Find Post Investigations On:
Facebook Scribd Twitter
Friendfeed RSS Google Reader
» About This Blog | Meet the Investigative Team | Subscribe
Ongoing Investigation

Top Secret America

The Post explores the top secret world the government created in response to the attacks of Sept. 11.

Ongoing Investigation

The Hidden Life of Guns

How guns move through American society, from store counter to crime scene.

Have a Tip?

Talk to Us

If you have solid tips, news or documents on potential ethical violations or abuses of power, we want to know. Send us your suggestions.
• E-mail Us

Categories

Post Investigations
In-depth investigative news
and multimedia from The Washington Post.
• Special Reports
• The Blog

Reporters' Notebook
An insider's guide to investigative news: reporters offer insights on their stories.

The Daily Read
A daily look at investigative news of note across the Web.

Top Picks
A weekly review of the best
in-depth and investigative reports from across the nation.

Hot Documents
Court filings, letters, audits and other documents of interest.

D.C. Region
Post coverage of investigative news in Maryland, Virginia and the District.

Washington Watchdogs
A periodic look into official government investigations.

Help! What Is RSS?
Find out how to follow Post Investigations in your favorite RSS reader.

Hot Comments

Unfortunately I believe that we are limited in what we can focus on. I think that if we proceed with the partisan sideshow of prosecuting Bush admin. officials, healthcare will get lost in the brouhaha.
— Posted by denamom, Obama's Quandary...

Recent Posts
Bob Woodward

The Washington Post's permanent investigative unit was set up in 1982 under Bob Woodward.


Archives
See what you missed, find what you're looking for.
Blog Archive »
Investigations Archive »

Have a Tip?
Send us information on ethics violations or abuses of power.
E-Mail Us »

Other
Investigations
Notable investigative projects from other news outlets.
On the Web »
Top Picks »

Bailout Debate, McCain's Freddie Mac Ties, CVS Donor Access

POSTED: 10:06 AM ET, 09/24/2008 by Amanda Zamora

Hello and welcome to The Daily Read, our recommended reading for Wednesday. See something we missed? Post your suggestions in the comments below.

The Big Bailout » The U.S. financial crisis continues to dominate the news: the White House meets Congressional resistance to its $700 billion bailout plan ... meanwhile, as lobbyists look to protect high-dollar interests, advocates call for whistleblower protections ... Steven Mufson looks at the precedents for the bailout plan ... the FBI has opened fraud investigations into Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and AIG ... a closer look at Wall Street's fat-cat salaries ... and as U.S. firms scramble for capital, the Japanese go bargain-hunting. — The Washington Post

The Campaign Trail » The lobbying firm co-owned by John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, has received payments from Freddie Mac in recent months, though Davis has asserted that the firm had ended work for the mortgage giant three years ago ... Marcus Stern dissects Gov. Sarah Palin's claims on the "bridge to nowhere." — Washington Post, Politico

CVS: 'Pay to Play' Access? » Some insiders at CVS Caremark Corp. complain that the retail giant's Charity Classic golf gala promotes a "pay to play" system in which donors are favored when products are evaluated for promotion and display. — Wall Street Journal

Klansman Acquittal » The Justice Department is calling for a federal appeals court to reconsider its acquittal of James Ford Seale, a reputed Ku Klux Klansman who was serving life in prison for the kidnapping of two black teenagers slain in 1964. — USA Today

A Hitch in Housing Aid » The Federal Emergency Management Agency says it cannot provide trailers to Texans seeking temporary housing after Hurricane Ike because the trailers don't meet state health requirements. — Washington Post

Tainted Milk Cover-up » One of China's biggest dairy producers received complaints about its baby milk formula 10 months before ordering a nationwide recall, Chinese officials said Tuesday, offering the latest indication that the producer tried to hide information about its contaminated dairy supplies. — New York Times

Anthrax Probe » Congressional critics of the FBI's investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks are calling for an independent review of the case. — New York Times

By Amanda Zamora |  September 24, 2008; 10:06 AM ET The Daily Read
Previous: Stevens Corruption Trial Underway | Next: Wall Street Scrutinized for Fraud, Fat Paychecks

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



The $700B Economic Bailout must not be a "Blank Check"

http://www.floodthelines.com/noblankcheck/

Posted by: FLMom | September 24, 2008 11:10 AM

RE: McCain Aide's Firm Was Paid Recently
By Michael D. Shear

BULL $#!|!

"An industry source told . . ."
"Two unidentified sources told . . ."

This is who you retards trust as sources?! Get the facts before spouting off.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/24/report-mccain-aides-firm-paid-by-freddie-mac-until-last-month/

Posted by: D | September 24, 2008 11:14 AM

How does Hussein Obama's lack of experience, (not even a full senatorial term, no executive experience, etc.) make him better on economic issues than Sen. McCain?

Posted by: reality | September 24, 2008 11:15 AM

Having failed to send billions of dollars from Social Security and personal 401K plans to Wall Stress 2 years ago, Bush must now send his buddies taxpayers cash via another route.

Does this also not add another dimension to the power of the Presidency by allocating 700bn to an non-elected partisan crony. No wonder McCain and Obama dont want to say anything against this scheme, since they will inherit the spending power that 700bn.

Have you ever heard so many "dont knows" and "cant tells" from so many powerful and supposedly intelligent people as the Senate hearings yesterday. They knew enough to get us into this mess and make millions in the process but cannot figure out how to get us out of it. They also cannot even with some modicum of accuracy tell us what we face, resorting to scare mongering that sounds familiarly like WMD, Patriot Act and Telecoms....How do we even know if there is a problem....Warrren Buffett strangely doesnt act like there is a problem....What does he know that the rest of us are not being told???

Posted by: Texastair | September 24, 2008 11:20 AM

Wow, title reads "Bailout Debate, McCain's Freddie Mac Ties". I view your coverage of highlighting McCain's ties in this area symptomatic of your . This futher solidifies my opinion that you are not looking for journalistic integrity as much as political advocacy. Fine, highlight McCain's connection, but be intellectually honest enough to pay the same attention to those on the other side of the isle. Having close to a $1 trillion bailout decided by a bunch of folks that are all trying to blame each other makes me very nervous. It seems like the WP is trying to push that agenda as well. Judging by the title of the post, I'm not confident that you can be impartial.

Posted by: Kirk | September 24, 2008 11:23 AM

Imagine that-ties to the system that is corrupt. With his 16 houses, and 7 cars etc. Yep, he knows all about your problems and will help in any way by adding to YOUR debt.

Posted by: solsenz | September 24, 2008 11:26 AM

How about some fair reporting like that the top beneficiaries from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Obama, Hillary and Dodd. The blatent bias from the media is BS; they obviously are doing EVERYTHING they can to get a socialist into office.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 11:29 AM

It true fact which hasn't been denied. Don't believe Republican spin. Also, why would Fox be an independent and objective source?

Posted by: Twinkle | September 24, 2008 11:32 AM

Here's my take on the housing situation I posted on another site. If anyone thinks that republicans and democrats did not both benefit from this you are naive.

Democrats keep mentioning "deregulation" but don't mention the reason. Beginning in 1999 we lowered loan standards with the "social justice" goal of increasing "minority" home ownership. We did this by the government telling financial firms they had to accept lower standards for credit and in return we would underwrite the loans using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. From there it was greed that took over.

I think this is why you see support for the bailout from both republicans and democrats; they don't want people to really know WHY we got here they just want to keep things vague with "deregulation" and "greed."

This is a perfect example of why you have to be careful letting "feel good" politics get in the way of business. We told businesses they had to accept bad loans and it just got worse and worse from there from greed as everyone tried to prolong the housing bubble.

Housing was going up at a ridiculous, unsustainable rate and no one was complaining. Real estate companies and financial firms were getting their money, homeowners were quiet believing they were gaining wealth, politicians (both parties)were getting their political donations, and the noble cause of home ownership even for people that don't deserve it was being fulfilled.

However housing was becoming so high prices the middle class could no longer buy homes. The market should have leveled out or decline slightly a couple years ago. Rather than let the market naturally level out or decline the financial firms, real estate companies, politicians, etc wanted to keep making their money so they got more and more creative with the loans based off of the poor standards established in the late 90s until the bubble could no longer be contained and it popped. And here we are.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 11:37 AM

Actually, the top beneficiaries from directors, lobbyists and officers of Fannie and Freddie are the republican party and John McCain. Democrats did get money but it was mostly from the employees and not nearly as much as the republicans got from their buddies at Fannie and Freddie. Get your facts straight and check it out.

Posted by: Twinkle2 | September 24, 2008 11:38 AM

So, when McCain points out Obama's ties to the mortgage crisis, you say nothing about that other than to accuse his campaign of being racist because Franklin Raines happens to be black. You go on to refute YOUR OWN STORIES in 'Fact Checker'' (what a misnomer that title is), three of them, in which you refer to Raines as an Obama advisor. You say nothing about who received money from Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac, when Obama received the second most in the Senate only 5 months after getting there. You say nothing about the legislation McCain twice tried to introduce, directly addressing the coming mortgage crisis, twice stalled in committee by Democrats who were on the mortgage giants cash contribution list, while neglecting to mention that McCain is receiving nothing from them. You do not mention that bad loans were made at the behest of Democrats in congress, which continued until the cash supply dried up. You do not even correctly describe the structure of a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE), hiding behind the public's ignorance to make false accusations against Sara Palin. You are not journalists, you are an organ of the Obama campaign.

Posted by: FlyDiesel | September 24, 2008 11:40 AM

We need to keep an eye on the floundering democratic-controlled congress. the dismal failures of pelosi, reid and obama and biden in congress are mounting faster than the debt piled on consumers since dimocrats took control 2 years ago. many polls are indicating a possible return of the house to rebublicans, particularly if the dems are seen as failures incapable of governing during this crisis, which is how it looks right now.
also, after the devastating defeat on drilling ban, democrats are losing millions of the emvironmental whackos and radical lefties that are the dims base.
ABC is an arm of the democrat party, no creedence in their polls. they are in obama's tank, way down near the bottom.
http://www.examiner.com/x-852-Atlanta-Civics-Examiner

Posted by: Larry Clifton | September 24, 2008 11:41 AM

This Sarah Palin U.N. visit is a joke and a disgrace to the Mccain campaign and the Republican Party as a whole, no matter how they spin this, it is clear that they want to subtitute real issues with mere photo-ops to present her as somebody with some foreign policy knowledge. So in 30 mins or so she gets enough insight into foreign policy of a country like the United States and how it relates to the whole world?....this is CHEAP and not worthy of any serious political discourse. I hope the American people will see it for what it is- a sham!

Posted by: Freddie | September 24, 2008 11:43 AM

Why does the headline have anything to do with McCain's ties to Freddie Mac when it has been proven that Obama was the second largest receiver of handouts from Freddie Mac? What in God's name has happened to journalism in this country?! If you would report the actual facts about Obama, the majority of Obama voters would realize that he is trying to turn our country into an over-regulated socialist economy. If you are not well versed enough to know what socialism is, take a look at France and the uprising they recently had. Government there has control of almost everything. The American people need to get a grip and stop following blindly. Start researching. While I would love to have a president of a different race or gender in office Obama obviously is not the person that should be there. For people that are thinking of not voting - every non vote is a vote FOR Obama. Please vote for McCain and cancel Obama's votes out!

Posted by: obama-not-the-one | September 24, 2008 11:44 AM

Is only serves to show how much you are in the tank for this inexperienced, overtly racist, socialist when you fail to mention the $150K he took fro Freddie/Fannie as well as not mentioning McCain’s co-sponsorship of S.190, a 2005 bill that would have brought oversight to any organization involved in secondary subprime lending.

Oh yeah - you might also want to mention the FACT that while Obama was taking his $150K from freddie/Fannie - he voted to defeat S.190.

Hate to tell you how to report the FACTS but apparently somebody needs to.

Posted by: Obama - the left wing socialist puppet | September 24, 2008 11:49 AM

Is there any truth to the rumor that Paulin made over 90 million shorting stocks - before they made up the 'list " of stocks that can't be shorted ?

Posted by: steve | September 24, 2008 11:50 AM

Based on all these comments, it seems to be OK for McCain to take money from Fannie and Freddie as long as it was stated that Obama had ties.

But we seem to miss how this story began, McCain started by saying Obama had ties, not realizing he had just as much as Obama does. They call that hypocrisy!!!

Posted by: DavidKae | September 24, 2008 12:03 PM

Wow!!! The panic in these posts are halarious! Cryos,D,Kirk,reality, and the rest of the rightwing nutjobs are SH#TTING THIER PANTS!

And D quoting FoxNews as real news source is comical!

Bye bye, McLiar and Bubbles!!! It's all downhill from here!

Posted by: TruePatriot | September 24, 2008 12:06 PM

Hello folks,

Lots of interest in Wall Street's political connections as Congress evaluates this bailout package. Check out today's update on this story, especially a great Sunlight Foundation roundup of lawmakers with competing interests:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/09/the_fbis_decision_to_investiga.html

"For example, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has raised some $13 million since 1989 from such companies, 30 percent of his total contributions. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has taken $2.4 million from those firms, or roughly 31 percent."

Posted by: Amanda Zamora, washingtonpost.com | September 24, 2008 12:06 PM

I would agree with some of the posts above that it isn't honest to claim that the Republicans alone ran our economy into the crisis it is now in. Our economy has long been built on a house of cards mentality. There is essentially no actual value to our currency, it is based on the full faith and trust of the American government, but that isn't likely to make very many people feel good right now. We have been importing more than we export for most of my 50 years on this earth, how can that continue to work? Over the past couple of decades the US has systematically disassembled our manufaturing base and sent it overseas, mostly China. While all this has been going on our politicians have been taking billions of dollars from the multinational corporations who benefit from the cheap labor overseas.

We have reached the inevitable point in time where the trust in this pyramid scheme has come to an end, and now we are trying to see if we can prop it up for a couple of years by throwing some more paper money at the problem. It may well work. Humans seem to have an almost unending ability to deny the reality around them, but in the end reality is what it is. If we don't come up with a sustainable economy, this country will eventually end up losing it's place at the front of the line. To make our economy work we need a sustainable source of domestic energy. The only way to get the energy we need for the next centuries is ultimately going to be solar power. As a physicist and engineer I have been studying alternative energy for 30 years and I simply do not understand why we would waste time and energy working on nuclear, coal, oil, gas technology when anyone who has looked into the reserves of these materials knows that they are all a dead end. We don't have enough fossil fuels to last event to the next century, and if we were to burn these fossil fuels we would probably destroy the planit in the process anyway. Nuclear could last a bit longer, perhaps as long as a few hundred years, but the potential for a terrorist getting thier hands on some weapons grade nuclear material from all the required power plants and reprocessing plants it huge. Point is we can't run our economy without power. If we buy that power from overseas we are sending away our money and running the constant risk of having our energy source cut off. Instead of spending a trillion dollars on a war about energy and another trillion dollars trying to prop up our house of cards economy, imagine what we could do with 2 trillion dollars spent on converting America to solar power. We would save the economy and the earth, give every American willing to work a good job, and leave our children a country at the absolute cutting edge of technology.

Posted by: captbilly | September 24, 2008 12:10 PM

"Based on all these comments, it seems to be OK for McCain to take money from Fannie and Freddie as long as it was stated that Obama had ties."

No it is not ok and I don't think McCain should support the bailout. However McCain HIMSELF did not receive money prior to this election cycle and he needs to give it back. Obama, Dodd, Clinton and Kerry all got tens of thousands or more the same year they fought a bill to increase oversight on the agencies.

TruePatriot you should try believing what you see and not seeing what you believe. You might find the world is a lot more complicated place.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 12:11 PM

"Lots of interest in Wall Street's political connections as Congress evaluates this bailout package. Check out today's update on this story, especially a great Sunlight Foundation roundup of lawmakers with competing interests:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/09/the_fbis_decision_to_investiga.html:

Its sad when the MSM has become so one sided we have to get balanced reporting from blogs.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 12:14 PM

Cryos--There is a socialist in office. His socialism is for the rich and powerful however. What else can you call redistributing $700 billion? Wake up.

D--So he is not currently drawing a salary. He will again at some point, the firm is named after him. Don't you find it at all troubling that they have been paying just as a placeholder to keep a presidential campaign's major advisor essentially on retainer? Obama is not sparkly clean that's for sure. But he is not as dirty as someone who's campaign has more than 15 lobbyists working for it. Lobbyists literally run McCain's campaign. If people can't bring themselves to see reality (and it's true the MSM isn't helping) we will continue to get the government we deserve.

Posted by: Bill | September 24, 2008 12:16 PM

FYI truepatriot I guess I'm curious how I'm a "right wing nutjob" when I believe that BOTH parties are to blame for this situation as BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE TO BLAME.

I guess not to be "right wing" you have to be a eutopian idealist (aka the liberal equivalent of religious conservatives) who believes republicans are the sole root of all evil? Wow I guess I need to adjust my political spectrum so the left wing is moderate and moderate is right wing.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 12:17 PM

"Cryos--There is a socialist in office. His socialism is for the rich and powerful however. What else can you call redistributing $700 billion? Wake up."

I don't like Bush or other neo-cons so I don't need to wake up. I probably won't even vote for McCain or Obama this year as its a choice between a neo-con and a socialist/marxist and both suck.

The rest of your post saying that Obama is mostly clean shows YOU are the one that needs to wake up. I guess you want to subscribe to the "new" politics AKA the tried and true failed socialist policies that never get countries anywhere. Yeah really insightful.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 12:20 PM

"How does Hussein Obama's lack of experience, (not even a full senatorial term, no executive experience, etc.) make him better on economic issues than Sen. McCain?"


Most people address others by their first, last, first and last, or full name. Nice subtle attempt at prejudiced propaganda.

In McCain's own words, economics are NOT his strong suit...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 12:37 PM

The allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Posted by: Jdude | September 24, 2008 12:37 PM

"Warrren Buffett strangely doesnt act like there is a problem....What does he know that the rest of us are not being told???"


Warren Buffett REFUSED to invest in any of these questionable funds. He has nothing to lose. He has been calling them "timebombs" for years.

Another funny thing is that he is the richest man in America, (2nd in the world) one of the greatest investors of all times, and an avid supporter of OBAMA...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 12:41 PM

"How about some fair reporting like that the top beneficiaries from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Obama, Hillary and Dodd. The blatent bias from the media is BS; they obviously are doing EVERYTHING they can to get a socialist into office."


This was checked out already. They received the majority of their contributions FROM EMPLOYEES, not the company or company executives...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 12:42 PM

To stabilize the economy you must first stabilize people’s lives. Plan B - Every primary residential mortgage (no second or vacation home mortgages) in the US is dissolved. Whoever holds title gets it free and clear. Banks get title to foreclosures in process. This will create a 7 trillion dollar economic stimulus package and give people security without borrowing and without deflating the dollar. Mortgages going forward would be regulated with common sense. What could you save without a mortgage payment? Oh and this pretty much fixes social security as well. Sound crazy? Yes, but not as crazy as bailing out wall street who created this mess and enslaving our grandchildren pay off this debt with nothing to show.

Posted by: FreeMarketsAreNotFree | September 24, 2008 12:47 PM

Article from june 2005
Big contributors to GOP reap big post-election rewards
By Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Just six months into a new term for President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, some of their heaviest donors are scoring victories on the legislative and regulatory fronts.
From rewrites of the laws governing bankruptcy and class-action lawsuits to relief for oil, timber and tobacco interests, GOP supporters who gave millions of dollars last year are reaping decisions worth billions from a Congress with more Republicans.

"Clearly, the election outcome has helped," says Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "We are heading in the right direction. A lot more has been done by this time in a new session than usual."

While much public attention has been focused on Bush's sputtering effort to sell an overhaul of Social Security, legislation long sought by the GOP and its business allies have been enacted with bipartisan support. In February, Congress passed and Bush signed a bill that sharply limits class-action lawsuits. The savings will likely come to several billion dollars a year, says Russ Sutter of Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, an actuarial firm that studies tort costs.

The business sector that includes manufacturing and retail was among top GOP donors last election cycle. It directed three of every five political dollars to Republicans — almost $121 million, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

There was a similar partisan tilt in political giving by the finance industry, which won passage in April of a law making it harder to erase debts by declaring bankruptcy. Credit card companies and banks sought the change as a way to collect more debts.

The finance sector gave nearly $195 million to the GOP in the 2004 elections. And 105 of Bush's 548 elite fundraisers — those who raised $100,000 or more — were from the world of finance, making it his biggest base of top-dollar support, at $34 million.

"Many of the traditional business supporters are really getting the agenda they wanted, and it seems to be speeding up," says Larry Noble, director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which studies the impact of money on politics.

Still to come: Congress is pushing to complete an energy bill. Business interests want limits on liability for water contamination caused by MTBE, a fuel additive designed to reduce auto emissions, and oil companies seek to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. The Senate passed its version Tuesday.

Bush supporters also have had good luck outside the legislative arena:

• Justice Department lawyers this month abruptly scaled back their request for a penalty in the government's lawsuit against tobacco companies. Rather than the 25-year, $130 billion smoking cessation program their own expert had recommended, they are asking for a $14 billion remedy. The tobacco industry favored Republicans three-to-one over Democrats last year, giving $2.7 million to the party and its candidates.

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is looking into whether politics influenced the decision.

• After Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William Donaldson resigned under fire from business groups who complained about overzealous regulation, Bush replaced him with someone with a pro-corporate record: Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif.

"It's hard to imagine somebody with a more nakedly deregulatory agenda," says William Lerach, a trial lawyer who has brought shareholder lawsuits against corporations accused of securities fraud. Securities and investment firms gave $47.8 million to Republicans last election.

• The administration last month reversed a ban on road construction, timber harvesting, mining and energy development on undeveloped national forest land. The government also has expanded oil and gas development on federal lands, including areas in New Mexico and Wyoming.

Energy and natural resources interests gave $39.3 million to the GOP last year, three times the amount given to Democrats.

Sponsored Links

Posted by: Greg | September 24, 2008 12:48 PM

"We need to keep an eye on the floundering democratic-controlled congress. the dismal failures of pelosi, reid and obama and biden in congress are mounting faster than the debt piled on consumers since dimocrats took control 2 years ago. many polls are indicating a possible return of the house to rebublicans, particularly if the dems are seen as failures incapable of governing during this crisis, which is how it looks right now.
also, after the devastating defeat on drilling ban, democrats are losing millions of the emvironmental whackos and radical lefties that are the dims base."


Republicans are masters of deception. Funny that you accuse the current Congress of all of the woes of the past decade. They have a very slim majority in the House and NO majority in the Senate. The Independents are counted on their side.

The Republicans are pulling their usual minority role: DON'T ALLOW ANYTHING TO PASS. Then they can blame everything on the "do nothing Democrats". Back that up with Bush's liberal veto record and viola, our government enters into a flat spin.

It is truly a shame that they weren't able to keep all of these bubbles inflated until Obama got into office....

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 12:51 PM

"How does Hussein Obama's lack of experience, (not even a full senatorial term, no executive experience, etc.) make him better on economic issues than Sen. McCain?"

1). Because he ran his campaign, and juggled MILLIONS of dollars.

2). Because he graduated top of his class from Harvard, where I'm sure he took a few econ classes.

Besides, what does being a Senator have to do with being President? Only 15 Presidents were EVER senators.

Your comment was not very thought out.

Posted by: Tim | September 24, 2008 12:52 PM

"The rest of your post saying that Obama is mostly clean shows YOU are the one that needs to wake up. I guess you want to subscribe to the "new" politics AKA the tried and true failed socialist policies that never get countries anywhere. Yeah really insightful."

What is your definition of "Socialist?"

I think the definition is changing.

"Social" is a person who gets along with a variety of people.

So "Socialist" is a person who believes that people should get along?

I believe in Socialism, or the idea that humans should work together with other humans, so that the group prospers.

I believe that the people that are not social, or do not believe in socialism, are SELFISH. That is the Antonym for socialist.

Posted by: Tim | September 24, 2008 12:57 PM

Tim you forgot community organizer. However the often left out facts are who he "organized" for including ACORN a far left organization that specializes in voter fraud.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 12:58 PM

"I believe that the people that are not social, or do not believe in socialism, are SELFISH. That is the Antonym for socialist."

Lol nice. So you live a modest life and give all of your spare money and time to charity and other people right? If not why should you dictate what other people do with their lives if you can't do it yourself.

It's sad that individualism and independance has been completely lost in the democratic party when liberals used to pride themselves on being independant.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 1:02 PM

"Oh yeah - you might also want to mention the FACT that while Obama was taking his $150K from freddie/Fannie - he voted to defeat S.190."


You do realize that there are MULTIPLE STIPULATIONS in a bill. I believe the one you are referring to was the one that would've abolished the existing department (HUD) and replaced it with a new independent one. A "financial FEMA" if you will...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 1:02 PM

Cryos,

Why is it that when someone points out a plus about Obama, people attack Obama with negatives?

When someone point out the negatives about McCain, people attack Obama with negatives?

When exactly do the McCain supporters say good things about McCain?

Also, why is it so important to say something negative about Obama that is completely off topic? And why do people say something negative about Obama that McCain himself is guilty off?

I'm just curios as to how debates work. It seems that if I start positive, everyone else should stay positive. The low road is too crowded.

Posted by: Tim | September 24, 2008 1:06 PM

So one should look into The Washington Post's connection to the GSE. What a joke? Obama took the most of any politicain in three year for teh last 10 years. McCain back in 05 sponsored legislation to rein in The GSE, government sponsered entities. Despite the fact that he may have had lobbyist working on his campaign because he is a man of integrety. Obama did NADA, The post is so guily of one sided journalism. Shame on you Post! The public is smarter than you apparently think.

Posted by: anonomous | September 24, 2008 1:08 PM

"How does Hussein Obama's lack of experience, (not even a full senatorial term, no executive experience, etc.) make him better on economic issues than Sen. McCain?"

Because McCain didn't even know who the President's "working group" was during a debate in the primaries. If he doesn't know that, i doubt he knows much else about how the government plays a role in the economy.

Posted by: John | September 24, 2008 1:08 PM

All the people in congress and running for political office are shady characters something like women of the night. Choice between the least dishonest.

Posted by: mozartmon | September 24, 2008 1:11 PM

"It's sad that individualism and independance has been completely lost in the democratic party when liberals used to pride themselves on being independant."

I'm register independent.

I do not like politicians.

I research and watch speeches with only my consious telling me how to feel.

I listen to what the candidates have to say, and what they want to do.

I beleive in liberal values, just like our founding fathers that thought people should be allowed freedom.

I am voting for Obama, because he is my best choice.

I am not going to call myself a democrat, but this year they got it right. Maybe if McCain wasn't an old, disabled, computer illiterate, economy illiterate, middle/poor class illiterate, and lobbyist supporting politican I would vote for him. But, he is, so Obama gets my vote.

Posted by: Tim | September 24, 2008 1:11 PM

Mccain is just another feed the rich and to hell with working people. His party tried trickle down ecomimics in th 1880, in the 1920, and started it again the eighties it got laywayed in the ninties and the rove got elected and now we have another recession. They fool voters into thinking they are cristians and will do the right thing and then do just the oposite

Posted by: jose | September 24, 2008 1:13 PM

"So one should look into The Washington Post's connection to the GSE. What a joke? Obama took the most of any politicain in three year for teh last 10 years. McCain back in 05 sponsored legislation to rein in The GSE, government sponsered entities. Despite the fact that he may have had lobbyist working on his campaign because he is a man of integrety. Obama did NADA, The post is so guily of one sided journalism. Shame on you Post! The public is smarter than you apparently think."

That is because the Post will not print lies. Obama receive funds for employees, not from GSE.

Posted by: Tim | September 24, 2008 1:13 PM

"Why is it that when someone points out a plus about Obama, people attack Obama with negatives?

When someone point out the negatives about McCain, people attack Obama with negatives?

When exactly do the McCain supporters say good things about McCain?"

I don't really like McCain hence you don't see me saying many positive things about hom or any neo-con. If McCain goes against the bailout he'll at least gain some credibility with me however I don't see that happening.

I am not naive enough to ignore all the shady things about Obama to try to pump him up as more than he is; a corrupt, greedy, manipulative politician exploiting race and political correctness to try to get into office.

I post more negative things about Obama since it is hard to find them in the MSM. There is total support for Obama from the MSM and hollywood and too many people are fooled by populism.

If the MSM was responsible and would be honest about Obama I wouldn't have to post negative things about him since people would already know. However it has gotten bad enough where blogs become the more balanced view and media is simply an Obama cheerleading squad.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 1:17 PM

McCain lies, it's OK. McCain gets caught - oops, not OK. You Repub cult members make me laugh. Oh, Reality, I can tell when truth is against you because you start throwing out your infantile insinuations. Fact of the matters is that these companies are paying insurance (ie bribe) money to the McCain campaign just in case he by some miracle happens to win.

So, here's 83 lobbyists, aids and bundlers associated with the McCain campaign Notice in particular Fannie/Freddy and other companies that are being bailed out:

Phil Anderson: American Council of Life Insurers, Aetna, AIG, New York Life, MassMutual, VISA

Rebecca Anderson: Aegon, American Council of Life Insurers, Cigna, Barclays, Credit Suisse First Boston, HSBC

Stanton Anderson: The Debt Exchange

David Beightol: Allstate, Amerigroup, Charles Schwab, HSBC

Rhonda Bentz: VISA

Wayne Berman: American Council of Life Insurers, AIG, Americhoice, Shinsei Bank, Blackstone, Carlyle Group, Broidy Capital Management, Credit Suisse Securities, Highstar Capital, VISA, Ameriquest Mortgage, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Fitch Ratings

Charlie Black: JP Morgan, Washington Mutual Bank, Freddie Mac, Mortgage Bankers Association of America, National Association of Mortgage Brokers

Judy Black: Colorado Credit Union League, Genworth Financial, Bay Harbour Management, Merrill Lynch

Kirk Blalock: Credit Union National Association, Financial Executives International, American Insurance Association, Mutual of Omaha, Zurich Financial Service Group, Fannie Mae, Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco

Carlos Bonilla: Financial Services Roundtable, Freddie Mac

Christine Burgeson: Citigroup

Mark Buse: Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, Manufacturers Life Insurance Company

Nicholas Calio: Citigroup, Managed Fund Association, Fannie Mae, Merrill Lynch, The Investment Company Institute, TIAA-CRE, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association

Ben Nighthorse Campbell: Amscot Financial Corporation, Community Financial Services Association, Fidelity National Financial

Andrew Cantor: American Insurance Association, Merrill Lynch

Alberto Cardenas: Fannie Mae

James Courter: Goldman Sachs, Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette, Investment Company Institute, Merrill Lynch

David Crane: Financial Services Roundtable, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte & Touche, KPMG, Ernst & Young, Bank of America, Association of Corporate Credit Unions, Freddie Mac

Dan Crippen: Merrill Lynch, National Multi-Housing Council

Arthur Culvahouse: Fannie Mae

Bryan Cunningham: Arch Capital Group

Alfonse D'Amato: AIG, Freddie Mac

Doug Davenport: Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, Goldman Sachs, VISA

Ashley Davis: Prudential Financial, American Financial Group, American Premier Underwriters, Great American Insurance Company

Mimi Dawson: MassMutual

Melissa Edwards: Freddie Mac, National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, Access to Capital Coalition

Chris Fidler: American Bankers Association, Milcom Venture Partners, National Association Real Estate Investment Trusts

Samuel Geduldig: American Bankers Association, American Institute of CPAs, America Gains, Berkshire Hathaway, Consumer Bankers Association, Ernst & Young, Financial Services Roundtable, Investment Company Institute, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Prudential Financial, Sovereign Investment Council, Fidelity Investments, FMR Corp.

Benjamin Ginsberg: Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance, AIG Technical Services

David Girard-Dicarlo: American Financial Group, American Premier Underwriters

Juleanna Glover Weiss: RJI Capital, American Institute of CPAs, BNP Paribas, Ernst & Young, PriceWaterhouseCoopers

Slade Gorton: Allstate Insurance, Hannan Armstrong Capital

Phil Gramm: UBS Americas

John Green: Laredo National Bank, Alternative Investment Management Association, AIG, Blackstone Group, Carlyle Group, Citigroup, Credit Suisse Group, Fannie Mae, Icahn Associates, FMR Corp., AFLAC, VISA

Janet Grissom: American Institute of CPAs, NYSE, Merrill Lynch

Kristen Gullott: San Diego Credit Union

Kent Hance: Stanford Financial Group, Municipal Capital Markets Group, Inc.

Vicki Hart: American Financial Services Association, Citigroup, Investment Company Institute, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, New York Stock Exchange, VISA, Carlyle Group, Credit Suisse, Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis, Goldman Sachs, National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, Stanford Group, Lloyd's of London, National City Corp.

Richard Hohlt: Capmark Financial Group, Fannie Mae, JP Morgan Chase and Co., Student Loan Marketing Association, Washington Mutual, Guaranty Bank & Trust, Peachtree Settlement Funding, Dime Savings Bank of New York

Gaylord Hughey: Heartland Security Insurance Group

Kate Hull: Credit Union National Association, Fannie Mae, Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, Zurich Financial Services, American Insurance Association, Financial Executives International

James Hyland: American Insurance Association, Seattle Home Loan Bank, Self Help Credit Union, National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees, Merrill Lynch, Mortgage Investors Corp., Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis, Freddie Mac, New York Stock Exchange, Citigroup, VISA

Aleix Jarvis: Credit Union National Association, Fannie Mae, Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, Financial Executives International, Mutual of Omaha, American Insurance Association, Zurich Financial Services

Greg Jenner: American Council of Life Insurers, JG Wentworth, UBS, VISA, PriceWaterhouseCoopers

Frank Keating: American Council of Life Insurers

Steven Kuykendall: California Bankers Association

William Lesher: Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Commerce Ventures, Rabobank International

Thomas Loeffler: Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Investment Company Institute, World Savings and Loan Association, United Services Automobile Association (USAA)

Kelly Lugar: RJI Capital Strategies

Peter Madigan: Arthur Andersen, Bank of New York, Broadridge Securities Processing, Charles Schwab, Deloitte and Touche, Goldman Sachs, International Employee Stock Option Coalition, Mastercard, NYSE, Fannie Mae, Merrill Lynch, PNC Bank

Mary Mann: MassMutual

Paul Martino: Morgan Stanley, Baker Tilly

Jana McKeag: Venture Catalyst

Alison McSlarrow: Fannie Mae, Hartford

Mike Meece: Georgetown Partners

David Metzner: Ernst & Young, Harbinger Capital Investments, Prudential, Public Financial Management, Western Union

Susan Molinari: Freddie Mac, American Land Title Association, Association of Consumer Credit Unions, Beacon Capital Partners, College Loan Corp, Coventry First, E-Trade, Financial Services Roundtable, Rent-A-Center

John Moran: Cerberus Capital Management, American Council of Life Insurers, Accenture

John Napier: Freddie Mac

Susan Nelson: AIG, San Antonio Credit Union

Paul Otellini: Ernst & Young, Financial Services Forum

Steve Perry: Charles Schwab, Hoover Partners, HSBC, National Stock Exchange

Nancy Pfotenhauer: American Land Title Association, Mortgage Bankers Association

Elise Pickering-Finley: Credit Suisse, DE Shaw, Hartford Financial Services, Research In Motion, Retail Industry Lenders Association, URL Mutual

James Pitts: Advanced Association for Life Underwriting, AETNA, American Council of Life Insurers, AIG, Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, Debt Advisory International, Financial Services Coordinating Council, GE Financial Assurance, Hartford Life, Jefferson Pilot Financial, Kenwood Investments, MassMutual, Mutual of Omaha, New York Life, UNUM Provident, VISA, PMI Group

Tim Powers: AP Capital, Genworth Financial, Retail Industry Lenders Association, E-LOAN, General Electric Mortgage Insurance

Walter Price: Wachovia

Sloan Rappoport: Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. (FBR), Trafelet Delta Funds

Hans Rickhoff: Capital One, Investment Company Institute, United Services Automobile Association (USAA)

Kathleen Shanahan: New York Stock Exchange

Andrew Shore: Accenture, Retail Industry Lenders Association, Barclays, Bond Market Association, Credit Suisse, TPG Capital

Katie Stahl: Alliance for Investment Transparency, Ares Management, Fairfax Financial Holdings, Uhlmann Financial Group

Milly Stanges: TIAA-CREF

Aquiles Suarez: Fannie Mae

Don Sundquist: Freddie Mac, The Hartford

Peter Terpeluk: JP Morgan Chase, Ernst & Young, Prudential

Fred Thompson: Equitas

Jeri Thompson: American Insurance Association

John Timmons: National Association of Federal Credit Unions

William Timmons Sr.: American Council of Life Insurers, Citigroup, Dun & Bradstreet, Freddie Mac, Vanguard Group

Vin Weber: Agstar Financial Services, AKT Investment Corp., American Institute of CPAs, Ernst & Young, Freddie Mac, Louis Dreyfus Corp, PriceWaterhouseCoopers

Jeffery Weiss: JP Morgan

Tony Williams: Russell Investment Group, American Life Inc., Northwestern Mutual

— David Corn, Jonathan Stein, and Nick Baumann


http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archiv...street_aig.html

Posted by: Sandra S | September 24, 2008 1:21 PM

Vote Palin — she'll charge rape victims for their forensic exams, AND make them keep the baby.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 1:29 PM

"D" wants to know: "How does Hussein Obama's lack of experience, (not even a full senatorial term, no executive experience, etc.) make him better on economic issues than Sen. McCain?"

Here's how: Sen. McCain (POW) has hads 26 years in the senate to fix these problems. Instead, he and his party's deregulation of the financial markets directly led to the current crisis. Obama was not in the senate when this ocurred. McCain is head of the Commerce committee.

Now, McCain (POW) has completely flip-flopped to wanting to regulate these guys -- "he's dealt with tougher guys than these." Well, not when it counted for our economy, John (POW).

Conservatives don't want to admit this, but it is plainly true for all to see. A recent scientific experiment leads to the conclusion that conservatives are more rigid in their thinking than liberals. Once they've got a thought in their heads, no amount of truth or facts is likely to dissuade them. Example: see Bush, Geo. W.

If we want to see real change in DC, we have to quit sending the same guys back to keep doing the same things.

Posted by: BF Skinner? | September 24, 2008 1:29 PM

The Democrats created this mess!


In 2003, the Bush administration wanted to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac... and the Democrats refused!


See this New York Times article from September 11, 2003...


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1


There you have it.


Proof!


The Democrats DID NOT WANT to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.


It was the Democrats who pushed for deregulation.


A vote for the Democrats is a vote for continued disaster.

Posted by: Mark | September 24, 2008 1:31 PM

The Democrats created this mess!


In 2003, the Bush administration wanted to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac... and the Democrats refused!


See this New York Times article from September 11, 2003...


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1


There you have it.


Proof!


The Democrats DID NOT WANT to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.


It was the Democrats who pushed for deregulation.


A vote for the Democrats is a vote for continued disaster.

Posted by: Mark | September 24, 2008 1:31 PM

"So, here's 83 lobbyists, aids and bundlers associated with the McCain campaign Notice in particular Fannie/Freddy and other companies that are being bailed out:"

Gee thanks for the copy and pasted 10 page long list. Here is an article regarding Obama's bundlers and lobbyists and the biggest contributors are in the financial industry, real estate and law firms involved in the subprime mortgages.

Oh and Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Kerry are the biggest recipients of Fannie/Freddie contributions even on the same year they opposed a bill to increase regulations on the agencies. I guess democrats believe in regulation only if they profit from it.

Both parties and candidates have benefitted from the housing bubble. You are naive if you convince yourself otherwise.

www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/us/politics/06bundlers.html?

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 1:31 PM

The Republicans have demonstrated that they are incapable of governing. Massive Debt, Failure of oversight, dividing the country for political gain. McCain has been there the whole time, he's part of the problem. There is no way he can bring the change we need to Washington. McCain represents the past, Obama the future. America always votes for the future.

Bush/McCain. More of the same. No More Years!

Posted by: thebob.bob | September 24, 2008 1:36 PM

Thanks for the link Mark. I hadn't seen that article. Here are some quotes. You know its amazing the perception is that republicans wanted to deregulate everything and the democrats fought for deregulation. It looks like that isnt the case.

"Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said."

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 1:38 PM

All that matters is finding out if this is TRUE. Get to the bottom of it. If it's false, the reporters must be held to account. But if it's true, Rick Davis ought to be fired immediately and Sen. McCain should lose the election.

People, it's not about Republicans or Democrats--it's about lying or telling the truth.

Posted by: margaret | September 24, 2008 1:46 PM

Reply to: D | September 24, 2008 11:14 AM

Hey D, are you really quoting FOX Noise?

Get a life man!

Posted by: AnnapolisMD | September 24, 2008 1:53 PM

Mark, the article only casually mentions Democratic opposition. The reality is that the Republican mantra of free markets and deregulation directly caused the current crisis. The plan covered in the article couldn't get thru a Republican controlled Congress in 2003 -- hmmm, what does that tell us?

Posted by: BF | September 24, 2008 1:56 PM

I thought the Dems said they were going to change things when they were elected two years ago. All they have done is take campaign contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Dood was number one; Obama number two. Why doesn't the Post report this?

Posted by: Sam | September 24, 2008 1:56 PM

Looks like finally the people have been jolted awake by the financial crisis. They are looking at the facts and discovering that "truth has a liberal bias".

Its funny to see the Republicans resort to mindlessly repeating the same lies over and over again as if to convince themselves.

I especially like how one numbskull is trying to convince that this crisis is Democrats fault, even though McCain and his cronies have been the Champions of Deregulation for over two decades. Republicans had Bush and control of both houses for last six years (eight if you count Clinton years) and yet blame Democrats as "do nothing"
Please you trolls get a life.

Posted by: Politico | September 24, 2008 1:57 PM

Next time McCain's pants catch on fire from lying again, please...will someone throw a bucket of water on him?

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"

Posted by: SteveKelson | September 24, 2008 1:59 PM

First of all lets get down to the basics.
Lets get past all the rhetoric(the study of the effective use of exaggeration in language)of which the media is very proficient.The most inportant thing is TRUST and part of trust is history of person or product.That takes this up to who has crossed over to work with the opposite party.this is a easy quesion to answer.Who has NEVER voted for pork in a bill to pass and who has voted for over millions in less than a full term. I feel the past record have a lot to do with what future will hold.To sum it up I just don't trust Obama.

Posted by: boots | September 24, 2008 2:00 PM

For all the idiots using the term "socialist", don't forget that it's our current administration that has apparently solidified the federal government's role in the mortgage and insurance businesses, and is now poised to make a head-long, thoughtless stumble into the banking world as well. We're already there, and under a republican President to boot. Get a new thesaurus, or at least try to keep up.

Posted by: perelvis | September 24, 2008 2:02 PM

"I especially like how one numbskull is trying to convince that this crisis is Democrats fault, even though McCain and his cronies have been the Champions of Deregulation for over two decades."

Yeah keep using the generic "deregulation by republicans" ignoring the facts of regulation in the direct case of Fannie/Freddie posted by Mark and others. Apparently though the liberal ideal of housing for everyone including those who couldn't afford it was more important.

Deregulation is good in some cases and bad in others. The transportation deregulation is a perfect example of good deregulation.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 2:09 PM

Hey Cyros, do you have a job (other than trolling blogs)?

Posted by: AnnapolisMD | September 24, 2008 2:16 PM

Recently released research has shown that consuption of wild game and gun ownership can lead to Down's Syndrome. The NRA and MOOSE lodge leadership has disputed the results noting that the study cited was sponsored by the Older Women's Reproductive Rights Society, an organization with known links and funding from the Organization of Christian Husseins.

Posted by: awenshok'08 | September 24, 2008 2:17 PM

How does Hussein Obama's lack of experience, (not even a full senatorial term, no executive experience, etc.) make him better on economic issues than Sen. McCain?

answer: vision and philosophy

see its mccains philosophy that got us into the mess

Posted by: o | September 24, 2008 2:19 PM

In reply to Cryos | September 24, 2008 2:09 PM

You said "Deregulation is good in some cases and bad in others. The transportation deregulation is a perfect example of good deregulation."

You are kidding right? We have infrastructure that is falling apart, airlines going out of business left and right, our public transpo system is one of the worst of any developed country in the world.

What part of that deregulation is good?

Posted by: AnnapolisMD | September 24, 2008 2:19 PM

In 1999, John McCain voted for passage of the Senate version of a bill that would eliminate current barriers erected by the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and other laws that impede affiliations between banking, securities, insurance and other firms. The bill also would exempt small, non-urban banks from the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), revise the Federal Home Loan Bank system and require that owners of automated teller machines (ATMs) provide notice on the ATM and on-screen of any charges imposed for the use of the terminal. Read more at: http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/2343

Posted by: Conservative Not NeoCon | September 24, 2008 2:26 PM

How is it that all of the right wing regulators, that supported Phil Gramm and his Enron based economics, are now the whiners?
After Obama is elected President, I think that he should appoint Bill Clinton to resolve the economic disaster that President Chaney and Vice President Bush led this country into.
Senator McCain, we do not need another Teddy Roosevelt now, we need another Franklin D. Roosevelt. As for Gov. Palin, there is no national office for Dog Catcher, even if you were qualified.

Posted by: Larry Linn | September 24, 2008 2:33 PM

"You are kidding right? We have infrastructure that is falling apart, airlines going out of business left and right, our public transpo system is one of the worst of any developed country in the world."

The fact that you see deregulation as a cause of these items shows the pointlessness in responding. I don't want to bother to take the time to explain the different factors causing the examples you provide.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 2:33 PM

You all have lost your ever-loving minds. I've been here over 60 years, I've worked and paid my dues to this system of government for over 45 years and seen a lot of presidents. BUSH, GEO W. IS THE WORST AND WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS THE WORST PRESIDENT THIS COUNTRY AND WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN. MCCAIN IS A REPLICA!!! YOU TALK THE TALK, BUT YOU CAN'T WALK THE WALK. MCCAIN WILL SEND US INTO OBLIVION AND GOD BLESS US IF WE'RE ABLE TO RECOUP... THIS MESS IS WORST THAN 1929... HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS, WE'RE IN FOR A BUMPY, BUMPY RIDE IF MCCAIN WINS THIS RACE. AND AS FOR PALIN, SHE SHOULD GO BACK HOME AND TAKE CARE OF HER LITTLE SON, WHO NEEDS HER MORE THAN THIS COUNTRY DOES!!!!

Posted by: turqblutopaz | September 24, 2008 2:33 PM

In reply to Cryos | September 24, 2008 2:33 PM

I'll take that as an admission that you can't

Posted by: Annapolis | September 24, 2008 2:36 PM

Why doesn't any body lay some of the blame on to the unwise(for use of a nicer term) people who choose to go in over their heads.I just can't make myself feel sorry for them.

Posted by: boots | September 24, 2008 2:37 PM

"In reply to Cryos | September 24, 2008 2:33 PM

I'll take that as an admission that you can't"

Lol no take it as I don't bother trying to explain quantum physics to primates either. It's a waste of time for me and the primate wouldn't learn anything.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 2:38 PM

By the way I didn't go to Harvard either.

Posted by: b | September 24, 2008 2:40 PM

There are some O'Bama-hating hearts being ripped out at the seams right now.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 2:41 PM

To elaborate on my point, democrats are using things like the economic problems to open the door to very strict regulation. Yes some oversight is needed but the next step from this is socialism as the government controls more and more of private business.

Then guess who has more power, gets more and more taxpayer money to work with and as a result more contributions from people who they can "shake down." Politicians. The "regulation" lightning rod is a means to an end of more power.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 2:42 PM

"Why doesn't any body lay some of the blame on to the unwise(for use of a nicer term) people who choose to go in over their heads.I just can't make myself feel sorry for them. "

Yep agreed. As far as I'm concerned the people who shouldn't have been in the houses in the first place can move into apartments where they belong.

The market can continue to crash and then in the end a couple years from now housing will be affordable for hard working middle class people who deserve to be able to buy homes; not to low income people who know they're not even paying any principal on their loans.

Things like bailouts are something the neo-cons and liberals actually can agree on. Hopefully McCain takes a stand against the bailouts but I don't really expect it to happen since I suspect the election is marxist versus neo-con

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 2:45 PM

"You are kidding right? We have infrastructure that is falling apart, airlines going out of business left and right, our public transpo system is one of the worst of any developed country in the world."

...Not to mention the decomposing school system and social lack of grace!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 2:46 PM

Republicans are now revolting against their own party. McCain has made so many gaffes and it now is confirmed that he knows nothing about the economy and Palin is being so insulated its obvious the party has no confidence in her ability to answer to the press. McCain has recurrent cancer so if he wins she will, in the not to distant future, become president which will have such a lasting effect on the GOP they may never recover, which would be fine by me.

Posted by: Bill | September 24, 2008 2:55 PM

In reply to Cryos | September 24, 2008 2:38 PM

"Lol no take it as I don't bother trying to explain quantum physics to primates either..."

Spoken like a true nitwit. You appear to have neither the intellectual capacity nor the grasp of the english language to even come up with a cogent argument, much less "explain quantum physics to primates".

Please, do youself and everyone else a favor, and go watch FOX Noise.

Posted by: AnnapolisMD | September 24, 2008 3:04 PM

"Lol no take it as I don't bother trying to explain quantum physics to primates either. It's a waste of time for me and the primate wouldn't learn anything."

Sounds like a dodge to me. The ability to explain something to others is usually a very good indicator for an understanding of a subject. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

Los Angeles is now known as a automobile city, but at one point it had a very good public transportation system that could take you anywhere from county to county. If you've ever visited there, the rails which are no defunct and paved over are a good indicator of private interests overstepping the need for public infrastructure. And the infrastruture we have now -- mainly built during the 40s and 50s -- are now decaying and are in desperate need of maintenance and upgrades. Unfortunately we've let things go amuck over the last few decades so we have tons of roads but at the same time the city has one of the highest congestion rates in the world. Private interests are incapable of thinking of the "public good", so government intervention is what is necessary.

Your reactionary viewpoint towards socialism is causing you to conflate socialism with communism, which are two distinctly different things. Nobody is advocating Soviet-style communism, which historically has been proven to be a distasterous policy. But democratic socialism, which exists in many European countries, can and has proven to work. Government oversight and regulation is not the same thing as government controlled economies, which is what separates the two political ideologies.

Unfortunately because of the United States' involvement with the Cold War, most American youths are taught from a very early age to be skeptical of anything that might resemble anything government related. A lot of people (even intelligent ones) seem to lack the independence or skepticism to question this type of perspetive, and unfortunately this tends to impede political progress. For what it's worth, both Obama and Biden are pragmatists -- which generally means that they will use whatever ideology or ideas needed in order to get what needs to be done. The McCain/Palin ticket, on the other hand, are ideologues -- meaning that they stick to an ideological concept and attempt to apply it into the world using force. The latter will have disasterous consequences on the world if we should let it happen.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 3:12 PM

"Please, do youself and everyone else a favor, and go watch FOX Noise."

Nice response. That talking point is a good partner to your "deregulation" talking point. Just keep letting the MSM think for you.

FYI if you want me to respond to some garbage like your post how about you first explain how deregulation caused the problems with the airline industry, failing infrastructure and the public transportation systems and then ask for a response. Don't think you can parrot a simple minded MSM talking point and that is "evidence" for your position.

I'll throw a couple basic things out there of why I don't want to have to post a 2 page response to a talking point that makes you appear naive unless you explain.

Public transporation
1. It has nothing to do with deregulation

2. We have a lot more open land than most developed nations with widely varying climates therefore public transportation is more difficult and expensive to implement.

3. Also MANY people consider personal transportation to be important and would still drive their own cars. Public transportation would be expensive to implement with a relatively small return.

Infrastructure - Once again how does this relate to deregulation? A lot of our infrastructure was built with "cheap labor" in the past including national parks and many construction projects. They actually made people on welfare work instead of sitting around at home and this provided much of the infrastructure we have.

Airline industry - Explain how deregulation is a bigger factor than things like fuel costs and regulations post 911.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 3:14 PM

"Your reactionary viewpoint towards socialism is causing you to conflate socialism with communism, which are two distinctly different things. Nobody is advocating Soviet-style communism, which historically has been proven to be a distasterous policy. But democratic socialism, which exists in many European countries, can and has proven to work."

I disagree. European socialism is failing in most european countries as they have issues with labor competitiveness and immigration. The european countries are implementing more conservative governments as their countries become less competitive and productive. The EU has us fight their Serbian war as part of a strategy to calm eastern europe to provide a lower cost of labor so they could shift manufacturing to eastern europe to slow the demise.

When you take away motivation with socialism your society becomes less and less productive. For example why would I work a difficult IT job with constant training, off hours work and responsibility if I had the same quality of living working at a gas station? I wouldn't and a lot of other people wouldn't either. Once you establish socialism you have 2 choices; either accept a worse economy and slow economic growth or force people to work to their potential ie communism.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 3:18 PM

"How does Hussein Obama's lack of experience, (not even a full senatorial term, no executive experience, etc.) make him better on economic issues than Sen. McCain?" [Posted by: reality] Answers: (1) Experience is a big fat zero without cool judgment. One can repeat the same stupid mistake over and over again and call it "experience." Rumsfeld and Paulson have experience after all. (2) McCain himself openly admitted that economy is not his cup of tea.

Posted by: Saddam McCain | September 24, 2008 3:19 PM

"For what it's worth, both Obama and Biden are pragmatists -- which generally means that they will use whatever ideology or ideas needed in order to get what needs to be done. "

I know the media is full of stories telling you this but it is not true. From his very limited record look at Obama's stances and votes and he is a very liberal socialist/marxist when it comes to getting things done. From his history there is nothing you can't tax or regulate into submission.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 3:20 PM

"I know the media is full of stories telling you this but it is not true. From his very limited record look at Obama's stances and votes and he is a very liberal socialist/marxist when it comes to getting things done. From his history there is nothing you can't tax or regulate into submission."

When you say "liberal/socialist/marxist" I hear "open to new ideas"/"For the people"/"a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support."

All of which sound fair to me.

Now don't take me the wrong way. I don't want to take all the power and wealthy from the rich. I just want to make the playing field fair, instead of having the wealthy and rich call the shots.

Posted by: Tim | September 24, 2008 3:25 PM

"When you say "liberal/socialist/marxist" I hear "open to new ideas"/"For the people"/"a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support."

All of which sound fair to me.

Now don't take me the wrong way. I don't want to take all the power and wealthy from the rich. I just want to make the playing field fair, instead of having the wealthy and rich call the shots."

This is a nice thought, but liberal idealist eutopia simply won't work in my opinion. I would like things to be that way also but it is a pipe dream. Communism is the reality of the implementation of what you are mentioning and there is still a significant class structure difference. Some of the richest people in the world are in socialist/communist countries.

"Feel good" liberal policy to force lenders to lower standards to increase minority home ownership was one of the primers that led to greed in the housing bubble causing the problems we have now.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 3:35 PM

In response to Cryos | September 24, 2008 3:14 PM

You stated: "I'll throw a couple basic things out there..."

I will respond following some of your entries.

"Public transporation
1. It has nothing to do with deregulation"

Actully, yes, the failure of our system does have to do with deregulation, as well as a failure of vision.

"2. We have a lot more open land than most developed nations with widely varying climates therefore public transportation is more difficult and expensive to implement."

The public transportation I'm thinking of has to do with our cities and the outlying areas surrounding them, not the great expanses of the mid west. For instance, extending Metro in the Washington DC area out to Annapolis would greatly reduce the number of cars on highway 50, saving significant gasoline. Deregulation, and privitisation have definitely impacted the growth of public transportation.

"3. Also MANY people consider personal transportation to be important and would still drive their own cars. Public transportation would be expensive to implement with a relatively small return."

This is demostrably false in our urban areas. Again, for example, in the DC metropolitan area, a significant number of commuters either share rides, or ride the commuter bus system from Annapolis into DC. An even larger number have, for years, clamored for the Metro system to be extended out to the suburbs.

"Airline industry - Explain how deregulation is a bigger factor than things like fuel costs and regulations post 911."

The thought that deregulation and the 'power' of competition would help the airline industry was misguided well before rising fuel costs and any security regulations post 911 (if those are the regulations you are referring to). With the rise (and fall) of the numerous 'cheap' airlines post deregulation, came the downfall of some of the large airlines. When times did start to get rough, many of the small airlines failed because they did not have the capital to stay in business. While this Darwinian, survival of the fittest, approach looks great on paper, it has seldom worked well in the real world.

Most other major nations have subsidized or semi-subsidized public transportation systems. Several have advanced rail (which could cover our vast open spaces) and well used inner city commuter systems.

As one blogger put it so well earlier, government doesn't do everything worse than the private sector. And in some cases (as proven in numerous developed nations around the world) can do a better job.

Posted by: AnnapolisMD | September 24, 2008 3:35 PM

In the end, it comes down to this: Republicans believe in mass deregulation of bidness, the "free market"; they want to control the individual, tell you what you can read, if you can have a medical procedure, what faith you have to profess in this country. Democrats want to regulate bidness, and allow the individual his/her rights under the Constitution.

They both want to regulate and conrtol, but the very important differene is whom they want to regulate and control.

Posted by: QWERT YUIOP | September 24, 2008 3:39 PM

#1 Rule: All politicians are corrupt. It is in the nature of the basic psychology of a person who wants to get into government to be corrupt. So stop this nonsensical argumentation about who is tied to what because they are ALL prone to doing whatever it takes to give themselves the best possible situation. This is also why we must not bail these banks out. These crooks on Wall Street are WORSE than politicians because they are just plain greedy. They don't choose to be greedy, it is built into their DNA. So we can pretend that these people will just change their ways, but it isn't even a possibility: it is the same as asking a tiger to stop killing other animals. We have to overpower these psychological basket-cases in government and big business and let people with some real common sense take control again. And by the way, do some research on the psychology of voters and what causes them to vote one way or another. Ever wonder why the Republicans are so big on fear mongering?? Well, its because Republicans and conservatives are BIOLOGICALLY prone to being THREE TIMES MORE FEARFUL than liberals. Poor little scared Republicans...don't worry, the Democrats will take care of you again and you won't have to worry anymore.

Posted by: Nick | September 24, 2008 3:43 PM

"Feel good" liberal policy to force lenders to lower standards to increase minority home ownership was one of the primers that led to greed in the housing bubble causing the problems we have now. "

I am pretty sure that is not how it happened.

1) Investors want their shares to be worth more money.

2) Companies agree.

3) Companies hire lobbyists and expensive pushy CEOs.

4) The lobbyists push for deregulation, and it works under GWBushs reign.

5) The CEOs use these deregulations and loopholes to push higher risky loans.

6) It works, stocks rise, quickly.

7) Years later, people are stuggling to pay the variable rates that they were told they can afford.

8) Loans stop getting paid, foreclosures start.

9) Lack of income causes banks to increase rates more.

10) More foeclosures result.

11) House market collaspes.


The key step, was the deregulation of loan practices, pushed into congress buy BUSH and lobbyists like GRAHAM. You can't blame the CEOs, they are paid to be shady. You can't blame the public, then go to the bank in order to find out how much they can afford. You can't blame the local bank managers, they were told to do things by the CEOs.

You blame the lobbyists who opened the door.

The average person, someone who knows little about money, goes to the bank for advice on what they can afford. You can not blame them for not affording the variable rates that the bank offered. The bank people are the experts, they should know better.

A similar situation would be a hospital. If a person goes to a doctor for advice, and he gets hurt/killed because the doctor told him he could take a certain drug to get better, the doctor is at fault, NOT THE PERSON.

I know that you, and I, are probably smart enough to manage our own money, but many people aren't. The banks took advantage of them, and that is not right.

Posted by: Tim | September 24, 2008 3:51 PM

Call it socialist, call it marxist, call it Palinism, call it what ever you want.
The bottom line is that a new order of the ages is the next line, in the systematic scheme of things... It has already foretold.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 3:53 PM

Annapolis thanks for the response. I retract my accusation to you earlier and apologize; I just I get tired of responding to talking point posters who then don't even listen to what you respond with and waste your time. I'm glad to see you have well thought out concepts and ideas behind your points.

Many of the points are philosophical and have no definitive right or wrong. I'll respond to a couple to express my viewpoints.

"While this Darwinian, survival of the fittest, approach looks great on paper, it has seldom worked well in the real world."

Actually capitalism is a pretty recent enacted concept and I would argue it has led to a higher standard of living and quests for innovation that we would not have reached without it. Yes greed is bad but it also has good effects such as motivation since part of human nature is people will do the minimum they need to to survive.

"This is demostrably false in our urban areas. Again, for example, in the DC metropolitan area, a significant number of commuters either share rides, or ride the commuter bus system from Annapolis into DC. An even larger number have, for years, clamored for the Metro system to be extended out to the suburbs."

This is not the case in our metro area. They enacted a light rail system that is not running nearly full at capacity and I know a lot of people who won't take it and still drive to work. This is a debatable point it comes down to ROI and how much money we are willing to pay to have a system in place that might get limited use.

"Deregulation, and privitisation have definitely impacted the growth of public transportation."

Yes there have been negative and positive effects. Shipping used to be a matter of 4-6 weeks but innovations in transportation and logistics largely due to deregulation have also made things like 1-5 business day deliveries standard instead of 4-6 weeks.

Regulated transportation meant you had to use a pool of mandated, relatively few carriers who had no motivation to give you good service because you had no alternative.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 3:58 PM

Oops forgot to put my name on the last post.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 4:07 PM

"The average person, someone who knows little about money, goes to the bank for advice on what they can afford. You can not blame them for not affording the variable rates that the bank offered. The bank people are the experts, they should know better."

I strongly disagree with this statement among many others in your post and hope you're being sarcastic. In my opinion people need to take responsibility for their own actions. "The government", "CEOs", etc are not responsible for making people's choices for them. If so it sounds like you submit to one of the 2 extremes; communism or facism where everyone else makes your choices for you.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 4:11 PM

"Well, its because Republicans and conservatives are BIOLOGICALLY prone to being THREE TIMES MORE FEARFUL than liberals."

Lol looks like you're putting all your eggs in one basket by depending on one study to support your philosophy. It is pretty funny since some of the most scared, hypochondriac, biggest pusses I know are liberals.

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 4:14 PM

FYI Tim and others here is a link to one of the articles regarding 1999 Fannie/Freddie deregulation.

articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/01/business/fi-17403

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 4:16 PM

You're non-sensical comments betray you for the teenager in your mama's basement, spending too much time on the Internet, that you are. Get a life and live a little before you are forced into serfdom by the McPain dystopia headed at you. It's going to hit you right between the eyes and IT WILL HURT!

PS. Too much FOX will rot your brain. You've been warned.

Posted by: LOL @ Cryos | September 24, 2008 4:20 PM

Think what you will. I'm guessing you are someone that can't debate on real terms and makes rash decisions from day to day according to what the MSM tells you.

You obviously have poor judgement as your accusations are nowhere near reality :)

Posted by: Cryos | September 24, 2008 4:30 PM

If Obama is short on foreign policy experience, you wouldn't know it by watching how the Bush administration has been pursuing Obama's stated foreign policy strategies.

The Bush administration has pushed ahead with high-level diplomatic negotiations with Iran and North Korea, agreed to a "time horizon" for a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq and announced plans to shift troops and other resources from Iraq to Afghanistan. U.S. officials also confirmed that Bush has formally authorized cross-border raids into Pakistan without that government's approval -- an idea that Obama first endorsed, and was heavily criticized for, last year.

Not bad for a guy who is "short on foreign policy experience".

I'll take Good Judgement over Experience any day.

Posted by: Chris | September 29, 2008 11:18 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company