Holly It's like shooting flies in a barrel On Sep 23, 8:05 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > jgg, > > Hmmm, in 2005 we had a Republican in the White House and a Republican > controlled Congress. So let me get this straight, in 2005 the > Republicans were unwilling or not able to counter anything the > minority Democrats wished to do. > But since Jan. 2007 the Republicans "can't get anything done" because > THEY are now a slim minority. > > The only thing that seems to be consistent is Republicans can't get > anything done and it's ALWAYS the fault of someone else. > > On Sep 22, 4:01 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Democrats seek to deny responsibility, yet their fingerprints on all > > over the cause of the RE bubble... Obama if honest would point > > partical blame THERE... That he refuses to be honest, speaks volumes > > about his lack of zeal in being an honest reformer... > > >http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0 > > > >>> What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a > > >>> serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking > > >>> Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would > > >>> have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky > > >>> assets. > > > Different World > > > If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. > > In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper > > fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our > > oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks > > keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market > > would likely have not existed. > > > But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed > > it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be > > a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic > > opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. > > > That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the > > Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a > > classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The > > Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations > > could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they > > were doing.'' > > > Mounds of Materials > > > Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate > > Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill > > doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided > > mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found > > their propaganda convincing. > > > But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and > > Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, > > have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over > > the years. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
