Apparently you skipped the threads of Congressional oversight hearings at which regulators were berated for being too tough on Freddie and Fannie. Regulatory policies are based upon laws originating in Congress. If Congress did not like the way those laws were being enforced, it was free to amend the underlying laws. Never happened.

 

 

Enforcement of laws is the role of the Executive branch (to which the regulators, as members of executive branch agencies, report). Since when has this administration had its course altered by the non-binding opinions of Congress?

 

What you're suggesting makes no sense:

 

If Congress did not like the way those laws were being enforced, it was free to amend the underlying laws.

 

So let me get this straight: if Congress did not like the ways the laws were being enforced (by the Executive branch), it should have written new laws (which could have just as easily been improperly enforced by the Executive)? That sounds like that would be effective.

 

Besides, we're not talking about Freddie and Fannie here. We're talking about regulators being run over by powerful banking interests who successfully lobbied the administration into accepting a disastrous laissez-faire approach to regulation of risky mortgages and associated securities.

How are they "guilty"? Everything Congress does is done as a collective body. There is very little power vested in individuals that is not subsequently filtered by the body as a whole.

How are they guilty? Did you only choose to read the article that blamed Bush and ignore the ones that spread blame around to many in this problem? Seems a bit myopic to me.

Enforcement of laws is the role of the Executive branch (to which the regulators, as members of executive branch agencies, report). Since when has this administration had its course altered by the non-binding opinions of Congress?

 

What you're suggesting makes no sense:

 

 

 

So let me get this straight: if Congress did not like the ways the laws were being enforced (by the Executive branch), it should have written new laws (which could have just as easily been improperly enforced by the Executive)? That sounds like that would be effective.

 

Besides, we're not talking about Freddie and Fannie here. We're talking about regulators being run over by powerful banking interests who successfully lobbied the administration into accepting a disastrous laissez-faire approach to regulation of risky mortgages and associated securities.

What makes no sense is your attempt to trivialize the role that Congress plays in overseeing the administration of the law. When there is a dispute over how laws are enforced, it is up to the judicial branch to determine the intent of the law, not the regulations promulgated by the executive branch.

 

Congress' objections to the way that the Bush administration was regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had nothing to do with the administration being too lax - Democrats (Frank, the members of the Black Caucus, and others) objected to the fact that more risky loans were not being made.

 

Democrats in Congress could have challenged the Bush administration in court if they believed the law was not being adequately enforced. To my knowledge, that never happened.

Perhaps a civics lesson is in order here since the President does not have the power that apparently some people believe he has. Both the Federal Reserve and the SEC are independent Agencies within the Executive Branch. Both were established by an act of Congress and the Federal Reserve in particular was set up to be insulated from the power of the President. The Federal Reserve is run by a chairmen who is appointed to a 4 year term and a board of governors who get appointed to 14 year terms. The long 14 year term means that these appointments are closer to judicial appointments than they are cabinet appointments like the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense serves at the pleasure of the President which means the President can fire him anytime he wishes. But once appointed to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, an individual is there for 14 years regardless of the President's wishes. So the president doesn't quite have the power to tell the Federal Reserve what to do. Also, the Federal Reserve actually reports to Congress and not the President. However, you do not have to take my word for it. Here is a direct quote from the Federal Reserve website:

 

The Federal Reserve System is considered to be an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or

anyone else in the executive branch of government. The System is, however,

subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress

Edited December 5, 200817 yr by shooter

What makes no sense is your attempt to trivialize the role that Congress plays in overseeing the administration of the law. When there is a dispute over how laws are enforced, it is up to the judicial branch to determine the intent of the law, not the regulations promulgated by the executive branch.

 

Congress' objections to the way that the Bush administration was regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had nothing to do with the administration being too lax - Democrats (Frank, the members of the Black Caucus, and others) objected to the fact that more risky loans were not being made.

 

Democrats in Congress could have challenged the Bush administration in court if they believed the law was not being adequately enforced. To my knowledge, that never happened.

 

 

But that's not what you said originally. You said, "If Congress did not like the way those laws were being enforced, it was free to amend the underlying laws." If what you meant was that Congress should address enforcement issues through a lawsuit, then say what you mean.

How are they "guilty"? Everything Congress does is done as a collective body. There is very little power vested in individuals that is not subsequently filtered by the body as a whole.

 

The committees make recommendations to congress on what to do, if anything. They said everything was going great and nothing should be done except leaving Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the rest alone. Good call! :sssh:

But that's not what you said originally. You said, "If Congress did not like the way those laws were being enforced, it was free to amend the underlying laws." If what you meant was that Congress should address enforcement issues through a lawsuit, then say what you mean.

I said what I meant in both cases. If it pleases you to minimize the Democratic Congress' role in this economic collapse, then that is your business, but I am not that easily fooled.