John McCain puts "country first" and suspends his campaign.
Actions speak louder then words, and John McCain showed today that he truly is a man of his word. John McCain suspended his campaign to in order to be in Washington to help draft a bill to deal with the loomingfinancial crisis. People like Harry Reid called it a "photo op". Harry Reid is to stupid to understand that John McCain understands his elected position, that of a U.S Senator. Truth be told if Democrats would have listened to John McCain three years ago about the fraud and mounting debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our country would not be in the shape it is now in regards to the financial and housing markets. It's kind of ironic that McCain has to suspend his campaign to help deal with a massive situation that he warned would happen three years ago. The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 20005 aka Senate bill 190 was introduced by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and was co sponsored by Republican Senators Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, John Sununu of New Hampshire and John McCain of Arizona.
This is the text from Senator McCain he delivered on the Senate floor in regards o the FHERRA. These are two paragraphs that I took from McCain's speech that I want everybody to read very very carefully, and just remember that McCain said all of this three years ago.
John McCain 2006"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"
John McCain 2006 "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".
I have more to say about how this whole financial mess started and about Franklin Raines later trust me ont that. This is the point I want to make. The Obama cult and their friends in the media want to portray the image that John McCain doesn't know anything about the economy. Obvious McCain understands alot more about the economy then they want to give him credit for. Barack Obama was elected to the U.S Senate in 2004 and was sworn in January of 2005. If Obama is such an expert on the economy, why didn't he help McCain in a "bipartisan" effort to reform and bring oversight to Fannie and Freddie knowing the massive damage those two organizations would cause to the Housing Market and the economy if they were to fail?Just a question I'm throwing out. Obama today stated that he plans to go on with the debate. I never thought Obama could look any more shallow and selfish then before today. It should come as no surprise that the position of a United State Senator is beneath Obama. When he was elected to the U.S Senate he spent a grand total of 143 days or four months and two weeks in the offical role of a U.S Senator before he came to the conclusion that he wanted to run for President. Anybody can give a speech at a German beer festival on a teleprompter but not everybody can be a leader. John McCain hasn't forgotten why he was sent to Washington. He's putting his personal ambitions aside and putting "country first". Obama on the other hand is all about Obama. Obama said today that a leader should be able to "multitask". I may be wrong, but I believe that the financial storm that is facing our country deserves our elected Representatives FULL UNDIVIDED ATTENTION!!! What else do anyone except from a guy so full of himself and so about himself that he created his own Presidential seal for crying out loud. Tell me if this doesn't sound accurate. John McCain 2006 "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." A leader understands the situtation at hand. Need I say more?
This is the text from Senator McCain he delivered on the Senate floor in regards o the FHERRA. These are two paragraphs that I took from McCain's speech that I want everybody to read very very carefully, and just remember that McCain said all of this three years ago.
John McCain 2006"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"
John McCain 2006 "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".
I have more to say about how this whole financial mess started and about Franklin Raines later trust me ont that. This is the point I want to make. The Obama cult and their friends in the media want to portray the image that John McCain doesn't know anything about the economy. Obvious McCain understands alot more about the economy then they want to give him credit for. Barack Obama was elected to the U.S Senate in 2004 and was sworn in January of 2005. If Obama is such an expert on the economy, why didn't he help McCain in a "bipartisan" effort to reform and bring oversight to Fannie and Freddie knowing the massive damage those two organizations would cause to the Housing Market and the economy if they were to fail?Just a question I'm throwing out. Obama today stated that he plans to go on with the debate. I never thought Obama could look any more shallow and selfish then before today. It should come as no surprise that the position of a United State Senator is beneath Obama. When he was elected to the U.S Senate he spent a grand total of 143 days or four months and two weeks in the offical role of a U.S Senator before he came to the conclusion that he wanted to run for President. Anybody can give a speech at a German beer festival on a teleprompter but not everybody can be a leader. John McCain hasn't forgotten why he was sent to Washington. He's putting his personal ambitions aside and putting "country first". Obama on the other hand is all about Obama. Obama said today that a leader should be able to "multitask". I may be wrong, but I believe that the financial storm that is facing our country deserves our elected Representatives FULL UNDIVIDED ATTENTION!!! What else do anyone except from a guy so full of himself and so about himself that he created his own Presidential seal for crying out loud. Tell me if this doesn't sound accurate. John McCain 2006 "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." A leader understands the situtation at hand. Need I say more?
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 5:43 PM
25 Comments:
The debate scheduled for tomorrow night will deal with foreign policy and national security, not domestic or economic policy. The debate to discuss domestic and economic issues is on 10/15. Obama trying to paint McCain as not wanting to debate the economy is either a lame attempt to make McCain look bad or he has has forgotten what is supposed to be discussed tomorrow night. McCain is doing his job.
Obama is probably secretly thanking God that McCain canceled this debate. Much like a death-row inmate that is granted a stay of execution.
pamela"Obama trying to paint McCain as not wanting to debate the economy is either a lame attempt to make McCain look bad or he has has forgotten what is supposed to be discussed tomorrow night. McCain is doing his job."
Obama can try and stroke his ego all he wants pamela. He doesn't have a leg to stand on in regards to being an expert or even having anything remotely important to say about the economy. Actually since Franklin Raines is apart of his campaign, Obama actually should be trying to down play the economic debate. We both know McCain is going to zero in on raines and what plausible excuse does Obama have for having a person who was a major figure in bringing the U.S economy down to it's knees as apart of his economic team on his campaign? As usual Obama simply doesn't know when to shut up pamela. Pamela I would simply LOVE IT if McCain stayed in Washington to continue help working on the housing bill but let Sarah Palin fill in for him at the debate instead lol. That would be SWEET!! I respect McCain for what he is doing and all, but I just can't imagine letting Obama have an hour or two just to bore people to death.
roadhouse "Obama is probably secretly thanking God that McCain canceled this debate. Much like a death-row inmate that is granted a stay of execution."
Of course roadhouse. Since the first debate was going to be on the one network that wasn't going to kiss his butt being Fox News and was going to have his butt handed to him by McCain on the topic of Foreign Policy. The Obama cult followers will never figure it out,but McCain actually save Obama from a severe embarrassment tomorrow night. Hopefully roadhouse this postponement is just dallying the inevitable for Obama.
A few hours ago I heard about Raines being a part of his campaign. This is absolutely amazing.
BREAKING! McCain now says he "will" attend the UM debate!
http://www.kansascity.com/772/story/814689.html
Is the country now "second"?
In other news, David Letterman is "pissed" at McCain for cancelling appearance on the late night venue. Letterman taunts McCain as he prepares for intervew with Katie Couric... More McCain jokes to follow, via Letterman!
CB says;"John McCain showed today that he truly is a man of his word."
Yeah right... I guess it depends on "which" word of his you're talking about...
CB;"It's kind of ironic that McCain has to suspend his campaign to help deal with a massive situation that he warned would happen three years ago."
Don't you mean the massive situation that's almost identical to situation that he "helped" create with the Keating Five?
It's my bet that both the Obama and McCain campaigns were asked "nicely" to leave Washington, for fears that the banking crisis could become a partisan political football campaign, thus alienating the "people", whom, by the way, will inevitably have to pay for this mess.
CB;"I have more to say about how this whole financial mess started and about Franklin Raines later trust me ont that"
Fair enough! Just don't leave out the fact the McCains campaign manager and top advisor, Rick Davis, recieved over $2 million between 2000-2002 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Davis also helped curve regulatory challenges as president of their advocacy group, the Homeownership Alliance!
Aslo, don't leave out the direct challenge and dispute that both Raines and Obama assert as to the vailidity of McCains latest campaign ad stating that Raines is an Obama advisor. Both Obama and Raines deny any sort of a connection.
CB;"Barack Obama was elected to the U.S Senate in 2004 and was sworn in January of 2005. If Obama is such an expert on the economy, why didn't he help McCain in a "bipartisan" effort to reform and bring oversight to Fannie and Freddie knowing the massive damage those two organizations would cause to the Housing Market and the economy if they were to fail?Just a question I'm throwing out.
You can throw your question out, because the 109th congress was controlled by REPUBLICANS! And since the White House, Senate and House were all Republican controlled at the time, the bill never became law!
The fact is Tyrone, there's enough blame to go around on both sides of the aisle. Democrats did nothing to stop it, and from what I've researched, Republicans, who were in power at the time, played both sides of the fence.
Getting back to the "debate or not to debate" ploy, McCains adviser's wised up and did the right thing by telling him to attend. That "country first" mantra was a political ploy which most Washington insiders saw through like glass.
After all, what could McCain or Obama possibly contributed to the banking crisis debate that would have not been viewed as political posturing. As said in the theater, "the show must go on!"
BTW Tyrone, the debate starts in about 2 hours. Have you wrote your raving revue yet as to how well McCain performed? (lol)
P Allen"
Don't you mean the massive situation that's almost identical to situation that he "helped" create with the Keating Five?"
Are you saying that McCain signed into law and pushed for a bill that would force banks to finance loans for people who couldn't afford them allen? Wow, gee can you post the link to that please so I can read it.
P Allen" It's my bet that both the Obama and McCain campaigns were asked "nicely" to leave Washington, for fears that the banking crisis could become a partisan political football campaign, thus alienating the "people", whom, by the way, will inevitably have to pay for this mess."
So let me see if I understand this right. Obama and McCain shouldn't be in Washington to do the jobs they were both elected to do allen? Until eithier one is elected president, the still have the job of U.S Senator to fulfill allen. Liberals gripe every time Bush goes to camp David saying he spends more time on vacation then any other president, but they actually complain that McCain actually takes serious his JOB and actually SHOWS UP TO DO IT?lol lol lol.
P Allen"Fair enough! Just don't leave out the fact the McCains campaign manager and top advisor, Rick Davis, recieved over $2 million between 2000-2002 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Davis also helped curve regulatory challenges as president of their advocacy group, the Homeownership Alliance!"
Too easy, lets begin allen
1. Did anyone outside of Freddie and Fannie know that their accounting practices were more shady then Enron back in 2000-2002, the answer is NO
2. Was Rick Davis running Freddie Mae or Freddie Mack, the answer again is NO
3. Was Rick Davis ever trying to defraud the U.S Taxpayer in those two years you speak of Allen, the answer is NO
This is where as usual your whole foundation of an argument completely falls part allen.
You said that Davis recieved $2million dollars from fannie from 2000 to 2002, I think it would be pretty darn hard for Davis to be helping fannie and running a presidental campaign at the same time. Also, its one thing to help a company with removing some regulations and its an entirely different thing to openly help to defraud a massive company like Raines. If you are trying to compare Davis to Raines it's going to be like trying to mix oil and water allen. Good luck on a futile mission. Simple question allen, what fraud did Davis commit?
P Allen" Aslo, don't leave out the direct challenge and dispute that both Raines and Obama assert as to the vailidity of McCains latest campaign ad stating that Raines is an Obama advisor. Both Obama and Raines deny any sort of a connection."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071502827.html
No connection?lol As usual Allen you make it to easy for me.
P Allen "You can throw your question out, because the 109th congress was controlled by REPUBLICANS! And since the White House, Senate and House were all Republican controlled at the time"
You are right allen. Do you have an answer to why the bill didn't progress? Who is the person who is the chairman of the Senate Banking committee that has the power to kill a bill and not let it out of committee allen? I'll give you a hint, he was the number one receipant of contributions from fannie mae.
P Allen "Getting back to the "debate or not to debate" ploy, McCains adviser's wised up and did the right thing by telling him to attend. That "country first" mantra was a political ploy which most Washington insiders saw through like glass"
As I type this, the debate has just finished. McCain is heading back to Washington to continue working on the bailout bill. Funny that you would call a person doing the job he was elected to do a "ploy" allen. Speaking of the bail out bill, it looks like Obama is actually on the side of Bush and Paulson and McCain is on the side of the House Republican conservatives in the role opposing Bush lol. Once again McCain is looking the role of a maverick.
P Allen "
BTW Tyrone, the debate starts in about 2 hours. Have you wrote your raving revue yet as to how well McCain performed? (lol)"
Funny you should mention that allen lol. No I'm not going to comment on the debate. McCain did win hands down. Obama looked so uncomfortable, I almost felt sorry for the stuttering machine gun lol. I will have something to say when Palin makes a fool out of Biden though. I know the Obama digital brown shirts are out in force trying to prop up every online poll they can find trying to fool people into believing Obama somehow won.lol
CB;"Who is the person who is the chairman of the Senate Banking committee that has the power to kill a bill and not let it out of committee allen?"
Okay Tyrone, I'm going to stop the political hacking just for a moment.
Chris Dodd should be in deep s#!t for his antics with Countrywide. It's more than obvious he played favors with the bank to get his low, if no cost, loans. He's just one of the crooks in this stew...
And BTW, Dodd didn't "kill" the bill. The bill never became law because the REPUBLICANS controlled the House and Senate. (a slight correction, my previous link should have been to S. 109 not S. 1907..)
I thought you knew how the game is played Tyrone. At the time, McCain gave a great speech based entirely on what he was told about the impending mortgage and banking crisis. Yet he, like all the others in that committee, "knew" that the bill was going nowhere.
It's my opinion that McCain, and all others members, were simply on board to appease their constituents. I believe the members played the "Discharge Petition" game by submitting legislation, or other members co-sponsoring legislation knowing that the bill will never leave committee.
The bottom line is McCain knew there wouldn't be enough effort or votes to pass the legislation. Hell, he didn't sign the bill until over a year after it was introduced, and had died in the REPUBLICAN controlled committee!
CB;"Are you saying that McCain signed into law and pushed for a bill that would force banks to finance loans for people who couldn't afford them allen?"
Wow...that's a crazy one Tyrone...
If I were a mortgage originator bank that could sell "bad loans" and not be held legally, financially nor personally accountable,.. and in the process make millions doing so...I'd write a loan to the neighborhood wino, co-signed by his flea-bitten dog!
So, how much "force" does it take for a bank to give a loan to a so-called "risky borrower" if the bank knows they can sell the loan off, then not be held accountable for the bad debt?
This is what the Bush administration did to in order to "boast" about increasing low-income and minority homeownership. If you remember his presidential campaign in 2003, you should recall that "minority homeownership" was touted as a Bush administration accomplishment. It was all political chicanery!
Granted, the buck doesn't stop there. As I said, there's enough blame to go around on both sides, Dem. and Repub. And I'm sure you're going to point out how the Democrats got their hands dirty. Yet the fact still remains that the Republicans were in control for the most part, yet they too were getting their hands just as dirty grabbing for a piece of the money pie...
Still with all this going on, government spending is out of control. The Iraq war has become a burden because it was ineffectively planned, grossly mismanaged and for the most part, a waste of live's, time and money. Hell, it's a war should have never been!
I can clearly understand that you as a "Republican" will simply vote along party lines. As for me, I do look at my choice a bit differently. McCain in my book is simply to wishy-washy to run the country. I'll vote for Obama because I that believe all the said problems will recieve a newer and more forward looking approach which can prove to be a change for the better.
CB says;"I will have something to say when Palin makes a fool out of Biden though.",
Please...no, no,..."pretty please", Tyrone, don't go there!
I know you've seen the Couric-Palin interview.
By watching that interview, I am now forced by the common decency instilled in me, not to pass "ill judgement" on a "soccer moms" lack of knowledge and expertise, in the highly critical area's of domestic, foreign, international, economic and political policy...
It's just plain "mean and ornery" for anyone to expect her to know how all this "geopolitical" stuff works! Hell, you'd think that she was running for "President" or even "Vice President", for crying out loud...give the women a break....
(oh..BTW..............ROFLMAO!)
"You can throw your question out, because the 109th congress was controlled by REPUBLICANS! And since the White House, Senate and House were all Republican controlled at the time, the bill never became law!" (PAA)
<
<
Actually, as usual, Tyrone is right and PAA is...well...himself.
The fact is that both G W Bush and John McCain sought to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003;
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
And AGAIN in 2005: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were able to rally enough votes to keep that in Committee.
The entire current financial crisis is due to the idiotic idea that, as Rep Frank put it, "You can't just lend money to well-off people."
Actually, and not to put too fine a point on it, YES, you can.
There was no reason for the government to seek to have credited expanded, as it was.
Some have called the idea of "credit socialism" (predicated on the belief that "It's wrong to deny poorer/low-income people access to the primary generator of wealth-creation, capital and credit markets") a "noble one."
There's nothing noble about that idea.
Traditional lending parameters worked fine.
You could borrow (1) based on your numerical credit score and (2) no more than a maximum of 2 1/2 times your annual income, dependent on your income to debt ratio, reflected in that credit score.
THAT system works.
So does charging higher mortgage interest rates in high foreclosure areas ("red-lining").
Red-lining didn't make it impossible to get a mortgage in a high foreclosure area, it merely raised the cost.
Same with credit scores. The argument made by some nefarious people that "credit scores tend to have a "disparate impact" on some minority groups" seems a specious one.
Who cares?
So long as those scores reflect your true income to debt ratio, they're "fair" no matter what "disproportionate impact" they might have.
My wife was born and raised in Jamaica.
She's an accountant with a Big Four Accounting firm.
Our income to debt ratio is very strong and our credit rating is 820, so we've never had any problem getting a mortgage.
So, those credit scores certainly didn't have a "disparate impact" on my wife, nor any other minorities who had high income to debt ratios.
This current mess is the Frank-Dodd mess and it's root cause is "credit socialism."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
It may be sad, but it's all true.
P Allen "Okay Tyrone, I'm going to stop the political hacking just for a moment.
Chris Dodd should be in deep s#!t for his antics with Countrywide. It's more than obvious he played favors with the bank to get his low, if no cost, loans. He's just one of the crooks in this stew"
To sum up what you are trying to dance around allen is that DEMOCRATS HAVE THEIR FINGER PRINTS ALL OVER THIS MESS lol.
P Allen "I thought you knew how the game is played Tyrone. At the time, McCain gave a great speech based entirely on what he was told about the impending mortgage and banking crisis. Yet he, like all the others in that committee, "knew" that the bill was going nowhere."
All I said was that McCain knew Fannie and Freddy were on very shaky ground several years ago and tried to bring it to people's attention allen. There were however many demcorats saying at that time that McCain was an "alarmist". I've always thought when an alarm goes off, it is important to check it out and not ignore it allen. Then again thats just me.
P Allen "It's my opinion that McCain, and all others members, were simply on board to appease their constituents. I believe the members played the "Discharge Petition" game by submitting legislation, or other members co-sponsoring legislation knowing that the bill will never leave committee."
What constituents Allen? Besides McCain was the co sponsor of the bill. Chuck Hagel was the sponsor. Once again who were the constituents he was trying to "appease"? If any republican did have a hand in preventing that bill from advancing through the senate then he or she should be held responsible as well.
P Allen "
The bottom line is McCain knew there wouldn't be enough effort or votes to pass the legislation. Hell, he didn't sign the bill until over a year after it was introduced, and had died in the REPUBLICAN controlled committee!"
Really allen? How do you know McCain knew there wasn't enough votes for the bill to pass in the sanate? Do yo have facts to back that up or is it just your "opinion"? You can attack McCain from sun up to sun down on his support of the bill, The fact remains that Democrats created the mess in the first place allen.
P Allen "So, how much "force" does it take for a bank to give a loan to a so-called "risky borrower" if the bank knows they can sell the loan off, then not be held accountable for the bad debt?"
The problem with theory is that Indy Banc, Washington Mutual and Wachavia are REAL BANKS. They aren't brokerages or investment banks allen. A lot of smaller regional banks have also been brought down to because of this mess. It's actually very simple allen. There is an enormous amount of money tied up in these homes that are bank REO'S. Banks are in the business to make LOANS not own REAL ESTATE. The homes are a money sucking liability to these banks, but more important then that its putting a strain on the credit markets themselves. Those homes can't be liquidated to generate cash so that that cash can be lent out again by the banks. There are many banks that are portfolio lenders and they keep their loans inhouse and don't sell them off to other investors. So once I again I don't believe a bank would purposely stab themselves on purpose allen.
P Allen "This is what the Bush administration did to in order to "boast" about increasing low-income and minority homeownership. If you remember his presidential campaign in 2003, you should recall that "minority homeownership" was touted as a Bush administration accomplishment. It was all political chicanery!"
Like I've been telling you from day one Allen, I'm not a bush puppet. He was just as wrong for even suggesting it. Bush may have suggested it but Democrats were the ones that actually implemented it allen. No one I know of ever said Bush or his father for that mater were conservatives. His selection of Henry Paulson a liberal democrat as Secretary of the Treasury is more then enough proof of that.
P Allen "Granted, the buck doesn't stop there. As I said, there's enough blame to go around on both sides, Dem. and Repub. And I'm sure you're going to point out how the Democrats got their hands dirty. Yet the fact still remains that the Republicans were in control for the most part, yet they too were getting their hands just as dirty grabbing for a piece of the money pie.."
lol lol lol, now you made me laugh allen. If Republicans originated this mess, you and other libs couldn't wait long enough to point your fingers at republicans. You know perfectly well were the bread crumbs to this leads back too. I have more to say on this. I'm just getting warmed up.lol
P Allen "I can clearly understand that you as a "Republican" will simply vote along party lines. As for me, I do look at my choice a bit differently. McCain in my book is simply to wishy-washy to run the country. I'll vote for Obama because I that believe all the said problems will recieve a newer and more forward looking approach which can prove to be a change for the better."
Allen all this time and you still don't know that I'm a Conservative before being a Republican. You also know that I have never ever ever been a big fan of John McCain. Am I voting for him? HELL YEAH I am. You call McCain too wishy washy, in some ways your absolutely right. Obama on the other hand is afraid to make a decision at all. Most of his time in the Illinois state senate he vote PRESENT. When Republicans do wrong, I am one of the sharpest critics of them. I even predicted Republicans were going to lose control of congress due to them acting like Democrats and sure enough I was right. As for why you are voting for Obama, Allen either you are in serious denial or you think I was born on the last drop of rain lol. That reason was very funny but extremely lame lol.
P Allen "By watching that interview, I am now forced by the common decency instilled in me, not to pass "ill judgement" on a "soccer moms" lack of knowledge and expertise, in the highly critical area's of domestic, foreign, international, economic and political policy.."
P Allen "I know you've seen the Couric-Palin interview"
The interview was a hit job just like with Gibson. Of course I wouldn't dare expect you too understand that allen. I can't remember to date when Barack Obama was asked very hard questions, and I don't expect that to change any time soon. As for Palin vs Biden, this won't be a "trap interview". The media won't be able to shield Biden while attacking Palin. It laughable really. Most of our Presidnets have been Governors. and Governors rarely if not ever have foreign policy experience. Thats why the issue of Palin and foreign policy experince is so laughable beyond stupid. She is a Governor. I belive that Palin will do just fine. Biden on the other hand is going to come off as an egotistical fool which is just going to help Palin. Biden never debated a female before so if he doesn't watch himself he is going to wreck himself.
P Allen "It's just plain "mean and ornery" for anyone to expect her to know how all this "geopolitical" stuff works! Hell, you'd think that she was running for "President" or even "Vice President", for crying out loud...give the women a break...."
Funny how nobody ever questioned John Edwards, Al Gore, Joe Liebrman on their qualifications in regards to foreign policy experience. Do you recall them being asked,and what were their experience in foreign policy? The only reason NOW Its an issue is because Palin is a conservative FEMALE. Normally people don't even pay attention to who's running for Vice President. People vote for the top of the political tickets not the number. You want to talk about geopolitics allen, Maybe you can post Barack Obama'as foreign policy experinece in the four and a half months he was in the senate prior to announcing he was running for president allen.
jmk "Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were able to rally enough votes to keep that in Committee."
You don't want to confuse Allen with too many facts there lol
JMK "The entire current financial crisis is due to the idiotic idea that, as Rep Frank put it, "You can't just lend money to well-off people."
It's so comical how liberal ideology seems to always do more harm then good jmk. How dare banks just lend money to people that can actual pay them back lol lol. Liberal logic got to love it.
jmk "Some have called the idea of "credit socialism" (predicated on the belief that "It's wrong to deny poorer/low-income people access to the primary generator of wealth-creation, capital and credit markets") a "noble one."
There are some major issues I have with this so called "bailout" jmk. I believe one of the provisions is for in exchange for the government buying up all the bad paper, the government will get an equity position in some of the financial institutions. In other words they get an owner stake. I don't like that at all! In the free markets, when investors by debt they become debt or bond holders. The government should not hold a equity position with voting rights in any company regardless. The is a very bad example of government extending it's tentacles into the private sector. It's quasi socialist capitalism.
jmk "So does charging higher mortgage interest rates in high foreclosure areas ("red-lining")"
Only liberals would think so. Then again liberals never understand how free market capitalism works in the first place. It comes down to risk vs rewards. If I owned a bank I would charge a higher interest rate to borrowers that wanted to buy a house in an economically depressed area due to the high percentages of foreclosures. In actuality I would well be in my right to turn down the loan all together based on the location of the house and the borrowers credit and financial background. As a banker my job is the bottom line of profitability period. Banks hate foreclosure but the house is normally the only collateral SECURING the repayment of the loan. Even though a mortgage by nature is a security backed loan it still doesn't make any financial sense to lend money to a person who can't afford the loan in the first place. Another interesting note jmk, have you notice how these community groups that moan and complain when banks don't make stupid loans are actually BLAMING THE BANKS whent he borrow as expected CAN'T MAKE THE LOAN PAYMENT?
JMK;"Actually, as usual, Tyrone is right and PAA is...well...himself."
I can't say Tyrone is right, but I will say that "you're right"! Yes indeed I am my usual self...which is that I'm absolutely correct in my assertions!
Republicans were the majority in the House, Senate (White house also) in 2003 and 2005...prove me wrong...
The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 2005-06, the Republicans had an 11 to 9 majority...prove me wrong...
S. 190 was introduced by Sen. Hagel on JANUARY 6, 2005 ...prove me wrong!
John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor on MAY 25, 2006 ...prove me wrong!
The bill was in the Senate committee over a year with basically "no action" (e.g. debate, motions) other than being read and referred. Although a proposed bill doesn't "officially" die until a new congress takes office, "basically", THIS BILL WAS DEAD! The bill died while REPUBLICANS were the majority on the committee...PROVE ME WRONG!
So now, any person with common sense, and by using simple deductive reasoning, would ask;
"if there was such an urgency to address this issue, (as Tyrone said was "WARNED" about in 2003 and 2005)why didn't the REPUBLICAN controlled house, senate, committee and White house make at least 'ONE' single effort of appropriate action to address an impending crisis? A crisis that they themselves "WARNED" (as Tyrone stated) would occur?"
You guys are "partisan hacking" to the point that you don't even realize what you're saying!!!!
What you're implying is that McCain and his Republican cohorts foresaw the failure of Fannie and Freddie, and a huge economic crisis and then "allowed" it to happen! That, in effect, is a gross derelict of duties tantamount to [economic] treason!
Here's where we "should" have an understanding, but your die-hard partisanship wont allow you to make sound judgement. The Democrats are at fault also, yet not entirely for the reasons you attempt to outline.
It's obvious the Democrats saw that Fannie and Freddie were playing havoc, fast and loose in the housing market. I believe "they all knew".... the entire Congress, Senate and the White house. Here's the rub...
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY THAT WAS BEING MADE BY INVESTORS, SELLERS, BUYERS, INVESTMENT BANKERS, SPECULATORS..aka, RICH PEOPLE...THE SUPER RICH!
Sure, some of this money was passed through lobbyists, political campaigns, and possibly (speculation of course) into the pockets of ELECTED OFFICIALS!
Yes, the rich are getting richer off this deal! I believe they have already hammered out a deal on capital hill. Ask yourself these question;
WHO'S GOING TO GET THE MONEY THE CONGRESS HAS AGREED TO PAY OUT?
WHO WILL WIND UP PAYING FOR THIS BAILOUT?
Unless you are an executive (or friend associate investor or adviser)with Goldman Sachs, AIG, Bear Sterns, ect... you get THE BILL! YOU PAY!
CB says;"He was just as wrong for even suggesting it. (e.g. "minority home-ownership") Bush may have suggested it but Democrats were the ones that actually implemented it allen."
Okay, here's another "conservative myth", that says that loans to "minority's" were partially (some have said solely) responsible for the crisis. Just use some common sense!
Why do you buy into the Ann Coulter/Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh/JMK ect...ilk? It's not true! Conservative talking points, in most case's aren't true.
Where's the data? Who conducted the study that confirms "minorities are responsible for the mortgage meldown?" Here's just "one" survey done in July of this year. There are several more that show similar statistics, some showing even higher rates of "White Americans" who have defaulted on their mortgage loans.
Show the data...PROVE ME WRONG!
The fact is that Blacks did recieve loans in greater numbers, yet those loans were also at higher rates. Many Blacks that would have normally qualified for traditional loans were purposely steered to sub-prime lenders, just to increase the Bush administrations target numbers!
CB says;"His selection of Henry Paulson a liberal democrat as Secretary of the Treasury is more then enough proof of that."
WHAAAATTT!!!! Are you losing it Tyrone? I'm not even going to post a link...I'll just inform you that Paulson has always been a Republican.....prove me wrong!
And as usual, JMK floats off into the long-haired driveling diatribe, further decrying socialism and communism where none exists. Whats so stupid about your assertion is that, if an American wanted to become a communist, they wouldn't need you to tell them how it's done...I'm sure if you look hard enough JMK, you could find a few communist groups in New York. You'll have to attend one of their meetings, rallies or seminars. That's the only place you'll find communist/socialistic views and ideas. (Hey, maybe you could "knock-off" a couple or so just to brighten your day...)
CB says;"The interview was a hit job just like with Gibson. Of course I wouldn't dare expect you too understand that allen."
Honestly, I agree with you. And I fully understand.
There's no way that Palin should have never been put in front of Couric. Couric is a well seasoned journalist, as it was certain that she would ask national security, foreign policy, economic fiscal policy, domestic, ect... questions that Palin could not answer. You know...the type of questions that a Vice Presidential candidate should know...
So, indeed it was a "hit job"! Frankly, all the blame fall's directly on John McCain and his staff. Their intentions for Palin was purely political election politics. She was chosen to win votes...a figure-head so to speak. They thought that because she was a woman, the hard core press would not treat her as a "real" candidate...they were wrong.
I really do feel sorry for her. She's being used by the McCain campaign
CB;"Maybe you can post Barack Obama'as foreign policy experinece in the four and a half months he was in the senate prior to announcing he was running for president allen."
Sure!
The article begins with the most recent policy issues, so just scroll down to view his policy idea's from his prior "four and a half" months...
You’re problem PAA (at least your primary one) is that you’re always factually wrong and in those rare instances you do get the basic facts right, you still succeed in misinterpreting the data.
S-190 was, in fact, the 2005 Bill that sought to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s abuses and FIX the malignancies enacted by the Democratic Congress back in 1994 – Dodd and Frank both helped usher through a re-tooling of the CRA (the Community Reinvestment Act) that, in effect, mandated financial institutions to offer special rate (subprime) mortgages to unqualified applicants.
In fact Barrack Obama working with Miner, Barnhill and Galland, helped a member of ACORN (Calvin Roberson) sue CITIBANK over not offering enough subprime mortgages to poorer applicants, demonstrates that the CRA mandated exactly that. You couldn't sue for thst, if it hadn't been mandated by some statute.
It would be different if there were actually people making arguments IN FAVOR of Reps Frank and Dodd and their support for “credit socialism” – barring lenders from using traditional loan parameters that made getting mortgages impossible for most of these people...BUT there AREN’T.
EVEN you do not argue that “credit socialism is basically a good idea”...and wisely so, I might add.
The NY Times lauded S-190 this way, “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
“Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
“The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.”
I actually agree with the NY Times on this one.
BUT that’s NOT ALL, BOTH Bush and McCain had tried to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac well before this, all the way back in 2003!
And that too failed due to successful lobbying efforts by both Fannie and Freddie and their two main Congressional supporters, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
There was a good deal of urgency in the Congress about the need to regulate and rein in these two out-of-control entities. In 2005 John McCain said, “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.”
And Louisiana Representative, Richard H. Baker agreed, saying “The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” as he’d already proposed legislation similar to the current proposal and led a subcommittee that oversaw those GSEs.
The fact that communism and socialism are DEAD philosophies (happy to see you so eagerly embrace that) doesn’t stop some misguided souls from still looking for “the good” that might spring from some of those failed ideas.
In fact, the crux of the current crisis is “credit socialism,” the idea, advanced by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and a large number of Democrats AND Republicans in giving more loans to more low-income people (FACT: 74% of the LOW INCOME people in the U.S. are WHITE)...so I don’t get your odd racial inference.
As a matter of fact, I did not mention race EXCEPT to note (positively, I might add) that traditional lending parameters work great and that there are no arguments that hold water that relying primarily on credit scores, etc., deliberately discriminated against ANY minority group, despite any possible “disparate impact” such standards may have had. I doubt we disagree on that.
The current “bailout” is NOT a “Wall Street Bailout.”
It’s a bailout of the “short-term credit markets” that ALL businesses rely upon.
That short-term credit market failure was caused by savvy investors short-selling the stocks of many leading financial institutions (even healthy ones) leading to their inability to maintain their access to the short-term credit markets they relied on.
That short-selling was the direct result of Fannie and Freddie BOTH doling out almost ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in bad paper and apparently fraudulently repackaging those as “government-backed mortgage securities” that they then sold to unsuspecting buyers on Wall Street and in Capital Markets around the world.
THAT is the primary cause of this mess. That is the malfeasance involved and that is why Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are the most culpable as Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s two leading Congressional advocates.
The GOP tried mightily in both 2003 AND 2005 to rein in Fannie and Freddie only to be, in the words of Richard H Baker, “outmanned,” and “outlobbied.”
This sounds eerily reminiscent of Oral Roberts' plea during the late 1980's:
"If I don't raise $8 million dollars for the ministry, the lord is going to call me home.
Oral Roberts is offensive to Muslims.
JMK;"You’re problem PAA (at least your primary one) is that you’re always factually wrong and in those rare instances you do get the basic facts right, you still succeed in misinterpreting the data."
Quite the contrary...
Allow me to show you something here. Go to my post time stamped "2:19am" and find an "incorrect" statement and prove with the appropriate data that my statement is factually WRONG! Some of my statements and idea's are clearly opinion, yet some are quite direct assertions of fact (they're labeled "PROVE ME WRONG").
From here on, I will need you to read carefully and follow very closely....
JMK;"S-190 was, in fact, the 2005 Bill that sought to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s abuses and FIX the malignancies enacted by the Democratic Congress back in 1994 – Dodd and Frank both helped usher through a re-tooling of the CRA (the Community Reinvestment Act) that, in effect, mandated financial institutions to offer special rate (subprime) mortgages to unqualified applicants."
The rest of your post goes on to say, or imply, that Democratic/Liberal/Socialist policies were in fact responsible for the mortgage crisis.
Am I correct in assuming that?
Next you add;"The current “bailout” is NOT a “Wall Street Bailout.”
It’s a bailout of the “short-term credit markets”, ect...
That short-term credit market failure was caused by savvy investors, ect..." short selling, repackaging ect...
Which are known ideas, okay, fine and dandy....
You go on to say;"In fact, the crux of the current crisis is “credit socialism,”
Again, a socialistic reference.
You clearly and unequivocally state that the "crux of the current crisis" stems from an attitude that government making policy to effect the lives of the people, "low-income people" in particular, was the "CAUSE" of an possible economic disaster.
Am I correct in assuming that's what you are saying?
Read this carefully...
Middle- and upper-income borrowers accounted for more than two-thirds of high-rate mortgages issued in 2006
Low-income borrowers had only 149,173, or 7.57 percent, of 2006 subprime rate loans.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS!
What I have repeatedly tried to tell you is very simple. I have repeatedly said that there is enough blame (and possible corruption)on all sides. Borrowers were only doing what borrowers do....BORROW!
The crux of this problem is "GREED", plain and simple.
Example;
Water is essential for the human body. Yet to purposely intake to much in a short period can cause an electrolyte disturbance that can kill you! Similarly, the banks and markets had an essential need (HOUSING) and took in to much to fast, which is a very simplistic way of explaining it, barring all the financial markets economic jargon...
The rich investors and politicians "knew" what was going on with Fannie and Freddie...THEY DID NOTHING! You admit they said it in 2003 and 2005! Look, you said this;
"S-190 was, in fact, the 2005 Bill that sought to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s abuses and FIX the malignancies"
"Sought to rein in"????? Was it reined in? NOTHING was reined in! THE BILL DIED IN COMMITTEE. PROVE ME WRONG! Look up the bill for yourself! No action was taken on it...NOTHING-NADA-ZIPPO!
The only reason why it was not "reined" in?....TO MUCH MONEY WAS BEING MADE BY ALL PARTIES WHO HAD AN INTEREST IN SEEING THAT NOTHING WAS DONE TO STOP THE GRAVY TRAIN!
The real problem here is your megalomaniacal personality. My explanations are simplistic and straight forward (I'm like that because I'm a high school teacher).
Whereas you have a delusional mental disorder which triggers paranoia when confronted by social methods that you disagree with.
Your personal disdain for me is what drives your comments. It's not the idea that I'm right,(which in "every" discussion with you I have been) what irk's you is my skill at debating you on the issues.
An since exaggerated personal omnipotence and grandeur is your forte', the next time you claim I am "factually wrong", post my error, and then post your correction with verified proof of your assertion of the facts.
Anything else, is no more than "more of your LIES!"
The PROBLEM isn’t over WHO those loans were doled out to, the problem was the rampant abuse and mis-use of the CRA, in using it to mandate banks to loan more money to more low-income people is “credit socialism” – that’s the actual banking term for that practice.
In September 1999, the NY Times reported on the Fannie Mae program to ease its credit requirements ostensibly according to both Fannie Mae and the NY Times to “extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.”
YES, many commercial banks, since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were underwriting these high-risk loans went to Fannie and Freddie for MORE assistance. Arguing that "The banks were wrong for taking that free money that was offered by Fannie and Freddie, as they encouraged banks to make more of these HIGHER RATE loans to these "subprime borrowers," cant be done without also condemning the people who took advantage of those subprime mortgages to get themselves into houses they couldnt and can't afford....I agre that NEITHER of those parties should be bailed out, despite the fact that our short-term credit markets NEED to be restored.
According to that NY Times article, “Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. “Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
"Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
WHY do Liberals (like yourself) see putting low income blacks AND whites into loans they can’t afford as a “GOOD THING?”
We seem to agree that both G W Bush and John McCain tried very hard to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 and AGAIN in 2005.
The fact that they wound up “outmanned” and “overwhelmed” by Fannie’s and Freddie’s lobbyists is ONLY an indictment of those people who took that lobbying money (Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were the point-men on this)...and they are the ONLY ones truly responsible for the current mess.
Barney Frank, against both your interests and my own pushed for MORE loans to MORE low income people, claiming, “The more people exaggerate the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the less affordable housing we’ll have.”
I’m sure you’re second only to myself (OK, maybe third, behind Tyrone as well) in your revulsion of a low-life like Barney Frank.
The crux of the current mess is that abuse of the CRA and the “credit-socialism” that spurred it on. The subsequent malfeasance at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exacerbated the problem and the bomb exploded when Freddie Mac bought up reems of that “bad paper” and fraudulently re-packaged it as “government-backed mortgage securities” even though the folks at Freddie Mac knew what Wall St didn’t – that the government couldn’t possibly back up that much bad debt!
<
<
As to your personal attacks, I have no idea why you think I disdain you. I don’t disdain or even dislike you...because I don’t know you. I DO dislike many of your inane and ill-conceived ideas and ideology.
I merely disagree with you, and that’s only natural considering that I tend to be somewhat logical and you don’t.
Recently I exposed you as a defender of some vile racists (the NOI and the Black Israelites, among others, I’m sure), but that was nothing personal on my part.
And for your part, you could merely and very easily just admit that you misspoke and didn’t realize the NOI’s culpability in the death angel murders and that you don’t condone any kind of bigotry and that would, as they say, be that.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why any black-American alive today would feel they have any reason to “sympathize with” virulent anti-white bigotry. Although, in general, I don't get the whole "hating people because of what they look or sound like" thing anyway.
You haven’t been the victim of the ONLY nation-wide, government-backed segregation ever to exist (race-based preferences) - whites and Asians have. I believe Jim Crow existed only in the South and was NOT sanctioned/supported by the federal government.
I certainly don’t condone anti-black bigotry, never have. I do oppose the current and ongoing segregation and I laud the likes of Walter E Williams, Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly and other black Americans (hmmm, virtually ALL of them Conservatives) who also oppose those segregated standards.
But again, like an old-time bigot, you see the anti-segregationist as “the bigots.”
Do you see the irony there?
It’s sort of hard to miss.
JMK"The PROBLEM isn’t over WHO those loans were doled out to, the problem was the rampant abuse and mis-use of the CRA, in using it to mandate banks to loan more money to more low-income people is “credit socialism” – that’s the actual banking term for that practice."
When you say, "The PROBLEM isn’t over WHO those loans were doled out to", I would definitely agree. Yet, as you go on to add that "lower-income" people and the mandate of the CRA,(as credit socialist), that part of your statement establishes a "WHO" to your argument.
If it wasn't your intent to implicate "low-income" people as part of the problem, why did you mention it?
Frankly, I agree wholeheartedly that the CRA was "mis-used", but it was not mis-used by "poor or low-income" people. A recent study has shown that only 7.52% of of 2006 subprime rate loans went to "lower-income" borrowers. According to the same study, almost 67% of these loans were to "upper and upper-middle income" borrowers. I don't call that credit socialism, I call it GREED!
JMK"WHY do Liberals (like yourself) see putting low income blacks AND whites into loans they can’t afford as a “GOOD THING?”
There you go again... FIND, THEN COPY AND PASTE, WHERE I SAID "GIVING LOANS THEY CAN'T AFFORD, IS A GOOD THING." Moreover, I can't speak for anyone else...
How about I play the same game...
Why do conservatives (like yourself) believe that minorities and poor people caused the banking crisis? Yes, many "well-known" conservatives believe that "minorities are to blame."
JMK;"(FACT: 74% of the LOW INCOME people in the U.S. are WHITE)"
I would believe that in fact, that number is true (or close)...
Let me ask you this. What percentage of the bad loan's were obtained by whites?
JMK;"I merely disagree with you, and that’s only natural considering that I tend to be somewhat logical and you don’t."
LOL!!!! How is possible to use logic when starting your process with a bias? Then again, an argument based on an "unproven" bias!!! In most of the conversations that we have had, your bias and delusions of grandeur negates any logical conclusions.
The PROBLEM does stem from LOW-INCOME people who couldn't afford conventional mortgages getting subprime loans.
Where did you get the idea I didn't recognize that?!
You tend to use low income as a synonym for blacks and Hispanics," which is a view I've rarely heard before. Virtually EVERYONE I know is aware that the vast majority of poor and low income people in this country are white.....you seem not to realize that.
Seems we fundamentally agree that there is NEVER a reason to violate private property rights in order to transfer wealth FROM higher income people TO lower income people.
These subprime loans were just that...and they were a scam to boot.
DUMB people got into loans most of them KNEW they couldn't afford because unscrupulous loan officers often offered "teaser rate" inducements AND told them things like, "With the way real estate is going, three years from now you'll be able to refinance at a much better rate in a conventional mortgage and not have to pay the higher rates when this intro rate expires."
Much of that was rooted in "good intentions." Certainly Jack Kemp's "ownership society," which is the foundation of today's "Compassionate Conservatism" was rooted in good intentions....and maybe even Barney Frank and Maxine Waters have good but misguided intentions as well.
The fact is you can't give to people what they must individually earn.
The current crisis is NOT rooted in "Wall Street greed," although there was plenty of that. It's foundation is BOTH over-regulation and toxic regulation of the banking and mortgage industry by government bureaucrats run amok.
Post a Comment
<< Home