Why the left dislikes Romney.

evince said:
He did it at their insistance and everyone here knows it meatsack
Click to expand...

So Obama didn't really want to cut taxes. And Pelosi and Reid who wrote the stimulus didn't really want to cut taxes but they did because the Republicans forced them to?
 
Dung,

I'm typing this from the book on Fannie and that I'm reading. They're describing what went down in 2003. Is this how you recall it happening?


Shortly after Fredie's accounting troubles srufaced in June 2003, Bush administration officials and Representative Baker began talking about the possiblity of legislatin to clamp tighter controls on the companies. By late June, Baker had proposed legislation to move regulation of Fannie and Freddie from Ofheo to a more powerful body, the U.S. Treasury. In late July, three Republican senators - Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel-offered similar legislation.

The Bush administration joined the calls for a stronger regulator, with more power to set minimum capital, among other things. Two Republican congressional leaders, Representative Michael Oxley and Senator Shelby, promised to move swiftly to prepare legislation.

Not so fast, said the Natinal Association of Home Builders. Jerry Howard, the pugnacious executive vice-president of the builders' trade group, told reporters the legislative plans would "severly damage" the goverment's commitment to housing.

Representative Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, also urged caution. "I do not think we are facing any kind of crisis," he said.

One issue was whether the new regulatior would have stronger powers to approve or disapprove any "new product" proposed by Fannie and Freddie. Some financial companies were wary of what they called "mission creep" a tendency of Fannie and Freddie to spread into new areas of the mortgage business.

Fannie warned that its ability to innovate would be stifled if a new regulator began reviewing every new wrinkle in it programs and procedures. Home builders and advocates for low-income houseing fretted that tight regulation would choke off the flow of money from Frannie and Freddie.

Fannie's allies in Congress leaped to the company's defense. At a House hearing, Representative Maxine Waters, A California Democrat, said Congress should "do no harm" to Frannie and Freddie, which she saw as vital sources of mortgage financing for the poor. "We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change." She added, "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac. And in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines, everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine."

Trying to find a compromise, the House Financial Services Committee drafted legislation that would create a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie inside the Treasury but limit that regulator's authority over new products. The Bush Administration said the regulator would be too weak under the House committee's plan. Wayne Abernathy, an assisstant Treasury secretary, argued that wek legislatin could give investors a false sense of confidence in the way the companies were regulated. Abernathy and other officials made clear that they preferred no legislation to weak legislation. It soon became apparent no bill would pass in 2003.

The momentum generated by Freddie's accounting scandal had dissipated. Despite sporadic hearings and maneuvers to find a compromise, it would take five more years -and the worst economic crisis since the 1930's-before Congress acted. By then it would be too late.
 
cawacko said:
Dung,

I'm typing this from the book on Fannie and that I'm reading. They're describing what went down in 2003. Is this how you recall it happening?


Shortly after Fredie's accounting troubles srufaced in June 2003, Bush administration officials and Representative Baker began talking about the possiblity of legislatin to clamp tighter controls on the companies. By late June, Baker had proposed legislation to move regulation of Fannie and Freddie from Ofheo to a more powerful body, the U.S. Treasury. In late July, three Republican senators - Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel-offered similar legislation.

The Bush administration joined the calls for a stronger regulator, with more power to set minimum capital, among other things. Two Republican congressional leaders, Representative Michael Oxley and Senator Shelby, promised to move swiftly to prepare legislation.

Not so fast, said the Natinal Association of Home Builders. Jerry Howard, the pugnacious executive vice-president of the builders' trade group, told reporters the legislative plans would "severly damage" the goverment's commitment to housing.

Representative Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, also urged caution. "I do not think we are facing any kind of crisis," he said.

One issue was whether the new regulatior would have stronger powers to approve or disapprove any "new product" proposed by Fannie and Freddie. Some financial companies were wary of what they called "mission creep" a tendency of Fannie and Freddie to spread into new areas of the mortgage business.

Fannie warned that its ability to innovate would be stifled if a new regulator began reviewing every new wrinkle in it programs and procedures. Home builders and advocates for low-income houseing fretted that tight regulation would choke off the flow of money from Frannie and Freddie.

Fannie's allies in Congress leaped to the company's defense. At a House hearing, Representative Maxine Waters, A California Democrat, said Congress should "do no harm" to Frannie and Freddie, which she saw as vital sources of mortgage financing for the poor. "We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change." She added, "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac. And in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines, everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine."

Trying to find a compromise, the House Financial Services Committee drafted legislation that would create a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie inside the Treasury but limit that regulator's authority over new products. The Bush Administration said the regulator would be too weak under the House committee's plan. Wayne Abernathy, an assisstant Treasury secretary, argued that wek legislatin could give investors a false sense of confidence in the way the companies were regulated. Abernathy and other officials made clear that they preferred no legislation to weak legislation. It soon became apparent no bill would pass in 2003.

The momentum generated by Freddie's accounting scandal had dissipated. Despite sporadic hearings and maneuvers to find a compromise, it would take five more years -and the worst economic crisis since the 1930's-before Congress acted. By then it would be too late.
Click to expand...


That's kind of accurate but not really.

First, there were three pieces of legislation introduced in 2003 to deal with the capital issues are Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Two were Senate bills, one sponsored by Corzine and one sponsored by Hagel. Both went to the Banking Committee and the Hagel bill was voted out of committee. It then died. The Senate leadership didn't bring it to the floor. On the House side, Representative Baker didn't do shit in 2003 The only bill in the House was sponsored by Ed Royce. It had no co-sponsors. Think about that. The House has how many members and this huge deal legislation that he president really wanted done received exactly zero co-sponsors? Nothing happened in 2003.

In 2005, Baker and Shelby did propose legislation in the House to create a new regulator for the GSEs similar to the earlier legislation. While some Democrats opposed the legislation, it passed the House by a vote of 331 - 90, with 122 Democrats joining 209 Republicans voting in favor of the bill. To be sure, Barney Frank opposed the bill because of the structure of the regulatory regime, but nothing he or any other House Democrat did or said prevented the bill from passing. Hagel sponsored a similar bill on the Senate side in 2005. After the Baker-Shelby bill passed the House it was referred to the Senate Banking Committee (where the Hagel bill was sitting). It went nowhere. Now, the Republicans controlled the committee and could have very easily voted the bill out of committee on a party-line vote if they wished. They didn't do that. The House bill died in a committee controlled by Republicans in 2005.

After that, in 2007 after the Democrats took control of the House, Barney Frank co-sponsored a bill with Representative Baker, the guy who sponsored the 2005 version to regulate the GSEs. The regulatory regime was different in structure but had similar authority. That bill passed the House in 2007 by a vote of 313-104, with 90 Republicans joining 223 Democrats voting in favor of the bill. There was no comparable bill introduced in the Senate. The House bill was referred to the Senate banking committee where it died in a committee now controlled by Democrats.

Then the shit hit the fan.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
That's kind of accurate but not really.

First, there were three pieces of legislation introduced in 2003 to deal with the capital issues are Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Two were Senate bills, one sponsored by Corzine and one sponsored by Hagel. Both went to the Banking Committee and the Hagel bill was voted out of committee. It then died. The Senate leadership didn't bring it to the floor. On the House side, Representative Baker didn't do shit in 2003 The only bill in the House was sponsored by Ed Royce. It had no co-sponsors. Think about that. The House has how many members and this huge deal legislation that he president really wanted done received exactly zero co-sponsors? Nothing happened in 2003.

In 2005, Baker and Shelby did propose legislation in the House to create a new regulator for the GSEs similar to the earlier legislation. While some Democrats opposed the legislation, it passed the House by a vote of 331 - 90, with 122 Democrats joining 209 Republicans voting in favor of the bill. To be sure, Barney Frank opposed the bill because of the structure of the regulatory regime, but nothing he or any other House Democrat did or said prevented the bill from passing. Hagel sponsored a similar bill on the Senate side in 2005. After the Baker-Shelby bill passed the House it was referred to the Senate Banking Committee (where the Hagel bill was sitting). It went nowhere. Now, the Republicans controlled the committee and could have very easily voted the bill out of committee on a party-line vote if they wished. They didn't do that. The House bill died in a committee controlled by Republicans in 2005.

After that, in 2007 after the Democrats took control of the House, Barney Frank co-sponsored a bill with Representative Baker, the guy who sponsored the 2005 version to regulate the GSEs. The regulatory regime was different in structure but had similar authority. That bill passed the House in 2007 by a vote of 313-104, with 90 Republicans joining 223 Democrats voting in favor of the bill. There was no comparable bill introduced in the Senate. The House bill was referred to the Senate banking committee where it died in a committee now controlled by Democrats.

Then the shit hit the fan.
Click to expand...

This ignores other bills introduced for the same reason and opposed almost entirely by Democrats.

http://getsgreased.blogspot.com/2008/09/s-190-federal-housing-enterprise.html

On July 31, 2003, in the 108th Congress, recognizing the dangers in Fannie and Freddie, and after hearings where Fannie and Freddie were taken to the carpet for improper practices, Senators John Sununu (R-NH), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) introduced legislation to strengthen and improve the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Trent Lott and John McCain were co-sponsors. This bill (S. 1508) passed the Senate Banking Committee, with Democrats opposing. With the opposition by Democrats, traditionally seen as evidence that a bill will never pass the 60-vote cloture rule for a floor vote, the bill died in the 108th Congress.
Click to expand...

And the fact that S190 which I pointed to in the previous link did pass out of committee but died on the floor as it too could not get past a cloture vote...


(from the above link, bold is mine)
On January 26, 2005, hoping for a different result in the new congress, Sununu, Hagel, and Dole re-introduced legislation (S. 190) to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill incorporated many provisions of the Sununu, Hagel, Dole legislation from the prior congress. It passed out of the Committee on another party-line vote of 11 – 9 on July 28, 2005. But again, without a single Democrat vote, the bill was doomed if brought to the floor for the critical 60-vote cloture.
Click to expand...

In May 2006, when McCain signed on as co-Sponsor the bill was tried again but could not get the support to defeat cloture and again died.

It wasn't until 2007, reintroduced as S1100, it finally passed, it was signed into law in 2008, but by then it was far too late...

(from the article)
On April 12, 2007, Sununu, Hagel, Dole, and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) re-introduced legislation (S. 1100) to improve oversight of GSE’s. The major reforms in their bill were included in final legislation passed the Senate on July 26, 2008 and was signed into law on July 30, 2008. But it was too late, with the lending industry already beginning to fall, led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Click to expand...
 
The bills were never brought to the floor. You can pretend that it is the Democrat's fault that Bill Frist never brought the bills to the floor for a vote (and thus never had the chance to defeat cloture if defeating cloture were ever necessary) but it isn't. Frist elected not to move the bills.

It's also really odd to say that the bills would never have gotten past cloture where the House Democrats overwhelmingly voted in favor of the same bill in the house. 122 Democrats voted in favor of it.
 
evince said:
then why are any of you pretending johnson would not be just another stabb by the right at deregulation and tax cuts?
Click to expand...

There is not one candidate that supports all I support. I believe one has to choose which candidate supports the issues you support the most.

No President is going to get 100% of his/her agenda passed.

It is why I support Johnson first and Romney the least. I would just like to see more options and not just the two parties from which to choose.
 
Rana said:
There is not one candidate that supports all I support. I believe one has to choose which candidate supports the issues you support the most.

No President is going to get 100% of his/her agenda passed.

It is why I support Johnson first and Romney the least. I would just like to see more options and not just the two parties from which to choose.
Click to expand...

<translation>
But since Johnson doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of winning, or even making a good showing, I will vote for Obama; because I just can't stand to think of Romney winning, especially after all the times I've said he won't win.
</translation>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top