But that's what she does. Any post that defames her messiah she hijacks it so other posters will see all her bull****, move on and will miss the point of the thread. Distract and detract.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But that's what she does. Any post that defames her messiah she hijacks it so other posters will see all her bull****, move on and will miss the point of the thread. Distract and detract.

Does the RNC provide you with a set of canned responses like this one that you can use when you don't have an actual rebuttal?

[ant1999e]

Does the RNC provide you with a set of canned responses like this one that you can use when you don't have an actual rebuttal?

Damn, you caught me.

[shakenbake]

In one thread he rips Goldman Sachs. In another he completely ignores that obama just appointed one of their advisors...again

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In one thread he rips Goldman Sachs. In another he completely ignores that obama just appointed one of their advisors...again

Where have you been?

I have objected to Obama's appointment of clowns like this guy since day one.

I guess you wouldn't know this inasmuch as you're one of those Bush cheerleaders who more or less disappeared from this forum after GeeDubya jumped the shark.

[epicSocialism4tw]

In one thread he rips Goldman Sachs. In another he completely ignores that obama just appointed one of their advisors...again

Dudes a puppet.

There's no way he can believe the junk that he's selling here.

[Obushma]

Where have you been?

I have objected to Obama's appointment of clowns like this guy since day one.

Link please?

You're a clown, a joke.

[barryr]

In one thread he rips Goldman Sachs. In another he completely ignores that obama just appointed one of their advisors...again

Yep, his supposed disagreeing with Obama are quite tame when compared to his usual ramblings. He fools no one. He'll vote for Obama no matter what he does and lies he tells.

Obama only likes the CEO's and companies who give money to the DNC. Otherwise, he and his admin. will state how greedy they are and how bad they are for the country. That is unless they give money to him of course, then they are not a problem anymore. Yes, just the road this country needs to take.

[ant1999e]

Where have you been?

I have objected to Obama's appointment of clowns like this guy since day one.

I guess you wouldn't know this inasmuch as you're one of those Bush cheerleaders who more or less disappeared from this forum after GeeDubya jumped the shark.

So you agree with the OP? You are truly an ass clown.

[Rohirrim]

I assume the majority of the U.S. government is working for Goldman Sachs. There were just as many of these crooks, if not more, in the Bush WH.

[ant1999e]

I assume the majority of the U.S. government is working for Goldman Sachs. There were just as many of these crooks, if not more, in the Bush WH.

I don't doubt this is true but Obama stated during his campain that lobbyists " will not work in my whitehouse". See post #29.
That's the problem with "We the people". We ignore this bull**** when our guy/girl is in control but do a 180 when it is the other guys. We are enabling this bull**** and probably deserve what we are getting.

[Arkie]

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis



Lenders don't make money off bad borrowers, so they may require a co-signer as a guarantee that the loan will be good. The government enabled lenders to make bad loans by allowing tax-payers to be the "co-signers."

Ron Paul warned us 7 years ago about the moral hazard of Fannie Mae and predicted correctly that it would crash.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html

One of the major government privileges granted to government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing.

[Phantom]

Lenders don't make money off bad borrowers, so they may require a co-signer as a guarantee that the loan will be good. The government enabled lenders to make bad loans by allowing tax-payers to be the "co-signers."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html

Winner ......
And not just 'enabled' - 'encouraged'.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Winner ......
And not just 'enabled' - 'encouraged'.

Wrong.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So you agree with the OP? You are truly an ass clown.

Agree with which part of the OP, moron?

[TonyR]

I assume the majority of the U.S. government is working for Goldman Sachs. There were just as many of these crooks, if not more, in the Bush WH.

Yup, it's funny how in some threads the righties are saying big business hates Obama and that's why they're funding GOP candidates so heavily, and in others (like this one) they're saying Obama is in bed with big business. Well, which is it?!?

It's also funny how they're surprised by this stuff to the point they think they have to start threads on the topic as if they've found the smoking gun, the ultimate "gotcha". As if this hasn't been the case with every administration. That doesn't make it right, but you have more credibilty and don't look like such a moronic hypocrite when you don't wait until someone you hate is in office before crying foul. Where was McStupid from 2000-2008?

[Spider]

Winner ......
And not just 'enabled' - 'encouraged'.

real convenient I had a chance to do the same thing , buy a brand new house just built in Bar Nunn wy .. I didnt do it , cause I knew I couldnt afford it ..... if more people did what I did .........Ya think ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yup, it's funny how in some threads the righties are saying big business hates Obama and that's why they're funding GOP candidates so heavily, and in others (like this one) they're saying Obama is in bed with big business. Well, which is it?!?

It's also funny how they're surprised by this stuff to the point they think they have to start threads on the topic as if they've found the smoking gun, the ultimate "gotcha". As if this hasn't been the case with every administration. That doesn't make it right, but you have more credibilty and don't look like such a moronic hypocrite when you don't wait until someone you hate is in office before crying foul. Where was McStupid from 2000-2008?

Post of the day! :thumbsup:

[cutthemdown]

Yup, it's funny how in some threads the righties are saying big business hates Obama and that's why they're funding GOP candidates so heavily, and in others (like this one) they're saying Obama is in bed with big business. Well, which is it?!?

It's also funny how they're surprised by this stuff to the point they think they have to start threads on the topic as if they've found the smoking gun, the ultimate "gotcha". As if this hasn't been the case with every administration. That doesn't make it right, but you have more credibilty and don't look like such a moronic hypocrite when you don't wait until someone you hate is in office before crying foul. Where was McStupid from 2000-2008?

It's more Obama making some efforts to try and get wall street behind him. The problem is he has to lie to do it because he said he wouldn't.

The big biz we speak of is so big no party gets 100% of it.

[ant1999e]

It's more Obama making some efforts to try and get wall street behind him. The problem is he has to lie to do it because he said he wouldn't. The big biz we speak of is so big no party gets 100% of it.

They don't seem to get it or more than likely they are ignoring the fact.

[TonyR]

The problem is he has to lie to do it because he said he wouldn't.

Again, it doesn't excuse it but it isn't like Obama is the first politician to lie. Why is anyone surprised that he's changed tack on some issues?

[ant1999e]

Again, it doesn't excuse it but it isn't like Obama is the first politician to lie. Why is anyone surprised that he's changed tack on some issues?

What happened to "Change we can believe in"?

[Obushma]

Again, it doesn't excuse it but it isn't like Obama is the first politician to lie. Why is anyone surprised that he's changed tack on some issues?

He's a two face lying bastard, this isn't the first time.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RnCj7uDcEhk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RnCj7uDcEhk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[orinjkrush]

the appointment of NSAdvisors has been laughable for the last 15 years or so. Clinton's Sandy Berger got caught with TS material in his underwear, trying to steal it from the national archives. these yoyos are politicos not national security experts. it probably makes sense to have a GoldmanSucks alumni as O's NSA since our number one national security threat is our frickin economic mess. China will rule us through our foreign debt not through combat arms.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I don't doubt this is true but Obama stated during his campain that lobbyists " will not work in my whitehouse". See post #29.
That's the problem with "We the people". We ignore this bull**** when our guy/girl is in control but do a 180 when it is the other guys. We are enabling this bull**** and probably deserve what we are getting.

Amen.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Clinton's Sandy Berger got caught with TS material in his underwear, trying to steal it from the national archives.

It was a mistake.

It was never established that he was 'trying to steal' anything.

[ant1999e]

It was a mistake.

It was never established that he was 'trying to steal' anything.

Well duh. I always walk around with TS documents stuffed down my pants. Don't we all?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HWf8p84DCvA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HWf8p84DCvA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well duh. I always walk around with TS documents stuffed down my pants. Don't we all?


You're a liar. tsk tsk

The Berger associate authorized to speak with reporters described the chronology the former national security chief gave to the Justice Department in his negotiations with the Justice Department. On Sept. 2, 2003, the associate said, Berger put a copy of the Clarke report in his suit jacket. He did not put it in his socks or underwear, as was alleged by some Republicans last summer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

[ant1999e]

You're a liar. tsk tsk

Trust me. What I have stuffed down my pants is definitely TS.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Trust me. What I have stuffed down my pants is definitely TS.

TMI... :alghh:

[ant1999e]

It was a mistake.

