The chance of Obama’s resigning…
…some time during his first term is virtually nil, IMHO, although it’s been discussed at times in the comments section of this blog and others.
I don’t think there’s even a small chance of his resigning from office before the next election, unless he is about to be impeached and conviction looks absolutely inevitable, or something equally devastating and politically destructive seems very likely to happen to him. I don’t foresee the impeachment/conviction scenario happening either, even if Republicans take control of both chambers; they wouldn’t have the Senate numbers to succeed in getting the two-thirds vote for conviction, unless perhaps Obama is caught unequivocally red-handed, as it were.
No, he will stay his term—if only to block the new bills and/or repeals of the bills voted in by any Republican Congress that might be elected in 2010, to consolidate his tremendous gains (such as HCR), and to make further fundamental changes via various extra-legislative back-door routes (amnesty for illegals, anyone?). After that, however, if the writing on the wall is crystal clear that he’s on the way out, he might choose not to run in 2012.
However, if he does pull an LBJ/68 in 2012, it will most likely be for strategic reasons—to make way for a more electable candidate with the same far left agenda to run as head of the Democratic ticket (although that candidate will hide his/her far left agenda, something Obama will have lost the ability to do), one the public hasn’t yet turned against.
He’ll run in 2012. There is no way this self absorbed guy cannot do it. He won’t get any better at this job, but this is his one claim to fame. Even Jimmy Carter ran again.
THat said, I don’t think he likes being President. He likes the perks for sure, but the work part is what ages most occupants. He’s outsourced the work.
DirtyJobsGUy: that’s why I put the word “might” in italics. I agree with you that he is almost absolutely going to run for re-election.
He is too narcissistic not to run again.
Mr. Obama did say once that he’d rather be a good one-term president — good by ^his^ reckoning criteria, of course — than a not-as-good two-termer.
I can only hope that enough Independents continue to turn off to this fellow, and that enough Democrats will see the writing on the wall. But then do we get Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton? Is she any less left than is Obama?
She ^ran^ as less left in 2008, but I (and I’m sure others) remember not-so-fondly Ms. Clinton’s own very leftward proclivities and roots from the 1992 campaign (“it takes a village” and all that). She can hide it better, that’s for sure. And do we want a Clinton soap opera White House again?
Woe is us, unless . . . . . . . . .
I don’t know. I can see it — a sudden resignation, that is. He’s bored, his grandiose expectations have been dashed, he hates the job. He’s just arrogant enough to think he’s too good for it. And he looks ill. Has anyone noticed how very thin he’s gotten?
I think Michelle is the one who loves the perks of (his) office. But then she has enormous influence on him, so perhaps that works in favor of Neo’s intuition.
Neo, in my experience, a resignation is always an admission of the existence of one of two possible conditions. Either you have completely reached your goals or there is no prospect of ever doing so. Though Obama might delude himself about the first, he would never be able to admit the second.
On the other hand, this would not be the decision of one man since he would not be the only one leaving office. Circumstances might require him to acquiesce in the second case (in the guise of a lie claiming accomplishment of the first case) if his handlers come to see him as a serious liability, especially in 2012.
It’s absurd to think President Obama would resign his office. It may be possible that he might decline to run for reelection, but even that would be highly unlikely.
If his prospects do not improve by later in 2011, expect a game-changer. That is, a major unexpected move that reshuffles the political landscape, while also furthering some of his own goals.
I think it still possible that the game changer may involve a military response to Iran, either the US or at least unimpeded unleashing of Israel. But that would be unlikely.
I’ve always had the impression that he doesn’t see the presidency of the U.S. as the pinacle. He doesn’t even like this country and I get the feeling he sees this as a necessary stop on the way to some grandiose President-of-the World position. So if something like that opens up for him, perhaps Sec. General of the U.N., I think he’d resign in a heartbeat.
we have bout as much chance of him resigning as a paper mache dog has of catching a steel cat running through hell.
if y’all would have read the catechism of a revolutionary, you would have a better handle on things
LisaM: Obama is not stupid. I agree he aspires to something “higher,” like an international position such as the one you mention. But not before the groundwork to disempower the US has been properly laid and solidified. With the US still powerful, the UN is less so—very much less so. Obama is into power, not just the trappings of power. He would not resign from a position of true power (the US presidency) to take on a position of fake power (Sec-Gen of the UN).
