Clinton and Bush Officials Should Have Listened to the Female Regulators

trends seeding intense caused oscillation

sunnysaylo of IN 6:17PM July 01, 2009

We do not have to marry such women (others are available), but we do need to share a world together with them in a civilized manner. Therefore we must seriously consider their points of view, and honestly explain where we differ. Our democratic system should set an example for the rest of the world, on how to peacefully resolve such matters.

I must admit that I was put off by the fact that Bonnie's interest in the positions of Born and Bair depends on the fact that each happens to be women, as if their gender is more important than what they think. I was also put off by Born's characterization of the former Federal Reserve Chairman. Knowing that Alan Greenspan is married to one of the most powerful women in the news business, Andrea Mitchell, that he previously dated Barbara Walters for several years, and that all of the vice presidents at his consulting firm are female economists, I could easily dismiss Born's implication that he has issues with economic advice coming from women. He obviously does not. Furthermore, in the article cited by Bonnie, Greenspan himself also disputed Born's characterization of their conversation. Without finding any evidence to support the conclusions of Bair, here or in her other writing, and reading what is apparently no more than convenient 20/20 hindsight on the part of Born, I have to conclude that my original position still stands. I say this only after careful consideration of Bonnie’s evidence. Hopefully, those who disagree with me will have same self-confidence in their opinions, and thoroughly review the evidence I cited below.

In my sources, I paid no attention to the genders of the contributors, only concerning myself with each one's ability to make a compelling argument. I want to know what I should believe, so I make every effort to subject my opinions to the most compelling arguments from all sides. So today I am here waiting for Bonnie or her like minded readers to explain to me where I am wrong, cognizant of the fact that the sources I have assembled make a very compelling case, which has withstood the test of time, for at least a decade. After posting the following quotes and URLs, I have gone back and read the entire articles, and viewed the entire videos again. Before that I read and re-read the entire article written by Bonnie as well as the one she cited, "The Born Prophecy". I even Googled the names of Sheila Bair and Brooksley Born to familiarize myself with what else they have written on this subject. For me, it's not enough to win an argument; I want to know in my own mind that I am right. After re-reading and re-viewing everything, (and I hate to brag) I found that I really nailed it. Please be more considerate of the opinions of others, especially the ones you disagree with.

Barry of CA 2:19PM May 20, 2009

“The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.”

. . .

“It will take a Republican president to change or abolish CRA, so firmly wedded to it is the Clinton administration and so powerfully does it serve Democratic Party interests. When Senator Gramm attacked the CRA for its role in funding advocacy groups and for the burden it imposes on banks, the Clinton administration fought back furiously, willing to let the crucial Financial Services Modernization Act, to which Gramm had attached his CRA changes, die, unless Gramm dropped demands that, for instance, CRA reviews become less frequent. In the end, Gramm, despite his key position as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (even the committee's name reflects a CRA consciousness) and his willingness to hold repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act hostage to CRA reform, could only manage to require community groups to make public their agreements with banks, disclosing the size of their loan commitments and fees.”

From:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

Barry of CA 5:48PM May 19, 2009