It was never established that he was 'trying to steal' anything.

You're a liar.notsofast

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper

By John F. Harris and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01

Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.

Berger's plea agreement, which was described yesterday by his advisers and was confirmed by Justice Department officials, will have one of former president Bill Clinton's most influential advisers and one of the Democratic Party's leading foreign policy advisers in a federal court this afternoon.

cont...

[ant1999e]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger

Unauthorized removal of classified material

The National Archives building in Washington, DCOn July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission, by stuffing them down his pants. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke, covering internal assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003.[16]

After a long investigation, Justice Department prosecutors determined that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.[17] Berger eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on April 1, 2005. Berger was fined $50,000 [18], sentenced to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and stripped of his security clearance for 3 years.[19] The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals. But the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.” [20]

On December 20, 2006, Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that Berger took a break to go outside without an escort. "In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)." Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.[21][22]

On May 17, 2007, Berger relinquished his license to practice law as a result of the Justice Department investigation. Saying, "I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license." He added that, "While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize." By giving up his license, Berger avoided cross-examinination by the Bar Counsel regarding details of his thefts.[23]

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're a liar.notsofast



Not at all.

If you recall, he said initially that it was a mistake.

He later plead guilty because he couldn't prove this.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission, by stuffing them down his pants.

"Investigating" is the key word here.

It was never established that he stuffed the copies down his pants (which was your original claim.)

[ant1999e]

"Investigating" is the key word here.

It was never established that he stuffed the copies down his pants (which was your original claim.)

Someone else claimed that. I was being sarcastic.

[ant1999e]

Not at all.

If you recall, he said initially that it was a mistake.

He later plead guilty because he couldn't prove this.

So, he mistakenly took four TS documents and put them somewhere on his person. Then he forgot he had them. So then, he takes an unescorted break and hides the documents under a trailer only to come back later to take them to his office. Yeah, I see how it could have been a mistake.(sarcasm)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So, he mistakenly took four TS documents and put them somewhere on his person. Then he forgot he had them. So then, he takes an unescorted break and hides the documents under a trailer only to come back later to take them to his office. Yeah, I see how it could have been a mistake.(sarcasm)

He said it was a mistake.

It could be that once he realized his mistake, then instead of doing the right thing and returning the copies, he tried to cover up what he had done.

[ant1999e]

He said it was a mistake.

It could be that once he realized his mistake, then instead of doing the right thing and returning the copies, he tried to cover up what he had done.

Yeah, that makes sense.Uhh::)

[orinjkrush]

THE national security advisor made a mistake by placing classified material under a trailer? or in his pants? or up his nose? or in his briefcase?

FAIL. by the way. Caspar Weinberger did the same frickin thing on his laptop at home.

FAIL. who hires these bozos anyway?

[barryr]

Only foolish liberals can honestly believe someone makes an "honest mistake" by stuffing documents in your pants. They believe Bush lied about Iraq, which then means so did a half dozen countries, but Berger made an honest mistake. These are the beliefs of adults only in body, not of mind.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Only foolish liberals can honestly believe someone makes an "honest mistake" by stuffing documents in your pants.

He didn't stuff them in his pants, dummy! :wave:

[Spider]

He didn't stuff them in his pants, dummy! :wave:

LOL it is Barry , he is lucky enough to just post , much less make sense or understand anything that is going on

[ant1999e]

He didn't stuff them in his pants, dummy! :wave:

Notice how LABF will pick one small detail out of the situation and argu that but ignore the main point.

He stole TS documents dummy! It doesn't matter if he stuffed them up his ass, he admitted to taking them.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Notice how LABF will pick one small detail out of the situation and argu that but ignore the main point.

That "small detail," i.e. your fib about how he stuffed documents in his pants, was what started this whole conversation.

He stole TS documents dummy! It doesn't matter if he stuffed them up his ass, he admitted to taking them.

Um, no, dumb ass - he admitted to taking them, but he claimed it was by mistake.

[ant1999e]

That "small detail," i.e. your fib about how he stuffed documents in his pants, was what started this whole conversation.
That wasn't my fib. That ****'s all over the internet.

Um, no, dumb ass - he admitted to taking them, but he claimed it was by mistake.

Oh, I forgot. It was a mistake. But then why did he hide them under the trailer? Why did he put them in his pocket or up his ass or wherever he put them at? Why not just apologize and give them back.

There's protocol for handling TS documents. I know putting them in your pocket is not protocol.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That wasn't my fib. That ****'s all over the internet.

But you repeated it.



Oh, I forgot. It was a mistake. But then why did he hide them under the trailer? Why did he put them in his pocket or up his ass or wherever he put them at? Why not just apologize and give them back.

There's protocol for handling TS documents. I know putting them in your pocket is not protocol.

Yep - he should have just apologized and returned them.

In any event, he was prosecuted, found guilty, and punished.

Can you imagine if it had been Bush's NSA?

The whole mess would have bounced off them like they were made of Teflon.

[ant1999e]

Yep - he should have just apologized and returned them.

In any event, he was prosecuted, found guilty, and punished.

Can you imagine if it had been Bush's NSA?

The whole mess would have bounced off them like they were made of Teflon.

I think that's pretty much what happened here. If I mistakenly took TS documents from work, I'd loose my TS clearance and probably court martialed.

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001647.php

April 01, 2005
A Punishment that Fits the Crime?

Posted by Bill
I try to spare my reserves of outrage for worthy topics, and this one might just qualify:

Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.
...
The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.
He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent."

Under terms negotiated by Berger's attorneys and the Justice Department, he has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance. These terms must be accepted by a judge before they are final, but Berger's associates said yesterday he believes that closure is near on what has been an embarrassing episode during which he repeatedly misled people about what happened during two visits to the National Archives in September and October 2003.
...
The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.


So, let me get this straight: Sandy Berger intentionally destroyed the only copies of top secret documents about this country's historical knowledge of looming terrorism threats for clearly political purposes, even though a bipartisan Congressional commission was requesting and utilizing all such documents in an effort to formulate recommendations about how to protect America from another terrorist attack.

In my world, that's not a "$10,000 fine ... three-year suspension of his national security clearance" offense, it's in the parking lot of the ballpark of treason. Former NSA or not, this man should suffer a permanent revocation of any security clearance, and probably sample the cuisine at a federal prison.

Jim Geraghty has more, as does Powerline:

Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger got away with a criminal cover-up today when he pled guilty to a misdemeanor in connection with his theft of sensitive documents from the National Archives.
It is undisputed that Berger illegally stuffed original documents relating to America's response to the threat of Islamic terrorism into his coat, pants and briefcase. Berger then destroyed a number of these top-secret documents, so that they will never see the light of day.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think that's pretty much what happened here. If I mistakenly took TS documents from work, I'd loose my TS clearance and probably court martialed.


Maybe, but at least there was some sort of accountability and punishment.

Bush's NSA perjured herself in her testimony to the 9/11 Commission and walked away clean.

[barryr]

LOL it is Barry , he is lucky enough to just post , much less make sense or understand anything that is going on

Says toothless dumbass LOL

[barryr]

He didn't stuff them in his pants, dummy! :wave:

Oh, he put them up his butt, like you would do cartoon boy? LOL

[epicSocialism4tw]

Oh, he put them up his butt, like you would do cartoon boy? LOL

I wonder if he has a cartoon of that? Hilarious!

[barryr]

I wonder if he has a cartoon of that? Hilarious!

LOL, he is a cartoon himself, so I'm sure he does.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wonder if he has a cartoon of that? Hilarious!

You and barryr are waiting for that one with a big bottle of Jergens and a box of Kleenex, no doubt.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You and barryr are waiting for that one with a big bottle of Jergens and a box of Kleenex, no doubt.

Another homophobic take from another leftist homophobe.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Another homophobic take from another leftist homophobe.

Homophobic?

Where did I say there was anything wrong with your "preference?"

I just noted the fact that you were asking for pictures of a dude stuffing something down his pants.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Homophobic?

Where did I say there was anything wrong with your "preference?"

I just noted the fact that you were asking for pictures of a dude stuffing something down his pants.

Don't get mad when someone calls you out for your homophobia.

This isnt the first time you have made derogatory references toward gays.