Conservative Harvard student challenges Barney Frank on the financial crisis

[MaggieMae]

__________________
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

~ US Constitution

Ah that damned ambiguous Constitution. "...from time to time..." I guess that's the part BushCo's budget preparers relied on when they decided to use "supplementals" to the annual budget in order to fund the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

are you obsessed with bush?

Not so much anymore. Why? Are you? I thought it was a good example. I love to talk about the intentional ambiguities of the Constitution. Don't you?

 

[DiveCon]

It's become SOP on blogs and message boards that buzz words that will send conservatives into orbit are Fannie and Freddie and ACORN. Doesn't matter what the topic is, just insert one of those and all the pretend political geniuses who live and die with Fox and LimbaughCo will come rushing in with an opinion.

Yep -- which is why, only by chance, of course, I just happened to have that link handy.

I just remembered that when I was posting on AOL boards, I finally figured it out that if I wanted people to READ a new thread I was about to post and comment on it, I needed to give it a catchy title which included the word(s) du jour whether they were applicable or not.

if you do that here, you will be called on it
dishonest titles piss a lot of people off

 

[GHook93]

are you obsessed with bush?

Yes of course, especially when I was a teenager! Wait what was the topic again!

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Barney Frank is a political criminal and deserves whatever life manages to extract in temporal recompense, the rest will come later.

His complicity in our current economic correction is on my blog under Corporate and Political Criminals: Indiana Oracle

 

[Shadow]

I prefer the kick in Barney's nutz delivered by Bill Oreilly.

Except that O'Reilly has about as much credibility on the national stage as any other fanatic from the right. If you're a rightie, you love him. If you're a leftie, you laugh at him.

And if you are an indy you agree with him sometimes and others not so much..

It's not just a lefty/righty world...

 

[Iriemon]

Frank was very uneasy with a simple question, blaiming everyone but himself for what happened.

The fact that it was his job to oversite and he didn't do it seems not to matter.

When he asked the kid what he should have done, the boy should have answered him:

'Your job'

IMO it appeared that Frank is annoyed by the historical distortions as to what happened, a lot of which we have seen echoed in this thread.

It's fair (to an extent) to say that every politician is essentially responsible for everything, and that even though they were powerless prior to Jan 2007, the Dems should have done more to alert to the problems of lack of regulation in the GSEs and financial sector as a whole even in the face of Republican inaction.

But to suggest Frank had official oversight responsiblity I don't think is accurate. That, according to its own admission, is the job of an executive (ie under the WH) agency, the OFHEO.

Quotes and links here, if you missed it:

[Edit: incorrect link fixed]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1142413-post47.html

 

[Iriemon]

And now we'll see the posts about how all this is left-wing drivel dah dah dah.

What I'd really find more persuasive that cut-n-paste skills is someone who can explain to me exactly how Fannie/Freddie "caused" companies like Merrill Goldman Citi and the rest to buy all these crappy mortgages.

The problem is that with a catastrophe of this magnitude, it's only natural for people to want something BIG to blame, which carries over to which political party made the most blunders. Frankly, I don't think the "politicians" even understood what was going on, when rumblings first began about the housing bubble threatening to burst. They ALL just ho-hummed through all the red flag warnings.

The right desperately wants to blame the left, because Republicans had oversight responsibility during the majority of time it was all going down and creeping to a disastrous crescendo. The left wants to blame the right and at the same time absolve themselves of all responsibility, which doesn't cut it either.

The reactions by the left and right are exactly as they were when the blame game started over the 911 attacks, when the truth is probably quite simply that nobody was watching the pot while it slowly simmered and finally burned a whole in the bottom and set the whole house on fire.

I agree that Dems could have done more and are not blameless. We've seen the videos of them defending Fannie against accusations of malfeasance by Raines etc.

But bottom line, in 2000 when the Republicans took control of the Govt, Fannie/Freddie were in no danger of collapse and neither was the finanical system. That is what the Republicans in herited. During the time that the GSEs and, more critically, the financial institutions over-leveraged themselves on debt, it was the Republicans who were in control of Congress and the WH, and executive adminstrative agencies like OFHEO and HUD which had responsibility for Fannie/Freddie oversight. The only bill which was passed before 2007 to regulate Fannie/Freddie was a bipartisan bill passed by Dems and Republicans in the House in 2005, which according to its Republican sposor, was shot down by the WH.

If you want to blame Dems equally when they were out of power had little political power to do anything, well that's a matter of opinion.

