Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 2:26 pm » wrote:This thread has certainly been illustrative of Glory Hole Clem's character.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 6:44 am » wrote: Are you blind or just lying?
I have repeatedly blamed Bush for 1) his lax Fed monetary policy and 2) on the basis of evidence you presented, his small expansion of liberal lending policies.
How did you manage to miss every post in which I expressed that?

But most of the blame falls on Democrats; liberal institution Fannie Mae, liberal lending policies and their repeated obstruction of Bush's 13 attempts to reform them.
You stupidly blame Bush and only Bush for his role in slightly expanding liberal lending policies, while sparing (liberal Dems.)
How hilariously dishonest.

Misty » 19 Feb 2014 2:36 pm » wrote: I rest my case.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 2:39 pm » wrote: On the basis of what, that I'm factually correct?
That I caught you in another of countless blatant lies?
What?

Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/busin ... d=all&_r=0

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 2:47 pm » wrote:
Where's your figure on job creation under Reagan, psycho? Are you so stupid as to think that's not worth considering?

AmazonTania » 19 Feb 2014 3:00 pm » wrote:It's the committees, more specifically the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, which does the oversight when it comes to matters of GSE, most specifically Fannie and Freddie.
This is done by both parties, not just one.

Misty » 19 Feb 2014 3:07 pm » wrote: Republicans controlled those committees during most of Bush's tenure.

Misty » 19 Feb 2014 2:50 pm » wrote:And if he really wanted to reform Fannie and Freddie, there was nothing to stop him.
His party had control of Congress.

Reform bills introduced, but nothing has passed.
Updated: Wednesday, June 27th, 2012

When the nation's housing crisis grew into an economic disaster, many Republicans in Washington pointed to two culprits: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The housing giants -- Freddie Mac is officially called the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Fannie Mae is the Federal National Mortgage Association -- are government sponsored enterprises, funded by taxpayers but run as private companies. The federal government created them to buy up mortgages, bundle them and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market, thus increasing the money available for home loans.

As we noted in our first update, Fannie and Freddie were powerful organizations and the nation's largest mortgage buyers during the housing boom. They backed shoddy loans, leaving taxpayers on the hook when the market crashed.

The portfolio of the two firms is worth roughly $1.5 trillion, the New York Times reported in early 2012. When Republicans campaigned to take over the House in 2010, they pledged to reduce that by many zeros, as well as establish new capital standards and shrink the government's role in the mortgage industry.
But nearly two years into the 112th Congress, none of that has been done. Bills have been introduced, but none has made it to a floor vote.

"That no bill has come to the House floor, no real reform bill, is a disappointment and shows how they've backtracked from much of the pledge,” said John Berlau, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that advocates for minimal government involvement in markets.
In addition to the bills mentioned in our first update, several more were introduced that would begin to downsize Fannie and Freddie.
H.R. 1227, the GSE Risk and Activities Limitation Act prohibits the GSEs from offering, undertaking, transacting, conducting or engaging in any new business activities while in conservatorship or receivership. The restriction is sought to reduce Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's market dominance and limit their size.
H.R. 1225, the GSE Debt Issuance Approval Act requires the Treasury Department to approve any new debt issuance by the GSEs and justify its decision to Congress and the FHFA within seven days.
H.R. 1223, the GSE Credit Risk Equitable Treatment Actclarifies the risk retention rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act to make clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be held to the same standards as any other secondary mortgage market participants.
H.R. 1221, the Equity In Government Compensation Act suspends the compensation packages for executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and places all employees on the Federal pay scale.

All of those bills were introduced in early 2011, passed by a subcommittee and referred for a committee vote. None has seen any action since April 2011.

Several more bills, aimed at ensuring repayment to taxpayers, requiring greater transparency and setting new caps on bailouts, are languishing too.
H.R. 1182, the GSE Bailout Elimination and Taxpayer Protection Act, is perhaps the most comprehensive approach to winding down the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It sets a deadline for ending the conservatorship and puts strict new rules in place over future operations of the two GSEs. Despite drawing 79 co-sponsors, it also hasn't been touched since April 2011.

We talked to two experts who say the inaction is not just a matter of Democrats stymying the bills.
"There are some Republicans that are very much attuned to the housing lobby, and the housing lobby of course likes government guarantees and they pretty much like Fannie and Freddie as they are,” said Ed Pinto, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and former vice president of Fannie Mae. "There's not unanimity.”

Said Berlau: "There are many reformers within the Republican party who are serious about phasing Fannie and Freddie out,” singling out Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, who backed many of the reform bills. "There are also too many defenders of the status quo within the party.”
Pinto attributes it to what he calls the "government mortgage complex.”

"You've got the housing lobby who likes to have lending to as many people as possible … (and) historically has been very supportive of anything to expand the footprint of lending, and the path of least resistance to that,” he said.

"Second you have Wall Street which loves to trade things,” he said, noting that 200 billion Fannie Mae securities trade every day and "Wall Street makes money on each buy and sell."

The third piece are community groups that push for affordable housing and looser lending to enable more people to buy homes.
"Their efforts dovetail with the housing lobby,” Pinto said. "It's hard to oppose that.”

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... freddie-m/

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 3:00 pm » wrote: Right here, Glory Hole. Do you accept FORBES as a credible source? You bragged you have a SUBSCRIPTION, did you not?

Reagan took eight years to barely beat Carter.

Try to keep up with basic US history.

Misty » 19 Feb 2014 3:18 pm » wrote: For my buddy Clem:

It seems that Republicans still have no desire to reform Fannie and Freddie.

Misty » 19 Feb 2014 3:07 pm » wrote:Republicans controlled those committees during most of Bush's tenure, yet they constantly blame Barney Frank, who had no power at that time for the failure to reform Fannie and Freddie.

AmazonTania » 19 Feb 2014 3:12 pm » wrote:
And they've done hearings and financial oversight on those entities, similar to what Glory has stated. Some of the resistance to audit these firms were lead by Congressman Maxine Waters and Gregory Meeks.

Something to do with the CEO of Fannie Mae being black or something... Or maybe because he shared the same political affiliation with the Democrats on the committee. Who knows...

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 3:28 pm » wrote:
At least Fwank finally admitted that Fannie Mae were central to the Financial Freeze.

Shows he has more integrity than a troll like you.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 3:23 pm » wrote: I've had one for years and never seen one single column by this moonbat.
Forbes magazine itself has never and would never carry something so shallow, so stupid and so incorrect.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 3:26 pm » wrote:Politifact? Liberal opinion and hooey disguised as journalism.

Hey, great job at ignoring how Senate Dems killed every one of Bush's 13 attempts to reform Fannie.
Lying partisan hack.

Republican Congress Talked About Financial Reform, But Did Nothing

In 2003, Republicans controlled both branches of Congress (108th) and the White House. What happened to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory reform under Republican leadership? Nothing.

Here's what I found when I searched THOMAS for the phrase Fannie Mae for the 108th Congress (2003-2004): eight bills .... but only six appear to relate to this topic, per their title. Of those six, only one was introduced after the White House weighed in (at least rhetorically) in September ... and the prime sponsor of that bill was a Democrat. The other bills seem to have resulted from the July scandal. No bill moved out of committee.

H.R.2022 introduced on 7 May 2003 by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT,4).
Title: To extend the registration and reporting requirements of the Federal securities laws to certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 5/23/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

H.R.2117 introduced 23 May 2003 by Rep. Pete Fortney (D-CA,13).
Title: To amend the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act to remove certain competitive advantages granted to the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises relative to other secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 5/23/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

H.R.2575 introduced on 24 June 2003 by Rep. Richard H Baker (R-LA,6).
Title: To reform the regulation of certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Hearings Held.

H.R.2803 introduced on 21 July 2003 by Rep. Edward R Royce (R-CA,40).
Title: To establish the Office of Housing Finance Oversight in the Department of the Treasury to ensure the financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks.
Latest Major Action: 8/4/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

H.R.2897 introduced on 25 July 2003 by Rep. Julia Carson (D-IN,7)
Title: To end homelessness in the United States.
Latest Major Action: 8/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.

S.1508, introduced 31 July 2003 by Sen Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 4/1/2004 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

S.1656, introduced 23 September 2003 by Sen Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

H.R.3507 introduced 18 November 2003 by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA,27).
Title: To expand homeownership opportunities in States having high housing costs.
Latest Major Action: 1/2/2004 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Clearly, in 2003 and 2004 the issue of finance reform was not a priority of the White House or Congressional Republicans.

Misty » 19 Feb 2014 3:44 pm » wrote: So what are you saying? That CP's link is a phony Forbes website he set up? ROFL

If you Google it, you will see that he has written many articles for Forbes and is a regular contributor.
Maybe you're lying about subscribing to Forbes.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 3:23 pm » wrote:
I've had one for years and never seen one single column by this moonbat.

Forbes magazine itself has never and would never carry something so shallow, so stupid and so incorrect.

Misty » 19 Feb 2014 3:53 pm » wrote: Much like the CBO, both Conservatives and Liberals have alleged that they are biased when they don't like the answer.
Link? I know you've cited it many times in the past, right?

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 3:55 pm » wrote: What I'm saying is that he has never been carried in the print edition, to which CEO's, bankers, entrepreneurs, etc. subscribe, at least that I've ever seen.
He apparently is carried only on their website, because he'd be laughed out of the pages of the magazine as a joke.