Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spend $640 on "lavish" conference

Dec 2, 2011 Full story: 92.5 KGB-FM 140

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent over half a million dollars to send 100 employees, that's $6,400 per person, to a "lavish" conference in Chicago.

Full Story
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

“"Beau-Se'ant”

Since: Jan 09

Manchester

#126 Dec 5, 2011
ZIAmouth585 wrote:
<quoted text>
I watched your YouTube link. I'm familiar with its content so nothing new.
So please explain how the Republicans who were in control of Congress and the two committees charged with oversight of the GSEs could do nothing because of a few Dems speaking in defense of the GSEs. The Senate Banking,Housing, Urban Affairs committee, 11 Republicans/10Democrats, chaired by a Republican. The House Financial Services committee, 38 Republicans, 32 Democrats, 1 Independent, chaired by a Republican. The ball was in the court of the Republicans, not the Dems. What action did they take?
Man, that's weak. You'll have to do better than that.
Here, more:
John McCain ( R ) Arizona, the full text of his letter to G.W.Bush warning of the impending issues and need for regulatory reform at Fannie Mae:
http://uppitywoman08.wordpress.com/2008/09/21...
And, George W. Bush, warning Congress about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac no less than 17 times in 2008:

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-w...

I deal in facts, not hyperpartisan bullsh!t from the left.
ZIAmouth585

Rio Rancho, NM

#127 Dec 5, 2011
The Last Templar wrote:
<quoted text>
Man, that's weak. You'll have to do better than that.
Here, more:
John McCain ( R ) Arizona, the full text of his letter to G.W.Bush warning of the impending issues and need for regulatory reform at Fannie Mae:
http://uppitywoman08.wordpress.com/2008/09/21...
And, George W. Bush, warning Congress about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac no less than 17 times in 2008:
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-w...
I deal in facts, not hyperpartisan bullsh!t from the left.
Not in the time period in which the conversation was taking place meaning 2003/2004 when the hearings first started. Republicans did nada. Later on they did submit some legislation though.

You refer to "warnings". Warnings and actions are two different animals. Regardless, the Republicans had control of Congress until January 2007. If you want a complete layout of what happened this is it. Its the only source I can find that talks about the actions taken. http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/18/repu...
In order to complete the picture you have to read through the arguments within the comments.
The Republicans have done a great job keeping themselves out of the blame game although its clear, they did little, but talk.

“"Beau-Se'ant”

Since: Jan 09

Manchester

#128 Dec 5, 2011
ZIAmouth585 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in the time period in which the conversation was taking place meaning 2003/2004 when the hearings first started. Republicans did nada. Later on they did submit some legislation though.
You refer to "warnings". Warnings and actions are two different animals. Regardless, the Republicans had control of Congress until January 2007. If you want a complete layout of what happened this is it. Its the only source I can find that talks about the actions taken. http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/18/repu...
In order to complete the picture you have to read through the arguments within the comments.
The Republicans have done a great job keeping themselves out of the blame game although its clear, they did little, but talk.
Again, so weak. This is what liberal nitwit shills like you do.. lie, parse, obfuscate.
As if that works. As if the entire universe didn't understand completely that Fannie and Freddie were contrived and perpetuated by the liberal elites.
ZIAmouth585

Rio Rancho, NM

#129 Dec 5, 2011
sandman21 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an interesting read but what I get from it is that most non banking institutions in the end are financed by banks that do have to adhere to federal guidelines.
This is also a quick read from the CATO institute that indicates Fan and Fred played a big role in the mess.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php...
CATO is a conservative leaning organization but I went ahead and looked at the paper. Although I didn't read it, I did scan it. One thing I found very interesting was FreddieMac. It really didn't get involved until 2003 in buying up more risky loans. Also, the paper talks about the increasing goals placed on the GSEs to meet affordable housing goals. Who sets the goals - the Secretary of HUD. Question is, why did HUD continue to increase goals despite warnings of potential problems. I'm specifically pointing at the Republican HUD secretary given it was one tool the Bush administration had to decrease risk.
ZIAmouth585

Rio Rancho, NM

#130 Dec 5, 2011
The Last Templar wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, so weak. This is what liberal nitwit shills like you do.. lie, parse, obfuscate.
As if that works. As if the entire universe didn't understand completely that Fannie and Freddie were contrived and perpetuated by the liberal elites.
Guy, its you who doesn't get it. I've provided specific details and have asked the question repeatedly reference the Republican control of Congress and the all important banking oversight committees. I see lots of talk but little action. You point out that it was brought up 17 times. Yeah, I've seen that number floated around but my question is,what action was taken to turn talk into policy action? Talk is cheap, action is difficult.

