You're an idiot. And I don't say that merely because you assign some blame to the CRA; but because you cite Huffington posts claim the GAO said the recession only cost household wealth $9.1 billion when the GAO never said that. The GAO put that at $9.1 trillion.I gave you a link which shows household loses exceeded $19 trillion. Stock market loses account for about another $10 trillion.Imbecile, the "psychological trauma" accounts for a small chunk of the economic impact.
$19 trillion was from lost household wealth...
Plus another $7 trillion in lost stock market valuation in 2008...
Wall Street's Final '08 Toll: $6.9 Trillion Wiped Out
Plus another couple of trillion lost in the stock market in 2009 until March when the market started turning around.
$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession.
Far exceeds everything you listed -- combined.
You can't have it both ways!
Remember you used Pethokoukis' quote: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
to clearly state $30 trillion i.e. $14 trillion from market, GDP,etc.. that he acknowledge and then he added another $16 trillion for rounding up purposes. NOT one single quantifiable source was use by Pethokoukis to arrive at the additional $16 trillion!
How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI
The same article you quoted does NOT blame the recession on Bush as you ignorantly do! And I quote:
"Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause. The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”
Hmmmm!!!! Who runs the Federal Reserve???? They certainly don't get directions from the President!
The Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the.. Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia
So where in the article YOU quoted does it ever say "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
It doesn't! YOU made that up!
That's more than everything you listed -- combined.
BUT according to where you got your information How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI
It wasn't Bush's fault! Yet you clearly stated: "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
The same article you quoted does NOT blame the recession on Bush as you ignorantly do! And I quote:
"Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause. The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”
Finally are you so cruel, so calloused such a selfish, miserly person you ignore the “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses." from 5,778 lives lost?
I'm confident that the relatives, the employers, the GDP was directly affected by these lost lives in far excess of $20 trillion!
So in summary:
1) Explain how it was "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"? If the ARTICLE you linked to says it was the Federal Reserve's fault?
2) YOU explain to the relatives,employers, and businesses that lost the salaries,the goods purchased, THE LIVES of 5,778! How totally calloused and ignorant!
NOW facts to counter your exaggerated household losses.......
1) The office said paper wealth lost by U.S. homeowners totalled $9.1 billion.
Additionally, the GAO noted, economic losses associated with increased mortgage foreclosures and higher unemployment since 2008 need to be considered as additional costs. Financial Crisis Cost Tops $22 Trillion, GAO Says | HuffPost
2) Now as far as "Bush's Great Recession"... Here are the reasons and you tell me where in that discussion is there a MENTION of President Bush?
- The Community Reinvestment Act is not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Banks responded by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards. Forty-five percent of subprime loan originations went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006, where the foreclosures are almost twice as likely. This was made possible by the constant reforms to the Community Reinvestment Act.[32]
- Government-sponsored enterprise under the lax rules made to the Community Reinvestment Act, GSEs started to offer too many loans that were never repaid.[33]
- The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act allowed banks to use insured depositories to underwrite private securities loans and sell them on the open market in the form of securities. Better known as mortgage-backed security.[34][35]
- Giving Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac GSE status allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to borrow money in the bond market at lower rates (yields) than other financial institutions. With their funding advantage, they purchased and invested in huge numbers of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, and they did so with lower capital requirements than other regulated financial institutions and banks. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to experience large losses on their retained portfolios, especially on their Alt-A and subprime investments. In 2008, the sheer size of their retained portfolios and mortgage guarantees led the Federal Housing Finance Agency to conclude that they would soon be insolvent. Under, GSE status Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's debt and credit guarantees grew so large, that 90 percent of all residential mortgages are financed through Fannie and Freddie or the Federal Housing Administration.[36][37][38]
- By 1966, the United States had suspended its postal savings system which encouraged savings by allowing people to buy certificates of deposit at post offices for as little as a dollar.[39] This started the transformation from a saving to consumption economy. Americans started reducing their savings and increased their debt. This temporarily kept private consumption and thus aggregate demand and employment high, but also contributed to the creation of the credit bubble which eventually burst.[40]
- Offshoring of American jobs: The U.S. government has from time to time encouraged the outsourcing of American jobs by various subsidies and through loopholes in tax policy which led to wage stagnation and the loss of American jobs.[41][42] When unemployed Americans did find jobs, many of the jobs were low-wage or entry level jobs.[43]
- Encouraging mergers: The U.S. government in its deregulatory periods has encouraged large corporate mergers, which often have the effect of reducing tax revenues and often choked market competition. Many such mergers act to cut employment, as well. The U.S. Treasury Department has allowed banks and other financial institutions in many cases to use the 2008 and 2009 bailout money to buy out their competitors.[44][45]
- Allowing unemployment to grow to control inflation: U.S. government policy sometimes favors growing unemployment ostensibly in order to achieve long run growth by reducing inflation. According to Merrill Lynch chief economist David Rosenberg, Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia
Where in that list is there ANY MENTION of Bush's recession and $30 trillion in losses???
