McCain and Senate Bill 190

[Gan]

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071):
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190), 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.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Quick Info
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190)
Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status: Dead

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002 Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrm x002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

__________________________________________________ _____

This was introduced in 2006. It didnt make it past committee.
Sponsor of the Bill was Senator Chuck Hagel.

Shame this bill didnt get more attention then. :(

[Daniel]

This would have done what for aig, bear stearns, lehman brothers and Goldman sachs?

[Gan]

Not as much as it would have done for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[Daniel]

Nothing would have sufficed

[Sean of the Thread]

Student loans are fucked atm they need some restructuring imo.

[Gan]

Nice to know that another politician was concerned about it other than the effervescent Ron Paul.

Nice to know that other politician is the one I'm voting for. ;)

[Daniel]

Nice to know that another politician was concerned about it other than the effervescent Ron Paul.

Nice to know that other politician is the one I'm voting for. ;)

Totally. He cared so much he couldn't even get it out of a republican led committee.

[Gan]

The table of contents for the bill.

A BILLTo address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005'.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions. TITLE I--REFORM OF REGULATION OF ENTERPRISES
Subtitle A--Improvement of Safety and Soundness Supervision

Sec. 101. Establishment of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency.
Sec. 102. Duties and authorities of Director.
Sec. 103. Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Sec. 104. Authority to require reports by regulated entities.
Sec. 105. Examiners and accountants; authority to contract for reviews of enterprises.
Sec. 106. Assessments.
Sec. 107. Regulations and orders.
Sec. 108. Prudential management and operations standards.
Sec. 109. Limitation on nonmission-related assets.
Sec. 110. Risk-based capital test for enterprises.
Sec. 111. Limit on golden parachutes.
Sec. 112. Reporting of fraudulent loans. Subtitle B--Improvement of Mission Supervision

Sec. 121. Transfer of program approval and housing goal oversight.
Sec. 122. Review of enterprise programs, and activities.
Sec. 123. Authority to require reports by enterprises.
Sec. 124. Monitoring and enforcing compliance with housing goals.
Sec. 125. Assumption by director of other HUD responsibilities.
Sec. 126. Administrative and judicial enforcement proceedings. Subtitle C--Prompt Corrective Action

Sec. 141. Capital classifications.
Sec. 142. Supervisory actions applicable to undercapitalized regulated entities.
Sec. 143. Supervisory actions applicable to significantly undercapitalized regulated entities.
Sec. 144. Authority over critically undercapitalized enterprises. Subtitle D--Enforcement Actions

Sec. 151. Cease-and-desist proceedings.
Sec. 152. Temporary cease-and-desist proceedings.
Sec. 153. Removal and prohibition authority.
Sec. 154. Enforcement and jurisdiction.
Sec. 155. Civil money penalties.
Sec. 156. Criminal penalty.
Sec. 157. Notice after separation from service. Subtitle E--Other Reporting Regarding Regulated Entities

Sec. 161. Reporting regarding regulated entities. Subtitle F--General Provisions

Sec. 171. Conforming and technical amendments.
Sec. 172. Presidentially appointed directors of enterprises.
Sec. 173. Effective date. TITLE II--FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

Sec. 201. Directors.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Agency oversight of Federal Home Loan Banks.
Sec. 204. Debt issuing facility.
Sec. 205. Exclusion from certain securities reporting requirements.
Sec. 206. Limitation on golden parachutes. TITLE III--TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS, PERSONNEL, AND PROPERTY OF OFHEO AND THE FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD
Subtitle A--OFHEO

Sec. 301. Abolishment of OFHEO.
Sec. 302. Continuation and coordination of certain regulations.
Sec. 303. Transfer and rights of employees of OFHEO.
Sec. 304. Transfer of property and facilities. Subtitle B--Federal Housing Finance Board

Sec. 311. Abolishment of the Federal Housing Finance Board.
Sec. 312. Continuation and coordination of certain regulations.Board.
Sec. 314. Transfer of property and facilities. TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Study and report on Basel II and enterprise debt.
Sec. 402. Affordable housing reporting.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-190

[Gan]

Totally. He cared so much he couldn't even get it out of a republican led committee.

If he was the chair of said committee then I'd agree. I dont think thats the case however.

Either way, he's on record for speaking out for some form of regulation in that arena.

[Keller]

If he was the chair of said committee then I'd agree. I dont think thats the case however.

Either way, he's on record for speaking out for some form of regulation in that arena.

I'd be interested to see that record.

[Daniel]

If he was the chair of said committee then I'd agree. I dont think thats the case however.

Either way, he's on record for speaking out for some form of regulation in that arena.

So only chairmen can push bills now? Sure.

sounds like talk with no action to me.

[Gan]

I'd be interested to see that record.

So far you can start with his co-sponsor of S. 190. ;)

[Parkbandit]

Wait.. what was Obama saying about it? The only thing worse than talk with no action is no talk and no action.

[crb]

Daniel is hilarious, this bill was voted on down party lines. Every democrat in the committee voted against it. And yet... Daniel is finding fault with the republicans who voted for it or consponsored it? Wake up and smell the bullshit.

[Gan]

Daniel is hilarious, this bill was voted on down party lines. Every democrat in the committee voted against it. And yet... Daniel is finding fault with the republicans who voted for it or consponsored it? Wake up and smell the bullshit.

Imagine that. And yes, I heard that as well this morning. I just didnt want to throw that card out yet. :(

[Keller]

So far you can start with his co-sponsor of S. 190. ;)

So was the trouble with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac an accounting mistatement?

[Gan]

Be more specific please.

[Daniel]

Daniel is hilarious, this bill was voted on down party lines. Every democrat in the committee voted against it. And yet... Daniel is finding fault with the republicans who voted for it or consponsored it? Wake up and smell the bullshit.

You'd have a point if it wasn't a republican controlled congress.

[Keller]

Be more specific please.

How does this bill address the fundamental problem which led to the housing crisis: the ability for commercial banks to sell notes to investment banks.

[Gan]

You and Daniel both seem to think that S.190 was addressing the effects of the Graham-Leach Bill. Its addressing the regulation and business model of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I dont see how your question is even relevant to the scope and purpose of S.190.

[Gan]

You'd have a point if it wasn't a republican controlled congress.

Unless you consider how McCain was always going against the entrenched political establishment - even on the GOP side.

[Keller]

I dont see how your question is even relevant to the scope and purpose of S.190.

I'm pointing out the irrelevence of the S.190 to the crisis.

But I'm glad to see that you agree there is no significant connection between S.190 and the fundamental cause of the housing crisis.

[crb]

How does this bill address the fundamental problem which led to the housing crisis: the ability for commercial banks to sell notes to investment banks.
Your assumption is incorrect.

What caused this problem was a housing bubble fueled by cheap money, and loose standards.

If we hadn't had an inappropriately fueled bubble the selling of securities would be a nonissue.

Fannie and Freddie were leveraged far far far more than any bank.

[crb]

Don't mind Keller Gan, he is just parroting the liberal talking points (http://s.wsj.net/article/SB122204078161261183.html). They know where the blame truly lies and are doing all they can to deflect it by talking about deregulation.

To be sure, deregulation allowed this problem to affect companies it might not have before, but it didn't cause this problem.

[Daniel]

Unless you consider how McCain was always going against the entrenched political establishment - even on the GOP side.

So what? Are you saying McCain was completely ineffective?

[Gan]

I'm pointing out the irrelevence of the S.190 to the crisis.

But I'm glad to see that you agree there is no significant connection between S.190 and the fundamental cause of the housing crisis.

What part in this crisis do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have?

[Gan]

So what? Are you saying McCain was completely ineffective?

I believe the term you're looking for is "maverick".

[Keller]

Your assumption is incorrect.

What caused this problem was a housing bubble fueled by cheap money, and loose standards.

If we hadn't had an inappropriately fueled bubble the selling of securities would be a nonissue.

Fannie and Freddie were leveraged far far far more than any bank.

I'd be interested to read what you're reading. That's not my understanding.

And what do you mean by "loose standards". Why did those standards become loose?

edited to add: Suffice to say that if those securities were not able to be sold, they would also be a nonissue.

[Gan]

Your assumption is incorrect.

What caused this problem was a housing bubble fueled by cheap money, and loose standards.

If we hadn't had an inappropriately fueled bubble the selling of securities would be a nonissue.

Fannie and Freddie were leveraged far far far more than any bank.

Which brings us also to mention Franklin Raines...

[Keller]

Don't mind Keller Gan, he is just parroting the liberal talking points (http://s.wsj.net/article/SB122204078161261183.html). They know where the blame truly lies and are doing all they can to deflect it by talking about deregulation.

To be sure, deregulation allowed this problem to affect companies it might not have before, but it didn't cause this problem.

I don't expect you to admit the real cause of this crisis, you're just a conservative mouthpiece.

[Gan]

What part in this crisis do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have?
That question was directed to you.


I don't expect you to admit the real cause of this crisis, you're just a conservative mouthpiece.
Is this where you fall back on the Graham Leach Biley Act?

[crb]

I'd be interested to read what you're reading. That's not my understanding.

And what do you mean by "loose standards". Why did those standards become loose?
I've posted it all over.

This is a good explanation of the culprits:
http://s.wsj.net/article/SB122204078161261183.html

Excess liquidity made banks flush with cash, and to put that cash to work they made loans, when they couldn't find more people to loan to, they had to lower standards.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac leveraged way up to earn their CEO's big bonuses (now Obama advisors). They, and other aspects of the federal government, also encouraged the lowering of standards through missions to provide more affordable housing to lower income individuals (aka, social engineering).

This rapid influx of both buyers and capital caused prices to skyrocket, a bubble.

The rising prices and windfalls attracted even more buyers eager to jump on the bandwagon. Bigger bubble.

Suddenly APRs start adjusting and people realize these subprime loans weren't a good idea, bubble bursts.

Taxpayer bends over.

[Keller]

I've posted it all over.

This is a good explanation of the culprits:
http://s.wsj.net/article/SB122204078161261183.html

Excess liquidity made banks flush with cash, and to put that cash to work they made loans, when they couldn't find more people to loan to, they had to lower standards.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac leveraged way up to earn their CEO's big bonuses (now Obama advisors). They, and other aspects of the federal government, also encouraged the lowering of standards through missions to provide more affordable housing to lower income individuals (aka, social engineering).

This rapid influx of both buyers and capital caused prices to skyrocket, a bubble.

The rising prices and windfalls attracted even more buyers eager to jump on the bandwagon. Bigger bubble.

Suddenly APRs start adjusting and people realize these subprime loans weren't a good idea, bubble bursts.

Taxpayer bends over.

That's utter bullshit. Pure and simple.

They were encouraged to lower standards by a market that allowed them to get off the hook for notes they originated.

If you can't admit that, you've got some Ilvane-size blinders on.

[crb]

I don't expect you to admit the real cause of this crisis, you're just a conservative mouthpiece.
The real cause is the housing bubble, which was created by loose standards and loose money.

Do yourself a favor and do some reading. No, barackobama.com doesn't count.

[Keller]

The real cause is the housing bubble, which was created by loose standards and loose money.

Do yourself a favor and do some reading. No, barackobama.com doesn't count.

First, I've never been to barackobama.com. I've also never been to johnmccain.com

Second, what are these loose standards you speak of?

[Tsa`ah]

Daniel is hilarious, this bill was voted on down party lines. Every democrat in the committee voted against it. And yet... Daniel is finding fault with the republicans who voted for it or consponsored it? Wake up and smell the bullshit.


Imagine that. And yes, I heard that as well this morning. I just didnt want to throw that card out yet. :(

Imagine that, you're taking crb's word for it ... better fish that card out of the trash.

The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs from the 109th congress had exactly nine dems and eleven reps. If the vote went down party lines ... it would have made it to debates. It didn't make it out of the committee because they wanted it amended, after that it just died in the same republican controlled department.

You can spin it one way or another ... the truth is that it didn't make it out of a republican controlled committee then, and it has yet to see light from a democrat controlled committee now.

[crb]

That's utter bullshit. Pure and simple.

They were encouraged to lower standards by a market that allowed them to get off the hook for notes they originated.

If you can't admit that, you've got some Ilvane-size blinders on.
So... the federal government literally saying "lower standards' along with the creation of subsidy programs had nothing to do with the lowering of standards? Are you really that much of a douche to believe that?

Are you also so much of a douche to believe that the two companies who buy HALF OF ALL MORTGAGES are not at the heart of an issue where you admit:



They were encouraged to lower standards by a market that allowed them to get off the hook for notes they originated.

No no... it wasn't lack of reforms at fannie and freddie that McCain and other republicans wanted... it was that investment banks could buy a sliver of the mortgages those two giants bought....

Fannie and Freddie bought trillions more mortgages than investment banks Keller. Trillions, with a T, note this is more than billions, with a B.

Barney Frank, then ranking democrat on the house committe, said, specifically, he was against reform because he didn't want to hinder the supply of affordable housing.

But it is all bullshit?

[crb]

First, I've never been to barackobama.com. I've also never been to johnmccain.com

Second, what are these loose standards you speak of?
Have you been living on the moon?

There are loans called "Subprime" given to people with less than perfect credit, people who used to not be able to get loans at all.

How do you not know this?

[crb]

Keller,

read this:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

This was the start of the social engineering bullshit, to be fair, Bush continued it. But Bush also called for reform of fannie and freddie, as did ron paul, john mccain, elizabeth dole, etc.

[crb]

Imagine that, you're taking crb's word for it ... better fish that card out of the trash.

The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs from the 109th congress had exactly nine dems and eleven reps. If the vote went down party lines ... it would have made it to debates. It didn't make it out of the committee because they wanted it amended, after that it just died in the same republican controlled department.

You can spin it one way or another ... the truth is that it didn't make it out of a republican controlled committee then, and it has yet to see light from a democrat controlled committee now.
What do you mean "if the vote went down party lines"

It did, look it up.

And making it out of committee is one thing, if every democrat says they're against it, and you don't have a filibuster proof majority, and you have other bills to discuss (like say something on iraq) you probably won't put the bill as a high priority considering it will not pass anyways. IT doesn't make it the Republicans who voted for it at fault. The people who are at fault are those who did not support it. If it had gotten any democrat support in committee it would have made it to the floor.

[Tsa`ah]

Umm ... provide proof then.

[crb]

of what exactly? That it couldn't have passed with dem opposition? That they were busy with other laws? What?

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3107903&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/specialreport/index.html

[Tsa`ah]

Dear god .... answer the fucking question. You've tried spinning it as a party issue. It didn't pass the committee because of the dems .... PROVE IT.

[Keller]

Have you been living on the moon?

There are loans called "Subprime" given to people with less than perfect credit, people who used to not be able to get loans at all.

How do you not know this?

It's the socratic method.

So these subprime loans -- why did banks give them? Why did they stop giving applicants financial colonoscopies when they asked them for 300,000 notes?

[Keller]

Keller,

read this:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

This was the start of the social engineering bullshit, to be fair, Bush continued it. But Bush also called for reform of fannie and freddie, as did ron paul, john mccain, elizabeth dole, etc.

Was Clinton removing the note originators from the hook by purchasing the notes after they were created?

I understand the shotgun approach to trying to blame everyone and everything. But the fact remains that any sophisticated lender would never lend (and would have never had the capital on hand to continue to lend) if there weren't investment banks taking those notes off of their hands at the end of the day. THAT is the root cause. It's not rocket science.

[Gan]

How does this bill address the fundamental problem which led to the housing crisis: the ability for commercial banks to sell notes to investment banks.

To come back and answer this question.

In order for loans to be attractive enough to securitize on the secondary market they tend to be purchased in greater numbers and higher risk if they have backing by either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

Without backing of either of these two institutions, they never would have sold on the secondary market (for the lack of being backed by the government). Meaning it would not have contributed to the insolvency we're now seeing with the investment banks.

[crb]

Dear god .... answer the fucking question. You've tried spinning it as a party issue. It didn't pass the committee because of the dems .... PROVE IT.
It did pass committee, it didn't go to the floor because staunch democratic opposition made it a nonstarter.

[crb]

It's the socratic method.

So these subprime loans -- why did banks give them? Why did they stop giving applicants financial colonoscopies when they asked them for 300,000 notes?
Because they could then sell the loans to fannie and freddie who were under government guidelines to leverage up and buy as many loans as possible with little regard to standards as a method of keeping housing affordable for low income americans.

[crb]

Was Clinton removing the note originators from the hook by purchasing the notes after they were created?

I understand the shotgun approach to trying to blame everyone and everything. But the fact remains that any sophisticated lender would never lend (and would have never had the capital on hand to continue to lend) if there weren't investment banks taking those notes off of their hands at the end of the day. THAT is the root cause. It's not rocket science.
Keller, how is it you can blame investment banks for being willing to buy these loans, but not blame Fannie & Freddie and by extent the government mandate under which they run for buying up trillions and trillions more?

Two insurgents are on a road in Iraq, at the same time one fires an RPG at a humvee and one throws a rock. The Humvee blows up, you're blaming the guy who threw the rock and ignoring the guy who fired the RPG.

[Tsa`ah]

It did pass committee, it didn't go to the floor because staunch democratic opposition made it a nonstarter.

Now you need to put on your helmet ... and strap it on tight.

It never made it past the committee.

Let me repost that for you in a speed you can keep up with.

It






never








made






it








past






the








committee.

It never got to the floor for debate ... nada.

[Gan]

It did pass committee, it didn't go to the floor because staunch democratic opposition made it a nonstarter.


Now you need to put on your helmet ... and strap it on tight.

It never made it past the committee.

Let me repost that for you in a speed you can keep up with.

It
never
made
it
past
the
committee.

It never got to the floor for debate ... nada.
I'd like to see either or both of you source your stance.

[Tsa`ah]

You sourced it for me in the OP. Outside of that it wasn't rocket science to look at who was on the committe in the 109th.

[crb]

Now you need to put on your helmet ... and strap it on tight.

It never made it past the committee.

Let me repost that for you in a speed you can keep up with.

It






never








made






it








past






the








committee.

It never got to the floor for debate ... nada.
You need to define "pass" I guess.

Was there a passing vote on it?

Yes.

Did it go any further?

No.

[Tsa`ah]

Holy shit ... are you seriously trying to attempt that route?

Where was the passing vote? Who voted for and who voted against?

First you tried filibuster ... now this?

It never made it past he committee, a republican committee that held two more seats than the democrats.

You need to provide proof that every democrat on said committee voted against it ... thus preventing it from getting to the floor for debate.

Maybe you need to understand what "Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably." means.

[Kefka]

What do you mean "if the vote went down party lines"

It did, look it up.

And making it out of committee is one thing, if every democrat says they're against it, and you don't have a filibuster proof majority, and you have other bills to discuss (like say something on iraq) you probably won't put the bill as a high priority considering it will not pass anyways. IT doesn't make it the Republicans who voted for it at fault. The people who are at fault are those who did not support it. If it had gotten any democrat support in committee it would have made it to the floor.

You are providing no links to back up any of what you're saying. State your source. And please, no right wing blogs/foxsnooze.

[crb]

My source on the vote is fox news... and you know what they have a better track record of accuracy than say the NYT or MSNBC or pretty much every other palin hating news organization lately. Or CBS with rathergate etc.

Not related directly to this bill but...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

NYT - not Fox news.

Bush trying to reform them, Barney frank saying:



''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative 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.


So... in an article in the NYT, you have republicans trying to reform the GSEs, democrats opposed, and giving their reasoning in the way of social engineering.

[Keller]

Keller, how is it you can blame investment banks for being willing to buy these loans, but not blame Fannie & Freddie and by extent the government mandate under which they run for buying up trillions and trillions more?

Two insurgents are on a road in Iraq, at the same time one fires an RPG at a humvee and one throws a rock. The Humvee blows up, you're blaming the guy who threw the rock and ignoring the guy who fired the RPG.

I got slammed after lunch -- I'll get to this when I get home assuming I get home at a reasonable hour.

[Kefka]

My source on the vote is fox news... and you know what they have a better track record of accuracy than say the NYT or MSNBC or pretty much every other palin hating news organization lately. Or CBS with rathergate etc.

Not related directly to this bill but...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

NYT - not Fox news.

Bush trying to reform them, Barney frank saying:



So... in an article in the NYT, you have republicans trying to reform the GSEs, democrats opposed, and giving their reasoning in the way of social engineering.

So you mean your 'vote along party lines!' was pure opinion? You're quoting foxnews like it's the daily word, while trying to cut down people with actual links. :no:

[Tsa`ah]

My source on the vote is fox news... and you know what they have a better track record of accuracy than say the NYT or MSNBC or pretty much every other palin hating news organization lately. Or CBS with rathergate etc.

Umm ... no. Fox is not an acceptable source.


Not related directly to this bill but...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

NYT - not Fox news.

Bush trying to reform them, Barney frank saying:



So... in an article in the NYT, you have republicans trying to reform the GSEs, democrats opposed, and giving their reasoning in the way of social engineering.

Do you not see a problem with further deregulation? That is exactly what Bush proposed. Creating an entity outside the reach of democracy within the treasury dept.

But that's really not the debate. You have Fox news reporting that the dems shot this down. No other source .... but then again, maybe the dems did shoot it down.


Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.
Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.
Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

Had this made it on to the floor, past a filibuster ... it would have probably compounded the problem.

This proposal was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[crb]

Convenient opinion to hold that.

"It wouldn't have worked anyway"

The proper action, in anycase, will be to nationalize them, break them up, and sell them in little pieces back on the open market. Then get the government completely out of the mortgage business.

[Tsa`ah]

Did that just sail over your head?

[Parkbandit]

I'm still laughing at the Barney Frank quote...

Personally there's a couple of people (like Barney) that clearly are too fucking stupid to still be in office.

[BigWorm]

Wow, I had the radio tuned into EIB when I got in for lunch today and Rush was talking about that exact same quote. Now, what are crb and PB talking about? Dittoheads much?

[Parkbandit]

Wow, I had the radio tuned into EIB when I got in for lunch today and Rush was talking about that exact same quote. Now, what are crb and PB talking about? Dittoheads much?

Which quote exactly did I post?

Easy now.. take your time.

Re-read the thread..

Then feel free to go ahead and quote the part where I posted it.. instead of reading the thread and commenting on it.

Slow down, you're going to miss it.

If you still need help on knowing how much of a dicksplash you are, PM me. Pointing out how fucking stupid you are on a forum is far below my skill level.

[Keller]

If you still need help on knowing how much of a dicksplash you are, PM me. Pointing out how fucking stupid you are on a forum is far below my skill level.

Should of said " . . . far below my pay grade."

[Jack]

Now you need to put on your helmet ... and strap it on tight.

It never made it past the committee.

Let me repost that for you in a speed you can keep up with.

It






never








made






it








past






the








committee.

It never got to the floor for debate ... nada.

Actually, it passed the comittee vote, directly along party lines. It never made it to the floor because it lacked the bipartisan support nescessary to pass. Pretty much exactly as Gan stated. A quick google search turned up this article, which backs that up, and isn't from Fox....

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/532756-1.html

[Gan]

Actually, it passed the comittee vote, directly along party lines. It never made it to the floor because it lacked the bipartisan support nescessary to pass. Pretty much exactly as Gan stated. A quick google search turned up this article, which backs that up, and isn't from Fox....

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/532756-1.html

Fucking cheerleader.

;)

[Sean of the Thread]

Rofl this thread has delivered.

[Gan]

In opposing portfolio caps, Democrats expressed concern that such restrictions would harm Fannie and Freddie's ability to ensure the liquidity needed to foster affordable housing.
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/532756-1.html

There's an interesting excerpt.

[Tsa`ah]

Fucking cheerleader.

;)

Why is Jack a cheerleader? Because he posted a valid source?

The measure passed but was prevented from entering the floor for debates because it lacked bi-partisan support. Have you bothered to read the measure? More importantly, are you that willing to play the magical crystal ball providing glimpses into the future game?

That this bill would have made any impact, positive or negative, on the current situation is nothing but conjecture. The only reason this made it into the headlines was because McCain co-sponsored it. It's politics, nothing more, nothing less. Place the blame for the current economic situation on the dems because McCain "saw it coming" (despite admitting he knew very little about economics ... or the economy) and co-sponsored a bill that would have magically prevented everything.

Despite this unprecedented 20/20 future vision, no one has bothered to mention that the bill didn't provide any changes or improved regulatory powers regarding the big three rating industries ... that had a huge huge hand in the current economic meltdown.

No one is really questioning why the bill took so long to amend either.