Matthew Yglesias » Bush, Fannie, Freddie, Crisis

Jan 8th, 2009 at 10:17 am

Bush, Fannie, Freddie, Crisis

Among the more prominent is the assertion that the housing meltdown resulted from unbridled capitalism under a president opposed to all regulation.

Like most myths, this is entertaining but fictional. In reality, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among the principal culprits of the housing crisis, and Mr. Bush wanted to rein them in before things got out of hand.

Evidently, the conservative movement is going to go to its grave with this talking point. And it’s false. But consider this — does Rove have any examples of Bush warning that a housing price bubble had developed? That homeownership rates might have gotten unsustainably high? Of course not — because none of that happened!

Comments
47

47 Responses to “Bush, Fannie, Freddie, Crisis”

joe from Lowell Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Bush wanted to “rein them in” by requiring them to purchase more MBSs from private investment houses, and stop competing with them as they moved to buy more and more mortgages on the secondary market.
leo Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:23 am
‘The Lost Decade’ — lost opportunities and lost ground due to a combination of Republican ideology and Bush Administration mismanagement.

You want to fight the GOP attempt at whitewashing their central role in this? Keep on repeating, ‘Lost Decade’, ‘Lost Decade’…
Tyro Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I suspect that Rove was the guy who looked at the graph of Republican voting vs. home ownership and thought, “Everything is going great! Permanent Republican majority, here we come!”

Meanwhile, as everyone knows, the problem was caused by an overextension of credit, housing bubbles occurring all over the world, and unregulated use of mortgage brokers and leverage of mortgage securities.

It’s Al & crowd who are the ones screaming, “look! over there! brown people and Barney frank caused this!”
GoBears Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Shorter Yglesias: hey, look over there!

Rove is completely accurate: Bush wanted to rein in Freddie and Fannie, and people like Barney Frank – one of the real villains in the housing debacle – fought tooth and nail to prevent strnegthening regulation of Fannie and Freddie.

Yeah, it’s too bad the Republican party didn’t have control of Congress for most of Bush’s 8 years. They could have passed legislation to roll back those programs and avoided the crisis. The dropping housing market wouldn’t have slowed the great economy that all those tax cuts purported to create.
Don Williams Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:51 am
In its 2004 Annual Report, The Republican Majority on Congress’s Joint Economic Committee explicitly acknowledged — and dismissed –reports from economists that the Fed was creating an asset bubble. That 2004 report is now missing from the congressional Thomas server — although reports in earlier and later years are available.

In its 2006 Annual Report, the Republican Majority on the Joint Economic Committee explicitly acknowledged –and dismissed — concerns from economists re the housing bubble:

See http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/the_bailout.php#comment-674966

The Republican liars win because the Democratic leadership is too cowardly to stand up and refute their lies.
vorkosigan1 Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Umm, the truth is that Fannie and Freddie had much less to do with housing crisis than the (completely) private sector–the Lehmans, etc.

That’s why Rove doesn’t cite any actual data.
Keith Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Barry Ritholtz offers a concise correction of Rove’s attempt to create a false and deceptive narrative here:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/karl-roves-revisionism/
Dan Collins Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Here’s a NYT op-ed from 2003 applauding the Bush admin’s efforts.
rupert Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Interesting; yesterday I read Jeff Toobin’s piece on Barney Frank in the New Yorker; a much different view of things than Rove’s. And probably more accurate.
WinSmith Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Shorter “Al”: Barney Frank is teh fag!!
James Gary Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:05 am
From the op-ed linked by Mr. Collins:

“it is hard to argue that these financial enterprises — essentially two huge hedge funds — should continue to evade the type of rigorous oversight that banks face on issues like capital requirements and new lines of business.”

Ah, that rigorous oversight of capital requirements. Where would our financial system be now if we hadn’t had such rigorous oversight?
ABB Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:19 am
“Poor George Bush. On this particular occasion he actually wanted to do the right thing, but of course wasn’t competent enough to make it happen.”

I don’t know how much of Rove’s defense is bullshit and how much is real, but it’s a pretty sad defense.
Thomas Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Rove’s point is entirely accurate. Matt’s talking out his ass here, as he’s done on this topic for months.

DTM, when you say “couldn’t participate in”, you mean they held hundreds of billions of dollars of MBS built off subprime loans, right?

And when you say that Bush didn’t complain about the Fed’s monetary policy, you mean to say that Bush respected the independence of the Fed, as previous administrations had, right? So the notable thing about it is that it isn’t notable, right?

And what role does the word “indeed” play in your analysis? How does that connnect the GSEs and the Wall Street investment banks? Are you suggesting that the SEC’s goal was to displace the GSEs on behalf of the Bush administration? How odd that the Democrats on the Commission would go along with that. That’s notable!

GoBears, since you didn’t click through, I’ll cut and paste for you: “When Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE reform in 2005, Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut successfully threatened a filibuster.” Having a majority isn’t enough when there are crooked Dems around to filibuster.
James, you don’t know anything about this, do you? You do realize that banks and investment banks aren’t regulated in the same way, don’t you?
Neue Internetpräsenz Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Sure he wanted to, but then that new World of Warcraft Lich King expansion pack got released, so {raspberry} to all that.
JimboSlice Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:38 am
This is the same George W. Bush who campaigned on the idea of an ownership society?

“We’re creating… an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property.”
Ethel-To-Tilly Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:48 am
From a Washington Post 2004 profile article on Armando Falcon, the director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight at HUD who proposed rules that attempted to tighten up regulation on Fannie and Freddie:

“Falcon came to OFHEO in 1999 to find a paltry $16 million budget and 76 staffers to assure financial markets, investors and congressional overseers that the financial organizations in his charge were safe and sound. The agency was viewed as so ineffectual that former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. admitted he never heard of it during his tenure in Washington.

“Falcon campaigned for more staff and money and the agency’s budget eventually grew to $59.2 million and its staff to 188. He also reorganized the way OFHEO conducted its examinations….

“The investigation of Fannie Mae resulted in the proverbial heat being turned up in the kitchen. Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) — who, as chairman of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, has jurisdiction over OFHEO’s budget — tried to withhold $10 million of the agency’s funds until Falcon was replaced. He also commissioned a report into whether Falcon’s probe was motivated by politics. ”

So you had Republicans in Congress, who’s party was in control of all legislation at the time, actively working to block effective oversight of Fannie and Freddie – yet all one hears about from the wingers and their right wing talking points is the all-powerful and all-purpose whipping boy Barney Frank. Right.
Don Williams Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Amazing how George Bush and the Republican Congress could shove through a $2 Trillion tax cut for the richest fuckers in the country but couldn’t implement regulations to stave off a second Great Depression, no matter how hard they tried.

I’m also puzzled at how a mere frown by a Democrat made it impossible for the Republicans to stave off the trainwreck.
I am also kinda surprised that the Republicans remained so silent back in 2002-2005 over Democratic destruction of the nation but I guess that just because of the overly polite and cooperative nature of the Republicans.

Thomas is so full of shit.
kafka Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Fannie and Freddie (Franron) were operated like hedge funds during the housing boom & the taxpayers are now paying the price. Any attempt to rein them in led to howls of protest from the Congressional whores whose palms were being greased by Franron.

Matt and his congregation should spend time at opensecrets and find out just how much Dodd, Frank, and the other whores were in the tank for Franron, and they should read this:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4185/is_20040109/ai_n10178046
cleek Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:54 am
so, the Party of Personal Responsibility is spending its time ginning up fanciful stories in order to deflect blame from itself ?

shocking.
Thomas Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
DTM, sure you can blame the GSEs for the subprime lending. Folks were originating loans because there was a ready market for them, and the GSEs were huge purchasers.

On the independence of the Fed, again, what was notable about Bush’s failure to break with precedent?

I don’t think that Bush saw all of the Wall Street investment banks as his friends–they weren’t. But I suppose it’s something for you to say that the GSEs weren’t his friends. They were friendly with lots of politicians, but not with the Bush administration, and that’s to the administration’s credit.
James Gary Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
kafka/Thomas-

Fannie and Freddie might well have been mismanaged and under-regulated. It’s pointless to single them out, however, because the problem is that the entire financial sector was mismanaged and under-regulated.

Cherry-picking Fannie and Freddie as the villains because their funds were implicitly guaranteed by the Fed is stupid: as I’m sure you both know well, the Fed ended up bailing out the entire banking system, which is a pretty good indication that the problems were a bit more systemic.
Northern Pike Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
“When Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE reform in 2005, Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut successfully threatened a filibuster.”

Then why didn’t Shelby call Dodd’s bluff and actually make the Democrats go through with a filibuster? Did a similar bill pass the Republican-controlled House, where Democrats couldn’t filibuster?

The truth: Republicans spent zero political capital on the issue. Nor do I recall anything from right-wing radio or right-wing television during 2005, 2006, 2007. Can anyone provide an example, prior to the crash, when Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity made this an issue? Or were they do busy pimping the War on Christmas?

P.S. — The only place I ever saw questions raised about Freddie and Fannie came from a magazine called the Washington Monthly. I threw away my back issues a couple of years ago — wish I still had them.
Tom Maguire Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
From the NY Times, Sept 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.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”

From the Times in Sept 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

…Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Another reform effort in 2005 was watered down and died in the Senate.
joe from Lowell Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Tom Magure trots out the story that identifies three possible reasons why Freddie and Fannie went into the risky loan business: government pressure, pressure from “banks, mortgage lenders and thrift insitutions,” and pressure from stockholders to turn larger profits.

Since Freddie and Fannie’s actions are indistinguishable from those of other buyers of MBSs, who were not under pressure from the government, we can rule out that as a meaningful factor.

Which leaves us with an explanation that is actually plausible: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got caught up in the MBS bubble for the same reason that Lehman and the rest of Wall Street did. Which is, because it was incredibly profitable to do so, and they were leaned on by their business partners. Unfortunately, they didn’t recognize the actual risk any better than did the Bush administration, the Democrats in Congress, the Republicans in Congress, the investment banks, or the rating agencies.

BTW, the intent and effect of the 2005 “reform” bill was to eliminate the GSE’s authority to purchase actual loans on the secondary market – an area in which their freedom of action was limited, as all such purchases were required to consist of “conforming loans” – and require them instead to only purchase MBSs, which as we’ve all learned, they were allowed to do with impunity, regardless of the details of the underlying loans.
Don Williams Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
IF Bush and the Republicans were so helpless, how did they manage to discharge Franklin Raines from Fannie Mae in 2004 and appoint their hand-picked replacement?
Don Williams Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Re Raines’ resignation, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4116903.stm
James Gary Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
In any event, that chart confirms my other point: the GSEs had lots of help in making the market for the MBS.

Au contraire! That other 51%-80% was due to statistical error, and can be ignored.
Steve Sailer Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Rove is the pot calling the kettle black when he writes:

“Some critics blame Mr. Bush because he supported broadening homeownership. But Mr. Bush’s goal was for people to own homes they could afford, not ones made accessible by reckless lenders who off-loaded their risk to GSEs.”

As one of those critics Rove denounces, I pointed out in September that George W. Bush campaigned vigorously before and after his October 15, 2002 White House Conference on Minority Homeownership against requiring down payments on mortgages. Requiring down payments are the single simplest and most effective way to prevent housing bubbles.

Bush’s war on the down payment was explicitly the first toward achieving his often-stated goal of adding 5.5 million minority homeowners. And that was part of Rove’s own foremost political goal of bringing about a long-term political realignment by bringing Hispanics into the GOP. What more effective way than making them homeowners?

Mortgage dollars leant to Hispanics for home purchases grew 691% from 1999 to 2006. The great majority of defaulted mortgage dollars are in four heavily Hispanic states — California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida.

For documentation, see:

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/080928_rove.htm
Steve Sailer Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
It’s a reasonable approximation to say of the debauching of credit standards that everybody who was anybody was in on it — Fannie Mae, Barney Frank, Wall Street, ACORN, the National Realtors Association, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (as the WSJ documented on Monday in “Housing Push for Hispanics Spawns Wave of Foreclosures“), Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Roberta Achtenberg, Barack Obama (in his own small way). But, most of all, the blame should fall on George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

It’s also safe to say that just about everybody who was anybody who was in on it, used various diversity-related rationales to justify debauching credit. For example, in his campaign against downpayments, Bush would call for closing the racial gaps in homeownership:

“The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. … So I’ve set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million … more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) …

Having laid out the problem — racial in equality in achievement of the American Dream — Bush listed his #1 solution:

“Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. ”

This sent a sharp message to federal regulators — his employees — to not crack down on all the predatory and fraudulent mortgages being made. During the last years of the Clinton Administration, less than 7% of first time buyers in California (which became the heart of the Mortgage Meltdown) put no money down compared to 41% in 2006.

And of course, the zero down payment deals went to everybody of any race, which made the situation much worse than if it had been an explicit affirmative action benefit just for minorities. Still, minorities accounted for half of all subprime dollars borrowed in 2004-2007.

And, indeed, as Rove had intended, Bush got an an unusually high percentage of the Latino vote in 2004 as the Housing Bubble poured money into the hands of Hispanics
Steve Sailer Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
The housing bubble and subsequent mortgage meltdown is hardly trivial. The sharp rise and fall of homeowner wealth is the fundamental problem.

Now, keep in mind, that Bush was very enthusiastic about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pouring more money into minority and low income mortgages.

CNN reported on Bush’s June 17, 2002 speech about boosting minority homeownership by 5.5 million households at the St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church in Atlanta:

“Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the federal Home Loan Banks—the government-sponsored corporations that handle home mortgages—will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion, Bush said.”
scottynx Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Amazing how George Bush and the Republican Congress could shove through a $2 Trillion tax cut for the richest fuckers in the country but couldn’t implement regulations to stave off a second Great Depression, no matter how hard they tried.

The GOP doesn’t get credit for being “2nd Great Depression” foreseeing financial geniuses. They just felt that something was going on that go wrong somehow (as opposed to end of the world). That’s why they didn’t fight tooth and nail on this issue. They don’t deserve 3 cheers, maybe they only deserve 1 or 2 cheers. But the democrats who argued the exact opposite on this issue like Frank and threatened to filibuster like Dodd deserve a hearty jeer.

So why was the GOP able to get tax-cuts passed but not reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? It’s simple: The US public agrees always agrees with tax-cuts (as Obama knows), which are always sold as a boon to the middle class, but the public also agreed with more help for homeowners during the housing boon.

Then why didn’t Shelby call Dodd’s bluff and actually make the Democrats go through with a filibuster?

Because they knew the Democrats could have the public and painted the GOP as grinches who don’t want more people to own homes and/or get in on the riches being made in the housing boom.

I have a feeling that you guys are going to quickly forget your one-time convenient beliefs that the minority party is excused from anything they say or do because they have zero power now that Republicans are the minority. I can already hear cries of GOP obstructionism.

George Bush had from Sep 11, 2001 – Jan 2007 to get whatever the hell he wanted from Congress.

Which is why social security was privatised, amnesty was passed, and the 2001-2003 tax cuts were made permanent
instead of having an expiration date…. Oh wait, nevermind.
Thomas Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
DTM, I see there’s nothing that would make you change your position on this issue. When you argued that the GSEs didn’t have much to do with the crisis it was originally because you said they didn’t participate in the subprime business, and to the extent that they did, they did it was already late in the game–2005, at the market peak. As it happens, the GSEs were deeply involved in the subprime business much earlier than that, buying 49% of subprime securities in 2003 and 44% in 2004. Their percentage dropped in 2005, as the market peaked, but their purchasing volume didn’t drop until 2006. Did learning any of this change your view? Of course not. They were the key purchaser in what you described as the key years. But the facts don’t really matter, do they?
joe from Lowell Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
The sharp rise and fall of homeowner wealth is the fundamental problem.

I disagree. There was a sharp rise and fall of stock-investor wealth during the tech bubble episode of the 1990s and into 2001, and the consequence was a shallow recession, not the meltdown of the financial industry and the potential for an actual depression, the likes of which hasn’t been seen for a lifetime.

Bubbles are not good things, and factors that contributed to this bubble – primarily cheap money policies at the Fed intended to prop up the economy to help the Republicans – are certainly problematic, but the fundamental problem, the reason this isn’t just a normal downturn, is the structural organization of the financial sector, which was allowed to become overleveraged because of absent and ineffective regulation. The housing bubble by itself is small potatoes.
Steve Sailer Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
The total decline in wealth in housing equity in the US is likely going to be around 10-15% of total wealth in the U.S. That’s what set the dominoes falling.

This was much worse than the Internet Bubble since that was obviously speculative froth in the equities market. Mortgages, in contrast, were debt and were supposed to be, as the English say, “safe as houses.” So, you could build up much more leveraged financial contraptions on top of mortgages.
Steve Sailer Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I don’t defend the lack of regulation in the financial markets in the Clinton-Bush years. In fact, I’m pointing out that Bush mounted a sizable and effective campaign in 2002-2004 to undermine the single simplest and most effective barrier to excessive lending — the down payment requirement when you buy a home.

Ironically, though, the progressives aren’t attacking Bush for his single most flagrant mistake. Why not? Because he explicitly rationalized it in the name of diversity and racial equality.
Thomas Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 9:56 am
So you still say because they only bought a little less than half of all subprime securities at the peak of the market, they weren’t participating, right? The biggest buyer, the market maker. Doesn’t matter. You say there were lots of other participants, but those lots of other participants all added up to only the other half of the market in what you earlier suggested were the key years. But that doesn’t matter. Of course it doesn’t. You start with the conclusion, work backwards.
Thomas Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
DTM, here’s what you have said: “Rove is WAY overstating the case when he claims “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among the principal culprits of the housing crisis,” because by definition they couldn’t participate in the subprime market.” Couldn’t participate in the subprime market. Then you admitted they participated, saying “Fannie and Freddie did indeed participate in the MBS market, but so did everyone else under the sun, and as Ritholtz points out, the GSEs were very late to the party.” You followed up by minimizing the GSEs role, saying “there were plenty of other purchasers” and “the GSEs didn’t start buying a lot of subprime-related MBS until 2005.” When it turned out that they were the single most significant purchaser and in what you identified as the key years (when you mistakenly thought they didn’t participate during those years) they purchased nearly half the market, you said that didn’t matter. Which is fine. But it’s a bit rich to offer an explanation on a mistaken ground, and when that’s discovered say the conclusion doesn’t change apparently because those weren’t the real grounds. I think the right description for that kind of thing is intellectually dishonest. Maybe even just dishonest.

DTM, you do realize that saying they participated in the MBS market while insisting they didn’t participate in the subprime market doesn’t mean what you now suggest it means? The MBS market, for starters, isn’t identical with the subprime market; it’s much bigger.
drjohn Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I can name any number of Republicans who called for reform of the GSE’s between 2000 and 2007.

Can you name a single Democrat who did the same?

I can name a number of Democrats who swore there was nothing wrong with the GSE’s.

Can you name a single Republican who did the same?
Bob Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:05 am
There is IMHO enough blame to go around regarding the causes of the housing meltdown. With respect to the Fannie/Freddie regulatory push by the Bush Admin. and the Republican Congressional majority in 2005 I have a couple of questions:

1. Was the Republican regulatory push for Fannie/Freddie a genuine concern for the well being of the two GSE’s and for the overall market OR was it to limit the activities of Fannie/Freddie in the market place so some of their market share would go the the non GSE private financial companies?

2. With the weight of Republican Administration and the Republican majority in Congress behind this – how on earth did it not go through?
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Great site. Good info
xanax Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 10:20 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
tramadol Says:
March 17th, 2009 at 3:39 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:44 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy viagra online Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:35 am
buy viagra online
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:48 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
cheap viagra Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:56 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
Cece Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Badly need your help. I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents.
I am from Cape and also now’m speaking English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Airline tickets throughout the world.”

Thank you very much . Cece.

Matt Yglesias

Bush, Fannie, Freddie, Crisis

47 Responses to “Bush, Fannie, Freddie, Crisis”

Blogroll