O'Reilly falsely claimed Frank advocated that "poor people ought to be given mortgages 'cause everybody has a right to a house"
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that prior to the housing crisis, Rep. Barney Frank had been "pumping it that poor people ought to be given mortgages 'cause everybody has a right to a house." In fact, Frank has consistently taken the position that the government should focus on the expansion of affordable rental housing, rather than enacting policies geared toward universal home ownership.
On the February 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that prior to the housing crisis, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) had been "pumping it that poor people ought to be given mortgages 'cause everybody has a right to a house." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Frank has consistently taken the position that the government should focus on the expansion of affordable rental housing, rather than enacting policies geared toward universal home ownership. Indeed, in a 2006 speech on the House floor, Frank stated: "I always want to make it clear to people that while homeownership is very important, it should not be considered all of our goal in the housing area. A large number of people, for economic reasons and other reasons, will be renters." Further, in a profile of Frank for the January 12 edition of The New Yorker, staff writer Jeffrey Toobin wrote: "According to Frank, at the root of the real-estate crisis was a misguided notion that homeownership should be available to all people -- what President Bush has called 'the ownership society.' " Toobin quoted Frank saying in a speech that home ownership "is not suitable for everybody." In his profile, Toobin also addressed Frank's efforts to preserve and expand housing for low-income renters.
As Media Matters previously documented, O'Reilly falsely claimed on the February 11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor that Frank "wanted to give mortgages to everybody."
From the February 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now, is it just the personal responsibility issue, that people, some of them poor, some of them wealthy -- you know, the wealthy people bought big McMansions they couldn't afford. So it's across all economic spectrum.
Barney Frank pumping it that poor people ought to be given mortgages 'cause everybody has a right to a house. It's every -- it's all across. Is it just the personal responsibility thing that has you torqued off, or is it Obama's solution to de-intensify the banking crisis by readjusting mortgages? Which is it?
GLENN BECK (Fox News host): I don't even think I understand the second part of that, so I'm going to go with A.
O'Reilly doesnt' dumb down arguments, he changes them completely. He simply makes crap up.
He's also stunningly inconsistent. On his radio show the other day, he mentioned a Rasmussen poll which suggested that "the stimulus bill is very unpopular." O'Reilly's point? "Rasmussen is one of the top polling firms, they are very accurate- so if Obama is going to listen to the Folks, he should be against the bill..."
Seconds later, a caller asks "hey, didn't the polls also show that the American people were against the impeachment of Bill Clinton?" O'Reilly: "well, maybe, I'm not sure, we'll have to check on that." Then- "but you have to remember also, in that case, a crime had been committed."
To sum up: We should run the country according to polls when Bill O'Reilly finds it convenient to do so, we should run the country acccording to laws when he doesn't. Someone needs to explain to O'Reilly that we have these things called ELECTIONS in which people decide who they want to run the government and make policy for a certain term of years, Two in the case of the Lower House of the Legislature, Four in the case of the Executive, Six in the caes of the Upper House of the Legislature. We don't run our country according to what The Folks claim to think according to Rasmussen from day to day. God what a piece of drek this moron is.
There's three things everybody needs. Food, shelter, and clothing.
But leave it to the right-wing to take that way out of proportion
Then the next thing that you need is a job...unless you're of a mind that the govt. needs to take care of everyone.
The next thing that most right-wingnuts need is instruction in logic.
Not everybody needs a job. Children don't need a job, certain disableds don't need a job, hopefully seniors won't need a job... But they do need food, shelter and clothing.
That's the most wonderful thing I've seen you write here.
A job?
No thanks. Tried it once. Didn't like it.
With the looming rebirth of the Great Society and new found hope...that may become the societal norm...
We can either rise from the ashes of Reaga-Clinto-Bushanomics, or we can wallow in them.
You Chicken Little cons are are hilarious! "The sky is falling, the sky is falling."
You could have voted for McCain, instead of your smarmy write in vote, if you really wanted more Reaganomics. The choice was clear as a bell.
But what is really funny about your stupid post is that even at the pinnacle of the New Deal and the Great Society, worker productivity and the creation of wealth did not waiver. It was in the era of the Republican, from Reagan to Bush, that the balance was disrupted. Productivity was up while the wealth stagnated at the top.
Your gripe is ridiculous you resentful little puke.
Not only were Americans able to help themselves in the liberal America of FDR and LBJ, but they had enough civic minded personal responsibility to help others as well.
Gee, who was it that claimed credit for an "ownership society" and said that HE had empowered poor people by making mortgages available to them? Hint: NOT Barney Frank.
George W. Bush, 2004:
"Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity, and independence. Thanks to our policies, homeownership in America is at an all-time high. Tonight we set a new goal: seven million more affordable homes in the next 10 years so more American families will be able to open the door and say welcome to my home."
I await Mr. O'Reilly's apology and correction.
Don't hold your breath during the waiting period. What is super annoying about BO'R is that he wants to be "part of the gang", i.e. a respected and fun celebrity-type (see appearances on The Daily Show, The View, etc.) but doesn't want to own up to the right-wing talking message he has to spew. Which way does one go, Billy-boy?
Tonight on Fox!
"Meeting of the Mindless" with co-hosts Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck.
And they say you can't make this stuff up. Watch us.
Bill, you've been focusing on Frank as public enemy #1 for weeks on end.
Now you're taking it in a disturbing new direction, ranting about a gay man who's "pumping it."
This is getting pretty damn weird now, Bill.
O'Reilly is correct. Here's a quote from Barney Frank from a New York Times article Dec 23, 2004:
"Indeed, the day after the departures of Mr. Raines and J. Timothy Howard, the company's chief financial officer, even Fannie Mae allies like Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, were calling for tougher regulations, though not if they impinged on helping low-income Americans acquire mortgages."
OK, you've quoted some the words. What were the actions?
Or was it Frank's words alone that brought the mortgage industry down?
The actions were that the dems blocked all efforts to reform the mortgage system. They were PART of the overall problem , how ever none of them are honest enough to admit it.
Bull. The dems are for regulation.
It's you worthless Republicans who are against any type of regulation.
And just because you chose the moniker 'fairliberal' doesn't make you one. It's obvious by your posts.
Small correction. You misattributed your quote.
Here's the actual quote by Frank:
"I want them to be better regulated, but not at the expense of housing," Mr. Frank said. "I'm afraid that the right wing will use Frank Raines's mistakes and inappropriate actions to go after housing and to restrict Fannie Mae over all in the amount of activity it engages in."
You cons are not to be trusted with the historical record, or facts, or stats, or quotes. All this time the right has been saying that Frank opposed regulation. Funny how you never cite the actual changes Frank opposed. He opposed the wholesale privatization of FM and FM because he was dubious that a for profit lender would be able, or even willing, to ethically lend to low income families.
From your article, this is the real motivating factor that scares the market fundies:
"The banking industry has a lot to lose if Fannie starts picking off its business, and it's hard to compete with them because Fannie can borrow money more cheaply."
But really, how competitive is the banking industry anyway? Are there an abundance of local banks anymore? Just like the health insurance market, a small number of companies own huge majorities today. There is no real competition in these markets and that leaves the little guy at the mercy of soulless giants. At least with the public versions of these companies, profit does not interfere with the individual's ability to afford a home or get medical care.
You cons really seem to fear real choice between a lean public competitor and an arrogant, bloated, monopolistic, private entity.
So Barney Frank said "...even Fannie Mae allies like Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts..."?
That doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. At least to those of us who don't speak Wingnutese.
Good God. I didn't catch that. I'm so fixated on trying to find out how Barney Frank's words make him responsible for the mortgage crisis that I neglected to give Goodfella's steaming pile any scrutiny.
I'm getting tired of this little dead-ender nugget of untruth that Democrats caused all our financial woes by giving loans to poor black families.
The fact is that Fannie and Freddie got into the sub-prime (ie BS) market late in the game and only because other lenders were showing such terrific profits. When government funded entities started going into this particular mess, the regulatory agencies should have been given a "heads up" if they weren't already monitoring and preparing to stop this bs. State agencies who tried to move against these practices were prevented from doing anything by the Bush Administration who declared it was a Federal issue because the banks are Federal...then he did nothing.
At worst..Fannie and Freddie were complicit in actions they knew would have long term disasterous consequences and at best...they are victims like so many others of greedy a$$holes who carved out billions from this econony...and GAVE NOTHING BACK...
To spite the neocon philosophy...there is such a thing as BAD business...and that is business without and civic component, conscience, or concern above making money.
Apparently, Republicans just cannot bring themselves to admit the complicity of Party leaders like Phil Graham and G.W. Bush in creating this mess, so they cling to their myth that Political Correctness brought down the world's financial system.
What a load of crap.
Republicans in general have a hard time owning up to anything that might have been the fault of a Republican. Not all of them, and not always, but in general, Republicans don't admit to causing problems.
You're right. Admitting to causing problems would be proof positive that Republican political and economic philosophies DON'T WORK. If the Cons did that, they would never win another election again.