Where is the US economy headed?

http://getsgreased.blogspot.com/2008/09/s-190-federal-housing-enterprise.html
S. 190 - “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005”
…
On January 26, 2005, hoping for a different result in the new congress, Sununu, Hagel, and Dole re-introduced legislation (S. 190) to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill incorporated many provisions of the Sununu, Hagel, Dole legislation from the prior congress. It passed out of the Committee on another party-line vote of 11 " 9 on July 28, 2005. But again, without a single Democrat vote, the bill was doomed if brought to the floor for the critical 60-vote cloture.
…
In May 2006, John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill, in the hopes of gathering more co-sponsors and getting a vote in the 109th Congress before the bill would die. McCain would state, “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.” The bill did not obtain any of the necessary support from the Democrats, and once again, the bill died when the 109th Congress ended.
…

Nice work Ican

Again the bill was not scheduled to go to the floor where Democrats would certainly have defeated it by voting against cloture and prevented an up or down vote.

"Democrats can do no wrong, Democrats can do no wrong, Democrats can do no wrong,
it didn't happen, okie and ican, and H2OMan, and all Republicans are right wing nuts."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704671904575193910683111250.html
Fannie and Freddie Amnesia
Taxpayers are on the hook for about $400 billion, partly because Sen. Obama helped to block reform.Article Comments more in Opinion »Email
By PETER J. WALLISON

Now that nearly all the TARP funds used to bail out Wall Street banks have been repaid, the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stand out as the source of the greatest taxpayer losses.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, in the wake of the housing bubble and the unprecedented deflation in housing values that resulted, the government's cost to bail out Fannie and Freddie will eventually reach $381 billion. That estimate may be too optimistic.

Last Christmas Eve, Treasury removed the $400 billion cap on what the government might be required to invest in these two GSEs in the future, and this may tell the real story about the cost to taxpayers. In typical Washington fashion, everyone has amnesia about how this disaster occurred.

The story is all too familiar. Politicians in positions of authority today had an opportunity to prevent this fiasco but did nothing. Now"in the name of the taxpayers"they want more power, but they have never been called to account for their earlier failings.

One chapter in this story took place in July 2005, when the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by the Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation for the GSEs on a party-line vote"all Republicans in favor, all Democrats opposed. The bill would have established a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie and given it authority to ensure that they maintained adequate capital, properly managed their interest rate risk, had adequate liquidity and reserves, and controlled their asset and investment portfolio growth.

These authorities were necessary to control the GSEs' risk-taking, but opposition by Fannie and Freddie"then the most politically powerful firms in the country"had consistently prevented reform.

The date of the Senate Banking Committee's action is important. It was in 2005 that the GSEs"which had been acquiring increasing numbers of subprime and Alt-A loans for many years in order to meet their HUD-imposed affordable housing requirements"accelerated the purchases that led to their 2008 insolvency. If legislation along the lines of the Senate committee's bill had been enacted in that year, many if not all the losses that Fannie and Freddie have suffered, and will suffer in the future, might have been avoided.

Why was there no action in the full Senate? As most Americans know today, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate in the Senate, and the Republicans had only 55. To close debate and proceed to the enactment of the committee-passed bill, the Republicans needed five Democrats to vote with them. But in a 45 member Democratic caucus that included Barack Obama and the current Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), these votes could not be found.

Recently, President Obama has taken to accusing others of representing "special interests." In an April radio address he stated that his financial regulatory proposals were struggling in the Senate because "the financial industry and its powerful lobby have opposed modest safeguards against the kinds of reckless risks and bad practices that led to this very crisis."

He should know. As a senator, he was the third largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, behind only Sens. Chris Dodd and John Kerry.

With hypocrisy like this at the top, is it any wonder that nearly 80% of Americans, according to new Pew polling, don't trust the federal government or its ability to solve the country's problems?

Mr. Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

According to the Senate's rules, 60 or more votes are required to cut off debate and bring a proposed bill to a Senate vote. In 2005 and thereafter the Republicans could not get at leat 5 Democrat votes to add to the 55 Republican votes to bring their bill to rectify Fannie & Freddie to a Senate vote.

Quote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704671904575193910683111250.html
Fannie and Freddie Amnesia
Taxpayers are on the hook for about $400 billion, partly because Sen. Obama helped to block reform.Article Comments more in Opinion »Email
By PETER J. WALLISON

Now that nearly all the TARP funds used to bail out Wall Street banks have been repaid, the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stand out as the source of the greatest taxpayer losses.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, in the wake of the housing bubble and the unprecedented deflation in housing values that resulted, the government's cost to bail out Fannie and Freddie will eventually reach $381 billion. That estimate may be too optimistic.
.........
........
He should know. As a senator, he was the third largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, behind only Sens. Chris Dodd and John Kerry.

With hypocrisy like this at the top, is it any wonder that nearly 80% of Americans, according to new Pew polling, don't trust the federal government or its ability to solve the country's problems?

Mr. Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

It take 60 votes to cut off debate in the Senate (i.e., apply the cloture rule) if the other side makes it obvious they will filibuster to prevent a vote on a bill. While many votes are passed in the Senate without a 60-vote majority, several have been prevented from being passed by merely the threat of filibuster to KILL A BILL. And this has always been the rule.

We CONSERVATIVES guys know a great deal about how our political system ACTUALLY works.

Well Cyclops...there were a lot of democrats who didn't bring stuff to the floor during the healthcare 'debates' because they knew that they didn't have the 60 votes.

I don't think it's a crazy assumption to make; we never would have gotten single payer, even though a simple majority may have supported it. The republicans blocked that vote without ever having to actually do anything to block the vote. Remember how you and I bitched about this, call the democrats pansies; complained that they should actually make the republicans do an actual filibuster (for 1000 straight hours if they must).