Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

Breaking: US Embassy in Yemen Attacked

awww fuck here comes McCain the bellicose hawk again.

FOUR MORE WARS! FOUR MORE WARS!

 

[AniHawk]

FOUR MORE WARS! FOUR MORE WARS!

This would have never happened if it wasn't for the weak Democratic congress.

 

[Desperado]

I would like some good Obama news, please.....

 

[GhaleonEB]

I would like some good Obama news, please.....

it's nice to want things

We will get the president we deserve, not the one we want.

 

[AniHawk]

I would like some good Obama news, please.....

He went up in all four big polls yesterday. Two separate polls also show rapidly decreasing popularity for Sarah Palin.

That help you a bit?

 

[LCGeek]

Definitely agree with you there. Too bad Bush was the VP and not the other way around.

Bush SR been running the show since he left the CIA. Reagan was all about the image, true power mongers never like being the puppet in the front. I'd say more but I appreciate living ATM.

 

[Alcibiades]

"I don't understand these people that flip like that. OK, so she's not a Obama fan. But what issue did Hillary champion that this supporter now feels McCain will represent better than Obama?"

Democracy. More important than abortion, the war, etc...

-18 million+ voters and their will is overturned by superdelegates (party insiders)
-thug politics (intimidation at caucuses and threats to Clinton supporters)


Now, try to put yourself in their place:

What if Obama got more votes in the primary, neither candidate got enough delegates to cross the magic line, and Hillary is put over the top by party insiders?

What if the so-called Clinton machine ran an operation that intimidated people in the caucus states and "cheated" when they could get away with it?


Issues matter no doubt, but just as hardcore Obama people would be raving mad if Clinton got the nod and then dissed Obama by not even considering him for VP, the opposite of that is true now.

Details about the by-laws, weight of caucus votes vs. primary votes, etc... just don't matter more than the big picture. Now add to that that some Clinton supporters have an emotional attachment and that THEIR PERCEPTION (whether true or false) is that Obama stood by while a sexist media smeared her day after day, and you could see why support for democracy and a "fair primary system" would trump roe-v-wade.

I no more expect that GAF would take seriously anti-Obama views than that "leave britney alone" dude would tolerate anything negative about Britney, but I thought getting that viewpoint out there (whether I agree with it or not) would help.

 

[Hsieh]

With the recent bank collapses, Obama definately needs to push Keating Five now. If Obama can tie McCain's scandal ridden history during a previous bank collapse crisis with the current crisis, that could finish off McCain for good.

From Wikipedia:

The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly referred to as the S&L crisis) was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations (S&Ls) in the United States. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government—that is, the U.S. taxpayer, either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts—which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. The resulting taxpayer bailout ended up being even larger than it would have been because moral hazard and adverse selection incentives compounded the system’s losses.

The concomitant slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990-1991 economic recession. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed per year dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million, the lowest rate since World War II.

Up through the early 1980s, Lincoln was a conservatively-run enterprise, with almost half its assets in home loans and only a quarter of its assets considered at risk. It had slow growth at best, and had shown a loss for several years until it made a profit of a few million dollars in 1983.

Lincoln then became headed by Charles Keating, who as chairman of a home construction company, American Continental Corporation, purchased Lincoln in February 1984 for $51 million. Keating fired the existing management. Over the next four years, Lincoln's assests increased from $1.1 billion to $5.5 billion. Such savings and loan associations had been deregulated in the early 1980s, allowing them to make highly risky investments with their depositors' money, a change of which Keating took advantage. Alan Greenspan sent a letter in February 1985 to officials of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco supporting an application for an exemption for Lincoln to a bank board rule forbidding substantial amounts of some investments.

When American Continental Corporation, the parent of Lincoln Savings, went bankrupt in 1989, more than 21,000 mostly elderly investors lost their life savings. This total came to about $285 million, largely because such investors held securities backed by the parent company rather than deposits in the federally insured institution, a distinction apparently lost on many if not most of them until it was too late. The federal government covered almost $3 billion of Lincoln's losses when it seized the institution. Many creditors were made whole, and the government then attempted to liquidate the seized assets through its Resolution Trust Corporation, often at pennies on the dollar compared to what the property had allegedly been worth and the valuation at which loans against it had been made. Charles Keating would be sent to prison for fraud.

In 1972, Charles Keating began to work for American Financial Corporation, a company involved in insurance and banking. Four years later he moved to Phoenix, Arizona to run the real estate firm American Continental Corporation, a spin-off of American Financial Corp. In 1984, American Continental Corporation bought Lincoln Savings. Such savings and loan associations had been deregulated in the early 1980s, allowing them the opportunity to make highly risky investments with their depositors’ money, an opportunity of which Keating took advantage.

Some regulators noted the danger posed by these deregulations and pushed for more oversight, but Congress refused. This may be due, in part, to the Keating Five, five Senators — Dennis DeConcini, Alan Cranston, John Glenn, Don Riegle and John McCain — who had received, for both themselves and for groups they supported, well over $1 million from Keating in the 1980s as favors and political contributions. They later met twice with regulators who were investigating American Continental Corporation, in an attempt to end the investigation. (In 1991, they would be rebuked to various degrees by the Senate Ethics Committee.)

In 1985, Keating hired Alan Greenspan as an economic consultant, in an unsuccessful effort to convince an oversight agency to exempt Lincoln Savings from certain regulations. Greenspan delivered a favorable report, writing that Lincoln Savings was “a financially strong institution that presents no foreseeable risk to depositors or the government.” (Greenspan produced similar favorable reports on numerous other banks that also failed soon after.)

In 1989, American Continental Corporation, the parent of Lincoln Savings, went bankrupt. More than 21,000 investors, most of them elderly, lost their life savings (in total about $285 million.) This occurred largely because they held securities backed by the parent company rather than deposits in the federally-insured institution — a distinction apparently lost on many if not most depositors until it was too late. The federal government covered almost $3 billion of Lincoln’s losses when it seized the institution. Many creditors were made whole, and the government then attempted to liquidate the seized assets through its Resolution Trust Corporation, often at pennies on the dollar compared to what the property had allegedly been worth and the valuation at which loans against it had been made.

In 1989, Keating was subpoenaed to testify before the House Banking Committee, but refused to answer questions, invoking his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Keating blamed government regulators for the failure of Lincoln Savings and filed suit in order to regain control over the bank. The suit was dismissed in August 1990, with the judge calling the seizure fully justified because of the looting of the institution by Keating and his associates.

In September 1990, Keating was criminally charged with having duped Lincoln's customers into buying worthless junk bonds of American Continental Corporation; he was convicted in state court in 1992 of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and received a 10 year prison sentence. In January 1993, a federal conviction followed, with a 12 and a half year sentence. He spent four and a half years in prison, but convictions were eventually overturned. Thereafter, on the eve of the retrial on the federal charges, Keating pleaded guilty to several felony charges in return for a sentence of time served.

McCain became enmeshed in a scandal during the 1980s as one of five United States Senators comprising the so-called "Keating Five". Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. and his associates at Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, along with trips on Keating's jets that McCain belatedly repaid two years later. In 1987, McCain was one of the five senators whom Keating contacted in order to prevent the government's seizure of Lincoln, and McCain met twice with federal regulators to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln. On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do." In the end, McCain was cleared by the Senate Ethics Committee of acting improperly or violating any law or Senate rule, but was mildly rebuked for exercising "poor judgment".

 

[Cloudy]

"I don't understand these people that flip like that. OK, so she's not a Obama fan. But what issue did Hillary champion that this supporter now feels McCain will represent better than Obama?"

Democracy. More important than abortion, the war, etc...

-18 million+ voters and their will is overturned by superdelegates (party insiders)
-thug politics (intimidation at caucuses and threats to Clinton supporters)


Now, try to put yourself in their place:

What if Obama got more votes in the primary, neither candidate got enough delegates to cross the magic line, and Hillary is put over the top by party insiders?

What if the so-called Clinton machine ran an operation that intimidated people in the caucus states and "cheated" when they could get away with it?


Issues matter no doubt, but just as hardcore Obama people would be raving mad if Clinton got the nod and then dissed Obama by not even considering him for VP, the opposite of that is true now.

Details about the by-laws, weight of caucus votes vs. primary votes, etc... just don't matter more than the big picture. Now add to that that some Clinton supporters have an emotional attachment and that THEIR PERCEPTION (whether true or false) is that Obama stood by while a sexist media smeared her day after day, and you could see why support for democracy and a "fair primary system" would trump roe-v-wade.

I no more expect that GAF would take seriously anti-Obama views than that "leave britney alone" dude would tolerate anything negative about Britney, but I thought getting that viewpoint out there (whether I agree with it or not) would help.

Hilary and Barack both knew the rules about MI and FL from the start. Hilary was fine with everything until she suddenly started losing.

It's politics and this crybaby behavior is pathetic..

 

[polyh3dron]

With the recent bank collapses, Obama definately needs to push Keating Five now. If Obama can tie McCain's scandal ridden history during a previous bank collapse crisis with the current crisis, that could finish off McCain for good.

No matter how damning the evidence is, the GOP Reality Distortion Field has too much of a hold on Americans still, so nothing short of a video of McCain killing and eating a baby could finish off McCain for good. Even then the video would be disputed.

 

[kevm3]

UHH how was their will overturned by party insiders? It became apparent that it was mathematically impossible for Hill to win way before the race ended. These guys are just pissed their candidate lost, so they are jumping ship. Traitorous scum. How are they going to endorse McCain despite Hillary officially endorsing Obama. Doesn't seem like true Hill supporters.

 

[mj1108]

Sarah Palin is doing a 2 part interview with the bag of gas Sean Hannity. Part 1 airs tonight (Wednesday). Part 2 is tomorrow. This was just advertised on Fox News.

I expect lots of kissing ass.

 

[polyh3dron]

Sarah Palin is doing a 2 part interview with the bag of gas Sean Hannity. Part 1 airs tonight (Wednesday). Part 2 is tomorrow. This was just advertised on Fox News.

I expect lots of kissing ass.

I can't wait. It's going to be a librul media HATEFEST and they're going to skewer Charlie Gibson.

 

[3phemeral]

I can't wait. It's going to be a librul media HATEFEST and they're going to skewer Charlie Gibson.

I hate how what's at stake has become a such a joke.

 

[speculawyer]

Go ahead and call it the Bush 3 administration. They are already ignoring subpoenas to testify.

Alaska AG: State employees won't honor subpoenas
By STEVE QUINN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 50 minutes ago

JUNEAU, Alaska - Alaska's investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power, a potentially damaging distraction for John McCain's presidential campaign, ran into intensified resistance Tuesday when the attorney general said state employees would refuse to honor subpoenas in the case.

In a letter to state Sen. Hollis French, the Democrat overseeing the investigation, Republican Attorney General Talis Colberg asked that the subpoenas be withdrawn. He also said the employees would refuse to appear unless either the full state Senate or the entire Legislature votes to compel their testimony.

Colberg, who was appointed by Palin, said the employees are caught between their respect for the Legislature and their loyalty to the governor, who initially agreed to cooperate with the inquiry but has increasingly opposed it since McCain chose her as his running mate.

"This is an untenable position for our clients because the governor has so strongly stated that the subpoenas issued by your committee are of questionable validity," Colberg wrote.

Last week, French's Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed 13 people. They include 10 employees of Palin's administration and three who are not: her husband, Todd Palin; John Bitney, Palin's former legislative liaison who now is chief of staff for Republican House Speaker John Harris; and Murlene Wilkes, a state contractor.

French did not immediately return a telephone call Tuesday for comment.

Earlier in the day, Harris, who two months ago supported the "Troopergate" investigation, openly questioned its impartiality and raised the possibility of delaying the findings.

Like Colberg's letter, the surprise maneuver by Harris reflected deepening resolve by Republicans to spare Palin embarrassment or worse in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

And it marked a further fraying of a bipartisan consensus, formed by a unanimous panel before Palin became McCain's running mate, that her firing of the state's public safety commissioner justified the ethical investigation.

In a letter, Harris wrote that what "started as a bipartisan and impartial effort is becoming overshadowed by public comments from individuals at both ends of the political spectrum," and he urged lawmakers to meet quickly to decide on a course.

"What I may be in favor of is having the report delayed, but only if it becomes a blatant partisan issue," he told The Associated Press, while indicating he already believes it has become politically tainted.

Democratic state Sen. Kim Elton, chairman of the Legislative Council, the 14-member panel that authorized the probe, had no immediate comment on Harris' request. Under an unusual power-sharing agreement, the council is made up of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

At issue is whether Palin abused her power by pressing the commissioner to remove her former brother-in-law as an Alaska state trooper, then firing the commissioner when he didn't.

The matter risks casting a shadow on Palin's reputation, central to her appeal in the campaign, that she is a clean-government advocate who takes on entrenched interests — not a governor who tried to use her authority behind the scenes to settle a personal score.

Palin has defended her behavior and said she welcomed the investigation. "Hold me accountable," she said. But she and the McCain campaign have taken actions that could slow the probe, possibly past Election Day.

Also Tuesday, five Republican state lawmakers filed a lawsuit against an investigation they called "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan." None serves on the bipartisan Legislative Council that unanimously approved the inquiry. They want it pushed past the election or top Democrats removed from the probe.

Making clear the dispute has ramifications beyond Alaska, Liberty Legal Institute, a Texas-based legal advocacy group, was working on the lawsuit. The institute has taken on a variety of cases in defense of conservative Christian positions.

Elton called the lawsuit "a distraction."

"The silver lining in this action initiated by the five lawmakers is that some of that debate now has been kicked to the judicial branch which, unlike the Legislature and the governor's office, is more insulated from the red-hot passion of presidential politics," he said.

Palin fired public safety commissioner Walt Monegan in July.

Weeks later, it emerged that Palin, her husband, Todd, and several high-level staffers had contacted Monegan about state trooper Mike Wooten, who had gone through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister before Palin became governor. While Monegan says no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten, he says their repeated contacts made it clear they wanted Wooten gone.

Palin maintains she fired Monegan over budget disagreements, not because he wouldn't dismiss her ex-brother-in-law. She has sought through her lawyer to have the matter investigated in a more favorable forum, the state personnel board.

a

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate

said the employees are caught between their respect for the Legislature and their loyalty to the governor,

WTF? Their loyalty should be to their employers . . . the people of Alaska . . . and to the truth.

 

[Trurl]

Breaking: US Embassy in Yemen Attacked



awww fuck here comes McCain the bellicose hawk again.

As long as no Americans were injured, or a fair number of non-American westerners were injured, I don't see people in the US caring.

Also, it's Yemen, not Iran or one the countries with a lot of hype, I suspect that people will be happy with a more nuanced reaction because of that. Are we supposed to elect the president who is most likely to be bellicose in any given situation?

I do hope that few people were harmed. It sounds like it might be a fairly planned attack. :-/

 

[speculawyer]

"I don't understand these people that flip like that. OK, so she's not a Obama fan. But what issue did Hillary champion that this supporter now feels McCain will represent better than Obama?"

Democracy. More important than abortion, the war, etc...

-18 million+ voters and their will is overturned by superdelegates (party insiders)
-thug politics (intimidation at caucuses and threats to Clinton supporters)


Now, try to put yourself in their place:

What if Obama got more votes in the primary, neither candidate got enough delegates to cross the magic line, and Hillary is put over the top by party insiders?

What if the so-called Clinton machine ran an operation that intimidated people in the caucus states and "cheated" when they could get away with it?


Issues matter no doubt, but just as hardcore Obama people would be raving mad if Clinton got the nod and then dissed Obama by not even considering him for VP, the opposite of that is true now.

Details about the by-laws, weight of caucus votes vs. primary votes, etc... just don't matter more than the big picture. Now add to that that some Clinton supporters have an emotional attachment and that THEIR PERCEPTION (whether true or false) is that Obama stood by while a sexist media smeared her day after day, and you could see why support for democracy and a "fair primary system" would trump roe-v-wade.

