I always feel good when people make arguments against legislation that won't really deal with the legislation. The notion that the problem with this bill is that it doesn't help avoid foreclosure, when it was not the bill intended to avoid foreclosure, shows well, there's a dearth of arguments against it. The argument that it's going to reward the speculators, this will go to cities dealing with property that is causing them problems. Do we not trust the cities and States of this country to take this money and use it judiciously and wisely to prevent neighborhood decay? I don't understand the animus that motivates so many of my Republican colleagues that say, Oh, no, let's not have government intervention here. Well, we heard that a while ago, and people on the other side successfully blocked government intervention in regulating subprime mortgage origination outside of the banks. It was this religion of never intervening that brought us here. A limited intervention to undo the negative consequences is what this bill calls for.
Barney Frank: “I always feel good when people make arguments against legislation that won't really deal with the legislation. The…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the merits of a bill aimed at addressing economic issues related to foreclosure and neighborhood decay.
Share
More from Barney Frank
Yes, I was frankly struck that Mr. Labrador went to such great pains to deny this.
This is not a bill to protect religious liberty in general. It singles out one particular religious tenet.
Barney Frank, the author of the Dodd-Frank bill, in this committee, sitting in that chair, who has testified in this committee that he told us that the $50 billion threshold is arbitrary and that we should look at alternative methods for…
I do think there is a tendency for an overreach by the FSOC. I do not think straightforward insurance companies or money managers should be covered and regulated as SIFIs.





