United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Obama to Wall Street: ‘Join Us, Instead of Fighting Us’
Source:
NY Times
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/b ... ss/economy/23obama.html?src=mv
Published: Apr 22, 2010
Author: PETER BAKER
Post Date: 2010-04-22 14:13:16 by WhiteSands
Keywords: wall street, NYC Rape of nation and planet, new yorkers
Views: 1070
Comments: 83
By PETER BAKER President Obama challenged some of the nation’s most influential bankers on Thursday to call off their “battalions of financial industry lobbyists” and embrace a new regulatory structure meant to avert another economic crisis. Speaking in the bankers’ backyard, at the Cooper Union in Manhattan, Mr. Obama castigated a “failure of responsibility” by Wall Street for having led to the financial crisis of 2008, and he pressed his case for what he called “a common-sense, reasonable, non-ideological” system of tighter regulation to prevent any recurrence. He took issue with the claim that his proposal would institutionalize the idea of future bailouts of huge banks. “That may make for a good sound bite, but it’s not factually accurate,” Mr. Obama said. “It is not true. In fact, the system as it stands is what led to a series of massive, costly taxpayer bailouts. And it’s only with reform that we can we avoid a similar outcome in the future. In other words, a vote for reform is a vote to put a stop to taxpayer-funded bailouts. That’s the truth. End of story.” He said scrupulous business leaders had no reason to resist his regulation plan. “The only people who ought to fear the kind of oversight and transparency that we’re proposing are those whose conduct will fail this scrutiny,” he said. Among those on hand were some of the city’s prominent bankers, including Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive, and Gary Cohn, the chief operating officer, of Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street giant accused by the federal government last week of defrauding investors during the crisis. Also on hand were top executives from JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Barclays and Bank of America, as well as Gov. David A. Paterson, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has expressed concern about the regulation plan and its impact on New York. The president’s calls to empower consumers and rein in risky trading were met with both cheers and whistles from the audience, which included students, faculty and union leaders. But his trip was also met with some skepticism and outright opposition. The New York Post ran a front-page editorial under the banner headline, “Dear Mr. President, Don’t Kill the Golden Goose: City Economy Imperiled in the Name of ‘Reform.’ ” The United States Chamber of Commerce took out full-page ads in New York papers addressing the president: “Mayor Bloomberg has pointed out that beating up on Wall Street may be good short-term politics — but not if it gets in the way of the right solutions.” Republican operatives from Washington said the president was playing politics and ignoring what they said were some of the real culprits, the government-backed mortgage housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, accusing Democrats of blocking reforms that would have prevented problems. “How many times will President Barack Obama mention Fannie/Freddie in his speech on ‘reform’?” Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Representative Eric I. Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, said in an e-mail message to reporters. “Zero. Not once. Guess it remains the Democrats’ dirty little secret.” In traveling to New York, the president laid out the elements he insists on being in any legislation sent to him for his signature. Among them are more consumer protections, limits on the size of banks and the risks they can take, reforms on executive compensation and greater transparency for controversial securities known as derivatives. He registered his grievance with what he called the “misleading arguments and attacks” on his plan by industry lobbyists, and called on industry leaders to drop their opposition. “I am sure that some of those lobbyists work for you, and they’re doing what they’re paid to do,” he said. “But I am here today specifically when I speak to titans of industry here because I want to urge you to join us, instead of fighting us in this effort. I am here because I believe that these reforms are, in the end, not only in the best interest of our country, but in the best interest of our financial sector.” He added: “We will not always see eye to eye. We will not always agree. But that does not mean that we’ve got to choose between two extremes. We do not have to choose between markets that are unfettered by even modest protections against crisis, or markets that are stymied by onerous rules that suppress enterprise and innovation. That is a false choice.” The fight to impose tougher regulation on the financial industry has become the president’s top legislative priority in the weeks since he signed his health care program into law and both parties are jockeying for position on the issue with midterm elections just six months away. The president and his allies have eagerly portrayed Republicans as handmaidens of Wall Street while the Republicans have accused Democrats of trying to strangle the market and even institutionalize