Obama Voted 'Present' on Mortgage Reform

[NOBama]

The only banking 'deregulation' in recent years was that of Fan and Fred.
By PETER J. WALLISON


In each of the first two presidential debates, Barack Obama claimed that "Republican deregulation" is responsible for the financial crisis. Most viewers probably accepted this idea, especially because Republicans generally do favor deregulation.

But one essential fact was missing from the senator's narrative: While there has been significant deregulation in the U.S. economy during the last 30 years, none of it has occurred in the financial sector. Indeed, the only significant legislation with any effect on financial risk-taking was the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, adopted during the first Bush administration in the wake of the collapse of the savings and loans (S&Ls). FDICIA, however, substantially tightened commercial bank and S&L regulations, including prompt corrective action when a bank's capital declines below adequate levels and severe personal fines if management violates laws or regulations.

If Sen. Obama had been asked for an example of "Republican deregulation," he would probably have cited the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA), which has become a popular target for Democrats searching for something to pin on the GOP. This is puzzling. The bill's key sponsors were indeed Republicans, but the bill was supported by the Clinton administration and signed by President Clinton. The GLBA's "repeal" of a portion of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 is said to have somehow contributed to the current financial meltdown. Nonsense.

More

 

[doeton]

In each of the first two presidential debates, Barack Obama claimed that "Republican deregulation" is responsible for the financial crisis. Most viewers probably accepted this idea, especially because Republicans generally do favor deregulation.

 

[doeton]

this is hilarious.

are you saying you are in favor of more regulation?

lol.

 

[dilloduck]

this is hilarious.

are you saying you are in favor of more regulation?

lol.

read the article, dummy . Where did Obama stand ?

 

[NOBama]

read the article, dummy . Where did Obama stand ?

That's funny. Apparently, he didn't even make it off the first paragraph, let alone read the whole article.

 

[doeton]

read the article, dummy . Where did Obama stand ?

the article by a guy from the american enterprise institute?

lol. yeah, obviously obama is for letting corporations run rampant like all democrats.


but he's also for wealth redistribution right?

i guess as the anti-christ he has magic power like that right?

 

[doeton]

That's funny. Apparently, he didn't even make it off the first paragraph, let alone read the whole article.

well to be honest the first sentence was indeed what cracked me up.

here let's read it together.

Most viewers probably accepted this idea, especially because Republicans generally do favor deregulation.

perhaps you might work through with me why this amusing in light of our country going down the toilet.

 

[Bern80]

well to be honest the first sentence was indeed what cracked me up.

here let's read it together.

Most viewers probably accepted this idea, especially because Republicans generally do favor deregulation.

perhaps you might work through with me why this amusing in light of our country going down the toilet.

I thinks it's amusing that people like you blame the problem on deregulation. And on top of that blaming Republicans for said deregulation when the major piece of legislation that deregulated the industry was passed almost unanimously and bi-partisanly.

Finally, all deregulation is really is essentially saying is that government is not going to babysit the economy into people behaving responsibly. The problem we're haveing now is that we are bailing out folks that didn't behave responsibly durrimg the period of deregulation. The choices made by companies like AIG were not forced on them by deregulation.

 

[NOBama]

well to be honest the first sentence was indeed what cracked me up.

here let's read it together.

Most viewers probably accepted this idea, especially because Republicans generally do favor deregulation.

perhaps you might work through with me why this amusing in light of our country going down the toilet.

The key word there is "generally". I also think McCain brought that concern (Fanny & Freddie) up a few years ago (before Obama wrote his letter to Paulson).

Generally favoring deregulation does not equal complete deregulation except in the minds of about half the country.

 

[dilloduck]

The key word there is "generally". I also think McCain brought that concern (Fanny & Freddie) up a few years ago (before Obama wrote his letter to Paulson).

Generally favoring deregulation does not equal complete deregulation except in the minds of about half the country.

Whoa----that's way to far out there for some people. Easy. !

 

[doeton]

The key word there is "generally". I also think McCain brought that concern (Fanny & Freddie) up a few years ago (before Obama wrote his letter to Paulson). Generally favoring deregulation does not equal complete deregulation except in the minds of about half the country.

hey man if your willing to accept that 'generally' is indeed the key word then i imagine you still get why i found it amusing the author would lead off the story off on that note.

i mean it's here i'll put the truth up front and then pile a bunch b.s. behind it.

and from da Bern80
"I thinks it's amusing that people like you blame the problem on deregulation. And on top of that blaming Republicans for said deregulation when the major piece of legislation that deregulated the industry was passed almost unanimously and bi-partisanly."

um the author of the story made the assertion that 'generally pubs are against degulation.

I find it funny that you guys now want to claim you are in favor of it.

heheeh

"Finally, all deregulation is really is essentially saying is that government is not going to babysit the economy into people behaving responsibly. The problem we're haveing now is that we are bailing out folks that didn't behave responsibly durrimg the period of deregulation. The choices made by companies like AIG were not forced on them by deregulation."

uh, well actually in my book the fact that we are having to bail them out is the result of not enough regulation.

no company should ever be allowed to be so big that it can't be allowed to fail.

that's why monopoly busting and merger prevention should be about.

unless you like spending 1 trillion dollars....

 

[Silence]

you realize this is an OPINION piece right?

but regardless of that point allow me to point out what might have escaped your attention:

In the summer of 2005, a bill emerged from the Senate Banking Committee that considerably tightened regulations on Fannie and Freddie, including controls over their capital and their ability to hold portfolios of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. All the Republicans voted for the bill in committee; all the Democrats voted against it. To get the bill to a vote in the Senate, a few Democratic votes were necessary to limit debate. This was a time for the leadership Sen. Obama says he can offer, but neither he nor any other Democrat stepped forward

see the part that is bold, blue, underlined? this bill never made it to the Senate and Obama does NOT sit on the Senate Banking Committee, so someone needs to explain exactly what Obama was SUPPOSED to be ABLE to do about this bill?

research is always a good tool to use before one gets all full of piss and vinegar about a non-issue like this.

 

[dilloduck]

you realize this is an OPINION piece right?

but regardless of that point allow me to point out what might have escaped your attention:



see the part that is bold, blue, underlined? this bill never made it to the Senate and Obama does NOT sit on the Senate Banking Committee, so someone needs to explain exactly what Obama was SUPPOSED to be ABLE to do about this bill?

research is always a good tool to use before one gets all full of piss and vinegar about a non-issue like this.

not to vote silly---to be a leader and organize a few democrats to VOTE.

 

[Bern80]

um the author of the story made the assertion that 'generally pubs are against degulation.

I find it funny that you guys now want to claim you are in favor of it.

I personally claimed no such thing. I'm stating what factually took place as far as deregulation is concerned.

uh, well actually in my book the fact that we are having to bail them out is the result of not enough regulation.

no company should ever be allowed to be so big that it can't be allowed to fail.

that's why monopoly busting and merger prevention should be about.

unless you like spending 1 trillion dollars....

Regulating or deregulating something is similar to the burning your hand on the stove analogy. If your mom had some type of cover on the stove to prevent you from burning yourself so that regardless of your curiosity you couldn't burn yourself, then decides to remove the cover, your stick your hand on the stove and burn yourself, is that her fault or yours?

 

[del]

not to vote silly---to be a leader and organize a few democrats to VOTE.

as far as i can tell, obama's not much on the leadership thing. gives a nice speech, but leadership? not so much.

unfortunately, neither does mccain.

 

[Silence]

not to vote silly---to be a leader and organize a few democrats to VOTE.

in what dillo, a committee he doesn't even sit on? how would he even know it was happening if he doesn't sit on this committee? please, I'll be waiting for that explanation when you pull it out of your rear end

 

[doeton]

Regulating or deregulating something is similar to the burning your hand on the stove analogy. If your mom had some type of cover on the stove to prevent you from burning yourself so that regardless of your curiosity you couldn't burn yourself, then decides to remove the cover, your stick your hand on the stove and burn yourself, is that her fault or yours?

that's a great analogy.

oh excepting that it isn't.

since the reasoning for the current bail out isn't to help those companies that were so stupid as to burn themselves.

but to bail them out so they don't hurt us.

 

[Silence]

as far as i can tell, obama's not much on the leadership thing. gives a nice speech, but leadership? not so much.

unfortunately, neither does mccain.

I'm going to have to disagree with you del, especially considering many of the ideas put forth by Obama regarding the bailout actually got put in. I'm also going to have to point out that Obama worked in unison with Lugar on a bill to keep weapons out of terrorists hands so to pretend he just sits on his ass doing nothing isn't truthful.

 

[del]

I'm going to have to disagree with you del, especially considering many of the ideas put forth by Obama regarding the bailout actually got put in. I'm also going to have to point out that Obama worked in unison with Lugar on a bill to keep weapons out of terrorists hands so to pretend he just sits on his ass doing nothing isn't truthful.

never said that. i said he's not a leader, and as far as i can tell, he isn't.

 

[Silence]

never said that. i said he's not a leader, and as far as i can tell, he isn't.

has he been given the chance to lead yet? I'm curious...what do you think constitutes a leader?

I admit that you said McCain isn't a leader either but given the fact that Obama has been in the Senate for less than 4 years I'm not sure how much of a leadership role he could take there. Meanwhile, McCain has been there for 26 years and still isn't a leader.