All total, the GAO put the price tag on the recession at $22 trillion, far exceeding every event you listed combined.
And in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, when Bush was warning Congress about the GSE's...... which party controlled Congress?You're an idiot. And I don't say that merely because you assign some blame to the CRA; but because you cite Huffington posts claim the GAO said the recession only cost household wealth $9.1 billion when the GAO never said that. The GAO put that at $9.1 trillion.I gave you a link which shows household loses exceeded $19 trillion. Stock market loses account for about another $10 trillion.Imbecile, the "psychological trauma" accounts for a small chunk of the economic impact.
$19 trillion was from lost household wealth...
Plus another $7 trillion in lost stock market valuation in 2008...
Wall Street's Final '08 Toll: $6.9 Trillion Wiped Out
Plus another couple of trillion lost in the stock market in 2009 until March when the market started turning around.
$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession.
Far exceeds everything you listed -- combined.
You can't have it both ways!
Remember you used Pethokoukis' quote: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
to clearly state $30 trillion i.e. $14 trillion from market, GDP,etc.. that he acknowledge and then he added another $16 trillion for rounding up purposes. NOT one single quantifiable source was use by Pethokoukis to arrive at the additional $16 trillion!
How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI
The same article you quoted does NOT blame the recession on Bush as you ignorantly do! And I quote:
"Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause. The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”
Hmmmm!!!! Who runs the Federal Reserve???? They certainly don't get directions from the President!
The Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the.. Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia
So where in the article YOU quoted does it ever say "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
It doesn't! YOU made that up!
That's more than everything you listed -- combined.
BUT according to where you got your information How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI
It wasn't Bush's fault! Yet you clearly stated: "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
The same article you quoted does NOT blame the recession on Bush as you ignorantly do! And I quote:
"Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause. The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”
Finally are you so cruel, so calloused such a selfish, miserly person you ignore the “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses." from 5,778 lives lost?
I'm confident that the relatives, the employers, the GDP was directly affected by these lost lives in far excess of $20 trillion!
So in summary:
1) Explain how it was "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"? If the ARTICLE you linked to says it was the Federal Reserve's fault?
2) YOU explain to the relatives,employers, and businesses that lost the salaries,the goods purchased, THE LIVES of 5,778! How totally calloused and ignorant!
NOW facts to counter your exaggerated household losses.......
1) The office said paper wealth lost by U.S. homeowners totalled $9.1 billion.
Additionally, the GAO noted, economic losses associated with increased mortgage foreclosures and higher unemployment since 2008 need to be considered as additional costs. Financial Crisis Cost Tops $22 Trillion, GAO Says | HuffPost
2) Now as far as "Bush's Great Recession"... Here are the reasons and you tell me where in that discussion is there a MENTION of President Bush?
- The Community Reinvestment Act is not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Banks responded by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards. Forty-five percent of subprime loan originations went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006, where the foreclosures are almost twice as likely. This was made possible by the constant reforms to the Community Reinvestment Act.[32]
- Government-sponsored enterprise under the lax rules made to the Community Reinvestment Act, GSEs started to offer too many loans that were never repaid.[33]
- The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act allowed banks to use insured depositories to underwrite private securities loans and sell them on the open market in the form of securities. Better known as mortgage-backed security.[34][35]
- Giving Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac GSE status allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to borrow money in the bond market at lower rates (yields) than other financial institutions. With their funding advantage, they purchased and invested in huge numbers of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, and they did so with lower capital requirements than other regulated financial institutions and banks. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to experience large losses on their retained portfolios, especially on their Alt-A and subprime investments. In 2008, the sheer size of their retained portfolios and mortgage guarantees led the Federal Housing Finance Agency to conclude that they would soon be insolvent. Under, GSE status Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's debt and credit guarantees grew so large, that 90 percent of all residential mortgages are financed through Fannie and Freddie or the Federal Housing Administration.[36][37][38]
- By 1966, the United States had suspended its postal savings system which encouraged savings by allowing people to buy certificates of deposit at post offices for as little as a dollar.[39] This started the transformation from a saving to consumption economy. Americans started reducing their savings and increased their debt. This temporarily kept private consumption and thus aggregate demand and employment high, but also contributed to the creation of the credit bubble which eventually burst.[40]
- Offshoring of American jobs: The U.S. government has from time to time encouraged the outsourcing of American jobs by various subsidies and through loopholes in tax policy which led to wage stagnation and the loss of American jobs.[41][42] When unemployed Americans did find jobs, many of the jobs were low-wage or entry level jobs.[43]
- Encouraging mergers: The U.S. government in its deregulatory periods has encouraged large corporate mergers, which often have the effect of reducing tax revenues and often choked market competition. Many such mergers act to cut employment, as well. The U.S. Treasury Department has allowed banks and other financial institutions in many cases to use the 2008 and 2009 bailout money to buy out their competitors.[44][45]
- Allowing unemployment to grow to control inflation: U.S. government policy sometimes favors growing unemployment ostensibly in order to achieve long run growth by reducing inflation. According to Merrill Lynch chief economist David Rosenberg, Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia
Where in that list is there ANY MENTION of Bush's recession and $30 trillion in losses???
All total, the GAO put the price tag on the recession at $22 trillion, far exceeding every event you listed combined.
BUT YOU quoted this article when you said "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
You wrote that!
You can't have it both ways!
Remember you used Pethokoukis' quote: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
to clearly state $30 trillion i.e. $14 trillion from market, GDP,etc.. the he acknowledge and then he added anther $16 trillion
for rounding up purposes as NOT one single quantifiable source was use by Pethokoukis!
How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI
AND did the GAO call it a "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
1) YOU and YOU alone called it "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
2) YOU said $30 trillion based on thisethokoukis' quote: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
3) YOU with NO regard for the 5,778 killed and their “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects" callously and with evil intent to blame Bush ignored that cost! You ask any one of the 5,778 what price tag they would put on their loved one's life?
I dare you because their loss is priceless. Hence your stupid ass comment about $30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession" is idiotic!
A) because everyone concluded it WAS NOTHING that Bush had any control over...much as they tried:
GWB warned Congress to act 22 times over 6 years and to no avail!
"Over six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, 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 with the GSEs.
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 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-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.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "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." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-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 calls 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: Then-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)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls 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: Then-Secretary 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)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007
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)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
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)
2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
Remember the housing bubble started under Clinton and was made worse by the Democrats who refused to as Dodd/Frank said:
AND
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow August 21, 2010
Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie
\
And in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, when Bush was warning Congress about the GSE's...... which party controlled Congress?
BUT YOU quoted this article when you said "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
You wrote that!
You can't have it both ways!
Remember you used Pethokoukis' quote: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
to clearly state $30 trillion i.e. $14 trillion from market, GDP,etc.. the he acknowledge and then he added anther $16 trillion
for rounding up purposes as NOT one single quantifiable source was use by Pethokoukis!
How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI
AND did the GAO call it a "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
1) YOU and YOU alone called it "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
2) YOU said $30 trillion based on this
3) YOU with NO regard for the 5,778 killed and their “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects" callously and with evil intent to blame Bush ignored that cost! You ask any one of the 5,778 what price tag they would put on their loved one's life?
I dare you because their loss is priceless. Hence your stupid ass comment about $30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession" is idiotic!
A) because everyone concluded it WAS NOTHING that Bush had any control over...much as they tried:
GWB warned Congress to act 22 times over 6 years and to no avail!
"Over six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, 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 with the GSEs.
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 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-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.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "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." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-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 calls 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: Then-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)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls 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: Then-Secretary 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)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007
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)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
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)
2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
Remember the housing bubble started under Clinton and was made worse by the Democrats who refused to as Dodd/Frank said:
AND
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow August 21, 2010
Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie
\
Doesn't matter if Democrats were against GSE reform -- they had no power in Congress. Republicans did, and they didn't pass GSE reform while they were in charge. Democrats did pass GSE reform after taking control of Congress in 2007 with the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, but it was too late by then. By 2007, the damage was already done.And in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, when Bush was warning Congress about the GSE's...... which party controlled Congress?
