Senate Bill S-190, Introduced 1/26/2005 To Prevent Financial Problems (president, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama)

[JamesAbilene]

I am following a piece of legislation in Texas, and I had the good (or bad) fortune of going to Washington for a professional organization that I belong to to attempt to lobby the legislation. It was then that I discovered this wonderful co-sponsor business. My Rep and Senators can co-sponsor legislation that never gets out of committee and then not vote for the discharge petition to remove it from committee. Then they can tell people on both sides that they supported them. If a constituent favors the legislation, they say, "I was a cosponsor." If a constituent opposes it, "I didn't sign the discharge petition to pull it ouf the committee." They have it made. Most of them actually follow party lines in doing all of this, but they can show each side that they support them.

It is time to clean house and vote all incumbents out. Let's try to get some decent people in power. I don't know if it is possible. The two major parties have us all in a strangle hold.

By the way, I am voting for Obama. I consider McCain another George Bush. Voting for him would be like voting for Bush again, and I am voting for no incumbents on either side.

[WillysB]

It is time to clean house and vote all incumbents out. Let's try to get some decent people in power. I don't know if it is possible. The two major parties have us all in a strangle hold.

Congress... 535 reasons to support term limits.

NEVER vote for an incumbent.

[NewToCA]

But the point remains, a few years ago a small group of Republicans tried to bring a significant change to the mortgage backing process, including John McCain.

To not give him credit, or to accuse him of grandstanding at that time, just shows a lack of willingness for certain posters to be honest about his efforts to address the issue.

But I want to be fair too, any articles from prior to this past year providing Obama expressing concerns about the home financing process, and proposing specific legislative changes?

[amistad]

If you are going to tell the truth about this bill, tell the whole thing:
DLB,
NOT TRUE.
Here is the real deal: S 190 was approved in the House with both sides of the isle supporting it.
When it came time to move into the Senate an admendment had been added and placed in such a way that the whole bill had to be voted on as yes or no.
Many Republicans were against this bill in the House because it would create opportunities for low income families to purchase houses. To that end:
A manager's admendment was added, and here are the details of that amendment:
1. Not for profit organizations who assisted low income and seniors in affordable housing could not register people to vote or discuss whom to vote for or hold meetings to discuss any candidate and what it would mean for them and their community should the candidate win an office(town hall meetings prohibited). Also: senior communites that helped or housed seniors would be affected; these old people take senior buses to the polls; the admendment would prohibit that.
2. The cap regarding loans would affect middle class(and lower class) from "moving up" into more expensive neighborhoods. As a democrat in California expressed the average home price in her district prohibited teachers police offiecrs and city workers from living in her neighborhood. This affects middle and lower class families wishing to move out and up(upward mobility).
THAT is why the bill did not make it to the Senate: the republicans placed an unconstitutional amendment into it and the Democrats were not going to let millions and millions of lower class and seniors be affected. The republicans knew who that would affect and those affected usually vote democrat.
THAT IS THE WHOLE STORY:
link GovTrack: House Record: FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE REFORM ACT OF 2005 (109-h20051026-46)

[mrbob]

Originally Posted by MovingForward

FACTS:

1) Republicans held the majority in Congress when this bill was introduced.

2)The bill was an attempt to privatize regulatory agencies. Hence, Democratic resistance to it. Hence, even Republicans voting against it.

3) The bill did nothing to address fraud and tighten oversight. Hence, Democratic resistance to it. Hence, even Republicans voting against it.

Text from the bill itself:

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

Nice try, though.

Moving Forward,

I agree 100% - this bill was blocked by a Republican Congress.

Some people also cannot understand how frequently politicians take advantage of a bill that is sure to fail, by coming out falsely in favor of it just to pander to their political base. Or just the opposite, if a bill is sure to pass and is unpopular (like the $700 billion bailout) they come out against it to score points. It happens ALL THE TIME!!!!

You can't trust a politican's vote unless they voted for something and it becomes law - then you can assume they really supported it.

[World Citizen]

You have no reason to say that McCain or anyone "took advantage of a bill that is sure to fail by coming out falsely in favor of it just to pander to their political base"...
In this case, that's not even a reasonable assumption. There were too many people hoping to make windfall profits from the wild ride that was taking place in the housing market. Since you Democrats believe that McCain "panders to people with money" -- and that is his base -- he was sponsoring a bill that would have hindered their ability to ride this wave.

I worked in a Mortgage company for a while at about the time this bill was introduced. It was becoming really obvious to any thinking person that things were WAY out of control and something had to be done.

Why would you pretend to know the motivation of these people and accuse them of wrongdoing?

I just wonder where we would be today if that bill and the other bill, introduced in 2003 that would have overseen Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have gotten passed?
Both bills were sponsored by Republicans.

