Republicans generally want less regulation. Democrats generally want more.
This is -- generally -- true.
So if people (generally) believe that in a specific case there should have been more or stricter regulation, it's obvious that the Democrats were right, and the Republicans wrong ... right?
This is the Democratic talking point, and it's nonsense. It's barely worth mentioning how stupid this line of reasoning is, because it's so obviously nonsensical, but it's repeated so often that apparently some people think it's true.
We know, for example, that both Bush and McCain have pushed for tighter regulations on Freddie and Fannie for several years, and we know that Democrats have blocked and opposed it.
Being generally against increased regulation does not mean being for or against all regulations anymore than being generally for increased regulation means you are for all regulations.
The Democrats know that if they talk about the specific regulations at issue, they will look bad for having opposed regulations such as those proposed by McCain (and worse, make McCain look good). So instead they talk about generalities in an obvious attempt to deceive the public.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 25, 2008 11:10 AM | Email ThisThe only thing you don't get into here is WHY the Republicans favored it in this case. The reason, of course, is that Fanny and Freddy are not private companies as we think of them. They are government sponsored businesses. It wasn't in the businesses best interest to self regulate because their interests weren't the same as the interests of the company. Not regulating them is the equivalent of not having a business plan.
Of course, Democrats didn't care because it resulted in what was essentially a big government handout to their constituency groups.
Lucky for them, it didn't crash 6 months into a Democratic administration.
Posted by: Cliff on September 25, 2008 11:35 AMWhat it appears McCain was attempting in that 2005 legislation was to start a shell game to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation which transfers functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation and excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements and abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.
His effort ostensibly establishes deeper unaccountable quasi-private bureaucracy to further hide the problem and shift the risks around. Note the piece in there where it excludes securities reporting requirements for the Home Loan Banks.
The actual problem? Allowing bank holding companies to own other financial companies and for said lenders to be leveraged more than 30-1 and not have to disclose the nature of their risk to anyone, including GSEs who partner with them. Courtesy of a bill by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and James Leach (R-IA) that passed through the incumbent Republican majority in 1999 and was signed by an oblivious and reckless Clinton in a typically purely political gesture.
Whoa, that Lava lamp is getting HOT! Anyone seen my papers?
Posted by: Acid Brain on September 25, 2008 12:13 PMFalse.
What it appears McCain was attempting in that 2005 legislation was to start a shell game ... His effort ostensibly establishes deeper unaccountable quasi-private bureaucracy to further hide the problem and shift the risks around.
False, of course, the idea was to create and enforce MORE accountability.
The actual problem? Allowing bank holding companies to own other financial companies ...
False. That would not be a problem if they were abiding by fair and reasonable lending practices. These companies were gambling with the U.S. economy, and the Democrats didn't want to stop them because it might make families who couldn't afford a house unable to buy a house.
You're once again committing the same type of fallacy: that because we had deregulation in ownership rules, therefore it's their fault, when in fact the Republicans have tried to get regulation to help fix the problems WITHIN those ownership rules.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.
The securities reporting requirements that you try and play gotcha with are minor, and have no substantive impact on the real reform of the GSE's that it would have provided.
Posted by: Palouse on September 25, 2008 12:29 PM1. McCain only became a co-sponsor well after it died in committee, and did not sponsor it again when it was reintroduced in 2007. In fact, he only became a co-sponsor after the OFHEO report came out about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... so he essentially got up two days after its release, talked about the results, put his name on the bill, and did nothing else.
2. The first bill was introduced and sent to the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, and it never made it to the floor in a Republican-controlled Senate.
3. The source of the Democratic objection was due to concerns about commitments to support of low-income housing, which was partly addressed by Republican-sponsored HR 1461, the House version.
4. Of course, even the administration and the American Enterprise Institute thought that Republican-sponsored HR 1461 was too weak. In the end, it amounted to nothing more than reshuffling. The subsidies from government, the implicit loan guarantees, and the exemptions from finance regulations would have all remained, and all of those would have needed to have been addressed for true reform. (Analysis of S160 is harder to come by, but given that HR 1461 was the House version, it's not too far off.)
6. Political donations from the GSEs are split pretty evenly between Democrats and Republicans, with a small difference based on leadership positions. Republicans are not immune.
7. The last major regulatory reform of the GSEs was passed in 1992 by a Democratic Congress.
I don't disagree that BOTH parties share responsibility with this, and I'm not going to trumpet the Democrats' recent record here. However, assuming that McCain and Republicans are Cassandras, warning about this future catastrophe with some kind of sage wisdom is pretty far off too. Both parties have failed, but I'm much more willing to entertain the notion that Democrats will come out with stronger and more balanced regulations here.
Posted by: demo kid on September 25, 2008 12:30 PMUh, it passed in committee on a party line vote. All Republicans voted for it, all Democrats against. Whether McCain became a co-sponsor later is irrelevant. He supported it, and so did the Bush administration.
it never made it to the floor in a Republican-controlled Senate.
Yes, thanks to the threat of filibuster by Democrats who were unanimously opposed to it.
Posted by: Palouse on September 25, 2008 12:36 PMMcCain only became a co-sponsor well after it died in committee
False.
The source of the Democratic objection was due to concerns about commitments to support of low-income housing
Yes, exactly: the Democrats wanted to make sure that people who couldn't afford houses could buy houses, which is a big part of the mess we're in.
I don't disagree that BOTH parties share responsibility with this
Neither do I. I am just talking about the fact that the Democrats are lying when they say that Republicans are against regulation, and therefore this is their fault, which IS, of course, the story line being told by your party.
assuming that McCain and Republicans are Cassandras, warning about this future catastrophe with some kind of sage wisdom is pretty far off too
I never implied that. I simply, correctly, stated that McCain and Bush were correct in warning about the impending collapse, and that the Democrats blocked increased regulation.
Both parties have failed, but I'm much more willing to entertain the notion that Democrats will come out with stronger and more balanced regulations here.
Exactly: you are a Democrat, so you think the Democrats will do a better job. That is completely uninteresting.
Nothing else you said was relevant, so I skipped it.
If they are not at stake - as they really shouldn't be here - then regulation would be inappropriate. Invest at your own risk, and invest wisely, in companies with wise business practices.
The Dem and Rep finger pointing on regulation - although I have to say I haven't seen much Republican finger pointing on this yet - is really getting old.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on September 25, 2008 12:49 PMThe Bush administration objected to the House version:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851
as did the AEI:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22705/pub_detail.asp
No way to tell what their reaction would be to S.160, given that it didn't make it to the floor.
Yes, thanks to the threat of filibuster by Democrats who were unanimously opposed to it.
Unanimously opposed because of concerns about low-income housing programs, which S.160 did not protect. Again, the goals of the Democrats have been clear, but pushing for change without reaching compromises with them related to housing affordability was bound to go nowhere.
As a side note, people that believe that the current Congress has done nothing should take note of the fact that the Republicans have pretty much filibustered the Democrats constantly for the past two years...
Posted by: demo kid on September 25, 2008 12:53 PMUnanimously opposed because of concerns about low-income housing programs, which S.160 did not protect.
Thank you for agreeing with us.
As a side note, people that believe that the current Congress has done nothing should take note of the fact that the Republicans have pretty much filibustered the Democrats constantly for the past two years...
They learned from the Democrats ...
Posted by: pudge on September 25, 2008 01:00 PMOne person played the largest part. Mr. Graham.
One party champions de-regulation, which is the cause of this nightmare, almost to the point of being their party platform. The Republiconvicts.
There is the difference.
I also don't feel comfortable having the bunch that managed Iraq's re-construction getting hundreds of billions to hand off to their friends....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on September 25, 2008 01:03 PMFalse.
Where are you getting your information? Sorry bub... that's true. He wasn't on the initial bill, only signed on after the OFHEO report came out, and wasn't signed on to the 2007 version.
Yes, exactly: the Democrats wanted to make sure that people who couldn't afford houses could buy houses, which is a big part of the mess we're in.
Addressing low-income housing is definitely NOT the problem here. Failures with underwriting requirements, speculation, and the capitalization of the GSEs are what got us into this mess.
Nothing else you said was relevant, so I skipped it.
Not even the fact that this proposed bill wouldn't have fixed the problem? I'm disappointed! I'm even a little hurt, pudge.
Posted by: demo kid on September 25, 2008 01:05 PMYou're a liar.
Posted by: pudge on September 25, 2008 01:06 PMI guess if you have a dictator torturing the union leaders, and disappearing tens of thousands of workers to make their Laissez-faire economic Chicago Boy fantasy last a little longer before the people revolt, you can pretend stealing from the people to give to the rich works.
The free market fantasy is a fraud. Face it. It is just there so the rich can stick it to the poor more efficiently.
I love how McCain is running as fast as he can away from this problem. That's what a future president is supposed to do. Cut and run.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on September 25, 2008 01:10 PMThank you for agreeing with us.
If you believe that drastic oversight is required, how responsible is it to write legislation that won't get passed? This was nothing more than a bit of political theater.
Posted by: demo kid on September 25, 2008 01:10 PMYes, because the oversight and regulation of GSE's was not strong enough in that bill.
Unanimously opposed because of concerns about low-income housing programs, which S.160 did not protect.
First, it's S.190 and the bill did protect it. The stronger oversight might have prevented GSE's from giving loans to people who couldn't pay them back, but that's precisely how we got into this mess. The director of the independent oversight committee specifically in the bill would oversee:
(ii) the operations and activities of each regulated entity foster liquid, efficient, competitive, and resilient national housing finance markets (including activities relating to mortgages on housing for low- and moderate- income families involving a reasonable economic return that may be less than the return earned on other activities);
This bill absolutely would have provided reform of GSE's. This is indisputable. Argue all you want about Democrats trying to protect people who cannot pay their loans back - THAT'S why we have a bailout now.
Posted by: Palouse on September 25, 2008 01:11 PMOne person played the largest part. Mr. Graham.
No, Lindsey Graham and Bob Graham had nothing to do with this.
One party champions de-regulation, which is the cause of this nightmare, almost to the point of being their party platform. The Republiconvicts.
Yes, you are telling the story I already proved was a lie. Thanks for playing!
So any of the righties ready to admit Friedman's economic trickle down fantasies are a disaster yet?
Even competent liberal economists would tell you that none of this had anything to do with Friednman's free market principles, since this was never a free market, but, rather, the most heavily regulated market in the nation. So using this to attack the free market is dishonest.
I love how McCain is running as fast as he can away from this problem.
Liar.
demo kid:
Where are you getting your information? Sorry bub... that's true.
No, it's not.
Addressing low-income housing is definitely NOT the problem here.
Yes, it is, as you admit:
Failures with underwriting requirements, speculation, and the capitalization of the GSEs are what got us into this mess.
Availability of mortgages to people who cannot afford them is a HUGE part of the problems with underwriting.
Not even the fact that this proposed bill wouldn't have fixed the problem?
As that "fact" does not exist, no, it is not relevant, by definition.
If you believe that drastic oversight is required, how responsible is it to write legislation that won't get passed?
Typical Democratic, blaming the Republicans for the unreasonableness of Democrats. The motto of the Democratic Party really should be "Stop Hitting Yourself! Stop Hitting Yourself!"
(Incidentally, that's the first picture I found to illustrate the concept, and it just so happens it's from a group of liberal Democrats. Huh!)
Tell me what the Slavers who ruled the Senate for 5 of the last 8 years did. What are their actions? If we're going to assign blame, hey the Slavery Party ran the Senate for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008 so what have they done other than make millions for their Slavery Party friends running those GSEs?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2008 01:37 PMMcCian last week said:
"The fundamentals of the economy are strong."
McCain to Katie Couric last night:
"The country faces its worst crisis since World War II."
Which Sen. McCain will we be dealing with today? The populist 'Fire the SEC Chief' McCain or the anit-bailout McCain who's top economic adviser is Sen. Phil "Nation of Whiners" Gramm.
To tell you the truth I have no idea. It seems McCain's positions on the economy changes daily depending on which way the wind blows.
That's a big and blindly hopeful IF to hang on to. This is me the fallacious logicalizer asking you what establishes the "fair and reasonable lending practices" and who enforces them. Do tell.
Palouse... who do we suppose comprises the "independent oversight board?" Come on now. That's just plain mumbo jumbo for private entity not responsible to the public for it's actions.
"They burned down the gambling house, It died with an awful sound ..."
Posted by: Acid Brain on September 25, 2008 01:48 PMThe two quotes you provided are, as every intelligent person knows, not contradictory.
"The fundamentals of the economy are strong."
"The country faces its worst crisis since World War II."
OK, show how those two statements are opposed to each other. A house can have an incredibly strong foundation and frame, but the roof is leaking and threatens the contents of the house.
The two are NOT mutually exclusive, and if you had two cells in that head to rub together you'd understand that.
Or is it too nuanced, or above your pay grade, too?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2008 01:49 PMThat's a big and blindly hopeful IF to hang on to. This is me the fallacious logicalizer asking you what establishes the "fair and reasonable lending practices" and who enforces them. Do tell.
How about letting the market and the people lending the money decide what to do with their own money? Would you rather I force you to give me 50% of your retirement savings to play the lottery (or fine you an equivalent amount of money if you refused), or rather I simply let you decide what you want to do with your own money?
You're missing the big point: banks - PRIVATE ENTITIES - were told by force of law to give money to loans that were not good. The bank would not normally risk their funds on those loans, but the Government forced them to do so.
So how about letting the people who actually OWN the money - the banks and their investors - decide where to put their own money?
