Let Risk-Taking Financial Institutions Fail

[Damocles]

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.

Of course you can't take it anymore, having somebody use your own link to provide the way that bills are killed against your insistence that it was "impossible" that "they didn't have the numbers" must be frustrating.

It is, however, exactly what happened. I used that exact same link you provided for the 110th congress Senate Committees and provided you a complete list of the people on the Subcommittee.

Now, votes that have more Ds than Rs participating tend to go to the Ds if it is a party line vote. As it was in that same Congressional year that you provided a list from. Amazing. Now you know for a fact that it was not only "possible" for a party line vote to kill a bill in committee, but that it couldn't even get out of the subcommittee if such a vote took place.

 

[Bonestorm]

Of course you can't take it anymore, having somebody use your own link to provide the way that bills are killed against your insistence that it was "impossible" that "they didn't have the numbers" must be frustrating.

It is, however, exactly what happened. I used that exact same link you provided for the 110th congress Senate Committees and provided you a complete list of the people on the Subcommittee.

When was the 110th Congress?

Scroll down on the link and look to the 109th Congress. That's the relevant time period. That's the committee composition that matters. That's when you claim the bill was "killed in committee." It was Republican controlled, as was the housing subcommittee.

 

[Damocles]

When was the 110th Congress?

Scroll down on the link and look to the 109th Congress. That's the relevant time period. That's the committee composition that matters. That's when you claim the bill was "killed in committee." It was Republican controlled, as was the housing subcommittee.

How many times have we heard a vote of 10 to 10 with 1 R moving across the aisle described as "party-line", yet suddenly here you cannot conceive of using that description?

I will admit that I thought your list was from the 110th congress as it was what came up with I clicked your link.

However, I can certainly conceive of news articles, like this one, link, calling it "party-line" if almost every R voted for it and every D plus one or two Rs voted against it....

quote from the article in the link above...

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

You are attempting to misdirect using disingenuous and inane assumptions, the reality was it was the Ds who opposed it, and killed it time after time in the Senate, not even letting it get to the floor. They were bought and paid for and you should be ashamed of your attempt to misdirect from their direct opposition to reigning in FM & FM.

I'm embarrassed for you.

And again, sorry I thought that the 110th was what you were aiming at as that was what I saw when I clicked the link.

 

[Bonestorm]

How many times have we heard a vote of 10 to 10 with 1 R moving across the aisle described as "party-line", yet suddenly here you cannot conceive of using that description?

I will admit that I thought your list was from the 110th congress as it was what came up with I clicked your link.

However, I can certainly conceive of news articles, like this one, link, calling it "party-line" if almost every R voted for it and every D plus one or two Rs voted against it....




You are attempting to misdirect using disingenuous and inane assumptions, the reality was it was the Ds who opposed it, and killed it time after time in the Senate, not even letting it get to the floor. They were bought and paid for.

You have no evidence whatsoever to back up any assertions you've made int his thread. At all. You claim that these phantom bills were killed in committee, yet you've presented zero evidence of that. During the entire relevant period Republicans controlled both the committees and subcommittees at issue. They didn't move the bills, yet somehow the Democrats are to blame?

I'm not buying your bullshit.

 

[Damocles]

You have no evidence whatsoever to back up any assertions you've made int his thread. At all. You claim that these phantom bills were killed in committee, yet you've presented zero evidence of that. During the entire relevant period Republicans controlled both the committees and subcommittees at issue. They didn't move the bills, yet somehow the Democrats are to blame?

I'm not buying your bullshit.

Except the articles that I posted that described it exactly as I stated that you ignore and attempt to cover with more sand by repeating this inanity.

The evidence is before you, and you being tired of it doesn't change what really happened, nor whether you have to "buy" it. It's history. Amazing how I can point out the crappiness of people in my party, but you cannot even recognize that there might be a problem when most of the cash from these institutions was going to members of your own party who blocked legislation again and again.

 

[Bonestorm]

From your own opinion piece (not article):

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

[snip]

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

As I suspcted, it wasn't killed in committee. It was voted out of committee. But the Republicans didn't bother to bring it up for a vote because it was going to be a partisan issue?

That's the biggest bunch of bullshit ever written. The same Republican party that brought a bill to the floor of the Senate to keep Terri Schiavo on life support wouldn't bring a bill that would have saved the entire global financial system because it would have been a partisan issue?

Fuck you. That's laughable. And it's no wonder. Let's take a look at the author:

Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.

Hmmmm. . .

 

[uscitizen]

Quote:
Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.
//

:lmao:

 

[Damocles]

From your own opinion piece (not article):




As I suspcted, it wasn't killed in committee. It was voted out of committee. But the Republicans didn't bother to bring it up for a vote because it was going to be a partisan issue?

That's the biggest bunch of bullshit ever written. The same Republican party that brought a bill to the floor of the Senate to keep Terri Schiavo on life support wouldn't bring a bill that would have saved the entire global financial system because it would have been a partisan issue?

Fuck you. That's laughable. And it's no wonder. Let's take a look at the author:




Hmmmm. . .

Jesus.. You will say anything to attempt to prevent the suggestion that even one D might have opposed the bill?

Total rubbish. It didn't reach the floor because of D opposition. Period. You know it, I know it, everybody reading this thread knows it. They also know who got the money from FM&FM in a huge measure comparative to the other party. (Hint: it wasn't the Rs by a long shot). They can extrapolate from that why the D's opposed it, thus creating an informed opinion based on the fact of D opposition in such a directly partisan nature killing the bill before it ever got to the floor.

I know what my opinion is, FM & FM bought out the people who were supposed to be protecting the "little guy".

Coin-operated government sux.

 

[uscitizen]

Damo I know that many dems sold out as well. But your stance is that the republicans were going to save the day if not for those evil dems.

that now is rubbish.

 

[Bonestorm]

Jesus.. You will say anything to attempt to prevent the suggestion that even one D might have opposed the bill?

Total rubbish. It didn't reach the floor because of D opposition. Period. You know it, I know it, everybody reading this thread knows it. They also know who got the money from FM&FM in a huge measure comparative to the other party. (Hint: it wasn't the Rs by a long shot). They can extrapolate from that why the D's opposed it, thus creating an informed opinion based on the fact of D opposition in such a directly partisan nature killing the bill before it ever got to the floor.

I know what my opinion is, FM & FM bought out the people who were supposed to be protecting the "little guy".

Coin-operated government sux.

Damocles - The Democrats couldn't block the bill from going to the floor. They simply couldn't. They could have filibustered it once it was put up for a vote, but they couldn't block it altogether. They couldn't do it. Could. Not. Stop. The. Republicans. From. Bringing. The. Bill. To. The. Floor.

I find it very disconcerting that every theory that you have of Democrats preventing this bill from being passed has been shot down thus far. First, they blocked it in committee with their alleged majority status. That was not true. Then the blocked it with their majority status in subcommittee. That was not true. After all, it was voted out of committee.

Furthermore, the key fact that you seem to be completely ignoring is that the same bill passed the House with the vast majority of Democrats voting in favor of it.

The bill didn't pass and that is a shame, but the blame does not fall solely on the Democrats.

By the way, I know what your opinion is too, we both read that piece by McCain's advisor.

 

[uscitizen]

I still say Damo will pull the McCain/Palin lever.

 

[Damocles]

Damo I know that many dems sold out as well. But your stance is that the republicans were going to save the day if not for those evil dems.

that now is rubbish.

Not really. The Rs punched just as hard to get more <insert group here> into homes. That was what the 1999 article was about.

This was a bipartisan screw fest. Saying that the Ds are blameless is what I argue against.

 

[Damocles]

Damocles - The Democrats couldn't block the bill from going to the floor. They simply couldn't. They could have filibustered it once it was put up for a vote, but they couldn't block it altogether. They couldn't do it. Could. Not. Stop. The. Republicans. From. Bringing. The. Bill. To. The. Floor.

I find it very disconcerting that every theory that you have of Democrats preventing this bill from being passed has been shot down thus far. First, they blocked it in committee with their alleged majority status. That was not true. Then the blocked it with their majority status in subcommittee. That was not true. After all, it was voted out of committee.

Furthermore, the key fact that you seem to be completely ignoring is that the same bill passed the House with the vast majority of Democrats voting in favor of it.

The bill didn't pass and that is a shame, but the blame does not fall solely on the Democrats.

By the way, I know what your opinion is too, we both read that piece by McCain's advisor.

Total rubbish. Your apparent assumption that the Ds were blameless was blown full of holes throughout the thread. It. Simply. Isn't. True.

They were bought and paid for and it prevented this bill from reaching the floor regardless of your attempts to spin it out of existence.

My opinion is that this mess was foreseen and ignored by legislators, some of whom even told us how great FM & FM were.

Your theory that reigning in FM & FM wouldn't have stopped this was shown to be inane as they were the ones that backed this crap and provided the ability for Contrywide, etc to continue into risky ventures that shouldn't have been made.

All we ever get from you is hackery about how perfect Ds are. It's garbage. Total unrepentant garbage. Thankfully this stuff has a good amount of time to get out. I don't think that public ignorance will cushion the Ds for long.

I wish that we had a better choice, I wish that third parties would give us better opportunities to vote for somebody.

 

[Bonestorm]

Total rubbish. Your apparent assumption that the Ds were blameless was blown full of holes throughout the thread. It. Simply. Isn't. True.

They were bought and paid for and it prevented this bill from reaching the floor regardless of your attempts to spin it out of existence.

My opinion is that this mess was foreseen and ignored by legislators, some of whom even told us how great FM & FM were.

Your theory that reigning in FM & FM wouldn't have stopped this was shown to be inane as they were the ones that backed this crap and provided the ability for Contrywide, etc to continue into risky ventures that shouldn't have been made.

I never said that D's were blameless. I merely said that they were not solely responsible for not getting tighter regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, countering your completely wrong argument that the Democrats defeated regulatory bills along party-line votes in committee. What you claim happened never happened. You should be more careful when repeating McCain campaign spin. You'll more often than not end up looking like a fool.

On the second point, you are totally full of shit. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't make the loans. They purchased loans. The loans they purchased were prime loans, with the exception of some A- loans. They didn't buy the subprime horseshit. The term "subprime" refers to non-F&F compliant loans. The regulation would have saved some taxpayer money, but it wouldn't have averted the larger crisis.

 

[Damocles]

I never said that D's were blameless. I merely said that they were not solely responsible for not getting tighter regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, countering your completely wrong argument that the Democrats defeated regulatory bills along party-line votes in committee. What you claim happened never happened. You should be more careful when repeating McCain campaign spin. You'll more often than not end up looking like a fool.

On the second point, you are totally full of shit. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't make the loans. They purchased loans. The loans they purchased were prime loans, with the exception of some A- loans. They didn't buy the subprime horseshit. The term "subprime" refers to non-F&F compliant loans. The regulation would have saved some taxpayer money, but it wouldn't have averted the larger crisis.

The loans they purchased recapitalized and allowed those institutions to continue loaning. They assumed "risk" that they knew they never would have to pay because the US government backed them. This overwhelmingly contributed to the current problem in the housing markets. And SF proved earlier that they certainly did purchase those loans.

You spend half of your time arguing minute portions of a point attempting to spin out of reality, and then the rest ignoring the rest of what has been said. It's a good way to keep your opinion from changing, but it isn't very good for being an informed voter.

 

[Bonestorm]

The loans they purchased recapitalized and allowed those institutions to continue loaning. They assumed "risk" that they knew they never would have to pay because the US government backed them. This overwhelmingly contributed to the current problem in the housing markets. And SF proved earlier that they certainly did purchase those loans.

You spend half of your time arguing minute portions of a point attempting to spin out of reality, and then the rest ignoring the rest of what has been said. It's a good way to keep your opinion from changing, but it isn't very good for being an informed voter.

Coming from the guy that hasn't said one thing on this thread that is true (because he's cribbing his arguments from op-ed pieces by McCain campaign staff), that's hysterical.

Again, I repeat, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not buy the bad loans. They bought good loans, nothing less than A-, nothing truly subprime ("subprime" is by definition non-F&F compliant). They did buy mortgage backed securities and that became a problem, but at the time those instruments were purchased they were AAA rated, not risky investments.

 

[Damocles]

Coming from the guy that hasn't said one thing on this thread that is true (because he's cribbing his arguments from op-ed pieces by McCain campaign staff), that's hysterical.

Again, I repeat, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not buy the bad loans. They bought good loans, nothing less than A-, nothing truly subprime ("subprime" is by definition non-F&F compliant). They did buy mortgage backed securities and that became a problem, but at the time those instruments were purchased they were AAA rated, not risky investments.

And again you are simply incorrect on that one. FM & FM did purchase the crap and give capitalization to the security companies, SF showed this earlier. Keep up. I note that you ignored that I said that SF showed that earlier so I thought I would just repeat it here so you can go back and read what you ignored.

 

[Bonestorm]

And again you are simply incorrect on that one. FM & FM did purchase the crap and give capitalization to the security companies, SF showed this earlier. Keep up. I note that you ignored that I said that SF showed that earlier so I thought I would just repeat it here so you can go back and read what you ignored.

If SF showed this earlier I missed it. Please repost. If it is the quote from the Economist article I already posted I understand what it says. You apparently do not.

As I said, for the fourth or fifth time, F&F didn't buy bad loans but they bought bad securities; however, the securities they purchased were not considered risky at the time. In fact, they were AAA rated.

 

[uscitizen]

Damo once again gets it slanted around.

Good job at doing a bad job Damo.