Bankers in lockstep across the globe — coincidence?

Extrapolate the details in the following article by David Noakes to the bank crisis in the US and you get a plausible explanation for a disaster whose causes so far have not been explained or even investigated.

The author blames deregulation, although that was a secondary cause in the US. In the American media, deregulation is often blamed as well but without even a hint at the supposed mechanisms by which a “lack of regulation” might have operated to bring down the banks, and particularly how this would have happened simultaneously all over the globe. Indeed keen observers outside the elitist system have pointed out plausible causes and plausible mechanisms for our banks’ failures, such as the CRA and Fanny-Freddy and the complete lack of documentation and lack of down payments required by those semi-government Democrat-managed entities for mortgage lending. Laigle’s Forum is one of the few sites that has even attempted to tackle this issue in some depth. We find that rather than just simple deregulation or lack of regulation, it was in fact over-regulation that wrought the havoc. Specifically, Clinton had strengthened the CRA, requiring banks to make $1 trillion in loans to “underserved communities.” The only way to accomplish this was to force them into requiring no documentation of income and no down payment, absolutely suicidal policies. Bush, put up a meek fight, then went right along, urging a Zero Downpayment Initiative at his HUD web site in 2005.

But I have published the following article to show the striking similarity between the behavior of bankers on both our continents.

Knowing the extent of corruption among money managers, the below-described situation in the UK does not seem so far fetched a scenario for this country either.

Is there a clue in here for us? Note that managers of failed institutions here also got bonuses and exorbitant salaries, and none left in shame. No shame was shown on either side of the Atlantic and no one has apologized for bringing down Western finance and threatening the financial security of every citizen of dozens of countries. No accountability was demanded by government. And indeed, a dissident British banker was murdered for protesting the bad policies in place there (see below).

Compare this with the strong arm tactics used in the US when some banks wanted to refuse the bailout money. Wasn’t it really hush money?

Is it really plausible that the bizarre behavior witnessed in US banks would have mirrored the behavior of bankers on the other side of the Atlantic just by accident? How about the bailouts? They happened in concert all over Europe as well, over the protests of the citizenry, especially in Britain. Here, 90% of all calls to the US Congress urged lawmakers to vote against the bailout.

One thing is certain: International elitists in government and finance do not operate independently of each other, they are basically all in agreement, they use their willing media lackeys to overcome the public’s mistrust, and public mistrust of them is at an all-time high everywhere. There is no debate over the “wisdom” of the bailouts, no hint that the payments would be accompanied by any change in policy or regulations. And this despite the whispered accusation that bank failures were due to under-regulation – an accusation that catapulted ultra-elite, ultra-Left, ultra-incompetent Obama to power. Why wouldn’t bailout payments under Obama be predicated then on the passage of new regulations and strict compliance therewith?

Clearly, the public is being led around by their noses by an international group of cynical idealists and elitists who think we are all stupid.

It is a miracle that we have not yet seen massive protests.

But then, our bellies are still full.

Just wait…

Donald Hank

 

Did directors deliberately destroy their own banks?

By David Noakes

The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) went from assets of plus £88 billion in 1999 to estimated liabilities of minus £1.3 trillion in 2009 – equal to a year’s income (GDP) for the whole of Great Britain. If Directors with mental disabilities had been appointed, they might have reduced the bank’s value by half. But to utterly destroy it on so stupendous a scale took real knowledge and determination.

It seems clear the wholesale mismanagement and corruption of banks by their directors was not unbelievable incompetence, but criminal. The government huffs and puffs at bonuses and pensions paid as a reward for failure, but then in every case it lets those corrupt payments, totaling billions of pounds, stand without passing legislation to confiscate.

It looks as though these huge bonuses and pensions were intentionally paid to compensate directors precisely for destroying their own banks, and for a job well done.

HSBC quietly possesses an ethical, Christian board. They are well managed, profitable, and took no part in creating this crisis. Standard Chartered Bank’s profits actually went up, even in 2008/9.

But take the case of Abbey National. In July 2004 their risk management officer, Richard Chang, was objecting that the run down of the bank by directors was deliberate (it resulted in the Bank’s ownership being transferred to a European Bank, Santander.)  The HBOS whistleblower alleged the same.

Anonymous documents then arrived at the board with similar suggestions, with additional evidence of sexual impropriety among Directors. Richard denied he had sent them, but was called in for a two and a half hour interrogation by the directors at the hands of Kroll corporate security, during which he was bullied and threatened, and at the end he was found dead five floors below at the bottom of the internal Atrium in Abbey’s London head office in Euston.

The courts, CPS, coroner, FSA, directors and police have closed ranks to prevent a criminal prosecution or investigation. These services all have large numbers of freemasons in their senior structures.

High ranking Freemasonry runs right through this banking crisis. All the failed banks, Northern Rock, Abbey, RBS, Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) had Freemasonry controlling their boards. Gordon Brown is a 33rd degree Scottish Rite Freemason, as was Tony Blair; there are 400,000 of them in Britain.

Brown’s job seems to be to take advantage of the destruction of the banks, by pouring far too much of our economy into those ready made back holes, which will destroy the Pound Sterling.

The crisis was caused by the USA and EU governments deregulating banks in 1999. Massive, self collapsing bubbles predictably formed in every market including housing, stocks, and derivatives. It is deregulation that enabled corrupt boards to wreck their own banks. They now have estimated liabilities of £7.2 trillion or £250,000 per household; they should now go bust; Britain cannot afford to save them.

Freemasonry and Common Purpose are the European Unions’ foot soldiers on the ground in Britain. They know the EU dictatorship cannot be built while there is a strong Britain on the doorstep; we stopped them twice before in 1918 and 1945, and Britain has to be destroyed if the dictatorship is to succeed.

These British traitors get their massive payoffs for handing Britain to the EU on a plate, poverty stricken and stripped of democratic defences.

Many of those won’t realise that the initial deflation of the recession they worked so hard to create will, with the trillions Brown is borrowing for the banks, turn into hyper inflation with super high interest rates, and in two years they could be starving with the rest of us, their gravy trains and bribe money useless, their houses repossessed, as ours will be.

If you wish to avoid this ghastly future, you need to do your part now in talking to people about a General Strike against the EU, our government, Law Lords, and all the senior officials who are so deliberately sabotaging our nation.                                                                 David Noakes. eutruth.org.uk. 07974 437 097

Subprime crisis: the overall picture

Subprime crisis : the overall picture


By Vincent Benard

 

In many aspects, the current financial meltdown that brought many banks and insurers to insolvency may be compared to the nuclear meltdown that affected the Chernobyl power plant. And whatever Big Government pundits may tell us endlessly – without real in-depth arguments – inappropriate state intrusions in the economy are as much responsible for the financial crisis as poor state management of nuclear facilities by USSR was for the Chernobyl disaster.

If the mechanisms of the so-called “Chinese syndrome” can be described as a process of ignition, amplification, and then propagation of atomic reactions, likewise, the current crisis is a story of state interventions in the economy, that ignited, amplified, and then propagated the meltdown from its original core to the whole financial system.

Ignition

The main factor that ignited the current crisis is how politicians forced two state regulated enterprises, Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, to refinance a growing part of unsecured loans to low and very low income families. In exchange, Fannie and Freddie were exempted from some accounting requirements generally expected from ordinary firms, allowing them to leverage too much credit compared to their equity, by an extensive use of off balance “special purpose vehicles.” All these operations were made under an implicit taxpayer provided safety net, as the statutory rules of the department of Housing and Urban Development made possible the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie in the case of bankruptcy.

These government provisions, coupled with a law mandating banks to find ways to originate loans to some high risk-profiled borrowers (the much discussed and controversial Community Reinvestment Act), reversed the usual prudential rules governing company CEOs: first, don’t fail, and then, make a profit. Due to their government backing, Fannie and Freddie only had to expand their volume of business, without too much consideration of the underlying risks. The purchase of so many bad loans by two state-backed giants encouraged reckless lending by banks and mortgage brokers to many risk-unaware families.

This behavior was greatly helped by Alan Greenspan’s decisions to lower and maintain very low interest rates in the early 2000s without consideration of the obvious asset bubble that was emerging in the housing sector. When credit is too cheap, borrowers tend to be less careful in their investments.

Amplification

But these facts do not explain by themselves how big the housing bubble has become. The average Joe, in the mortgage broker’s office, was not as unsophisticated as generally described. He could lose his common sense and succumb to easy credit only because the brokers could show him impressive Case-Schiller index curves, which seemed to show that any housing investment could gain more and more value every year, making the purchaser richer even while he was sleeping. Without this apparent housing inflation, many people wouldn’t have jumped so recklessly onto the easy credit bandwagon.

But this housing inflation did not occur everywhere in the country. Some of the most dynamic metro areas, in terms of population growth, haven’t experienced any housing bubble. Recent Nobel Prize Paul Krugman, supported by several research papers, notably from academics like Ed Glaeser or Wendell Cox, explained it by land use regulations: when these regulations are flexible and tend to be respectful of the property rights of the land owner, housing bubbles cannot even get started. But when regulations allow the existing real estate owners to prevent farmland holders to build the houses required to satisfy all housing needs, housing prices start skyrocketing.

Housing mortgage debt owed by families grew from 4.8 to 10.5 trillion USD (from early 2000 to late 2007. But had every city in the USA had the same flexible land use regulations that they had in the fifties, and that still exist in fast growing areas like Houston or Atlanta, this exposure to risk would have been much lower, by 3 to 4 trillion. More borrowers would have qualified for the prime credit market and its less risky loans, since the lower price of the purchased homes would have resulted in better credit ratings. So, despite the bad lending practices mentioned above, the risk of a general collapse of the credit market would have been nearly equal to zero.

Propagation

At this point, we just explained the roots of a mortgage crisis. What is still missing is the way it has spread throughout the financial system. Once again, bad laws are to blame.

First, this crisis shows how risky the bank’s business model, grounded on low equity and very high leveraging ratios, has become unsound in these time of high volatility of some assets. Some will blame banks for this, but you should be aware that before the creation of the FED in 1913, most banks’ business models were based on equity levels over 60%: the shift from a high equity to a low equity model comes first from tax policies which have, in nearly every country of the world, severely taxed capital gains, but encouraged debt by deducting the interest payment from the corporate tax base. The second reason is that central banks, as “last recourse lenders,” usually with a state’s warranty, have themselves favored this shift to a highly leveraged model: borrowing  money was de facto a cheaper resource than raising capital to finance operations.

But of course, this doesn’t explain how a 10% default risk on a credit niche market (the subprimes), totaling less than 10% of the total housing debt (12 trillion at the end of 2007), itself less than one fifth of the total assets being exchanged on American financial markets, generated such turmoil.

The culprits must be sought within a set of rules named “Basel II,” and their declinations in local laws in most countries, aimed at regulating the activities of banks or insurance companies. In some cases, poorly designed accounting rules may have contributed, too.

Basel II rules — and the like — mandate banks and insurers to hold a diversified portfolio of assets aimed at providing them the liquidities they need to face hard times: for a bank, a major loss of customers; for insurers, a series of major disasters. These rules were supposed to “protect” investors from reckless diversification policies. So institutional investors were mandated to own only high quality bonds, or to value some kinds of assets, like stocks, with a weighting that de facto prevented their securities from handling such assets directly.  

But banks and insurers needed the yields of “lower quality” bonds, or even stocks, to remain attractive to private investors. Otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to beat the performance of state labeled bonds, and thus wouldn’t bring any added value to their customers, forcing them out of the market.

So the late 80’s and the 90’s saw the onset of a huge market of “derivatives,” all based on the following principle: lower quality assets (like subprime based securities bonds) are put together in another security, which itself sells new bonds sliced into several “tranches.” The first slice, the “z-tranch,” is a very risky one, which is aimed at bringing a higher yield to unregulated investors as hedge funds but must absorb primarily the first percentages of any losses of the security. Other tranches bear a lower risk but serve a lower yield. The “cushion effect” of the high risk tranch allows the lower tranch bonds to receive an AAA rating from rating agencies, particularly if they are covered against credit default by a special derivative called a “credit default swap,” allowing lender and borrowers to reinsure themselves against defaults on their bonds. And there can be other “derivatives of derivatives” involved in these designs. In many cases, institutions issuing AAA tranches guaranteed the payment of the corresponding bonds.

So the current situation is that many institutional investors do not hold many real stocks or bonds in their portfolios. They mostly hold a majority of derivatives.

But all this incredibly complex financial engineering not only is extremely costly, but has one perverse effect: while reducing the probability of AAA tranches to default, it actually makes the amount of the risk higher in the event that losses are high enough to impact the AAA tranches. And all these complex designs of derivatives make it increasingly difficult to understand where the risks are located in complex securities mixing prime mortgages, subprime mortgages, and other kinds of credits. So when an AAA tranch is impacted by higher than forecast losses, nobody really knows what is the resulting worth of the best tranch if it has to be sold. Is it 95% of the nominal? 60%? Nobody seems able to value these bonds reliably.

So when the mortgage debtors began to be insolvent in a higher proportion than usual, the losses on subprimes derivatives began to exceed the “cushion” effect of Z-tranches. AAA bonds were impacted. Some holders of these bonds, forced to sell off in panic in order to get cash, couldn’t find purchasers, except some highly speculative funds that toughly negotiated the price.

But then, because of inflexible accounting laws, all institutions holding the same kind of toxic assets had to write down the values of these assets in their balance sheets, even if their treasury level didn’t force them to proceed to a fire sale of these assets. So they might have been declared virtually insolvent even if actually they were not. This affected their ability to borrow on short term liquidities markets, and thus led some of them ultimately to file for bankruptcy.

If no regulatory limitations had been placed on the assets that banks and insurers could hold, it is likely that they would not have found the use of exotic derivatives so attractive, and that early difficulties in subprime credits would have resulted in clear signals prompting securities managers to recompose their portfolios. Some investors’ failures could have occurred earlier, but would not have reached such proportions. 

Big Government is the culprit

So, at the root of every mechanism identified as a catalyst of the current crisis, we can find a bad federal or local regulation.

Does this mean that private institutions have no moral and technical responsibility in the current mess? Certainly not. They’ve deliberately chosen to take advantage of these poisonous regulations instead of fighting them, even though some of the underlying risks were clearly identified. Many of them ifnored warnings issued by economists like Nouriel Roubini, or atypical politicians like Ron Paul, and preferred to listen to reassuring assessments of the soundness of the system written by star economists like Joseph Stiglitz. People don’t like dream breakers.

Competition to overturn bad regulations doesn’t exonerate financial private institutions from having failed to do so properly. Whatever conditions are created by the states, firms must act wisely. Many of them obviously did not. But in the ranking of responsibilities, states’ inaccurate and inordinate regulations obviously rank highest. Had its diverse regulations and interventions focused on principles (honesty in contracts, no concealment of malpractice, full disclosure of operations, respect of property rights) and court litigation; had they let private individuals or enterprises decide what was good for them without trying to curb their behaviors in particular directions, none of the elements that allowed this crisis would have been in place.

Government’s economic interventions in human interactions once again have proved counterproductive and finally wrought havoc. This should make people very careful about government claims that new interventions are necessary to solve the crisis and avoid the next one!