However, from what I've seen in threads like this, read in conservative editorials like some posted in this thread, and heard from the Murdoch media outlets, if it had been Dems who had control of the Govt, I suspect that few of our conservative friends would be as magnaminous as you.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0pk--Ox49L0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0pk--Ox49L0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

If you can't understand Barney Frank, here is the transcript of the interplay between Joel Pollack (Harvard Law student) and Frank:

JOEL POLLAK, HARVARD LAW STUDENT: My name is Joel Pollak, and I'm a student at the law school. In your account of how the subprime mortgage crisis came about, you mentioned the Reagan administration, the Bush administration, the Republicans in Congress, conservatives. But it happened on your watch. And I would just like to ask you...

REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA), FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: When was my watch, sir?

POLLAK: When you became the chairman of the...

FRANK: Which was when?

POLLAK: It was in 2007. I'm still waiting -- I'm still waiting for a very simply answer to a question...

FRANK: And I'm waiting for you to tell me what you think I should have done. I didn't say (INAUDIBLE)

POLLAK: No, you're a public representative. I'm a student. I'm asking you...

FRANK: Oh, which allows you to say things that you don't back up?

POLLAK: I'm asking...

(LAUGHTER)

POLLAK: It does -- it does allow me to ask you a question. I'm waiting for you to explain...

FRANK: OK, I'll give you an answer.

POLLAK: ... how much, if any, responsibility do you think you (INAUDIBLE)


FRANK: Well, I will take this. First of all, you are a student. Students are entitled to full constitutional freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment. You've made an accusation that is wholly inaccurate.

POLLAK: I didn't accuse you of anything. I'm asking how much responsibility...

FRANK: Sure.

POLLAK: ... if any -- you can say none. That's fine.

FRANK: I think you're being disingenuous.

I became chairman on January -- and this is the right-wing attack on liberals to try and stop regulation that you are repeating. On January 31st, I became the chairman. On March 28th, the committee passed a very tough Fannie/Freddie bill, which the Bush administration liked. Later that year in November, we passed a bill to restrict subprime lending. Because we did the subprime lending restrictions, Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, did what Alan Greenspan refused to do and said, OK, I'll do that.

So I do want to ask you, when you suggest that I should apologize for something or take responsibility, what is it you think I should have done that I didn't do?

POLLAK: Well, after spending the entire speech blaming conservatives -- I happen to think of myself as of as a conservative, and I rent and I think of myself as someone who cares about poor people -- I'm just interested in whether you think you have any responsibility...

FRANK: Well, I've answered the question. Sir, I think you're not being fully honest with us. You clearly are implying that I do. And I'm asking you -- I have given you my record...

This Joel Pollak is impressive. I had the opportunity to see his interview with Greta Van Susteran and he admits he used to be a left-wiing Democrat in his undergrad days, but had since changed sides. He says that a Conservative will answer questions, while a Liberal will never give you a straight answer. Pollak kept his composure with an audience that was hostile to his stance.

Read full interview below:

FOXNews.com - Exclusive: Frank Talk from Barney's Foe - Greta Van Susteren | On The Record With Greta

Frank simply took a kid who was justifiably nervous and who had one shot to ask a question and disembled the point of the question...

The point was 'what responsibility does Frank believe he owns as a result of his policiy initiatives, which resulted in the financial crisis...'

Frank, as every leftist on this board does in nearly EVERY debate, changed the issue where I've highlighted the transcript.

Frank desperatately wanted to frame the question within the time frame of his chairmanship... He made it CLEAR that there was no world prior to his chairmanship and thus he had no role beyond the 'good works' which he so carefully stacks, where the Fed and tarp took the ball from congress.

I admire the youngster for his gravitas... in asking the question, but the forum where the question was asked and his inexperience with liars... (Leftists) made it unlikely, if not impossible for him to have cornered the little faggot for his role in threatening the financial markets with civil right law suits back in the 90s when the Reno Justice Deptartment was taking down Microsoft and looking for ANY means to give the impression that the US Federal government was out to FAIR THINGS UP...

Frank did a good job of twisting an in experienced constituent into looking like an ill-informed dupe of the VRWC...

In short the kid accepted a false premise... and once he did so... the point was lost.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

And now we'll see the posts about how all this is left-wing drivel dah dah dah.

What I'd really find more persuasive that cut-n-paste skills is someone who can explain to me exactly how Fannie/Freddie "caused" companies like Merrill Goldman Citi and the rest to buy all these crappy mortgages.

The problem is that with a catastrophe of this magnitude, it's only natural for people to want something BIG to blame, which carries over to which political party made the most blunders. Frankly, I don't think the "politicians" even understood what was going on, when rumblings first began about the housing bubble threatening to burst. They ALL just ho-hummed through all the red flag warnings.

The right desperately wants to blame the left, because Republicans had oversight responsibility during the majority of time it was all going down and creeping to a disastrous crescendo. The left wants to blame the right and at the same time absolve themselves of all responsibility, which doesn't cut it either.

The reactions by the left and right are exactly as they were when the blame game started over the 911 attacks, when the truth is probably quite simply that nobody was watching the pot while it slowly simmered and finally burned a whole in the bottom and set the whole house on fire.

I agree that Dems could have done more and are not blameless. We've seen the videos of them defending Fannie against accusations of malfeasance by Raines etc.

But bottom line, in 2000 when the Republicans took control of the Govt, Fannie/Freddie were in no danger of collapse and neither was the finanical system. That is what the Republicans in herited. During the time that the GSEs and, more critically, the financial institutions over-leveraged themselves on debt, it was the Republicans who were in control of Congress and the WH, and executive adminstrative agencies like OFHEO and HUD which had responsibility for Fannie/Freddie oversight. The only bill which was passed before 2007 to regulate Fannie/Freddie was a bipartisan bill passed by Dems and Republicans in the House in 2005, which according to its Republican sposor, was shot down by the WH.

If you want to blame Dems equally when they were out of power had little political power to do anything, well that's a matter of opinion.

However, from what I've seen in threads like this, read in conservative editorials like some posted in this thread, and heard from the Murdoch media outlets, if it had been Dems who had control of the Govt, I suspect that few of our conservative friends would be as magnaminous as you.

Get SERIOUS... The GOP may have had slim majorities for a period during the Bush administration, but the Democrats were masterful in the manipulations of the soft headed MODERATES in Congresss and PARTICULARLY the Senate. Bush REPREATEDLY spoke of the SERIOUS PROBLEMS of Fannie and Freddie; he spoke to them in the 2000 Campaign and tried to initiate legislation to reform the looming failures in 2001...

After 9-11 however, the left pretty much got whatever it wanted in social legislation as a means by which Bush got the necessary bills and funding to fight the US GWOT.

Don't even PRETEND that Fannie and Freddie were healthy in 2000, as it is absurd on its face; as is the notion that the GOP was 'in charge' when in truth, the GOP has very slim majorities and weak sisters running the key committees as the phalanx of video from the hearings during those periods prove over and over again.

 

[Iriemon]

The problem is that with a catastrophe of this magnitude, it's only natural for people to want something BIG to blame, which carries over to which political party made the most blunders. Frankly, I don't think the "politicians" even understood what was going on, when rumblings first began about the housing bubble threatening to burst. They ALL just ho-hummed through all the red flag warnings.

The right desperately wants to blame the left, because Republicans had oversight responsibility during the majority of time it was all going down and creeping to a disastrous crescendo. The left wants to blame the right and at the same time absolve themselves of all responsibility, which doesn't cut it either.

The reactions by the left and right are exactly as they were when the blame game started over the 911 attacks, when the truth is probably quite simply that nobody was watching the pot while it slowly simmered and finally burned a whole in the bottom and set the whole house on fire.

I agree that Dems could have done more and are not blameless. We've seen the videos of them defending Fannie against accusations of malfeasance by Raines etc.

But bottom line, in 2000 when the Republicans took control of the Govt, Fannie/Freddie were in no danger of collapse and neither was the finanical system. That is what the Republicans in herited. During the time that the GSEs and, more critically, the financial institutions over-leveraged themselves on debt, it was the Republicans who were in control of Congress and the WH, and executive adminstrative agencies like OFHEO and HUD which had responsibility for Fannie/Freddie oversight. The only bill which was passed before 2007 to regulate Fannie/Freddie was a bipartisan bill passed by Dems and Republicans in the House in 2005, which according to its Republican sposor, was shot down by the WH.

If you want to blame Dems equally when they were out of power had little political power to do anything, well that's a matter of opinion.

However, from what I've seen in threads like this, read in conservative editorials like some posted in this thread, and heard from the Murdoch media outlets, if it had been Dems who had control of the Govt, I suspect that few of our conservative friends would be as magnaminous as you.

Get SERIOUS... The GOP may have had slim majorities for a period during the Bush administration, but the Democrats were masterful in the manipulations of the soft headed MODERATES in Congresss and PARTICULARLY the Senate. Bush REPREATEDLY spoke of the SERIOUS PROBLEMS of Fannie and Freddie; he spoke to them in the 2000 Campaign and tried to initiate legislation to reform the looming failures in 2001...

After 9-11 however, the left pretty much got whatever it wanted in social legislation as a means by which Bush got the necessary bills and funding to fight the US GWOT.

Don't even PRETEND that Fannie and Freddie were healthy in 2000, as it is absurd on its face; as is the notion that the GOP was 'in charge' when in truth, the GOP has very slim majorities and weak sisters running the key committees as the phalanx of video from the hearings during those periods prove over and over again.

Facts, please.

What legislation did the Dems block in Congress, and how did they do it?

What legislation to regulate Fannie was ever voted on except the bipartisan House bill in 2005 that the Dems supported, that it's Republican sponsor says was shot down by the President?

How were Fannie and Freddie unhealthy in 2000. They didn't have overvalued subprime mortgages on the books at that time.

How did the fact that the GOP had majorities in the House, the Senate, and controlled the WH not make them in charge of the Govt?

Your claim that the left got whatever social legislation after 9-11 is IMO ludicrous on its face, but specifically to this issue, what legislation did the Dems want that they got?

 

[editec]

Trying to have a rational discussion with Pubie?

Good luck with that, Irie.

The man's a crazy as I am, only with half my charm.

 

[Iriemon]

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0pk--Ox49L0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0pk--Ox49L0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

If you can't understand Barney Frank, here is the transcript of the interplay between Joel Pollack (Harvard Law student) and Frank:

JOEL POLLAK, HARVARD LAW STUDENT: My name is Joel Pollak, and I'm a student at the law school. In your account of how the subprime mortgage crisis came about, you mentioned the Reagan administration, the Bush administration, the Republicans in Congress, conservatives. But it happened on your watch. And I would just like to ask you...

REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA), FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: When was my watch, sir?

POLLAK: When you became the chairman of the...

FRANK: Which was when?

POLLAK: It was in 2007. I'm still waiting -- I'm still waiting for a very simply answer to a question...

FRANK: And I'm waiting for you to tell me what you think I should have done. I didn't say (INAUDIBLE)

POLLAK: No, you're a public representative. I'm a student. I'm asking you...

FRANK: Oh, which allows you to say things that you don't back up?

POLLAK: I'm asking...

(LAUGHTER)

POLLAK: It does -- it does allow me to ask you a question. I'm waiting for you to explain...

FRANK: OK, I'll give you an answer.

POLLAK: ... how much, if any, responsibility do you think you (INAUDIBLE)


FRANK: Well, I will take this. First of all, you are a student. Students are entitled to full constitutional freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment. You've made an accusation that is wholly inaccurate.

POLLAK: I didn't accuse you of anything. I'm asking how much responsibility...

FRANK: Sure.

POLLAK: ... if any -- you can say none. That's fine.

FRANK: I think you're being disingenuous.

I became chairman on January -- and this is the right-wing attack on liberals to try and stop regulation that you are repeating. On January 31st, I became the chairman. On March 28th, the committee passed a very tough Fannie/Freddie bill, which the Bush administration liked. Later that year in November, we passed a bill to restrict subprime lending. Because we did the subprime lending restrictions, Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, did what Alan Greenspan refused to do and said, OK, I'll do that.

So I do want to ask you, when you suggest that I should apologize for something or take responsibility, what is it you think I should have done that I didn't do?

POLLAK: Well, after spending the entire speech blaming conservatives -- I happen to think of myself as of as a conservative, and I rent and I think of myself as someone who cares about poor people -- I'm just interested in whether you think you have any responsibility...

FRANK: Well, I've answered the question. Sir, I think you're not being fully honest with us. You clearly are implying that I do. And I'm asking you -- I have given you my record...

This Joel Pollak is impressive. I had the opportunity to see his interview with Greta Van Susteran and he admits he used to be a left-wiing Democrat in his undergrad days, but had since changed sides. He says that a Conservative will answer questions, while a Liberal will never give you a straight answer. Pollak kept his composure with an audience that was hostile to his stance.

Read full interview below:

FOXNews.com - Exclusive: Frank Talk from Barney's Foe - Greta Van Susteren | On The Record With Greta

Frank simply took a kid who was justifiably nervous and who had one shot to ask a question and disembled the point of the question...

The point was 'what responsibility does Frank believe he owns as a result of his policiy initiatives, which resulted in the financial crisis...'

Frank, as every leftist on this board does in nearly EVERY debate, changed the issue where I've highlighted the transcript.

Frank desperatately wanted to frame the question within the time frame of his chairmanship... He made it CLEAR that there was no world prior to his chairmanship and thus he had no role beyond the 'good works' which he so carefully stacks, where the Fed and tarp took the ball from congress.

I admire the youngster for his gravitas... in asking the question, but the forum where the question was asked and his inexperience with liars... (Leftists) made it unlikely, if not impossible for him to have cornered the little faggot for his role in threatening the financial markets with civil right law suits back in the 90s when the Reno Justice Deptartment was taking down Microsoft and looking for ANY means to give the impression that the US Federal government was out to FAIR THINGS UP...

Frank did a good job of twisting an in experienced constituent into looking like an ill-informed dupe of the VRWC...

In short the kid accepted a false premise... and once he did so... the point was lost.

What could Frank have done prior to Jan 2007 when the Republicans controlled the majority in the House, including the committees?

I mean, other than join in with Republican majority to pass a bipartisan bill to regulate Fannie/Freddie in 2005, that according to its Republican sponsor, was shot down by the WH?

 

[Xenophon]

IMO it appeared that Frank is annoyed by the historical distortions as to what happened, a lot of which we have seen echoed in this thread.

The only distortions done were by Frank himslef.

It was and remains his job, and he himself fought tooth and nail to stop tighter oversite and regulations.

What he is annoyed with is people bringing up the uncomfortable fact that he was a major cause of what happened and not an innocent bystander as he likes to claim now.

 

[DiveCon]

IMO it appeared that Frank is annoyed by the historical distortions as to what happened, a lot of which we have seen echoed in this thread.

The only distortions done were by Frank himslef.

It was and remains his job, and he himself fought tooth and nail to stop tighter oversite and regulations.

What he is annoyed with is people bringing up the uncomfortable fact that he was a major cause of what happened and not an innocent bystander as he likes to claim now.

Irie thinks no democrat could get anything in Washington because of the slim majorities the GOP had
they clearly dont know how things wortk in DC

 

[Sinatra]

Frank has a long record of rabid defense of Fannie and Freddie - and it was he, along with a cadre of Democrats, who hinted at racism when Republicans warned that these mega-lending government sponsored institutions were endangering the economy. These warnings go back nearly a decade ago, and repeated throughout the Bush term. I agree the Bush administration could have done much more to make this a public issue, but they became obsessed with post 9-11 War on Terror that obviously put the Freddie and Fannie issue on the back burner.

That in no way absolves Barney Frank and his ilk from complicity in the mortgage meltdown. They consistently urged enhancing loans to minorities and underpriviliged applicants. This scenario set in place the explosion in the sub-prime market that led to the eventual meltdown. Frank had his hands all over that mess.

His refusal to answer to that college student is symbolic of the current Democrat leadership in DC - they take NO responsibility for anything. Going into their 3rd year of complete dominance of Congress, they persist in maintaining the Blame-Bush mantra.

Americans are growing tired of this not-our-fault blame game...

 

[Iriemon]

IMO it appeared that Frank is annoyed by the historical distortions as to what happened, a lot of which we have seen echoed in this thread.

It was and remains his job, and he himself fought tooth and nail to stop tighter oversite and regulations.

How exactly was it that Frank was fighting "tooth and nail" oversight and regulation of Fannie/Freddie when he joined in with House Republicans in passing the only bill to tighten regulation of Fannie/Freddie that was passed the entire time the Republicans controlled Congress?

How was it Franks job to oversee Fannie/Freddie when:

OFHEO's mission is to promote housing and a strong national housing finance system by ensuring the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation).

The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 created a regulatory oversight structure for the housing government-sponsored enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The regulatory oversight was divided to address two functions &#8211; their financial safety and soundness and their affordable housing mission. The financial safety and soundness regulation is vested in the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO). OFHEO implements, monitors and enforces capital standards for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

What he is annoyed with is people bringing up the uncomfortable fact that he was a major cause of what happened and not an innocent bystander as he likes to claim now.

What exactly could Frank have done when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency prior to Jan 2007, other than join in with House Republicans in passing in 2005 a bipartisan bill to tighten Fannie/Freddie regulations which, according to the Republican sponsor of the bill, was shot down by the White HOuse?

 

[Iriemon]

IMO it appeared that Frank is annoyed by the historical distortions as to what happened, a lot of which we have seen echoed in this thread.

The only distortions done were by Frank himslef.

It was and remains his job, and he himself fought tooth and nail to stop tighter oversite and regulations.

What he is annoyed with is people bringing up the uncomfortable fact that he was a major cause of what happened and not an innocent bystander as he likes to claim now.

Irie thinks no democrat could get anything in Washington because of the slim majorities the GOP had
they clearly dont know how things wortk in DC

What exactly could Frank have done when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency prior to Jan 2007, other than join in with House Republicans in passing in 2005 a bipartisan bill (and the only such bill that was ever put to a vote while Republicans controlled Congress) to tighten Fannie/Freddie regulations which, according to the Republican sponsor of the bill, was shot down by the White HOuse?

 

[Iriemon]

Frank has a long record of rabid defense of Fannie and Freddie - and it was he, along with a cadre of Democrats, who hinted at racism when Republicans warned that these mega-lending government sponsored institutions were endangering the economy. These warnings go back nearly a decade ago, and repeated throughout the Bush term. I agree the Bush administration could have done much more to make this a public issue, but they became obsessed with post 9-11 War on Terror that obviously put the Freddie and Fannie issue on the back burner.

That in no way absolves Barney Frank and his ilk from complicity in the mortgage meltdown. They consistently urged enhancing loans to minorities and underpriviliged applicants. This scenario set in place the explosion in the sub-prime market that led to the eventual meltdown. Frank had his hands all over that mess.

His refusal to answer to that college student is symbolic of the current Democrat leadership in DC - they take NO responsibility for anything. Going into their 3rd year of complete dominance of Congress, they persist in maintaining the Blame-Bush mantra.

Americans are growing tired of this not-our-fault blame game...

What exactly could Frank have done when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency prior to Jan 2007, other than join in with House Republicans in passing in 2005 a bipartisan bill (and the only such bill that was ever put to a vote while Republicans controlled Congress) to tighten Fannie/Freddie regulations which, according to the Republican sponsor of the bill, was shot down by the White House?

How exactly could Frank threaten the White House with racism for supporting a bill that Frank himself endorsed along with orther Democrats and House Republicans.

What evidence is there that Frank did this with this bill?

 

[DiveCon]

Frank has a long record of rabid defense of Fannie and Freddie - and it was he, along with a cadre of Democrats, who hinted at racism when Republicans warned that these mega-lending government sponsored institutions were endangering the economy. These warnings go back nearly a decade ago, and repeated throughout the Bush term. I agree the Bush administration could have done much more to make this a public issue, but they became obsessed with post 9-11 War on Terror that obviously put the Freddie and Fannie issue on the back burner.

That in no way absolves Barney Frank and his ilk from complicity in the mortgage meltdown. They consistently urged enhancing loans to minorities and underpriviliged applicants. This scenario set in place the explosion in the sub-prime market that led to the eventual meltdown. Frank had his hands all over that mess.

His refusal to answer to that college student is symbolic of the current Democrat leadership in DC - they take NO responsibility for anything. Going into their 3rd year of complete dominance of Congress, they persist in maintaining the Blame-Bush mantra.

Americans are growing tired of this not-our-fault blame game...

What exactly could Frank have done when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency prior to Jan 2007, other than join in with House Republicans in passing in 2005 a bipartisan bill (and the only such bill that was ever put to a vote while Republicans controlled Congress) to tighten Fannie/Freddie regulations which, according to the Republican sponsor of the bill, was shot down by the White House?

How exactly could Frank threaten the White House with racism for supporting a bill that Frank himself endorsed along with orther Democrats and House Republicans.

What evidence is there that Frank did this with this bill?

yeah, keep excusing those responsible on your side

i'll continue to hold both sides fuck ups responsible

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (myfoxboston) - It all started with a question: "How much responsibility, if any, do you have for the financial crisis?"

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) and a conservative Harvard law student debated over how Frank should have handled his role as the House Chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Frank was at Harvard University for a speech at the Kennedy School of Government.

Harvard student takes on Rep. Frank

If the video doesn't load on that page you can see it at the link below as well.

Townhall.com Blog : Greg Hengler : Conservative Harvard Student Battles Barney Frank Over His Role In Financial Crisis

Barney Frank admits an error Harvard student takes on Rep. Frank in this video. He leaves the student looking the fool. The student: Wrong on the facts.