About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Rep. Frank explains to O'Reilly his record of support for renters, opposition to universal homeownership

June 24, 2009 9:12 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

O'Reilly advanced falsehood that "the Democrats in charge of the finance committees" resisted regulating mortgage industry

O'Reilly falsely claimed Frank advocated that "poor people ought to be given mortgages 'cause everybody has a right to a house"

O'Reilly falsely claimed Frank "wanted to give mortgages to everybody"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DAWUSS (June 24, 2009 9:25 pm ET)
      4 1
      Wow, Barney sure looks interested in giving this interview.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (June 24, 2009 10:06 pm ET)
        9 1
        Ted Baxter got his ass whooped again

        Ted's quoting the crap from Wall Street Journal Op-eds and Barney is just whoopin' his ass.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by LuvLuLu (June 24, 2009 10:16 pm ET)
          7  
          Yeah, I liked how Barney Frank just sat back, relaxed, in his chair and nailed O'Reilly to the wall. It was fascinating and entertaining. O'Reilly squirmmed and made a couple of personal attacks and Frank just let him have it with both barrels.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (June 24, 2009 11:20 pm ET)
            2 9
            Can you point out the personal attacks, I sure did not see any. And it is too bad you did not watch the whole interview, Frank was quite defensive at times, and they actually agreed on a few issues. It is too bad your knowledge is limited to the short clip provided here. It does seem you do not understand the concept of two individuals discussing the issues.

            But I would still love to hear your idea of the personal attacks. Perhaps that is just your fantasizing.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 8:57 am ET)
              6 1
              Frank was quite defensive at times
              So? Is that not the correct response to someone as offensive as O'Reilly?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 25, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
                1  
                I don't know why he even goes on that hell of a show. After the way O'Reilly screamed at him the last time if I was Barney I would've given Billy directions.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by puppienrainbows (June 25, 2009 10:15 am ET)
              1 5
              At least you'll find individuals debating and discussing issues on O'Reilly. On Olbermann, it's all one-sided.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by harley (June 25, 2009 10:24 am ET)
                2 1

                What does Olbermann have to do with this thread? Why are you reich-wing terrorist teabaggers so obsessed with Olbermann?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by puppienrainbows (June 25, 2009 11:45 am ET)
                  1 5
                  Because lazy libs find comfort in the idea that Olbermann can present a one-sided argument, sans debate, and at the same time criticize O'Reilly for asking tough questions of a seasoned congressman and expecting answers to his questions. Sorry if I distracted you, Harley. You refer to me as a neo-nazi(reich) and a terrorist in the same sentence yet you expect people to take you serious? From what I've seen in the short time I've been here, your posting habits are limited to name calling and trolling.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 25, 2009 12:35 pm ET)
                    5  
                    And O'Reilly doesn't engage in any of that?

                    I'm sure someone out there has compiled a list of all the shutups, cut the mikes, I'm gonna beat you up if you don't get out of my studios, you're a cowards, etc. that O'Reilly has spewed in the course of his oh-so-illustrious career... perhaps I should find it and post it.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 25, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
                      2  
                      Hey fool, the thread is about O'REILLY, not harley. Try to stay on course here. Your false equivalence doesn't cut the mustard.

                      Yeah, that's right, I called you a fool. You should be grateful that I restrained myself.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 25, 2009 12:40 pm ET)
                1  
                Uh, it's purty much one-sided with Billy. You must not be a regular viewer.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by LuvLuLu (June 25, 2009 10:28 pm ET)
              1  
              I watched the whole interview live, then re-watched the clip above. I am not going to do your homework for you. Go do some research, and learn what a personal attack is, and then watch the video MMfA so conveniently provided for you.

              Leave it up to a troll like you to deny reality and make a personal attack on me after I complain about personal attacks, and assume that my knowledge is limited to this clip and that I am fantasizing.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (June 26, 2009 11:31 am ET)
                  1
                Thank you for making my point, you could not point to one personal attack in that interview, yet your biased mind just likes to accuse him of things that didn't happen.

                And you are fantasizing, you can not point to even one, yet you mentioned "personal attacks" . What a fraud.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by LuvLuLu (June 26, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
                  1  
                  The fact that I refused to point out the particular personal attacks included in this exerpt and in the entire interview doesn't mean there were none. It's that if you're too ignorant to be able to find them without my help, you need to educate yourself, and I am not going to spoon-feed you.

                  They are there. But you're a liar, so you claim that since I wouldn't spoon-feed you, that proves they aren't there?

                  It's not that I "can not even point to one." It's that I will not, and I explained that above. How ignorant must you be if you couldn't even understand it after reading my comment?

                  And you need to stop looking in a mirror when you have a keyboard handy, because your projection about who's being a fraud is clearly present here.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by fairliberal (June 26, 2009 1:15 pm ET)
                      1
                    What a cop out, I saw the entire interview and there were no personal attacks of any kind. And if there had been you would be jumping at the opportunity to show them and shut me up. But once again you have no idea what you are talking about and continue to make up whatever you wish.

                    Perhaps you will find Barney's own words on home ownership interesting. He like to make up stories also. .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE

                    Report Abuse
    • Author by MickD (June 24, 2009 10:39 pm ET)
      5  
      Billo dismisses a U.S. Congressman who represents this gosh darn great nation. Who hates America now, Ann Coulter?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by harley (June 24, 2009 10:42 pm ET)
      6 2
      Anyone want to bet O'Racist will be reliving this interview over and over and over for the next week or so bringing in his fellow teabaggers to placate his delicate ego?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 12:52 am ET)
      2  
      Here is a link to the WSJ editorial. Quite interesting stuff. The WSJ is smug and wrong about almost every point and even the history involved.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (June 25, 2009 2:18 am ET)
          10
        It was Frank and the democrats that resisted regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years . Frank now tries to rewrite history. Say what you like about Bush but if the dems had listened to the Bush administration, we might not be in this mess we are now in.

        Here is what Frank said back then. .''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.''

        http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&&scp=3&sq=%202003%20fannie%20freddie%20labaton&st=cse

        You should check you recollection of the history.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 25, 2009 3:07 am ET)
          6 1
          Say what you like about Bush but if the dems had listened to the Bush administration, we might not be in this mess we are now in.
          Yeah....right. Bush was for more regulation of the out-of-control banking industry. Uh huh. Thank you revisionist historian.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (June 25, 2009 9:36 am ET)
            1 5
            It was the Clinton administration that deregulated the banks, not Bush. And Bush wanted to reregulate Fannie and Freddie, the dems blocked him. Open your eyes.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 10:12 am ET)
              4 1
              No, they didn't, and no, he didn't. You have been provided the proof of this several times, and still you lie.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (June 25, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
                  3
                Well who was the president that signed the laws that allowed for the deregulation of the financial system? If it was Bush you should be able to Google "Bush deregulation" and come up with the examples to refute me. Go ahead and try.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 8:02 pm ET)
                  3  
                  First of all, I would like to point out the area of agreement. Clinton made a mistake by passing Gramm-Leach-Blily that repealed most of the depression era changes that regulated the banking system (Glass-Steagall).

                  However, I am having a great deal of trouble seeing how you can reconcile your (frankly odd) blame of Barney Frank - despite his being in the minority at the time - for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meltdown. By your reasoning, wouldn't the blame for the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act passage be Phil Gramm's fault and not Bill Clinton? After all, Gramm introduced the bill. You can't possibly blame the President according to your reasoning. Can you?

                  You seem to go out of your way to extricate Bush from any culpability (despite him being in charge for the last 8 years), but you so easily lay all the blame for the repeal of Glass-Steagall on Clinton's feet.

                  I do not think your position is a rational one. You are trying to have it both ways.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
              3  
              As I recal, the Democrats did not re-take Congress until 2007. How could they thwart the good intentions of the Bush administration. What happened after the Republicans passed the great bill you refer to in your story?
              Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (June 25, 2009 3:43 am ET)
          4  
          You've been spanked on this several times. The supposed regulation would have given MORE power to the financial institutions and ended up in LESS regulation it was regulation like the clear skies inititive was an anti air pollution inititive. You are still trying to sell this tripe even though you have been corrected on it before. You just dont care what is true. You are going to peddle what you were told to believe REGARDLESS of reality. Try some day just for the novelty to allow just a little bit of reality into your cramped little world of Planet Wingnut
          Report Abuse
        • Author by tman418 (June 25, 2009 3:59 am ET)
          6  
          That "regulation bill" passed the house but failed in Senate committee, when Republicans were in power, because Republicans didn't like the bill.

          Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a very small part of the financial crisis.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by harley (June 25, 2009 8:39 am ET)
          6  
          Faillibrul, you should check you recollection of the history:


          This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country.”
          - President George W. Bush, December 16, 2003

          “The Accomplishments"


          Increasing Homeownership
          * The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.


          * The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.


          * President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.


          * The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.


          * President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to increase the supply of affordable homes.


          * The President has proposed to more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.


          * The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender. These loans are expected to provide 42,800 homeownership opportunities to rural families across America.”

          Source(s):
          “President George W. Bush - Record of Achievement - Chapter 7 - Expanding Home Ownership”
          http://www.whitehouse.gov/ infocus/ achievement/ chap7.html


          Report Abuse
        • Author by Tbone Slickens (June 25, 2009 9:53 am ET)
          1 4
          Mr. Frank now wants Freddie/Fannie to ease up on the rules...

          Frank and Freddie
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 10:14 am ET)
            2 1
            I don't believe that article says what you think it does.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 12:04 pm ET)
            2  
            That was what they were talking about in the video above. Clearly it is a different issue.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Bad News (June 25, 2009 4:51 am ET)
      2 1
      When a host hits Mr. O'Reilly with Facts he always interupts the host.

      CLASSY !!!!!!!


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 10:15 am ET)
        3 3
        Um, "Mr News", O'Reilly is the host. Frank is the guest. Please learn the language.

        And there is no reason to "sign" your posts with the same name that shows up in the headers. It points out that you have no clue how this site works.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 10:16 am ET)
          1 4
          I meant the same sort of name. It shows up in the header. I need an edit function.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (June 25, 2009 8:07 am ET)
      6  
      So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, "use the mighty muscle of the federal government" to meet his goal.

      He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

      Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

      And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for federally insured mortgages with no money down

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all





      Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

      Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007.

      Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

      Federal Reserve Board data show that:

      More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

      Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

      Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

      Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

      It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

      http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

      Report Abuse
      • Author by ShrinkGov (June 25, 2009 8:46 am ET)
        2 3
        Freddie and Fannie buying, packaging and reselling these bad loans took the risk away from the lenders and enabled them to make more bad loans.
        Both parties had a hand in this financial mess. I believe Barney, Dodd and some of the other dems pushed harder for unqualified people to get mortages and screamed loudest when any warnings were raised about the potential crisis ahead. The media's unwillingness to report the potential crisis and politicians (including Bush and rep) more worried about the short term economic numbers, don't scare people and hurt the market, all contributes to the mess we're in.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fishergirlusmc (June 25, 2009 10:43 am ET)
          1 1
          Has Franklin Raines given back the 90 MILLION dollars he swindled the American people out of? When will we finally see his prosecution for cooking the books?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 12:12 pm ET)
          1  
          I think that is partly right. I would put the actual people who were in power higher up on the list of blame, though. That is the consequence of being in power. Arguing that the minority members are somehow more to blame kind of defeats the purpose of elections in general. Someone is in power and needs to take responsibility. To put Frank and Dodd above others defies common sense.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by latanza (June 25, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
        1
      If poor people can pay rent, they can pay mortgages! How is it justifiable to consider them rentable but not mortgageable? This country was built on ownership and land. These assets in society today determine Class and citizenship. Poor is not normally a certain class of people and that is what R.Frank addresses. If the banks were willing to lower the rents in poor areas, and provide more than substandard maintenance on their property they would be pushing for mortages because they would have to be responsible for the development, issues, and activities of the premises.

      The financial market institution is oppressive, you replaced slavery with it!
      Report Abuse

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace