Soros took a job with the Jewish Council, which had been established
during the Nazi occupation of Hungary to carry out Nazi and Hungarian
government anti-Jewish measures. Soros later described this time to
writer Michael Lewis:
The Jewish Council asked the little kids to hand out the
deportation notices. I was told to go to the Jewish Council. And there
I was given these small slips of paper ... It said report to the rabbi
seminary at 9 am ... And I was given this list of names. I took this
piece of paper to my father. He instantly recognized it. This was a
list of Hungarian Jewish lawyers. He said, "You deliver the slips of
paper and tell the people that if they report they will be deported."
On Jan 4, 1:48 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Snopes gets funding from Soros groups. Therefore they can never be trusted
> for anything again.
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:35 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/saywhat.asp
>
> > Wall Street melt-downs? Banking industry bailouts? Hedge fund hanky-
> > panky?
> > Multi-million dollar Wall Street bonuses? Collapse of the dollar?
> > National
> > debt default? Economic collapse?
> > ---
> > call a dem or repub for a bailout ... their ability to take from
> > Americans is limitless
>
> > On Jan 3, 3:51 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This fits right in with the "Repo Man" article.
>
> > > http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/4050
>
> > > *What Every American Should Know*
>
> > > Paul R. Hollrah
> > > January 3, 2012
>
> > > Wall Street melt-downs? Banking industry bailouts? Hedge fund
> > hanky-panky?
> > > Multi-million dollar Wall Street bonuses? Collapse of the dollar?
> > National
> > > debt default? Economic collapse? Who can possibly make sense of it all?
> > How
> > > did it happen, and who's to blame? Did George W. Bush create the mess and
> > > leave it for Obama to clean up, or were Democrats to blame all along and
> > > Obama was just too incompetent to know what to do about it? What is the
> > > truth of all this?
>
> > > Now that the Securities & Exchange Commission is finally pursuing
> > > wrongdoing at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it's time the American people
> > > knew the root causes of our current economic difficulties. We all need to
> > > have a basic understanding of the mess...one that will allow us to
> > explain
> > > it to our Democrat friends in terms that even they can understand.
>
> > > First, it must be said that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a
> > Carter
> > > administration initiative, was not a totally bad idea. It encouraged
> > > lenders to make loans to qualified borrowers who had previously been
> > denied
> > > solely on the basis of the color of their skin. The CRA was intended to
> > > reduce or eliminate a practice known as "redlining," in which realtors
> > and
> > > lenders discriminated against potential buyers in low-income and
> > depressed
> > > neighborhoods, approving home loans for lower-income whites but not for
> > > middle or upper-income blacks.
>
> > > Throughout the Reagan and Bush (41) years, between 1981 and 1993, the CRA
> > > was enforced in a straightforward manner. Lenders were encouraged to
> > > abandon the "redlining" practice and to meet the credit needs of all
> > > members of the community, consistent with sound lending practices.
>
> > > However, when Democrats regained control of the White House in 1993, in
> > the
> > > person of Bill Clinton, Democrats began to act like Democrats. They
> > decided
> > > that the CRA, if strategically enforced with a political end in mind,
> > > provided a unique opportunity to purchase the votes of those at the lower
> > > end of the economic ladder.
>
> > > Under the Clinton administration, regulators paid particularly close
> > > attention to the lending practices of banks and savings & loan
> > > associations. In other words, were lenders meeting the credit needs of
> > all
> > > borrowers in their local communities, regardless of borrowers' ability to
> > > repay their loans? Accordingly, they began to use the results of those
> > > examinations to determine whether or not to approve mergers and
> > > acquisitions, and whether or not to approve applications for new branch
> > > banks. Lenders soon found that the CRA was more stick than carrot.
>
> > > As a result, lenders abandoned traditional lending criteria and made
> > > mortgage loans to almost anyone who applied, regardless of their income
> > > level or credit worthiness. Under normal circumstances, no prudent lender
> > > would ever lend money to those with little or no ability to repay, but
> > > these were not normal circumstances. Two of the Democratic Party's
> > favorite
> > > patronage cesspools...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...were standing ready to
> > > buy up any and all mortgages. And why should Fannie and Freddie worry
> > about
> > > the quality of the mortgages they bought? They had no reason to worry
> > > because, as quasi-public institutions, they had the cash assets of the
> > > American taxpayer...the U.S. Treasury...at their disposal.
>
> > > Here's how it worked. When a home buyer took out a home loan from a bank
> > or
> > > a savings & loan association, the mortgage was then sold to what was
> > known
> > > as a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE), i.e. Fannie Mae or Freddie
> > Mac.
> > > Fannie and Freddie then bundled the loan with other sub-prime mortgages
> > and
> > > sold the bundle to private investors...promising not only attractive
> > > returns, but a high degree of security as well. By year end 2010, Fannie
> > > and Freddie had acquired more than half of the $11 trillion mortgage loan
> > > market in the United States.
>
> > > However, the sale of mortgages to private investors was not a totally
> > > arms-length proposition because, even though Fannie and Freddie had sold
> > > the bundled mortgages, they continued to have a financial interest in
> > them.
> > > They guaranteed the securities for the investors, promising to continue
> > > making payments on the mortgages even if the homeowner stopped paying. In
> > > 2008, when the overheated real estate market collapsed and a great many
> > > homeowners stopped paying all at once, the cash reserves of Fannie and
> > > Freddie were soon depleted, forcing them to default on their guarantees
> > and
> > > precipitating a major economic crisis.
>
> > > One might ask, how could something like this happen directly under the
> > > noses of our political leaders without anyone taking notice? The fact is,
> > > shortly after taking office in 2001, the Bush administration did notice
> > and
> > > took steps to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What they apparently
> > > failed to understand was that Fannie and Freddie existed in a world of
> > > their own, a world in which Democrats who were either owed big favors, or
> > > who were being paid to keep their mouths shut for one reason or another
> > > were well taken care of.
>
> > > Among these was Franklin Raines, former Clinton White House budget
> > > director, who served as chairman and chief executive officer of Fannie
> > Mae.
> > > Raines took "early retirement" from Fannie Mae on December 21, 2004 after
> > > the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) accused him of
> > > participating in widespread accounting irregularities, including the
> > > shifting of losses so that senior Fannie Mae executives could earn large
> > > bonuses. Some $90 million was paid to Raines based on overstated
> > > earnings...earnings initially reported at $9 billion but later found to
> > be
> > > in the neighborhood of $6.3 billion.
>
> > > Tim Howard, Chief Financial Officer under Raines, is a former Senior
> > > Economic Advisor to Barack Obama. When Howard was terminated at Fannie
> > Mae
> > > he walked away with a "golden parachute" reported to be worth
> > approximately
> > > $20 million.
>
> > > Jim Johnson, a former Lehman Brothers executive who headed Obama's vice
> > > presidential search committee, is also a former Fannie Mae CEO who was
> > > forced to resign. Johnson's 1998 Fannie Mae compensation was reported at
> > > between $6-7 million. In truth, it was $21 million.
>
> > > And last, but not least, we have former Deputy Attorney General in the
> > > Clinton administration, Jamie Gorelick, the woman who erected the
> > infamous
> > > "Gorelick Wall" which prevented the CIA and the FBI from sharing
> > > intelligence that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks on the World
> > Trade
> > > Center and the Pentagon. After leaving the Justice Department she
> > > resurfaced as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 to 2003. And although
> > > she had no training or experience in finance, whatsoever, during the six
> > > years she worked at Fannie Mae she earned over $26 million.
>
> > > While serving as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae, Gorelick participated in
> > the
> > > development of an accounting scheme which allowed Fannie's Mae's top
> > > executives – whose bonuses were tied to earnings-per-share – to meet the
> > > target for maximum bonus payouts. For example, in 1998 the target
> > earnings
> > > for maximum bonus payout at Fannie Mae was $3.23 per share. Fannie Mae
> > > reported earnings of exactly $3.2309. (Don't you just hate it when that
> > > happens?)
>
> > > So how was this arranged? Because of lower interest rates in 1998, Fannie
> > > Mae found itself facing an extraordinary expense estimated at $400
> > million.
> > > Johnson, Franklin, and Gorelick decided to recognize only $200 million of
> > > the $400 million expense, deferring the remainder to the next fiscal
> > year.
> > > This fortuitous "coincidence" resulted in maximum bonus payouts: $1.932
> > > million to then-CEO Jim Johnson, $1.19 million to CEO-designate Franklin
> > > Raines, and $779,625 to accounting whiz Jamie Gorelick.
>
> > > Democrats do have an uncanny way of taking care of their own.
>
> > > In the 2 years and 11 months that Barack Obama has been in office,
> > > Democrats have waged an uninterrupted and unabashed attack on George W.
> > > Bush, insisting that he did nothing to forestall the Fannie and Freddie
> > > disasters that we now face. However, the facts are these: The Bush
> > > administration warned Congress of impending insolvency at Fannie Mae and
> > > Freddie Mac in April 2001, May 2002, November 2003, February 2004, August
> > > 2007, December 2007, March 2008, April 2008, May 2008, and June 2008. In
> > > addition, officials of the Bush administration testified before Congress,
> > > calling for reform of Fannie and Freddie, in September 2003, June 2004,
> > > April 2005, and February 2008.
>
> > > In each instance, their warnings were either ignored or were subjected to
> > > strong push-back from leading Democrats, who charged Republicans with
> > > opposing home ownership by the poor and minorities. In each instance, the
> > > principal push-back came
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment