O'Reilly advanced falsehood that "the Democrats in charge of the finance committees" resisted regulating mortgage industry
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that "the Democrats in charge of the finance committees" resisted efforts by the Bush administration to regulate the mortgage industry and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular. In fact, it was only after the Democrats did gain control of both "finance committees" in Congress in 2007 that Congress passed legislation strengthening oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
On the February 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly once again advanced a false attack on congressional Democrats over the housing crisis, falsely claiming that "the Democrats in charge of the finance committees" resisted efforts by the Bush administration to regulate the mortgage industry and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular. In fact, during President Bush's tenure, Democrats did not gain a majority of both houses of Congress -- and therefore control of both "finance committees" -- until 2007. Only then did Congress pass oversight legislation over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
O'Reilly stated to Fox News analyst Karl Rove: "I researched this after I went after Frank -- and I researched it. And here is the absolute -- this is my certainty, and I want you to just reply to it. You're right. The Bush administration tried for three years to try to get more regulation over the mortgage markets and the banking system. They did. But they didn't bring it to the folks. ... Didn't raise the alarm." He later added that this failure of the Bush administration "provided the Barney Franks and [Sen.] Chris Dodds [D-CT] of the world -- the Democrats in charge of the finance committees in Congress -- it provided them cover because they, indeed, didn't want the regulations." Rove responded by saying, in part: "Frank in particular said that we were talking down the mortgage -- the mortgage markets, and we were talking about Fannie and Freddie, and that we were trying to create the bugaboo of a crisis where no crisis existed."
In fact, in early 2007, as the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank sponsored H.R. 1427, a bill to create the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), granting that agency "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie and Freddie and directing it to reform the companies' business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk. The FHFA was eventually created after Congress incorporated provisions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said were "similar" to those of H.R. 1427 into the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which Bush signed into law on July 30, 2008.
Furthermore, before taking over the House Financial Services Committee chairmanship, Frank worked with committee chairman Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have established the FHFA to replace the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) as overseer of the activities of Fannie and Freddie. After voting for the bill in committee, Frank voted against final passage of the bill on the House floor, stating that he was doing so because an amendment added to the bill on the House floor imposed restrictions on the kinds of nonprofit organizations that could receive funding under the bill.
Frank also spoke in support of "legislation that would have enhanced the regulatory structure for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" during an October 6, 2004, hearing on capital markets, insurance, and government-sponsored enterprises. During the hearing, Frank said:
First, I want to address a little history here. The committee here was well on the way to adopting legislation that would have enhanced the regulatory structure for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the Senate, in fact, the committee actually voted out a bill. There was some disagreement between the parties over I think a relatively minor section over receivership. I think that could have been worked out.
I believe we were well on the way, the chairman and I and the staffs, to putting together a bill that would have enhanced the regulator and could have passed. What stopped progress on a new bill was the Bush administration's determination to go beyond safety and soundness and into provisions that would have restricted the housing function.
[...]
What derailed the legislation was an insistence by the Bush administration on going beyond safety and soundness and giving the regulators, for example, particular power to say, well, they are going beyond their charter in housing; they should not do these new products. There were specific issues here that transcended safety and soundness or went under it, but the administration was seeking powers that were not related to safety and soundness. If they were to have dropped that, we would have a law already signed and in place, because on the question of safety and soundness regulation, there has not been a significant dispute.
From the February 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Remember when you scolded me for yelling at Barney Frank a few months ago? Remember that?
ROVE: I don't know if I -- I don't know if I said you yelled --
O'REILLY: You said I --
ROVE: -- at Barney Frank.
O'REILLY: You said I was in-civil, or you used some word I didn't understand -- some big word. But you basically said the message was OK, but my method may have been a little barbaric, which, of course, is perfectly true.
But, you know, I researched this after I went after Frank -- and I researched it. And here is the absolute -- this is my certainty, and I want you to just reply to it. You're right. The Bush administration tried for three years to try to get more regulation over the mortgage markets and the banking system. They did. But they didn't bring it to the folks --
ROVE: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- didn't bring it to the folks.
ROVE: Yeah.
O'REILLY: Didn't raise the alarm. Didn't raise the Paul Revere, "The recession is coming. The recession is coming." Therefore --
ROVE: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- by not doing that, it provided the Barney Franks and Chris Dodds of the world -- the Democrats in charge of the finance committees in Congress -- it provided them cover because they, indeed, didn't want the regulations. I'll give you the last word.
ROVE: We may just have a disagreement over degree here. I remember that we were criticized by Dodd and Frank. Frank in particular said that we were talking down the mortgage -- the mortgage markets, and we were talking about Fannie and Freddie, and that we were trying to create the bugaboo of a crisis where no crisis existed. So it may be that just there's a difference of disagreement over how badly we raised it.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but I'm saying that you could have kicked his butt. You guys could have kicked his butt if you had come out --
ROVE: We -- we could've --
O'REILLY: -- on programs like this. You could have.
ROVE: We could have if you'd helped us.
O'REILLY: You didn't bring it to me. You didn't. I didn't know about it, because I wasn't paying that close of attention.
cause barney frank is gay and they are going to destroy our society
Another example of Republicans pulling talking points out of their a$$es.
Their ignorant asses, rovesputin's trap. Semantics. Semantics.
Yes, Repubs are blameless for everything, that's why they keep winning elections. If the Foxite Network is so gosh darn popular, why aren't they kingmakers? So many questions for so little minds.
I don't see the problem here...
Billy said he researched it.
Bill-doe, man of journalism?
well in the 2000 and 2004 elections they were kingmakers. they called the elections for bush before anyone else did
I didn't know about it, because I wasn't paying that close of attention.
That's all we really needs to know about Mr. Bill.
Can you name a democrat that was paying attention?
can you name a republican that truly was?
Yes I can, George Bush called for reregulation as early as April of 2001. He was consistently blocked by congress, dems and repubs alike. Later when he realized that he was not going to be successful he too jumped on the bandwagon and pointed to the great record of home ownership so he is also to blame. Alan Greenspan also warned of "catastrophic consequences" if Fannie and Freddie were not addressed, but then stupidly kept interest rates too low when he should have been raising them instead, so he also shares the blame. John McCain also cosponsored a bill to reregulate, Chris Dodd killed it in committee and it never came to a vote, every dem on the committee opposed it.
George Bush? Calling for regulation? Hahahahaaaaahaahaha! Please stop, my sides are killing me!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&feature=related watch this one if you dare
Bush said that fannie and freddie were too big. They were more interested in Wall Street being more involded in lending. Look at the shift in percentage of loans going to Fannie & Freddie between 2001-2006. Bush was trying to pave the way for Wall Street to do more loans. You just don't get the fact that this talk of Fannie & freddie is a red herring. The sub prime mess started on wall street.
Yes Bush said they were too big and the failure of either of them could have a disasterous impact on out system. What you don't get is that Wall St does not "do loans" as you put it, they just bundle already existing loans and sell them to investors. The sub prime problem resulted because the Clinton administration eliminated tradional lending standards as a means of opening up the market to borrowers who in the past did not qualify. They mandated that Fannie and freddie insure these loans, and the lenders and subsequently Wall St went right along for the ride. Why should they worry, Fannie and Freddie will guarantee them. If our illustrious congress had listened to the Bush administration about this issue we might not be dealing with it now. Maybe you can blame for many other issues, but this one is not his fault and the links in this thread will bear that out. Watch them and trust your own eyes and ears.
The 2nd to last sentence should read "maybe you can blame Bush for many other issues"
Bush is to blame primarily for being a dupe to greedy marketers and war mongers. Greenspan's policies date back to Reagan and Clinton too.
Freddie and Fannie are not the major culprits here.
well given the fact that republicans controlled the house from 1994-until 2006. its hard for me to accept that democracts could truly block things and do more than just rail against stuff.
the senate being a bit of a different matter is much the same thing. the republicans controlled controlled it for a good amount of the time and if there was going to be a fillabuster....well one can only talk for so long.
O'Reilly is a joke.
Well Roger Ailes is his boss...what more could you expect?
Is Bush ever wrong about anything on The O'Reilly Factor? Is having Karl Rove as your primary political analyst "fair and balanced"?
Bill-O seriously wants his audience to believe that the Bushies wanted stricter regulation on anything??? Okay, maybe restrictions on union activity or social programs...but big lenders, forget about it.
The Fixed News audience is down to the 25 percent of the population who not only think those wmd are gonna turn up any day now, they still think the tide is about to turn in Stalingrad any day now and the fuhrer will lead them to glorious victory by the weekend.
Just take one look at HBO's "Right America" and you'll see just what kind of scum you're dealin' with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg I wonder if you will spend the 3 minutes
I watched it. Even if we take it at face value, which is inadvisable with anything from FOX.....WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF CONGRESS AT THAT TIME?
The repubs were and that is where their blame lies, the dems almost unanimously opposed reregulation AND some repubs also did so the Bush efforts were defeated. But there were many repubs along with Bush who called for the changes and the tapes prove it. The tapes also show that Barney Frand and there are others with Chris Dodd were consistently opposing reregulation, something they deny now. Maxine Waters is also shown praising Frankiln Raines, a democrat who ran Fannie into the ground while he lined his own pockets just like the Wall St guys did later on. But O'Reilly's claims are shown to be true and there are plenty of others. These are tapes of the actual congressional hearing why would you dispute them just because it was shown in a Fox report, don't you believe your own eyes and ears? What it does also show is that the people at MSNBC are the dishonest ones when they do not show their listeners what really happened.
Here's an AP story that gives another view.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/258818.php
You're right about one thing, though; neither party is blameless in this mess.
The Bushies didn't want sticter regulation. They wanted less irresponsible lending by Fannie and Freddie, unlike Chris "Friend of Angelo" Dodd and Barney Fwank.
Ahh a new twoll.
So they were going to somehow reduce irresponsible lending without any regulatory teeth. This was going to work how? Have Dick Chenney threaten to come over and spend some quality time with them if their irrisponsible lending metric passed some unmentioned level as defined by some unreachable political appointee?
Barney's ability to scare neocons into lying is just so cute......pathological, tribal knowledge based, and generally unsupportable.
ok.....and who was the party that ruled from 2000-2006? t
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related-- try this one, it is very enlightening
Why isn't Karl Rove in jail yet?
he is the Dark Lord of the Sith. he uses the Force to trick everyone to keep him out of jail
For what crime?
For starters, ignoring a subpoena to testify before congress. Then we can find out if he is complicit in 2 other crimes that Bush has admitted to publicly - sanctioning torture and warrantless wiretapping.
how about contempt of court? refusing to answer a congressional subpoena? that good enough?
how about the Valarie Plame leak that he may have been involved in, which endangered a woman's life just because her husband would not tow the party line. how about the damage to the intelligence community that this thing caused?
you want some more mark?
ok. im going repeat myself. who had been in control of congress for well over a decade........? democrats couldnt do squat on their committees.
I am not laying all of the blame on the dems, the most blame, I believe goes to the Wall St crowd. But the point of the story was O'Reilly's false claims about Frank in particular and others. The tapes prove that those claims are true. Frank and many other dems steadfastly opposed reregs. Did you watch any of the other clips on utube, there are planty of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg
That's a good one, I have seen it before. I wonder how many people here will watch?
I am sure those who do watch will say it is false. They are all to blame, not just one side of the isle.
there is plenty of blame to go around for everyone. ok? i did watch the you tube clips, hell i saw many of those on live tv at the time. but as i have said before frank and dodd may have opposed regulation but they had little rela power to make it happen or bring it back. cause they were in the moniority
Yes they were in the minority, just as the repubs are now, but aren't the repubs taking heat now for not supporting the stimulus bill. The fact is there was more repub support now for the stimulus bill than there was dem support for reregulation back then. The repubs did not have the votes to pass it alone, just as the dems wanted some repub help now. You can't have it both ways. And now that you have seen clips of their own words as they happened , what do you think of the fact that they still to this day deny they had anything to do with it. They are liars. In my opinion we could throw the entire congress out on the street and pick a new one from the telephone book, we would be better off.
