McCain saw Fannie and Freddie mess coming, 2006 letter proves...

[Takvah]

Topic should read: McCain saw Fannie and Freddie mess coming, 2006 letter proves...

Here is evidence that John McCain, not Barack Obama was ahead of the curve on the Fannie/Freddie mess. (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973) I guess Barry was too busy yucking it up with Raines and Johnson and cashing fat checks. Are we really going to allow Dodd, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid and all the rest go unchecked? Haven't they done enough?

McCain's letter -- signed by nineteen other senators -- said that it was "...vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]...operate in a safe and sound manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event that either...should fail."

Sen. Obama did not sign the letter, nor did any other Democrat.


The next time somebody blames the financial mess on a lack of Republican oversight, direct em to this letter.

[Death Wizard]

Oh, yeah. Like this is the only "letter," and the only "evidence," and the only "proof." Keep on dreaming. See you on Nov. 4.

[Cranky]

Oh, yeah. Like this is the only "letter," and the only "evidence," and the only "proof." Keep on dreaming. See you on Nov. 4.

Maybe you could aim for a little more substance in your reply? It would be nice.

[Death Wizard]

Maybe you could aim for a little more substance in your reply? It would be nice.

I'm getting sick of the "Democrats are lousy" and here's the "proof" stuff. There's substance in that?

[Takvah]

Oh, yeah. Like this is the only "letter," and the only "evidence," and the only "proof." Keep on dreaming. See you on Nov. 4.

There is plenty of evidence of McCain discussing this on the floor of the Senate and Dodd and Chucky S. pooh poohing it. So really, please do try to grab ahold of yourself. This is our NATION we are talking about, not a school yard fight.

[Cranky]

I'm getting sick of the "Democrats are lousy" and here's the "proof" stuff. There's substance in that?

There is a letter. Dispute it's significance. Discuss how it does or does not affect our current economic situation, or may or may not influence the outcome of the election, maybe.

But do not drive by post. If you don't have anything to add, then ignore the post. Not hard to do.

[clintl]

A somewhat different perspective on Senate Bill 190. The Republicans still controlled Congress in 2005-2006. It was the Republican leadership who killed it, not the Democrats.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/northwestlaw/archives/149530.asp?from=blog_last3

[Takvah]

I'm getting sick of the "Democrats are lousy" and here's the "proof" stuff. There's substance in that?

HELL YES THERE IS... THIS IS COSTING US TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS. WHY WAS IT THE DEREGULATORS THAT SAW IT AND NOT THE SUPPOSED, REGULATION LOVING DEMOCRATS?!

Ya know what... my bad... why do I even bother... forget I even mentioned it.

[Takvah]

For your pleasure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B2eLquv7_o)... I know, but it's Fox... they altered the words and the images... again I have no idea why I bother. Please prove the reporting wrong.

[Death Wizard]

There is a letter. Dispute it's significance. Discuss how it does or does not affect our current economic situation, or may or may not influence the outcome of the election, maybe.

But do not drive by post. If you don't have anything to add, then ignore the post. Not hard to do.

You make an excellent point. I should just ignore it. But I'm not the only person in here not ignoring it. We're all fired up, and we're standing up for ourselves and our beliefs. That doesn't mean that before making a post I have to go hunting on a liberal site for a "letter" (of which I'm sure there are dozens) to refute this one.

Another thing: I've been trashed quite a bit, but I've also been supported. My positive reps are lined up from AW-ers who support what I've been saying but are otherwise keeping relatively quiet.

[Cranky]

A somewhat different perspective on Senate Bill 190. The Republicans still controlled Congress in 2005-2006. It was the Republican leadership who killed it, not the Democrats.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/northwestlaw/archives/149530.asp?from=blog_last3

Read that, and this jumped out at me:

The first thing that struck me as odd about this is that McCain stood up for the bill only after it had been in committee for several months and no action had been taken. He then said absolutely nothing about the bill.

I know we don't really know what the author was meaning by this, exactly, but I'm a little confused, and the whole thing seems to be lacking in supporting facts. "He said absolutely nothing about the bill."

Okayyyyyy...*scratches head* I guess he's trying to say that he thinks that part of the reason it died is because McCain, as the co-sponsor, didn't do enough to push it through the committee. I think that's a valid critcism, but I don't see anything to really back it up.

The whole thing seemed kind of muddled. Sorry.

[Cranky]

You make an excellent point. I should just ignore it. But I'm not the only person in here not ignoring it. We're all fired up, and we're standing up for ourselves and our beliefs. That doesn't mean that I have to go hunting on a liberal site for a "letter" (of which I'm sure there are dozens) to refute this one before making a post.

Another thing: I've been trashed quite a bit, but I've also been supported. My positive reps are lined up from AW-ers who support what I've been saying but are otherwise keeping relatively quiet.

I didn't say you had to refute what the letter says. I said discuss it, discuss the point of the OP. How you do that is up to you, but complaining about other people's conduct does nothing. Standing up for yourself and your beliefs is great and encouraged. Do so. Don't whine about other people or use their behavior to justify your own.

And please, don't give me "lurkers support me in reps." Just walk the walk, please.

And now, let's PLEASE get back onto the topic, which is whether or not the Frannie Mae/Freddie Mac thing points to Republican foresight or Democratic failure or what have you. Not about how "stupid" this may or not be.

/Arbiter

[Takvah]

I offered up links. I supported my argument. Beyond that I suppose I can't do much more... so I'll rest on the evidence. It won't change one mind, which is sad... but hey that's not my cross to bear.

[clintl]

OK, here's an article from a business publication that explains what was really going on with Senate Bill 190, written at the time of the events. Basically, both Republicans and Democrats on the committee knew there were problems - they just couldn't agree on the details of a fix. I suspect this article is a good deal more honest than the blogs and opinion pieces that have been written since.

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/532756-1.html

And note: McCain didn't sign on as a co-sponsor until much later. This was Chuck Hagel's baby.

Also, Takvah - please note who the letter asking for action was addressed to - Sen. Shelby and Sen. Frist. It's well documented that the bill was reported out of committee. The Republican leadership made the decision not to bring it to a floor vote.

[Cranky]

Thanks, clintl.

Interesting excerpt here (I'll keep reading, but this grabbed my attention):

The Republican-backed measure would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sell portfolio assets unrelated to their mortgage securities businesses. A Democratic alternative would have permitted the regulator to reduce the GSEs' portfolio without requiring such cuts.

During deliberations, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) dismissed the alternative submitted by ranking member Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland), noting it did not give enough portfolio guidance to the regulator and had safety and soundness limits that were "not sufficient."

In opposing portfolio caps, Democrats expressed concern that such restrictions would harm Fannie and Freddie's ability to ensure the mortgage market liquidity needed to foster affordable housing.

Now, I am FAR from being an expert on economics, so I don't know which of these concerns were more valid, if in fact that can be established. What I'm wondering is, if this is one of the major things that held up passage of the bill, couldn't they have tried to work out some compromise?

That's probably addressed in the article, I suppose, but this really annoyed me. Probably because hindsight is 20/20, and we can see very clearly now why this regulation would have been so important.

ETA: Ah, now I see. Sen. Hagel believed that the portfolios were secondary to the mission of Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae. Interesting. And that they felt it was too much of an uphill climb to secure the bipartisan support needed to pass it. Well, that's depressing. They both (Democrats and Republicans) screwed the pooch by not trying harder.

[Takvah]

OK, here's an article from a business publication that explains what was really going on with Senate Bill 190, written at the time of the events. Basically, both Republicans and Democrats on the committee knew there were problems - they just couldn't agree on the details of a fix. I suspect this article is a good deal more honest than the blogs and opinion pieces that have been written since.

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/532756-1.html

And note: McCain didn't sign on as a co-sponsor until much later. This was Chuck Hagel's baby.

Also, Takvah - please note who the letter asking for action was addressed to - Sen. Shelby and Sen. Frist. It's well documented that the bill was reported out of committee. The Republican leadership made the decision not to bring it to a floor vote.

Did you watch the Fox report?

[clintl]

I don't know which concerns were more valid, either, although I do find the proposed requirement to sell off non-mortgage related portfolio assets puzzling. I wouldn't think that had anything to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's problems.

This appears to be from a trade publication, and I'm guessing that the target audience would have been much more familiar with those particular issues.

However, I agree - on this bill, this looks like a failure on both sides to find a compromise when a compromise was needed.

[Robert Toy]

The fact of the matter is that BOTH parties and more than one administration that failed to provide the needed oversight and regulation…but could it have been stopped?

IMHO no, the politician/party/administration that dare try to stand up and say “hey wait a minute folks, we are heading into deep economic trouble here…” would have been branded as the politician/party/administration that was trying to destroy the American Dream with attack ads paid for by the lobbyist representing the bankers, housing, real estate, etc. etc., a political no-win situation.

Tell you what, it would be nice for a change to hear someone say that the politicians and the political system failed us, not just Republicans or Democrats.

Just my .06 (Inflation)

[Cranky]

The fact of the matter is that BOTH parties and more than one administration that failed to provide the needed oversight and regulation…but could it have been stopped?

IMHO no, the politician/party/administration that dare try to stand up and say “hey wait a minute folks, we are heading into deep economic trouble here…” would have been branded as the politician/party/administration that was trying to destroy the American Dream with attack ads paid for by the lobbyist representing the bankers, housing, real estate, etc. etc., a political no-win situation.

Tell you what, it would be nice for a change to hear someone say that the politicians and the political system failed us, not just Republicans or Democrats.

Just my .06 (Inflation)

*sniff*

What am I, chopped liver? I did say that! *pouts* :D

[Robert Toy]

*sniff*

What am I, chopped liver? I did say that! *pouts* :D
Sorry :cry:

[clintl]

Did you watch the Fox report?

No. I don't watch any of the cable news networks, and do not have any plans to start. I've seen enough of their dismal journalistic standards when I visit my parents. I'll continue to get my TV news from the broadcast networks, which at least broadcast real news.

[Takvah]

Tell you what, it would be nice for a change to hear someone say that the politicians and the political system failed us, not just Republicans or Democrats.

Just my .06 (Inflation)

That would be great... a pipe dream... but great. We have an adversarial system and it's been that way for a long, long, time. This didn't just pop up with Bush v. Gore... sure the discourse was more civil back in the day, but it was every bit as rough and tumble.

[Cranky]

Sorry :cry:

There, there, it's okay. :D

By the way, you bring up an interesting point about how if someone had stood up and said, "Let's get this done", more or less, how they'd have basically been committing career suicide.

That, to me, points to just how deeply enmeshed special interests are, and how desperately we need to get them OUT of Capitol Hill, to let the politicans do the jobs they are elected to do. Last I checked, it was originally supposed to be to represent the interests of all of their constituents, not just the ones with the deepest pockets and highest connections.

They're the ones that really stand to profit from deregulation and the like, not us, or if We do, it's tangetal to the interests of politicians' donors.

[Takvah]

No. I don't watch any of the cable news networks, and do not have any plans to start. I've seen enough of their dismal journalistic standards when I visit my parents. I'll continue to get my TV news from the broadcast networks, which at least broadcast real news.

But you're missing Barney Frank saying that the mortgage banking system's fundamentals are sound, and Chucky Schumer asking why anybody would want to change such a great system. You're missing that Dems were in charge of the committees that beat down the Republicans. *shrugs* Oh well... like I said, not my cross to bear.

[Robert Toy]

There, there, it's okay. :D

By the way, you bring up an interesting point about how if someone had stood up and said, "Let's get this done", more or less, how they'd have basically been committing career suicide.

That, to me, points to just how deeply enmeshed special interests are, and how desperately we need to get them OUT of Capitol Hill, to let the politicans do the jobs they are elected to do. Last I checked, it was originally supposed to be to represent the interests of all of their constituents, not just the ones with the deepest pockets and highest connections.

They're the ones that really stand to profit from deregulation and the like, not us, or if We do, it's tangetal to the interests of politicians' donors.
The whole system of registered lobbyist is nothing short of legalized bribery.

[Robert Toy]

The system was gutted and deregulated in 1999 under the Clinton administration. The existing “oversight” laws/regulations were not sufficient to stop the crisis.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/financial/102399banks-congress.html

The related articles in the above link make super interesting reading.

[Cranky]

The whole system of registered lobbyist is nothing short of legalized bribery.

Yeah. And now, they've managed to steal our tax dollars, too. And the pols have been quick to make a buck for their districts in the resulting bailout packages.

I feel so dirty now, believing this was something we had to do, especially since Nancy Pelosi is back, holding out her hand for more. And we'll probably end up giving it, because our little proxies will vote for us. My gosh, I think something this big ought to be a national referendum, though of course that's logistically impossible to pull off quickly.

Nice idea, though. The bailout would have failed if it were up to We the People. Time to call these losers home, imo.

[clintl]

I'm also missing Greta Van Susteran interviewing a correspondent for five minutes about a murder on the East Coast, in which the answer to every question Greta asks is either, "There's no new information" or "the police haven't released any information yet." And no, that is not an exaggeration. I saw it. She actually wasted five whole minutes to report no new developments.

[Takvah]

That, to me, points to just how deeply enmeshed special interests are, and how desperately we need to get them OUT of Capitol Hill, to let the politicans do the jobs they are elected to do. Last I checked, it was originally supposed to be to represent the interests of all of their constituents, not just the ones with the deepest pockets and highest connections.


Corporations should not be allowed "speech" rights where it concerns the government. People like Limbaugh will argue that McCain/Feingold was an effort to curtail free speech, implying that corporations are entitled to the same rights as citizens. That's nonsense and it's really the root of all evil where it concerns modern day government. Worse still these corporations weren't happy with their own efforts to get things done, so they combined those efforts and made industry wide PACs. We need to stop bestowing human rights and Constitutional protections onto corporations.

[Cranky]

I'm also missing Greta Van Susteran interviewing a correspondent for five minutes about a murder on the East Coast, in which the answer to every question Greta asks is either, "There's no new information" or "the police haven't released any information yet." And no, that is not an exaggeration. I saw it. She actually wasted five whole minutes to report no new developments.

That's why youtube and video clips are so awesome. Cuts out all the crap and gets to the point. :)

[Cranky]

Corporations should not be allowed "speech" rights where it concerns the government. People like Limbaugh will argue that McCain/Feingold was an effort to curtail free speech, implying that corporations are entitled to the same rights as citizens. That's nonsense and it's really the root of all evil where it concerns modern day government. Worse still these corporations weren't happy with their own efforts to get things done, so they combined those efforts and made industry wide PACs. We need to stop bestowing human rights and Constitutional protections onto corporations.

I don't know the ins and outs, but I bet they are allowed to do this because according to the law, corporations are legal entities on par with actual persons in some respects.

What bonehead thought that up?

ETA: I just realized that Takvah already said that in the post I quoted. Uh, duh. Sorry, Takvah.

[Takvah]

I'm also missing Greta Van Susteran interviewing a correspondent for five minutes about a murder on the East Coast, in which the answer to every question Greta asks is either, "There's no new information" or "the police haven't released any information yet." And no, that is not an exaggeration. I saw it. She actually wasted five whole minutes to report no new developments.

Uhh... yeah. Head...sand.

[Robert Toy]

Yeah. And now, they've managed to steal our tax dollars, too. And the pols have been quick to make a buck for their districts in the resulting bailout packages.

I feel so dirty now, believing this was something we had to do, especially since Nancy Pelosi is back, holding out her hand for more. And we'll probably end up giving it, because our little proxies will vote for us. My gosh, I think something this big ought to be a national referendum, though of course that's logistically impossible to pull off quickly.

Nice idea, though. The bailout would have failed if it were up to We the People. Time to call these losers home, imo.
A thread I started earlier that died.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2841902&postcount=1

[Takvah]

I don't know the ins and outs, but I bet they are allowed to do this because according to the law, corporations are legal entities on par with actual persons in some respects.

What bonehead thought that up?

Somebody that had been paid well, no doubt.

[Cranky]

Somebody that had been paid well, no doubt.

*snicker*

Or got a really nice vacation and some fancy knicknacks.

[cethklein]

*snicker*

Or got a really nice vacation and some fancy knicknacks.

A $440K spa treatment, perhaps?

[Cranky]

I didn't say you had to refute what the letter says. I said discuss it, discuss the point of the OP. How you do that is up to you, but complaining about other people's conduct does nothing. Standing up for yourself and your beliefs is great and encouraged. Do so. Don't whine about other people or use their behavior to justify your own.


/Arbiter

Ever think about dropping a Valium? Seriously. The GOP still supported deregulation. If Dr. Mengele wrote a letter saying there was murder taking place at Auschwitz it wouldn't absolve him of his role in the mess, would it? Both parties were equally responsible for this crap. You're right, our country is in trouble. I'd think you'd be able to put aside this partisan bullshit long enough to deal with it. Apparently not.

What I said earlier. I'm too lazy to retype it.

Thanks.

/Arbiter

[Takvah]

Ever think about dropping a Valium? Seriously. The GOP still supported deregulation. If Dr. Mengele wrote a letter saying there was murder taking place at Auschwitz it wouldn't absolve him of his role in the mess, would it? Both parties were equally responsible for this crap. You're right, our country is in trouble. I'd think you'd be able to put aside this partisan bullshit long enough to deal with it. Apparently not.

*sigh*

[Robert Toy]

Oh lord, don't make me think about Teddy Kennedy in a spa robe. Please. I'm BEGGING you...
Just don't ask for a ride home.

[cethklein]

*sigh*

My sentiments exactly.

[Takvah]

Just don't ask for a ride home.

Not a problem if you go prepared with a scuba tank.

[clintl]

The GOP still supported deregulation.

That's an important thing to note here. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were part of the problem, but they weren't by any means the whole problem, and I think even if Senate Bill 190 had passed and been signed into law, it would not have prevented the rest of the meltdown. There are many, many banks and mortgage lenders other than Fannie and Freddie that were engaged in unsound business practices. And as far as I can tell, neither the GOP nor the Democrats made any significant efforts to regulate them.

[cethklein]

Just don't ask for a ride home.

"Mr. Kennedy! I'm pregnant!"

Ted: Don't worry. We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

[Robert Toy]

That's an important thing to note here. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were part of the problem, but they weren't by any means the whole problem, and I think even if Senate Bill 190 had passed and been signed into law, it would not have prevented the rest of the meltdown. There are many, many banks and mortgage lenders other than Fannie and Freddie that were engaged in unsound business practices. And as far as I can tell, neither the GOP nor the Democrats made any significant efforts to regulate them.
Read my post # 26

[Takvah]

That's an important thing to note here. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were part of the problem, but they weren't by any means the whole problem, and I think even if Senate Bill 190 had passed and been signed into law, it would not have prevented the rest of the meltdown. There are many, many banks and mortgage lenders other than Fannie and Freddie that were engaged in unsound business practices. And as far as I can tell, neither the GOP nor the Democrats made any significant efforts to regulate them.

If you're in the mortgage business, you know that a huge portion of the business goes through FNMA and FHLMC. Why? Because there was an implied guarantee from the government regarding mortgages that went through those agencies. If FNMA and FHLMC had been forced to exercise better lending practices, it would have sent up a red flag in the industry. This was a missed opportunity of immense proportions that cannot be understated in the way that you have.

[nighttimer]

There is plenty of evidence of McCain discussing this on the floor of the Senate and Dodd and Chucky S. pooh poohing it. So really, please do try to grab ahold of yourself. This is our NATION we are talking about, not a school yard fight.

Was Phil Gramm one of the signees of the letter?


The general co-chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today’s economic turmoil.

“A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business had changed,” the Illinois senator running for president said in a New York economic speech. “But by the time [it] was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework.”

Gramm’s role in the swift and dramatic recent restructuring of the nation’s investment houses and practices didn’t stop there.

A year after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the old regulations, Swiss Bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS’s new investment banking arm.


During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.

For his work, Gramm and two other lobbyists collected $750,000 in fees from UBS’s American subsidiary. In the past year, UBS has written down more than $18 billion in exposure to subprime loans and other risky securities and is considering cutting as many as 8,000 jobs.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html

That was back in March. In July, Gramm, at that time still McCain's top economic adviser told the Washington Times newspaper:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."


"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.



"We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," he said. "We have benefited greatly" from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.


"Misery sells newspapers," Mr. Gramm said. "Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day."

link (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/09/mccain-adviser-addresses-mental-recession/)

Maybe if you have 14 cars and seven houses and can afford $500 Italian shoes like John McCain the economy ain't so bad. For those of us that can't the economy blows.

Nice try though Takvah trying to hang this mess around only the necks of Democrats. Or has somebody else besides Republican George W. Bush been POTUS for the last eight miserable years?

[clintl]

Read my post # 26

I don't think that's really in dispute, is it? Although I have read that it was only really the commercial banks that were unleashed. The regulations done away with in 1999 would not have applied to the investment banks and mortgage lenders that were responsible for much if the crisis anyway.

[Robert Toy]

Was Phil Gramm one of the signees of the letter?


The general co-chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today’s economic turmoil.

“A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business had changed,” the Illinois senator running for president said in a New York economic speech. “But by the time [it] was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework.”

Gramm’s role in the swift and dramatic recent restructuring of the nation’s investment houses and practices didn’t stop there.

A year after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the old regulations, Swiss Bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS’s new investment banking arm.


During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.

For his work, Gramm and two other lobbyists collected $750,000 in fees from UBS’s American subsidiary. In the past year, UBS has written down more than $18 billion in exposure to subprime loans and other risky securities and is considering cutting as many as 8,000 jobs.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html

That was back in March. In July, Gramm, at that time still McCain's top economic adviser told the Washington Times newspaper:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."


"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.



"We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," he said. "We have benefited greatly" from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.


"Misery sells newspapers," Mr. Gramm said. "Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day."

link (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/09/mccain-adviser-addresses-mental-recession/)

Maybe if you have 14 cars and seven houses and can afford $500 Italian shoes like John McCain the economy ain't so bad. For those of us that can't the economy blows.

Nice try though Takvah trying to hang this mess around only the necks of Democrats. Or has somebody else besides Republican George W. Bush been POTUS for the last eight miserable years?
For the other half of the story...Read my post # 26

[Cranky]

I don't think that's really in dispute, is it? Although I have read that it was only really the commercial banks that were unleashed. The regulations done away with in 1999 would not have applied to the investment banks and mortgage lenders that were responsible for much if the crisis anyway.

Out of curiosity, do you know why that is? I am completely clueless on that score, and I'd love to find out...

[Robert Toy]

Out of curiosity, do you know why that is? I am completely clueless on that score, and I'd love to find out...
READ POST # 26

[Cranky]

READ POST # 26

Yes sir. *blushes*

[nighttimer]

Hey, these lame Ted Kennedy jokes are really funny since he's dying of brain cancer. Keep it up.

Oh, wait. Maybe you shouldn't since they're in really bad taste.

[clintl]

If you're in the mortgage business, you know that a huge portion of the business goes through FNMA and FHLMC. Why? Because there was an implied guarantee from the government regarding mortgages that went through those agencies. If FNMA and FHLMC had been forced to exercise better lending practices, it would have sent up a red flag in the industry. This was a missed opportunity of immense proportions that cannot be understated in the way that you have.

It would have helped, no doubt. However, I'm not convinced that it would have been enough to prevent the crisis. And, as I posted earlier, the characterization about what happened to Senate Bill 190 appears to be much more complex than you have asserted here, and there is a lot of revisionism going on in the press about what actually happened.

[Robert Toy]

I don't think that's really in dispute, is it? Although I have read that it was only really the commercial banks that were unleashed. The regulations done away with in 1999 would not have applied to the investment banks and mortgage lenders that were responsible for much if the crisis anyway.
Check the links on the article

suggest
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/financial/102399bank-impact.html

Just in case nobody noticed this is an article from October 1999, not a 2008 article talking about 1999

[Cranky]

Hey, these lame Ted Kennedy jokes are really funny since he's dying of brain cancer. Keep it up.

Oh, wait. Maybe you shouldn't since they're in really bad taste.

You know what? That's a good point. And I apologize.

[clintl]

Out of curiosity, do you know why that is? I am completely clueless on that score, and I'd love to find out...

I'm not sure if I can find the source again - it was a few days ago, and I don't even remember how I stumbled across it. Also, it was an op-ed piece, not a straight new article. But the gist of it was that, with respect to the mortgages we're talking about, these institutions were never subject to the specific banking regulations that were repealed in 1999.

[nighttimer]

READ POST # 26

Read it. Phil Gramm's fingerprints are all over the smoking pistol.

What's your point? I already knew this was a bipartisan cluster f***.


You know what? That's a good point. And I apologize.

Thank you. You are a class act. :)

[Cranky]

Thank you. You are a class act. :)

You don't know me very well, do you? :roll: But thank you. :)

[Robert Toy]

Read it. Phil Gramm's fingerprints are all over the smoking pistol.

What's your point? I already knew this was a bipartisan cluster f***.
You sure fooled me - http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2842421&postcount=46

[nighttimer]

You sure fooled me - http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2842421&postcount=46

Well, since I was only providing a semblance of balance to the original premise that this mess was created only by the Democrats, apparently fooling you isn't all that hard to pull off.

;)

[Cranky]

RE: Robert Toy's post #26:

While the measure is likely to enjoy broad bipartisan support, it has also been criticized. Some lawmakers and privacy groups say the legislation does not adequately protect consumers and will allow financial companies to share and sell private information about customer accounts. Other critics worry about the further consolidation of the financial services industry.

The legislation repeals the Glass-Steagall Act, or, as it is formally known, the Banking Act of 1933, which broke up the powerful House of Morgan and divided Wall Street between investment banks and commercial banks. It also makes significant changes to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, which had restricted what banks could do in the insurance business.

The Glass-Steagall Act was enacted after the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing banking crisis and Great Depression. On the day it was signed, along with the National Industrial Recovery Act and other measures, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called the package "the most important and far-reaching legislation ever enacted by the American Congress."

The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. :(

ETA: C'mon guys, let's play nice, please.

[clintl]

Check the links on the article

suggest
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/financial/102399bank-impact.html

Just in case nobody noticed this is an article from October 1999, not a 2008 article talking about 1999

Yes, noticed that, and upon rereading, it jogged my memory about more specifics concerning why the 1999 deregulation may not be the culprit here. (Or at least, the rationale behind the argument.)

Basically, what the 1999 deregulation did was remove a wall of separation between investment banks and commercial banks, allowing them to move into each other's businesses (not all of what it did, but that was its main purpose). Prior to 1999, only the investment banks could have bought up and packaged mortgage securities. Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could have done exactly the same thing before and after the deregulation. The difference is that the commercial banks (banks like IndyMac, WaMu, and Wachovia) couldn't have. But there was nothing in the pre-1999 regulations that would have prevented the investment banks and mortgage lenders from engaging in the risky practices they engaged in.

[Takvah]

Well, since I was only providing a semblance of balance to the original premise that this mess was created only by the Democrats, apparently fooling you isn't all that hard to pull off.

;)

Who the heck said they created it? I said they stopped people from doing something about it. Big difference, if you're going to bring balance great, but don't then misrepresent what it is that you are supposedly countering.

[Robert Toy]

Well, since I was only providing a semblance of balance to the original premise that this mess was created only by the Democrats, apparently fooling you isn't all that hard to pull off.

;)
"Maybe if you have 14 cars and seven houses and can afford $500 Italian shoes like John McCain the economy ain't so bad. For those of us that can't the economy blows.

Nice try though Takvah trying to hang this mess around only the necks of Democrats. Or has somebody else besides Republican George W. Bush been POTUS for the last eight miserable years?"

Your idea of providing balance is dump everything on the other side?

Bush wasn't in office!


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l253/RT_2006/1014883_143_avatar.gif

[Robert Toy]

I need a wee break...maybe a nice cup of tea tequila...;)

[Cranky]

I'm not sure if I can find the source again - it was a few days ago, and I don't even remember how I stumbled across it. Also, it was an op-ed piece, not a straight new article. But the gist of it was that, with respect to the mortgages we're talking about, these institutions were never subject to the specific banking regulations that were repealed in 1999.

Forgot: Thanks, clintl. :)

[clintl]

Who the heck said they created it? I said they stopped people from doing something about it. Big difference, if you're going to bring balance great, but don't then misrepresent what it is that you are supposedly countering.

They didn't have the power to do that. Bill Frist killed the plan by not bringing it to a vote on the Senate floor after it had passed the committee vote. The Democrats had an alternate plan the Republicans in committee killed - I've posted an article proving that. It would just as valid to argue that the Republicans stopped the Democrats from doing something about it. The truth is more complex than either assertion.

[Takvah]

I need a wee break...maybe a nice cup of tea tequila...;)

Uhrmmm as long as you've got the bottle out... *holds out shot glass*

[nighttimer]

Your idea of providing balance is dump everything on the other side?

Bush wasn't in office!

My point is there are both Republicans and Democrats to blame for this.

How does pointing out Gramm's grubby fingers all over some of the deregulation dumping everything on the other side?

Sheesh. Isn't it hard going through life only seeing things out of the right eye when you could use both?
:rolleyes:

[Williebee]

Hey lookie! It's that Arbiter hat thingie!

Sheesh. Isn't it hard going through life only seeing things out of the right eye when you could use both?

skating the line here, kemo. Let's all keep it to the topic? kthxbai

[dmytryp]

Read it. Phil Gramm's fingerprints are all over the smoking pistol.

.
Care to elaborate (I already went a round on this with IG, but people still persist)
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html
A MoveOn.org Political Action ad plays the partisan blame game with the economic crisis, charging that John McCain’s friend and former economic adviser Phil Gramm “stripped safeguards that would have protected us.” The claim is bogus. Gramm’s legislation had broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton. Moreover, the bill had nothing to do with causing the crisis, and economists – not to mention President Clinton – praise it for having softened the crisis.

EDIT: By the way, Takvah, the second part of th site I posted explains why claims that the bill would have prevented the mess are unfounded.

[dmytryp]

A really excellent article (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b48d8ec-96e9-11dd-8cc4-000077b07658.html).

Dogmatism is pragmatism that has stood the test of time. Institutions tend to be forged in moments of crisis. Ideas that fail are discarded; ideas that succeed are retained, elaborated and then over-elaborated until they collapse. The problems of 30 years from now will turn out to have been hidden somewhere in the parts of today’s bail-out packages that wind up being most effective. If we are lucky, the most effective parts will be the most morally admirable parts. But that is not inevitable. In politics, correlation often passes for causation. The recovery of the Russian economy after the rouble crisis of 1998 coincides with the arrival of Vladimir Putin in power. If a strong hand coincides with prosperity, the public sometimes assumes a stronger hand will mean more prosperity. Needless to say, leaders always think like that.