If not, I'll give you a PO box where you can send half your retirement funds so I can begin the Shanghai Dan Lottery Retirement Plan for you...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2008 01:56 PMSure. Mr. blogger's gaming the system! :) Great minds, pudge, great minds!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2008 01:58 PMThis is me the fallacious logicalizer asking you what establishes the "fair and reasonable lending practices" and who enforces them. Do tell.
Ummmm ... you can start with what McCain and Hagel tried to get passed, that the Democrats blocked, because the Democrats wanted to continue unfair and unreasonable lending practices for the sake of "poor people."
Palouse... who do we suppose comprises the "independent oversight board?" Come on now. That's just plain mumbo jumbo for private entity not responsible to the public for it's actions.
Um, that is what the Democrats were trying to maintain: the private GSEs remaining unaccountable to the public.
Here is the text of Reid's proposed new ban on oil shale, that he is trying to add as an amendment to the CR or move seperately as a "stimulus" package, or we should say an anti-stimulus package if this is included.
Sec 1602 continues ban on oil shale. The language follows:
SEC. 1602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 152 of division A of H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, the terms and conditions contained in section 433 of division F of Public Law 110-161 shall remain in effect for the 19 fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.
It would be an insult to all Americans if Senate Democrats worked to bailout Wall Street while damaging our future prosperity by banning development of vast energy reserves in oil shale.
Wrong. It has a director whose appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. And a board consisting of the Sec of Treasury, Sec of HUD, and Chairman of the SEC. And they would have made regular meetings in front of Congress and an annual report of GSE operations. It would have provided ALOT more accountability than we got without it, which is none.
Posted by: Palouse on September 25, 2008 02:01 PM
You can start with the fact that McCain couldn't get a bill through Congress in 2005 when the GOP controlled House/Senate/WH. Wonder why? Yet you blame the then minority party Dem's who did not have the votes or the power to stop the bill. You can spin the BS all you want, but in the end the fact that what you are saying it's simply untrue.
That reminds me, isn't Sen. Hagel supporting Obama?
Read and learn. If the minority threatens a filibuster over a bill, then the bill is usually shelved to be reworked to not have a filibuster.
I guess you really are ignorant given that you don't understand how the Senate works. I mean really, you can go to any middle school and find textbooks explaining how it works. Might want to avail yourself of an education.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2008 02:31 PMWhen the financial tsunami hits neither the house or the roof will mater since the tsunami is more powerful than both of them combined. You can rebuild after the fact but it's clearly not the same house.
Who was getting screwed?
So Pudge. You proved that Republiconvicts want regulation, and Democrats don't? Is that what your comment above meant?
Trickle down works. It just isn't water the less well off are feeling dripping on their heads.
I say let the gazillionaires pay for this bail out. They are the ones that pocketed the $$ all the way to this point.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on September 25, 2008 02:38 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
Although I am generally cautious about stuff from YouTube the points made in this movie appear legit. I do recall hearing about the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) years ago but wasn't aware that it may be part of the reason we are in this fix.
Posted by: Silkworm on September 25, 2008 02:38 PMOr you have a bunch of cooler heads step in and save the bill. Clearly the Hypocrisy Party was more interested in playing partisan politics than saving America's financial system from impending doom.
Face it, the GOP had all the power...they appointed Foxes to guard the Hen House, this combined with the 'do nothing, free market will take care of it' attitude are the ones who created the current financial crisis. They are the ones will be the ones who paying for it come November.
"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."
There it is. Democrats were playing the poor people card and the race card in order to force financial institutions into making loans no business should ever be forced to make.
Are we sick of these people yet?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 25, 2008 02:49 PMYou mean like Barry on Iran? Or Barry on everything else?
. Pudge forgot to mention the fact that 65% of the people who got sub prime loans (According to the Chairman of the Banking Committee) qualified for regular mortgages.
False. Fannie ESTIMATED it was somewhere between 15 and 35%. Freddie ESTIMATED it was 50%. The big problem with that is neither of them provided proof. They only looked at credit scores, which is only one factor in getting a mortgage. There were probably people who were "prime" customers who ended up buying a bad loan, and those aren't the people who we are about to bail out now. Those people probably refinanced already.
Posted by: Palouse on September 25, 2008 02:56 PMSooner or later your phony chickens are going to come home to roost.
It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of crooks.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 25, 2008 03:13 PMThere is nothing in that video that corroborates anything about Frank's comments in 2005 that everything was fine with Fannie/Freddie, or that the Republicans were pushing for GSE reform years ago and Frank and the GSE-funded Democrats blocked it.
Posted by: Palouse on September 25, 2008 03:13 PMHa ha ha ha ha................
