‘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.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

That was Barney Frank in 2003.

I’ll admit that I’m no expert, but to me that sounds at least like Barney Frank had poor awareness of the situation when confronted with concerns over those institutions. Perhaps, he had interests that conflicted with those raising the concerns.

And Frank Raines:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Franklin D. Raines, former chief executive of Fannie Mae, and two other top executives are paying a total of nearly $31.4 million over their roles in a 2004 accounting scandal in a settlement that the government announced Friday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/business/19fannie.html

Was a Bill Clinton appointee. Accused of manipulating the accounting.

I have no interest to let Republicans off the hook. But, I’m pretty confident that this isn’t just a republican problem.

This is a money corrupts politics story.

There’s nothing more bipartisan than that.

If the Democrats have the majority, they are just as accountable as Bush for the past 8 years and the Republican Congress prior to ‘07.

That is, of course, referring to the responsibility for the bill’s failure, if you use the logic that those in the leadership bear the responsibility.

If people are upset the bill failed (I’m not one of them), they should hold the leadership of the Congress to account.

If the Democrats have the majority, they are just as accountable as Bush for the past 8 years and the Republican Congress prior to ‘07.

But, if it was Bush’s fault and/or the Republicans fault (as the majority) because they failed to act on Bush’s warnings, how can it now be the Republicans fault if they no longer have the majority?

The FBI is currently investigating Fannie, Freddir, AIG and a few others for criminal cases, but this should have started back in 2002 when their financial problems started, when they were caught cooking the books. The regulators did not do their job and investigate then, but the political appontees of the Bush administration did not let the investigations go forward.

That is the Bush Administration’s fault. Bush has pushed for almost all of the agencies to not enforce regulations as they should have been for the last 8 years.

Maybe our reasons are different, but I oppose just giving up the money, without significant good cause.

So far, the government hasn’t made the case.

Bush backers are going to scream to high heaven and make this a financial apocalypse unless we do something…like hand them $700 Billion, and the conditions are irrelevant. We are going to be banged in every orifice according to them unless we give them the money.

No, is what taxpayers are saying, and with good reason. This is the fourth time they have come hat in hand, begging for money, and each time the price tag grows higher. If they couldn’t fix it after $230 billion in handouts, why is $700 billion going to help? It won’t.

We need to stand strong against the doom heralds and say enough is a damn enough.

We started with you blaming Bush and the republicans. Okay.

I’m skeptical about all of our leadership right now, but I offered the white house warnings on the situation and you point out that republicans controlled the congress until Jan 2007.

Up to this point I’m still on board.

But, if it was Bush’s fault and/or the Republicans fault (as the majority) because they failed to act on Bush’s warnings, how can it now be the Republicans fault if they no longer have the majority?

You’re reasonable. I’m just trying to find out how we blame the republican majority for inaction in the past and now blame the republican minority for inaction today?

I have a feeling that once we find out what happened they’ll be plenty of (R)’s and (D)’s to blame.

If a financial crash will end us, it needs close regulation like every other damn thing in the world. Irresponsible, get rich quick bullsh!t got us into this, a cash injection is not going to get us out. Some of the bad grapes need to die on the vine before we save the actual crop.

Pelosi has a lot to lose, like many in Congress, on both sides, they are part of the problem – not just on a partisan fence – and it is time they suffered and joined the rest of us. We need to make decisions that include as many people in the solution as possible, instead of this “trickle down” bs that has killed us.

If finances can kill this country, it is National Security. Oh wait, no one in Congress wants to face that, but they are happy to bug phone calls on things that are once again, bs.

More oversight, more regulation, and rein in the team of horses driving us off the cliff to enrich the few. Pelosi does more harm than good, and I’m a liberal Democrat. She needs to get back to her base, what is good for gay Americans like myself; it isn’t good when not only gay Americans, but black Americans, white Americans and all but 2% of Americans are screwed because of a liberal fiscal policy.

The Democratic Majority House did pass the requested reforms for Fannie and Freddie in 2007, but it almost died in the Senate, which does not have a true majority, btw.
The Senate finally passed it in July of this year.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html

If the claims go unanswered, it adds to their credibility.

Bush has been calling for the GSE reforms, his way, since 2001, the full Republican majority ignored him.

Fannie and Freddie have been having problems since 2002 and 2003. Treasury Secretary John Snow testified before the Republican Majority Congress in 2003 about the problem and repeated reporting the problem to the still majority Republican Congress in 2005.
The Republicans since the Democratic Majority was seated in Jan 2008 have blocked every attempt at even looking at this issue, like they have been everything else, because the Senate majority was not a real majority because of Lieberman not really being a Democrat.

I find little difference between a glenn beck link and one to the WH (Both lying sacks of sh!t). But even if it is all true, WHY didn’t the Repugs (who had a majority in both Houses and the WH for 6 years enact something? Bush got everything he REALLY wanted in that time, so it might be safe to assume, he didn’t want it THAT bad.

Puh-lease. *eyeroll*

http://www.idahofallstoday.com/2008/09/25/white-house-press-release-dont-blame-bush-for-bailouts/

I agree Beck’s an idiot, but his was the first source I ran across with all the info in one spot.

He didn’t dream it up, it came from the white house web site.

If that info is incorrect, it would make excellent fodder for it’s own TP thread.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html