Countrywide and Democrats - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 10:32 AM

I think there are two kinds of liberals. There are those who don't get "it", just as there are some conservatives that don't get "it". The "it" being whatever the main issue is in question. And then there are those liberals who do get "it" but are dishonest about "it". I think these recent revelations about the relationships and favors received by some of our leaders in Congress are illustrative of that point. First, I think Obama did not get "it", and gave his honest opinion about Countrywide and its former CEO. And we have people like Jim Johnson, Kent Conrad, and Christopher Dodd who do get "it" and now are faced with at the very least an embarrassing situation.

There was moral outrage when the subject was Bush or members of his administration. People assumed the worst and made the most of the political fallout, in some cases even at the expense of doing what was best for the country. Now I am very interested in how liberals rationalize their double standards.

There have been posts on this subject in other threads with links to various sources. In this case an editorial from today's WSJ will serve as a nice recap:

Quote:

The Countrywide Financial sweetheart loan scandal continues to grow, spreading to Senators and other Beltway potentates. We are about to find out if Congress's passion for investigating business ethics extends to conflicts of interest and cash that involve fellow Members.

Take Senator Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat whose office issued a Friday statement saying that "I never met Angelo Mozilo." What he did not say then but admitted under later questioning by a Journal reporter is that, although he may not have had a face-to-face meeting with the Countrywide CEO, Mr. Conrad had called Mr. Mozilo and asked for a loan. The result was a discounted loan on his million-dollar beach house and a separate commercial loan of a type that residential lender Countrywide did not even offer to other customers, regardless of the rate.

So after calling the CEO of a company with various matters before the Senate, asking for a loan and then receiving at least two sweetheart deals, Mr. Conrad now says: "I did not think for one moment – and no one ever suggested to me – that I was getting preferential treatment." Lawyers will immediately wonder if this isn't a version of the "ostrich defense," which judges describe during jury instruction as willful blindness or deliberate ignorance. For what other reason, besides preferential treatment, would one call the CEO of the mortgage company? Does Mr. Conrad call August Busch IV when he wants to buy a six-pack?

Almost as breathtaking is Senator Conrad's attempt to use a charitable contribution for the estimated amount of any mortgage savings – $10,500 – to make the issue go away. So while the Senator says he did nothing wrong, now that his nonmistake has been discovered he'll nonetheless give away the nonspecial treatment cash. There is ample evidence here to warrant an investigation, including subpoenas for relevant documents.
[Kent Conrad]

The same goes for Senator Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), who chairs the very Banking Committee responsible for drafting the laws that govern Countrywide's market. Mr. Dodd is still in denial mode, but so far no one has knocked down the Portfolio.com story that he received discounted loans as part of Countrywide's "Friends of Angelo" program.

In the week since the Journal revealed this program, the key questions have become clear: What did Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo receive – or think he would receive – in return for the friendly loans to politicians? And what did Mr. Mozilo get – or think he would get – in return for sweetheart loans to Fannie Mae CEOs Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines? Mr. Conrad says he called Mr. Mozilo at the suggestion of Mr. Johnson, a leading and long-time member of the Democratic Beltway establishment.

The relationship between Countrywide and Fannie Mae goes to the heart of the mortgage crisis. Fannie makes its money by borrowing vast sums at low rates (thanks to an implied taxpayer guarantee on its loans) and then using that cash to buy loans from mortgage originators like Countrywide. Fannie then holds the mortgages and earns interest on them, or pools them into securities for sale to investors.
[Christopher Dodd]

Fannie has been buying more home loans from Countrywide than from anyone else. In its most recent 10-K report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in February, the company reports: "Our top customer, Countrywide Financial Corporation (through its subsidiaries), accounted for approximately 28% of our single-family business volume in 2007, compared with 26% in 2006."

A Fannie spokesman tell us that "for competitive and proprietary reasons, we can't provide information about the terms we agree to with specific lenders," and adds, "We don't have lender-specific performance data available." Count us among the skeptics that Fannie hasn't bothered to check how well Countrywide's loans perform compared to those of other lenders vying to do business with the government-sponsored giant. But then again, we don't know what terms Countrywide's competitors offer on loans to Fannie CEOs.

Those wondering why Bank of America continues to move forward on its planned purchase of the controversial Countrywide might consider that BofA, despite its huge brand name and resources, has been able to capture only 4% of Fannie's single-family business on its own. Clearly, there's something about Angelo.

For the sake of its shareholders and the taxpayers who are ultimately on the hook, Fannie should immediately launch an internal investigation into the terms offered to Countrywide, and exactly what role Messrs. Johnson and Raines played in the negotiation of these terms. Did these men exert any pressure on Fannie employees to do business with Countrywide?

Congress also needs a full accounting of the contacts between Countrywide and the politicians receiving favors from the lender. Did Countrywide ask for and receive assistance from the Friends of Angelo? With Senate Banking Chairman Dodd at the center of the scandal, ranking member Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) will have to lead the inquiry.

But taxpayers should not have to wait for the results of an investigation. Democrats in Congress are trying to pass a bailout for mortgage borrowers and lenders like Countrywide, and they have been holding reform of Fannie Mae and its cousin Freddie Mac hostage to get President Bush to agree. Mr. Dodd is one of the main hostage-takers. It is time he and Mr. Frank dropped this political ransom-taking and finally subjected Fannie and Freddie to tough oversight. This means giving a regulator the power to set their capital ratios and portfolio securities limits, so that taxpayers have some protection against their potential losses.

Meanwhile, until it is clear how much Countrywide will benefit from Senator Dodd's proposed $300 billion mortgage rescue – and exactly how Mr. Dodd came to do business with Countrywide – Congress should call a halt to legislating bailouts. Taxpayers deserve no less.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1213...w_and_outlooks

Even if none of our liberal friends here respond, at least this will serve as a record of what will most likely be a series of issues pointing out the double standards liberals hold.

dc_dux · 06-16-2008, 10:41 AM

If the Republicans in the Senate believe Dodd violated Senate ethics, they can initiate a Ethics Committee investigation. That is the proper procedure....they dont need Democratic approval.

There are six members of the Senate Ethics Commitee...three from each party..and a tie wins in this committee (only this committee)....

...but perhaps they believe the WSJ claims are unsubstantiated.

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If the Republicans in the Senate believe Dodd violated Senate ethics, they can initiate a Ethics Committee investigation. That is the proper procedure....they dont need Democratic approval.

There are six members of the Senate Ethics Commitee...three from each party..and a tie wins in this committee (only this committee)....

...but perhaps they believe the WSJ claims are unsubstantiated.

What do you think should happen, if anything?

dc_dux · 06-16-2008, 10:48 AM

I think the DoJ should investigate Countrywide if there is enough compelling reason (beyond partisan editorials) to do so.

Do you want Democratics in the Senate to demand ethics investigations on the basis of every claim of Republican unethical behavior in liberal editorials....or would you prefer that such claims has some substance first?

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think the DoJ should investigate Countrywide if there is enough compelling reason (beyond partisan editorials) to do so.

Do you want Democratics in the Senate to demand ethics investigations on the basis of every claim of Republican unethical behavior in liberal editorials....or would you prefer that such claims has some substance first?

Given what we know, you do not think an ethic violation investigation is warranted? With Dodd is the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee?1?

Quote:

A Member or employee of Congress may accept a gift only if it is unsolicited and the:

* Gift is valued at less than $50. [House Rule 25 5(a)(1)(B); Senate Rule 35 1(a)(2)]
* Aggregate value of gifts from one source in a calendar year is less than $100, though no gifts with a value below $10 count toward the $100 annual limit. [House Rule 25 5(a)(1)(B); Senate Rule 35 1(a)(2)]
* Gift is not cash or a cash equivalent (e.g. stocks and bonds). The only exceptions are gifts made by relatives and parts of an inheritance. [House Rule 25(b); Senate Rule 35 1(b)]
* The favors or benefits are not offered under circumstances that might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of their governmental duties. [5 U.S.C. 7353 (b)(2)(B)]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ft_regulations

dc_dux · 06-16-2008, 11:03 AM

What do we know, from independent sources....not partisan editorials?

or should we also demand ethics investigations on the basis of every claim of Republican unethical behavior in liberal editorials.

The only recent complaints filed with the Ethics Committee were as a result of records resulting from criminal investigations....not editorials.....Vitter in Lousiana with the DC Madam and Craig of Idao with his arrest for his airport restroom antics.

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

What do we know, from independent sources....not partisan editorials?

or should we also demand ethics investigations on the basis of every claim of Republican unethical behavior in liberal editorials.

We know the current status of Countrywide.
Some believe Fannie Mae is insolvent depending on how assets are valued.
We know about abuses in the secondary mortgage market.
We know how many homes are being foreclosed upon.
We know there is important legislation being considered affecting the industry , millions of families and billions of dollars.
We know Jim Johnson stepped down from Obama's vetting committee for something he did not consider wrong but was worth setting down over.
We know Conrad donated money to charity, felt the need to go public over something he did that was questionable.
We know about a "friends" of the CEO of Countrywide program.

If this involved one of Bush's people would your views on this be the same?

dc_dux · 06-16-2008, 11:36 AM

I think I said DoJ should investigate Countrywide if there is compelling evidence of fraud.

The Republicans had six years to investigate Fannie Mae's solvency...what did they do?

As to the rest...and you still have offered no justification for a Senate Ethics investigation that I can tell...other than an unsubstantiated claims about "friends of the Countrywide CEO"

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The Republicans had six years to investigate Fannie Mae's solvency...what did they do?

They choose not let Fannie Mae go under. I think they get "it". Given Obama's rhetoric and the rhetoric of his party I fear the worst, Hoover part II.

ratbastid · 06-16-2008, 12:40 PM

Because only Republicans can pull the car out of the ditch that... Republicans drove it into.

Oh, wait.

Look. This isn't a partisan issue until you make it one. Misbehavior should be investigated, no matter who's doing it. I'd never dream of saying that congressional Democrats are pure as the driven snow. I think (and the evidence supports the view) that they're way cleaner than Republicans in terms of cronyism and pork. And of course there are outliers and exceptions on both sides. But the investigation procedures are built in a way that attempts to sidestep partisanship, and that should be encouraged.

flstf · 06-16-2008, 01:17 PM

I believe most polititians are corrupt. The ability to use influence to secure favorable loans, employment for family and friends, inside investment opportunities, etc.. are too enticing to pass up for most. I believe it is normal operating procedure and if we kicked them all out the government would have to shut down. Heck, many of them don't even try to hide it anymore because the ethics committees do little or nothing and we voters just don't seem to care enough to unelect them.

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Because only Republicans can pull the car out of the ditch that... Republicans drove it into.

Funny, but when home ownership was peaking due to the real estate boom no liberal was giving Bush or his administration credit for that, now we in a housing crisis...I get it. My view has always been that there are long tails to most of these issues and Presidents get too much credit and too much blame. On the other hand I do think Congress (both parties) has been a constant - government is too big, over regulates, and are always reacting to unintended consequences of their failures.

Quote:

Oh, wait.

Look. This isn't a partisan issue until you make it one.

Yep. I making this a partisan issue. I think there is a double standard, am I right or wrong in your view?

Jinn · 06-16-2008, 01:25 PM

This had nothing to do with Democrats or 'liberal hypocrisy" until you decided it fit your view of them and would serve your ends.

I agree with everything dc has said so far. If there is something worth investigating, then begin the investigation.

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

This had nothing to do with Democrats or 'liberal hypocrisy" until you decided it fit your view of them and would serve your ends.

I don't define hypocrisy. I think there is hypocrisy and I use Countrywide as support of my view. It will prove to be correct or incorrect. I think there is enough to initiate an investigation, others don't. Time will tell.

Quote:

I agree with everything dc has said so far. If there is something worth investigating, then begin the investigation.

So far based on what Obama has said alone about countrywide and its past CEO, I think there is basis for investigation. And why did certain Democrats feel the need to "come clean"? Do they fear a potential problem? I know I stand alone in my view on this subject here.

dc_dux · 06-16-2008, 01:38 PM

ace....what basis for investigation?

You still havent identified a federal law under which Countrywide could be investigated or the basis for an ethics investigation.

The DoJ cant investigate the company for questionable contract or real estate law practices or being "unethical" (not a crime).

At the very least, Obama's STOP FRAUD act would provide the DoJ with the legal authority to conduct an investigation (with greater assistance from state/local law enforcement agencies) and assess criminal penalties under federal law for predatory lending.

STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.

Any mortgage professional who commits "mortgage fraud" as defined under this law (Sec 1351-a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 35 years, or both.

Now that provides a basis for a DoJ investigation!

ratbastid · 06-16-2008, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Yep. I making this a partisan issue. I think there is a double standard, am I right or wrong in your view?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

This had nothing to do with Democrats or 'liberal hypocrisy" until you decided it fit your view of them and would serve your ends.

THAT'S my view. Deny it all you want--I'd expect nothing less. From inside your view, it would be impossible to do otherwise.

The James Johnson situation is a product of the state of politics at the moment. Even a suggestion of the hint of the whiff of impropriety in the Obama campaign is getting screamed all over right-wing blogs and echoed by (ahem) other rightist voices. The mainstream media is picking it up--the "story of the story" in most cases, but it amounts to the same thing--and before long everybody knows about Obama's mythical Jew Problem, or that Obama's In Bed with Big Banking.

It would be nice if at LEAST the same bullshit was being pulled on McCain. At worst he's getting away with some bumbling mis-statements that make him look like the codger he is--the REALLY grevious stuff about him isn't anywhere on the mainstream's radar.

I mean.. It'd be really nice if the campaign and the coverage could be about issues instead of gotchas, but barring that I'd at least like even time for the gotchas.

Just to actually have the FACTS of this thing on the table:
- Campaigning in PA, Obama criticized Countrywide and singled out their CEO as being excessively compensated and making bad loans
- Jim Johnson was named to Obama's VP vetting committee. He had taken out millions in loans from Countrywide, and has a close business relationship with said CEO. He's NOT the CEO in question, despite what less-informed bloggers are screaming.
- There's no evidence Johnson did ANYTHING wrong, CERTAINLY no evidence of anything criminal. To take the issue out of the campaign discourse, he stepped down from his position.
- Obama was immediately accused of the new right-wing capital offense of "throwing Johnson under the train".

Those are the FACTS. I have the vain hope that perhaps the discussion can now proceed rationally. I'm prepared for disappointment.

Tully Mars · 06-16-2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I believe most polititians are corrupt. The ability to use influence to secure favorable loans, employment for family and friends, inside investment opportunities, etc.. are too enticing to pass up for most. I believe it is normal operating procedure and if we kicked them all out the government would have to shut down. Heck, many of them don't even try to hide it anymore because the ethics committees do little or nothing and we voters just don't seem to care enough to unelect them.

Sadly I think this is more accurate then not.

host · 06-16-2008, 06:58 PM

ace, recently resigned Bush admin cabinet member..Alphonso Jackson...he was HUD secretary and accepted his "friends of Angelo" mortgage discount when he was asst. secretary of HUD. HUD is the US housing and urban development regulatory and housing industry promotional agency....Be prepared ace, there will be other recipients disclosed....from both parties. If you were not concerned about Abramoff's former asst...Susan Rankin...sitting down the hall from Bush, arranging with Abramoff to distribute expense perks.....skybox tickets to pro sports events.....to Bush admin. officials and to repub members of congress in violation of gift receipt caps....why your objection to this gift giving to gov't officials from a successful corporate CEO? If you want equal treatment for democrats, ignore this story, too. If you are committed to investigation and justice based on the seriousness of the matter, write to General Mukasey and ask him to respond to the subpaena issued today by the house oversight committee for the transcript of the FBI interview of Bush and Cheney in the Plame identity leak investigation. The subpoena was issued because Mukasey did not reply to the June 3 request letter from the committee chair, Henry Waxman, requesting that transcript. Libby cancelled his appeal of his obstruction and perjury conviction, so prosecutor Fitzgerald was willing to provide the transcript, but said he was blocked by the DOJ from giving it to the people's elected reps on the house committee. No reason has been given to the committee for not permitting Fitzgerald to provide a copy.....and Mukasey ignored the letter of request. Why should any democrat trust any republican or DOJ official to investigate the conduct or ethics of anyone, ace?

dc_dux · 06-18-2008, 05:10 AM

ace.... as a result of a complaint filed by a liberal watchdog group, the Senate Ethics Committee has begun a preliminary investigation of the special treatment given to Dodd and Conrad by Countrywide.

Quote:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a liberal watchdog group, filed a complaint Friday with the Senate ethics committee requesting an investigation of the Countrywide loans. It cited Senate rules that allow for "loans from banks and other financial institutions on terms generally available to the public."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061702579.html

The CREW complaint also acknowledges that there was no suggestion that either Dodd or Conrad were aware that they were receiving favorable treatment from Countrywide. (Crew letter of complaint - pdf)

BTW, it is as a result of the new ethics rules that the Democrats in the Senate pushed through last year that allow an outside group to file a complain to initiate an ethics investigation. The Republicans had no interest in such ethics reform when they were in the majority for the previous six years. In fact, McCain, the "reformer" and a handful of other Republicans voted against this ethics reform.

It looks to me like the Democrats in the Senate are doing their job in the manner you would hope.

aceventura3 · 06-18-2008, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.... as a result of a complaint filed by a liberal watchdog group, the Senate Ethics Committee has begun a preliminary investigation of the special treatment given to Dodd and Conrad by Countrywide.

Up until now you insisted that there was no basis for an investigation.

Quote:

ace....what basis for investigation?

Quote:

As to the rest...and you still have offered no justification for a Senate Ethics investigation that I can tell...other than an unsubstantiated claims about "friends of the Countrywide CEO"

Quote:

What do we know, from independent sources....not partisan editorials?

or should we also demand ethics investigations on the basis of every claim of Republican unethical behavior in liberal editorials.

The only recent complaints filed with the Ethics Committee were as a result of records resulting from criminal investigations....not editorials.....Vitter in Lousiana with the DC Madam and Craig of Idao with his arrest for his airport restroom antics.

Now you say the following with no explanation of why all of a sudden you conclude that Democrats are doing their job.

Quote:

It looks to me like the Democrats in the Senate are doing their job in the manner you would hope.

If they investigate this matter, I will have more respect for Democrats than I did before this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, recently resigned Bush admin cabinet member..Alphonso Jackson...he was HUD secretary and accepted his "friends of Angelo" mortgage discount when he was asst. secretary of HUD. HUD is the US housing and urban development regulatory and housing industry promotional agency....Be prepared ace, there will be other recipients disclosed....from both parties. If you were not concerned about Abramoff's former asst...Susan Rankin...sitting down the hall from Bush, arranging with Abramoff to distribute expense perks.....skybox tickets to pro sports events.....to Bush admin. officials and to repub members of congress in violation of gift receipt caps....why your objection to this gift giving to gov't officials from a successful corporate CEO? If you want equal treatment for democrats, ignore this story, too. If you are committed to investigation and justice based on the seriousness of the matter, write to General Mukasey and ask him to respond to the subpaena issued today by the house oversight committee for the transcript of the FBI interview of Bush and Cheney in the Plame identity leak investigation. The subpoena was issued because Mukasey did not reply to the June 3 request letter from the committee chair, Henry Waxman, requesting that transcript. Libby cancelled his appeal of his obstruction and perjury conviction, so prosecutor Fitzgerald was willing to provide the transcript, but said he was blocked by the DOJ from giving it to the people's elected reps on the house committee. No reason has been given to the committee for not permitting Fitzgerald to provide a copy.....and Mukasey ignored the letter of request. Why should any democrat trust any republican or DOJ official to investigate the conduct or ethics of anyone, ace?

I don't have a problem with corrupt and illegal behavior being investigated and people being held accountable for their actions. I simple prefer, accusations, investigations and punishment to be honest, consistent, reasonable and appropriate.

Seems like the WSJ is the only publication I routinely read that is paying attention to this issue, below is the latestes opinion piece on the subject. I would think liberals who have a problem with big business having big influence in Washington would be outraged. Other than Host on here on TFP, I wonder why they are not?

Quote:

Countrywide Financial Corp.'s "friends of Angelo" program provided sweetheart loans to key banking players in Washington, D.C. They included former Fannie Mae chief executive Jim Johnson, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.).

The growing scandal surrounding the "friends of Angelo" loans (so-called by company employees, referring to Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo) should serve as a political wake-up call. Yet the Senate appears intent on pushing forward legislation, co-authored by Sen. Dodd, that would bail out the worst actors in the subprime mortgage banking industry.

Campaigning in Lancaster, Pa., on March 31, Sen. Barack Obama blamed Countrywide's CEO for "infecting the economy and helping to create a home foreclosure crisis." Yet Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) and Mr. Dodd have crafted a bill to provide $300 billion in new taxpayer loan guarantees to Countrywide and others. The bill will allow troubled financial institutions to foist the riskiest mortgages in their portfolios onto the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) -- ultimately putting the American taxpayer on the hook for their bad bets.

Right now, nearly a third of Countrywide's mortgage portfolio is composed of an especially chancy loan called a "payment-option ARM." Also known as negative-amortization loans, payment-option ARMs allow borrowers to pay less than the interest owed each month, with the shortfall added to the principal balance. At set intervals the loans are recalculated, or recast, to be fully amortizing. The new payments -- based on current interest rates and a higher balance -- rise dramatically.

Hundreds of thousands of payment-option ARMs are scheduled to recast next spring, which everyone expects to cause a wave of delinquencies. The Dodd-Frank plan would allow Countrywide and others to cherry-pick their worst loans and roll them over to the FHA. The bill has been advanced in the name of homeowners, but it's all too clear who is being rescued.

The FHA cannot handle a Dodd-Frank wave of $300 billion "in-distress" loans. The loan volume alone will nearly double the size of the FHA. Yet last week the agency, floundering under its existing portfolio, announced $4.6 billion in new losses. These losses destroy 22% of the FHA's entire capital reserves and raise doubts about the agency's solvency.

On June 9, FHA Commissioner Brian Montgomery told reporters that he opposes the Dodd-Frank approach, saying that the FHA "is not designed to become the federal lender of last resort, a mega-agency to subsidize bad loans." Last week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that banks will use the program to offload their "highest-risk loans" to the taxpayer, and that a stunning 35% of all of the loans refinanced through Dodd-Frank will eventually default on the FHA.

Unsurprisingly, Countrywide executives have testified in support of expanded FHA refinancing. The company itself is a longtime and significant contributor to Messrs. Dodd and Frank. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics' opensecrets.org, Mr. Dodd raised more than $6.3 million this election cycle -- 76% of his total war chest -- from banks, finance and real estate companies.

As for Republicans, most members of the Senate Banking Committee voted for the Dodd-Frank bill in exchange for reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The reforms, part of a deal brokered by Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.), create a new regulator to establish tougher standards for the portfolio holdings of Freddie and Fannie.

While both of these agencies are in dire need of reform, this deal is still a mistake. By foisting this compromise on their Republican colleagues, Democrats are holding the reform of Fannie and Freddie hostage in order to increase bipartisan support for a bailout of reckless mortgage lenders.

Moreover, the bill creates a new tax that will create a permanent "affordable housing trust fund" -- a $500 million per-year slush fund designed to funnel money to left-wing activist groups like Acorn. Freddie and Fannie must pay into this fund even if they are not profitable, compromising their already overextended capital base.

In a free market, businesses take risks and reap either profits or losses. But markets only work when businesses are held accountable for their bad decisions. The message this proposed legislation sends to the market is clear: Big lenders like Countrywide who make bad bets can count on generous bailouts -- and responsible renters, homeowners and taxpayers who pay their bills on time can count on getting stuck with the tab.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1213...n_commentaries

dc_dux · 06-18-2008, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Up until now you insisted that there was no basis for an investigation.

Now you say the following with no explanation of why all of a sudden you conclude that Democrats are doing their job.

If they investigate this matter, I will have more respect for Democrats than I did before this issue.

I don't have a problem with corrupt and illegal behavior being investigated and people being held accountable for their actions. I simple prefer, accusations, investigations and punishment to be honest, consistent, reasonable and appropriate.

Seems like the WSJ is the only publication I routinely read that is paying attention to this issue, below is the latestes opinion piece on the subject. I would think liberals who have a problem with big business having big influence in Washington would be outraged. Other than Host on here on TFP, I wonder why they are not?

ace..I said that ethics investigations should not be based solely on partisan editorials.

What the partisan WSJ editorial fails to mention is that there is nothing to suggest that either Dodd or Conrad were aware that they were receiving favorable treatment from Countrywide.

Despite that, the ethics investigation is proceeding under the new ethics rules (that McCain and other Repubs opposed, particularly because of the provision that allows persons outside of the Senate to initiate an investigation) and thats fine with me.

What more do you want the Democrats to do? Congress has no jurisdiction to investigate Countrywide for criminal violations of law. It seems to me that you are trying to hold the Democrats accountable for something over which they have no control.

And under what law can Countrywide be investigated for federal violations by the DoJ? You still havent answered that question.

Wouldnt Obama's proposed bill provide that authority in the future since there is nothing comparable to it currently in place (that I am aware of)?

robot_parade · 06-18-2008, 09:36 AM

If they broke the law, they should be punished for it. Simlarly, if they violated congressional ethics standards, they should be punished for it. It doesn't matter what party they're from - there are a lot of crooked people out there of either party. One could make a case that the republicans, or democrats, as a group are more crooked than the other, but I personally don't have the time or energy right now to do that.

dc_dux · 06-18-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

If they broke the law, they should be punished for it. Simlarly, if they violated congressional ethics standards, they should be punished for it. It doesn't matter what party they're from - there are a lot of crooked people out there of either party. One could make a case that the republicans, or democrats, as a group are more crooked than the other, but I personally don't have the time or energy right now to do that.

I agree...although in this case, there is nothing at all to indicate that the senators in question broke any laws...so it is really an issue of potentially acting in a manner that violated senate ethics rules.

I would only add that the process should not be based on partisan editorials, but on issues of fact.

aceventura3 · 06-18-2008, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace..I said that ethics investigations should not be based solely on partisan editorials.

Why do you ignore what we all know so far? Certainly editorials present a point of view, we can agree or disagree with that point of view. In this case it is legitimate to have different views on if an investigation is warranted. The opinion pieces I sourced support my view and provide well written arguments. The fact they may be partisan is not relevant to the argument in my opinion. If you dismiss the argument because of the source, I think that shows a bias. The question is can you and Democrats get past a bias you have and address an issue with an open mind? Like I said, my respect for those Democrats who can will increase. It would increase even to the degree that they address the argument rather than dismissing the issue. I know - nobody needs my respect, etc, etc.

Quote:

What the partisan WSJ editorial fails to mention is that there is nothing to suggest that either Dodd or Conrad were aware that they were receiving favorable treatment from Countrywide.

I personally think these gentle men are savvy, intelligent people. They are also "rich", "rich" people generally know the value of what they pay for. I would be surprised if they did not know the value of what they got from Countrywide. But, that is just me, and I already stated that I am a cynic.

Quote:

Despite that, the ethics investigation is proceeding under the new ethics rules (that McCain and other Repubs opposed, particularly because of the provision that allows persons outside of the Senate to initiate an investigation) and thats fine with me.

Even if the requests are partisan and are based on editorials? That is fine with you? Do you accept the reason someone may be against those rules are because of potential abuse?

Quote:

What more do you want the Democrats to do?

I appreciate honesty and I appreciate people doing what they believe is right even when I disagree.

Quote:

Congress has no jurisdiction to investigate Countrywide for criminal violations of law. It seems to me that you are trying to hold the Democrats accountable for something over which they have no control.

Congress is considering serious legislation on this subject. I want them to understand the ramifications of what they do. I want them to act on what they think is right, rather than what may financially benefit them. If that is not worthy of some extra effort, our system fails. Obama seems to want to change this type of politics in Washington, I want to believe he is a man of his word. To me this is a test, Obama can lead on this issue and totally change the way I view politics. Again, I know I am one person and I am not that important - but there is an opportunity - an opening - it may be temporary but - "now is the time"..."now is the moment"...!

dc_dux · 06-18-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Congress is considering serious legislation on this subject. I want them to understand the ramifications of what they do. I want them to act on what they think is right, rather than what may financially benefit them. If that is not worthy of some extra effort, our system fails. Obama seems to want to change this type of politics in Washington, I want to believe he is a man of his word. To me this is a test, Obama can lead on this issue and totally change the way I view politics. Again, I know I am one person and I am not that important - but there is an opportunity - an opening - it may be temporary but - "now is the time"..."now is the moment"...!

Where were you in the six years when the Republican Congress rubber-stamped nearly every Bush policy and action?

Why do you consider most (many?) of Democratic oversight hearings of those six years a "fishing expedition" rather than "now is the time..now is the moment" to attempt to understand and act on the ramifications of those six years.

It appears to me that your concern is a bit selective and disingenuous.

aceventura3 · 06-18-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Where were you in the six years when the Republican Congress rubber-stamped nearly every Bush policy and action?

There was not much I disagreed with, but that is going off topic and we already know that.

Quote:

Why is nearly every Democratic oversight of those six years a "fishing expedition" rather than an attempt to understand and act on the ramifications of those six years?

Some were. Some were not. I have distinguished between investigations, executive privilege (which I would defend regardless of who is in the WH), rhetoric, political grandstanding, and few other things.

Why do I answer you questions, but you don't answer mine? I think I know, but I could be wrong and occasionally I am in a mood to explore the possibilities of being wrong - so I ask the question.

dc_dux · 06-18-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I appreciate honesty and I appreciate people doing what they believe is right even when I disagree.

ace...its hard for me to take you seriously when you make comments like this.

I could provide numerous posts of yours where you KNOW that democrats have acted for partisan reason or personal gain rather than what they believe is right. I wish I had your insight into the decision-making process of individuals I dont know personally. It gets tiresome to hear that only Republicans are altruistic.

As to why I dont respond to all of your questions....you said yourself that you dont post facts and figures..you post editorial opinions.....sometimes I respond to the misinformation you extract from those opinions and pose as questions..and sometimes I choose not to respond because, IMO, it wont add to a discussion of facts.

Back on topic:

Quote:

Congress is considering serious legislation on this subject. I want them to understand the ramifications of what they do.

Congress has held as many or more legislative hearings on the subject in the last 1-1/2 years than during a comparable period of the previous 3-4 years of Republican control.

What more do you want them to do?

If they propose bills you dont like, I can only guess that you might say it is for partisan purposes or personal gain rather than what they believe is the right thing to do.

more response by way of further threadjack:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have distinguished between investigations, executive privilege (which I would defend regardless of who is in the WH), rhetoric, political grandstanding, and few other things.

another example of misinformation.

Democrats in Congress have never questioned the use of executive privilege when applied as it has been done throughout history.

What the Democrats have questioned is Bush's expansive new application of executive privilege to include conversations/documents between two staff level persons and not directly involving the president.

By law, the Attorney General was required to file a charge of Contempt of Congress with the US District Court after the House voted on the charge as a result of WH staff failing to appear...and let the federal judiciary determine the extent to which executive privilege may be applied. The AG did not do so...based on WH recommendations that even filing a charge with the Court would violate executive privilege. Congress has been left with no real recourse now other than a civil complaint against the WH staff in question and the Court is no closer to adjudicating the issue of expansive claims of executive privilege.

IMO, that is a perversion of the law.

Derwood · 06-18-2008, 03:51 PM

wait wait wait wait

the only 2 kinds of liberals are ones that don't get it or get it but are lying bastards?

Tully Mars · 06-19-2008, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

wait wait wait wait

the only 2 kinds of liberals are ones that don't get it or get it but are lying bastards?

Yeah, I read the first couple lines of the OP:

I think there are two kinds of liberals. There are those who don't get "it", just as there are some conservatives that don't get "it". The "it" being whatever the main issue is in question. And then there are those liberals who do get "it" but are dishonest about "it".

And decided not to respond to the OP. I did later post a general comment directed at another posters opinion of politicians in general. But the OP basically states, IMO, that liberals fall into two categories- The delusional and the dishonest. To be fair it does state "some conservatives that don't get "it." But it seems to lump all liberals in to negative boxes.

ratbastid · 06-19-2008, 05:54 AM

Yes, Tully, but no conservative is dishonest. Just misinformed. I noticed that too.

Perhaps the OP is misinformed, then, about the ratio of Republican to Democrat corruption? Because there's no such thing as a dishonest conservative.

aceventura3 · 06-19-2008, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

wait wait wait wait

the only 2 kinds of liberals are ones that don't get it or get it but are lying bastards?

What kind of liberal is Dodd? Do you think he did not know he was getting favorable treatment from Countrywide? Do you think he does not know that his proposed legislation will primarily benefit Countrywide? Was Obama's statement about Countrywide accurate? If it was accurate is he going to support Dodd's legislation? Are you simply going to trust Dodd?

Please continue to ignore these kinds of questions. Because there will be more. In fact go to the "You Can't Soak The Rich Thread", I think I will post some more stuff supporting my premise. Yea, Democrats are really fighting for the poor and the average guy. Do you believe that? If you don't you get the point, if you do - I guess you don't get "it". If I am wrong, show me.

Here is some more, of course from one of my favorite non-credible publications the WSJ.

Quote:

Give Senator Christopher Dodd credit for nerve. On Tuesday, the very day he finally admitted knowing that Countrywide Financial regarded him as a "special" customer, the Connecticut Democrat also announced that he was bringing to the Senate floor a housing bailout sure to help lenders like Countrywide.

How much will Countrywide benefit from Mr. Dodd's rescue? The Senator's plan allows mortgage lenders to dump up to $300 billion of their worst loans on to taxpayers via a new Federal Housing Administration refinancing program, provided the lenders are willing to accept 87% of current market value. The program will be most attractive to lenders and investors holding subprime and slightly-less-risky Alt-A loans made during the height of the housing bubble in 2006 and 2007.

As the market leader during that period, Countrywide originated $167 billion of such loans, more than 11% of the nationwide total, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. Analyst Fred Cannon of Keefe, Bruyette and Woods estimates that the company is still holding more than $30 billion in subprime and Alt-A loans on its books, based on the company's most recent quarterly financials.

Even for the loans Countrywide has already packaged and sold, the company would still benefit from the bailout. That's because Countrywide continues to service the loans, and every loan that goes bad means increased costs for the servicer.

Those mortgage loan sales also typically come with a guarantee that Countrywide will buy back the loans if it turns out they were fraudulent. The more loans that fail, absent a federal refinancing, the more investors will be digging into the details of these stinkers and tossing them back to Countrywide. Mindful of the looming danger, in the first quarter of this year Countrywide increased by 46% its reserves to cover these so-called "rep-and-warranty" agreements.

What's more, the company is holding $34 billion in home equity loans, which are even more risky than the mortgage loans, and typically result in 100% losses for the lender if a borrower defaults. The Dodd bailout will make it more likely that Countrywide gets some recovery from the worst of these loans because the mortgage holder will need to negotiate a settlement with the owner of the home equity loan before participating in the federal bailout.

If borrowers and lenders take full advantage of this new federal program, and Countrywide loans go south at roughly the same rate as those from other lenders, this suggests a potential taxpayer bailout of more than $25 billion for Countrywide-originated loans. Even if the losses turn out to be far less, why should taxpayers do anything to help a company that did so much to foment the mortgage mess?

Meanwhile, Mr. Dodd continues to insist that, though he knew he was a "special" Countrywide customer, he didn't think he was getting any special financial benefit. But a $75,000 reduction in mortgage payments is no small matter for anyone living on a Senate salary of $169,300. Why else would he be known around Countrywide as a "Friend of Angelo" – Angelo being Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo.

Yesterday, nine Senate Republicans led by South Carolina's Jim DeMint sent a letter asking Majority Leader Harry Reid to delay consideration of Mr. Dodd's housing bailout bill in light of its benefits for Countrywide – and Countrywide's benefits for Mr. Dodd. That's an excellent idea, in addition to a Congressional and Justice Department probe of Countrywide, Fannie Mae and the favors they seem to have spread around Washington. American taxpayers need to understand more about who they're being asked to bail out here, and why.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1213...w_and_outlooks

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Yes, Tully, but no conservative is dishonest. Just misinformed. I noticed that too.
Perhaps the OP is misinformed, then, about the ratio of Republican to Democrat corruption? Because there's no such thing as a dishonest conservative.

Their are dishonest conservatives and there are conservative who are motivated by power and do things for political reasons. I have never stated otherwise. I am simply tired of liberals pretending they are something they are not.

I am seeing a pattern. Well Republicans did it...Well when Republicans were in control...Well there are more bad Republicans...are you folks actually using the argument that "our" bad behavior is o.k. because we we think Republican behavior was bad?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Yeah, I read the first couple lines of the OP:

I think there are two kinds of liberals. There are those who don't get "it", just as there are some conservatives that don't get "it". The "it" being whatever the main issue is in question. And then there are those liberals who do get "it" but are dishonest about "it".

And decided not to respond to the OP. I did later post a general comment directed at another posters opinion of politicians in general. But the OP basically states, IMO, that liberals fall into two categories- The delusional and the dishonest. To be fair it does state "some conservatives that don't get "it." But it seems to lump all liberals in to negative boxes.

Perhaps, my statement was too broad. I think Kucinich is a liberal, I think he gets "it" and I think he is honest about "it" (again I don't agree with him) - he is not taken seriously by Democrats. I think Ralph Nader gets "it", and he used to be honest about "it", but he is not a Democrat and he got corrupted by the quest for power. So, there are exceptions here and there.

ratbastid · 06-19-2008, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

are you folks actually using the argument that "our" bad behavior is o.k. because we we think Republican behavior was bad?

Nope. And if you'd READ the responses, you'd see that.

Malfeasance should be ferreted out no matter who's malfeasing--much more so than it currently is. I think there's a richer field to find it among the Republicans, but this Countrywide matter is interesting at the very least. To have Republicans taking on the particular Democrats involved, though, would be a black hole calling the kettle black--and would invite holy hellfire down upon themselves. Which is probably why nothing is going to happen with this.

I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying: that's politics. The GOP has no high ground from which to deal with this issue. And, in fact, any individual congresscritter (say, Kucinich) who tries to take it on will be marginalized and ignored--a case of "you overlook my shit and I'll overlook yours".

Not saying I like it. But that's politics.

aceventura3 · 06-19-2008, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Nope. And if you'd READ the responses, you'd see that.

Malfeasance should be ferreted out no matter who's malfeasing--much more so than it currently is. I think there's a richer field to find it among the Republicans, but this Countrywide matter is interesting at the very least. To have Republicans taking on the particular Democrats involved, though, would be a black hole calling the kettle black--and would invite holy hellfire down upon themselves. Which is probably why nothing is going to happen with this.

I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying: that's politics. The GOP has no high ground from which to deal with this issue. And, in fact, any individual congresscritter (say, Kucinich) who tries to take it on will be marginalized and ignored--a case of "you overlook my shit and I'll overlook yours".

Not saying I like it. But that's politics.

"A black hole calling the kettle black" to me suggests that those requesting this matter be investigated are corrupt or dishonest. You don't give any specifics other than the use of the term Republican, so am I to gather from these posts (not just yours) that is o.k. to call or assume that all Republican are dishonest or corrupt?

And if you say it is politics, aren't you kind of agreeing with my premise, perhaps substituting "liberal" for "politician"?

ratbastid · 06-19-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

"A black hole calling the kettle black" to me suggests that those requesting this matter be investigated are corrupt or dishonest. You don't give any specifics other than the use of the term Republican, so am I to gather from these posts (not just yours) that is o.k. to call or assume that all Republican are dishonest or corrupt?

Man, you are deeply committed to the worst possible interpretation of anything anyone has to say. I didn't say what you're saying I said; you added that. By and large, human beings are blind to their own interpretive process, and I invite you to consider that you're no exception. I know I'm not--and knowing that allows me to (occasionally) catch myself and short-circuit my automaticity.

EDIT: I apologize if the above sounds condescending--it's just that I keep having the experience of talking to a mobius strip that torques my words out of all shape and pushes them back at me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura4

And if you say it is politics, aren't you kind of agreeing with my premise, perhaps substituting "liberal" for "politician"?

Your premise, as I understand it, is that there's a double-standard and that Democrats are getting away with something here. I'm saying there's a low standard across the board, and that while it's possible that these Democrats might get away with something, on the whole, Republicans have gotten away with a WHOLE lot more. Especially during their period of congressional domination in the early-to-mid '00s. I'm not tarring the whole party, here; I'm talking about individuals. But I think it's clear the GOP is denser with such individuals than the Democratic party, and I think you'd have a hard time arguing the contrary.

aceventura3 · 06-19-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Man, you are deeply committed to the worst possible interpretation of anything anyone has to say. I didn't say what you're saying I said; you added that. By and large, human beings are blind to their own interpretive process, and I invite you to consider that you're no exception. I know I'm not--and knowing that allows me to (occasionally) catch myself and short-circuit my automaticity.

I am not blind to my interpretive process, I know exactly what it is. Hence, I explaine my interpretation giving others a clear opportunity to correct my errors. I ask questions. I answer questions. I elaborate on my positions. I try to give examples of why I think the way I do, all in an effort to have my thoughts, biases, arguments, premises, challenged. To me the tougher those with opposing views make it, the more interesting it is. I have been known to change my views based on interchanges. What you have done is tell me I misinterpreted your post, but don't explain how and why.

Quote:

Your premise, as I understand it, is that there's a double-standard and that Democrats are getting away with something here. I'm saying there's a low standard across the board, and that while it's possible that these Democrats might get away with something, on the whole, Republicans have gotten away with a WHOLE lot more. Especially during their period of congressional domination in the early-to-mid '00s. I'm not tarring the whole party, here; I'm talking about individuals. But I think it's clear the GOP is denser with such individuals than the Democratic party, and I think you'd have a hard time arguing the contrary.

Starting at the top. I think Bush gets "it" and is honest about "it". From his election liberals have been arguing both that he does not get "it" and that he does get "it" but is dishonest about "it". I have always seen the way they address this as a matter of what is the best political position to take at the time they take it. So, to me by definition almost everyone making arguments that Bush is a lier, idiot, puppet, willfully and knowingly is violating the Constitution, in the pocket of "big business", anti-poor, anti education, revenge seeker, war monger, clueless, dictator, stealer of elections, etc, etc, etc., either does not understand him and our system of government or is being a bit dishonest about it, because their arguments are loaded with contradictions.

flstf · 06-19-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Your premise, as I understand it, is that there's a double-standard and that Democrats are getting away with something here. I'm saying there's a low standard across the board, and that while it's possible that these Democrats might get away with something, on the whole, Republicans have gotten away with a WHOLE lot more. Especially during their period of congressional domination in the early-to-mid '00s. I'm not tarring the whole party, here; I'm talking about individuals. But I think it's clear the GOP is denser with such individuals than the Democratic party, and I think you'd have a hard time arguing the contrary.

I am probably too cynical but I bet a deep investigation into our polititians' personal affairs would find that most are guilty of using their influence to enrich themselves, family, friends and/or contributors. I believe it is human nature to take advantage of one's station in life and eventually the sweetheart deals, etc.. become something they feel entitled to. A good place to start would be to compare their (and familiy's) current net worth with before entering office but even that wont take into account money in the freezer, etc..

Most of this stuff is unethical but probably not illegal and too often the ethics committees act like foxes guarding the hen house.

aceventura3 · 06-25-2008, 06:45 AM

Hey DC,

Given the pending legislation affecting the mortgage industry and recent disclosure pointing to potentially unethical conduct on the part of key members of Congress why is there no willingness for the openness in government you often write about? Check this out, from the editorial pages of one of my favorite biased right-wing publications, WSJ.

Quote:

On Monday, we published Mr. Conrad's letter clarifying that he called former Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO Jim Johnson for assistance in finding a mortgage. Mr. Conrad thought it important to note that he only asked Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo for a loan after Mr. Johnson, who happened to be standing nearby, passed the phone to Mr. Mozilo.

Mr. Conrad then recounted how he came to receive preferential treatment from the country's largest mortgage lender. The Senator evidently believes that his latest version of events, in which he gets a sweetheart mortgage from a CEO only after first contacting the former CEO of the largest wholesale purchaser of home mortgages, somehow makes his conduct appear more appropriate. Our readers who aren't pals with Mr. Johnson might have a more acute sense of Beltway favoritism.

Meanwhile, Politico.com has contacted all 100 members to see how they received their mortgages, on what terms and from whom. Politico's Eamon Javers tells us that he has met with surprising resistance, with many Senate press secretaries claiming that such details are private. And in fact such details are private, due to a loophole in Congressional financial disclosure rules.

Senators John Cornyn and Barbara Boxer have offered an amendment to the current housing bill to require such disclosure, and in the meantime most lawmakers are reluctantly sharing the details. Still, as we went to press, Mr. Javers reported that 15 members of the Senate were still refusing to tell the stories behind their mortgages.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214...w_and_outlooks

I would think those who really support "open" government would simply cooperate and disclose the terms of any mortgages they have given these circumstances. Why do they need legislation?

Seems like Illinois is taking legal action against Countrywide and its former CEO.

Quote:

The Illinois attorney general's office, which began an investigation into the business practices of Countrywide Financial Corp. last fall, says it has found enough evidence of wrongdoing that it plans to file a civil suit against the mortgage lender and its chief executive, Angelo Mozilo.

The suit is expected to be filed Wednesday.
[Angelo Mozilo]
Reuters
Countrywide's Angelo Mozilo

In a draft of the complaint, Illinois alleges that the company engaged in "unfair and deceptive practices" in the sale of mortgage loans. The 78-page document says the company loosened its underwriting standards, structured loans with "risky features" and engaged in "marketing and sales techniques" that incentivized employees and mortgage brokers to push loans whether or not homeowners had the ability to repay them.

The complaint says the company's actions were driven by its desire to boost market share and to satisfy Wall Street's appetite for mortgage securities. "Investor demand and secondary market valuation...became the primary concern when determining what kinds of loans to market and sell and at what price, rather than the consumers' ability to repay the loans," said the complaint.

Countrywide didn't return calls seeking comment.

In an interview, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said Countrywide "broke the law and we plan to hold them accountable for that." She added that Countrywide's actions have led to widespread foreclosures in her state and have wrecked havoc around the world. "The impact on individual homeowners and communities and the country and the global economy is unbelievable."

Ms. Madigan says she is asking that all Countrywide loans originated using "unfair and deceptive" practices be rescinded or modified in some way, even if Countrywide has to repurchase the loans. She is also asking that her office be given 90 days to review any loans that are currently in foreclosure or that are moving toward foreclosure. As part of its investigation, the Illinois attorney general's office interviewed about 30 former Countrywide employees and mortgage brokers and reviewed more than 100,000 pages of documents, Ms. Madigan said.

Mr. Mozilo was included as a defendant because he "participates in, manages, controls, and has knowledge of the day-to-day activities" of Countrywide, the lawsuit says.

Countrywide and its executives are the subject of numerous investigations by state and federal officials and legal actions by former employees and individual homeowners. Federal prosecutors are investigating whether executives at Countrywide committed securities fraud and, in securities filings, may have understated the risks of buying securities backed by Countrywide loans made to risky borrowers. The Securities and Exchange Commission is currently investigating stock trades by Mr. Mozilo.

If Ms. Madigan files a complaint against Countrywide as expected, it will be the first time that a state authority has made formal charges against the company for actions related to the current mortgage crisis.

Countrywide shareholders are expected to vote Wednesday to approve the purchase of the company by Bank of America Corp. The deal is scheduled to close July 1.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214..._us_whats_news

This issue is not going away.

dc_dux · 06-25-2008, 07:00 AM

ace...every member of Congress should comply with the ethics rules of the House and Senate.

The Democrats enacted the toughest ethics rules in more than 15 years...and I have said they are still not tough enough....but it was all they could get w/o Republicans, at least in the Senate, blocking ethics reform completely.

You rationalize Republicans not voting for these tougher rules because "the rules may lead to abuse" yet you want the Democrats to go even beyond the existing rules.

And you certainly have never called for Bush to release more than is required by law or ethics rules....so why the double standard?

I honestly dont know how to discuss the ethics issue with someone who believes nearly every Democrat (or liberal) with the exception of Kucinich, Nader and perhaps a few others either "dont get it" or are "dishonest".

The IL (state) action is a good thing but does not preclude the need for stronger federal legislation re: predatory or fraudulent mortgage lending practices. The issue of Countrwide's illegal practices (which has nothing to do with the "friends of the ceo") should continue...but would be more effective with one federal law as opposed to numerous, possibly conflicting, state laws.

Carry on

aceventura3 · 06-25-2008, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...every member of Congress should comply with the ethics rules of the House and Senate.

The Democrats enacted the toughest ethics rules in more than 15 years...and I have said they are still not tough enough....but it was all they could get w/o Republicans, at least in the Senate, blocking ethics reform completely.

You rationalize Republicans not voting for these tougher rules because "the rules may lead to abuse" yet you want the Democrats to go even beyond the existing rules.

And you certainly have never called for Bush to release more than is required by law or ethics rules....so why the double standard?

I honestly dont know how to discuss the ethics issue with someone who believes nearly every Democrat (or liberal) with the exception of Kucinich, Nader and perhaps a few others either "dont get it" or are "dishonest".

The IL (state) action is a good thing but does not preclude the need for stronger federal legislation re: predatory or fraudulent mortgage lending practices.

Carry on

You can start by answering a question.

Diverting the failure of people acting on their own principles (open Government in this case) on others (Republicans) is a pretty weak argument in my opinion. You use it a lot lately. Is that out of the Democratic Party talking point book? I notice Obama does it too - those mean old Republicans forcing him to do this or that.

Sir, yes sir, I will carry on.

aceventura3 · 06-26-2008, 12:22 PM

Ace, How long have you had this problem with debating with yourself?

Well Ace, it started when I was about 10 years old, I started asking my mother questions about her smoking...and well... I am just glad I still have teeth.

Seems you have issues Ace, carry on.

Sir, yes Sir.

Oh, sorry, getting back to countrywide and the Housing bill, that is not really a housing bill, but another kind of welfare bill. This time the welfare is for big banks and "speculators". But why would Democrats support legislation for big banks and "speculators" (or I think they call them victims of the big banks being bailed out - gets confusing!)? Questions, questions, questions, to bad there are no answers. Here is the latest from one of my favorite uber conservative publications - WSJ.

Quote:

Bank of Congress
June 26, 2008; Page A14

"Hopefully, there will soon be no more Countrywide," declared Barney Frank (D., Mass.) last week. Calling Countrywide "unusually sleazy," the House author of Congress's $300 billion housing bailout added: "Having Bank of America buy up Countrywide is a good thing for America." Yesterday, Countrywide shareholders seconded that by approving the transaction.
[Barney Frank]

Mr. Frank may be right about Bank of America's better management, but there's no doubt his legislation is very good for both Countrywide and BofA. Thanks to this bailout that is now on the Senate floor, taxpayers could end up on the hook for more than $25 billion in loans originated by Countrywide. We also know the race is on to see how many of these mortgage contracts will receive taxpayer refinancing before the law catches up with them. Yesterday, Attorneys General in Illinois and California sued Countrywide and CEO Angelo Mozilo for deceptive trade practices.

Suspicious Activity Reports filed with the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network show that mortgage fraud skyrocketed during the housing boom. What will take time is digging into individual mortgage contracts to uncover the extent of such fraud. But with an election in five months, Congress is determined to bail out irresponsible lenders and borrowers right away.

After making its loans, Countrywide sometimes held on to them but most often it sold them to others who packaged them into mortgage-backed securities (MBSs). And that's also why Bank of America has so much at stake in the housing bailout. According to a recent JP Morgan report, Bank of America holds more MBSs than any other bank, and its $182 billion in MBSs is more than twice as much as second-place Wachovia. So yesterday's Washington Post report that BofA helped to craft the bailout comes as no surprise. What is surprising is how many Senators still think this bailout is smart politics.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214...w_and_outlooks

06-16-2008, 10:41 AM	#2 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	If the Republicans in the Senate believe Dodd violated Senate ethics, they can initiate a Ethics Committee investigation. That is the proper procedure....they dont need Democratic approval. There are six members of the Senate Ethics Commitee...three from each party..and a tie wins in this committee (only this committee).... ...but perhaps they believe the WSJ claims are unsubstantiated. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-16-2008 at 10:48 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

06-16-2008, 10:48 AM	#4 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think the DoJ should investigate Countrywide if there is enough compelling reason (beyond partisan editorials) to do so. Do you want Democratics in the Senate to demand ethics investigations on the basis of every claim of Republican unethical behavior in liberal editorials....or would you prefer that such claims has some substance first? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-16-2008 at 10:50 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

06-16-2008, 11:03 AM	#6 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	What do we know, from independent sources....not partisan editorials? or should we also demand ethics investigations on the basis of every claim of Republican unethical behavior in liberal editorials. The only recent complaints filed with the Ethics Committee were as a result of records resulting from criminal investigations....not editorials.....Vitter in Lousiana with the DC Madam and Craig of Idao with his arrest for his airport restroom antics. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-16-2008 at 11:12 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

06-16-2008, 11:36 AM	#8 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think I said DoJ should investigate Countrywide if there is compelling evidence of fraud. The Republicans had six years to investigate Fannie Mae's solvency...what did they do? As to the rest...and you still have offered no justification for a Senate Ethics investigation that I can tell...other than an unsubstantiated claims about "friends of the Countrywide CEO" __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-16-2008, 12:40 PM	#10 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Because only Republicans can pull the car out of the ditch that... Republicans drove it into. Oh, wait. Look. This isn't a partisan issue until you make it one. Misbehavior should be investigated, no matter who's doing it. I'd never dream of saying that congressional Democrats are pure as the driven snow. I think (and the evidence supports the view) that they're way cleaner than Republicans in terms of cronyism and pork. And of course there are outliers and exceptions on both sides. But the investigation procedures are built in a way that attempts to sidestep partisanship, and that should be encouraged. Last edited by ratbastid; 06-16-2008 at 12:42 PM..

06-16-2008, 01:17 PM	#11 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I believe most polititians are corrupt. The ability to use influence to secure favorable loans, employment for family and friends, inside investment opportunities, etc.. are too enticing to pass up for most. I believe it is normal operating procedure and if we kicked them all out the government would have to shut down. Heck, many of them don't even try to hide it anymore because the ethics committees do little or nothing and we voters just don't seem to care enough to unelect them.

06-16-2008, 01:25 PM	#13 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	This had nothing to do with Democrats or 'liberal hypocrisy" until you decided it fit your view of them and would serve your ends. I agree with everything dc has said so far. If there is something worth investigating, then begin the investigation. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

06-16-2008, 01:38 PM	#15 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....what basis for investigation? You still havent identified a federal law under which Countrywide could be investigated or the basis for an ethics investigation. The DoJ cant investigate the company for questionable contract or real estate law practices or being "unethical" (not a crime). At the very least, Obama's STOP FRAUD act would provide the DoJ with the legal authority to conduct an investigation (with greater assistance from state/local law enforcement agencies) and assess criminal penalties under federal law for predatory lending. STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity. Any mortgage professional who commits "mortgage fraud" as defined under this law (Sec 1351-a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 35 years, or both. Now that provides a basis for a DoJ investigation! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-16-2008 at 02:54 PM..

06-16-2008, 06:58 PM	#18 (permalink)
host Banned	ace, recently resigned Bush admin cabinet member..Alphonso Jackson...he was HUD secretary and accepted his "friends of Angelo" mortgage discount when he was asst. secretary of HUD. HUD is the US housing and urban development regulatory and housing industry promotional agency....Be prepared ace, there will be other recipients disclosed....from both parties. If you were not concerned about Abramoff's former asst...Susan Rankin...sitting down the hall from Bush, arranging with Abramoff to distribute expense perks.....skybox tickets to pro sports events.....to Bush admin. officials and to repub members of congress in violation of gift receipt caps....why your objection to this gift giving to gov't officials from a successful corporate CEO? If you want equal treatment for democrats, ignore this story, too. If you are committed to investigation and justice based on the seriousness of the matter, write to General Mukasey and ask him to respond to the subpaena issued today by the house oversight committee for the transcript of the FBI interview of Bush and Cheney in the Plame identity leak investigation. The subpoena was issued because Mukasey did not reply to the June 3 request letter from the committee chair, Henry Waxman, requesting that transcript. Libby cancelled his appeal of his obstruction and perjury conviction, so prosecutor Fitzgerald was willing to provide the transcript, but said he was blocked by the DOJ from giving it to the people's elected reps on the house committee. No reason has been given to the committee for not permitting Fitzgerald to provide a copy.....and Mukasey ignored the letter of request. Why should any democrat trust any republican or DOJ official to investigate the conduct or ethics of anyone, ace?

06-18-2008, 09:36 AM	#22 (permalink)
robot_parade Junkie Location: San Antonio, TX	If they broke the law, they should be punished for it. Simlarly, if they violated congressional ethics standards, they should be punished for it. It doesn't matter what party they're from - there are a lot of crooked people out there of either party. One could make a case that the republicans, or democrats, as a group are more crooked than the other, but I personally don't have the time or energy right now to do that.

06-18-2008, 03:51 PM	#28 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	wait wait wait wait the only 2 kinds of liberals are ones that don't get it or get it but are lying bastards?

06-19-2008, 05:54 AM	#30 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Yes, Tully, but no conservative is dishonest. Just misinformed. I noticed that too. Perhaps the OP is misinformed, then, about the ratio of Republican to Democrat corruption? Because there's no such thing as a dishonest conservative.

06-25-2008, 07:00 AM	#38 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...every member of Congress should comply with the ethics rules of the House and Senate. The Democrats enacted the toughest ethics rules in more than 15 years...and I have said they are still not tough enough....but it was all they could get w/o Republicans, at least in the Senate, blocking ethics reform completely. You rationalize Republicans not voting for these tougher rules because "the rules may lead to abuse" yet you want the Democrats to go even beyond the existing rules. And you certainly have never called for Bush to release more than is required by law or ethics rules....so why the double standard? I honestly dont know how to discuss the ethics issue with someone who believes nearly every Democrat (or liberal) with the exception of Kucinich, Nader and perhaps a few others either "dont get it" or are "dishonest". The IL (state) action is a good thing but does not preclude the need for stronger federal legislation re: predatory or fraudulent mortgage lending practices. The issue of Countrwide's illegal practices (which has nothing to do with the "friends of the ceo") should continue...but would be more effective with one federal law as opposed to numerous, possibly conflicting, state laws. Carry on __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-25-2008 at 07:11 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost