NY Times - 5 yrs ago

[irvin88]

Interesting -- now these same people are blaming Bush for the problems
and wanting a bailout! Make them eat this article!

The following article appeared in the New York Times five years
ago. You won't hear this from the liberal media ! It seems that the
Bush administration proposed increased oversight and regulation of
Fannie and Freddie, but Democrats fought it.

Here's the article:

'The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a
Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the
Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in
the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority,
which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve
requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any
new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are
adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.'
Democrats pushed back. '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'. 'These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not
facing any kind of financial crisis', said 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.'
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina,
agreed. 'I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving
something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the
bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable
housing,' Mr. Watt said.

[adamc91115]

Originally Posted by irvin88

Interesting -- now these same people are blaming Bush for the problems
and wanting a bailout! Make them eat this article!

The following article appeared in the New York Times five years
ago. You won't hear this from the liberal media ! It seems that the
Bush administration proposed increased oversight and regulation of
Fannie and Freddie, but Democrats fought it.

Here's the article:

'The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a
Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the
Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in
the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority,
[View Full Quote]which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve
requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any
new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are
adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.'
Democrats pushed back. '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'. 'These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not
facing any kind of financial crisis', said 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.'
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina,
agreed. 'I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving
something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the
bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable
housing,' Mr. Watt said.

Hell, I think the line after your bolded one is just as bad...

'The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is
on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing.'

That pisses me off.

[SuspectCorner]

Link please...

[Heisenberg]

Originally Posted by SuspectCorner

Link please...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...p=1&sq=&st=nyt

[Heisenberg]

There's no doubt that there many many times where we had a chance to stop what has happened and we didn't. A lot of people were asleep at the wheel.

[irvin88]

Originally Posted by Ozzu

There's no doubt that there many many times where we had a chance to stop what has happened and we didn't. A lot of people were asleep at the wheel.

Sounds like Bush wasn't.

But heck, he's the devil so we can't say anything good about him.

[SuspectCorner]

Originally Posted by Ozzu

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...p=1&sq=&st=nyt

108th US Congress... a Republican majority in both the Senate AND the House... and holding the White House, too.

Dang those Dems are powerful.

[Heisenberg]

Originally Posted by irvin88

Sounds like Bush wasn't.

But heck, he's the devil so we can't say anything good about him.

On this issue, it appears the administration was on top of it. They just couldn't get an agreement on it. One issue is that regulation is a bad word on one side of the aisle and affordable housing is a major issue on the other side. Guess what happens? Nothin.

Not to mention the lobbying influence. Of course, both companies in that article seemed to like the idea.

[hairic]

5 years ago? They were fine 5 years ago.

In 2004, the SEC changed a rule on debt to capital ratio from 12 to 1 to 30-40 to 1, but only for a handful of firms. Shouldn't be too hard to name them, a few have already failed.

[Heisenberg]

Originally Posted by hairic

5 years ago? They were fine 5 years ago.

In 2004, the SEC changed the a rule on debt to capital ratio from 12 to 1 to 30-40 to 1, but only for a handful of firms. Shouldn't be too hard to name them, a few have already failed.

Dude. You are way too smart. I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds good.

[adamc91115]

Originally Posted by Ozzu

On this issue, it appears the administration was on top of it. They just couldn't get an agreement on it. One issue is that regulation is a bad word on one side of the aisle and affordable housing is a major issue on the other side. Guess what happens? Nothin.

Not to mention the lobbying influence. Of course, both companies in that article seemed to like the idea.

Yup... There needs to be a major change in the House and Senate in the next couple of elections. We all need to take a hard look at who's running as far as our state senators and representatives, do our research, and not just vote based on political party.

[hairic]

Originally Posted by Ozzu

Dude. You are way too smart. I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds good.

I wish I was smart. I wouldn't have to read as much.

Anyway: http://www.nysun.com/business/ex-sec...blow-up/86130/

[Heisenberg]

The thing is, lobbyists and the like have too much influence. You need an outside group that would investigate ethics issues. Until you do, problems like this will always happen because you'll have too much influence other than just the people.

Obama sponsored one that didn't pass called the Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission Act. People don't like having their dealings looked into, so it never made it.

[burmafrd]

As I have pointed out, once Newt and Lott and Delay were gone the repubs in congress were pretty spineless. The dems were able to prevent a lot of that from happening especially in the senate. Frist was a total joke as regards being able to get much important done.