Let Risk-Taking Financial Institutions Fail

[Damocles]

1) The minority party cannot kill a bill in committee by a party line vote. They don't have the numbers to do that. That's why they are called the minority.

2) My problem with this nonsense is that you want to pretend that the debt exposure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the current financial crisis. It didn't. These uber-important bills that were so important that no one bothered to bring them up for a vote, even if passed, would not have prevented the current crisis.

They can if the committee is split 50-50 (it was) and there is a nice Indie in their side, but I digress. The VP casting the tie breaker doesn't count at that level.

Their failure came directly because of their over exposure to risk, and the laws that allowed them to overextend themselves in that risk using bundling. Pretending they failed because of some other reason is just inane. Yes, limiting their risk could have staved off the need for direct government involvement.

In the proposal, there were several different oversights proposed. Here were two that I'd like to point out.

1. The President would no longer appoint 5 of their 18 directors.
2. It gave the new regulators authority to approve their products (risk reduction for the taxpayer).

This is what Barney Frank had to say...

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

ChaCHING! That's money in politics doing the talking there.

 

[uscitizen]

2. It gave the new regulators authority to approve their products (risk reduction for the taxpayer).
//

does this mean they can only approve lower risk products or can approve higher risk ones as well ?

 

[Bonestorm]

Number two is not correct. Fannie and Freddie were the largest buyers of debt from lenders like Countrywide etc... Had that increased regulation been put in place to look into the riskiness of the loans they were buying.... that could have helped prevent this.

Granted, there are other areas of oversight that could ALSO have been implemented that could have done the same thing. But that does not excuse your denial of the positive benefits added regulation on Fannie and Freddie could have had.

Fannie and Freddie weren't buying subprime loans. The worst loans they bought were A- loans. They didn't touch the true subprime stuff. What they did purchase were mortgage backed securities in the post-2005 time frame when the wild west stuff was going on and that was a problem. However, at the time all of that stuff was AAA rated. They weren't buying stuff that, at the time that they purchased it, was risky.

Here is a very good article from the Economist, not editorial, on the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11751139

 

[Bonestorm]

They can if the committee is split 50-50 (it was) and there is a nice Indie in their side, but I digress. The VP casting the tie breaker doesn't count at that level.

Their failure came directly because of their over exposure to risk, and the laws that allowed them to overextend themselves in that risk using bundling. Pretending they failed because of some other reason is just inane. Yes, limiting their risk could have staved off the need for direct government involvement.

In the proposal, there were several different oversights proposed. Here were two that I'd like to point out.

1. The President would no longer appoint 5 of their 18 directors.
2. It gave the new regulators authority to approve their products (risk reduction for the taxpayer).

This is what Barney Frank had to say...

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

ChaCHING! That's money in politics doing the talking there.

1) 11 votes beat 9 votes every time.

2) Their failure came because they were permitted to operate with an extremely low asset to debt ratio. When housing tanked they didn't have enough assets to cover their debts.

3) I'm not pretending that they did not fail because they were overexposed. I'm saying that their failure is not the cause of the larger crisis as you seem to want to pretend.

4) Barney Frank later proposed a bill similar to the bill proposed by the administration to address the problem. And again, if there was such a crisis from 2003-2006, the Republicans should have done something about it. They didn't.

 

[Damocles]

1) 11 votes beat 9 votes every time.

2) Their failure came because they were permitted to operate with an extremely low asset to debt ratio. When housing tanked they didn't have enough assets to cover their debts.

3) I'm not pretending that they did not fail because they were overexposed. I'm saying that their failure is not the cause of the larger crisis as you seem to want to pretend.

4) Barney Frank later proposed a bill similar to the bill proposed by the administration to address the problem. And again, if there was such a crisis from 2003-2006, the Republicans should have done something about it. They didn't.

1. In 2003, it was 10-10, and it doesn't pass.

2. Again, the regulatory agency would have the power to assess if they had overextended themselves.

3. No, you are missing the fact that if FM & FM weren't backing these risks with money they didn't have that the other banks would not have. They secured the loans. The reality is that less than 1% of banks in the US are under capitalized. This means over 99% are well capitalized, it is the lending that is freezing and it directly relates to this.

4. Barney Frank's bill was given him by FM & FM, it did not address the direct problem as the 2003 bill did. The FM & FM fought against the regulatory oversight where they would be able to assess the risk and approve or disapprove of new products. You seem to be confused as to what the bill did have in it and what FM & FM were fighting in the bill.

 

[Bonestorm]

In 2003, it was 10-10, and it doesn't pass.

In 2003 the only person proposing such legislation that I am aware of was Senator Corzine, Democrat from New Jersey. The bill went nowhere.

In 2005 House Republicans sponsored a bill that passed the House by a 331-90 margin. The majority of Democrats in the House voted for it. It went to the Senate, where Republicans were in the majority. The bill was sent to the Banking Committee where Republicans held an 11-9 majority. The bill went nowhere.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Fannie and Freddie weren't buying subprime loans. The worst loans they bought were A- loans. They didn't touch the true subprime stuff. What they did purchase were mortgage backed securities in the post-2005 time frame when the wild west stuff was going on and that was a problem. However, at the time all of that stuff was AAA rated. They weren't buying stuff that, at the time that they purchased it, was risky.

Here is a very good article from the Economist, not editorial, on the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11751139

Good article. You should try reading it.

"However, Fannie and Freddie did not stick to their knitting. In the late 1990s they moved heavily into another area: buying mortgage-backed securities issued by others (see chart 3). Again, this was a version of the carry trade: they used their cheap financing to buy higher-yielding assets. In 1998 Freddie owned $25 billion of other securities, according to a report by its regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO); by the end of 2007 it had $267 billion. Fannie’s outside portfolio grew from $18.5 billion in 1997 to $127.8 billion at the end of 2007. Although they tended to buy AAA-rated paper, that designation is not as reliable as it used to be, as the credit crunch has shown.

Sometimes the mortgage companies were buying each other’s debt: turtles propping each other up. Although this boosted short-term profits, it did not seem to be part of the duo’s original mission. As Mr Greenspan remarked, these purchases “do not appear needed to supply mortgage market liquidity or to enhance capital markets in the United States”.

Joshua Rosner, an analyst at Graham Fisher, a research firm, who was one of the first to identify the problems in the mortgage market in early 2007, reckons Fannie and Freddie were buying 50% of all “private-label” mortgage-backed securities in some years—that is, those issued by conventional mortgage lenders. This left them exposed to the very subprime assets they were meant to avoid. Although that exposure was small compared with their portfolios, it could have a big impact because they have so little equity as a cushion."

 

[Bonestorm]

1. In 2003, it was 10-10, and it doesn't pass.

2. Again, the regulatory agency would have the power to assess if they had overextended themselves.

3. No, you are missing the fact that if FM & FM weren't backing these risks with money they didn't have that the other banks would not have. They secured the loans. The reality is that less than 1% of banks in the US are under capitalized. This means over 99% are well capitalized, it is the lending that is freezing and it directly relates to this.

4. Barney Frank's bill was given him by FM & FM, it did not address the direct problem as the 2003 bill did. The FM & FM fought against the regulatory oversight where they would be able to assess the risk and approve or disapprove of new products. You seem to be confused as to what the bill did have in it and what FM & FM were fighting in the bill.

2. So what? To what end?

3. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not backing risky loans:

Investors have got quite a bit of protection against a housing bust because of the type of deals that Fannie and Freddie guaranteed. The duo focused on mortgages to borrowers with good credit scores and the wherewithal to put down a deposit. This was not subprime lending. Howard Shapiro, an analyst at Fox-Pitt, an investment bank, says the pair’s average loan-to-value ratio at the end of 2007 was 68%; in other words, they could survive a 30% fall in house prices. So far, declared losses on their core portfolios have indeed been small by the standards of many others; in 2008, they are likely to be between 0.1% and 0.2% of assets, according to S&P.

As I stated above, they did buy mortgage-backed securities issue by others. That was a major factor in their eventual downfall. But the thing you are missing here is that these securities were AAA rated. They were not risky at the time they were entered into. F&F are permitted to be under-capitalized by legislation. Certainly stricter regulation may have prevented their downfall but that is all it would have done. It would not have averted the crisis we have now.

4) The Franks bill was co-sponsored by Richard Baker, the Republican sponsor of the 2005 bill. If you have evidence of what you are saying please show me. That big difference between the Franks bill and the Baker bill is where the new regulatory office was to be located. Franks did not want it under the Treasury. You are talking out of your ass.

 

[Bonestorm]

Good article. You should try reading it.

"However, Fannie and Freddie did not stick to their knitting. In the late 1990s they moved heavily into another area: buying mortgage-backed securities issued by others (see chart 3). Again, this was a version of the carry trade: they used their cheap financing to buy higher-yielding assets. In 1998 Freddie owned $25 billion of other securities, according to a report by its regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO); by the end of 2007 it had $267 billion. Fannie’s outside portfolio grew from $18.5 billion in 1997 to $127.8 billion at the end of 2007. Although they tended to buy AAA-rated paper, that designation is not as reliable as it used to be, as the credit crunch has shown.

Sometimes the mortgage companies were buying each other’s debt: turtles propping each other up. Although this boosted short-term profits, it did not seem to be part of the duo’s original mission. As Mr Greenspan remarked, these purchases “do not appear needed to supply mortgage market liquidity or to enhance capital markets in the United States”.

Joshua Rosner, an analyst at Graham Fisher, a research firm, who was one of the first to identify the problems in the mortgage market in early 2007, reckons Fannie and Freddie were buying 50% of all “private-label” mortgage-backed securities in some years—that is, those issued by conventional mortgage lenders. This left them exposed to the very subprime assets they were meant to avoid. Although that exposure was small compared with their portfolios, it could have a big impact because they have so little equity as a cushion."

I read it, which is why I said in the post introducing the article:

Fannie and Freddie weren't buying subprime loans. The worst loans they bought were A- loans. They didn't touch the true subprime stuff. What they did purchase were mortgage backed securities in the post-2005 time frame when the wild west stuff was going on and that was a problem. However, at the time all of that stuff was AAA rated. They weren't buying stuff that, at the time that they purchased it, was risky.

 

[Damocles]

In 2003 the only person proposing such legislation that I am aware of was Senator Corzine, Democrat from New Jersey. The bill went nowhere.

In 2005 House Republicans sponsored a bill that passed the House by a 331-90 margin. The majority of Democrats in the House voted for it. It went to the Senate, where Republicans were in the majority. The bill was sent to the Banking Committee where Republicans held an 11-9 majority. The bill went nowhere.

You are simply in error. You have mistaken Michael G. Oxley and Richard Shelby for Corzine. The bill died in the Senate Committee (remember the 50/50 Senate Split?) after it was passed by Congress. Bush presented the idea, and two Rs picked it up, some portions of it were opposed by FM & FM including the regulation that I specified.

You are inept at this. Google is your friend. NYT article, 2003, Bush Fannie Mae it will give you something other than my writing to read on this if you find it all that important.

 

[Bonestorm]

You are simply in error. You have mistaken Michael G. Oxley and Richard Shelby for Corzine. The bill died in the Senate Committee (remember the 50/50 Senate Split?) after it was passed by Congress. Bush presented the idea, and two Rs picked it up, some portions of it were opposed by FM & FM including the regulation that I specified.

You are inept at this. Google is your friend. NYT article, 2003, Bush Fannie Mae it will give you something other than my writing to read on this if you find it all that important.

I am not mistaken in any way. You're really being an idiot now (i.e. "The bill died in the Senate Committe (remember the 50/50 spilt) after it was passed by Congress.) That makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, I find it curious that the NYT article from 2003 talks about the proposal but does not mention once that an actual bill exists. That's because there was no such bill. If there was, please provide me a bill number.

Here is the link to the Corzine Bill:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s1656is.txt.pdf

This bill went nowhere.

The issue was brought up again in 2005 by the House Republicans, including Shelby. This is the bill that passed the House, with majorities of both parties voting for it, and languished in a committee dominated by Republicans:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h1461rfs.txt.pdf

Here is the Franks bill that Shelby co-sponsored in 2007:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1427eh.txt.pdf

 

[Damocles]

I am not mistaken in any way. You're really being an idiot now (i.e. "The bill died in the Senate Committe (remember the 50/50 spilt) after it was passed by Congress.) That makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, I find it curious that the NYT article from 2003 talks about the proposal but does not mention once that an actual bill exists. That's because there was no such bill. If there was, please provide me a bill number.

Here is the link to the Corzine Bill:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s1656is.txt.pdf

This bill went nowhere.

The issue was brought up again in 2005 by the House Republicans, including Shelby. This is the bill that passed the House, with majorities of both parties voting for it, and languished in a committee dominated by Republicans:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h1461rfs.txt.pdf

Here is the Franks bill that Shelby co-sponsored in 2007:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1427eh.txt.pdf

B.S. it makes no sense. A vote directly split does not pass. The bill died in committee because of D opposition in the Senate. Pretending that the opposition didn't exist is just idiocy and pretending that the minority has no tools to kill bills just as much idiocy, especially when it is a minority solely by the tie-breaker when votes are taken. The committees were split in half at the time.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

FM & FM had this to say:

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Yeah, the legislators they bought and paid for simply stopped it from reaching the floor. That's "lobbying against giving regulators too much authority to approve its products."

So, it appears that some regulation was introduced twice and took the same path. Dying to D opposition, even the one co-introduced in 2005 by a D in Congress faced the same fate in the Senate.

 

[Damocles]

And just in case people are still convinced that nobody saw the risk involved even earlier than 2003...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.


More at link...


Read that bolded paragraph twice. It's significant. Especially the part about a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

 

[Bonestorm]

B.S. it makes no sense. A vote directly split does not pass. The bill died in committee because of D opposition in the Senate. Pretending that the opposition didn't exist is just idiocy and pretending that the minority has no tools to kill bills just as much idiocy, especially when it is a minority solely by the tie-breaker when votes are taken. The committees were split in half at the time.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

FM & FM had this to say:



Yeah, the legislators they bought and paid for simply stopped it from reaching the floor. That's "lobbying against giving regulators too much authority to approve its products."

So, it appears that some regulation was introduced twice and took the same path. Dying to D opposition, even the one co-introduced in 2005 by a D in Congress faced the same fate in the Senate.

1) Show me that a bill even existed in 2003 other that the Corzine bill, let alone that such a bill was killed in committee by a party-line vote.

2) In 2005 the Democrats did no have sufficient numbers to defeat any bill in an committee in any house of Congress. The Republicans simply didn't do anything with it.

3) Admit your error on the Franks bill in 2007.

 

[Bonestorm]

And just in case people are still convinced that nobody saw the risk involved even earlier than 2003...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.


More at link...


Read that bolded paragraph twice. It's significant. Especially the part about a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

I addressed the issues raised in this article yesterday. You may address my comments there.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I read it, which is why I said in the post introducing the article:

right... which makes this.... "Fannie and Freddie weren't buying subprime loans. The worst loans they bought were A- loans. They didn't touch the true subprime stuff." ... part of your statement so ridiculous.

They bought a boat load of subprime. Just because it was in the form of MBS doesn't change the fact that their books were increasing in risk since the late 90's. It is those holdings that led to Fannie and Freddie blowing up. It is their BUYING these MBS that allowed the Countrywides of the world to continue issuing so much of the debt.

 

[Damocles]

1) Show me that a bill even existed in 2003 other that the Corzine bill, let alone that such a bill was killed in committee by a party-line vote.

2) In 2005 the Democrats did no have sufficient numbers to defeat any bill in an committee in any house of Congress. The Republicans simply didn't do anything with it.

3) Admit your error on the Franks bill in 2007.

I haven't mentioned the Franks bill in 2007, I mentioned what he said in 2003. My point here has been that this was foreseen and even attempted to be resolved in 2003 through regulation. It was killed in the Senate committee in 2003 and again in 2005. (again THIS committee was STILL 50/50 in 2005, they had a 1 vote lead in the Senate at that time, not enough to fill the committees with overwhelming numbers).

As for the you "may" address blah, blah...

As for Franks, here is an interesting op-ed piece on his love affair with FM & FM.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx

Total Rubbish and rewriting of history the Ds did have the numbers to kill bills in committees at that time, there wasn't enough of a lead in the Senate to make that difference you attempt to relate.

The public was warned what may happen again and again, bills were introduced regularly that could have done something about this. Including one by Bush and later another by McCain.

 

[Bonestorm]

I haven't mentioned the Franks bill in 2007, I mentioned what he said in 2003. My point here has been that this was foreseen and even attempted to be resolved in 2003 through regulation. It was killed in the Senate committee in 2003 and again in 2005. (again THIS committee was STILL 50/50 in 2005, they had a 1 vote lead in the Senate at that time, not enough to fill the committees with overwhelming numbers).

As for the you "may" address blah, blah...

Total Rubbish and rewriting of history the Ds did have the numbers to kill bills in committees at that time, there wasn't enough of a lead in the Senate to make that difference you attempt to relate.

The public was warned what may happen again and again, bills were introduced regularly that could have done something about this. Including one by Bush and later another by McCain.

1) Liar:

4. Barney Frank's bill was given him by FM & FM, it did not address the direct problem as the 2003 bill did. The FM & FM fought against the regulatory oversight where they would be able to assess the risk and approve or disapprove of new products. You seem to be confused as to what the bill did have in it and what FM & FM were fighting in the bill.

And the content of the quote is a lie as well.

2) There was no bill other than the Corzine bill taken up in 2003 in the Senate. If there were others please provide bill numbers. I've provided you the text of the Corzine bill.

3) The banking committee was not 50-50 in 2005. It was comprised of 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. The Republicans:

1. Richard Shelby (Ala.), Chairman
2. Robert Bennett (Utah)
3. Wayne Allard (Colo.)
4. Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
5. Chuck Hagel (Neb.)
6. Rick Santorum (Pa.)
7. Jim Bunning (Ky.)
8. Mike Crapo (Idaho)
9. John E. Sununu (N.H.)
10. Elizabeth Dole (N.C.)
11. Mel Martinez (Fla.)

The Democrats:

1. Paul S. Sarbanes (Md.), Ranking Member
2. Christopher Dodd (Conn.)
3. Tim Johnson (S.D.)
4. Jack Reed (R.I.)
5. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.)
6. Evan Bayh (Ind.)
7. Thomas R. Carper (Del.)
8. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
9. Robert Menendez (N.J.)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Senate_Committee_on_Banking,_Housing,_and_Urban_Affairs

4) The bills introduced by Democrats and Republicans alike would have dealt with F&F's balance sheet but would have done little to nothing to avert our present crisis.

 

[Damocles]

1) Liar:



And the content of the quote is a lie as well.

2) There was no bill other than the Corzine bill taken up in 2003 in the Senate. If there were others please provide bill numbers. I've provided you the text of the Corzine bill.

3) The banking committee was not 50-50 in 2005. It was comprised of 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. The Republicans:

1. Richard Shelby (Ala.), Chairman
2. Robert Bennett (Utah)
3. Wayne Allard (Colo.)
4. Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
5. Chuck Hagel (Neb.)
6. Rick Santorum (Pa.)
7. Jim Bunning (Ky.)
8. Mike Crapo (Idaho)
9. John E. Sununu (N.H.)
10. Elizabeth Dole (N.C.)
11. Mel Martinez (Fla.)

The Democrats:

1. Paul S. Sarbanes (Md.), Ranking Member
2. Christopher Dodd (Conn.)
3. Tim Johnson (S.D.)
4. Jack Reed (R.I.)
5. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.)
6. Evan Bayh (Ind.)
7. Thomas R. Carper (Del.)
8. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
9. Robert Menendez (N.J.)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Senate_Committee_on_Banking,_Housing,_and_Urban_Affairs

4) The bills introduced by Democrats and Republicans alike would have dealt with F&F's balance sheet but would have done little to nothing to avert our present crisis.

Ah. I see, you don't recognize subcommittees. Specifically ones that have more Ds than Rs and actually work on these things...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...C_Transportation.2C_and_Community_Development

Please note the number of Ds on the Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development... Please count them carefully and see how they could kill a bill in that Subcommittee. (Please note also that the subcommittee is a portion of the committee and how it died in that committee.)

The Democrats were:

* Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), Chairman
* Daniel Akaka (Hawaii)
* Bob Casey (Pa.)
* Jack Reed (R.I.)
* Tom Carper (Del.)
* Sherrod Brown (Ohio)
* Jon Tester (Mont.)
* Bob Menendez (N.J.)

The Rs were:

* Mike Crapo (Idaho), Ranking Member
* Elizabeth Dole (N.C.)
* Mel Martinez (Fla.)
* Wayne Allard (Colo.)
* Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
* Chuck Hagel (Neb.)
* John Sununu (N.H.)


As a portion of that committee, and the place where it died, it is certainly easy for a party line vote to go the way of the Ds, is it not?

The bill introduced by the Rs specifically went into the risk levels taken by the institutions, and would have given the power to approve or disapprove. It is inane to pretend that it couldn't have effected their success or failure.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ah. I see, you don't recognize subcommittees. Specifically ones that have more Ds than Rs and actually work on these things...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...C_Transportation.2C_and_Community_Development

Please note the number of Ds on the Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development... Please count them carefully and see how they could kill a bill in that Subcommittee. (Please note also that the subcommittee is a portion of the committee and how it died in that committee.)

The Democrats were:

* Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), Chairman
* Daniel Akaka (Hawaii)
* Bob Casey (Pa.)
* Jack Reed (R.I.)
* Tom Carper (Del.)
* Sherrod Brown (Ohio)
* Jon Tester (Mont.)
* Bob Menendez (N.J.)

The Rs were:

* Mike Crapo (Idaho), Ranking Member
* Elizabeth Dole (N.C.)
* Mel Martinez (Fla.)
* Wayne Allard (Colo.)
* Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
* Chuck Hagel (Neb.)
* John Sununu (N.H.)


As a portion of that committee, and the place where it died, it is certainly easy for a party line vote to go the way of the Ds, is it not?

The bill introduced by the Rs specifically went into the risk levels taken by the institutions, and would have given the power to approve or disapprove. It is inane to pretend that it couldn't have effected their success or failure.

I can't fucking take it anymore. You've been wrong about everything in this thread and continue to be wrong. You yet to produce evidence of an actual bill in 2003 other than the Corzine bill. You've been talking all along about hos a bill was killed in committee in 2005 by the Democrats, even thought the Democrats were outnumbered on the relevant committee. All the while you presented no evidence of this phantom committee killing.

Suddenly, when shown evidence that the Democrats were outnumbered in the committee, it was killed in subcommittee. I suspect you have zero evidence of this as well, but it doesn't really matter since the Republicans outranked the Democrats on the subcommittee in 2005 too. You have posted the current composition of the subcommittee (of course, it is majority Democrat since the Democrats are in the majority now).

Just stop it. Please.

And again, I am not disputing that the bills would have impacted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I am simply disputing that the legislation would have prevented the global financial crisis we currently find ourselves in.