Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Freddie and Fanny - Oversight and overspin
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Pop quiz - who identified and tried to fix what presently ails Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae 5 years ago?

Answer, from the NYT no less:
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.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
Who said, "Nah, no need. They're both in very good shape"?
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 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.
Ed Morrisey has a lot more. After you've read it, keep it in mind while the Dems try like the dickens to shift the blame on the "evil Bush."

5 years ago the problem was identified, and 5 years ago those who could do something about it blew it off as "exaggerations" and a "shell game". The same people who say Social Security is solvent and there isn't a problem with Medicare. The same ones who were receiving beaucoup lobbying bucks from the two "entities" in question.

The same ones who claim they ought to be trusted to handle the economy.

(HT: Keith_Indy)
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
If I understand it correctly, the top three recipients of Freddie/Fannie money include Hillary and Obama.


Was the money they gave Obama well spent?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"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.
Barney Fatman was unopposed in today’s primary here in the MA 4th District. My apologies but it appears there is no getting rid of The Honorable "I had no idea he was running a brothel from my living room". At least John Kerry had token opposition today.
 
Written By: CR
URL: http://
"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."

This is a key point to me. The current oversight authority rests squarely with CONGRESS.

Who is running congress right now, and has been pretty much ever since the problems with the FM’s were discovered?
 
Written By: Buddy
URL: http://
If I understand it correctly, the top three recipients of Freddie/Fannie money include Hillary and Obama.


Was the money they gave Obama well spent?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Opps, sorry for the double tap.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"The current oversight authority rests squarely with CONGRESS"

Which means it is essentially nonexistent.
For the right price, anyway.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
This is 2003, so it’s a GOP congress. And here’s this:
Nine days ago, the House Financial Services Committee postponed a vote on a bill after the White House said it would not support the legislation, contending it was too weak.
What’s being cited in the post is pretty thin stuff. It shows Barney Frank criticizing the regulatory shift, and that’s about it. We really don’t know why or how it died.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
jpe,

After what you quoted, it said this:
The Bush administration is stepping up pressure on Congress to adopt a plan this year for stricter oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Mr. Snow says a new regulator is needed to ensure the financial soundness of the mortgage buyers, and he wants the new agency to be at the Treasury.
Looks like the House Financial Services Committee bill didn’t contain that oversight.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I don’t think it was lobbyists so much as ideology and Democratic constituencies.
Notice all the talk about regulation making affordable housing less available.
Translation:
Stricter regulation will make them become more realistic about giving mortgages to people who can’t afford them, unlike the current situation. As champions of the people who can’t afford to have mortgages but want them anyway, we therefore oppose tighter regulation.
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://kishnevi.wordpress.com/
Notice all the talk about regulation making affordable housing less available.
"All the talk" being one sentence which may or may not have been in context. There may be something to this story, but we don’t know yet.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
We don’t know yet???

This is old news. This story is from 2003. When the heck will you know? This battle between the administration and Republican critics of Fannie Mae (most notably Baton Rouge’s own Richard Baker and the Wall Street Journal) and Democrats such as Barney Frank was widely reported at the time and in the years since. This story is merely illustrative.

In fact, it has been addressed before here at QandO.

The fight filled the Wall Street Journal for years, and those fighting that fight were scurrilously attacked repeatedly for doing so. Such as this from Paul Krugman:
What you need to know here is that the right — the WSJ editorial page, Heritage, etc. — hates, hates, hates Fannie and Freddie. Why? Because they don’t want quasi-public entities competing with Angelo Mozilo.
It was a dishonest attack (Mozillo was close to Democrats, not Republicans, especially Chris Dodd) but pretty much the standard line of attack.

Look, Republican politico’s have a lot to answer for over the last decade. Fannie and Freddie for the most part ain’t on the list.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://riskandreturn.net
I noticed an error in the quoted material and I took the liberty of fixing it.

"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 profits."
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Whoops, wrong correction.

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 profits and graft.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
This seems to condense it quite well ...
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
Story short, Clinton et al super-charged the role of Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac, appointed a bunch of cronies to sack them, others joined in the fun, and we are left with a big mess that will cost billions.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Yes indeed, Bush was helpless to reform FM/FM, even with a Republican Congress. One that never turned him down on ANY new proposed legislation. For six long years.

One wonders what sort of magical power he would have needed to overcome the problem, when even total GOP control of all 3 houses of government still somehow mysteriously left him powerless?

Oh, those diabolical Democrats!
 
Written By: jim
URL: http://
2 Important facts left out:

1. In 2003 both the House and Senate were Republican controlled. If your own party couldn’t get this passed, you can’t blame the party that was in the minority.

2. Those that voted against it (both Dems and Republicans) made a very smart move. The bill, as it was proposed in 2003 (and again in 2005), sought to privatize the oversight of the bank lending industry. Privitizating the oversight of the lending industry was and remains completely the wrong thing to do.

Isn’t it funny when you tell only half the truth it completely changes things? Republicans seem really good at that.

Give people all the facts next time you facist.

And start thinking about why the richest 1% and businesses only gets richer under Republican economics and why the the remainder gets only poorer and looses their jobs.
 
Written By: nebulous
URL: http://
In 2003 both the House and Senate were Republican controlled. If your own party couldn’t get this passed, you can’t blame the party that was in the minority.
Really? Harry Reid’s been doing it for two years. Where’ve you been?
Give people all the facts next time you facist.
The facts?

Heh ...
Privitizating the oversight of the lending industry was and remains completely the wrong thing to do.
Clueless.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Love your response...
Harry Reid’s been doing it for two years. Where’ve you been?
Interesting insight. Yes a Dem House and Senate over the last 2 years with a Republican President of an extremely low approval rating is EXACTLY the same situation in 2003. You pinhead.

In 2003 both the Executive and Legislative branches were republican controlled. And that is very large difference. Also, you may have forgetten that in 2003 the House and Senate earned the nick-name of a "Rubber-Stamp Congress and Senate".

I think its pretty obviously how 2003 is different than the last 2 years, unless of course your a republican and just trying to shuffle off the blame.
Clueless.


Ok. Here’s what the bill said:
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish:
(1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac);
Do you see? Can you read? This bill was transfering any remaining oversight FROM the government TO an INDEPENDENT Agency! That meant it had NO FEDERAL OVERSIGHT AT ALL!

So. Please enlighten me why the appropriate thing to do would be to privatize the oversight of the lending industry? Please offer something of an intelligible comment. Please?

Also, if you are a Republican. Republican mantra is less government and free market rule. Regulation is Democratic battle-cry. So what do you believe in? Or are you a sheep?

 
Written By: nebulous
URL: http://
Love your response...
Yours was kind of cute too ...
Interesting insight. Yes a Dem House and Senate over the last 2 years with a Republican President of an extremely low approval rating is EXACTLY the same situation in 2003. You pinhead.
Reduced to name calling, sweetpea?
In 2003 both the Executive and Legislative branches were republican controlled. And that is very large difference. Also, you may have forgetten that in 2003 the House and Senate earned the nick-name of a "Rubber-Stamp Congress and Senate".
No, it’s not - again, for those paying attention, the Senate majority was slim and it took 60 votes to get anything through (you might remember I mentioned that earlier?) The Democrats on the Senate banking committee voted party line against any reform.

Look it up. With that fact now in front of us, where was the 60th vote coming from?
Do you see? Can you read? This bill was transfering any remaining oversight FROM the government TO an INDEPENDENT Agency! That meant it had NO FEDERAL OVERSIGHT AT ALL!
Are you really this dense or is reading comprehension just not your strong suit? It was independent from CONGRESS. But it’s name?

Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency

So what was being proposed was a federal agency, separate from Congress to OVERSEE Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac).

Learn to read if you want to keep playing with the big kids.

Now you get to explain this:
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times this year before Congress finally passed a bill increasing oversight of Fannie and Freddie — though by then it was too late.

Indeed, the White House’s list calls for GSE reform is a long one, stretching as far back as April 2001. At that time, the administration’s first budget declared that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s growing dominance of the mortgage market was "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

In 2003, after both Fannie and Freddie were found to have cooked their accounting books, then-Treasury Secretary John Snow urged Congress to "create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate capital requirements.

Two years later, Mr. Snow again called for GSE reform, noting that recent events "reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform.... Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system."

The response? Rep. Barney Frank, who now vilifies Republican House members for questioning a policy of throwing another $700 billion on the bonfire, insisted to the New York Times during the 2003 accounting scandal: "These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
When you’re done with that, explain this (and read it for a change before the knee begins to jerk uncontrollably, ok?).
Also, if you are a Republican. Republican mantra is less government and free market rule. Regulation is Democratic battle-cry. So what do you believe in? Or are you a sheep?
Wow.

You are just on fire (snicker).

Hey, do yourself a favor and figure out what we are before you start using 3rd grade animal comparisons, ’kay.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
No, it’s not - again, for those paying attention, the Senate majority was slim and it took 60 votes to get anything through (you might remember I mentioned that earlier?) The Democrats on the Senate banking committee voted party line against any reform.
Please tell me when it hasn’t been slim in any recent years? Yet bills get passed. In fact, until 2006, the Legislative branch was nick-named a "rubber-stamp" for Bush. Or do you not recall that?
Are you really this dense or is reading comprehension just not your strong suit? It was independent from CONGRESS. But it’s name?
Well, if I am dense, then are you impenetrable to logic.
"independent" Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency.
The sentence does not say "independent of Congress". It says "independent". And that is exactly why most members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats voted against it. Try to read what it says and not put your own words in there.

And if you lack the power of deduction, it is spelled out for you
here or here for starters.

(Also you should look at the voting records, because although Dems may have voted party-line on it, even the Republicans couldn’t rally around it either.)

As for your quote from the WSJ article, it is simply a re-hash of this same 2003 oversight topic. Do you want to offer something different there? I suppose you never learned baseball. You shouldn’t throw the same pitch if the hitter has your number.

And to the 1993 article regarding Clinton, did that pass? Because I’m pretty sure it didn’t. But lets say it did for arguements sake... That article was solely in reference to helping minorities obtain mortgages in the face of possible prejudice in lending. Are you insinuating that the economy woes are due just to minorities borrowing more than they can afford? Just come out and say it, since that’s what you’re implying by linking to that article. Just so you know, I have 3 neighbors who were all foreclosed, and they were all white. So I think all races borrowed and were lended more than they could afford.

And along those lines... here is a more recent and interesting article...
On December 16, 2003, President Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, which will help approximately 40,000 families a year with their down payment and closing costs, and further strengthen America’s housing market. This legislation complements the President’s aggressive housing agenda announced in 2002 to dismantle the barriers to homeownership.
Hmm. Guess that one passed.

Should have been better oversight? Yes. Should it have been privatized. No. Is the fault of the Democrats? Yes. Is the fault of the Republicans. Yes. (But I know you can’t admit this, as Cheney might zap you with his death-ray.)
So I suppose there really is no point in me continuing to post here, or discussing this with any ultra-right wing person. (Please, don’t try to claim you’re not of the Republican sway. That’s just plain silly. This site is as partisan as they come.)

Please don’t think that because I hate party-blind Republicans that I have any love for party-blind Democrats. So throwing a Clinton article at me does nothing. I’m a firm believer in thinking, unlike the party-line sheep in either political pen. And it annoys me to all Hell when those with a public voice choose to hide the facts or mis-represent in order to acheive their agenda.

Oh, and you didn’t really answer my last question. Again, tell me how a website who’s motto is "Free Markets, Free People" is in favor of increased goverment regulation? From what I learned in business school, heck even in Economics 101, a true "free market" is one in which there is no government intervention. Were you absent that day?



 
Written By: nebulous
URL: http://
From the Financial Times:
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.

Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.
Go ahead and read more here.
 
Written By: nebulous
URL: http://
Please tell me when it hasn’t been slim in any recent years? Yet bills get passed.
Which is irrelevant to the point - when you get party line votes in committee it isn’t passing. Senate 101.
Well, if I am dense, then are you impenetrable to logic.
Proper logic is grounded in facts, and you keep wanting to skip the fact above.
The sentence does not say "independent of Congress". It says "independent". And that is exactly why most members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats voted against it. Try to read what it says and not put your own words in there.
Well, see here’s one of those examples of where you have to know what you’re talking about and obviously you don’t.

Oversight was vested in Congress with the original act. The reform act recognized that Congress wasn’t doing the job and wanted an outside federal agency formed that wouldn’t be influenced by party politics to oversee the GSEs.

And no, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate didn’t both vote against it. It never got out of committee where it was voted on straight party lines - Dems against, Republicans for.
Hmm. Guess that one passed.
Hmmm ... guess it’s absolutely irrelevant to the point - again.
So I suppose there really is no point in me continuing to post here, or discussing this with any ultra-right wing person. (Please, don’t try to claim you’re not of the Republican sway. That’s just plain silly. This site is as partisan as they come.)
First, of course it is both sides fault. No one is claiming otherwise. But it is also worthwhile examining how we got here - something you’re either not equipped to do or are unwilling to do.

As for how we come down on politics, you bet we mostly come down on the right in financial matters. But the Republicans, in terms of spending have absolutely nothing to crow about these past 8 years.

However the Dems have nothing to crow about for the past 100 years. That’s the difference.

As for whether you should continue to post here, you’re welcome, however, you’re going to have to do better than you have to this point if you do.

And it might behoove you too look beyond one post.

You want to argue? We’ll argue - but don’t try to pretend you aren’t as partisan as anyone you accuse of that here.
Again, tell me how a website who’s motto is "Free Markets, Free People" is in favor of increased goverment regulation?
Who said anyone here was for increased regulation?

Try reading the rest of the site for heaven sake. You stumble upon one post discussing how we got into this mess and think you have it all figured out. As has been obvious from the beginning you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Try this one and this one.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Which is irrelevant to the point
It was your point. Democrats blocked it. Republicans were helpless. But apparently they weren’t helpless with the other extradordinarliy large percentage of bills which passed.
Hmmm ... guess it’s absolutely irrelevant to the point - again.
Wow. You don’t deal well when other’s give you facts you don’t like. This article was the same point as you made through the Clinton article, just more much recent. Or did you not read it?
First, of course it is both sides fault. No one is claiming otherwise.
You did above. You solely faulted Democrats.
it is also worthwhile examining how we got here - something you’re either not equipped to do or are unwilling to do.
Funny thing is I am examining. All the details. You arguements go just headline deep. (I like your defensive posture though. "Deny and Deflect". Its a good, albeit sad, tactic.)
you’re going to have to do better than you have to this point if you do.
You’re going to actually have to answer the questions than simply disregard under the false pretense that they are irrelevant, when they clearly counter your points above.
but don’t try to pretend you aren’t as partisan as anyone you accuse of that here.
Choose to believe it or not. Just because I don’t like you and your misleading posts doesn’t mean I’m a Democrat. I’m a registered Independant. I have voted for Regan, Clinton, and Bush (first term only though). I have fought for this country in Desert Storm and don’t like the Democrats ideas around limiting benefits for our Military men and women. I take issue with you or any other party that purposefully misleads the public. Your strategy of deflecting can only go so far.
Who said anyone here was for increased regulation?
You did. By posting this article which attempts to lay the blame onto just Democrats for the shape finicial industry is in.

While you may in general be against regulation, you clearly don’t make that arguement here. In fact, you suggest the opposite.

Your claim through this posting is that the bill would have increased regulation and thereby perhaps prevented this mess. Do you believe that or don’t you? Please answer the question. Do you agree this bill (which in your terms would have increased regulation) should have passed? Its either "Yes" or "No". Try not to flip-flop.

By the way, what do you think about the Financial Times article and Michael Oxley’s quote? (He was Republican member of Congress by the way. And he aslo calls out later that the bill did eventually pass in 2005, before the market meltdown.)

Feel free to answer or not. I’m done with you. I’ve answered all your questions here. You’ve only proven you are a coward who won’t answer mine.




 
Written By: nebulous
URL: http://
It was your point. Democrats blocked it. Republicans were helpless. But apparently they weren’t helpless with the other extradordinarliy large percentage of bills which passed.
Well that would be because they were either passed by unanimous consent (meaning they had everyone’s support) or they had enough bi-partisan support to meet the 60 vote cloture criteria.

This one didn’t - are you getting it yet? Is it somehow penetrating that veil of ignorance?
You did above. You solely faulted Democrats.
Nonsense.
Wow. You don’t deal well when other’s give you facts you don’t like. This article was the same point as you made through the Clinton article, just more much recent. Or did you not read it?
It has nothing to do with what is under discussion - or didn’t YOU read it?
Funny thing is I am examining. All the details. You arguements go just headline deep. (I like your defensive posture though. "Deny and Deflect". Its a good, albeit sad, tactic.)
Nonsense (that’s the word I’ve settled on which best describes your non-answers).
You’re going to actually have to answer the questions than simply disregard under the false pretense that they are irrelevant, when they clearly counter your points above.
Tell me again why I should waste my time with someone who can’t even understand when something’s irrelevant to a subject or discussion?
Choose to believe it or not.
I assume you know what I believe in that department.
While you may in general be against regulation, you clearly don’t make that arguement here. In fact, you suggest the opposite.
In fact, it isn’t suggested by me at all but by a number of media sources. I assume you recognized that. It was essentially a rebuttal of the Democratic leadership’s position that this was all a "Republican problem".

And, of course, you’ve offered nothing to amend the history these sources have put out there concerning the debacle.
Feel free to answer or not. I’m done with you. I’ve answered all your questions here. You’ve only proven you are a coward who won’t answer mine.
Yeah, you can always tell who is getting the short end of an argument - they resort to name calling and saying "I’m done".

Nice.

And you may fool yourself into thinking you’ve answered all my questions, but no one else reading this would be so fooled.

Next time bone up on the subject before showing up as poorly equipped as you were for this little dance. I mean for goodness sake you didn’t even understand the 2005 bill called for an independent federal agency and had to have it explained to you. You didn’t bother to read any other post on the blog, find out what it was all about or understand the purpose of the post. You came in all loaded with talking points and nothing to back them up.

Don’t let the doorknob ... meh, you know the rest.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Why did not a Republican controlled House and Senate not pass Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform when the controlled both branches?

Simple answer. The regulation bill never left committee There were 19 members of the banking committee. 10 Republicans voted for legislation, and 9 Democrats voted against. As 60 percent vote is needed to bring the bill to the floor of the House, it never left committee.

Remember: ALL DEMOCRATS ON THE COMMITTEE VOTED AGAINST ADDITIONAL REGULATION OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC.

And despite the fact that all Republicans voted for this legislation, it still did not have enough support to leave committee.

Are you angry enough yet? You should be. You are all being royally screwed, and lied to, by a group of people that have power and will not give it up.

Want a clue to who is responsible for not looking out for YOUR interests? Here is a clue. Follow the money, such as campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Follow the money.
 
Written By: Jack
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider