Reply With Quote
I'll be fine no matter who wins. And I won't be a smug asshole about it.
Whoops! Wrong.
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00105
I'll be fine no matter who wins. And I won't be a smug asshole about it.
Yes, Clinton sucked on this issue, too, but the GOP has very dirty hands, too. You keep trying to make the Democrats look like the minions of Satan while the Republicans were pure and holy, when they both sucked.
OMG, not this "reform bill" that McCain sponsored again. Again, this is another episode with both Republicans and Democrats with dirty hands. The House passed what appears to bipartisan bills in 2005 and 2007, but the Senate Democrats killed it in 2005 (because the majority Senate Republicans put in stuff they didn't like) and the Senate Republicans killed it in 2007 (because the House bill from the Democratic majority had stuff they didn't like). Both parties thought this issue was important enough for political games, but not so important to solve. It is very questionable that this "reform" would have done much. There is a lot of heat about who voted for "reform", but not much analysis of what it really would have done.Yep, McCain voted for it as did Biden. JM also tried to reintroduce regulation years ago, as did Bush, but they were blocked by Dems and some Repubs. None of this matters to you though because as long as your unaccomplished messiah wins you think that means you win something. To be honest I'm getting to the point where I kinda hope your messiah wins just to see what happens to the kool aide drinkers when they figure out he can't wave a magic wand and create utopia. I'm fine (check the are you unemployed thread) and will continue to be just fine no matter who wins. What about you?
There is plenty of blame to go around, but Bush will get the brunt of it because he's the President and he's not running for election. Even McCain blames Bush, though somehow McCain thinks Obama is as much to blame somehow.
To put $250 billion of losses in perspective, the tax bill of every household in America just increased by $2,300. You will not get a bill from the IRS because the government has chosen the immoral route of shifting this burden to your children and grandchildren. The U.S. Government has no money. It is broke. The $250 billion will be borrowed from the Chinese and Saudi Arabia, with an annual interest charge of $10 billion. This is $250 billion that will not be spent on education, infrastructure, or energy independence. It is the cost of financial recklessness of banks, greedy CEOs, and Americans who thought you could get something for nothing. Future generations will pay the price of our greed and malfeasance.
These actions by our clueless politician “leaders” will not solve anything. It will just keep this ponzi scheme going for a little while longer. Those who were tipped off of the announcement late Friday, probably made millions. Bank stocks mysteriously started to rise late on Friday. I’m sure the SEC is opening an investigation. These are the things that have not changed:
There are 4.7 million homes for sale representing an 11.2 month supply, the highest in history.
Home prices have fallen 16% in the last year according to the Case Shiller Index.
Foreclosures totaled 1.2 million in the 1st 6 months of 2008, a 100% increase over the prior year, and are accelerating at the fastest pace in 3 decades.
Based on historical home price relationships, we should expect a further 15% decline by 2010. This will result in further foreclosures.
Option ARM and Alt A delinquencies will be accelerating in 2009 based upon their issuance.
Unemployment is accelerating and will not peak until 2009, probably north of 7%.
We are in a recession that is being driven by consumers with too much debt. Consumer spending reductions will hurt retailers and mall developers tremendously.
So, enjoy Monday's 300 point rally in the Dow, while it lasts. If you are having some trouble making your mortgage payment, paying that huge electric bill, or making the minimum payment on your credit card, just call Hank Paulson at 1-800-BAILOUT.
Bull ! Go look at my first post in this thread on the national debt. The whole point was that both parties are not acting in your interest. It is Obama supporters who are trying to lay it all on Bush and claim Clinton was perfect. I have plenty of criticism of Bush and McCain. Obama supporters are the one's pretending that he is the saviour when the simple undeniable fact is that he has absolutely no record to prove that he isn't a complete partisan politician who will continue to put party before country. Want to prove me wrong then give me some examples of when he has done ANYTHING to comprimise with the other side to benefit YOU! It's really a rhetorical question since I know (and you know) that you cannot.
It's easy to criticize Bush, McCain, Palin, Biden because they have actually taken stands and done things (whether you agree with them or not). Obama has just been present since asking corrupt politicians to make him a US Senator (his words not mine). Yeah, he's gonna change things.
