Frank, I know your an Aussie, but the expression is "like shooting fish in a barrel." Shooting flies in a barrel would actually be difficult. This is not. ;-)
On Sep 22, 5:11 pm, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
