Posted on 07/12/2008 3:08:39 PM PDT by upchuck
Anybody have a link to those numbers and statements?
Non-Sequitur (reply 14) might be comforted.
According to the article, Schumer's spokesman said the release of the letter was done by his office deliberately:
"On Monday, Schumer aide Brian Fallon offered this explanation for Schumer's action: 'The home loan bank system has an obligation to lend responsibly and police its members. But it has not been doing its job. We have found the only way to get the home loan bank system to act appropriately and positively is to make public the concerns we've already expressed privately.'"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2044490/posts
I also have a feeling that a left-wing activist group may have been behind this too, and may have been the one that leaked Schumer's letter to the media. IndyMac was apparently very naive about politics.
Last summer, Schumer sent letters to a whole bunch of big mortgage lenders demanding all sorts of information about their loan portfolios and servicing practices. I know many conmpanies responded and gave him the information. Perhaps IndyMac told him to get lost.
On June 30, a shadowy left-wing group called the Center For Responsible Lending published a nasty "report" on IndyMac which accused it of all sorts of abusive lending practices. You can read the report here. It's rare to see groups like this single out a lender for such a diatribe. My guess is that CRL tried to shake down IndyMac for money and IndyMac told them to shove it. CRL has filed 10 lawuits against IndyMac and much of the "evidence" in their report comes from bogus claims in its lawsuits.
CRL has close ties to many Democrats on Capitol Hill, especially Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina. I had not been aware of any particluar ties between CRL and Schumer, but it would not surprise me. Schumer sent his letter to the bank regulators the same day that CRL released its report on IndyMac.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act), also known as the Financial Modernization Act of 1999, is a federal law enacted in the United States to control the ways that financial institutions deal with the private information of individuals. The Act consists of three sections: The Financial Privacy Rule, which regulates the collection and disclosure of private financial information; the Safeguards Rule, which stipulates that financial institutions must implement security programs to protect such information; and the Pretexting provisions, which prohibit the practice of pretexting (accessing private information using false pretenses). The Act also requires financial institutions to give customers written privacy notices that explain their information-sharing practices.Source.
Sounds to me like it's mostly about privacy as opposed to letting greedy mortgage bankers run amuck.
And if the run continues...he will be responsible for the depression.
He was irresponsible in an already volatile market. To make public solvency statements in a nervous financial time is irresponsible. He cost investors money, he crashed a bank that may have been able to salvage itself, and he cost the taxpayer $$$$$$.
That is the first link I cited in my reply #1 above, as well as others.
Only a complete idiot would do what Schumer did.
Oh that’s nonsense, the bad business decisions led to the run on the bank.
I may be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5 here, but it looks damn fishy to me.
Is there any way to punish Schuckster?
Agreed! Needs to be looked into.
I'm sure there is. But the RATS sure a hell won't do it and the pubbies don't have any balls, so there ya go.
This story needs to be hammered right through untill Monday so that it doesn't windup in the "Old News" pile.
Sen. Shumer is a member of multiple committees, each of which gives him a call on the financial markets and banking sector: Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs & Finance are two of his key Senate committees. He also Chairs the Senate Subcommittees on Economic Policy (Banking).
Ultimate goal is removal from office for a lack of public confidence.
I live for the day when Schumer has his Spitzer Moment and that smirk gets wiped-off his kisser...
Yes, Shumer may have exacerbated the problem, but he may have done so intentionally so Obama surrogates in the left-wing media can remind America of the “Keating Five”.
Hey, all I did was re-post what you did the legwork on FRiend, as did Sloop earlier today.
Anyone can make the argument that Schumer only stated what was going to inevitably happen to IndyMac but that overlooks the fact that Schumer made the decision to go public with private statements regarding IndyMac’s liquidity (as stated by Freeper BusterBear up at post #22), which is a highly irresponsible thing to do.
It’s easy for Schumer to play fast and loose with the financial security of millions of Americans, he’s got his, and he’ll ride his golden parachute out of the U.S. Senate at whatever time he decides is the ‘right time’ to retire. He’s a corrupt ‘Rat from New York, and his kind are seldom turned out of office because the voters who keep putting him back in there are quite frankly either just as corrupt as he is, or as stupid as a bag o’ hammers - take your pick.
What is needed, and what I doubt this current Justice Department is capable of, is an investigation into Schumer’s actions in this affair, and if there is evidence of wrong doing, Schumer should be frog marched out of his office and into the slammer at least until he makes bail. The Feds need to send a message to anyone, elected official or not, who seeks to trash talk a financial institution to the point where rumors take on the power of fact, and depositors start losing confidence in the banking system.
To some who don’t like the way our banking system works, that might sound almost appealing but they shouldn’t kid themselves: an economic collapse is exactly what our foreign enemies want, because in their minds it hastens the demise of the United States, and our domestic enemies likewise seek economic collapse (and I’m talking about Democrats here) because they see it as a guaranteed pathway back to controlling all three branches of government.
God help us if that happens.
Add one more item, though. If the Marxist 'Rats hadn't virtually forced many banks to engage in ''subprime'' (otherwise known as ''we know you ain't gettin' paid back, suckah, tough shjt'') lending, there'd be some tens of billions more capital available for this crunch...and not nearly so many badly weakened banks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.