Perhaps by the end of this post you will understand.
"Push to curb credit-card rates fades; Democrats resist consumer outcry" by Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | November 18, 2009
But Barney can't understand why we are against government!
Because YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING WE WANT, Barn!
WASHINGTON - Efforts in Congress to cap credit-card interest rates are faltering because of opposition from Democrats and a lack of specific support from the White House, despite growing consumer outrage over a rush by banks to impose rates as high as 30 percent.
The BETRAYAL is UNREAL!!!! BIZARRE, even!
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama vowed to back a strict limit on credit-card interest rates. But the White House is not yet behind any particular plan this year. While Obama has chastised credit-card companies, his spokeswoman declined to say this week how he planned to follow through on his campaign pledge....
Translation: HE DOESN'T INTEND to follow through -- like ALL the OTHER CAMPAIGN BULLS*** he shoveled at us!
Vice President Joe Biden, whose home state of Delaware is headquarters to many credit-card companies, did not respond to requests for comment.... Biden, who served as Delaware’s US senator from 1973 until last January, has long been noted for his ties to the credit-card business. Biden’s top contributor has been
Translation: Don't look to Joe for help.
The Senate soundly defeated legislation in May that was introduced by Senator Bernard Sanders, the Vermont Independent, to cap most credit-card interest rates at 15 percent. Nearly half of the Democratic senators joined Republicans in defeating the measure, 60 to 33....
Because THEY WORK FOR the BANKS, not you, America!!
Sanders said many of the credit cards in the hands of American consumers are issued by four banks that received taxpayer bailout money after last year’s economic meltdown:
That is how they say "thank you."
And we are MORE THAN DISGUSTED, Bernie! We are ANGRY AS HELL!!!!!!!!!!
Sanders said he plans to reintroduce his proposal to cap rates at 15 percent; he predicted it will have more support this time. (Representing Massachusetts, Senator John F. Kerry supported the cap in May; the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who was fighting brain cancer, did not vote. Senator Paul Kirk, who took Kennedy’s seat, has not declared a position on the issue, his spokesman said.)
But Sanders faces strong opposition from many Democrats, particularly those who have major credit-card business in their states. One prominent opponent, Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, said in an interview that he understands the anger among consumers who have received letters from credit-card issuers informing them of big rate hikes. But Carper said he opposes any effort to cap the rates because it would hurt the ability of banks to charge higher rates to customers who have a greater risk of default.
“The question is, should banks be able to price for risk?’’ Carper said. “In a free market economy, I think they should.’’
In a "FREE MARKET" economy they DON'T GET TRILLIONS in BAILOUT MONEY!!!!!!!
Carper said that if consumers don’t like the credit-card rates, they can pay off their balances and shop for a better rate from another company.
What an ARROGANT, OUT-of-TOUCH A**HOLE!!!!!!!!
Senator Tim Johnson, a Democrat from South Dakota, another home to credit card companies, explained his vote against credit-card legislation in a May press release. The measure, he said, “could hurt South Dakota jobs and consumers.’’
Yeah, F*** the REST of US!!!! He's a U.S. senator?
This is the guy we prayed would stay alive so Repuglicans wouldn't take over the Senate in 2006? I now wish he'd croaked.
The threat of another vote on Sanders’s proposal is prompting companies to make a renewed push against caps. Bill Himpler, executive vice president of the American Financial Services Association, an industry trade group, said it is easy “from a populist standpoint’’ to embrace a cap on interest rates. But he said many firms could continue to offer credit if the rate was capped at 15 to 18 percent, as some have suggested.
“You lose money at 18 percent because it is a very labor-intensive business line to offer consumer credit,’’ he said. “Where you cap rates you end up having credit tightened and the cost of credit being greater for the consumer.’’
What? It's LABOR-INTENSIVE to CHARGE USURIOUS INTEREST?!!!
That's labor intensive, too, shitter!
*******************************
Oh, THANKS, Supreme Court!
--more--"
At least Citi is on your side, America!
"Citi would back an interest cap; Across-the-board limit might pinch credit yet be prudent, CEO says" by Beth Healy, Globe Staff | November 19, 2009
Citigroup’s chief executive Vikram Pandit warned that if Congress passes a rate cap, it could lead to banks reducing credit to consumers because banks would not be allowed to charge some high-risk customers higher rates. That might crimp economic growth....
These destructive f***ing looters!
In his talk with Globe staffers yesterday, Pandit touched on a number of steps Citigroup is taking to improve its financial standing after being hammered by the financial crisis last year.
Related: "The numbers included a $3 billion second-quarter profit announced yesterday by Citigroup"
The company, he said, has “turned the corner’’ and expects to soon be able to repay the $45 billion bailout it received from the US government. The investment effectively has given the government a 34 percent stake in the company. Citi has raised $85 billion in the public markets or by selling businesses, has significantly improved its capital position, and is continuing to sell noncore operations, he said.
Well, if they RAISED $85 BILLION they can PAY US OFF RIGHT NOW, right?
WHY WAIT? They DID NOT HAVE TO WAIT for the BAILOUT LOOT!
And Citi is eager to repay taxpayers. “It’s time for us to repay the government, with a debt of gratitude, as well as with a good rate of return,’’ he said. He said Citigroup is working with regulators on how to do that, calling it “a good psychological event, too, for everybody involved.’’
This is sickening, folks!
Pandit became chief executive of Citi in December 2007, after the company suffered large losses on mortgage securities. He has agreed to a salary of $1 this year and is not receiving stock compensation. Pandit said the company is focusing on its culture and wants to “be part of America’s recovery.’’
Well, they MADE $3 BILLION DOLLARS in one quarter, so I THINK THEY ARE RECOVERING! How about you, America? The P.R. QUALITY of this fart-mist propaganda is enough to make you want to gag.