Bomb, becase they started using the Race card, many backed off. Also, if they could not get enough votes to get it out of committee, then that was also a problem. If I remember correctly this was one of the committees that were balanced differently due to one of the Senators jumping from Reb, to Indy. I will have to go back and research that piece.
FANNIE and FREDDIE were only a small part of the problem.
Your clips from you tube are similar to those that you get from Oreilly etc.. They leave out the context behind the testimony. If you notice, they are not dated and they are spliced together to prove a point. The dems were not against regulation per se. They were against the thinly veiled attempts of the republicans to steer more lending towards the investment banks. You can go on you tube and find any clips to support your positon, but he key is to make sure that they have context. Try doing a search on google for sub prime mortgage crisis. You will see that the statistics will show that the Fannie Mae loans were not a significant contributor to the mortgage meltdown.
This guy cannot possibly have a fact checker on his staff...They ALL just make any kind of unfounded statement!
I get so damn tired of going over this plowed ground time after time! IT IS NOT TRUE, O'REILLY! That hourly pay fee has been debunked numerous times...and your NEWS station, FOX NEWS, the home of Lying Hannity, Perverted "Billo", and owner, Rupert Murdoch..producer of that racist cartoon of our new President Obama, put out propaganda on a daily basis! We have to watch you and fact check everything that flows from your filthy news paper mouth...What can we expect, when a clueless party allows their party to be run by an uneducated college drop-out, RUSH LIMBAUGH, oh, that is right, he is on loan from "GOD" and that FOOL actually thinks he is more intelligent than a college Harvard graduate ....Idiots..All of'em!What does Limbaugh have to do with O'Reilly? And guess who is a Harvard grad? And hey coach were you as offended by the vicious cartoons put out by the left and posted on sites like the daily kos of Bush and Lieberman. I think you need a little objectivity in your opinions. The car companies claim that they spend about $73 per hour for every hour of unionized work. That figure includes the cost of retirees benefits and does not all go to the workers, until they retire. At least that is the claim of the companies themselves. The fact is that due to many reasons, salary being only one of them, our unionized car companies are having a hard time competing with the others. http://www.findmall.com/read.php?52,862419,862574
ok first problem......your using a site that is citing Forbes....a publication owned by Rupert the Aussie Pirate.
2nd.....that claim is bogus. cause it lumps in retirement benefits for workers who are long gone and benefits for families of workers who died already.
so if you wanna keep plugging for the Dark Lord Karl and his apprentice Darth Rush, be my guest.
but try to use something more reputable and has less a conflict of interest than a site using Forbes.
http://theshiningcityblog.com/2008/09/25/barney-frank-in-2003-frannie-mae-freddie-mac-a-okay/
Ohh please, Faux Gnus in 2003! Barney somehow out manuvered both houses of congress, the administration, and every financial lobbist on K street? I don't think he's that awesome.
What good is giving the GOPL all that political power when Barney can punk them from a minority position?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A
Ok, this is footage from CSPAN, this may help you.
You keep posting the same clips. They are different clips from different pieces of testimony What is your point? Dems in congress were powerless to stop anything as they were the minority.
Mom, what is funny about these videos is the Dem saying how sound Freddie and Fannie were, how much good they were doing, how they do not need regulation, but congratulations for such a good job they were doing. For weeks I have heard is how the Republicans should have put more regulations in place, but when they tried they were shut down by the dems. My problem with the Republicans were, they caved into the Dems, they tried to get along with them instead they should have just ignored them and put the regulations in place. Just proves that with the Dems in charge it will only get worse. Or as I have been told by a few here, the adults are now here, get out of the way. OUCH
What regulations specifically were the republicans calling for. They did not go with it because they did not really want meaningful regulation. You are pulling quotes from 4-5 years prior. Fannie/Freddie were fine at that point. Fannie's loan portfolio is more adversely affected by the toxic assetts on Wall Street that have brought down the whole market. Very few fully saw this thing coming and the Republicans were not making any comments about the Wall Street Banks and regulating them. The republicans did not like the efforts to provide housing for minorities and low income folks and that is what they were looking to change.