1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

NY Times - 5 yrs ago

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by irvin88, Oct 12, 2008.

  1. irvin88

    irvin88 Active Member

    1,668 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    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.
  2. adamc91115

    adamc91115 New Member

    738 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    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.
  3. SuspectCorner

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,620 Messages
    72 Likes Received
    Link please...
  4. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg Pow! Pow!

    8,926 Messages
    211 Likes Received
  5. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg Pow! Pow!

    8,926 Messages
    211 Likes Received
    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.
  6. irvin88

    irvin88 Active Member

    1,668 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Sounds like Bush wasn't.

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

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,620 Messages
    72 Likes Received
  8. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg Pow! Pow!

    8,926 Messages
    211 Likes Received
    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.
  9. hairic

    hairic Well-Known Member

    2,455 Messages
    234 Likes Received
    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.
  10. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg Pow! Pow!

    8,926 Messages
    211 Likes Received
    Dude. You are way too smart. :D I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds good.
  11. adamc91115

    adamc91115 New Member

    738 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    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.
  12. hairic

    hairic Well-Known Member

    2,455 Messages
    234 Likes Received
  13. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg Pow! Pow!

    8,926 Messages
    211 Likes Received
    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.
  14. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,686 Messages
    1,625 Likes Received
    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.

Share This Page