Quote:
Originally Posted by Necrosis
Which presumably is why Republicans were attempting to increase regulation of the industry. Do you not intend to address the support voiced by Barney Frank and Charles Schumer for the disastrous policies of Fannie and Freddie?
|
The Republicans were not attempting to increase regulation of the industry. The 05 bill that you keep referencing provided a bit more oversight of Freddie and Fannie but had nothing to do with re-regulating banking and investment practices that resulted from earlier deregulation.
And yes support of Fannie and Freddie was across the board.
Quote:
|
If receiving more than $100,000 from Fannie or Freddie indicates a problem, the Democrats are going to need a new presidential candidate, because Obama falls into that category. So does Chris Dodd. And yet, one of the people circled below wants to lay the entire blame at the feet of the Republicans.
|
Yep...the influence of money is also across the board. One small differences is that the Dems money is more from individuals and the Repubs more from PACs
Quote:
It most certainly DID get out of committee, in spite of the united (as in unanimous) opposition to it by the Democrats on the committee.
The Republicans saw such a united Democratic front on the floor that they never brought it to a vote.
Edit: I am still unable to find the "control" of the Senate which is so frequently referenced. A reference to a bill that passed over the united objection of every, or even most Democrats during that period would be helpful.
|
Nope...I dont think it did....and w/o looking at the Record, it is reasonable to assume that of the opposition on the committee was from borth sides of the aisle or it would have been reported out.
But you know there was unanimous Democratic opposition on the committee, how? do you have the committee vote?
Status:
Occurred: Introduced Jan 26, 2005
Last Action: Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)
i dont know where you got the idea that "the Republicans saw such a united Democratic front on the floor that they never brought it to a vote". The logic defies me. Remember, this was when the Republicans had a 55-45 majority in the Senate.
I also think, but dont know for certain, that McCain could have stuck his name on the bill as a co-sponsor after it was DOA in the Banking Committee. He was not an original sponsor.
Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. SUNUNU, and Mrs. DOLE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Afairs
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=s109-190
It is curious that when the same bill was introduced again in 2007,
McCain is not a co-sponsor. Was is because he was in "campaign" mode by that time?