Do you have the quote of his asking corrupt politicians to make him a US Senator? I'd like to see that.Obama has just been present since asking corrupt politicians to make him a US Senator (his words not mine).
With all the bad financial news lately and talk of bailouts, guess which phrase we're going to start hearing?
"Keating Five." Sucks to be Walnuts.
hmmmIt's easy to criticize Bush, McCain, Palin, Biden because they have actually taken stands and done things (whether you agree with them or not). Obama has just been present since asking corrupt politicians to make him a US Senator (his words not mine). Yeah, he's gonna change things.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105275
"It was Bill Clinton and Janet Reno and the rest of that bunch who forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them."
link? Ranks right up there Crookie's Biblical myths.
Can anybody seriously believe that Clinton and Reno "forced" lenders to make loans? Crookie can.
Lenders make loans so they can make money, of their own volition. And if they can get the feds to guarantee the loans, even better. But it's purely voluntary, not forced.
Last edited by boutons_; 09-20-2008 at 06:31 PM.
Recession: The Movie
Maxed Out: The disconnect between consumer indebtedness, credit card predators and government...
Even if it works as planned, it fails to help consumers who need liquidity themselves. The banks may survive, but the customers may not be credit worthy, so it does not matter much. The fix is of no value to the consumers who are wallowing in debts and about to take gas. Same goes for small business who are suffering loss of demand. When the lay-offs get a head of steam it may occur to Hank that he fixed only part of the problem. The "hammer" just hammered us.
http://pushhamburger.com/need%20a%20job.gif
vote all these asses out and vote in
people who know what is going on for a change.
The credit card companies should have regulation for what is known in the rest of the financial community as USARY. There are anti usary laws that regulate the rest of the business community. Like it's illegal to charge ridiculously high interest rates to borrowers. You know what, the credit card companies are in a large part to blame for their own failures. If you screw people to the point that they can't pay their cards back, they are going to default and what goes around comes around. The gov't seriously needs to make these companies take some serious medicine. It's gonna hurt them but they need to take it. You just can't keep charging 30-38 percent interest rates on cards and expect that there would be zero consequences.
Regulators fail to rein in banks' credit card abuse
Fed moves to bar unfair rate hikes, but comptroller’s office resists change.
Janet Hard, a registered nurse and mother of two from Freeland, Mich., never understood why Discover hiked the rate on her credit card from 18% to 24% in 2006. Last year, she told a Senate panel investigating credit card abuses that she feels sick whenever she thinks of the extra interest she has paid to Discover based on that rate — which was slapped on not just future purchases but on her entire balance.
Raising rates on existing balances is one of the credit industry's most lucrative but indefensible practices. Even the usually pro-banking Federal Reserve Board finally moved in May to ban it. Not surprisingly, the banks are resisting. And last month, they acquired an unlikely ally — a federal agency that is supposed to protect consumers.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency asked the Fed to pull back. The Fed rule would allow banks to raise rates on existing balances in only a few cir stances, such as when a borrower pays more than 30 days late. The OCC wants to greatly expand those exceptions by allowing, for example, rate hikes when payments are as little as five days late or whenever a card expires. That would undo much of the Fed reforms.
In some ways, the comptroller's action was predictable. In the past decade, when it came to protecting consumers, the agency has often been absent, late to the game or playing for the wrong side:
- Since 1995, the OCC has filed public enforcement actions for violating consumer lending laws only three times against major national banks, according to George Washington University law professor Arthur Wilmarth.
- In 2000, when hundreds of consumers complained of improper rate increases by FleetBoston Financial Corp., the OCC in essence told them to go file a lawsuit. When they did, the comptroller weighed in on FleetBoston's side.
To be sure, not all card issuers are guilty of abuses, and consumers have a responsibility to pay their bills. The trouble is that many standard industry practices are unfair and either push hard-pressed consumers into debt or seem designed to keep them there. Retroactive rate increases are one such practice.
- For several years, the OCC has sought to ensure that it — not state agencies — has the sole authority to police national banks. That often translates into less protection for consumers from predatory lending and other unfair practices that contributed to the current housing meltdown.
In Hard's case, Discover did what the law allows: It can raise rates "at any time, for any reason." The company told the Senate it raised Hard's rate after her credit score fell, her use of her credit lines increased and she had delinquencies with other issuers.
