14
   

The Real Culprits In This Meltdown, no McCain aides listed...

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 10:11 am
@McGentrix,
It sounds like everybody's to blame and nobody's to blame like with an obnoxious fart in church.

What have they done whoever they are?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 12:36 pm
@McGentrix,
How was it obstructed by the Dems? Didn't the Republicans have a majority in both houses in 2003? Was a bill ever introduced? Who kept it from getting to a vote.

And even if it had passed, how exactly would moving the oversight from HUD to the Treasury have changed the current situation? Let's assume that moving oversight from one department to another actually did prevent the takeover of Fannie and Freddie, what would it have done for Lehman, AIG, Bear Stearns, etc... Would it have prevented the latest request for 700 billion dollars of non-reviewable expenditures by the Secretary of the Treasury? Would we not be on the brink of financial collapse?
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 12:45 pm
@FreeDuck,
Sorry, I guess I should read all the replies before I chime in. Sorry for the duplication.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 12:56 pm
@FreeDuck,
Once again, having a majority does not mean automatic win. How many complaints have you guys had the past 2 years about the Republican obstructionism? In 2003, the minority Democrats were playing the same role and now look at the mess they have left for themselves.

But, they have supporters that will keep voting them into office.

As far as what could have been... who knows? We only know what was and what we can do about it now.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 12:59 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Once again, having a majority does not mean automatic win. How many complaints have you guys had the past 2 years about the Republican obstructionism?


Yes, and how many times have the Republicans referred to this term as the 'do-nothing Congress?'

The knife cuts both ways, McG.

Cycloptichorn
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 01:08 pm
@McGentrix,
Ok, but as far as THIS initiative goes, how did the Democrats block it? From what I can tell no bill proposing Bush's requested change in oversight ever made it out of committee. Is that Democrats doing?

And isn't HUD an executive department? Didn't Bush have the power to make any necessary changes to oversight through his own chain of command? I mean, if he foresaw these problems and "warned congress" about them, surely he must have exhausted his own power in the matter. What did he do?

I am baffled by this whole argument about Fannie and Freddie -- as if they are the beginning and the end of the crisis. I think it is significantly more complicated than that, and the focus on F&F is just a defensive reaction by conservatives to find some way of blaming Democrats. That's not to say that there are no Democrats responsible. Our country and our government have been living beyond our means for a very long time spanning many administrations and congresses. The longer we attempt to delay the necessary correction the more painful it is going to be.
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 01:23 pm
McFear suspends campaign cancels debate.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 01:32 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Once again, having a majority does not mean automatic win. How many complaints have you guys had the past 2 years about the Republican obstructionism?


Yes, and how many times have the Republicans referred to this term as the 'do-nothing Congress?'

The knife cuts both ways, McG.

Cycloptichorn


Yes, this is a do nothing congress. The same can't be said when the Republicans were the majority. The Dem's knew they were piss boys and played their role as they should. Yet, they still managed to keep progress at bay even in that role. Odd isn't it?
barackman28
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 10:57 pm
@spendius,
The people who Senator Obama taught and represented live much better now. If you knew anything about Chicago you would know that the black middle class is growing and the only thing that keeps it from growing more vibrantly is the institutional racism one finds in this country. Is Senator Obama loses, it cannot be because the people of the United States are satisfied with the Economy, it will be because of endemic racism.

Senator McCain has been a lap dog for Bush for the last eight years. Informed voters know that. It is only the redneck racists all over this country but particulary in the rural areas and the southern states who would never vote for one of the most intelligent and principled men who has run for President-- Senator BarackObama. The reason they will not vote for him is because his skin color is not white!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 07:03 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix

That same congress passed many a bill against the will of the minority. Recall the tax cuts bill, the energy policy and abortion restrictions which was not popular among many democrats. At that time in 2003 republicans were popular and could pretty do what they wanted by hook or crook or just labeling democrats as unpatriotic obstructionist and democrats usually caved. If they wanted to pass that bill out of committee and brought it to the floor they could have easily done so and you have no proof that any filibustering was the cause of that bill not getting out of committee.

0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  4  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 08:55 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

Ok, but as far as THIS initiative goes, how did the Democrats block it? From what I can tell no bill proposing Bush's requested change in oversight ever made it out of committee. Is that Democrats doing?


The Dems on the committee voted unanimously to block it from leaving the commitee.

Quote:
And isn't HUD an executive department? Didn't Bush have the power to make any necessary changes to oversight through his own chain of command? I mean, if he foresaw these problems and "warned congress" about them, surely he must have exhausted his own power in the matter. What did he do?

I am baffled by this whole argument about Fannie and Freddie -- as if they are the beginning and the end of the crisis. I think it is significantly more complicated than that, and the focus on F&F is just a defensive reaction by conservatives to find some way of blaming Democrats. That's not to say that there are no Democrats responsible. Our country and our government have been living beyond our means for a very long time spanning many administrations and congresses. The longer we attempt to delay the necessary correction the more painful it is going to be.


Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the lynch pins to the whole mess we are in. That's why the focus is on them.

Quote:
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 09:11 am
@McGentrix,
McG continues with his lack of character.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 09:22 am
@McGentrix,
Funny how those democrats who were so against that bill found the wherewithal to pass it once they became majority in congress. Those poor republicans were just at the mercy of democrats to do nothing despite how they manage to do everything else they wanted to do. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 09:43 am
Where's the third stooge? I'd have figured he would have added his one line piece of **** reply to match your 2 bits of nothing.

I couldn't imagine being as useless as you two are. The mere thought of having your low level of wit and wisdom scares me. I can't even imagine it, yet here it is in black and white right in front of my eyes. It's like one of those Twilight Zone episodes but scarier. You two are real.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 09:53 am
@McGentrix,
Why thank you McGentrix.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 10:04 am
@McGentrix,
McG needs to return to school to study how our congress works.

First lesson: A filibuster, or "talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fillabuster
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 11:26 am
@cicerone imposter,
There he is...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 11:33 am
@McGentrix,
Read this http://pwtenny.newsvine.com/_news/2008/07/28/1702741-obstructionism-senate-republicans-filibuster-their-own-bills and learn something about how the republicans have acted since 2006.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 12:04 pm
@McGentrix,
McG, I am a little bit confused by your article. It says the bill passed out of committee (not that the Dems blocked it), but that it was opposed on a party line vote, and that the portfolio limits (I am to assume that the absence of these is the root cause of F&F's problems) were opposed by Democrats and some Republicans (not party line). So, not knowing a lot about the whole committee process, it sounds like the Republicans gave up on it passing because the committee Democrats all voted against it, so they didn't even try to get it on the floor. It also sounds like portfolio limits are a big deal. But didn't the regulator have the power to limit their portfolios and did they not in fact do just that, easing them again in early 2007?

I don't know everything about this but google is my friend and the more I read the less is clear. I definitely do not see the long wobbly string that has a few committee Democrats pulling F&F down and the whole economy following closely behind.
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 12:24 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

McG, I am a little bit confused by your article. It says the bill passed out of committee (not that the Dems blocked it), but that it was opposed on a party line vote, and that the portfolio limits (I am to assume that the absence of these is the root cause of F&F's problems) were opposed by Democrats and some Republicans (not party line). So, not knowing a lot about the whole committee process, it sounds like the Republicans gave up on it passing because the committee Democrats all voted against it, so they didn't even try to get it on the floor. It also sounds like portfolio limits are a big deal. But didn't the regulator have the power to limit their portfolios and did they not in fact do just that, easing them again in early 2007?

I don't know everything about this but google is my friend and the more I read the less is clear. I definitely do not see the long wobbly string that has a few committee Democrats pulling F&F down and the whole economy following closely behind.


I had bolded the section where it did not get out of committee due to strict party line vote by the Dems. Bills can not be voted on until the committee process is completed and the bill had no chance of getting through the Democrats on the committee.

Some Republicans in Congress did oppose it as well. Everyone has to answer to their constituents, right? Had it made it through committee, the Dems had aenough clout to block the bill, thus the Rep's knew it had no chance of success. Even though they had a majority...

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 11:41:24