BUT YOU quoted this article when you said "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
You wrote that!
You can't have it both ways!
Remember you used Pethokoukis' quote: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
to clearly state $30 trillion i.e. $14 trillion from market, GDP,etc.. the he acknowledge and then he added anther $16 trillion
for rounding up purposes as NOT one single quantifiable source was use by Pethokoukis!
How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI
AND did the GAO call it a "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
1) YOU and YOU alone called it "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
2) YOU said $30 trillion based on this
3) YOU with NO regard for the 5,778 killed and their “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects" callously and with evil intent to blame Bush ignored that cost! You ask any one of the 5,778 what price tag they would put on their loved one's life?
I dare you because their loss is priceless. Hence your stupid ass comment about $30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession" is idiotic!
A) because everyone concluded it WAS NOTHING that Bush had any control over...much as they tried:
GWB warned Congress to act 22 times over 6 years and to no avail!
"Over six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, 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 with the GSEs.
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 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-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.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "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." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-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 calls 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: Then-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)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls 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: Then-Secretary 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)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007
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)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
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)
2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
Remember the housing bubble started under Clinton and was made worse by the Democrats who refused to as Dodd/Frank said:
AND
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow August 21, 2010
Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie
\
I agree! GOP!
But who was against Fannie/Freddie reform???
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"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."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
Doesn't matter if Democrats were against GSE reform -- they had no power in Congress. Republicans did, and they didn't pass GSE reform while they were in charge. Democrats did pass GSE reform after taking control of Congress in 2007 with the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, but it was too late by then. By 2007, the damage was already done.And in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, when Bush was warning Congress about the GSE's...... which party controlled Congress?
BUT YOU quoted this article when you said "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
You wrote that!
You can't have it both ways!
Remember you used Pethokoukis' quote: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
to clearly state $30 trillion i.e. $14 trillion from market, GDP,etc.. the he acknowledge and then he added anther $16 trillion
for rounding up purposes as NOT one single quantifiable source was use by Pethokoukis!
How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI
AND did the GAO call it a "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
1) YOU and YOU alone called it "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
2) YOU said $30 trillion based on this
3) YOU with NO regard for the 5,778 killed and their “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects" callously and with evil intent to blame Bush ignored that cost! You ask any one of the 5,778 what price tag they would put on their loved one's life?
I dare you because their loss is priceless. Hence your stupid ass comment about $30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession" is idiotic!
A) because everyone concluded it WAS NOTHING that Bush had any control over...much as they tried:
GWB warned Congress to act 22 times over 6 years and to no avail!
"Over six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, 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 with the GSEs.
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 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-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.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "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." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-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 calls 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: Then-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)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls 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: Then-Secretary 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)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007
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)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
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)
2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
Remember the housing bubble started under Clinton and was made worse by the Democrats who refused to as Dodd/Frank said:
AND
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow August 21, 2010
Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie
\
I agree! GOP!
But who was against Fannie/Freddie reform???
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"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."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
Thanks for proving Republicans were to blame.
And who was the leader of the Republican Party...?
Meanwhile, Trump Winning!
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
The U.S. economy added 222,000 jobs in June, much more than economists were expecting, the Labor Department said Friday.
It's welcome news after the prior two jobs reports had hinted at a possible slowdown in job growth.
"The job market hasn't lost any steam," says Josh Wright, chief economist at software firm iCMS...
More:
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
In June 2016 were youand talking about Obama wins? Because we posted 287,000 jobs in that month.
Overall, Trump's job record has been in line, if slightly under-performing, 3 year trend. That means that so far Trump is falling short of his promises.
Why are you blaming Democrats for the failure to pass McCain's bill in 2005? Even though Democrats opposed it, it still passed in committee. It still got as far as Senate leadership; who wouldn't put it on the Senate's Legislative Calendar for a full vote on the Senate floor.Doesn't matter if Democrats were against GSE reform -- they had no power in Congress. Republicans did, and they didn't pass GSE reform while they were in charge. Democrats did pass GSE reform after taking control of Congress in 2007 with the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, but it was too late by then. By 2007, the damage was already done.And in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, when Bush was warning Congress about the GSE's...... which party controlled Congress?
BUT YOU quoted this article when you said "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
You wrote that!
You can't have it both ways!
Remember you used Pethokoukis' quote: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
to clearly state $30 trillion i.e. $14 trillion from market, GDP,etc.. the he acknowledge and then he added anther $16 trillion
for rounding up purposes as NOT one single quantifiable source was use by Pethokoukis!
How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI
AND did the GAO call it a "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
1) YOU and YOU alone called it "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
2) YOU said $30 trillion based on this
3) YOU with NO regard for the 5,778 killed and their “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects" callously and with evil intent to blame Bush ignored that cost! You ask any one of the 5,778 what price tag they would put on their loved one's life?
I dare you because their loss is priceless. Hence your stupid ass comment about $30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession" is idiotic!
A) because everyone concluded it WAS NOTHING that Bush had any control over...much as they tried:
GWB warned Congress to act 22 times over 6 years and to no avail!
"Over six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, 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 with the GSEs.
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 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-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.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "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." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-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 calls 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: Then-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)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls 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: Then-Secretary 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)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007
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)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
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)
2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
Remember the housing bubble started under Clinton and was made worse by the Democrats who refused to as Dodd/Frank said:
AND
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow August 21, 2010
Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie
\
I agree! GOP!
But who was against Fannie/Freddie reform???
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"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."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
Thanks for proving Republicans were to blame.
And who was the leader of the Republican Party...?
But as far as "Dems had no power"??? You got to be kidding!
With people like you NEVER ever working with the GOP it would have taken major cooperation with these and the below FACTS...
Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia
Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and
opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005.
That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged.
The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation.
Don't the American people deserve to know that Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, " I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"? Isn't the fact that the ranking Democrat in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae was in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive a glaring conflict of interest? Isn't it worth noting that Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters insisted, "we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines"? Shouldn't the American people know that Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks insist that "there's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong with Fannie Mae"?
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...rats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac
BUT let me point out! You are digressing from the topic.."$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"
It WAS NEVER TRUE and you made that phrase up! Fake News at it's best!!!
A) The housing crisis ACCORDING Barney Frank was caused by what????
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous
role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to
say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie. "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie
DID BARNEY make this statement: $30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession" NOPE!
B) Who did the author of this statement "broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects say was the blame:
"Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause. The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”
HE NEVER SAID THAT "."$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession" You made that up and that is proven to be a total and absolute LIE!
Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers? They're still pretty good; even though there's about 102 million people out of work and the unemployment rate is about 40.5%.Meanwhile, Trump Winning!
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
The U.S. economy added 222,000 jobs in June, much more than economists were expecting, the Labor Department said Friday.
It's welcome news after the prior two jobs reports had hinted at a possible slowdown in job growth.
"The job market hasn't lost any steam," says Josh Wright, chief economist at software firm iCMS...
More:
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
In June 2016 were you
Overall, Trump's job record has been in line, if slightly under-performing, 3 year trend. That means that so far Trump is falling short of his promises.
Many Obamabots were here daily boasting about it. They demanded everyone kneel and praise their Dear Leader. So what's all the hatin about over these great jobs numbers?
Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers? They're still pretty good; even though there's about 102 million people out of work and the unemployment rate is about 40.5%.Meanwhile, Trump Winning!
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
The U.S. economy added 222,000 jobs in June, much more than economists were expecting, the Labor Department said Friday.
It's welcome news after the prior two jobs reports had hinted at a possible slowdown in job growth.
"The job market hasn't lost any steam," says Josh Wright, chief economist at software firm iCMS...
More:
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
In June 2016 were you
Overall, Trump's job record has been in line, if slightly under-performing, 3 year trend. That means that so far Trump is falling short of his promises.
Many Obamabots were here daily boasting about it. They demanded everyone kneel and praise their Dear Leader. So what's all the hatin about over these great jobs numbers?
Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers? They're still pretty good; even though there's about 102 million people out of work and the unemployment rate is about 40.5%.Meanwhile, Trump Winning!
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
The U.S. economy added 222,000 jobs in June, much more than economists were expecting, the Labor Department said Friday.
It's welcome news after the prior two jobs reports had hinted at a possible slowdown in job growth.
"The job market hasn't lost any steam," says Josh Wright, chief economist at software firm iCMS...
More:
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
In June 2016 were you
Overall, Trump's job record has been in line, if slightly under-performing, 3 year trend. That means that so far Trump is falling short of his promises.
Many Obamabots were here daily boasting about it. They demanded everyone kneel and praise their Dear Leader. So what's all the hatin about over these great jobs numbers?
'Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers?' Seriously?! You must be a noob here. Hating is all Democrats are doing these days.
I'm a Democrat and I'm not hating Trump's job numbers, so you are clearly mistaken.Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers? They're still pretty good; even though there's about 102 million people out of work and the unemployment rate is about 40.5%.Meanwhile, Trump Winning!
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
The U.S. economy added 222,000 jobs in June, much more than economists were expecting, the Labor Department said Friday.
It's welcome news after the prior two jobs reports had hinted at a possible slowdown in job growth.
"The job market hasn't lost any steam," says Josh Wright, chief economist at software firm iCMS...
More:
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
In June 2016 were you
Overall, Trump's job record has been in line, if slightly under-performing, 3 year trend. That means that so far Trump is falling short of his promises.
Many Obamabots were here daily boasting about it. They demanded everyone kneel and praise their Dear Leader. So what's all the hatin about over these great jobs numbers?
'Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers?' Seriously?! You must be a noob here. Hating is all Democrats are doing these days.
Only lying greedy idiot rich a-holes are winning, dupe.
Only lying greedy idiot rich a-holes are winning, dupe.
Only in hater dupe world...I would love Trump to have success and start acting like that brilliant businessman instead of an Infowars chump...Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers? They're still pretty good; even though there's about 102 million people out of work and the unemployment rate is about 40.5%.Meanwhile, Trump Winning!
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
The U.S. economy added 222,000 jobs in June, much more than economists were expecting, the Labor Department said Friday.
It's welcome news after the prior two jobs reports had hinted at a possible slowdown in job growth.
"The job market hasn't lost any steam," says Josh Wright, chief economist at software firm iCMS...
More:
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
In June 2016 were you
Overall, Trump's job record has been in line, if slightly under-performing, 3 year trend. That means that so far Trump is falling short of his promises.
Many Obamabots were here daily boasting about it. They demanded everyone kneel and praise their Dear Leader. So what's all the hatin about over these great jobs numbers?
'Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers?' Seriously?! You must be a noob here. Hating is all Democrats are doing these days.
How's the special prosecutor coming, dupe?Only lying greedy idiot rich a-holes are winning, dupe.
Nah, Clinton lost.
Only in hater dupe world...I would love Trump to have success and start acting like that brilliant businessman instead of an Infowars chump...Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers? They're still pretty good; even though there's about 102 million people out of work and the unemployment rate is about 40.5%.Meanwhile, Trump Winning!
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
The U.S. economy added 222,000 jobs in June, much more than economists were expecting, the Labor Department said Friday.
It's welcome news after the prior two jobs reports had hinted at a possible slowdown in job growth.
"The job market hasn't lost any steam," says Josh Wright, chief economist at software firm iCMS...
More:
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June
In June 2016 were you
Overall, Trump's job record has been in line, if slightly under-performing, 3 year trend. That means that so far Trump is falling short of his promises.
Many Obamabots were here daily boasting about it. They demanded everyone kneel and praise their Dear Leader. So what's all the hatin about over these great jobs numbers?
'Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers?' Seriously?! You must be a noob here. Hating is all Democrats are doing these days.
And then the hater dupes say all the hate comes from Dems...hilarious, hater dupes. I don't call RWers and GOPers liars. That would be their greedy idiot billionaire brainwashers...YOU have got all the fake news, bs/hate propaganda/character assassination, and thus hater dupes on your side. See sig for what you don't know, and bs you do.Only in hater dupe world...I would love Trump to have success and start acting like that brilliant businessman instead of an Infowars chump...Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers? They're still pretty good; even though there's about 102 million people out of work and the unemployment rate is about 40.5%.In June 2016 were you
Overall, Trump's job record has been in line, if slightly under-performing, 3 year trend. That means that so far Trump is falling short of his promises.
Many Obamabots were here daily boasting about it. They demanded everyone kneel and praise their Dear Leader. So what's all the hatin about over these great jobs numbers?
'Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers?' Seriously?! You must be a noob here. Hating is all Democrats are doing these days.
Liar.
And then the hater dupes say all the hate comes from Dems...hilarious, hater dupes. I don't call RWers and GOPers liars. That would be their greedy idiot billionaire brainwashers...YOU have got all the fake news, bs/hate propaganda/character assassination, and thus hater dupes on your side. See sig for what you don't know, and bs you do.
