Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Calls for Rescue and Stimulus

By Dan Balz
CORAL GABLES, Fla. -- Barack Obama today endorsed moves in Washington to give the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve broad authority to stabilize the credit markets, but said those actions should be accompanied by a second stimulus package aimed at relieving burdens on families affected by the current economic slump.

Obama, speaking after a meeting with his economic advisers, called the current financial crisis a threat to "the stability and security of our entire global economy." He said that, in spite of earlier, unprecedented steps by the federal government to stem the crisis in the financial markets, "even bolder and more decisive action" is required.

"I fully support the effort of Secretary [Henry] Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman [Ben] Bernanke to work in a bipartisan spirit with Congress to find this kind of solution," he told reporters before speaking at a rally at the University of Miami.

Obama said he would defer plans to issue his own rescue plan, which he had planned to do as early as today, as a show of bipartisan support for the work already underway in Washington. But he also said that, while he applauds the efforts to deal swiftly with the crisis on Wall Street that erupted earlier this week, the government has been too slow in responding further to the problems of Main Street and ordinary Americans.

"In the same bipartisan spirit that is being shown with regard to the crisis on Wall Street, I ask Senator McCain, President Bush, Republicans and Democrats to join me in supporting an emergency economic plan for working families," he said.

That plan, which Obama outlined earlier this year, calls for a second stimulus package that would pump $50 billion into the economy -- $25 billion to the states and another $25 billion for infrastructure projects. His plan also calls checks of $500 per individual or $1,000 per household to offset higher gasoline and other energy costs. Obama would pay for those checks with a windfall profits tax on the oil industry.

Flanked by seven of his economic advisers, Obama outlined to reporters the principles that he said should help guide the Bush administration, Federal Reserve officials and Congress as they rush to prepare a rescue package for battered financial institutions whose weakness roiled the stock markets this week.

"As president," he said, "I would say to Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, do what's required to make sure that people's money market is protected, do what's required to make sure that small businesses have credit lines to allow them to make payroll, do what is necessary to make sure that the economy is running and that ordinary people are able to go about what they do every single day, which is work hard and support their families."

Obama said one principle of the current rescue plan is that Washington should not reward the financial institution leader or investors who have helped create the credit crisis that has gripped the economy. "We don't want bailouts of folks who've been taking bad decisions," he said.

He also said the rescue plan should be temporary and that, as soon as possible, the private assets now being scooped up by the federal government and the Federal Reserve be returned to the private sector, with taxpayers enjoying any profits.

Obama was asked whether the potential cost of the bailout package, which could run to hundreds of billions of dollars, plus a second stimulus package, would force him, as president, to shelve plans for middle-class tax cuts, which are at the heart of his economic platform.

He said both short-term and longer-term assistance is needed. "I think now more than ever we've got to have the kind of broad-based middle class tax cuts that I've talked about for 95 percent of working families," he told reporters. "Effectively, the stimulus package is a down payment in that long term shift in our tax code."

He deflected a questioner who wondered whether, by deferring his own financial rescue plan until Washington has acted, he was now standing on the sidelines at a time of economic crisis.

"You don't do it in a day," he said. "We'd better do it an intelligent, systematic, thoughtful fashion. I'm much less interested at this point in scoring political points than I am in making sure that we have a structure in place that is sound and is actually going to work."

Obama also took the opportunity to level another blast at what he has called a failed philosophy that has given precedence to market economics with minimal regulation.

"What led us to this point," he said, "was years and years of a philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street that viewed even common-sense regulation and oversight as unwise and unnecessary; that shredded consumer protections and loosened the rules of the road. CEOs and executives got reckless. Lobbyists got what they wanted. Politicians in both parties looked the other way until it was too late. And it is the American people who have paid the price."

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 19, 2008; 1:29 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FEC? SEC? McCain Seeks to Emphasize Accountability for Financial Crisis
Next: McCain Invokes Chavez in Latest Spanish Attack Ad

Comments

GO MCCAIINNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Unknown | September 21, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

You can have my money Obama! I know you can do more with it than I can.

http://www.bop-o-rama.com

Obama '08

Posted by: You can have my money! | September 20, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 20, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Wow!!!!!! and to think I thought I knew Barack the man you people are talking about couldn't be this man here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzp_qyjz7Dc

Posted by: Mark from Tenn | September 20, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

The Atlantic
September 18, 2008
An economist explains why he thinks McCain's economic policies make more sense
by Steven Landsburg

(Steven E. Landsburg (born 1954) is an American professor of economics at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York. From 1989 to 1995, he taught at Colorado State University.)


Betting on John McCain

My whole life I've been mystified by the concept of the "undecided voter." I've never had any problem choosing my candidates and didn't see how anyone else could either. But this year, I've been genuinely on the fence, partly because I haven't been paying close attention, and partly because there seemed ample reason to dislike all of the options.
But over the past few days, as McCain and Obama have ratcheted up their rhetoric over each others' "disastrous" economic policies, I decided to do a little research. Along the way, I had a few surprises about John McCain's voting record, some but not all of them pleasant. Now I don't think I'm undecided anymore.
Here are some of the things that made my decision easy, and some that made it hard:
1. Free trade and immigration are my top issues, and McCain wins on both.
These are my top issues for several reasons. First, trade is the engine of prosperity not just for the United States but also for the poorest of the world's poor. Nothing matters more than that. Second, the instinct to care about the national origin of your trading partner (or employer, or employee, or landlord, or tenant) is an ugly one, and the instinct to care about the national origin of other people's trading partners—and on that basis to interfere forcibly with other people's voluntary transactions—is even uglier.
Finally, protectionism, like creationism, requires an extraordinary level of willful ignorance. The consensus for free trade among economists is approximately as solid as the consensus for evolution among biologists, and it is a consensus supported by a solid body of both theory and observation. To ignore that consensus betrays a degree of anti-intellectualism that frightens me.
McCain is quite good on this issue, not just in terms of rhetoric (which I've known for a while) but in terms of voting record (which I've just recently researched). Obama, by contrast, promises to be our first explicitly protectionist president since Herbert Hoover. Some intervening presidents (Reagan, Bush I, and to a lesser extent Bush II) have been weak in their commitments to free trade, but none between Hoover and Obama has so explicitly rejected it.
2. McCain is not Bush. This came as a surprise to me. I'd been assuming, in my ill-read, uneducated way, that McCain had been complicit in most of the great travesties of the Bush administration and the execrable Republican Senate. I've learned that's largely untrue. He voted (to my great surprise!) against the prescription drug entitlement, against the Farm Security Bill, against milk subsidies, against Amtrak subsidies, and against highway subsidies.
Obama, by contrast, is in many ways a continuation of Bush. Like Bush (only far more so ), Obama is fine with tariffs and subsidies. Like Bush, he wants to send jackbooted thugs into every meatpacking plant in America to rid the American workplace of anyone who happens to have been born on the wrong side of an imaginary line. Like Bush, he wants a more progressive tax code. (It is one of the great myths of 21st century that the Bush tax cuts made the tax code less progressive; the opposite is true. If you are in the bottom 38% of taxpayers, you now pay zero income tax—and therefore have an incentive to support any spending bill that comes down the pike.) Like Bush, he wants more regulation, not less.

3. But there's a lot about economics that McCain just doesn't get. This shows up most significantly in his energy policies. Every economist knows that the best way to discourage carbon emissions (or anything else for that matter) is to tax them. But McCain rejects a carbon tax in favor of one slightly inferior policy (cap and trade) and one grossly inferior policy (direct regulation, such as the CAFE standards for fuel efficiency).
In a world of perfect capital markets and perfect information, a cap-and-trade system (provided the government auctions off the permits rather than giving them away) is exactly equivalent to a carbon tax – same effect on everything down to and including the prices of consumer goods. In the real world we live in, it's inferior for two reasons: First, small firms might find it difficult=2 0to raise the necessary capital to buy a permit; this gives an inappropriate advantage to big firms over small ones. Second, I believe it will be harder (for technical reasons I won't go into here) to calculate the efficient number of cap-and-trade permits than to calculate the efficient per-ton carbon tax. Aside from that, the two policies are equivalent in every way. McCain presumably doesn't get this, or he wouldn't have such a strong preference for cap-and-trade.
Worse, he endorses the CAFE standards, which are just a terrible way to control carbon emissions. While a carbon tax gets incentives right at every decision point, fuel efficiency standards give people no incentive, for example, to bike to work instead of drive (in fact, they flip the incentive in the wrong direction). Worse yet, they concentrate brainpower on improving fuel efficiency when there might be far more effective ways to control carbon emissions; with a tax, all innovations are rewarded.
In his support of CAFE standards over carbon taxes, McCain betrays a serious failure to understand how incentives work. The same problem shows up when he thinks you can simply mandate campaign finance limits, as if people who are competing for control of a $15 trillion economy won't be creative enough to find some way to spend hundreds of millions in the effort, no matter how you write your laws.
4. McCain gets health care right. The reason poor Americans get too little health care is that rich Am ericans get too much. The reason rich Americans get too much is that they're overinsured, and therefore run to the doctor for minor problems. The reason they're overinsured is that employer-provided health benefits aren't taxed, so employers overprovide them.
It has been clear for decades that the single most effective way to control health care costs is to eliminate the tax break for employer-provided health care. According to one careful study by my colleague Charles Phelps (admittedly several years old, but I'm not sure anything relevant has changed), this single reform could reduce health care costs by 40% with essentially no effect on health care outcomes.
Essential as this reform may be, I'd always assumed it was a political non-starter. I was therefore astonished to learn that it's the essence of McCain's health care reform. (At the same time, he would give each individual $2500, and each family $5000, to use for health care.)
I am astonished that I hadn't heard about this, and particularly astonished that Barack Obama hasn't thrust it in my face with a negative spin. Possibly he has and I just wasn't paying attention. In any case, this is just what the doctor ordered, and I am delighted that McCain has put it on the table.
Obama, by contrast, wants poor people to get more medical care without addressing the problem of overuse by rich people. Where is that extra medical care going to come from? If the answer is "nowhere," then a primary effect of the Obama plan must be to raise prices, making doctors and hospitals the big beneficiaries.
Of course, there are other things that matter. Foreign and defense policy might matter more than anything, and if I were sure that one or the other candidate were far wiser about these issues, that might be enough to win my vote. But I have no expertise on these matters and no particular reason to trust my own judgment.
I'm sure I'm right about trade and pretty sure I'm right about taxes and health care, but that's because I've thought long and hard about these issues for decades. It seems to me that we ought to be humble about the things we haven't thought hard about, and for me that includes foreign policy. The best I can do is bet that whoever's getting most of the other stuff right is getting this right too.
The bottom line is that I support John McCain. With trepidation.

Posted by: Scott | September 20, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Apparently the misleading mailings are showing up in more places than just FL.


"Misleading Mailers Descend on Swing States

Short on detail or just plain wrong, mailings with GOP return addresses are sowing confusion on voting status with fewer than two months before the big day."

http://www.miller-mccune.com/article/705

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 20, 2008 2:39 AM | Report abuse

BOTTOM LINE:

McCAIN REPEATEDLY WARNED OF THIS CRISIS AND TRIED TO PASS LEGISLATION TO PREVENT IT.

"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." -Sen. John McCain

OBAMA TOOK MORE LOBBYI$T MONEY THAN ANY OTHER SENATOR. INCLUDED IN THOSE MILLION$ WAS MONEY FROM HIS FRIEND AND ADVISOR FRANKLIN RAINES AT FANNIE MAE WHO MADE $90 MILLION HIMSELF. OBAMA WAS PAID TO STOP McCAIN'S LEGISLATION SO THE CORRUPTION COULD CONTINUE. HE DID.

Posted by: ben | September 19, 2008 11:52 PM

You had a very ineffect Mr McCain who could not get his legislation through a Republican congress. McCain says he can work with Democrats, that was years ago, now he can't work with Republicans so what makes him qualified to be president.

This present crisis has nothindg to do with Fannie and Freddie that crisis was mollified with a bailout. This Crisis has to do with CMO's and CDO's and other debt obligation derivatives. It has to do with default swaps and interest rate swaps and plenty of esoteric derivatives that their owners including banks, investment banks and hedge funds did not understand. Apparent Ben you do not understand that that is the problem because the McCain campaign that you support also does not understand. Mr McCain chose as a leading adviser Phil Gramm and even though he is no longer an official member of the McCain campaign, Mr McCain was quoting Mr Gramm this week when he campaigned in Michigan and McCain and Gramm and the Republican congress argued for the wisdom of the markets and deregulation for decades. I am not going to standby and allow you to recreate history and make a silk purse out of a sows ear. There are plenty who are guilty here and as far as I am concerned no one in Washington is innocent and I mean no one. But Obama did take a position in favor of regulation that might have eased this problem a little but would not have stopped it In principle Obama was right on this crisis and McCain was not but the issue where they really differ is how they will stimulate the economy.
Obama will do it with direct investment in infrastructure which will create jobs stimulate the economy and pay off debt. McCain will do it by giving tax cuts to investors, otherwise known as the wealthy, who because of the credit crunch will not have the support of the financial industry and the money won't be invested and thus there will be no jobs. The money that will be given to the wealthy will come at the expense of the rest of us.

So I think Mr McCain's record on this one is undistinguished and the frequency with which he changed his position and shot off his mouth made him looked shell shocked , not presidential. Obama stuck to the things he nows, his well thought out and fairly detailed economic policy, he was not forced to back track on anything he said and behaved like a listener not a speaker in a situation were he had nothing to say. That is what a president should do, listen to his advisers and as facts become apparent express what needs to be done.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

BOTTOM LINE:

McCAIN REPEATEDLY WARNED OF THIS CRISIS AND TRIED TO PASS LEGISLATION TO PREVENT IT.

"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." -Sen. John McCain

OBAMA TOOK MORE LOBBYI$T MONEY THAN ANY OTHER SENATOR. INCLUDED IN THOSE MILLION$ WAS MONEY FROM HIS FRIEND AND ADVISOR FRANKLIN RAINES AT FANNIE MAE WHO MADE $90 MILLION HIMSELF. OBAMA WAS PAID TO STOP McCAIN'S LEGISLATION SO THE CORRUPTION COULD CONTINUE. HE DID.

Posted by: ben | September 19, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

BOTTOM LINE:

McCAIN REPEATEDLY WARNED OF THIS CRISIS AND TRIED TO PASS LEGISLATION TO PREVENT IT.

"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." -Sen. John McCain

OBAMA TOOK MORE LOBBYI$T MONEY THAN ANY OTHER SENATOR. INCLUDED IN THOSE MILLION$ WAS MONEY FROM HIS FRIEND AND ADVISOR FRANKLIN RAINES AT FANNIE MAE WHO MADE $90 MILLION HIMSELF. OBAMA WAS PAID TO STOP McCAIN'S LEGISLATION SO THE CORRUPTION COULD CONTINUE. HE DID.

Posted by: ben | September 19, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for a very interesting link Anonymous, with a clear explanation of vote caging

"Vote caging is an illegal trick to suppress minority voters (who tend to vote Democrat) by getting them knocked off the voter rolls if they fail to answer registered mail sent to homes they aren't living at (because they are, say, at college or at war)."

"The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and—you got to love this—American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.

Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation—and the soldiers were overseas."

http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/pagenum/all/

Here is a PDF of the mailing.
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/sep/floridavoterconfusion.pdf

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Ordinarily I don't respond to inane comments, but I'll make an exception for MotherLodeBeth, who asks: "Why should those who work the hardest who happen to make the most, then have to pay more taxes simply because they earned the money?"

The implication here is that stockbrokers, insurance executives, venture capitalists, et al., DESERVE to be paid thousands of times as much as steamfitters, electricians, short-order cooks. et al., because their work is thousands of times harder. Did I get that right?

Well, show me a steamfitter, electrician, or short-order cook who would turn down a chance to swap jobs (and paychecks) with a stockbroker, insurance executive, or venture capitalist, and I'll show you a steamfitter, electrician, or short-order cook who's dumb enough to vote Republican.

Posted by: donnolo | September 19, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

NADER SAYS:
These banks are also operating with an explicit guarantee from Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to their creditors that he will honor their loans in the event that an investment bank, like Bear Stearns, goes belly up. This guarantee is enormously valuable. Investors who make loans to Merrill Lynch or Morgan Stanley don't have to worry about the health of these companies because Bernanke has said that, if necessary, he will use public money to pay them back.

While we don't want a chain reaction of banking collapses on Wall Street, the public should get something in exchange for Bernanke's generosity. Specifically, he can demand a cap on executive compensation (all compensation) of $2 million a year, in exchange for getting bailed out. For any bank that is not on board, Bernanke could make an explicit promise to their creditors - if the bank goes under, you will get zero from the Fed.

This can be an effective way to restore sanity to the salaries paid on Wall Street. And, this can be a good example for setting executive pay more generally. Any time a company comes to the public for a handout, like tax breaks for oil companies or low-interest loans for auto companies, the $2 million cap on all compensation goes into effect.

Posted by: Handy | September 19, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

You re drowning and someone throws you a rope. He pulls you out and saves your life.
He loses his rope in the process but you are too cheap to reimburse him. Thats a rich republican. Let the bastards drown.

Posted by: seems to me | September 19, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

People making over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year comprise the bulk of the investors in these failed institutions and banks. The taxpayers are now going save their asses, will they accept a meager tax increase to help pay for it? Hell no! Unpatriotic bastards.
Save me the excuses there are none.

You dont get it do you?

Posted by: seems to me | September 19, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Bidens comments about the rich being required to pay more taxes,were idiotic and nothing more than a class warfare attitude.

What about equal protection? Why should those who work the hardest who happen to make the most, then have to pay more taxes simply because they earned the money? And what about those who have been middle class or even below middle class, who lived frugal lives and saved and invested and now have millions?

Why should they be penalized and be made to pay more because they were frugal and wise? Patriotic is loving ones country, and treating ALL citizens equally. And lets not forget many, many people who now have healthy bank accounts are you Mom and Pop, small town stores.

If folks like Warren Buffet whose advising the Obama campaign want to pay more taxes, no one is stopping him from sending the government a check.

Posted by: MotherLodeBeth | September 19, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Matt let me ask you are you a rich Republican?

So why do you vote for McCain?

What has he to offer? HE is changing positions faster then he can walk. So be honest?

Posted by: Mike | September 19, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Well nowanna1, Karl Rove essentially invented vote caging and is "unoffically" (wink wink) advising McCain. So, this is not really supprising.

Interesting article
http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/pagenum/all/

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

People making over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year comprise the bulk of the investors in these failed institutions and banks. The taxpayers are now going save their asses, will they accept a meager tax increase to help pay for it? Hell no! Unpatriotic bastards.
Save me the excuses there are none.

Posted by: seems to me | September 19, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

look how we spent our money

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/103.html

Posted by: mike | September 19, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

This is low...

"Democrats, Florida elections officials criticize GOP mailing

TALLAHASSEE — A new pitch for John McCain's presidential campaign aimed at older Democratic voters is causing complaints by Democrats and concern by elections officials.

The piece, paid for by the Republican National Committee and authorized by McCain, tells voters it is seeking to double-check their "unconfirmed" party affiliations while asking for money. A letter signed by McCain tells the Democrats: "We have you registered as a Republican."

"It is unfortunate, because it does put a lot of doubt in people's minds," said Secretary of State Kurt Browning, the state's top elections official.

After his office received dozens of calls, Duval County Supervisor of Elections Jerry Holland issued a media alert that his office had nothing to do with it. "They were upset folks and they were very concerned," said Holland, a Republican. "They mainly said their party (listing) was different than it was.""

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article814237.ece

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Today during his press conference, Obama was more focused on the economy and more presidential than McCain. McCain is short sighted and acts like he knows about the economy and "maverickly" makes statements like "The "fundamentals of our economy are strong" and if president he would fire SEC Chairman Republican Christoper Cox. McCain realized that the President can't fire Cox, so he amended his statement (again) and said he would ask for his resignation. McCain acts impulsively and attacks Obama, while Obama consults with prominent Economists, holds a press conference and takes questions and answers from the press. He decides to put the country first before his politics concerning McCain. Today is one time McCain should have agreed with Bush. McCain seems like he's a couple of steps behind. I like the way Obama took his time and evaluated what was going on with the economy even when he talked about it from a global perspective.

Posted by: McCain is short sighted | September 19, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Matt | September 19, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Mike | September 19, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Matt | September 19, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

The guy who wrote Obama is a communist is really a total idiot and has no clue what it means. When the government takes over businesses as government owned businesses the we talk about Communism! Imagine our current situation a Republican government is taking over huge private businesses to bail them out!! Go back to school or look up wiki before you use terms you don't know.

Posted by: Martin, GA | September 19, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Earlier today he was a Marxist, I am so confused!

"Obama is the communist with the communist agenda for this country.Do we need a communist in WH?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 8:32 PM"

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is the communist with the communist agenda for this country.Do we need a communist in WH?"

LOL, you guys are funny. No wonder Bush is in office LOL..

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the communist with the communist agenda for this country.Do we need a communist in WH?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Republican dirty tricks in Florida...


Republican Mailing Leaves Florida Voters Confused

""I thought, well that's strange, because I'm a Democrat. And when I opened the envelope, there was a card that said I was listed as a Republican with my registration number. So I immediately got my Democratic card, and the registration number was not the same," she says.

She thought the mailing — labeled "Party Affiliation Voter Registration Card" — was a little fishy — especially when she found out two of her friends who are Democrats had received the same thing but a Republican friend had not."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94818483

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

John McCain's campain manager:

"Rick Davis, "served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" that worked to cripple regulatory initiatives in Congress and protect the two institution's "healthy profits."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/palin-blames-lobbyists-li_n_127399.html

Posted by: Jeff | September 19, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Anyway, trying to blame the Democrats on this one is grasping at straws. We all know whose had the keys to the regulatory store for the last 8 years.

Posted by: Brian | September 19, 2008 7:36 PM


You need to dig a bit deeper. It is no secret that the patron saints of Fannie and Freddie in Congress are mostly Democrats. Of the last two former CEOs of Fannie one was chairman of VP selection for Kerry (and Obama too until he resigned over an alleged mortgage sweetheart deal). The other was Budget Director under Clinton. He was also forced out as CEO of Fannie over alleged book cooking. And the two biggest backers of Wall Street in DC are none other than Hillary and Schumer, both Democrat senators from NY. Yes Bush screws up but there is enough blame to go around.

As for Obama's vaulted calm cool deliberate intelligence, well he backs this bailout plan immediately without knowing a single detail about its working. Since none is available yet. It would have been prudent to withhold judgment until the details are out. Otherwise you me and every American could be bailing out not just Wall Street speculators. But British speculators, German speculators, Russian speculators, Arab speculators, Chinese speculators, Japanese speculators. You name it.

So much for superior judgment! A man of greater experience would have waited and not rushed in head first.

Posted by: bobte | September 19, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I've never seen so many different names for a person. It's so cute. :[

Anyway, trying to blame the Democrats on this one is grasping at straws. We all know whose had the keys to the regulatory store for the last 8 years.

Posted by: Brian | September 19, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for posting the long one below. My bad, it was an accident.


Posted by Obomination:
One doesn't have to be all pro-regulation or all anti-regulation. Don't use deflection to avoid people seeing the truth.

McCain (and even Bush) have been pushing for reform and regulation on these financial instutions for years.

Democrats blocked it.

Obama should not be president and democratic congress should be made to account (by voting them out of office) for forcing hundreds of billions of dollars of bad debt that us citizens will have to pay for, its no wonder democrats want to raise taxes in many mysterious ways.

Anyone who is honest and looks with a grain of intelligence can see who is truly responsible and on the take, look at who the leaders of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae donated to the most, leaders of the democrat party and congress.

Don't be fooled by the Obomination in 2008.

_______________
Typical GOP. Will not take credit for anything. The congress in less than a year (by the time "most" people saw it coming) could not have caused this mess. Get a clue. It is not debatable and the whole world knows this was starting as early as 2002. Except you for some stupid reason. Even if you want to blame Dems for it before the GOPS got hold of the White House and congress, then why after 8 f*cking years did they not fix it and or at least avoid this nightmare!!? Your logic is skewed by your ignorant loyalty to a party who's economic policies have failed.

Posted by: GOP-but not a sheep | September 19, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama has the right idea. Let the Bozos that created this mess clean it up best they can before he takes over in January 09.

Posted by: Johann Wagener | September 19, 2008 7:20 PM

Are you kidding? You must be one of those guys who think inexperience is a good qualification for any job?

You let the lobbyists and their congress patrons rush this thing thru and they will pile every losing bond and debt into it before the current crew gets out of town. Heck they may even start shifting bad debts from their foreign branches and clients to domestic accounts already to cash out in the next few months.

Wake up!

Posted by: bobte | September 19, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse


The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

* Post Politics: Stories, Polls and More
* Today's Most Viewed Politics Stories
* Politics On the Go: Get Mobile Updates

ad_icon
The Fact Checker
Obama's Fannie Mae 'Connection'

The McCain campaign is attempting to link Barack Obama to the mortgage crisis by claiming that he received advice on housing and mortgages from the former head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines. The evidence for the Obama-Raines link is pretty flimsy. (10:24 AM ET) | More »
Dan Balz's Take

* McCain's Fundamentals Problem

State by State
State-by-State Coverage of the Fall Elections »
More '08 Blogs

* The Fix | Channel '08

Archives

* Day | Week | Category

Get More Trail

* The Trail on Facebook
* The Trail Twitter Feed

RSS Feed
spacer

spacer

spacer

spacer

spacer

spacer

spacer

Recent Posts

* Palin's Pay Cut as Mayor Followed by a Raise

* McCain Invokes Chavez in Latest Spanish Attack Ad

* Obama Calls for Rescue and Stimulus

* FEC? SEC? McCain Seeks to Emphasize Accountability for Financial Crisis

* McCain Again Hits Obama on Fannie Ties

* McCain Offers Few Details on Economic Plan

* Obama and the Economic Rescue Plan

* Obama's Economic Counterattack

* McCain Charges Obama with Taking Advice from Raines

* Palin Disinvited from Anti-Iran Rally

More Campaign '08
Politics Newsletter (M-F)

E-MailSign-Up Here

Multimedia

* Latest '08 Video
* Daily Politics Podcast
* Campaign Ads

The Presidential Field

* Candidate Profiles
* Campaign Finance
* Campaign Gurus

Calendar / Events

* Campaign Tracker
* The Primaries

Interaction

* Live Q&A: Post Politics Hour (M-F, 11 a.m. ET)

Polls

* Latest Surveys
* Behind the Numbers

Barack Obama
Obama Calls for Rescue and Stimulus

By Dan Balz
CORAL GABLES, Fla. -- Barack Obama today endorsed moves in Washington to give the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve broad authority to stabilize the credit markets, but said those actions should be accompanied by a second stimulus package aimed at relieving burdens on families affected by the current economic slump.

Obama, speaking after a meeting with his economic advisers, called the current financial crisis a threat to "the stability and security of our entire global economy." He said that, in spite of earlier, unprecedented steps by the federal government to stem the crisis in the financial markets, "even bolder and more decisive action" is required.

"I fully support the effort of Secretary [Henry] Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman [Ben] Bernanke to work in a bipartisan spirit with Congress to find this kind of solution," he told reporters before speaking at a rally at the University of Miami.

Obama said he would defer plans to issue his own rescue plan, which he had planned to do as early as today, as a show of bipartisan support for the work already underway in Washington. But he also said that, while he applauds the efforts to deal swiftly with the crisis on Wall Street that erupted earlier this week, the government has been too slow in responding further to the problems of Main Street and ordinary Americans.

"In the same bipartisan spirit that is being shown with regard to the crisis on Wall Street, I ask Senator McCain, President Bush, Republicans and Democrats to join me in supporting an emergency economic plan for working families," he said.

That plan, which Obama outlined earlier this year, calls for a second stimulus package that would pump $50 billion into the economy -- $25 billion to the states and another $25 billion for infrastructure projects. His plan also calls checks of $500 per individual or $1,000 per household to offset higher gasoline and other energy costs. Obama would pay for those checks with a windfall profits tax on the oil industry.

Flanked by seven of his economic advisers, Obama outlined to reporters the principles that he said should help guide the Bush administration, Federal Reserve officials and Congress as they rush to prepare a rescue package for battered financial institutions whose weakness roiled the stock markets this week.

"As president," he said, "I would say to Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, do what's required to make sure that people's money market is protected, do what's required to make sure that small businesses have credit lines to allow them to make payroll, do what is necessary to make sure that the economy is running and that ordinary people are able to go about what they do every single day, which is work hard and support their families."

Obama said one principle of the current rescue plan is that Washington should not reward the financial institution leader or investors who have helped create the credit crisis that has gripped the economy. "We don't want bailouts of folks who've been taking bad decisions," he said.

He also said the rescue plan should be temporary and that, as soon as possible, the private assets now being scooped up by the federal government and the Federal Reserve be returned to the private sector, with taxpayers enjoying any profits.

Obama was asked whether the potential cost of the bailout package, which could run to hundreds of billions of dollars, plus a second stimulus package, would force him, as president, to shelve plans for middle-class tax cuts, which are at the heart of his economic platform.

He said both short-term and longer-term assistance is needed. "I think now more than ever we've got to have the kind of broad-based middle class tax cuts that I've talked about for 95 percent of working families," he told reporters. "Effectively, the stimulus package is a down payment in that long term shift in our tax code."

He deflected a questioner who wondered whether, by deferring his own financial rescue plan until Washington has acted, he was now standing on the sidelines at a time of economic crisis.

"You don't do it in a day," he said. "We'd better do it an intelligent, systematic, thoughtful fashion. I'm much less interested at this point in scoring political points than I am in making sure that we have a structure in place that is sound and is actually going to work."

Obama also took the opportunity to level another blast at what he has called a failed philosophy that has given precedence to market economics with minimal regulation.

"What led us to this point," he said, "was years and years of a philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street that viewed even common-sense regulation and oversight as unwise and unnecessary; that shredded consumer protections and loosened the rules of the road. CEOs and executives got reckless. Lobbyists got what they wanted. Politicians in both parties looked the other way until it was too late. And it is the American people who have paid the price."

Posted at 1:29 PM ET on Sep 19, 2008 | Category: Barack Obama
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: FEC? SEC? McCain Seeks to Emphasize Accountability for Financial Crisis | Next: McCain Invokes Chavez in Latest Spanish Attack Ad

Add The Trail to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.


Agreed, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (supported by McCain) opened the door for this mess.

Posted by: Jeff | September 19, 2008 7:09 PM

oBAMA AND HIS WELFARE STATE....if it was anybody else sponsoring this he would be calling it pandering

GOS save us from the DALIBAMA

Posted by: cramos | September 19, 2008 7:08 PM

One doesn't have to be all pro-regulation or all anti-regulation. Don't use deflection to avoid people seeing the truth.

McCain (and even Bush) have been pushing for reform and regulation on these financial instutions for years.

Democrats blocked it.

Obama should not be president and democratic congress should be made to account (by voting them out of office) for forcing hundreds of billions of dollars of bad debt that us citizens will have to pay for, its no wonder democrats want to raise taxes in many mysterious ways.

Anyone who is honest and looks with a grain of intelligence can see who is truly responsible and on the take, look at who the leaders of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae donated to the most, leaders of the democrat party and congress.

Don't be fooled by the Obomination in 2008.

Posted by: Anything but an Obomination | September 19, 2008 7:04 PM

_______________
Typical GOP. Will not take credit for anything. The congress in less than a year (by the time "most" people saw it coming) could not have caused this mess. Get a clue. It is not debatable and the whole world knows this was starting as early as 2002. Except you for some stupid reason. Even if you want to blame Dems for it before the GOPS got hold of the White House and congress, then why after 8 f*cking years did they not fix it and or at least avoid this nightmare!!? Your logic is skewed by your ignorant loyalty to a party who's economic policies have failed.

Posted by: GOP-but not a sheep | September 19, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama has the right idea. Let the Bozos that created this mess clean it up best they can before he takes over in January 09. I would hope that someone starts building a "rouges gallery" to expose (and maybe tar & feather)all these greedy-sleazy rats that ran off with the spoils of this disaster. The message to be sent is, YOU CAN'T RIP OFF THE AMERICAN TAX-PAYER AND GET AWAY WITH IT!

Posted by: Johann Wagener | September 19, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

What was Obama up to in 2001?

Panel of Illinois Lawmakers Approves Curbs on Predatory Lending Practices.


Apr. 18--SPRINGFIELD, Ill.--A bipartisan panel of state lawmakers took a major step Tuesday to crack down on companies that lure vulnerable consumers into home equity-backed loans that mix high interest rates with whopping fees and have caused thousands of Illinois residents to lose their homes.

The panel, which included both House and Senate members, voted 8-4 to endorse proposed regulations by the Ryan administration to ban so-called predatory lending practices that community activists, and even some mainstream banks, say have led to a dramatic surge in home foreclosures in the Chicago area.

The vote is the last administrative hurdle for the regulations, which are now scheduled to go into effect May 17.

However, opponents said the rules were unfair because they applied only to state-chartered financial institutions, putting them at a competitive disadvantage with federally chartered firms that would not be bound by the crackdown. Lawmakers who voted against the regulations predicted that they were headed for a legal challenge that would prevent them from taking effect.

An increasingly volatile issue nationwide, predatory lending is defined as mortgage lending that hits borrowers with onerous interest rates they cannot afford to pay, unnecessary fees and sometimes fraud to conceal loan terms.

Some lenders have blanketed low-income areas with fliers offering free steak dinners to get owners to consider refinancing home loans on what turn out to be unaffordable terms.

"When you see the neighborhood really going down, we needed to take action," said Sister Immacula, general superior for the congregation of the Sisters of St. Casimir in Chicago's Marquette Park area, on hand to watch Tuesday's vote. She said the devastating effect of predatory lending prompted a grass-roots effort for tougher rules.

"It was just mind-boggling that these lenders are out there trying to prey upon the elderly, especially, or single women."

The administration rules would apply only to exceptionally high-interest loans, which in today's market would mean those with an annual interest rate above 11.68 percent on a typical 30-year first mortgage. Homeowners with good credit histories now can get loans of around 7 percent per year.

The rules would subject so-called subprime loans for consumers with shaky credit histories to a variety of consumer protections, including:

-- A prohibition on charging points and fees in excess of 6 percent of the total loan.

-- A requirement that lenders verify a borrower's ability to repay loans based on income and debt obligations.

-- A ban on so-called loan flipping, in which lenders refinance loans and collect fat fees without any financial benefit to the consumer.

-- A ban on a practice in which lenders sell homeowners credit insurance, designed to cover loan payments if the borrower dies or becomes disabled or unemployed, and then rolls the insurance costs into loan payments without informing the borrower. Such credit insurance is not required by law.

Gov. George Ryan said he was "extremely pleased" by the vote in the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, a House-Senate panel that reviews administrative rules to make sure they mesh with the intent of state laws.

"These rules will help put an end to the ruthless and unscrupulous lending practices that are used to prey upon consumers with less than perfect credit histories and often result in home foreclosures and financial ruin," Ryan said.

Even as Ryan's rules won approval, the Cook County Board on Tuesday voted unanimously to impose its own anti-predatory lending rules. But the county ordinance may have little practical effect because the state rules go much further in imposing restrictions on lenders.

Federal regulators also are considering a nationwide crackdown on the practice.

As a result of aggressive marketing by high-interest lenders, home foreclosures started by subprime lenders have skyrocketed in the Chicago area, from 131 in 1993 to 4,958 in 1999, according to a study by the Chicago-based National Training and Information Center.

Regina Mobley, 43, is hoping not to become another foreclosure statistic.

She said she refinanced her Maywood home in 1998 with the understanding that the $1,200-a-month payments she had been making would decrease. But she said the lender didn't tell her that the lower estimate did not include taxes and insurance, as her previous payment had.

Instead of dropping, her new monthly payment rose to more than $1,600 a month, she said.

"It's a nightmare," she said. "You think they're trying to help you get a financial edge, and once the blinders are taken off, you're just dumbfounded."

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago), who voted for the tougher rules, said lenders make "a whole lot of money" even if their loans go bad. "If you're charging 15 or 16 or 17 percent interest and you're tacking on fees and costs to this each time that loan is refinanced, then potentially you are drawing down thousands of dollars in profits before ultimate foreclosure," he said.

Under the new rules, lenders can have their state licenses revoked and be fined up to $10,000 for each violation, said Mary Kendrigan, spokeswoman for the Department of Financial Institutions. The state also will help consumers if they sign up for an unlawful loan.

"We'll have the authority to help the consumer renegotiate terms of the loan or to void the loan entirely if it is in violation," she said.

Opponents of Tuesday's vote in the legislative panel vowed a continued fight to block them.

Sen. Steve Rauschenberger (R-Elgin), who voted against the rules, said the state was running roughshod over concerns raised by lenders. "If you decide it's got to be we versus them, this is the kind of process you get," he said. "You get rules that don't work, that are going to be in court before the end of next week, probably enjoined by the end of the month."

Linda Koch, executive vice president of the Illinois Bankers Association, expressed disappointment with the action. Though not ruling out a lawsuit, she said her group would first push for industry-backed legislation in Springfield that would pre-empt the new rules. She and other industry lobbyists complained the rules do not apply to nationally chartered lending institutions, which may open the rules to legal challenges.

Still, Koch did not dispute that the problem of predatory lending is real. "There are predatory practices that are being engaged in--forcing people to take out loans that people either don't need or can't afford to pay," she said. Clearly, there is a problem and the problem needs to be addressed."

By Ray Long and Melissa Allison. Tribune staff reporter Douglas Holt contributed to this report.

To see more of the Chicago Tribune, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.chicago.tribune.com/

(c) 2001, Chicago Tribune. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

Posted by: scott | September 19, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Agreed, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (supported by McCain) opened the door for this mess.

Posted by: Jeff | September 19, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

oBAMA AND HIS WELFARE STATE....if it was anybody else sponsoring this he would be calling it pandering

GOS save us from the DALIBAMA

Posted by: cramos | September 19, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

One doesn't have to be all pro-regulation or all anti-regulation. Don't use deflection to avoid people seeing the truth.

McCain (and even Bush) have been pushing for reform and regulation on these financial instutions for years.

Democrats blocked it.

Obama should not be president and democratic congress should be made to account (by voting them out of office) for forcing hundreds of billions of dollars of bad debt that us citizens will have to pay for, its no wonder democrats want to raise taxes in many mysterious ways.

Anyone who is honest and looks with a grain of intelligence can see who is truly responsible and on the take, look at who the leaders of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae donated to the most, leaders of the democrat party and congress.

Don't be fooled by the Obomination in 2008.

Posted by: Anything but an Obomination | September 19, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

McCain only recently switched to pro-regulation. Why not he has flip-flopped on everything else.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091603732.html?hpid=topnews

"In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband Internet market, warning that "the potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation." Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

The facts are that McCain tried to stop the financial meltdown years ago by repeatedly pushing for reform and regulation of institutional firms.

Pelosi, Reid, and others in instituional firm's pockets blocked it (Obama is second largest receiptient).

This mess could have been prevented. The democratic leadership in congress is mostly to blame, including Obama.

Anything but an Obomination in 2008.

Posted by: Anything but an Obomination | September 19, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Paul Volcker has fought inflation before and brought it under control. Warren Bufet, yes exactly, look up Berkshire Hathaway! Robert Rubin, look up the Tequila Crisis.

So, pretty please with sugar on top, McCain Palin:

Thanks, but no THANKS!

Posted by: VA | September 19, 2008 6:38 PM


Volcker brought down inflation by bringing on a severe recession. Think eighteen percent interest rate for a car loan. Rubin sat on the board of Citigroup during this whole mortgage mess. See Citigroup stock price!

Why is Obama supporting Bush's plan to take from main street and give to Wall Street? Is he a closet republican?

Posted by: bobte | September 19, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Paul,

We need more people like you to educate the massess!

People, do some research:

Paul Volcker, Warren Bufet and Robert Rubin
vs
Carly Fiona & Phil Gramm?

If McCain really cared about the Economy he would have an Economic "Dream Team" as opposed to his D-Reg Team!!! While Obama is not an economist, he is smart enough to surround himself that understand it and understand it in a way most of us never will.

Paul Volcker has fought inflation before and brought it under control. Warren Bufet, yes exactly, look up Berkshire Hathaway! Robert Rubin, look up the Tequila Crisis.

So, pretty please with sugar on top, McCain Palin:

Thanks, but no THANKS!

Posted by: VA | September 19, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Retarded babies are bad for the economy.

Posted by: ANGRY | September 19, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

CONGRESS WILL NOT ADJOURN UNTIL AFTER THE GOP REPUBLICAN PARTY FIX THEIR COLOSSAL MESS

GOP REPUBLICAN JOHN MCCAIN WALL STREET DEREGULATIONS
GOP REPUBLICAN JOHN MCCAIN sponsored landmark legislation in 1999 that removed the walls between banks, investment firms and insurance companies. GOP REPUBLICAN JOHN MCCAIN bill allowed a company like AIG to expand beyond its traditional insurance business (which is still profitable) into exotic new extremely high risk products that brought the company down and created this colossal mess.

WALL STREET SRO - SELF REGULATORY ORGANIZATION
THE GOP REPUBLICAN RUN Government (GOP President, GOP Congress, GOP Supreme Court) looked the other way, while GOP REPUBLICAN Super-capitalist Obscenely Rich WALL STREET SRO Speculators Robbed Our U.S. Treasury and Forced the $Trillion Debt Upon the American People.


Average Americans are becoming poorer, because GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET super rich SPECULATORS and corporate CEOs are paying themselves, business partners, friends, and family members at least $10,000,000 annually from MONEY STOLEN FROM THE U.S. TREASURY. These major crimes committed by WALL STREET SPECULATORS AND CEOs have gone beyond greed and into acts of treason against the American People. Seize the stolen money and properties valued in the $Trillions back from these super criminals for attacking America. Those stolen $Millions / $Billions / $Trillions belong to the American People.

RULE OF LAW states that the People of the United States will be defended. Those who attack American Citizens will be prosecuted. WALL STREET SPECULATORS and CORPORATE CEOs dictatorship over the American People is over. Average Americans are not going to accept WALL STREET COPORATE CRIMES anymore. Rights of Citizen and Average Workers of the United States will be enforced. American PEOPLE will always come before corporate interests, because Americans Love America more than Wall Street greed.


GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET $TRILLION FRAUD AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Direct impact of GOP McCain sponsored deregulations
Bankrupt and floundering
Failure of the investment bank
Government's takeover

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET's business model has collapsed

Greed and fear routinely govern GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET financial markets and GLOBAL CRISIS.

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET (giant investment houses, brokerage firms, hedge funds, "private equity" firms) irresponsibly TRADED the savings of average Americans (placed LAS VEGAS STYLE BETS on extremely high risk stocks, bonds, and other securities).

DUBIOUS MORTGAGES were PACKAGED into BONDS and SOLD and TRADED. Investment houses had huge incentives to increase LEVERAGE (OBSCENELY HIGH BORROWING).

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET compensation is heavily skewed toward annual bonuses, reflecting the profits traders and managers earned in the tune of lavish base salaries and obscenely high annual bonuses of $20,000,000.

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET relies heavily on OBSCENELY HIGH LEVERAGE (OBSCENELY HIGH BORROWING). $3 Trillion (stocks, bonds, other securities) backed by only $80 billion in shareholders' equity while the $2.8 Trillion was LEVERAGE (BORROWED).

Leverage (huge borrowing) can create huge debts (huge principal and interest obligations)

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET is a manic machine for gambling.
Traders and money managers are given huge incentives to do whatever would increase short-term profits.

For decades, GOP REPUBLICAN JOHN MCCAIN sponsored legislation that broadly deregulated WALL STREET banking and insurance industries.

GOP REPUBLICAN JOHN MCCAIN swept away Consumer Protection legislation and opened the way for a less restricted high risk financial marketplace.

While the GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET boom continued, government (White House, Congress, Supreme Court) looked the other way.

GOP REPUBLICAN Congress resisted tougher regulation and permitted WALL STREET to run out of control and obscenely high LEVERAGE (OBSCENELY HIGH BORROWED MONEY) RATIOS perpetrating intentional fraud against the American People.

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET leaders intentionally deceived customers and lenders into taking hazardous risks for short-term rewards regardless of the long-term dangers to the American People.

Mortgages went bad. The powerful high leverage went into reverse. Losses eroded firms' capital bases and raised doubts about their survival.

Financial firms took major stupid and wasteful risks that severely damaged the American Economy and impeded economic recovery.

GOP REPUBLICAN STOCK MARKET $ TRILLION FRAUD has deepened consumers' pessimism, fear and reluctance to spend. There may be more failures of FINANCIAL FIRMS.

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET financial crises resemble the GOP REPUBLICAN illegal miscalculated war.


How were we ever made to believe that the now-collapsing GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET model ever made sense? Common sense should have told us that making RISKY BETS with HUGE AMOUNTS of BORROWED MONEY was a DANGEROUS GAME; if the bets pay off you make money beyond your wildest dreams, but if they go bad you face utter ruin.

Common sense should have told us that betting fortunes on meaningless fluctuations in stock, bond or currency values (McCain sponsored deregulated hedge funds) was about as productive as a trip to Las Vegas. Common sense should have told us that buying and selling exotic securities based on other securities based on bundles of mortgages that were treated like mere numbers on a balance sheet (no recognition that the whole iffy construct was based on real people living in real houses that they might or might not be able to afford) was not an intelligent endeavor.

Somehow, we all forgot that "HIGHLY LEVERAGED" is just another way of saying "DEEPLY INDEBTED." Now we've had a wake-up call, and maybe the erstwhile Masters of the Universe will have to stop playing with imaginary money and go back to using the real stuff.


The View Destroyed Unprepared GOP REPUBLICAN John McCain

McCain / Palin Failin are rejected for voting against Women Rights


RUL OF LAW WILL ENFORCE CONFISCATION OF ALL GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET SPECULATORS’ AND CEOS’ PERSONAL PROPERTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ECONOMY’S MELTDOWN. All money and properties of the Super Rich CEOs and WALL STREET Speculators domestic and abroad will be confiscated and returned to the United States Treasury and the American People.

WALL STREET SRO - SELF REGULATORY ORGANIZATION
OUR GOP REPUBLICAN RUN Government (GOP President, GOP Congress, GOP Supreme Court) looked the other way, while GOP REPUBLICAN Super-capitalist Obscenely Rich WALL STREET SRO Speculators Robbed Our U.S. Treasury and Forced the $Trillion Debt Upon the American People.

GOP REPUBLICAN LIARS SUPER RICH WALL STREET GET RICH QUICK GREEDY
BILLION DOLLARS RISKY UNSECURED LOANS RISKY UNSECURED LOANS RISKY UNSECURED LOANS
REPACKAGED AND SOLD TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

GOP REPUBLICAN LIARS SUPER RICH WALL STREET ROBBER BARONS
COMMIT TREASON AND GRAND FRAUD AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


WALL STREET SRO - SELF REGULATORY ORGANIZATION
OUR GOP REPUBLICAN RUN Government (GOP President, GOP Congress, GOP Supreme Court) looked the other way, while GOP REPUBLICAN Super-capitalist Obscenely Rich WALL STREET SRO Speculators Robbed Our U.S. Treasury and Forced the $Trillion Debt Upon the American People.


HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ANGERED BY SARAH PALIN’S REMARKS

Comments uttered by Sarah Palin has angered Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton who described Sarah Palin as an opportunist with no qualifications. Senator Hillary Clinton also stated that John McCain and Sarah Palin’s records on women’s rights are abominable. The country cannot withstand anymore George Bush failures cloaked in McCain/Palin. Asking Sarah Palin to become Vice President is like asking the grazing moose behind her trailer to pilot the shuttle.


National Organization of Women (NOW) Endorsed Pro-Women’s Rights ticket Obama / Biden for their outstanding works bettering the lives of women.

GOP REPUBLICANS ARE AUTHORITARIANS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH OR DEMOCRACY. GOP REPUBLICAN ONLY INTERESTS ARE IN POWER AND MONEY.

Posted by: GOP REPUBLICAN JOHN MCCAIN WALL STREET DEREGULATIONS | September 19, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Dear John McCain...


Given the events of the last week, are you still in favor of privatizing Social Security?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainsocial14-2008jul14,0,1786903.story


It is, after all, part of the 2008 Republican Platform. And back in 2005, you travelled the country with President Bush in order to try to sell Bush's privatization plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56913-2005Mar22.html


But at the moment, your answers seem to be a bit... muddled?


"Wall Street turmoil left John McCain scrambling to explain why the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remained strong. It also left him defending his support for privately investing Social Security money in the same markets that had tanked earlier in the week. [...]"

"[McCain] aides tried to soothe voters concerned about the bankruptcies, takeovers and bailouts on Wall Street by declaring McCain favored only the option of such accounts, just for younger workers, and most likely in a conservative investment vehicle such as bonds".

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gwHGMYappR5eiPj4JoZ8L-7YUacAD939UIJ00


Mmm-hmm. Just for the "young folks" -- and "trust us", we'd only do it in safe investments. You know, with big, reputable companies that wouldn't take insanely foolish risks in order to squeeze out an extra half-point of returns.


So let's talk about this, McCain: do you still think we should be putting people's retirement-savings-of-last-resort into Wall Street, or don't you? It sounds like some folks just think it's just a question of marketing...


Private accounts for Social Security are "always an easier sell when the markets are going up instead of going down," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's. "I don't think this is a good week to sell that one politically, but you're looking at the long term here. You're investing your retirement funds for 20 or 30 years down the road."


I'm dying to hear the answer (mavericky staight-talk?) to this one. Or answers, as the case may be.

Posted by: DrainYou | September 19, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I am pleased to see Senator Obama putting aside his economic plan in order to support the President, Treasury Secretary and Congress in the effort to get this wildly oscillating crisis under control. Good judgment is rare. He shows it consistently: first Iraq, now this. Today, we saw Bush and Paulson are handling this very well... and when Obama goes to the White House, there will be a continuity of rational purpose that should keep our savings intact and inflation damped down. Vote for the guy! We can't afford our home values going down for four more years.

Posted by: Jon404 | September 19, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

538 is showing the turn in the polls now.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

'Oh....let's just forget the whole thing, I guess we're all f**cked.

""According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything .."

Posted by: Jerry | September 19, 2008 5:26 PM"

Posted by: el buzz | September 19, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"Nothing in the Bible — in Revelation or elsewhere — describes the anti-Christ as being "a man, in his 40s, of Muslim descent." In fact, since the book of Revelation was complete by the end of the second century, but the religion of Islam wasn't founded until about four hundred years later, the notion that Revelation would have mentioned a "Muslim" at all is rather far-fetched. (And even if it did, it couldn't be construed as a reference to Barack Obama, since Senator Obama isn't a Muslim.)

The Biblical citation most relevant to this issue might not be one from Revelation, but rather this passage from the Gospel of Matthew:
Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/antichrist.asp

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Anything about Alaska, lipstick, or moose in there?

""According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything .."

Posted by: Jerry | September 19, 2008 5:26 PM"

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything .."

Posted by: Jerry | September 19, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

So spending even more money we don't have, increasing the deficit and devaluing the dollar even further is the answer.

Posted by: no_ussa | September 19, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

In case anyone hasn't noticed yet, "AsperGirl" is a shill sent over by Larry Johnson's anti-Obama Blog, "NO Quarter." She's just another PUMA who could care less about feminism and has been brainwashed with racism as they all are up there. Obama was not my first choice as Dem candidate, either. I preferred Kucinich. But I didn't turn into a whining baby about it. I got on with the campaign to help get my party into office.

Do not believe these PUMAs. They do not care about the issues, or they would support Obama as Hillary suggested, since Obama's positions are extremely close to hers. PUMAs are merely repuglicans playing a game (as usual) and are obviously misogynists because backing Palin means you are against womens' productive rights AND equal pay, period.

Sorry to burst your bubble, AsperGirl, but we all know what you are up to.

Posted by: maryvogt | September 19, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama, who lamented Friday that “we have not managed our federal budget with any kind of discipline,” is nonetheless promising to spend $50 billion on a United Nations anti-poverty program that critics say will drive up American debt.

“The short-term weakness in the capital market is a reflection of long-term problems that we have in our economy,” Obama told reporters in Florida. “We have been loading up enormous amounts of debt.”

Yet Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, have pledged tens of billions in new spending on a U.N. program that promises cash to poor countries. The program is one of eight sweeping “Millennium Development Goals” the U.N. adopted in 2000.

“Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal,” the candidates vow in their campaign platform.

Johns Hopkins professor Steve Hanke said such spending would merely drive up American debt, while doing almost nothing for the world’s poor.

“It goes down a bureaucratic rat-hole, lining the pockets of people who are connected to the power structure,” said Hanke, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “It’s basically a system to redistribute income from middle class people in the United States to rich people in poor countries. It never reaches those people who are living on a dollar a day.”

Hanke said such expenditures are especially unwise in the wake of significant expansions of government and spending during President Bush’s tenure.

“We’ve been spending like drunken sailors and making obligations into the future like drunken sailors,” he said. “We’re on an unsustainable path in terms of the fiscal situation in the United States because of massive spending growth and commitments.”

Obama said he wants to curtain at least one of those costly commitments.

“We have spent well over half a trillion dollars — soon to be a trillion dollars — on a war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraqis are now running surpluses,” the Illinois senator said Friday. “We’re still spending $10 billion a month there.”

But in December, Obama also sponsored the Global Poverty Act which, if passed, would require the president to commit to cutting global poverty in half by 2015. Critics say that would cost American taxpayers $845 billion.

Susan Rice, one of Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, says the U.S. should give 0.7 percent of its Gross Domestic Product to developing nations.

Posted by: McCainPalin08 | September 19, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Is there any evidence on this speech on the Senate floor during debate of Federal Housing Regulatory Act Of 2005???

I guess Democrat really wanted it happening for taking back the power.

Good luck America!


"... John McCain saw this collapse coming as far back as 2005 and not only warned of the coming collapse but co-sponsored legislation to try and prevent it and go after the corruption that was causing much of the problem. Following is McCain's speech on the Senate floor during debate of Federal Housing Regulatory Act Of 2005 urging the Senate to pass the Act which fell to defeat after being blocked by Senate Democrats:

'Mr. President, (referring to the Presiding Officer of the Senate) this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
"

Posted by: jy2008 | September 19, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

After years of Republican led deregulation (McCain, Phil Gramm), of promotion of greed and assertion of the superiority of the market, and in particular of financial makrets to decide how to run the economy, it appears - nay, make that: it is now blatantly, in your face, obvious - that none of this worked. Worse, the people that have mocked government throughout (Bush, Cheney, McCain) as wasteful, inefficient and incompetent are now counting on the very same government to bail them out from the hole they have dug.


They made out like bandits during the "boom" years of the boom-AND-bust cycle they brought about with their policy suggestions, looting the middle classes in the process and are now trying - may, make that "succeeding" - to not bear the consequences of the same policies.


They have no consistency, no shame and no scruples.


What do we need to do to ensure that we NEVER EVER LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE AGAIN?


"They" being the highly-paid ideologues funded by a few anti-tax billionaires (Grover Norquist etc) the politicians in their hock (Bush, McCain), the multi-millionaire pundit class that enjoys their company (all of the clowns at Fox "News", Rush Limpbaugh, Michelle Malkin etc etc etc) all the idiots that think they are also part of the "rich" that benefit from these policies, or will one day be, and all the heartless fools who think that the poor deserve their fate and that it's a good thing for them to let them remain that way in their community - or who don't think there is such thing as a community).


But there is a simple solution: punitive marginal tax rates on income. It worked after WW2, it will work now too.


Final thought:
If you vote for McCain, you're a moron...
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHsuL6FfY4
.

Posted by: As of today, I am a former Republican | September 19, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama supports Bush's plan to take from main street and give to Wall Street? Is he a closet Republican?

Posted by: bobte | September 19, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

You're an effing idiot & I already told you you're too stupid for me to waste time on.

End of transmission.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 4:32 PM

When a narcissistic, egotistical person like yourself says that they will ignore me, I have to give you the respect of saying I accept your surrender but I won't stop bringing you back to the point, Today it is that Phil Gramm is totally relevant because he led McCain into the morass and he still is influential in the McCain campaign. He still could be Sec Treasury, he is a good friend of McCain's.

Posted by: Ronnn | September 19, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

The problem with blaming which is what McCain and his advocate, Aspergirl, do is that things are more complicated then they appear. Many tried to blame John Kennedy and if they wanted might even found fault with Eisenhower, however Johnson enlarged the war and Nixon extended it. But those in congress continued to support the war

The question really is not who is to blame but what are you going to do. There Barack Obama is specific and extensive, just like a leader who knows what he wants. McCain is sketchy and focuses on attacks which are in many cases just a form of blame. He does not have a program and he does not know what he wants to do, H is not a leader and gets flappable and says silly things like "the fundamentals of the economy are strong."
Even with his poor performance in college I do not believe he is stupid. He is very uninformed and Paul Volcher, Warren Buffet and Robert Rubin are simply on a higher intellectual plain. All three of these men understand markets and I do not believe that Mr Gramm does.

That is why it is necessary for Aspergirl to quote Mr Boortz because he lnows that talking about this crisis is a loosing battle.

I apologize to all of the readers that read some of the venom I spouted. But if we are going to take back our country we are going to have to get in the face of those who want this plutocracy to continue.

To Aspergirl I say that you are a disgusting human being, even if other Obama supporters do not agree and I only hope that as you age that you find more value in life than just winning.

This is our country and we deserve to be in charge.

Posted by: Ronnn | September 19, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

the obama/bush plan is a recipe for disaster.

Posted by: john | September 19, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005

GovTrak- Senate Record

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

Quick Info
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status: DeadI join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation

Posted by: Scott | September 19, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"Phil Gramm often mentioned as the future Treasury Sec. You told us what you thought of Buffett. Albeit uninformed you revealed it. Tell us about Phil Gramm and further humiliate yourself."

Posted by: Ronnn | September 19, 2008 4:11 PM
::::::

Warren Buffett is out of touch... People argue...
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/50531/Has-Warren-Buffett-Lost-His-Magic-Touch?tickers=BRK-A,WFC,AXP,USB,MCO,XLF,SNY&comment_start=21

Gramm is irrelevant, McCain can't appoint him to Treasury even if he wanted to. Buffett is too old even if he weren't out of date in the new globalized investing landscape. There's an investor deathwatch out on him: i.e. people wonder whether to invest in Berkshire Hathaway because he might die before the 3-5 year time frame that would make it a safe investment.

You're an effing idiot & I already told you you're too stupid for me to waste time on.

End of transmission.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

'"We don't want bailouts of folks who've been taking bad decisions," he (Obama) said.'

Obama is making the same mistake Gore made by not realizing that the majority of people in the middle class (even "working class") are equity holders. Obama's antipathy to "investors" leaks through in every comment he makes on the subject.

Most people would agree that the Wall Streeters don't need a bailout, but anything the government can do to protect "average Americans'" equity should be encouraged, short of making everyone pick up the tab.

Also, why is it that everyone is interested in bailing out homeowners who had "been taking bad decisions" but not equity holders?

I don't really think we should be bailing anyone out, but politically I don't see where this attitude of Obama buys him anything.

Posted by: Paul | September 19, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

The fact that John McCain made a stupid remark about the SEC chairman yesterday speaks of how irritable he gets under fire. Advisers who do not understand about regulation, few details in his economic policy. Obama presents a comprehensive plan. Who do you want for president? A man who chooses Warren Buffett as one of his financial advisers or one who relies on Phil Gramm and quoted him in his campaign in Michigan. Phil Gramm, Aspergirl, called this a mental recession.

Phil Gramm often mentioned as the future Treasury Sec. You told us what you thought of Buffett. Albeit uninformed you revealed it. Tell us about Phil Gramm and further humiliate yourself.

Posted by: Ronnn | September 19, 2008 4:11 PM


Warren Buffett is out of touch? People argue...
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/50531/Has-Warren-Buffett-Lost-His-Magic-Touch?tickers=BRK-A,WFC,AXP,USB,MCO,XLF,SNY&comment_start=21

Gramm is irrelevant, McCain can't appoint him to Treasury even if he wanted to. Buffett is too old even if he weren't out of date in the new globalized investing landscape. There's an investor deathwatch out on him: i.e. people wonder whether to invest in Berkshire Hathaway because he might die before the 3-5 year time frame that would make it a safe investment.

You're an effing idiot & I already told you you're too stupid for me to waste time on.

End of transmission.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Mbruno | September 19, 2008 4:21 PM
"...while McCain has taken a harder line calling for an end to federal bailouts and tougher regulation of financial markets."

The problem however is McCain has been asking for the exact opposite for the last 25 years!! Its only within the last two days has he been singing the more regulation tune. I really hope people see though this lie.

Posted by: WhereIsTheTrickle? | September 19, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Finally we have a substantial disagreement between the two main presidential candidates that illustrate their different philosophies vis-a-vis the use of taxpayer money to assist failing private corporations. Obama is calling for new "rescue plans" funded most likely by tax increases, while McCain has taken a harder line calling for an end to federal bailouts and tougher regulation of financial markets. Both positions arguably have their pros and cons, but it is up to the voters to decide which one they would feel more comfortable with in the long run.

Posted by: Mbruno | September 19, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama's a genius,

He gets wasted, smokes, drinks, gets high, cocaine. you call it Public Organizing. And through $139 million at him.

I get wasted and high and thrown in the tank.

Legion up for the king!

Posted by: Brian | September 19, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama backs President Bush!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama's a guerrilla for the scrilla, after that money!

Rescoe Obama
Fanny & Freddy Obama,
Earmarks Obama
Aires Obama,
Wright Obama,
Obama gets the job done, collect that money!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Aaron | September 19, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Just like he has "300 foreign policy advisors"?

The fool runs around & networks & schmoozes but produces little of value.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:55 PM

Only a fool or a narcissist would accuse Obama of being a fool. In you case it is both. The Fact that he can organize his advisers to make him an effective advocate of his position says much about Obama's organizational skills.

The fact that John McCain made a stupid remark about the SEC chairman yesterday speaks of how irritable he gets under fire. Advisers who do not understand about regulation, few details in his economic policy. Obama presents a comprehensive plan. Who do you want for president? A man who chooses Warren Buffett as one of his financial advisers or one who relies on Phil Gramm and quoted him in his campaign in Michigan. Phil Gramm, Aspergirl, called this a mental recession.

Phil Gramm often mentioned as the future Treasury Sec. You told us what you thought of Buffett. Albeit uninformed you revealed it. Tell us about Phil Gramm and further humiliate yourself.

Posted by: Ronnn | September 19, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Brian,

"The total listed for Obama is $126,349 — a tiny fraction of the approximately $390 million his campaign has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The list shows McCain has received a total of $21,550 from Fannie and Freddie employees. The list includes donations of at least $200 from those who receive paychecks from Fannie and Freddie. It also includes donations from political action committees — pooled contributions from employees. Obama decided early in his presidential run not to accept PAC contributions, but the Center for Responsive Politics' list includes all contributions for members of Congress dating back to 1989 — including Obama and McCain's Senate campaigns.

The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/#more-19364

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is such a man for "giving back to the people", Why has he taken more in one year than McCain has in 30? Fanny and Freddy $400K, Rescoe - Home, Land and Money- Rescoe and Obama screwed the black Chicago resident. Ear marks???? Obama and Biden took 1 Billion last year, McCain HAS NEVER IN 30.

McCain is flawed, but Obama loves the money!!!

Posted by: Brian | September 19, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

As smart soldier, Obama is very barve in follow-up fighting.

As novice general, Obama is single-minded only on offense.

Hopefully, old Mcmain can cover his ass in real battle.

LOL

Posted by: jy2008 | September 19, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:47 PM

It's a bipartisan problem. Both parties are responsible. It requires bipartisan efforts to manage and intervene – OK Here I do agree with you. Well said

It seems like Obama's big contribution right now is to call for more Gov't funded programs, like "stimulus" and "rescues" – You only get half credit here. I agree in that Obama should NOT be talking about another stimulus package that really isn’t going to amount for anything at the home level, Come on, what’s $1000 check compared to the $50,000 I’ve lost in my house. But “rescue” is exactly what were offering to banks that are at fault, and if we bail them out by buying up these bad loans it rewards them for making bad decisions and taking on too much risk.

What I am suggesting is that if you bail out the banks you HAVE to bail out the homeowner too. Banks will be able borrow money based on their credit ratings, but the taxpayer who has bad credit because of these bad loans do not have that same luxury even though it’s the taxpayers money, that is fundamentally wrong. We're giving banks the opportunity to walk away from bad debt, we have to give that same kindness to the homebuyer.

Posted by: FreeMarketsAreNotFree | September 19, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Today's blog is one of the most thoughtful in memory. If all voters were as engaged as this I dare say it would not matter who was elected becuase the electorate was informed and engaged - the right formula for a good decision.

That said, has anyone else noticed the socialization of the GOP? Government take overs of private enterprise? That is something communists do.

Now I know why the republican states are RED states...

I want a balanced budget, safe borders, economic growth, personal responsibility, lower taxes - and people call me a LIBERAL!

Where did I lose the thread here?

BIG GOVERNMENT (biggest ever now)
HIGH SPENDING (huge)
HIGH TAXES - (what?) yes - the deficit is a TAX - just one my daughter will have to pay. I only pay the interest on it - 8% of the federal budget.

You would think GWB was a LIBERAL.

I am a TAX and SPEND LIBERAL under todays definition. I pay my taxes and the GOP spends my money LIBERALLY.

Posted by: NJTC | September 19, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

PALIN BACKED RON PAUL? http://www.veeppeek.com

YESTERDAY MORE CAME OUT ABOUT SARAH PALINS ALLEDGED AFFIAR. http://www.hotpres.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Two more Pinocchio's for the Raine's connection. That does it I am buying stock in Pinocchio's with McCain/Palin around there is a run on them.

"The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself--and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

His economic advisors are former treasury secretaries, fed chairmen, and WARREN BUFFET, one of the greatest investors in history, in the eyes of everybody.

A vote for Obama is a vote for the greatest minds around.

Posted by: alex | September 19, 2008 3:53 PM

Just like he has "300 foreign policy advisors"?

The fool runs around & networks & schmoozes but produces little of value.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

His economic advisors are former treasury secretaries, fed chairmen, and WARREN BUFFET, one of the greatest investors in history, in the eyes of everybody.

A vote for Obama is a vote for the greatest minds around.

Posted by: alex | September 19, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Keating 5. Anyone?

Posted by: Omidal | September 19, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

It was incredible to see Barack Obama stand up on the stage today with his economic advisors and not make politics out of the situation the current economic policies have gotten us into. He had announced that he was meeting with his economic advisors (includes Warren Buffett, Paul Volcker, and Robert Rubin) and would lay out his detailed plan. Volcker published the below article in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal and this was surely going to be the cornerstone of that plan. However, it became apparent that that treasury secretary Paulson and Fed chairman Bernanki had adopted much of what the Obama plan was going to be so Obama stood down. Announcing his plan would have been political and this is too important to the American people to allow our financial system to fail. Obama did the big thing and did not announce the details of his plan. Yesterday McCain did the little man thing and tried to scapegoat this on Chris Cox the head of the SEC (although McCain called it the FEC). On Monday McCain had said our financial system was basically sound by Wednesday he is trying to highjack Volcker’s plan and call it his own.

Please realize that this is the most dangerous economic times in our lifetime. We are in real danger of 1929 collapse of our banking system. Please read Volcker’s article. This resurrection of the Resolution Trust will give the markets time to find valuation in an orderly manner and prevent a crash. We are going to have to realize the government is capable of regulating markets to control greed. We also must pay our bills. We cannot spend money and not collect enough taxes to pay for all the programs (social and defense) that the majority of the citizens want.

Finally thank God we did not put the social security system into the market as Bush and McCain have proposed three years ago.

Posted by: bradcpa | September 19, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Ok so if I follow you you’re saying that DEMS helped opened the door but it took the negligence and greed of the GOP to actually make this mess. So I just have to ask why in the heck would we trust the GOP to fix it if they are the ones who created the practices and actions of the actual problem? To me, you’re blaming the bartender for the hangover.

Posted by: FreeMarketsAreNotFre

It's a bipartisan problem. Both parties are responsible. It requires bipartisan efforts to manage and intervene, which is seems like is happening right now.

McCain is basically right when he says that Congress is unable to manage things because of special interests. The many ways each party pandered to their own patrons and pet interests in Fannie, Freddie and Wall Street, is an example of a Congress unable to be responsible.

What is happening now is a bipartisan and un-partisan attack on the problem.

It seems like Obama's big contribution right now is to call for more Gov't funded programs, like "stimulus" and "rescues" -- when we can't add yet more expense to the most expensive bailout in history.

It's like Obama looks at all this mess and his first instinct is go go for some additional welfare-style spending. That's the wrong thing to do.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Politicalbuzz.com-

"Up in the air tonight is the exact role of scandalized former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines in the Obama campaign. Unearthing this long dormant potential thorn for the Dem nominee is a hard-hitting new McCain TV ad that makes the case that Raines is mortgage and housing advisor to Obama.

The source they use for this accusation is a July Washington Post profile of Raines where he said that the Obama campaign had actually called him seeking policy advice on mortgage and housing issues.

In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae’s chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case’s D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."
*************
WASHINGTON POST REALLY?

Posted by: Scott | September 19, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

This problem did not exist in the Clinton administration. The excessive risk was taken on when interest rates were very low which is during the Bush administration. i also am not so dishonst as to suggest that Bush is the only one who is complicit in the problem Greenspan's name should be in bold print. You are blowing smoke when you talk about Clinton. When Clinton was in office derivatives were not the problem they became during the Bush years.

You are not going to distract me because the question still is which adviser was better and would be better Gramm or Buffett?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 3:38 PM

The problems were created during the Clinton Administration and blossomed during the Bush years.

I've decided you are too stupid to argue with. Your Gramm v. Buffett question is stupid and simplistic and out of touch. And you can't follow the economic picture.

You're an uneducated Obama bot.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Wealth is relational and as a young self employeed generation X'er I am mad as hell they don't let these corporations and if so be it the economy fail.

I had a chance to own a home and a horrible mortgage but I did'nt go for it I knew it was bad.

If you trust a baby boomer and get screwed out of your money it is your own damn fault for trusting a baby boomer.

Bail outs won't fix the problem. Let them fail to many idiots, crooks, and fools with money. The only way for me to get mine is for the economy to fail.

The goverment needs to back off and let the free market go.

Posted by: ANGRY | September 19, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:26 PM
It wasn't just by creating "subprime" loans that the dems created this mess

Republicans in Congress, who love deregulation, were negligent to the monsters the Democrats created

Ok so if I follow you you’re saying that DEMS helped opened the door but it took the negligence and greed of the GOP to actually make this mess. So I just have to ask why in the heck would we trust the GOP to fix it if they are the ones who created the practices and actions of the actual problem? To me, you’re blaming the bartender for the hangover.

Posted by: FreeMarketsAreNotFree | September 19, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

This is the most expensive bailout in history.

Barack Obama is crazy if he thinks this is a great opportunity to throw more aid and welfare-in-drag at his base.

No "stimulus" and no "rescues".

He just can't shake his Robin-Hood mentality.

There is no way we should be printing any more money than we absolutely have to, right now.

Gold is tumbling because people are not afraid anymore and it's used as a "safe haven" stock.

After it's done with its short-term tumbling, I'm going to pick up some more. Why? Because with all the money printing, the dollar is going to slide like crazy.

We can't afford feel-good, unnecessary "rescues" and handouts right now. We can't keep throwing money at the losers in Obama's, taking it from those who perform and those who can't or won't perform.

As Jesus said, the poor will always be with us.

You can drive the treasury into bankruptcy throwing money and programs and handouts to losers without limitations.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

>>"More dribble. Basically you do not understand that the improper lending standards are only the tip of the iceberg. That financial derivatives and the improper use of leverage with adedaquate access to capital is the problem."

Look at the mid-section of my 3:21 p.m. post. It describes how the market and monetary schemes during the Clinton Administration, including sweeping finance and banking deregulation, and loose monetary policy, set up the finance system for corrupt abuses.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:28 PM

This problem did not exist in the Clinton administration. The excessive risk was taken on when interest rates were very low which is during the Bush administration. i also am not so dishonst as to suggest that Bush is the only one who is complicit in the problem Greenspan's name should be in bold print. You are blowing smoke when you talk about Clinton. When Clinton was in office derivatives were not the problem they became during the Bush years.

You are not going to distract me because the question still is which adviser was better and would be better Gramm or Buffett?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"You are quoting the "evil greedy capitalists" to argue against McCain!"

Well, I figured it takes one to know one.

If the "evil greedy capitalists" can't seem to get behind McCain why should anyone else?

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I am so tired of the racist crap...blaming this financial crisis on anti-redlining legislation is like blaming the person leaving the shower on for the Titanic sinking.

Funny how the Bush popularized term "ownership society" isn't heard anywhere anymore.

Posted by: capemh | September 19, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The question still remains, do you want Gramm or Buffett as the presidential adviser?

Posted by: Ronnn | September 19, 2008 3:32 PM

Neither Gramm nor Buffett are useful right now. Buffett is worse than Gramm, because many people can't see how he's past his relevance yet.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse


From the WSJ

"Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential."

"In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution. He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178318884054675.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

Posted by: nowanna1
:::::

You are quoting the "evil greedy capitalists" to argue against McCain!

What do you think the Wall Street Journal loves about Cox?

He was completely negligent to policing Wall Street. He was negligent and partisan. The state of New York via Elliot Spitzer and the NY Attorney General's office, was prosecuting securities fraud and misconduct.

The Bush Administration SEC has been used to inventively prosecute and undermine prominent liberal businesspeople like Martha Stewart, with stupid but headline-capturing innovative persecutions.

Cox, and the Bush Administration's SEC, have ignored Wall Street and used the office for partisan hack persecutions and were negligent to real abuses.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Apastergirl, deregulation just like this?

"'I'm Always for Less Regulation'
McCain's Economic Thinking"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120431596193503527.html?mod=Leader-US

If we take what you say about the Clintons, then this is more of the McSame.

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Kristi | September 19, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

HOME FINANCING WELFARE PROGRAMS: FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC
WERE CREATED DURING CLINTON YEARS BY DEMOCRATS

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:21 PM

Fannie Mae and Freddie make were created by the Johnson administration. They were allowed during the toxic years which correlate with the presidency of Bush by a Republican congress and Bush.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack are bad but they are not lethal. These derivatives are potentially lethal.

The one thing about the uninformed is they do not know how much they do not know, That is the advantage of a good education.

The question still remains, do you want Gramm or Buffett as the presidential adviser?

Posted by: Ronnn | September 19, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

>>"More dribble. Basically you do not understand that the improper lending standards are only the tip of the iceberg. That financial derivatives and the improper use of leverage with adedaquate access to capital is the problem."

Look at the mid-section of my 3:21 p.m. post. It describes how the market and monetary schemes during the Clinton Administration, including sweeping finance and banking deregulation, and loose monetary policy, set up the finance system for corrupt abuses.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

From the WSJ

"Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential."

"In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution. He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178318884054675.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Sorry I don’t buy it. I understand that there is pressure to lend to low income, but why set them up for failure and then blame them, and put them and their children on the hook for bailing out the banks that created these bad loans?

Why not give them loans they could afford? It goes back to lack of regulation. OK perhaps greed is a bit hard to quantify but where were the ethics or empathy? And if you say that there is no room for ethics or empathy in capitalism then why are the banks being bailed out…I sure as heck don’t care about them.

If you want security for your money, use that bail out money to back the FDIC and watch people pull their money out of the market and put them into BANKS that didn’t get involved in this mess.

Posted by: FreeMarketsAreNotFree | September 19, 2008 3:17 PM
::::::::::::
It wasn't just by creating "subprime" loans that the dems created this mess

It was the democrats who created Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac & blocked regulation and control over them. Even as late as 2005, McCain tried to push regulation of Fannie, warning of collapse:

Don't depend on the Obama-pushing mainstream media for your information. McCain pushed legislation in 2005 for regulating the mortgage & finance activities that were getting out of control.

John McCain Warned Of Mortgage Collapse In 2005
By Ken Taylor - Posted on September 17th, 2008

"... John McCain saw this collapse coming as far back as 2005 and not only warned of the coming collapse but co-sponsored legislation to try and prevent it and go after the corruption that was causing much of the problem. Following is McCain's speech on the Senate floor during debate of Federal Housing Regulatory Act Of 2005 urging the Senate to pass the Act which fell to defeat after being blocked by Senate Democrats:

'Mr. President, (referring to the Presiding Officer of the Senate) this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

'The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets.

'The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac. The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005.

'These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform. For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs—and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns.

'In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

'I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.'

Senate Democrats blocked the passage of the Bill and while it passed in the House it failed in the Senate because of the Democrats.

more at: http://theminorityreportblog.com/blog_entry/ken_taylor/2008/09/17/john_mccain_warned_of_mortgage_collapse_in_2005

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are democrat creations, by the way, riddled by democrats. Obama's organization itself is riddled with Fannie Mae executives.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

subprime loans" started as race-based affirmative action for housing.
AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:11 PM

More dribble. Basically you do not understand that the improper lending standards are only the tip of the iceberg. That financial derivatives and the improper use of leverage with adedaquate access to capital is the problem.

You ignorance about the subject is comparable to McCain's and Gramm's. You are making my case.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Ok, so wait till someone comes out with a plan, agree with it as if it was your idea, and then ask for the government to come up with even more money to give back to people.. and all of it will be funded by taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what a moron.. the guy doesn't even know what the bible says.. this country was founded on truth, not hidden practices and inflated $. people should have know that a building was built by $ and never really increases in value.. not like the internet boom. Its not like a house you bought in 1994, which costs 130,000 was worth 250,000 because demand is high, but then when people speculate its like playing with fake $. So when people realize that a dollar is still worth a dollar, but we over filled the market with more paper money, but don't have the gold to back it up, that didn't people realize that their home was still worth 130,000? Come on America.. get your head of your butt and open your eyes.. thank God he directed me to move my funds 3 months ago.. since the facts tell no lies that Washington and Corporate america is not that smart with money.. they are same people to make you want Coke and Sprite because everyone is doing it.... and hopefully no one notices how big the balloon gets.. before they all were taken for a ride and popped, just like Internet companies.. worth more millions, but some shmow built in in the computer for a couple of thousand.. yet were is the return, only in speculation that the idea will somehow be big, but it was so stupid to begin with.. people just think they can make money so easy. Jesus said, woah is the Gambler.. who builds his house on sand, and not on solid Rock. Ie : sound finance!!!!!!!!!!! Hello.. Jesus knew people would do such foolishness.. it was written down 2000 years ago. Better wake up, because Obama is for European Union and wishy washy politics, while never actually doing anything himself. We all struggle with that.. but sound companies do not just give the hard jobs to someone without experience, why should america do the same with a president?????????

Posted by: Obama is smart, Not! | September 19, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

THIS MESS WAS STARTED BY DEMS IN THE CLINTON YEARS,
MADE WORSE BY BUSH'S NEGLIGENCE & FEDERAL DEFICITS
BUT CREATED AND FOSTERED ALONG BY DEMOCRATS

THE BIRTH OF THE "SUBPRIME MORTGAGE" FOR
RACE-BASED FINANCIAL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

"...Twenty years ago the buzz-word in the media was “redlining.” Newspapers across the country were filled with hard-hitting investigative reports about evil and racist mortgage lenders refusing to make real estate loans to various minorities and to applicants who lived in lower-income neighborhoods... Frankly, the claims that evil mortgage lenders were systematically denying loans to blacks and other minorities were a lot sexier on the radio than my claims that when credit histories, job stability, loan-to-value ratios and income levels were considered there was no evident racial discrimination.

"...Washington made it clear to banks and other lending institutions that if they did not do something .. and fast .. to bring more minorities and low-income Americans into the world of home ownership there would be a heavy price to pay. Congress set up processes (Research the Community Redevelopment Act) whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank’s efforts to grow if that bank didn’t make loans to unqualified borrowers. Enter, stage left, the “subprime” mortgage..."

The Rest of the Meltdown Story
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_rest_of_the_meltdown_story.html

CLINTON'S INVESTMENT BANKING & COMMODITY TRADING DEREGULATION, LOOSE MONETARY POLICY

Rob Reich on MSNBC 09/16:

"In the latter years of the Clinton administration -- when I was not there any longer, I should add -- there was an attempt by Alan Greenspan and Bob Rubin and a few others to deregulate financial markets, and they did.  They split commercial banking off from investment banking.  And many people say, "Well, that was the beginning of the problem," and then, of course, in 2003-2004, Alan Greenspan reduced short-term interest rates to the point where every single bank wanted to lend money.  I mean, if you could stand up straight you could get a bank loan because there was so much pressure to get that money out the door.  Money was so cheap.  So, yes, there is some responsibility on Democrats, some responsibility on Alan Greenspan and the Fed."

The bloat of the financial sector started during the Clinton years with his sweeping deregulation of the commodity trading and banking-and-finance sectors that made things like the Enron energy trading abuses and the current investment bank expansion into conflicting business areas possible. Alan Greenspan's print-money-to-drive-growth inflationary monetary expansion policies also started during the Clinton Administration. THIS IS THE GREENSPAN-RUBIN-GRAMM REGIME OF ILLUSORY GROWTH. It brought us Enron, and the tech stock bubble which after it burst morphed into the real estate bubble.

In essence, Clinton abandoned Rob Reich's labor-and-strong-infrastructure approach to building a strong economy and he went with Bob Rubin's finance-and-money-policy-gimmicks to inflate the economy via a fat financial sector. These gimmicks created an illusion of growth during the Clinton Administration that became the tech stock bubble, which, after it burst at the start of the Bush Administration, morphed into the real estate bubble supported by mortgage-backed derivative products, risk-concealment, and fake valuation that the Clinton deregulation of investment banks made possible.

FEEDING THE MONSTER: "LIQUIDITY BUBBLE" OF SPECULATIVE MONEY WAS OUR FOREIGN OIL $$$ COMING BACK TO US

The bloat has moreover been fed by the large amount of money we've been sending abroad to buy foreign oil -- massive amounts in the hundreds of billions a year, that has been coming back to us in the form of sovereign wealth funds and international hedge funds plowing LOTS of speculation money into these mortgage-backed securities, commodity future index funds and other investment schemes, driving up a real estate bubble & other asset inflation. The massive spending on foreign oil, mostly on credit, has created a huge "liquidity bubble" that fed the financial sector bloat. Well, even though we are still sending money abroad, the international interest in buying our credit-backed derivatives and other investment schemes has evaporated. With the loss of liquidity, asset values that were inflated, like stock and home prices, are falling back to earth.

The Democrats are still blocking domestic oil exploration & drilling, clean coal, natural gas & oil extraction technologies and nuclear power, using environmental and technical arguments that are decades out of date.

HOME FINANCING WELFARE PROGRAMS: FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC
WERE CREATED DURING CLINTON YEARS BY DEMOCRATS

Fannie and Freddie's lax lending were creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton Administration, intended to make mortgages available to more people who couldn't qualify easily to buy their own homes.

Fannie and Freddie have also been feeding troughs for Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

"Obama is the largest individual recipient [of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donations] at about $112,000, federal campaign finance reports show...Republican nominee John McCain has taken $16,400 from Freddie and Fannie employees since 2005."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-trailmoney9-2008sep09,0,1969729.story

BUSH MAKES IT WORSE: NEGLIGENCE TO CORRUPT ABUSES, HUGE DEFICIT

Republicans aren't blameless: Bush inherited and continued these money-supply-and-banking-gimmick-growth policies, and, moreover, Bush contributed more inflationary and budgetary problems on top by driving the federal deficit to massive, historic levels and completely ignoring the corrupt and greedy excesses and abuses of the financial sector as the abuses took place. Republicans in Congress, who love deregulation, were negligent to the monsters the Democrats created. But they didn't create these monsters.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Barack & Michelle Obama, two fine lawyers, couldn't buy their own home without the assistance of a felon.

Now, some here want to elevate Barack's knowledge of finance and economics and pretend that he's ready to run this country.

Question: are you people from this planet?

m

Posted by: Michael | September 19, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The Repubs are hilarious. If Obama does not present the details of his proposals you attack him for not being specific. If he does present his ideas, you attack him for undercutting bipartisan efforts to solve the crisis.

The best way to judge leadership is to compare Obama's measured approach with McCain hysterical flip-flopping about for the last week. McCain is the last man anyone one should want in a crisis.

Posted by: bgjd1979 | September 19, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Warren Buffett is an old hack who has lost credibility within the investing world except for his groupies.

Warren Buffett is the second richest man in the country and gives away more than you are worth both as ahuman being and as an earner. You represent the politics of lies and I for one will not ignore you.

Again Aspergirl who will rational people want advising thei president Buffett who saw it coming or Gramm who tried to stop people who wanted to avoid it.

You and McCain only understand things after its a crisis. You would not understand how to choose a leader because you think that john McCain shouting contradictory remarks is showing leadership.

Posted by: Ronnn | September 19, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:01 PM THE BIRTH OF THE "SUBPRIME MORTGAGE" FOR RACE-BASED
FINANCIAL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IMPOSED ON BANKS

The Rest of the Meltdown Story
By Neal Boortz

Sorry I don’t buy it. I understand that there is pressure to lend to low income, but why set them up for failure and then blame them, and put them and their children on the hook for bailing out the banks that created these bad loans?

Why not give them loans they could afford? It goes back to lack of regulation. OK perhaps greed is a bit hard to quantify but where were the ethics or empathy? And if you say that there is no room for ethics or empathy in capitalism then why are the banks being bailed out…I sure as heck don’t care about them.

If you want security for your money, use that bail out money to back the FDIC and watch people pull their money out of the market and put them into BANKS that didn’t get involved in this mess.

Posted by: FreeMarketsAreNotFree | September 19, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

I guess obama missed the news that steps are being taken, and the panic is starting to settle. Oh yeah, and I'll suggest another stimulus, so all the people will think I'm the answer to all their problems. Throw them a $500 check and all the sheep will follow.

Posted by: JL | September 19, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

The guy is a complete lunatic. I'm talking about McPalin. One day he is talking about bailing out companies. Second day he is talking about not rescuing them. And Next day He is talking about more Regulations for the industry that he is actually deregulate in the '80. Remember Keating Five. We need a leader with a calm thinking head on his shoulder, not one who vacillates. We do not need a bobble head.

Posted by: Omidal | September 19, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Libraman, people like you are exactly why I am voting for Obama, thank you for helping confirm my decision.

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA BLAMES BUSH ADMIN. FOR ECONOMIC WOES...

THEN SAYS "LET HANK AND BEN HANDLE IT."

A STRATEGIC BLUNDER?


Is Obama ceding the economy issue to Paulson and Bernanke? Instead of urging the Democratic Congress to delay their adjournment and act as a full partner in forging new economic policies, Obama seems to be saying that it's a Hank-and-Ben show for the short-term.

That was a strategic error. Instead, he should have said that the Dems must act as the vigilant watchdogs, and must demand a seat at the table right now. They do hold the majority in Congress; why are they content to take a back seat and leave the driving to the people they've blamed for tanking the economy in the first place?

Also, Obama should have signaled his concern about the root causes of the crisis... and whether an unquestioning rubber-stamp of the administration's emergency legislation will help further a hidden agenda that could endanger democracy:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis

OR BOOKMARK

http://members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener | September 19, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"subprime loans" started as race-based affirmative action for housing.

The U.S. taxpayer is already doing enough to support losers and throw support at those who can't keep their own payments up, once given these loans.

Taking money from winners to give to relentless, chronic losers only evaporates big chunks of wealth.

It's time to put a stop to how much we funnel houses, loans, money, taxes to those who won't take care of themselves. How many trillions of dollars do we throw at those people who aren't even respectful enough of themselves to support themselves and pay their loans?

These massive bailouts are an unreasonable, indirect form of welfare.

Banks should never have been required to make subprime loans. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are democratic creations and democrat-ruled quasi-government-private entities that ran us into a disaster.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"Say Anything McCain" is at it again. so what and who is he today? A Populist? A Conservative? A Democrat? A Maverick? One day he's against something, the next day for it.

What does this guy stand for except appeasing everyone to get elected.

John McCain is a sell-out.

Posted by: sue | September 19, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

THE BIRTH OF THE "SUBPRIME MORTGAGE" FOR RACE-BASED
FINANCIAL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IMPOSED ON BANKS

The Rest of the Meltdown Story
By Neal Boortz

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:01 PM

Aspergirl uses Neil Boortz as his expert. I use Warren Buffett.
Who do you think is more informed me or Aspergirl.

My experience of his expert is that his only outstanding characteristic is his incivility. If you quote mr Boortz why not quote another mortgage expert Sarah Palin?

Posted by: Ronnn | September 19, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Aspergirl- No reason, all racism, all the time

Posted by: Anon | September 19, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

A Muslim Father

A Marxist Mother

A Racist Pastor

A Terrorist Friend

A Jailed Realtor

A Racist Wife

Did Drugs

Sold Drugs


And you are looking at the issues this guy is presenting???


What about his character???

His judgement.

His choice of friends.

My God you people are so blind to all of this.

If he was my daughters husband I would seriously be worried for my daughter.

I wouldn't let my kids hang with someone like him.

Racists, criminals, shady people.

These are people we stay away from and all of you creaming in your pants over him.

You should all be ashamed.

This is not someone I want my kids to look up to.

If his name was Barrack Hussain Obama as it is but he was olive skinned, would you still be voting for him???

I don't think so.

Wake up people and smell the manure.

It's not the issues, it's the man.

Obama is not the man to be president.

This has become a joke.

This is not about two great men running for office.

There is only one.

Yes McCain is old but Obama is not president material.

I don't pretend that I will convince you people but please, it's not the issues...Look at the person that Obama is and where he comes from and who he hangs with.

His story is not an impressive one to me. The impressive ones are the ones who are the single mothers who have 3 kids and work everyday to make a better life for their children and put them in school and keep them safe and are out there on the streets trying to keep their neighborhoods safe by standing up to the gangs everyday. That is the southside of Chicago today...that is where the heroes are today that is not where Obama is today. Obama has left his flooded city, he is not even from here so he doesn't understand. He has adopted this city only as a stepping stone for he own sake and step on us he did.

Please I will not argue with you but I will beg of you...those first few lines at the beginning of this post say alot about Obama and that is all I need to say no. Democrat or Republican...shouldn't matter, we are all Americans and at a time like this we should be voting for the person, the team that we can give us a better tomorrow and to me there is only one choice...McCain/Palin!!!

Posted by: Libraman | September 19, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"Obama offers a qualified endorsement of the efforts by Bush."

Obama = Bush 3rd term

Posted by: info | September 19, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

This will save a lot of time on election night in TX.

"Bob Barr Files Suit in Texas to Remove McCain, Obama from Ballot"

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/133/bob-barr-files-suit-in-texas-to-remove-mccain-obama-from-ballot/

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 19, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Stacey Hill | September 19, 2008 2:47 PM

Stacy this crisis is not over. We may not hear about it before January but it is still unwinding.The market may rise quite a bit between now and the election but it is not an all clear.

A John McCain victory may spell the end of the economic power house of the US. McCain is still the front for Wall Street lobbyists. They will have him save their skin rather than the country's. John McCain is too uninformed to even realize that that is what he was doing until the crisis to the country hit him between the eyes.

We need Barack Obama for the preservation of this country. The next two years are not going to be pleasant and the Republican party when Palin was nominated said that they think the politics of destruction still works.

Geo Bush has lowered us down the well. McCain will plunge us to the bottom and he will do it with the best of intentions. He just travels with a group who do not understand the consequences of their actions.

This will be a pretty sorry place after four years of McCain or God forbid Palin who even lacks the humanity of McCain.

Posted by: Ronnn | September 19, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"Where is the relief for the suckers that took out the toxic mortgages?"

The origins of the "subprime" mess is trying to get people who can't pay into houses. Liberals accused banks of being racist for not getting more low-income and ghetto people into homes, so banks were forced to take a class of loans that were "subprime".

The people who don't earn, don't pay bills and can't carry obligations shouldn't stay in their loans. This is just another form of charity forced on taxpayers.

THE BIRTH OF THE "SUBPRIME MORTGAGE" FOR RACE-BASED
FINANCIAL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IMPOSED ON BANKS

The Rest of the Meltdown Story
By Neal Boortz

"The political class would sure love for us to believe that the blame here rests squarely on “greedy” (try to define that word) mortgage brokers and lenders. The truth is that most of the blame rests on political meddling in the credit decisions of these mortgage lenders.

"Twenty years ago the buzz-word in the media was “redlining.” Newspapers across the country were filled with hard-hitting investigative reports about evil and racist mortgage lenders refusing to make real estate loans to various minorities and to applicants who lived in lower-income neighborhoods... Frankly, the claims that evil mortgage lenders were systematically denying loans to blacks and other minorities were a lot sexier on the radio than my claims that when credit histories, job stability, loan-to-value ratios and income levels were considered there was no evident racial discrimination.

"Political correctness won the day. Washington made it clear to banks and other lending institutions that if they did not do something .. and fast .. to bring more minorities and low-income Americans into the world of home ownership there would be a heavy price to pay. Congress set up processes (Research the Community Redevelopment Act) whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank’s efforts to grow if that bank didn’t make loans to unqualified borrowers. Enter, stage left, the “subprime” mortgage...

"These garbage loans to unqualified borrowers were then bundled up and sold. The expectation was that the loans would be eventually paid off when rising home values led some borrowers to access their equity through re-financing and others to sell and move on up the ladder. Oops.

"Right now this crisis is being sold to the American public by the left as evidence the failure of the free market and capitalism. Not so. What we’re seeing is the inevitable result of political interference in free market economics. Acme bank didn’t want to loan money to Joe Homebuyer because Joe had a spotty job history, owed too much money on his credit cards, and wasn’t all that good at making payments on time. The politicians told Acme Bank to figure out a way to make that loan, because, after all, Joe is a bona-fide minority-American, or forget about opening that new branch office on the Southside. The loan was made under politicial pressure; the loan, with millions like it, failed – and now we are left to enjoy today’s headlines."

more at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_rest_of_the_meltdown_story.html

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Aspergirl, What is this Jeremiah Wright business? Honey don't you know that story is so old. Just another desperate and scared Republican trying to use old news to make a point because they have nothing valid to say about their candidate whom they refuse to see the writing that is on the wall. It is time for a change . Sarah Palin and John McCain is not it. Yes didn't you hear Sarah Palin? It is the Palin-McCain ticket. She wants to run the show. Well girlfriend can hardly keep things straight in Alaska how can we expect her to run the country. Obama has a Law degree, and she has degree in what Journalism. How many colleges did she have to go to in order to get that? And she is ready to run the country. I don't think so!

Posted by: bjlopez1130 | September 19, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama caught himself again and looks more presidential by not putting forth a plan. This will take a bipartisan plan and effort.
I hope we can get McCain over 800,000 at the real-time poll at http://www.boppoll.com.

Posted by: RStone | September 19, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"The issue s the economy not this nonsense. You need to change the subject because it is a battle between Warren Buffett and Phil Gramm."

Warren Buffett is an old hack who has lost credibility within the investing world except for his groupies. He's been out of touch and irrelevant for years, investing heavily in soft drinks and candy when increasing carbohydrate consumption is a yesteryear trend. He stayed in insurance for way too long, and has lost a lot of money for his investors. Buffett is an old-economy guy.

Just like Gramm is an old-economy guy.

They are both dinosaurs who are out of touch with the fast-moving new globalized world of investing.

The most Buffett is good for now is it feels good to listen to him, like an old sage. But people stopped listening to him a while back. This year, it's become more and more obvious he's doddering.

This whole article is a joke. Obama's economic statement is basically another way to say "present". I.e. he says nothing really.

The unspecific call for stimulus, etc. is pathetic. Nothing Congress isn't already talking about this week. Obama's only very cautiously saying nothing, or advancing a small set of the safest populist ideas.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Where is the relief for the suckers that took out the toxic mortgages? There are three sides at fault here, first and foremost the deregulators (like McCain) secondly greedy lenders and thirdly uneducated or misinformed borrowers; it appears the deregulators have sided with the lenders.

I haven’t heard one word about letting Joe homeowner off the hook. What about allowing the homeowners who can’t afford their homes anymore to sell their homes to the govt. to cover their mortgages? Or a voluntary deed in lieu for people who just want to walk away from a bad investment. How about a mandatory loan restructuring at current foreclosure market values and low FIXED rate for every ARM/IO out there?

Banks will get favorable credit ratings because of this bail out, how about taking late payments, foreclosures, and resulting bankruptcies off the American consumers credit rating? How bout a little help for the family here not for the frickin banks who caused this. If the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for the next 50 years on this bailout shouldn’t we get some short term help too?

Posted by: FreeMarketsAreNotFree | September 19, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"AsperGirl: So richness = merit & poorness = laziness? That's awfully simplistic don't you think?"

It's not simplistic. Merit plus achievement brings reward. That's the simple scientific dynamic of capitalism. Those who have but didn't earn what they have, are a vast minority in this country.

The "redistribution of wealth" meme implies wealth resides in a particular class and you are taking it from one pile and redistributing it.

But in reality the taxation ideas spouted by Obama and Biden simply reduce to taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who do not, and talking as if this is some redress of social injustice.

There is no reason why someone like myself, and my family, has to be forced to support Obama's base.

And you may laugh at and talk down to rural, southern or red state whites, but they don't need you to support them in the way you expect those "low information voters" to support you.

Within one day of the Hurricane Ike storm surge many streets were passable because people cleared their own storm drains and took out chain saws and cut up fallen trees and hauling debris away. While this is not to say that New Orleans people could have pumped out their under sea-level streets themselves and fixed the levees themselves, the Texas hurricane victims weren't preying on each other, looting, killing and victimizing. And the days and weeks where people were starving and dying while able-bodied people and boats were everywhere!

The whole entitlement, pay-me, support-me and I'm-helpless mentality of the left-wing ideology sees nothing wrong with taking money away from those who make it and giving it to those (able-bodied) who do not, and calling that "social justice". It's penalizing the merit and motivation of those who do, to support losers.

Education programs, yes, training programs, yes, but "redistribution of wealth" = "social justice", no

It is NOT "patriotic" for winners to have to support losers because the losers are losers.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse


WHY DIDN'T OBAMA JUST PICK HILLARY? WAS IT THE 
NARCISSISM OR A MOMMY PROBLEM? (MAYBE BOTH?)
A LOOK AT OBAMA'S MOMMA'S PERSONAL PROBLEMS
AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 2:34 PM

The issue s the economy not this nonsense. You need to change the subject because it is a battle between Warren Buffett and Phil Gramm.

On one side a man who knows and uses derivatives effectively and on the other a shill for the banking industry who knew nothing about markets, derivatives or risk. Where I in John McCain's position I would be changing the subject also.

Posted by: Ronnn | September 19, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Palin used to be a dude.

Posted by: mudfoot | September 19, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

In a twisted sort of way I almost want McCain to win this election because four more years worth of failed Bush/McCain policies would for all intents and purposes be the end of the Republican party as we know it today. They would become the 4th party gadflies that they deserve to be.


The only question is, would this country survive it?


All of you people out there who live in economic downtrodden states like Ohio, Pa and Michigan etc, if you're stupid enough to vote for four more years of disasterous Bush/McCain policies then you will deserve every bit of economic hardship that a "President McCain" would give you.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxT0s_I5WtA
.

Posted by: Stacey Hill | September 19, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

On days like this, one really gets a sense for the vast gulf of difference between the two candidates.

Posted by: zukermand | September 19, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Warren Buffett spoke about the mounting problem with derivatives like the one’s AIG was using during the time of Bush’s first term. Buffett is in insurance and uses them to manage risk but he stated that they were being used to add risk. He warned of an impending crisis.

In 2006 Obama raised his voice against the rising risk when he called for increased regulation. Obama uses Buffett for advice now, although I don’t know about 2006. Where was John McCain in 2006? Along side Phil Gramm talking about how markets correct themselves and deregulation is what is needed. They did not understand the risk of derivatives.

Anyone who knows anything about markets knows that they are orderly when they are following the trend. But at tops and particularly bottoms they are disorderly and regulate nothing because they are irrational.

Neither Phil Gramm nor Warren Buffet is a left wing economist. Who do you want advising your president?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

My mistake. These childish rants can't be from the real AsperGirl. Her stuff actually used words with meaning. This must be the work of an under-educated imposter.

Posted by: We're Watching | September 19, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey Aspergirl, Why not go get yourself some therapy? It is obvious that you are projecting your own narcissism and self hate onto Obama and Obama's mother. Pathetic. Oh..my violin is playing for you...you poor victimized voter. Your projections are so obvious they are pathetic. In "retaliation" you are going to vote for McSame. Go ahead...we don't need your vote. Healthy women know that Hillary is supporting Obama and they have chosen to use their intelligence in making their choice and not acting out of their repressed emotions.

Posted by: ProudLiberal | September 19, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

The social status of women in the narratives of Trinity Church:

REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT ON HILLARY CLINTON: SHE AIN'T NEVER BEEN CALLED A NIGGA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ-3VG3ush0&feature=related
TOP 20 REV. WRIGHT COMMENTS YOU NEVER SAW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3wh2XT4e8M&feature=related

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

jacquelyn kidd:
Your right it was Bill Clinton where it first started in 1997! Only Liberals want to give everyone house, Who ran Freddy Mac Fanny Mae Liberals, who tried to pass a bill to change Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and predicted this DIASTER in 2005? John McCain, what did Obama do? NOTHING I think he voted present! I will leave the web site of the bill in full. Obama Biden are a joke!!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190

Posted by: dcsdcs222000 | September 19, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

AsperGirl: So richness = merit & poorness = laziness? That's awfully simplistic don't you think? It works out great for the wealthy when working-class people buy into this line of reasoning because then we blame ourselves and others for being poor. Taxes buy civilization and should be paid for by those most able to afford them.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hey AsperGirl, no one listens to you anymore after you ripped your panties attacking Obama because of your dislike for men in general and black men in particular.

Some of us have been reading and laughing at your posts since January 2008 and realize they are filled with anger, hate and misinformation. Your anything goes rants didn't help Miss Hillary and they won't help old man McCain and his underling in lipstick. Take your meds and hang it up!

Posted by: We're Still Watching | September 19, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

BELOW: OBAMA DEMS' BEHIND-THE-SCENES HO-BASHING.
THE SEXUAL BELITTLING OF WOMEN ON DAILYKOS
PERVERTED LOSERS, SEXUALLY INFANTILE, BASHING WOMEN

::::::::

HERE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PALIN LIKE SHE'S A HO

 headline: Palin chges equation Palin = spit take (3+ / 0-)
by henry dribble on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:22:26 PM PDT

::::::::

ALSO, ACCORDING TO DAILYKOS, PALIN'S A MILK MACHINE

 Palin on the campaign trail (0+ / 0-)
The selection of Sarah Palin as vice-presidential running-mate gives a whole new meaning to the term 'Family Values'. Maybe Sarah can be equipped with a little breast-pump-necklace she can use on the campaign trail when her feeding-modules begin to leak. 
Very shortly, we understand, Trig's nutritional requirements can be fulfilled by sister Bristol, while mommie is out dowsing for votes, but Sarah will still need the pump - - at least until she quits lactating.
by SGaston on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 06:39:33 AM PDT

::::::::

HERE THE GAY KOSSACK PEDOPHILES JOIN THE PERV-FEST!

 Drill Baby Drill - Palin Daughter's Boyfriend!!! (0+ / 0-)
Let me drill baby, let me drill! LOL
by PunditHater on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 07:16:12 PM PDT

::::::::

THE CONSENSUS THERE NOW IS THAT HILLARY'S PRESENCE IN THE PARTY IN THE FUTURE MAY BE TOLERATED IF SHE BECOMES OBAMA'S ATTACK DOG

 Yeah, nothing like a Sarah Palin out there to (16+ / 0-)
make you think Hillary doesn't suck as much as you thought, and we should probably welcome her back into the fold a little, if only to block the Palins of the world.
by voracious on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:35:56 PM PDT

 Sarah Palin Is A Job (0+ / 0-)
for Hillary Clinton.
by IrascibleFachna on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 10:04:45 PM PDT

::::::::

YOU SHOULD SEE THE PATHOLOGICAL STUFF THAT GOES ON OVER AT DAILYKOS IN THE "HIDDEN" THREADS THE PUBLIC CAN'T READ! LOTS OF WEIRD SICKO FANATICS OVER THERE!

OBAMA SUPPORTERS ARE BELITTLING MISOGYNISTS - POLITICS AT THE LEVEL OF A GHETTO HIP HOP VIDEO!

THEY STILL LAUGH & JEER AT THE SUGGESTION THAT OBAMA MIGHT HAVE STOOPED TO MAKING CLINTON HIS VP!

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Give me a cute young Democratic Party flipflopper anyday over an old wrinkled GOP flipflopper.

Posted by: Idahotreasures | September 19, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

WHY DIDN'T OBAMA JUST PICK HILLARY? WAS IT THE 
NARCISSISM OR A MOMMY PROBLEM? (MAYBE BOTH?)
A LOOK AT OBAMA'S MOMMA'S PERSONAL PROBLEMS

Obama's momma seems to have had at least some traits of a dependent personality disorder, which tends to be a complementary, coincident problem in families in which narcissism occurs.

In the Muslim world, there is a thing such as "temporary marriages". Men can even take "temporary" wives when they already have wives and families. This activity is legal under Sharia law, and the woman aren't respected but they aren't punished. The men usually pay them and the women are usually poor but pretty and have no prospects in life.

For an American woman to serve as a "temporary wife" and "second wife" to Third World Muslim men, who don't even give her money and support, but just use the brief marriage without any traditional settlement for her, was the cultural equivalent of her being a valueless, unclean woman. I.e., in a cultural sense, Obama's momma served her Third World Muslim men as an unrespectable pump-and-dump without value. The fact that a couple of these Muslim pump-and-dumps comprises Obama's mother's adult married life, is dysfunctional. Obama's mother was, in my opinion as a woman, a sexually desperate loser. But what does that imply for a kid raised in a Muslim culture for at least part of his childhood, and how he relates to a mother who would have been executed for her behavior if she were not American?

I think that Obama both lacks respect for the white "culture" of his childhood and longs for identity as a man, because of his mother's codependent and powerless relationships with her Muslim men. I think that Obama probably has mommy issues with older white women having power or influence over him, or dependence on him.

It's unsurprising Obama has sought to find a culture and identity in a harsh, black radical Church that cauterizes and rejects corrupt white culture. I think that his finding his identity in that Trinity Church is real, not pretense, just as I don't think it was extraordinarily difficult for him to take the step to repudiate the father figure that Rev. Wright has become in his life.

To be more specific, the narrative of Obama's father in his autobiographies is romanticized and fictionionalized. Obama's mother wasn't taken advantage of by some black man who left her with a child, but she was complicit in a degrading second-wife marriage and was a serial temporary wife to two Third World Muslim men, had kids and were dumped by them. Obama's father was her first such codependent relationship, her first "temporary [Muslim] husband". Instead of how Obama portrayed him, his father was an alcoholic, polygamous, womanizing Kenyan ethnically Arab Muslim (failed) communist who was already married when he got Obama's then-17-year-old mother pregnant. Obama's mother wasn't underprivileged and he wasn't disadvantaged but went to private schools when his grandmother took over his care after his mother sent him back from Indonesia when her second husband, his stepfather, was uninterested in him.

Barack Obama clearly has middle-age white woman problems. His refusal to even consider Hillary Clinton as his VP when it was his most obvious and possibly his only real path to winning the election, speaks of some kind self-defeating, self-sabotaging personal issue.

Look at how Obama pays only .83 cents on the dollar to the women who work for him (mostly because he has men in senior positions).

How Team Obama Pays Women
By Deroy Murdock
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmEzMTZmNTk5MDI0NTZmNjUwMjllN2ZlZTc0MWFmYzY=

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the right choice for president because he is smart. He's smarter than McCain. It doesn’t mean that McCain is a bad guy, but for eight years we've had a president who's "just like me." It's been a disaster.

Posted by: Hilary Smith | September 19, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the right choice for president because he is smart. He's smarter than McCain. It doesn’t mean that McCain is a bad guy, but for eight years we've had a president who's "just like me." It's been a disaster.

Posted by: Hilary Smith | September 19, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"If recent history has taught us anything it's that when Republicans reside in the White House a select few people prosper and thrive: "

Fortunately, it's the important people who thrive.

The top 10 percent of the earners in the country pay 70 percent of the taxes.

The lower 50 percent of the earners in the country pay 4 percent of the taxes.

The "tax breaks" Obama is talking about are for, the most part, credits and etc. that will pay out money to people who don't pay taxes anyways. I.e. they will get a check from the government at revenue time. While the upper 10 percent will pay more than the 70 percent of the tax burden they already carry.

Obama plan = penalize good earners to pay the unmotivated

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

OK time to stop being patriots LOL

Dumbass kNeeger

Posted by: oSama BiNLAden | September 19, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Hey AsperGirl, no one listens to you anymore after you ripped your panties attacking Obama because of your general dislike for men and black men in particular.

Some of us have been reading and laughing at your posts since January 2008 and realize they are filled with anger, hate and misinformation. Your anything goes rants didn't help Miss Hillary and they won't help old man McCain and his underling in lipstick. Take your meds and hang it up!

Posted by: We're Watching | September 19, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama is too funny. The market goes down he dog piles. The market goes back up and again he is there with the obvious after the fact. People who believe his flopping around rhetoric are just plain ignorant. It’s as simple as that.

Posted by: YoMama | September 19, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

If recent history has taught us anything it's that when Republicans reside in the White House a select few people prosper and thrive:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3ecNXWEJ6A
.


While everyone else is fortunate if at the end of the day they still have a roof over their head and food on the table:
.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities
.

Posted by: Caribou Barbie | September 19, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Obama say economics were above his pay grade? If not, it sure is clear to me they are.

Posted by: Mark | September 19, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"What led us to this point," he said, "was years and years of a philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street that viewed even common-sense regulation and oversight as unwise and unnecessary; that shredded consumer protections and loosened the rules of the road. CEOs and executives got reckless. Lobbyists got what they wanted. Politicians in both parties looked the other way until it was too late. And it is the American people who have paid the price."

And that's the truth.

Paul Crist | September 19, 2008 1:44 PM
Nicely said and I wholeheartedly agree.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama must indeed be the " MESSIAH" No wonder the McCain campaign is in disarray I carefully listened and heard Senator McCain blame the current financial crash of Wall Street and the housing mess on Senator Obama. Am I missing something? Senator Obama went to Washington Jan 05. Three years ago. This meltdown started decades ago if the pros are correct. Well he must be the ONE America You better heed the call

Posted by: jacquelyn kidd | September 19, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

What about this McCain.... think this had anything to do with our present problems?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass-Steagall

In 1999, McCain supported comprehensive legislation deregulating the financial-services industry, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial an investment banking and was one of the hallmarks of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal economic program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLIP-FLOP like a fish out of water!!!!!!

Now it's Mr. regulation.....PLEASE STOP THE LIES......WHO ARE YOU?
Your positions on too many things have changed ...who will we get
first you are the more experienced, thinking your base would like that .... You get Palin and she helps you with the base enough for you to try and steal Obama's campaign slogan and your a maverick.......stop it PLEASE!

Posted by: beeezo | September 19, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

>>>> If Obama et al, aided by his media fan club, hadn't blocked the gas tax holiday that Clinton & McCain was calling for earlier this year, there wouldn't be a need for a "second stimulus".

Yes - and Obama voted for Cheney's 2005 energy bill that gave HUGE tax breaks to the oil companies!!
McCain and Hillary voted against it.

Also - oil company CEOs are bundling for Obama.

Obama sure has hoodwinked a lot of people - but not us!

NObama!

Posted by: JoseyJ | September 19, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I am available to be your toilet slave. Please poop and pee on me.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"Obama wisely stayed on the sideline to allow Bush Administration and the Congress to work a bipartisan solution for the current crisis"

sure , sweetie, Obami just doens't have a clue of a plan, so he punts.
"let the otherside take the lead"

you know,, he is a senator in the majority party.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Just in case the issues don't work, there's still the National Enquirer, the
tabloid that everyone loves to hate but which 2.76 million people
nevertheless pay money for every week.

They've got another story today, and it paints a picture of the Palin family
as a pack of drug-addled Clampetts, out of control.


http://www.nationalenquirer.com/_palin_family_shockers_what_sarahs_re...


Excerpt:


The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively that Sarah's oldest son, Track, was
addicted to the power drug OxyContin for nearly the past two years, snorting
it, eating it, smoking it and even injecting it. And as Track, 19, heads to
Iraq as part of the U.S. armed forces, Sarah and her husband Todd were
powerless to stop his wild antics, detailed in the new issue of The
ENQUIRER, which goes on sale today.


THE ENQUIRER also has exclusive details about Track's use of other drugs,
including cocaine, and his involvement in a notorious local vandalism
incident.


"I've partied with him (Track) for years," a source disclosed. "I've seen
him snort cocaine, snort and smoke OxyContin, drink booze and smoke weed."


The source also divulged the girls would do anything for Track and he'd use
his local celebrity to manipulate other guys "to get them to steal things he
wanted."


"He finally did what a lot of troubled kids here do," the source divulged.
"You join the military."


Posted by: AlexP1 | September 19, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Barack's ads are very sleazy - filled with LIES and DISTORTIONS!
In 2005 while Barack was busy gearing up for his run for president - McCain was warning about the housing and banking crises!

Chris Dodd is Chairman of the Senate Banking and Housing Committee - but supposedly he knew nuttin about nuttin!!

John McCain has a record of fighting corruption - Obama has rhetoric.

Dems for McCain/Palin!

Posted by: zazzle | September 19, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

McCain knows all about bailing out rich bankers and screwing over middle class and poor people, he's been doing it for years.


*McCain - Founding Member of the Keating Five:

McCain was one of the "Keating Five," congressmen investigated on ethics charges for strenuously helping convicted racketeer Charles Keating after he gave them large campaign contributions and vacation trips.
Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. His convictions were overturned on technicalities; for example, the federal conviction was overturned because jurors had heard about his state conviction, and his state charges because Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge) screwed up jury instructions. Neither court cleared him, and he faces new trials in both courts.)

Though he was not convicted of anything, McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal."


*Mafia Ties:

In 1995, McCain sent birthday regards, and regrets for not attending, to Joseph "Joe Bananas" Bonano, the head of the New York Bonano crime family, who had retired to Arizona. Another politician to send regrets was Governor Fife Symington, who has since been kicked out of office and convicted of 7 felonies relating to fraud and extortion.


Here's some straight-talk, my friends:
.
http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
.

Posted by: JennyinOhio | September 19, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

LIPSTICK VS LIP SERVICE -- HOW MCCAIN, OBAMA PAY WOMEN

:::: Obama's women earn 0.83/dollar compared to his men ::::
:::: McCain's women earn $1.04/dollar compared to his men ::::

How Team Obama Pays Women
By Deroy Murdock

‘Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work,” Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said August 28 in his convention acceptance speech. He told the crowd in Denver: “I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.”

...

Obama’s commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his United States Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.

...Obama’s 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama’s average male employee earned $54,397. Obama’s 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.

Why this disparity? One reason may be the underrepresentation of women among Obama’s highest-compensated employees. Of Obama’s five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.

On average, Obama’s female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama’s campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama’s rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue.

...McCain’s payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams.

McCain’s 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.

On average, according to these data, women in John McCain’s office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, ceteris paribus, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart — while adding $10,726 to her annual income — by leaving Barack Obama’s office and going to work for John McCain.

more at: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmEzMTZmNTk5MDI0NTZmNjUwMjllN2ZlZTc0MWFmYzY=

LIPSTICK VS. LIP SERVICE

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

What an effing hypocrite. If Obama et al, aided by his media fan club, hadn't blocked the gas tax holiday that Clinton & McCain was calling for earlier this year, there wouldn't be a need for a "second stimulus".

it was obvious this Spring that the first stimulus would be eaten up by spiking gas & food prices -- and most of it was. Had the gas tax holiday passed, it would have been a narrowly targeted stimulus that served relief to those who needed it most. Moreover the ripple effects of the inflation from the oil price spike wouldn't have worked its way through the economy like via the transportation sector.

The enormous expense of another stimulus package (the first cost billions to process the payments and mailings alone) could have been avoided. Relief could have been available this Summer, before businesses were hit so hard.

If Obama is worried about how much money people have, why does he pay his women 0.83 cents on the dollar versus the men? What a hypocrite.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 19, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Losercuda,

What's 350 EVs? Is it some kind of electric car? Where do you plug it in? What does it run on? I need to test-drive before Obama does to show my pro environment credentials.

Posted by: McCain | September 19, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Jennifer | September 19, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JoseyJ | September 19, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JoseyJ | September 19, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Hell, he is just throwing darts now.

If he keeps this up for the next six weeks, Obama may crack 350 EVs.

Posted by: Losercuda | September 19, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama wisely stayed on the sideline to allow Bush Administration and the Congress to work a bipartisan solution for the current crisis. His action is a clear indication of putting the interest of te nation first. McCain's near hysterical postering this morning showed why he is unfit to be the president of the United States.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

McCain in April declared that there had been "great progress economically" during the Bush years. On more than one occasion, he diagnosed Americans' concerns over the dismal U.S. economy as "psychological." (Phil Gramm, McCain's close friend and adviser supposedly excommunicated over his "whiners" remarks, was back with the campaign last week.) McCain, a man who owns eight homes nationwide, in March lectured Americans facing foreclosure that they ought to be "doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time." And when all else fails, McCain told the people of the economically devastated regions in Martin County, Kentucky and Youngstown, Ohio, there's always eBay.


In his defense, McCain's shocking tone-deafness may just be a matter of perspective. When you're as well off as he is, anything below a $5 million income (a figure exceeding that earned on average by the top 0.1% of Americans) seems middle class.


*The $100 Million Man*
Courtesy of his wife Cindy's beer distribution fortune (one her late father apparently chose not to share with her half-sister Kathleen), the McCains are worth well over $100 million. (In the two-page tax summary she eventually released to the public, Cindy McCain reported another $6 million in 2006.) As Salon reported back in 2000, the second Mrs. McCain's millions were essential in launching her husband's political career. Unsurprisingly, the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti, who four years ago called Theresa Heinz-Kerry a "sugar mommy," has been silent on the topic of Cindy McCain.


*The Joys of (Eight) Home Ownership*
While fellow adulterer John Edwards was pilloried for his mansion, John McCain's eight homes around the country have received little notice or criticism. His properties include a 10 acre lake-side Sedona estate, euphemistically called a "cabin" by the McCain campaign, and a home featured in Architectural Digest. The one featuring "remote control window coverings" was recently put up for sale. Still, their formidable resources did not prevent the McCains from failing to pay taxes on a tony La Jolla, California condo used by Cindy's aged aunt.


*The Anheuser-Busch Windfall*
As it turns out, the beauty of globalization is in the eye of the beholder. While John McCain apparently played a critical role in facilitating DHL's takeover of Airborne (and with it, the looming loss of 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio), Cindy McCain is set to earn a staggering multi-million dollar pay-day from the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by the Belgian beverage giant, In Bev. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July, Mrs. McCain runs the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributorship in the nation, and owns between $2.5 and $5 million in the company's stock. Amazingly, while Missouri's politicians of both parties lined up to try to block the sale, John McCain held a fundraiser in the Show Me State even as the In Bev deal was being finalized.


*McCain's $370,000 Personal Tax Break*
Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress analyzed John McCain's tax proposals. The conclusion? McCain's plan is radically more regressive than even that of President Bush, delivering 58% of its benefits to the wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers. McCain's born-again support for the Bush tax cuts has one additional bonus for Mr. Straight Talk: the McCains would save an estimated $373,000 a year.


*Paying Off $225,000 Credit Card Debt - Priceless*
That massive windfall from his own tax plan will come in handy for John McCain. As was reported in June, the McCains were carrying over $225,000 in credit card debt. The American Express card - don't leave your homes without it.


*Charity Begins at Home*
As Harpers documented earlier this year, the McCains are true believers in the old saying that charity begins at home:
.
Between 2001 and 2006, McCain contributed roughly $950,000 to [their] foundation. That accounted for all of its listed income other than for $100 that came from an anonymous donor. During that same period, the McCain foundation made contributions of roughly $1.6 million. More than $500,000 went to his kids' private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions. So McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.
.
Ironically, the McCain campaign last week blasted Barack Obama for having attended a private school in Hawaii on scholarship. That attack came just weeks after John McCain held an event at his old prep school, Episcopal High, an institution where fees now top $38,000 a year.


*Private Jet Setters*
As the New York Times detailed back in April, John McCain enjoyed the use of his wife's private jet for his campaign, courtesy of election law loopholes he helped craft. Despite the controversy, McCain continued to use Cindy's corporate jet. For her part, Cindy McCain says that even with skyrocketing fuel costs, "in Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane."


*Help on the Homefront*
In these tough economic times, the McCains are able to stretch their household budget. As the AP reported in April, "McCain reported paying $136,572 in wages to household employees in 2007. Aides say the McCains pay for a caretaker for a cabin in Sedona, Ariz., child care for their teenage daughter, and a personal assistant for Cindy McCain."


*Well-Heeled in $520 Shoes*
If clothes make the man, then John McCain has it made. As Huffington Post noted in July, "He has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop - from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA." It is altogether fitting that McCain wore the golden loafers during a golf outing with President George H.W. Bush in which he rode around in cart displaying the sign, "Property of Bush #41. Hands Off."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N38Ug_ugzXs
.

Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | September 19, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Voters were probably reassured by Obama's calm demeanor and measured reaction to the crisis in contrast to McCain's highly partisan and negative speech this morning that merely criticized bailouts and talked more about his beloved "commission." McCain is losing on this iusse - big time.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | September 19, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

What are John McCain's economic beliefs? Do you have the faintest idea? Right now:

Is he for increased regulation or against?

Does he think the Feds are doing the right thing or the wrong thing?

Does he still believe in unfettered free markets?

If not, what is the appropriate role of government in markets?

Does he support the bailouts of Bear, Fannie, Freddie, and AIG? Some, but not all?

How would his bailout entity be different from the proposed one?

Is he for the ban on shorts or against?

Does the deregulation crazy GOP bear any responsibility for this crisis?

How is this mess all Chris Cox’s fault?

How exactly would he stop greed on Wall Street?

What is Phil “Nation of Whiners” Gramm’s role in a future McCain administration?

My sense is that this guy is just firing away at random without respect for his lifelong beliefs, previous statements, or the consequences. He has said so many contradictory things that it is impossible to know where he stands.

http://nahnopenotquite.com/2008/09/19/what-are-john-mccains-economic-beliefs/

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

McCain has been paid a year's salary since he last showed up to work!
.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/05/mccain_leads_in_missed_votes.html


$51,345.08 - Senate salary John McCain has 'earned' since he last showed up in the Senate to perform his job on April 9, 2008.


$48,201.00 - The median household income in the US in 2006.
.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h06ar.html


That's right Joe and Jane Sixpack, McCain has now recieved more money for not showing up for his job than you and your family get in a year for showing up for yours.

Posted by: McCain/Palin = Liars! | September 19, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Since Ronald Reagan famously said “Government is not the solution to our problem; Government IS the problem,” we have allowed the legitimate regulatory role of government to deteriorate. Agency budgets have been cut, making it a self-fulfilling prophesy that government can’t solve problems. Regulators have intentionally been appointed who loath regulation. Jobs that by their nature must be performed by entities whose sole interest is the public interest have been “outsourced” to private companies whose sole interest is profit (and there’s nothing wrong with profit, but not everything can be about that). It is no accident that we have anti-environmentalists at the head of the EPA. No accident that ex-oil industry executives dominate our energy policy. No accident that non-scientists head up our Health & Human Services agency.

Outsourced jobs, formerly done by a dedicated civil service (it was always a myth that there was much more inefficiency in the government’s ranks than there is in any large private firm… large organizations are all prone to a certain amount of bureaucratic sclerosis) have been shown in many cases to cost taxpayers more when performed by profit-seeking private sector companies. The “shrink the government” mentality of the past generation has indeed shrunk the number of government employees, but it has not saved taxpayers any money. It has enriched a few well-connected private companies (who have lobbyists to thank). We can see that this has not improved services or regulation…toy imports with lead paint? Tainted pet foods? Financial systems run amok and near collapse? Mass illnesses from contaminated foods? A mercenary army called Blackwater operating with impunity in Iraq? The list goes on and on. And the trend has gone on for much longer than the past 8 years.

Consider: By the end of Bill Clinton's first term, more than 100,000 Pentagon jobs had been transferred to companies in the private sector -- among them thousands of jobs in intelligence. By the end of his second term in 2001, the administration had cut 360,000 jobs from the federal payroll and the government was spending 44 percent more on contractors than it had in 1993.

Consider: We have an approximately $66 billion national intelligence budget, between all the intelligence agencies (there are 16 of them). 70% of that budget goes to private spying and surveillance firms. How can a private company, whose objective (by its nature) is profit, be trusted and credible doing a job that is the ultimate in “in-the-public-interest-of-the-United-States-type” job? It cannot.

The outsourced information technology program of the National Security Agency (NSA) is a prime example: in 2006, NSA was unable to analyze much of the information it was collecting through private contractors… As a result, more than 90 percent of the information it was gathering was being discarded without being translated into a coherent and understandable format; only about 5 percent was translated from its digital form into text and then routed to the right division for analysis.

Consider too: Whether you’re talking about regulators for the financial sector, regulators for food & drugs, or intelligence analysts, when the work of government is moved to the private sector, by contracts that can be shifted from one company to another, the institutional memory of what worked, what didn’t, what happened, and why… is lost. That institutional memory is invaluable, and now irretrievable. The damage, irreparable. It will take a generation or more to rebuild… and then only if we make a committed effort to do so.

The privatization of public services and functions creates an evolution of corporate power toward its own form of political power...we could call it “corporatism.” It gradually replaces democracy, democratic practices, and democratic values, becoming a dominant partner with a greatly weakened state. In a corporatist system, human rights, civil rights, and the interests of the majority are not merely at risk… they are irrelevant.

Sound familiar?

Now, it’s highly doubtful that an Obama Presidency can turn all of this around. We didn’t get to where we are in just the past 8 years, and we’re not going to fix it in another 8 years. It’s going to take decades of effort and commitment. But what I do hear in Obama’s economic and other policy prescriptions is an underlying governing principle…only partially articulated, but definitely there… that seeks to address these very fundamental problems of governance that we now face.

As an economist, and as a deeply concerned American, I have listened for something similar in the words of John McCain. And it is simply not there.

Paul Crist
MA, Intrnational Economics
Johns Hopkins University,School of Advanced International Studies


Posted by: Paul Crist | September 19, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company