What does this have to do with what I said or the lack of logic in it?...nothing at all...I say don't do anything with a bailout and don't listen to Bush and then you respond with more of your nonesense...clear now?

When people needed to listen to Bush was back in 2003 when he was begging for help. In resposne to his calls, Nagel introcuded a bill in 05 along with two co-sponsors. McCain added on as co-sponsor on May 25, 2006 the same day the Senate passed a bill weakening oversight of the finance industry. It died when nothing was done in the session (all bills die this way unless action was taken and can be rerasied the next session.) And it was reraised in this do-nothing Congress. So when you hear Nancy Pelosi and yourself Roger, wake up and smell the coffee...BOTH SIDES ARE TO BLAME. Keep fooling yourself in your interest of partisanship Roger...go ahead. You remind me of the problems with our elected officials.

Look this up Roger: S. 1100: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2007 - 110th session

and this:
S. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - 109th session

Also look up HB 1461 (I bleive 108th session as well) and the many amendments.

Look at the the Committe on Housing, Banking and Urban Affairs over the years, the membership...note the ranking members. You asked why wasn't anyone doing anything. While you been complaining, I ran with your question. now you go check it.

REad this from 2003 and note Barney Clarke's remarks about FM and FM in not being in financial trouble after reported accoutning irregularities.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Here is Bush's response to Bill 1421 in 2005:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851

what Bush said:

The Administration has long called for legislation to create a stronger, more effective regulatory regime to improve oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks ("housing government-sponsored enterprises" or "housing GSEs") and appreciates the considerable efforts of Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker in crafting H.R. 1461. However,

H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.

The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions. This regime is of particular concern given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently hold only about half of the capital of comparable financial institutions. In order for a financial regulator to be respected and credible, it must have the authority and ability to adjust capital requirements of the institutions it oversees as circumstances dictate to ensure prudential operations. An effective oversight regime must also provide for clear review of business activities to ensure the integrity of the housing finance system and consistency with the GSEs' housing mission. The Administration does not believe that the housing GSEs should be exempt from these important standards of world-class regulation.

The dramatic growth of the housing GSEs over the last decade, as well as recent accounting and operational problems, underscore the importance of protecting the broader financial markets from systemic risks caused by their actions. The housing GSEs' outstanding debt is approximately $2.5 trillion, and they provide credit guarantees on another $2.4 trillion of mortgages. By comparison, the privately held debt of the Federal government is $4.1 trillion. Housing GSE debt is issued largely to support sizable portfolio investments that are unnecessary to fulfill the GSEs' housing mission. Given the size and importance of the GSEs, Congress must ensure that their large mortgage portfolios do not place the U.S. financial system at risk. H.R. 1461 fails to provide critical policy guidance in this area.

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers. Likewise, provisions that divert profits will lead to increased risk-taking and decreased market discipline, while exacerbating systemic risk.

The Administration remains committed to bringing real reform to the housing GSEs and looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to ensure that the needed reforms are part of any final legislation.

Budget Estimates and Enforcement

This bill would affect direct spending and receipts. To sustain the economy's expansion, it is critical to exercise responsible restraint over Federal spending. The Budget Enforcement Act's pay-as-you-go requirements and discretionary-spending caps expired on September 30, 2002. The President's FY 2006 Budget includes a proposal to extend the discretionary caps through 2010; a pay-as-you-go requirement for direct spending; and a new mechanism to control the expansion of long expansion of long-term unfunded obligations. OMB's cost estimate of this bill is currently under development.