Seeing here the Congressional Democrats, like the Congressional Republicans under Clintion, sought to stall and engage in "blame Bush while the house is burning" partisan politics, one CAUSE of failure is how Washington conducts its Politics... This stalling to fix problems, seen in the refusal to work on solutions for Fannie Mae, SS Reform in 2005 have chickens that are now coming home to roost... The pity here is that Congressional Democrat have no plan in fixing critical problems except "give us Democrats all the power"... Quite shameful really...
On Sep 22, 7:55 pm, SgtUSMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This was a bill proposed by Bush. Since everything Bush has attempted > ended in failure, it should tell you something. > > This bill would have created a new government agency to oversee Fannie > Mae and Freddie Mac. This shouldn't be surprising, either, since Bush > has presided over the largest increase in government in history. What > is surprising is the "smaller government" Republicans would support > such a bill. > > One theory this bill was based upon was that credit was safe. James > Haggerty, in his article in the Sept 17, 2005 issue of "The Wall > Street Journal" stated that Standard & Poor's and most other observers > conclude that the different maturity dates, loan-to-value ratios, > private mortgage insurance, and geographic diversification, credit > risk is not a serious problem. This has been shown to be false. Had > this bill passed we would have had greater executive power, a new > government agency with the director appointed by Bush to further > destroy the working American for the benefit of the corporate banks. > > Another premise of the bill was that borrowers would prepay their > mortgages, not default on them. The analysts, including Greenspan and > Treasury Sec., Snow, provided a paper, CRS report RL32795, in which > you can read these opinions. They saw the risk as borrowers moving to > more favorable terms and paying off the mortgage before its maturity, > presenting a risk to the lender's profits. Obviously, that would > decrease the risk of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was to > further deregulate the lenders and puts restraints on the borrower's > ability to manage their debts. > > Passage of this bill would have made the problem worse, not better. > > If you want more of the same financial upheaval, vote McSame. His co- > sponsorship of Bush's bill gives evidence. > > On Sep 22, 5:01 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Democrats seek to deny responsibility, yet their fingerprints on all > > over the cause of the RE bubble... Obama if honest would point > > partical blame THERE... That he refuses to be honest, speaks volumes > > about his lack of zeal in being an honest reformer... > > >http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0 > > > >>> 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. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
