Another lying asshole - Sen. Christopher Dodd

[jackoroe]

So it's what I mentioned in the other thread. You have a "meh. everything goes back to zero" mentality as of Jan. 21st, 2009.

Now you take a "hey that ain't in the constitution we shouldn't pass it / I'm against it". Does that kinda sum up your stance? You now take a "libertarian" stance on issues?

Not quite sure where you've been. I've always been a Libertarian. It makes life a great deal easier. It's either in the Constitution, or it isn't allowed.

 

[naked gent]

The Republicans were too inept to be in charge when they had a majority, and they are too inept to be an effective minority. So much for the Republicans.

If they possessed the effectiveness of The Gestapo they could not prevent a bill from leaving a committee in the U.S. House unless they had a majority of the votes.

As for your last comment, one can only say, 'spoken like a sophomore.'

Henry just show me the rule under which the minority prevents a bill from leaving a committee in the U.S. House.

Current evidence on the healthcare bill (which all republicans voted against) suggests that they can't do what you claim they can do........its time to back up your claim with some facts as opposed to your unsubstantiated beliefs.

 

[JB3]

If they possessed the effectiveness of The Gestapo they could not prevent a bill from leaving a committee in the U.S. House unless they had a majority of the votes.




Henry just show me the rule under which the minority prevents a bill from leaving a committee in the U.S. House.

Current evidence on the healthcare bill (which all republicans voted against) suggests that they can't do what you claim they can do........its time to back up your claim with some facts as opposed to your unsubstantiated beliefs.

Rules change with every session. The democrats have made it insanely difficult for minority members of committees to do anything. I'm trying to find the rules for the House in 2003, but its not easy. I know for a fact, however, that the democrats blocked any harsher regulation of fannie and freddie.

 

[JB3]

Well as I posted about Fannie and Freddie weren't even in the subprime game in the first place. So even if you find the rules from 2003 of this supposed minority blockade it is a strawman argument in the first place.

The loans Freddie and Fannie made weren't the bullshittery that Washington Mutual, AIG, and all the others were trading in that sunk the banking system.

How can you even say that Freddie and Fannie weren't part of the problem that caused the recession. Those two entities alone held several trillion dollars in bad loans. They alone could have brought down the entire financial system, without any help from the other players.

Part of the regulation that the democrats blocked was meant to intentionally prevent them from making those bad loans. They were in trouble in 2003, and everyone knew it.

Here's a quote directly from the legislation, written by Frank as part of his duties:

system.
Additionally, we believe that it would be inappropriate and counterproductive to adopt asset limits of the type proposed by the Administration, under which the enterprises could hold assets only at levels ‘‘necessary’’ to provide adequate liquidity to the mortgage markets. The enterprises generally purchase mortgages and mortgage-backed securities when prices are out of line with the broader markets, which provides a source of support, particularly in periods of market turmoil, that helps reduce volatility and keep mortgage funding costs stable. Limiting the portfolios of the enterprises to a level ‘‘necessary’’ to provide adequate liquidity to the markets effectively puts the regulator in the position of determining when mortgage rates are too high and liquidity is needed, turning what is currently a market function into a regulatory one.

Finally, portfolio limits will discourage the enterprises from creating innovative or tailored products to respond to market needs. Because such products are more difficult and expensive to securitize, limiting the ability of the enterprises to hold assets in portfolio will result in higher costs for any product that does not have a broad market. This is clearly contrary to a key goal of this legislation: to encourage the enterprises to do more to fulfill their housing missions.

I bolded that last part because its the smoking gun against Frank. In essence, he was endorsing the 'innovative' derivatives that nearly destroyed the US financial system. He is, essentially, saying that its alright that they hold a ton of bad assets, as long as they keep providing loans. These are Frank's words mind you, this is no third person account.

Frank also voted against the house version: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll547.xml

Pelosi did as well. Frank tried to get the bill sent back to committee when it was on the floor of the house, but that effort failed.

Unfortunately, the bill was sent to committee in the senate, but the senate committees do not keep any publicly available records as far as either votes or committee actions are concerned. What I do know is that the senate version was killed because of a party line vote in committee, and the fact that there were more than enough votes in the senate as a whole to prevent cloture. So yes, the democrats killed a bill that would have tightened the leash on the country's two largest GSE's. (and two entities at the center of the issues we're still working out)

It is very clear, however, that Frank did his best to prevent the bill from ever reaching the senate.

 

[syntax]

How can you even say that Freddie and Fannie weren't part of the problem that caused the recession. Those two entities alone held several trillion dollars in bad loans. *SNIP*

Freddie and Fannie hold $5 trillion in home loans.

Together they hold or guarantee about $5 trillion worth of mortgages, making them key players in the nation's housing market.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92442913

I could not find a source that indicates how many or what percentage of those loans are "bad." Would you please cite the source for your assertion that F&F hold "several trillion dollars in bad loans?"

Part of the regulation that the democrats blocked was meant to intentionally prevent them from making those bad loans. They were in trouble in 2003, and everyone knew it.

Freddie and Fannie do not make loans. They buy them.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the largest buyers of home loans in the nation. They buy home loans from lenders, then hold them in their portfolios or repackage them into bonds — known as mortgage-backed securities — that are traded on Wall Street.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92442913

 

[JB3]

Freddie and Fannie hold $5 trillion in home loans.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92442913

I could not find a source that indicates how many or what percentage of those loans are "bad." Would you please cite the source for your assertion that F&F hold "several trillion dollars in bad loans?"




Freddie and Fannie do not make loans. They buy them.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92442913

Oh excuse me. The difference isn't one that matters. Fannie and Freddie were responsible for packaging the securities that brought down the system. They fueled the desire for subprime loans, because they were the ones that were paying the lending institutions to make those loans to consumers.

Here's the problem with Fannie and Freddie; their bad loan portfolio was causing enough damage to bring both companies down. Together, they held $5 trillion in loans; had they gone down, they would have brought the ENTIRE financial system with them. And all because Congress (mainly democrats) decided that they were perfectly fine and didn't need to be regulated more closely.

 

[syntax]

Here's the problem with Fannie and Freddie; their bad loan portfolio was causing enough damage to bring both companies down. Together, they held $5 trillion in loans;

Your previous post asserted that F&F had $5 trillion in "bad" loans. Could you please provide a cite that supports that assertion?

had they gone down, they would have brought the ENTIRE financial system with them. And all because Congress (mainly democrats) decided that they were perfectly fine and didn't need to be regulated more closely.

F&F were rescued under the Bush administration in July 2008. A true conservative would justly accuse the man of socialism for doing so.

The Bush administration hastily arranged the dramatic Sunday evening rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after Wall Street executives and foreign central bankers told Washington that any further erosion of confidence could have a cascading effect around the world, officials said on Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15fannie.html?ex=1373860800&en=12a60cec05542426&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

It's from the NY Times. Why not wipe your ass with it?

 

[opinterph]

Fannie and Freddie were responsible for packaging the securities that brought down the system. They fueled the desire for subprime loans, because they were the ones that were paying the lending institutions to make those loans to consumers.

I think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed to the rapid expansion of mortgage debt over a number of years (and the resulting artificial price inflation of real estate assets), but for the most part the subprime loans were created and securitized by private institutions rather than government-sponsored enterprises, such as Fannie and Freddie.

A significant problem in the ensuing collapse of the housing market, largely precipitated by subprime defaults, was that the GSE also functioned as guarantors for mortgage-backed securities totaling several trillion dollars that they had sold to private institutions.

Much of the capital investment in the GSE was based on an implicit assumption of guarantee by the federal government. Though the GSE could borrow money at terms almost as favorable as the Treasury itself, there was no genuine government guarantee backing the loans the GSE were purchasing and then selling. It therefore seems reasonble to blame “false assumptions” in the marketplace (relating to GSE) for helping to escalate the crisis/recession, once the bubble began to burst. The true subprime risk was being tossed around like a hot potato among the private institutions, while their profits were being measuring in the short-term. When the market eventually faltered, new credit, including foreign capital that had ultimately financed the market expansion, became understandably scarce, which intensified the problem.

During expansion of the bubble, it is perhaps tragically ironic that the Bush Administration repeatedly pointed to increasing rates of home ownership as an indicator that the US economy was strong.

 

[JB3]

You would like for the government to be the problem so it could fit into your small-government ideology, so bad, that it doesn't matter what the truth is. Unfortunately for you, it's obvious to everyone that does know what actually happened that you don't.

Read everything I've posted. Read the accounts of what actually happened.


Chris Dodd and Barney Frank did everything in their power to prevent regulation that would have limited the government's exposure to bad F&F loans. And look what happened. The government assumed liability for $5 trillion in loans, because F&F were so badly damaged by bad loans they bought, which would have been strictly regulated under the very regulations Frank and Dodd helped to kill.

Both all but endorsed the complex financial instruments that brought our financial system to its knees. READ Frank's words; he almost explicitly says so.

 

[JB3]

Your previous post asserted that F&F had $5 trillion in "bad" loans. Could you please provide a cite that supports that assertion?




F&F were rescued under the Bush administration in July 2008. A true conservative would justly accuse the man of socialism for doing so.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15fannie.html?ex=1373860800&en=12a60cec05542426&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

It's from the NY Times. Why not wipe your ass with it?

Show me the quote where I claimed $5 trillion in bad loans?

Also show me where I approved of Bush rescuing them?

 

[JB3]

I think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed to the rapid expansion of mortgage debt over a number of years (and the resulting artificial price inflation of real estate assets), but for the most part the subprime loans were created and securitized by private institutions rather than government-sponsored enterprises, such as Fannie and Freddie.

See, but that's just not true. Fannie and Freddie drove the expansion of subprime loans, because that's where the money was. (and that's what the bills mentioned above would have prevented.) True, they did not issue loans; but money is stronger than actions in this case. If you dangle millions of dollars in front of a bank for issuing issuing incredibly risky loans, they're going to do it. And that's how it started.

 

[syntax]

Show me the quote where I claimed $5 trillion in bad loans?

Those two entities alone held several trillion dollars in bad loans.

And I asked you to cite a source for this assertion.

Also show me where I approved of Bush rescuing them?

Now you show me the quote that claimed you did.

 

[opinterph]

Fannie and Freddie drove the expansion of subprime loans

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis​

Federal housing data reveal that … the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

 

[JB3]

Now you show me the quote that claimed you did.

The only thing I could find was that Fannie Mae alone had $260 billion in bad loans. Figure between $250 and $350 billion in bad loans for freddie mac, and you're looking at over $500 billion dollars.

Keep in mind those are likely low-ball estimates. Part of the reason no one knows is because F&F weren't required to disclose that information.

 

[JB3]

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis​

Oh, and I forgot to add that F&F's tremendous financial exposure (~$5 trillion dollars) was also a huge factor.

 

[opinterph]

Show me the quote where I claimed $5 trillion in bad loans?

Those two entities alone held several trillion dollars in bad loans.

And I asked you to cite a source for this assertion.

There should be little doubt that the GSE were holding several trillion dollars in “at risk” loans. There was general consensus that failure of those holdings could precipitate a total collapse of the financial markets – That’s why the government seized control.

e.g.

Oh, and I forgot to add that F&F's tremendous financial exposure (~$5 trillion dollars) was also a huge factor.

 

[JB3]

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis​

Also read this illuminating analysis. (with graphs to show why it isn't clear who caused what)

 

[syntax]

Those two entities alone held several trillion dollars in bad loans.

The only thing I could find was that Fannie Mae alone had $260 billion in bad loans. Figure between $250 and $350 billion in bad loans for freddie mac, and you're looking at over $500 billion dollars.

Keep in mind those are likely low-ball estimates. Part of the reason no one knows is because F&F weren't required to disclose that information.

As you are scrambling to cover your ass for all the inaccuracies you have posted in this thread, keep in mind that a low-ball estimate of $500 billion dollars [sic] in "bad loans" does not come close to "several trillion dollars."

 

[JB3]

As you are scrambling to cover your ass for all the inaccuracies you have posted in this thread, keep in mind that a low-ball estimate of $500 billion dollars [sic] in "bad loans" does not come close to "several trillion dollars."

Okay, so I made a few mistakes. Unlike some others, I'm willing to admit that.

But the bulk of the content stands; Barney Frank stood in the way of regulation, and we're suffering the consequences.

 

[JB3]

So that's the crux of your issue with him. He, one minority lawmaker, didn't do enough to change the regulation of two institutions that were also swept up into the banking crisis. Nevermind, that the Republicans were in charge of the House, Senate, and White House. Nevermind, that dozens of other financial institutions were also involved, along with hundreds if not thousands of decision makers. No, he is the one you pin responsibility on for "ruining the American economy" and yet ne'er breathe a word of any of the other people even more culpable using your measuring stick. Come on!

Except the Republicans weren't in charge of the senate because of rules the democrats put in place. They never held a majority of more than one or two votes. Do you honestly know how many bills were stopped by democrats during that time? The harsher regulation of F&F was just the tip of the iceberg. (and you're also ignoring the fact that the democrats technically held control of the senate from 2002-2004)