NYT 2003: Dems Oppose Bush plan to rein in Fred & Fannie
Entire article here: http://patriotroom.com/?p=2135
Notice that last paragraph. Many said that if you give loans to people who just plain don't qualify, you'll pay for it later. Welcome to "later".
As this whole "who is to blame" thing gets discussed and more and more education on the events, actions and timelines is forthcoming, it will be interesting to see which party it hurts the most.
The New York Times from September 11, 2003.
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. . . .
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
Despite the attempt to curb the waste, fraud, and abuse, some Democrats were not on board. Barney Frank really looks like a genius on this one. And this guy was the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.
The New York Times again:
Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
Notice that last paragraph. Many said that if you give loans to people who just plain don't qualify, you'll pay for it later. Welcome to "later".
As this whole "who is to blame" thing gets discussed and more and more education on the events, actions and timelines is forthcoming, it will be interesting to see which party it hurts the most.
Comments
''These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Just wow... :roll:
New York Times story here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... nted=print
But I have not thoroughly investigated this. You ask good questions. I am sure there is blood on both parties hands. The real question is, is there parity, or is there a gross difference between the two. If parity, it should not affect the current election regarding economic news. If not parity, one side should benefit.
With a fair press, hopefully it would be the correct side. 8)
Again, both houses were controlled by the republicans, so even if every democrat voted against the measures could have been pushed through in a partisan manner.
Hopefully, this news does harm Frank, as he was clearly incompetent at his position.
Agreed. Those on financial committees in Congress should be listening intently to economists who have great records of macro-economic prediction and no major conflicts of interest.
Also, the phrase "people like you" rubs me the wrong way, no matter who it is aimed at. It is especially annoying when coming from people like you.
See what I mean.
Question: does it matter if he is? They are public owned government entities now. This would be like McCain being beholden to the air force.
You talking about this guy Rob?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/po ... eLSRc9WX9w
Where the rubber really meets the road is on whether or not you would take Barney the dinosaur over Barney Frank.
You are correct that most of the elected Republicans do almost the exact opposite of what they say they believe in (e.g. small government, free markets, etc). But is that a justification to vote for Democratrs who actually SAY they don't believe in such things (i.e. they advocate more government involvement, social programs, etc)?
Frankly, I can't bring myself to vote for either. Normally I would vote libertarian, but this year they chose Bob Barr as their candidate! Why in God's name would someone interested in liberty and capitalism vote for a warmed over social values Republican who in sheep's clothing?
This is shaping up to be one of the worst elections EVER (i.e. there aren't even good third party candidates to choose from).
I'm thinking maybe it's best to vote Republican this time. If we're going to rip up the Constitution and work exclusively to make the rich richer, maybe it's best to get it over with instead of drag it out.
At least that way you'll be able to keep your guns for what invariably follows.
Agreed. I still have no idea who I will vote for, at this point my list of "will not vote for" is just filling up.
How about a REALIST party with a Buffet/Forbes ticket.. Frankly I dont care about the rest of the crap at the moment
Well, if McCain's age is contentious, then Buffet's more so. If he were willing to run the country, I think we could certainly do worse.
Forbes on the other hand...I mean, yeah he's got that flat tax plan, but that's seems to be his only policy. And speaking as someone who is doing pretty well, a true flat tax is actually pretty draconian.
How about Buffet/Colbert? Another option is, I saw Gov Palin interviewing this Charles Gibson guy. He seemed pretty knowledgeable and reasoned. I also heard that Paulson wanted complete control of the country. Maybe he'd like the job.
:twisted:
Well, he does have the advantage of having a rich and successful dad - kind of like our current prez. Beyond that? not so much. I once subscribed to that magazine. Wasn't worth the time to read it.