$230K, for a campaign? That's chimp* change.

_{*referring to the Crawford Caligula}

You're not allowed to point out anything Frank does that might contradict any statement he might make. He's a left-handed homosexual Jew. And you're a racist.

the_be_sharps: You're not allowed to point out anything Frank does that might contradict any statement he might make. He's a left-handed homosexual Jew. And you're a racist.

I don't see any horns...

2wolves: I don't see any horns...

Two words: Forehead prosthetic.

Good luck finding a Congressman who DIDN'T take that much from the banks last year.

Or other special interests they loudly condemn in public.

I really want this guy to go away. Since he isn't, I would like him to start by taking the sock out of his mouth before he speaks.

Apples, meet oranges. Shake hands and mingle.

So wait, is submitter a banker that is upset that Barney Frank is badmouthing banks after they tried to pay him off so generously? Or is he saying that you should never take offered money from people who you don't agree with in totality? I'm so confused on why this is a bad thing. Someone help me out here.

Yeah as much as I hate the Congressional Republicans and modern conservatism the Congressional Democrats make my ass itch every time they open their mouths.

No credibility.

For 16 years reformers in Congress have tried to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and prevent the government-chartered companies from putting the housing market and the whole economy at risk. All that time, Frank was involved in efforts to block those attempts, and in the last eight years he was a leader of those efforts.

In 2002, shortly before accounting irregularities were exposed at both companies, Frank said, "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," The Wall Street Journal reported. After the Freddie Mac accounting scandal in 2003, Frank said, "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis."

But there was a crisis, thanks in large part to Frank, Sen. Charles Schumer and others on the leash of these companies. In Congress, they made sure there was no additional oversight, no additional limit on executive behavior and compensation, and no further restraint on the growth of the companies' mortgage-backed-securities portfolios, among other changes.

In fact, Frank & Co. made matters worse by pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on greater risk. They wanted more loans to people who might not qualify for traditional bank financing. And, as The Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Frank "pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements - which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall."

Even now, after the government took the companies over (which Frank repeatedly said over the years was not a possibility), Frank opposes limits on the amount of money they can risk on mortgage backed securities - the one reform that might have done the most to prevent the current meltdown and probably would do the most to keep it from happening again.


http://americaswatchtower.com/2008/09/17/barney-frank-and-chuck-schumers-role-t h e-fannie-mae-failure/

yup that tears it. Let the banks get of scott free and do what ever the hell they want. Fecking hell.

Good lord- the righty butthurt just keeps on going. And it's getting worse!

/settles in for a long, fun 8 years

Isn't the operative words in that headline, "Last year"?

Did Barney Frank force them to give him money? No, the banks gave that money in order to try to buy influence. If you want to biatch about something, biatch about all the money being given to those in Washington DC who should be working for the electorate, not the largest donors. Once again, it's the reichwing playing politics at the expense of the nation.

Befuddled: Isn't the operative words in that headline, "Last year"?

Did Barney Frank force them to give him money? No, the banks gave that money in order to try to buy influence. If you want to biatch about something, biatch about all the money being given to those in Washington DC who should be working for the electorate, not the largest donors. Once again, it's the reichwing playing politics at the expense of the nation.

Clever.

Bawny Fwank should hang for treason.

Befuddled: Did Barney Frank force them to give him money?

You haven't been paying attention to Fark. Barney Frank is as powerful as Chuck Norris. He's like the Anti-Chuck Norris.

( In fact, I heard his real name is Sirron Kcuhc! )

Befuddled: Once again, it's the reichwing playing politics at the expense of the nation.

You know who else rode a populist message of change to win his country's election?

/You know who else was elected to save his country from the mistakes of prior politicians?
/You know who was elected during a time of disastrous economic conditions, and used the economic turmoil & banking crisis to gather popular support?

coiffers?

godofusa.com: Bawny Fwank should hang for treason.

I'll regret asking this, but... Care to expound, Mr. Hale?

For his career, it seems that Barney Frank's biggest donors have been banks, the ones that give out the mortgages that weren't regulated, which lead to the greed and the people getting mortgages who shouldn't.

Seems a little coincidental that the man who could have made the regulations prevent some of this didn't. Wonder why?

Contributor Total (Career)
JPMorgan Chase & Co $73,500
American Bankers Assn $70,950
National Assn of Realtors $69,042
Human Rights Campaign $57,775
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $53,000
American Assn for Justice $51,500
Laborers Union $49,750
UBS AG $48,100
Securities Industry & Financial Mkt Assn $46,996
American Institute of CPAs $44,859
Teamsters Union $41,500
National Assn of Home Builders $40,500
Brown Brothers Harriman & Co $40,200
Bank of America $39,000
Credit Union National Assn $39,000
United Food & Commercial Workers Union $36,948
Mortgage Bankers Assn $35,500
Ernst & Young $33,400
Carpenters & Joiners Union $32,000
National Assn of Letter Carriers $32,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000275&cycle=Career

Oh, and look at it in terms of who donated how much to get him elected:

Business $2,568,313.0 (76%)
Labor $650,623 (19%)
Ideological/Single Issue $173,025 (5%)


There's blood on everyone's hands in DC and NYC (and all over the US, for that matter.)

ILoveBeer3000: No credibility.

For 16 years reformers in Congress have tried to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and prevent the government-chartered companies from putting the housing market and the whole economy at risk. All that time, Frank was involved in efforts to block those attempts, and in the last eight years he was a leader of those efforts.

In 2002, shortly before accounting irregularities were exposed at both companies, Frank said, "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," The Wall Street Journal reported. After the Freddie Mac accounting scandal in 2003, Frank said, "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis."

But there was a crisis, thanks in large part to Frank, Sen. Charles Schumer and others on the leash of these companies. In Congress, they made sure there was no additional oversight, no additional limit on executive behavior and compensation, and no further restraint on the growth of the companies' mortgage-backed-securities portfolios, among other changes.

In fact, Frank & Co. made matters worse by pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on greater risk. They wanted more loans to people who might not qualify for traditional bank financing. And, as The Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Frank "pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements - which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall."

Even now, after the government took the companies over (which Frank repeatedly said over the years was not a possibility), Frank opposes limits on the amount of money they can risk on mortgage backed securities - the one reform that might have done the most to prevent the current meltdown and probably would do the most to keep it from happening again.


http://americaswatchtower.com/2008/09/17/barney-frank-and-chuck-schumers-role-t h e-fannie-mae-failure/

This this this this and this X abrazilian. The "I Blame Bush" crowd just can't come to terms with this, and they never will due to their perpetual case of BUTT HURT aka Sandy Vagina.

I've never observed more of a warped sense of reality since reading that blog where the American tourists visiting North Korea snuck in cameras told us all about that bizzaro world.

Oh well. They got change they could believe in. Stimulus, too. But NO pork.

IStateTheObvious: [dilbert cartoon]

Awesome

Hey, somebody should make a gay joke. I hear those are good for advancing your political ideology.

bulldg4life: Hey, somebody should make a gay joke. I hear those are good for advancing your political ideology.

Bulldogs are gay.

bulldg4life: Hey, somebody should make a gay joke. I hear those are good for advancing your political ideology.

What's the difference between a gay escort and a Corvette?

You can't pick up a Corvette in the public bathroom at the Minneapolis airport.

For 16 years reformers in Congress have tried to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and prevent the government-chartered companies from putting the housing market and the whole economy at risk. All that time, Frank was involved in efforts to block those attempts, and in the last eight years he was a leader of those efforts.

This is an amazing quote from that website linked above. I mean, how do you just create history out of thin air to serve a political purpose?

It ignores the whole asking for more funding for OFHEO that had it's regulatory power clipped through under-funding. It ignores the whole thing about how the only bill pushed by Bush was a piss-poor attempt to abolish the OFHEO and create a private corporation with complete oversight over the GSEs with a single person appointed by the President as sole arbiter of all that is good.

I am glad to see a link to ACORN, Freddie, Fannie, Frank. I can only imagine how much idiocy they crammed in to that article.

bulldg4life: I am glad to see a link to ACORN, Freddie, Fannie, Frank. I can only imagine how much idiocy they crammed in to that article.

The fact that there is no Community Reinvestment Act shout out makes my eyes rain. :(

NewportBarGuy: The fact that there is no Community Reinvestment Act shout out makes my eyes rain. :(

I'm surprised it isn't mentioned at the bottom of the article the other guy linked to where he cut/pasted the stuff from the link.

They even mention the "forcing poor people to own houses" thing...seemed like a perfect opportunity to blame CRA, Carter, Clinton.

bulldg4life: They even mention the "forcing poor people to own houses" thing...seemed like a perfect opportunity to blame CRA, Carter, Clinton.

They know where they want to go, they just have no idea how to get there.

It's become so open-ended, though.

There used to be direct links to the CRA or to the 2004 regulation bill that democrats and repubicans destroyed. Now, it's just empty calls with vague assessments of reality.

Frank needs to go. STOP ELECTING HIM, BASTARDS!

bulldg4life:
This is an amazing quote from that website linked above. I mean, how do you just create history out of thin air to serve a political purpose?

Check the Congressional record to see how many times Frank called for more oversight. Why would he have bitten the hand that feeds.

It ignores the whole asking for more funding for OFHEO that had it's regulatory power clipped through under-funding. It ignores the whole thing about how the only bill pushed by Bush was a piss-poor attempt to abolish the OFHEO and create a private corporation with complete oversight over the GSEs with a single person appointed by the President as sole arbiter of all that is good.

Congress holds the purse-strings, but what did it matter? Frank said all was well. His "piss-poor" attempt was told there was no need by Frank.

And for an autonomous comittee to oversee where the Congress might be (were) dragging it's feet sounds (and sounded) like a good and necessary thing. Maybe if it would have went through...

I am glad to see a link to ACORN, Freddie, Fannie, Frank. I can only imagine how much idiocy they crammed in to that article.

You're right, everything that DailyKos, Huffington Post, DemUnderground, MSNBC, etc. is true and right, and any medium that questions Dem mis-feasance is full of lies.

ILoveBeer3000: Check the Congressional record to see how many times Frank called for more oversight. Why would he have bitten the hand that feeds.

You do realize that the republicans controlled the legislature for 12 years and did jack shiat to the oversight of the GSEs and, within a few months of Frank becoming chairman of the financial services committee, they passed a bill looking for more regulation of the GSEs. Yes, he stonewalled congress single-handed and then within 5 months of the democrats coming in to power, they passed a regulatory bill through the house.

Makes total sense.

Congress holds the purse-strings, but what did it matter? Frank said all was well. His "piss-poor" attempt was told there was no need by Frank.

Actually, in 2005, Michael Oxley and Barney Frank wrote a letter to the GAO informing them of the committee's continuing investigation of the nation's housing market and asking them to look in to several different factors.

But yes, Barney Frank has been pushing for different types of regulation since the early 1990s, but...apparently...he completely flipped the script and went polar opposite of his views for some period between 2004 and 2007.

And for an autonomous comittee to oversee where the Congress might be (were) dragging it's feet sounds (and sounded) like a good and necessary thing. Maybe if it would have went through...

Yes, if there's one thing I want, it's for the President to remove congressional oversight and...instead...allow one person (appointed by him) to have all control of the regulations that govern the GSEs.

Bloody hell, man. Do you even f*cking know why that idea died? Because everybody freaking realized it was awful. Alan Greenspan said it would be worse than doing nothing. Alan F*cking Greenspan.

It passed out of committee by amendment and was never put on the agenda again because of the dislike held by republicans and democrats. It wasn't blocked by Frank. The democrats didn't stonewall it. It was passed out of committee since the republicans controlled the legislature...and it was dropped from existence and forgotten about.

You're right, everything that DailyKos, Huffington Post, DemUnderground, MSNBC, etc. is true and right, and any medium that questions Dem mis-feasance is full of lies.

Where the bloody f*ck does this come from?

Did you go off the whargarbl deep end and figure you could throw everything in one sentence and finish me off?

ILoveBeer3000: No credibility.

I know you don't have any, but you could easily move towards having some by both including that the Bush administration actively moved to press the GSEs to take on more risk, including filling the lending holes once private funding began to slow down.
Or that Frank's statements prior to these actions are kind of invalidated by actions afterwards - you know, like saying that a gas tank is full, then having it no longer be full after the kid took it out for an evening.

And: " These companies were forced to loan money to people who couldn't afford it in the interest of "being fair." Rules were relaxed and money was loaned and predictably low income families defaulted on loans that they never had any business getting in the first place and now you and I have to pay for it."

Sounds like your little link doesn't exactly understand what was going on, and just going for a grab bag of things to point at the evil Dems!

NewportBarGuy: bulldg4life: I am glad to see a link to ACORN, Freddie, Fannie, Frank. I can only imagine how much idiocy they crammed in to that article.

The fact that there is no Community Reinvestment Act shout out makes my eyes rain. :(

Look at when the post came out - the CRA drumbeat was only coming out then, and it was covered in the text at the bottom.

I was in the banking business for 35 years, and know the American Bankers Association, and the State associations, always gave money to nearly everyone running for office. Money was given to both sides of every election, because it really didn't matter who won, but when the election was over, we had a friend in office.

Uh. . . and so his criticism of banks while taking campaign contributions shows. . . what? That the banks aren't affecting his judgment through cash? Or are you trying to make some weird comparison between sports sponsorships and campaign contributions?

It seems you are criticizing Frank for not giving the banks their money's worth, which is weird.

/Confused.

Don't all contributions come from banks at some points?

Except those in the form of barter, maybe?

:p

Wait...Barney Frank took money from the banks but, apparently, that didn't stop him from criticizing them when they deserved it?

And you see this as a bad thing?

idiots

ILoveBeer3000: Wonder why?

You wonder why banks would try to influence the head of the House Financial Services Committee?

yep it is the

Culture of corruption Dem-o-rats again

bulldg4life: Yes, he stonewalled congress single-handed and then within 5 months of the democrats coming in to power, they passed a regulatory bill through the house.

See, all the republicans were afraid of getting the gay on them, so they just had to do whatever he said. Barney Frank knew this and it was all part of his homo plan.

godofusa.com: Bawny Fwank should hang for treason.

Before or after they hang W, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Gonzalez?

this is why politicians lose 'common sense' the instant they take office. too much financial gain. straying away from your moral compass gives you a bigger wallet.

I think the only way this country will ever be run in the best interest of the country is to completely eliminate all corporate 'donations' to politicians or political parties.

Just how deep do you believe?
Will you bite the hand that feeds?
Will you chew until it bleeds?
Can you get up off your knees?
Are you brave enough to see?
Do you want to change it?

Lusiphur: So wait, is submitter a banker that is upset that Barney Frank is badmouthing banks after they tried to pay him off so generously? Or is he saying that you should never take offered money from people who you don't agree with in totality? I'm so confused on why this is a bad thing. Someone help me out here.

It's a bad thing because Barney Frank did it.

Duh.

Royal Vodak: This this this this and this X abrazilian. The "I Blame Bush" crowd just can't come to terms with this, and they never will due to their perpetual case of BUTT HURT aka Sandy Vagina.


While I try to not engage with people who can't distinguish the symptom (FM/FM) from the cause (unregulated banking allowing Wall street to collateralize mortgages using bogus formulas and sell crap as gold), I might make an observation:

Bush is up to his eyeballs in this crisis--to the point that his administration stepped in to stop US States from suing lenders for their actions that led to this crisis.

Most of them have their hands in the cookie jar. the difference is that the republicans stole the whole goddamn jar. at least the Dems leave the Jar with some cookies behind.

/dev/null/republicans

Wow that's about the only credible attack on Barney Frank, I have heard.

Not the "whhaa he magically controls all banks for the last 20 years" republican crazy talking points.

ILoveBeer3000: Congress holds the purse-strings, but what did it matter? Frank said all was well. His "piss-poor" attempt was told there was no need by Frank.

That piss-poor attempt was killed by Republicans in the Senate after Alan Greenspan called the bill "worse than doing nothing".

Barney Frank rips into banks for wasting money on the "ego boost" of sports sponsorships. Same Barney Frank welcomed $230,000 in campaign contributions from banks last year
==========================

Um... ok? What's your point? He dislikes sport sponsorships :)