[amistad]

NOT TRUE.
Here is the real deal: S 190 was approved in the House with both sides of the isle supporting it.
When it came time to move into the Senate an admendment had been added and placed in such a way that the whole bill had to be voted on as yes or no.
Many Republicans were against this bill in the House because it would create opportunities for low income families to purchase houses. To that end:
A manager's admendment was added, and here are the details of that amendment:
1. Not for profit organizations who assisted low income and seniors in affordable housing could not register people to vote or discuss whom to vote for or hold meetings to discuss any candidate and what it would mean should the candidate win an office(town hall meetings prohibited). Also: senior communites that helped or housed seniors would be affected; these old people take senior buses to the polls; the admendment would prohibit that.
2. The cap regarding loans would affect middle class(and lower class) from "moving up" into more expensive neighborhoods. As a democrat in California expressed the average home price in her district prohibited teachers police offiecrs and city workers from living in her neighborhood. This affects middle and lower class families wishing to move out and up(upward mobility).
THAT is why the bill did not make it to the Senate: the republicans placed an unconstitutional amendment into it and the Democrats were not going to let millions and millions of lower class and seniors be affected. The republicans knew who that would affect and those affected usually vote democrat.
THAT IS THE WHOLE STORY:
link GovTrack: House Record: FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE REFORM ACT OF 2005 (109-h20051026-46)

[World Citizen]

You know, amistad... I bet everyone saw your first post. Is there a reason that you posted the exact same post twice?

I don't believe what you've written but I'm sure that there are those who will believe your fear tactics.

I find it interesting that your screen name is the same as the name of a Slave Ship (well known because of the mutiny aboard) so I'm sure you have your reasons to post this.

And, btw -- I've not read the bill in full. I'm replying to your post... but just imagine if people of all races would have purchased homes that they could AFFORD instead of "moving out and up"... as you say.

Do you think that was at least part of the problem...??? The fact that people bought things they couldn't afford?

but, I'm sure that's our fault, too.

[amistad]

Originally Posted by World Citizen

You know, amistad... I bet everyone saw your first post. Is there a reason that you posted the exact same post twice?

I don't believe what you've written but I'm sure that there are those who will believe your fear tactics.

I find it interesting that your screen name is the same as the name of a Slave Ship (well known because of the mutiny aboard) so I'm sure you have your reasons to post this.

And, btw -- I've not read the bill in full. I'm replying to your post... but just imagine if people of all races would have purchased homes that they could AFFORD instead of "moving out and up"... as you say.

Do you think that was at least part of the problem...??? The fact that people bought things they couldn't afford?

but, I'm sure that's our fault, too.

You know, world citizen,
For a screen name like that you are showing your ignorance.
Read the bill. I provided the link that document, from an unbiased source, exactly what happened with that particular bill.
Surely someone who is as learned as you would know that.
Also; there was an admendment that would not allow lower and middle classes to move up and into more affluent neighborhoods. But you wouldn't know that because you have not read it yet.
Blaming the "lower income" people is code for black people. Those people are not responsible for the financial destruction America is currently going through. The big businesses have always made sure that they come out on top, even if it means a government bail out. Also: big business was not thinking about a housing market that may, in the near future, decline. Also: these people made sure to inflate earnings until that was no longer a possibility.
You seem intent on playing a race card. I just posted a FACT.
"Our fault?" That ASSuption was made by you, not by me. I can see that it is you with the race issues. But I am sure the reason you post that ignorant statemtent is somehow "our fault" as well....
And yes, I am aware of the Amistad because I am aware of history. You ASSume other things based upon your issues regarding race. You don't know me, so keep your ASSumptions to yourself. Address my post; if you can find anything different to the S 190 bill post that. Not personal attacks because you are ignorant about the issue addressed. I know, it is hard to think that a person of color might be as smart or smarter than you, but as a world citizen you surely would be open minded about those kinds of issues.
Tell you what: believe what you want. Ignorance is bliss. Truth is truth. You are clearly not interested in truth, but rather, your over inflated sense of self.
And by the way, I am WHITE. So much for ASSumptions.

[World Citizen]

Originally Posted by amistad

You know, world citizen,
For a screen name like that you are showing your ignorance.
Read the bill. I provided the link that document, from an unbiased source, exactly what happened with that particular bill.
Surely someone who is as learned as you would know that.
Also; there was an admendment that would not allow lower and middle classes to move up and into more affluent neighborhoods. But you wouldn't know that because you have not read it yet.
And yes, my screen name is Amistad for EXACTLY for that reason; if you are familiar with that history, as I am sure that you are, you would be able to understand the meaning, but seeing as you are not as learned or open to different ideas or culture, the reference would be lost on you. AND you don't know me, but seem intent on trying to insult and imply that you are some how smarter that I am. You are not as smart as you think you are.
Tell you what: believe what you want. Ignorance is bliss. Truth is truth. You are clearly not interested in truth, but rather, your over inflated sense of self.

You know, amistad... you are barking up the wrong tree.

I took African American history in college as an elective. What part of black history would you like to discuss?
We can go all the way back to Africa and what was going on in that country at the time of the slave trade, the underground railroad, all the way up through the civil rights movement... (which I lived through)...

And, btw, I've actually worked in several areas that were predominately made up of your culture... as a helper and an advocate.

What exactly would you like to discuss?