EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Home Sweet Wall Street
A most dastardly deed occurred last Friday when the Obama administration issued a 29-page policy statement totally abandoning the federal government’s time-honored role in helping Americans achieve the goal of homeownership. Instead of punishing the banks that sabotaged the American ideal of a nation of stakeholders by “securitizing” our homesteads into poker chips to be gambled away in the Wall Street casino, Barack Obama now proposes to turn over the entire mortgage industry to those same banks.
The proposal, originated by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, involves nothing less than a total “winding down” of the 80-year-old federal housing program, setting instead a new goal of a two-tiered America in which the masses are content to be mere renters of the American Dream. Such a deal for a country where, as the report concedes, “Half of all renters spend more than a third of their income on housing, and a quarter spend more than half.”
This is the same Geithner who during his tenure in the Clinton Treasury Department championed the total deregulation of the then-emerging market in collateralized debt obligations that sliced and diced people’s home mortgages into the toxic securities that created what his new report calls the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Later, as president of the New York Fed, he cheered on the banks as they went hog-wild, conning folks into buying homes they couldn’t afford and stuffing them into the incomprehensible securities that form the rot at the core of our bankrupt economy.
This is a made-in-the-U.S. nightmare that we inflicted on the world, thanks to an explosion in those toxic securities brought on by the deregulation that most of the Obama economic brain trust supported when they worked for President Bill Clinton and during the ensuing bubble years when they enriched themselves. As the report admits: “The U.S. is … the only high income country in which securitization plays a major role in housing finance.” Yet instead of ending that practice Obama now calls for more of the same: “The Administration believes the securitization market should continue to play a key role in housing finance.” Indeed, the plan’s goal of eliminating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will dry up the alternative public funding that has provided a source of mortgage support ever since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt launched Fannie Mae to check the power of the banks over mortgages. Now Obama proposes to eliminate that check and leave would-be homeowners to the tender mercy of the banking giants.
Of course Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also bear responsibility for the meltdown. They had morphed into for-profit enterprises and, just as with the Wall Street firms, the massive bonuses paid out to their top executives were contingent on the value of their stock prices, which in turn were fattened by the sale of those same toxic assets. As the Obama report puts it, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s profit-maximizing structure undermined their public mission.” What the administration should have proposed is to return the government-sponsored housing agencies to their original function as nonprofit entities supplementing, rather than aping, the practices of greedy bankers.
It wasn’t meant to end this way, and key Democrats, quite a few of them Clinton alums now in the Obama administration, bear the responsibility for the sad fate of Roosevelt’s dream. As the Obama proposal concedes: “Improving how housing was financed was an important part of these broader Depression-era reforms. In the 1930s, following severe mortgage market disruptions, widespread foreclosures, and sinking homeownership rates, the government created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Fannie Mae, the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs) and several decades later, Freddie Mac to help promote secure and sustainable homeownership for future generations of Americans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac held true to their original mission for many years.” What the report then neglects to discuss is the demise of Roosevelt’s grand experiment at the hands of Democratic Party hustlers who turned the agencies away from their “original mission” and into their personal piggy banks while getting Democrats in Congress to approve regulations enabling their greed.
The folks around President Obama know this sad tale well because some of them were principal actors in the housing agencies’ betrayal of the public trust. Just take the case of Tom Donilon, whom Obama recently appointed to the highly sensitive position of national security adviser. It was Donilon who was the top legal counsel and lobbyist for Fannie Mae from 1999 to 2005, a period when the agency went off the tracks in backing Countrywide and other private-sector bandits in their irresponsible rip-off scams. “He was in charge of the lobbyists. … That process involved using the Hill to rein in the regulators,” noted Stephen Blumenthal, who, as director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, was hindered by Donilon’s lobbying. As the report concedes without mentioning Donilon’s role, “Over the years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s aggressive lobbying efforts had successfully defeated efforts to bring them under closer supervision.”
Donilon, who received $10 million in the three years leading up to the scandal of 2004, when Fannie Mae was fined $400 million for juggling its books to enhance executive bonuses, will never have any trouble financing a home purchase. Not so the tens of millions of Americans who have lost their homes because of his reprehensible actions and the many more in the future who will be denied government support in trying to get a place of their own.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



21 Comments so far
Show AllYes. We know.
Now then, Mr. Sheer, I want to remind you of something you said a few years back, when you were stumping for Mr. Obama, the flim-flam can-can-man. In a Nation Magazine sponsored debate, Ralph Nader asked you, "Just where do you draw the line, Robert? What do the Democrats have to do to lose your vote? You said it would be the wars. You would turn away from the Democratic Party if they did not end the wars. So what happened to that?
Looking for word of your defection is the only reason I read your pieces anymore.
It took Obama, for some of the more stubborn among us, to see that Nader was absolutely right. That the LEADERSHIP of the current Democratic Party, is indistinguishable from that of the Republicans.
I, and Sheer, owe you and others an apology. But, since we have learned our lesson, and now get it, I'm sure Nader would welcome us in.
You?
My only question now is:
Do they have this all charted out and time-lined or is the elite's destruction of American society kind of like a brainstorming session where evil ideas are just shouted out and voted on by show of hands?
Cut food stamp programs? Nice, Mr. Koch, let me put that one on the whiteboard!
Destroy the federal housing program? Nice, no wait, that's scheduled already for mid-February 2011.
Like any other casino, in the Wall Street Casino the house always wins
Obama has proven to be a total pig.
War Monger.
Secret Police enabler
Water boy for the banks.
Enemy of the People.
Indeed.
I have decided, as of today, in all of my posts, to refer to Obama, as our very first Republican Democratic president (Democratic, as in party only of course).
This Trojan Horse Consummate Con Man, has adopted every single "fiscal conservative" straw man rhetorical argument that Republicans have been using for 30 years, since good old Ronald Reagan was up there proposing cuts to welfare and greater Pentagon spending, and keeping tax rates low for the super rich.
To add to what is becoming almost laughingly absurd, if it weren't so bloody enraging, is to read that Obama, our first Republican Democratic president, is openly chastising Republicans, because their proposed cuts to the Pentagon's budget will endanger national security.
So are there any "progressives" out there that would like to join Obama, the first Republican Democratic president, in calling on Republicans to add more money to the Pentagon's budget, like he has?
Sir Hue-I think that Clinton actually deserves the Title, Obummer has taken it to new lows, as in lower than a snakes belly, for turncoat Repug/Dem Presidents.
Clinton did the Commodities Futures Trading Act, Telecom Act, threw all those single moms off Wellfare and dismantled Glass-Steigal to name but a few of his treacheries.
He was gonna stop the War on Drugs too! Remember that Campaign Promise? LOL.
I do feel more betrayed by Obummer with all that Hopey-Changey crap, gag me! He disgusts me worse than W!
My goodness it took you so looooong to find out?
One of the serious, systemic problems the Federal Government (read, the Congress) caused, fueling the speculative housing bubble, was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, drastically expanded in the 1990s. Designed to bring homeownership to the almost-poor, the statute, as administered by the government, put pressure on banks to lend to the uncreditworthy -- the subprime borrowers. Once the banks realized they could securitize the loans -- and effectively dump the garbage from their balance sheets -- all controls were lost. "No income verification required", etc. -- thus was born the "liar's loan". Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae deserve much of the blame as well, for they added a government guarantee to the underlying garbage. That didn't help the securitized products very much, particularly those that were at the highest-risk part of the souflee.
When the game of musical chairs stopped, panic resulted. The investment banks were in up their eyeballs because they levered the securitized garbage at 33-1 or more. Thus almost a complete collapse of the banking system.
"Once the banks realized they could securitize the loans???" The Banks wrote the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, specifically so they could securitize those loans in their "new and exciting" derivatives market. They also wrote The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, so they could start using our deposits to wrap up in their derivatives. They than invented the credit default swaps so that they could hedge their bets and get their money back when their toxic derivatives exploded. The Investment Banks never almost collapsed, it was AIG who couldn't pay out the 'insurance' that caused the collapse. And the entire banking system did collapse. It took $13 trillion worth of taxpayers money, funneled thru the fed, to keep the ship afloat...
That is so much right wing propaganda. Yeah, it was the fault of them thar poor people.
I can't speak to exactly what Horace meant by a liar loan. But to me it doesn't just mean that poor people lied, and it was ALL their fault. Now I'm sure there were SOME that knew they were lying to qualify to get a loan. But I'm also sure there were others that got DUPED into those loans by some fast talking mortgage salesman. How many were duped verses how many lied, is probably a number that will never be known for sure, but logic tells me that there was more duping going on, because how many people really want to buy a house they KNOW they will eventually be evicted from? I sure wouldn't!
But either way it really doesn't matter because it is ultimately it is the responsibility of the entity that is loaning OUT the money to be sure they will be paid back. Normally this would be a no brainer, that is if they intended on holding the mortgages themselves. Of course they had no intention on holding the mortgages. The plan was to securitize them into "products" no one could really understand, and then to dump them on suckers, I mean investors.
Don't you love it when a plan REALLY comes together... ;-)
The part where Horace said "put pressure on banks to lend to the uncreditworthy -- the subprime borrowers" is a giveaway that he would blame all borrowers, responsible or not.
I would say you pretty well nailed it with your description of what happened. One could argue a little on some of the details, but it wouldn't really be worth it.
This is a lie.
For decades we were told it was the GOP who wanted to destroy Roosevelt's New Deal and now a democratic president and his henchmen are going to beat them to it. Where is the outrage?
What else would we expect from Tim Geithner? He's a primary architect in the oligarchy, good thing he's a democrat...
How are your twittering skills? And, will the national guard shoot their own?
Since we were kids, we have been media conditioned to think that gambling is the cool forbidden fruit that makes us sexy James Bonds or debonaire "Roving Gamblers" in casinos filled with beautiful virginal women that will swoon over us if we win, not shills, whores or older divorcees looking to score a rich husband from the crowd of stupid conservative posers and gambling addicts.
Gambling in the Wall Street Casino is of course, the big time. You mostly hear about the tiny few that hit the jackpot. The big gamblers got their bets covered by US taxpayers so they can't lose. The rest of the poor stupids believe that if the big gamblers win, they can too, so they vote for Republican criminals, get their asses handed to them and blame it on the liberals.
I read that first paragraph and the first thing that came to mind was "ha! there goes the American dream!" - They're not even telling the sheeple that The American Dream(tm) is one more purchase away. That lie has been dropped too. As for Obomber, with every action, he sheds one skin, like the corporatist/elitist snake he is. The Empire is sinking fast. Much, much faster than I ever thought possible. And the rats as scurrying around, trying to grab the last crumbs before they leave the sinking ship. Dark times are ahead, my friends, very, very dark times. But when it's all said and done and the dust settled, those still left standing will no longer consider themselves, special, exceptional or the center of the universe. And that alone, will be worth the price of the ride.
Goodness, if Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac go down how will the CIA wash all of their blood soaked DRUG MONEY and other ill gotten gain which has enabled them to deny and topple Democracy's around the globe for America's Corporate interests. How could Reza Pahlavi have come to power in Iran to accomodate British Petroleum with Mosadeh's Democracy dismantled. How could brutal control freak dictators such as those list below have come to power and remain in power?? Check it out-
***US-sponsored Murderous Dictatorships:
A List
The greatest crime ever perpetrated in the name of America is the US government's long-established practice of installing and supporting so many murderous dictatorships, primarily after the end of colonialism and during the Cold War with the all-justifying excuse of anti-communism.
How many murderous dictatorships has the US installed or supported?
Let's count.
Country Dictator Dates Statistics
Chile Gen. Augusto Pinochet 1973-1990 3000 murdered. 400,000 tortured.
Argentina Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla 1976-1981 30,000 murdered. more
Indonesia Suharto 1965 coup against left-leaning Sukarno,
1975 support of East Timor genocide
500,000 dead after 1965 coup; 100,000-230,000 dead in East Timor; more, more, more.
Guatemala Armas, Fuentes, Montt 1954-
Iran The Shah of Iran
Ayatollah Khomeini was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s in Paris
Egypt Sadat, Mubarak 1978-today
Iraq Saddam Hussein
Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza & sons 1937-1979
Paraguay Stroessner. US supported throughout (state.gov says US has supported Paraguayan development since 1942) ($142M between 1962 and 1975) 1954-1989
Bolivia Col. Hugo Banzer overthrew elected leftist president Juan Jose Torres 1970-
Angola Jonas Savimbi/UNITA (didn't actually win his revolution, but killed or displaced millions) 1975-1989
Zaire Mobutu
Saudi Arabia Saud family
Kuwait a monarchy
Morocco
Tunisia
Algeria
Jordan
Panama Noriega was US-supported for years
Haiti Papa Doc, Baby Doc
Dominican Republic Trujillo, a military dictator for 32 years with US support for most of that time; Belaguer, Trujillo's protege, installed after US Marines intervened to put down an attempt to restore the democratically elected government of Juan Bosch 1930-61, 1965-78
Honduras
El Salvador 1980s
Nepal monarchy since 1948
Cuba Fulgencio Batista pre-Castro
Brazil Gen. Branco overthrew elected president Goulart with US support 1965-67
Uzbekistan Kamirov "The Boiler", $150M from the Bush administration for an air base. 1965
http://www.tomveatch.com/dictatorships.html