Posted by: prog99 on September 25, 2008 03:14 PMI can't wait for tomorrow to see the next load of crap you guys come up with. It keeps all of us amused.
In the meantime trolls, how about explaining Biden's belief that FDR was President in 1929 and appeared on television. Unlike you idiots we don't have to stay up all night making up the next days garbage. We just use what actually comes out of your candidates' mouths.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 25, 2008 03:24 PMYou know Bill you sound more and more ridiculous every time you trot out this fact. No one forced the Banks to do anything, they brought it on themselves through FRAUD and LIES, and Depict.
Let's not forget the Freddie/Fannie Mac accounting scandal and the fact that everyone else was doing the same thing.
The individuals involved dug their own holes while the regulators appointed by the Bush Admin. looked the other way.
Posted by: Cato on September 25, 2008 03:28 PMHe is wrong and he misspoke. It was a stupid gaffe. If he were interviewing to be a history professor I wouldn't him, but it's not like he's saying that he can negotiate with Russia because he can see it from his house.
Posted by: demo kid on September 25, 2008 03:32 PMhow about explaining Biden's belief that FDR was President in 1929 and appeared on television
Oh come on, Bill, that's not fair. Biden doesn't even know how many degrees he himself has, can't expect him to remember when FDR was President or when the TV was invented. :-)
Posted by: pudge on September 25, 2008 03:37 PMANGLE: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, backed by the federal government, buy mortgage loans from the lenders who make them. But four years ago, both were in trouble over shoddy accounting. Fannie Mae Chief Franklin Raines, President Clinton's former budget director, was fired. To placate those in Congress who watched over them, Fannie and Freddie promised to do more to help poor people get mortgages. That led them to buy riskier and riskier home loans from private lenders creating incentives for everyone to make shakier loans.
PETER WALLISON, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: The problem is that they encouraged very bad mortgages to be made by banks and other institutions, because Fannie and Freddie would buy them.
ANGLE: Eventually, they bought trillions of dollars worth of mortgages, a substantial portion of them based on poor credit, then resold many of them to financial institutions who thought they were safe because the federal government was behind them.
WALLISON: As a result of this appearance that they were backed by the government, people never paid very much attention to the assets they were acquiring or the risks they were taking.
ANGLE: And so shaky mortgages spread throughout the system. But in 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then chaired by Republican Richard Shelby, tried to rein in the two organizations by passing some strong new regulations.
WALLISON: Which would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring this bad -- these bad mortgages. It actually gave a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie the kinds of powers that a bank regulator had.
ANGLE: All the Republicans voted for it. All the Democrats, including the current chairman, Senator Chris Dodd, voted against it, and that was after Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had issued a stark warning to senators that Fannie and Freddie were playing with fire. Greenspan said without stronger regulations, "We increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. Without restrictions on the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States."
ANGLE: Which turned out to be exactly right, but because Democrats blocked it, those new regulations never got consideration by the full Senate and died. So that's how we got into this mess, and how we missed a chance to avoid it. Getting out of it now, of course, will be a lot more difficult -- Brit.
Bottom line, Alan Greenspan warned of the impending crisis and Republicans,(who are the adults, remember?), tried to take action. And guess who stopped them?
Any further questions?
He is wrong and he misspoke. It was a stupid gaffe. If he were interviewing to be a history professor I wouldn't him, but it's not like he's saying that he can negotiate with Russia because he can see it from his house.
I will remember this any time you criticize a Republican for a similar gaffe.
Posted by: pudge on September 25, 2008 03:50 PMYeah, that's part of the reason that Bush and McCain were pushing for tighter regulations and an independent oversight agency. Too bad Democrats unanimously opposed it because GSE's were a cash-cow to their campaigns.
Posted by: Palouse on September 25, 2008 03:51 PMSo, like you, there IS a gutless coward involved. But his name isn't McCain.
Posted by: Hinton on September 25, 2008 03:53 PMWe better watch for a 'bump' in the back of bHo's suit on Friday...
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 25, 2008 03:54 PMBarack Obama has said that he is following the situation closely, and will return to DC if he's needed, but he will attend tomorrow's scheduled debate. Indeed, he has said that if McCain doesn't show, he'll turn it into a town hall forum.Here's how it would play out in my little fantasy:
McCain announces on Friday afternoon that he's successfully gotten enough Republicans to back the bailout bill, and will attend the debate. He says that he understands that circumstances have changed and Senator Obama had spent the last day or so for an alternate forum, so he's willing to waive the pre-arranged topic of foreign policy and talk about domestic issues, especially the economy. And he'll even go along with the town-hall format, as Obama has said it would be in McCain's absence.
At that point, Obama is, quite frankly, screwed. McCain will have taken all his statements and declarations on the debate and accepted each and every one of them. And by doing so, McCain will be not only taking the high road, but seizing the high ground -- he will be able to talk at length at his efforts to try to save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but being thwarted by the Democrats in the Senate -- the last time, while Obama was in the Senate. And by choosing the town-hall format, he will be playing to his strengths in debates, where Obama is notoriously lousy when speaking off the cuff -- especially of late.
Thus, allowing McCain to remind the voters that he CHALLENGED bHo to 10 town halls and after saying "anytime anywhere", bHo ran like the rat he is... er, he demured.
***
With his move this week McCain has ensured that the audiance for Friday nights debate will be much larger ... he obviously wants it to be ...He's going to be going up against Obama, on foreign policy, in the first and now even more highly anticipated debate ...
NOTE to obfusCATor and other 'scan & comment' knee jerkers: the operative words are "Here's how it would play out in my little fantasy".
Let's see, who had 8 years to stop this mess...oh yeah, the poeple in charge (aka Republicans, aka Hypocrisy Party). I backed up my claim with linked facts from reputable sources, you so far have failed to back up anything you say with fact.
McCain announces on Friday afternoon that he's successfully gotten enough Republicans to back the bailout bill
Reality:
McCain shows up, craps on everything that had already been worked out. Stalls for time because he's afraid to debate Obama. He sends the extremely unqualified Gov. Palin to debate in his place. Obama wipes the floor with the socialist tax raiser from AK.
Rags, I was running a few scenarios like that in my mind also. Mine was McCain misses the debate, Obama has a townhall meeting, and now what? McCain reissues his townhall format challenge. Can Obama dodge? Yet, Obama has to raise a lot of cash and can't afford time away. You see McCain is on public financing while Obama is lone soldier. (Ed. Note: I think I received three e-mails last night from the Obama campaign asking for cash)
Posted by: swatter on September 25, 2008 04:40 PMWhen I call you leftists immature crybabies I'm not just making it up. What is the matter with you?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 25, 2008 04:45 PMLets just hope these people end up lying themselves into oblivion.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 25, 2008 05:01 PMI never take Dodd or Reid seriously.
To the whiners and lefties (you know, the SAME guys) there has been article after article be one economist after another that lays the blame for this crisis at the suspension of red-lining. Yes, minorities deserved to have a path to home-ownership, but not at the cost of lowering the qualifying standards. It was this initial subverting of the logical rules and safeguards that LED to the greed and the phony, inflated economy of Wall Street and the housing market.
AND if you think about it, this is EXACTLY what the liberals do in every situation they perceive as "unequal":
-Women in the military, police, fire services ... differences in training requirements.
-Title IX
-Affirmative Action
Again, I said said a week ago,
Lefties want to blame Bush and the right wants to blame Pelosi, but this problem started long ago.Truly we could go back as far as the New deal or the Great Society, but this particular set of dominoes was set in motion by Carter and his demand that institutions make it easier for minorities to get loans. It wasn't that they were undeserving of the American dream, but it WAS that Carter changed the rules of how that could happen.
Clinton continued and expanded that. THEN there was the advent of the net, changing rules of investment, daytraders and short selling.
How many of you have taken advantage of "no interest/no payments" for X amount of time? It's the same thing. However, many of those that took those great rates, that believed "no interest/no payments" either didn't undertand that payment in FULL was still due or they deceived themselves into believing they could afford more than was actually true. These companies, this country has leveraged the "no interest/no payment" thing for over TWO DECADES. It had to implode and it has.
Social Security and Medicare are next. Democrats have been borrowing from it for years with "no interest/no payments". A business or an institution can only float for so long deferring THEIR interest and payments until something has to collapse.
Collapse it has.
The democrats get so angst-ridden about blame that they want to "do something!" and that something usually interferes with the natural ebb and flow and normal corrections.
They should probably take up gardening. Over-tending is as deadly to a garden as undertending... and NOTHING grows indefinitely.
BUT, it's important to remember that the stock market is NOT the economy. AND that McCain is right: the fundamentals of the ECONOMY are strong.
LOL!! Bill would rather blame the Dem's than admit that WaMu screwed themselves through artificially inflated housing appraisals, shady accounting practices, and paying credit rating agencies to upgrade their junk rated Mortgage Backed Securities to stellar AAA ratings.
Great quote:
"We have never had a mortgage-backed market where a third or more of the product is subprime or has potential credit problems," Mr. Cecala said. "If something does go wrong, you will see a lot of things being impacted."
Seriously Bill, it's a wonder why anyone would take you seriously.
When the financial tsunami hits neither the house or the roof will mater since the tsunami is more powerful than both of them combined. You can rebuild after the fact but it's clearly not the same house.
It's not a tsunami if you chicken little Slavery Party hacks would be realistic. Worse case is we're looking at 4.6% of just one year of the GDP. Can your budget sustain a one-time hit of less than 5%?
Let's see, who had 8 years to stop this mess...
LIAR AGAIN. Cato, you really REALLY need to stop lying through your teeth. And yes, you are a liar because I've corrected you on this at least 3 times.
Of the 7.5 years of the Bush Administration, 5 of them had a Slavery Party Senate, and 2 had a Slavery Party House.
The Slavery Party was in control of the Senate a LOT more than the Republicans over the last 7.5 years. FACT.
You are a liar, plain and simple. And the fact it does not bother you shows the depth of amorality the Slavery Party has sunk to.
Slavery Party Kid wrote about Biden's "gaffe":
He is wrong and he misspoke.
I see. So when it's a Slaver who "misspeaks" it's just that. A Republican and it's a lie.
We'll remember that Slaver Kid... Biden lied according to the criteria your ilk holds to for Republicans. Biden is a liar according to your own standards.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2008 05:29 PMYou can freak out all you want but your party is at fault here and you know it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 25, 2008 05:32 PMWaMu is suffering from a downgrading of its CREDIT RATING, particularly in the last 2 weeks. It has repeatedly reiterated that it has sufficient CAPITAL.
Do you not know the difference? Or are you just practicing more of the snarky crap liberals do of talking it down to BRING it down.
Furthermore, "The federal government has arranged for Washington Mutual to sell its deposits and some branches to JPMorgan Chase, people briefed on the matter said Thursday night."
Washington Mutual to Sell Deposits to JPMorgan"
September 25, 2008, 7:11 pm
1999 NY Times Article Revealed True Cause of Current Fannie Mae Crises
Lots of words, liberals: read (not scan) S L O W L Y.
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 25, 2008 05:50 PMThe action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
Get that? Pressure by the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans by lowering its credit requirements."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."
Community-lending advocates and banking industry officials found one thing to agree on yesterday about the rewrite of the Community Reinvestment Act: It is not going to improve lending in poor neighborhoods.After long negotiations on legislation to overhaul the nation's financial services laws, Senate Republicans and the Clinton Administration resolved their differences early yesterday over whether to strengthen or weaken the law involving lending to minorities and others commonly denied credit.
The law's chief critic, Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas, appeared to get much of what he wanted. Mr. Gramm not only secured reductions in how often small banks would have to face compliance examinations, but he also won a provision requiring his ideological adversaries, the community advocacy groups, to disclose how much they receive from reinvestment agreements with banks.
Kinda grabs ya by the boo-boo, don't it?
Posted by: Acid Brain on September 25, 2008 06:35 PMLook at the timeline: 2001 — the president’s budget warns about large government sponsored enterprises. 2002 — the president calls for governance standards. 2003—the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight warns of systemic risk. Treasury asks Congress for new regulation. SEC investigations expose Fannie Mae earnings manipulations. 2004 — the president again advises action because of the Fannie Mae risk. Treasury calls for reform. 2005 — Senator John McCain and 3 other Republicans sponsor a bill, defeated by Democrats, to reform the government lending. 2007 — Bush advises, "first things first when it comes to [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." 2008 — Every month Bush calls on Congress to act.
...
Why did Democrats consistently scuttle tighter Fannie Mae rules? Follow the money and lust for power — through ACORN, Fannie Mae, greedy banks, and Democrats in power.
...
Barak Obama, received Fannie Mae money and likely benefited from ACORN voter registrations. Obama represented ACORN to sue Fannie Mae to reduce the requirements for getting mortgages. Lowering those mortgage requirements set the stage for waves of big bank scams that lined the pockets of the banks, bank officials, Fannie Mae executives, and — surprise — Democratic politicians. Weak supervision allowed them to milk Fannie Mae for money and political advantage.
Source: The Rome Sentinel of New York
OUCH. Lay this one at the feet of the Slavery Party. And if only they would put down their partisanship and actually think of the Country first rather than themselves, we could avoid some of these issues.
The true Democrats - Scoop Jackson, Tip O'Niell, Zell Miller, John Kennedy - knew that America came first, party came second. You Slavers are selling out the country for your own petty gains.
Enjoy your 30 pieces of silver, you Judases...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2008 06:55 PMNot many of you can. But what's worse is that not many of you understand what has really happened with the financial markets. Bad mortgage loans are only a small part of the problem. The bursting of the housing bubble has become the red herring for a much more fundamental problem.
Does anyone know what a credit default swap (CDS) is? Get the particulars from Wikipedia. In short, the net effect of a CDS is that a company with a good credit rating let's a borrower without a good credit rating, or even no credit rating, use the company's credit rating to borrow funds. In other words, the company with the good credit rating is essentially a co-signer on a risky loan. Why do that? Because the company is paid a fee to lend out their good credit.
This sort of borrowing and swapping of credit risk became rampant when the Federal Reserve allowed investment banks to increase their leverage ratio from about 14 to 40 times assets in 2004. Investment banks and hedge funds associated with them used CDS's to borrow trillions of dollars for risky investments, like investing soy bean futures. Ever wonder where all the $ was coming from for the huge run up in commodities futures (like oil)? And why those commodity prices are dropping like rocks?
This is the hidden bubble that has burst that few people are noticing while they worry about the housing bubble that has also burst.
Who is on the hook for paying back the bad loans that were originated using CDS's? The "co-signers" ... the companies with good balance sheets that for a fee allowed speculators to borrow on their balance sheet. This is what bought AIG down. AIG was not heavily invested in mortgage backed securities. They were heavily saddled with CDS agreements and suddenly became responsible for paying back all of these bad loans that were effectively taken out using AIG's balance sheet. In fact, they were leveraged in this "off balance sheet" manner several times their asset base.
This is the real mess that Paulson wants to clean up. Freddie and Fannie helped to create a moderate sized mess. But the apocalyptic situation is what I described above.
I suspect half of Congress can't get their minds around this. The other half are scared to death that the public will find out about the real nature of the problem. Paulson, coming from Goldman, which played a major role in inventing and spreading CDS's, wants to get to work to cover some of the CDS's and cover up what his pals on Wall Street did. And, by the way, cover up what the Fed did in allowing these leverage ratios to go up so astronomically. This "plan" is more like a "cover up" than a "bail out."
The ONLY person that has characterized the situation correctly in Congressional testimony is Alan Greenspan. He may have been imperfect in the early part of the decade by keeping rates too low for too long, but he sees the picture clearly now. I guess that's because he now realizes what he did by allowing Wall Street to leverage up the way he did. As he said, the $700 billion plan on the table now is a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions of $ of bad loans that were created using CDS's.
And, here is the amazing thing. The Federal Reserve is not part of the US government. It is owned by banks. "Oversight." The idea that the government has "oversight" over the Federal Reserve is a carefully crafted illusion.
Instead of arguing party politics, what you guys might want to be doing is debating whether the country should go into a classic deflationary depression or go into an extended hyper-inflationary period. Those are the only two choices at this point.
Personally, I think we are lucky to have Paulson there for the next couple of the months to do the best he can. He understands the situation better than anyone, because he helped to create it. And I think he really wants to do his best to ameliorate it to the extent possible. But, in a private, I'd bet that he concedes, at least to his wife, that all he can do, even with $700 billion, is soften the blow a little.
If there is anyone left reading this far along, you might want to do some research on who made money during the Great Depression and why. The rest are back to watching American Idol.
Posted by: BananaLand on September 25, 2008 07:10 PMNope, BushRoveHilter didn't take office until 2001.
Read it and weep too-much-acid, your "it's not fair" welfare party set these dominoes in motion.
1999 NY Times Article Revealed True Cause of Current Fannie Mae Crises
September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
"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."
And ALL those implicated names just keep popping up, again and again: Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, Chris Dodd, Jim Johnson... now, where have I heard all those name connected... let me think... something about tangled webs weaved and practices to deceive.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 25, 2008 07:28 PMI do not care much for reregulations. I would have rather seen a deregulation and privatization of the two mortgage giants.
Posted by: Lysander on September 25, 2008 09:21 PMSo you want to deregulate GSEs. Good - let's leave a big pot of our tax dollars even more unprotected.
GSEs should be heavily regulated and in a sane manner. Banks? Not so much...
So you don't like McCain, and I assume you don't like Obama. Who are you voting for?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2008 10:57 PMWhy do you support government/corporate hybrids like the GSE's?
I am deciding between Barr (have a hard time believing he is sincere) and Baldwin and NOTA.
Posted by: Lysander on September 25, 2008 11:13 PMI don't support GSEs, but if they are around I want them to have the highest level of regulations and those regulations to be as fiscally conservative as possible.
Privatize them and the regulations go away because they are no longer GSEs. Deregulating then privatizing is the wrong order.
So you're looking to vote for Barr whom you don't trust, Baldwin (not no reasons for him), or not voting...
So why are you even concerned about the election?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 26, 2008 07:59 AM