On 8/16/2012 5:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/16/2012 5:27 PM, wrote:


================================================== ========



How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has
provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns
Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part
of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems
so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over
that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe
this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage
crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans
by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage
pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages
themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they
became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous
obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than
$388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence
created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities
assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk
investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to
fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aSKSoiNbnQY0


*ALL* caused by the Democrats: CRA and the Clinton gutting of
underwriting standards at the GSEs.



Oh, so now I see where you get all this right wing claptrap from. Your
source is the director of policy studies at the American Enterprise
Institute, a far right wing think tank. He's a right winger with right
wing goofy economic ideas. He's not a mainstream economist by any
measure. No wonder you follow him. He's another extremist right winger.

Here's some of his work. He was McCain's chief economic adviser in the
2000 presidential primaries. He was an economic adviser to George W.
Bush in the 2004 and the 2008 presidential elections. So the guy is a
total right wing economist and was advising Bush in all his far out,
supply side economics that brought down the economy. This is where Bush
and the republicans got their screwy economic trickle down ideas from,
guys like Hassett.

Here's another example of how far off the guy is. In 1999 he co-authored
a book called: Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting from the
Coming Rise in the Stock Market. I'm not making that up. That is how far
off the guy was. He predicted the stock market going to 36,000. Not a
very good prediction for 1999 was it? Want to take his economic advice?
No thank you.

That's where Pimple-dick gets his freaky ideas from people like Hassett
that thought in 1999 the stock market was going to 36,000, and who
advised Bush in all his economic strategies which were what plunged the
country into the worst financial crisis in our lives. I'm not surprised
this is where the information comes from. This economist is a completely
committed republican operative. Who would have ever guessed he would
have blamed our economic problems on the Democrats, even when he was
advising Bush what on what economic policies to follow. No wonder he
appeals to Pimpleton, he's wrong about everything.


Hawke

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:56:50 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/16/2012 5:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/16/2012 5:27 PM, wrote:


================================================== ========



How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has
provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns
Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part
of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems
so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over
that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe
this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage
crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans
by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage
pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages
themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they
became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous
obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than
$388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence
created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities
assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk
investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to
fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aSKSoiNbnQY0


*ALL* caused by the Democrats: CRA and the Clinton gutting of
underwriting standards at the GSEs.

With the possible exception of the last sentence, a good general
explanation of the debacle.

Hawke, in place of the political rant (below) with which you have
replied to this how about a clear, concise, explanation of what you
believe happened?




Oh, so now I see where you get all this right wing claptrap from. Your
source is the director of policy studies at the American Enterprise
Institute, a far right wing think tank. He's a right winger with right
wing goofy economic ideas. He's not a mainstream economist by any
measure. No wonder you follow him. He's another extremist right winger.

Here's some of his work. He was McCain's chief economic adviser in the
2000 presidential primaries. He was an economic adviser to George W.
Bush in the 2004 and the 2008 presidential elections. So the guy is a
total right wing economist and was advising Bush in all his far out,
supply side economics that brought down the economy. This is where Bush
and the republicans got their screwy economic trickle down ideas from,
guys like Hassett.

Here's another example of how far off the guy is. In 1999 he co-authored
a book called: Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting from the
Coming Rise in the Stock Market. I'm not making that up. That is how far
off the guy was. He predicted the stock market going to 36,000. Not a
very good prediction for 1999 was it? Want to take his economic advice?
No thank you.

That's where Pimple-dick gets his freaky ideas from people like Hassett
that thought in 1999 the stock market was going to 36,000, and who
advised Bush in all his economic strategies which were what plunged the
country into the worst financial crisis in our lives. I'm not surprised
this is where the information comes from. This economist is a completely
committed republican operative. Who would have ever guessed he would
have blamed our economic problems on the Democrats, even when he was
advising Bush what on what economic policies to follow. No wonder he
appeals to Pimpleton, he's wrong about everything.


Hawke




Cheers,
John B.

On 8/17/2012 2:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/17/2012 1:56 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 8/16/2012 5:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/16/2012 5:27 PM, wrote:


================================================== ========



How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has
provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns
Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part
of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems
so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over
that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe
this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some
fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage
crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans
by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage
pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages
themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they
became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous
obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than
$388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence
created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities
assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk
investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to
fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aSKSoiNbnQY0


*ALL* caused by the Democrats: CRA and the Clinton gutting of
underwriting standards at the GSEs.



Oh, so now I see where you get all this right wing claptrap from. Your
source is the director of policy studies at the American Enterprise
Institute

Solid stuff.



Every right wing extremist thinks so. But to the rest of the world it is
about as believable as the "experts" who say there wasn't really a
Holocaust. Kook stuff is what everyone else thinks. No wonder you went
for it.

Hawke

On Aug 19, 4:44*pm, Hawke wrote:

The one sentence answer is it was the fault of the anti regulation
republicans taking over the government, and of the financial companies
acting completely irresponsibly, and making a whole slew of stupid
mistakes concerning the way they managed risk.

Hawke

Not believable without a cite.

Dan

On 8/19/2012 1:51 PM, wrote:
On Aug 19, 4:44 pm, Hawke wrote:

The one sentence answer is it was the fault of the anti regulation
republicans taking over the government, and of the financial companies
acting completely irresponsibly, and making a whole slew of stupid
mistakes concerning the way they managed risk.

Hawke

Not believable without a cite.

Dan



It's only not believable to you because of your ignorance of the
subject. You need to do some research on what a CDO is, and how a CDO
that is full of nothing but Triple B rated bonds becomes a CDO that has
a Triple A rating. If you understood how the rating agencies decided how
to rate those things you might know. If you knew how the Wall Street
banks tricked the agencies into rating investment vehicles filled with
worthless mortgages into first class rated investment vehicles then you
would know how it worked. But you don't know how any of those things
were done in the financial industry. I could tell you but you don't
believe anything so I won't waste my time on informing you. FYI it's
things like this that make me believe you are not well informed when it
comes to this subject.

I just this afternoon watched Kristen Grind on Book TV talking about
Washington Mutual and how it went under, and why. Her book is called The
Lost Bank. She explained how Washington Mutual went from a S&L to the
largest bank to default in the country. Her answer was that it was WAMU
that did it by itself when it went into the subprime market. All the
banks did this because the subprime loans made them a lot more money
than regular loans did. That's why all the banks wanted more of them.
They made a lot of money off them. You should try learning about the
crisis, it's very interesting. It also would help you understand that
what I'm telling you is exactly what the experts are saying. Why not?
That's where I get my information.

Hawke

On 8/19/2012 4:19 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 8/19/2012 1:51 PM, wrote:
On Aug 19, 4:44 pm, Hawke wrote:

The one sentence answer is it was the fault of the anti regulation
republicans taking over the government, and of the financial companies
acting completely irresponsibly, and making a whole slew of stupid
mistakes concerning the way they managed risk.

Hawke

Not believable without a cite.

Dan



It's only not believable to you because of your ignorance of the
subject.

You have no awareness of the subject, except some bull**** left-wing
blog site.

On Aug 19, 7:19*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 8/19/2012 1:51 PM, wrote:

On Aug 19, 4:44 pm, Hawke wrote:

The one sentence answer is it was the fault of the anti regulation
republicans taking over the government, and of the financial companies
acting completely irresponsibly, and making a whole slew of stupid
mistakes concerning the way they managed risk.

Hawke

Not believable without a cite.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

It's only not believable to you because of your ignorance of the
subject. You need to do some research on what a CDO is,

What makes you think that I do not know what a Collateralized debt
obligation is? And how does that relate to your rant about
Republicans. You need some proof that the Republicans were those it
fault. And that will be hard to do. I remember too much about
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to believe it was not at least equally the
Democrats fault. Probably more the Democrats than the Republicans.
Who took the special loan from Countrywide? i will refresh your
memory. It was Chris Dodd, Democrat from Conn. See
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/la...odd-countrywid
for the Countrywide and other scandals.

and how a CDO
that is full of nothing but Triple B rated bonds becomes a CDO that has
a Triple A rating. If you understood how the rating agencies decided how
to rate those things you might know.

Actually I know enough math that I understand how a CDO that is
comprised of triple B rated bonds gets a higher rating than triple B.
Do you understand that?




If you knew how the Wall Street
banks tricked the agencies into rating investment vehicles filled with
worthless mortgages into first class rated investment vehicles then you
would know how it worked. But you don't know how any of those things
were done in the financial industry. I could tell you but you don't
believe anything so I won't waste my time on informing you. FYI it's
things like this that make me believe you are not well informed when it
comes to this subject.


