Reply to Barney Frank is being quite candid

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Barney Frank is being quite candid"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Don't the American people deserve to know that Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, " I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"?

Isn't the fact that the ranking Democrat in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae was in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive a glaring conflict of interest?

“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. “He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane? The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”

politicians like this that screwed millions of people should just go away[/quote]

Did Dodd-Frank make a difference? Yes/no.

Did anyone else make bigger strides on this issue? yes/no. [/quote]

Yes.  dodd-frank did help.  but it is a regulatory nightmare.  and it did not address the risk adequately.    The solution is simple,  segregate all entities that want FDIC insurance on their deposits into simple , regulated banks, with minimum capital requirements that are somewhat larger than 2.5%

and then sell all the Freddie/Fannie securities and close whatever is left of the organizations.

somehow the rest of the world survives without their gov guaranteeing housing mortgages to china.

[/quote]

This is ridiculous proposal.[/quote]

why?

Dodd Frank was a Democrat wet dream.

Take the transformation of 11 pages of Dodd-Frank into the so-called “Volcker rule”, which is intended to reduce banks' ability to take excessive risks by restricting proprietary trading and investments in hedge funds and private equity (Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, has argued that such activity contributed to the crisis). In November four of the five federal agencies charged with enacting this rule jointly put forward a 298-page proposal which is, in the words of a banker publicly supportive of Dodd-Frank, “unintelligible any way you read it”. It includes 383 explicit questions for firms which, if read closely, break down into 1,420 subquestions, according to Davis Polk, a law firm. The interactive Volcker “rule map” Davis Polk has produced for its clients has 355 distinct steps.[/quote]

Because financial institutions have become very complex things and you can't just wave  a wand and go back to 1945.  You have to propose solutions that address the way the industry, which is global, works now.[/quote]

ah yes, the because it is very complicated argument and that mere mortals cannot possibly understand.

It really is not that complicated, we need boring, simple banks, with large minimum capital requirements

The big banks need to be split up.  Fannie and Freddie need to be dissolved.

[/quote]

Those that don't understand pontificate.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics