In 2003, Barney Franks (D-Mass) stated "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
The facts presented speak for themselves. The Dems could well have blown the opportunity to do something about it. However, when it comes from Fox News-which in my view is anything but fair and balanced-I suspect there is more to the story. Frankly, I don't have time to research a good response given that there may well be no defensible reasons or excuses. Housing starts were doing really well, construction employment was high, money being made by so many, and the desire to make home ownership oh-all-too-easy made have swayed them for better or worse.
That every single Dem and every single Republican voted the way they did does not surprise. On committees where dynamics are reduced to a microcosm, one often does not break rank.
Being unable to break rank is one of the real negative side effects of the bi-partisanship that plagues us all right now.
That said-which is of course no decent response at all to Alan's posting-I would like to know more about the make-up not only of that committee but of committees in general.
I deleted my previous comment because I had posted the preceding one twice.
So a Republican was chairing the committee in question, it was 05, Republicans were in control, usually if you are the majority party, you hold the chairmanships and majorities in the committee itself. If this is so, why could the Republicans not have pushed it through themselves? Was someone absent? I am not familiar enough with the rules. Fox just said, "All of he D's voted against and all of the R's voted for". Was the committee a 50/50 split of D's and R's? If there is not a 50/50 split, is a simple majority not enough?
The R's could have voted it out of committee, but the D's threatened a filibuster once it hit the floor for a vote, so the R's held it back waiting for a better shot at it.
It's very clear to me that the D's main strategy was to block the R's at every turn, no matter the consequences. So now we have the current consequences.
The problem is the MSM will not report the truth of it because it hurts their beloved D party. If it were the Rs, the MSM would be all over it like white on rice and the D's would be sending out subpoenas like a copy machine on steroids.
The Ds complain loudly (and so do I) about huge bonuses being paid to departing CEOS of failing firms, but when it is one of their own (Franklin Raines, an Obama advisor) all we hear are crickets chirping. How is it that you go to DC to serve the people and then walk away with $110 million dollars? And from a government backed firm to boot! He also arranged huge contributions from FMac and FMay to major Democrats, #2 being Obama! Contributions from a government backed entity! Something stinks here.
PS: It is FOX News in fact that is reporting the news fair and balanced.
In my first comment on this post I meant 'partisanship' not 'bi-partisanship'---just a a correction.
If the contribution from either of the two entities is fact, then something truly stinks. I will look into it.
The R's should have pushed it through anyway. A filibuster would have brought more attention to it, would have added fuel to the fire, and could have been exploited to political gain. Knowing that a mid-term election was approaching and that majorities often reverse under such circumstances, they ought to have held to their guns and held Dem's feet to the fire. Too bad they didn't. The secondary blame is on them for not doing more.
8 comments:
That is irritating. Sorry, that's the extent of my comment....I ran out of time!
Isn't that just human nature? (unfortunately) I guess I do the same thing only I try to pin things on the Devil. "The Devil made me do it"...
In 2003, Barney Franks (D-Mass) stated "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
The facts presented speak for themselves. The Dems could well have blown the opportunity to do something about it. However, when it comes from Fox News-which in my view is anything but fair and balanced-I suspect there is more to the story.
Frankly, I don't have time to research a good response given that there may well be no defensible reasons or excuses. Housing starts were doing really well, construction employment was high, money being made by so many, and the desire to make home ownership oh-all-too-easy made have swayed them for better or worse.
That every single Dem and every single Republican voted the way they did does not surprise. On committees where dynamics are reduced to a microcosm, one often does not break rank.
Being unable to break rank is one of the real negative side effects of the bi-partisanship that plagues us all right now.
That said-which is of course no decent response at all to Alan's posting-I would like to know more about the make-up not only of that committee but of committees in general.
I deleted my previous comment because I had posted the preceding one twice.
So a Republican was chairing the committee in question, it was 05, Republicans were in control, usually if you are the majority party, you hold the chairmanships and majorities in the committee itself. If this is so, why could the Republicans not have pushed it through themselves? Was someone absent? I am not familiar enough with the rules. Fox just said, "All of he D's voted against and all of the R's voted for". Was the committee a 50/50 split of D's and R's? If there is not a 50/50 split, is a simple majority not enough?
The R's could have voted it out of committee, but the D's threatened a filibuster once it hit the floor for a vote, so the R's held it back waiting for a better shot at it.
It's very clear to me that the D's main strategy was to block the R's at every turn, no matter the consequences. So now we have the current consequences.
The problem is the MSM will not report the truth of it because it hurts their beloved D party. If it were the Rs, the MSM would be all over it like white on rice and the D's would be sending out subpoenas like a copy machine on steroids.
The Ds complain loudly (and so do I) about huge bonuses being paid to departing CEOS of failing firms, but when it is one of their own (Franklin Raines, an Obama advisor) all we hear are crickets chirping. How is it that you go to DC to serve the people and then walk away with $110 million dollars? And from a government backed firm to boot! He also arranged huge contributions from FMac and FMay to major Democrats, #2 being Obama! Contributions from a government backed entity! Something stinks here.
PS: It is FOX News in fact that is reporting the news fair and balanced.
In my first comment on this post I meant 'partisanship' not 'bi-partisanship'---just a a correction.
If the contribution from either of the two entities is fact, then something truly stinks. I will look into it.
The R's should have pushed it through anyway. A filibuster would have brought more attention to it, would have added fuel to the fire, and could have been exploited to political gain. Knowing that a mid-term election was approaching and that majorities often reverse under such circumstances,
they ought to have held to their guns and held Dem's feet to the fire. Too bad they didn't. The secondary blame is on them for not doing more.
Post a Comment