Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, yeah, the GOP was powerless in the Senate - there wasn't a GOP supermajority. There were attempts to increase oversight on Fannie and Freddie. They were stymied because R's did not hold 60 Senate seats required for cloture, and votes in Committee were consistently along party lines.
Timeline of attempts to rein in Fannie and Freddie during the last administration - this link lists the same info as the White House link, which is no longer active because Obama is in office:
Gateway Pundit: Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone... Dems Ignored Warnings (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html - broken link)
* On July 31, 2003, Sununu joined Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) in introducing legislation to strengthen and improve the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This bill (S. 1508).
* On January 26, 2005, Sununu, Hagel, and Dole re-introduced legislation (S. 190) to improve oversight of GSE’s. A bill incorporating many provisions of the Sununu, Hagel, Dole legislation.
McCain's statement of support for S. 190: "I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
* On April 12, 2007, Sununu, Hagel, Dole, and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) re-introduced legislation (S. 1100) to improve oversight of GSE’s. The major reforms in their bill were included in final legislation passed the Senate on July 26, 2008 and was signed into law on July 30, 2008.
The first 2 attempts at reform legislation made it out of committee, but the D's refused to support them, so the bills never would have received the 60 votes (supermajority) required to pass cloture, and so both bills died.
Not until July of 2008 did the D's jostle themselves out of their 'nothing's wrong at Fannie and Freddie' stupor to support the 3rd attempt at passing GSE oversight legislation.
Well, the Republicans in the senate were up to some shenanigans of their own. Hijinx that led much more directly to the meltdown.
"In 1999, former Senator Phil Gramm (who is, incidentally, Senator John McCain's economic adviser and cochairs his presidential campaign) set out to completely gut the Glass-Steagall Act, and did so successfully, replacing most of its components with the new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: allowing commercial banks, investment banks, and insurers to merge (which would have violated antitrust laws under Glass-Steagall). Sen. Gramm was the driving force behind the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as he had received over $4.6 million from the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate donations) over the previous decade, and once the Act passed, an influx of "megamergers" took place among banks and insurance and securities companies, as if they had been eagerly awaiting the passage of Gramm's Act. Everything in between Glass-Steagall and Gramm-Leach-Bliley (i.e. Savings and Loan crisis/bust) was, in large part, the incubation period for what would take place over the nine years that would follow the passage of Gramm's Act: an experiment in deregulation."
Another perspective on CRA, with a different conclusion. This article also addresses ACORN.
"Although studies show that risky subprime loans have been concentrated in predominantly minority neighborhoods, such loans were typically issued by mortgage companies or other lenders not governed by the CRA. These companies often charge minority borrowers higher interest rates than they would qualify for at CRA-governed banks."
The CRA's intent is implicated in the Democrats' continued blocking of stricter oversight of Fannie and Freddie - you know, the GSE's that are now saying that the $400 billion taxpayer money that's been promised to them by the Treasury may not be enough to keep them afloat for just this year.
"Maxine Walters' complaint about previous attempts to bring the great state-sponsored housing finance bodies under stricter control was partly a reference to Bill Clinton's efforts. Last week the former President acknowledged that "responsibility" for the absence of proper regulation rested "with Democrats who were resisting any efforts of Republicans in Congress, and earlier when I was President and tried to impose tighter standards on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac". Then, as now, members of his own party saw all such initiatives as unwonted attacks on the chances for low-earners, and particularly African-Americans, to own their own homes.
...From its inception in 1938 Fannie Mae (and later Freddie Mac) was designed to make housing finance available to "ordinary Americans". This was a noble aim. In the 1970s another Democrat President, Jimmy Carter, introduced legislation which demanded that such bodies enhance their lending to minorities. Again, this was based on a noble idea: to stamp out racism in the mortgage market. Thus by 1998 you had the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston producing a document entitled "Closing the Gap: a Guide to Equal Opportunities Lending", which instructed banks that an applicant's "lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor" in obtaining a mortgage. As Stephen Malanga of the Manhattan Institute notes: "Of course the new federal standards couldn't just apply to minorities. If they could pay back loans under these terms, then so could the majority of loan applicants. Quickly, these became the new standards in the industry. As the housing market boomed, banks embraced these new standards with a vengeance. Between 2004 and 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the biggest purchasers of subprime mortgages from all kinds of applicants, white and minority, and most of these loans were based on lending standards promoted by the Government."
Dominic Lawson: Democrat fingerprints are all over the financial crisis - Dominic Lawson, Commentators - The Independent (http://tinyurl.com/3g2h6d - broken link)
Last edited by InformedConsent; 04-09-2009 at 09:39 AM..
Well, the Republicans in the senate were up to some shenanigans of their own. Hijinx that led much more directly to the meltdown.
"In 1999, former Senator Phil Gramm (who is, incidentally, Senator John McCain's economic adviser and cochairs his presidential campaign) set out to completely gut the Glass-Steagall Act, and did so successfully, replacing most of its components with the new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: allowing commercial banks, investment banks, and insurers to merge (which would have violated antitrust laws under Glass-Steagall). Sen. Gramm was the driving force behind the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as he had received over $4.6 million from the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate donations) over the previous decade, and once the Act passed, an influx of "megamergers" took place among banks and insurance and securities companies, as if they had been eagerly awaiting the passage of Gramm's Act. Everything in between Glass-Steagall and Gramm-Leach-Bliley (i.e. Savings and Loan crisis/bust) was, in large part, the incubation period for what would take place over the nine years that would follow the passage of Gramm's Act: an experiment in deregulation."
GLB wasn't the problem - it was unnecessary, as it was legally redundant.
"...banking law and regulation, as they had evolved to the point in 1999 when GLEBA [GLB Act] was enacted, would have allowed commercial banking organizations to engage as full competitors in the securities and insurance businesses, thereby obviating the need for financial services legislation... the progress of commercial banking organizations’ penetration of the insurance business ...demonstrate how the Comptroller of the Currency’s application of the principle of “functional equivalence†had, by 1999, already positioned commercial banking organizations to be full competitors with insurance providers...commercial banking organizations, even under the Glass-Steagall Act regime, could avail themselves of utterly unfettered access to the wholesale securities business."
Here is the facts not an urban legend and should put the story of socialism and collectivism to a simple truth.
I work 40 hours a week at $45 per hour.
The government takes a portion of that $45 per hour.
What government does with that money is not important being that everyone can claim "good" cause and reason.
In the end government takes it from me. I dont volutary agree to the terms on which I must pay them or how much I must pay them. Even if I "asked them" if I can have an extra 20 dollars just this one week of my OWN money in my paycheck so I can buy some clothes for my daughter there is no debate. Or my heating bill went up because of global warming government regulations. The government takes it from me. If I resist or complain I am considered selfish, unpatriotic and mostly in the eyes of the state I'm a criminal. I am called names, slandered for resisting a system based on force and false fairness. I have not hurt anyone I am working for the money I earn and have an agreement with my employeer. Im not stealing it from anyone and even if I give to charities and I am responsible person the government still considers me a criminal. I'm called rich which some how means I'm not entitled to any money I do make. To someone making 30,000 per year I might be considered rich and some how this means I have directly hurt the person making less then me. I didnt go to college and my job wasnt handed to me and even if it was I still have to perform a skill. At one time in my life I did make 30,000 per year and I lived within those limits and expenses. But to some if you make more in this country then anyone else you are some how evil, selfish and must be punished and forced to "spread your wealth" If you hurting economicly everyone must suffer the same fate according the collectivist.
Government as it is today is not socialism, facism or anything. Today's Government is tranny of the individual. Government is the corporation with the money and power. Sad part is people sold their souls on the promise of equality via FORCE or the govenrment and some how this seemed "fair". Government takes liberty from EVERY AMERICAN and they can enforce their laws, unconstitutionally, immorally and without any recourse. Government can create laws that would cause people to lose jobs yet somehow they are praised even when they do it via force. You are just a number and you have no power according to this government. Corporations dont use force to take property from you. Corporations dont come to your home and say you didnt buy something a walmart this week give me $20 or it's jail time or more fines. Do you think you can take the government to court over taxes, property and or even Social Security. They even try to tax you were your dead and they are still taking you on social security when for some they paid into their whole life. Even in collectivism your still paying into a system that can't seem to pay out or be adjusted for inflation. You at anytime can be rounded up and locked in a jail or much worse if they consider you going against Government laws. If you believe in the constitution or even ideas of revolution you are considered a domestic terrorist. Who is the terrorist? What is to stop this government from doing whatever want too now that the people have given them unless power over their money, businesses and personal choices. Constitution was written to protect the INDIVIDUAL from the power of the government and not to give any special rights over any other man via the government force or action. Seems to me government has ignored that the day they wrote laws for corporations and groups of people in name of fairness that has been the downfall of this country.
Maybe we should look up the word fairness. Since when does my $45 per hour hurt someone else? If you forced that I lowered my salary to 20 per hour or 40 per hour or whatever the government says is fair. Since when is stealing "Fair" did I miss something in school or did that become a part of the separation of church and state. Reguardless of education, work experience and or excellence in your trade or skill they believe individuals and income should be the same via force. If that is attutide then all your hopes, dreams and ideas are no longer YOURS they are shared. Ideas and creativity no longer apply because your idea is the governments idea and your coworkers idea, your neighbors and your work ethic will not be rewarded. No benefit, no reward other then knowing you worked hard for everyone else to take the credit and your left paying their way in life and their expenses. I would think responsiblity is placed on the individual first and it is up to individual to help other individuals not via force, not via collective stealing. There comes a time in everyone life when the abuses of this government will not continued to be ignored. The collectivist thinking must be purged from the minds of the young and individual rights must be restored where they always belonged. I choose to fight this current system of corruption, and collective shared wealth progressive idealogy. For who dont know me I am considered a rebel, revolutionary, insurgent, domestic terrorist and whatever the government tells the MSM next week. I am an regular American who with some hard word, individual drive was able overcome the governments continued attempts to make my dependent on them for anything. Thomas Jefferson, George Washingon, John Adams, Thomas Paine and a few others were once considered domestic terrorists, rebels and insurgents. There is a revolution going on in this country silently it is those who want something different but they just dont realize yet that government isnt going to give them anything other then what they already have the power to do for themselves. That is what scares government is a world were we dont need them anymore to tell us how to live, how much we can make, what war we will fight next week and what choices we make with our bodies.
When we all believe as the collectivist do it much easier to control and they keep you in line via force when you break away from their control.
So for those of you who like freedom and which no longer be controlled start making a mental choice to resist. How bad do things have to get before you do something?
Except that they have more freedom in Norway and Sweden than we do here. Facts are not "irrelevant trivia" they are keys to making a logical, rational and intelligent argument. Without facts, you're just spewing opinions, and considering where the opinions are coming from, they hold absolutely no importance or relevance.
I'm not a supporter of Socialism or of our current system. I believe that each state should be able to have its own economic system that best suits its resources and needs. California and Arkansas have completely different economies, so why should they be forced to adhere to the same antiquated system?
I just hate how people like you go off about Socialism when you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. It'd be like me talking about the best way to coach cricket when I've never even read anything about the game. If YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SOCIALISM, you really shouldn't be arguing about it.
They have been scared by propaganda put out by special interest groups with an agenda. The people who cry out," Look out SOCIALISM!", are really puppets for these special interest groups. For Example: Health insurance companies, which make huge profits from NOT covering health care, want us to cry socialism about any effort to eliminate the high cost of a third party payer.
They have been scared by propaganda put out by special interest groups with an agenda. The people who cry out," Look out SOCIALISM!", are really puppets for these special interest groups. For Example: Health insurance companies, which make huge profits from NOT covering health care, want us to cry socialism about any effort to eliminate the high cost of a third party payer.
Yes indeed.
Works too.
They use the word "Socialism" as tool of manipulation of the ignorant.
They simply utter the phrase on FOX News then sit back and watch the nimnuts begin foaming at the mouth - even when it's to the nimnut's OWN detriment.
You are proposing that socialistic programs from the DoD (or whatever arm of defense) are always successful. They are not (check cold fusion).
Please provide us with any DoD spending that has provided a product that benefits the citizens of our country?
Actually, no offense, but you are using such a product RIGHT NOW.
The Internet was developed by DARPA.
I'd say it provides a lot of benefit - but then again judging by the waste of space, time and energy many of the posts of this board represent - maybe you ARE right after all.
LOL
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
