Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new window

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis. At a 2004 hearing see Democrat after Democrat covering up and attacking the regulations t...  
 
Customize

More From: NakedEmperorNews

Loading...

QuickList(0)

Upgrade to Flash Player 10 for improved playback performance. Upgrade Now or get more info.
8,259 ratings
Sign in to rate
3,432,903 views
Want to add to Favorites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!

Statistics & Data

Loading...

Video Responses (6)

Sign in to post a Comment

Text Comments (21,591)   Options

Loading...
ItNice26 (16 hours ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
emcga150- you are whats wrong with this country. Something as blatant as this is ignored by morons like you. What more is there to see, this is their own words, but go ahead and bury your head in the sand and point your finger at someone else. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd approved the allocation of funds and blocked the attempt at regulating Fannie and Freddie. That's common knowledge, but I guess its hard to get through to ignorance. Wake up! Start questioning your own party.
emcga150 (2 days ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
the persons who posted this video are lying republicans... sliced and spliced bits and pieces... too bad your video editing is so obvious

NICE TRYING LYING REPUBLICANS, BUSH KISSERS.. GO AND SERVE IN IRAQ
HopeForPeaceNow (2 days ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
Ashtone - last comment was for you!
The video is of a hearing on accounting, not the hearing held regarding regulation.

"The new rule, introduced by Bush, compels the companies to put 57% of their mortgage financing by 2008 toward homes for people with lower incomes. Fannie Mae and Freddie, the two largest U.S. mortgage finance companies, currently meet a 50%threshold."
There was no regulation impending! Every quote is out of context in this video.

Why didn't Bush regulate Non-GSE's??
ashstone503 (3 days ago) Show Hide
+1
Marked as spam
Typical FREE MARKET economics, the WINNERS win big, the losers jump from buildings. Give me regulated, slow long term sustainability over this fluctuating chaos any day.
NARDDB (3 days ago) Show Hide
+1
Marked as spam
fannie mae , frediie mac were not FREE MARKET "BECAUSE JIMMY CARTER, BILL CLINTON " FORCED BANKS WHICH IS PRIVATE COMPANIES TO GIVE BAD LOANS. AKA TOXIC LOANS.AND RAINES RAN AWAY WITH MILLIONS FOR HIS RUNNING THEM IN THE GROUNDS THANKS DEMO-CRAPS YOU FUCK US TAX PAYERS AS USUSAL FOR YOUR SCREWING US WORKERS FOR YOUR COMMUNIST CRAP. IS THE WAY OVER PAID ASSHOLE ATHLETES YOU LOVE SO MUCH INCLUDED IN YOUR FREE MARKET . HMMM CEO 1000'S OF WORKERS UNDER THEM WORTH 2MILL.?NO ? ASSHOLE ATHLETE ? YES
ashstone503 (2 days ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
Again, no one FORCED them to give bad loans, in fact, Bush increased the incentive to give bad loans, eliminating HUD restrictions in 2004. Bush tried to increase loans to poor. Banks could have easily given 30 yr fixed rate loans, like I have through ACORN, and not pushed these people into TEASER RATES. Banks made the contracts, and knew the risks. It was derivative market that drove the bad loans. Do your research.
HopeForPeaceNow (2 days ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
WELL SAID!
You have a great, educated, well-researched comment.
The answer from Nar is typical.
A good reason to have a test before people can vote. Bush tried to UP from $50 Billion to %57 Billion for low-income.

"In 2004 President Bush embarked on a mission to increase the level of homeownership, ordering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase targets for loans made to lower-income individuals."NYT

Frank ACTUALLY opposed it! Every quote here is out of context,but Connies can't tell!
ashstone503 (3 days ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Since the reference entity is not a party to agreement between the protection buyer and seller, the seller of protection has no inherent recourse to the reference entity in the event of default and no right to sue the reference entity for recovery.
ashstone503 (3 days ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
In other words, the govt guaranteed loans and lowered the credit requirements, so the BANKS had a fucking field day and gave out any shitty as high risk loan they could dream of and created a whole credit derivivitive market

. Credit default swaps have unique characteristics that distinguish them from insurance products and financial guaranties. The protection buyer does not need to own an underlying obligation of the reference entity. The protection buyer does not need to suffer a loss.
ashstone503 (3 days ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Unfortunately, Fannie Mae-quality, safe loans in the subprime market did not become the standard, and the lending market moved away from us. Borrowers were offered a range of loans that layered teaser rates, interest-only, negative amortization and payment options and low-documentation requirements on top of floating-rate loans. In early 2005 we began sounding our concerns about this "layered-risk" lending. For example, Tom Lund, the head of our single-family mortgage business, publicly stated,

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.