And so why should we find it even remotely alarming that Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) would be a member of the VIP lending program at Countrywide? (If, in fact, he is). He seems to be:
A powerful House Democrat who has turned down a Republican’s call to subpoena records of a mortgage program at Countrywide Financial Corp. received two home loans from the lender.
Some information in the lawmaker’s mortgage documents raises the possibility they were made through the program, which provided loans to public figures and other favored borrowers often at lower interest rates or with lower origination fees than were available to the general public.
Why all the fuss? After all, given the importance of the American Dream Of Home Ownership, why would we forbid any medium of exchange at all if it were to permit just one family more the roof of a McMansion over their heads? That a buyer may lack the funds is a matter of no import whatsoever. That a buyer may possess funds in abundance is, equally, a matter of no import whatsoever. How many trips to Vegas, how many long Florida weekends, how many championship sporting events, how many state of the art home entertainment systems must the buyer give up to enjoy the Dream? Will we not permit a humble public servant to trade the assets of access and committee votes to give his family The Dream?
Of course we will.
But just in case, if not, we think Bill Duke would make a great Rep. Towns in the movie rendition:
Key Lawmaker Received Countrywide Loans [The Wall Street Journal]
Phirst. 15 min after posted
Zzzzzz
Wow, no offense but this has totally sucked without Bess, when is she coming back. Havent laughed at DB once this week
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
its friday and about 52 minutes away from drops, STOP MAKING MY HEAD HURT
Suck my dick and flick my clit!
MW
Question: Why does anyone care that Countrywide had a program for high level government employees and that those employees utilized that program? I haven’t been following the news on this one as carefully as I should, but I just don’t get what the big deal is. Many corporations have programs favorable to certain groups–hell most banks and law firms are offered favorable accounts and home loans. It just makes good business sense to offer certain groups incentive to use your services, whether those groups consist of doctors, lawyers, bankers or politicians.
This whole probe just seems dumb to me.
Can someone please post something about FMF and save this week?
@6 = soon-to-be-former Mayor of Hoboken
Lord I know, it is 3 PM day after and not one post yet. Come on, we all want to know if the dreamboat Chris Theoharis was there.
@7 Even random boobie pics like in the last post are good. Preferably without comment. We’ll take care of the comment part.
Such an easy “job” and still the EP/Greg combo screws it up.
Top notch content all week…I’ve had to revert to looking up random pornstar bios on wikipedia for entertainment.
Greg Michaels is the Lenny Dykstra of financial blogging.
“Your death will stand as a landmark in the continuing struggle to liberate the parent land from the hands of the Roman imperialist aggressors, excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture and any other Romans contributing to the welfare of Jews of both sexes and hermaphrodites. Signed, on behalf of the P. F. J. , etc.”
And I’d just like to add, on a personal note, my own admiration, for what you’re doing for us, Brian, on what must be, after all, for you a very difficult time.
13 here. That was apropos of nothing. I just wanted to be able to read something that makes me (even if no one else) laugh rather than the rest of the week’s profferings.*
*Comments relating in any way to Chris TeddyHarry aside – those were CASH MONEY
@6
The problem is that doctors, lawyers and bankers can typically only repay the favor by way of free Viagra, free DUI representation, and cheaper loans respectively. In returning these favors, the doctors, lawyers and bankers potentially cost themselves money…which I agree is fine. There’s nothing inherently wrong with professionals bartering there services or firms targeting certain groups or associations with marketing programs.
On the other hand, legislators repay favors with changes to tax policy and regulatory frameworks…often at a cost to society (which is naively counting on them to act fairly). For example, is it okay for Countrywide to offer discounted loans to the Senate Banking Committee Chairman (Chris Dodd) in return for favorable regulatory changes that allow Countrywide to benefit at the expense of the many Americans the legislative body is purportedly serving? Before you answer, keep reading.
From http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=CommitteeInformation.Home :
…the Committee plays an integral role in managing legislation that affects the lives of many Americans. These areas of jurisdiction include, but are not limited to: banking, insurance, financial markets, securities, housing, urban development and mass transit, international trade and finance, and economic policy…
So Countrywide, at the time a publicly-traded company (financial markets & securities) that underwrites mortgage loans (banking, housing, & urban development) that is sensitive to interest rates (economic policy) could give Chris Dodd a sweetheart loan and you’d be okay with that? Are you, by chance, a member of the Senate Ethics Committee?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dodd-cleared-from-ethics-probe-on-countrywide-loan-2009-08-07-141300
Similarly, Countrywide shouldn’t have a program designed to offer subsidized loans to the external auditors of its financial statements. Or would it be okay for the auditors to issue a clean opinion in exchange for having their closing costs waived on their next mortgage? Even if nothing improper occurred, how much reliance would you place in the Countrywide’s financial statements knowing that the auditors were given discounted loans?
Say my name,
HH
Congress and Senate are all a bunch of liars. F them all.
@HH – Beautiful!
@17 Tax Chick are you going to take Cluzo up on his offer for some burnt sausage?
@HH FTW!
@HH: Isn’t that about the same thing that corporations and their lobbyists do all the time? Give money to politicians in the hopes of favorable treatment by them later? I’ve even been on teams that gave input to draft legislation, which is not at all uncommon. Maybe I should be a politician, cause I just don’t see the big deal–if you can give money to a politician in the hopes of favorable legislation (which you may get to help draft) then why can’t you give politicians favorable loans? Is the real difference that one is inherently personal while the other related to the office?
16 is Stalin.
21 is Barry White.
@22. I’m ok with that.
23,
Who wouldn’t be? You’re a good man.
@20 “if you can give money to a politician in the hopes of favorable legislation (which you may get to help draft) then why can’t you give politicians favorable loans?”
really you don’t see the problem with your question? they are both wrong. the first one is bribery and the second one is also bribery. it is illegal when there is a quid pro quo.
see: abramoff