many were sold to fannie mae and freddie mac but they kept the rest. they all believed they were good matches. even though by the late 2000s they were beginning to see fannie mae and freddie mac were on their way to solvency. >> court interest rates at the time were at record lows coming out of the 2001 recession with lowered interest rates and investors were not able to get the same kind of return they getedget expected. they were looking for ways to draw higher interest rates. that was a cause of the security generation and mortgage security generatored by private firms. take us through that end of the private sector. there was a demand globally called the global savings glut of this. federal reserve officials point to this a lot. there was a lot going around looking to generate return. it created a demand for the private securities. ge maybe so. i take that on with others n book. the question of why we had this bubble in housing prices is one i looked at. and others took this as people looking for a place to invest. you see it clearly in the data. bu

and there was a great deal of push in the bush administration are much more regulation of fannie mae and freddie mac and from their point of view especially fannie which was much more political from their point of view to avoid more regulation they had to rely on the democrats in congress. the democrats in congress were very focused on making sure that fannie and freddie supported low income housing. and so even though they were beginning in the 2000's to find that they were buying mortgages that would ultimately cause them to suffer tremendous losses, they couldn't go to congress or go to bed and say we won't comply with these quotas anymore because it's driving us out of business. we are going to fail. they couldn't do that because if they did that the democrats in congress would no longer support them and the effort of the bush administration to place them under much greater regulation this is in 2003, 2004, 2005 would have become successful and they would have been so profitable. so they were caught in the spice between on the one hand having to keep the democrats on their side and on the other

congress then adopted the affordable housing goals, which required fanny may and freddie mac -- these goals were on applicable to fannie and freddie, and required them, when they bought mortgages from banks and other originators to make sure that of the mortgages they bought, 30% had been made to people at or below the median income. that the authority to require a certain quota was given to the department of housing and urban development at that point, and over time between 1992 and 2008 they gradually ratcheted up these requirements and added new ones, so that, for example, by the year 2000, 50% of all mortgages that fannie and freddie naught any year had to be made to people who were at or below the median income, and by 2008 it was 56% that would have been in the bush administration. so it wasn't -- this is not a partisan thing. it's done under clinton first, but then under bush it -- the whole idea was carried through by hud. >> host: their theory it was designed to encourage americans to save money to develop, to build equity in their homes. part of this is to ensure that lower

a letter to the housing /tkwopt department to get the f h a director to encourage fanny may and fanny mac to not sell the distressed mortgages to wall street but to the institutions as well. if that one effort is done, we can make sure that many households can thrive and not lose their property to wall street speculators. it makes sense that we use or bail out that the federal government has done for these banks years ago in ways to actually support the working people here in san francisco and across the country. colleagues, i hope to have your support. thank you. >> thank you. /khraoebgs, can we take this item, same house, same call? without objections, it is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, can you please call item 30. >> item 30 is a resolution to urge the administration of city college of san francisco to present the campus at 750 eddie street in the classrooms for all classes that have been displayed by the student and to pursue higher education. >> supervisors christensen. >> i'll try to be brief. i just wanted to thank supervisor kim for bringing this matter to our attention and f

question, are those prices getting extended and are you going to get -- >> that won't hurt fannie and freddie mac >> getting back to fannie and freddie, you would have to have either a recession or dramatic rise in mortgage rates for that to go up. >> i think the whole thing is a ploy, they want to keep the golden goose. you guys holding fannie and freddie stock, your government is giving you the shaft. >> i'm not bearish on housing, when i look at numbers, maybe the west, but the northeast, numbers down 56% month over month. i believe that weather was an issue, and i follow the home builders and see strength there, and i like the guy who -- >> giving me the wrap signal. people who think matt is right, what stock? >> itb, a home builder. charles: are you a home builder? >> no. charles: i have subscribers along. toll brothers has nothing, steve, what's the play for people on the short side. >> xhb or itb. charles: thanks, tonight, you don't want to miss "strange inheritance." a man who inherit ace rare map of texas but has no idea how valuable it could be. don't you hate it when that happens? she

most recently from damage caused by fannie mae and freddie mac. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] first of all let me say how much i really enjoyed the book. obviously some of the issues dealing with finance or close to my own heart having spent my time on the hill trying to work on financial issues. but also my dissertation work was on radio two areas during the progressive era. i found that chapter to be very much adventuress. the subtitle of the book is sort of device at the government and i think it really is the book less about the size of government than about the structure of government. in fact, if you read this book and immediately read marxist historian classic tribal conservatism you'd be hard-pressed to find a difference on the errors. i would suggest a site of a government that title might be off putting some of my friends on the left this is a book at anyone in the political spectrum would enjoy. it's a great introduction to the history. some of my critiques would be again this will reflect my biases as an economist. t

george bush ordered fannie mae and freddie mac to substantially increase the number of loans they bought for people below the median income. for 2005 i joined the republican chairman passing the bill in the house and the community. it passed the house. the senate republicans did not like the bill. tried to work it out have a ministration pulled the plug the chairman of the community was asked why nothing ever happened said george bush give me the one finger salute. 2,007 have become the chairman of the community and we passed the bill. and cheney's memoir the last time. some people them. [laughter] i can tell you politics mentioned benjamin franklin. [laughter] [laughter] >> there it goes. turn to my name. he says in his memoir in 2,003 we submitted a bill to reform fannie mae and freddie mac but barney frank killed it. the financial chairman of the house is being run by that time by tom delay. if i was really giving orders i would not -- there are a lot of things i would have done, stopped the big cash price and told him to go on dancing with the stars. [laughter] i said in the book in

find out why dick bove is bullish on government-owned fannie mae and freddie mac.s going to team up with charlie gasparino in a very exciting discussion, i can only imagine. and it's a new type of house call. doctors who can diagnose patients via skype. are you a believer in this? we're talking to doctor on demand ceo on a new start-up. ♪ ♪ ♪ at mfs, we believe in the power of active management. every day, our teams collaborate around the world, to actively uncover, discuss and debate investment opportunities. which leads to better decisions for our clients. it's a uniquely collaborative approach you won't find anywhere else. put our global active management expertise to work for you. mfs. there is no expertise without collaboration. liz: breaking news, the house has apd a year's worth of funding for homeland security. the news is that the house has passed the bill that would fund the the president of homeland security -- the department of homeland security for the rest of the fiscal year, that, of course, would avert a partial shutdown of homeland security which,

so having outlined my theory i briefly want to tie fannie mae and freddie mac into the story as i think it illustrates this point. for the sake of brevity i'll assume you're generally familiar with fannie and freddie. the bottom line is they combined unsafe, unsound financial practices with an unprecedented lobbying operation to protect their investors and pad the bonuses of their executives. to hell with the credit risk, was their motto. for those who study the subject fannie and freddie are government sponsored entities. they're not part of the government. they are instrumentalities of the government. they're private corporations with pentagon public charters. the first and second banks of the united states, the experience with the banks, the second bank in particular, is eerily similar to the experience of fannie mae and freddie mac. normally when we think about the second bank of the united states, we're wont to think of nick rat biddle very far-sighted financier and we tend to think of the bank war where in my opinion andrew jackson comes across as much worse. but that is as far as

those weren't products of fha or fannie mae and freddie mac -- john: the private sector knew they could garbage because the government would buy it. >> yeah, that's where fannie and freddie lost their way, because they used their portfolio to invest in those mortgages, and that's why they're in conservatorship today. john: ed, isn't it self-serving the say the government funds these loans? >> yes. i would like to get it down to zero, if possible. the problem is if you were to pull out away today -- pull it away today house prices would probably drop by 30 or 40%. so the solution in my mind is -- john: we're already addicted to government. >> we are very addicted. john: here's the current housing secretary, one of the guys that wouldn't talk to to us, at a press conference in d.c. celebrating easy credit. >> fha has long been a beacon of hope for underserved borrowers. this means expanding access to credit. i don't know john in other words -- john: in other words, easy money here, you know? just here. [laughter] as a taxpayer oh, keep it. [laughter] am i being unfair here this. >> yes yo

i was too sanguine about fannie mae and freddie mac. i started to get nervous then george bush this is in the appendices. he was substantially increase those below the median income. by 2005 by joining the republican chairman to pass a bill in the house in the committee i had problems on the floor but a pass the house the senate republican did not like it but the democrats did. put the bush administration would pull the plug and ross -- and with sarbanes-oxley they said george bush gave me though one finger salute. 2007 i become the chairman and we pass the bill. . .

george bush ordered fannie mae and freddie mac to substantially increase the number of loans they bought for people below the median income. for 2005 i joined the republican chairman passing the bill in the house and the community. it passed the house. the senate republicans did not like the bill. tried to work it out have a ministration pulled the plug the chairman of the community was asked why nothing ever happened said george bush give me the one finger salute. 2,007 have become the chairman of the community and we passed the bill. and cheney's memoir the last time. some people them. [laughter] i can tell you politics mentioned benjamin franklin. [laughter] [laughter] >> there it goes. turn to my name. he says in his memoir in 2,003 we submitted a bill to reform fannie mae and freddie mac but barney frank killed it. the financial chairman of the house is being run by that time by tom delay. if i was really giving orders i would not -- there are a lot of things i would have done, stopped the big cash price and told him to go on dancing with the stars. [laughter] i said in the book in

i briefly want to tie fannie mae and freddie mac into the story. had unsafe and unsound financial practices with an unprecedented lobbying operation to protect investors and pad bonuses of executives. and for and for those who study the subject fannie and freddie are government-sponsored entities not part of the government but instrumentalities private corporations the public charters. my book starts by discussing the corruption inherent to the 1st two the 1st and 2nd banks of the united states, the states, the experience with the bank, the 2nd in particular eerily similar to the experience of fannie mae and freddie mac. normally when we think about the 2nd bank we are want to think of nicholas biddle who was a very farsighted financier. if we. everything beyond him we tend to think of the bank were andrew jackson comes across as much worse. but that is as far as the common understanding usually goes. it overlooks something which is that the bank have been in place for about a decade before bilking on board and was terribly politicized and self-int

also fit the may freddie mac i was too sanguine about fannie mae and freddie mac but by then in 2004 made me nervous then george bush since use of the increased the number of homes they bought below median income. by 2005 i joined the republican chairman to pass a bill in the house in the committee but it passed the senate republicans did not like it but i tried to work it out so the chairman of the of committee that nothing that happened with kidney or freddie said comet 2007 to become the chairman of the committee that haik paulson testifies with chaney's memoir is said the last time one of your officers so people know that is a washington read the. [laughter] and i can tell you all the politics which is benjamin franklin. sova chase says in 2003 we submitted a bill but financial-services committee chairman barney frank the problem was a was not chairman. nine tel 2007 and the house was run by tom delay. and they said if i was really at that time i had power but there are the things it would have done. i would stop the big tax cuts tell him not to look at the stars and i tell him i

how could you convince the market that fannie mae and freddie mac are not backed by the full faith and credit. as a law that says they cannot drawn the credit of the united states. they have the secretary of the treasury standing on the steps of the treasury once a year and saying i reaffirm no federal guarantee that their loans always traded with a discount that indicated that the market that they were backed up by the u.s. government and guess what? they were and they got bailed out. but i did talk to a couple of economists who said you know the stocks are loans of the biggest banks also trade at a discount like.com that, indicating that the market doesn't believe the biggest banks would be allowed to go bankrupt and in 2008 we saw these bailouts happening and we saw t.a.r.p.. you can argue that the day the tea party started was the day the bush administration announced it intended to spend $800 billion bailing out the big banks and congress phones rang off the hook with nobody organizing it. congress's phone started ringing off the hook with people saying don't give $800 million to

. >>> fannie mae and freddie mac fell by over 80%.her bailout on the horizon. and how the u.s. taxpayers would react to something like that. joining us now is david stevens he is president and ceo of the mortgage bankers association. thanks for being here. >> good to be here. >> so fannie and freddie have been placed in conservatorship and 2013 was a great year for them. they gave billions of dollars back to the u.s. treasury. 2014, not so great. there is an issue where they have to draw on the credit lines of the treasury if they fall below a certain threshold. >> that's right. if you think about the earnings unheard of with any in the world. those at one times were asset recoupments. and recoupments of reserves, legal settlements, those types of things. what we saw in the last drop was what we think will be returning their levels would be. that's certainly not sustainable for two companies that have no capital and are dependent on the lines of credit the treasury department holds. >> we know this was kind of i guess, kicked into pur

the purpose of the guarantee fee is to offset fannie mae and freddie mac credit from defaults. if you use the guarantee fees to offset new spending, you are doubling the revenue. in december of 2011, congress passed a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut that was offset by increasing the gp's for 10 years. this was simply a tax increase on folks in the united states who pay mortgages to justify congressional spending. additional attempts were made to use the extension to cut offsets in other legislation. directing the guarantee fees to the treasury department rather than protecting taxpayers from mortgage losses was used because it technically brings in a new source of revenue. any increase of guarantee fees should be used to protect taxpayers from mortgage losses and as a repayment for the bailout, not for a gimmicky offset. that's why i'm offering the scorekeeping amendment with senators warner, corker, and markley, to ensure that transfers from fannie mae and freddie mac will not be used to offset increases to the deficit. it is one, a congressional mandated can only b

we pondered in a study we did some years ago how could you convince the market that fannie mae and freddie mac are not backed up by the full faith -- there's a law that says they can not a draw on the credit of the united states. you have the secretary of the treasury stand on the steps of this treasury once a year ask say, i reafirearm no federal guarantee? but their loans always traded with a discount that indicated that the market thought they were backed up by the u.s. government and guess what they were and they got bailed out. but i did talk to a couple of economists who said you know the stocks or loans of the biggest banks also trade at a discount like that, indicating that the market doesn't believe the biggest banks would be allowed to go bankrupt, and indeed in 2008 we saw these bailouts happening. we saw t.a.r.p. you can argue that the day the tea party started was the day the bush administration announced it intended to spend $800 billion bailing out the big banks and congress' phones rang off the hook with nobody organizing it, congress' phones started ring off the hook with peop

role in the 2008 financial crisis leading the morgan stanley team during the bailouts of fannie mae and freddie mac talks with news organizations about hosting news content. this would mean facebook users could view soers without clicking out of the site. the new york sometimes reports this idea is being tested and will likely roll out in a few months. the official marters in are expected to be times buzz feed and national geographic. >>> a monthly subscription fee service is the latest venture the founder of hulu, vessel is like you tube, but with a price tag. it provides early access to videos from performers. again, it is a monthly subscription fee under $3 a month. >>> congress is moving to make it easier for you to switch carriers for your cell phone and other electronic devices. >> 7 on your side's michael finney is here looking into the iske issue. >> this is big for consumers and for the valley. should buying a cell phone or tablet from one carrier mean you should have to stick with that carrier? several members of congress, including silicon valley congressional represent lark ib and ash y

the purpose of the guaranteed fee is to offset prospective fannie mae and freddie mac credit losses from borrower defaults. thus, if you used the guaranty fees to offset new spending, then you're doubling, doubly counting the revenue n december of 2011, congress pass ad two-month extension of the payroll tax cut. that was offset by increasing the g fees for 10 years. this was simply a tax increase on mortgage, folks in the united states who obtain mortgages in order to justify congressional spending. subsequent to this additional attempts were made to use the extension of this kind of gp as cost offsets in other legislation. directing that the guaranty fees to the treasury department go to the treasury department rather than protecting taxpayers from mortgage losses was used because it technically brings in a new source of revenue. any increase of guaranty fees should be used to protect taxpayers from mortgage losses and as a repayment for the bailout, not for a gimmicky offset. that's why i'm offering this score keeping amendment with senators warner, corker and merkley to assure transf

about made while the beverage is doing the exact same thing it was doing before to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac but just a few weeks ago to told the annual not take risks on mortgages now except the 3 percent down payment up until now their lawyers insisted that the banks take 5% but now to stimulate the housing market with the same problem the government said it really you to except 3% which will be in overtime to exactly the same problem with people have mortgages that they cannot sustain when the cycle turns so we will have another crisis that has the same defect confidential institutions to have something to a financial crisis. we should have understood that it is the government's role to reform the of government rather than trying to impose those restrictions. >> host: will that be different from the last one did? >> there will always be some differences but if we keep calling this way with the government in charge we're about to have a federal judge prices again in what is important to understand this isn't something that is irrelevant to use them because for those who own homes if work i

the fha, federal housing administration fannie mae freddie mac all put tax payer money is the risk bynting mortgages or buying them. these invite reckless behavior guarantees on top of politicians pressuring banks to long under served needy people they led to the last housing bubble. >> they owed more on their mortgage than the home is worth. >> incredible housing bubble they created. >> it was incredible a speculative frenzy. otherwise investors started saying housing prices can only go up the prices went up wildly until they didn't. the popping of the bubble is bad lots of people lost lost of money. we learned something from our mistakes. at the tell them you only have to put 3 percent down. except actually government is now doing that again. a few months ago fanny and freddie after raising their minimum down payment to a measly 5 percent lowered them to 3 percent. are they crazy? a sensible congressman tried to get an answer about that from the administration's mortgage regulator. >> all things being equal is a 3 percent down low riskyer than a 10 percent down loan. >> that is gene

when these laws were being made the knew democrats gave them terrible loans and protected fannie mae and freddie mac. by 1994 democrats worried about those loans telling the federal reserve to regulate them. that is an interference in the market. we tried on several occasions the states passed laws to regulate predatory lending. the administration used federal power to preempt that. the state banks become national banks. in 2,004 democrats passed a bill to restrict subprime lending. when i became chairman in 2,007 i did not get a bill through the community. no lending to people who cannot pay you back. the "wall street journal" attacked me. why doesn't he want minority groups to have loans. 2,007. all before the crash. here is what he said i am aware of the loosening of mortgage credit terms for subprime borrowers increases financial risk and subsidized homeownership initiatives distort market outcomes. i believe that has now you have the power to regulate. the benefits of homeownership are worth the risk. protection of property rights so critical to a market economy requires a critical mass of owne

also, the federal agencies fannie mae, freddie mac piled up huge amounts of derelict loans.t scam in both the public and private sectors collapsed the economy. so president obama's facts about the recession are debatable to say the least. certainly not in stone truth. and, believe me, you will not hear this analysis on the nightly news broadcast or other cable news operations. you will only hear it here on fox news. not because we dislike president obama although some fnc commentators clearly do. it's because people like charles krauthammer, brit hume, megyn kelly, dana perino and others are fact-based analysts. and that is a clear threat to any politician or political party that's trying to deceive people or trying to promote policies that are failures. so to blunt the impact of fox news we're attacked by the left and derided by the other media you see that consistently on msnbc and cnn, which are both collapsing in the ratings. i mean last night i turned on cnn at 9:00 p.m. to see what they were reporting. i saw anthony bore deign eating soup in india or some place. the so

during the financial crisis she led the morgan stanley team advising treasure try on fannie and freddie mac. president obama considered her for the post of treasury deputy secretary but porat withdrew her name from consideration. she'll be replaced by jonathan pruzan. that will happen at the end of april. back to you. >> mary thaompson, thanks for that. will a dividend or buyback happen soon? martin joins us on the fast line. martin, great to have you with us. what's your naugthoughts on tha terms of capital return? >> well, i think both of those points are probably a little further off than people might like to think. i cover media entertainment stocks and obviously buybacks are a theme there. i still think google has a lot of growth. i'm looking into this as a positive move, number one, ruth coming in, bringing in more financial discipline. patrick had i think good financial discipline. she'll hadd more but at the sam time not stifle google's investments. one of the attractive things is the fact she has a tech, silicon valley and wall street background so it can be a very good balance. yo

couldn't possibly pay them back, then we shifted the loss of these risky loans to taxpayers by fannie may and freddie mac. this created a "house of cards" that collapsed catastrophically. they said you reap the ploftsrofits and fannie and freddie will take care of it. it used to be if a bank made a bad loan they ate the loss and went away sadder but wiser. and if a homeowner took out a bad loan they lost the collateral but went away sadder but wiser but in any case they left the rest of us alone. the damage was limited to the responsible parties. rather than returning to a market system where lenders and borrowers are free to negotiate their own terms analyze their open risk and make their own decisions with their own money. we institutionalized every folly that lid to the collapse by adopting dodd frank. this is the classic definition of insanity, doing the sail thing and expecting a different result. this budget starts to move us back toward the sensible mechanism of a free market. yield back. >> does the gentleman yield back? >> the gentleman yields back. mr. lou you're recognized for one minute to cl

government told wall street, you reap the profits and we'll get fannie mae and freddie mac to stick taxpayers with your losses. they took us up on that and then my colleagues are shocked that they did. it used to be that if a bank made a bad loan, they ate the loss. and they went away sadder but wiser. and if a homebuyer took out a bad loan, they lost the collateral and they went away sadder but wiser, but in either case they left the rest of us alone. the damage was limited to the responsible parties. rather than returning to a market system where lenders and borrows are free to negotiate their own terms, analyze their own risk and make their own decisions with their own money, we institutionalized every folly that led to the collapse by adopting dodd-frank. this is the definition of insanity. doing the same thing and expecting a different result. this budget starts to move us back toward the sensible mechanism of a free market. i yield back. mr. rokita: does the gentleman yield back? the gentleman yields back. mr. lieu, you're recognized. mr. lieu: the cfpb is answerable to congress, the sa

and a friend in a swarm of stack of bibles they were not how can you convince the market fannie mae and freddie mac are not backed up. there is a law that says they cannot draw the credit of the united states. the secretary of the treasury stands on the steps of the treasury wants to hear and says i reaffirm though federal guarantee. but the loans always treated with a discount at the market copy were backed up by the government and guess what, they were but i did talk to a couple economists who said the stalks or the loans of the biggest banks also trade at a discount like that indicating that the market doesn't believe the biggest banks would be allowed to go bankrupt and indeed in 2008 leaseholder bailout happening. you can argue the day that the key party started as the the day that the bush administration announced it intended to spend $800 billion bailing out the big banks and their phones ring off the hook with nobody organizing it. so i'm opposed to too big to fail. they would make their own decisions if they had to stand on their own 2 feet. they would let the banks fail if they made bad d

in this environment, fannie mae and freddie mac are buying things -- credit score 620 and above.ingle item will probably not sink somebody low enough that they'll be shut out altogether, unless they have some other dents in the car also. so if you've got good credit and proof of income, money for a down payment, that one erroneous payment won't shut you out. it may bring your interest rate higher. >> we should mention, lest you think people that don't pay their bills get a free ride, if you wait 180 days, it's fair game for these agencies to put that debt on your credit rating. right? >> yeah. in the case of the medical debt, absolutely. this is not something that will let people skip out on bills they otherwise owe. it gives that 180 day period, if it's a dispute between the provider -- >> which it almost is. you're almost always in dispute with some part of your insurance bill. it just makes sure that that doesn't interfere with your overall credit rating. >> absolutely. the whole idea is accuracy here. as consumers, we have to do our part too. pull copies of your credit report

countries especially after suffering from bailout fatigue in our own backyard dealing with fannie mae freddie mac fha and a number of others and should we be focusing on encouraging these countries to better manage their borrowing and spending? personnel has represented the imf in a memo that has been leaked from 2010, may 10 of 2010 that went to "the wall street journal." in that way clearly stated the imf program is quote of daylight of bailout of european financial institutions and printed them require private-sector creditors like you're in p.m. banks to take a lot some consider the administration chose to bail out these european banks. as the memo shows representatives from several nations including canada and australia won the bailout package contain quote immense risks produced by concerns from several of our allies the administration chose to support this bailout and how did taxpayers know this? not because of transparency but because of information shared with them only when a 5-year-old memo was leaked. i think this lack of transparency is sadly something we have come to expect that's m

they have the same treasures with fannie mae and freddie mac. they have the same subprime situation, they don't call it subprime. they have a mortgage insurance bubble that is really interesting driven by the cmhc and gen worth up there. that has existed a couple years. in my business it's all about timing. what is the timing to pop that bubble? and we really see oil as the pin to pop the canadian housing bubble. if you look at the canadian provenÇal markets, atlantic, canada, has been soft and unemployment going up for several months, even a couple quarters now, the same is true in quebec very soft, rolled over last year in the middle of the year, but alberta and saskatchewan where the oil boom have been going on have been strong and kept the stats up until now. january like they fell out of bed. calgary home sales listings up 40% and sales down 40% in january alone. never seen such a dropoff. and so if you continue to see soft oil prices you're going to see the beginning of weakness there and because the setup is so leveraged and loss ratios a

would mention particularly important to wall street, that this legend anticipates that fannie mae and freddie mac are privatized, and that on the too big to fail front this budget anticipates removing the ability for the fdic to bail out and failed financial institution. stephanie: peter cook, thank you. joe: back to the israeli election, voters are choosing between incumbent brian minister benjamin netanyahu, and a coalition led by herzog. our bloomberg middle east editor is in tel aviv. elliott? elliott: thank you very much. we have the polls closing in just under six hours. great to have you with me. you are quite close to benjamin netanyahu. is he on his way out? >> we think he is on the ropes. the optimal -- outcome will be very tight. the segment of the electorate of that is right of center is larger than the electorate that is left of center. so just and broad numbers of the aggregate vote share that is sympathetic to him and his point of view is greater than the opposition. but it is a fragmented white -- right wing. he has been in power for a long time. he is focused on security issues.

the budget assumes that fannie mae and freddie mac would be privatized, and it also eliminates the fdic'smajor financial institutions that go under. he wants to and any notion of too big to fail -- and any notion of too big to fail. betty: still to come, adidas has decided not to renew its deal as the nba's official outfitter which they have been for over 10 years. why the second-largest sportswear company is taking itself out of the game. ♪ betty: trading just under way. we are in the red again on this tuesday morning. scarlet fu has much more on the early action. scarlet: it is a consolidation of yesterday's advances in today's a day of path, and markets are taking a breather before the fed statement tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. i had that, here is what moving. they videogame maker teaming up the kardashians debuting a new game in late 2015. staying with the retail idea, gsw having its biggest gain in half a year. the company boosted its dividend, burlington stores also saw better than anticipated results. linkedin is trading at a five-week low right now after green capital began coverage of t

millions of people who were able to take advantage of refinances of relief -- under the fannie mae and freddie mac programs as well as tarp. roland: in the book they said that some 4 million were supposed to be impacted john: when you look at the tarp program, as well as people assisted, and voluntary loan modification by the financial institutions a very significant number of people were able to take advantage of those programs and try to work out a situation. there were admittedly a lot of people who lost homes might have been able to save them but for mistakes in terms of the way the policies were administered but a large number of people were able to use a variety of programs. >> is really saying that i am a regulator of them are the audience and i am not saying a word on this. [laughter] but good try. and by the way the 72,000 former slaves that lost money in the freedman's bank, they got half of their money back because of the occ. the comptroller of the currency on wound it and it -- unwound it, and they tried to give the money back to former slaves and they got half the money to the deposi

never changes. 30-year fixed-rate mortgages also known as conventional loans, are backed by fannie mae or freddie mac. they're amortized over 30 years, meaning you have 30 years of fixed monthly mortgage payments. this is a popular option because you have peace of mind knowing your loan payment will always stay the same. and with the 30 year fixed, you could pay as little as 5% of the total home cost on your down payment. or refinance up to 95% of your primary home's value. this can be a great option whether you are a first time home buyer or refinancing your existing mortgage. 30-year fixed-rate mortgages are perfect for home buyers who plan to be in their homes for many years because they offer the consistency of an interest rate and payment that never change. they're a great choice if you're looking for a lower monthly payment, and the 30-year fixed-rate option is also available on fha or v.a. loans. does a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage sound right for you? >> quicken loans also offers an adjustable-rate mortgage program with some of the lowest mortgage rates available. these arms are a great option

i would like to explore today why hard-working tax dollars -- dealing with fannie mae, freddie mac, and a number of others. shouldn't we be focusing on encouraging these other countries to better manage borrowing and spending? brazil's representative of the imf stated according to a memo that has been lead from 2010, may 10, that went to wall street journal, they clearly stated the imf program is a bailout of private sector bondholders and rather than require private sector creditors like european banks take the lost company ministration chose to bailout the european banks. representatives from several other nations including canada and australia warned the bailout package contains immense risks. the ministration chose to support the bailout. how do taxpayers know this? not because of transparency, but because of information shared with them only way five-year-old memo was taped from may 10. a lack of transparency is sadly something we have come to expect . it is my goal to change that and i appreciate that today. thank you. >> the time has expired. >> thank you so much. top of the morn

millions of people who were able to take advantage of refinances of relief -- under the fannie mae and freddie mac programs as well as tarp. roland: in the book they said that some 4 million were supposed to be impacted john: when you look at the tarp program, as well as people assisted, and voluntary loan modification by the financial institutions, a very significant number of people were able to take advantage of those programs and try to work out a situation. there were admittedly a lot of people who lost homes might have been able to save them but for mistakes in terms of the way the policies were administered but a large number of people were able to use a variety of programs. >> is really saying that i am a regulator of them are the audience and i am not saying a word on this. [laughter] but good try. and by the way, the 72,000 former slaves that lost money in the freedman's bank, they got half of their money back because of the occ. the comptroller of the currency on wound it and it -- unwound it, and they tried to give the money back to former slaves and they got half the money to the depo

to be fully funded by contributions from fannie mae and freddie mac. as is already required by law. this budget gives families and communities devastated by foreclosure the resources to renovate and resell homes and maintain overall property values. i come from michigan and i represent detroit. and here i have an article that states that downtown detroit tenants rally to demand decent and affordable housing. this conversation is happening all over the country. while we see some communities where families are actually being displaced as a result of the upper class of our communities being able to buy and push prices up, where those in the bottom of our economic class are being challenged every day to find the simple thing that we call quality of life in america and that's housing. in my state of michigan, we have a campaign to end homelessness to promote housing. first, through the prevention and rapid rehousing activities. we understand in michigan that in order to effectively approach homelessness, a community needs a clear, deliberate and comprehensive strategy. the low incomes of

copy of the fannie mae and freddie mac conservative agreements. could that be put on the list? i have a preferred stock arrangement with those two companies. have you on this e-mail issue american people are frustrated command i urge everyone to be focused on this. the irs example on losing e-mails and the private sector we would be excoriated by regulators. have you changed the policy of the treasury? >> well, the treasury policy is that we do our business on official e-mail. at least in the main treasury's preservation. the irs system is a little bit different. i no that every effort is being made to recover what was lost. lost. i we will have to get back to you. .. >> >> this hearing is adjourned [inaudible conversations] >> inside the museum is the remains of the confederate ironclad built here during though board proposal will shapes are the gunports in jackson has been orange with the rifle summer fired today is the one bill specifically for the jackson and was cast at the naval works in completed in state kerry. but to be directly connected to the fact there are only fou

this budget resolution goes further, it would privatize fannie mae and freddie mac along with the failed pack act. it was rejected by everyone from housing advocates, builders, academics, and a majority of members of the house. why did we reject it? we fear it would be the end of safe mortgages. we fear it would favor only did they get megabanks. we feared it would further the wealth gap. this budget resolution is built on a broad foundation that harms of some of our most vulnerable communities. i urge the members oppose the republican budget resolution. i thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gilman from georgia. gentlemen: i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana -- mr. stutzman. mr. stutzman: thank you. and strong support of the republican budget. a balanced budget. mr. chairman, we have seen the tax and spend policies this president had has made our economy sluggish. our wages are stagnant. our national debt has increased to more than $18 trillion. this is a 70% increase since obama took office. if the president had his way, we would add another $8.5 trilli