However, the Republicans under Bush were ideologically in full support, and did not reverse it; and the deregulaton problem began with Reagan and his radical right ideological administration, who simply did not believe in regulation basically, and which led to the Savings and Loan industry crash.

They were beginning the rollback of New Deal financial regulation that had ended the regular crashes for fifty years – passed by a super-majority Democratic Congress under FDR.

Hopefully, the conservatives here can take some responsibility for those who implement bad ideology under the banner, just as they can ask Democrats to take responsibility for their sellouts.

Yes, Bush was elected in 2000, but Clinton was President that year he signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Phil Gramm, while a Republican from Texas, like the former President, is not George W. Bush.

The banks did this to themselves. And everyone in the middle of the companies knew it was a bad idea. Just the idiots at the top didn’t want to hear it so long as the money was rolling in.

Except that wasn’t President Bush, and the Karl Rove Time machine was busy at that time making all the Democrats lay groundwork for our liberation of Iraq in the future.

You’re right. This -is- fun.

And another example of how Kevin is unaware of anything outside Obama Party talking points.

Q: What are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and what do they do?

A: Originally chartered by Congress, both were converted into private companies with shares traded on Wall Street. Neither company directly loans money to prospective home buyers. Instead, they buy mortgages from banks and other lenders on the secondary market, thus freeing up more funds to home lenders. They resell bundled loans as mortgage-backed securities.

MARIA BARTIROMO

Not on this bill I don’t think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can’t possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I’d be glad to look at the evidence. But I can’t blame [the Republicans]. This wasn’t something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment.

Oddly enough, when Gramm became a lobbyist for UBS, which reaped millions initially, but then fell apart. With the CMA Act, his wife (as a Board member of Enron) borught in somewhere between $900K and $1.8M before the Enron debacle.

So….you blame the Democrats repeatedly on Fannie/Freddie, but where were our Republican champions on Gramm’s legislation?

In other words, when hell freezes over.

Liberals are cowards.

Regards,
Peter H.

The Obama administration, when it comes to economic solutions, is a rudderless ship! And the Captain helming it has about as much experience on a ship as the average whale watcher off the coast of California.

But I did have to sit in a meeting with Barney Frank recently and he was exampling (?) Sarbox as his proof on that point… which caused something like 19-21-22 new “big” rules from SEC and, of course, the disasterous PCAOB. Sarbox has been instrumental in driving some capital out of the country… but it hasn’t led to the current econ-crisis… that’s the subprime mkt failing just like the HighTech/dot com bubble burst before this crisis (late 1990s) and that crisis was preceeded by the real estate/S&L collapse in the early 1990’s.

Not agreeing with ol’ Barney Frank or anything… but he seems to be connected to the mainline feed tube of the Democrats. And yeah, I washed my hands after shaking his. Wow, is he getting huge in person! He’s like a walking heart attack.

I seem to recall that just before SlickWilly left with all the WH furniture not nailed down and a few too many official gifts from visiting dignitaries, he signed a bunch of far more broadly dereg’ging bills that reversed the Glass-Steagal act. I think those were wider in impact than Sarbox.

But you know why the Dems are trying to tie the dereg thing to Bush and the economic collapse? It’s to provide the rationale for their own sweeping engagement in new regulatory action yet to be defined.