Biggest bankruptcy in history, plus..

[kallend 1,623]

In one day Lehman Bros files for the biggest bankruptcy in history, and ML goes down too. AIG doesn't seem far behind.

All thanks to greed and debt.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

In one day Lehman Bros files for the biggest bankruptcy in history, and ML goes down too. AIG doesn't seem far behind.

All thanks to greed and debt.

As long as there isn't a government bail-out, the market should be able to correct. Bank of America, while huge is a better option for Merrill Lynch than bankruptcy. AIG will restructure, and remain intact I think (just a brief observation).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

Kallend:

Who was greedy? I'd say "everyone."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[piper17 1]

If you want to see which politicians are deriving major financial benefits from the now-seized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac organizations, check out this link: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

One of my senators, Chris Dodd (D. Conn.) of the Senate Banking committee and who claimed he didn't know he was getting special handling from banks in the form of below-market mortgage interest rates, no closing costs etc, is numero uno and Barack Obama is numero dos and also was involved in "special financing" of his Chicago mansion...and he has only been in the Senate for less than one term!!!

Than, check out how much money McCain received.

Then, tell me who is responsible for this financial mess!

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[grimmie 173]

The CEO's of these corporate giants are responsible. Not one single other blame.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

The CEO's of these corporate giants are responsible. Not one single other blame.

Yeah, all those people who signed up for loans and signed the dotted line didn't have a role to play either.

I agree with you that these companies have not been properly led, or managed. What was seen to be low hanging fruit turned out to be something.

However, in a financial transaction, it's always a two way street. Just because the floodgates were opened doesn't mean the companies should have loosened their governance. Likewise, people that thought they couldn't lose, or misuse HELOCs/ARMs, are also in this too. For any of them to say that "they didn't know" is BS...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Kallend:

Who was greedy? I'd say "everyone."

Really? I didn't borrow money I couldn't afford to repay (or any money at all, for that matter). I didn't invest in real estate expecting to make a killing. I didn't manage a company pushing loans without checking that the borrower could pay back, or buy equity instruments relating to said loans. I didn;t vote for a government that pushed deregulation as its mantra.

All I expect is that, as a taxpayer, my pockets will end up being looted to bail out some culpable folks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,397]

>Lehman Bros files for the biggest bankruptcy in history, and ML goes down too.
>AIG doesn't seem far behind.

They're all just a bunch of whiners; the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Haven't you been paying attention?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

>Lehman Bros files for the biggest bankruptcy in history, and ML goes down too.
>AIG doesn't seem far behind.

They're all just a bunch of whiners; the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Haven't you been paying attention?

I did hear that somewhere. I see that Washington Mutual is joining the whiners, too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

In one day Lehman Bros files for the biggest bankruptcy in history, and ML goes down too. AIG doesn't seem far behind.

All thanks to greed and debt.

Is that code for Bush and Cheney?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Kallend:

Who was greedy? I'd say "everyone."

Just ironically most of the bad stuff happens under your boys.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>Lehman Bros files for the biggest bankruptcy in history, and ML goes down too.
>AIG doesn't seem far behind.

They're all just a bunch of whiners; the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Haven't you been paying attention?

Yea, let's all go shoot some buffalo, we'll all feel better tomorrow.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Kallend:

Who was greedy? I'd say "everyone."

Just ironically most of the bad stuff happens under your boys.

Cry me a river...the dot.com bubble was the best smoke/mirror play yet...

These events with banking are simply the wrong play with money they thought wouldn't stop flowing. Frankly, how these guys didn't prepare is astonishing.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Kallend:

Who was greedy? I'd say "everyone."

Just ironically most of the bad stuff happens under your boys.

My boys have never been in the Presidency.

But bad Stuff happens under most presidencies.

Bush II - the housing crash and slumping economy
Clinton - the stock market crash, with the 2 non-consecutive quarters of negative economic growth that heralded his exit;
Bush I - "It's the economy, stupid"
Reagan - the S&L crisis, housing tanked.
Carter - okay. Nothing went well under him.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Kallend:

Who was greedy? I'd say "everyone."

Just ironically most of the bad stuff happens under your boys.

Cry me a river...the dot.com bubble was the best smoke/mirror play yet...

These events with banking are simply the wrong play with money they thought wouldn't stop flowing. Frankly, how these guys didn't prepare is astonishing.

Shoe me the indicators of the Dot.com bubble burst. How did it affect otehr apects of teh economy, the DJI, the unemp rate, all aspects; what was the harm in indicator numbers? Also, how was Clinton supposed to regulated it? We kno Bush should have directed the Chairman of the Reserve to not keep rates so low so long, buthe didn't want to preside over a recession, so now Obama get sto inherit one.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My boys have never been in the Presidency.


Right, just that you support the actions of the Republicans.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But bad Stuff happens under most presidencies.


Just that taking the last 4 presidents, virtually all good came of the 1 Dem pres, vs horrible with the other 3.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bush II - the housing crash and slumping economy

Is that the best you can do? The list is so long, not to limit it to a war based upon lies costing us >4k lives, 800 billion and a debt increase of 4.5 trillion dollars.... come on counselo, let's not slow-play his achievements.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clinton - the stock market crash, with the 2 non-consecutive quarters of negative economic growth that heralded his exit;


Gee, what did it, "crash" down to and from what? Inherited 3500 DJI, left 9800...what a crashing

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bush I - "It's the economy, stupid"

Largest tax increase ever at that point.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Reagan - the S&L crisis, housing tanked.


Iran-Contra, pardoning Symington, trippling teh debt....let's not be shy, counselor.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

How did it affect otehr apects of teh economy, the DJI, the unemp rate, all aspects

Dow Jones? The tech bubble busting didn't do much to the Dow. Nasdaq, however (where the tech stocks were by and large traded) didn't fare so well. On March 10, 2000 (this was prior to the Bush Admin), it hit 5,048.62. That was a Friday. By the next Wednesday (the Ides of March) it had lost 9%. It lost more than one-half of its value by Jan. 2001.

But, the dow peaked in Jan, 2000. Ironically, and as one would expect, while NASDAQ was tanking, the Dow posted a 499.19% increase (nearly 5%) on March 16, 2000 - as investors moved their money from the tech market to blue chips.

Nevertheless, the Dow continued to fall until it hit 7,286.27 on October 9, 2002. By October, 2006, the Dow would rise again and hit 12,000. Put simply, dow is still in better shape than in Jan. 2001. The DOW was a bull market from 1982-2000. Despite Reagan and Bush, the bear market came while Clinton was in office.

(Let us take a look at the market. 1949 was the start of a bull market that lasted until 1966 (Johnson). A bear market lasted until 1982 (Reagan). From 1982-2000 (Clinton) a "superbull" market developed. The bear market lasted until 2003. Then a bull market lasted until 2007. Note that the record high dow was October, 2007 - 14,164.53. Less than a year ago. Yet, the last 8 years have sucked.

The total loss from the dot-com bubble bursting was about $5 trillion by 2002. what about the effect on the public?

Let's start with massive layoffs and hiring freezes. That tended to hurt the working man and woman.

Also, let us look at the retirement packages people had. There is an attorney here in town who was retired until the dot.com bubble burst. he lost pretty much everything. (Partially his fault for not diversifying). So he's been working, although he just re-retired.

How about the millions of people whom, in applying your logic, Clinton failed to protect? Enron's financial chicanery peaked it's stock - in 2000. It started its taking before Bush. I understand that a lot fo people suffered after Enron. I guess they don't count.

so unemployment rose due to company failures. the economy then took a turn (two non-consecutive quarters of negative growth).

Quote

We kno Bush should have directed the Chairman of the Reserve to not keep rates so low so long, buthe didn't want to preside over a recession

Note that the Fed dropped interest rates six times between 1999-2000. Clinton should have told them to stop, right? He didn't, right?

I'd like to see some consistency with the logic. Clinton didn't want to preside over a recession, so he left it for Bush. (actually, he got a quarter of negative growth himself, and left one for Bush to handle.)

To reiterate - I personally do not blame Clinton for it. IT was a nice ride until the market corrected.

I don't blame Bush for this. It was a nice ride until the market corrected.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Kallend:

Who was greedy? I'd say "everyone."

Just ironically most of the bad stuff happens under your boys.

Cry me a river...the dot.com bubble was the best smoke/mirror play yet...

These events with banking are simply the wrong play with money they thought wouldn't stop flowing. Frankly, how these guys didn't prepare is astonishing.

Shoe me the indicators of the Dot.com bubble burst. How did it affect otehr apects of teh economy, the DJI, the unemp rate, all aspects; what was the harm in indicator numbers? Also, how was Clinton supposed to regulated it? We kno Bush should have directed the Chairman of the Reserve to not keep rates so low so long, buthe didn't want to preside over a recession, so now Obama get sto inherit one.

The President has no power over the Fed. In case you haven't noticed, following a measured reduction in the prime rate following 9/11, the Fed raised the rate, every meeting, from June 2003 through June 2006 where it remained steady until September 2007.

The Fed has noted numerous times that one of their primary concerns is inflation. With the lower rates following 9/11, the inflation went up, but so did economic growth. Personally, I think the Fed screwed up by raising rates at every meeting, 425 basis points within three years, only to have to reverse course within a year following, down by 325 since September 2007.

Now, they can't reduce rates any further because of inflation and the weak dollar, and if they raise rates, they'll push things uphill just enough to slow things down, while strengthening the dollar, but stalling growth.

The dot.com bubble occurred with the Fed raising rates the keeping them elevated through 2000. The "virtual" money evaporated, and all those 25 year old CEOs and their dot.com left the entire tech sector, telecom, et al, reeling...take your pick..NORTEL peaked at 603/sh in Sep 2000. Alcatel/Lucent same pattern...Cisco...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

They're all just a bunch of whiners; the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Haven't you been paying attention?

I'm no fan of the current administration (nor particularly impressed with the nominees) but TBH I'm having a hard time disagreeing with this sentiment.

The financial sector is taking it pretty hard right now but the failures are largely of their own making. A few dozen execs and a few tens of thousands of 9-5ers out of work. Interest rates getting volatile and prices dancing a little. Throw in a dubious bailout and stimulus plan or two.

In other words not too different from your average slowdown, just some of the losers were higher profile than usual.

On the upside, the oil shock is subsiding and the hurricane season has largely spared us so far (knock on wood, eh).

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

In one day Lehman Bros files for the biggest bankruptcy in history, and ML goes down too. AIG doesn't seem far behind.

All thanks to greed and debt.

Some sunshine in a dark time.....http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=auug.npwKdPE

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

The CEO's of these corporate giants are responsible. Not one single other blame.

Them and everyone who signed on the line expecting to get something for nothing.

If it seems too good to be true it probably is.

TANSTAAFL.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[shropshire 0]

Can't be too bad - no BASE jumping bankers yet

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[piper17 1]

Regarding the financial mess and who is to blame..especially in regard to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the following from the New York Times, September 11, 2003:

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

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.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

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.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''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 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.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

Sooo...the Bush administration recognized the potential financial problems and proposed actions to address them. Barney Frank and other Dems said there was nothing wrong with these agencies. Who is to blame for the mess?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Regarding the financial mess and who is to blame..especially in regard to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the following from the New York Times, September 11, 2003:

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

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.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

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.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''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 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.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

Sooo...the Bush administration recognized the potential financial problems and proposed actions to address them. Barney Frank and other Dems said there was nothing wrong with these agencies. Who is to blame for the mess?

The party with the VOTES to pass the bill - which is not the minority party.

Nice attempt to pass the potato, though.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The party with the VOTES to pass the bill - which is not the minority party.

Nice attempt to pass the potato, though.

Wow - kallend blaming the Dems for something? Whoda thunk?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706