It was not in the bag in 05 like it was in 03. We started this conversation discussing the 03 legislation then somehow the 05 legislation got presented as an argument to what happened in 03. In 05 the Barney Frank argument about "taking chances and rolling the dice" was not going to cut it like it did in 03. F & F played the perfect game of keeping your friends close and enemies closer. The better question is why should F & F be lobbying anyway? Im not sure GSE's should be allowed to make a single contribution to candidates or lobbyists. This is mostly a fair statement. The republicans were arrogant in their control of all three branches but guys like Tam Daschle were equally as bad in their opposition. It takes two to tango and Dashcle was always holding the filibuster over the republicans heads. We've already been around the block on all these issues. They are valid but clearly part of a bigger picture with broader scope. I dont deny these events took place and contributed to the overall collapse. I do contend that housing was at the tip of the spear and probably had the biggest impact towards our current financial crisis. Yes they were, thank you. Lets also put into perspective what preceded the unprecedented jumps in subprime lending. The two biggest jumps in our history occurred on the heels of something to do with F & F. In 1998 subprime went through the roof in comparison to previous years. What happened in 1998? Clinton had F & F relax credit requirements. In 2004 subprime set new records. What happened before that? F & F avoided potential regulation restricting their ability to lend to the LMI borrower. You can be damn sure that private industry is going to think whatever the government can do, they can do better. If F & F don't need tight credit requirements, neither do we. What followed government action in 1998, and inaction in 2003, is not a coincidence.
DRC, a good post I can live with. The posts I can't live with are the one's that say, its all Clinton's fault, or its all Barney Frank's fault, because that's not true. There is plenty of blame to go around. Both parties did their share to screw the pooch on this one, plus ample helpings of private industry greed and fraud.
Here's the thing, if government would start doing whats right for the country instead of what serves whatever lobby or special interest has their attention we would all be better off. Obama shouldn't have signed the spending bill he was sent. It wreaks hypocrisy when he campaigned so hard about ending this stuff. He says its corrupt but signs it anyway. What kind of change is that? He should have thrown it back in the face of every congressional stooge who put in all that earmarked garbage. He had a perfect chance to impose his will and he didnt. He has the power right now, not congress. He is the one with overwhelming public approval ratings and congress could not survive a fight with him but he folded on what could have been a huge statement with significant impact.
Agreed. Bill Clinton let the government shut down rather than sign a budget he felt was not good for the country. I may not like Clinton as a person, but he showed true leadership in that instance. Obama chose to sign an admitted crap bill and then point the blame at Bush. I guess we have 4 more years of the buck not stopping at the President's desk.
I'm all for totally outlawing lobbyists. They have undue special access and are not in the Constitution. They keep Congressmen from paying proper attention to the wishes of their constituents. Let the special interest groups take their cases directly to The People and we'll tell our Congressmen what we want. But neither party is wiling to press this. He feels that timing is everything here and that it is important to get something happening quickly with a badly sliding economy. But he also said that this will be the last bill he signs without significant changes made in how earmarks get added.
Even though I said I wouldn't, I'm going to kill your dog. I'm not going to kill your next dog, though, unless he deserves it. :dis:
When the situation changes, the wise man changes his plans correspondingly. The foolish man "stays the course" in the face of new realities.
Nothing changed. He campaigned on no earmarks, then looked us in the eye and said the bill had no earmarks, then signed the bill containing 9000 earmarks, then said, no more earmarks.
You're right. I just don't know where you find such a person. If you going to hold one of the top 600 jobs in the nation, I don't think you can do it without corporate support, and once you take it, you're playing THEIR game, not yours. It comes back eventually to campaign finances, who pays them, and what they get in return. They don't want you doing what's best for the country, they want you to do what is best for THEM. I wish I could be more optimistic, but I think its always been this way, but with TV and the cost of TV ads, the system has moved farther beyond the reach of everyday americans.
Sounds like the best thing to do when looking at what candidate to vote for is look at who is financing their campaign. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.