Log In | Register
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain on Sunday gingerly embraced a newly negotiated congressional deal for a $700 billion bailout of the hobbled financial industry.
Obama, McCain gingerly embrace bailout plan
Seeded on Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:07 PM EDT
Article Source: msnbc.com- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (359)
NO BAILOUT! It might be a Bush plan but congress must approve it. My understanding is the republicans want to slow down but the democrats want it done now. We need to investigate who let this happen. Where was the oversight committee? Full investigation then resolution.
- 10 votes
Agree-NO BAILOUT! I'd rather an investigation be done and prosecute and fine the greedy millionaire bastards that knowingly gambled their businesses into this mess. I was a Democrat, but have now quit because of the spineless acquiescence of my former party and Barack Obama with regard to backing this bailout, I'm sad to say Obama is NOT standing behind the middle class in allowing this bailout to proceed. In fact the Democrats are falling right into the Bush politics. I can just see Bush sliming his hands together, knowing this propsal will put us into a 10 year depression under the new administration. Bush and his fat cat contributers win no matter if it's McCain or Obama. I'm going independent for the first time in 35 years, I'm crossing party lines.
I'm very sad....because I was inspired by Obama and had so much hope in him. If he would "just say NO!" I'd be behind him again....but he's showing weakness by not listening to the people and the hundreds of economists that are warning about the long lasting devastation this bailout will have.
There rushing in like blind sheep to the slaughter house!
- 7 votes
This smells.
A 2 1/2 page "I need $700 billion" note? When asked how they came up with the number the reply was something like "we just made it up" or "it sounded good" or some crap response like that.
Bush gets on TV and basically uses the same speech that he did when he told us that we had to invade Iraq right now or the world would end.
The Democrats push the bill for Bush, but want part of the GOP on board because they don't want to be left holding the bag.
Both Presidential candidates say we "have" to do it.
This smells.
- 9 votes
JH-307896
I think your understanding is a little bit twisted. If you go back and check every story on pushing GWB's Bailout Plan through as quick as possible, you will find that McCain and the Republicans wanted to rush getting it passed. It was the Democrats with some Republicans that wanted it held up until it could be investigated and understood. It was the Democrats that did not want it to pass without oversight and help for the common people with foreclosures, and against golden parachutes.
Obama said in his television interview that he was inclined to support the bailout because it includes increased oversight, relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and limits on executive compensation for chief executives of firms that receive government help.
"None of those were in the president's provisions. They are identical to the things I called for the day that Secretary Paulson released his package," Obama said. "That I think is an indication of the degree to which when it comes to protecting taxpayers, I was pushing very hard and involved in shaping those provisions."
The safeguards were supported by many in Congress, including Democrats and Republicans.
Yes, and McCain, originally was for rushing it through without any help to people with their foreclosures. And he stated "They should not be helped with foreclosures, because they were not responsible in taking out home loans they could not really afford" That should then also apply to the Mortgage/Financial/Banking industry in regards to the Bailout. They were irresponsible in there granting of loans (but they did not care) because they just turned around and sold them to investors and washed their hands of them. Fault the investors also, for taking on too much debt in hopes of making windfall profits. (sound familiar) Then took outragous salaries (Golden Parachutes) even when knowing their corporations were collapsing.
So who do you really think was looking out for the American People? McCain and Republicans or Obama and Democrats? I say Obama and the Democrats.
Even with all of the above, I am still against the BAILOUT by the American People of the middle and low income levels. With abundance of opposition from them, their input was not even considered, let alone sought.
Another Reason is giving all the Authority and Responsibility of enforcing the bailout to one person (Paulson) and his staff (All from Goldman Sachs as was Paulson). It's like putting a fox in the chicken coop and saying "Now, don't you bother them chickens, hear now!). How can you responsibillty put someone from one of those corporations in the position of overseeing the legalities of disbursement????
Not bashing anyone or glorifying anyone. Just stating the facts and all you have to do is Google the above for verification.
- 6 votes
DOES ELITIST BARACK OBAMA REALLY CARE ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS?
BARACK OBAMA'S LATENT RACISM AND VIEWS ABOUT MIDDLE AMERICANS
Barack Hussein Obama's talking down about Pennsylvanian rural folk and essentially referring to them as bigoted ignorant white trash who need to "cling to their guns and religion" to assuage their inherent bitterness and misery.
San Francisco, April 6, 2008. Barack Obama at a private fund raiser in San Francisco California speaking to a small group of wealthy liberal elites. Barack Hussein had no idea he was being recorded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA
Did the Junior Senator learn these views for this man?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36T1fnIafC0
Since when does a prospective President talk down about Americans like that? Then turn around and pander for their votes? I ask you. Is this befitting of a President? Barack Obama is plain ole disingenous. What we see is all smoke and mirrors.
BARACK OBAMA DOES CARE ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS VOTES! THAT'S ABOUT IT!
- 6 votes
That is a far cry from what I have gathered watching various news channels. In fact it seems to me it is the Dems that have tried to rush this through. AT any rate both sides are equally sleazy and who is this Obama that you keep singing the praises of? Oh! Do you mean Acorn?
- 4 votes
Ralph - I used to live on Merritt Island, I love Florida, I'll probably retire there. But the original Bush package was added to by special interests. There were too many changes so from what I'm hearing the republicans said "hold everything" in the Thursday meeting. The democrats went wild. There was even money in there for ACORN
I am totally against the bailout. It won't look good for anyone who supports it.
- 5 votes
Yes, YouTube is a very reliable source. I trust them for all my reliable news sources too! DrWhoo, don't trust everything you see online. It might be (GASP) not true! I know, I know, say it isn't so, but it's true!
- 1 vote
If they wanted to help the people and the banks at the same time, they would pass this bill as mortgage relief. Payed to the American citizen to downsize their mortgage and make the payments affordable again. If the government was to loan, interest free, 50% of a persons mortgage, force the refinance at the lower principle, even at the same interest rate payment would be less. After bank is payed or house is sold, loaned amount from government is payed back. By monthly payments at rate of mortgage or by lump sum if house is sold. That is the only way this will help the people. Can also put in salary caps for the CEO's, that wouldn't hurt my feelings at all.
This plan would have helped the economy, credit companies, and home owners all at the same time. It also has the protection in it for the tax payer.
JH-307896
Since your replies to my comments do not have an option to reply back, I am jumping in here. I am delighted that you once lived in Merritt Island and plan to someday retire to Fl. but that has nothing to do with our debate. But has to do with not putting all the blame on
I don't know where you are hearing your talking points from but to go back to your answer to me, the below is something you should listen too. I to am a proponent to research, as attested to below" Be sure to read it all.
Fundamentally a deregulator for 26 years: McCain now calls for "regulation"
Posted on September 20, 2008
Filed Under politics |
SEPTEMBER 2008, ECONOMIC GROUND-ZERO: MCCAIN CALLS FOR "REGULATION"?
By September 2008, economic signs of perilous and dramatic decline finally awakened John McCain to the reality that our nation is in crisis. Contrary to his contentions that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong", John McCain officially launched a campaign of change — change of his core beliefs and change sold to the American people in exchange for votes.
Here's some straight talk my friends: McCain's leadership during this economic crisis is clear, decisive, executive, but obviously flawed and confused.
His primary solution has been to abandon his core beliefs by assuming the position of his opponent. Not just a flip-flop; true, volatile change
McCain's recent call for "regulation" is complete and total role reversal —- Change from decades of demands for free-market deregulation championed since 1986, to a panicked plea for "oversight" and "regulation" of failed, corrupt businesses that have been allowed to operate unchecked under his trademarked deregulated environment.
In the midst of economic crisis, McCain has offered change to the American public who have been victimized by unfettered, deregulated, free-market capitalism created by deregulation and allowed to flourish unfettered for decades.
When confronted by Bob Schieffer on CBS's Face the Nation, McCain was specifically asked if he was calling for "more regulation" to help bring change to Washington, McCain responded clearly and decisively:
"More regulation, more oversight, more transparency, more of everything and, frankly, a dramatic reduction in what they do. You know, they were originally designed to provide a chance for middle-income people to have an affordable home-loan mortgage. And it grew into this sprawling, massive bureaucracy, rife with corruption, cronyism, special interests, lobbyists and a relationship with Congress. Congress passed these laws that allowed these massive loopholes to be there."
9/7/2008 - CBS Face the Nation: John McCain's answer to dealing with Fannie/Freddie failure
As the economic crisis worsened through the month of September, McCain continued to inject change into his soulful campaign for President. The following are more dramatic quotations from the American Hero, John McCain:
"Well, I think everybody is at fault here, the Bush administration, Republicans and Democrats and I would remind you that the Democrats have had control of both houses of Congress in the last two years. I'd like to know what efforts that they have made. But look, everybody is at fault here. The regulatory agencies were clearly asleep at the stick. Regulatory agencies are designed and made up in the 1930s and, obviously, need to be updated and upgraded and we need to find out exactly what we need to do and that's why I think maybe we ought to have a 9/11 commission type thing because this crisis is very serious and very much, certainly, a threat to our economy."
9-16-08 CNBC "Squawk Box"
McCain's political panic has permeated his campaign, as evidence mounts proving that years of deregulation have created one of the most enormous financial meltdowns of our entire history. We will not know the enormity of these dramatic events until well after the crisis is over, yet John McCain has managed to switch his life-long position in the heat of the battle, and bait the American's who aren't aware of his record of attempting to shred oversight and regulation.
Here is more info: And pay attention to the dates.
September 12, 2006 Phil Gramm, McCain, deregulation, and financial messes
June 15, 2008 09:29 AM EDT (Updated: June 15, 2008 08:24 PM EDT)
Former Texas Senator Phil Gramm is co-chair of John McCain's election campaign, as well as well-paid executive at the Swiss (?) Bank UBS Warburg. He has been mentioned as a possible Treasury Secretary assuming of course that McCain will win.
If this happens, it is clear that McCain will receive one recurrent bit of advice on all aspects of economic policy: "deregulate it". Gramm never saw government regulation as a good thing that protects consumers from financial abuse. On the contrary, he saw it as a burdensome menace to the members of the US financial community who contributed $4.6 million to his election campaigns until he retired from the Senate.
1999 was the key year. Then-Sen. Phil Gramm led the fight for what the financial industry had wanted ever since the New Deal: repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, regulating the banking industry. Gramm and two other Republican senators wrote the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
On first vote in the Senate it passed, but along largely partisan lines (GOP in favor, Dems opposed); in the House it passed by a wide majority. After Republican senators added language strengthening the Community Reinvestment Act, helping those in disadvantaged communities, and provisions protecting privacy, Democratic senators supported the bill, which then passed both houses almost unanimously. President Clinton signed the bill into law in November 1999.
Not surprisingly, Sen. McCain voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Remember, that act repealed the Glass-Steagal Act's barrier to banks owning stock brokerages and insurance companies -- such mergers in the '20s had produced the Great Depression of the '30s -- and also remember that the co-author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was then-Sen. Phil Gramm, who recently wrote Sen. McCain's economic plan and who has been the "odds on" favorite to be a President McCain's Treasury Secretary ... at least until Gramm called everyday Americans complaining about the current economic condition "whiners."
Likewise, in 2000, Gramm pushed for and McCain voted for (and yes, "centrist" Clinton signed into law) the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which made legal the mortgage "swaps" we hear so much about today -- at the core of our financial meltdown and uncertainty -- which distanced the originator of loans from the ultimate holder of loans. Bad loans came to be held by financial institutions all around the world, representing those hundreds of trillions of dollars at risk now.
Given that Gramm pushed through -- and McCain voted for -- the laws that more than any others deregulated the financial industry and led to our current financial crisis, do we really want a President McCain and a Treasury Secretary Gramm? Could we even afford them?
As we can see, by looking at the historical record, both Democrats and Republicans have been responsible for the deregulation in the '80s and '90s that produced the current crisis, similar to -- although much larger than -- the S&L crisis almost twenty years ago.
But look at what is happening now. The Bush Bail-Out plan -- favored by big financial institutions -- called for a blank check to be given to Bush's Treasury Secretary. But wasn't it lack of oversight that led to this whole disaster? The Bush Bail-Out plan did not provide any means for the taxpayers to be rewarded for taking on the risk of buying up all these "toxic" loans. Nor did the Bush Bail-Out plan provide help for "Main Street" -- everyday Americans losing their homes because they have been conned by banks etc. into getting in over their head -- the Bush plan provided help only for "Wall Street" (True, we must prop them and big business up -- their fall would threaten everyone's life savings and jobs -- but there are people losing their homes right now to also consider). And the Bush Bail-Out plan did not put any limits on executive compensation at the very firms the taxpayers will be propping up.
Although Democrats during the Clinton years -- representing the then-popular mood for deregulation, started under Reagan -- did not do the right thing, the Democrats today -- under the leadership of Sen. Christopher Dodd, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, and Rep. Barnie Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee -- are rewriting the Bail-Out plan to include all the provisions it omitted; and now wiser for the bad experience -- like Americans during the Depression -- the public at large seems to now recognize that there is indeed a role for government in regulating the excesses of the financial industry: According to the polls, most Americans are favoring the congressional plan over the Bush plan ...
So now Democrats are acting like real Democrats -- in a tradition going back to the days of FDR -- and not like "Republican Lite" -- what too much of the 1990s "New Democrats" "centrist" approach was. And I give a lot of the credit to Barack Obama for inspiring Democrats -- and independents and open-minded Republicans -- to stand up straight! Obama's message from Day One has been about how we everyday people can overcome powerful interests by standing up and standing together. That is how Americans have always overcome adversity, both at home and abroad.
By the way, there have been some stories going around on Fox News, in spam, etc. about how much support Fannie Mae has had from Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Democrats overall and how much campaign money they have received from Fannie Mae. Some of these nasty innuendos have been debunked ...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html
You asked for research, now respond to it in entirety not just with a couple of one-lingers or An Act here and there, explain the Act and what it means. and I am beginning to see a bias toward McCain and the Republicans. I am not biased toward the Democrats, I am just supplying printed fact. Let the others decide for themselves.
And any attempt to put the blame on Senator Dodd and Barney Frank is insane, for they are the ones that are re-writing it to add to the Bush Bailout Plan provitions that were not included, the both Democrats and Republicans now have agreed to.
Do you have an answer with research to the above??
- 6 votes
I hope your research has not been in vane but I am afraid most people will not comprehend what you just wrote and keep on the fast track to self destruction.
- 3 votes
I have said several times I put the blame on both the republicans and the democrats. The biggest problem I have is that in the last two years when everything was coming to a boiling point nothing was done. Democrats Frank and Dodd have been in charge for the last two years. The democrats have been on the receiving end of political contributions from Fannie and Freddie. If it were reversed I would be Just as upset. The people in charge need to do their job without any influence. Money seems to be a big influence in politics.
McCain has been front and center for more regulation since 2006. I am conservative. I believe in de-regulation. But I expect our elected representatives in the oversight committees to do their job.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have done nothing in the last two years. It is almost like they figured "what the hell we'll blame it on the republicans". That's where I blame them. Not on the bailout. October surprise anyone?
The original Bush idea stunk! But the democrats wanted it passed Thursday night. And at that time it was stopped by republicans. I want everybody to stop it. It stinks!
I think the statements from McCain on Face The Nation that you quoted are right on. Can a man not change his mind when something he believed in goes wrong? He put the blame right where it should be. On the republicans, on George Bush and on the democrats. And he is absolutely right, we should have an investigation much like the 911 commission. We need to government under control and out of the pockets of big money.
I think he is better suited for that than Obama is.
- 1 vote
Your republican bias is standing in the way for you to understand that McCain only changed his mind because he wants to be president and not because he had a change of heart and was thinking about this country. You need to stop looking to see who is republican or democrat and just listen to what they are saying and what is behind each thought. Then decide who you want to be president.
- 2 votes
- 1 vote
Mari - I think you're wrong about me. I do believe that McCain is honest. I question Obama. He has changed a lot of positions since the primaries. He is the one who says what he thinks you want to hear. He was a polar opposite of Hillary at the start. now he has adopted most of her policy. He was going to get us out of Iraq immediately, no wait it might take 16 months, no wait, we will leave when when things calm down. He has changed on a lot of issues since getting the nomination. Hillary must be one upset lady.
McCain has changed his mind over the years, not months.
I have stated many times that I am conservative. Conservatives lean toward republicans. I have a serious problem with far left and nobody is farther left than Obama.
- 2 votes
Which McCain, the one from 2000 who wanted to deregulate, or the one from yesterday who wants to regulate? And those Bush tax cuts were not fair/everything to the wealthy or the present McCain who agrees with them along with 300 billion for more of that Ronny Reagan trickle down.
- 4 votes
Toby - Everybody got a tax break. If you don't earn much money your break was less than someone who makes more. I don't care if you make $20,000.00 or $50,000.00 or $100,000.00 or $1,000,000.00 you got a percentage break. I hope you can understand what a percentage is.
That democrat talking point has split this country into class warfare. If it weren't for rich people we wouldn't have businesses that employ people.
Grow up!!
- 4 votes
Dear Ralph/ Florida
What is evident from your incredible piece - you are not a lazy writer. This is, indeed, a good, solid example of fine English composition, not less.
And, of course, especially significant is your mentioning Barack H. Obama, his "inspiration" in this shameful process of government helping some awfully greedy boys form the Wall St. in enslaving the American people, the same valuable American voters, whose brains, in order to achieve much needed results, are being intensively washed my "independent" media serving our country"s ultimately embarrassed aristocracy in both political and business areas.
Of course, Obama himself with exceptional "modesty" announced his direst and uncompromising involvement in saving entire American economy. And, as we all know the "community organizer" of the United States is no less, but the most liberal "messiah" in a history of mankind himself!
Look at this MSNBC creation '"Here are the facts: For two weeks I was on the phone everyday with (Treasury) Secretary (Henry) Paulson and the congressional leaders making sure that the principles that have been ultimately adopted were incorporated in the bill," Obama said...'
Isn't that astonishing? BHO shows us, how small and stupid we all are, but, never mind, even being far away from the Oval Office he, so to say, takes care by "inspiring" men and women who are working hard to get things done, not even knowing about such determining invisible "inspiration". Quite a claim, however!
Or, may be, his claim is not a joke, but, having excepted some big buck of contributions from a number of Wall Street "smart" boys, his "inspiration" has this source, visible and material, and, surely, the candidate of democratic political elite is not going to bite the very hand that feeds him so well.
Nevertheless, this kind of "inspiration" will definitely cost us, our grandchildren years of life of hard work to simply provide the living. But, who cares about such "uninspiring" future, when such desirable, romantically white House and so oval an Office is almost withing the reach?
God forbid!
- 1 vote
Dear JH
Your statement
"The democrats have been on the receiving end of political contributions from Fannie and "Freddie. "
has been proved to be ERRONEOUS
- 1 vote
Mari:
I keep asking for proof on that but no one has given me any. Do you have a source?
In the early days of the economic crisis, McCain seemed uncertain how to react. His first response was to say the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Then he backtracked, saying the workers form the foundation of the economy and they are strong. Then he called for a blue-ribbon commission to study the root causes of the debacle on Wall Street. Then he called for the ouster of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox, with each shift drawing ridicule.
- 1 vote
Obama = calm, cool, intelligent, insightful, presidential.
McCain = hysterical, hasty, knee-jerk reactions and let's not forget he picked Palin so what kind of judgement does THAT show.
Whose finger would you want to see on the nuke button?
- 1 vote
And, Obama has Warren Buffet as an economic advisor.
Whereas, we remember, McCain had Phil Gramm as his economic advisor until McCain fired Gramm due to his "nation of whiners" remarks.....
and then McCain hired Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, oh boy, who are mired in the Freddie Mac fiasco:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jnhZ5ehM97b5g022vv1cHSheTh1gD93F6BO00
- 1 vote
- 1 vote
#2 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:27 PM EDTThe Gramm-Leach - Bliley Act - final version (after all parties input) passed the senate 90-8-1.
Passed the house 362-57-15
Bill Clinton was happy to sign it.
Where has the oversight been?
Try not to be so partisan and share some research. WE NEED ANSWERS
- 5 votes
The oversite was flubbed by guess who? Greenspan The Fed The treasury Secretary and to some extent the new Fed chief. Congress goes on the reports from these people.
McCain said the latest version of the plan meets his insistence of an oversight body to monitor the treasury secretary and limits the compensation of executives of financial institutions applying for loans.
Both of these features were in the original proposal and agreed to by both side before he made his photo op trip the first time!
- 4 votes
I would like a web site set up to list where the money goes.
And every company that is given this money should have to list their books for the past 10 years on the site.
I can't believe that we pay these people.
- 4 votes
Ah yes. We all still scramble trying to find justification for towing our party line. Find someone to blame for the unacceptable state of our nation. I can help. The guilty parties are we the people. We have swallowed the mounds of crap they feed us and bicker among ourselves laying the guilt on each other based on party affiliation. While we do this they conduct business (government) as usual. When they mess it up, once again, they just send us the bill. See also Social Security, Health Crises, Immigration, and the list grows. Soon some talking suit like Acorn Obama or Juan McCain will be on your TV telling you "we know the people are opposed to this legislation but sometimes we have to do what we know is in the best interest of America. How many of you can remember hearing that? Too many I would bet. Do any of you think our opinions and the will of the people should be second guessed and over ridden by those that are elected to serve us? Our oversight of their mistakes falls on deaf ears. Do We the People, who are supposed to govern ourselves, have the right to say what will be done or are we just subjects to bow to the will of government? Polls show 70% of the people oppose this bailout.
- 1 vote
bluecollar:
You are so so right. And playing into divisive party politics is precisely what the morons in Congress want.
It keeps us from seeing that we are getting screwed by Congress without regard to party.
This is not Dems v. GOP. Both parties have dirty hands.
This is We The People v. A government that does not listen.
Are we to blame? Sure, but many of us have made our voices heard over the last few days. We have marched in the streets, we have written and called our representatives.
Still they do not listen.
This has happened before. It led to a war between a powerful empire and some of its subjects. We call it the Revolutionary War.
What happens now?
- 1 vote
Desertgirl
I wish I new. It will depend on those of us who are fed up enough to fight back and educate those who haven't figured it out yet. A major problem is that our population is seeded with people who are willing to give up freedom for freebies. I know we have to tear down this wall between left and right. We are more than Democrat or Republicans. We are Americans.
I am thinking to help grow the Independent and other alternative political organizations is a good thing. If I said it would be a good thing for the political system to suffer a defeat and place a third party in power at this point I would have many supporters. If it happened the power brokers would be scrambling to insert their agents in that party too if they haven't already. Our immediate plan of action then is to recruit, educate and do what you are already doing. Keep hammering them with phone, email and fax. If they don't listen replace them as soon as possible with one of us. An American. Do I mean that they are not American? Yes.
Whatever you do, don't blame Phil Gramm.
Take this into consideration. Senator Gramm's most cunning coup came on Dec 15, 2000. Two days earlier the Supreme Court had decided Bush v Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect time for a wily old Senator to game the system. Instead of reviled as the man who bankrupted Middle America. Instead of being taken to the mat for saying, America is a bunch of whiners, Gramm is held in high esteem by the Republican Party. I'll never forget the times I watched Gramm on the Senate Floor. His standard line was, "It's hard to do the work of America in the Devils city".
As Congress and the White House hammered out a $384 billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262 page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The act was written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and co-sponsored by Senator Ricard Lugar, chairman of the AG Committee.
The sly Senator from Texas had slipped in his measure at a time when no was concentrating on anything other than the $384 billion omnibus spending bill. The Texan strode onto the Senate Floor to hail his acts inclusion into a must pass budget package. Only an expert or lobbyist, could have followed what Graham was saying.
The very same act lobbied by Enron, a generous contributor to Gramm, contained a provision that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. Enron ran rampant, wrecking the California electricity market. Consumers paid-ed billions of dollars. The act was devastating to the consumers. Enron was a family affair when it came to the sly Senator from Texas.
Eight years earlier, wife Wendy Graham, as CTFC chairwoman had pushed through a rule excluding Enron's energy futures contracts from government oversight. Wendy Gramm later joined Enron's board in Houston.. She brought in salary and stock to the Gramm family that was as much as $1.8 million. Gramm's Bill was supported by Fed Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.
A $62 trillion market (nearly four times the size of the entire US stock market) remained utterly unregulated. Deregulation meant that no one made sure the banks and hedge funds had the assets to cover the losses they guaranteed. Gramms deregulation bills of 1999 and 2000 are at the very heart of the sub-prime meltdown. His 1999 deregulation bill decimated the Depression era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms.
Gramm took a highly lucrative job at UBS, Switzerland's largest bank. UBS acquired investment house PaineWebber due to Senator Gramms banking deregulation bill. UBS, a foreign bank, was rewarded due to Senator Gramms bills. It's true that Bill Clinton signed Gramms Bill into law. It's true that Clinton could not have signed Mr DEREGULATION"S Bill into law, if Gramm hat not slipped it in, the sly way he did. And striding onto the Senate Floor declaring, the Bill must be included into the $384 billion must-pass omnibus spending Bill. It's all in The Congressional Record. A DVD of the Bill being passed can be purchased from C-Span.
Gramm hijacked and gamed the system. It's called a slick political maneuver.
This is all public record
The Ninety-fifth United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It met in Washington, DC from January 3, 1977 to January 3, 1979, during the first two years of the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter.
Both chambers had a Democratic majority.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed into law by the 95th United States Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. Only one banker, Ron Grzywinski from ShoreBank in Chicago, testified in favor of the act.[ The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions. The CRA is enforced by the financial regulators (FDIC, OCC, OTS, and FRB).
The bill encouraged the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, to enable mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. It also encouraged the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to buy mortgages on the secondary market and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market.[ Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.
Clinton Administration Changes of 1995
In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.
These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for eview and potential revision.
Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.
Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.
George W. Bush Administration Proposed Changes of 2003
In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing.
Criticism
Some economists have claimed that the CRA encouraged risky lending.[Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has stated that an underlying assumption of the CRA – that more lending is always better for local communities – is questionable. Economist Stan Liebowitz has expressed his opinion that banks were forced to loan to un-credit worthy consumers with "no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment." However, the chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have "bragged" that to approve minority applications "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit", suggesting that, rather than being compelled to do so, Countrywide itself was responsible for relaxing its own standards.
Congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has partially attributed the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis to legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act . A Wall Street Journal editorial recently argued that the law compelled banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often could not repay them, and that this contributed in part to the sub-prime crisis.
Robert Gordon who has pointed out that approximately half of the loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities. In the later part of the crisis, these mortgage companies made subprime loans at twice the rate of CRA banks. Another third of the major subprime lenders were regulated, but had very little CRA involvement. Gordon also makes the argument that the weakening of the CRA in 2004 was followed by intensified subprime lending. Austrian economist Thomas DiLorenzo counters Gordon's statistic by arguing that even if half of the subprime loans were made by non-CRA companies, the CRA had still caused tens of billions in defaults on mortgages by unqualified borrowers. He also argues against Gordon's three main propositions stating that Gordon's first two propositions flatly contradict each other, whereas the third is unequivocally false.
- 3 votes
#3 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:39 PM EDTThanks, Andy. I hope others take the time to read, reread and save your accurate chronology. I'd like to send a copy to all those Mis-Representatives in D.C.
- 1 vote
Republicans and Democratic are going to vote it through. So I suggest you pick the smartest person there is to be your president. I know I will.
- 2 votes
Please do a little more research, a lot of this article can be disputed.
- 1 vote
Andy, you left out this part from your article. It should be inserted right before Congressman Ron Paul:
"Ellen Seidman, the former director of the US Office of Thrift Supervision,[16] has stated her belief that the CRA did not have an effect on the United States housing bubble. She observes that CRA banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, citing one of her own speeches as an example. She noted that if unregulated independent mortgage companies make subprime loans, affiliated CRA banks should not be able to count them for CRA purposes although she did not indicate whether this practice currently occurs.[17] An analysis by the law firm of Traiger & Hinckley, LLP, which counsels financial services entities on fair lending and Community Reinvestment Act compliance, concluded that CRA banks were less likely than other lenders to make high cost loans or to foreclose in certain metropolitan areas; they also were more likely to retain their original loans.[18]"
from Wiki with this disclaimer: "The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page. (September 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."
- 3 votes
Thank you! I am so tired of hearing that it is Clinton's fault! It is the Blacks fault! It was greed, simply greed. The repubs have claimed it was Freddie Mac & Fannie 's fault for lending money to blacks who could not pay it back. Well I am tired of being your scapegoat! Everytime you repubs are AFRAID, bring out a black person and beat it to death!
I bought my house in 1987 and let me tell you that the lending agent went through my finances with a fine tooth comb!!! I had to give every piece of paper on both, YES BOTH of my jobs, a letter from MY MOTHER that she would help me since I did not get child support from dead beat ex husband (viet nam war vet..ugh) and I had to make a budget to allocate not only my mortgage but water, electrical etc and how I would still care for my 4 children. So take that lie, yes a lie that blacks are the cause of this melt down.
Don't talk about people like McCain with several homes, he could have paid for out right but like your movie stars they get it financed!!! So we have people like YOU who own more than one home, boats, big cars, you are the problem not me who work and pay her bills!
Also you people forget for about 12 years repubs ran the house and senate and for the past 8 years they had the wh, too! Look at yourselves than look outwards.
- 5 votes
Ms. B you are a racist. Just please give me one credible quote from anyone who said this was caused by loaning to blacks that couldn't afford it. You have problems.
- 4 votes
I think she just meant in addition to people saying it was Clinton's fault, they were also blaming the blacks, not that SHE was blaming blacks. Reminds of that character Gilda played on SNL who was always reading something wrong and doing editorials about it until Chevy enlightens her, and she, of course, always said, "Never mind." I miss the old SNL, and I'm at the age where I understand things less and less and find myself saying, "Never mind." a lot! LOL
I didn't think she was blaming the blacks. I think she is black and I think she is racist.
I'm keeping an eye out for her proof. A person shouldn't make such unfounded comments. It's disgusting!
- 4 votes
Whoever votes for this bailout- won't get my vote in November. A depression is unavoidable- the markets are trying to come back into balance. We don't need the Zimbabwe economic plan- hyper inflationary depression- but that is exactly the path this bailout will embark us upon.
- 4 votes
#4 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:40 PM EDTThat's also my concern, we keep throwing money into a cosmic black hole that's sucking up our tax dollars and creating more inflation and tax burden. The rescue plan may will still not make a difference and more will be asked for. This will only further our descent in a depression.
The corporations and businesses involved holding this bad debt need to be left to their own mess, the will strong stand if they survive. Those institutions holding the bad mortgage debts must deal with their choice of assuming them. Governments focus should be on protecting bank depositors accounts and pension and 401K plans of the general public. They can directly intervene with the failing institutions holding these retirement plan investments.
The markets must be left to correct itself to purge the failing and weaker companies. There will be casualties but stocks were always were a risk to some degree or another, that comes with the territory for those who play the game. No one wants to bails out gamblers took those risks especially those who trashed their companies in doing so.
We shouldn't be throwing out life preservers to these irresponsible executives who may take us down with their sinking ship and risk our tax dollars.
Just My Opinion has it down pat. Without a bailout of some type, Money will be frozen and hard working people will not receive their paychecks.
I'm against the bailout. We are between a rock and hardplace. History has dealt all a very bad hand of cards.
- 1 vote
It just goes to show you how clueless the candidates are. Both are embracing and trying to take some credit for a bailout that is overwhelmingly opposed by the public. Does this give anyone confidence in either of them? We have two really poor candidates and either way we are in for a long four years.
- 3 votes
#5 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:57 PM EDTNot necessarily, Chris. Simply don't vote or write-in your own name. Millions of ballots cast in that manner just might wake up some of these stooges in Congress. The two party system is corrupt, archaic and ineffective.
- 2 votes
I know I am very good at balancing my check book. I don't over spend therefor I pay all of my bills on time. Even if I applied my theories to the international check book I doubt very much if I could figure out how to get the job done in order to have that same results. I am very happy that there are smarter people than I am out there to run the country. I will still keep my eye open and on the process just to make sure no one slips us a mickey.
- 2 votes
With the passage of this ridiculous bailout, I'll probably have to purchase a backpack to accommodate all the near-worthless cash I'll need when going to the store to purchase a quart of milk.
- 1 vote
#6 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:57 PM EDTSo the candidates evidence who they are instruments of as they acquiesce to the Master Hijackers running this 'Open Conspiracy' implementing a direct attack on the Sovereign U.S. Nation and it's People!!! Don't say I didn't warn you!!! The so-called Paulson Plan will hand trillions of dollars in U.S. taxpayers' money to foreign financial interests, particularly British interests. Seems clearer who the masters of hijacking are! "Never before in history has any government proposed to use taxpayers' money to bail out the worthless paper of foreign investors, in particular, the Europeans, led by the Bush family's 'Brutish' friends, seems clearer who the masters of hijacking are! Notice Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's recent admission that the bailout swindle is to be extended to foreign holders of U.S. mortgage-backed securities and other toxic speculative paper, thus handing over American Taxpayers money to foreign financial interests. John McCain, Barack Ombama, and congress had better not back this bailout swindle as they will be joining in this action that is tantamount to Treason.
The bailouts are an Un-Constitutional Fraud, and the Mother of all financial Swindles with DISPARITY to the American Taxpayer as Congress put austerity measures on the People in filing bankruptcy, but have already begun bailing out the speculating Swindlers. The bailouts flagrantly violate the U.S. Federal Constitution, which specifically defines the general welfare as the law of the land. This is an un-Constitutional fraud. This criminal action is tantamount to treason. Fannie and Freddie are at the Heart of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's and the Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke's insane scheme to bail out the banks by dumping all their bad mortgage paper into the two government -sponsored enterprises, effectively transferring the bank's losses to the government, and, ultimately, to the taxpayer. The government is not really bailing out Fannie and Freddie, but merely funding their conversion into the largest toxic financial waste dumps in history. Far from being saved, Fannie and Freddie are being destroyed. Once the American people figure out what Paulson, Dodd, Felix Rohatyn, 'Bailout Barney' Frank, and Pelosi have done, they will be out for blood. Nobody knows how big an illegal, unauthorized tax is going to be imposed on Americans to bail out these swindlers and speculators, but it will easily run into the tens of trillions of dollars. Mix in the hyperinflation on top of that and you get the picture. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!! SWINDLE, COERCION, UN-CONSTITUTIONAL FRAUD, TREASON, are felonious crimes upon which no legal Tax can occur given the Tax cannot be based upon these criminal actions.
It's a National Emergency: Repeal the Dodd-Frank Bill Now! The "FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act, " H.R. 3221, which is the authority Paulson is claiming to commit this bailout swindle.
- 1 vote
#7 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:02 PM EDTJohn McCain has been behind the bailout since day one. Obama true to form has done nothing but put his finger at McCain and run his mouth. John McCain has been public about this. Obama claims he was on phone everyday, yeah right. McCain has shown he had countrys best interests at heart even to point of postponeing debate. Obama has only had his own interests at heart pointing his finger and running his mouth, now makeing claims he has been behind bailout since day one as well, BS.
As presidential canidates I dont like either one. But if forced to choose between either one it would have to be McCain hands down. Vote McCain, McCain will be President. Vote Obama and Biden will be president. Vote McCain Palin will be vice president. Vote Obama there will be no vice president. The more time passes, the more Obama shows me he is all around clueless. Where as McCain has basically remained unchanged and makes a better candidate.
Of course we as citizens always have the third party we could try and vote in, but seems the news media has left them alone leaveing us uninformed as to how these folks would be as president as well.
Okay I do agree this country needs a change from the norm, so that means McCain and Palin or thrid party candidate. Not knowing much of anything of thrid party candidates I say vote for McCain.
- 5 votes
#9 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:11 PM EDTOnly time will tell if the bailout was the right thing to do. I do respect McCain for taking a stand on it though by making a command decision. You can't always play it safe in politics.
- 2 votes
James you are soooooo wrong!!! McCain was NOT behind this at all until Friday-He didn't even know what the proposal was until Thursday by his own admission.He made no phone calls all week according to three senators(one republican).Obama is RIGHT he has been behind this all week,he just did it quietly-Ask Chris Dodd the chairman or better yet google it and listen to the video.When McCain went to Washington on Friday he just sat there and said NOTHING and also made matters worse-Also verified.And when things were dead locked on Friday he came out and said well I guess since things are progressing I can now debate-WHAT A JOKE!! I guess you live where McCain does:The Land Of Make Believe!
- 5 votes
Again thank you, James is always quick to blame Obama but not McCain! Both are not the best we could do but not tell lies!
- 3 votes
James and Just my own opinion.....McCain was in NO WAY part of the Bailout Committee. HE was just in Washington showboating......give me a break....did you think that the Bailout Committee even wanted him there....NOoooooo, they didn't.
And what command decision do you think McCain made exactly? Did you not hear what he said during the debate? That he was hunkered down with HIS Republicans: "...yes, I went back to Washington, and I met with my Republicans in the House of Representatives. And they weren't part of the negotiations, and I understand that. And it was the House Republicans that decided that they would be part of the solution to this problem."
It's right there in black and white, exactly what he said from the transcript. And who knows what is is talking about.
Since is Obama is a doer and not a showboater, he managed to stay in touch, by phone and Blackberry, with what was going on every minute. Were McCain not so afraid of modern technology maybe he wouldn't have to be always running around like a chicken with his head chopped off!
James it is very easy to check facts, you just have to want to. And you are wrong, McCain has changed terribly since 2000, he has sold out to big business, the religious right, and special interests. Obama is the only one who has the guts or intelligence to be president, that should be pretty obvious by now. Most people who will not vote for Obama won't be honest and say it's because he black, they would prefer to vote for an old man who is past his time, than vote for the man who can handle the job. Sad.
- 2 votes
Word is that McCain was asked Sen. Graham for Sec. Paulsen to "get the republicans behind the Bail-out. BTW. There is video of the 90 minute White House brawl . . . er . . . work session. Some was played on c-span at 2 or 3 am Friday morning. My dad was up that night and saw it. What he described to me sounded a lot closer to what Rush Limbaugh had to say friday, than what Obama & Co. tout.
Note to Sen Obama: A work session means taking turns presenting each side and crafting a solution from all present, NOT starting the session attacking the others position from the stolen playbook of the other side that was sent to you just an hour or two before the "work session".
- 1 vote
Rush belongs in a padded cell. McCain will pick Phil Gram as Secretary of Treasury if he's elected. Palin will invite Wicca to lays hands on her at least twice a week.
Halloween will become Palinween.
Whoever is responsible for writing this piece didn't do a very good job of hiding their bias or lack of objectivity. Seems to me that is the worst part of reporting today. I think they once refered to it as "yellow journalism". Seems like it is alive and well!
#10 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:15 PM EDTWhat really sucks is the dead beats who aren't paying their mortgages get to stay in their homes by renegotiating their loans. A lot of good that's going do, they still won't pay which will lead us back to the same problem we're facing today. America is screwed.
- 1 vote
#11 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:18 PM EDTAnd what about those of us who played by the rules and paid our mortgages even when it was tough. We get a new federal debt!
- 3 votes
Too easy to blame dead beat home owners. In reality, many have lost their jobs to "outsourcing", stagnant economy, and interest rates that are well above what is usually paid, and the Mortgage Companies wanted to "adjust" them even higher. Owning a home is one part of the American Dream, and not all who desire that noble goal, are as "equal" as others in their incomes. But, when Congress and the Financial Institutions work in concert, it sure does not take any back yard mechanic to figure out, there is going to be a skunk in the wood pile.
- 2 votes
Bottom line is the Dems pressured Banks to get people into homes that couldn't afford them even when times were good. I know what I can and can't afford, it's called common sense.
- 1 vote
You are absolutely correct< it is Common Sense, that has been absent for a very long time in just about every aspect of our Country. Now we are all getting a good dose of Common Sense, and I trust we will all use this new found intelligence and act accordingly.
- 1 vote
Just my oPinion......
Can you back up your claim that "it was the Dems who pressured people into getting houses they couldn't afford".
That maks NO sense especially, since it was the greedy mortgage brokers and bankers, and big financial companies who turned a blind eye to the financial risk of these people who applied for the loans. And the republican led administration also turned a blind eye to the mortgage bubble that was being created, WHILE their fat cats got richer, and refused to put oversight in place while the foxes guarded the hen houses. Now people are blaming everyday low income Americans that it's THEIR fault! Remember.......people who couldn't pay back the loan couldn't have gotten loans UNLESS SOMEONE APPROVED THEM!! Let's put the blame where it belongs.
- 1 vote
Go to youtube and type in
EXPLOSIVE VIDEO, FANNIE MAE CEO CALLING OBAMA AND THE DEMS THE FAMILY FANNIE MAE
A picture is worth a thousand words
It's the Democrats who put the pressure on to get low income people into houses that couldn't really afford them. Obama talks about grassroots, yea he's grassroots all right. Ruined the economy from the bottom up!
- 4 votes
#12 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:18 PM EDTGo to Vietnam veterans against john McCain .com, and know the traitor he really is, told by his fellow POW's.
- 4 votes
Off subject onePatriot!! I'm looking at most responses and I'm having my suspicions confirmed. This looks like a democrat (liberal) problem.
Maybe you should go to another McCain bashing site. We all know there are plenty of them.
- 1 vote
I must clarify - The problem seems to be liberal feel good policy, but there sure was a lot of greed in the financial industry. My big question is why no oversight from the committees responsible?
If you open the floodgates - you should know when to close them.
- 2 votes
Just my own opinion,you need to get up to speed.We already saw the CRA act and the fact that it came from Jimmy Carter and revised by Bill Clinton,however before JUMPING to conclusions concerning sub prime lending please go to these sites:http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS135259
- 2 votes
The economic crisis that occurred and the woes that have been present in the nation for a while now started back in the Regan administration. It started with deregulation and the idea that supply side economics is a great idea, and those thoughts were continued by everyone from the beginning until now, conservative and liberal. Stop blaming one side because you think only liberals made bad decisions to get us to where we are today.
- 1 vote
So the two people put into office, Paulson & Bernanke are Dems, right? Also your god, President Bush did not go on tv and state in a panic that it has to be done NOW (sounds like Iraq) but hey, not one repub did this only the dems and of course the black folks. don't leave them out...oh wait what about the brown ones? Do they count?
- 3 votes
Ms. B - Please educate yourself. First off Bush is not God.
Bernanke was appointed in October 2005. Chuck Schumer, democrat said "We need a careful, non-ideological person who understands that the Federal Reserves main job is to fight inflation, and Bernanke seems to fit that bill". He had support from both sides.
Mr. Paulson was appointed in May 2006. He came from Goldman Sachs. Our elected officials have an obligation to oversee these guys. They dropped the ball.
I'll say again NO BAILOUT
And also Ms. B, no need to bring race into this conversation.
- 4 votes
This Bailout is a BI-PARTISAN effort most of the discussions here are not.
Obama at the start proposed a Joint Statement with McCain to keep campaign politics out. It did not materialize because McCain did an ass-about-turn playing to the gallery as usual.
- 1 vote
Have you noticed what ever Obama says Mcbush after hearing says nearly the same thing and in fact even Bush has turned to what Obama says trying to say it's their own Idea. What a bunch of fakes. I hope they loose big time, they have no ideas of their own, no nothing of their own except more of the same.
- 5 votes
#13 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:19 PM EDTOne patriot: I'm an old man, and a bit hard of hearing, but your assertion that McCain and Bush are somehow "copying" Obama, is pure baloney. Knock off your diatribes and stay on topic, or do not post such ridiculous statements. Take a day or Two, something really constructive might just come to you, do not give up.
- 3 votes
I agree, Onepatriot. That's why we should vote for the intelligent candidate who has proven that he is willing to listen and work with both parties. Most people want to think of it as a negative thing that he agreed with McCain during the debate; however, I see it as a sign that Obama would be a president that acknowledges other viewpoints and takes them all into account when making a decison.
- 4 votes
Rose,
I agree that you should take all view points into account when making a decision, but Obama doesn't have a record if you look at his voting in the senate of doing that. Why do you think he'd do it now. He's just another politician making false promises.
- 3 votes
ONEpatriot.....
I agree! McBush is just not intelligent or sharp enough to come up w/ his own words. Neither is Bush. They seemed dumbfounded that this whole economic crises was looming and they may have been able to prevent it (about 8 yrs ago!). They also seemed taken aback by the fact that they would have to 'bail out' capitalism. What idiots! And to think you repubs voted Bush in NOT ONCE BUT TWICE!!! Could you not see the poorly written and spoken writing on the wall by GWB??? He even sounds unintelligent whenever he speaks. I'm sure other heads of state just laugh at him and McBush.
I am voting for an intelligent, wise, empathic, rational individual. You repugs can take your "mavericks" and.........
- 4 votes
skipper, you must be old if you say so, like the old fart McBush
just one question, why is it okay to save a big bussiness gone bad but not us as homeowners or bussiness owners, who pays our credit cards an bills clearly the richer get richer and middleclass gets poor.
- 4 votes
#14 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:20 PM EDTLILLY,
I close my eyes & see this as the Bush and cronies GOLDEN PARACHUTE!!!!
- 3 votes
I agree, Rockachaw. It doesn't matter who did what in the 1980s or 1990s, the fact of the matter is that Bush and his administration were in control of the White House for 8 years. You can't tell me that they had no idea this dilemma was building. Were was the leadership for our country? I also think that deregulation had a great deal to do with it as well. The Republicans have always been good at deflecting any faults onto others. I think that is why McCain and Palin will lose this election. People are tired of all the spin, lies, and infighting. Most realize that for the good of the country, we all need to come together. Just because you have differing views, does not make you "evil" or a "bad guy." Hopefully, for the good of this country, Republicans will arrive at this conclusion soon.
- 2 votes
What a coincidence that this is all happening now!!!! Don't you think? You don't have to be educated to know something smells fishy here? Another fear tactic? So we go into a panic mode and think the whole world will desolve overnight. And McCain the honest politican, the man who picks a VP candidate overnight, without inquiry has solved the financial crisis for us all.
I am very concerned about this 700 billon dollar bailout and most of the American people seem to be against it as well. I believe it would have been advantagous to Mccain if he stood against it.
#15 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:23 PM EDTWhat counts the most is how each Congress member votes.
I am PISSED that Bush and Co. went and started all this, but without Congress agreeing to write some sort of bailout legislation, they might as well have been talking to the walls.
If Congress does not act, it doesn't matter what the President wants.
This bill could still fail. I hope it does.
Whoever chooses to vote in favor of this bill will NOT receive my vote. If that means writing someone in or going third party so be it.
BEND OVER AMERICA, HERE IT COMES!!!!!!!
WE DIDN'T EVEN GET KY!!!!!!
I WANT TO PUKE!!!!!
- 1 vote
#16 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:23 PM EDTI agree, we have a plan that is being pushed onto us tax payers without our representatives even looking at alternatives!
The government is basically buying worthless paper because people were allowed loans who never should have been. This is another welfare scheme - take the taxpayers money and just give it away.
Paulson and Bernanke are not even elected officials but they are deciding what to do with our money.
I think it is time for another "tea party". NO one in Washington seem to be listening. Every body has been saving for a week that the "sky is falling" and we have to do something immediately.
I say get the jokers back who got us into this mess - seize all of the assets and use that to bail us out!
There are alternatives! - someone needs to listen, and if that does not happen
enough of us need to get together and remind congress that they work for us!!!
- 3 votes
#17 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:24 PM EDTAndy, thanks for such a thoughtful comment on the financial situation. It DOES make a lot of sense out of things!
#18 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:25 PM EDTDon't we ever learn? Very few of us were not aware to some degree about the pending failures of Wall Street, more so the corrupt and inept "Leaders" that everyone of us voted into Office. Amazing the finger pointing and posturing of these Brilliant minds, when the proverbial crap hits the fan. I'm sure vast majority of us would rather see the miscreants "punished" in some manner, including our people in Congress. However, for all of us to continue to post wild and unfounded accusations is becoming so pointless, that it is not being constructive in getting our Country moving forward again. As distastful as the "bail out" is, it is a necessary evil that cannot be shrugged off, as some so blithely suggest. The mechanisms to keep such a disaster from occuring, have always been in place, even with some of the deregulation, but, when you have corrupt elected officials and equally corrupt Financial wizards in cahoots, the outcome is pre-ordained, it just took a while to catch up. We, The People, as paltry as it sounds, do have our opportunity for satisfaction come this November at the ballot box. I know it does not sound like much, but the better informed our electorate is, the better decisions that will be made. Never forget, It is PEOPLE that we elect, not a POLITICAL PARTY, it is and always will be PEOPLE who make the decisions that affect our lives. It is pure folly to lay blame on any Political Party, as they too are individuals, and oft times subvert the intent of the Party itself, for their own individual gain, as witnessed by these recent problems. It is not being "disloyal" to act as an "independent" thinker and vote accordingly as to your factually determined findings of what person will do the best job, that you are casting your vote for. Put all partisan politics aside, and I have to believe, after what we have been witness to of late, that hopefully majority of you will surely vote this November, but also vote, to throw out every current Representative and Senator, regardless of Party. Indeed, if "experience" in elected office matters, please enlighten me and others, exactly how said experience has made one twit of difference.
- 1 vote
#19 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:25 PM EDTYou are right. You need common sense just as much if not more than experience. How long has Barney Frank, Chris dodd, Joe Biden, John Kerry,John McCain, Ted Kennedy,Murtah, Byrd (he evens sleeps there) been in Congress? Unless Kennedy dies in the net couple of month's he will be voted back in, Mass. seems to like the earmarks he brings home.
Vote them out but guess what happens, they promise the moon to the voters and there they are back in Congress.
Things will not change. And if Obama does not get elected the black community is sure to feel that the Republicans committed fraud at the ballot box and you had better pray that all h---does not break loose. And of course it will be considered racist if I as a white vote Rep and if Obama gets every black vote I am not to consider that racist, when that hated Bush got 35% of the black vote? There are black Republicans but in this election there will not be a one. And that is sad commentary on America
- 1 vote
Jean, you're an ugly bitter person and you are a racist and a fearmonger if you think black people will riot if Obama doesn't get elected. McCain picks a woman to get the female vote and that's okay, but God forbid a black person vote for Obama!
You accuse the Dems of promising the voters the world to get their vote, but fail to mention that Republicans use the "God, guns and gays" or "He has a black baby" fearmongering to get the bigots on their side.
Thanks for making it clear why you're voting for McCain. YOU are a sad commentary on America.
Do you realize that the new House would be Republican controlled and the Senate would still be controlled and to a greater degree by democrats?
At least Todd Beamer and others on the hijacked flight 93 had the courage to resist and oppose their hijackers!! Unlike McCain, Obama, and congress as they acquiesce to the Master Hijackers running this 'Open Conspiracy' implementing a direct attack on the Sovereign U.S. Nation and it's People!!! Don't say I didn't warn you!!! The so-called Paulson Plan will hand trillions of dollars in U.S. taxpayers' money to foreign financial interests, particularly British interests. Seems clearer who the masters of hijacking are! "Never before in history has any government proposed to use taxpayers' money to bail out the worthless paper of foreign investors, in particular, the Europeans, led by the Bush family's 'Brutish' friends, seems clearer who the masters of hijacking are! Notice Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's recent admission that the bailout swindle is to be extended to foreign holders of U.S. mortgage-backed securities and other toxic speculative paper, thus handing over American Taxpayers money to foreign financial interests. McCain, Obama, and congress had better not back this bailout swindle as they will be joining in this action that is tantamount to Treason.
The bailouts are an Un-Constitutional Fraud, and the Mother of all financial Swindles with DISPARITY to the American Taxpayer as Congress put austerity measures on the People in filing bankruptcy, but have already begun bailing out the speculating Swindlers. The bailouts flagrantly violate the U.S. Federal Constitution, which specifically defines the general welfare as the law of the land. This is an un-Constitutional fraud. This criminal action is tantamount to treason. Fannie and Freddie are at the Heart of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's and the Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke's insane scheme to bail out the banks by dumping all their bad mortgage paper into the two government -sponsored enterprises, effectively transferring the bank's losses to the government, and, ultimately, to the taxpayer. The government is not really bailing out Fannie and Freddie, but merely funding their conversion into the largest toxic financial waste dumps in history. Far from being saved, Fannie and Freddie are being destroyed. Once the American people figure out what Paulson, Dodd, Felix Rohatyn, 'Bailout Barney' Frank, and Pelosi have done, they will be out for blood. Nobody knows how big an illegal, unauthorized tax is going to be imposed on Americans to bail out these swindlers and speculators, but it will easily run into the tens of trillions of dollars. Mix in the hyperinflation on top of that and you get the picture. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!! SWINDLE, COERCION, UN-CONSTITUTIONAL FRAUD, TREASON, are felonious crimes upon which no legal Tax can occur given the Tax cannot be based upon these criminal actions.
It's a National Emergency: Repeal the Dodd-Frank Bill Now! The "FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act, " H.R. 3221, which is the authority Paulson is claiming to commit this bailout swindle.
#20 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:26 PM EDTNO TO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!
NO TO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!
NO TO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!
NO TO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!
NO TO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!
NO TO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!
NO TO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!
#21 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:28 PM EDTI am afraid of a person that's always trying to prove every one wrong or constantly trying to take credit for something, even if some one else does the work.People of that nature will do what ever necessary to be right. THINK ABOUT THAT FRIENDS.
#22 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:29 PM EDTSOUNDS LIKE ADOLPH HITLER!!!!
ARE WE DOOMED TO REPEAT HISTORY IN THE NUCLEAR AGE?
ONCE AGAIN I WILL POINT OUT TO ALL OF YOU. THIS CRISIS IS NOT ABOUT AMERICANS CREDIT. IT IS ABOUT ALL BIG MONEY BUSNESSES. CREDIT IS JUST A BY PRODUCT OF ALL THIS, PART OF THE CHAIN OF FINANCE. OUR GOVERNMENT IS BAILING OUT ALL BIG MONEY BUSINESSES. AND HAVEING TO PUT BLAME SOMEWHERE THEY DECIDED TO PUT IT ON FAILED MORGAGES, WHERE THE BIG MONEY CREDIT IS.
ITS FUNNY THOUGH. CHINA OWNS OUR NATIONAL DEBT. JAPAN OWNS ALOT OF AMERICAN REALESTATE, ETC. LOOKS TO ME LIKE OLE UNCLE SAM IS TRYING SOME SORT OF BUY BACK SCHEME.
THEN AGAIN AS THE HURICANES CAME INTO THE GULF AND HIT LAND WE WERE WARNED OF THE WIDE SPREAD FINANCIAL REVERBERATIONS THEY WOULD HAVE ON US, WHICH POINTS THE FINGER TO OIL INDUSTRY. THE OIL INDUSTRY FOLKS, G W BUSH TERRITORY.
NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT THIS WE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ARE TAKEING IT UP THE ARSE. AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AS WELL AS CEO'S ( LOBBIESTS ) ARE GOING TO COME OUT WAY AHEAD ON THIS DEAL.
- 2 votes
#23 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:32 PM EDTI played by the rules, Until the rules changed. I sell real estate or did until it stopped selling. I support my father and two brothers. One brother is on daily kidney dialysis. My Dad is 84. I work 24-7 to put food on the table but can no longer see that in my future. All I want is to pay what I owe. I am sure that my good credit score is no longer what it used to be as I am now a late pay on most. At 61 I hate to think that tose who have more than me, think I live off them.
#24 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:32 PM EDTMcCain is 'gingerly'embracing the bailout? That's funny, he wholeheartedly and enthusiastically supported the very policies that got us into the disastrous mess in the first place--unfettered free markets, no regulation or lax enforcement, etc. People, wake the f up. This guy and his junior varsity cheerleading sidekick should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. He does not have a clue how to fix this economy, and if he did, you'd hear it. And she is such a lightweight, I'd rather take anyone from the first one hundred names in the D.C phonebook in her place (or for that matter, Tina Fey).
Oh. and BTW, the great war hero's equally poor judgement led us to the worst foreign policy disaster in US history--Iraq. And then, senile ass that he is, wants us to credit him with his insight in supporting the 'surge'. Maureen Dowd says this is like 'an arsonist who wants us to respect him for putting out the fire he earlier started'.
With this guy in the WH, I may actually long for the days when we had an equally dim-witted cowboy running things (into the ground, of course).
- 2 votes
#25 - Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:34 PM EDTThe Iraq war has nothing to do with this fiscal crisis. And you are absolutely wrong about McCain supporting these policies all along. He asked congress to take a good look at what was going on in 1997. That's when Barney Frank and Chris Dodd stood in the way.
- 2 votes
ALL McCAIN DID WAS VOTE AGAINST THE VETS AND NOTHING ELSE. I BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL BE COMING OUT TO TESTIFY TO THAT FACT SINCE THEY ARE TIRED OF HIM USING THEM TO ADVANCE HIS PLATFORMS. I AM FROM A MILITARY FAMILY AND I FIND HIM TO BE A LIAR AND A LOUSY STORY TELLER AND NOTING ELSE.
McCain votes AGAINST our combat troops ...
5/2008: McCain voted AGAINST the Webb GI Bill.
9/2007: McCain voted AGAINST bill to minimize periods of time between deployment of units sent to Iraq.
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00341
5/2006: McCain voted AGAINST $20 Million to VA for health care facilities.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00111
4/2006: McCain voted AGAINST $430,000,000 to VA for Medical Services.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00098
3/2006: McCain voted AGAINST increasing Vet-medical services $1.5 billion in FY2007.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00041
3/2004: McCain voted AGAINST increasing Vet-medical care by $1.8 billion.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00040
10/2003: McCain voted to TABLE an amendment for $322,000,000 for safety equipment for USforces. "Table"= vote never hits floor.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00376
10/2003: McCain voted to TABLE a vote for $1 Billion for National Guard and Reserve Equipment in Iraq dueto:shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, & tactical vests.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00116
http://capwiz.com/vva/e4/cinfo/?id=157301
Here's your test MSM -- will YOU all inform the viewers/voters of McCain's ANTI-MILITARY voting record?
c. proffit, Lexington, Ky. (Sent Friday, July 18, 2008 4:08
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