--more--"
Do you know what SNIP, SNIP, SNIP means, American!?
I do and I have! Instant plastic confetti!
Over the LAST YEAR, what have you done to HELP US, Barn?
The UNEMPLOYED and FORECLOSED UPON?
"Loans sought for jobless homeowners" by Associated Press | November 17, 2009
FALL RIVER - Representative Barney Frank said yesterday that he is pushing a proposal to use some of the interest the government collects from the financial industry bailout to give loans to unemployed homeowners who are struggling to pay the mortgage.
Why not just PAY the DAMN THING OFF for us!?
BANKS got TRILLIONS, no questions asked!
The lack of such aid has been identified as a big weakness in the Obama administration’s plan to tackle the mortgage crisis....
Translation: They didn't care; otherwise, these smart guys wouldn't have f***ed this up!
Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, appeared in Fall River and New Bedford with the US Housing and Urban Development secretary, Shaun Donovan, saying that he favors providing government loans to homeowners who have lost their jobs.
Well, WHERE YOU BEEN for the LAST YEAR?!!!
Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the program would be funded using interest banks pay on the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.
IF they pay it back with interest!
Readers, THAT MONEY is GONE! Do you believe a liar?
I want my money back -- not part of some banker's slush fund.
Also see: Boston Globe Censored Briefs: Barney Frank Exhales Fart Mist
Bankers' Best Friend
Slow Saturday Special: Banker's Bag of Goodies
Do you NOW UNDERSTAND what a LYING SACK OF SHIT this immoral lout is now, world?
Hey, at least he is going to get after derivatives, huh?
"Frank wants tougher derivatives rules" by Bloomberg News | November 18, 2009
WASHINGTON - The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission need to “toughen up’’ their approach on new regulations for clearing derivatives trades, US Representative Barney Frank said yesterday....
But, YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE in your OWN BILL, Barn!
Related: Barney Frank Goes Straight
Oh, you F***ED THAT UP, too, huh?
--more--"
WASHINGTON - Consumer advocates yesterday urged Congress to act on legislation to curb bank practices under which a cup of coffee bought with an overextended debit card can turn into a $40 expense.
Banks last year collected nearly $24 billion in overdraft fees, more than double the level of 2004, and much of that comes from those least able to pay - the poor, the young, minorities, and seniors - witnesses said at a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on abusive overdraft policies. In the midst of a recession, said Michael Calhoun of the Center for Responsible Lending, “abusive overdraft practices are making the dire financial situations faced by many families even worse.’’
And CONGRESS will do NOTHING!
Think they are going to TOUCH a $24 BILLION DOLLAR CASH COW for the CREDIT COMPANIES? They ALREADY BACKED DOWN above!!!
Overdraft fees are charges when a customer writes a check, uses a debit card, or withdraws money from an ATM for an amount larger than the account holds. Nearly half the $24 billion total comes from debit card and ATM overdrafts. People have a responsibility to spend within their means, said Senator Chris Dodd, the Conn. Democrat who chairs the committee and author of legislation that addresses overdraft charges....
What OUT-of-TOUCH ARROGANCE!!!
This from a guy who is "working" for a GOVERNMENT that is $1.42 TRILLION DOLLARS in DEBT for THIS YEAR ALONE!!!! More than 12 TRILLION during HIS TENURE!!!!!!
Related: Fed Uses Frank to F*** America
Goodbye, Chris!!!!
--more--"
So WHAT HAS BARNEY DONE?
On October 8, the New York Times wrote a story on the Federal Housing Administration (F.H.A.) stating:
In other words, Frank approved of the policy of increasing the number of loans even to people who couldn't really afford to pay their mortgages.Many of the loans the F.H.A. insured in 2007 and last year are now turning delinquent, agency officials acknowledge. The loans made in those two years are performing “far worse” than newer loans, dragging down the whole portfolio, Mr. Stevens of the F.H.A. said in an interview.
The number of F.H.A. mortgage holders in default is 410,916, up 76 percent from a year ago, when 232,864 were in default, according to agency data.
Despite the agency’s attempt to outrun its fate by insuring ever-larger amounts of new loans to such borrowers as Ms. Shimon — the current rate is over a billion dollars a day — 7.77 percent of the portfolio is in default, up from 5.6 percent a year ago.
Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview that the defaults were, in essence, worth it.
“I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the bad loans occurred,” he said. “It was an effort to keep prices from falling too fast. That’s a policy.”
In fact, this is nothing new. As the Boston Globe wrote last year (Note: I wholly disclaim and disagree with any racism in the Globe's reporting, and I do not necessarily agree with - and am not commenting on - its critique of liberal goals):
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 Globe goes on to show that Frank has been the main enabler of Fannie and Freddie.The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms,
Fannie Mae andFreddie Mac , encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. 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.
As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "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?"...
As I have repeatedly written, the financial crisis was not caused solely by idiots on the right or idiots on the left.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." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.
It was caused by both. Idiocy - like corruption - is bipartisan."
And SOMEHOW this article NEVER MADE MY PAPER!!!!
Related: Sunday Globe Censorship: Barney Frank Tells Gays to Go F*** Themselves
Kind of a pattern when Barn steps in s***, 'eh, Glob?
"Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco" by Jeff Jacoby , Globe Columnist | September 28, 2008
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."
That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "
In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.
Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." 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. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms,
All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. 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.
As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "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." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.
I'm sorry I didn't link it, readers; I must have been tired!
Also see: Barney Frank Benefited From Bailout Bill
Yeah, it is BIZARRE that we don't believe in a LOOTING, LYING GOVERNMENT!
What an embarrassing piece of s***-scum!
And I DIDN'T EVEN BRING UP the NEVER-ENDING, FULLY-FUNDED WARS!!!!