What lie or lies did I tell? Be specific.

I just finished looking at a CATO paper (conservative leaning organization) about the GSEs. I took away two key points. One, that FreddieMac was a late player to the game and that the Secretary of HUD under Bush did nothing to reduce risk of the GSEs in regards to reducing their affordable housing numbers. The Sec of HUD decides what those goals should be and puts pressure on the GSEs to meet them. So we have a Republican HUD asking for higher numbers, interesting.

“Liberal Teachers ruin Kids”

Since: Mar 09

Paradise Valley Arizona

#131 Dec 5, 2011
ZIAmouth585 wrote:
<quoted text>
Really Vance, then explain to me about the spending ways of Republicans. Reagan took the national debt from less than $1 trillion to $2.7 trillion, daddy Bush added $1.5 trillion and W Bush added $5 trillion. Over $8 trillion of national debt run up by three Republican presidents. So tell me again, who spends?
So get this!

Seattle welfare recipient lives in million-dollar home
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/seattle-...

She voted Obama
Tony

Broken Arrow, OK

#132 Dec 5, 2011
Vance1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So get this!
Seattle welfare recipient lives in million-dollar home
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/seattle-...
She voted Obama
No arrests have been made so no crime has been committed. So what is your point. They are Republicans and voted for Bush and then for McCain.
ZIAmouth585

Rio Rancho, NM

#133 Dec 5, 2011
Vance1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So get this!
Seattle welfare recipient lives in million-dollar home
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/seattle-...
She voted Obama
Yeah, so what. At least you know one person who did. I didn't.

Criminals come in all shapes, sizes and political sides. As far as I'm concerned they're all criminals and need to be locked away. Political thinking or voting history be damned.
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#134 Dec 5, 2011
ZIAmouth585 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, so the 1993 tax increase was no factor? Combined with the tech boom it was very much a factor.
While Congress does have the power to spend its often done in a give and take manner with the executive branch given it takes both.
No it was not because clinton played give and take, if it had been up to him it would not have happened. The biggest factor was a booming economy which Clinton did not cause, second was spending cuts which clinton did not cause and third the tax increase leveraged the extra revenue coming in because of the boom.

But none of this really matters when you look at our current problem. Nothing short of large spending cuts will help attack our sovereign debt problems. You can have any kind of tax increase you want but the math won't work.
Ayreshire

Alamogordo, NM

#136 Dec 5, 2011
ZIAmouth585 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, so what. At least you know one person who did. I didn't.
Criminals come in all shapes, sizes and political sides. As far as I'm concerned they're all criminals and need to be locked away. Political thinking or voting history be damned.
What are you doing Big Mouth?? Rating your own posts???
Ayreshire

Alamogordo, NM

#137 Dec 5, 2011
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
No it was not because clinton played give and take, if it had been up to him it would not have happened. The biggest factor was a booming economy which Clinton did not cause, second was spending cuts which clinton did not cause and third the tax increase leveraged the extra revenue coming in because of the boom.
But none of this really matters when you look at our current problem. Nothing short of large spending cuts will help attack our sovereign debt problems. You can have any kind of tax increase you want but the math won't work.
Excellent! But you'll never get the Big Zia Mouth to understand this!!
Ayreshire

Alamogordo, NM

#138 Dec 5, 2011
ZIAmouth585 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, so what. At least you know one person who did. I didn't.
Criminals come in all shapes, sizes and political sides. As far as I'm concerned they're all criminals and need to be locked away. Political thinking or voting history be damned.
I had to rate your posts they way they are supposed to be rated!!
ZIAmouth585

Rio Rancho, NM

#139 Dec 5, 2011
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
No it was not because clinton played give and take, if it had been up to him it would not have happened. The biggest factor was a booming economy which Clinton did not cause, second was spending cuts which clinton did not cause and third the tax increase leveraged the extra revenue coming in because of the boom.
But none of this really matters when you look at our current problem. Nothing short of large spending cuts will help attack our sovereign debt problems. You can have any kind of tax increase you want but the math won't work.
Clinton governed from the center. Those on the Right hate to hear that but its fact. He worked with Newt to do it and both made it work.

I would agree that Clinton did not create the tech boom. But then too Reagan would have been a one term president if it hadn't been for Carter appointee, Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. Volcker beat down inflation thus setting in motion the lowering of interest rates. Right place, right time places a big part in peoples lives. Lots of millionaire stories follow that route too.