Perhaps Discover had reason to raise her rate on future purchases to discourage spending. But jacking up the rate on existing balances is so unfair that even the Federal Reserve thinks the practice should be banned. Too bad the OCC feels differently.
Consumers have a right to expect to be protected by regulators. Belatedly, the Fed has risen to the task. The OCC should try to remember that it, too, works for the taxpayers — not for the industry it regulates.
"It was Bill Clinton and Janet Reno and the rest of that bunch who forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them."
link? Ranks right up there Crookie's Biblical myths.
Can anybody seriously believe that Clinton and Reno "forced" lenders to make loans? Crookie can.
Lenders make loans so they can make money, of their own volition. And if they can get the feds to guarantee the loans, even better. But it's purely voluntary, not forced.
You're such an idiot.
You love to cite the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and blame this all on Gramm and Republicans. Do some ing research on that bill before you open your mouth.
It was deadlocked along party lines in the Senate. Clinton stepped in and got the Dems to agree with the Republicans to pass the bill, provided that it included requirements that banks make loans to minorities, farmers, and others who have had little access to credit.
So yeah, no one's out of line saying Clinton was responsible for this mess, he helped broker the amended bill that paved the way.
That said, I suspect what the poster tagging Clinton and Reno was referring to was their insistence on aggressively enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_...on_dollar.html
The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.
The CRA's premise sounds unassailable: helping the poor buy and keep homes will stabilize and rebuild city neighborhoods. As enforced today, though, the law portends just the opposite, threatening to undermine the efforts of the upwardly mobile poor by saddling them with neighbors more than usually likely to depress property values by not maintaining their homes adequately or by losing them to foreclosure. The CRA's logic also helps to ensure that inner-city neighborhoods stay poor by discouraging the kinds of investment that might make them better off.
You may be able to pass those innacuracies of to your fellow liberals, but that was the initial passage of the senate bill before it was modified by the house and in conference. The final vote was Nov. 4, not that May 6 vote you show. Biden voted YES for the final passage of the Bill, McCain didn't!
Corrected list:
Bayh (D-IN), YES
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), YES
Bingaman (D-NM), YES
S.900
le: An Act to enhance compe ion in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Gramm, Phil [TX] (introduced 4/28/1999) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.355, H.R.10
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 106-102 [GPO: Text, PDF]
Senate Reports: 106-44; Latest Conference Report: 106-434 (in Congressional Record H11255-11292)ALL ACTIONS: (Floor Actions/Congressional Record Page References)
2/24/1999:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Hearings held.
2/25/1999:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-426.
3/4/1999:
Committee on Banking ordered to be reported an original measure.
4/28/1999:
Committee on Banking. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Gramm. With written report No. 106-44. Additional views filed. (consideration: CR S4346)
4/28/1999:
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 94.
5/3/1999:
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (consideration: CR S4616)
5/4/1999:
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure agreed to in Senate. (consideration: CR S4616)
5/4/1999:
Measure laid before Senate by motion. (consideration: CR S4616-4658)
5/4/1999:
S.AMDT.302 Proposed by Senator Sarbanes for Senator Daschle.
In the nature of a subs ute.
5/5/1999:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S4735-4788)
5/5/1999:
S.AMDT.302 Considered by Senate.
5/5/1999:
S.AMDT.302 Motion to table SP 302 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 54-43. Record Vote No: 100.
5/5/1999:
S.AMDT.303 Proposed by Senator Bryan.
To make amendments relating to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, and for other purposes.
5/5/1999:
S.AMDT.303 Motion to table SP 303 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52-45. Record Vote No: 101.
5/6/1999:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S4821-4845, S4847-4878)
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.307 Proposed by Senator Santorum.
To require the the obligations of the Financing Corporation to be paid from certain excess funds of the deposit insurance funds and for other purposes.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.307 Proposed amendment SP 307 withdrawn in Senate.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.308 Proposed by Senator Gramm.
To strike a provision relating to a 3-year extension for BIF-member FICO assessments, to provide for financial information privacy protection, and to provide for the establishment of a consumer grievance process by the Federal banking agencies.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.308 Amendment SP 308 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 95-2. Record Vote No: 102.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.309 Proposed by Senator Johnson.
To make an amendment with respect to the Federal deposit insurance funds and unitary savings and loan holding companies.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.312 Proposed by Senator Dorgan.
To prohibit insured depository ins utions and credit unions from engaging in certain activities involving derivative financial instruments.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.313 Proposed by Senator Dorgan.
To subject certain hedge funds to the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.314 Proposed by Senator Schumer.
To make an amendment with respect to ATM fee reform.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.314 Amendment SP 314 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.309 Motion to table SP 309 rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 32-67. Record Vote No: 103.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.309 Amendment SP 309 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.309 Amendment SP 309 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.315 Proposed by Senator Shelby.
To authorize subsidiaries of national banks to engage in certain financial activities, to protect the safety and soundness of any insured bank that has a financial subsidiary, and to provide for the functional regulation of financial subsidiaries.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.315 Motion to table SP 315 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53-46. Record Vote No: 104.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.316 Proposed by Senator Bryan.
To give customers notice and choice about how their financial ins utions share or sell their personally identifiable sensitive financial information, and for other purposes.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.316 Proposed amendment SP 316 withdrawn in Senate.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.317 Proposed by Senator Levin.
To ensure bank securities activities are regulated by securities regulators.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.317 Amendment SP 317 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.310 Proposed by Senator Gramm for Senator Bennett.
To benefit municipalities and local securities issuers by permitting banks to purchase municipal revenue bonds and securities in accordance with section 23b.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.310 Amendment SP 310 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.310 Amendment SP 310 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.318 Proposed by Senator Gramm.
To make an amendment with respect to limitations on the retention of commodity activities and affialiations by bank holding companies.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.318 Amendment SP 318 agreed to in Senate by Voice.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.318 Amendment SP 318 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.313 Amendment SP 313 not agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.312 Amendment SP 312 not agreed to in Senate by Voice.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.312 Amendment SP 312 not agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
Passed Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote. 54-44. Record Vote No: 105. (text: CR 5/10/1999 S4957-4978) (This is the vote you show)
5/12/1999 10:01am:
Received in the House.
5/12/1999:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
5/12/1999 5:33pm:
Held at the desk.
7/20/1999 7:00pm:
Mr. Leach asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
7/20/1999 7:00pm:
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H5919-5984)
7/20/1999 7:00pm:
The House struck all after the enacting clause and inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure H.R. 10. Agreed to without objection.
7/20/1999 7:00pm:
On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR H5919-5984)
7/20/1999 7:00pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
7/20/1999 7:00pm:
The le of the measure was amended to that of similar measure H.R. 10. Agreed to without objection.
7/22/1999:
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendments to Senate bill.
7/22/1999:
Senate disagreed to House amendments requested conference and appointed conferees. Gramm; Shelby; Mack; Bennett; Grams; Allard; Enzi; Hagel; Santorum; Bunning; Crapo; Sarbanes; Dodd; Kerry; Bryan; Johnson; Reed; Schumer; Bayh; Edwards. (consideration: CR S9128-9169; text as Senate disagreed to House amendments: CR S9128-9169)
7/26/1999:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
7/30/1999 12:50pm:
Mr. Leach asked unanimous consent that the House insist upon its amendments, and agree to a conference.
7/30/1999 12:50pm:
On motion that the House insist upon its amendments, and agree to a conference Agreed to without objection. (consideration: CR H6728)
7/30/1999 12:50pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
7/30/1999 12:51pm:
Mr. LaFalce moved that the House instruct conferees.
7/30/1999 12:51pm:
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES - Mr. LaFalce moves to instruct conferees on the part of the House on the bill S. 900 and the House amendments thereto, to ensure, consistent with the scope of the conference, that: 1. Consumers have the strongest consumer financial privacy protections possible, including protections against the misuse of confidential information and inappropriate marketing practices, and ensuring that consumers receive notice and the right to say "no" when a financial ins ution wishes to disclose a consumer's nonpublic personal information for use in telemarketing, direct marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail; and
7/30/1999 12:51pm:
2. Consumers enjoy the benefits of comprehensive financial modernization legislation that provides robust compe ion and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities; and 3. Consumers have the strongest medical privacy protections possible, and thereby prevent financial ins utions from disclosing or making related uses of health and medical and genetic information without the consent of their customers, and therefore agree to recede to the Senate on sub le E of le III of the House amendment.
7/30/1999 2:12pm:
On motion that the House instruct conferees Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 241 - 132 (Roll no. 355). (consideration: CR H6728-6738)
7/30/1999 2:12pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
7/30/1999 2:13pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for consideration of the Senate bill and the House amendment and modifications committed to conference: Leach, McCollum, Roukema, Bereuter, Baker, Lazio, Bachus, Castle, LaFalce, and Vento.
7/30/1999 2:13pm:
The Speaker appointed additional conferees - from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for consideration of les I, III (except sec. 304), IV, and VII of the Senate bill, and le I of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Frank (MA), Kanjorski, Waters, and Maloney (NY).
7/30/1999 2:13pm:
The Speaker appointed additional conferees - from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for consideration of le V of the Senate bill, and le II of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Kanjorski, Maloney (NY), Watt (NC), and Maloney (CT).
7/30/1999 2:14pm:
The Speaker appointed additional conferees - from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for consideration of le II of the Senate bill and le III of the House amendment and modifications committed to conference: Kanjorski, Maloney (NY), Velazquez, and Hooley.
7/30/1999 2:15pm:
The Speaker appointed additional conferees - from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for consideration of le VI of the Senate bill, and le IV of the House amendment and modifications committed to conference: Waters, Maloney (NY), Gutierrez, and Bentsen.
7/30/1999 2:16pm:
The Speaker appointed additional conferees - from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for consideration of section 304 of the Senate bill and le V of the House amendment and modifications committed to conference: Frank (MA), Kanjorski, Waters, and Ackerman.
7/30/1999 2:17pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Commerce for consideration of the Senate bill, and the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Bliley, Oxley, Tauzin, Gillmor, Greenwood, Cox, Largent, Bilbray, Dingell, Towns, Markey, Waxman, DeGette, and Capps.
7/30/1999 2:18pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees Provided that Mr. Rush is appointed in lieu of Mrs. Capps for consideration of sec. 316 of the Senate bill.
7/30/1999 2:19pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Agriculture for consideration of le V of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Combest, Ewing, and Stenholm.
7/30/1999 2:20pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on the Judiciary for consideration of secs. 104(a), 104(d)(3), and 104(f)(2) of the Senate bill, and secs. 104(a)(3), 104(b)(3)(A), 104(b)(4)(B), 136(b), 136(d)-(e), 141-44, 197, 301, and 306 of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Hyde, Gekas, and Conyers.
9/23/1999:
Conference held.
9/29/1999:
Conference held.
9/30/1999:
Conference held.
10/14/1999:
Conference held.
10/15/1999:
Conference held.
10/22/1999:
Conference held.
10/28/1999:
Conferees agreed to file conference report.
11/2/1999 2:50pm:
Conference report H. Rept. 106-434 filed. (text of conference report: CR H11255-11292)
11/2/1999 9:43pm:
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 355 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of the conference report to S. 900 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions.
11/3/1999:
Conference papers: Senate report and managers' statement held at the desk in Senate.
11/3/1999:
Conference report considered in Senate. (consideration: CR S13783-13791)
11/4/1999:
Conference report considered in Senate.
11/4/1999:
Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 90-8. Record Vote No: 354. (consideration: CR S13871-13881, S13883-13917)
11/4/1999:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
11/4/1999 9:24pm:
Rule H. Res. 355 passed House.
11/4/1999 9:26pm:
Mr. Leach brought up conference report H. Rept. 106-434 for consideration under the provisions of H. Res. 355.
11/4/1999 9:26pm:
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on the conference report on S. 900, the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act.
11/4/1999 10:50pm:
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
11/4/1999 11:15pm:
Motions to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
11/4/1999 11:15pm:
On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 362 - 57 (Roll no. 570). (consideration: CR H11526-11551)
11/4/1999:
Cleared for White House.
11/9/1999:
Presented to President.
11/12/1999:
Signed by President.
11/12/1999:
Became Public Law No: 106-102.
You must get the WSJ!!! Too bad you're wrong.....yet again.
The page that Taranto linked to was a vote on the conference report, which took place 6 months after the bill had already passed in the senate, and just over a week before it was signed into law. The bill was not passed 90-8; it was passed 54-44, almost strictly down party lines (The lone Democrat to vote for the bill was Ernest Hollings of South Carolina).
"The Conference Report is nothing but an editing session. During the session, a team picked from both the House and Senate meet in order to reconcile differences between the versions of the bills already passed in both chambers. This is the reason it took from May until November to get the bill passed. This is the reason GLBA passed that 4 November vote with such an overwhelming majority - it had already been approved in both houses, and the only formality left was for language to be amended by the conferees.
The 4 November vote was not a vote on the merits of the bill. It was a vote on the language of the bill.
Blocking the conference report does not kill a vote. Even if the report was voted against by every last Democrat, it was going to get pushed through anyway."
Your ignorance is showing.
Go back and read the material I quoted from Thomas.gov. It is the record. I don't care what the WSJ says. Go and look up HR 10 also. Follow the timelines. I don't care how you interpret it. They are not the same bill. The facts are as I quoted them. You should note this after the vote you favor:
There were other changes too. Once changes occur, the vote you quote is null and void. The senate has to vote again and agree with the changes, or not.7/20/1999 7:00pm:
The House struck all after the enacting clause and inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure H.R. 10. Agreed to without objection.
Aggie is right about this one. This is where the democrats inserted the provisions to make loans to unqulaified minorities. Once the democrats had another hand-out in legislation, they voted YES on the senate version. McCain was for the original senate version before the house modified it. He voted YES on the original. He did not vote yes for the final version.
Get a clue. Stop repeating leftist propaganda.
Ok here it all is. Was that quote I posted earlier wrong about what a conference report is? You betcha. My mistake. You claim "that democrats inserted the provisions to make loans to unqulaified minorities." I'm sure that's how the language was structured. I would love to see the actual language of the conference report. It doesn't really matter in the end. The original language in the Senate bill (as well as the bill in the House) are what made this financial crisis possible. John McCain voted for it. Did Biden vote for an altered bill? Yeah, he did. But so did almost all of his colleagues. I'd really like to see EXACTLY what was changed. And I guess it's a good thing Joe Biden isn't the nominee for President.
That is pretty much the timeline Hank Greenberg stated that he thought the economic woes would continue (through 2009). I think I posted this on another thread but it really is worth the time to watch his interview and follow up with Charlie Rose IMO. If nothing else it will piss you off that at least in the case of AIG it was not an overnight unforseen failure. He had been trying to help save the company he built for several months, with private money but got the cold shoulder from AIG and the FED even though he was the largest shareholder in the company.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/200...hank-greenberg
It was the total process, probable not in the conference report. I meant agreements and compremises made in the conference committee to consolidate the house and senate versions.
Then do the research. I don't have the links readily available. I will provide some insightful links at the end of this posting however.
Not true. They called it something like 'community investment', or someything like that. They strengthened the Community Reinvestment Act by requiring lenders to make loans that did not have secure collateral.
He voted for the original senate version. He did not vote for the changes forced by the democrats that lead to this bailout.
And it was a bad vote.
Then look it up. Start with S 900 and follow the various links. I don't have the time to do it for you.
Here are a few excerpts from a few articles:
Congressional Problem Creation:
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities:The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, whose provisions were strengthened during the Clinton and Bush administrations, is a federal law that mandates or intimidates lenders to offer credit throughout their entire market and discourages them from restricting their credit services to high-income markets, a practice known as redlining. The Community Reinvestment Act encouraged banks and thrifts to make so-called "no doc" and "liar" loans to customers who had no realistic ability to pay them back. A decade of monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve Bank, contributing to the housing bubble, encouraged lending ins utions to take risks they otherwise would not have taken. Government actions created the subprime crisis and now government-proposed "solutions," such as foreclosure holidays, bailouts and further regulation of financial ins utions, to the problems they created will create more problems.
Remember I said president Bush tried to fix this before it became a problem in 2003...The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, September 11, 2003:
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
-------------
''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two en ies -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
Here is a good editorial that give a good history of what caused the
meltdown. It goes a long way back and for some of you dyed in the wool
dimms you aren't going to like the fact Bush did try to rein the stuff in.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...06632135350949
@ ibdeditorials editorials
You don't like ibdeditorials. Then try Bloomberg.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Says about the same thing. Just a little more detail.
Ray, is your age making you forgetful?
Clambake is a lemming. He believes anything the leftist pundits tell him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
