U.S. ethics panel examines lawmakers' Countrywide loans

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Congressional ethics panel is examining allegations that two Senate Democrats, including the sponsor of a major housing bill, received preferential loans by troubled mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp, a member of Congress said on Thursday. 'My view is that these allegations should be considered by the appropriate bodies, and I understand that the Senate Ethics Committee has already begun to look into the matter,' Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a statement. Frank is chairman of the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee. Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota have acknowledged that they refinanced properties as members of Countrywide's VIP program. Dodd, chairman of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, is leading an effort this week to win Senate approval of a $300 billion housing rescue bill to help thousands of American homeowners facing foreclosure on their home loans. Frank has been working with Dodd to push a housing rescue bill through Congress and send it to President George W. Bush by July 4 to be signed into law. But the White House on Thursday threatened to veto the Senate bill, which some Republican senators questioned if it could benefit Countrywide. House Republican leader, John Boehner of Ohio, on Thursday said that the House Financial Services Committee was the 'most logical' entity to examine the loans."

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1933361120080620?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Hypocrisy? Chicanery? You bet.

6/19/2008 11:57:00 PM

YOU MEAN RICH LAWMAKERS GET BETTER LOANS THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON. OMGWTF!!!!

6/20/2008 12:16:28 AM

Right on cue. But I have to ask hooksaw, why do you only post 50% of the federal corruption cases and not 100%?


Anyway, away from hacks and toward truth. The plan was for Countrywide to be bought by Bank of America. This was from Reuters on May 5th about Bank of America wanting to back out of the deal.

Quote :

"At least two analysts said Bank of America Corp (BAC) will likely lower its purchase price for Countrywide Financial Corp (CFC), with Friedman, Billings Ramsey analyst saying the bank may bring down its deal price to the $0 to $2 level or completely walk away from the deal. Shares of Countrywide, the largest U.S. mortgage lender, fell nearly 12 percent to $5.29 in morning trade on the New York Stock Exchange, after Friedman downgraded Countrywide to "underperform" from "market perform." Analysts at S&P Equity Research expect Bank of America to complete the buyout of Countrywide, but at a lower price due to the rapid deterioration of Countrywide's credit portfolio. Miller cut his target on Countrywide's stock to $2 from $7. Bank of America, which in January agreed to buy Countrywide for $4 billion, said in a filing last week there was no assurance that any of the mortgage lender's outstanding debt would be redeemed, assumed or guaranteed. "Bank of America announced that it might not guarantee Countrywide's debt, which is most likely the first step in renegotiating the entire deal," Miller said. "We estimate that if fair-value adjustments to the loan portfolio could exceed approximately $22 billion, this would increase the odds of Bank of America renegotiating the transaction or walking away." S&P Equity Research analysts also said they were "particularly wary of Countrywide's option ARM portfolio because we do not believe that it has yet been stress-tested." "Indeed, one of our major concerns about Bank of America is the potential inheritance of Countrywide's option ARM portfolio," they added."

Some comments on the aforementioned events from back then:

Quote :

"Judging by the way that Countrywide(CFC) preferred stocks are acting, my opinion is that the deal gets done at a significantly lower price than $5 and that common shareholders will be lucky to get anything at all. Buried in the $2 billion investment Bank of America (BAC) made in CFC was the fact that BAC has 'last look' to buy the company. That was the main reason for that deal, me thinks. So I imagine common shareholders get little if anything, preferred holders get potentially wiped out and some subordinated debt holders could get smoked as well. The same could be said for Washington Mutual(WM). Over the years ex-CEO Mozillo cashed out $1 billion in options. Look at all the buybacks of CFC and other financials at ridiculous prices over the past few years. Clearly shareholders would have been far better off with dividends. CFC was at $5 in 1996. It hit $42.5 in 2007. CFC may be worthless in 2008, but share buybacks supported the stock price allowing Mozillo to cash out $1 billion in options. Ambac (ABK) needs to raise cash at $5 while having bought back shares at prices over $70. Now we see the absurdity of companies like Citigroup borrowing money at 8% to pay dividends of 5% after having bought back shares at prices twice what they are now. It does not make economic sense to borrow money at 8% to pay a dividend of 5%. So why is Citigroup doing that? The only possible reason is Citigroup executives think there will be an adverse reaction to share price if they cut the dividend. CEOs manage companies for their own benefit, and the benefit of insiders, not shareholder benefits. It's important to always keep that in mind, especially when it comes to share buybacks and dividends."

Translated: Countrywide's takeover was going to be very messy because they were by far the riskiest mortgage writer in one of the frothiest markets of California, and they needed friends in high places to make the takeover go without a hitch. Dodd, as head of the Senate Banking Committee, was an obvious target. This is politics as usual to be honest, happens all the time. We're the proles, we get nothing cause we don't matter. Don't like that? Vote the Democratic and Republican idiots out and stop enabling them!

[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 12:18 AM. Reason : /]

6/20/2008 12:17:56 AM

Quote :

"Dodd, chairman of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, is leading an effort this week to win Senate approval of a $300 billion housing rescue bill to help thousands of American homeowners facing foreclosure on their home loans."

The banks and mortgage writers are huge behind this bill. It's a case of survival. Bear Stearns is already gone. AMBAC and MBIA look likely to join. Countrywide is in a death spiral. Lehman Brothers is iffy. These companies need federal money to just ensure their future existance, and the Fed and the Treasury Department are helping orchestrate a lot of it.

In the past year the Fed has setup rules to effectively socialize mortgages in this country. Bet you didn't know that did ya? Who did this? The Bush Administration via their surrogate Secretary of the Treasury Paulson, Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve, and powerful men in Congress such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/walter-bagehot-was-wrong/80283/

Quote :

"In the United States this election year, the galloping socialization of the mortgage market proceeds with hardly a peep of discussion, let alone protest. Thus, mortgage originations by the government-sponsored enterprises reached 81% of overall originations in the fourth quarter of 2007, up from 37% in the second quarter of 2006. In the first quarter of this year, Fannie copped a 50% share of originations, double its take in calendar 2006. But in comparison to the biggest GSE, Fannie and Freddie might as well be standing still."

[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 12:26 AM. Reason : /]

6/20/2008 12:22:35 AM

Um. . .I posted this:

U.S. ethics panel examines lawmakers' Countrywide loans

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1933361120080620?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

And you fuckers went bananas--"right on cue." Are you telling me this is not an issue?

Quote :

"Take Senator Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat whose office issued a Friday statement saying that 'I never met Angelo Mozilo.' What he did not say then but admitted under later questioning by a Journal reporter is that, although he may not have had a face-to-face meeting with the Countrywide CEO, Mr. Conrad had called Mr. Mozilo and asked for a loan. The result was a discounted loan on his million-dollar beach house and a separate commercial loan of a type that residential lender Countrywide did not even offer to other customers, regardless of the rate."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121357125417575867.html?mod=Letters

BTW, fuck off with your "hack" bullshit, Flyin Ryan. I'm not a member of any party--the Democrats happen to piss me off more often than the Republicans. Is this okay with you? Huh, is it?

And, IMStoned420, the "So what?" shit is so tired--you need some new material. If it were two Republicans with their asses on the grill, you'd be in here flapping and flailing "OMGWTF!!!!" for real.

[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 12:49 AM. Reason : .]

6/20/2008 12:46:00 AM

Not really. I don't really post in those threads all that much. I only occasionally look at them. But I'll gladly post in here because you're so obviously one-sided in your criticism.

6/20/2008 1:19:14 AM

^ Um. . .yeah. . .instead of posting all that bullshit, how about focusing on the topic?

Quote :

"Take Senator Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat whose office issued a Friday statement saying that 'I never met Angelo Mozilo.' What he did not say then but admitted under later questioning by a Journal reporter is that, although he may not have had a face-to-face meeting with the Countrywide CEO, Mr. Conrad had called Mr. Mozilo and asked for a loan. The result was a discounted loan on his million-dollar beach house and a separate commercial loan of a type that residential lender Countrywide did not even offer to other customers, regardless of the rate."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121357125417575867.html?mod=Letters

Wouldn't you say this ^ is a pretty big deal? I never heard of anything quite like that.

PREDICTION: The scandal at issue will turn out to be a fairly big deal, and the "So what?" crowd--in typical Reverend Wrong denial mode--will howl, "You, too, Republicans! You, too!" Tu quoque much?

[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 1:37 AM. Reason : .]

6/20/2008 1:35:22 AM

hooksaw, stop being a child.

Does it really matter if a Democrat gets in a corruption scandal? No, because the dumbass Democratic voters will re-elect him instead of vote for the Republican.

Does it really matter if a Republican gets in a corruption scandal? No, because the dumbass Republican voters will re-elect him instead of vote for the Democrat.

In other words, it's idiots like you that are the reason these corrupt people stay in office. You and most other partisan hacks would vote for corrupt people from their own party instead of an honest person from the other. If Elizabeth Dole had this scandal come out on her and it was proved she took the money, me and every other person on this message board knows that you would still vote for Dole and not Kay Hagan the Democrat. You're an enabler, you're the person that gives the crack addict his money. And that's why this country is going to sh*t is people like you, both Democrat and Republican.

Now, for Dodd, the man's on the Senate Banking Committee, meaning he's been bought by the banks for years. So this isn't exactly earth-shattering news. As for Conrad, he's a populist, which is how North Dakota voters like their politicians, "we're pretty conservative on social issues but bring us all the money you can", so he'd've voted for the mortgage handout anyway.

[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 9:02 AM. Reason : .]

6/20/2008 8:37:55 AM

Quote :

"I'm not a member of any party--the Democrats happen to piss me off more often than the Republicans. Is this okay with you? Huh, is it?"

Don't even try to pull the O'Reilly, "I'm an independent, really!" crap hooksaw. We know it's not true - you've made your extreme bias clear too many times for it to even be plausible.

6/20/2008 8:47:19 AM

Quote :

"BTW, fuck off with your "hack" bullshit,"

Then stop being a hack.

It's quite simple.

You offer nothing to this forum. You bold a headline, put the article in a quote, put up a link, put in a snide comment, and then the rolling eyes smiley. You don't even offer analysis on the article you copy. That's the spitting definition of a hack.

[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 9:08 AM. Reason : .]

6/20/2008 8:54:58 AM

The hilarious part of this is that the representatives/senators are claiming "I knew I was getting a deal, but I didn't know the numbers. I did not know what rate I got until recently."

I hope their constituency is listening. They deserve a rep that READS THINGS AND UNDERSTANDS WHAT HE SIGNS.

Of course, we all know they knew exactly what they were getting. No one signs something worth hundreds of thousands of dollars without knowing.

So, revision.

I hope their constituency is listening. They deserve a rep that DOESN'T LIE RIGHT TO THEIR FACE WITH SOMETHING THAT IS PRETTY CLEAR CUT.

6/20/2008 9:08:26 AM

Quote :

"I hope their constituency is listening. They deserve a rep that READS THINGS AND UNDERSTANDS WHAT HE SIGNS."

I agree.

But maybe 2% of Congress at tops actually reads bills. It's sad.

6/20/2008 9:10:31 AM

It is sad and that is a completely bipartisan problem.

6/20/2008 9:13:47 AM

^ Dennis Kucinich, who I consider a nut, had a wonderful line in one of the Democratic debates before the primaries started.

MODERATOR: "Representative Kucinich, you were the only person on stage that voted against the Patriot Act..."

KUCINICH: "That's cause I read it."

[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 9:16 AM. Reason : /]

6/20/2008 9:16:20 AM

LOL. He and Ron Paul have some zingers. Nuts on opposite ends but somehow resemble each other.

6/20/2008 9:17:32 AM

It's our fault that we vote these jerks into office, pay little attention to what they do, and then allow them to grab more and more power over us.

All they have to do is dangle some shiny gov't give-away bauble in front of our eyes as they lead us to the voting booth.

Well I have to go now and deposit my stimulus check.

6/20/2008 10:34:31 AM

Quote :

"Well I have to go now and deposit my stimulus check. "

Lucky you. The last two of my SSN are in the 90s, so I'm one of the last people to get my check.

6/20/2008 10:43:39 AM

Fuck you, Flyin Ryan. Your "I'm above it all--and all politicians are rotten!" bullshit is nauseating. Piss off.

And, SkankinMonky, nobody gives a fuck what you think anyway.

As I've clearly indicated, Democrats tend to piss me off more than Republicans. My focus on Democrats is primarily about balance here and security out there.

In any event, there is hypocrisy in the Democrat Party on the issue in question and I intend to point it out. I find it damned peculiar that the foaming fucking moonbats come out of the woodwork to howl "HYPOCRISY!" when some Republican is caught with his pants down, yet those same foamies fall silent when a number of top Democrats are caught with their hands in the cookie jar of sweetheart loans after railing against "greedy" financial institutions.

Come, Join the Tammany Party
The door is open, Countrywide.

Quote :

"I know you're as shocked as I am to discover that Sen. Chris Dodd (D., Countrywide) has been identified as a 'Friend of Angelo,' amid charges that the Enron of subprime mortgages gave him a sweetheart deal. And Sen. Kent Conrad (D., Middle of Nowhere). And Donna Shalala (D., Clinton), Richard Holbrooke (D., Media), and somebody named James Johnson (D., Who?) who, I gather, was briefly affiliated with the campaign of B. Hussein Obama Soetelo Obama the Second in some minor capacity, to wit: the selection of the man or woman to run for the Pitcher of Warm Spit. You're probably also stunned that Dodd — the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and the alleged other half of the Edward Moore Kennedy Memorial Waitress Sandwich — had to admit the other day, 'I don't know what interest rates are today.' I'm sure it positively puts you right on the floor that the senator from Nutmeg is one of the chief sponsors of a bill currently before the Senate that would help bail out Angelo Mozilo's collapsing Countrywide Financial mortgage company and other meeskites to the tune of $2.5 billion in taxpayers' funds — the same company that reportedly gave him, Conrad, and the others 'VIP' discounts on their various dachas — excuse me, country houses. And finally, it will no doubt astonish you to learn that Dodd, who some say ran for the Democrat nomination for president this year before his campaign collapsed from terminal anti-charisma, along the way shook down — excuse me again, 'collected millions of dollars in campaign contributions from' — various subprime lenders and other real-estate types whose activities he oversaw. Is this a great racket — excuse me one more time — country, or what? The whole thing makes me proud to be a member of the Tammany party. Yes, the party of Slavery, Segregation, Secularism, and Sedition — that Tammany party. The Tammany Party whose motto is, 'Stealing Elections Since Boss Tweed.' The Tammany party as in Tammany Hall, which was once led in its earliest days by none other than that great Democrat, Aaron Burr, who nobly served his country as Thomas Jefferson’s vice president, shot and killed Alexander Hamilton, and was later tried for treason. Makes me warm and fuzzy all over just thinking about my party's sterling history. And while the Tammany party ain't what it used to be, it sure is great to see Chris Dodd emerging as a throwback to our glory days. With his shock of white hair, his vaguely New England-ish accent, his hazy demeanor and his utter lack of shame, Dodd is the second coming of the stage-Irishmen who once dominated the party of SSS&S, the living avatar of Honest John Kelly, Boss Croker, and the great Charlie Murphy, doing well for themselves while pretending to do good for the Little Guy. Runs in the family . . . Of course in Chris Dodd's case, it actually does. One of the great things about the Tammany party is its sheer unabashed celebration of nepotism and family dynasties. In Massachusetts, we have the Kennedy Reserved Senate Seat, which America's Royal Family has already made clear must and will stay in its hands in perpetuity or forever, whichever comes last. Fortunately, there is no end in sight to the number of Kennedys on the horizon, although drugs and the occasional tree have taken their tragic toll. Not to be outdone, William Jefferson Blythe III Clinton attempted to foist his blushing bride, Hillary, on the body politic as a plausible presidential candidate, perhaps mindful of the old adage that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. How was Bubba to know that George Soros and David Axelrod would see that maxim and raise it a Forrest Gump, beating the Beast with my guy, a first-term senator (D., Daley/Rezko) who thankfully skipped his current-events classes at Harvard while practicing his mantra of Hope and Change. At least the Clintons still have their Senate seat in New York, and there's always Chelsea . . . It was typical of the Rethuglicans that they'd try to emulate the Tammany party's proven formula for electoral success — hey, it even worked for Lurleen Wallace! — when George Herbert Walker Bush (R., CIA) managed to get George Walker Bush (R., Alamo) ensconced in the White House thanks to an out-of-control Supreme Court (which fortunately has managed to come back to its senses lately in its sterling, makes-you-proud-to-be-an-American Boumediene decision). But the talk of Jeb for Prez has long since faded and nobody I know is on the Jenna 'n' Barb bandwagon yet. Give it up, guys — you're no good at it. So the senator from Countrywide sits squarely in our grand Democratic tradition. He got his high electoral office the old-fashioned way, by following in his daddy's footsteps. You all remember Sen. Thomas Dodd (D., Gun Control Act of 1968), the grandson of poor Irish immigrants who distinguished himself as an FBI agent, busted up a WWII spy ring and prosecuted top Nazis at Nuremberg, even without habeas corpus. And what thanks did he get? He lost his first run for the Senate in 1956 to none other than Poppy's pappy, Prescott S. Bush (R, S.P.Q.R.), but two years later won the other seat, which he happily kept until . . . He was censured in 1967 by the Senate for behavior that was 'contrary to good morals, derogates from the public trust expected of a senator, and tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute.' After suffering a heart attack in 1970, he at first chose not to run for reelection, then changed his mind and ran as an independent, lost, and thus thrust Lowell Weicker upon an unsuspecting Constitution State. You ask: Hey — Holy cow! — just how bad do you have to be to get censured for bringing the Senate into dishonor and disrepute for crying out loud, huh? As Time reported at the time: From the hailstorm of allegations that has clattered down on Dodd for nearly 16 months, the committee selected just four stones to hurl at him. It accused him of accepting $8,000 from the International Latex Corp.,* of taking Senate travel funds for 13 trips also paid for by private organizations and his own campaign kitty, of accepting free use of automobiles supplied by a constituent for 21 months, and of diverting campaign funds to his personal use. Between 1961 and 1965, the investigators calculated, Dodd grossed $450,273 from seven testimonial social functions and other political fund-raising efforts. Although the testimonial donors were never informed that they were making personal gifts as distinct from campaign contributions, the committee said Dodd appropriated "at least $116,083" for himself. That bad. Or that good. Here at Tammany Hall Redivivus, the apple never falls very far from the tree. We're pleased and proud that our past few presidential candidates have been scions of scions, unto the generations: James Earl Carter Jr., Billy Blythe the Third, Albert Arnold Gore Jr., and now Barack Hussein Obama II. Call it coincidence. Call it a family thing. Just don't call it la cosa nostra."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTg3NWM3MGY5N2UyNGU2OTBmZTI0Zjc2NjlkZGJlZTI=

Enjoy the "Sound of Silence" from those ignoring this important issue.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YhdGkZ6Fngw

6/21/2008 3:07:50 PM

man. i can accept that you read the national review. but you let other people know about it? that's pretty shameful.

6/21/2008 4:41:02 PM

Just gotta say I'm with hookshaw on the "I'm above it" bullshit. No one is going to give you a medal for opting out of the political system because "politicians suck."

6/21/2008 5:39:23 PM

^^ Again, attacking me and a particular publication--what does any of that bullshit have to do with Comrad's amnesia and sweetheart loan that was unavailable to other customers--you know, the topic of this thread? All aboard for the spoils of Tammany Hall!

Quote :

"Take Senator Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat whose office issued a Friday statement saying that 'I never met Angelo Mozilo.' What he did not say then but admitted under later questioning by a Journal reporter is that, although he may not have had a face-to-face meeting with the Countrywide CEO, Mr. Conrad had called Mr. Mozilo and asked for a loan. The result was a discounted loan on his million-dollar beach house and a separate commercial loan of a type that residential lender Countrywide did not even offer to other customers, regardless of the rate."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121357125417575867.html?mod=Letters

Let me guess: You've got a problem with the Wall Street Journal ^, too?

6/21/2008 10:39:46 PM

i wasn't saying that your criticism was bad because of the national review. but my god, just look at the first paragraph of that national review article you quoted. it's got more stupid wingnut bullshit than ten minutes of michael savage.

6/22/2008 12:06:46 AM

^ It's an editorial, man--I figured people could tell the difference. Now, would you please comment on the fucking topic or not at all?!

THANK YOU!!!1

And I wasn't going to bring this up, but. . .

Quote :

"David Kahane is the nom de cyber of a writer in Hollywood. A free-thinker, he votes the straight Democratic ticket every time. You may congratulate him at kahanenro@gmail.com."

[Edited on June 22, 2008 at 12:17 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2008 12:14:40 AM

well i mean. i'm just saying quoting complete bullshit, whether an editorial or not, isn't helping you.

6/22/2008 12:26:35 AM

Quote :

"^ It's an editorial, man--I figured people could tell the difference. Now, would you please comment on the fucking topic or not at all?! THANK YOU!!!1 "

6/22/2008 12:35:32 AM

N.Y. Congressman Rents Apartments at Bargain Rates

Quote :

"While aggressive evictions are making rent-stabilized apartments increasingly scarce in New York, Representative Charles B. Rangel is enjoying four of them, including three adjacent apartments in a sprawling penthouse overlooking Upper Manhattan, courtesy of one of New York's premier real estate developers. Mr. Rangel, the powerful Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, uses his fourth apartment, six floors below, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence. Mr. Rangel, who has a net worth of $566,000 to $1.2 million, according to Congressional disclosure records, paid a total rent of $3,894 monthly in 2007 for the four apartments at Lenox Terrace, a 1,700-unit, six-tower luxury development with doormen that is described in real estate publications as Harlem's most prestigious address. The current market-rate rent for similar apartments in the building would total $7,465 to $8,125 a month, according to the Web site of the owner, the Olnick Organization. The Olnick Organization and other real estate firms have been accused of overzealous tactics as they move to evict tenants from their rent-stabilized apartments and convert them into market-rate housing. Tensions are especially inflamed in Harlem, where the rising cost of living and the arrival of more moneyed residents have triggered anxiety over the future of the historically black neighborhood. And Vantage Properties, a company established by Olnick’s former chief operating officer, has attracted billions in private equity financing by promising investors that it can aggressively convert tens of thousands of rent-stabilized apartments, many in Harlem. Yet Mr. Rangel, a boisterous critic of other landlords' callousness, has been uncharacteristically reticent about Olnick's actions. State officials and city housing experts interviewed by The New York Times said that, while the law does not prohibit tenants from having more than one rent-stabilized apartment, they knew of no one else with four of them. Others suggested that the arrangement undermines the purpose of rent regulation. 'There are families who manage to get two, when one tenant marries another, things like that,' said Dov Treiman, a lawyer who publishes The Housing Court Reporter, a legal trade publication. 'But I've never heard of any tenant managing to get four.' Mr. Rangel's use of the fourth apartment as an office, in addition to his 2,500-square-foot penthouse, was especially troubling to some advocates, given the city's chronic shortage of housing for low- and moderate-income residents. 'Whether it's an elected official or not, no one should have four apartments, especially when one is being used as an office,' said Michael McKee, treasurer of the Tenants Political Action Committee, who was not aware of the particulars of Mr. Rangel's situation when he was interviewed. Mr. Rangel, who was first elected to Congress in 1970 and is one of the city's most recognizable elected officials, has written and spoken extensively about his devotion to his home in Harlem, but does not appear to have ever publicly acknowledged that he has been permitted to lease four rent-stabilized apartments there. According to a public records database and interviews with neighbors, he has lived in the building since the early 1970s, but it is not clear when he amassed the four units. Mr. Rangel, 78, declined to answer questions during a telephone interview, saying that his housing was a private matter that did not affect his representation of his constituents. 'Why should I help you embarrass me?' he said, before abruptly hanging up. Olnick officials declined to discuss when or why they decided to permit Mr. Rangel to lease multiple rent-stabilized units. Asked why he had been allowed to use one as an office, Jeanette Bocchino, a spokeswoman for the company, replied: 'This is a private matter for the Olnick Organization and Mr. Rangel to evaluate.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregion/11rangel.html?_r=1



What Would You Drive, if the Taxpayers Paid?

Quote :

"Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not so caught up in the question of gas mileage. He leases a 2004 Cadillac DeVille for $777.54 a month. The car is 17 feet long with a 300-horsepower engine and seats five comfortably. 'It's one of the bigger Cadillacs,' Mr. Rangel, of Harlem, said cheerfully this week. 'I've got a desk in it. It's like an airplane.' Modest or more luxurious, the cars are all paid for by taxpayers. The use of a car — gas included — is one of the benefits of being a member of the House of Representatives."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/nyregion/01cars.html

Rangel's sure livin' large in Harlem. Kinda lavish consumption for a public servant, though, I'd say.

[Edited on July 10, 2008 at 7:33 PM. Reason : .]

7/10/2008 7:24:39 PM

bttt by request

11/18/2008 6:13:56 AM

Christopher Dodd was a Countrywide "VIP"--and an "FOA":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w3SgFOR9nY

Dodd on Connecticut's WELI-AM. The host, Tom Scott, was taken off the air after this interview and the interview didn't air:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dMLoKH9UJ8

The questions put to Dodd are neither unfair nor unreasonable.

11/18/2008 1:43:36 PM

Politicians are corrupt?

11/18/2008 5:07:49 PM

this shatters my entire belief system...

11/18/2008 5:11:30 PM

This aspect of politics is ridiculous, boring, and exhausting. Let's discuss ideas and implementations, not this kind of crap.

It's like hooksaw thinks corruption is INTRINSICALLY LINKED to party affiliation.

11/18/2008 5:12:18 PM

Some of you A-holes are the first ones to swoop in here to accuse a conservative of being a hypocrite when he or she is caught doing something wrong. Running around blabbing your fucking mouth about corruption in the financial markets--like Dodd did--while you're getting a sweetheart loan deal is also hypocrisy.

But it's no surprise at all that many of you want to pull the old "SO WHAT?!" bullshit. Typical.

11/18/2008 6:28:24 PM

Quote :

"Some of you A-holes are the first ones to swoop in here to accuse a conservative of being a hypocrite when he or she is caught doing something wrong. Running around blabbing your fucking mouth about corruption in the financial markets--like Dodd did--while you're getting a sweetheart loan deal is also hypocrisy."

And there distracting from the issues, too. Chill out.

(this is the part where you fly off the handle at people for acting like they're too good to engage you in this shit)

11/18/2008 9:40:53 PM

Quote :

"This aspect of politics is ridiculous, boring, and exhausting. Let's discuss ideas and implementations, not this kind of crap."

Except this type of crap has direct consequences on "ideas and implementations." How can anything meaningful get done if there is this type of abuse going on.

Politicians, especially ones that have served a few terms, are corrupt as fuck, regardless of political orientation.

11/19/2008 1:50:22 AM

Hey, look! Hooksaw has found another scandal involving democrats.

And cue the "Fuck off!" and the "Say something about this topic." or the ironic "Nobody gives a fuck what you say!", and maybe even throw in a Carnak the Great screenshot, and of course top it off with some conceited rolly-eyes.

You old, predictable, unwanted piece of refuse. Don't you get the message?

Can't you just let this be a left-leaning forum and go off to one of your GOP circle-jerks?

11/19/2008 2:33:02 AM

Quote :

"Some of you A-holes are the first ones to swoop in here to accuse a conservative of being a hypocrite when he or she is caught doing something wrong. "

Yeah, you know why that is?

They claim they are the party of VALUES. And often they get caught doing the very thing they are actively against.

It demonstrates the failed philosophy of the party.

When this type of thing happens to democrats, they are not judged by the same standard because they aren't burdened with that claim.

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 2:46 AM. Reason : .]

11/19/2008 2:42:18 AM

^ This is one of the posts where you can't really believe what you just read. I mean, I always assumed believed this things like this, but most people are too polite to actually say them.

I mean, did you really just advise someone stop posting because they have a dissenting view, while at the same time complaining about that person's partisanship?!?! Good grief.

Personally, I like hooksaw and his posting. He obviously leans conservative on a lot of issues, but I he's much more independent than people give him credit for. Based on his posts in other threads I think it's easy to see that even though he leans conservative he doesn't necc feel at home in the GOP, which has been growing less conservative on many issues during the past 8 years.

Really, I can empathize with him. Just 4 years ago I would have described myself as a Democrat (though I never officially registered as one) and I still do consider myself pretty left-leaning on some issues. But it really seems like the progressive wing of the party has taken over and I just don't feel like I belong in the party anymore (though Obama is looking less and less progressive every time he hires someone else from the Clinton Admin).

But of course criticizing the Dems is the same as being a Republican to a lot of people on this board. As if things worked out so neatly.

11/19/2008 2:47:40 AM

Quote :

"did you really just advise someone stop posting because they have a dissenting view,"

I thought I was pretty clear that he should stop posting because he is old, predictable, and (largely) unwanted.

Don't try to make this out like I'm squashing dissent (like I know he will because he loves to play the role of the persecuted victim). But, I'm sure his views would be more appreciated somewhere else.

11/19/2008 2:59:31 AM

If by "largely" you mean people that don't like for others to disagree with them, then yes I think are a lot of people on this board that fall into that group. Apparently yourself.

Quote :

" Can't you just let this be a left-leaning forum and go off to one of your GOP circle-jerks?"

Yah, how could I possibly read that as you being a partisan asshat instructing people that are not left-leaning to leave. Silly me. Anyways joe_schmoe is also old and predictable. Yet you have never told him to kick rocks in a similar manner. I wonder why....

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 3:07 AM. Reason : ``]

11/19/2008 3:06:49 AM

^ LOL! Who, joe_senile?

11/19/2008 2:27:26 PM

GET OFF MY LAWN!!!1

*shakes fist*

11/19/2008 2:33:31 PM

bump

7/28/2009 5:49:10 PM

AP IMPACT: Dodd, Conrad told deals were sweetened

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony. Both senators have said that at the time the mortgages were being written they didn't know they were getting unique deals from Countrywide Financial Corp., the company that went on to lose billions of dollars on home loans to credit-strapped borrowers. Dodd still maintains he got no preferential treatment. Dodd got two Countrywide mortgages in 2003, refinancing his home in Connecticut and another residence in Washington. Conrad's two Countrywide mortgages in 2004 were for a beach house in Delaware and an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck in his home state of North Dakota. Robert Feinberg, who worked in the Countrywide's VIP section, told congressional investigators last month that the two senators were made aware that 'who you know is basically how you're coming in here.' 'You don't say "no" to the VIP,' Feinberg told Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press. The next day, Feinberg testified before the Senate Ethics Committee, an indication the panel is actively investigating two of the chamber's more powerful members: -Dodd heads the Banking Committee and is a major player in two big areas: solving the housing foreclosure and financial crises and putting together an overhaul of the U.S. health care system. A five-term senator, he is in a tough fight for re-election in 2010, partly because of the controversy over his mortgages. -Conrad chairs the Budget Committee. He, too, shares an important role in the health care debate, as well as on legislation to curb global warming. Both senators were VIP borrowers in the program known as "friends" of Angelo. Angelo Mozilo was chief executive of Countrywide, which played a big part in the foreclosure crisis triggered by defaults on subprime loans. The Calabasas, Calif.-based company was bought last July by Bank of America Corp. for about $2.5 billion."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j55FCpuuduj27QsPNPsnKtA9PK6AD99N143G3

7/28/2009 5:54:49 PM

i don't feel like reading, can you give me the bullet items about why I should be outraged?

7/28/2009 6:05:05 PM

* Influential senators (Dodd and Conrad)--who claim to be looking out for the "little guys"--on banking- and budget-related committees claim to have not received special treatment ("VIP loans" as "FOAs" ["Friends of Angelo"] [Mozilo]). The SEC has charged Mozilo with insider trading and securities fraud.

* According to secret testimony reported by the AP, these senators did know that they were getting very special treatment--who knows what they gave in return if anything.

I'm sure that there are plenty of non-senators who would also like a "VIP loan." Apparently, it's only available to a very limited few--in the US Senate.


[Edited on July 28, 2009 at 6:17 PM. Reason : .]

7/28/2009 6:17:25 PM

so how "very special" was this very special treatment.....

I mean, at the time (2003), you could get 30-year fixed in the 5-5.5% range. What were they getting - 3, 4%?

7/28/2009 6:40:42 PM

^ Then why do the senators in question feel the need to lie or mischaracterize events and why are they so damn touchy about all this?

Quote :

"Take Senator Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat whose office issued a Friday statement saying that 'I never met Angelo Mozilo.' What he did not say then but admitted under later questioning by a Journal reporter is that, although he may not have had a face-to-face meeting with the Countrywide CEO, Mr. Conrad had called Mr. Mozilo and asked for a loan. The result was a discounted loan on his million-dollar beach house and a separate commercial loan of a type that residential lender Countrywide did not even offer to other customers, regardless of the rate."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121357125417575867.html?mod=Letters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dMLoKH9UJ8

7/28/2009 6:53:59 PM

i'm not defending their lying..... i'm asking what this sweet deal is, because I got my first mortgage that year, as a first-time buyer, for 5.125%. Just curious what I was missing out on as a VIP

7/28/2009 7:03:03 PM

^ This is one part of the "sweet deal":

Quote :

"The result was a discounted loan on his million-dollar beach house and a separate commercial loan of a type that residential lender Countrywide did not even offer to other customers, regardless of the rate."

Here's more:

Quote :

"Two U.S. senators, two former Cabinet members, and a former ambassador to the United Nations received loans from Countrywide Financial through a little-known program that waived points, lender fees, and company borrowing rules for prominent people."

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/06/12/Countrywide-Loan-Scandal

[Edited on July 28, 2009 at 7:07 PM. Reason : .]

7/28/2009 7:04:31 PM

Is that illegal? Isn't (wasn't) Countrywide free to loan money to whoever the fuck they wanted at whatever rate they wanted?

Don't get me wrong, it should be disclosed and it wasn't, but I'd like to know what kind of money we are talking here. Because as best as I can tell, it's peanuts.

7/28/2009 7:17:47 PM