the idea of bailouts in tough times. The partisan tension appeared to ease somewhat as both sides predicted an eventual bipartisan compromise. A Senate committee on Wednesday sent to the floor a bill imposing tougher rules on derivatives, the complex securities at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis, and one Republican senator joined Democrats in advancing the legislation. In an interview with CNBC and The New York Times on Wednesday and in the speech Thursday, Mr. Obama avoided attacking Republicans directly, suggesting he was angling for a deal. But he still included tough talk about the industry that he accused of putting profit ahead of propriety. The president’s address circled back to another speech he gave at the same location in March 2008 warning of financial manipulation, market bubbles and the concentration of economic power. He repeated some of the same lines he gave two years ago and cast himself as a prescient forecaster before the collapse later that year. “I take no satisfaction in noting that my comments then have largely been borne out by the events that followed,” he said. “But I repeat what I said then because it is essential that we learn the lessons from this crisis, so we don’t doom ourselves to repeat it. And make no mistake. That is exactly what will happen if we allow this moment to pass — and that is an outcome that is unacceptable to me and it is unacceptable to you, the American people.” Mr. Obama embraced both the financial regulation bill passed by the House last year and the version emerging in the Senate. Mr. Obama laid out five elements that “must be included” in the final bill: ¶Instituting a system to shut down large financial firms that begin to fail “with the least amount of collateral damage to innocent people and businesses.” ¶Imposing the so-called Volcker Rule, named after Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman who proposed limits on the freewheeling trading and risks taken by banks. ¶Setting new transparency rules for derivatives and other complex securities, to “respect legitimate activities but prevent reckless risk-taking.” ¶Assuring “strong consumer financial protections” by providing consumers with better information about financial products. ¶Allowing investors and pension holders a vote on executive pay packages and giving the Securities and Exchange Commission greater oversight over corporate elections.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
----------------------------------------------------------- You just shake your head at the idea the guy thats created the largest deficits in history in his first six months in office lecturing this particular audience about 'responsiblity' let alone ethics. The fact Owe-bama won't even address Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae being at the center of the economic meltdown is so very very telling. As is the fact his AG hasn't initiated a criminal investigation into either entity, let alone Goldman Sachs.
I can see NOVEMBER from my House....
Chuckles...yea...you have me on filter... FNMA and FM do not lend money, Boofer. They purchase BANK issued mortgages. The financial meltdown was caused by private lending and the over leveraging of the asset securitization of that private lending. Take the top 30 sub prime lenders prior to 2006 which is considered the Ground Zero of the crisis...of those 30...only one was a bank which means only one was subject to CRA and only one could package loans to FNMA and FM.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Where did Badeye write that FNMA and FM lend money?
----------------------------------------------------------- The financial crisis was caused by loan portfolio failure. The first conduit that failed in 2007 missed its payment because the loan portfolio backing it had a default rate approaching 20%. BTW, the fact that you challenged me on that point underscores you're just as stupid as Boofer is.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Where did B.E write that FNMA and FM lend money?
----------------------------------------------------------- When he incorrectly claimed that they caused the financial meltdown.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
He's still making shit up and attributing? As I've noted, why bother reading him? Its not like he's posted anything new in over a decade.
I can see NOVEMBER from my House....
What have you posted "new" within the last decade Boof?
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Fannie Mae has no standards for portfolios?
----------------------------------------------------------- FNMA bought/buys loans from US chartered banks only. The financial crisis was caused by non traditional read sub prime non bank lending. The fact is. FNMA's "loan" portfolio outperformed the general mortgage market all during the crisis.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
The loan performance on Fannie's book of business is substantially better than the overall mortgage market. And starting in 2002, Fannie Freddie (pink line) lost market share to ABS (light blue line). The data underlying the graph is from the Federal Reserve, Table 1173. Mortgage Debt Outstanding by Type of Property and Holder: #67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
FNMA bought loans made to borrowers with credit problems, and lobbied Congress for more of them.
----------------------------------------------------------- "OFHEO director Armando Falcon Jr. persuaded the White House to pay for an outside accountant to review the books of Fannie Mae. The agency reported in September 2004 that Fannie Mae also had manipulated its accounting, in this case to inflate its profits." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302638_pf.html
----------------------------------------------------------- Nope. You're confusing loans made under CRA with bad credit. Not all CRA loans were sub prime loans. Technically, any loan that was made from an area designated CRA eligible was considered a CRA loan.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Yea so? Different issue...
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Who asked for and got The American Dream Downpayment Act?
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
A 200 million dollar program. It only assisted borrowers with down payments; it was not a program to give borrowers who couldn't afford to make payments loans.
Denial isn't just a river running between the space between your ears: -- “The carrot offered was that these high-risk loans would be purchased by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have known that this was a prescription for disaster but there was a congressional chorus of denial,” he added. “The financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a failure of the free market because lending institutions in a free market would not have taken on the high-risk loans,” said Williams. “They were forced to by the heavy hand of government.” During Geithner’s Senate testimony, he admitted that both Fannie and Freddie played a central role in the financial crisis, telling Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) that the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSE) were a “core part” of the country’s financial woes. “Absolutely,” Geithner said. “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.”
"The companies had begun buying loans made to borrowers with credit problems." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302638.html "In 1995, the regulators created new rules that sought to establish objective criteria for determining whether a bank was meeting CRA standards. Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified buyers wasn’t enough. Banks now had to show that they had actually made a requisite number of loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers. The new regulations also required the use of “innovative or flexible” lending practices to address credit needs of LMI borrowers and neighborhoods. Thus, a law that was originally intended to encourage banks to use safe and sound practices in lending now required them to be “innovative” and “flexible.” In other words, it called for the relaxation of lending standards, and it was the bank regulators who were expected to enforce these relaxed standards. The effort to reduce mortgage lending standards was led by the Department of Housing and Urban Development through the 1994 National Homeownership Strategy, published at the request of President Clinton. Among other things, it called for “financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home or to make the payments.” Once the standards were relaxed for low-income borrowers, it would seem impossible to deny these benefits to the prime market. Indeed, bank regulators, who were in charge of enforcing CRA standards, could hardly disapprove of similar loans made to better-qualified borrowers." http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan
----------------------------------------------------------- (chuckle) Remember you are trying to have a rational discussion with a clown that asserts Oswald of JFK infamy was a 'rightwinger'....
I can see NOVEMBER from my House....
What has this to do with your position that FNMA did not buy loans made to borrowers with credit problems?
----------------------------------------------------------- Yea so? You are simply regurgitating information without offering any analysis. Show me where the CRA and subprime portion of FNMA and FM's mortgage portfolio a) underperformed and b) caused the financial crisis. You cannot. I've already shown you that their portfolios actually performed better and I'm about to show you that the CRA had zip to do with the financial crisis: Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? Two Federal Reserve economists examine whether available data support critics' claims that the Community Reinvestment Act spawned the subprime mortgage crisis. Neil Bhutta - Economist As the current financial crisis has unfolded, an argument that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is at its root has gained a foothold. This argument draws on the fact that the CRA encourages commercial banks and savings institutions (collectively known as banking institutions) to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods.1/ Critics of the CRA contend that the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending. This article discusses key features of the CRA and presents results from our analysis of several data sources regarding the volume and performance of CRA-related mortgage lending. On balance, the evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA lies at the root of the current mortgage crisis. Assessing banks in context The CRA directs federal banking regulatory agencies, including the Federal Reserve, to use their supervisory authority to encourage banking institutions to help meet the credit needs of all segments of their local communities. These communities, referred to hereafter as CRA assessment areas, are defined as the areas where banking institutions have a physical branch office presence and take deposits, including low- and moderate-income areas. The banking agencies periodically assess the performance of banking institutions in serving their local communities, including their patterns of lending to lower-income households and neighborhoods, and take the assessments into consideration