The tech boom created the condition for an economic boom. The 1993 tax increase coupled with that boom created the revenue necessary for our country to pay its way - as it should be. Should also note Clinton raised gasoline taxes too which helped fuel highway building projects. They haven't been raised since.

Continued debt is unsustainable and drastic cuts need to be made. That means to defense, Medicare and all govt programs. Govt fees need to be raised in some cases too to make govt services self-supporting. The immigration services did this years ago under Clinton thus making drastic price changes to those seeking to become citizens and other benefits. Likewise, revenue needs to be raised. Best way to do that is to broaden the tax base (too many pay nothing) by reducing tax credits and eliminating personal deductions. The wealthy also need to pay more - back to pre-Bush rates on those making over half-million. Corporate tax rate needs to be changed too, drop it to 15% and eliminate all credits and allow only normal business expenses. America also needs to raise the gasoline tax at annual one cent increments to help get our highways back in good repair and put people back to work. Last time the gasoline tax was raised was when Clinton was in office.
ZIAmouth585

Rio Rancho, NM

#140 Dec 5, 2011
Ayreshire wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to rate your posts they way they are supposed to be rated!!
I'm not into the little color coding characters so you're welcome to color them all you want. Facts speak louder than color symbols.
Ayreshire

Alamogordo, NM

#141 Dec 5, 2011
ZIAmouth585 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not into the little color coding characters so you're welcome to color them all you want. Facts speak louder than color symbols.
Yeah Right!! And you also have some land in Albuquerque where you can see Russia!! Ha Ha Ha ha!! Furthermore, You have NOT PRUDUCED any facts what-so-ever!! Stop the nonsense!!

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#142 Dec 6, 2011
ZIAmouth585 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying the 1993 tax increase had nothing to do with bringing in additional revenue to the treasury. Clinton was the reason for the increase. He also was behind the changes to welfare and keeping military spending in check.
How did Clinton do a Tax Increase?
ZIAmouth585

Rio Rancho, NM

#143 Dec 6, 2011
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>How did Clinton do a Tax Increase?
1993 increase while Dems were still in power. Got them bounced out in 1994.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (or OBRA-93[1]) was federal law that was enacted by the 103rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It has also been referred to, unofficially, as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII, which dealt with taxes, is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

Also increased the gasoline tax.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993, increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents, bringing the total tax to 18.4 cents per gallon. The increase was entirely for deficit reduction, with none credited to the Highway Trust Fund. However, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which President Clinton approved on August 5, 1997, redirected the 4.3-cents general fund gas tax increase to the Highway Trust Fund.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#144 Dec 6, 2011
ZIAmouth585 wrote:
<quoted text>
1993 increase while Dems were still in power. Got them bounced out in 1994.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (or OBRA-93[1]) was federal law that was enacted by the 103rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It has also been referred to, unofficially, as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII, which dealt with taxes, is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.
Also increased the gasoline tax.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993, increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents, bringing the total tax to 18.4 cents per gallon. The increase was entirely for deficit reduction, with none credited to the Highway Trust Fund. However, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which President Clinton approved on August 5, 1997, redirected the 4.3-cents general fund gas tax increase to the Highway Trust Fund.
OK, so actually the liberal congress passed the bill, not Clinton.
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#145 Dec 6, 2011
Your beating the wrong horse here, if you can't go anything about spending it is hopeless to think you can get anywhere changing tax policy.

This is one place where the Republicans are right, you get the spending house in order first then we can talk about tax policy.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#146 Dec 6, 2011
Robert wrote:
Your beating the wrong horse here, if you can't go anything about spending it is hopeless to think you can get anywhere changing tax policy.
This is one place where the Republicans are right, you get the spending house in order first then we can talk about tax policy.
you nailed it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Randy Neugebauer Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Family loses one son in Iraq, the other in Afgh... (Jul '06) Aug '14 swedenforever 9
Littlefield makes plans to open facility for il... Jul '14 Impeach Obama 1
In a SNAP, Republicans turn backs on veterans (Nov '13) Nov '13 Ex NRA member 3
Fracking Texas: Water Woes Go On (Nov '13) Nov '13 Nick 1
Park rangers call Rep. Randy Neugebauer's outbu... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Brainiac of Beaco... 1
Pay Our Military Act is just a trick (Oct '13) Oct '13 alan 2
Republican Congressman Scolds Park Ranger Over ... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Conan the Congres... 2

Randy Neugebauer People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE