President Bush Tried to Rein In Fan and Fred

[Truth Detector]

The truth has always been elusive with the mainstream press especially when it comes to this administration and the mainstream Medias desperate desire to get Obama elected no matter what the FACTS dictated.

Over time, even the most adamant Liberal Democrat denier will have to come to terms with the FACTS and let go of their convenient Bush bashing talking points in a vacuum of reality and the FACTS.

Here's MORE to the story about how Democrats helped to wreck the economy whom they desperately try to blame Republicans and Bush for. Barney Frank being the BIGGEST culprit also continues to desperately point his finger every direction BUT in the mirror to point the blame where it properly rests; with Liberal morons like him who opposed any attempts to reign in the corrupt practices of their cronies who ran these companies.

You have seen the videos, now read an insiders view:

By KARL ROVE
Mythmaking is in full swing as the Bush administration prepares to leave town. Among the more prominent is the assertion that the housing meltdown resulted from unbridled capitalism under a president opposed to all regulation.

Like most myths, this is entertaining but fictional. In reality, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among the principal culprits of the housing crisis, and Mr. Bush wanted to rein them in before things got out of hand.

Rather than a failure of capitalism, the housing meltdown shows what's likely to happen when government grants special privileges to favored private entities that facilitate bad actors and lousy practices.

Fannie and Freddie are "government-sponsored enterprises" (GSEs), chartered by Congress. As such, they had an implicit promise of taxpayer backing and could borrow money at rates well below competitors.

Because of this, the Bush administration warned in the budget it issued in April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged. Their failure "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity" well beyond housing.

Mr. Bush wanted to limit systemic risk by raising the GSEs' capital requirements, compelling preapproval of new activities, and limiting the size of their portfolios. Why should government regulate banks, credit unions and savings and loans, but not GSEs? Mr. Bush wanted the GSEs to be treated just like their private-sector competitors.

When Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE reform in 2005, Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut successfully threatened a filibuster. Later, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed, Mr. Dodd asked, "Why weren't we doing more?" He then voted for the Bush reforms that he once called "ill-advised."

But Mr. Dodd wasn't the only Democrat to heap abuse on the Bush reforms. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts defended Fannie and Freddie as "fundamentally sound" and labeled the president's proposals as "inane." He later voted for the reforms. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York dismissed Mr. Bush's "safety and soundness concerns" as "a straw man." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," was the helpful advice of both Sen. Thomas Carper of Delaware and Rep. Maxine Waters of California. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York berated a Bush official at a hearing, saying, "I am just pissed off" at the administration for raising the issue.

The rest of the story:

Karl Rove: President Bush Tried to Rein In Fan and Fred - WSJ.com

 

[Hatuey]

The truth has always been elusive with the mainstream press especially when it comes to this administration and the mainstream Medias desperate desire to get Obama elected no matter what the FACTS dictated.

Over time, even the most adamant Liberal Democrat denier will have to come to terms with the FACTS and let go of their convenient Bush bashing talking points in a vacuum of reality and the FACTS.

Here's MORE to the story about how Democrats helped to wreck the economy whom they desperately try to blame Republicans and Bush for. Barney Frank being the BIGGEST culprit also continues to desperately point his finger every direction BUT in the mirror to point the blame where it properly rests; with Liberal morons like him who opposed any attempts to reign in the corrupt practices of their cronies who ran these companies.

You have seen the videos, now read an insiders view:

By KARL ROVE
Mythmaking is in full swing as the Bush administration prepares to leave town. Among the more prominent is the assertion that the housing meltdown resulted from unbridled capitalism under a president opposed to all regulation.

Like most myths, this is entertaining but fictional. In reality, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among the principal culprits of the housing crisis, and Mr. Bush wanted to rein them in before things got out of hand.

Rather than a failure of capitalism, the housing meltdown shows what's likely to happen when government grants special privileges to favored private entities that facilitate bad actors and lousy practices.

Fannie and Freddie are "government-sponsored enterprises" (GSEs), chartered by Congress. As such, they had an implicit promise of taxpayer backing and could borrow money at rates well below competitors.

Because of this, the Bush administration warned in the budget it issued in April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged. Their failure "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity" well beyond housing.

Mr. Bush wanted to limit systemic risk by raising the GSEs' capital requirements, compelling preapproval of new activities, and limiting the size of their portfolios. Why should government regulate banks, credit unions and savings and loans, but not GSEs? Mr. Bush wanted the GSEs to be treated just like their private-sector competitors.

When Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE reform in 2005, Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut successfully threatened a filibuster. Later, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed, Mr. Dodd asked, "Why weren't we doing more?" He then voted for the Bush reforms that he once called "ill-advised."

But Mr. Dodd wasn't the only Democrat to heap abuse on the Bush reforms. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts defended Fannie and Freddie as "fundamentally sound" and labeled the president's proposals as "inane." He later voted for the reforms. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York dismissed Mr. Bush's "safety and soundness concerns" as "a straw man." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," was the helpful advice of both Sen. Thomas Carper of Delaware and Rep. Maxine Waters of California. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York berated a Bush official at a hearing, saying, "I am just pissed off" at the administration for raising the issue.

The rest of the story:

Karl Rove: President Bush Tried to Rein In Fan and Fred - WSJ.com

I put this on the same level I put Scott McClelan and George Tenet trying to save their respective asses. It's damage control for their own careers. Nobody wants to be associated with the administration who will probably go down as the worst mistake this country's made since fanny packs .

 

[bhkad]

I put this on the same level I put Scott McClelan and George Tenet trying to save their respective asses. It's damage control for their own careers. Nobody wants to be associated with the administration who will probably go down as the worst mistake this country's made since fanny packs .

President Bush warned us of these problems in 2001, 02, 03, 04, 05, 07 and 17 times in 2008.

The White House, President George W. Bush

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 19, 2008

Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

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

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)


Continued at link.

Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

 

[Truth Detector]

I put this on the same level I put Scott McClelan and George Tenet trying to save their respective asses. It's damage control for their own careers. Nobody wants to be associated with the administration who will probably go down as the worst mistake this country's made since fanny packs .

Of course you would Hatuey, since when did you ever have any use for the facts and truth?

But once again, let me correct the following statement so that it reflect your OPINION and not the facts: "administration who will probably go down as the worst mistake this country's made since fanny packs because I say so."

On another note, did you come in here with the express intent to troll, or did you actually wish to address the thread topic?

Carry on! :2wave:

 

[Truth Detector]

President Bush warned us of these problems in 2001, 02, 03, 04, 05, 07 and 17 times in 2008.

Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

My favorite Liberal response to all this is in previous debates has been: "but the Republicans were in charge weren't they?"

As if the minority party cannot prevent legislation or debate in the Congress.

:rofl

 

[American]

Yeah, they were in charge by what....five votes or something. Yeah, a real screaming majority.

 

[Iriemon]

The truth has always been elusive with the mainstream press

...

By KARL ROVE

[as printed in the Murdoch Sreet Journal]

...

:rofl:rofl:rofl Now there's an unbiased source! TD, you're too funny!

On the other hand, here's what a REPUBLICAN said about Bush and Fed/Fan regulation:

So what happened to S. 191 in the Republican controlled Senate after it was voted on by the Republican chaired Senate banking committee?

This from Mike Oxely, a Republican representative who retired in 2007, but headed the House financial services committee before then:

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

FT.com / UK - Oxley hits back at ideologues

Hmmmmm. This Republican tells a little different story than Mr. Rove, former Bush insider and political manipulater, who would have us believe that Republican fear of a Dem filibuster is why they bill never made it to the floor.

 

[Truth Detector]

:rofl:rofl:rofl Now there's an unbiased source! TD, you're too funny!

How trite, when you don't have a coherent counterpoint with facts, you impugn the source of the story.

On the other hand, here's what a REPUBLICAN said about Bush and Fed/Fan regulation:

So what happened to S. 191 in the Republican controlled Senate after it was voted on by the Republican chaired Senate banking committee?

This from Mike Oxely, a Republican representative who retired in 2007, but headed the House financial services committee before then:

Well isn't that precious, you found a singular Republican with his own suspect involvement creating a new story about why the Senate failed to pass the reform bill.

Here's some facts about Oxley and the Bill he compromised with the likes of Barney Franks and the other Leftists in the House that refused to allow more oversight and who's own comments impugn them regardless of your desperate attempts to suggest otherwise:

Ohio Congressman Michael Oxley (R-Mansfield) has an axe to grind with critics who blame Congress for failing to pass reforms that may have averted the need for this week's government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As Oxley sees it, he did his part by crafting a reform bill in 2005 and getting it passed by the House of Representatives.

Fannie Mae tried to steamroll its underpowered regulator all along the way. At one point, Fannie Mae instigated a retailatory HUD investigation against the OFHEO regulators who were looking into their accounting fraud in order to undermine the credibility of the regulator. They had one of their lobbyists draft a letter for Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-Mo) to send to HUD and request the investigation. Bond sent the letter on to HUD under his own name, made public statements directed at getting the lead regulator sacked, and was rewarded for his efforts with tidy campaign contributions from Mr. Raines and other Fannie Mae execs.

The reward for the brave OFHEO regulators who exposed the fraud of the mighty Fannie Mae were much more elusive-- Senate appropriators tried to strip OFHEO of its funding.

With legislators like Bond in the hip pocket of the GSEs, it was hard to imagine that Congress would ever be able to pass the needed reforms. Enter Oxley and the bill he was sponsoring, The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. On the surface, the bill appeared to contain needed reforms. It had language to create a new, improved regulatory body to replace OFHEO. It required the companies to register their stock with the SEC.

So what was the Office of Management and Budget's response to the watered down bill that was favorable to the GSE's that Oxly felt was so wrong?

Even the not-so-swift-sometimes Bush Administration recognized that this was not the medicine that was needed for the GSEs. The White House's Office of Management and Budget issued the one fingered salute to Oxley and the other supporters of the bill:

The Administration has long called for legislation to create a stronger, more effective regulatory regime to improve oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks ("housing government-sponsored enterprises" or "housing GSEs") and appreciates the considerable efforts of Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker in crafting H.R. 1461. However, H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.

The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions. This regime is of particular concern given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently hold only about half of the capital of comparable financial institutions. In order for a financial regulator to be respected and credible, it must have the authority and ability to adjust capital requirements of the institutions it oversees as circumstances dictate to ensure prudential operations. An effective oversight regime must also provide for clear review of business activities to ensure the integrity of the housing finance system and consistency with the GSEs' housing mission. The Administration does not believe that the housing GSEs should be exempt from these important standards of world-class regulation.

In hindsight, the list of reforms the White House was requesting seems just about exactly the ones that might have actually worked.

Source: Fannie & Freddie: let the fingerpointing begin!

So while you find it trite and convenient to once again resort to talking points, the FACT remains that the efforts by the Democrats in Congress to stifle and water down any attempts to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were indeed successful and typifies the same lack of foresight and regulation they are known for and illustrates that when confronted by their failures are quick to point the finger of blame at Republicans.

Carry on, I look forward to more desperate attempts to re-write the historic record on this issue and distort the FACTS.

Here’s Barney and Democrats on video denouncing the regulators and Republican efforts and what should scare everyone here is that these MORONS are the ones NOW IN CHARGE! : :shock:

YouTube - Democrats Defend Fannie/Freddie from Regulation - 2004 Video

 

[TheNextEra]

Yeah, they were in charge by what....five votes or something. Yeah, a real screaming majority.

They were in charge by more than what conservatives are blaming the dem majority (by one person) for the past two years.

Chew on that hypocrisy.

 

[Tucker Case]

There is no doubt in my mind that this is something that Bush got right. I've been defending him on this issue with people in person for quite a few months.

 

[Truth Detector]

They were in charge by more than what conservatives are blaming the dem majority (by one person) for the past two years.

Chew on that hypocrisy.

How trite, someone else who thinks the minority cannot hold up legislation or that the compromise legislation was watered down to fit the desires of Democrats who wanted NOTHING to be done.

:rofl

 

[TheNextEra]

How trite, someone else who thinks the minority cannot hold up legislation or that the compromise legislation was watered down to fit the desires of Democrats who wanted NOTHING to be done.

:rofl

Well then, what's your excuse for the Republican "minority" for the past 2 years? You and your kind have blamed the congress now for two years, why hasn't the republican minority stood up?

Carry on with your feigned outrage. :2wave:

 

[Truth Detector]

Well then, what's your excuse for the Republican "minority" for the past 2 years? You and your kind have blamed the congress now for two years, why hasn't the republican minority stood up?

Where have you been? The Republican minority has been successful in the Senate holding up legislation. That's what the minority party does.

Carry on with your feigned outrage. :2wave:

What outrage? Now you need to devine my emotions to appear relevant? :rofl