tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post122377883703818249..comments2024-01-04T07:21:18.243-05:00Comments on John In Carolina: Important mortgage mess info and linksUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-25131574198679395672008-10-01T13:04:00.000-04:002008-10-01T13:04:00.000-04:00smrstrauss --Thanks for doing more digging. The m...smrstrauss --<BR/><BR/>Thanks for doing more digging. The more we know of who got (gets) money from whom, the clearer understanding we'll have of politics and policy-making.<BR/><BR/>I think that (1) the amounts that OpenSecrets records Fannie Mae as contributing to the pro-Fannie Congressmen are mostly quite modest, and (2) it's notable that the Fannie skeptics also got contributions. So I <I>don't</I> view this as an instance of votes-for-money corruption. Instead, it seems likely that Raines' enablers acted as they did for ideological reasons, and the contributions followed.<BR/><BR/>But as for appearance of impropriety... why were subcommitteee members taking any such funds? And why were any taxpayer dollars spent by these GSE executives on lobbying?<BR/><BR/>- - - - -<BR/><BR/>Pat at Stubborn Facts has three worthwhile posts today. The titles are self-explanatory.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://stubbornfacts.us/corruption/accountability" REL="nofollow">Accountability</A><BR/><A HREF="http://stubbornfacts.us/corruption/rewarding_bad_judgment" REL="nofollow">Rewarding Bad Judgment</A><BR/><A HREF="http://stubbornfacts.us/corruption/the_foreseen_crisis#comment-16714" REL="nofollow">The Foreseen Crisis</A> <BR/><BR/>That last link goes to a comment authored by former Congressman Richard Baker, featured on the video. H/t <A HREF="http://patterico.com/2008/09/30/should-heads-roll-as-a-condition-of-a-bailout/" REL="nofollow">Patterico.</A>AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-17825744164446502182008-09-30T16:40:00.000-04:002008-09-30T16:40:00.000-04:00Correction: TYPO - That should say Interview #1 an...Correction: TYPO - That should say Interview #1 and #3 were all 'government come save us.<BR/><BR/>Interview #2 with the economists actually made sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-40512901062417600402008-09-30T16:38:00.000-04:002008-09-30T16:38:00.000-04:00Good work exposing the bureaucrats at Freddie and ...Good work exposing the bureaucrats at Freddie and Fannie, and their co-conspirators.<BR/><BR/>This morning I happened to hear three interviews on NPR* about the "failed" bailout bill. The interviewees #1 NT Times<BR/>#2 Two economists<BR/>#3 Bureaucrat in charge of the small business bureaucracy.<BR/><BR/>Interviews #1 and #2 boiled down to 'government come save us!'<BR/><BR/>Interview #2, with two economists boiled down to 'the bailout is a very very bad idea' 'Let the market correct itself' 'We do not have a free market due to government manipulation and attempts to control the economy.' 'What we are hearing (about the free market) is rubbish.'<BR/> <BR/><BR/>In all three interviews the NPR Critter led with words like 'crisis' 'meltdown' 'tragedy' 'greed' 'tsunami' 'destruction' 'dire' and so on.<BR/><BR/><BR/>*NPR - National P[rogressive- government come save us] RadioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-66981109554236472008-09-30T15:29:00.000-04:002008-09-30T15:29:00.000-04:00And you'll never hear any of this on MSM outlets. ...And you'll never hear any of this on MSM outlets. I'm very surprised the NYT carried anything--it must have been on the bottom of page A87. AMAC is owed a big round of applause as is JinC.<BR/>Tarheel HawkeyeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-40637080495708187742008-09-30T15:12:00.000-04:002008-09-30T15:12:00.000-04:00I also looked at OpenSecrets.org.and I find that f...I also looked at OpenSecrets.org.<BR/><BR/>and I find that for the period 1990 to early 2008, Freddie Mac gave a total of $9.76 to political candidates, 57% to Republicans and nearly 43% to Democrats (some contributions to "independents.")<BR/><BR/>Moreover, the entire financial services industry was a major contributor during the period, giving some $2.09 BILLION to political candidates, 55% to Republicans and only 44% Democrats.<BR/><BR/>And the American Bankers Association" : $20.04 million over the 1990-2008 period, 59% to Republicans.<BR/><BR/>And, since you imply that the contributions influenced the votes, guess which party Enron and Exxon made most of their contributions to -- you're right, the Republicans. (Exxon gave 86% to Republicans.)<BR/><BR/>There's nothing wrong with giving money. Your posting has simply implied unfairly that the contribution led to votes on a particular issue. If so, well, you are wrong, Freddie Mac gave most of its money to Republicans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com