when reviewing the institutions' applications for mergers, acquisitions, and branches. The CRA emphasizes that banking institutions fulfill their CRA obligations within the framework of safe and sound operation. CRA performance evaluations have become more quantitative since 1995, when regulatory changes were enacted that stress actual performance rather than documented efforts to serve a community's credit needs. However, the CRA does not stipulate minimum targets or even goals for the volume of loans, services, or investments banking institutions must provide. While it is fair to say that the primary focus of CRA evaluations is the number and dollar amount of loans to lower-income borrowers or areas, the agencies instruct examiners to judge banks' performance in light of 1) each institution's capacity to extend credit to lower-income groups and 2) the local economic and market conditions that might affect the income and geographic distribution of lending. Timing and originations Before we turn to our analysis of CRA lending data, we have two important points to note regarding the CRA and its possible connection to the current mortgage crisis. The first point is a matter of timing. The current crisis is rooted in the poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007. If the CRA did indeed spur the recent expansion of the subprime mortgage market and subsequent turmoil, it would be reasonable to assume that some change in the enforcement regime in 2004 or 2005 triggered a relaxation of underwriting standards by CRA-covered lenders for loans originated in the past few years. However, the CRA rules and enforcement process have not changed substantively since 1995.2/ This fact weakens the potential link between the CRA and the current mortgage crisis. Our second point is a matter of the originating entity. When considering the potential role of the CRA in the current mortgage crisis, it is important to account for the originating party. In particular, independent nonbank lenders, such as mortgage and finance companies and credit unions, originate a substantial share of subprime mortgages, but they are not subject to CRA regulation and, hence, are not directly influenced by CRA obligations. (We explore subprime mortgage originations in further detail below.) The CRA may directly affect nonbank subsidiaries or affiliates of banking institutions. Banking institutions can elect to have their subsidiary or affiliate lending activity counted in CRA performance evaluations. If the banking institution elects to include affiliate activity, it cannot be done selectively. For example, the institution cannot "cherry pick" loans that would be favorably considered under the law while ignoring loans to middle- or higher-income borrowers. In the next section, we discuss the data analysis we undertook to assess the merits of the claims that the CRA was a principal cause of the current mortgage market difficulties. The analysis focuses on two basic questions. First, what share of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA? Second, how have CRA-related subprime loans performed relative to other loans? We believe the answers to these two questions will shed light on the role of the CRA in the subprime crisis. CRA-related lending volume and distribution In analyzing the available data, we consider two distinct metrics of lending activity: loan origination activity and loan performance. With respect to the first question posed above concerning loan originations, we determine which types of lending institutions made higher-priced loans, to whom those loans were made, and in what types of neighborhoods the loans were extended.3/ This analysis therefore depicts the fraction of subprime mortgage lending that could be related to the CRA.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Using loan origination data obtained pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), we find that in 2005 and 2006, independent nonbank institutions—institutions not covered by the CRA—accounted for about half of all subprime originations. (See Table 1.) Also, about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, populations not targeted by the CRA. (See Table 2.) In addition, independent nonbank institutions originated nearly half of the higher-priced loans extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas (share derived from Table 2). In total, of all the higher-priced loans, only 6 percent were extended by CRA-regulated lenders (and their affiliates) to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA assessment areas, which are the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. The small share of subprime lending in 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have played a substantial role in the subprime crisis.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Fannie Mae Securities Litigation The Fannie Mae Securities Litigation involves a massive accounting fraud that spans a four year period. The action is pending before the Honorable Richard J. Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendants are the Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA” or “Fannie Mae”), three senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”), and Fannie Mae’s outside auditor, KPMG LLP. Plaintiffs allege that during the period April 17, 2001 through and including September 27, 2005 (the “Class Period”) Fannie Mae and its three most senior corporate officers intentionally misapplied accounting rules and engaged in other misconduct to distort financial results, “smooth out” earnings, reduce income statement volatility, and to maximize the Individual Defendants’ compensation. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendant KPMG issued materially false and misleading audit reports in which the auditor certified Fannie Mae’s financial results and violated generally accepted auditing standards. Fannie Mae’s and KPMG’s false and misleading statements combined to cause Fannie Mae’s stock price to be artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.
----------------------------------------------------------- That's an odd name. Is that your final answer? Well. it's incorrect. The correct answer is that it was Boofer's hero, Boy Blunder who asked for it.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
What do their accounting issues have to do with anything? Nothing.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
You once claimed that if you were to investigate JFK's murder you would find out where every international assassin was on that day.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Nothing. Really. FNMA buying bad loans and reporting, "all is well", had no impact?
----------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for admitting you did not read my posts. Come back when you're up to speed and can ask an intelligent question. Thanks.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Really. FNMA buying bad loans and reporting, "all is well", had no impact?
----------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for admitting you did not read my posts. Come back when you're up to speed and can ask an intelligent question. Thanks.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Do you feel that Madoff misrepresenting earnings had an effect on investors?
----------------------------------------------------------- "What do their accounting issues have to do with anything? " Wow.
----------------------------------------------------------- Told ya.
I can see NOVEMBER from my House....
"What do their [ Fannie Mae ] accounting issues [ faked earnings reports ] have to do with anything [ The Mortgage crises] ? " war
----------------------------------------------------------- Told me what?
----------------------------------------------------------- Do you feel that apples taste like oranges? You are so far out of your element. Madoff simply took the money and spent it and sent out false statements saying that it was invested. FNMA's accounting issues ended in 2004. Detailed analysis of the financial crisis have found that it was precipitated by loans originated and assets securitized between 2005 and 2007.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
That is a question that you have yet to answer.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
You know you're doing good when badeye's cheering you on.
Undoubtedly you've obvious refuse to read the link Bill D Berger posted regard 9/11 ... Luberator
Comments (41 - 83) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestMr. Obama castigated a “failure of responsibility” by Wall Street for having led to the financial crisis of 2008
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#2. To: WhiteSands (#0)
#3. To: Badeye (#2)
(Edited)
The fact Owe-bama won't even address Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae being at the center of the economic meltdown is so very very telling.
#4. To: war, Badeye (#3)
(Edited)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#5. To: WhiteSands (#4)
Where did B.E write that FNMA and FM lend money?
#6. To: war (#5)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#7. To: WhiteSands (#6)
#8. To: WhiteSands (#4)
#9. To: Badeye (#8)
#10. To: war (#7)
The financial crisis was caused by loan portfolio failure.
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#11. To: WhiteSands (#10)
(Edited)
#12. To: WhiteSands (#10)
(Edited)
#13. To: war (#11)
The financial crisis was caused by non traditional read sub prime non bank lending.
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#14. To: war (#12)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#15. To: WhiteSands (#13)
(Edited)
FNMA bought loans made to borrowers with credit problems
#16. To: WhiteSands (#14)
#17. To: WhiteSands (#13)
#18. To: war (#17)
#19. To: war (#3)
The financial meltdown was caused by private lending
#20. To: war (#15)
Nope.
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#21. To: WhiteSands (#20)
(Edited)
#22. To: war (#17)
Who asked for and got The American Dream Downpayment Act?
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#23. To: WhiteSands (#20)
(Edited)
Glenn B. Canner - Economist
March 2009
#24. To: WhiteSands (#22)
#25. To: war (#23)
I've already shown you that their portfolios actually performed better
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#26. To: WhiteSands (#22)
What has this to do with your position that FNMA did not buy loans made to borrowers with credit problems?
#27. To: WhiteSands (#25)
#28. To: Badeye (#21)
(Edited)
#29. To: war (#27)
What do their accounting issues have to do with anything?
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#30. To: WhiteSands (#29)
#31. To: war (#30)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#32. To: WhiteSands (#31)
#33. To: war (#32)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#34. To: war (#28)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#35. To: WhiteSands (#34)
#36. To: All (#34)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#37. To: Badeye (#35)
Told ya.
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#38. To: WhiteSands (#33)
(Edited)
#39. To: WhiteSands (#36)
#40. To: BadSands (#35)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]