And the current financial meltdown is the result.

If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
– John McCain, May 25, 2006

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together hold or own up to FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS in mortgage debt. That’s more than half the total of the current U.S. national debt.

Their failure is what has sparked the world financial crisis and the blame lies solely with the Democrats in Congress who shielded them from reform for years while Democrat party hacks running the companies enriched themselves. (it’s a Democrat scandal as I described here).

Looking back to the root of the problem Wayne Barret describes how the snowball started:

Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie
How the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history gave birth to the mortgage crisis
By Wayne Barrett
The Village Voice
Tuesday, August 5th

…Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded “kickbacks” to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

Republican Reforms Blocked by Democrats

In the year 2000 Congressman Richard Baker (R-La.) then the chairman of the House subcommittee that had jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie introduced legislation to more tightly regulate the mortgage giants. The bill never saw the light of day. Congresspersons from both parties receive contributions from Fan & Fred (the list) and collectively they spent $174 million lobbying Congress the last ten years.

The result of Rep. Baker’s legislation would not have been a surprise to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who had proposed tighter regulation in the 1990’s only to find a highly paid Fannie Mae lobbyist stalking him at events in his district and who played hardball by directing calls to every mortgage holder in the Congressman’s district falsely implying that Ryan meant to raise their rates.

Republicans Try Again

In 2004 another attempt was launched. The Senate took up a measure put forwarded by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) only to have it blocked again by Fan & Fred using Democrats as a partisan attack machine:

Fannie and Freddie chose to fight legislation in the Senate Banking Committee that embodied the administration’s minimum requirements, particularly the receivership provision, in the late spring of 2004. The companies called in their chits and managed to obtain solid Democratic opposition to the bill crafted by the committee’s chairman, Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). The committee also watered down the receivership provision. The partisan nature of the vote to send the bill to the floor virtually assured that it would not be taken up in the Senate unless Fannie and Freddie relented in their opposition … but Fannie and Freddie would not budge. It may be that the [Fan&Fred] were banking on the defeat of President George W. Bush and on the assumption that a Democratic president would abandon the effort to pass tougher regulation. If that was their thinking, it was an exceedingly costly error.

In the last year of the Republican Congress House GOP leaders were determined to try again. They put forward H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. The bill would have stripped control of Fan & Fred from the Housing and Urban Development Department where Cuomo had turned it into a regulatory farce.

The bill would also introduce “anti advocacy provisions” barring money from Fan & Fred being used as a slush fund for liberal lobbying organizations.

Despite Democrat opposition to that measure the bill passed the House, but could not get a vote in the Senate even after the anti-lobbying provision was removed.

John McCain was one of three Republicans in the U.S. Senate to sponsor the bill. Rising to propose the legislation Senator McCain’s words now sound prophetic:

Senator McCain Speaks in Support of
The FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005

The United States Senate
May 25, 2006

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

McCain took action in 2005 that might have helped us avoid the severity of this current financial crisis. Democrats also took action in 2005 and stopped McCain’s reforms.

  • Share/Bookmark
Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 9:18 pm and is filed under Economy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

  1. This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » Shootout at the Mortgage Lender Corral
  2. Corrupt Democrats Guilty Of Enabling Financial Crisis « The Vast Global Zionist Conspiracy v 5.0
  3. Profiles in courage: the mortgage crisis
  4. Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Biden Believes Paying More Taxes Patriotic
  5. S. Weasel
  6. Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Countering the DNC blame game on the bail out, and the financial crisis

140 comments so far

 1Reply to this comment  

Don’t confuse the DemocRats with facts. It tends to get in the way of their revisionist history.

DemocRats are liars.

September 16th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
doug
 2Reply to this comment  

…have to disagree, again.

You, say, or agree with the ‘Voice’ that a cabinet secretary, who left office six years before this crisis even started, is the significant reason, the primary mover, the one who is responsible for all this …because he wanted to increase minority home ownership???

Are you saying the rate cutting fed., the predatory lenders, the securities rating agencies, the media cheerleaders, and on and on– are exempt …that little cabinet boy Mario is ‘the root of the problem’???

No way.

You want the look at the root of the problem, I suggest looking here:


Most of the economists who were interviewed blamed Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, for his unwillingness to clamp down on either the technology stock bubble or the run-up in housing prices.

“The Fed isn’t the whole story, but it’s a big part of it,” said Gerald P. O’Driscoll Jr., who was vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas from 1982 to 1994 and is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization in Washington. “It allowed these absolutely insane bubbles to happen. The lesson is, you can’t let these bubbles continue unabated with no policy making.”

But the economists said others were to blame, too: investors, banks and rating agencies, as well as the current chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, and the Clinton and Bush administrations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/business/economy/06economists.html?_r=1&sq=economists%20depression&st=cse&oref=slogin&scp=2&pagewanted=print

As i see it, ‘the root of the problem’ is lax regulation by the Fed., then a number of greedy players from all over manifest themselves due to the lax regulatory atmosphere.

September 16th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Craig
 3Reply to this comment  

“As i see it, ‘the root of the problem’ is lax regulation by the Fed” (Doug)

As I see it, the lax of regulation by the Fed is because the Democrats blocked financial reforms that the McCain and GOP proposed in 2005.

September 17th, 2008 at 12:25 am
 4Reply to this comment  

They’ll do the same thing with the oil industry; do nothing about it until it’s a crisis, and then nationalize the oil industry as a solution.

Government-run anything is a bad idea.

September 17th, 2008 at 4:29 am
BevAnn
 5Reply to this comment  

15 yrs ago Fan & Fred only insured the best-credit, safest loan-to-value-ratios loans and banks got most of those.

Sub Prime was shakey to trashed credit with loan-to-value ratios graduated according to risk (the worse the credit, the more risk). No income qualifying loans were only for those with perfect credit and were rare.

Not having brokered mortgages in that many years, and blithely being out of the loop, thinking I was gambling with a 1 yr arm with a 1% annual cap! (Which, btw, just adjusted DOWN 1% for the next year-yay!)

I am more than appalled at what has been allowed to transpire! The monkeys were left in charge of the bananas.

Until there is accountability in the form of life prison sentances for such abuses it will still be
VEGAS BABY! with our country’s fiscal stability, national security & fiscal independence. Dare we envision the nightmare together of what is to come?
I have never seen it this bad.

September 17th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Aye Chihuahua
 6Reply to this comment  

BevAnn,

You nibbled around the edges of one of the major underlying issues.

Anyone want to tackle the reasons behind why sub-prime became such a big thing?

September 17th, 2008 at 6:32 am
OLDPUPPYMAX
 7Reply to this comment  

Of course we know the MSM will bury this story for the sake of its Messiah. But will McCain push the issue until our straight-arrow media is forced to pick it up? Of course not. It will be virtually ignored by the McCain campaign, just like drilling, Obamas egregious messing with Iraq troop withdrawal policy and a dozen other issues which would have disqualified any republican candidate. Had republicans hired a candidate with a brain, the election would be over and won.

September 17th, 2008 at 7:18 am
luva the scissors
 8Reply to this comment  

the dems blocked it, and mccain won’t bring this to the forefront because wether he knows it or not he is still trying to run a campaign on honor and integrity. i think mccain is unwilling to go that extra step because he doesn’t want to sink to the lows the dems have. they blocked legislation, they basically made the mortgage companies go into ares they didn’t want to risk because they said everyone has a right to a home. its a bunch of crap, and you know pelosi saying not to blame them was the first thing she said. must mean that the dems have a guilty conscience. the started trying to push the blame aside from the start and now we can see the fault is theirs.

September 17th, 2008 at 7:54 am
yonason
 9Reply to this comment  

DEMOCRAPS AND FANNIE/FREDDIE

Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the Congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people, and as it turned out, some people who couldn’t afford them. Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration’s White House budget director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick, Clinton Justice Department official, worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama’s VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae C.E.O. job.

I don’t read Dougy any more. He’s always wrong.

September 17th, 2008 at 8:19 am
 10Reply to this comment  

Doug’s just spinning and twisting and grasping at any straw he can to try and derail people’s attention from the Democrats in this matter.

Read the whole Village Voice piece Doug if you think Cuomo is blameless. I never said it was ALL his fault anyway. As my post clearly indicates he had LOTS OF HELP from Democrats in the House and Senate and political hacks who when they weren’t too busy stuffing bags of cash under their mattresses at Fannie Mae did everything they could to block any reform.

You got dirt on your hands Doug!

September 17th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Dave Noble
 11Reply to this comment  

Does anyone care to lay out the specifics of how the Democrats succeeded in killing a Bush reform proposal in a Republican-majority Congress? I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I would like to know the actual details.

September 17th, 2008 at 10:22 am
 12Reply to this comment  

Ever heard of a filibuster Dave Hussein Noble?

September 17th, 2008 at 11:13 am
wraith33
 13Reply to this comment  

Serious question. How in the hell did the Democrats block McCain’s Housing reform bill when they never saw it? And it wasn’t even his bill. He co-sponsored it. Whoever posted this did NO research. That bill never saw the light of day because it never made it past a Republican committee. The house never voted on it. The Senate never voted on it. The bill wasn’t even debated. So again, how did Obama or the democrats block it? This information is right on a government website.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Do you guys actually research this stuff or are you all just sheep?

September 17th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
 14Reply to this comment  

wraith: Read more carefully: “John McCain was one of three Republicans in the U.S. Senate to sponsor the bill. “

Where did I suggest it was his bill?

He supported the reform efforts of Republicans in both chambers of the legislature.

I posted the link to the govtrack site in the post. The last action on the bill was this:

Last Action: Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

If you want to go through the weeds of the Senate and find out who knifed this bill, please be my guest and do report back here when you get the answer.

I suggest you do more comprehensive research before you decide to start shearing sheep.

September 17th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
wraith33
 15Reply to this comment  

Read the title. It says DEMOCRATS blocked the reform. How did they do it? I posted a link to the legislation. The House never voted. The Senate never voted. It wasn’t even DEBATED. If you can’t answer then it’s nothing but tabloid journalism at its finest. I wouldn’t be surprised if you copy and pasted this from another site without demanding a shred of proof…just like sheep would do.

September 17th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
 16Reply to this comment  

The House never voted?

Really?

Want to do some more research on that one and get back to me?

I’ll be sharpening my sheeping shears as I wait for your apology.

September 17th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
wraith33
 17Reply to this comment  

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Since you don’t want to go to that link I’ll post the contents here….

Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]show cosponsors (3)
Cosponsors [as of 2007-01-08]
Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC]
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]
Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]

Bill Text: Summary | Full Text
Status:
Occurred: Introduced Jan 26, 2005
Not Yet Occurred: Scheduled for Debate -
Not Yet Occurred: Voted on in Senate -
Not Yet Occurred: Voted on in House -
Not Yet Occurred: Signed by President -

I see “Not Yet Occurred” next to those issues above. Tell me the names of the Democrats that blocked this piece of legislation in a Republican controlled committee and I’ll give you a cookie.

September 17th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
yonason
 18Reply to this comment  

Back in 2003, when Republicans were pushing for reform, the obstructioinist Democrats denied there was even a problem

”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.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-mccain-tried-to-reform-housing-finance

And in 2006, McCain said…

If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. (same article as above)

DrBulldog has this on McCain’s response to O’Buko
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/mccain-calls-obama-to-task-over-freddie-fannie/

I don’t have to show in detail how Congress thwarted reform. The fact that there was no reform, and that Dems opposed reform, is all I need to know to tell me who’s at fault.

Now, why don’t you show me where O’Bumpkin of O’Biden reckognized the danger and or tried to do anything about it, because THAT is the issue here – who has what it takes to spot a problem and to take steps to fix it.

September 17th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
 19Reply to this comment  

Wraith: I posted that link in my original post. Are you blind as well as stupid?

And if you bothered to read the last action you would know what happened in Committee.

As for your specious claim that “The House never voted” on this legislation you’ve compounded your stupidity as I also included the link to the House version of the bill WHICH PASSED!

Why do you think it was being considered in the Senate hmmmm?????

I’m still waiting for your apology or are we to understand you don’t have that much intellectual integrity to admit you were wrong after attacking my intellectual integrity???

With goofballs like you on the lose it’s no wonder McCain and Obama are tied in Pennsylvania. We might even win the state.

September 17th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
 20Reply to this comment  

wraith33,

Just a short word of advice.

It’s always, ALWAYS good to know the answer to the questions before you pose them.

Always.

That prevents the lingering taste of shoe leather on the sides of your tongue.

Mike,

We might just win NY too. The latest polls show Obie ahead by only 6.

September 17th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
 21Reply to this comment  

I will agree to stay out of the GOP v DNC failure on this bill getting any traction in Congress… it is, afterall, a body filled with many on both sides of the aisle that I think would better serve the US if they were flipping burgers at the local Mickey D’s.

What is notable is that, of the only two floor speeches on this bill, it was two GOP Senators who rose to point out to the addle brained elistists that Fannie/Freddie was an implosion about to happen.

Sen. Charles Hagel first introduced the bill to the floor in Jan 2005 as one of the floor speeches.

In May 2006, Sen John McCain drove the point home, citing imminent danger with his floor speech… evidently falling on deaf ears.

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

And where was Obama? On the campaign trail, spending his donation funds out the yin yang… including those from Fannie/Freddie. And of course, he’s been sitting at the feet of his economic advisors, comprised of the higher echelon of Fannie/Freddie, Countrywide, and Lehman Bros.

More examples of Obama’s great judgment.

Needless to say, if some of you don’t want to consider this a DNC failure because it occurred during a GOP held Congress, that’s fine. However what you have to admit (if you care anything for facts) is that McCain was atop the situation, and Obama ignored it.

Economic issues and this housing market today are part of Obama’s failures. I do so hope he tries to make this a major issue in his campaign. He not only has no standing or credibility, but his already tarnished halo will completely rust away.

September 17th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
wraith33
 22Reply to this comment  

You’re dumber than a sack of hammers lol.

First of all this link you posted in your original post

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1461

WASN’T the bill McCain co-sponsored. And secondly the reason that particular bill didn’t get a vote in the senate was because Bush killed it that very same day because it was WEAK….

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/hr1461sap-h.pdf

Now let me ask you AGAIN. Name me some Democrats that killed the bill that John McCain co-sponsored. I still have your cookie for you.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

September 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
 23Reply to this comment  

The President doesn’t “kill” legislation unless it reaches his desk.

Are you claiming now that the legislation got to his desk and he vetoed it?

Here is a link that might be helpful to you.

September 17th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
 24Reply to this comment  

HR1461 “WASN’T the bill McCain co-sponsored.” BECAUSE IT WAS THE HOUSE BILL.

Are you aware that the House and Senate each pass their OWN versions of legislation? McCain co-sponsored S109, the SENATE version.

Your statement that the House never voted on the bill is FALSE.

If you cannot even measure up to a minimum standard of intellectual integrity you have NO RIGHT to challenge the integrity of others.

September 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
 25Reply to this comment  

Aye: That video may be above wraith’s “pay grade.”

September 17th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
wraith33
 26Reply to this comment  

There is no intellectual integrity here lol. You’re just dancing around the answer to the obvious. Neither bill died because of Democrats. Those bills died in a Republican controlled congress. McCain’s co-sponsored bill went nowhere and the other was killed by the White house…end of story.

September 17th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
 27Reply to this comment  

wraith33,

Please demonstrate for me how the White House killed the legislation.

That’s a pretty neat trick.

Show me what Constitutional authority the President used to do it.

September 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
 28Reply to this comment  

Who is dancing here wraith?

I go back to this statement of yours in comment #15 above: “The House never voted.”

You were WRONG about that weren’t you?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-547

You haven’t the intellectual integrity to acknowledge that fact.

Yet, you insist on telling me that my conclusions in this post are wrong when I have shown ample support for them and you have offered NOTHING to counter them but your snide and ingnorant remarks?

It’s clear from the legislative record that Republicans, including John McCain, have led the way on reforms to Fannie and Freddie. And that Democrat hacks busy looting Fannie and Freddie used every bit of leverage, including party line votes by Democrats, to try and stop them.

Unless you can come up with something more substantial than your nasty, petty, small minded rants I’ll just delete further comments from you.

September 17th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
 29Reply to this comment  

So Wraith… where was your boy Obama when McCain was on the floor, warning of the implosion of Fannie/Freddie?

Who’s on the ball here? And who was out, spending Fannie/Freddie’s money instead of watching the hen house?

Bozo

September 17th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
 30Reply to this comment  

Mike and Aye… you’re dealing with a single brain celled animal here… The WH statement of policy commented they’d like stronger language, but would look forward to working with Congress on Fannie/Freddie reform.

Only an idiot can read that statement as a veto. Made worse by someone so challenged in civics that he believes a bill that only passes one chamber can be “killed” by the POTUS.

Obviously falls into that “too damn stupid to vote” genre.

September 17th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
 31Reply to this comment  

Mata and Mike,

I notice that Wraith ran like a seven year old girl when confronted with his obvious misstatements.

As for the single brain cell, you’re right. It sure was fun toying him though. Like a cat with a mouse.

Maybe he’ll watch the Schoolhouse Rock video I linked and accidentally learn something.

Sing it with me:

“I’m just a bill, yes I’m only a bill, and I’m sitting here on Capitol Hill…”

September 17th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Craig
 32Reply to this comment  

Wraith33, Fit Fit, Doug and Charlie are all Obama’s supporters… just goes to show you what kind of supporters Obama has. If they are all like these four guys, completely misinformed, America is in big trouble. As a Canadian, I know more than them on US politics. They should be shameful for all the ignorance and misleading that they vehicle here on this blog.

September 17th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
 33Reply to this comment  

Wraith33,

If you’re still lurking around out there licking your wounds, here is a little something for you to chew on.

Devastating!

September 17th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
 34Reply to this comment  

Damned SPAM filter!

Free at last!

Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, I’m free at last!

September 17th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Craig
 35Reply to this comment  

Wow! Aye Chihuahua, what a bullet proof video! This should keep wraith33 silent for a while… lol

September 17th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
 36Reply to this comment  

Aye: That guy’s name is MUDD! Literally!

When he said “there is much to be done inside my company” and I concluded that he was still finding ways to loot the company and screw the taxpayers.

Good video find!

September 17th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
yonason
 37Reply to this comment  

Aye Chy! That’s Beautiful!!! I wonder if McCain could use it in a commercial? Is the RNC aware of that?

They just need to add to it that McCain and Bush tried several times to remedy the problem, like posting videos of them outlining the need for change, then that would make a really sweet package.

Not ONLY does it show that McCain has been on the ball, and O’Fumbler hasn’t, but if Obamas attacks are presented with it, everyone can see what a L I A R that POS is, as well.

hmmmm, not sure how they could work ALL that in, but I’m sure a talented ad person could do it.

September 17th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Neo
 38Reply to this comment  

Representative Jim Leach, Republican of Iowa, said Freddie Mac — short for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation — had borrowed $125 million in the bond markets on Monday at 6.99 percent, an interest rate reflecting the market’s belief that the Treasury had effectively guaranteed repayment.

Freddie Mac, whose charter calls for it to invest primarily in mortgages and mortgage securities, then used the $125 million to buy corporate bonds issued by the Philip Morris Companies with identical 10-year maturities yielding 7.68 percent.

Mr. Leach said that such an investment strategy might be legal, but that it was not appropriate. ”Freddie Mac was established by an act of Congress for a specific purpose: to advance home ownership, not to facilitate tobacco sales,” he said. ”What Freddie Mac’s action amounts to is taxpayer subsidization of corporate arbitrage and, implicitly, the tobacco industry.” — April 11, 1997

So where did this story lead ?

September 17th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
 39Reply to this comment  

Neo: The story didn’t lead anywhere but the scam enabled the Dems who were robbing Fannie Mae to cover their tracks.

September 17th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Dave Noble
 40Reply to this comment  

Mike,

Yes, I’ve heard of a fillibuster. Is that how the Democrats blocked the
bill?

September 18th, 2008 at 7:05 am
 41Reply to this comment  

Good question Dave. Question for you: When was the last time the Democrats actually HELD a filibuster? You know, the real thing like we see in Jimmy Stewart’s classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?”

These days it’s enough to suggest that you MIGHT filibuster a bill to get it killed and at the same time avoid all accountabilty for actually doing so.

The record here is not clear on the exact path Democrats used to kill the bill. But one thing is: Democrats ARE on record opposing many of the reforms contained in this bill.

September 18th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Dave Noble
 42Reply to this comment  

Thanks, Mike,

In that case some Democrats opposed the bill, but it’s a stretch to say they blocked it or that they were directly responsible for it not being passed.

September 18th, 2008 at 8:35 am
 43Reply to this comment  

Dave: You’re playing semantic games here. It’s abundantly clear that Democrats blocked these reforms, insisting in the case of Barney Frank that they were not necessary and that there was nothing wrong.

The record is also clear that Republicans stepped forward time and time again to propose legislation for reform. There is not one Democrat co-sponsor to the House and Senate bills linked above.

It’s also clear that the crooks running Fannie Mae were long time Democrat political hacks whose pedigree in the party goes back as far as the Carter Administration in one case.

And it’s also a matter of record that Democrats were the top recipients of campaign cash doled out by Fannie and Freddie with Obama #2 at $126,000.

You can spin all you want but you’ll just get dizzy and fall down.

September 18th, 2008 at 8:58 am
yonason
 44Reply to this comment  

Dave Noble

I see you are still defending the indefensable, arguing about form as opposed to substance, and still as wrong as ever, ….must be one of life’s “bench warmers.”

September 18th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Dave Noble
 45Reply to this comment  

Yon,

And I see you still substitute insult for insight.

September 18th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
 46Reply to this comment  

Dave: I added more meat to my documentation that Dems have consisently blocked these reforms in my post above. You might find that info helpful if you really want to get to the truth of the matter.

September 18th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
yonason
 47Reply to this comment  

“I see you still substitute insult for insight.” — DaveIgNoble

No, Dave, you have it wrong, yet again.

The correct terminology there isn’t “substitute…for” but “supplement…with” .

[And, since you probably still won't 'get it' let me clarify yet further...
...I don't "Substitute" insult "for" insight, but rather "supplement" insight "with" insult (sparingly, though, as with a spice - I'm a pretty good cook, too).]

NOTE, that my “insightful” (thanks to the content I cite, and a little honest reflection) posts are numerous – eg., #’s 9 and 18, above in this post. Your “insightful posts” are, ….surprise surprise, nowhere to be found.

September 18th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
doug
 48Reply to this comment  

In the midst of the financial crisis last week, John McCain called for the resignation of Christopher Cox, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. But who would the Republican presidential candidate choose to replace him?

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo — who is, among other things, a Democrat.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/21/mccain-calls-for-cuomo-at-sec/?mod=googlenews_wsj

Pretty funny, huh, Mike?

September 21st, 2008 at 9:23 pm
doug
 49Reply to this comment  

(NYT) Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

Mr. McCain, the Republican candidate for president, has recently begun campaigning as a critic of the two companies and the lobbying army that helped them evade greater regulation as they began buying riskier mortgages with implicit federal backing. He and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, have donors and advisers who are tied to the companies.

But last week the McCain campaign stepped up a running battle of guilt by association when it began broadcasting commercials trying to link Mr. Obama directly to the government bailout of the mortgage giants this month by charging that he takes advice from Fannie Mae’s former chief executive, Franklin Raines, an assertion both Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign dispute.

Ironic, huh???

September 22nd, 2008 at 6:46 am
Scott Malensek
 50Reply to this comment  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/rick-davis-mccains-campai_n_128183.html

I couldn’t access the NYT piece to see if it was him or his firm that got the money.

By comparison, how much did the Obama advisors get?

September 22nd, 2008 at 6:50 am
 51Reply to this comment  

Cuomo was responsible for the mess, why shouldn’t he clean it up.

And Doug: remind me once again what office Rick Davis is running for?

Meanwhile, OBAMA took $32,000 per YEAR from Fannie and Freddie. McCain got 21,000 over TWENTY YEARS.

Understand the difference Doug?

September 22nd, 2008 at 7:50 am
Aaron Stack
 52Reply to this comment  

After reading the quite lively debate you guys are having in the comments section. I think you guys failed to address the memo from the Bush administration that say “As a result, the administration opposes the bill” As you speculate that threats of filibustering can kill a bill, It would only make sense that a threat from the president can do the same.

Additionally,it seems that a lot of democrats actually voted for this bill, 122 of them. That really doesn’t seem as they voted against this bill on partisan politics. Instead from what I understand the bill passed in the house “overwhelming approval” as i heard some people describe it, by dems and repubs alike.

I think what wraith33 was getting at is the much is unknown about what happen in the senate. Much like you have mention you do not know either. It seems like over reaching IMHO when we both do not know what happen in the senate and to claim that it was the Dems fault.

Additionally, i found this that might add some light to the issue.

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3116/1/396

it suggest that republicans had more of a issue to stop the bill from being passed due to language in the bill.

But its all still vague. I welcome any clarification

September 23rd, 2008 at 1:04 am
 53Reply to this comment  

Aaron: See if this helps:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0&refer=columnist_hassett

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.”

September 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 am
Aaron Stack
 54Reply to this comment  

I am willing to believe that, but i can not for the life of me find any source better than the op-ed article you cite. I don’t hold op-ed columns in any direction in credible light unfortunately.

Also, no one has address the information that the Bush administration openly opposed the bill? It doesn’t seem like it was completely a democrat opposition to the bill if President Bush opposed the bill as well.

