If Your Congressman Voted "Yes"

[Tech_Esq]

I am looking for why the Democrats voted down that bill. Probably because it was bad. I found some opinions on why and I'll share them with you. But they are not my answers. I'm guessing the bills were bullshit. I'm guessing they did little to fix the problem and there was a ton of earmarks in them. Based on the last 8 years, I would be reluctant to sign anything the GOP want. How about you?

And Obama didn't get campaign money from Fannie May. He got the money from collections taken up between Fannie May employees---big difference. McCain got more campaign money than Obama from Fannie May CEOs and lobbyists.

• It was one regulatory bill, one which not only didn't go nearly far enough, but did little to stymie the heads of corporations just raking in money at the people's expense with little consequence. If you want to talk about who voted down regulation, who has spent the last 26 years in the Senate talking all about how he doesn't want regulation in the corporate world? Who has been in office as president, vetoing passed bills that would provide regulations? Many of the regulations that Bush and McCain are talking about now were brought before them before, and their response was no. The only reason it's yes now is because we're in crisis, and they have no choice.

Besides, your point overall doesn't make sense. Obama caused the economic crisis by voting against one bill? This is a man who's been in the Senate for 4 years. McCain's been there for 26. Who do you think could have done more to the economy? And do you really believe that the last 4 years were the only ones that could have caused this? If so, take a long hard look at what's going on, it comes from almost a decade of neglect.

Why did McCain's Economics advisor , Phil Gramm (R-TX) draft the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act that de-regulated the industry. And that was back in 1999-2000.

First, I'm not going to be set up to be some big McCain defender. I'm on record here as saying I've never liked the guy. I'm just reporting what I found when I researched the Congressional Bills on the Library of Congress research site because I found it interesting that he was co-sponsoring bills way back then and I hadn't heard anything about it.

Second, I never said Obama had anything to do with it one way or another. I think he was still a back-bencher voting "Present" in the Illinois Senate at the time. But that's OK he was probably already running for US Senate at the time and didn't have time to understand the bills he was voting....errr...not voting on.

The regulatory scheme at issue, as I understand it, was to put an agency under the treasury dept. and give control of Fannie and Freddie to that. The agency would have had independent audit authority and a primary focus was to ensure Fannie and Freddie maintain appropriate capitalization for the loans they were making.

If you can actually cite how crapped up with pork the bills were, fine. Otherwise, I'll just assume you are full of shit on that point.

 

[sealybobo]

First, I never said it was anything except left-wing talk. I don't make a habit of it, I was just flipping stations during commercial so I can't tell you the name of two women hostesses. Other than that, that was an honest representation of what they were discussing. Like it or not.

Oh, Stephanie Miller probably. She's cool, and hot. You should listen AFTER her because she isn't as serious. Try at Noon Thom Hartmann. He is a very smart man. Or Ed Schultz or Randi Rhodes. Then come and tell me they are wrong about ANYTHING they say. I do my own research and rarely disagree with any of them. Sorry that they are right. YOu don't agree or listen to Rush because he is bullshit. And you assume his left counterparts are, but you are wrong. He is wrong, they are right. They are good, he is evil. IMO.

I'm not going to stop agreeing with them because you do because I don't agree with anything you say. You sound like Rush, O'Reilly, Newt, Rove, Beck. You may not listen to them, but you sound like them.

PS. Remember the GOP suggested Michael J. Fox was faking his parkinsen's desease or "playing it up". That was lower than any talk about Palin's family. Which we only bring up because it points out her hypocricy. Just like Chaney's lesbian daughter.

Or when Rush called any soldier that was against the Iraq war a "phony soldier".

Or when you questioned Kerry's patriotism because he was against the Viet Nam war, as if that was a good war worth fighting.

So I LOVE all the talk about McCain having cancer, crashing 5 airplanes, making all those anti American tapes when he was a pow condemning the war and USA, or having a temper not fit for the commander and chief and owning 10 homes and Palin wants to ban abortion even if you are raped. I love it. And it is all true.

I don't want him to have cancer. I just love the talk about it. People are worried, especially with a wacko for a vp that doesn't believe in evolution.

Plus, Palin couldn't name one supreme court decision. Not roe vs wade, not gore v bush, not a one!!! Alaska is like Mayberry, Hooterville or Hazard County. She's not smart enough to be VP or Commander and Chief and you know it. But you also know McCain won't be running his party if he wins. Tell me, who is making the decisions for the GOP? Will it remain Rumsfeld and Chaney even after Bush leaves office?

 

[sealybobo]

First, I'm not going to be set up to be some big McCain defender. I'm on record here as saying I've never liked the guy. I'm just reporting what I found when I researched the Congressional Bills on the Library of Congress research site because I found it interesting that he was co-sponsoring bills way back then and I hadn't heard anything about it.

Second, I never said Obama had anything to do with it one way or another. I think he was still a back-bencher voting "Present" in the Illinois Senate at the time. But that's OK he was probably already running for US Senate at the time and didn't have time to understand the bills he was voting....errr...not voting on.

The regulatory scheme at issue, as I understand it, was to put an agency under the treasury dept. and give control of Fannie and Freddie to that. The agency would have had independent audit authority and a primary focus was to ensure Fannie and Freddie maintain appropriate capitalization for the loans they were making.

If you can actually cite how crapped up with pork the bills were, fine. Otherwise, I'll just assume you are full of shit on that point.

You can assume all you want, but I know that this is all bullshit to blame the Democrats for what the GOP clearly caused.

Here, I found this. No link, sorry. But you can read it or not:

If you read the bill S. 190 (Which McCain co-sponsored in 2005), its main goal was to pass the oversight buck from Congress to an “independent” trust for review. I’m not sure this is more regulation, it feels like deregulation by taking it out of congress and to an outside entity which faces the same regulation / deregulation arguments that Republicans and Democrats always have. The oversight entity created would likely have resembled the SEC, a “independent’ oversight group which McCain now blames for the problems and whose CEO McCain wants “fired”. The legislation would have created even more private companies that needed to be bailed out instead of a lump sum of private companies as well as Fannie and Freddie. And there was a reason McCain relied so heavily on his co-sponsorship of that failed bill: it’s the only one he has sponsored or co-sponsored during the last two Congresses that has anything to do with mortgage or banking reform.

The mismanagement and corruption of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is definitely a large issue, but due to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, the walls between banking, investment management, and insurance were broken down and these financial behemoth companies were allowed to come about. Without the repeal of this act, this situation would not have occurred.
Senator Gramm (who just happens to be McCains economic brain and top advisor) was a key author of that 1999 financial deregulation law that is now being blamed for the excesses that brought Wall Street to the point of collapse. This link shows a great video explaining stuff more in detail...thinkprogress.org McCain said something about Obama being in bed with special interests, which is interesting when you consider that McCain's campaign is dominated by lobbyists, such as Rick Davis, his campaign manager, who has accepted over $2 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Another misleading headline I've been hearing is that Obama recieved contributions from Fannie and Freddie, but check this out...Obama raised a lot of money from Fannie and Freddie, but via their employees. Corporations cannot give to candidates, so the center’s list adds up contributions from Fannie and Freddie employees and their families. Maybe McCain meant to say the Obama was in it with the fat cats of Fannie and Freddie, the directors and lobbyists? I sure hope not after reading this...
"The New York Times looked at contributions from Fannie and Freddie’s boards of directors and lobbyists, who are technically not employees. That analysis found Fannie and Freddie-related contributors gave $116,000 to John McCain and his related committees, compared with $16,000 to Obama and his related committees."

I find it interesting that McCain's campaign is blaming the dems for this debacle. What ever happend to the Keating Five? McCain was at the center of the savings and loan debacle of the late 1980s and early 1990s, which required another government bailout of $120 billion. Didn't he learn anything back then? The democrats certainly didn't do anything to prevent the republicans from deregulating the financial industry and creating the lawless environment we see today which has led to the abuses that caused the current crisis. Sure, all of this deregulation took place during the Clinton administration, and it was passed (veto proof) by a majority republican house. This whole mess of a mess was created by a mass of deregulators, who now have the gall to try and tell the us, the American people how to fix the mess that they have caused. We're paying some fat cat's salary with our taxes! How is that fair? And isn't McCain a self-proclaimed deregulator? It is scary to think that if president, he will be the man who will be responsible for reigning in the companies he has made a career out of setting free. In the face of a $700 billion bailout, energy prices going up and house prices falling and a trillion dollar war, it's time for some new thinking in Washington. (I was going to say change, but McCain stole Obama's campaign tagline.)

 

[sealybobo]

In other words, Bill S 190 was a shell game to cover their asses because the GOP knew they would push deregulations to the limit and they did it because they KNEW the Bush government would bail them out.

So they won on the way up and on the way down. Suckers.

 

[Jon]

Oh you are. Just like Charles Main, I know which lever you are going to pull.

Or are you voting for Nader/Barr?

At this point, Barr has the best ideas, it's a shame he won't get elected. I'd like to see a third party shake up Washington.

 

[user_name_guest]

At this point, Barr has the best ideas, it's a shame he won't get elected. I'd like to see a third party shake up Washington.

That would be the biggest change in Washington. If Obama wanted to change Washington, he would have run as an Independent. The biggest question, will the liberals support an independent black guy?

 

[sealybobo]

That would be the biggest change in Washington. If Obama wanted to change Washington, he would have run as an Independent. The biggest question, will the liberals support an independent black guy?

OMG shut up. He's going to be a moderate President. You guys believe the same thing Wednesday that you believed on Monday despite what happened on Tuesday.

Get over your fear that the Democrats are going to fuck this country up because in the meantime, your party has fucked this country up.

 

[sealybobo]

First, I'm not going to be set up to be some big McCain defender. I'm on record here as saying I've never liked the guy. I'm just reporting what I found when I researched the Congressional Bills on the Library of Congress research site because I found it interesting that he was co-sponsoring bills way back then and I hadn't heard anything about it.

Second, I never said Obama had anything to do with it one way or another. I think he was still a back-bencher voting "Present" in the Illinois Senate at the time. But that's OK he was probably already running for US Senate at the time and didn't have time to understand the bills he was voting....errr...not voting on.

The regulatory scheme at issue, as I understand it, was to put an agency under the treasury dept. and give control of Fannie and Freddie to that. The agency would have had independent audit authority and a primary focus was to ensure Fannie and Freddie maintain appropriate capitalization for the loans they were making.

If you can actually cite how crapped up with pork the bills were, fine. Otherwise, I'll just assume you are full of shit on that point.

Here is some of what I'm hearing about this Bill S 190:

In September 2003 President Bush proposed a new agency apart from Congress (who has had the oversight of Freddie and Fannie) because of his concerns at that time about reported irregularities. (IS IT POSSIBLE YOU DON’T SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS? LOOK AT HOW BUSH APPOINTS HIS BUDDIES TO THESE NEW “AGENCIES” AND THEY END UP MAKING THINGS WORSE. I HAVE NO DOUBT THIS BILL WAS DESIGNED TO GET THEIR HANDS DEEPER INTO THE COOKIE JAR)
In 2005, the U.S. Senate introduced S.190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have created this new agency to monitor the GSEs (government-sponsored entities like Fannie and Freddie). (I THOUGHT THE GOP WAS ABOUT LESS GOVERNMENT, NOT MORE. NOT BIGGER!)
On May 25, 2006, Senator McCain announced to his fellow senators that he not only supported this critical legislation, but had also become a co-author. Unfortunately, the bill never got out of committee.
McCain stood up for the bill only after it had been in committee for several months and no action had been taken.

Could the Democrats have blocked the bill in committee? This seems like an odd thing to say of the minority party. The Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs was chaired by a Republican and Republicans held a clear majority of the seats on the committee.

I found the committee's rules of procedure for the year 2005 and the Republican chairman alone, without any vote could have launched an investigation into the financial trouble of the day that the bill was supposed to address. There was no investigation.
According to the rules the Democrats were powerless to block anything coming out of the committee to be voted on by the Senate but there was no such vote. All it took for the bill to get out of committee was a majority, which was held by Republicans. The bill was amended somehow and reported out of the committee but was never voted on.