Which Combination Works Best

saturneptune · Sep 8, 2012

Which combination of government do you thinks works best and why? When Bush the Second was first elected, he had two years of a Republican Congress. Things did not go so well, and the Democrats took control in 2003. Clinton had the same thing and the Republicans took the Congress in 1994. When one party has controlled both, things did not do well. Bush had a Democrat Congress, and the economy crashed in 2008. Of all the choices to date, Clinton with a Republican Congress produced the best results for the economy, thanks mostly to the Congress.

Winman · Sep 8, 2012

saturneptune said: ↑

Which combination of government do you thinks works best and why? When Bush the Second was first elected, he had two years of a Republican Congress. Things did not go so well, and the Democrats took control in 2003. Clinton had the same thing and the Republicans took the Congress in 1994. When one party has controlled both, things did not do well. Bush had a Democrat Congress, and the economy crashed in 2008. Of all the choices to date, Clinton with a Republican Congress produced the best results for the economy, thanks mostly to the Congress.
Click to expand...

Yes, Clinton takes all the credit for the great economy of the 90's, but it was the Republicans who controlled Congress that were behind this.

The principal cause of the crash in 2008 was the Democrats who pressured banks to give loans to people who did not qualify.

From Wiki;

In 1993 President Bill Clinton made changes to the Community Reinvestment Act to make mortgages more obtainable for lower and lower-middle class families. The changes ushered in during the Clinton Presidency encouraged banks to make mortgage loans to people who otherwise would not have qualified for them.

snip for brevity

Under pressure from activist organizations such as ACORN, then President Bill Clinton, and influential Democrats in Congress like Barny Frank,[12], banks began loans to people who should not have qualified for loans. Because banks were pressured to loan to minorities and low income applicants, and because the applicants were low-income who had rented homes for generations the banks could reap profits by selling products loaded with fees because the applicants did not either know, or care to read the fine print that would eventually raise their mortgage payments [13]
Minorities willingly entered sub-prime mortgages in far greater numbers than whites and represented a disproportional percentage of foreclosures,[14] [15] The resulting wave of minority foreclosures tipped a fading housing market into a dive and contributed to the economic fall of 2008/2009.
Click to expand...

There you go.

Winman · Sep 8, 2012

saturneptune said: ↑

Which combination of government do you thinks works best and why? When Bush the Second was first elected, he had two years of a Republican Congress. Things did not go so well, and the Democrats took control in 2003. Clinton had the same thing and the Republicans took the Congress in 1994. When one party has controlled both, things did not do well. Bush had a Democrat Congress, and the economy crashed in 2008. Of all the choices to date, Clinton with a Republican Congress produced the best results for the economy, thanks mostly to the Congress.
Click to expand...

Yes, Clinton takes all the credit for the great economy of the 90's, but it was the Republicans who controlled Congress that were behind this.

The principal cause of the crash in 2008 was the Democrats who pressured banks to give loans to people who did not qualify.

From Wiki;

In 1993 President Bill Clinton made changes to the Community Reinvestment Act to make mortgages more obtainable for lower and lower-middle class families. The changes ushered in during the Clinton Presidency encouraged banks to make mortgage loans to people who otherwise would not have qualified for them.

snip for brevity

Under pressure from activist organizations such as ACORN, then President Bill Clinton, and influential Democrats in Congress like Barny Frank,[12], banks began loans to people who should not have qualified for loans. Because banks were pressured to loan to minorities and low income applicants, and because the applicants were low-income who had rented homes for generations the banks could reap profits by selling products loaded with fees because the applicants did not either know, or care to read the fine print that would eventually raise their mortgage payments [13]
Minorities willingly entered sub-prime mortgages in far greater numbers than whites and represented a disproportional percentage of foreclosures,[14] [15] The resulting wave of minority foreclosures tipped a fading housing market into a dive and contributed to the economic fall of 2008/2009.
Click to expand...

There you go.

NaasPreacher (C4K) · Sep 8, 2012

Didn't Pres Bush have a full Republican Congress from 2001-2007?

Winman · Sep 8, 2012

C4K said: ↑

Didn't Pres Bush have a full Republican Congress from 2001-2007?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the policies began under Clinton were the major factor behind the crash. It took a few years before those balloon payments came due.

NaasPreacher (C4K) · Sep 8, 2012

But the Democrats taking the senate in 2007 are to blame for the 2008 crash?

Winman · Sep 8, 2012

C4K said: ↑

But the Democrats taking the senate in 2007 are to blame for the 2008 crash?
Click to expand...

YES! It was the Democrats (including Obama) who pushed the banks to loan money to minorities that could not qualify for loans. When the balloon payments started coming due under Bush, housing collapsed.

NaasPreacher (C4K) · Sep 8, 2012

Surely it is obvious that Pres Bush shares in the blame for the 2008 crash?

NaasPreacher (C4K) · Sep 8, 2012

Along with his GOP Congress of course

Winman · Sep 8, 2012

C4K said: ↑

Surely it is obvious that Pres Bush shares in the blame for the 2008 crash?
Click to expand...

Well, he WAS the President, but the policies that caused the crash were all put into place by the Democrats and Clinton before he took office.

It really began in the mid-1990s
Financial crises just do not happen overnight and for no special reason. The changes to the GSE system that really enabled the financial crisis began in the mid-1990s. No one change, especially at the beginning, caused the crisis by itself, but all the pieces were essentially in place by the wind down of the Enron scandal in 2001. At that point, it became a matter of reversing course in Washington, which can be a curiously difficult thing to do.

In 1995, the Clinton Administration changed the law governing GSEs’ mission — the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) — to encourage more lending in poor neighborhoods. Previously, the CRA directed government to monitor banks’ lending practices to make sure they did not violate fair lending rules in poor neighborhoods. With the 1995 change, the government published each bank’s lending activity and started giving bank ratings based primarily upon the amount of lending it performed in poor neighborhoods. These changes empowered community organizations, such as ACORN, to pressure banks to increase lending activities in poorer neighborhoods — which involved reducing mortgage loan standards — or face backlash from those organizations’ private and political associates. For instance, if Chase made 100 mortgages in a poor Chicago district, and Countrywide 150, the government would likely give Chase a lower CRA rating, and community organizers could pressure politicians to make it more difficult for Chase to get licensed to do full ranges of business in new areas of the country. Low CRA ratings could also disadvantage Chase with regard to government lending programs and make it more difficult for Chase to participate in mergers and acquisitions.

Through Fannie Mae, the government controlled banks’ mortgage lending activity rates. As long as Fannie was willing to buy these mortgages, banks had no problem lowering their standards if necessary, making the loans and selling them off to Fannie Mae. Banks could even buy the mortgages back from Fannie Mae, with Fannie’s payment guarantee, thereby eliminating the credit risk (as long as Fannie was government backed). Now, if the US federal government is behind Fannie – and the government has a perfect credit record – there is really little worry for banks, so they might as well make all the mortgages Fannie Mae is willing to buy, and purchase all the guaranteed debt Fannie puts up for sale. However, to the extent investors ever believed Fannie was just like any other company — without the US government guaranteeing its debts, at least in bulk — well that would be a different story. The risks involved would go from theoretically near zero, to well, who knows… Throughout the Congressional debate on GSE regulations in 2003-2005, senior Congressional Democrats repeatedly inferred — even directly stated on at least one public occasion — the US federal government would bail Fannie Mae out if required.

In written law, the US government only 100% guarantees Ginnie Mae. The other major two GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, exist in more of a grey area. Nothing explicitly states the federal government is 100% behind them, but it has always been implied. That is why statements of top government officials in the run up to the bubble are so very important, as are actions like the US President personally appointing Fannie’s CEO and directors.

From 1993-1999, the Clinton Administration replaced many of Fannie Mae’s key executives, including the CEO, the CEO’s number two, and nearly half the board of directiors. As a government sponsored enterprise (GSE), the President had the authority to make those appointments. The board, which increasingly consisted of Presidential appointments, then worked with the new CEO to change Fannie Mae executives’ salary structures in order to incentivize them to reach higher mortgage targets. More specifically, the board promised senior executive millions in bonuses each year as long as Fannie reported certain earnings figures. Just a quick reminder… Fannie’s ability to reach earnings targets is directly related to the number of mortgages it buys, as long as those mortgages do not default or as long as Fannie executives do not recognize negative changes in the payment flow .

Between 1994 and 2004, Fannie executives improperly reported $10.6 billion of earnings. Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed CEO, received over $90 million. Jamie Gorelick — a top Clinton Administration lawyer whom he appointed in 1997 to be Fannie Mae vice chairman despite having no formal financial experience – received over $26 million. Just by way of reference, in 2002, 21 senior Fannie Mae executives received over $1 million each.

Just before Mr. Clinton curiously appointed Jamie Gorelick to the lucrative Fannie Mae post in 1997, she had authored a very significant and controversial legal document that came into sharp focus on 9-11. Her policy, which became known as the “Gorelick Wall ” established barriers that prevented federal anti-terrorist criminal investigators from accessing various federal records and databases…one of the top causes for the 9-11 intelligence failure. And Jamie Gorelick’s curious appointments did not stop with Fannie Mae… Democrats selected her to serve on the 9-11 Commission; the official government investigation into what happened from an intelligence standpoint, and why. She was in the perfect spot to head off the “Gorelick Wall” from being a cause celeb in the 9-11 Commission’s final report.

The only way to change the structure put in place in before 2000 would have been to forcibly replace the board of directors and senior management…but for that, the President would need hard evidence that justified cause. As far as Washington insiders publicly knew, all Fannie Mae was doing was helping poor people buy homes and, in the process, boosting economic activity. Who could argue with that? Certainly not any nationally-elected politician.
Click to expand...

Source- http://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/

NaasPreacher (C4K) · Sep 8, 2012

But Pres Bush and his congress had six years to sort things out.

It appears that neither party has been real skilled at dealing with economy.

Winman · Sep 8, 2012

C4K said: ↑

But Pres Bush and his congress had six years to sort things out.

It appears that neither party has been real skilled at dealing with economy.
Click to expand...

They tried. But you know how the Democrats are, they accuse the Republicans of discriminating against minorities. They didn't want minorities to have homes like white people, blah, blah, blah...

Obama was involved in all of this with Acorn in Chicago.

Once you put these government policies into place, sometimes it is almost impossible to reverse them. This is what happened to Bush and the Republicans. I am not saying they share no blame at all, but the major blame should be placed on Clinton and the Democrats.

Folks simply don't know all this and how it really happened.

saturneptune · Sep 8, 2012

C4K said: ↑

Didn't Pres Bush have a full Republican Congress from 2001-2007?
Click to expand...

You are correct. I typed 2003.

saturneptune · Sep 8, 2012

Neither party has done well with total control.

Winman · Sep 8, 2012

Read the article I linked to. Bush sincerely tried to correct these problems,

Republicans Move Swiftly and Strongly
In the wake of the Enron scandal, President Bush put his Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, in charge of a team to investigate potential GSE mortgage market problems. Mr. Card led a joint White House – Treasury Department team that recommended the President not reappoint any directors to either GSE board; that Fannie’s accounting methods needed to be thoroughly scrutinized, and that GSEs needed much stronger regulatory oversight. HUD Secretary, Mel Martinez, got Fannie Mae to raise the downpayment requirement on newly constructed houses from only 3% to 10% — if a house was appraised at $500,000, the builder would have to commit $50,000 to the project instead of just $15,000.

On September 11, 2003, President Bush sent Congress a sweeping GSE regulation proposal; the first of what U.S. News & World Report counted was 17 times President Bush would call on Congress to regulate GSEs. The proposed regulations would have averted the worst national crisis since, well, 9-11…had they been inacted. Let’s let the New York Times tell the story , as it reported the day of the White House proposal:

“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. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken.”

The new lines of business aspect had a backstory. From the beginning of the Clinton CRA changes through 1998, Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives was Herb Moses, who was — in their words — “spouse” with Barney Frank (D-MA), the Democrats’ ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee, which oversaw GSEs.

The War Over Housing Market Regulation Goes Full Tilt
The Bush proposal generated bills in the House and Senate. According to the Congressional Research Service, each bill would have replaced the weak GSE regulator with one that was independent of Congressional political pressures and independently responsible for GSE “safety, soundness, and mission regulation.” If the new regulator determined that Fannie or Freddie was in financial distress, it could put them into receivership, limiting their activities until safety and soundness could be regained.

Receivership was a key provision, because it would be a strong step towards separating GSE liabilities from the US federal government — and telling the financial markets that the federal government not bail Fannie Mae out if it took met financial difficulties due to taking on inordinate risk. If Fannie essentially went bankrupt, it was strongly implied – even stated outright by Democrats during 2003 Congressional hearings – that the US federal government would back Fannie. The receivership would eliminate politicians’ ability to “dance the Potomac two-step” on the issue…publicly stating the government does not guarantee Fannie’s individual securitized mortgages, while also stating the government stands behind Fannie in the event that Fannie runs into serious financial trouble. In absence of government backing, Fannie would have to act more like an independent company in charge of its own risk profile. Any investor doing business with Fannie Mae would therefore have to do the same. Receivership would be akin to bankruptcy reorganization, in which investors were often not paid what they put in.

In August 2003, Barney Frank (D-MA) — ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee and the person who generaled the Democrat strategy with regard to GSE regulation — argued strongly to make it easier for people/speculators to get new house construction loans while putting less money up as collateral. In a mid-August letter to Fannie Mae, Mr. Frank urged Fannie to withdraw the underwriting guidelines that the Bush Administration had successfully gotten Fannie to strengthen (raising the principal/collateral commitment from 3% to 10%). He wrote, the Bush-inspired “changes could make manufactured housing too expensive for many Americans.” Mr. Frank was successful ; Fannie announced in February 2004, it would lower the capital requirement from 10% to 5%… the move became effective December 1, 2004 , two weeks before the SEC released a scathing report on Fannie’s improper accounting. Easy money on new house constructions turned out to be one of the prime causes of the housing overexpansion that helped define the bubble.

The House Financial Services Committee began debate on September 11, 2003 and held multiple hearings over the next several weeks . In supporting the bills, Republicans focused on GSE’s potential impact on the broader financial system. Democrats focused solely on the mortgage lending targets , stating there was no risk to the broader financial system because the federal government would bail out the GSEs if necessary.

Here are a few representative quotes on how those hearings went:
Click to expand...

There is more, read the article.

LadyEagle · Sep 8, 2012

I am the only 1 of 2 so far who has voted for all 3 branches controlled by Republicans. Yes, Republicans have made mistakes in the past - We ALL must acknowledge that under Clinton and with a House controlled by Republicans and Newt Gingrich, NAFTA was passed and was the beginining of the end of the sound of sucking away American jobs. Republicans get no thanks from me for that!

There have been a lot of RINOs in the Republican party - Presidents and Congress. I never considered GW Bush a conservative - he was always left of center to me - especially some of his policies after 09/11 and after doing some research on him and some of what he did as Governor. In the past, Republicans in control have been fiscally irresponsible. They have been corrupt. They have trashed the Constitution. Even Henry Hyde (Congressman (R) Illinois) stated that the "Constitution is irrelevent." They have not Declared War but financed wars on borrowed money. And more.

But 2010 started to change the Republican party. Some of the old life-long dogs of the Republican Party were defeated to new, fresh blood in the Republican Party - fiscal conservatives and moral conservatives - helped along largely in part due to the TEA party. We see the same kind of push in the elections this Fall.

I came to the conclusion that the best way to change the Republican Party was for us to work at the grass roots level, rather than switching to a 3rd party that has no chance in our predominantly 2-party system. And it is starting to work. So, we are seeing an evolution of the 2 parties - the Republicans leaning back towards conservatism and family values and the Democrats leaning more towards socialism and out-of-mainstream values - i.e., "gay" rights, pro-abortion, etc.

So, this time in our American History, this time - I fully support a one-party control of the Executive and Legislative branches and know as well, that if Republicans take the WH, the next possible 2 Supreme Court appointments will more than likely be appointed conservatives.

There is a cesspool in Washington DC to clean up. I applaud the junior members in the House for standing firm on what they were sent there to do. The un-progress in Congress for the past 2 years, the do-nothng Congress, is because Harry Reid controls what comes to the floor of the Senate to be debated and voted on. The Republican controlled House in the past 2 years has sent bill after bill over to the Senate which has been stonewalled.

Once we get rid of Harry Reid by replacing him with another Senate Majority Leader (and no matter what you think about Mitch McConnell, he will fold under immense pressure from we the people and the conservatives in place in the Republican Party), if we retain control of the House and elect a NEW President - I think Americans will be amazed at what does get done and the corruption, waste, fraud, eliminated and fiscal responsibility that comes about.

Mitt Romney cleaned up the corruption and scandals and bankruptcy of the Olympics. If there is any candidate that can clean up the corruption, waste, fraud, and get us back on a fiscal path as a Leader, I believe it is Mitt Romney. He is not part of the old guard, the old way of doing things in the Republican Party in the past, like Newt or Rick Santorum - they were part of the problem - and the way they struck me during the Primary Debates was how ugly, hateful, mean-spirited they were on stage as they slung bitter accusations and lies towards Mitt Romney. Yet, he stood there and blinked at their accusations and kept a Presidential countenance and rebutted them. He didn't come across as down and dirty. I was impressed with his composure. Ron Paul never got mean, and I don't remember Michelle Bachman getting mean-spirited at him.

This is our last chance, America. No matter what the past has been, we can set a New Course with God's Blessing. As corrupt as Washington DC is, there are a few righteous men (born-again un-carnal Christians) trying to keep evil at bay, they are just presently outnumbered. Pray for the few. Support the few. And vote for the few that their numbers may be increased in 2012.

LET'S TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK! :flower:

Winman · Sep 8, 2012

Hey, Lady Eagle, you see I am showing them the facts here. I am with you.

That said, we need Republicans with real values. Some Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats. But overall, speaking in a general sense of both parties, the Republicans best represent good values and sound financial principles.

LadyEagle · Sep 8, 2012

:thumbs: :thumbs:

saturneptune · Sep 8, 2012

LadyEagle said: ↑

I am the only 1 of 2 so far who has voted for all 3 branches controlled by Republicans. Yes, Republicans have made mistakes in the past - We ALL must acknowledge that under Clinton and with a House controlled by Republicans and Newt Gingrich, NAFTA was passed and was the beginining of the end of the sound of sucking away American jobs. Republicans get no thanks from me for that!

There have been a lot of RINOs in the Republican party - Presidents and Congress. I never considered GW Bush a conservative - he was always left of center to me - especially some of his policies after 09/11 and after doing some research on him and some of what he did as Governor. In the past, Republicans in control have been fiscally irresponsible. They have been corrupt. They have trashed the Constitution. Even Henry Hyde (Congressman (R) Illinois) stated that the "Constitution is irrelevent." They have not Declared War but financed wars on borrowed money. And more.

But 2010 started to change the Republican party. Some of the old life-long dogs of the Republican Party were defeated to new, fresh blood in the Republican Party - fiscal conservatives and moral conservatives - helped along largely in part due to the TEA party. We see the same kind of push in the elections this Fall.

I came to the conclusion that the best way to change the Republican Party was for us to work at the grass roots level, rather than switching to a 3rd party that has no chance in our predominantly 2-party system. And it is starting to work. So, we are seeing an evolution of the 2 parties - the Republicans leaning back towards conservatism and family values and the Democrats leaning more towards socialism and out-of-mainstream values - i.e., "gay" rights, pro-abortion, etc.

So, this time in our American History, this time - I fully support a one-party control of the Executive and Legislative branches and know as well, that if Republicans take the WH, the next possible 2 Supreme Court appointments will more than likely be appointed conservatives.

There is a cesspool in Washington DC to clean up. I applaud the junior members in the House for standing firm on what they were sent there to do. The un-progress in Congress for the past 2 years, the do-nothng Congress, is because Harry Reid controls what comes to the floor of the Senate to be debated and voted on. The Republican controlled House in the past 2 years has sent bill after bill over to the Senate which has been stonewalled.

Once we get rid of Harry Reid by replacing him with another Senate Majority Leader (and no matter what you think about Mitch McConnell, he will fold under immense pressure from we the people and the conservatives in place in the Republican Party), if we retain control of the House and elect a NEW President - I think Americans will be amazed at what does get done and the corruption, waste, fraud, eliminated and fiscal responsibility that comes about.

Mitt Romney cleaned up the corruption and scandals and bankruptcy of the Olympics. If there is any candidate that can clean up the corruption, waste, fraud, and get us back on a fiscal path as a Leader, I believe it is Mitt Romney. He is not part of the old guard, the old way of doing things in the Republican Party in the past, like Newt or Rick Santorum - they were part of the problem - and the way they struck me during the Primary Debates was how ugly, hateful, mean-spirited they were on stage as they slung bitter accusations and lies towards Mitt Romney. Yet, he stood there and blinked at their accusations and kept a Presidential countenance and rebutted them. He didn't come across as down and dirty. I was impressed with his composure. Ron Paul never got mean, and I don't remember Michelle Bachman getting mean-spirited at him.

This is our last chance, America. No matter what the past has been, we can set a New Course with God's Blessing. As corrupt as Washington DC is, there are a few righteous men (born-again un-carnal Christians) trying to keep evil at bay, they are just presently outnumbered. Pray for the few. Support the few. And vote for the few that their numbers may be increased in 2012.
Click to expand...

I totally agree except for the comment about Mitch McConnell. He actively worked to stop the election of Rand Paul to the Senate within the party and failed. I hope if the Republicans do regain control of the Senate, they will pick a new leader. I would prefer either of your two senators to him.

I do think this could be our last chance. We have never had a House, Senate and Presidency all in the control of a conservative mindset regardless of the party. Your post in the thread about "What is a Billion Dollars" was very descriptive for our minds to grasp what that number means, not to mention trillions.

I still give credit to you and Old Regular for convincing me working within the Repulbican Party is the only solution. Working within the Constitution Party was without a doubt a mistake. One thing I do give Bush the Second credit for is his appointments to the Supreme Court.

OldRegular · Sep 8, 2012

C4K said: ↑

Didn't Pres Bush have a full Republican Congress from 2001-2007?
Click to expand...

Yes! But I just buttered S/N up on another thread and was afraid to say anything.:laugh::tonofbricks:

Which Combination Works Best

Which combination works best for out nation?

Republican President, Democrat Congress

Democrat President, Republican Congress

All Branches Republican

All Branches Democrat

saturneptune New Member

Winman Active Member

Winman Active Member

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

Winman Active Member

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

Winman Active Member

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

Winman Active Member

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

Winman Active Member

saturneptune New Member

saturneptune New Member

Winman Active Member

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

Winman Active Member

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

saturneptune New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Useful Searches

Which Combination Works Best

Which combination works best for out nation?

Republican President, Democrat Congress

Democrat President, Republican Congress

All Branches Republican

All Branches Democrat

saturneptune New Member

Winman Active Member

Winman Active Member

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

Winman Active Member

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

Winman Active Member

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

Winman Active Member

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

Winman Active Member

saturneptune New Member

saturneptune New Member

Winman Active Member

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

Winman Active Member

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

saturneptune New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member