• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Despite your hysterics, that all began before Obama became president.

Yea, the Democrat mandated Sub-Prime collapse did do a massive amount of damage but my point was, Obama's election hasn't really helped things along has it ?
In fact if you add in the FED's destructive perpetual pumping and Obama's 7 TRILLION in new structural debt with our latest revised GDP numbers of 1.8%, he's actually made the situation worse.

And no, the dependency rates increased and continue to increase under Obama, not prior.

Perhaps you should read something other than the back of Cereal Boxes and educate yourself.
 
Break it down to averages, go for it and if you believe Obama's economic numbers are going to get any better I have some swamp land for sale that I know would interest you. I am waiting for exactly what economic policies Reagan had in effect when the recession of 1981 began? You appear to be cherry picking the facts as well applying recession dates whenever you want regardless whose economic policies were in place. the 81-82 recession was a double dip but that is ok, something else you don't understand.
Averages are meaningless and I'm not cherry-picking anything, but I do note your desperate attempt to project that onto me after you got caught cherry-picking GDP numbers. I am pointing out the fact that Obama inherited a recession where Reagan did not. And not only did he inherit a recession, he inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. Far worse then Reagan's recession, which lost 1.5% GDP and 3.8 million jobs, compared to Bush's Great Recession which lost 4.7% GDP and 7.5% million jobs.

Bye, Sheik, done with this bs from you. You and Obama deserve each other. Too bad the rest of the country doesn't. Have to take a break from dealing with liberal ignorance.

Holy ****!! Another divorce????

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Yea, the Democrat mandated Sub-Prime collapse did do a massive amount of damage but my point was, Obama's election hasn't really helped things along has it ?
In fact if you add in the FED's destructive perpetual pumping and Obama's 7 TRILLION in new structural debt with our latest revised GDP numbers of 1.8%, he's actually made the situation worse.

And no, the dependency rates increased and continue to increase under Obama, not prior.

Perhaps you should read something other than the back of Cereal Boxes and educate yourself.

Read it again, this time for clarity ...

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech

Primary parties responsible were the Republicans who gave us the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, Clinton for signing it, and Bush for heaping homeownership to those who could not afford their loans on top it.

You can foolishly blame Democrats till you turn blue, they will always remain the minority party during the critical years leading up to the bubble's descent. They had no control of the Congress. It was Republicans who ran it and it was Republicans who neglected to pass additional oversight to avert the bubble.
 
Read it again, this time for clarity ...

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech

Primary parties responsible were the Republicans who gave us the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, Clinton for signing it, and Bush for heaping homeownership to those who could not afford their loans on top it.

You can foolishly blame Democrats till you turn blue, they will always remain the minority party during the critical years leading up to the bubble's descent. They had no control of the Congress. It was Republicans who ran it and it was Republicans who neglected to pass additional oversight to avert the bubble.


Bush's affordable home-ownership initiative was primarily done through FHA loans, that had substantially higher standards than the loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were buying, and bundling, and turning into securities. Can you tell me what percentage of total Sub-Prime loans purchased, bundled and turned into Securities by the GSE's were of FHA origin ? Because between them Fannie and Freddie by 2008 held over 5 TRILLION in low quality, sub-prime, Alt-A, NINA and just generally crap loans, not too mention through the corrupt leadership of the Clinton appointed CEO, Franklin Raines, had a close and corrupt relationship with Country-Wide and by 2004 bought up 70% of Country Wides crap loans. That plus sweet heart mortgage deals received by Democrats like Chris Dodd got Angelo Morillo, the CEO of Country Wide in deep sh**.

He and Raines were fined tens of millions of dollars, but, since they were Democrats, received no jail time.

You can foolishly ignore 99% of the data that counters your insipid empty narratives but your'e just embarrassing yourself.

A September 1999 New York Times article describing the situation stated, “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”

By June 2003, the Freddie accounting investigation had forced management to admit to having misstated $5 billion of earnings. Of course, many analysts and investors began to look very closely at Fannie’s accounting. That investigation was triggered by the Bush administration after he replaced Fannie Mae's Clinton appointed auditor, the Auditor that also was supposed to be watching over ENRON to " Price Waterhouse Cooper."

I mean how ridiculous, you posted a quote out of context and then you posted ONE act signed by Clinton that on it's own wouldn't have caused a bubble. Clinton also signed the 1994 Reigle-Neal Act that tied a Banks ability to expand to it's CRA score. He also signed the Commodities and Futures Modernization Act, but his 1995 Home-ownership initiative was just a long list of Executive orders that for one, lowered the Capital Requirements of loans purchased by Fannie and Freddie from 10% to 3%. In 1997 Fannie Mae turned it's first crap loan into a security and by 2000 held the market share on toxic MBSs that were bundled and sold off as AAA Securities to investment banks.


Republicans in 2001 moved swiftly to enact a stronger GSE regulatory framework… Democrats dug trenches and defended. Please recall – if investors become more skeptical about Fannie’s health, they would not purchase as many of Fannie’s repackaged mortgage securities, at least not at market-low interest rates. That situation would reduce Fannie’s ability to buy mortgages, particularly in the risky subprime market. This was something Democrats wanted to avoid, at severe cost if necessary. One way to counter the increased risk perception was to directly state that, while the government does not guarantee Fannie’s individual securitized mortgage issues, the federal government would, in fact, step in to bail Fannie out if it got into serious financial trouble. During a Congressional hearing, Barney Frank (D-MA) stated, “I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”

Democrats had changed the law governing Fannie Mae’s mission (the CRA) to pressure management to take more risks, but did nothing to adapt the regulatory structure to the new mission. Allowing the discovery of aggressive accounting at both Freddie and Fannie, without a fight, would place Democrat party at political risk ahead of a Presidential election cycle.

Democrats had appointed Fannie’s senior executives and much of the board of directors, who would had to have been involved with the illegalities – and may easily be publicly viewed as such if no fight had been put up to re-frame the issue.

Publicly, Democrats fiercely defended the increased home ownership rates in poor neighborhoods, which were based upon investors having trust in purchasing Fannie’s repackaged mortgages. This easy access to funding would dry up if investors viewed investments in the securities Fannie issued as increasingly risky.
The CRA changes had significantly boosted community organizers, such as ACORN, which were rapidly becoming a Democrat party power base.

From 1993 to 1998 Clinton appointed his corrupt Democrat buddies to the executive positions at Fannie and Freddie and even managed to replace a majority of the board member's.





What we got from them was predictable, comparable to what we see today. Democrats lying in front of committee's in an attempt to over their sorry asses.

So to sum it all up, Fannie and Freddie, being run like ENRON, loaded with corrupt Democrats appointed by Clinton after their Capital Requirements were lowered from 10% to 3% were ultimately responsible for over 5 TRILLION in crap loans or MBS's backed by crap loans. They were defended by lying Democrats in committee's and in the end held the lions share of all sub-prime crap loans.

Bush's FHA initiative was responsible for how much ?
 
Yea, the Democrat mandated Sub-Prime collapse did do a massive amount of damage but my point was, Obama's election hasn't really helped things along has it ?
In fact if you add in the FED's destructive perpetual pumping and Obama's 7 TRILLION in new structural debt with our latest revised GDP numbers of 1.8%, he's actually made the situation worse.

And no, the dependency rates increased and continue to increase under Obama, not prior.

Perhaps you should read something other than the back of Cereal Boxes and educate yourself.

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime - Washington Post

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.


Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.


Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
 
Bush's affordable home-ownership initiative was primarily done through FHA loans, that had substantially higher standards than the loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were buying, and bundling, and turning into securities. Can you tell me what percentage of total Sub-Prime loans purchased, bundled and turned into Securities by the GSE's were of FHA origin ? Because between them Fannie and Freddie by 2008 held over 5 TRILLION in low quality, sub-prime, Alt-A, NINA and just generally crap loans, not too mention through the corrupt leadership of the Clinton appointed CEO, Franklin Raines, had a close and corrupt relationship with Country-Wide and by 2004 bought up 70% of Country Wides crap loans. That plus sweet heart mortgage deals received by Democrats like Chris Dodd got Angelo Morillo, the CEO of Country Wide in deep sh**.

He and Raines were fined tens of millions of dollars, but, since they were Democrats, received no jail time.

You can foolishly ignore 99% of the data that counters your insipid empty narratives but your'e just embarrassing yourself.

A September 1999 New York Times article describing the situation stated, “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”

By June 2003, the Freddie accounting investigation had forced management to admit to having misstated $5 billion of earnings. Of course, many analysts and investors began to look very closely at Fannie’s accounting. That investigation was triggered by the Bush administration after he replaced Fannie Mae's Clinton appointed auditor, the Auditor that also was supposed to be watching over ENRON to " Price Waterhouse Cooper."

I mean how ridiculous, you posted a quote out of context and then you posted ONE act signed by Clinton that on it's own wouldn't have caused a bubble. Clinton also signed the 1994 Reigle-Neal Act that tied a Banks ability to expand to it's CRA score. He also signed the Commodities and Futures Modernization Act, but his 1995 Home-ownership initiative was just a long list of Executive orders that for one, lowered the Capital Requirements of loans purchased by Fannie and Freddie from 10% to 3%. In 1997 Fannie Mae turned it's first crap loan into a security and by 2000 held the market share on toxic MBSs that were bundled and sold off as AAA Securities to investment banks.


Republicans in 2001 moved swiftly to enact a stronger GSE regulatory framework… Democrats dug trenches and defended. Please recall – if investors become more skeptical about Fannie’s health, they would not purchase as many of Fannie’s repackaged mortgage securities, at least not at market-low interest rates. That situation would reduce Fannie’s ability to buy mortgages, particularly in the risky subprime market. This was something Democrats wanted to avoid, at severe cost if necessary. One way to counter the increased risk perception was to directly state that, while the government does not guarantee Fannie’s individual securitized mortgage issues, the federal government would, in fact, step in to bail Fannie out if it got into serious financial trouble. During a Congressional hearing, Barney Frank (D-MA) stated, “I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”

Democrats had changed the law governing Fannie Mae’s mission (the CRA) to pressure management to take more risks, but did nothing to adapt the regulatory structure to the new mission. Allowing the discovery of aggressive accounting at both Freddie and Fannie, without a fight, would place Democrat party at political risk ahead of a Presidential election cycle.

Democrats had appointed Fannie’s senior executives and much of the board of directors, who would had to have been involved with the illegalities – and may easily be publicly viewed as such if no fight had been put up to re-frame the issue.

Publicly, Democrats fiercely defended the increased home ownership rates in poor neighborhoods, which were based upon investors having trust in purchasing Fannie’s repackaged mortgages. This easy access to funding would dry up if investors viewed investments in the securities Fannie issued as increasingly risky.
The CRA changes had significantly boosted community organizers, such as ACORN, which were rapidly becoming a Democrat party power base.

From 1993 to 1998 Clinton appointed his corrupt Democrat buddies to the executive positions at Fannie and Freddie and even managed to replace a majority of the board member's.





What we got from them was predictable, comparable to what we see today. Democrats lying in front of committee's in an attempt to over their sorry asses.

So to sum it all up, Fannie and Freddie, being run like ENRON, loaded with corrupt Democrats appointed by Clinton after their Capital Requirements were lowered from 10% to 3% were ultimately responsible for over 5 TRILLION in crap loans or MBS's backed by crap loans. They were defended by lying Democrats in committee's and in the end held the lions share of all sub-prime crap loans.

Bush's FHA initiative was responsible for how much ?


Holy ****! :doh

Again you're blaming members of the minority party???

You're too far gone. I can't help you.

If you ever return, check out the following bills, which Republicans (the party in charge), failed to pass ...

  • S. 1508 (Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003)
  • S. 190 (Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005)
  • H.R. 1461 (Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005)

Any one of which, might have thwarted the meltdown, which was caused by Republican policies -- just as Bush said.

Then check out:

  • H.R.1427 (Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007)
  • H.R.3221 (Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008)
 
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime - Washington Post

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.


Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.


Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

Oh Please.

How on earth can you make such a ridiculous comment ? Wait, don't answer that.

From the New York Time, 2003,

" 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. "


2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.
"

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
(OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.


February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation 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 minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N.
Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg.
83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N.
Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)


June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.
" (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S.
House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

In 2005-- Senator John McCain partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending.

Democrats blocked this reform, too.

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W.
Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.


September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.


December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W.
Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.
" (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W.
Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W.
Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W.
Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"The government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W.
Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W.
Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C.
, 6/6/08)

Do you READ the stuff you write, or do you just vomit all over the internet as some sort of sick hobby ? Bush and the Republicans tried CONTINUOUSLY to shut down the corrupt machine that was fueling the crisis, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Democrats ?

 
Oh Please.

How on earth can you make such a ridiculous comment ? Wait, don't answer that.

From the New York Time, 2003,

" 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. "


2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.
"

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
(OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.


February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation 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 minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N.
Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg.
83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N.
Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)


June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.
" (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S.
House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

In 2005-- Senator John McCain partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending.

Democrats blocked this reform, too.

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W.
Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.


September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.


December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W.
Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.
" (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W.
Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W.
Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W.
Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"The government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W.
Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W.
Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C.
, 6/6/08)

Do you READ the stuff you write, or do you just vomit all over the internet as some sort of sick hobby ? Bush and the Republicans tried CONTINUOUSLY to shut down the corrupt machine that was fueling the crisis, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Democrats ?



That is great DD. Thanks so much for the hard work and for putting this cult in their place. Been too damn lazy to do what you just did but doubt it will make a difference as these people do not want the truth or anything contrary to what they want to believe. Far too many buy the rhetoric and don't do the research that you just did.

Quite an eye opener and just another indication that today's Democrat Party and supporters are more interesting in misleading the public by providing distorted and false information all for their own gain. Keeping people ignorant and dependent is what they do best and they have willing followers many in this forum. Just imagine how many other things they have distorted and lied about?
 
Oh Please.

How on earth can you make such a ridiculous comment ? Wait, don't answer that.

From the New York Time, 2003,

" 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. "


2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.
"

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
(OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.


February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation 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 minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N.
Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg.
83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N.
Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)


June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.
" (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S.
House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

In 2005-- Senator John McCain partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending.

Democrats blocked this reform, too.

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W.
Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.


September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.


December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W.
Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.
" (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W.
Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W.
Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W.
Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"The government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W.
Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W.
Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C.
, 6/6/08)

Do you READ the stuff you write, or do you just vomit all over the internet as some sort of sick hobby ? Bush and the Republicans tried CONTINUOUSLY to shut down the corrupt machine that was fueling the crisis, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Democrats ?


LMMFAO how many times have you posted this BS at DP?
 
LMMFAO how many times have you posted this BS at DP?

It really must be hard for an ideologue like you to have your entire world destroyed by a list of actual time lines and sources. You have so much invested in the lies that you cannot admit that you are wrong. Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty in relatively good people. It seems you actually believe you have something invested in this economic disaster in the WH that you have to perpetuate the lies and distortions. It is a sign of maturity to admit that the party has made a fool out of you, then you can move on.
 
That is great DD. Thanks so much for the hard work and for putting this cult in their place. Been too damn lazy to do what you just did but doubt it will make a difference as these people do not want the truth or anything contrary to what they want to believe. Far too many buy the rhetoric and don't do the research that you just did.

Quite an eye opener and just another indication that today's Democrat Party and supporters are more interesting in misleading the public by providing distorted and false information all for their own gain. Keeping people ignorant and dependent is what they do best and they have willing followers many in this forum. Just imagine how many other things they have distorted and lied about?


What a waste of bandwidth.:roll:
 
It really must be hard for an ideologue like you to have your entire world destroyed by a list of actual time lines and sources. You have so much invested in the lies that you cannot admit that you are wrong. Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty in relatively good people. It seems you actually believe you have something invested in this economic disaster in the WH that you have to perpetuate the lies and distortions. It is a sign of maturity to admit that the party has made a fool out of you, then you can move on.

The Republicans were in charge of the House until Jan 2007, why they just pass the law?
 
A complete payroll tax holiday, withdrawn slowly over the next few years, would have been much more effective than the stimulus as it was structured. It would have left funds where they were needed most to deal with a balance sheet type of recession...

Not really. It wouldn't give enough.
 
LMMFAO how many times have you posted this BS at DP?
You're still blaming the minority party????

Holy ****! :doh

Where's your blame for the majority party which did not pass the oversight needed to avert the bubble???

Did you look at those bills I mentioned?

You know, the first 3 which contained oversight but never made it to the president's desk to become law because the majority party wouldn't let them get that far?

Or what about the last two which also contained oversight? One of which was sponsored by Barney Frank? Or the second one which made it to the president's desk to be signed into law?

Democrats passed the bill that Republicans refused to pass during all of the years they were the majority party.
 
Govt. spending is like a rebate check, once it is spent it is gone unless someone else steps up and fuel the pump. The 842 billion stimulus did indeed stimulate the economy for a very short period of time but when the money ran out there was no incentive for the private sector to step in and keep it going. You simply have no concept on govt. spending and what it does or doesn't do. Fourth quarter 2009 GDP growth was 4%. Look what happened afterwards and look what is happening today, 1.8% GDP growth thanks to Obamanomics. Why would any business invest their saved up cash today? WHY?

Private sector doesn't work that way. Business will not use any money to invest where there is no demand.
 
A complete payroll tax holiday, withdrawn slowly over the next few years, would have been much more effective than the stimulus as it was structured. It would have left funds where they were needed most to deal with a balance sheet type of recession...
WTF??? Why you would you let America's wealthiest people out of paying tax??? Why would you reward them for trying to cheat by keeping their money out of the country to avoid paying tax?
 
That is great DD. Thanks so much for the hard work and for putting this cult in their place. Been too damn lazy to do what you just did but doubt it will make a difference as these people do not want the truth or anything contrary to what they want to believe. Far too many buy the rhetoric and don't do the research that you just did.

Quite an eye opener and just another indication that today's Democrat Party and supporters are more interesting in misleading the public by providing distorted and false information all for their own gain. Keeping people ignorant and dependent is what they do best and they have willing followers many in this forum. Just imagine how many other things they have distorted and lied about?

And yet, the Republicans ran the House between 1995 and 2006; and the Senate during that same time except for a short period when Jeffords jumped ship.

Seems you have no sense of personal responsibility. You blame Democrats for the problems caused by Republicans.
 
The Republicans were in charge of the House until Jan 2007, why they just pass the law?
They had three bills over the years die in the Senate because Republican leadership wouldn't let them move forward in the Senate.

  • S. 1508 (Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003)
  • S. 190 (Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005)
  • H.R. 1461 (Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005)
 
Consider the situation faced by business owners today. As reported, they are sitting on money.

First, the government has imposed a new regulation known as Obamacare. It is so convoluted, and contains such potential risk to business owners, the President has decided by fiat, to withdraw portions of it for another year.

What kind of impact do you think Obamacare has on business hiring and expansion?

Second, the President has annouced he plans to sidestep congress, and make changes to energy production and policy. It is well known this will have an impact on the cost of energy. Little takes place in the business world without energy.

What kind of impact do you think President Obama's new energy policy will have on business hiring and expansion?

There are many other issues that could be viewed in a similar light.

These are issues that impact employment. As we both agree, more employment equals more potential demand.

Unfortunately, it's almost 4pm, and my time in my office here is just about done. I'm afraid I won't be able to respond until a later time.

I do appreciate the rational discussion.

There are some here who haven't figured out how to do that.

None of that matters that much. I don't say they don't discuss it, but they would plow through all of it if there was demand. You could cut taxes altogether, eliminate all regulations(and I wouldn't advise that), and they would still be sitting on their money. They need demand. Without it, you can't coax them enough. With it, you can't stop them. Everything else is a push.

Thats why they can't show with objective statistics that either has any significant effect on the whole. Either way, Bob might have issues, but Tom has new opportunities. Everything functions on demand and it's relationship to supply. You have fewer doctors, for example, to influence supply, thus raising prices. This is done not by the government, but by the AMA. This highlights one reason for healthcare reform.

ask yourself this, how would business respond if they didn't have to worry about healthcare any more? With UHC, you remove it from the connection with employment. This would do more than taxes would. Remember overseas, they can pay low wages, not worry about healthcare, or regulations. Sure, more people die from unsafe conditions, pollution in some places much worse, but they have none of it. Do you really think taxes are truly the big issue? And voters are programmed to respond that way. Just say tax cut, and you're more than half way home.

On he regulation issue, point me to one thread on a specific regulation? Instead there is just a mantra that there are too many. There may be, but which ones serve no purpose? This is the important question.

As for rational discussion, I appreciate it as well. It's always good when it can happen.
 
This has been covered before, we are trying to use both highly effective stimulus spending (UI, SNAP) and demand side tax cuts, ie tax cuts for lower quintile earners.
PolitiFact | Maddow claims spending is more stimulative than tax cuts

Lets get back to this nonsense again.

The Food Stamp President, Obama, has set all kinds of records for dollar amounts and number of people receiving such handouts. If it was such a stimulus how come the economy is still in the tank?

Goes back to government spending in general. If a countries wealth and economic condition depended on government spending, all countries would be very wealthy and enjoy nothing but economic good times. Especially the good old USA. Even today, we'd be in the best of times. It is of course, complete nonsense to think that government spending is going to produce good economic times as government produces practically nothing. It is a taker, not a producer. For every dollar it takes from someone who actually earned it, it also loses some of its value in overhead costs which are running wild these days. So it doesn't even come close to outputting anywhere near a dollar out that it took in. Long term, counting on government spending to help the economy along is a fools errand.
 
Private sector doesn't work that way. Business will not use any money to invest where there is no demand.

And there is no demand because of low consumer confidence and poor leadership by the WH to create confidence.
 
That is great DD. Thanks so much for the hard work and for
putting this cult in their place. Been too damn lazy to do what you just did but doubt it will make a difference as these people do not want the truth or anything contrary to what they want to believe. Far too many buy the rhetoric and don't do the research that you just did.

Quite an eye opener and just another indication that today's Democrat Party and supporters are more interesting in misleading the public by providing distorted and false information all for their own gain. Keeping people ignorant and dependent is what they do best and they have willing followers many in this forum. Just imagine how many other things they have distorted and lied about?

No problem, I've got a drop box account FULL of rescources and data on the Sub-Prime Collapse.

About 10 x what I just posted.

They are absolutely corrupt. Selling any semblance of integrity and character for a nickel and a party line.

I like to post it on HuffPo in the user comments and get Liberals so fired up they finally just resort to name calling and run away.

Its a good litmus on just how stupid so many in this Country have become.
 
They had three bills over the years
die in the Senate because Republican leadership wouldn't let them move forward in the Senate.

  • S. 1508 (Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003)
  • S. 190 (Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005)
  • H.R. 1461 (Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005)

Still reading the back of Cereal boxes huh ?

HR 1461, a Bill created by Republicans that made it through a Republican chaired Comitee never got to the Senate because the Democrats threatened to Fillibuster it until the session was out.

Rebublicans needed 5 DEMOCRATS to make it Fillibuster proof but not one stepped up.

R's only had a 55 majority in 2005.

That bill was re-introduced in 2007 into a Democrat chaired Comitee.

What happened to it ?

Go back to your Cheerios now, youve been informed.
 
The Republicans were in charge of the House until Jan 2007, why they just pass the law?

They had three bills over the years die in the Senate because Republican leadership wouldn't let them move forward in the Senate.

  • S. 1508 (Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003)
  • S. 190 (Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005)
  • H.R. 1461 (Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005)
Thanks for the reminder, Sheik.
 
Back
Top Bottom