September 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 am
 55Reply to this comment  

Aaron: You will note above that Wraith falsely claimed that the House never voted on the bill but then you point out that 122 Democrats did vote for the House version. Wraith’s arguments have been discredited.

As for Bush’s opposition to certain provisions in the reform bill you could do better to expand on that theme rather than say “As a result, the administration opposes the bill.”

While there is no definitive source on how S190 was killed, though it is important to note that every Republican Senator in the Committee voted FOR it and every Democrat voted AGAINST. one thing IS clear: Republicans and President Bush have been proposing reforms for years while Democrats in key positions have been opposed (see Barney Franks comments).

And a little history on Bush’s efforts:

Just the Facts: The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs
White House summary

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (”Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

•”Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

•”[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

•”Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing

September 23rd, 2008 at 9:11 am
yonason
 56Reply to this comment  

ONGOING SAGA OF DEMOCRAT CORRUPTION

This bill [S-190] never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven’t passed are cleared from the books.
–SNIP–
Because this bill was introduced in a previous session of Congress, no more action can occur on this bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

On Apr 12, 2007, S.190 was re-introduced in the Senate (with a new bill number) as S.1100: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2007.

It, too , is stalled in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, chaired by Chris Dodd (recipient of the MOST money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama comes in Number Two as having rec’d the most money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.) http://savagepolitics.com/?p=1884
__________________________________
http://www.sodahead.com/blog/16298/

The Dems on the payroll of Freddie and Fannie not only “did it” but are still doing it, and effectively snowing everyone about it because the MSM is too in the tank for them (not to mention too stupid) to expose it.

September 23rd, 2008 at 9:52 am
 57Reply to this comment  

Hey Yon,

Just a side note here.

“in shock” has rejoined us and is currently pontificating on another thread.

I’ve asked him about how he voted for Nixon before Nixon was nominated but, as of yet, he has had no further comment.

If he comes up with anything cogent I’ll be in shock.

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:00 am
Matt
 58Reply to this comment  

I came across this board as I was looking for the answer to the same question that I see hasn’t yet been answered here: What happened to this bill?

The minority party cannot kill a bill in committee. Also, that Bloomberg article really can’t be offered as great evidence of anything…it was penned by a member of McCain’s team.

I’m sure that most of you have by now noticed that McCain has numerous people working for him with ties to Freddie/Fannie, so that should blunt this ‘guilt by association’ game that’s going on.

The question is simple–what happened to this bill? Could it be that the GOP did not have all of its own members on board? Plenty of Democrats voted for the House version (including Barney Frank if I’m not mistaken).

Where are the numbers? This should be a simple question.

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 am
Matt
 59Reply to this comment  

According to McCain’s adviser Kevin Hassett:

But the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

OK, but what does that mean? “Tied in knots?”

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:04 am
UdderCha0s
 60Reply to this comment  

The question is simple–what happened to this bill?

Reading is FunDUHmental. If you read Yon’s previous post, #56. it explains.

*Edit: I must need glasses Post 56, not 36.

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:08 am
 61Reply to this comment  

Matt: thanks for pointing out that “The minority party cannot kill a bill in committee. ”

However, ALL the Dems voted against it.

And as we all now, all it takes is 40 Dem Senators to even SUGGEST a filibuster for a bill to be killed.

Perhaps our Dem friends would like to go on the record here and now demanding that the U.S. Senate change their rules so that Senators who object to bills will have their names known?

Again, apparently I need to repeat myself here: The pattern is clear, the GOP and the Bush Administration proposed reform after reform after reform.

Dems did everything they could to stop them.

That’s not a matter of dispute.

Please do not ask me to repeat what has already been written on previous points that documents that fact. Read the posts.

And when it comes to money and lobbying the bottom line is that Obama took more money in less than four years than ANY OTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS. McCain took less than $22,000 over TWENTY YEARS while Obama netted $126,000.

Do the math.

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
yonason
 62Reply to this comment  

Aye Chyhuahua

I drove the varment off, then Mata came along and left food out for it. What can I tell ya.

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
yonason
 63Reply to this comment  

MATT, MIKE….

“killing a bill in committee” means it is held there until it dies. Dodd, the chairman of the committee, held it. So he killed it. Please see my post, #56 above. AND THEY ARE STILL DOING IT WITH THE LATEST VERSION OF THAT BILL!

[UPDATE: ““The minority party cannot kill a bill in committee. ”” Oh yes they can! It’s the chairman of the committee who decides what comes to a vote, and Dodd (a Democrat) was and is the chairman of that committee.

OOPS, didn’t see yours, UdderCha0s. Thanks. but, please note: it is post #56, not #36.

(I really thought Mike’s America had touched on that in a previous thread. I guess I’m misremembering?)

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 am
Matt
 64Reply to this comment  

Dodd was the committee chairman in 2005?

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:16 am
 65Reply to this comment  

LOL! That’s me… the “thread nanny” who has a soft heart for starving, homeless trolls….

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 am
Matt
 66Reply to this comment  

Mike–

And as we all now, all it takes is 40 Dem Senators to even SUGGEST a filibuster for a bill to be killed.

This is true, though I find it odd that there wasn’t even a cloture vote.

Again, apparently I need to repeat myself here: The pattern is clear, the GOP and the Bush Administration proposed reform after reform after reform.

Dems did everything they could to stop them.

That’s not a matter of dispute.

“Dems,” or simply a handful of them? You did acknowledge that many of them voted for the bill in the House, yes?

And when it comes to money and lobbying the bottom line is that Obama took more money in less than four years than ANY OTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS. McCain took less than $22,000 over TWENTY YEARS while Obama netted $126,000.

Not surprising, considering he’s running for president and most of those were in individual contributions. McCain’s people have been right in there as well:

Link.

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) — The lobbying firm of the man Republicans say John McCain has chosen to begin planning a presidential transition earned more than a quarter of a million dollars this year representing Freddie Mac, one of the companies McCain blames for the nation’s financial crisis.

Timmons & Co., whose founder and chairman emeritus is William Timmons Sr., was registered to lobby for Freddie Mac from 2000 through this month, when the federal government took over both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Newly available congressional records show Timmons’s firm received $260,000 this year before its lobbying activities were barred under terms of the government rescue of the failed mortgage giant. Timmons, 77, is listed as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac on the company’s midyear financial-disclosure form.

The McCain camp was also dealing with reports about the lobbying work of campaign manager Rick Davis.

The New York Times reported yesterday that Davis was paid almost $2 million in fees over five years by a group primarily funded by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that was intended to help stave off more stringent federal regulation of the housing companies.

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said other members of the Homeownership Alliance included Habitat For Humanity and the National Council of La Raza, saying the group “was focused strictly on promoting homeownership.”

I’m not really understanding this massive focus on fannie/freddie anyway, when economists note there is more than enough blame to go around. The lack of regulation at the top certainly created a moral hazard, but plenty of lenders and brokers played right along with it.

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:25 am
Matt
 67Reply to this comment  

FYI, yonason…Richard Shelby was the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in 2005–not Dodd.

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
Fit fit
 68Reply to this comment  

Matt’s right on that one guys.

You know Shelby used to be a Democrat. Maybe you can pin it on him for that.

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
 69Reply to this comment  

Matt: I don’t know how you compare $22,000 going to John McCain over a span of 20 YEARS to Obama’s $126,000 from Fannie and Freddie in lss than 4.

And as for Shelby, please note that he was promoting reforms in 2004. Again, these efforts were blocked by Democrats.

On Shelby’s 2004 bill:

Fannie and Freddie chose to fight legislation in the Senate Banking Committee that embodied the administration’s minimum requirements, particularly the receivership provision, in the late spring of 2004. The companies called in their chits and managed to obtain solid Democratic opposition to the bill crafted by the committee’s chairman, Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). The committee also watered down the receivership provision. The partisan nature of the vote to send the bill to the floor virtually assured that it would not be taken up in the Senate unless Fannie and Freddie relented in their opposition … but Fannie and Freddie would not budge. It may be that the [Fan&Fred] were banking on the defeat of President George W. Bush and on the assumption that a Democratic president would abandon the effort to pass tougher regulation. If that was their thinking, it was an exceedingly costly error.

Time and time again Democrats put politics before country.

Quibbling over which Democrats seems to be a transparent effort to obfuscate the point which is undeniable: DEMS BLOCKED REFORMS!

More examples here:

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-lays-blame-for-financial-mess.html

It’s all about the money and the Dems were cleaning up.

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 am
Matt
 70Reply to this comment  

Matt: I don’t know how you compare $22,000 going to John McCain over a span of 20 YEARS to Obama’s $126,000 from Fannie and Freddie in lss than 4.

I’m not. That’s certainly a lot of money (though it’s from individuals, not PAC money) and the Democrats do tend to take more overall from these two entitles (somewhere around 55/45, I think). However, republicans take a lot of money from other sources. Personally, I’m not one to jump on contributions as a necessary sign of evildoing–perhaps you and I will have to agree to disagree on that point.

My point was that it’s silly for McCain to tar Obama for fannie/freddie connections when his campaign has several connections, as well (as noted above).

And as for Shelby, please note that he was promoting reforms in 2004. Again, these efforts were blocked by Democrats.

I only mentioned Shelby because someone suggested that Dodd killed the bill as chairman in 2005. That’s not true.

Look, if you truly believe that the only bills that made it out of committee when the Republicans held a majority were those that were filibuster-proof, so be it. That’s simply not how the Senate operates, however. Cloture votes before the full Senate occur and fail all the time. Now it very well could be the case that had the bill gone before the Senate, EVERY democrat might have voted to filibuster. That vote didn’t occur, however.

(Just so you’re aware, McCain didn’t add his name to the 2005 bill until it was apparently already killed by the Republican-controlled committee, in May of 2006.)

September 23rd, 2008 at 11:10 am
yonason
 71Reply to this comment  

Matt’s point requires addressing, especially because Shelby attempted to facilitate that [or another?]GSE reform bill, as we see in this report from 2005.

Over the summer, Shelby helped shepherd a Republican-backed GSE reform bill through committee–albeit along a strict party-line vote–and on to the Senate floor (see Mortgage Banking, September 2005, p. 8).
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-4905779_ITM

But it doesn’t say if that was S190, though I would assume it was, I don’t know for sure. But, since it made it to the floor, I don’t yet know how it subsequently died.

In any case, as long as Dodd has been chairman (sorry for lack of clarity on that), he has been blocking reform efforts, or at least reform efforts that actually prevent Democrat (any) abuse.

I need to get more info on this, but I’ve read (from a source who supplied no references) that the fincial reform bill was shelved when Shelby was Chairman in order to take up an energy bill (I’m sure there’s a juicy story there, too), and then the Reps lost control of the committee and all hope of effective reform went out the window (not that RINOs would be of much use in that, either).

September 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 am
yonason
 72Reply to this comment  

Mata Harley…

You engaged it in conversation, and gave it an excuse to come back and answer…

And that’s quite the top ten whining list you got there, in shock.

You either don’t get into history, or you just really want to believe that the world fell apart because George W. Bush was sworn into office. Funny… does that explain the foreign governments that are also having economic problems?
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/21/obamas-whopper-of-a-lie/#comment-113815

I know you have no sympathy for trolls, and especially for such as “in shock.” I’m not saying you did it deliberately; but, as when camping, one must clean up every scrap of food or expect to attract the foragers, some of which are skunks.

And, I’m not saying that is why it came back. All I mean is, why give them something they can use as an excuse?

Now, where’s that little bugger at…?

September 23rd, 2008 at 11:38 am
 73Reply to this comment  

Yon,

It’s run off into the dark again.

September 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
 74Reply to this comment  

Correction Matt: The Fannie and Freddie Money is from both individuals and pacs:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

The common practice of bundling means that the individual donations are the result of an organzied effort within a particular organization to influence a member of congress.

And certainly the scale of giving to Obama and Dodd did not no unrewarded.

P.S. S190 is NOT the bill that the same as the Shelby Bill which Democrats voted AGAINST on a party line vote.

Every two years Congress is reorganized to take into account the results of the election for House members and all legislation, including that in the Senate, which did not pass in the previous congress is wiped from the books.

S190 was NOT killed in Committee in 2005. It was passed. Again, on a party line vote with solid Dem opposition.

So, if you would do me a favor: please don’t lecture me on how the Senate works. I’ll wager I have spent more time on Capitol Hill than you.

Again, despite your best efforts to obfuscate the issue one thing is crystal clear: Dems have BLOCKED reforms which Republicans have continued to put forward for YEARS.

Dems were at the bank cashing the checks from Fannie and Freddie while the GOP was putting COUNTRY FIRST!

September 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Matt
 75Reply to this comment  

yonason–

I haven’t seen true evidence of it (or perhaps I simply don’t understand the whole mess well enough to be sure), but I’m willing to accept the suggestion that Dodd’s hands aren’t clean on this.

However, there’s a question as to whether these ‘reforms’ would have changed anything, at least according to AEI (which argued back then that the proposed “reform” would be worse that the law as it existed then).

September 23rd, 2008 at 11:47 am
yonason
 76Reply to this comment  

“Yon,

It’s run off into the dark again.” — Aye Chihuahua

LOL

I have better things to do than go snark hunting, anyway.
_____________________________________________________

Matt

“…according to AEI (. . . the proposed “reform” would be worse that the law as it existed then).”

I’m currently under the very strong impression that is one of the things that the lobbyists were paying so much for them to say.

“perhaps I simply don’t understand the whole mess well enough to be sure”

Yeah, I know what you mean. There isn’t any comprehensive source for related facts without 1. selective interpretation of them, and 2. selective presentation of only those that back those interpretations.

That being said, the Republican interpretation is a whole lot more believeable than the Dem. But, I do think that there’s blame on the Rep side, just no where near as much as on the Dem side. It’s a bad idea to “punish” bad Reps by electing really bad Dems. You know the old adage, don’t bite your nose off to spite your face.

September 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
Matt
 77Reply to this comment  

P.S. S190 is NOT the bill that the same as the Shelby Bill which Democrats voted AGAINST on a party line vote.

Every two years Congress is reorganized to take into account the results of the election for House members and all legislation, including that in the Senate, which did not pass in the previous congress is wiped from the books.

S190 was NOT killed in Committee in 2005. It was passed. Again, on a party line vote with solid Dem opposition.

It was passed? Great! Where can I read about that? Why wasn’t it brought up for a vote?

The bill number isn’t important, so I’m not entirely sure why you’re getting excited about it. Are you not claiming that a the Democrats killed ’some bill’ in committee? Which bill was it, then?

So, if you would do me a favor: please don’t lecture me on how the Senate works. I’ll wager I have spent more time on Capitol Hill than you.

That’s wonderful. I’m not looking for a pissing contest.

Again, despite your best efforts to obfuscate the issue one thing is crystal clear: Dems have BLOCKED reforms which Republicans have continued to put forward for YEARS.

Dems were at the bank cashing the checks from Fannie and Freddie while the GOP was putting COUNTRY FIRST!

You win on the cheerleading front, too. I’m of the belief that politicians from both parties often act out of self-interest.

September 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
 78Reply to this comment  

Could any reasonable person argue that the reforms proposed by both the Bush Administration and GOP members of Congress, which Democrats consistently BLOCKED would have been any worse than the current TRILLION dollar mess we are now in?

Again, McCain warned this very thing could happen while Obama was too busy at the bank cashing the checks.

And just in case you missed it or overlooked it one man knows who the REAL reformer is:

September 23rd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
yonason
 79Reply to this comment  

The bill number isn’t important — Matt

yes it is. there has been so much activity on this that to see what happened we need to know the details, and those, for some reason, aren’t as forthcoming as is necessary to get to the bottom of the problem

September 23rd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
 80Reply to this comment  

Matt: I know I have posted the link to GOVTRACKs report on S190 somewhere, but here it is in case you missed it:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

“Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.”

This is what we have already discussed above.

Again and again and again proposed reforms were opposed by
DEMOCRATS on a P A R T Y L I N E V O T E!!!!

No reform bill was killed in Committees controlled by REPUBLICANS.

Are you so desperate to defend Democrat’s actions here that you willfully misrepresent the FACTS that have been labourisly presented to you?

Your obfuscative tactics are making your bias clear for all to see.

September 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Matt
 81Reply to this comment  

“Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.”

Does “Order to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably” mean that the bill has cleared committee?

This is what we have already discussed above.

Again and again and again proposed reforms were opposed by
DEMOCRATS on a P A R T Y L I N E V O T E!!!!

No reform bill was killed in Committees controlled by REPUBLICANS.

…but isn’t that exactly what McCain’s adviser claims above, in the article you linked to? “But the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.”

The bill was never voted on. Was it even debated?

Are you so desperate to defend Democrat’s actions here that you willfully misrepresent the FACTS that have been labourisly presented to you?

Your obfuscative tactics are making your bias clear for all to see.

I’m interested in figuring out exactly what happened, because the current line being offered (the minority ‘killed’ the bill) doesn’t smell right. You’re free to draw whatever conclusions about my intentions that you wish, but I’m not playing that game.

September 23rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
yonason
 82Reply to this comment  

MATT KEEPS BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE

“Once the regular committee’s consideration is complete, the measure will go to a subcommittee to “markup”, or place amendments, on the bill. The subcommittee may vote the bill back to the full committee, with or without amendments. It may also “table” the bill, which would essentially kill the bill.”
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/3487/how_a_bill_becomes_a_law.html

So, S190 [or whatever the GSE reform incarnation was tagged at the time ] was “killed” in subcommittee, and what we need to know is who was on the subcommittee that killed it?. Remember, that even though Shelby was chairman, Dodd was “ranking member,” and as such was not powerless to play the system. Since Shelby tried to get the GSE bill out, and it got killed, and Dodd wanted it killed, that tells us where to continue looking for evidence.

Face it. The Dems have their paw prints all over this. Just because some RINOs assissted them isn’t the fault of Bush or McCain or of Palin, who are reformers. If we allow the Dems to prevent the reformers from getting into power, the damage the Dems can do will be all that much greater.

September 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Matt
 83Reply to this comment  

yonason–

You’re right, knowing exactly what bill was being discussed would be quite helpful. Apparently a bill was killed in committee, but it’s not the senate bill that was being discussed up until this point (S190). I’d like to know what bill was being referred to, then. The one that McCain attached his name to (sponsored by Chuck Hagel) was S190.

September 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
 84Reply to this comment  

It’s abundantly clear where Matt is coming from.

Republicans have put forward multiple legislative reforms that could very well have saved us from this present crisis.

Democrats have consisently opposed those efforts.

Despite Matt’s transparent efforts to obfuscate the issue it’s impossible to ignore or overlook Democrat’s lock step opposition to these bills in the Senate.

Matt: let’s not waste any more time repeating ourselves. We do not just agree to disagree.

YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!

And it’s clear why!

September 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
yonason
 85Reply to this comment  

Matt #83

You’re correct that there is a lot of confusion, the old smoke and mirrors that crooked pols count on to keep us barefoot and ignorant so they can retain control. But what is clear is that the vast majority of those crooks, and the worst of them, are Democrats.

And THAT is what we need to keep in-focus as we come up on election day.

September 23rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Matt
 86Reply to this comment  

Perhaps a number of Dems in the Senate would have supported this legislation, as they did in the House. We don’t know, because the bill wasn’t brought to the floor for a vote.

But what is clear is that the vast majority of those crooks, and the worst of them, are Democrats.

I work in a state Republican administration and consider myself a moderate–but this is a difficult assertion for me to grasp, given the last eight years of GOP control of the White House. Hell, a good number of republican candidates (including McCain) are running away from the Bush White House.

Personally, I don’t see a great reason to give the GOP another 4 years in the White House. However, I generally feel as if I’m voting for the ‘lesser of two evils’ and thus I’m not quite on the same page with you guys here and your enthusiastic endorsements (you seem to have wholeheartedly bought into the campaign mantra of the “reformers,” for example).

September 23rd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
 87Reply to this comment  

Bottom line Matt: McCain has a proven record as a reformer. Obama has a speech he made last week.

Get the difference?

September 23rd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
yonason
 88Reply to this comment  

“I generally feel as if I’m voting for the ‘lesser of two evils’ “ — Matt

If by that you mean you are voting for McCain over Obama and his crew of pirates, then I agree, as would most conservatives. But, right now isn’t the time to be aiding Obama in throwing fire on the McCain campaign while ignoring Obama. That would be playing into their hands.

And, I agree that not all Dems are bad, and perhaps in your district they are mostly normal people. But, the closer you get to the core, the more rotten it gets. What I’m referring to are the Pelosis and the Reids and Rangels and Clintons and Jacksons, Deans, Franks, Obamas, Bidens, Kerrys, Edwards’s, etc., etc., etc.

Just look at who is parting ways with the Dem party candidates to vote for McCain, not because he’s so great by himself, but compared to Obama or any of the other scum in the leadership, he’s a giant.

Matt, before those guys talk about “taking back America” I suggest they “take back their own party.”

September 23rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Matt
 89Reply to this comment  

Just look at who is leaving the Dem party to vote for McCain, not because he’s so great by himself, but compared to Obama or any of the other scum in the leadership, he’s a giant.

Back around the 2000 election, I would have agreed with you. However, the McCain of the past is not the McCain I see today. His incredibly cynical pick of Gov. Palin just further cemented that point for me.

I’ve thought that the past eight years under Bush have been terrible–and lots of Americans agree with me. I’m also still bothered that the GOP continues to placate the “social conservative” base, whom I have nothing in common with. I believe that it could be a great opposition party and keep spending in check–but it lost its way during several years in control, and I’m not willing to hand everything back to them yet again.

Now perhaps you have approved of the Bush Administration, in which case your choice is easy. I doubt that I see as a great a difference between the donkeys and the elephants as you do, however.

September 23rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
yonason
 90Reply to this comment  

“His incredibly cynical pick of Gov. Palin …” — Matt

It was genius, as everything that I’m learning about her, and as the panic it’s put the Dems in, proves.

At first you appear to debate the issues, but then you come out and propagandize. You hold us to account for our comments, but you make sweeping negative generalities with no accountability. That’s the MO of an underminer.

It looks like Mike’s America had you pegged correctly from the start.

September 23rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
yonason
 92Reply to this comment  

MAYBE LARRY SINCLAIR WAS RIGHT?
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/members_of_obama_s_church_kill.html
…leave no witnesses!

OK, THAT’S ALL FOR NOW
http://beltwayblips.com/video/democrats_praising_mccain/

September 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
 93Reply to this comment  

Matt said: “I’ve thought that the past eight years under Bush have been terrible–and lots of Americans agree with me.”

Lots maybe. But the majority in 2004 voted for BUSH.

Sorry Matt, but Bush isn’t on the ballot in 2008 so you are going to have to come up with something better.

McCain is the proven reformer and Obama is the proven money grabber.

If you were honest about your political inclinations that’s all you would need to know.

September 23rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
 94Reply to this comment  

I’ve thought that the past eight years under Bush have been terrible

Elaborate please, Matt.

September 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
 95Reply to this comment  

I’ve carefully read through this interesting discussion, but I’m struck by a question:

Why are these charges not being made by the likes of John McCain and Sarah Palin? Are the latter too polite to resort to negative campaigning? Why didn’t Bernanke or any other economist lay the blame at the door of the Fannie Mae? The whole reason Obama has jumped ahead so fast is because of the financial crisis. Why not turn it back on him and reverse the advantage? If the Democrats did, indeed, “block” sensible regulation in 2005, then why have no Republican Senators made that charge, when it’s looking for all the world that this election could turn into a disaster for Republicans, from the Presidential level on down? How is it that Democrats could really have “blocked” anything in 2005, absent a filibuster? With so many House Democrats having supported similar legislation, how likely is it that the Democrats could have put together nearly unanimous solidarity to sustain a filibuster? I’m just curious; this whole argument of Democrats “blocking” regulatory reform seems somewhat urban legend in character.

Here’s how Ben Bernanke succinctly explained the root problem:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20070920a.htm

>>The originate-to-distribute model seems to have contributed to the loosening of underwriting standards in 2005 and 2006. When an originator sells a mortgage and its servicing rights, depending on the terms of the sale, much or all of the risks are passed on to the loan purchaser. Thus, originators who sell loans may have less incentive to undertake careful underwriting than if they kept the loans. Moreover, for some originators, fees tied to loan volume made loan sales a higher priority than loan quality. This misalignment of incentives, together with strong investor demand for securities with high yields, contributed to the weakening of underwriting standards.<<

The subprime crisis was not caused by anyone “pushing” anyone to make loans to anyone. Ben Bernanke explained the problem : loan originators pushed the new predatory 2/28 loans to make commissions. Insatiable investors (e.g. the sophisticated investment portfolio managers at Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, etc.) snatched up these loans in the aftermarkets. And Community Reinvestment Act-participating banks made objectively higher quality loans than CRA non-participating banks.

http://traigerlaw.com/index.php (click on “Community Reinvestment Act” sections)

Why in the world would Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, etc. snatch up all the the mortgages and mortgage-backed securities they could in the aftermarkets? Did they do this because of their desire to promote social engineering or because they thought they were good, profitable investments? Why was it that it was the lending institutions themselves which lobbied congress to to relax Fannie Mae restrictions and let the banks make whatever types of loans they wanted to make? Sure, there was a convergence of interest going on — banks wanted to make more loans to make more money; some Democrats wanted more loans made to expand housing opportunities — but the Democrats didn’t control anything during the period of time where the subprime market exploded, owing to aggressive profit-driven salesmanship of exotic (e.g. 2/28) lending instruments and exploding aftermarket investment.

P.S. I’m just now listening to NPR’s Weekend Edition. Charge is being made that it was Wall Street lobbyists themselves who wrote the relevant regulatory legislation pertaining to the subprime market. Who knew that Wall Street was so devoted to social engineering?

Dollars to donuts that Wall Street talked to either President Bush or to influential GOP Senators and support for the reform bill ebbed away. That’s why neither McCain nor any other Republican Senators or Representatives are trying to make political hay of this. Speculative, but does anyone else have a more credible explanation?

- Larry Weisenthal

October 4th, 2008 at 9:47 am
 96Reply to this comment  

Larry: I would refer you to the interview Bill Clinton gave recently where HE declared that it was Dems blocking reforms:

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2008/09/bill-clinton-on-financial-crisis-and.html

And if you haven’t seen the video by now of all the Dems claiming that nothing was wrong at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac you’re not looking.

October 4th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
 97Reply to this comment  

Mike, What we are talking about here is not “resisting” reforms (Clinton’s word) but “blocking” reforms (your word).

Yes, it is true that SOME Democrats resisted reforms (but, according to the data reported on this very thread, a great many Democrats — 122 was the number listed — supported reforms in the House vote — which, again, indicates that there is little likelihood that the Democrats could have sustained a filibuster threat), and this is a very long way from suggesting, much less proving, that Democrats blocked reforms.

Anyway, the problem with the present crisis isn’t that Fannie Mae was pushing lenders to make bad loans. The problem was described this weekend on NPR’s “This American Life” with Ira Glass. On this very informative show, Credit Default Swaps were explained. On “60 Minutes,” Sunday evening, they were explained again.

Turns out the the subprime debacle (driven entirely by greed and not by any government induced “social engineering”) by itself would have only been a relatively minor hiccup. What’s really triggering the meltdown are Credit Default Swaps, in which financial institutions bought and sold private insurance contracts with each other to hedge the risk of the subprime loans. They carefully didn’t call them “insurance,” because insurance would be subject to regulation, and they didn’t want to be regulated. Insurance regulations require insurers to have principal reserves to cover potential losses. These Credit Default swaps were nearly 100% leveraged, and there were no reserves whatsoever. Turns out that there is $60 trillion dollars (estimated) in outstanding Credit Default Swaps; none of which are regulated in any way. It is the Credit Default Swaps, and not the subprime mortgage market, which is creating the financial meltdown.

Unfettered capitalism, completely divorced from any government oversight or regulation. That is what is imploding the world financial system.

Now, what happens if you have a situation where the people selling the home and selling the primary mortgage don’t plan on keeping the mortgage? They are going to sell it off, and Fannie is going to sell it off, and the tertiary buyers are going to sell it off, because all know that there is an insatiable demand, on the part of investment bankers world-wide, for high yield, mortgage backed securities, which they are going to insure against default with perfectly hedged Credit Default Swaps?

Anyway, I don’t think it is justifiable, on the basis of any available information, to claim that Democrats “blocked” regulatory reform in 2005. As stated, I think it’s far more likely that Wall Street lobbyists were panicked when the reform bill passed the House, with strong Democratic support and went into overdrive, leading the Senate Republicans to quietly deep six the bill, which is why you are NOT hearing Senate Republicans, in an effort to stem their losses in the upcoming election, make the claim that Democrats “blocked” regulatory reform.

- Larry Weisenthal

October 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
 98Reply to this comment  

Larry: If you turn off the NPR (the Obama channel) long enough you might actually figure out what really happened in the mortgage meltdown.

The whole thing started with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac where GREEDY DEMOCRATS who worked there started packaging these subprimes into securities which they resold to other Dem idiot firms like Lehman Bros.

And of course let’s not forget that it was Dems like Johnson, Raines, Gorelick et. al. at Fannie Mae who cooked the books to get the huge bonuses that looted these companies of millions.

I have spent quite a lot of time researching this issue, and though I am sure you learned a lot in a few minutes listening to NPR one thing is clear: the GOP tried time and again to introduce reforms that would have saved us from this mess and those efforts were blocked by Democrats.

You can use whatever words you want to describe what Dems did, but the realit is that they succeeded in BLOCKING REFORMS. None were passed were they?

October 6th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
 99Reply to this comment  

Larry, you’re back! You know, you left us a comment that… altho I don’t agree with it… thought deserved some attention.

So you inspired my post, Countering the DNC blame game on the bail out

Perhaps Mr. Glass lays the fault at Credit Default swaps, however I’ve seen two other program specials that don’t agree.

One thing is fact… there would be no credit default swaps were there no overpriced, overleveraged homes. Also, bundling/securitization is not a problem unless you’re bundling bad product.

The “greed” you allude to is actually market demand. When the CRA compliance regulations forced banks to prove x number of “minority loans” or else lose their merger abilities to grow, many dove at the chance for home ownership. The demand became overwhelming, and as the free market works, other lenders provided the exotic loans the CRA banks were providing as competitors.

This drove up prices… massive demand v limited supply. An error here is how values of comparables should be handled in the future. A bidding war over normal neighborhood prices should not change a loan value. But they did, and the appraisers had to work with the new inflated prices as a norm.

Lots of blame to go around. But, at the heart of it all lies the massive grants of risky loans with unqualified buyers.

October 6th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
 100Reply to this comment  

Mata: You know the rule: if you feed it, you have to clean up after it…..

October 6th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
 101Reply to this comment  

It’s late and I need to go to bed.

First, thank you for responding courteously and seriously.

I do have a simple question.

If things are the way you claim, i.e. that Democratic senators BLOCKED regulatory reform in 2005 (the title of this thread), then how, precisely, did they “block” it? With 122 House Democrats voting in favor, indicating that there was no way of threatening a serious filibuster, then how did they “block” it?

Even more to the point, Republicans are looking down the muzzle of an election debacle of the type that they haven’t seen since 1964. Republicans are looking at the potential of a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate. Why in the world are no Senate Republicans making the charge that the Democrats BLOCKED their “reform” efforts? Why? I think that the only credible explanation is that they themselves succumbed to the pressure of Wall Street lobbyists. What is your explanation?

The idea that this was caused by a demand for credit by purchasers, as opposed to a demand for purchasers by lenders is refuted by the very existence of the 2/28 mortgages which lured so many unqualified buyers into the housing market. If there was such a demand by would-be purchasers, then why in the world would lenders invent such a predatory lending instrument?

The concept that the Community Reinvestment Act (which was the Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton program to expand home ownership) had anything at all to do with the financial meltdown cannot be supported by any objective data.

In post number 95, I provided links to data which refute the charges relating to the Community Reinvestment Act and also to Ben Bernanke’s explanation of the root causes of the subprime crisis.

P.S. Hi, Mata. I’m flattered you spent so much time addressing elements of my post on your other thread. I’d be very pleased to debate you, here, if you’d like, but I’ve got an actual day job and I can’t keep track of postings on multiple threads. It’s one of the good reasons why thread etiquette discourages the initiation of spin-off threads which pertain directly to the subject matter of existing threads. Having a running debate on multiple threads at the same time is just more than I can handle right now. But you are certainly very knowledgeable, and I would be honored to engage you on this particular thread, should you have an interest in so doing.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

October 6th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
 102Reply to this comment  

Larry: Are you confusing the House and Senate? The House vote had nothing to do with the failure of the Senate to take up the bill, which passed out of Committee on a straight party line vote with ALL Democrats voting against it. The tracks after that are less clear but the bill never came to a vote. There’s an unfortunate habit in the Senate for a handful of members to threaten a filibuster without actually going on the record and effectively killing legislation. How convenient for Democrats.

But Dems record on obstruction on Fannie/Freddie reforms is CLEAR even if you don’t want to see it.

As for a Senator reminding people who it was that blocked reforms, I recommend you tune in to Tuesday’s McCain-Obama debate.

October 6th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
 103Reply to this comment  

I tried to append the following paragraph to post number 101, but I got a message which said “this comment has been marked for moderation and can’t be edited.”

Why was I “marked for moderation?” Did I say anything offensive? If so, it was entirely inadvertent, as I was trying to write in a respectful manner.

P.S. Hi, Mata. I’m flattered you spent so much time addressing elements of my post on your other thread. I’d be very pleased to debate you, here, if you’d like, but I’ve got an actual day job and I can’t keep track of postings on multiple threads. It’s one of the good reasons why thread etiquette discourages the initiation of spin-off threads which pertain directly to the subject matter of existing threads. Having a running debate on multiple threads at the same time is just more than I can handle right now. But you are certainly very knowledgeable, and I would be honored to engage you on this particular thread, should you have an interest in so doing.

Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

October 6th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
 104Reply to this comment  

Mike, my comment is that the threat of a Democratic filibuster wouldn’t have been credible with 122 House Democrats having voted in favor. It takes 41 votes to sustain a filibuster, which would require a near unanimous vote. The House vote indicates that there was no possibility of achieving that level of unanimity. There are many fiscally conservative Democratic Senators, just as there are many fiscally conservative Democratic House members.

I will watch Tuesday’s debate. I’ll be very anxious to hear precisely how the Democrats “blocked” GOP attempts at reform.

By the way, this is a really great blog. There are a lot of smart people who contribute and good arguments are presented in the spirit of discussing honest differences of opinion, which is unfortunately rare these days.

Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

October 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
 105Reply to this comment  

Mata, the following doesn’t make any sense to me:

>>This drove up prices… massive demand v limited supply. An error here is how values of comparables should be handled in the future. A bidding war over normal neighborhood prices should not change a loan value. But they did, and the appraisers had to work with the new inflated prices as a norm.<<

If what you are saying has any truth at all to it, then the price of sub-prime loan homes should have risen out of proportion to conventional loan homes. Here in California, sub-prime loan homes made up a comparatively small fraction of the total. Yet the price of all homes went through the roof, with the pace of increase of the most expensive considerably outstripping those at the low end. I’m quite confident that these general principles applied, as well, on a national basis.

Mike, you make the following comment:

>>You can use whatever words you want to describe what Dems did, but the reality is that they succeeded in BLOCKING REFORMS. None were passed were they?<<

But the Republicans controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress from January, 2001 to mid-January, 2007. How did the Democrats BLOCK reforms? And why are no Republican Senators telling us how Democrats BLOCKED reforms? It really does remind me of Saddam’s Weapons of Mass destruction. There are still those who, to this very day, insist that Saddam sent them to Syria for “safe keeping,” providing all manner of arguments, including the “testimony” of an Iraqi general (who was generously compensated while making the talk show rounds). I was always willing to consider such a scenario, but only if President Bush himself made the charge, which he never did.

I want to hear a single Republican Senator explain precisely how it was that Democrats BLOCKED reforms. I find the charge to be not just implausible but wildly implausible (122 House Democrats voted in favor of reforms). I’ll seriously consider it when the first Republican Senator who was seated in the Senate in 2005 stands up and makes the charge and tells me how precisely the Democrats were able to BLOCK the bill that McCain signed on to months after it was first proposed by Senate colleagues.

- Larry Weisenthal

October 6th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
 106Reply to this comment  

Larry: It’s getting late here on the East Coast, so maybe I am misreading your comment. But again, there is no correlation between a House vote and action in the Senate.

There is also no denying a history of Democrats blocking reforms of Fannie and Freddie just as there is a history of Dems at Fannie and Freddie profiting from that looser regulatory environment.

I haven’t even brought up the fact that a long time “companion” of Barney Frank was an exec. at Fannie and profited directly from Frank’s refusal to admit there was a problem that needed addressing.

And again, do I need to bring up the fact that Obama took more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bundlers in less than four years than every member of Congress except Senator Dodd who took his “contributions” over a span of 20 years?

October 6th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
 107Reply to this comment  

Don’t mean to keep you up late, Mike. I have an unfair advantage over you, with it being easier for me to have the last word of the night, being on the West Coast. So I promise this will be my last post of the night and I’ll resume tomorrow night.

>>But again, there is no correlation between a House vote and action in the Senate.<<

No, but, once again, to sustain a filibuster in the Senate would have required a near unanimous vote of Democrats. In 2005, there were 204 total Democrats in the House and 122 voted for the reform bill — a solid majority, in fact. Now it is simply not credible that a solid majority of Democratic House members would vote one way and that there would be a near unanimous (41 out of 43) vote of Senate Democrats in the exact opposite direction. Can you even begin to think of a precedent for this? In either party? Where the majority of the party members in the House voted one way and where there was a near unanimous vote in the Senate the other way?

The title of this thread is about Democrats BLOCKING reforms in 2005. We are both “guilty” of expanding the scope of this complicated mess to a lot of other things. How about we agree to stay on task and simply debate, on this thread, whether or not Democrats BLOCKED reforms in 2005?

After we resolve this issue, then perhaps I’ll have the energy and you’ll have the willingness to pursue the broader issues.

- Larry Weisenthal

October 7th, 2008 at 12:19 am
 108Reply to this comment  

Larry, it’s late morning here and your comment still doesn’t make sense. Action in the House has no impact on what the Senate might or might not do. So 122 votes in the House would not necessarily effect plans to derail the legislation in the Senate.

And as for the title, my conclusion is borne out not only by the research I have done but also by an array of media figures who have commented on this same issue.

It doesn’t serve any point, other than to provide cover for guilty DemocratsVic: Toadbat lives in the Chicago area and it would appear he’s fallen under the same hate America spell that Obama has. I’d ask if he was a member of Rev. Wright’s church but I know he hates Christianity, as well as every other tradtion that has made this country great., to belaboring the matter here of whether and how Dems blocked reforms. You might disagree with my conclusions but thus far you haven’t presented any solid factual material to contradict it.

That seems to be the problem throughout the various comment streams on this topic. Myself and fellow contributors have posted quite a volume of material and naysayers who arrive just say it aint so with only the barest of material to back up their claim.

Well, perhaps we can get Mata to drop in and offer her perspective. She’s much fairer and nicer than I am anyway. You might be able to get her to agree just for the heck of it.

October 7th, 2008 at 8:18 am
 109Reply to this comment  

Hi, beginning of my work day and I don’t have time for detailed comments. You are asking me to prove a negative — that Democrats didn’t block reforms. This is impossible to do. It was you who made the statement that Democrats blocked reforms. To my knowledge, all you’ve provided is examples of situations where certain individual Democrats resisted reforms. You haven’t begun to provide any support at all for your assertions that Democrats blocked reforms in 2005.

Maybe it would help if you would, in a single paragraph, if possible, summarize the evidence which supports the conclusion that Democrats blocked reforms in 2005.

Although it is impossible to prove a negative (that I don’t beat my wife, for example or that the Democrats didn’t block reforms, for another example), to me the single piece of best evidence favoring my point of view is the complete absence of Senate Republicans who were actually there in 2005 and who have every motivation to speak out an lay the blame where it belongs, but who are being conspicuously silent on this issue, as the blogosphere is filled with pundits who appear to claim to have inside information (by virtue of the certitude of their assertions), without ever stating specifically what is the evidence that Democrats did, indeed, block regulations which would have prevented the current financial meltdown.

I, too, hope that Mata will agree to continue the discussion on the current thread.

See you guys after tonight’s debate, where I will be closely listening for evidence from John Sidney McCain to substantiate the current charges that Democrats were responsible for blocking regulatory reform at a time when the Republicans enjoyed solid control of the Presidency and both branches of Congress.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

October 7th, 2008 at 8:47 am
 110Reply to this comment  

Larry, in response to a couple of your counters:

The idea that this was caused by a demand for credit by purchasers, as opposed to a demand for purchasers by lenders is refuted by the very existence of the 2/28 mortgages which lured so many unqualified buyers into the housing market. If there was such a demand by would-be purchasers, then why in the world would lenders invent such a predatory lending instrument?

There’s two issues you bring up here.

First, the 2/28 ARM package. For those of you know don’t know, a 2/28 mortgage is an ARM loan with 2 years fixed, and the ensuing 28 years resetting to the adjustable based on prime. That’s a very basic ARM. There were other more exotic ARMs… 3/1, 5/1, 7/1 ARMs for example. Many of these started with a very low rate that increased 1% over each year (3 to 7 years) until it hit the reset/adjustable year.

Most lenders offered ARM loans, including FHA. Fact is, there is nothing wrong with an ARM loan. It was a tool that could be used.. and like any tool, can also be abused.

Candidates for an ARM loan are those who know they will be selling/moving before the reset period. Another candidate for an ARM is those with iffy credit, doing a clean up of their debts. They improve their credit scores, then refinance into a fixed when they have better scores.

You speak of people who were “lured”. Now I don’t know how these ARMs were presented, but with TIL and RESPA laws, plus the other sundry disclosures loan officers must provide, at some point these “victim” buyers had to figure that they weren’t going to have a 3% rate for the rest of their loan. Not one loan officer in the world can tell you what your payments will be on an adjustable rate three years downline because it’s based on the prime… an unknown figure. So there is only so much one can disclose.

If the buyers were under the assumption, after all the disclosures required by law, that they were going to have a 3% loan the rest of their lives, I don’t know what to say. Before they sign on the dotted line, they should inquire with someone they trust. There is always a responsibility of the one who obligates to a contract. And perhaps they can create more educational material in the future for those who just can’t get a grip on the lending/payment process.

But I will not let buyers off scott-free as victims, lured. They may have had bad advice on the specifics of an ARM. But in the long run, if they qualified for $300K, they did not have to buy a $300K house. They could have also bought a $150K house. The US consumer has been living beyond their means and racking up credit for quite some time now.

The second issue … the Community Reinvestment Act

The concept that the Community Reinvestment Act (which was the Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton program to expand home ownership) had anything at all to do with the financial meltdown cannot be supported by any objective data.

You are entirely incorrect here, Larry. When Carter passed the bill original, lending was different. Most banks could not lend outside their state, or even local areas. They could not bundle and sell interbank either. So their lending risk was not only limited, but remained local.

This, however, didn’t allow for the money to flow for the growing population. Bundling and interbank selling freed up assets for more loans. The securitization era began. Not bad on it’s own unless, as I said before, you’re selling bad product.

Comes Bill Clinton and Rubin, his Secy of the Treasury. They rewrite the CRA compliance rules that mandate banks show x $ amount of performance for minority loans, or sufffer penalities and restrictions. Problem is, with the current lending criteria, most of the minorities do not qualify for a loan.

So they have to lower the lending standards… the only way they can do this without running it thru the automated underwriting programs – where it will get kicked out as a reject – is to create loans that didn’t require certain items. Thus the creation of low doc or no doc loans, and stated income packages. This enabled those who didn’t qualify to get the loan anyway.

Don’t confuse subprime with these loans. Fact is, any of us could get a low doc/no doc or stated income loan. The subprime came into play if your credit scores weren’t up to snuff, or you weren’t employed for enough time in your current job, OR if your income to debt ratio was too high. Subprime means you didn’t get the prime lending rates… you were being penalized because you were more a risk.

If you went to the post I said you “inspired”, or if you read my original “perfect storm” post on Sept 22nd, you’d see that there is direct evidence that home ownership, and home prices went up in the wake of Rubin’s rewrite of the compliance regs, effective 1995.

The home prices were driven up because of the flood of newly “un”qualified buyers purchasing. Hefty demand, limited supply. Add the rates going below the inflation level after 911, and the flood gates were really opened. You say there is no objective evidence, yet you ignore the home ownership numbers and the housing prices skyrocketing after over two decades of reasonable stability and nominal appreciation.

Last, INRE your other comment:

If what you are saying has any truth at all to it, then the price of sub-prime loan homes should have risen out of proportion to conventional loan homes. Here in California, sub-prime loan homes made up a comparatively small fraction of the total. Yet the price of all homes went through the roof, with the pace of increase of the most expensive considerably outstripping those at the low end.

Again, this is not true, Larry. As I explained, the only difference between a subprime and A+ loan is the loan rate. Which is why many of the uncredit worthy dove at the ARMs. The price of houses has to do with supply v demand. With the exotic loan packages available to everyone, and the very low loan rates, EVERYONE took advantage of these financing tools. And not everyone is defaulting.

The reason *all* homes went up in price was because of cheap, easy money for everyone… those with good credit and those with bad. A buyer who had good credit a few years before, and qualified for $300K now could easily get $400K. Since this happened to everyone in all qualification categories, the buying frenzy began in earnest. Bidding wars were the norm. Houses didn’t stay on the market but hours and had multiple offers. This drove up the comparable prices for appraisers, and the house values went up.

With the house values up, home owners who didn’t sell refinanced into low mortgage rates, and pulled out equity. Unfortunately too many of them spent their appreciation on anything BUT the house… another sign of an undisciplined consumer. When the housing prices went down, the unimproved homes weren’t worth the mortgages they had.

So no… I disagree this was unfettered, unregulated capitalism. This was consumers diving at a good thing that started with CRA compliance regulations in 1995, and unwise use of investments and financial tools by consumers.

October 7th, 2008 at 9:20 am
 111Reply to this comment  

Larry: I’m sorry I haven’t proved my point to your satisfaction. Perhaps I will just have to content myself with the notion that a good number of political analsyts agree wtih me.

I don’t know how you misconstrue the fact that Dems voted totally along party lines in attempting keep the bill McCain co-sponsored from reaching the floor And I don’t know how you overlook Dems efforts in the House to say there is no problem:

October 7th, 2008 at 9:36 am
 112Reply to this comment  

Mata says:

>>The reason *all* homes went up in price was because of cheap, easy money for everyone… those with good credit and those with bad. A buyer who had good credit a few years before, and qualified for $300K now could easily get $400K. Since this happened to everyone in all qualification categories, the buying frenzy began in earnest. Bidding wars were the norm. Houses didn’t stay on the market but hours and had multiple offers. This drove up the comparable prices for appraisers, and the house values went up.<<

But this is precisely my point. The problem wasn’t the CRA. If it were, then non-CRA institutions should have made better loans than CRA institutions. But they didn’t. Quite the contrary, as shown in the studies I sourced earlier.

The problem was too much capital chasing too few investment opportunities. Why was there too much capital? Well, the GOP-controlled government granted the most massive tax cuts in history to the wealthiest Americans in war time, producing large deficits, which put pressure on the Fed to keep interest rates at rock bottom levels, to grow the economy enough to close the deficit and lessen the need to borrow. The combination of the low interest rates and low taxes produced a whole lot of free capital, as intended, but too little flowed into investments into new businesses and expansion of existing businesses or into infrastructure projects. By this time, the corporate equities aftermarkets were massively overvalued. This left real estate. So what drove the financial markets to make bad loans and purchase bad securities was simply the driving force of excess capital, and not the driving force of Democrat-initiated social engineering programs, which, at the time of their inception and even later modification, could never have anticipated the crazy lending situation which had developed by 2005, owing entirely to the presence of too much capital chasing too few investment opportunities.

- larry weisenthal/huntington beach

October 7th, 2008 at 11:14 am
 113Reply to this comment  

Mike, I readily concede that certain House Democrats said some really stupid things on CSPAN, but the majority of House Democrats did vote in favor of regulatory reform, and, again, I find no proof whatsoever that Senate Democrats “blocked” regulation reform in 2005 (again, the topic of this thread) and I find the lack of a single Senate Republican making this specific charge to be strong reason to doubt this assertion.

Talk is just that. Talk. Talk is cheap. Here’s an analysis from a non-partisan, academic political science blog:

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/18/republican-congress-talked-about-financial-reform-but-did-nothing.htm

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

October 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am
 114Reply to this comment  

But this is precisely my point. The problem wasn’t the CRA. If it were, then non-CRA institutions should have made better loans than CRA institutions. But they didn’t. Quite the contrary, as shown in the studies I sourced earlier.

Larry, you aren’t getting this yet, are you.

CRA was the reason for the creation of exotic loans… available to everyone – both subprime and prime borrowers. This became in demand by all borrowers.

These loans were offered by both CRA and non CRA banks because demand was high, and lending is competitive. So I don’t know what you mean by “better loans”… If you are suggesting that the CRA was allowed to offer exotic loans in demand, and non-CRA were not, then you are limiting competition, which also allowed a borrower to get one of those exotic loans at a better price from another institution.

The point is, CRA=exotic loans with low qualification criteria=lots of new buyers=demand for housing raising prices above normal appreciation… a bubble doomed to crash. Period.

The problem was too much capital chasing too few investment opportunities. Why was there too much capital? Well, the GOP-controlled government granted the most massive tax cuts in history to the wealthiest Americans in war time, producing large deficits, which put pressure on the Fed to keep interest rates at rock bottom levels, to grow the economy enough to close the deficit and lessen the need to borrow.

First, you should rewrite your first sentence and stop there. ala

“the problem was too much capital chasing too few over leveraged investment opportunities”

But noooo… you ramble off into tax cuts for the wealthy. Let me remind you that the reason for the low interest rates was not the Bush tax cut. It was plane loads of terrorists slamming into the heart of the US financial district, the Pentagon, and attempts at the White House. That shut down Wall St for a week, and the repercussions of that event economically was exactly what Bin Laden designed.

The rates went low… below inflation… to recoup. It had nothing to do with tax cuts for the wealthy.

You disappoint me. You can’t just throw some blanket BS beef with Bush or the GOP in here that’s unrelated, and expect the guppies to swallow that. You’re hanging on the wrong forum to pull that off.

October 7th, 2008 at 11:32 am
 115Reply to this comment  

We both agree that the problem was too much capital chasing over leveraged investment opportunities (nb: I agree that your way of stating it was better). It wasn’t a problem of social engineering; it was an economically driven decision to make those loans in the mid-00s; it wasn’t a socially driven decision.

With regard to the capital excess, it was a combination of tax cuts and low interest. Both contributed. I think that it is a mistake to increase spending and cut taxes in the hope that the tax cuts will generate sufficient economic acceleration to pay for the tax cuts — which is something which has never yet occurred in the last 28 years of Reaganomics. But whether it was a mistake or not, it was the combination of tax cuts and low interest which contributed to the capital excess, and it was the capital excess which was the proximate cause of the present crisis, according to Bernanke and according to other scholarly economic analyses, e.g. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1812

With regard to CRA banks making “better loans,” here, again, is my source:

http://traigerlaw.com/index.php (click on “Community Reinvestment Act” sections)

More later.

[continuing]

>>The point is, CRA=exotic loans with low qualification criteria=lots of new buyers=demand for housing raising prices above normal appreciation… a bubble doomed to crash. Period.<<

But the CRA had nothing whatsoever to do with the run up in housing costs here in Orange County, CA, where there have been only a microscopic number of CRA loans, relative to the dollar value of the total housing market. And we are no different than anywhere else. The increased pool of low income buyer can’t seriously be blamed for the housing bubble which affected all financial strata. It’s simply not a credible claim.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

October 7th, 2008 at 11:52 am
 116Reply to this comment  

It wasn’t a problem of social engineering; it was an economically driven decision to make those loans in the mid-00s; it wasn’t a socially driven decision.

Almost, Larry. You still are missing the connect. Again let me rephrase this above.

A socially driven decision to prevent redlining resulted in an economically drive decision to make risky loans.

But the CRA had nothing whatsoever to do with the run up in housing costs here in Orange County, CA, where there have been only a microscopic number of CRA loans, relative to the dollar value of the total housing market.

Let’s try this again, Larry. I know you can get this if you try.

It did *not* take just CRA loans to drive up costs. The CRA creation of the exotic loan was extended not just to subprime borrowers, but to A+ prime borrowers as well. The product was created because of the CRA, and was offered to all borrowers. Conversely, not all of these risky loans are in failure.

These easy loans, with very low interest rates, created a flood of buyers for existing inventory, which drove up prices for ALL homes – including the high dollar homes in the Orange County beach communities.

This is an A (CRA compliance reg changes)
to B
(creating of exotic loans for all borrowers, inc risky borrowers)
to C
(low rates after 911)
to D
(flood of buyers)
to E
(housing price increase) type of event…

… a perfect storm, as I said in my original post about this stuff. You keep repeating A doesn’t lead to E, and forget the steps in the middle . Doesn’t work that way.

I think that it is a mistake to increase spending and cut taxes in the hope that the tax cuts will generate sufficient economic acceleration to pay for the tax cuts —

But of course I agree in this principle. Our problem is Congress, no matter which party is in charge, continues to spend spend spend our cash. They don’t wait for the tax cuts to take effect and spend the money *after* it comes in. They anticipate it, and spend it ahead of time. That’s a Congress problem… not a free market problem.

And BTW, I disagree with you that tax cuts is not the economic solution. It’s proven to work here, and increased taxes has proven *not* to work in Europe. THe more money the private sector is allowed to make, keep and reinvest, the more revenue can be garnished.

Trouble is, Congress is like a spoiled child – always spending other people’s money and asking for more.

BTW, I’ve already been to your Traiger Law site… a legal firm that specializes in representing CRA banks. As their business site, I hardly expect to see articles in their “in the news” section that speak ill of CRA. How smart would that be?

However what you should take notice is that, in this very news busy economic times, their most current news article in that section was back in February of this year. Could that be because the CRA was already starting to come under fire, and the pro-CRA articles were getting harder to find to post?

Curious…. because I’m quite sure there’s been plenty of news since Feb 08

I’m sure, if you read my other bail out posts (just click on my name above and all my posts will open), you’ll find ample links to all kinds of different publications and views. You should start back with my perfect storm post on the 22nd(?) or 25th? of Sept, and move forward from there as the story progresses. Because I’ll tell ya, guy… if you’re going to depend upon Bernanke and Traiger Law, you’re really going to stay in the dark on all this.

October 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
 117Reply to this comment  

Maya, I’ll get back later. Thanks for investing the time in discussing this with me. We do have a ways to go yet.

Mike, here’s another take on what happened in 2005:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/fox-news-barney-frank-esc_b_132347.html

>>Here’s what actually happened. In October 2005 the House, by a vote of 331-90, passed a bill to establish a new federal regulator created for Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The new regulator was authorized to set capital standards and, if it deemed necessary, require reductions in mortgage portfolios. The White House opposed the proposed legislation and instead supported the pending Senate bill. But the Senate bill never came up for a vote, and the legislation died.

>>In other words, the Republicans failed to negotiate a deal when they were in charge, and now place the blame on others. And once again, Fox News treats their distortions of history as reportable fact.

>>One Republican has a different take on events. Rep. Michael Oxley claims his bill was opposed by White House “ideologues” who wanted to privatize Fannie and Freddie and who opposed a bigger government role.<<

So what you’ve got is the White House opposed the Fannie Mae regulation bill passed by the House, with strong bipartisan support. The Senate came up with a different bill, which was opposed by Dems in committee but which the GOP leadership didn’t bring for a vote. The GOP senate leadership and the White House chose the route of no regulation, when they couldn’t get their wish to fully privatize Fannie Mae and because they didn’t want a bigger government role in regulating Fannie Mae.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach

October 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
 118Reply to this comment  

Larry, you are speaking of HR 1461, Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 which did pass the House 331-90, with 12 not voting.

Now technically, the WH can pay lip service to opposing a bill. But the WH can’t do whit until a bill lands on a POTUS’s desk to either sign into law, or veto. So in reality, you can’t say the WH stopped this when it never got there.

The Senate version, S 190, FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005 is the very same bill we all keep trying to tell the Obama faithful that McCain stood up against this in advance… and made his May 2006 floor speech (which is the link) stressing the importance of passage of the bill. This bill was sponsored by GOP Charles Hagel, and co-sponsored by only three Senators… all GOP… Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu, and… ta daaaa… John McCain.

You will notice no DNC crossing the aisle… least of all Obama, who was raking in the contributions annually from Fannie/Freddie, that surpassed all others’ annual contributions.

If the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs didn’t allow it to come to a vote, it was most likely because there were not enough votes for it to pass. And absolutely there are GOPers who also bear responsibility for sitting on their thumbs instead of taking action. With the make up of the Senate being so close, if 100% DNC oppose, and they have a few GOP renegades, it’s a dead deal.

On the flip side, if a good portion of the DNC stood up to do what is right, it would have passed. So what we have is a few GOPers who are a problem, and all of the DNC as a problem. Which is worse?

However the GOP candidate, John McCain is *not* one of those. And President Bush cannot officially oppose or veto a bill that never arrived.

So when you are dealing with GOP leadership, today you have to assess the man who stood up for doing the right thing. It is he who is on the ticket. Then you have to assess the man who says he crosses the aisle… but never finds the bread crumbs to do so.

BTW… Bernanke, Traiger and Huffpo???? We must work on expanding your horizons… LOL

October 7th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
 119Reply to this comment  

Senate Bill:

>>Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.
>>Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.
>>Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.<<

The Senate Bill, unlike the House bill, wasn’t a bill about regulation, it was a bill about a broad restructuring and privatization.

House Democrats and Republicans supported improved regulation (loan standards, etc.) in a strong, bipartisan manner. There is no reason to suspect that Senate Democrats would not have supported similar improved regulatory legislation.

It would appear that the Senate Republicans inserted a poison pill provision for drastic restructuring, as opposed to improved regulation.

The GOP was in charge. They could have done a deal, but chose not to.

I’m more impressed by data and facts than I am by criticisms of sources. You don’t like Bernanke; so you just dismiss him. Traiger presents objective data; you don’t challenge the data; you simply dismiss Traiger. I quote a Huffington Blogger. You don’t dispute what he says, you just dismiss it because it appears on Huffington. You ignore the charges of the GOP congressman who worked on the House version of the regulatory bill that “his bill was opposed by White House “ideologues” who wanted to privatize Fannie and Freddie and who opposed a bigger government role.” No, the President isn’t in the Senate, but he’s the President and he’s a Republican and the Senate was run by Republicans and presumably his West Wing staff told the Republican Senate leadership what the President wanted in the way of a bill.

And you choose to ignore the U of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1812

Will get back to Maya later on. Have to get out another report in my day job.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach

October 7th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
 120Reply to this comment  

Larry, what are you talking about?? S190 is the related bill to the House bill you referenced. And it was all about oversight/regulation.

/26/2005–Introduced.
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 – Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority **over** the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.

Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting:
(1) assessment authority;
(2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets;
(3) minimum and critical capital levels;
(4) risk-based capital test;
(5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises;
(6) enforcement actions and penalties;
(7) golden parachutes; and
(8) reporting.

Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.

Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.

Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

Now… wanna try again? And this time, provide links to what bill you think you’re discussing, and we might be able to sort out communication differences. You’ll find GovTrack a terrific site.

I dismiss Bernanke because he was in the politically delicate position of not being able to call a spade a spade when discussing the cause. If he needs Congressional approval for his and Paulson’s proposed government take over, he’s not likely to get it if he points fingers at them and says “it’s *your* fault”, is he? One has to lend more credibility to those who are removed from the cause and the fix.

Secondly, Traiger’s data is dated. There’s been a lot of events since Feb 2008. Also, again, you need to get removed from involvement. When their entire business revolves around CRA banking clientele, what they display on their website will be edited to fit that clientele. So I use economic publications like Agora, Financial Times, Investors Business Daily, etal. These are neutral third parties.

As far as HuffPo goes… it’s hard to lend anything of substance to a link that’s titled “Fox News: Barney Frank Escaped Blame for Fannie Mae’s Problems Because He Is Gay”… which of course is not the title of the Fox piece. Nor did they provide a link to the Fox piece they were slamming.

Frankly, I give the National Enquirer more credibility than HuffPo. It’s a toilet cyber tabloid with fake headlines. Not to mention quite a group of “ugly Americans” that comment there.

Now, if you provide the original link to the article they are revamping in their own blog trash, I can live with that.

That said… as you can see, I go to your links. I do, however, find your news sources extremely bizarre choices. But, as you can see, I still respond to them… and provide direct sources (such as bill history, text). And you’ll also note that in my posts, I link to neutral specialty sources… not cyber tabloids.

As far as refuting Barney Frank in the HuffPo piece, where he says he wasn’t in the position to do anything until 2007…. uh, would that be the same Barney Frank who said:

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there’s a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .

~~~

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

~~~

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

snip the other DNC bozos making fools of themselves here and going for Frank…

Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

Mr. Raines?

Mr. Raines: No, sir.

Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.

Or perhaps, if you don’t want to believe the printed quotes from the WSJ, you might like to hear it from the horse’s mouth how the DNC was arguing with FHEO and regulators how Fannie/Freddie weren’t in trouble, when notable members of the GOP were saying the opposite.

Now I can’t defend the GOP who sided with the DNC. But with 100% of the DNC on the Fannie/Freddie side, plus renegade GOP, the GOP majority couldn’t evoke the reform.

Below… for your viewing pleasure …. the horses’ mouths in action.

October 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Craig
 121Reply to this comment  

Mata,

Very smart answer and very well sustained. You have patience with manipulators like Larry. He doesn’t fool me though with his apparent respect… it’s a cover-up. I prefer idiots like Dave, Doug, and Fit Fit and alike… they are less hypocrites. The snake-type like Larry is the worst, much more dangerous, because nobody sees him coming with his misinformation. Keep the good work Mata, don’t let Larry get away with his BS.

October 7th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
 122Reply to this comment  

Mata and Mark,

Back later. Post debate.

You don’t need to go with the personal insults, Mark. It doesn’t help clarify anything.

I’ll continue discussing/debating with Mata, as long as she approaches this at the honest difference of opinion level. Perhaps she’ll ultimately establish that I’m misinformed or in error. Perhaps not. But life is too short to get involved in pissing contests.

You obviously don’t agree with me, but I’m no “snake.” I stand up for that which I believe by signing my own name. I’m not some annonymous DNC operative or anything like that. Simply a private citizen, entitled to have his own point of view and seeking to discuss this with others. I’m an open book. You can Google me. Good grief…”snake”? The only people welcome on your blog are those you share your point of view? Why didn’t you post a warning to that effect and spare both you and I the aggravation?

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

October 7th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
 123Reply to this comment  

The following is an excerpt from letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, commenting on a WSJ editorial:

http://wsj.net/article/SB121746628592499215.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

>>In “Paulson’s Fannie Test” (Review & Outlook, July 15), you editorialize, “Had Treasury and Congress acted two years ago, or even three or six months, the current panic could have been avoided.” In fact, the House did act. After a successful committee vote, we passed strong, freestanding GSE reform legislation, H.R. 1461, in the House on Oct. 26, 2005, with a bipartisan vote of 331-90. The bill encountered opposition in the Senate, in the administration, and on the Journal’s editorial page. It died in the Senate.

>>I am proud that the Financial Services Committee acted while the housing economy remained robust. In a noncrisis atmosphere, we produced legislation that would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital, to limit portfolios, and to deal with the possibility of receivership. Had our legislation become law in 2005, a world-class regulator would have been in place, providing better oversight prior to and during the market downturn.

>>Michael G. Oxley
Washington

>>Michael G. Oxley was chairman of the House Financial Services Committee from 2001 through 2006.<<

Note that the House bill was actively opposed not by the Democrats, but by the Senate Republican leadership, the Bush administration, and also by the Wall Street Journal editorial page. This is a smoking gun for “smoking aces.” It proves that a bill to regulate Fannie Mae in 2005 was indeed “killed” in the Senate. But by REPUBLICANS, not by Democrats.

By the way, I listened carefully in the debate for McCain to make the charge that Democrats “killed” legislation to regulate Fannie Mae. He never came close to making such a charge.

I’ll address the arguments most recently made by Mata later on.

What do you guys think of McCain’s proposal to buy out bad mortgages and re-sell them to the original purchasers at current (reduced) market value, with the government picking up the tab for the difference?

- Larry Weisenthal

October 7th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
 124Reply to this comment  

Larry: You might also be aware that many Republicans opposed some of Oxley’s provisions which would have given a financial windfall to groups like ACORN. That was the source of opposition, NOT a desire to see Fannie and Freddie unregulated.

It’s become abundantly clear that you simply refuse to accept ANY responsibility on the part of Democrats for blocking the reforms that McCain and others proposed which would have saved us from this catastrophe.

As I said, it was Democrats, on a strict party line vote, who voted against S190 in committee.

At the time, McCain’s was warning of what could happen if no action was taken:

“If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”
– John McCain, May 25, 2006

Your willingness to provide cover for Democrats is truly remarkable. But it is also unfortunate, as it means there will likely never be the kind of accountability in this situation that is necessary if we are to move forward. Worse yet, your deliberate obfuscation is an enabler for Democrats to continue doing more of the same.

The record here is clear: Republicans put up multiple legislative proposals, all of which were shot down mostly by Democrats.

One letter from Mike Oxley doesn’t alter that fact.

October 7th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
 125Reply to this comment  

Mike, Here’s the reality. There was a bipartisan bill which passed the House in 2005, which would have regulated Fannie Mae and improved its lending standards. This wasn’t a Democratic bill, it was a bipartisan bill.

Now, there were elements of this bill which the White House and Senate Republican leadership didn’t like. So the Republicans killed the House Fannie Mae regulation bill in the Senate. The floated a different bill, instead, and the Republican sponsor of the House-passed Fannie Mae regulatory bill (Rep. Michael Oxley) claimed his bill was opposed by White House “ideologues” (his word) who wanted to privatize Fannie and Freddie and who opposed a bigger government role.

Now, you claim that Democrats “killed” this latter bill. You’ve yet to provide the slightest bit of evidence to support this charge. Not a single Republican Senator, including John McCain has made this charge. Given the very high level of GOP support in the House for the Oxley bill, it is entirely plausible that there were insufficient GOP Senate votes to support the bill. What typically happens when there is a disagreement between House and Senate bills, there are meetings and compromises to hammer out a deal. Obviously, the majority of Democrats didn’t oppose substantive regulation of Fannie Mae, despite the exisistence of old CSPAN clips of a few House members saying stupid things from time to time. The obvious truth is that no one — President, McCain, Senate leadership — cared enough circa 2005 – 2006 to do a deal with the House to reform Fannie Mae regulation.

So both Democrats and Republicans favored Fannie Mae regulation. Talk is cheap. Getting the votes is what counts. Fannie Mae regulation was favored in the House by a Democratic majority and a strong Republican minority. A final bipartisan regulatory bill passed by a huge margin. But this bill was killed — truly killed — by the Republican controlled Senate, who obviously did not make a priority of putting together a regulatory bill which would be acceptable to the majority of both Houses of Congress and which the President would sign. The Senate Republicans could have passed a strong regulatory bill along the lines of the House bill. They chose not to do so.

My own position is bipartisan. I don’t blame Republicans. I don’t blame Democrats. Everything is 100% clear in retrospect. Had Senate Republicans and the President realized in 2005 what was going to happen in 2008, I’m sure they’d have done a deal with the House to pass regulatory reform. I’m sure that Bush would have actually made an effort to achieve regulatory reform in 2003, rather than simply phoning in a press release and dropping the subject. I’m sure that Clinton would have twisted a lot more arms. I’m sure that all the banks who bought mortgage backed securities because they thought they were going to make a lot of money wouldn’t have done so. And that brings us to the proximate cause of this global debacle: the Wall Street Masters of the Universe were the proximate cause.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

October 8th, 2008 at 8:42 am
 126Reply to this comment  

I’m on the fly most of today, but will check in a few times to carry on the three way conversation Mike’sA, Larry and I are having.

There’s just a couple of things that I wanted to address in brief. Larry, INRE your comments from #125:

The floated a different bill, instead, and the Republican sponsor of the House-passed Fannie Mae regulatory bill (Rep. Michael Oxley) claimed his bill was opposed by White House “ideologues” (his word) who wanted to privatize Fannie and Freddie and who opposed a bigger government role.

Technically, Fannie and Freddie are already privatized in their operations, but are a GSE… meaning optionally government backed. But it was never a guarantee… But today, we realize they did guarantee it.

S190 created a new regulatory agency, wresting away it’s current oversight under HUD… and gave that new regulatory agency authority to address some, today, familiar issues like golden parachutes, risk assessment criteria, capital levels, etc. This does not sound like a WH who wanted to further privatize Fannie/Freddie…. but rather like a WH and Senate who wanted more govt oversight of the GSEs.

A final bipartisan regulatory bill passed by a huge margin. But this bill was killed — truly killed — by the Republican controlled Senate, who obviously did not make a priority of putting together a regulatory bill which would be acceptable to the majority of both Houses of Congress and which the President would sign.

You originally said the WH preferred the Senate bill, Larry. In which case the GOP was likely to have constructed it within the framework they felt the WH would not veto. If that passed, the House and Senate could have worked together to reconcile the differences for Presidential signature/veto.

While I agree there is ample blame for both parties in this whole mess over the 13 years of it’s growth to the financial tumor it is today, I can’t see this Senate bill being a GOP failure entoto. With likely 100% of the DNC opposed, it only took a few GOP to oppose it for it’s demise.

And yes… I will agree witih your last paragraph that had any of these elected bozos had a crystal ball to see today’s times, they might have acted differently. But the point is, they carry significant power to affect our nation. And frankly, I think all of them took that responsibility far too lightly, assuming they could not cause this collapse.

I will, however, remain to agree to disagree with you on Wall Street masters of the universe being the prime culprit here. I believe Congress created an environment of easy money/credit, promoted risky loans for minority home ownership, and the market took over from there. And I also blame a very undisciplined, gimme “stuff” oriented society who thought they could live forever outside of their financial means.

So just as the DNC and GOP must share blame, so must the consumer.

Last, in your comment #123, Larry:

Note that the House bill was actively opposed not by the Democrats, but by the Senate Republican leadership, the Bush administration, and also by the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

I did not see where Oxley expressly stated “Senate Republican leadership”. He said:

The bill encountered opposition in the Senate, in the administration, and on the Journal’s editorial page.

That opposition was certainly by the DNC, and quite likely some GOP since they did not get the majority verbals to forward it to the floor for a vote. But that may not have been “leadership”.

But fact remains, DNC opposed fixes and not enough GOP overrided them when they had a majority. But also, if enough DNC would have supported reform, this could have been accomplished. So we are still blaming a small segment of GOP, and the bulk, if not all of the DNC.

October 8th, 2008 at 9:57 am
 127Reply to this comment  

The point is that the GOP controlled Congress from January 1995 to January 2007 and the only Fannie Mae regulatory bill to pass either chamber of the congress was the October 2005 bill, which was authored by a Republican (Oxley) and which passed with the votes of 122 out of 204 Democratic member of the House (a majority) and with the votes of a large minority of Republicans.

This bill was actively opposed by the White House, as expressly stated by Oxley. I’m personally certain that the main opposition to the House-passed bill was from the Senate Republicans, as the majority of the House Democrats supported the bill, but only a (substantial) minority of House Republicans. My understanding is that the Senate Republicans wrote their own, alternative bill, for which they were unable to find sufficient support.

It isn’t likely that only a minority of House Republicans would have supported the House bill with a majority of Democrats supporting and then the situation would not just be the reverse in the Senate, but that Senate Democrats would be in such opposition to a bill passed in the House with a majority of Democratic votes that they could actually “block” the bill with a filibuster threat.

I mean, don’t you agree with me on this? What happened, precisely, in the Senate remains opaque, but, on the basis of available information presented on this thread, it’s neither credible nor fair to claim that Democrats “blocked” Fannie Mae regulatory reforms in 2005. I again repeat that no Senate Republican, including McCain, has ever made this charge, despite the fact that they obviously have every motivation to do so, were it, indeed, true, which it certainly is not.

In contrast to the House action in 2005, in which Fannie Mae regulatory reform was passed with strong Democratic majority support, all we have from anyone else during that entire period of GOP congress control between Jan 1995 and Jan 2007 are speeches and press releases. The fact that some individual House Democrats were caught on CSPAN saying dumb things is much less important than the fact that the House Democrats supported improved Fannie Mae regulation in 2005 (authored by a Republican) by a strong majority vote.

- Larry Weisenthal

October 8th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Craig
 128Reply to this comment  

“I again repeat that no Senate Republican, including McCain, has ever made this charge, despite the fact that they obviously have every motivation to do so, were it, indeed, true, which it certainly is not.” (Larry)

You’ve got to be kidding, right? McCain has been saying it everywhere he can. Are you deaf or what? Didn’t you see all the videos? Didn’t you watch the debate last Tuesday? Come’on, get real! Even Bill Clinton said it and blamed the Dems.

October 9th, 2008 at 12:22 am
 129Reply to this comment  

Larry: I’m not going to waste my time by repeating everything I have said before and the essential elements of this post which DO document the efforts Republicans made for reform of Fannie Mae and the efforts Dems made to block it.

I realize you simply prefer NOT to allow any blame to be cast on the Dems and you are an enabler of the tricks they pull.

So be it.

I’ve presented my side in detail and you haven’t given me anything that casts doubt (other than your own) on my conclusions.

October 9th, 2008 at 12:56 am
 130Reply to this comment  

We’ve each had our say. It’s your blog, and you deserve the last word. Thank you for allowing me to state my opinions as your guest.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

October 9th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
 131Reply to this comment  

Well, I guess you’re done with our conversation INRE the causes of the bail out too, Larry… yes?

Well, don’t be a stranger. I, for one, found your comments to be thought provoking. And opposing opinions alway demands rechecking your base information for their merits… and inspiring more research. Being a research junkie, I’m always appreciative of being challenged with one that presents cogent dissenting arguments.

BTW… hope you and the group come up with some serious inroads into curing the big “C”. It’s an admirable quest.

October 9th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
 132Reply to this comment  

Hi, Guys.

Little follow up:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jRzoY3Qvz0l_IFNXguiYMSK9ur5AD93TNP1O0

Basically, it was Bill Frist who ultimately “blocked” the Senate bill. There were 25 Republican Senators who signed Senator Hagel’s letter and 29 Republicans who did not sign it, including not only the then-GOP majority leader (Frist), but also the current GOP minority leader (Mitch McConnell).

We now have the complete story of the 2005 attempts to regulate Fannie Mae. A regulatory bill passed in the House, with a majority of Democrats joining with a majority of Republicans to approve the bill, despite speeches against the bill by Barney Franks and Maxine Waters. Some Democrats said dumb things, but a majority of Democrats voted in favor. According to the Bill’s sponsor, Republican Michael Oxley, the bill was opposed by the Bush White House and by the Senate.

We now know the details of the Senate opposition. (story above).

My conclusion remains that the title of this thread is incorrect. The Democrats did NOT “block” financial reforms in 2005. Which is precisely why neither John McCain nor any Senate Republican running for re-election (including Mitch McConnell) is making that charge. McCain said that he signed a letter supporting reform. We now know what the letter was. And we now know why it didn’t go anywhere.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

October 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 am
Scott Malensek
 133Reply to this comment  

Larry, great job looking this up. I’d like to look at it more later (busy this afternoon). This is EXACTLY the kind of feedback and discussion that makes Flopping Aces strong. Sincerely, my thanks to you!

-Scott

October 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
 134Reply to this comment  

Larry: ONE example proving your point does not make the title, nor the conclusions of this post incorrect.

To say “We now know the details of the Senate opposition” is absurd despite Scott’s tepid endorsement.

October 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

If your comments get caught in spam a lot please log into your registered account before trying to comment again. You can email me if your comment is caught in spam

 

Identity Verification: If you wish to verify your commenter identity, so no one can steal it, click the below button: