September 21, 2008
Let's think about the man America rejected because he was Mormon or seemed plastic or whatever.
We Americans will get the leader we deserve, one or the other of two men who have absolutely no background in economics. We'll have to rely on whatever judgment they manage to apply to the advice their faceless advisers hand them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
60 comments:
He seems plastic to me.
We Americans will get the leader we deserve, one or the other of two men who have absolutely no background in economics.
The last president who claimed to have an extensive background in economics was Bush. How did that work out?
McCain will have Palin to advise him. Fortunately she's an expert on the economy because she drives past a bank on the way to work.
Ann,
Your problem is that you view this as a personality contest. This is not American Idol. Romney is one of the strongest proponents of LESS government oversight. Every sober voice now says that was a recipe for disaster. Which is what we got right now.
This election needs to be more than about personality. It needs to be about policy approaches to the economy. It is clear that this country's thirty year gamble on supply side economics has come to an ignoble failure.
When I read this post, I thought, "Ouch."
'Tis true, 'tis true.
Romney is one of the strongest proponents of LESS government oversight. Every sober voice now says that was a recipe for disaster.
What? No they don't. Unless you're defining "sober voice" as "socialist voice" and not "voice of someone who actually knows something about economics." Why do you keep saying this in multiple threads?
Unless you're defining "sober voice" as "socialist voice" and not "voice of someone who actually knows something about economics."
Let's agree that economists, whether or not they are socialists, "know something about economics." Why don't you provide some links to the opinions of economists who argue against the view that lack of proper government regulation and oversight played a role?
The fallacy here is presidents do not rely on their own personal knowledge and held reservoir of economic theories to manage the economy. They surround themselves with experts they trust who advise them.
Krylovite, you are wrong so often, I am beginning to think you are paid to be wrong and post.
Take this NYT article from 2003: Please.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
The New Yor Friggin Times. Not some Conservative rag, your newspaper. In the article, you can read how 5 years ago the Bush White House got something right and were pushing for MORE oversight of Fannie and Freddie. MORE OVERSIGHT!
Who shot that down? Democrats. Your people. "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Speak to me about the truth, or be counted a liar.
Trey
"...their faceless advisers hand them."
Why do you think they don't have faces? Robert Rubin and Warren Buffet are advising Obama. They have faces. And know a lot about the economy.
Though some of McCain's advisers seem not to have faces!
In a carefully considered vaccuum I actually liked Romney better than any other Republican and in some circumstances could imagine voting for him.
But, unfortunately he became a whore (sorry can't think of any more gentile way to put that).
His speed-of-light switch from the social liberalism necessary to govern whatever state he governed (Mass?) to the social conservatism needed to mollify a big chunk of the republican base alienated potential swing voters (like me) while being too transparently obvious for the evangelical base to believe.
Krylovite, the issue is government entanglement. Why did we even have two entities that were allowed to reap profits but hang all risk on taxpayers?
Hey, I voted for Romney, don't blame me. But it's true as MF says, that Romney was not as deft a flip-flopper as born-again Reaganite McCain.
How could tmink's legislation not pass, in a Republican-controlled Congress with a Republican in the White House? Was it Republican apostasy? Not that the proposed legislation went very far. From the article:
The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.
"Why do you think they don't have faces?"
They are faceless to us, the voters. We have no idea what we are voting for. How are we supposed to decide which man will collect the better set of advisers?
"The fallacy here is presidents do not rely on their own personal knowledge and held reservoir of economic theories to manage the economy. They surround themselves with experts they trust who advise them."
Reread the post. There is no fallacy. The problem is that these men have nothing useful to say about why they will have assembled the right experts and why their judgment about accepting and applying advice will be any good. It's just trust the experts, with no brain at the top.
What a disaster!
"Your problem is that you view this as a personality contest. This is not American Idol."
Nice job getting the post absolutely ass-backwards.
Michael -- You fault Romney for governing a liberal state, which required a (temporary) move to the left, and then moving to the right when he advanced to the national stage. Do you fault Reagan for the same thing, I wonder?
Krylovite -- How did Bush work out? Gee, I don't know, we've had how many consecutive quarters of job growth, no actual recessions (by definition, not by your "feelings" about the economy), all despite the huge hurdle that we had to jump after 9-11-01, an attach implemented during Bush's term, but planned under Clinton's.
L.E. Lee -- what in hell are you talking about? The impending collapse of the financial system is a direct result of two things: Unsecured loans to bad credit risks, required by changes in lending law implemented by Clinton and the Democrats and ACORN, and defended by them repeatedly against reform attempts by Bush and McCain; and the housing bubble bursting -- a bubble that was a direct result of pumping cash into the housing market by those unsecured loans.
Ann -- You're right. I've said it here before: We'll all rue the day that we bounced Romney, a decent and honorable man, a man whose left nut knows more about real-world economics than all of the Barney Franks and Chuck Schumers on earth combined, from this race because of his religion, or his "plastic" image, or some vague concern about "waffling".
Let's not forget Phil "Americans are whiners" Gramm. He's tight with McCain a former or current adviser and an architect of Wall Street deregulation. He has a face.
The Bush $700B blank check is a bad bill which needs to be rejected. It does nothing to assure us the practices that got us here will not continue, that the same people who got us here will not repeat the same mistakes.
Already, financial industry lobbyists have met with Republican Congressional staff and demanded no new regulations.
Do Dems have the stones to stand up to Bush and his cabal of crooks? I'm not confident.
Gah! There are big crooks on both sides. I'm bored by people like Alpha who just point to the other side's crooks. You have no way to convince me that Democratic crooks are better. You don't even try.
Definitely enough crooks to go around on both sides of the aisle, though I think it's an overstatement to say both candidates know "absolutely nothing about economics."
They both should know something about something, having been in the Senate and considered various economic and tax issues. If Volcker is talking to Obama, that's okay with me. And McCain's wife runs a big company. Give them a teeny bit of credit....someone needs credit!
What was lacking, first and foremost, was shareholder and director oversight.
Yes, the government has a role to play to assure that the titans don't tie themselves together so that one loss doesn’t drag the entire armada down.
But what everyone seems to be forgetting here is that the directors of these banks and insurance companies had clear and unmistakable duties to the shareholders to assure that the officers didn't do the exact thing they did – bet the company purely for short term profits.
Regarding Mitt: I was disappointed that Mitt never seemed to find what I would have expected his true voice to be. I don’t doubt that there is goodness above all, in Mitt’s soul, or that his motives were more from a desire to give back than to get more.
I do think, sadly, that Mitt decided that to win he had to play to the right wing of his party, and Mormons don’t fit well with the folks over there. I always knew that Mitt was a lot more moderate than he felt he had to be to appeal to the core conservatives, which moderation would have made him, probably, a damn good president.
But our two party primary system seems to punish the moderates. McCain snuck through because Mitt split the evangelicals.
You have no way to convince me that Democratic crooks are better. You don't even try.
You can start by looking at the crooks currently in charge of the federal government, whom under this collapse happened. You can look which campaign is full of crooks who were paid millions who lobbied the federal government for more lax standards that is responsible for this mess. You can look which candidate warned us of this impending mess and which candidate said he doesn't know much about the economy.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all unbelievable. Mormonism is super duper unbelievable.
I reject Romney for his religion.
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2007/06/mormon_mitt_rom.html
I couldn't vote for a Scientologist, either. Do you know what those people believe?
As an aside, I'd like Sam Harris to STFU about Palin. Where was he when Romney and Obama were claiming to believe stupid shit? Fuck you, Sam. Way to destroy your credibility. Atheism is apolitical.
This is what happens when you nominate a 72 year old Senator because he was a POW in Vietnam 35 years ago and another Senator because he's 1/2 black and seems likable.
We're going to face severe financial problems in the next 4 years & neither clown knows or cares about Economics.
You can start by looking at the crooks currently in charge of the federal government, whom under this collapse happened.
Oh, please. This is exactly the kind of party blindness that Ann is talking about.
Case in point that both parties are full of crooks and liers: Clinton administration leaders Jamie Gorelick and Franklin Raines were both runing Fannie when it started making all the stupid investment decisions that we're now paying for.
Quayle
If it started under Clinton why didn't Bush try to stop it? Now we're left giving them 700 billion with no strings attached for their fuckups? George Bush and the federal government are asking us for 700 billion dollars, not Bill Clinton.
I didn't like how Romney played the populist card with China and seemed to align himself with Huckabee-he did it in a form of a question to Guiliani, during one of the debates.
In that same debate Russert asked him about the 5% unemployment rate, and Romney a business man who should know better-would not defend that.
He also played the populist card with immigration-look where we would be in the election today if that had gone differently?
Ask anyone in the business organizations chambers of commerce, etc-America has needed comprhensive immigration reform for a long time.
Romney aligned himself with the ugliest loudest segment of the Republican base-and he chose that path despite all of his superior business knowledge.
He also seemed to waffle on the Iraq war-which might play in Massachusetts but in the Republican primary that "waffling" rightfully took it's toll.
It's probably a lot more agit-prop, and fun for the media to blame "anti-mormonism" however-it can't be that the candidate played his cards wrong.
Garage:
If it started under Clinton why didn't Bush try to stop it? Now we're left giving them 700 billion with no strings attached for their fuckups? George Bush and the federal government are asking us for 700 billion dollars, not Bill Clinton.
This is the most asinine comment I have ever read on Althouse. Well, except for the 9,999,999 comments made by AlphaLiberal.
Donn
So asinine you can't come up with one thing to refute it. I'll assume you have nothing.
Krylovite, the issue is government entanglement.
Freeman, here's the question I put to you that you haven't answered:
Why don't you provide some links to the opinions of economists who argue against the view that lack of proper government regulation and oversight played a role?
If you want to change the subject and talk about government entanglement, go ahead, but I'll stick to the original issue for now.
There is no doubt that electeds on both side of the aisle were sucked into doing the bidding of the worst on Wall Street. This is a disappointing given. The questions that should be asked by voters are 1) which party has at its core today the belief that taxes should be cut willy-nilly for the most wealthy and that government oversight regulation of the markets is always bad. 2) which party supports meaningful campaign finance reform so that electeds from both parties are not always doing the bidding of the masters of Wall Street. The idea that Romney would have been better because he has business experience even though he is wrong on the two questions above is just asinine. This election should be about the difference between the governing strategies of the two parties-not about personalities. Sorry Ann.
I was trying to figure out why I was so anti-Romney during the primary season (I didn't stay so -- I thought McCain should have picked him for Veep)... and then I remembered this.
Just couldn't trust the guy. Slippery.
***
But we probably could have used him...
We Americans will get the leader we deserve, one or the other of two men who have absolutely no background in economics.
Having a background in economics may be a necessary component to getting us out of the financial mess we find ourselves in, but it ain't sufficient. Didn't the CEO's, CFO's etc at Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all have extensive backgrounds in economics?
I am sure I am oversimplifying here. but I think good economic policy often requires the 'balls' to say no.... no to your constituents, no to your contributors, no to your party, no to your preferred ideology..no to your kids....and no to yourself. Romney did not appear to be strong in this area. I tend to lean liberal, but on this dimension I have to give a hat tip to McCain.
This election should be about the difference between the governing strategies of the two parties-not about personalities.
That is the underlying lie of party politics - that virtue, honesty, and ability are party attributes. They are not. They are personal attributes.
We should be voting for the most honest and wise person we can find. Usually that excludes most people that entered politics of their own volition.
But this I know: when we see people working to elevate their party above all other considerations, we know that rank knavery is afoot.
"You fault Romney for governing a liberal state"
No I credit him for that.
"which required a (temporary) move to the left, and then moving to the right when he advanced to the national stage. Do you fault Reagan for the same thing, I wonder?"
I never voted for Reagan, whose about face wasn't so stark or so fast and who did so before the internet (which changes how people perceive these things).
krylovite said regarding Althouse's comment:
"We Americans will get the leader we deserve, one or the other of two men who have absolutely no background in economics."
The last president who claimed to have an extensive background in economics was Bush. How did that work out?
But no refutation of Althouse, just deflection and the idea that if a politician claims to be real guru on economics (Dodd, Dubya, Kucinich, etc.) or a true master of all the nuances of science (journalism major Noble Algore), or warhero like Kerry - why it must be true.
Althouse's point is not refuted. McCain admits he is weak in economic matters, which is rare courage in a politician in itself - whole Obamatrons say their Black Messiah has superior judgement on that as in all matters. (Because he proved his All-Knowing genius with an antiwar speech in 2002 Vladimir Putin would have deivered if it had been written in Russian.)
It's the old Leftist "equivalency argument" - what a person claims to be is the same as the facts, or makes the facts irrelevant, if they are on correct progressive ideological grounds - while all other opinions and inconvenient truths are Lies! Lies! Lies!.
In this case, Kylovite is happy to take Dubya at his word that he knew a ton about finances and economics despite a string of business failures. It temporarily suits his argument to side with the worlds "Greatest Evil Liar".
But Althouse's point stands. The American people and our semi-dysfunctional selection process gives the complacent, mired in trivialities American Public - the Leaders they Deserve.
And the wars and fiscal meltdowns they deserve as they act like stupid herd animals obsessed with Gary Condit, Bush's Churchillian stubborness, Obama's ability to stirringly read off a TelePrompter, seeing being a POW as a golden credential to be President, and Sara Palin shooting moose.
Her secondary point, that we bypassed a man (with sterling ethics), leadership, and fiscal management credentials is compounded because we actually bypassed another man with tremendous economic quals and record of overhauling fiscally broken systems. Governor and HEW Cabinet member Tommy Thompson.
Who got even less consideration from the Religious Right and "to the right of Reagan" doctrinaire True Believing, More Wars! Right Wingers than Romney did.
And add able Governor, fiscal hawk, and Cabinet member Tom Ridge was an instant outcast by the Fundies of The Southern Base because he was a moderate on abortion.
The Democrats also screwed themselves when early polling showed moderates like Evan Bayh were unacceptable to the Netroots Taliban.
If we are entering a period of fast decline as a nation, with a gridlocked government unable to deal with our energy woes, loss of competiveness in producing goods and services, fiscal trainwreck, entitlement crisis, rotting infrastructure, and special interests in charge of the nation? It ultimately comes back to the American People getting what they deserve.
And perhaps being open - as their standard of living and security plummets - to discussion that our present Constitution, system of governance, and present Ruling Elites are unfixable and need to be fundamentally altered by another Revolution.
====================
Spread Eagle said...
The fallacy here is presidents do not rely on their own personal knowledge and held reservoir of economic theories to manage the economy. They surround themselves with experts they trust who advise them.
Actually the fallacy is in saying that it doesn't matter if we elect a President - that knows dirt about, and has no experience in - most key areas a President must decide and lead in...if it can all be patched up by expert advisors surrounding the unqualified idiot we elect.
You have a partial point that "unfit to lead" journalists, Christian Taliban, and rabid partisans have said we need an Uber-brain "Quiz Kid" for President who knows all the trivia on 100 different "gotcha!" question, subjects.
That, somehow, being more important than ability to use high accomplishment and experience in leading a Part of America to lead the Whole of the Country. An argument the American Herd as partially bought into.
We are supposed to be scandalized when a candidate does not know the current leader of Moldava? Or doesn't know what Dingle-Norwood or whatever present chickenshit bill "Inside the Beltway journalists" think is critical knowledge? Or that morons will apply a Religious litmus test on how convincing a candidate's Biblical "sound bite quote" is? And the wrong quote is a "huge gaffe?"
Of course, the Herd does moo over manufactured "scandals" like Romneys sons not serving unless they were in the military - supposedly civilian charities and volunteerism didn't "count" in 2007 - unless it was regarding Obama.
And at the same time, the cretins also want "an non-elitist with biography! suffering! and none of them thar books littering their house on stupid stuff like Dingle-Norwood or pointy-head academic tomes on energy economics or Chinese policy."
How did Bush work out? Gee, I don't know
Yeah, you probably don't. Most people wouldn't consider that a bragging point though.
we've had how many consecutive quarters of job growth
You really want to talk about employment data since Bush became president? The unemployment rate is up 45% since January 2001 when Bush took office. The employment-to-population percentage has dropped from 64.4% to 62.1% during Bush's term. The employment statistics for the Bush years are dismal.
no actual recessions (by definition, not by your "feelings" about the economy)
Except of course for the "official" recession determined by the NBER from March 2001 to November 2001. There's also the observation from NBER President Martin Feldstein that the US is currently in a recession that could be substantially more severe than recent ones. "The situation is very bad, the situation is getting worse, and the risks are that it could get very bad. There's no doubt that this year and next year are going to be very difficult years."
all despite the huge hurdle that we had to jump after 9-11-01, an attach implemented during Bush's term, but planned under Clinton's
Personally, I wouldn't try to defend Bush's record by reminding people that 9/11 happened on his watch.
On top of that, you forgot to mention Bush's sterling record of managing the budget. His consistency in producing large deficits is outstanding! And what about the market? How has the S&P 500 performed during Bush's presidency? Did I mention that inflation is at a 17-year high?
Hope you find this helpful in your defense of the economic record of the Bush administration.
Krylovite, you are wrong so often
Yay! My monkey Air Ball is here!
The New Yor Friggin Times. Not some Conservative rag, your newspaper.
I own the New York Times? Cool! Bill Kristol will be looking for a new job on Monday!
In the article, you can read how 5 years ago the Bush White House got something right and were pushing for MORE oversight of Fannie and Freddie. MORE OVERSIGHT!
Air Ball is very very excited! Calm down, Air Ball, calm down! Your link doesn't work unless you intended to have me view a blank page. Wanna try again?
Speak to me about the truth, or be counted a liar.
Hee hee! Did you huff and puff when you typed that sentence? Did you take off your propeller beanie to get into tough guy mode?
If you want to change the subject and talk about government entanglement, go ahead, but I'll stick to the original issue for now.
It's not changing the subject. I didn't advocate the position that you'd like me to defend. I said that lack of regulation was not the problem. The root problem is government entanglement. There was not enough oversight of Fannie and Freddie; that much is true. But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that Fannie and Freddie were socialist constructs from the beginning.
Cedartard? WTF are you barking for?
But no refutation of Althouse
It wasn't meant to be a refutation. I was agreeing with her. Simpletard.
McCain admits he is weak in economic matters, which is rare courage in a politician in itself
McCain admitted he is weak in economic matters until he flip flopped and admitted expertise.
Russert: Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, quote, I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.
McCain: Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well versed in economics.
So much for the courage angle, Cedartard.
In this case, Kylovite is happy to take Dubya at his word that he knew a ton about finances and economics despite a string of business failures.
Hey everybody, look what Cedartard pulled out of his ass! No, not his head.... I mean this shit he's spewing everywhere.
Get a grip dude. Dubya has never had any credibility with me. Learn to read or learn to shut up.
It's not changing the subject.
If you say so.
The real problem is that Fannie and Freddie were socialist constructs from the beginning.
How about providing a few links to economists who share this POV?
Okay.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/09/08/not-a-market-failure/
http://www.mises.org/story/1765
And here's some anti-regulation for you:
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/09/17/stubborn_ignorance
Let's agree that economists, whether or not they are socialists, "know something about economics."
Let's not. A socialist economist is the equivalent of a young Earth creationist biologist.
Let's not. A socialist economist is the equivalent of a young Earth creationist biologist.
That's a poor analogy. Socialists don't deny economic theory.
John Roemer, the Elizabeth S. and A. Varick Stout Professor of Political Science and Economics at Yale University, is an economist and socialist. Are you sure he doesn't know anything about economics?
What? No they don't. Unless you're defining "sober voice" as "socialist voice" and not "voice of someone who actually knows something about economics." Why do you keep saying this in multiple threads?
Because he must.
If it started under Clinton why didn't Bush try to stop it?
He did, as this New York Times article shows.
So did McCain.
The only real question is whether the Dems are going to be able to foist this off as a Rep issue. And WTF is wrong with the Reps that they couldn't push this through in 2003-2005?
I think it's really super neat that a couple of commenters read a NYT article. But if you want to understand how politics works, and how government often doesn't work, you ought to read this too:
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 1461; Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (Rep. Baker (R) Louisiana and 19 cosponsors)
The Administration has long called for legislation to create a stronger, more effective regulatory
regime to improve oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks
("housing government-sponsored enterprises" or "housing GSEs") and appreciates the
considerable efforts of Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker in crafting H.R. 1461. However,
H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of
the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the
Administration opposes the bill.
And WTF is wrong with the Reps that they couldn't push this through in 2003-2005?
Good question.
- In 2003, the GOP didn't move ANY of the bills relating to Fannie Mae oversight out of committee.
- In 2005, H.R. 1461 was passed by the House (331-90) but stalled in the GOP-controlled Senate after the Bush administration indicated it opposed the bill.
- In 2007, Pelosi introduced H.R. 3221 which became Public Law 110-140 on 19 December 2007.
Gee krylovite, it worked for other people. That is a clue pal!
You will slip completely into farce if you do not address facts here. This is not the Daily Custard.
Trey - waiting for some data
It's true, I supported Romney, and I think he would be gaining support right now.
But, truth to tell: This is too complicated. Everywhere I look, everyone is saying opposite things. The best financial minds in the country screwed up really big here. No one has a clue, though of course they all say they do.
I think we should just leave the Presidential candidates out of this. Say to them: Look, we know you're not economists, and anyway the economists seem pretty confused right now. Run along, and we'll get back to you at the next crisis.
Gah! There are big crooks on both sides. I'm bored by people like Alpha who just point to the other side's crooks. You have no way to convince me that Democratic crooks are better. You don't even try.
Bizarre! I am doing an imaginary double take. This polarized 'good vs. evil' process you despair of pretty much dominates the comments section of your blog, the functioning of most politicians, the bulk of the political blogosphere, talk radio,the editorial sections of most newpapers, and almost all political discourse on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News Channel. This is the only politically oriented blog I visit and I must do so in small doses, separated by extended periods of detoxification where I avoid exposure to almost anything political including your blog.
It almost seems like, for years, you have been hit with falling objects over and over and over again and only now acknowledge the existence of gravity. How strange.
Ben(the tiger) -- so you hated Romney because some clown wrote a two-paragraph blog entry with a scathing headline and nothing behind it?
Wow. Just wow.
Romney used the phrase "Washington pessimism", and this twit wrote a story accusing him of being "Clintonian". Because there's no such thing as pessimism that's peculiar to Washington.
Yes, I'd certainly reject a candidate for using that two-word phrase. The bastard. He should be shot.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, reveals how the Republican party ends up with the 3rd or 4th best candidate in election after election. People thinking with their gut and not their brain.
Garage -- Bush suggested a reform of Mac and Fae in 2003, that would have restricted their liberal loan policies and required loans to be supported with down payments, good credit, and collateral.
Democrats in the senate, who receive more money from Mac and Fae than anyone, shot it down.
McCain suggested a reform in 2005 -- again, opposed by the Democrats. This debacle is entirely of the Democrats' making.
Garage:
So asinine you can't come up with one thing to refute it. I'll assume you have nothing.
How about this from 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."
Not good enough? How about this from 2002?
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
Need more? How about this from 2003:
September: 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.
Still not enough? How about this from 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 called 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)
Hey, and in 2005:
April: Treasury Secretary John 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)
I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.
Dr Kill -- you reject Romney for his religion.
You, sir, are a goof, and a bigot. It's this sort of stupidity that needs to be pruned from the Republican Party if we're ever to regain majorities in the house and senate again.
As you can guess from my screen name, I'm not very religious. And I have no problem voting for a religious POTUS; which is fortunate, since that's all I'll ever have to choose from in my lifetime. Fortunately, I'm not an ignorant bigot that thinks that if someone wears magical Mormon underwear, or drinks blood and eats flesh every Sunday, or hacks off foreskins, then they can't make rational decisions about matters outside of religion.
madawaskan -- you seem to think that Romney's views on controlling immigration were fringe.
He opposed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, a bill now rejected by...John McCain. That was the only way that McCain could get elected. What a waffler. Oh, wait; he's not a filthy Mormon -- that's not waffling, it's just circumspection.
Romney's attitudes on immigration mirrored those of 75% of the Republican Party -- including mine, and I'm one of those chamber-of-commerce business owners who you seem to think want the borders thrown wide open for all that cheap labor.
I'd prefer a wall built, and controlled immigration, so that we don't see a mushroom cloud on the western horizon where Chicago once was. But that's just me, one of those ugly, loud segments of the Republican (Rethuglican?) base.
Krylovite -- your 12:50 comment is perhaps the most lame attempt at fisking that I've ever seen, anywhere. It should have its own name, maybe:
"kryloviting" (verb): To mimic the general form of a fisk, with quoted snippets from an earlier comment; but unlike a fisk, which refutes each point in turn, a kryloviting includes only those portions of the first comment that can be ridiculed for grammar, spelling, or out-of-context meaning.
Example:
"'How did Bush work out? Gee, I don't know'
Yeah, you probably don't. Most people wouldn't consider that a bragging point though."
Oh, snap. You really nailed me there; you put the "anal" in analysis, dude.
For all the don't tell me the truth types:
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as 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. Read the full story at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/print/20080919-15.html
A lot of what the Bush White House refers to as "publicly calling for reform" had as little hope of being acted upon as a child's letter to Santa asking for a pony. Not till September 2003, when "Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee" was there an actual communication of concern to a body capable of acting upon it.
One part of the Executive Branch burying a recommendation in a memo to another part was perhaps the least impressive.
So did McCain.
A year and a half after S.190 was introduced by Hagel, Dole, and Sununu, seven months after the House passed the corresponding bill, and ten months after the last action took place in the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, John McCain signed on as co-sponsor.
Why was he such a late convert? What did his co-sponsorhip accomplish? That was the last ever heard of S. 190.
FLS:
That was the last ever heard of S. 190.
From Bloomberg:
The bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
Post a Comment