> I think what they were referring to was Franks refusal to allow > Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac come under some sort of supervision a > number of years ago that may have tempered some of the problems.
This bit of the discussion is REALLY off-topic, but I can't let that stand without noting that this is a bit of conservative misinformation. Until 2007, Frank was in the minority and had no power to do anything like this. But after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, he sponsored HR 1427 to reform regulation of Fannie, Freddie, and others. The regulation would include management of credit and market risk: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01427:@@@L&summ2=m&; He did vote against a reform bill in 2005, but that's not the whole story. He voted for the bill in committee, but against passage due to a Republican amendment that was added on the House floor. But still it's not fair to say that he "refused" to allow supervision: he had no power to do so, since Republicans controlled Congress at the time and could do pretty much as they pleased. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
