I have seen the claim repeatedly that "McCain called for Fannie/Freddie reform," but I have yet to see anything approaching even a hint at what such reforms consisted of.

Until I am given some info, I'm going to assume the reform McCain suggested was "Don't give mortgages to darkie."

Did they filibuster it? If not, then how did they "block reform," given that they were in the minority at the time?

That's a lie, you lying liar republitard submitter. Everyone knows it's all the Republicans fault and the Democrats are angels and completely innocent.

*Fingers in earS*

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

Atillathepun: I have seen the claim repeatedly that "McCain called for Fannie/Freddie reform," but I have yet to see anything approaching even a hint at what such reforms consisted of.

Until I am given some info, I'm going to assume the reform McCain suggested was "Don't give mortgages to darkie."

Well to be fair Blacks and Latinos were far more likely than Whites to have a loans from sub-prime lenders.


Make whatever conclusions you want about whether these people were victims or just made poor choices.

Instant Karma: Make whatever conclusions you want about whether these people were victims or just made poor choices.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

kronicfeld: Did they filibuster it? If not, then how did they "block reform," given that they were in the minority at the time?

The bill died in committee. The committee consisted of 11 Repubs and 9 Dems. To go to the floor of the Senate 1 Dem would have had to vote for it. All voted against.

More here Link (new window)

/vote 3rd party

thomas.loc.gov

S.1222 : A bill to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/25/2007)

You know, having read S. 190 [109th], although I can't claim to be qualified to give a full analysis of it...

I'd have voted against it, too, even knowing what I know now. It seems designed to give the President the immediate power to shut down FNMA and FHLMC.

GaryPDX: That's a lie, you lying liar republitard submitter. Everyone knows it's all the Republicans fault and the Democrats are angels and completely innocent.

Spoken like a true Fark Independent^TM

GaryPDX: That's a lie, you lying liar republitard submitter. Everyone knows it's all the Republicans fault and the Democrats are angels and completely innocent.

Those of us that live in the real world can admit that both parties are at fault. Has Portland drifted off of planet Earth lately? I haven't been up there in a few weeks, I suppose it's possible.

Dupa: /vote 3rd party


Well isn't that an interesting find. Democrat fanboys, any response?

KaponoFor3: Dupa: /vote 3rd party


Well isn't that an interesting find. Democrat fanboys, any response?

{crickets}

McCain voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which overturned the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which offered us protections against shiat like what is happening right now. McCain hired Phil Gramm, the guy who came up with the idea, as his Chief Economic Adviser.

Biden voted against it in 1999, by the way.

McCain loses.

There is no doubt that if congress had addressed this problem way way back in 2005 then today everything would be peaches and lollipops for the middle class.

Lando Lincoln: McCain voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which overturned the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which offered us protections against shiat like what is happening right now. McCain hired Phil Gramm, the guy who came up with the idea, as his Chief Economic Adviser.

Biden voted against it in 1999, by the way.

McCain loses.

You mean the act that had 90 votes in the Senate and over 360 votes in the House? Yeah, keep bleating that talking point. There were a lot of things both parties did and that banks did and borrowers did to put us where we are now, but just go ahead and blame McCain.

Wow, McCain added himself to the bill as a co-sponsor more than 16 months after it was introduced and more than 10 months after the last action on it (pretty much a clear indication of death)? Hell of a maverick that guy.

If I understand that bill correctly, it was an attempt to privatize the regulatory agencies and it did jackshiat to fix the fraud or fix oversight problems.

Hence, this stuff:
(a) IN GENERAL- The Federal Home Loan Banks shall be exempt from compliance with--

(1) sections 13(e), 14(a), 14(c), and 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and related Commission regulations; and

(2) section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and related Commission regulations, with respect to transactions in the capital stock of a Federal Home Loan Bank.

And this:

Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.
Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.
Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.
Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

Sounds fantastically stupid

Dupa: The bill died in committee. The committee consisted of 11 Repubs and 9 Dems. To go to the floor of the Senate 1 Dem would have had to vote for it. All voted against.

More here Link (new window)

It was, and I quote, "Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably."

That means they substituted a brand new bill as an amendment and it passed the committee favorably and was sent to Santorum (R) to be introduced again and it never happened.

Make of that what you will, but it didn't die in in Committee because the democrats opposed it.

Nabb1: You mean the act that had 90 votes in the Senate and over 360 votes in the House? Yeah, keep bleating that talking point. There were a lot of things both parties did and that banks did and borrowers did to put us where we are now, but just go ahead and blame McCain.

No, that would be the conference report that had 90 votes in the Senate.

The actual vote on the bill was held several months earlier and voted straight down party lines with the GOP majority.

The Conference report has exactly zip to do with the merits of the bill and, given the GOP majority, voting the conference report down would've put the bill back in a conference committee for some indeterminate amount of time until they voted on it again. The next time it was voted on, the GOP would've just made sure that all the GOP people were there to vote straight down party lines again if needed.

FWIW, McCain didn't vote on the conference report because he was out running for President at the end of 1999.

Obviously these NRO headlines get hits when everyone comes into the thread to debunk them and/or protest the inaccuracy, but the obvious flamewar greenlights are getting a bit lame. There are going to be politics hits anyways, why not stick to more reasonable headlines on both sides?

That, or maybe someone should up the quality of fascist-leaning submissions. Or greenlight more neutrals, or fewer commies. I don't know.

KaponoFor3: Well isn't that an interesting find. Democrat fanboys, any response?

I am not a fanboy and I am not a lawyer, but I trudged through the text of that bill to see if I could make heads or tails of it. (Lawyers, please correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation.)

Basically, it wasn't introducing regulation, but it was creating a position that would be director over Fannie and Freddie, along with a Deputy Director and a board consisting of three big players in the economy and the director. This director would be appointed by the President to serve a 6-year term.

The director would have authority to review all acquisitions made by Fannie and Freddie "(B) to ensure that--
`(i) each regulated entity operates in a safe and sound manner, including maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls; " as well as a lot of other legal jargon relating to the prudence of the transactions.

Alright, sounds good to me so far except that as I read on, it looked like the director wasn't working under any existing regulation, but was given authority to create regulations as he or she went along. Well, ok if the person is capable and has the best interest of the companies as their goal. Fine.

Then I saw where the director has the authority to reclassify capital if they look like they will lose significant value. Common enough in business, except that isn't that the mess we're in right now? The mortgage holders kept bundling and selling these bad mortgages by reclassifying them as financial instruments? (Again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong...)

On top of all this monumental authority, the person would be hand-picked by the president and it doesn't say anything about having to be approved by congress. That kind of sounds like what the bailout they just passed did with Paulson.

I guess my thought is that it looks partisan for the Dems to vote it down in committee, but when I read the text of the bill, it is a power grab from the get go and that makes it seem like they were actually limiting the power of the executive office. Just my thoughts. Again, anyone else wanting to weigh in, I would like to know other interpretations of that bill.

Nabb1: Yeah, keep bleating that talking point.

And another thing, you're the last person that should be telling people what talking points they should and should not be bleating.

Continuing with that statement about the 90-8 conference report vote shows that you didn't spend the time to research information about congressional procedure, but you're more than willing to repeat what that dumbass WSJ columnist James Taranto and the GOP tells you to repeat.

So you're still going with "It's all those evil Dems fault" as a talking point? Got it. Even a monkey would have tried a different track by now.

They didn't buy a trillion dollars worth of subprime mortgages.

They spent a trillion dollars on subprime mortgages. A lot of those subprime mortgages weren't worth the paper they were printed on.

joeycolby: Basically, it wasn't introducing regulation, but it was creating a position that would be director over Fannie and Freddie, along with a Deputy Director and a board consisting of three big players in the economy and the director. This director would be appointed by the President to serve a 6-year term.

Oversight. That's a good thing, and I think something that both parties would agree needs to be done.

joeycolby: Alright, sounds good to me so far except that as I read on, it looked like the director wasn't working under any existing regulation, but was given authority to create regulations as he or she went along.

Now I'm not a government attorney, or one with any specialty in government, but I think I remember hearing in a class that many directors of administrative agencies have the authority to promulgate regulations.

From the bill:

"`(1) APPOINTMENT- The Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among individuals who are citizens of the United States, have a demonstrated understanding of financial management or oversight, and have a demonstrated understanding of capital markets, including the mortgage securities markets and housing finance.
`(2) TERM- The Director shall be appointed for a term of 6 years, unless removed before the end of such term for cause by the President.

By and with the advice and consent of the Senate, that's the key phrase. Plus if the guy was farking up, then the President could remove him so long as it is for cause (though that's clearly up to debate as to what "for cause" entails -- IMO, it is pretty damn fact dependent).

I'm sure there's other bits of good information in that bill, but I do that for my job so I am gonna pass on this one. Would rather watch the BoSox/Angels game.

Lando Lincoln: McCain voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which overturned the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which offered us protections against shiat like what is happening right now. McCain hired Phil Gramm, the guy who came up with the idea, as his Chief Economic Adviser.

Biden voted against it in 1999, by the way.

McCain loses.

Biden was too busy voting to make it more difficult for small businesses and individuals to file for bankruptcy instead. What a kind and thoughtful populist.

KaponoFor3: Oversight. That's a good thing, and I think something that both parties would agree needs to be done.

You know what they could've done? Approved more funding for OFHEO to allow for better oversight instead of cutting funding and then trying to abolish the Office all together. That would've been a good idea.

Something that Michael Oxley and Barney Frank wrote to the House about in October of 2004.

That bill was an attempt to move control and oversight of the GSEs to a position that is under the direct control of the President, similar to what Bush's 3 page bailout was trying to do.

And there wasn't much support for it in the House or Senate from either side.

Freddie and Fannie are the stench. Not the cancer. Quit missing the forest for the trees.

GaryPDX: That's a lie, you lying liar republitard submitter. Everyone knows it's all the Republicans fault and the Democrats are angels and completely innocent.

I am so going to enjoy your detonation on Election Day.

Could I begin by asking you very briefly, how about Sarah Palin last night, hehhhhhhhh? How 'bout her, hehhhhhhhh? How 'bout the job she did, hehhhhhhhhhh?

Perhaps the reason why McCain / Palin haven't made this case is because it's part of their October surprise.

I've also yet to hear how that particular bill would have had any effect on the current crisis.

Fannie and Freddie are scapegoats. It's a red herring meant to distract us from the fact that the real problem stemmed from the GLBA.

One day on and I am still incredibly frustrated that I haven't seen a single jpg of "Predator Lenders" (as Governor Palin called them).

Please. Someone oblige me.

Andric: I've also yet to hear how that particular bill would have had any effect on the current crisis.

Are you actually open to changing your mind if someone explained it to you?

Ron Paul

//listening to Talking Heads - Once In A Lifetime

Dupa: kronicfeld: Did they filibuster it? If not, then how did they "block reform," given that they were in the minority at the time?

The bill died in committee. The committee consisted of 11 Repubs and 9 Dems. To go to the floor of the Senate 1 Dem would have had to vote for it. All voted against.

More here Link (new window)

/vote 3rd party

Aww, truth sucks...for McCain.

KaponoFor3: Dupa: /vote 3rd party


Well isn't that an interesting find. Democrat fanboys, any response?

From the same link:

1)The bill was an attempt to privatize regulatory agencies. Hence, Democratic resistance to it. Hence, even Republicans voting against it.

2) The bill did nothing to address fraud and tighten oversight. Hence, Democratic resistance to it. Hence, even Republicans voting against it.

Yay Republicans?

KaponoFor3: Dupa: /vote 3rd party


Well isn't that an interesting find. Democrat fanboys, any response?

What? 11 Republicans, 9 Dems. Again, what?

Nabb1: Lando Lincoln: McCain voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which overturned the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which offered us protections against shiat like what is happening right now. McCain hired Phil Gramm, the guy who came up with the idea, as his Chief Economic Adviser.

Biden voted against it in 1999, by the way.

McCain loses.

You mean the act that had 90 votes in the Senate and over 360 votes in the House? Yeah, keep bleating that talking point. There were a lot of things both parties did and that banks did and borrowers did to put us where we are now, but just go ahead and blame McCain.

Uh ... wanna revise (new window) your talking point?

anelson41: Andric: I've also yet to hear how that particular bill would have had any effect on the current crisis.

Are you actually open to changing your mind if someone explained it to you?

I wouldn't comment if I weren't.

rppp01a: Uh ... wanna revise (new window) your talking point?

That was the original senate version. The final one (modified by the house) passed in November, if I remember correctly.

Clawed Le Mew: How 'bout her, hehhhhhhhh? How 'bout the job she did, hehhhhhhhhhh?

Maverickroll

bulldg4life: McCain added himself to the bill as a co-sponsor more than 16 months after it was introduced and more than 10 months after the last action on it (pretty much a clear indication of death)? Hell of a maverick that guy.

If I understand that bill correctly, it was an attempt to privatize the regulatory agencies and it did jackshiat to fix the fraud or fix oversight problems.

Sounds fantastically stupid

. . .

Dupa: The bill died in committee. The committee consisted of 11 Repubs and 9 Dems. To go to the floor of the Senate 1 Dem would have had to vote for it. All voted against.

More here Link (new window)

It was, and I quote, "Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably."

That means they substituted a brand new bill as an amendment and it passed the committee favorably and was sent to Santorum (R) to be introduced again and it never happened.

Make of that what you will, but it didn't die in in Committee because the democrats opposed it.


Well McCain Fanbois, what is the rebuttal?

{crickets}

Shaggy_C: That was the original senate version. The final one (modified by the house) passed in November, if I remember correctly.

No, the conference report was what passed in November.

It was passed in the Senate and then there was a conference committee that was formed to make sure both sections of the Legislature would be happy with the language of the final bill.

Since the text of the bill was already passed, there was no point to vote down the Conference report because it would've been passed eventually.

It's a silly talking point to reference the 90-8 vote that doesn't take in to account congressional procedure and is the extent of "nuh-uh, see proof" and then closing your eyes and hoping people don't call you on the bullshiat.

Muta: Well McCain Fanbois, what is the rebuttal?

{crickets}

Everybody that made those comments is an independent that hates both parties equally.

They're going to be quite pissed that you referred to them as McCain fanboys.

LawrencePerson: And here's what Democrats were saying at the same time.

Wow, that is a totally truthful and fair representation. Dude, let me know what Hannity has to say next time you want to act like you are not partisan.

LawrencePerson: And here's what Democrats were saying at the same time.

Could you at least pretend to filter your talking points into original thought?

bulldg4life: They're going to be quite pissed that you referred to them as McCain fanboys.

Are they going to whine about me on FOX now?