 

Vincent BENARD is the president of the Hayek Institute, a French speaking think tank based in France and Belgium – www.fahayek.org . The institute has published several tribunes advocating the free-market point of view on the current crisis. His personal blog is www.objectifliberte.fr

French mainstream press confirms our assessment of the financial crisis

French mainstream press confirms our assessment of the financial crisis

 

Some American news consumers insist that anything not based on mainstream reports is not worth their while reading. In fact, I just heard Alan Colmes attacking Jerome Corsi on his book The Obama Nation and one of his chief criticisms was that Corsi uses conservative media as factual support.

Now, I have previously refuted at this site the leftist view that our current financial crisis is due to rampant laissez-faire free-market finance. I have shown, based on various sources, that in fact, the blame lies squarely with the government, and particularly with the CRA and its beefed up enforcement under Clinton, and unfortunately, under second-term George W. Bush as well. Certainly, some readers who think like Alan Colmes were skeptical and dismissive of my facts, even though most come from neutral sources.

That is why I was delighted when a French colleague recently sent me an article from the online version of the daily newspaper Figaro confirming my assessment of the financial crisis and its origins.

Now, while the Left in France does classify Figaro as right of center, you need to understand that this is a highly respected century-old publication that enjoys a very large hardcopy readership, with over 400,000 copies distributed and with an amazing 4.224 million unique on-line visitors, making it the number one news site in France today.

By contrast, the newspaper at the other end of the political spectrum, Libération, has a hardcopy readership of only 160,000 and claims only 150,000 visitors to its web site.

Clearly, French readers on both the Left and Right trust and prefer Le Figaro.

 This is why I took the pains to translate Figaro’s recent article “Subprime accused, State guilty” by Vincent Bénard.

This translation is one item you can safely forward to your most skeptical friends.

Donald Hank

 

 

Translation  of :

Subprime: market accused, State Guilty

 
09/09/2008 | Updated : 10:43 |

 

Vincent Bénard, President of the Hayek Institute of Brussels, author of “Le Logement, crise publique, remèdes privés” (Romillat), reviews the subprime lending crisis and takes the side of the free economy when Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two mortgage refinancing agencies, are placed under the conservatorship of the United States government.

The cause is understood by many observers: the subprime financial crisis is due to the madness of the markets and shows the limits of unbridled finance.  And they urge more public regulation of financial institutions.

Free enterprise is the whipping boy again, because there is no market more perverted by the intervention of the federal government than that of mortgage credit in the United States.

The two institutions with the cute nicknames Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC) bear a heavy weight of responsibility in the financial unmooring of the American banking system.  The former was initially a government agency created in 1938 by the FDR administration to issue low interest mortgages thanks to federal guarantees, which supplied liquidity to a home loan market at low rates accessible to lower-income families.

In 1968, the Johnson Administration, realizing that the State-guaranteed commitments of Fannie Mae were becoming broader and would be subject to the lending capacity of a treasury department mired in financing the Vietnam War, arranged for it to be privatized.  Then in 1970, the Nixon administration created Freddie Mac to provide a semblance of competitiveness in this mortgage credit refinancing market.

This background provided Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a hybrid status of Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE).  Thus, they were private but legally bound to deal exclusively in home loan refinancing under federal control in exchange for tax breaks.  Worse yet, while being officially private, the two agencies have always been considered – thanks to their public sponsorship and their social role, to benefit from an implicit guarantee on the part of the American Treasury!

Privatized benefits, collectivized losses: such a cocktail was bound to prompt the executives of the GSEs to take excessive risks if the state sponsorship came up short.  This is exactly what happened in the 1990s.  It was reminiscent of a famous French scandal…[The author is referring to the Credit Lyonnais scandal in which the French government bailed out that bank]

The sponsorship of these two enterprises was transferred to the US Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) in 1992, because that agency wanted to influence GSE-financed loans to satisfy a major objective of any self-respecting politician in America, namely, increasing the home ownership rate among low-income populations, notably minorities.

Thus, the HUD forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase both the volume and the proportion of refinanced subprime credits (up to 56% in 2004).  To make matters worse, one of the HUD bosses, fearing that the declaration of risks taken by the two GSEs in order to satisfy these rules, would cause the markets to lose confidence in them, solved the problem by making it perfectly legal for them not to disclose too many details about their exposures.

Thus, using increasingly complex mortgage products, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refinanced more than five trillion dollars in credits, or 40% of American homes, including more than half of subprime credits even though they did not have enough of their own funds to commit to such amounts.  As a result, the banks issuing these credits could afford not to be too particular about the loans they authorized, because there were two refinancers on the stock market to back them up.  Countrywide, the bank whose lending policies to lower-income families is now vilified, was incensed only three years ago by the executives of Fannie Mae for their brash subprime lending policies.

But the downturn in the economic boom multiplied borrower defaults, and the two GSEs are threatened with not being able to meet their obligations, which could spread to all institutional investors.  Now the State is urgently calling for their rescue, which will cost the taxpayer several hundred billion dollars.

A second public intervention expanded bank excesses in granting credits to insolvent families.  In the 1990s, studies showed that members of black and Hispanic communities had loan applications turned down somewhat more than whites or Asians, although these refusals only amounted to one application out of four.  Certain lobbies saw in this not a logical reflection of less wealth in these communities but rather proof of purported racism in the financial world.   

An antidiscrimination law of 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), was thus strengthened in 1995 to crack down on banks refusing credit to minorities under penalty of greater sanctions.  The banks were thus obliged to partially relinquish the precautionary role they normally play when refusing a loan to a person who is objectively less solvent.  No big deal: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were there to refinance these shaky loans!

Today, many experts believe that, without the CRA, and without the GSEs, minorities would have more access to property than they now do, less quickly but more soundly.  By trying to artificially accelerate what the free economy accomplished at its own rate, it was the State that, through both regulations and legislation, led the actors in the credit chain to behave irresponsibly, causing a serious financial crisis and resulting in the failure of many families it purported to help.

Translated by Donald Hank

 


[1]

Help McCain avert a fatal scandal

Help McCain avert a fatal scandal

 

By Donald Hank

Ladies and Gentlemen, you have been recently treated here at Laigle’s Forum to a well-rounded smorgasbord of information about the causes of this latest financial crash. You have been regaled with information and insights not seen at any other web site, not mentioned in the “conservative” media or, much less, in the mainstream media. And now you will learn about one of the biggest scoundrels of all time, namely, that one of the authors of the biggest financial crisis in US history, has been chosen by John McCain as his new SEC chair. No, this is not going to happen. You are going to stop this insanity and we will tell you how. Keep reading.

First let’s review the time line of our financial crisis:

1-1977, Jimmy Carter proposes and gets a bill called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which calls for more mortgages for minorities. It was pretty harmless at first, so Reagan didn’t bother to challenge it.

2- In 1995, Clinton put the CRA into overdrive, ordering the Treasury Department to rewrite the lending rules, thereby bypassing the Republican congress. The main criterion for getting a loan was race, and many loans required no income and no money down. In other words, bad credit risks got the lion’s share of the loans and still do. Clinton’s HUD secretary helped mightily to create this crisis. We’ll tell you about this guy shortly.

3-Bush protested these practices in his first term, when he was still a Republican, but later caved and increased the required percentage of loans to minorities and pushed for a “zero down-payment initiative.”

Bush now wants to pay for this with $700 billion of hard earned money from you, good hardworking people who do not renege on their loans. (Remember when people with good credit histories were rewarded and deadbeats were punished? We’re going to bring those times back by not agreeing to a bailout of any kind – BTW, gas prices are going down as a result of the crunch.)

ACORN, which the first version of the failed Democrat-authored bailout bill wanted to reward, was the group that agitated and lobbied hardest for the policies that brought down the lending market!  Obama worked hand in hand with ACORN and received huge donations from the associated criminal enterprises Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac.

Here’s where it really gets interesting. Please pay attention:

Andrew Cuomo, whom McCain has picked as his SEC Chairman, was Clinton’s HUD secretary when the new regulations were forcing banks to lend at ridiculous rates and under dangerous confitions, and according to the Village Voice, made “a series of decisions that… gave birth to the present crisis.”

Writes Village Voice correspondent Wayne Barrett:

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that – in combination with many other factors – helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded “kickbacks” to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

Did you get that? McCain has picked one of the authors of the present crisis, one of the most heinous scoundrels in American history, to head his Securities and Exchange Commission!

According to a Newsday article, here is what McCain says about Cuomo:

Cuomo would be a good replacement because he is respected and “did a good job” as secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Democratic Clinton administration, McCain said.”I think he is somebody who could restore some credibility, lend some bipartisanship to this effort,” the senator said on CBS’ “60 Minutes” program.

Has McCain been on another planet for the last few years? Is bringing down American banks “doing a good job”?

Neither the “conservative” press (is there one any more?) nor the liberals have made the embarrassing connection between Cuomo’s pivotal role in creating the financial crisis and the fact that McCain wants this tarnished politician as his SEC chairman. Each side has decided to give you only the news that will help their side get elected. But the trouble with that approach is, it doesn’t put you, the new Ron Reagan, in the position to avert scandals and bad decisions of the kind McCain wants to make. Laigle’s Forum does not subscribe to the philosophy that presentation of news must be tailored to propagandistic agendas. You can’t change what you don’t know about.

So now that you do know, what can you do about this scandalous, potentially fatal situation for the McCain campaign?

Well, we Americans are usually seen by government as those little bugs out there that were made to squash, but that come in handy at election time.

But, Ladies and Gentlemen, you and I know we’re a lot more than that. We are the new Ronald Reagan. Last year, in the spirit of Reagan, we stopped the Amnesty bill dead in its tracks. Yesterday, in the same patriotic spirit, we stopped the bailout. The Bush-McCain-Obama steam roller can’t squash us after all. The Wizard of Oz is not all-powerful.

So what to do next?

Write to the McCain Campaign

http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/

and then call the campaign HQ at

1-703-418-2008

Tell them McCain had better walk away from Andrew Cuomo fast because Cuomo is at the center of a scandal in the financial crash, was a pivotal player and will mar the campaign with a scandal McCain can’t afford right now when he is already losing. Send them a link to the Village Voice article, tell them this is all over the internet, and then make sure it is (send it to your list with a link to this Laigle’s Forum article)! Tell them McCain can’t rely on a conservative VP pick to lend him credibility. He has to actually talk the talk and walk the walk himself. We’re not buying the wishy-washy weasel words any more. And tell him for gosh sake, stop sounding like illegal immigration is A-ok. It’s not.

Then get in touch with your radio talk show hosts, including Rush (don’t bother with Hannity. He won’t jump on the band wagon until the scandal is too big to contain).

Link:

http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/541234

John McCain likes to brag about how he made people “famous” for doing things that cost the American people money.

Well, now it is our turn.  Tell his campaign we’ll make John McCain famous if he fails to walk away from this awful choice.

Why even help  the campaign of a guy who seems not to want to be president at times?

There is one very good reason to help McCain: Obama.

 

Ronald Reagan is back and he is you

Ronald Reagan is back, and he is you

 

Friends, conservatives often complain that no one has ever risen to take the place of Ronald Reagan in our government.

But Ronald Reagan is back, and he is you! His spirit has never once left us.

His spirit was alive and well when you stood up last year and opposed the bipartisan amnesty bill that you knew the Gipper wouldn’t approve.

He was here again today in our Congress during the vote that failed to pass a bill that would have made slaves of every one of us and ended free market capitalism forever in the USA.

Fox News said legislators received 999 calls out of 1,000 opposing the bailout. Fox commentators didn’t look too happy about that and the results of today’s vote. I imagine many of them, like Neil Cavuto, are heavily invested in stocks. (Isn’t it interesting that, although almost 100% of us oppose the bailout, Fox News continues to drone on about how important it is for the taxpayer to foot the bills for the crooks in government. Looks like conservatives have broken with their task master).