Lets try that again
So if something like that opens up for him, perhaps Sec. General of the U.N., I think he’d resign in a heartbeat.
———————————————
Slight problem with that. In order to be Sec General you have to speak fluent French. (The French have a veto and can use it to boot anybody they want and yes, the expect the guy speaks French.) On top of that with the current one the French were assured that even though he French was lousy he’d learn it on the job. They’re not falling for that one twice.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
The French would sell la langue frané§aise and the UN would fall all over themselves to make Barack the first citizen of the world – and Barack loves being first.
It works against my innate skepticism and sense of balance to agree with your very dark view of Obama. He’s such a lightweight! Such a slacker! He doesn’t seem to have the energy to be a sociopath.
And yet sometimes I sort of flash on your view of him and think — she’s right!
I’m truly puzzled, and frightened.
The above is addressed to Neo, in case that’s not clear.
Remember that trip the O’s took to an elementary school not long after the inauguration? Remember the picture of them looking at the school children as if they were asking the children to save them? Of all the bizarre stuff coming out of the WH since Jan 20, 2009, that was among the most bizarre. I think the two of them had just gotten a clue about the demands of O’s new job, the discipline and restrictions that went with living in the WH. They both looked frightened. But I think they’ve “adjusted” by doing as they like and ignoring the rest. I get the impression that O thinks he is “sacrificing” being President. But I don’t think he’ll resign and I do think he’ll run for re-election. I think he thinks he can re-generate the cheering crowds of 2008. And, as a Chicago pol, I think he thinks ANYTHING can be “fixed.”
I am one of the people who floated the resignation idea on this blog after reading and linking to this piece from Peter Ferrara:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/02/the-coming-resignation-of-bara
While Ferrara thinks his resignation is probable (based on several condition precedents before it does happen) – I agree with most here that resignation in the first terms is a long shot.
Whether he runs for re-election is the more interesting scenario to game out. I can tease out one scenario in my mind where it makes sense for him not to run. And as with everything Obama, it’s all about his narcissistic personality.
In his mind Obamacare makes him a historic president. It will define his presidency. But if the GOP wins the presidency in 2012, the chance for Obamacare repeal iincreases.
So here’s where his enormous ego comes in. If polling suggests that another Democrat has a better chance of winning the presidency than Obama has against a GOP candidate, then Obama’s financial backers may put pressue on him not to run. And he will agree if it means it improves the chances for preserving his legacy, Obamacare.
This scenario rests on the unlikely proposition that Obama becomse so unpopular that another Democrat stands a better chance against a GOPer in the general election. Seems like a long shot. But not impossible if his approval ratings continue to decline.
I left out an important part of the scenario. It also rests on the GOP making huge gains in November — to the tune of coming very close to taking the House and 2-3 votes from taking the Senate.
I see no chane of Obama resigning. His ego will not allow it, and it would be an epic disaster for the Democrat Party. They could possibly not survive it. He is their everything. they invested the entire plans, past, and future of the Party in this made-up con artist. He is the fulness of their illusive reality. He’s black. He talks. He exefrcises power. He’s arrogant. He’s magnanimous (to the rich and connected, with other people’s money). He’s the one who can push through, perhgaps, every single diabolical plan they have.
If he goes away, they are totally naked and defenseless. They have no raison d’etre for anything anymore.
Still, I don’t think Obama wants to be Preident, and I don’t think he wants to continue being one. He wants the fame, the resume, the lifestyle. He wanted to be elected – a world first! But to actually be Presiodent? That would mean being an American and he does not want that. he hates America and he hatesd Americans.
I can see him losing on semi-purpose in a look-like-he-put-up-a-good-effort-but-the-evil-rich-republicans-could-not-handle-his-progressive-black-man-futurosity-I’ll-be-appreciated-by-history tyrp effort.
He’ll breath a sigh of relief when he loses, and go on to be as famous as Al Gore and all the other globe-trotting trend setters.
Prediction: Once the World Citizen Progressives lose his clout, they will ditch him and leave him alone. He won’t be invited, just like the Clinton’s did not invite him to Chelsea’s wedding. You think that crowd is going to have the step-n-fetch-it black man they created and used actually as an equal with them?
No way. He’ll move to France like what’s her name the 1920s singer.
Obama is a poor President.
Unfortunately, he came after the only 2-term President in the history of America to the leave with the DOW lower than when he came in.
Obviously, Obama being a poor President, is better than Bush, who was an horrendous President.
“Better” of course, is a comparison operator. It does not actually mean “good.” But with deceptive language, one can use the word “better” to indicate that someone is “good” or “excellent” and therefore deserves 2 terms.
The Republicans, in their decrepit and vapidly partisan state, will continue to argue that Bush was a “good” President — or at least “above average.”
Since everybody but the most vapid Republican partisan knows that Obama is “better” than Bush, the current inept Republican Party will continue to make arguments whose only logical conclusions will be that Obama is “better” than “above average” and therefore deserves 2 terms — which of course is not the case.
I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves here. There is no way he’ll resign before November 2010, and that’s what we have to stay focused on.
I’m wondering what surprise the Left has up their sleeves. Massive vote fraud? Street violence? A mass casualty terrorist attack that causes the election to be suspended?
I’ve been leaning towards a war, probably in the Middle East, that makes people naturally want to rally around the President and the incumbent party in a time of crisis.
Remember, the Democrats don’t have to win over conservatives. They just need to find a way to recapture the wavering moderates and people who don’t pay much attention to politics.
SteveJ:
Bush was responsible for the CRA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac? Really?
The Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. What was the DJIA then?
Bush was also an anti-American Communist traitor? Who knew?
Communist are supposed to be good for a stock market they abhor to begin with? Now thats funny.
Whether he resign, be impeached, decide not to contest the next election, demonstrate the continuing decline into idiocy of the voting majority by his being re-elected, or have a supine, proctoleichous Congress declare him appointed Beloved Supreme Leader and Narcissist-in-Chief for life, I’ll take odds that, when President Obama finally leaves office, a Seal of the Former President will always accompany him.
SteveH, I think you’re outsmarting yourself. I hold no particular brief for Bush, but Obama is better in the way that an express is better than a local. It all depends on the destination, doesn’t it?
Ricki:
“Bush was responsible for the CRA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac? Really?”
Well actually….yes.
To the extent that there were mistakes in housing policy that contributed to the recession, those were necessarily committed by Bush political appointees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other agencies.
To the extent that banks and other financial institutions made mistakes or engaged in fraudulent activity, it was either overlooked or sanctioned by Bush appointees at the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and elsewhere.
The whole notion that a Treasury Department under Ronald Ragan, headed by James Baker, would be as incompetent as the Bush Treasury Department is utterly apsurd.
Sorry. I meant “SteveJ, ” of course.
E.M. Crotchet Says:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:53 pm
I think you win the thread.
Um, SteveJ, you need to read up on the CRA. Try this, for a start: http://tinyurl.com/5wdbpr
SteveJ Says:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Well actually…no.
The CRA was born in the 1970s and was given more teeth by the Clinton/Reno Justice Department in the 90s. It redefined traditional, prudent lending standards as “racism”. It forced banks to loan to people who were not creditworthy.
Fannie Mae dates back to the Roosevelt Administration. Freddie Mac was created in 1970, when the Democrats controlled Congress and Nixon, a liberal Republican, was President.
George W. Bush was certainly no fiscal conservative, and the Republican control of Congress in the 00s was a disaster, as they all lined up at the pork trough just like the Democrats.
But the CRA, Fannie, and Freddie were all liberal Democrat projects from the get-go. To blame Bush for their depredations is a little too much. Just because he and the Republican Congress were unable to rein them in doesn’t make it their fault.
rickl, you say, “I’m wondering what surprise the Left has up their sleeves. Massive vote fraud? Street violence? A mass casualty terrorist attack that causes the election to be suspended?
I’ve been leaning towards a war, probably in the Middle East, that makes people naturally want to rally around the President and the incumbent party in a time of crisis.”
The truth is, I wouldn’t be surprised by all, or at least more than one, of the above. These wizards have set dominoes falling in all of said directions, and there’s no telling which stack will reach what we might call critical mass first–or early, or in time, or late. By any other name, it’s still chaos. Which they want, and upon which they expect to thrive.
No Ricki:
It is difficult to explain to liberals, and therefore to neocons, that you cannot encounter dept and insolvency because you SELL something.
You go into debt or insolvency because you BUY something that turns out to be worthless.
Thus, loans underwritten by the CRA, Fannie, or Freddie, could not possibly have created a loss for those institutions as they bundled them and SOLD them.
Fannie and Freddie are having difficulty, as are other private institutions, because they BOUGHT mortgage backed securities that turned out to be worthless.
The loans they and others BOUGHT were underwritten, bundled, and SOLD by private institutions — who made a killing. They were “free market” loans.
Loans underwritten by Fannie and Freddie, bundled and SOLD, are NOT the problem.
I think this year’s October surprise will be an attack on Iran. Of course massive voter fraud will occur, that’s as given, but the biggie will be Obama’s “Get tough” or maybe “Tough Love” action on Iraq. He has to show that he has those cajones Palin was talking about.
SteveJ Says:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:50 pm
There was no free market once the 800 lb. government gorilla plopped down into the room. Government action always distorts the free market.
Yes, the big banks learned how to game the system, and they are in no way blameless. If they made bad loans, they should be forced to eat them, even if that means they go bankrupt. I was opposed to the bailouts all along.
But that’s the natural way of things whenever government interferes in the free market. People figure out how to take advantage of it.
Obama will not attack Iran no matter what, even if they nuke Israel – there will be no response from Obama – he doesn’t like any war – he is too afraid of getting into a situation that will be way way way over his head.
Americans are tired of war, getting into another one will not help Obama.
Besides, Obama likes Ahmadinnerjacket too much to attack him.
My guess is that he will go with the amnesty route before 2012 – with the help of many Republicans in Congress, thus assuring his victory in 2012.
Don’t know what he will do about the Clintons – but he has a justice department that is suing a state right now, going after the Clintons would not be a problem for him.
Obama is from Chicago, he will get as dirty as he has to in order to remain in power.
“There was no free market once the 800 lb. government gorilla plopped down into the room.”
No argument!
Although that gorilla plopped down because Bush signed the Bush TARP program — supported by Republicans.
The short version being, we can’t judge Obama by what other presidents have done, we have to look at him in the same light as other dictators – what would Hugo Chavez do?
That line of thinking will give a more accurate result.
Ricki:
Have you heard Romney’s statements on the Bush TARP program?
He says he supported the legislation, but doesn’t like the way it was implemented.
The “I was for it before I was against it” impersonation of John Kerry would give Rich Little a run for his money.
ghost707: It’s even worse than that—Obama isn’t from Chicago, he chose Chicago.
ghost707:
I’m not so sure about that. The Saudis don’t like Iran, and I’ve been hearing rumblings that they will even look the other way if Israel acts.
Obama bowed to the Saudi king, remember. If the Saudis indicate that they would not be opposed to an attack on Iran, Obama might do it. Especially if such an attack would tend to make fence-sitting American voters rally around him. If such a thing happens, it will have to be timed so as to have maximum impact on the November 2010 elections.
SteveJ,
The 800 lb. gorilla has been screwing things up long before any of us were born.
SteveJ Says:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:35 pm
No, but I don’t like Romney or the Bush TARP program. So I don’t much care what he said. I’m agin’ it.
rickl,
WRT Iran, maybe, but if Obama bombs Iran – he will get too much heat from the U.N. – and Obama likes the U.N. ALOT more than he likes America or Israel.
Ricki wrote:
“I’m not so sure about that. The Saudis don’t like Iran”
I don’t know if you consider yourself a “neocon” or not. But if you do, that kind of statement is likely to get you kicked out of “neocon” society.
You see, ALL “extremists” in the Middle are a part of KAOS — the international organization of evil. And they report Siegfried.
Actually, I don’t think of myself as a “neocon”, but since that means someone who was once a liberal but has since become a conservative, then I guess I am.
I think of myself more as a libertarian and an Objectivist, which means I’m fiercely protective of Western Civilization against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.
SteveJ
Although that gorilla plopped down because Bush signed the Bush TARP program – supported by Republicans
Support for TARP was higher among Democrats than among Republicans. Here is theFinal Vote for Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
Democrats 172 yea 63 nay
Republicans 91 yea 108 nay
While that is definitely a case of the gorilla plopping down, a leading cause of the 2008 debacle was the government’s interfering in the mortgage markets by pushing loans for those who didn’t have sufficient funds for a conventional mortgage.Thus the $500k house w nothing down. This was primarily the responsibility of Democrats.
Also, a good case can be made that McCain’s support for TARP killed his chance of being elected. If he had taken a principled stand against it*, that could have put him over the top.
*ok, you can stop laughing now
Obama is forbidden from initiating an attack on a Muslim country. He gets a pass on the two current wars because he didn’t initiate them, there will be no attack on Iran.
> unless perhaps Obama is caught unequivocally red-handed, as it were.
Not to worry — if there appeared a video with him porking a white ho doggy style while talking about the entertainment value of “white wimmens” and snorting cocaine off her backside, discussing, with Ahminajad, Chavez, and Kim Jong Il how he (Obama) was going to arrange for the four of them to take over the USA after they arrange a nuke attack, the media would be sure to make everyone know it was edited by Breitbart for the Tea Party’s commercials.
Michele would make a bigger deal about it than the media would.
“a leading cause of the 2008 debacle was the government’s interfering in the mortgage markets by pushing loans for those who didn’t have sufficient funds for a conventional mortgage.”
To the extend this statement has any validity, the loans you mention occurred with the support of Bush political appointees.
But the statement is not that valid. Once PRIVATE institutions found a way to SELL loans they originated by tucking them into phony mortgage backed securities, the free market stopped operating. That doesn’t have anything to do with government interference.
Once a loan originator knows he can make a loan without incurring any of its risks, he will simply make as many loans as possible and take the commissions.
In short PRIVATE institutions created and underwrote loans, bundled and sold without any pressure from anybody. It’s called greed.
It came about because mortgage backed securities were not transparent and phony instruments such as derivative swaps were allowed.
Gringo:
Republican House Vote on TARP
“Republicans 91 yea 108 nay”
There’s something to be said for this — but not much.
The Republican House leadership, Boehner and Cantor, supported it. The Republican House leadership is incompetent. Yet there has been NO challenge from other Republicans for the leadership positions.
Voting no on something your Whip has already told you will pass is not a profile in courage. Challenging the House Republican leadership is how you demonstrate you are principled.
A lot of Conservatives will be voting Republican this fall — but only to put a check on Obama. You can hardly get excited about a Speaker Boehner.
Some of these arguments are patently absurd.
If loans underwritten, bundled, and sold by Fannie and Freddie were the cause of the meltdown, then the institutions that bought the mortgage backed securities from Fannie and Freddie would be suffering insolvency.
Fannie and Freddie would be perfectly fine. They would have been the cause, but they would not be suffering financial hardship. They would not require a bailout.
The fact is that Fannie, Freddie, and a number of other institutions, bought worthless mortgage backed securities from the private sector. Those securities contained loans that didn’t have anything to do with Fannie and Freddie. That’s why Fannie and Freddie needed a bailout.
There is no “free market” once the government interferes.
The Community Reinvestment Act forced private banks to give mortgages to people who were not creditworthy. Naturally the bankers found ways to game the system to their own advantage.
So how come none of those bank executives have been sent to prison for their crimes? Hint: They also gave copious campaign contributions to the politicians who were supposed to be regulating them.
Explain to me again how this was strictly a “private sector” problem.
“Explain to me again how this was strictly a “private sector” problem.”
Well the private sector was certainly the cause.
The overwhelming percentage of transactions in this scam involved private sector institutions selling to other private sector institutions. And the transactions would have occurred regardless of the existence of Fannie and Freddie.
The only way Fannie and Freddie were indirectly involved in this scam were as a couple of the many buyers of phony securities which they bought for their portfolios.
The securities themselves contained loans that had NOTHING to do with the CRA or Fannie and Freddie loan programs. If fact the loans in the phony securities were beneath the standards Fannie and Freddie had for underwriting their loans.
I don’t think Fannie and Freddie programs, and the loans they underwrite, are a good use of taxpayer dollars. I just know that those loans didn’t cause the meltdown.
“There is no “free market” once the government interferes.”
There is no free market when private sector institutions can engage in fraud with impunity.
In those cases, the police (government), must remove such forces and make sure the free market continues to operate. That didn’t happen here.
Steve J. and rickl,
TARP was absolutely necessary to unclog the banking system, which had nearly locked up. It was a “Hail Mary ” pass to restore enough confidence to forestall a complete collapse. Everyone seems to have forgotten that the purpose was to buy collateralized debt (CD) securities from banks and insurance companies to allow the banks breathing room to shore up their capital. It soon became clear that buying the securities was impossible because there was no cogent way of determining their value in a short period of time. Thus, the investments in preferred stock in the banks and insurance companies. Except for the auto companies and a few other banks, the TARP funds have been paid back and, in the end, the government will come close to breaking even or making a small profit. IMO, actually a great result when you consider what might have happened.
The CRA and people in Congress like Dodd and Frank were resonsible for pushing for sub-prime loans. Wall street firms picked it up and began packaging sub-primes with prime loans providing a debt instrument with superior payouts. It was all driven by a quant’s formula that proved all was well unless real estate prices dropped more than 6%. The conventional wisdom was that real estate would never fall by that much. (The old, “This time it’s different,” meme.) When the real estate market went south the realization that many of the sub-primes were defaulting hit the financial industry like a flood. The FASB required that holders of collateralized debt units “mark them to market.” That was disastrous because there was no auction market for those instruments. The shorts soon recognized their big chance and began circulating rumors that all of those debts were esentially worthless. The selling of the bank and insurance stocks began and the shorts piled in with the SEC unable to police all the naked shorting that was going on. In no time, the banks capital ratios plummeted and reached levels where they needed to raise more capital. Unable to sell stcok or bonds to raise capital they were paralyzed and began hoarding what cash they had. Thus did the banking system slow almost to a standstill. The TARP, coupled with the FASB cancelling the mark to market rule, gave the financial system the time to begin to work out of the problem. The problem still exists, but is being worked off. (Orderly write offs, liquidations, valuing CD instruments according to current income, etc.)
No one except maybe Paulsen and Bernanke understood how desperate the situation was, but they convinced Bush and enough members of Congress to vote yes on the TARP bill. There is lots of blame to go around concerning the financial meltdown. Dems protected and ecouraged sub-prime borrowing. The FED kept interest rates too low and then raised them too quickly. Wall Street dreamed up and sold the risky CD instruments. The SEC and ratings agencies failed to see that the risk in these was based on a poor assumption about the real esate market. The short traders, the FASB, and the SEC all collaborated in their own ways in the attack on the banks that almost brought the system down.
So, I think people are just not knowlegable enough when they attack the TARP. However, for the TARP funds used for thr auto bailouts, that is another issue. Those were done in a stupid, ant- business, anti-investor fashion that rewarded the unions at everyone else’s expense. Only the dems and the unions liked that maneuver.
On the other hand, the $787 billion stimulus bill was poorly conceived because it did nothing to incentivize new hiring and business expansion. Yet President Obama and the dem controlled Congress want to do more of the same. My take on all this, vote for fiscal conservatives in November.
“TARP was absolutely necessary to unclog the banking system”
Even if this were true, it is true for reasons that have NOTHING to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loan programs. The loans in those programs did NOT cause the meltdown.
Fannie and Freddie, like other private institutions, have financial investment portfolios containing stocks and bonds.
But those portfolios don’t have anything to do with Fannie and Freddie housing programs.
Some of the stocks in Fannie and Freddie’s portfolios turned out to be worthless. Those stocks contained loans having NOTHING to do with Fannie and Freddie loan programs.
If a company like Microsoft issued stock that turned out to be worthless as the result of fraud, and Fannie and Freddie had Microsoft stock in their portfolios, it would be utterly absurd to blame Fannie and Freddie for Mircrosoft’s behavior.
Yet that is what is being attempted by certain partisan Republicans with predictable results — skepticism of Republican Party operatives and their honesty.
SteveJ,
Did I say anything about Fannie and Freddie?
They have, however, been managed very poorly. Mostly by democrats who managed to pay themselves very richly for their efforts. Anyone who has spent time analyzing this knows that you are correct. Fannie and Freddie got greedy and started buying up some of the Wall Street Mortgage Backed Securities (MBSs). There were warnings from both the Bush administration and John McCain. The warnings were brushed off by assurances from Frank and Dodd, two chairmen who were supposed to know whereof they spoke. I know. I watched Barney Frank assure Larry Kudlow on CNBC that Fannie and Freddie were sound about a week before they were taken over by the Treasury. Had I not trusted his word, I could have sold my Fannie Mae preferred shares for a lot more than I got a week later. Stupid me, I accepted that good old Barney wouldn’t lie on financial TV. Well, I’m poorer but wiser now. It has become my opinion that when Barney’s mouth is moving he is either spinning or outright lieing. Too bad he has a lifetime position in his district in Massachusetts. He has wrought much damage and will continue to be a poison apple in the barrel as long as he is there.
Fannie and Freddie are now in the process of trying to repair their balance sheets just like all our financioal institutions are. They do need to be reformed and probably privatized. They are a huge potential liability for the tax payers. We don’t need more liabilities when the government is in such a huge deficit spending mode. What we need is fiscal sanity. Will Barney, Nancy, Chris and Harry provide it? I don’t think so.
J.J.
Well I didn’t really accuse you of saying anything about Fannie and Freddie.
I will note that the following sentence:
“The warnings were brushed off by assurances from Frank and Dodd, two chairmen who were supposed to know whereof they spoke.”
is a little off.
Frank and Dodd were NOT chairmen during this scam. They were in the minority and could not have stopped initiatives by Republican Chairmen, none of whom brought anything to the floor of either chamber.
Stevej,
Barney and Chris were the chairmen of the Finance Committees from 2007 onward. That was the period when alarms were being sounded by the other side.
It is true that the Repubs were asleep at the switch prior to that point. The unraveling began in earnest in 2007. However, as early as 2003 Bush asked for reform but little was done. Read this for more detail:
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/18/republican-congress-talked-about-financial-reform-but-did-nothing.htm
This report ha seven more details abiout who did what and why reform was not attempted:
http://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/bush-and-mccain-proposed-oversight-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/
Lots of blame to go around. That should not stop us from learning from the mistakes of the past and
doing better as we move forward.