Doubt you’ll see this anywhere but Fox or Drudge, so I should probably note it:Â
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.”
No Democrats signed the letter. Why, it’s almost like they wanted loans to be made to bad risks, to advance a social-justice agenda in place of sound lending practices.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 14 comments }
Conservatives are trying to create an alternate reality in which Fannie, Freddie and the CRA caused the current crises.
For the real world explanation of what happened, I suggest you read http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
Unfortunately, fixing problems in the conservative alternate universe does not help the real crises.
And, oh by the way, Republicans were in control of the House, Senate and White House in 2006. Why didn’t they do something about this instead of just writing letters. The reasons is simple, many Republicans, including the President, did not support more regulation for Fannie and Freddie. They wanted to totally deregulate Fannie and Freddie, perhaps divide them up and make them completely private companies with no government support.
If you studied this instead of listening to Republican propaganda, you would know that the really bad mortgage loans were being made completely outside of Fannie, Freddie or the CRAs control.
mikeca,
Instead of trying to spin it towards your favorite default liberal position why not just recognize that McCain and 18 others actually did in fact make the statement:
that
A. Sen. John McCain’s 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis…
B. 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."
Mc Kiernan: Come on… you know the answer.
The Mikeca bot was not built with circuits that permit information contradictory to the official talking points to be considered. When confronted with a contradiction, the default is to fall back on the pre-programmed talking points. It saves so much CPU wear-and-tear, doncha know?
To ask for more, you ask the impossible.
John_B’s last blog post..Next Saudi Elections to Be Postponed?
I seriously think that whether mikeca is a real person or not, his posts here on Dean’s World could be replaced with a liberal talking point automaton and we’d never notice the difference.
Seriously.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Cardinals outlast Cowboys?
Mike, even if all the data points in the linked article strung together properly (they don’t, but I’m lazy)…
Fannie and Freddy still cost the taxpayers on the order of $200 Billion to bail out by themselves.
Minor detail.
A. Sen. John McCain’s 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis…
This is absolutely not true. Tightening regulation on Fannie and Freddie would have done little if anything to avert the current crisis.
Fannie and Freddie were only buying the highest quality subprine MBS, and by 2006 they were a minor player in the subprime market. The junk NINJNA loans were all being financed through wall street investment banks like Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers. Tighter regulations for Fannie and Freddie would have done nothing to significantly effect the crisis.
Fannie and Freddy still cost the taxpayers on the order of $200 Billion to bail out by themselves.
Minor detail.
Of course the bailout of the Wall Street banks that caused the crisis will cost $700 billion. Another minor detail.
Actually, no one knows how much any of the bailouts will eventually cost the tax payer, but $200 billion was the price tag put on the Fannie and Freddy bail out and $700 billion was the price tag put on the Wall Street bank bail out. That should give you some idea who is holding more bad subprime MBS.
Sorry Mike, your "truth to power" article is the alternate reality. Dems can’t dodge the blame for this that easily, not when the hearings are full of Dems arguing against more oversight.
The reality is that in our mortgage system, Freddie and Fannie played a vital role in creating a resale market for home loans, and the Democrats pushed for them to be allowed to make loans to people who could not repay them. That led to the current crisis, and all this could have been avoided with better oversight.
Yes, the GOP should have ignored the Dems and made them stop. Why didn’t they? Let us just imagine the cries of outrage from Dems/MSM this would have caused at the time.
Mike,
Come on! Over the last couple of weeks, right here on Dean’s World, you were pushing the nonsense that Fannie and Freddie were victims because they were not allowed to own subprime. Well, now that it has been pointed out to you that Fannie and Freddie did in fact own a bunch of subprime, it has not changed your position one iota. Your idea that Wall Street just "rates CDOs as safe" is equally propesterous for its simplicity.
If that complete disregard for new (to you) facts does not demonstrate attempting to live in an alternate reality I don’t know what does. Moreover, it shows that there is no real reason to continue this discussion if you are going to openly ignore such fundamental truths.
Mikeca,
You always seem to be at your best when you make stuff up as you go along. I know it won’t be much solace and I know you aren’t one for excuses but I’m sure if we looked deeply into it we’d see that it was somehow George Bush’s fault. If Algore or Kerry had been president this would have never happened.
Dave,
I know it’s fun to shoot the messenger, but could you at least attempt to address the McClatchy argument on its merits? i.e. show where its facts are wrong or where the error lies in their reasoning.
The reality is that in our mortgage system, Freddie and Fannie played a vital role in creating a resale market for home loans, …
Absolutely correct.
 …and the Democrats pushed for them to be allowed to make loans to people who could not repay them.Â
Completely wrong.
The CRA requires banks to extend loans to people in low and middle income neighborhoods based on their ability to replay. It forbids denying loans because the neighborhood is low income. Banks use to engage in "redlining", where they refused to make loans in whole neighborhoods even if the applicant met all other standards.
Democrats pushed banks to make loans to people who could repay them, and not discriminate based on race or neighborhood.
I know it’s fun to shoot the messenger, but could you at least attempt to address the McClatchy argument on its merits? i.e. show where its facts are wrong or where the error lies in their reasoning.
Oh, come on Zach. They have this good rift going where they can blame the financial collapse on Democrats, poor people and minorities. That is the trifecta of scapegoats. Political ideology trumps facts. Conservatives don’t care about facts. They create their own reality and they create their own facts to support their reality. They have created their own reality that explains the financial crisis and makes them blameless for it. They simply dismiss the actual facts as liberal proganda, and go back to listening to FOX news and right wing talk radio which will never bother them with the actual facts.
Mike, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Regardless of the CRA (which does relax standards by not allowing banks to redline places that can’t repay loans) Frank and other Dems pushed for FNMA to relax standards as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QBRIsCkGQ0
Stop babbling about Fox News and learn the facts.
Comments on this entry are closed.