Bush Admin warned US...

[NOBama]

...as early as April '01.

..."Senator Obama did not weigh in on that bill", says Bret Baier.

[youtube]cMnSp4qEXNM&NR[/youtube]

Just a reminder.

 

[Iriemon]

You mean the same Bush administration that, according to its Republican sponsor, shot down the only bill passed in the 6 years the Republicans controlled Congress to regulate Fannie/Freddie?

 

[auditor0007]

It does not fit the Dems agenda to take responsibility where it is due. It does, however, fit their agenda to try to blame all of this on Bush and the Republicans. People are so shortsighted, it is truly amazing. When we look at the true cause, and who was responsible, and now look at the fact that we have rewarded these people by placing them in power, we should be very scared.

It is not that their intentions were bad. It is that they just aren't very bright to begin with.

 

[NOBama]

You mean the same Bush administration that, according to its Republican sponsor, shot down the only bill passed in the 6 years the Republicans controlled Congress to regulate Fannie/Freddie?

I ddin't offer an opinion, but since you asked:

In my opinion, the only reason the republicans didn’t bring it up was not because they feared it wouldn’t pass, rather they feared for their political asses, because Barney the blowhard and his band of buffoons, combined with the certain unpopularity that would have resulted from the party line vote, had it passed.

That would have put their (Republicans) careers in jeopardy. You see, in the next election cycle Barney the blowhard and his band of buffoons would have accused the Republicans of bringing down a thriving economy that was allowing people who couldn’t (really) afford mortgage payments to buy houses.

I suspect the same would have resulted if the President was a democrat and the Senate was majority Democrat.

None of this usurps the fact that the Bush administration warned of what eventually was to come.

Rather than pointing the finger and laying blame on an administration that tried to do the right thing, perhaps we the people should be looking at this as a problem with our political system that brought our economy to its knees. If we don’t demand that our elected officials recognize and correct the problem then, most likely, it will happen again. (It happens all the time, Irie).

 

[NOBama]

Where'd ya go Irie, did Willow's cat get your tongue or did you think I was a staunch Republican that defends every thing those buffons do like you defend the dimwits?

 

[Iriemon]

You mean the same Bush administration that, according to its Republican sponsor, shot down the only bill passed in the 6 years the Republicans controlled Congress to regulate Fannie/Freddie?

I ddin't offer an opinion, but since you asked:

In my opinion, the only reason the republicans didn’t bring it up was not because they feared it wouldn’t pass, rather they feared for their political asses, because Barney the blowhard and his band of buffoons, combined with the certain unpopularity that would have resulted from the party line vote, had it passed.

That would have put their (Republicans) careers in jeopardy. You see, in the next election cycle Barney the blowhard and his band of buffoons would have accused the Republicans of bringing down a thriving economy that was allowing people who couldn’t (really) afford mortgage payments to buy houses.

I suspect the same would have resulted if the President was a democrat and the Senate was majority Democrat.

None of this usurps the fact that the Bush administration warned of what eventually was to come.

Rather than pointing the finger and laying blame on an administration that tried to do the right thing, perhaps we the people should be looking at this as a problem with our political system that brought our economy to its knees. If we don’t demand that our elected officials recognize and correct the problem then, most likely, it will happen again. (It happens all the time, Irie).

That would have been surprising, since Frank and some Dems joined House Republicans in passing the bipartisan bill to regulate Fannie/Freddie, that according to its Republican sponsore, was shot down by the Bush administration.

I'm all for demanding the Govt fix problems. The problem in this case was folks speculating in a hot housing market, brokers more eager to make a buck flipping loans than carefully underwriting the risk, and financial instuttions we have let get too big to fail investing trillions in questionable loans they thought had less risk.

We let institutions get "too big to fail". That is what we need to recognize and correct.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well......considering that Bush Jr. lied to us when he told us that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, he allowed OBL to run free during HIS ENTIRE TERM, as well as kept the actual cost of the Iraq war off the books, as well as told us that the savings in oil revenue from saving the wells would pay for the war....

Well.........what did you expect?

BO is trying to fix it, but, just like I'd found out when I went to duty stations where the previous supervisor was a bit of a pinhead (like Bush Jr.), it generally took me around 6 months to unfuck what they had fucked up.

Even though I don't like BO's arrogant demeanor, as well as am curious about some things he's doing, I kinda think he's on the right track.

BTW.........ever been on a really big ship like a cruise liner or an aircraft carrier? They take a long distance to change direction also.

This country is sorta like that.

 

[Truthmatters]

Obama was not a senator in 2001

 

[NOBama]

Duplicate. See next post.

 

[NOBama]

You mean the same Bush administration that, according to its Republican sponsor, shot down the only bill passed in the 6 years the Republicans controlled Congress to regulate Fannie/Freddie?

I ddin't offer an opinion, but since you asked:

In my opinion, the only reason the republicans didn’t bring it up was not because they feared it wouldn’t pass, rather they feared for their political asses, because Barney the blowhard and his band of buffoons, combined with the certain unpopularity that would have resulted from the party line vote, had it passed.

That would have put their (Republicans) careers in jeopardy. You see, in the next election cycle Barney the blowhard and his band of buffoons would have accused the Republicans of bringing down a thriving economy that was allowing people who couldn’t (really) afford mortgage payments to buy houses.

I suspect the same would have resulted if the President was a democrat and the Senate was majority Democrat.

None of this usurps the fact that the Bush administration warned of what eventually was to come.

Rather than pointing the finger and laying blame on an administration that tried to do the right thing, perhaps we the people should be looking at this as a problem with our political system that brought our economy to its knees. If we don’t demand that our elected officials recognize and correct the problem then, most likely, it will happen again. (It happens all the time, Irie).

That would have been surprising, since Frank and some Dems joined House Republicans in passing the bipartisan bill to regulate Fannie/Freddie, that according to its Republican sponsore, was shot down by the Bush administration.

I'm all for demanding the Govt fix problems. The problem in this case was folks speculating in a hot housing market, brokers more eager to make a buck flipping loans than carefully underwriting the risk, and financial instuttions we have let get too big to fail investing trillions in questionable loans they thought had less risk.

We let institutions get "too big to fail". That is what we need to recognize and correct.

From one of your own:

Barney Frank opposed regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, but no one reminds him

I’m not going to give John McCain campaign tips (I'm leaning toward Obama), but how does McCain let such Democrats as Rep. Barney Frank get away with telling the press that McCain and President Bush opposed regulations on financial institutions, when it was Frank himself who long opposed those regulations?
Frank 'no crisis.' The New York Times reported on Sept. 11, 2003:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
​

McCain warning. On the other hand, McCain on May 25, 2006, backed specific legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a year before Frank finally caved in and called for reform only after it was too late.

"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation," McCain said. "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
​

Yet I saw Barney Frank interviewed several times yesterday, accusing Bush and McCain of blocking financial reforms, and not one reporter asked him about his own long and loud record of willful neglect. As Power Line's John Hinderacker asks today:

Maybe it's too much to expect anyone to remember the distant past -- 2003 -- but still, it seems remarkable that Barney Frank can make the rounds of the television talk shows, pontificating on the current crisis, without being reminded of his own role.
​

Democrats' responsibility. Frank's audacity is bizarre. The press is equally stunning in its oblivious silence. McCain has made some attempts to tell voters about this, but McCain's words have been obscured or omitted in news accounts.

 

[NOBama]

Obama was not a senator in 2001

That caught my attention when Baier said it in that Video. BO was still "present" in the IL Senate back then.

 

[Ravi]

Obama was not a senator in 2001

shhh...BOobNObama was probably being "sarcastic."