9 Responses to Frank and O’Reilly Slug

1. Jules Gordon says:

   October 4, 2008 at 3:36 am

   Your Honor,
   I watched this piece and cheered Mr O’Reily as I have made the same charge against that weasel, Frank, who has supported the Fannies and their corrupt leaders as well as drove the banks to loosen the mortgage qualification standards, the main cause of the fiscal problems that is causing you headaches.

   Even though Frank was confronted with video clips voicing his support for the quasi private entities; he denied it in face of the evidence. His 2 year stint as a chairman of the congressional committee with oversite responsibility did not save the day.

   Great TV.

   Jules

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. Patrizia says:

   October 4, 2008 at 6:54 am

   Whenever Barney Frank appears on television for an interview, if he doesn’t like the question, he turns on the interviewer like the bully that he is. He intimidates, insults, and usually emerges victorious as nobody will challenge him once he starts on his bellicose rants.

   It was PURE JOY to see O’Reilly wipe the floor with him.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. Jules Gordon says:

   October 4, 2008 at 11:02 am

   Your Honor,

   Barney Frank is not your friend. He is part of the problem. Now he is going to “lead” us out of the chaos he helped perpetrate through pandering and corruption.

   If you would like to defend him let me know. I’m ready.

   Jules

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. Bill Manzi says:

   October 4, 2008 at 12:52 pm

   Jules,
   I have already agreed that on Fannie and Freddie reform Barney Frank was dead wrong, so I will not defend him on that. His parsing on the issue does not let him escape responsibility. When Democrats are wrong I admit it. If Sarah Palin were a Democrat I can promise you that I would admit her severe shortcomings. You choose not to, so we can see who the partisan is here.

   The whole idea that the subprime mess is a result of poor people getting loans because of the Community Reinvestment Act is a crock. I will do a full post on this but you should not think that your assertion is accurate or will not be refuted. That does not let Frank off the hook, but he is correct when he points out that financial oversight was non-existent during the years of total Republican control. And as wrong as Frank has been on Fannie and Freddie where was the Republican majority when they controlled BOTH HOUSES and the PRESIDENCY. Why did they not pass the reform over Frank’s objections? WHY?????? Could it be that the Republicans were in the tank with Fannie and Freddie?????

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. Jules Gordon says:

   October 4, 2008 at 4:08 pm

   Your Honor,

   I’m impressed with your back door shot at Sara Palin, “If Sarah Palin were a Democrat I can promise you that I would admit her severe shortcomings. You choose not to, so we can see who the partisan is here”.

   I like her. She is a plain and clear talking person without the political speak and preaching oratory of Barack Obama. The problem, your honor, is that your boy Barach Obama is no more ready than she. They are both lightweights, but they, in fact, are candidates.

   You haven’t admitted that your boy has a bunch of crooked, torroristic, anti-semetic, America hating friends. That combined with his strong liberal beliefs makes him scary to me.

   When compared I prefer her at a heart beat away than him taking the office directly.

   I am partisan as are you (with pride).

   Now with that said, let’s get back to the subject at hand.

   Let me give you the Reader’s Digest version of the CRA thing, by the numbers.

   1. The CRA was enacted under the Carter administration.

   2. Banks were told/encouraged to ease up on qualifications.

   3. This continued right through Republicans and Democrats rule.

   4. Over continual encouragement the qualifications were further loosened. It seemed you needed no visible sign of income or collateral to qualify. The fiscal bet was on housing values increasing so there was profit if the home owner forfeited.

   5. The volume of mortgages written were huge.

   6. With this assumed wealth the financial institutions began bundling and sell them here and abroad. It got out of hand.

   7. Barney Frank took over as head of the congressional financial committee. He continued the effort to loosen qualification and then went into the tank with Freddie and Fannie. He was recorded as saying everything was going to be ok (See fight with O’Reily). The truth is by this time all the parties were now guilty of letting this thing get out of hand.

   8. The housing market collapses ala internet melt down, and all of a sudden many banks world wide and financial institutions are holding instruments not covered by assets.

   9. A great deal of wealth disappeared overnight.

   If you have info that refutes this overall view, I would like to hear it.

   Jules.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. Jules Gordon says:

   October 4, 2008 at 4:12 pm

   Your Honor,
   Your words, “hat does not let Frank off the hook, but he is correct when he points out that financial oversight was non-existent during the years of total Republican control.”

   I agree, he was right. He did not, however, make a difference when he had a chance.

   Jules

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. Jules Gordon says:

   October 5, 2008 at 9:17 am

   Your Honor,

   Sub Prime history update.

   1. In the Bush administration the president supported Oversite regulation because of warning reported to the president. The Democrats voted it down.

   2. McCain later lead the fight to pass the same legislation and was defeated by the Democrats who thought everything was okay-dokay.

   I just saw a chronological report on the history of the sub-prime event. I will copy it for you and get it to you.

   Meanwhile you can check it out.

   Jules

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. Jim says:

   October 5, 2008 at 9:26 am

   Oh Jules, when will you learn to stop swallowing the neo-con talking points, hook, line and Palin? If you haven’t been scared for the past eight years, you must be comfortably numb….

   “Saturday’s New York Times story, an investigation into whether Obama had a relationship with Ayers, concluded that the men were never close and that Obama has denounced Ayers’ radical past, which occurred when Obama, who was born in 1961, was a child. It also found that he has downplayed their contacts.”

   “You haven’t admitted that your boy has a bunch of crooked, torroristic, anti-semetic, America hating friends. That combined with his strong liberal beliefs makes him scary to me.”
   “

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. Jules Gordon says:

   October 5, 2008 at 1:12 pm

   Jim,
   Everything I believe I deduced myself. Your the guy with the little red book.

   I don’t want to be dissapointed so I give you a preview of coming enlightments.

   1. Obama’s friendship with William Ayers will be found to be more extensive than Obama leads you believe. The papers have been released from the University of Chicago and they are being looked at now.

   2. You will hear that Obama had been chief counsel when Acorn sued a bank that was trying to merge with another. Their case said the first bank did not offer low income loans (no money down-no sign of income) and won the case.

   This convinced banks to increase the no money down loans (started by President Carter). After that Sub Prime loans flourished. The rest is history.

   More to come.

   Jules

   LikeLike

   Reply