I no more expect that GAF would take seriously anti-Obama views than that "leave britney alone" dude would tolerate anything negative about Britney, but I thought getting that viewpoint out there (whether I agree with it or not) would help.

This makes no sense. Are you saying bitter Hillary supporters would rather have John McCain despite the fact that his policies are opposite of theirs . . . . and they are doing it for 'Democracy'?

It doesn't help Democracy or them.

 

[polyh3dron]

"I don't understand these people that flip like that. OK, so she's not a Obama fan. But what issue did Hillary champion that this supporter now feels McCain will represent better than Obama?"

Democracy. More important than abortion, the war, etc...

-18 million+ voters and their will is overturned by superdelegates (party insiders)
-thug politics (intimidation at caucuses and threats to Clinton supporters)


Now, try to put yourself in their place:

What if Obama got more votes in the primary, neither candidate got enough delegates to cross the magic line, and Hillary is put over the top by party insiders?

What if the so-called Clinton machine ran an operation that intimidated people in the caucus states and "cheated" when they could get away with it?


Issues matter no doubt, but just as hardcore Obama people would be raving mad if Clinton got the nod and then dissed Obama by not even considering him for VP, the opposite of that is true now.

Details about the by-laws, weight of caucus votes vs. primary votes, etc... just don't matter more than the big picture. Now add to that that some Clinton supporters have an emotional attachment and that THEIR PERCEPTION (whether true or false) is that Obama stood by while a sexist media smeared her day after day, and you could see why support for democracy and a "fair primary system" would trump roe-v-wade.

I no more expect that GAF would take seriously anti-Obama views than that "leave britney alone" dude would tolerate anything negative about Britney, but I thought getting that viewpoint out there (whether I agree with it or not) would help.

Was the "sniper fire" thing sexist? Was the "Bobby Kennedy Was Assassinated" criticism sexist? Most of the thing the press really took Hillary to task for were anything but sexist, while Hillary and her surrogates ran around with cries of sexism for no reason. Kinda like what the Republicans are doing now. The way Hillary conducted herself in the primaries turned a lot of people off including myself. She ran a Republican style campaign.

 

[LCGeek]

Was the "sniper fire" thing sexist? Was the "Bobby Kennedy Was Assassinated" criticism sexist? Most of the thing the press really took Hillary to task for were anything but sexist, while Hillary and her surrogates ran around with cries of sexism for no reason. Kinda like what the Republicans are doing now. The way Hillary conducted herself in the primaries turned a lot of people off including myself. She ran a Republican style campaign.

She's a neoliberal what do you expect? I honestly feel sorry for her at this point in my understanding of her life history. What she truly is will never be acknowledged or known by historians and if it was not a single man in history would ever doubt the power of a woman and their contribution to humanity or the potential. Her own two faceness is what will ultimately be her demise.

 

[devilhawk]

John McCain has been very vocal on his hands-off economic philosophy and he has voted to pass the very bills that have gotten us into this mess and now after telling us numerous times that the economy is fine he's finally telling us that it's fucked up, but it took Bear Stearns, IndyMac, Freddie Mac, Fannie May and Lehman Bros going under and a huge stock market crash to make him acknowledge it. Now, after being an accomplice in creating the conditions that allowed these financial institutions to go buckwild with subprime lending he's finally saying that Washington needs to be fixed. He doesn't say how he wants to fix it, just that he wants to fix it. Note that he doesn't know shit about the economy and is just being told how to deal with it by Phil Gramm, architect of the Enron Loophole and other deregulation measures that got us in this mess.

Yup, McCain never saw this coming. McCain knows nothing about the current situation.

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

McCain cosponsoring the reform bill on Fannie/Freddie in 2005/6 which Democrats voted down
McCain on the Federal Housing Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

 

[Synth_floyd]

MORAL HAZARD!!!

 

[Huzah]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Let's go back to 2003:

''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.

Hmmmmm....

 

[polyh3dron]

Yup, McCain never saw this coming. McCain knows nothing about the current situation.

Look at what he voted to pass..

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Joe Biden voted against it FYI

 

[devilhawk]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print


Let's go back to 2003:

''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.

Hmmmmm....

Good stuff there. Government sponsored programs screwing up the economy.

Here's some more from McCain in early 2006

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.

McCain predicted this collapse of the GSE's.

 

[numble]

Good stuff there. Government sponsored programs screwing up the economy.

Here's some more from McCain in early 2006


McCain predicted this collapse of the GSE's.

McCain also triggered it. For the war before he was against the war.

 

[Huzah]

Look at what he voted to pass..

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Joe Biden voted against it FYI

How did the passing of the act exactly cause our current financial crisis?

 

[devilhawk]

Look at what he voted to pass..

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Joe Biden voted against it FYI

Well we could get into the benefits and downfalls of the act but that would just ignore my original post. The fact remains is McCain saw the far reaching effects of Fannie and Freddie prior to the bubble bursting. Part of this crisis could have avoided and saved the tax payer millions upon millions if he was listened too in 2005/6.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

PBS POLL: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be VP?

http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html

Vote!

HOLY SHIT @ the results

Is Palin qualified to be VP?

Yes 55%
No 44%
Not Sure 0%

46 yes 53 no. Woot!

 

[Barrett2]

How did the passing of the act exactly cause our current financial crisis?

Before this law companies could not simultaneously be retail banking outlets as well as investment firms. After this law banks could do both, which allowed one side of the institution to underwrite, securitize and sell on the market the collateralized loans made by the retail outlet.

It basically combined the heavily regulated side of banking with the unregulated side of banking.

In terms of McCain's culpability, it seems to me that on this issue, like many others, McCain is schizophrenic. One one hand he introduced legislation in 2005 seemingly directed at doing something about Fannie Mae, but on the other hand he fought almost all other regulation of the financial markets.. At this point it honestly feels like McCain is running against himself.

 

[devilhawk]

Before this law companies could not simultaneously be retail banking outlets as well as investment firms. After this law banks could do both, which allowed one side of the institution to underwrite, securitize and sell on the market the collateralized loans made by the retail outlet.

It basically combined the heavily regulated side of banking with the unregulated side of banking.

In terms of McCain's culpability, it seems to me that on this issue, like many others, McCain is schizophrenic. One one hand he introduced legislation in 2005 seemingly directed at doing something about Fannie Mae, but on the other hand he fought almost all other regulation of the financial markets.. At this point it honestly feels like McCain is running against himself.

There can be just as much blame for the subprime crisis with the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 which some say started it all. This was a democratic bill signed by Carter. It more or less required banks to loan to subprime - a crude summary but still.

To top it off, Bush wanted to make significant changes to the bill in 2003 but it was barely denied.

In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." [3] The change was to place two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under supervision of a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."

 

[numble]

To top it off, Bush wanted to make significant changes to the bill in 2003 but it was barely denied.

Republican Congress.

 

[Barrett2]

There can be just as much blame for the subprime crisis with the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 which some say started it all. This was a democratic bill signed by Carter. It more or less required banks to loan to subprime - a crude summary but still.

To top it off, Bush wanted to make significant changes to the bill in 2003 but it was barely denied.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Based on the limited reading I have done on the 'politics' of the crisis, it seems like neither party has the clear moral high-ground. Sadly, I think at this point its all a matter of who can spin it into better commercials.

Luckily, though, all of the recently fired investment bankers in Manhattan can easily look for new jobs on their Blackberrys, a device invented by McCain.

 

[devilhawk]

Republican Congress.

True. A few Republicans broke party lines and it failed to pass. The point is that Bush and most republicans, despite all Bush's terrible policies, called this one.

 

[devilhawk]

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Based on the limited reading I have done on the 'politics' of the crisis, it seems like neither party has the clear moral high-ground. Sadly, I think at this point its all a matter of who can spin it into better commercials.

Luckily, though, all of the recently fired investment bankers in Manhattan can easily look for new jobs on their Blackberrys, a device invented by McCain.

It is possible to say that both regulation requiring subprime loans and deregulation allowing subprime loans played a part.

 

[The Chosen One]

I think cognitive dissonance is one of the most overused phrases in PoliGaf the last couple of months. There should be a temporary restraining order.

I hope the media doesn't give the Palin/Hannity interview too much play. Only give her coverage when she actually does legit interviews.

 

[Huzah]

Before this law companies could not simultaneously be retail banking outlets as well as investment firms. After this law banks could do both, which allowed one side of the institution to underwrite, securitize and sell on the market the collateralized loans made by the retail outlet.

It basically combined the heavily regulated side of banking with the unregulated side of banking.

That could happen, but which retail outlets did Lehman, Bear Stearns, Merril Lynch make those loans with? The only biggie bank involved in this business is probably Bank of America and they are probably one of the healthier banks.

While the law could prevent bad things from happening, the repeling of it surely did not instigate our current financial crisis.

 

[Jak140]

McCain cosponsoring the reform bill on Fannie/Freddie in 2005/6 which Democrats voted down
McCain on the Federal Housing Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

According to that site, the bill was never even scheduled for debate, and it died without being voted for, so I don't see how the "democrats voted it down." McCain may have seen it coming, but it looks like little was done to push the bill through.

 

[mclem]

The cynic in me says that the GOP thugs on the Texas court will find a way to bullshit out of the precedent that they themselves set two years ago.

I'm not entirely up on this, what happened in '06?

 

[Farmboy]

Democracy. More important than abortion, the war, etc...

-18 million+ voters and their will is overturned by superdelegates (party insiders)
-thug politics (intimidation at caucuses and threats to Clinton supporters)

Repeating Hillaryis44 talking points again? You do your tag proud.

 

[Jak140]

Now this is interesting. Apparently a similar bill in the house to regulate Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac had bipartisan support until the Republicans weakened it and added voter suppression into it. Not surprising the Democrats didn't want to support it in that case:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule and to the manager's amendment made in order under the rule. H.R. 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, as reported out of the Committee on Financial Services, was a thoughtful, reasonable, bipartisan piece of legislation. As evidenced by the 65-5 committee vote in favor of the bill on May 25, H.R. 1461 clearly has the support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank worked together to craft bipartisan legislation that provides real oversight and a stronger, more powerful regulator for Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the Federal home loan banks. The Federal Housing Reform Act, as reported out of the committee in May, is the kind of legislation that the Framers intended Congress to pass. Not only is it legislation that will do good and will improve people's lives, it is legislation that was created out of bipartisan negotiations and compromise.

I commend Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their actions on the Financial Services Committee and for producing an excellent bill.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republican leadership cannot handle bipartisan success. Despite overwhelming bipartisan support in committee, the Republican leadership held the bill hostage for 5 months, merely because a radical faction of their party opposes affordable housing and, specifically, opposes the Affordable Housing Fund included in the bill.

Unfortunately, after being strong-armed by the Republican Study Committee, the Republican leadership forced changes that not only weakened the Affordable Housing Fund provision, but will actually restrict the ability of low-income people from voting in future elections. Here is the deal: They have a manager's amendment that has some very good things in it, but tucked in that manager's amendment there is included some language that many of us find offensive. And the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, wanted to have an amendment made in order to strike that offensive language and was denied that opportunity last night in the Rules Committee.

The language that I am talking about specifically denies faith-based and nonprofit groups from funding simply if they express their first amendment rights. Under these restrictions, any nonprofit community group, or church would be ineligible to receive funding if either they or their "affiliates" have engaged in nonpartisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities. Furthermore, affiliation is defined so broadly that it includes having overlapping board members sharing physical space or other public communications.

It is worth noting that for-profit companies are exempt from these restrictions. Why would we protect companies from these restrictions, and impose them on low-income and faith-based communities, the very people who this legislation is supposed to empower? I would ask my colleagues, what do you have against faith-based organizations? We need to enhance access to affordable housing, not reduce it.

Mr. Speaker, these restrictions are undemocratic. They are part of a pattern by the extreme right in the Republican Party in an attack on poor people. They are written with the intent to deny poor people the access to vote. These provisions are a direct affront on the democratic principles upon which this country was founded.

It seems clear that these restrictions are unconstitutional. They would require any organization that wanted to receive funding from the Affordable Housing Fund to sacrifice their freedom of assembly, which protects their right to associate with one another in groups for economic, political, or religious purposes.

We can provide and expand the affordable housing market without trouncing on the Bill of Rights. Just as easily as these restrictions were added into the legislation, they can be removed without affecting the goals of the Affordable Housing Fund or the overall legislation.

A multitude of organizations across the country, ranging from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, have expressed their strong disapproval of these egregious provisions. For one reason, these groups realize how harmful these restrictions would be toward fighting homelessness.

Homelessness cannot be combatted unless our Nation's affordable housing stock is increased. Affordable housing cannot be expanded if we bar nonprofits and community organizations from tapping into the appropriate resources.

Mr. Speaker, affordable housing should not be a partisan issue, but, unfortunately, the Republican leadership has made it so. The battle against homelessness and the expansion of affordable housing needs to be addressed through a coordinated effort between the government and nonprofit and faith-based communities. This language in this manager's amendment severely restricts the ability of affordable housing professionals to fulfill their role.

After Hurricane Katrina, President Bush and the leadership in the House talked about the need to help poor Americans rise out of poverty. They talked about improving people's lives. Well, Mr. Speaker, their actions clearly do not match their rhetoric. When the Republican leadership had a chance to help the poorest of Americans to receive affordable housing, they acted to restrict access to a proposed affordable housing fund. When the Republican leadership had a chance to stand up for people who do not have a voice, for people who need help making ends meet, they made a conscious decision to turn their backs on them.

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this debate is the ability to provide affordable housing and access to voting for low-income families. One of the icons of the civil rights movement, Rosa Parks, died on Sunday. We all mourn her passing. But it is hard not to see the irony that 2 days after her death, we are going to debate and vote on a bill that will restrict the ability of the poor to have access to affordable housing and to vote in democratic elections in this country.

This is a lousy way to run this Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote against this undemocratic and restrictive rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/rec...x002Fmcrmx002Fmh20051026-37.xmlElementm6m0m0m

 

[mclem]

Let's turn things over the Captain No-nothing-economics and his Sidekick 'D in economics' Mountain Momma.

Just from a sociological perspective I find it interesting how frequently insults of Palin mention her gender and insults of McCain don't mention his.

Certainly in the given example and often in what I see, what actually strikes me as happening is that insults of Palin mention her gender and insults of McCain mention his military history - in other words, insults of each turn one factor that they're percieved to be using as an asset into a mockery of itself.

 

[TDG]

That woman who co-hosts Morning Joe is so cute. I love it when she argues with joe and gets all annoyed with him and starts glaring at him, rolling her eyes, or pretending her starbucks cup is a jug of beer.

 

[syllogism]

That woman who co-hosts Morning Joe is so cute. I love it when she argues with joe and gets all annoyed with him and starts glaring at him, rolling her eyes, or pretending her starbucks cup is a jug of beer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VdNcCcweL0

 

[Hootie]

That woman who co-hosts Morning Joe is so cute. I love it when she argues with joe and gets all annoyed with him and starts glaring at him, rolling her eyes, or pretending her starbucks cup is a jug of beer.

I think her only role on Morning Joe is to look nice. :lol

 

[Inflammable Slinky]

Any update on the Bob Barr challenge in Texas?

 

[Barrett2]

Any update on the Bob Barr challenge in Texas?

I can't imagine his challenge being upheld. Conservatives tend to get very liberal with legal interpretation as soon as they are the ones under the gun of 'strict constructionist' interpretation.

 

[Ventrue]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VdNcCcweL0

That's hilarious. :lol Especially the look on her face when they cut back from the Paris footage.

 

[Cheebs]

I think her only role on Morning Joe is to look nice. :lol

It's funny because her dad is probably one of the closest advisors Obama has on foreign policy. Her dad is one of the top advisors for Obama in that area.

 

[scorcho]

It's funny because her dad is probably one of the closest advisors Obama has on foreign policy. Her dad is one of the top advisors for Obama in that area.

from what i read somewhere he was only a periphery adviser, with Rice, James Steinberg and Dennis Ross as the main people.

 

[capslock]

Looks like Carly 'I can run a corp' Fiorina's gonna be thrown under the bus.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/16/232314/830/864/601194