I realize that the stock market does not like this, but look, I have stock too, and I know that if we show these lazy pandering politicians we won’t let them enslave us, our children will grow up in a better, safer world.

And it won’t happen again!

Donald Hank

 

Letter to Congressman Platts and Sen. Arlen Specter

 

As you know, the current financial crisis originated with the Democratic Party in 1977 when Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act passed. Then Clinton strengthened these provisions by making it mandatory for banks to lend at least $1 trillion in subprime loans. At that point, this ideologically driven effort to provide “affordable” loans began driving up housing prices drastically. But corrupt community organizing agencies like ACORN and La Raza didn’t seem to mind that their constituents now had to pay more for homes they couldn’t afford in the first place. The present administration more than doubled Clinton’s quota, and the HUD web site currently carries a paragraph on Bush’s “zero downpayment initiative.” Conservative sources are lamenting that Bush had repeatedly asked for more oversight during his 2 terms and called for tighter regulations. Yet it looks like the President, in complete agreement with his friends across the aisle, actually was OVER-regulating on the side of wealth sharing (is that the new Republican way?). It might be wise for you to keep away from this malodorous situation by voting against ANY bailout. I checked around Wrightsville and have yet to come across anyone who has an extra $10,000 to fork over to a government that mismanages our money or who believes it is government’s job to own and run businesses Soviet style.

(I followed this up with phone calls)

Thank you.

 

 

 

Letter to the National Association of Realtors

 

NAR email address (attn. Mary Trupo): mtrupo@realtors.org

 

Hello Mary,

I saw this at the NAR web site:

“The National Association of Realtors® supports the ongoing bipartisan efforts to address the current crisis in the financial and secondary markets. While we await further details and will continue to be active in helping to shape the legislation, NAR believes these efforts are imperative to restore market liquidity.”

Unfortunately, I infer from this that your organization is in favor of the current bipartisan efforts to make tax payers responsible for what you know the government caused in the most callous and cynical possible manner.

I say that because I saw an entry at the NAR web site some years back that asked the government for more fiscal responsibility in the management of subprime loans and in regulations requiring banks to issue them.

That tells me that you saw this financial crash coming.

Now that it is here, your response seems chillingly impersonal, almost surreal.

Where is the anger? You saw it coming. Now you are coolly requesting a bipartisan effort to bail out the mortgage banks as if the blame lay with irresponsible borrowers, when it was government-backed lenders and the very politicians you now ask to control the financial market who caused this debacle. There was genuine concern reflected in your letter to the administration, asking for a relaxation of the risky experimental government requirements under the Carter administration’s Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the Clinton and Bush administrations’ insistence on forcing banks to issue ever higher-risk loans. It was like a destructive test of a boiler.

You knew that the lending institutions eventually would fail under these policies and you took the initiative to ask them to stop. But now that the disaster is here, you are expecting them to pass the loss on to those of us who pay our bills on time. I understand your fear, but I don’t understand why we the taxpayers, most of whom pay our bills on time, can be held responsible.

I am asking your organization for a stronger condemnation of the failed bipartisan policies that foisted dangerous subprime lending practices on banks and Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. Tell the media that you, as business people, knew this policy was doomed to failure, had warned the government about this, that the blame goes to both parties, and that you are leery about leaving the fox in charge of the hen house, particularly since the proposed plan threatens the free market like nothing ever has before in American history.

If you are silent now and fail to condemn these failed lending policies and put the blame where it belongs, on both sides of the aisle, then there is no way to avoid a repeat of this bitter experience for you, your clients and every American taxpayer.

Please issue a press release condemning the reckless policies that you watched destroy your industry! And please do not pass this one off on the taxpayer. It will surely come back to haunt you.

Best Regards,

Don Hank,

Editor in Chief

http://laiglesforum.com