You think I do not know about finance, but what I was pointing out was
your stupid statement saying it was all the Republicans fault. the
only problem with that is that I know too much about finance.


I just this afternoon watched Kristen Grind on Book TV talking about
Washington Mutual and how it went under, and why. Her book is called The
Lost Bank. She explained how Washington Mutual went from a S&L to the
largest bank to default in the country. Her answer was that it was WAMU
that did it by itself when it went into the subprime market. All the
banks did this because the subprime loans made them a lot more money
than regular loans did. That's why all the banks wanted more of them.
They made a lot of money off them. You should try learning about the
crisis, it's very interesting. It also would help you understand that
what I'm telling you is exactly what the experts are saying. Why not?
That's where I get my information.


So how does a statement the WaMu did it to them selves match up with
your blame of the Republcians. I am well aware of what happened to
WaMu. WaMu was a Washington State bank, and I owed a little of WaMu
stock as well as having a WaMu bank account. And about ten years
earlier I borrowed some money from WaMu.

I seriously doubt that any experts said that the Republicans were the
only ones in Congress that were at fault. Just a reminder Chris Dodd
is no longer a Senator. And Barney Frank suddenly retired. Want to
know why?

Dan
Hawke

On 8/19/2012 9:10 PM, wrote:

It's only not believable to you because of your ignorance of the
subject. You need to do some research on what a CDO is,

What makes you think that I do not know what a Collateralized debt
obligation is? And how does that relate to your rant about
Republicans. You need some proof that the Republicans were those it
fault. And that will be hard to do.

It's a breeze to learn the republicans did not believe in regulating the
financial industry and so they didn't. The control over our banking
system was totally lax the entire time that Bush was in the White House.
It's like saying if Gore had been president there would not have been an
Iraq War. It's the same with Bush becoming president. Once that happened
no control of the banks was sure to follow, and it did. That's why it's
the republican's fault. The handed the responsibility of our financial
system over to the banks, and you saw what happened.



I remember too much about
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to believe it was not at least equally the
Democrats fault.

That's very convenient for you of course. But it is patently not true
because it assumes that the goals of the republicans and the Democrats
are the same. I can assure you they are not. Democrats were out to
regulate the banks and keep them under control. The republicans were out
to deregulate them and let the market itself control how things turn
out. We know which side got their way.


Probably more the Democrats than the Republicans.
Who took the special loan from Countrywide? i will refresh your
memory. It was Chris Dodd, Democrat from Conn. See
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/la...odd-countrywid
for the Countrywide and other scandals.

Irrelevant. I know all about Dodd getting a better loan rate from
Countrywide because of who he was. That happens all the time. It had
nothing to do with the republicans not controlling the banks.



and how a CDO
that is full of nothing but Triple B rated bonds becomes a CDO that has
a Triple A rating. If you understood how the rating agencies decided how
to rate those things you might know.

Actually I know enough math that I understand how a CDO that is
comprised of triple B rated bonds gets a higher rating than triple B.
Do you understand that?

That's exactly how I know that you don't know what you are talking about
because math has nothing to do with how the agencies rated things.
Actually it was done with smoke and mirrors. The fact is a CDO filled
with Triple B bonds should be rated as one with Triple B bonds not as a
Triple A. That's fraud. That's what they were doing. They rated things
as Triple A that by no one's standards were triple A grade investments.
That's the whole point. No amount of math can make a silk purse out of a
sow's ear.



If you knew how the Wall Street
banks tricked the agencies into rating investment vehicles filled with
worthless mortgages into first class rated investment vehicles then you
would know how it worked. But you don't know how any of those things
were done in the financial industry. I could tell you but you don't
believe anything so I won't waste my time on informing you. FYI it's
things like this that make me believe you are not well informed when it
comes to this subject.

And by what you said above. You clearly don't know the relationship
between Wall Street and the rating agencies. You don't know the
influence the banks has on the rating agencies or how they do business.



You think I do not know about finance, but what I was pointing out was
your stupid statement saying it was all the Republicans fault. the
only problem with that is that I know too much about finance.

