So I talked to Scott Brown on the Phone today....

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

....on radio station 96.9 wxtk and I asked him why he supports the wall street reform bill and he answered with this (paraphrased from memory)

This bill is not funded through higher taxes, which, as you know, is a non-starter with me anytime. During committee negotiations a $19 billion tax increase was slipped into the 2,300 page legislation and this was simply unacceptable to me. I could not support the bill until this tax was removed and it was.


he also gave a bullet type response of good stuff he liked in the bill

1) An audit of the Federal Reserve to examine the emergency lending that took place during the heart of the financial crisis
2) New requirements that take steps toward ending the "too big to fail" mentality among banks
3) Helps end bailouts so American taxpayers never again have to be on the hook
4) Measures that prevent banks from acting like casinos by eliminating loopholes that allowed risky and abusive practices to go on unnoticed and unregulated

As I said when I first came to Washington, I remain committed to reviewing each and every piece of legislation that comes before me and make sure it's good for my state, doesn't raise taxes and helps our economy. As I have done during my short time in office, I will continue to approach each bill in an open-minded manner.

I may have got some of that wrong and I know i left some of his talking points on it out but that is basically what he had to say.

In my opinion he has good motives but I still find his judgment in supporting this bill to be bad.

Yeah.....paraphrased from memory......

​

96.9 Boston Talks Audio On-Demand

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

....on radio station 96.9 wxtk and I asked him why he supports the wall street reform bill and he answered with this (paraphrased from memory)

This bill is not funded through higher taxes, which, as you know, is a non-starter with me anytime. During committee negotiations a $19 billion tax increase was slipped into the 2,300 page legislation and this was simply unacceptable to me. I could not support the bill until this tax was removed and it was.


he also gave a bullet type response of good stuff he liked in the bill

1) An audit of the Federal Reserve to examine the emergency lending that took place during the heart of the financial crisis
2) New requirements that take steps toward ending the "too big to fail" mentality among banks
3) Helps end bailouts so American taxpayers never again have to be on the hook
4) Measures that prevent banks from acting like casinos by eliminating loopholes that allowed risky and abusive practices to go on unnoticed and unregulated

As I said when I first came to Washington, I remain committed to reviewing each and every piece of legislation that comes before me and make sure it's good for my state, doesn't raise taxes and helps our economy. As I have done during my short time in office, I will continue to approach each bill in an open-minded manner.

I may have got some of that wrong and I know i left some of his talking points on it out but that is basically what he had to say.

In my opinion he has good motives but I still find his judgment in supporting this bill to be bad.

I strongly agree with his points - esp 2-4....nothing should be too big to fail ever again. Why do feel he had bad judgement?

The bill is just too big and he is trusting geitner and the obama admin to stop using tarp money forever once they use the leftover tarp funds to impliment this.

 

[Coyote]

....on radio station 96.9 wxtk and I asked him why he supports the wall street reform bill and he answered with this (paraphrased from memory)



I may have got some of that wrong and I know i left some of his talking points on it out but that is basically what he had to say.

In my opinion he has good motives but I still find his judgment in supporting this bill to be bad.

I strongly agree with his points - esp 2-4....nothing should be too big to fail ever again. Why do feel he had bad judgement?

The bill is just too big and he is trusting geitner and the obama admin to stop using tarp money forever once they use the leftover tarp funds to impliment this.

Hmmm....I guess I still support the bill though. I've had it with subsidizing Wall Street.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why do you people want Republicans to win in November. Not only did they cause all this disaster, but they haven't promoted a singe new idea on how to fix their mess. I think you guys are crazy.

Did you ever think we don't want Washington to fix the mess? Did you ever think that we just want them to get the heck out of the way so we can do our own work?

You HAD your chance..... ​

"Bush’s concern for “Wall Street over your street” mirrors Hoover’s policy of helping bu$ine$$e$ rather than working families."

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I strongly agree with his points - esp 2-4....nothing should be too big to fail ever again. Why do feel he had bad judgement?

The bill is just too big and he is trusting geitner and the obama admin to stop using tarp money forever once they use the leftover tarp funds to impliment this.

Hmmm....I guess I still support the bill though. I've had it with subsidizing Wall Street.

I admit its better than doing absolutely nothing about the too big to fail mentality...i'm just worried about what else is hidden inside .

That health care bill and all the lil goodies in it have made me distrust large bills like this.

 

[Coyote]

The bill is just too big and he is trusting geitner and the obama admin to stop using tarp money forever once they use the leftover tarp funds to impliment this.

Hmmm....I guess I still support the bill though. I've had it with subsidizing Wall Street.

I admit its better than doing absolutely nothing about the too big to fail mentality...i'm just worried about what else is hidden inside .

That health care bill and all the lil goodies in it have made me distrust large bills like this.

Good point....bills seem to be stuffed with more "goodies" then a Cadwell chocolate egg!

 

[Avatar4321]

Why do you people want Republicans to win in November. Not only did they cause all this disaster, but they haven't promoted a singe new idea on how to fix their mess. I think you guys are crazy.

Did you ever think we don't want Washington to fix the mess? Did you ever think that we just want them to get the heck out of the way so we can do our own work?

You HAD your chance..... ​

"Bush’s concern for “Wall Street over your street” mirrors Hoover’s policy of helping bu$ine$$e$ rather than working families."

Really? last time I checked, We've had an ever expanding government since At least President Wilson. I don't think anyone posting was born before that period.

So when exactly did we have a chance?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Did you ever think we don't want Washington to fix the mess? Did you ever think that we just want them to get the heck out of the way so we can do our own work?

You HAD your chance..... ​

"Bush’s concern for “Wall Street over your street” mirrors Hoover’s policy of helping bu$ine$$e$ rather than working families."

Really? last time I checked, We've had an ever expanding government since At least President Wilson. I don't think anyone posting was born before that period.

So when exactly did we have a chance?

Yup wilson started the downhill trend.

 

[Jarhead]

Hmmm....I guess I still support the bill though. I've had it with subsidizing Wall Street.

I admit its better than doing absolutely nothing about the too big to fail mentality...i'm just worried about what else is hidden inside .

That health care bill and all the lil goodies in it have made me distrust large bills like this.

Good point....bills seem to be stuffed with more "goodies" then a Cadwell chocolate egg!

Yes, but when you bite into that Egg, you are expecting the goodies.
Now, I would not be surprised if one of the goodies in the healthcare bill is that you are not allowed to eat one of those Cadwell eggs.

 

[editec]

Hmmm...... Madoff was a bank?

No, but the SEC did investigate him and failed to catch onto his games.

Government is worthless if we allow government to become worthless.

Electing people who declare that they think government is worthless is sorta stupid, in my opinion.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Fannie Freddie and FHA control 100% of the residential mortgage market

That's not even a little bit true. The private sector was responsible for 86% or more of the bad loans given. Fannie and Freddie were one of the last ones to relax lending requirements. You are being very dishonest. BTW, FHA only accounted for 4% of all mortgages up until the housing debacle and now stand at about 21% as of Feb. 2009.

"Nationally, the FHA had only 4 percent of the mortgage market, three years ago. Today, it has more than 21 percent."

FHA loans soar in popularity as market crisis worsens - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

 

[Jarhead]

Fannie Freddie and FHA control 100% of the residential mortgage market

That's not even a little bit true. The private sector was responsible for 86% or more of the bad loans given. Fannie and Freddie were one of the last ones to relax lending requirements. You are being very dishonest. BTW, FHA only accounted for 4% of all mortgages up until the housing debacle and now stand at about 21% as of Feb. 2009.

"Nationally, the FHA had only 4 percent of the mortgage market, three years ago. Today, it has more than 21 percent."

FHA loans soar in popularity as market crisis worsens - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

If what you say is true, the why did FM need such massive bailouts?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Maybe you should learn what Frannie and Freddie actually do. Did you know that they are PRIVATELY OWNED corporations that receive 0 federal funding? They used to be government entities but were privatized (oopsie on that one, but we all know where privatization leads... $$$ out of consumers' pockets ALWAYS). They do have access to credit lines and the knowledge that the government will back them in times of trouble since they were commissioned by the government to perform a service.

http://www.mtgprofessor.com/A - Secondary Markets/what_do_fannie_and_freddie_do.htm

 

[Jarhead]

Maybe you should learn what Frannie and Freddie actually do. Did you know that they are PRIVATELY OWNED corporations that receive 0 federal funding? They used to be government entities but were privatized (oopsie on that one, but we all know where privatization leads... $$$ out of consumers' pockets). They do have access to credit lines and the knowledge that the government will back them in times of trouble since they were commissioned by the government to perform a service.

What Do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Do?

Excuse me. I know exactly what they do. I know more about the mortgage/settlement industry than I care to know.
I NEVER said or even implied that they were government owned o run.
But why was that your response to my question?
I asked that if what you say is true about them, then why were they the recipients of two huge bailouts?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Maybe you should learn what Frannie and Freddie actually do. Did you know that they are PRIVATELY OWNED corporations that receive 0 federal funding? They used to be government entities but were privatized (oopsie on that one, but we all know where privatization leads... $$$ out of consumers' pockets). They do have access to credit lines and the knowledge that the government will back them in times of trouble since they were commissioned by the government to perform a service.

What Do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Do?

Excuse me. I know exactly what they do. I know more about the mortgage/settlement industry than I care to know.
I NEVER said or even implied that they were government owned o run.
But why was that your response to my question?
I asked that if what you say is true about them, then why were they the recipients of two huge bailouts?

They got the bailouts becuase they agreed to buy all the high risk loans from the smaller private banks. By High risk loans i'm referring to the loans they were federally mandated to grant under the equal opportunity lending act (you know that thing congress passed many years ago, the very regulations that led to the crisis)

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Because they backed bad mortgages with deceptively good ratings. Why else? It's like when an area floods and suddenly everyone is submitting claims, only picture a world-wide flood.

"Q: So what's the problem?

A: Several things. Since the housing market began its steep decline two years ago, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have faced sharp increases in delinquencies and foreclosures. Until the housing decline, investors in their mortgage backed-securities had nearly complete faith that the companies could repay them or that the government would step in if the companies faltered. The longer the housing market struggles and the more company losses mount, the more that investors worry about repayment.

Making things scarier is the withdrawal from the business of issuing mortgage-backed securities by the big investment banks that used to compete with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies have been involved in more than 70% of all new mortgages recently, adding to their potential liabilities as the housing slump continues.

Q: Why didn't Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get out of the business when housing turned bad?

A: They can't. They have charters issued by the federal government that require them to be in the business of buying and packaging mortgages."

Q&A: How and why did Fannie and Freddie get into trouble? - USATODAY.com

 

[Luissa]

....on radio station 96.9 wxtk and I asked him why he supports the wall street reform bill and he answered with this (paraphrased from memory)

This bill is not funded through higher taxes, which, as you know, is a non-starter with me anytime. During committee negotiations a $19 billion tax increase was slipped into the 2,300 page legislation and this was simply unacceptable to me. I could not support the bill until this tax was removed and it was.


he also gave a bullet type response of good stuff he liked in the bill

1) An audit of the Federal Reserve to examine the emergency lending that took place during the heart of the financial crisis
2) New requirements that take steps toward ending the "too big to fail" mentality among banks
3) Helps end bailouts so American taxpayers never again have to be on the hook
4) Measures that prevent banks from acting like casinos by eliminating loopholes that allowed risky and abusive practices to go on unnoticed and unregulated

As I said when I first came to Washington, I remain committed to reviewing each and every piece of legislation that comes before me and make sure it's good for my state, doesn't raise taxes and helps our economy. As I have done during my short time in office, I will continue to approach each bill in an open-minded manner.

I may have got some of that wrong and I know i left some of his talking points on it out but that is basically what he had to say.

In my opinion he has good motives but I still find his judgment in supporting this bill to be bad.

You should have asked him how is campaign against Rachael Maddow is doing.

 

[JimH52]

....on radio station 96.9 wxtk and I asked him why he supports the wall street reform bill and he answered with this (paraphrased from memory)

This bill is not funded through higher taxes, which, as you know, is a non-starter with me anytime. During committee negotiations a $19 billion tax increase was slipped into the 2,300 page legislation and this was simply unacceptable to me. I could not support the bill until this tax was removed and it was.


he also gave a bullet type response of good stuff he liked in the bill

1) An audit of the Federal Reserve to examine the emergency lending that took place during the heart of the financial crisis
2) New requirements that take steps toward ending the "too big to fail" mentality among banks
3) Helps end bailouts so American taxpayers never again have to be on the hook
4) Measures that prevent banks from acting like casinos by eliminating loopholes that allowed risky and abusive practices to go on unnoticed and unregulated

As I said when I first came to Washington, I remain committed to reviewing each and every piece of legislation that comes before me and make sure it's good for my state, doesn't raise taxes and helps our economy. As I have done during my short time in office, I will continue to approach each bill in an open-minded manner.

I may have got some of that wrong and I know i left some of his talking points on it out but that is basically what he had to say.

In my opinion he has good motives but I still find his judgment in supporting this bill to be bad.

Maybe he voted for it because it is a good bill and he is tired of walking lockstep with his GOP associates voting NO on everything. The whole premise of the GOP voting is based on defeating Obama. That has been stated. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHV4nDS501Y]YouTube - Sen. Jim DeMint calls defeating Obama like Waterloo[/ame]

How'd that Waterloo thing work out for you anyway?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

They got the bailouts becuase they agreed to buy all the high risk loans from the smaller private banks. By High risk loans i'm referring to the loans they were federally mandated to grant under the equal opportunity lending act (you know that thing congress passed many years ago, the very regulations that led to the crisis)

The loans had good ratings. And they wouldn't be "high risk" if lenders hadn't originated such dumb instruments as jumbo ARMS, no income verification and no documentation loans. These things should NEVER have had a good rating, but they did. And no, they were not REQUIRED to buy high risk loans. As I told you before, they were among the last to relax requirements.

 

[Sinatra]

Bump this bad boy!!!!

....on radio station 96.9 wxtk and I asked him why he supports the wall street reform bill and he answered with this (paraphrased from memory)

This bill is not funded through higher taxes, which, as you know, is a non-starter with me anytime. During committee negotiations a $19 billion tax increase was slipped into the 2,300 page legislation and this was simply unacceptable to me. I could not support the bill until this tax was removed and it was.


he also gave a bullet type response of good stuff he liked in the bill

1) An audit of the Federal Reserve to examine the emergency lending that took place during the heart of the financial crisis
2) New requirements that take steps toward ending the "too big to fail" mentality among banks
3) Helps end bailouts so American taxpayers never again have to be on the hook
4) Measures that prevent banks from acting like casinos by eliminating loopholes that allowed risky and abusive practices to go on unnoticed and unregulated

As I said when I first came to Washington, I remain committed to reviewing each and every piece of legislation that comes before me and make sure it's good for my state, doesn't raise taxes and helps our economy. As I have done during my short time in office, I will continue to approach each bill in an open-minded manner.

I may have got some of that wrong and I know i left some of his talking points on it out but that is basically what he had to say.

In my opinion he has good motives but I still find his judgment in supporting this bill to be bad.