"...the time has come to set aside childish things" - Barack Obama

[WhiskeyGirl]

From the inaugural address @ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/20/raw-data-president-barack-obamas-inaugural-address/100days/

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

What childish things?  The money lost in 401k's, retirements, savings of a lifetime?  The crash of the housing market?  The unending government bailouts for Freddie/Fannie, Tarp?  The future bailouts?

Are these the "childish things" Americans should just 'set aside'?

American's should just set aside childish things like integrity?  Honesty?  Fair dealing?  The Golden Rule?  Treating your neighbor as you would be treated?

What is left for the future?  More selfishness?  Bailouts?  Bankruptcy?  Squandering resources?  Poverty for future generations?   

What are the 'childish things' of Barack Obama?

imho

[WhiskeyGirl]

' "America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more," Obama declared. "We are the keepers of this legacy." '

Lead the financial recovery of every nation?  Give back all the money from the bubble that burst?

[WhiskeyGirl]

"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done," he said.

What has this country done?  Tarp?  Bailout debts in excess of $7 trillion dollars and rising? 

I have yet to see Obama explain how he plans for the nation to pay that money back.  Or, will the nation just go bankrupt?  Let the currency collapse?  Any ideas?

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."

What stale political arguments?  Arguments for a return of integrity to Capitol Hill?  Honest and fair dealing?  Financial stability today and for future generations?

Every generation has it's challenges.  I don't see change, other than a creeping rot and overwhelming poverty - I'd love to be wrong.  I see failed policies continuing - spending large sums of money and not worrying about the future.  The rebirth of the 'trickle down' theory. 

Taxpayers spend $900 billion dollars so Joe the builder can get $75,000 for one year and spend $1 at McDonalds - that's the Obama trickle down theory in action.  Where is the hope?

What happened to the trickle up theory?  New jobs?  New prosperity?

jmho

[A's Fever]

What are the 'childish things' of Barack Obama?[/b]

Maybe posts like this?  Maybe he is asking us to look forward and work together rather than fostering division?

Maybe we could have one day, just one day, without the constant criticism and negativity toward an administration that has not even taken form yet?  An administration that has yet to fully develop and articulate its policy because it just began today. . .

And yes, there are a lot of things we have not yet heard Obama speak of.  He has been in office for only a few hours.  He does not even have a Cabinet to work with yet. Let's give this administration a chance to review, consult, learn, discuss . . . before fully articulating policy.  Let's do our best to lift him up rather than tear him down.

MOO

[WhiskeyGirl]

What are the 'childish things' of Barack Obama?[/b]

Maybe posts like this?  Maybe he is asking us to look forward and work together rather than fostering division?

Maybe we could have one day, just one day, without the constant criticism and negativity toward an administration that has not even taken form yet?  An administration that has yet to fully develop and articulate its policy because it just began today. . .

And yes, there are a lot of things we have not yet heard Obama speak of.  He has been in office for only a few hours.  He does not even have a Cabinet to work with yet. Let's give this administration a chance to review, consult, learn, discuss . . . before fully articulating policy.  Let's do our best to lift him up rather than tear him down.

MOO

Obama and many in his 'new' administration have been part of Capitol Hill for quite a few years.  They've been in the trenches and had many opportunities to contribute to reform.  The red flags seem to have been everywhere.  Financial collapse doesn't happen overnight. 

I'm waiting to see what they can do differently going forward that didn't do over the past eight years.

Where was Obama for the past four years?  Emanuel?  Frank?  Pelosi?  Did these people just come out of the deep woods?  Mountains?  Desert?

In my simple mind, these people have had the opportunity to 'learn' for years - what is the result?

The financial disaster didn't happen overnight, reform has come up a number of times, and I haven't seen anything that looks like hope on the horizon.  They just keep talking about spending more money and increasing the national debt to new historic and global levels.  I'm waiting for anything, any whisper that sounds like reform or a brighter future ahead.  Silence.

jmho

[A's Fever]

They don't have anything to learn?  It would not be prudent then for the new admin to read history, economics, study models of policies that have worked and not worked?  I would think the opposite response would be called for. . .

As for Obama, I don't recall where he was four years ago but I am pretty sure he was not invested with the power to do anything about administration policy as a junior senator. Though there were certainly calls for reform I don't think the Bush administration foresaw impending disaster.  Few did, and IIRC they were economists outside of government, such as Roubini of NYU.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and surely teaches us what we should have done.  But Obama has to deal with the problems as they are now, not as they were some time in the past.  There are so many moving parts to the economy; and the crisis has changed since Obama declared his candidacy, and even more in the two months since he was elected. 

Of couse the crisis is many years in the making, thus the response should be well-considered and not knee-jerk.  I realize that you want new policy of your liking articulated immediately, but that is not going to happen.  And it should not.  It will develop over time I hope, after careful deliberation.

It is one thing to sit at a computer and criticize and decide what proper policy should be; it is quite another to have the whole responsibility on your shoulders; it is always easier to raise other people's children!

WG you bring many thoughtful articles to the PF and I truly appreciate many of them.  But when the posts start picking apart and finding evil in the Inauguration Address; or criticizing comments at a homeless shelter because they weren't exactly to your liking, I wonder what is being accomplished.

I mean this respectfully and hope it is received in that manner.   Off my soapbox now!

[Ree]

I for one, would like to have seen that childess display of singing na, na, na, na, hey, hey, goodbye as President Bush approached the dais put away.  No matter what your politics, THE President of the United deserves respect. 

[WhiskeyGirl]

Here is some of the the experience of the new administration related to Freddie/Fannie -

Although in 2000 the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), under Andrew Cuomo, increased the requirements that Fannie and Freddie buy loans made to lower-income people, a dramatic increase came in 2004—under the Bush administration. Some people believe it did so merely in order to pressure the companies into agreeing to new regulation. But Fannie itself isn’t a hapless victim, either. In the end, it was Fannie executives who made a business decision to stake their future on risky mortgages that had nothing to do with helping people own homes. The company used its political power to stymie effective regulation, and its extreme aggressiveness and arrogance gave its enemies license to do things they never would have done to a normal company. And, oh, did they ever.

seven pages -
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/01/16/Fannie-Maes-Last-Stand

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6201900

The Obama connection -

Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

Now remember: Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain — Sen. Obama — was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html

Any Obama admin talk about reforming the mortgage problem created by Fannie/Freddie to make sure it doesn't happen again?  Or just talk about helping homeowners?

Anyone look to see just why all those loans are in default?  Maybe people got money based on fraud and there isn't anyone paying?  People already abandoned their homes years ago? 

Someone had to know that loans were going bad at Fannie/Freddie, or maybe they "should have known", why didn't they do something to stop this financial juggernaut in 2000?  2005?   Some one (or many people) had to make all those loans that went bad, I would imagine they did not go bad overnight.

From my reading, I believe the problem was evident at least ten years ago.  Why no reform by Democrats?  Those running Fannie/Freddie? 

McCain led an effort in 2005 for reform.  Some insisted the system was sound and the efforts failed -

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / September 28, 2008

Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration...

...A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

..."Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." ...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

These are the people in charge of the nation.  Do they want to build a better America?  Or, do they have some other long term goal? 

I didn't understand a lot of this in 2000 or 2005, and I didn't read the papers.  I do try and keep up now and pay attention.

http://www.freddiemac.com/

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/9/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle.html

It seems like much of America is fixated on reality shows, entertainment (Olympics, Red Carpet events, etc.) and the internet. 

Why isn't there a good role playing game of American economics for world wide web players?  Young people could see the effect long term neglect of the American financial sector has caused the world economy, and how throwing money at the problem without addressing any repairs is likely to distress the nation for years to come.

There were simple games in the past like Hamurabi and Sim city that addressed debt and over building and such. 

Is it likely any investigation of these giants will continue?  Henry Hyde was involved in the S&L crisis in the past.  How many in Washington are involved in the mortgage crisis?

“These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” Frank said to the Times. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

This article uses the phrase "conflicts of interest".  -http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx

In a strange twist of fate...housing prices skyrocketed and were unaffordable for many Americans.  The bubble burst and housing prices collapsed.

Perhaps the inverse would have been true?  Greater regulation and common sense would have led to stable housing prices, reasonable efforts to qualify buyers, and a sound future for Fannie/Freddie and taxpayers?

The sink hole of debt just gets larger and larger.  Any talk about common sense lending practices?

jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers
Published by Lindsay Renick Mayer on September 11, 2008 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (32)

When the federal government announced two months ago that it would prop up mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, CRP looked at how much money members of Congress had collected since 1989 from the companies. On Sunday the government completely took over the two government-sponsored enterprises, and we've returned to our data to bring you the updates, this time providing a list of all 354 lawmakers who have gotten money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (in July we posted the top 25). These totals are based on data released electronically from the FEC on Sept. 2 and include contributions to lawmakers' leadership PACs and candidate committees from the floundering companies' PACs and employees. Current members of Congress have received a total of $4.8 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with Democrats collecting 57 percent of that. This week we also wrote about how much money lawmakers had invested of their own money in the companies last year--a total of up to $1.7 million.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

There is a long list of lawmakers that received contributions.  Some worked for reform, others did not.  Taxpayers remain responsible for far more than Madoff and his 'paltry' $50 billion.  Any chance of getting some of that money back for taxpayers?

In fact, CBS News has learned, Fannie and Freddie now boast nearly 150 lobbyists, spending almost $175 million combined over the past decade alone. That's more than pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and defense contractor Boeing.

The mortgage giants doled out $2 million more over the last four years through political action committees. It was money used to fend-off regulation that would have required it to maintain deeper financial reserves to act as a cushion to the kind of risky loans that led to their undoing.

"Fannie and Freddie were thuggish," said Amity Shlaes, the deputy director of the Council on Foreign Relations. "People who worked there misled other people. They used political power in an ugly way."

A few years ago, Fannie was fined nearly $400 million after an investigation revealed it overstated earnings by $10 billion to maximize executive pay. That cost former CEO Franklin Raines his job but not $65 million of the $90 million he received in bonuses.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/09/cbsnews_investigates/main4429301.shtml?source=search_story

The warnings didn’t start in 2008. In 2004, as The Wall Street Journal declared Fannie Mae was “cooking the books” to the tune of $11 billion dollars, ABC, CBS and NBC were almost silent. A search of LexisNexis for “Fannie Mae,” at the height of the scandal (June 1, 2004 to Mar. 1, 2005) turned up a paltry 37 stories.

     During that time CBS only referenced Fannie Mae five times – although in one the network did call the situation an “accounting scandal.” The words “Fannie Mae” didn’t show up once for ABC, while CNN registered only 31 hits – less than 3 percent of the coverage it gave the Enron scandal over a similar time period.

As far back as 2002, The Wall Street Journal was comparing Fannie Mae to Enron in its editorial pages. A Feb. 20, 2002 editorial entitled “Fannie Mae Enron?” exposed the high debt and poor risk management of Fannie and Freddie.

(snip)

     It turned out that Fannie Mae’s financial fiasco was – at that time – 19 times bigger than Enron’s. Yet, the TV news media on ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC barely made a peep. Now with the federal bailout, that number is much higher.

     In 2004, Newsweek’s Charles Gasparino said in a CNN appearance, “Well, Fannie Mae is a very politically corrupt – it may be politically corrupt, but it’s a politically correct company. I mean, they do all the things that, let’s face, liberal journalists like, like put home mortgages out there for poor people. And so right now, beating up on Fannie Mae is kind of politically incorrect.”

     Gasparino admitted that “This is a huge story, and it’s going overlooked.”

     Judging by 2008 media coverage of the issue, Fannie and Freddie are apparently still politically correct enough to not be blamed for their bad behavior.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924150130.aspx

Does being politically correct mean they will continue to write bad loans?  Liar loans?  Any chance that they will follow a new road of financial responsibility?  How many years into the future will taxpayers be expected to make up for the losses? 

How many generations of taxpayers be paying for these loans?

I don't see any hope that the new administration is looking out for the best interests of taxpayers.

The nation is bankrupt, broke, and out of good ideas - just continue to print and spend money on roads to no where. 

jmho

[LouiseVargas]

Obama never said that the following were childish things ...
"The money lost in 401k's, retirements, savings of a lifetime?  The crash of the housing market?  The unending government bailouts for Freddie/Fannie, Tarp? The future bailouts? Are these the "childish things" Americans should just 'set aside'? American's should just set aside childish things like integrity?  Honesty?  Fair dealing?  The Golden Rule?  Treating your neighbor as you would be treated? What is left for the future?  More selfishness?  Bailouts?  Bankruptcy?  Squandering resources?  Poverty for future generations?" Whiskey said them.

This is what Obama said:
"We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness."

[nonesuche]

I would have chosen to believe Obama's words and challenge to work together if he did not stand on the podium yesterday, side-by-side, with the CEO of IBM who is currently downsizing massive amounts of employees while gleefully escaping the WARN Act statute which MicroSoft, Kodak, Home Depot........and many others are adhering to. Yet IBM is asking for some of the stimulus dollars, one hand out while they downsize long standing employees some just weeks short of their retirement under the old pension plan??

A's I think Obama's challenge to set aside childish things means something different to many, it is a perception for each of us.

To repeat the rape and pillage as seen with Enron's executives is childish, in my opinion. I don't see that stopping yet. Greed rules at the top, until there are mature changes to equalize opportunity then I can't have a lot of faith when I see these kinds of associations front and center with Obama.

[WhiskeyGirl]

What are the 'childish things' of Barack Obama?

Responsible government?  Fiscal responsibility?  Ensuring a return to the constitution?  Maybe opportunity is a childish pursuit?

The expectation that an environment of prosperity will be created?

Maybe the expectation that those that work hard and prosper will enjoy the fruits of their labor?

I'd like to know what things Obama considers childish.

What things does Obama consider 'our better history'? 

What change has been the Obama goal for the past 30 years?

imho

imho

[WhiskeyGirl]

From the inaugural address @ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/20/raw-data-president-barack-obamas-inaugural-address/100days/

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

What childish things?  The money lost in 401k's, retirements, savings of a lifetime?  The crash of the housing market?  The unending government bailouts for Freddie/Fannie, Tarp?  The future bailouts?

Are these the "childish things" Americans should just 'set aside'?

American's should just set aside childish things like integrity?  Honesty?  Fair dealing?  The Golden Rule?  Treating your neighbor as you would be treated?

What is left for the future?  More selfishness?  Bailouts?  Bankruptcy?  Squandering resources?  Poverty for future generations?  

What are the 'childish things' of Barack Obama?

imho

CSPAN?  Special Interests?  Lobbyists?  Pork?  Ear Marks?

Transparency?

False promises?

Is Obama a bad dream?