I'm not saying that there wasn't some part played by Democrats. They
were not angels in this either. But when one side is preponderantly
wrong then I tend to not bother with the minor player. There's always
some Democrats involved in wrongdoing. Both sides usually cooperate in
doing the wrong thing. But that doesn't take the lion's share of the
blame from the republicans.



I just this afternoon watched Kristen Grind on Book TV talking about
Washington Mutual and how it went under, and why. Her book is called The
Lost Bank. She explained how Washington Mutual went from a S&L to the
largest bank to default in the country. Her answer was that it was WAMU
that did it by itself when it went into the subprime market. All the
banks did this because the subprime loans made them a lot more money
than regular loans did. That's why all the banks wanted more of them.
They made a lot of money off them. You should try learning about the
crisis, it's very interesting. It also would help you understand that
what I'm telling you is exactly what the experts are saying. Why not?
That's where I get my information.


So how does a statement the WaMu did it to them selves match up with
your blame of the Republcians.

Because no one was watching the store. All this stupid and overly risky
behavior was done by the banks themselves. The government agencies that
should have been on top of this and done something about it did nothing.
When the party in power believes it's role is to allow business to be
free to do anything it wants you have to hold it responsible when things
blow up. Both them and the financial institutions. Both were to blame.
But the republicans gave the industry the chance to blow itself up
instead of keeping it under control.



I am well aware of what happened to
WaMu. WaMu was a Washington State bank, and I owed a little of WaMu
stock as well as having a WaMu bank account. And about ten years
earlier I borrowed some money from WaMu.

I had a checking account with them too and liked that bank. In the early
days it was a very good bank. But it changed. The changes caused it to
blow up. Getting heavily involved in subprime is what did them in.


I seriously doubt that any experts said that the Republicans were the
only ones in Congress that were at fault. Just a reminder Chris Dodd
is no longer a Senator. And Barney Frank suddenly retired. Want to
know why?


I guess your habit of not watching TV is to blame here. Because it seems
you have not seen what Dodd and Frank look like these days. They are
OLD! Dodd has all white hair and is in his late 60s. Frank is old too
and has been in congress a very long time. His district was changed
because of redistricting. He would have had to campaign in an area he
had never been in so he thought it was time to hang it up. It had
nothing to do with anything else.

Hawke

On 8/19/2012 7:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/19/2012 4:19 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 8/19/2012 1:51 PM, wrote:
On Aug 19, 4:44 pm, Hawke wrote:

The one sentence answer is it was the fault of the anti regulation
republicans taking over the government, and of the financial companies
acting completely irresponsibly, and making a whole slew of stupid
mistakes concerning the way they managed risk.

Hawke

Not believable without a cite.

Dan



It's only not believable to you because of your ignorance of the
subject.

You have no awareness of the subject, except some bull**** left-wing
blog site.



I don't go to blogs. I don't even know of any. I do my own political
analysis. I have over 40 years of political knowledge under my belt.
Unlike you, I don't need anyone else's help understanding what is going on.

Hawke

On Aug 20, 1:52*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 8/19/2012 9:10 PM, wrote:

It's a breeze to learn the republicans did not believe in regulating the
financial industry and so they didn't.

Some of those believing in not regulating the financial industry were
Democrats. Chris Dodd was bought and paid for.





* *I *remember too much about

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to believe it was not at least equally the
Democrats fault.






Who took the special loan from Countrywide? *i will refresh your
memory. *It was Chris Dodd, Democrat from Conn. *See
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/la...er-idiots/chri...
for the Countrywide and other scandals.

Irrelevant. I know all about Dodd getting a better loan rate from
Countrywide because of who he was. That happens all the time. It had
nothing to do with the republicans not controlling the banks.

It had to do with getting Dodd to vote as he did.



That's exactly how I know that you don't know what you are talking about
because math has nothing to do with how the agencies rated things.

And that is how I know you are ignorant of the basis for CDO's.


Actually it was done with smoke and mirrors. The fact is a CDO filled
with Triple B bonds should be rated as one with Triple B bonds not as a
Triple A. That's fraud. That's what they were doing. They rated things
as Triple A that by no one's standards were triple A grade investments.
That's the whole point. No amount of math can make a silk purse out of a
sow's ear.

See you do not understand CDO's.



And by what you said above. You clearly don't know the relationship
between Wall Street and the rating agencies. You don't know the
influence the banks has on the rating agencies or how they do business.

I undorstand better than you.




I'm not saying that there wasn't some part played by Democrats. They
were not angels in this either. But when one side is preponderantly
wrong then I tend to not bother with the minor player.

That is what you do. Ignore the details on what happened and why.

T
I just this afternoon watched Kristen Grind on Book TV talking about


Because no one was watching the store. All this stupid and overly risky
behavior was done by the banks themselves. The government agencies that
should have been on top of this and done something about it did nothing.
When the party in power believes it's role is to allow business to be
free to do anything it wants you have to hold it responsible when things
blow up. Both them and the financial institutions. Both were to blame.
But the republicans gave the industry the chance to blow itself up
instead of keeping it under control.



I guess your habit of not watching TV is to blame here. Because it seems
you have not seen what Dodd and Frank look like these days. They are
OLD! Dodd has all white hair and is in his late 60s. Frank is old too
and has been in congress a very long time. His district was changed
because of redistricting. He would have had to campaign in an area he
had never been in so he thought it was time to hang it up. It had
nothing to do with anything else.

It did have everything to do with the voters finding out what they had
been doing.

Dan



Hawke

On 8/20/2012 10:57 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/20/2012 10:55 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 8/19/2012 7:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/19/2012 4:19 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 8/19/2012 1:51 PM, wrote:
On Aug 19, 4:44 pm, Hawke wrote:

The one sentence answer is it was the fault of the anti regulation
republicans taking over the government, and of the financial
companies
acting completely irresponsibly, and making a whole slew of stupid
mistakes concerning the way they managed risk.

Hawke

Not believable without a cite.

Dan



It's only not believable to you because of your ignorance of the
subject.

You have no awareness of the subject, except some bull**** left-wing
blog site.



I don't go to blogs.

That's a lie.



You think that just because you go to right wing and libertarian blogs
that everybody else does too? I don't. I told you. I come up with my own
stuff.

Hawke

On 8/20/2012 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:52 pm, Hawke wrote:
On 8/19/2012 9:10 PM, wrote:

It's a breeze to learn the republicans did not believe in regulating the
financial industry and so they didn't.

Some of those believing in not regulating the financial industry were
Democrats. Chris Dodd was bought and paid for.





I remember too much about

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to believe it was not at least equally the
Democrats fault.






Who took the special loan from Countrywide? i will refresh your
memory. It was Chris Dodd, Democrat from Conn. See
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/la...er-idiots/chri...
for the Countrywide and other scandals.

Irrelevant. I know all about Dodd getting a better loan rate from
Countrywide because of who he was. That happens all the time. It had
nothing to do with the republicans not controlling the banks.

It had to do with getting Dodd to vote as he did.



That's exactly how I know that you don't know what you are talking about
because math has nothing to do with how the agencies rated things.

And that is how I know you are ignorant of the basis for CDO's.


Actually it was done with smoke and mirrors. The fact is a CDO filled
with Triple B bonds should be rated as one with Triple B bonds not as a
Triple A. That's fraud. That's what they were doing. They rated things
as Triple A that by no one's standards were triple A grade investments.
That's the whole point. No amount of math can make a silk purse out of a
sow's ear.

See you do not understand CDO's.



And by what you said above. You clearly don't know the relationship
between Wall Street and the rating agencies. You don't know the
influence the banks has on the rating agencies or how they do business.

I undorstand better than you.




I'm not saying that there wasn't some part played by Democrats. They
were not angels in this either. But when one side is preponderantly
wrong then I tend to not bother with the minor player.

That is what you do. Ignore the details on what happened and why.

T
I just this afternoon watched Kristen Grind on Book TV talking about


Because no one was watching the store. All this stupid and overly risky
behavior was done by the banks themselves. The government agencies that
should have been on top of this and done something about it did nothing.
When the party in power believes it's role is to allow business to be
free to do anything it wants you have to hold it responsible when things
blow up. Both them and the financial institutions. Both were to blame.
But the republicans gave the industry the chance to blow itself up
instead of keeping it under control.



I guess your habit of not watching TV is to blame here. Because it seems
you have not seen what Dodd and Frank look like these days. They are
OLD! Dodd has all white hair and is in his late 60s. Frank is old too
and has been in congress a very long time. His district was changed
because of redistricting. He would have had to campaign in an area he
had never been in so he thought it was time to hang it up. It had
nothing to do with anything else.

It did have everything to do with the voters finding out what they had
been doing.

Dan


Sorry Dan, but you don't have anything to back up those opinions of
yours. I saw Barney frank in person say that his district was redrawn so
he would have to go to someplace he has never been and try to get
reelected there. He'd been in congress many years and had had enough.
Dodd may well have left because he knew he would lose if he ran again.
That happens all the time. Areas change. Dodd had been there for 30
years. That's long enough in my book. But there is no proof he left for
any wrong doing. He did too much for his state for many, many years.
It was just time for him to go.

Hawke

On Aug 21, 6:12*pm, Hawke wrote:





Sorry Dan, but you don't have anything to back up those opinions of
yours. I saw Barney frank in person say that his district was redrawn so
he would have to go to someplace he has never been and try to get
reelected there. He'd been in congress many years and had had enough.
Dodd may well have left because he knew he would lose if he ran again.
That happens all the time. Areas change. Dodd had been there for 30
years. That's long enough in my book. But there is no proof he left for
any wrong doing. He did too much for his state for many, many years.
It was just time for him to go.

Hawke


I have a bridge in NYC that is for sale. You seem like a nice guy,
would you like to buy it.

Dan

On 8/21/2012 4:39 PM, wrote:
On Aug 21, 6:12 pm, Hawke wrote:





Sorry Dan, but you don't have anything to back up those opinions of
yours. I saw Barney frank in person say that his district was redrawn so
he would have to go to someplace he has never been and try to get
reelected there. He'd been in congress many years and had had enough.
Dodd may well have left because he knew he would lose if he ran again.
That happens all the time. Areas change. Dodd had been there for 30
years. That's long enough in my book. But there is no proof he left for
any wrong doing. He did too much for his state for many, many years.
It was just time for him to go.

Hawke


I have a bridge in NYC that is for sale. You seem like a nice guy,
would you like to buy it.

Dan



Yeah, I believe you do Dan, and you bought it from a guy who was looking
for a sucker to unload it on. That was you. It wouldn't be me.

You probably trust Mitt Romney's word. See what I mean? You don't trust
him because you know he's a liar but you would vote for him anyway. Or
do you think he's trustworthy? See what I mean. Either one you choose is
bad for you. But you have to pick one or the other. You choose that
Romney is trustworthy, which makes you naive and a sucker. Or you choose
that he's not believable but you will vote for him anyway. If you want
to see a sucker get out the mirror.

Hawke

On Aug 22, 6:18*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 8/21/2012 4:39 PM, wrote:



On Aug 21, 6:12 pm, Hawke wrote:

Sorry Dan, but you don't have anything to back up those opinions of
yours.
Hawke




Hey you are the one that takes the word of two members of Congress who
did not try to be re elected because of scandal. See below for
something to back up my opinions. I guess news like this does not
make a good TV story, so you missed knowing what was happening.

Dan


The reality is that Frank, the powerful chairman of the House
Financial Services Committee, has been embroiled in two of the largest
financial scandals in recent history. The first is the collapse of
government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack, which triggered the
nation’s financial crisis. Judicial Watch obtained internal government
documents proving that members of Congress, including — and perhaps
especially — Frank, were well aware that Fannie and Freddie were in
deep trouble due to corruption and incompetence and yet they did
nothing to stop it.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...-barney-frank/


Dodd was involved in issues related to the federal takeover of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac during the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis. As part
of Dodd's overall mortgage bill the Housing and Economic Recovery Act
of 2008 before Congress in the summer of 2008, Treasury Secretary Hank
Paulson sought provisions enabling the Treasury to add additional
capital and regulatory oversight over these government sponsored
enterprises. At the time, it was estimated that the federal government
would need to spend $25 billion on a bailout of the firms.[40]

During this period, Dodd denied rumors these firms were in financial
crisis. He called the firms "fundamentally strong",[41] said they were
in "sound situation" and "in good shape" and to "suggest they are in
major trouble is not accurate".[42] In early September, after the
firms continued to report huge losses,[43] Secretary Paulson announced
a federal takeover of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Dodd expressed
skepticism of the action, which the Treasury estimated could cost as
much as $200 billion.

Dodd is the number one recipient in Congress of campaign funds from
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.[44]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd