Another Oregonian Hatchet Job on Sizemore

NW Republican broke this story,

“The Oregonian could not be more blatant in their bias. For several weeks, the public employee unions have been filling the Oregon airwaves with millions of dollars in prime time television ads telling voters that Measure 64 will stop firefighters, nurses, and teachers from doing their jobs. Not one “investigative” reporter in Oregon has challenged the absurdity of these claims. “

Read the whole story HERE.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 07:23 | Posted in Measure 37 | 20 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • provo nova

    Right now I do not think I can trust any newspaper, any political figure, any ad, anything said even by my own very nieghbor. Public trust has taken a big hit in this election. Maybe we should presidential elections every six years like France.

  • Jerry

    I have said this before – the unions simply do not have the capability, knowledge, or the means to collect their own political dues.

    The state must help them. How else would they get the money they need?

    No wonder they are upset. If the voters approve this measure the unions would have to figure out how to collect those dues. It will be a great hardship on them.

    I only hope everyone wakes up to this mess before it is too late and preserves the state collection of union political dues. They need our help and we must give it to them.

  • Bill Sizemore

    I have been wondering when the stories questioning the veracity of the unions’ ad campaign will run. Their ads are so off based that they are literally laughable and yet the mainstream media won’t even examine them.

    Can you imagine what the oregonian would be writing, if our side’s radio ads were even slightly misleading? I remember a former headline, “Filling the airwaves with hot air” that the oregonian ran a few years ago questioning some of the ads I ran.

    But not today and not the other side. They would rather write a story about an organization Bill Sizemore worked for last year than look at millions of dollars in false ads the unions are running today.

  • John Fairplay

    Back in the day, Brent Walth used to be a pretty good, fair reporter when he was with the Register-Guard. In those days, that paper also had the best and smartest editorial board, which I think shows the paper was trying to have a top-to-bottom quality staff. Now Brent is just stuck in the pro-union line-up at the Oregonian and is a much smaller reporter (and person). It’s amazing to me that their slant on these stories is part of what’s killing them as a business, but they absolutely refuse to change. They remind me of Nicholas Cage in “Leaving Las Vegas.”

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Frankly, in a weird way, I look at the blatant media bias not just towards Sizemore’s issues, but the entire election in general as something of a sign of hope.

    I’ve said it before, but look at the numbers. We have Obama having to outspend McCain by orders of magnitude in some states just to eek out a one or two point lead. We have a press so biased at this point even most Marxists would deny it. We have economic conditions that any party out of power presidentially couldn’t hope for in their wildest dreams. With all of that, Obama is only now inching above 50% in the polls.

    That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of liberal orthodoxy. Things could be far worse.

    You can only keep ideas down with deception, such as the press has done, for so long. People know the bias that is out there. Newspaper and television news audiences have been dropping faster than congressional poll numbers do when Pelosi opens her mouth. The press bias has increased and they have less and less influence as a result. I find that actually fairly invigorating.

    Remember, Regan won with similar economic conditions, but the press hated him and he got a landslide. Obama is going to win but look at how much the press is having to prop him up.

    You want more?

    Ok, just wait until Obama gets in office. The middle class that was expecting a tax cut? Try and remember how mad the public was with Clinton when two weeks in he gave his “hardest two weeks of my life” speech and cancelled his single biggest campaign promise, a middle class tax cut. You are going to see a replay of that one real quick.

    Sure its unfair what the press is having to do to Sizemore to defeat his issues. But if those issues get voted in, that says a hell of a lot about their validity with the public. Id much rather have a more free press than we do at this point. But we don’t, so for now I certainly would rather win an issue by the power of the idea, than by having to be continually propped up by a sham press.

    I’m Mr. Cheerful, and I approved this message


    Its looking like the little o may not be with us much longer anyhow. As people tighten their belts, birdcage liner quality papers will be the first thing they drop.

  • John in Oregon

    The bias of the Legacy Media, including the local *O* version 2.0.11, is a creeping cancer.

    I think Orson Scott Card a Democrat and a newspaper columnist said it better than I. In an opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

    *Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?*
    The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, North Carolina

    In his piece Card asks, “Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?”

    “I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. “Housing-gate,” no doubt. Or “Fannie-gate*….”

    Speaking directly to reporters Card said “Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!”

    “What? It’s not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?…”

    Speaking directly to the “newspapers” Card continues “If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.”

    “If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.”…

    Finally Card nails it “Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That’s what you claim you do, when you accept people’s money to buy or subscribe to your paper.”

    “But right now, you [reporters] are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.”…

    “If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.”

    “Because that’s what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don’t like the probable consequences. That’s what honesty means . That’s how trust is earned.”

    Read the entire piece at;

    • dean

      To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, as Colonel Jessup: Orson Card can’t handle the truth. He wants his version of it in print, not what actually happened.

    • John in Oregon

      > *Orson Card can’t handle the truth. He wants his version of it in print, not what actually happened.*

      Orson Scott Card stated “when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie.”

      You state that Orson Scott Card lied. That you and Nancy Pelosi are correct the Bush administration and Republican deregulation caused the crisis.

      This is very easy to resolve. If Card lied you can easily point to the precise deregulation or deregulations that caused the crisis and the legacy media outlet that published the information. If you do not then you lied.

      So Dean what was the deregulation? Glass-Steagall repeal? Perhaps the 2004 change in SEC net capital rules? Basel II?

      What deregulation was it?

      • dean

        John…first I did not say he lied. I said he could not handle the truth, as presented to him by the media. Second, economics is not physics. Determining precise cause and effect is not possible, not now and not in the future. There were multiple causes that fed on each other. Deregulation, the Bush administrations idiotic experiment with “self-regulation” (via its SEC Chair,) the invention of multiple new methods for packaging and re-packaging loans that hid their risk, holding interest rates too low for too long to finance a phony recovery amidst an unfunded war, sovereign wealth funds with loads of cash needing a place to park, all these and other factors led to a housing bubble forming. Once inflation rose, as was inevitable, the Fed raised interest rates, defaults mounted, the bubble burst, and we are where we are.

        It is you and Orson, trying desperately to pin this on out of power Democrats and poor people, that are reaching for a precise cause and effect. You won’t find it, but you can make up what you like.

        And by the way even Alan Greenspan, in a spech yesterday, said deregulation had apparently gone too far, even though he was one of those who fought against regulation at key decision points.

        • Anonymous

          Once again Dean shows how little he knows about everything and anything and how much of a total lying shill for the idiot left he is.

          Every honest person with more than two brain cells (that excludes you on both counts Dean) knows that the corruption of FNMA and FMAC and the corruption and outright stupidity of the Democrats on both the House and Senate banking committees brought this on.

          Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd ought to be pilloried for what they did to us.

          • dean

            From Alan Greenspan’s testimony to Congress yesterday:

            “The *evidence strongly suggests* that without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originizations, undeniably the original source of the crisis, would have been far smaller and defaults accordingly far fewer. But subprime mortgages pooled and sold as securities became subject to *explosive demand from investors* around the world.”

            No Fannie…no Freddie. He blames those who originated the loans, those who repackaged them, and those who bought them.

            Of course, it could be Dr Greenspan has only 2 brain cells.

  • John in Oregon

    Dean > *first I did not say he lied. I said he could not handle the truth, as presented to him by the media.*

    Dean you held out that Card’s “version of the truth” Card’s statement that Nancy Pelosi was blaming the victim was an equivocation, false, a fiction, a misrepresentation, evasive, untruth, subterfuge, a fabrication, a prevarication, a fib or falsehood.

    You further represented that Nancy Pelosi ‘s, and your, blame of Bush and Republicans is accurate, trustworthy, honest, confirmed, authentic, correct, factual, kosher, legitimate, the unvarnished truth.

    All of which brings us back again to the question you attempted to evade. But let me reword the question so it’s very simple. If Nancy told the truth you can easily point to the Republican deregulation or deregulations that caused the crisis and the legacy media outlet that published the information.

    If you do not then you and Nancy lied just as Mr. Card said you did.

    > *Second, economics is not physics. Determining precise cause and effect is not possible, not now and not in the future. There were multiple causes that fed on each other.*

    Economics is not Physics. Well DUAHHHH. Surprise, surprise they aren’t even spelled the same. It’s a pathetic attempt to justify why you cant or wont name the Republican deregulation that you claim caused the crisis.

    Assuming your premise is true, that these things are unknowable, then Speaker Pelosi, Congressmen Frank, Senator Dodd and Senator Obama can’t know either. Now can they? So when they point fingers what they say is true, why?

    Oh now I see. They know because they say so. Compelling, very compelling. The Dems say, the media bray.

    Now about that lie that Speaker Pelosi told.

    I know you want to prove it true. So lets make that question yet again even more simple.

    If Nancy told the truth you can easily point to at least one Republican or Bush financial deregulation that might be remotely relevant that happened between December 1998 and today.

    *If you do not, then Speaker Pelosi obviously lied.*

    And none of the nebulous > *the Bush administrations idiotic experiment with “self-regulation” (via its SEC Chair,).* If you have something done by the SEC then be specific.

    • dean

      John…you attributed a lot of words to me I did not use, so I won’t bother defending what I did not say.

      One’s “version of the truth” is not necessarily a lie. It can be an incomplete set of facts, or a mistaken analysis, or it can be a deliberate falsification. Not knowing Card, I’m not saying what it is. But I am granting him the benefit of my doubt.

      I can’t “name” a specific cause because those who know more than I about these matters, like Greenspan, attribute multiple causes. One of them was the partial repeal of Glass-Steigal (sp?). One was the decision by the Bush Administration through the SEC chair to allow the investment bankers to “self-regulate” using computer models that failed to properly assess the risk of derivatives.

      Fannie and Freddie contributed, but their role was relatively small. They did not begin buying the flimsy mortgage packages until 2005, long after the buble had formed.

      Pelosi did not “lie.” She may have stated an incomplete truth. The Bush Administration AND deregulation clearly were big parts of the cause, as was the Fed by holding interest rates too low too long. As was the invention and rapid spread of mortgage backed investment packages…AKA the free market itself that poured money into questionable paper backed by questionable bond ratings done by private raters, all backed by unsecured insurance companies like AIG. It was a private investment bubble gone bad. Its happened before and will again, because bubbles create irrational expectations based on faulty premises that are not sustainable.

      There are numerous articles in the mainstream media you shun about how the SEC decided to accept a proposal by the investment banks to regulate themselves. There are additional recent articles about a proposal to regulate derivatives via the commodoties market that Greenspan and Rubin (under Clinton) killed. You want citations? No time today.

      So sorry John….you may want black or white here. You get gray.

  • John in Oregon

    You can quibble all you wish about what the meaning of “is” is. Just the same you represented Card as the source of naddatruth. You state that this is because Card doesn’t know what he is talking about (incomplete set of facts), he is stupid (mistaken analysis), or he is a liar (deliberate falsification).

    You are quite sure the meltdown was caused by Republican Bush deregulation, after all the Speaker of the House, Congressman Frank, Obama and the New York Times told you so. Its quite obvious to me that you did not read what Mr. Card, the journalist had to say about the bias of the news profession. So lets move on.

    I asked you a simple question. What deregulation happened? You tell us that you > *can’t “name” a specific cause because those who know more than [you] about these matters, like Greenspan, attribute multiple causes.*

    So why should we believe you, Pelosi, Congressman Frank, or Obama when you say deregulation did it? I asked you simply to tell us what deregulation happened.

    You mumble about the “mainstream” media and Greenspan and don’t actually provide anything. You mumble about shades of gray then state in stark black and white that the meltdown was caused by Republican Bush deregulation. You use sweeping nebulous phrases like > *Bush Administration AND deregulation clearly…*

    Well Dean it’s not clear, although you do finally allude albeit imprecisely to your, and the media’s, candidates for deregulation. You have referenced Glass-Steagall repeal, the 2004 change in SEC net capital rules, Basel II and “the invention and rapid spread of mortgage backed investment packages”. Lets take them in turn.

    *Glass-Steagall repeal* You name this one by name.

    Glass-Steagall was a depression era anti competitive projectionist barrier preventing entry into a business sector. It’s not regulation it’s a market entry prohibition. Ignoring that point;

    Glass-Steagall applied only to US chartered banks doing business in the United States. It had no effect on foreign banks or US international subsidiarys. Any propertied effectiveness was minimal at best. Ignoring also this point;

    Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd voted affirmative to pass Glass-Steagall repeal and President Clinton signed the repeal. This was not a uniquely Republican action. Ignoring this further point.

    There is no evidence to show that Glass-Steagall repeal contributed to increased high-risk credit availability. And ignoring even this point;

    Lastly, Glass-Steagall repeal is s major stabilizer to the financial system this past year. It allowed Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch to be acquired by J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America, and allowed Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to convert to bank holding companies to help shore up their positions.

    *The 2004 change in SEC net capital rules* You said the SEC allowed the investment bankers to “self-regulate”

    The change in SEC net capital rules was anything but deregulation. Prior to this change the SEC roll was simply monitor broker-dealers to ensure that *client accounts were safe.* The SEC _did not regulate_ net capitol until this rule change.

    “Rather than deregulation, it was a breathtaking increase and regulatory leap for an agency that had traditionally focused on *protecting individual investors.* Under the new regulations , the SEC added new regulations which would collect new data from the parent companies of brokerages and *require new monthly and quarterly reports.* Firms were supposed to provide detailed explanations of internal risk models.

    Was it deregulation, hell NO. Was it a regulatory failure, yes. That’s a caution for those who think new regulation will solve everything, even solve anything.

    *Basel II* You said the SEC decided to accept a proposal by the investment banks to regulate themselves.

    That is an incorrect description of Basel II.

    “Was Basel II a libertarian plot cooked up at the Cato Institute?” Is Basel II as you describe it > *a proposal by the investment banks?* NO. Basel II is the regulations of the _world’s major central banks._ Is Basel II allowing > *the investment banks to regulate themselves?* NO. On the contrary, it is the inpositoin of ever-growing Basel Committee rules for measuring bank risk and allocating capital to absorb that risk that failed miserably

    Basel II is a direct result of allowing international central banks to _regulate_ US financial institutions. It is _more regulation_ and an utter failure.

    *The invention and rapid spread of mortgage backed investment packages* or as you say > *AKA the free market itself that poured money into questionable paper backed by questionable bond ratings done by private raters, (sic) all backed by unsecured insurance companies like AIG. It was a private investment bubble gone bad.*

    First. subprime lending, securitization and dealing in swaps were all activities that banks and other financial institutions have had the ability to engage in all along. There is no connection between any of these and deregulation.

    Second there is no such thing as a private investment bubble. An oversupply of investment money that causes the value of the money to crash. An investment dollar is an investment dollar. If one investment market is full the dollar will simply seek another. The bubble that did exist was an oversupply of sub prime credit. Yes the low FED rate made it worse, it did not create the oversupply of risky credit.

    Since you disagree with the obvious reasons I gave, *Dean why don’t you tell us where the excess sub-prime credit came from?*

    The bottom line is this. *Financial deregulation for the past three decades consisted of the removal of deposit interest-rate ceilings, the relaxation of branching powers, and allowing commercial banks to enter underwriting and insurance and other financial activities.*

    While your at it explain again how the meltdown was deregulation.

  • John in Oregon

    Again you minimize Fannie and Freddie saying > *They did not begin buying the flimsy mortgage packages until 2005, long after the buble (sic) had formed.*

    That’s utterly irrelevant and well just stupid. Repeating the same stupidity over and over is the trademark of Saul Alinsky. It doesn’t change the roll of Fannie and Freddie as an enabler. Fannie and Freddie guaranteed and sold sub prime loans to the market. They were doing that in the 1990s. They were the primary source of easy sub-prime credit and did so at the behest of Government.

    In 2005 they began drinking their own Cool Aid. So what?

    You must be quoting nalA napsneerG that buzzaro legacy media version of Alan Greenspan. Only the legacy media can take two sentences from different subjects, string them together and put words in Greenspans mouth.

    For your own part Dean you quote nalA napsneerG as saying > *No Fannie…no Freddie.*

    Sorry but I heard Alan Greenspan in the hearing look Snidely Whiplash, oh sorry I meant Henry Waxman who just looks every bit the part of a crooked lawyer to me. Greenspan looked Waxman in the eye and reminded him that he, Greenspan, had warned congress to rein in Fannie and Freddie. If they did not the activities of Fannie and Freddie would bring down the economy. Well guess what Dean. Congress didn’t and they did bring down the economy. Hate to say I told you so, but Greenspan told them so.

    You did get one part right when you said > *about a proposal to regulate derivatives via the commodoties market that Greenspan and Rubin (under Clinton)…*

    Greenspan did oppose regulating derivatives. Had criminal penalties for misrepresentation been in place then Congressman Frank, Franklin Reins and others would be in jail and the meltdown might have been avoided.

    But wait I see an irony here. Dean did you not say that sub-prime and derivatives were invented under deregulation? Yet here in the 1990s they are being discussed.

    As one news article said of Greenspans testimony “That is precisely the reason I was shocked because I’d been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.” Greenspan said he was “partially” wrong in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn’t protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected.”

    That’s two different quotes run together to make it appear that Greenspan is shocked about being wrong. Then we should ignore the money quote shouldn’t we.

    The money quote is this. Greenspan expressed “shocked disbelief” that financial companies failed to operate in their own self interest.

    That’s a very important point. I asked it some time ago and neither you or David answered. *What influence caused lenders to act against their own self interest to make loans with no expectation of repayment?*

    Your source misquoted Greenspan. Let me give you the correct quote. “Without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originations — undeniably the original source of crisis — would have been far smaller and defaults, accordingly, far fewer,” he said. “A surge in demand for U.S. subprime securities, supported by unrealistically positive ratings by credit agencies, was the core of the problem,” he added.

    Lets also look at the mission of Fannie and Freddie “to help grow the secondary mortgage market purchase mortgages from lending institutions to either be securitized as MBS and sold in the secondary market or held.”

    Now consider what Greenspan said. There was a high demand for mortgage securities which appeared to be safe and high return. This demand in turn drove lenders to be willing to make more sub-prime loans.

    And who exactly was at the center of the bundling? Well hello, what do you know. Its Fannie and Freddie who purchased mortgages from lending institutions to be securitized as MBS instruments. They weren’t alone in doing this but Clinton and HUD pushed for eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase from lenders.

    HUD secretary Cuomo admitted the mandate amounted to “affirmative action” lending that would result in a “higher default rate.” The institutions would “take a greater risk on these mortgages, to give families mortgages who they would not have given otherwise, they would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank.

  • John in Oregon

    Just when I thought everything had been said about legacy media bias and the current meltdown some one finds an article that settles once and for all who is to blame for the current economic collapse. The title of the article says it all:

    *Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending *
    New York Times, September 30, 1999

    In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

    The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

    Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

    Read the entire article at


    The New Your Times in a financial hole keeps on digging. The latest action by Standard and Poors rating agency, has cut the corporate debt of the New York Times company to “junk” status.

  • John in Oregon

    Yet another journalist opens up on the bias of the media. This time ABC News columnist By Michael S. Malone.

    *Editing Their Way to Oblivion: Journalism Sacrificed For Power and Pensions*
    By Michael S. Malone

    “The traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game. With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate.”

    “The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.”

    “But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer”, because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist…”

    “Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes . . .and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain’s. That’s what reporters do, I was proud to have been one, and I’m still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.”

    “So why weren’t those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?”

    “The editors. The men and women you don’t see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn’t; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay-out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.”

    Read the entire article at

    • dean

      John…you are like an attorney representing a client being sued who dumps every piece of paper he can find on the paintiff’s lawyer in the hopes of burying him.

      I wasn’t aware I was “mumbling.” I’m not sure how one “mumbles” in print.

      The investment banks provided the bulk of thefunding for subprime loans. They were not regulated and were not subject to the CRA, and up until 2005 none of their loans were re-purchased by fAnnie or Freddie. Much of the funding they provided was for re-financing, not even original mortgages. Low interest rates, as GReenspan talked about, led investors to look somewhere for a safe investment at higher yeilds than T-bills, which had gone negative accounting for inflation. Real estate prices were steadlity rising through the 90s, then started shooting up as investment capital poured in. Once interest rates went up and subprime time bombs began to go off, foreclosures increased and the bubble burst.

      That is the story in a nutshell. It was a failure of capitalism, left largely unregulated by an administration and Fed chairman that were believers in free markets left alone.

      You want to pin blame somewhere, go to Countrywide Financial. They gamed the system big time.

  • John in Oregon

    Good thing you didn’t base your thinking on a source with an agenda. Ohhhh wait, you did.

    You say > *The investment banks provided the bulk of thefunding (sic) for subprime loans.*
    ==== And
    You say > *They [investment banks] were not regulated and were not subject to the CRA,*
    ==== To which I add
    The investment banks did not generally originate loans to individual borrowers.
    ==== Conclusion
    Who the hell cares if investment banks were not CRA regulated for loans they did not make?

    You say > *They [investment banks] were not regulated and were not subject to the CRA,*
    ==== And
    You say > *[T]heir [investment banks] loans were [not] re-purchased by fAnnie (sic) or Freddie.*
    ==== Conclusion
    Who the hell cares if investment banks were not CRA regulated for loans they did not make that Fannie and Freddid did not re-purchase?

    You say > *Much of the funding they [investment banks] provided was for re-financing, not even original mortgages.*
    ==== Conclusion
    If investment banks were not involved in making sub-prime loans, then who the hell cares?

    Thank you for bringing up Countrywide Financial, a lender to individual borrowers that is regulated by CRA.
    ==== And
    Fannie and Freddie purchased those loans from Countrywide Financial and other lenders.
    ==== And
    Thanks to the 1999 NYT article we also know that Department of Housing and Urban Development required that “50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers.”
    ==== And
    Fannie and Freddie bundled those loans into securities which they sold to the private investment market.
    ==== Conclusion
    That looks like a chain of Government intervention. Walks like a duck. It sure as hell isnt free market capitalism.

    So Dean it was Government intervention that failed wasn’t it?

    You said > *Real estate prices were steadlity (sic) rising through the 90s, then started shooting up as investment capital poured in. Once interest rates went up and subprime time bombs began to go off, foreclosures increased and the bubble burst.*

    I am going to give you credit for getting this right although you didn’t explicitly state the cause. One of the lessons from the great depression was that the 29 crash was caused when the FED (government) inflated the money and credit supply. [See the great myths thread above]

    We see the same patter with the current meltdown, the inflation of money supply [low FED interest rate] and inflation of credit via CRA and Fannie / Freddie easy credit.


    The thread here is legacy media bias. Has anyone seen this in the legacy media?

    *House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k)*
    October 16, 2008

    The House Labor Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee are currently preparing a new system of Government guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

    Under the plan 401(k) plans would be taxed and all workers be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a government retirement account invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year. The present SSI rate of 15.2% would not change and is in addition to the required savings of the new plan.

    I am sure the legacy media will research this plan and rush it into print on November 5th.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)