For you hardcore "republicans are evil" types....

[darthcrank]

Read the article, then read the date on the by-line:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

"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

Comments

interesting...

[anonymous]

1. Nice link to the money.. It's always good to know. Looking at the numbers interests me.. because even the largest amount--that received by Dodd, is less than the money that Rick Davis, McCain's campaing Manager had been receiving from Freddie Mac since 2005 (at least $15,000/month until last month==around $500,000+) as a lobbyist.

2. If that bill was defeated--in a year when Republicans had a sizeable lead in Congress--even with Democrats voting party line no--then I still don't think it can be "blamed" on the Democrats. If it was really so obviously great--then why didn't the Republican Machine--Which Tom Delay generally could control when he wanted to--pass it.. They passed lots of other things..

3. Finally--Scott's trying to pose here as a Libertarian.. but I thought libertarians would prefer that things like oversight occur in ways that limited each branch of gov't's power. Giving the executive branch the power to oversee itself is an obvious conflict of interest--that's why we have congressional oversight--and this bill was clearly designed to give the executive more control..

that was me..

[tricstmr]

Sorry.. don't know how I got logged out.. weird.

Re: interesting...

[thesaj]

1. Rick Davis, McCain's campaing Manager had been receiving from Freddie Mac since 2005 (at least $15,000/month until last month==around $500,000+) as a lobbyist.

There is a difference IMHO, to being paid for a job. And $180,000 is probably not out of line for a Washington D.C. lobbyist or insider. Versus an elected figure.

That said, if you want to look at the various advisors and those in advisory roles to Obama, you find a lot of Fannie/Freddie execs. Not with $500,000 in compensation but with $20,000,000 severance packages.

2. If that bill was defeated--in a year when Republicans had a sizeable lead in Congress--even with Democrats voting party line no--then I still don't think it can be "blamed" on the Democrats.

I believe it was held at the committee level by Democrats led by Senator Christopher Dodd.

3. "Giving the executive branch the power to oversee itself is an obvious conflict of interest"

I am not seeing your connection. How does providing the Executive branch the means to oversee socialized mortgage companies like Fannie & Freddie equate to overseeing itself and a conflict of interest?

I do not see any connection. (Unless you're trying to build some greedy CEO and Bush connection. If so, you need to realize that Fannie-Freddie are socialist entities and far far more tied to Democrat and socialist interests. Republicans have often been against the entities.)

My personal views of the matter is that: a) government should be allowed to ensure that fraud and misrepresentation is not occurring b) that a company is not recklessly endangering public assetts or private citizens (poisoning the environment, releasing toxic chemicals, etc) c) that an investment corporation (ie: large shareholder company) is re-investing it's profits into growth and not hoarding cash capital beyond what's prudent for a rainy day.

***

I am not saying I agree with the bailout. Just that I disagree with all the blame being put on President Bush' administration when he had little regulatory or executive control in this area. And had, in 2003, called for dramatic changes and oversight.