Stance on Fannie and Freddie dogs (Barney) Frank

Boston Globe ^ | October 14, 2010 | Donovan Slack

[reaganaut1]

When US Representative Barney Frank spoke in a packed hearing room on Capitol Hill seven years ago, he did not imagine that his words would eventually haunt a reelection bid.

The issue that day in 2003 was whether mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fiscally strong. Frank declared with his trademark confidence that they were, accusing critics and regulators of exaggerating threats to Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial integrity. And, the Massachusetts Democrat maintained, “even if there were problems, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.’’

Now, it’s clear he was wrong on both points — and that his words have become a political liability as he fights a determined challenger to win a 16th term representing the Fourth Congressional District. Fannie and Freddie collapsed in 2008, forcing the federal government to buy $150 billion worth of stock in the enterprises and $1.36 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities.

Frank, in his most detailed explanation to date about his actions, said in an interview he missed the warning signs because he was wearing ideological blinders. He said he had worried that Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration were going after Fannie and Freddie for their own ideological reasons and would curtail the lenders’ mission of providing affordable housing.

“I was late in seeing it, no question,’’ Frank said about the lenders’ descent into insolvency.

Republican Sean Bielat, who is trying to unseat Frank, has been hammering away at him with a website titled “Retire Barney’’ that features clips of Frank at the 2003 hearing and elsewhere. During debates this week, he called Frank “one of the leaders of the economic disaster’’ because he supported Fannie and Freddie when they were taking the risks that led to their collapse.

[I still care]

“He said he had worried that Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration were going after Fannie and Freddie for their own ideological reasons and would curtail the lenders’ mission of providing affordable housing.”

Really. Is it ideological to worry that a company is making bad loans and might fail? Eventually even Barney Frank runs up against reality.

The thing that aggravates me is, the MSM totally ignored this before the 2008 election. It was the most egregious bias that I've ever seen in the press. And it gave us the Incompetent One.

[DeusExMachina05]

It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was dating one of the dudes that was running them now was it?

[reefdiver]

So now it is clear, Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration were governing in a good and proper manor, the way Americans want their government to work.

democrats are not capable of running a government. They are thieves, wearing blinders interested only in power.

[BobP]

Stance on Fannie and Freddie dogs (Barney) Frank

---------------------------

Yeah, it should dog him. The 'Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act' is another step in the direction of more government and union domination of all that we do. Nothing in the Act controls Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--they remain a multibillion dollar drain on the US Treasury--or the financial disasters their corruption and poor management have created.

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank need to pay a price for their large rolls in instigating the sub-prime mess.

Federal mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will cost the U.S. government $53 billion over the next decade under so-called 'fair-value' accounting, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated.

He is a menace to our nation and damn near everyone living here.

[Rashputin]

Yawn. Just another variation on, “the evil Republicans made me do it”, this time with a twist of lime “they're partisan all the time so I didn't bother to look at the facts”.

Who would expect a guy that “didn't know” there was a gay whorehouse in his own basement to know how to oversee anything? Come on, he defended them because he got rewarded for doing so. He and every other democrat was getting a slice of the big housing boom and even a casual glance over the donor lists of any of them shows it.

Regards

[mcmuffin]

Fight Frank at the polls, click Here!

[jamaksin]

Worry not. The voters in his distinct have memories from 2008.

Oh, wait, just in. His voters are from Massachusetts.

Never mind.

[Senator John Blutarski]

Frank ... said in an interview he missed the warning signs because he was wearing ideological blinders. He said he had worried that Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration were going after Fannie and Freddie for their own ideological reasons and would curtail the lenders’ mission of providing affordable housing.

“I was late in seeing it, no question ...

- - - - -

Dear Barney,

Why, pray tell, why on earth should that encourage us to vote for you?

- - - - -

The rest of the Boston.com article is a lame but typical attempt by an organ of the Boston Globe to exculpate their love bunny Barney Frank, who has been pushing this load of affordable housing crap for thirty years in the House. Now, after this gigantic house of financial cards has fallen upon him and driven the rest of the nation into economic diasater, he claims to have undergone an epiphany.

To buy this truckload of political manure is like excusing the six year old who burned down the family home by playing with matches.

[mcmuffin]

Great interview of Bielat from FOX News HERE !

[Venturer]

The frightening thing is that he still heads the Committee and they have no intention of removing him from it.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“Frank, in his most detailed explanation to date about his actions, said in an interview he missed the warning signs because he was wearing ideological blinders.”

The most straightforward and honest answer I’ve heard from him. For this very reason, that he is blinded to what is best for the country by his ideology, is why he should not be a Senator.

[Maceman]

The most straightforward and honest answer I’ve heard from him. For this very reason, that he is blinded to what is best for the country by his ideology, is why he should not be a Senator.

He's not a senator.

[Paine in the Neck]

As a life-long MA resident I’m stunned that the Globe (NYT’s mini-me) ran this article. Read the comments at the link. It’s jaw-dropping to read page after page of anti-Barney rants - in the Globe!

The electorate has awakened. The truth is there for all to see. Barring overwhelming vote fraud Barney is done.

[Rummyfan]

Frank, in his most detailed explanation to date about his actions, said in an interview he missed the warning signs because he was wearing ideological blinders.

More like someone was dangling his dice over Barney's eyes and he couldn't see.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“He’s not a senator.”

Yep. I was just ‘blinded by my ideology’ and wasn’t thinking straight. Same concept though. His admission really should exclude him from serving in Congress.

[kitkat]

So, in essence, Barney admits that he didn’t know what he was doing, so we should re-elect him to not know what he’s doing again.