Interesting Barney Frank Audio/Video from CSPAN 2003 Fannie Hearing

[Truthmatters]

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005




NOW as you look through this list REMEMBER that they had complete control of the government and could have done WHATEVER they wanted to do huh?

 

[AllieBaba]

I thought this housing problem was caused by deregulation of Freddie and Fannie... Isn't that what all of the Democrats are saying?

Well, back in 2003 Barney Frank doesn't think that deregulation is a problem at all! WTF?

Exactly. The Bush Admin has been screaming for Federal regulation for years.

Now the democraps are claiming they wanted regulation all along...but at the STATE level. Oh, THAT'S why you wouldn't regulate and froze every attempt to do so. THAT'S why you claimed it wasn't necessary to regulate. You were waiting to do it at the STATE level.

It's bullshit, as anyone who has ever read up on this or paid attention WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING can see.

I posted Frank's comments about regulation when they finally agreed there were some problems. Even then, he kept squealing they didn't need to regulate in his opinion.

What a bunch of lying pos.
I suspect that if McCAin wins the presidency, Frank will do jail time.

Not Obama, though. I think Obama probably made some money, or at least saved some, through this mess.

 

[Truthmatters]

WHY DID they not just do something about it then????????


THey had complete control fo the Government ffor 6 years!

Ar you people BLIND?

 

[Truthmatters]

Now the democraps are claiming they wanted regulation all along...but at the STATE level. Oh, THAT'S why you wouldn't regulate and froze every attempt to do so. THAT'S why you claimed it wasn't necessary to regulate. You were waiting to do it at the STATE level.


Would you listen to yourself?

What party is the deregulation party?

Have you no shame?

 

[Care4all]

Once again....

The beginning...
FRB: Community Reinvestment Act

The Middle...
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times

The end...
What we are seeing today...

Does this timeline make sense?

kman,

From your second lnk's article:

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

this describes the Pilot program that they were using and this was for 30 year fixed mortgages, at 1% point higher than the normal conventional loan rate added for the lendee's risk factor...

this is not for any kind of subprime loan that has adjustable rates or any of the NINA-no income no asset loans that were truely at high risk....?

At least not according to this article that you linked from 1999?

Care

 

[Truthmatters]

109th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here is the record of the 109th congress.

Where is the industry regulations?



Enacted
Main article: List of United States federal legislation
2005-02-17 — Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-2, 118 Stat. 4
2005-03-21 — Theresa Marie Schiavo's law, Pub.L. 109-3, 119 Stat. 15
2005-04-20 — Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23
2005-04-27 — Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, Pub.L. 109-9, 119 Stat. 218
2005-07-28 — Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (CAFTA Implementation Act), Pub.L. 109-53, 119 Stat. 462
2005-07-29 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594
2005-08-10 — Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144
2005-10-26 — Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Pub.L. 109-92, 119 Stat. 2095
2005-12-01 — Caribbean National Forest Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-118, 119 Stat. 2527
2005-12-22 — Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-145, 119 Stat. 2664
2005-12-30 — Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub.L. 109-148, 119 Stat. 2680 (including McCain Detainee Amendment (SA 1977)
2006-02-08 — Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, including title II, subtitle B: Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act, 110 Stat. 9
2006-05-17 — Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-222, 120 Stat. 345
2006-05-29 — Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, Pub.L. 109-228, 120 Stat. 387
2006-07-27 — Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, Pub.L. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587
2006-09-26 — Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, Pub.L. 109-282, 120 Stat. 1186
2006-10-13 — Safe Port Act, Pub.L. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, including title VIII, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006
2006-10-17 — Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub.L. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600
2006-10-26 — Secure Fence Act of 2006, Pub.L. 109-367, 120 Stat. 2638
2006-12-20 — Tax Relief and Health Act of 2006, Pub.L. 109-432, 120 Stat. 292

 

[Care4all]

Oh, THAT'S why you wouldn't regulate and froze every attempt to do so.

PLEASE provide any proof you have, to support this position that the Democrats froze any attempt the republicans made to regulate!

For the love of God allie....PROVE IT!

The truth of the matter is that the Republican Majority DID NOTHING to pass legislation to correct this scenario....Hagel introduced a bill to the floor of the senate back in 2005, but the Majority leadership DECIDED THEMSELVES, NOT to bring it to the floor for debate or for a vote.

The Democrats DID NOT STOP this legislation from going to the floor for a vote. They couldn't becaquse they were in the minority....the Majority is who chooses what legislation gets voted on.

The Democrats DID NOT FILIBUSTER or freeze or stall this legislation of Hagel's because IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT UP for a vote by the Majority in 2005 nor in 2006.

McCain in 2006 signed on to this bill....long after the crisis already began btw...so when those on the right bring this up about mccain signing on to this bill back in 2005 that is simply INCORRECT....

Allie, when politicians who have the Majority rule, write legislation for something....and don't bring it up fordebate and a vote....to me, it only means they wrote the legislation for SHOW.... or for some political purpose...

The Republicans CHOSE not to bring up this regulation bill.....

you should be asking yourself, why?

This is not to diminish the Barney franks or other Dems resistance to regulation of these GSE's but it does show to me, that NEITHER SIDE REALLY WANTED IT, for some strange reason?

care

 

[AllieBaba]

http://www.responsiblelending.org/pdfs/senate-sept-07-final.pdf

Here is the congressional testimony of the man who heads the Center for Responsible Lending.

You will see that he clearly states it was a lack of regulation that caused this mess.

Bush and the republican congress not just sat on their hands while this mess developed they prevented the states from regulating the market on their own.

What Republican Congress?
Are you high?

No, Bush did not sit on his hands. He went to the DEMOCRATIC Congress repeatedly and requested they regulate. They refused to.
I've provided link after link. You're being persistent in your lies.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why cant you guys ever post a link to that time line?

I already know why you cant.

oops just saw the link and just as I thought its from the white house , gee imagine my surprize.

I already posted the time line in another thread, and you know it, you lying sack.

I love it that Dems count on fellow dems to be stupid.

 

[Truthmatters]

I already posted the time line in another thread, and you know it, you lying sack.

I love it that Dems count on fellow dems to be stupid.

It wasnt a very long post and yet you managed to not read the whole thing?

 

[Truthmatters]

What Republican Congress?
Are you high?

No, Bush did not sit on his hands. He went to the DEMOCRATIC Congress repeatedly and requested they regulate. They refused to.
I've provided link after link. You're being persistent in your lies.

So you dont want to accept that most of that link you provided outlines what the WH says Bush did during the time he had the congress in his pocket and could have done anything he wanted?

 

[AllieBaba]

So you dont want to accept that most of that link you provided outlines what the WH says Bush did during the time he had the congress in his pocket and could have done anything he wanted?

You live in an alternate universe, don't you?
It happened. The left is lying now to cover it up, but only the left is buying it. History shows that Bush attempted again and again to achieve oversight of FM & FM, and Congress...the DEMOCRATIC Congress, you lying piece of shit, refused to do it until July 2008.

 

[Care4all]

I already posted the time line in another thread, and you know it, you lying sack.

I love it that Dems count on fellow dems to be stupid.

Aliie, the Republicans have controlled the Congress since 1994 thru 2006, the dems got back control of congress January 2007.... All appropriation bills begin legislation in the House. The president's request to develop a new department to regulate would have fallen in to that category, for the expense of the new department and employee's within it....

Was there a sister bill to hagel's senate bill in the House, in Congress as well? I haven't seen anyone make note of it....?

Regardless, The Republicans were in the Majority in Congress the entire Bush term thru 2006 and the Republicans SET THE AGENDA as the majority, on ANY legislation that makes it to the floor of the House for debate and a vote, and Republicans NEVER did this....so to me, for your stance of blaming the Democrats for the President's wishes to never be forfilled, is ENTIRELY OFF BASE....just logically....ya know? Maybe I am missing something but to me the nitty gritty, really tells all...and Republicans who ruled the Congress, would have brought up any kind of regulation, if it fit in to their own political benefit....the fact that they didn't, is telling....

Care