The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Warned Congress – Greenspan Testified for McCain’s Bill to Fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004 and 2005 – Democrats Voted No in House and in Senate Blocked it Along Party Lines!

Posted by iusbvision on September 23, 2008

Brit Hume covered this story on Sept 23 and came to the same conclusion as we did here at IUSB Vision.

The Republicans, in a bill co-sponsored by John McCain,  tried to change the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac oversight regulations to those that are used by bank regulators. The bill to change the oversight rules was eek-ed by the Senate Committee in a party line vote with Democrats against it, but since Democrats were filibustering most significant legislation they didn’t like the Republicans did not have the 60 votes to pass it. Not one Democrat would budge.

Editors note: a reader (see below) commented that he takes issue with the paragraph above about the Democrats filibustering all significant legislation they didn’t like in the Senate to stop provisions they opposed.

We could write a new article presenting a list of legislation and amendments that was stopped because the Democrats were stopping cloture constantly by abusing the filibuster rule. It is a VERY long list. Remember the judicial nominees that were blocked for months and months and some never got a vote… etc…

Some partisans may not like it but the statement above is essentially true.

Examining the inverse – should I say that the Democrats were voting for and or making sure that they were not filibustering legislation that they didn’t like?? – Editor]

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae answer to the banking committee’s in Congress – NOT the Treasury Dept, and are monitored by a small agency called OFHEO to report to the committee’s, so Congress KNEW this was coming and have for years as we have covered HERE, HERE and HERE.

Alan Greenspan testified in favor of the reforms (transcript HERE and HERE) and warned:

If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. … As I concluded last year, the GSEs need a regulator with authority on a par with banking regulators, with a free hand to set appropriate capital standards, and with a clear and credible process sanctioned by the Congress for placing a GSE in receivership, where the conditions under which debt holders take losses are made clear.

Hotair.com has the following commentary:

By special request of Ace. Nothing here you haven’t read and/or heard before, but Fox deserves a little publicity for being willing to challenge the narrative. Especially now that we’re about to be told it’s McCain’s campaign manager and his lobbyist pals, not the Democrats they lobbied who actually cast the votes, who are the real culprits in all this. The FBI: Doing the (after-the-fact) oversight job Congress wouldn’t.

UPDATE: Bloomberg News covered the story and gives similar information.

UPDATE II:Fox updated the story and has a devastating new report. The Report mirrors the investigation IUSB Vision Published HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. Hotair.com comments on this new report from Fox HERE.

Every facet of the mortgage crisis story, who benefited and who is lying can be found HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HEREHERE, HEREHERE and HERE. – Editor

Advertisements

10 Responses to “Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Warned Congress – Greenspan Testified for McCain’s Bill to Fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004 and 2005 – Democrats Voted No in House and in Senate Blocked it Along Party Lines!”

  1. cindy dunn said

    send this to larry kudlow.
    let him break it all apart and challenge it

  2. Jay said

    The gop were in controll in 2005 they could of overode the vote, gop had the majority of house and senate in 2005

    [Jay, with all due respect, take a civics class. It takes 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, so in a party line vote even then, nothing passes. – Editor]

  3. GeraldD said

    WILL THE FANNIE MAE CROOKS EVER GO TO JAIL ? THE BAIL OUT CRISIS WAS CAUSED BY A HANDFUL OF CORRUPT CONGRESSMEN AND FANNIE MAE OFFICIALS WHO BOUGHT UP 7 TRILLION DOLLARS IN BAD DEBT IN ORDER TO PAD THE BOOKS AND COLLECT HUGE SALARY BONUSES FOR THEMSELVES.

    HERE ARE THREE VIDEOS THOSE CORRUPT FANNIE MAE OFFICIALS & AT LEAST FIVE CORRUPT CONGRESSMEN DON’T WANT THE
    AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SEE:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMouthPeace

    One Of The Crooks Is Rumored To Be The Next Attorney General Under Obama. If That Happens, NONE of them will ever

    be brought to justice.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=67068

  4. crabbait said

    I am having trouble with this story. The bill in question was S 190 introduced 26 Jan 05 and referred to committee. The last action on the bill was 28 July 05. It died in committee. Senator McCain signed on as co-sponsor 25 May 06, long after it was viable. Barney Frank’s quoted comments were made 11 Sept 03. Since he is a House member and made the comments some years earlier, how would those comments influence a Senate committee chaired by a Republican and with a Republican majority, to bottle the bill up in committee? Why would Chuck Hagel introduce such a bill that flies in the face of the Republican principle of lessening regulation wherever possible?
    The whole tenor of the story seems to lack credibility.

    [Point 1. With all due respect, you dont know anything about Republicans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed bank regulator enforcement with police like enforcement powers like other finance industries that are under the Federal Reserve and the Security Exchange Commission. Republicans have never been against Police to protect us from theft and fraud. Republicans got Homeland Security done, drug interdiction, Campaign Finance Reform, ethics legislation, all of which are more regulation. Republicans believe that there are roles that are proper for government and roles that are improper. Police roles are a proper function.

    Point 2. Maybe you should read the evidence more carefully. Republicans in the House and Senate reintroduced the same legislation in every session for years. The legislation was at first pushed by Dole, Sunnunu, and Hagel. When the Democrats were filibustering everything, McCain signed on and tried to get bipartisan support in order to get it on the floor with a chance of passage.

    Frank made these comments in 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005 as Republicans kept trying to get this done in the House. As you may know, the House and Senate have to pass the same version of the bill before it goes to the President to be signed.

    We have written 8 articles explaining every facet of this story in great detail, all supported with verifiable evidence. Those articles are linked in this story above. Investors business Daily, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, Human Events and Fox have all put out a similar analysis as we have but we beat them all to it.

    We have a front to back plain English explanation of this story HERE and after reading it feel free to ask questions. The story is a bit complicated but if the Democrats win as a result of the mortgage crisis they will be putting in power the very people who faught to keep the status quo and force this mortgage crash and those who blocked every attempt to expand domestic energy production. The two issues that took a good economy in 2006 and damaged it today. – Editor]

  5. Doug said

    To meet congressional goals for minority loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the banking meltdown by buying extremely risky mortgages (interest-only and $0 downpayment mortgages with little or no documentation of lender’s earnings (ability to pay). Fannie Mae purchased approximately 10% of the mortgages in 2002, 25% in 2004,about 46% in 2006 and, according to Lockhart, 76% in 2008 ($5.4 Trillion).

    Since 2005 they’ve been the only seller of Mortgage-Backed securities, aka ‘Collateral Debt Obligations’.

    Because they invested in Fannie and Freddie and financed their ditzy mortgages for the poor (no-income check on borrowers who make no-downpayment),they were burned.

    Once burned, twice shy. The nations of the world appear to have decided to dump their dollars. Placed in an economic depression because of their investment in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Iceland has changed their holdings from dollars to the Euro. They’re making the Euro their currency. This same scenario is occurring in the UK and Denmark. They’re both considering abandoning their own currency for the Euro.

    Barney Frank, Charles Schumer and Chris Dodd want to continue President Clinton’s course of disastrous social experimentation. This course destroys the country’s banks by the Community Investment Act with the fines and requiring bribes to Community Action Organizations like ACORN. More importantly, in their pursuit of pork, congressional manipulation of Fannie and Freddie will destroy the US government’s credit by replacing the banking system with their unregulated holding banks and conning the world to take their worthless securities to the world. If the world mistakes Fannie and Freddie as part the US treasury, they might decide that the US treasury’s bonds are as worthlessness Fannie and Freddie’s.
    To avoid this scenerio, the congress would have to ban Collateral Debt Obligations (CDOs) also known as ‘mortgage backed securities’ and either totally privatize or nationalize Fannie and Freddie. Good luck on banning CDOs. Currently, Asst. Secretary of the Treasury Neel Kashkeri is selling the mortgages that the GSEs have recently made using mortgage backed securities. That’s how we got into this mess.

    But, why should congress change? Fannie and Freddie give congressmen credit for the mortgages that they make in their district. This is great public-relations with with constituents. Many members of the Black Congressional Caucus consider these race-based mortgages (code-named Affordable Mortgage Goals) to be essential to their re-election. Many of them act viciously if anyone threatens this pork. Consider their prior actions in 2002-2004. Representatives, Clay, Meeks, and others, savagely attacked any attempt by Armando Falcon, the Administrator of OFHEO to regulate Fannie and Freddie’s when they were found to have no.

    Congress might not change course if the General Media (like ABC, NBC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, etc) continue to deflect the blame to Wall Street, saying that the $700 Billion was to bail out Wall Street not Fannie and Freddie. In that case, the United States might experience the hyperinflation that occurred in Germany in 1922-23, and that is currently happening in Zimbabwe. Although it is incredibly rich in diamonds, chromium and gold, Zimbabwe’s government ruined the country by deciding to embark on their own social engineering.
    Let’s briefly review the effect of hyperinflation on the average citizen Germany had only 9 Billion marks in circulation in 1910. When their government tried to pay international debts by printing money, it took 23 Billion marks to pay for a loaf of bread and 6 million marks to pay for a pound of butter.

    The savings and pension of the middle class was wiped out and many city dwellers starved. However, in 1923, over 90% of the American population lived on the farm. The percentage in Germany was probably the same. Mechanization of the planting and harvest has since displaced the farm worker to the city. Now, approximately 98% of the population lives in cities.
    The good news is that Fed Chairman Bernanke knows about the problem and has some ideas on how to fix it http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/3503/2/=
    The bad news is that congress does not want to fix the problem.
    They’ll lie saying, “Fannie and Freddie are financially sound” when they’re not. In the midst of accounting scandals with Freddie, then Fannie, Barney Franks also said “Fannie and Freddie are financially sound.” When the New York Times carried Greenspan’s warning to congress, they also carried a statement by Schumer, saying “Fannie and Freddie are financially sound.” In June 2008, two months before they went bankrupt, Senator Dodd reported “Fannie and Freddie are financially sound.”http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/13/dodd-on-fannie-freddie-they-are-sound/ Not satisfied that 76% of all mortgages were purchased by the GSEs, Dodd wanted to raise the number. In his presidential platform, he proposed that congress increase the percentage of the mortgage market that they control. http://www.chrisdodd.com/issues/homeownership/

    Fannie Mae was extremely influential in politics. James Johnson developed Fannie Mae to be a modern day Tammany Hall. Johnson himself remained the president of the Brookings Institute while he was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 until 1998. Fannie hired the politically influential, some of whom didn’t have any great skill to offer except influence. For example, Clinton’s Assistant Attorney General, Jamie Gorlick, was made a co-chair of Fannie Mae although she had almost no qualification for the job except influence. These political operatives were well paid. In 2003 Representative Richard Baker discovered that the top 21 executives were paid $50 Million in salary and bonuses. Fannie Mae executives threatened Baker with a lawsuit if he revealed this information to anyone. However, in 2004 Baker revealed this information when he discovered that Fannie Mae had cooked the books so that their report to the stockholders’ report showed enough per-share earnings so that their executives made the maximum bonus. Although congress denied the GSE regulator, OFHEO the money to hire enough auditors to regulate the company, Armando Falcon got the Treasury to audit Fannie Mae. When he turned up financial irregularities, Falcon had the SEC to do a comprehensive analysis. The SEC found that Fannie’s accountants had hidden income from former years and had falsely declared a profit when they had a $9 Billion loss.
    The house passed a regulation bill, but Senator Dodd said that he would filibuster any measure. Further problems caused a regulatory bill to be passed in the house, but Fannie’s executives hired the son of Senator Benton (Utah) to head Fannie Mae’s Utah office. Subsequently, Senator Benton added a provision to weaken the power of the regulator.
    In her January 2005 article for CNN/Fortune, Bethany McLean mentioned these and other tricks that Fannie Mae used. Through their foundation they supported various housing groups who they called upon to write letters and to agitate on their behalf. In addition they pressured the institutions that they served to apply political pressure on their side of the issue. Fannie and Freddie could patronize any lending institution that they chose. Consequently, Fannie Mae had power over them and could persuade many of these lending institutions to write letter on their behalf and to lobby congress for them. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/01/24/8234040/index.htm

    According to a CATO institute report on December 29, 1997, Vern McKinsey reported that they gave monitary support to the following housing groups. That financial carpet-bombing has also included the contribution of funds to many liberal or left-wing, activist organizations in Washington that might otherwise be critical of the billions of dollars of corporate welfare diverted to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A recent analysis by the Capital Research Center of corporations’ charitable giving patterns listed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in its “bottom ten,” and gave both a failing grade of “F” for their support for organizations hostile to the free market. Fannie Mae gave approximately $3 million over a two-year period (1992-93) to such organizations as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)–$120,000; Center for Community Change–$200,000; Children’s Defense Fund– $170,000; Enterprise Foundation–$725,000; and the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing–$800,000. Those organizations support extensive, interventionist, government solutions to housing issues. The largest two recipients of Freddie Mac’s half a million dollars during this same period were the Children’s Defense Fund ($154,800) and the housing-activist Enterprise Foundation ($200,000). http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1152&full=1#N_106_N_106_

    According to Politico, Fannie Mae spent $175 Million on lobbyists from 1998 to 2008. During the 2004 hearings on Fannie Mae, Christopher Shays said that Fannie and Freddie paid some to lobby for them and paid others to keep them from lobbying against them.
    In the Oct. 6, 2004 edition New York Times, Jennifer Lee and Eric Dash told this story about how quickly Fannie’s lobbying operatives worked in 1998: “The political heavyweights affiliated with Fannie Mae have not made the company slow footed, however. Once, during the Clinton administration, an official from the Office of Management and Budget mentioned to a senior Treasury Department official that the White House was considering removing an exemption from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and asked him not to mention that to anyone.
    “Within 15 minutes of the person leaving the office, the phone was ringing off the hook,” with callers expressing concern, said the O.M.B. official who, fearing retaliation from Fannie Mae, spoke on condition of anonymity.
    “At a Christmas party in 1998, a Fannie Mae executive heard a tip that the Clinton administration was thinking of pushing a proposal to end the company’s longstanding exemption from paying fees to the S.E.C. when it registers its securities. The company mobilized, recalling executives from Christmas vacations. It also galvanized dozens of mayors, lobbyists from the housing industry and lawmakers, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus, to interrupt their holidays to call the White House and express dismay at the proposal and its effect on low- and middle-income homeowners.
    The White House quietly shelved the proposal before it was made public.” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/business/06inside.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&position=&oref=slogin

    Bernanke’s highly regarded predecessor, Alan Greenspan, was savaged by Charles Schumer when he tried to warn congress on 9 April 2005 that the Government Sponsored Enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posed a “systemic risk”.

  6. […] Mac in 2004 and 2005 – Democrats Voted No in House and in Senate Blocked it Along Party Lines! Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Warned Congress – Greenspan Testified for McCain’s Bill…. Carter and the Dems codified the Democratic Principle of "equality: homes for […]

  7. cmb said

    The usual lies. This crisis was precipitated by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act of 1999, added to a veto-proof bill by
    McCain’s ex-campaign cochair Phil Gramm. This act repealed key provisions of Glass=Steagal and removed the operant markets from all regulatory oversight.

    Right wing screamers can squeal about 2005 all they want – the market regulations they wanted in 2005 were simply to cover for those they made sure to remove in 1999.

    [Gramm-Leach-Bliley did not remove all regulatory oversight and anyone who studies the legislation for 10 minutes can see that. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such statements that anyone can show to be wrong in mere minutes?

    Gramm-Leach-Bliley provisions actually helped because it allowed other banks to buy up pieces of Lehmen Brothers and others who would have had to be bailed out by the government if that didn’t happen. Bill Clinton and most analysts and Republican law makers agree that Gramm-Leach-Bliley helped more than it hurt. These facts are not in dispute.

    As far as your comments about what they wanted in 2005 were to make up for what they removed in 1999 are easily proved wrong. Even the NYT reported in 2001 that the Bush administration and OFHEO were asking for the new policing regulation that would have put them on par with other bank regulators. Senators Sunuunu, Dole and Hagel all pushed for that new policing year after year and in 2006 McCain started pushing for it as well.

    You can continue to drink the Kool-aid all you like, but the facts presented are easily verifiable. No lies here at all. The narrative we present is supported by the facts and by people on both sides of the isle. Nice try. – Editor]

  8. cmb said

    “Gramm-Leach-Bliley did not remove all regulatory oversight and anyone who studies the legislation for 10 minutes can see that. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such statements that anyone can show to be wrong in mere minutes? ”

    You are correct, I was thinking of Phil Gramm’s Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which exempted most derivatives from any and all regulatory oversight.

    “Gramm-Leach-Bliley provisions actually helped because it allowed other banks to buy up pieces of Lehmen Brothers and others who would have had to be bailed out by the government if that didn’t happen.”

    That sounds a lot like something from AFTER the crisis was caused.

    ” Bill Clinton and most analysts and Republican law makers agree that Gramm-Leach-Bliley helped more than it hurt. These facts are not in dispute.”

    They are in fact in dispute.

    [But they are not in dispute seriously – allow me to explain – Editor]

    http://tinyurl.com/5lh83s

    [This link goes to a blog, but it just contains one mans opinion. It has no facts presented to me that I can varify. The only link it has is to Mother Jones magazine who by their own admission has made it clear for 100 years that their goal is to end capitalism and bring about total socialism.

    While our IUSB Vision publication is a blog we have a great many links and evidence that you can easily go see for yourself. There is a reason why we often beat the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily and many other sources to similar analysis. It is because we spent countless hours using IU resources to do the proper research. This is why the new book “Housing Boom or Bust” by Dr. Thomas Sowell gives a similar analysis that we have. The Federal Reserve and the mortgage regulator OFHEO give much of the exact same information we do. While there is no question that we have a more libertarian point of view, we skewered all who were responsible and we took on this issue much more seriously than the goofy partisans that you may find on an internet message board. – Editor]

    http://tinyurl.com/lfpmmw
    [This link goes to a letter from a guy that gives no information that gives the exact same bogus argument made by partisans on an internet message board. His article starts out with “Gag me with a spoon as Valley girls used to say” … again he gives no information at all that we can varify. None. – Editor]

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080922/scheer

    [This is another letter or very short article from the exact same guy as above, who manages to link to ….wait for it…wait for it… Wikipedia for his only source. The rest is just what he made up, again with no facts that I can double check and varify. – Editor]

    http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/15/daily81.html

    [This piece is more serious, but contains info that we have already given you in our dozen or so articles on this subject. It tells how former Fannie Mae CEO’s were working for Obama and how some former lobbyists that worked for the McCain campaign had also formerly worked for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

    All true, but here is the rub. As we have told you in our coverage Fannie/Fredddie bought every lobbying firm in DC, they paid some to lobby for them and paid others to lobby for them by doing nothing and not lobbying against them. So almost every lobbyist has worked for Fannie/Freddie in some capacity at some time. The point is that McCain did indeed join Senators Sunnunu, Dole and Hagel to take on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s little corporatist, corrupt system. Obama marked time and preserved the status quo because the democratic leadership was getting paid in a big way and we posted the varifiable evidence. – Editor]

    http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5835269

    [This ABC News article has a great deal of editorializing and goes after Phill Gramm for making a dumb comment during the campaign. Lets get real, everyone who is on the record a great deal is going to gaffe, Joe Biden anyone?? 57 states Obama??

    The narrative of the article is pretty straight forward, those Rascally Republicans are the party of Wall Street and finance therefore it must be their fault. The article even states:

    Though he’s not George Bush, [the crisis] presents more of a vulnerability to McCain, the fact that his power has been in power for eight years and it hurts him because Republicans tend to be associated as the party of finance.

    This nice political spin but it is not reality, GE, Goldman Sachs and AIG etc etc etc all give a great deal more to Democrats than Republicans and any check of the Center for Responsive Politics website that lists campaign contributions can see that with ease.

    I don’t think that you really understand what is going on here, the lagest money companies are working with the Democrats and some Republicans to pass new taxes and regulation on various industries, because such taxes and regulation keeps the small and medium sized competition out of the competition (see our article on the new tobacco regulation as an example). We have a catagory called “Corporatism”, you can click the link on the left hand column of the page. I encourage you to go there and start reading. – Editor]

    “As far as your comments about what they wanted in 2005 were to make up for what they removed in 1999 are easily proved wrong. Even the NYT reported in 2001 that the Bush administration and OFHEO were asking for the new policing regulation that would have put them on par with other bank regulators. Senators Sunuunu, Dole and Hagel all pushed for that new policing year after year and in 2006 McCain started pushing for it as well.”

    All wonderful, but it does not disprove my statement. Meanwhile:

    From a White House Press Release:

    “Minority Home Ownership Initiative: Minority homeownership is at an all-time high. In June 2002, the President announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. The Census estimates an increase of 1.54 million minority homeowners since the President launched his initiative. The

    President signed the American Dream Downpayment Act into law, which will help an additional 40,000 low-income families each year own homes. In his FY 2005 budget, President Bush proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative for Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured single-family mortgages for
    first-time homebuyers.”

    Note that by the end of 2005, 40% of all first-time home purchases were made with no-down-payment loans, according to The National Association of Realtors.

    A detailed analysis of the possible impact of the bills, and a warning to Congress, from July of 2004:

    http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm529.cfm

    [That is all true, but there are key points that you are leaving out in order to draw the “moral equivilencey” that you are trying to make.

    The Dream Downpayment Act was aimed at people who were relocating (remember changing economy – NAFTA and all that) and first time home owners. These people were given access to homes that were already into forclosure, so getting some of these homes back on the market is better than none. The loans given were not the balloon loans or the sub prime loans that were largely at fault for the mortgage explosion – the loans given under this program were fixed rate loans.

    While I could give you a ton of links on this, for the sake of brevity I will provide this one from CNN as a representative sample. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/06/22/arizona.foreclosures.help/

    So why the Dream Downpayment Act certainly raised the number of forclusures (lets face it any program that lowers downpayments for young people will – thats a no brainer) it was pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of the mortgage crisis and was kept that way in the way it was implemented.

    I would like to point out that I opposed this act, and I am sure that someone with an ideology similar to yours would have said that I am evil and heartless for not allowing people to have the “right” to get other peoples money to subsidize their downpayment.

    This brings me to my final point. I would encourage you to never form an emotional attachment to a political party or a candidate or an emotional attachment to hate a political party or a candidate.

    Have you ever met a child who was a complete hellion and their parents acted as if their little “angel” could do no wrong? The simple fact of the matter is that love and hate both blind people to truths that normal people see as obvious. When people become hyper partisan they can’t see the picture in much the same way.

    By the way on this very blog I penned two articles, “The Case Against John McCain” and “The Case Against Mike Huckabee”. I also wrote articles pointing out Obama’s record, which most certainly did not match his rhetoric in the campaign. – Editor]

  9. cmb said

    All interesting stuff – but none of it affects my argument. The two acts I listed are primarily responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis, and impugning my sources and dealing with unrelated content in them does not change that fact. You can quote all the 2005 action you want, but none of it affects the origins of the problem – republican deregulation.

    [The problem you have with your argument is that even the New York Times reported in 2001 that the Bush Administration, and as we have shown you the GOP legislators, tried repeatedly to change the mortgage policing regulations to be in line with other banking regulators, those attempts were blocked by Democrats and that is not in any honest dispute. Gramm Leach Bliley brought some of the other BANKING (banking and mortgage regs are two different things) regs in line with the other national banking regs in other countries. The banking regs are not what was making Fannie/Freddie doing what they were doing and it wasn’t the Gramm bill that kept OFHEO useless as a mortgage regulator.

    You saw the video’s of the hearings, you saw Alan Greenspan’s testimony, you saw what happened when OFHEO and the Republicans tried and tried to get a change, the Democrats called them racist to their face and denied that there was a problem.

    Do you have any idea of how much obvious evidence you have to completely dismiss to arrive at the narrartive you are pushing? This is why you never seriously addressed the evidence and substantive arguments I have made. I was hoping that you would be more than just another hyper partisan who behaved like one of those goofy people on an internet messsage board. – Editor]

    Since you are presenting yourself as an honest broker here, as an example I’d like to see support for the following, from your article’s first paragraph:

    “Democrats were filibustering all significant legislation they didn’t like…”

    It’s a great example of why I consider your blog a dishonest resource.

    [Would you like me to present a list of legislation and amendments that was stopped because the Democrats were stopping cloture constantly by abusing the filibuster rule?? It is a VERY VERY long list. Remember the judicial nominees that were blocked for months and months and some never got a vote… etc…

    You may not like it but while my statement is a superlative and I should reword it, is is essentially true.

    Examining the inverse – should I say that the Democrats were voting for and or making sure that they were not filibustering legislation that they didn’t like?? – Editor]

  10. Maynard said

    Thanks for finally talking about >Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Warned Congress – Greenspan Testified for McCains Bill to Fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004 and 2005 – Democrats Voted No in House and in Senate Blocked it Along Party Lines! The IUSB Vision Weblog <Loved it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: