IBD editorial blamed Frank for "nix[ing] reforms" of Fannie and Freddie in '02 and '03 -- when GOP controlled House
SUMMARY: An Investor's Business Daily editorial stated, "Starting in the early 1990s," Rep. Barney Frank "(and other Democrats) stood athwart efforts by regulators, Congress and the White House to get the runaway housing market under control." It specified that "[i]n 2002, Frank nixed reforms" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that in 2003, "led by Frank, Democrats stood as a bloc against any changes" that President Bush proposed making to Fannie and Freddie. But in 2002 and 2003, Republicans controlled the House and could have passed legislation regarding Fannie and Freddie in the House without the support of Frank or any other Democrats.
A March 6 Investor's Business Daily editorial headlined "Let the Inquisition Start with Frank" stated that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), "perhaps more than any single individual in private or public life, is responsible for both the housing market mess and subsequent bank disaster." As evidence, the editorial stated, "Starting in the early 1990s, he (and other Democrats) stood athwart efforts by regulators, Congress and the White House to get the runaway housing market under control." It specified that "[i]n 2002, Frank nixed reforms" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that in 2003, "led by Frank, Democrats stood as a bloc against any changes" that President Bush proposed making to Fannie and Freddie. But in 2002 and 2003, Frank and the Democrats had no power to "nix[] reforms" -- Republicans controlled the House of Representatives and could have passed legislation regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the House without any Democratic support. Yet during President Bush's tenure, Congress did not pass oversight legislation for Fannie and Freddie until after Democrats gained a majority in both houses of Congress in 2007.
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 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.
Additionally, contrary to the editorial's suggestion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "lay behind the crisis," and thus that Frank's purported opposition to reforming them make him "responsible for both the housing market mess and subsequent bank disaster," economist Dean Baker has stated:
Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector. They lost market share in the years 2002-2007, as the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded. In short, while Fannie and Freddie were completely irresponsible in their lending practices, the claim that they were responsible for the financial disaster is absurd on its face -- kind of like the claim that the earth is flat.
Indeed, in a 2006 Securities and Exchange Commission filing (available here) covering its activities in 2004, Fannie Mae stated: "We did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005." In the report, Fannie Mae also noted the growth of subprime lending and reported, "These trends and our decision not to participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages contributed to a significant loss in our share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances to private-label issuers during this period."
Moreover, as The New York Times reported in a December 20, 2008, article, the mortgage crisis "is partly one of Mr. Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials." The Times reported that Bush "insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending":
But for much of Mr. Bush's tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like Mr. West.
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. Republican Congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as Mr. West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.
From IBD's March 6 editorial:
Even by the extraordinarily loose standards of Congress, it takes some chutzpah for someone such as Frank to suggest that he'll seek prosecutions for those behind the housing and financial crunch and for what he called "a strongly empowered systemic risk regulator."
For Frank, perhaps more than any single individual in private or public life, is responsible for both the housing market mess and subsequent bank disaster. And no, this isn't partisan hyperbole or historical exaggeration.
But first, a little trip down memory lane.
It was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), that lay behind the crisis. After regulatory changes made to the Community Reinvestment Act by President Clinton in 1995, Fannie and Freddie went into hyper-drive, channeling literally trillions of dollars into the housing markets, using leverage and implicit taxpayers' guarantees.
[...]
Still, from the early 1990s on, many people both inside and outside Washington were alarmed by what they saw at Fannie and Freddie.
Not Barney Frank: Starting in the early 1990s, he (and other Democrats) stood athwart efforts by regulators, Congress and the White House to get the runaway housing market under control.
He opposed reform as early as 1992. And, in response to another attempt bring Fannie-Freddie to heel in 2000, Frank responded it wasn't needed because there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."
In 2002, Frank nixed reforms again. See a pattern here?
Even after federal regulators discovered in 2003 that Fannie and Freddie executives had overstated earnings by as much as $10.6 billion in order to boost bonuses, Frank didn't miss a beat.
President Bush pushed for what the New York Times then called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
If it had passed, the housing crisis likely would have never boiled over, at least not the extent it did, taking the economy with it. Instead, led by Frank, Democrats stood as a bloc against any changes.
There you go again, letting facts sway your argument instead of lying through your teeth as IBD does on a regular basis.
I remain amazed how you all are so quick to take what MMFA writes at face value. Because they quote someone it must be fact - true. Today the NY Times confirms the falsehood - yesterday the NY Times committed the falsehood. The same goes for WaPo, OBM, economists, CNBC, CNN and the list goes on and on.
I find it incredulous that one day a source is so reliable as to be undeniabley irrefutable and the next a pack of liars. If I am to believe anything then MMFA needs to do real research.
For one, MMFA falls flat to be so naive as to think the way business gets done is to just cram it down the throats of the minotity - oops I guess I just described how the Dem controlled congress is working didn't I. There are times when votes are need so a congress operates in a specific manner - but the truth is Barney was in charge and every time Barney gives a talk he is destroyed by those of feable minds - which gives you an idea of what this guy is capable of - kindergarden level thining. Ever wonder why the Dems have kept Barney Fife away from most of the media happenings....
Akk I know is that whether or not Barney was at fault he definitely is the last person I want ot see in anyway associated with recovery operations - this is a lame horse and should be treated humanely.
"I find it incredulous that one day a source is so reliable as to be undeniabley irrefutable and the next a pack of liars. If I am to believe anything then MMFA needs to do real research."
I find that incredulous too, but then nobody's asserting that.
Let's say the NYT and the New York Post make contadictory statements on the same subject. Statement A is true, statement B is false. For your sake, let's say the NYT makes statement B and the New York Post makes statement A. But then the next day, both make statement C. It doesn't matter whether statement C is true or false. Either way one of the papers goes from being a irrefutable source to being a pack of liars or vice-versa.
This isn't a "whitefoot indian/blackfoot indian" logic puzzle. One source doesn't have to be "undeniably irrefutable" and another doesn't have to be a "pack of liars". If there's no basis to dispute what they're saying, then it stands as pertinent information.
So what you are saying on days someone like the NY Times agrees with your position then their word is fact or truth and any other view of the issue must be a falsehood - but when the NY Times disagrees with your position then they are the ones promoting a falsehood. I have seenthis many times over here with MMFA - even with the same writer!
I for one do not see MMFA as the determinator of truth versus falsehood. As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat too, unless you are a flaming liberal trying to spread youor general undemocratic principles to the mindless masses called your followers.
Some of us can think independently from the dribble most times proferred by MMFA. You do get it dead on every now and then but mostly this is the best propaganda I've seen since Chavez came to power in Venezuela.
I'm sure you've seen better propaganda. Chavez is a novice compared to Limbaugh, Hannity, Newtie, Boehner, Frist, etc..............
If you find some misinformation promoted by Media Matters, bring it up.
I think I just did. When it serves their purpose a certain writer or certain media source is rolled out as proof of MMFA's position, and evidence that any opinion to the contrary must be a falsehood. Then the next day, the same source or writer is the one accused of the falsehood. I think MMFA fail to be real guardians of the truth in that they do not provide analysis but find, using their media content search engine, a media person or entity that agrees with them and their liberal policies and tehn pass that off as fact.
My first manager taught me a valuable life lesson when he said, "remeber son, tortue numbers and they will tell any story you want them to."
Not every article on MMFA faults a writer or other media person for committing a falsehood. Many times MMFA simply points out when a writer or other media person allows someone else's falsehood to go unchallenged. That same writer or media person, on another day, may be a valuable source of reliable information. And when you lump together everyone who has ever written something for the New York Times you are wrong in suggesting that newspaper is a monolithic entity expressing only one political view.
No. It has to be black or white. Otherwise, the world is even scarier.
This very thread by MMFA is pure propaganda, check it out yourself. The other day you said you would not know anything about Hannity if not for MMFA, it that true of this topic also. You can do better, the mind is a terrible thing to waste.
IBD seems to be the only propaganda on this thread.
Of course you would say that, you have not examined the evidence. http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/BloodhoundBlog/?p=5122 Try reading this. And look at the utube clips, if you dare.
oooh, a dare. How daring. Listen buster, when you read actual transcripts of Hannity (and I admit) actually watch him on the teevee, you can see what a tool he is. He talks over every one and lies constantly.
I don't do videos (with dial-up) but try reading the huffington post piece about this whole debacle. The attempt to blame the Dems and Barney Frank for this mess are pathetic.
The subprime problem reached a critical mass between 2003 and 2006, when the Republicans controlled the White House and Congress and did nothing. If you suggest that both parties are comparably deserving of blame, you are ignoring the salient data. [The well is also poisoned by the Swiftboating of prominent Democrats, such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who fought hard to address the issue in the face of Republican footdragging.]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-simple-arithmetic-of_b_173204.html
No it is you who are ignoring the salient data, the congressional hearings on the freddie and Fannie mess prove it beyond any shadow of doubt, but of course , you don't do videos.
You don't do videos, how convenient, but I suspect it has nothing to do with dial up, more likely you do not want to see the actual proof, Barney in his own words. And the other day you said that you do not watch Hannity but relied on MMFA for your info, now you say you watch him. Which is it?
You're quite the black and white guy, no? I don't watch insannity except the occasional channel surf, for about 30 seconds. And yes, I'm on dial up. right now I'm at our local library, unfortunately wasting time talking to you.
why are you spending so much time trying to blame Barney Frank for the housing mess anyway? What's your problem?
"So what you are saying on days someone like the NY Times agrees with your position then their word is fact or truth and any other view of the issue must be a falsehood - but when the NY Times disagrees with your position then they are the ones promoting a falsehood."
"If there's no basis to dispute what they're saying, then it stands as pertinent information."
Funny, I don't see anything about ideology in my quote. I'm talking about objective reality, whatever ideological view it happens to support. If you don't have some reason to doubt what's reported, then it is treated as credible.
I'm really not sure how you think "have your cake and eat it too" applies to what you're saying here.
How can any group be trained to lie so regularly? The GOP and their teeth chatters must train to lie like Army Rangers train for combat.
because El Rushbo tells them to or they will lose their seats to right wing challengers
Arlen Specter, case in point...
yes, and Spector is my Senator. the fact that he is moderate led me to vote for him last time around and if he continues i will keep voting him.
He gets some positive response here from time to time. I don't follow his record closely, but being opposed to monoparty government, its good to see a republican I'd consider voting for.
he's from philly and always remembers where he comes from.
after his last close brush last time around he damn well knows he has to watch it. especially in scranton.
Hey, j-bomb, where in PA are you? Me and Prineofwheels are in the 'burgh.
ugh your area spawned Santorum....is there something in the water out there?
in from Scranton. Dunmore more specifically
Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up! ;)
Typical that right-wing rags would try to blame the Dems for this mess, when they were controlling every branch of government in 2002-3. There's a good article in Huffington Post debunking the right-wing spin.
This whole mess has been a long simmering bubble of paper wealth. Wages have been stagnant since the Reagan era. Greenspan and other so-called "economists" encouraged debt: first credit card debt, then borrowing on mortgages, to keep the economy growing in the face of stagflation. Deregulation allowed the rampant speculation, and now there's no place to borrow anymore.
Typical that right-wing rags would try to blame the Dems for this mess
Idiot wind, blowing like a circle around my skull,
From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol.
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,
You're an idiot, babe.
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe.
- Bob Dylan
Dylan really cuts to the core, doesn't he? That should be the song that's sung every time one of the Republican bloviators gets up to rail against the stuff they enabled.
Thanks, julia.
That HuffPo piece was interesting. It confirms what I knew about Texas not being caught much in the housing bubble. Our prices have been pretty stable, unlike the rest of the country.
Speaking of independent confirmation, did you see this poll about Limbaugh?
Hey RH, long time....;-)
Thanks for the stats. Doesn't surprise me at all regarding the defacto leader of the gop slop. Hey, we all knew it before it was independently confirmed though, didn't we?
I also thank you for the Carville statement in context. There are several posters here who are trying to get traction with that muckety muck and even the Christian Science Monitor got in on the act of trying to equate Carville and Limbaugh. Shame on them.
Good site, btw. I'm adding it to my favorites.
Your e-mail is over quota Miz Julia...you need to clean it out.
Ahhh, when Dylan was good.
Now he's a coroporate shill (for the Escalade no less!)
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/dont-think-twice-yes-thats-dylan-pitching-cadillacs/
Yeah, old, bloated and comfortable replaces young and edgy. Happens to the best of 'em.
Except I'm not that comfortable. Oh, you meant Bob. Nevermind.
What was the reps majority in 2002-2003, do you even know? IN 2000 and 2002 the senate was a virtual tie and in 2004 the reps majority was less than what the dems have now. And in the house their majority was much lower then the dems have now. Those are the facts and no article in the huffington post can change that. Since the dems could not pass the stimulus bill even now with a larger majority how could you expect the reps to do it back then. The fact is that reform in the mortgage industry was blocked by the dems, period. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish but that is your loss. MMFA and Huffington are dead wrong on this issue, try thinking for yourself for a change.
"Since the dems could not pass the stimulus bill even now with a larger majority how could you expect the reps to do it back then."
Republicans in the House voted unanimously against the stimulus bill. With 229 votes in 2003 or 221 votes in 2002, a unanimous vote would pass a bill.
Pointless response, why could the dems not get the unanimous vote to pass the stimulus bill now. ? Same situation different issues . If you blame the reps for voting against the stimulus bill now don't you have to apply the same standard to the dems back then? And in the senate it was basically even , so the reps could not do anything. And when bills were proposed later on they were killed in committee by Dodd, with every dem voting against even allowing a full vote of the senate.
But we're talking about Frank, specifically. He's in the House. Democrats don't tend to vote in lockstep quite as much, for some reason. But if Republicans can vote unanimously against a bill with popular support in a time of economic crisis (hurting their polling numbers in the process), then surely they can round themselves up in order to vote for something worthwhile. Or do you think they can only get organized when playing defense, and have no interest in actual governance?
Are you sure that Democrats voted in lockstep against that bill? And aren't you referring to the omnibus bill? The stimulus bill passed.
You are right , I am mixing up my bills, but my point remaims the same. As a rule neither party wants to pass any bill without at least some support from the other side. Another factor back then was the cries of racism towards the reps when they tried to reform, and that caused some reps to tuck their tails between their legs and retreat. I don't thnk that the stimulus bill had popular support however, If I remember correctly polling seemed to indicate that the majority was against the bill. Popular opinion was clearly with Obama however, so if I am right, there was a conflict in some polling. It seems to me that if you supported the Pres, you should have supported the bill, although he did leave it largely in the hands of congress.
You have no point. Anatomy of a smear on Rep. Frank:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/fox-news-barney-frank-esc_b_132347.html
http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/BloodhoundBlog/?p=5122 This one is not a video
He is a really insane writer. No question.
For weeks now, a handful of other posters have been following Bill O’Reilly’s lead by citing quotes of Barney Franks as proof that he caused the mortgage crisis. I repeatedly asked how Franks’ words could have so much power against a Republican voting majority. I also repeatedly asked what actions on Franks’ part as a member of the congressional minority led to the downfall. I never really got any answers.
In Billo's world any liberal's purported power and influence is multiplied by either dark skin or gay sexual preference.
and i snt it funny how orally says how he isnt racisit.
To be fair Bill O'Reilly isn't a racist. He just dislikes black people who don't act like regular American people from white suburbs. ;>)
Exactly. Now pass the M'F'n iced tea!
Get outta my brain, snoopy!
I KNEW you secretly loved me!
Shhhh! Keep it on the DL, dawg!
Get me an iced tea, M'fer!
yeah thats the correct quote....and he was with al sharpton no less
pete ive said the same thing many times before.
And you obviously don't have the intelectual curiosity to look at the visual proof that can be found at utube. I guess that you will claim that it was Fox News that hired Barney Frank inpersonators to make all those videos, and maxine Waters impersonators too. Wow , this really is a conspiracy. Also take the time to look up the truth about the reps majority in Congress, they were much narrower than the dems enjoy now and didn't the dems need rep support to get the stimulus bill passed. You refuse to hold both parties to the same standards. Look for yourself and stop being led around by MMFA.
The toxic mortgages were made by banks and mortgage lenders who knew that they could sell off the mortgage and have it securitized. therefore the lenders had no harm come to them if they made irresponsible mortgages. Somehow, these mortgage securities got top ratings (AAA), further exacerbing the problem. Now Fannie and Fresddie were buying and securitizing mortgages themselves, so they arenot completely innocent (although the ratings were bogus. Finally, the loss of jobs, especially manufacturing led to many defaults.
How Barney Frank gets blamed for these circumstances is unfathomable.
I say lock up the criminal rating company personnel, and let banks who knowingly made inadvisable loans fail.
Also - the banks were pawning off their risk by selling off those securitized mortgages. And in their never-ending greed, they found that they could continue the gravy train by lowering and lowering the requirements to be approved for a loan.
The banking industry didn't care if banks failed - they already reaped untold millions and depositors are insured.
And who was it that lowered the standards for mortgages? It was the Clinton administration, it was a cornerstone of the democratic platform. And vigorously defended by Frank and the dems in general. They mandated it and everyone else took advantage of it. You are right that people in the system did not really care, they were all getting rich, including Raines at Fannie Mae, put in place by the dems. Securitizing mortgages is exactly what Fannie and Freddie do. And had the dems listened and raised the requirements for loans, this all could have been avoided. The reps did not have the necessary majority to do it themselves, but they tried.
Wrong again. The Republicans DEREGULATED the banking industry. There was no OVERSIGHT. Your blame is, as usual, misplaced.
The Clinton Administration with a Republican Congress. Also, the Republicans were still in control of Congress until '06. You can't seriously be saying that Freddie and Fannie and their legions of lobbyists didn't bribe and backslap Republicans just as much as Dems. I won't go so far as to lay all the blame on Republicans, but you cannot blame Dems exclusively when Reps had majorities in both houses and the WH and could have used their tight grip on the media to force Dems to "correct" the abuses going on at Freddie and Fannie (what about Countrywide and all those private firms, why were they doing all this irresponsible lending?) They allowed it to continue, they enabled the practices, and they must now accept the blame for their role in the mess as much as any Dem.
You are absolutely correct in most of what you say. I would disagree on a few points, one, I never tried to lay all the blame on the dems, if you look thru this thread I have said that a number of times, I blame them all. But the point to this thread is the notion that Frank and the dems had not blocked reform when they clearly did. Also when Clinton first took office the dems had the house, it quickly changed however. And Fannie and Freddie gave much more to the dems than the repubs, but yes they gave to both parties. All the others you mention are just as guilty as anyone else. the banks ,Wall st, the rating agencies, and the people who abused the relaxed lending standards trying to get rich in the real estate market. What I find amazing is a few of the people who contributed to this mess have been economic advisors to Pres Obama, namely, Bill Donaldson, who as head of the SEC allowed Wall St to ditch net capital requirements and Frank Raines who drove Fannie Mae into the ground.
Put your money where your mouth is, because I'm tired of all this generic talk. What reforms specifically did Republicans propose that would have rectified the mess?
The truth is that the reps held a narrower margin in the house and the senate than the dems do now in the years under discussion here. The reps and the Bush Admin repeatedly tried to reform Fannie and Freddie. But without a larger majority the repubs could not get the reforms passed by themselves. Sound familiar, it is the same situation that the dems faced now in getting the stimulus bill passed, they needed some rep help. Anyone who actually cares about the truth can find many clips of Frank, Maxine Waters and other dems resisting reforms proposed by the reps, they are many at utube, just search for Barney Frank and fannie Mae. It is an irrefutable fact and it is there for all to see. Check it out. Don't hide from the truth any longer.
As i prevously posted, Barney Frank is not really the problem---He did not allow banks to securitize loans, nor did he make banks make risky loans. The banks and non cra lenders knew they were not retaining the loan so they were ever more risky. Frank did not certify that these mortgage securities were rated AAA!
No he is not the ONLY one to blame but he does share in the blame. This thread is denying that Frank had blocked reform, and he clearly did block reform along with other dems. Had congress listened to Bush and the reps in 2001 and later years this mess could have been avoided or at least mitigated. But they did not. You can blame Bush and the reps for other issues but they were dead right on this one. And while Franklin Raines raped Fannie and got rich himself the dems steadfastly defended him. Watch the clips at utube , the proof is there. There are plenty of people to blame, Frank is one of the major players in this mess. But to this day he lies and says he had nothing to do with it, watch yourself and then judge him, do not rely on the words of others. Listen to what he said , and Pelosi, and Waters and Schummer and Dodd.
The utube clips are hopeless mishmash, not worth anything.
I did not blame either party. I stated earlier that the securitizing of the mortgage loans coupled with bogus ratings of these securities created the problem. As Foghorn pointed out, the greed of the lenders led to making loans that were overly risky. Also the job losses have contributed mightily to toxic mortgages. I have not listened to one voice but have made an attempt to sysnthesize all the available material on this subject.
Many of these risky loans were made on the premise that home prices would continue to rise even though the price of homes had gone to six -ten times of borrowers'salaries. Greedy lenders aided by a lack of secrurities regulators doing their job, plus the raters of these weak securities are way more significant than anything B Frank did or did not do.
The clips show Frank and Waters and Pelosi defending Fannie and denying there was any problem, right up until 9/08. That is the subject of this thread. The clips are worthless to you because you do not want to see the truth. Much of what you also point out is true too, I am not trying to blame all this mess on Frank or the dems alone. There is a ton of blame to go around.
It would be possible to mash a bunch of Republican statements concerning Freddie and Fannie, but it is the voting records and legislation submitted of both parties that tells the real story and the fact remains that your attempt to pin blame solely on Dems is a misguided and juvenile attempt, similar to my 6 year old blaming her 2 year brother for everything!
As I previously stated a number of times, I am not solely blaming the dems, read thru the entire thread.
If the republicans had stood up against the left, our country would not be in this mess. However, they were afraid because the left and willing mainstream media accomplices would have called them racists. Oh wait, they do that anyway, just listen to the attacks by democrats when new regulations were proposed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
And hear how close the CEO's of fannie were to the 'democrat family'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=related
The gutless republicans didn't fight the monstrosity that fannie and freddie were creating because of those attacks and the threats of more strident attacks via the democrat media machine.
You are absolutely right about that , the reps are not blameless in this mess but there is no denying the fact that the dems blocked reform every chance they got.
Put up some evidence of your "fact."
Are you too lazy to go to utube yourself and check it out, I told you where to find it. Apparently you are another lemming who just wants to let MMFA do your thinking for you.
Utube videos are your "proof"?? Hahahahahaha, that's good.
Yes videos of the C span hearings, where you can listen to exactly what happened, you criticize me for being juvenile when you don't even investigate before you criticize. That is juvenile. Or maybe you think they are really actors hired by the right to impersonate Barney Frank and Pelosi and the rest of the dems. Grow up.
"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 the article linked above, 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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg&feature=related Try this one
No offense, but don't expect anybody to blindly accept your little propaganda video at face value. We have no idea what questions those folks were answering.
In as much as your video shows, there were no problems with Fannie and Freddie's lending practices, it's simply no surprise that when two companies, who hold almost nothing but mortgages, go into crises when a housing bubble bursts. Sure was a good thing Baker was there to limit fm and fm's ability to diversify their holdings wasn't it? Not. However, it's fascinating that Fannie and Freddie's adherence to safe lending practices in the sub-prime market drove consumers into the ARM's of the private mortgage industry which marketed aggressive products without regard for future consequences.
We can agree if management at Fannie and Freddie had recognized the bubble and stopped purchasing loans, much of this mess could have been ameliorated. The simple truth is that you're trying to take a backdoor approach to blaming low income borrowers for the sins of predatory capitalism and that just won't cut it, friend
But anyway, ain't it funny that your boy from the video, Richard Baker, resigned before filling out his last term to go be a lobbyist for a hedge fund company? Too funny, indeed. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
The videos show the efforts of the reps to reform and the dems standing firm against the reforms. I am amazed how people here love those 60 second clips when they are presented out of context by MMFA but question everything about more inclusive excerpts from the actual congressional hearings from C span telecasts. And I am not blaming low income borrowers, I never mentioned them from a blame standpoint, their loans were a drop in the bucket compared to the overall problem.
Stop defending your propaganda film. You know those clips are not what they purport to be. The heart of the housing crisis is an army of sleazy, predatory lenders not a handful of liberals who sought to help low income and minority, working class families secure a safe mortgage.
No response? You know you're a liar.
And you are a fool , who ignores evidence that disagrees with your premise, I have previously replied to your idiotic posts. You deny what your eyes can see.
Wrong. Show us what reforms libs were opposing that would have staunched the bleeding. Show us exactly where the lobbyist, Baker, was trying to make FM and FM cease and desist from buying up all those junk loans.
No, the only reforms Repubs were seeking was to limit FM and FM's ability to compete with a bloated and arrogant private sector. Repubs were out to privatize FM and FM so they could further redistribute as much income as possible to the wealthy. You know the commodity futurization act, a conservative piece of legislation, opened the flood gates to all these bundled loans that made the housing bubble burst. Baker and friends weren't about to touch that, they wanted less rules for Wall St.
So take a hike.
You should check the commodity act a little more closely before you cite it. You are correct that is was proposed by reps in both the senate and the house, however it was cosponsored by dems in both houses. Secondly it was passed and signed by Pres Clinton and last time I looked he was not a rep. In the house 157 dems voted for it and only 9 opposed it, the rep count was 133 for and 51 against. So in the house it was largely supported by the dems. In the senate it passed by unamimous consent. It was then sent to Clinton. You had better get out your hiking boots, you have not said anything that is true, and your opinions are not supported by fact.
Like I said, it was conservative legislation, Repub or Dem, doesn't matter because the intent was to enrich the wealthy. Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had and show us the reforms you were asked for, Mr. Evasive Bluster.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&feature=related or this one
Hey, those of us who have been posting here, (until the censors remove them because our comments hit to close to home) have been pointing the hyprocrisy about the democrat party's attempt to protect the debacle of fannie and freddie. It doesn't surprise me that they would deny the truth by avoiding the very videos, articles, published comments that are counter to their distorted view of reality. Why should they when the truth obliterates their beliefs. This is one they really hate because it shows how far together in bed these guys actually were.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=related
Some of the minds here ( but not all) are absolutely airtight, no amount of proof will change what they have been led to believe by sites such as MMFA, Huffington, etc. Rather than make up their own minds based on the real facts they rely on short clips when it suits their purpose and deny the validity of longer more revealing clips when it goes against their thinking. I have been roundly criticized for even suggesting that the dems had anything to do with this whole mess even though I have repeatedly said that both parties among others are to blame. I would argue that anyone who thinks either party is always right and the other is always wrong is a fool. But it is a popular opinion here that dems are always right and the repubs are always wrong. Fox is always wrong and MSNBC is always right is another popular notion. And MMFA , they are a gift from God.
The videos are Franks and Pelosis and Waters own words, I cannot change or alter them in any way. Watch them and notice how the reps are always calling for reform and all of the dems are opposing it.
And what of Paulson and Bernanke going out and reassuring us that all was well?
Paulson and Bernanke were dead wrong also , I am not trying to exonerate them or the reps for that matter, they all played a part. But this problem had been building for years and years and in this instance the reps were right, but they gave up too easy and thus they share the blame also. The truth is , is that our entire gov't shares the blame along with all the people that became house flippers and real estate experts overnight. Not to mention Wall St, they are as much to blame as anyone. But to exonerate Frank and Dodd and the rest of the dems is just wrong.
the most barney frank could have done was delay things but he could not stop it. chris dodd was in a better position to actually block something being a senator he could have filibustered....but then he woul dbe demonized for doing so, and rather than fight a pointless battle he decided to save his guns for a bigger fight.
maybe frank and dodd get a small share of the blame.....but the bush administration and the neo con congress get the lions (liars)share of it.
sitsaroundthehouse,
Read the WHOLE article you pasted above. Where does it say anything that distorts the historical record that we have demostrated?
Why would the banking industry have alot to lose? Here's why....
Fannie had become the 2nd largest borrower, the US gov't first, (it says so in your article) because they could get money more cheaply because they were backed by the government. So they wanted to pick off private competitors by moving into other businesses. What did fannie want to avoid? Close regulation!!
Fannie wanted free reign without competition and become the what you stated, "You cons really seem to fear real choice between a lean public competitor and an arrogant, bloated, monopolistic, private entity."
I go on refuting your pitiful comments but I will wait and see if you want to get in over your head even further.
This question of competition boils down to the private sector's unwillingness to trim the fat. That would require ending the practice of redistributing as much income as possible to the wealthy and start promoting the general welfare by providing services that protect the sick and the poor as well as ensuring an economy that works for all.
Now you can go ahead and talk all you want about how efficient the private sector is at this or that, but you'll just be lying through you teeth. The private sector has failed to provide comprehensive, affordable healthcare for every man woman and child. The private sector, through greed and predatory capitalism, precipitated the housing bubble. Yeah, Fm and FM screwed the pooch by buying all those junk loans but they were followers, not leaders in that mess. Management got what they deserved for failing to recognize the bubble.
Still don't believe government can do better in providing certain services? People love medicare and hate the profit first medical insurance industry. People love their highway system and hate toll roads. The list goes on, but I'll stop there. Partisans like you will never be convinced that conservatism sucks.
hutsquared,
Thank you for being willing to accept and fully endorse the policies of the present president, he too is a socialist. What you have just stated above is a view that he doesn't want reported on and that many here will strongly resist any notion that he is a socialist.
Good show on standing up for what you believe. I wish he and others here would embrace their beliefs.
By the way, you and president Obama are completely wrong about the function of the economy and government. The reason fannie and freddie failed was that the directive was given to provide loans that they knew were not going to be paid back, mostly poor people, duh! But to make certain the government only provided the backing, not regulation, the democrats stepped up to fannie's plate. Why, because they view government the same way as you and president obama, a place where every dream should come true and money overfloweth. Well, the government should be about securing individual freedoms, and in this case making sure that responsible people could act on their behalf to responsibly gain home ownership. Instead the government skewed the housing market, everybody went on a spending spree, building too many homes and expecting too much money and then the poop hit the fan. What the dems did was to keep the free flow of cheap money bringing about this collapse.
The reason fannie and freddie failed was that the directive was given to provide loans that they knew were not going to be paid back, mostly poor people, duh!
Absolutely. Those lending institutions were directed to make loans people couldn't pay back because the Democrats HATE capitalism, and, as you know, the Democrats have NEVER been out of power since 1933, so it's not like the GOP could have stepped up and changed this failed mission statement. It's a wonder the USA lasted this long under the terrible yoke of immovable Democratic policies.
Randy
Lame.
Should government protect profits for the wealthy or should it protect broad prosperity?
You cannot address the failings of the private sector and you blame poor for the sins of predatory capitalism.
Go away. Your way failed
Fact: the House was GOP controlled from Jan. 1995 to Jan. 2007
Fact: the minority party in the House cannot block bills from getting an up or down vote. There is no cloture rule like the Senate.
So, in light of those facts, how could Barney Frank or ANY Democrat in the House stop a GOP-backed regulatory bill? Magic? Divine intervention? Please explain the process by which Frank could have interfered with such a bill, and links to actual instances of this process being enacted by Barney Frank during the years in question.
The IBD story is not mythology, it's pure lie-ology.
Randy