PDA

View Full Version : "The financial crisis we're living through today..."



JohnnyMack
9/22/2008, 03:57 PM
The financial crisis we're living through today started with the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system. At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

John S. McCain
Sept. 19th 2008

What was that?
http://www.observer.com/files/imagecache/vertical/files/davis.jpg

John McCain's campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month (more than 2 million dollars total) by an "advocacy group" set up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The advocacy group was established to prevent stricter regulations from being imposed on the companies.

Mavrick.

47straight
9/22/2008, 05:03 PM
Three questions:

How much of that money did McCain ever see?

How much of that money was given to the campaign manager after he started working for McCain?

How does that amount of money compare to the amount of money that was directly given over the years by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to Obama or the Democratic National Committee?

Vaevictis
9/22/2008, 05:10 PM
Three questions:

Would you be asking the first question if it was Obama's campaign manager?

Would you be asking the second question if it was Obama's campaign manager?

Would you be asking the third question if it was Obama's campaign manager?

JohnnyMack
9/22/2008, 05:11 PM
Three questions:

How much of that money did McCain ever see?

How much of that money was given to the campaign manager after he started working for McCain?

How does that amount of money compare to the amount of money that was directly given over the years by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to Obama or the Democratic National Committee?

I know that RD was McCain's campaign manager in 2000 as well. I know that the boards of Fannie & Freddie gave McCain over a 100k and Obama about 16k but that Obama received a ton of money from employees of Freddie & Fannie.

The Maestro
9/22/2008, 05:14 PM
So does this mean you are voting for Obama?

85Sooner
9/22/2008, 06:21 PM
I know that RD was McCain's campaign manager in 2000 as well. I know that the boards of Fannie & Freddie gave McCain over a 100k and Obama about 16k but that Obama received a ton of money from employees of Freddie & Fannie.

Obama received the 2nd most $$$$ from Fannie Mae lobbyists right after Dodds and Obama was only in office for less than two years.

I think you must be talking about campaign donations?????????????

Rogue
9/22/2008, 07:46 PM
Neither guy can claim moral high ground on taking money from the big financial companies. As far as I can tell both got plenty from the bailed out co.s.

Partial Qualifier
9/22/2008, 07:49 PM
MSNBC would be proud.

Two thumbs up: http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

JohnnyMack
9/24/2008, 09:46 PM
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160713

Widescreen
9/24/2008, 10:17 PM
JohnnyMack has officially passed Tuba as the most hysterical (and I don't mean funny) poster on SF.com.

Congrats.

tommieharris91
9/24/2008, 10:35 PM
JohnnyMack has officially passed Tuba as the most hysterical (and I don't mean funny) poster on SF.com.

Congrats.

I think you're forgetting RLIMC.

SoonerKnight
9/24/2008, 11:38 PM
I think you're forgetting RLIMC.

ha! and meh!

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 12:28 AM
Just in case anyone is interested in facts instead of innuendo:


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.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002 Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrm x002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 12:34 AM
Here is a link to the bill that was proposed: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Remember, this was 2005.



1/26/2005--Introduced.

Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.

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.

Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.

Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.

Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.


I'll admit that I don't know the details, but I've seen some of those terms being bandied about on the talk shows lately.

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 12:55 AM
It also apparently created a one year gap between the dissolution of the then-current regulatory setup and the proposed one.

I haven't personally verified it, but if true, I'd vote against it based on that alone.

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 01:00 AM
Sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't proposing that this specific bill would have solved all of the problems we are facing today. I was merely trying to point out that one of the candidates was actually putting forth meaningful and pertinent legislation (which according to some is what "legislators" are supposed to do) while the other had his hand in the cookie jar.

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 01:09 AM
Additionally, my understanding is that McCain only signed onto the bill after it was (for all intents and purposes) dead, did not take any real action to resurrect it, and didn't sign on when the bill was reintroduced in a later session.

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 01:17 AM
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22705/pub_detail.asp

I'm somewhat suspicious of the AEI -- they're a "conservative" group, so they clearly have an agenda -- but a major concern they had was that the bill had the effect of expanding the charter of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac to additional lines of business and potentially resulted in weaker regulation than already existed.

Apparently the Bush Administration didn't like it either.

I personally find it... worthy of note... when conservative economic think-tanks and the Bush Administration have problems with a bill for proposing regulation that is too weak.

47straight
9/25/2008, 02:06 AM
Additionally, my understanding is that McCain only signed onto the bill after it was (for all intents and purposes) dead, did not take any real action to resurrect it, and didn't sign on when the bill was reintroduced in a later session.


My only knowledge (that I remember, ignoring the fluff pieces) was from govtrack. I don't know what real action is or isn't, but he was on the floor asking the committee to get it going. He was a co-sponsor with Hagel and some other folks before that.

Blue
9/25/2008, 02:23 AM
Hypothetical... BS Bush's speech tonight doesn't fool the American people who is tired of his crap and the bailout doesn't pass. (I have many friends who've called their rep and demanded we not do this) The Economy goes in the tank, Bush suspends the elections(He's passed numerous laws that give him Dictator power over the last few years) Declares martial Law and we're FUBARED.

That speach tonight was scary. Scary in the fact that Bush acts like he's on our side. He wants the bailout to fail. And so do I.

royalfan5
9/25/2008, 08:29 AM
Hypothetical... BS Bush's speech tonight doesn't fool the American people who is tired of his crap and the bailout doesn't pass. (I have many friends who've called their rep and demanded we not do this) The Economy goes in the tank, Bush suspends the elections(He's passed numerous laws that give him Dictator power over the last few years) Declares martial Law and we're FUBARED.

That speach tonight was scary. Scary in the fact that Bush acts like he's on our side. He wants the bailout to fail. And so do I. I don't think Bush really wants to be President that much longer. I'm betting he will be quite happy for January, 20, 2009 to get here, so he won't have to deal with this **** anymore.

Widescreen
9/25/2008, 09:38 AM
Hypothetical... BS Bush's speech tonight doesn't fool the American people who is tired of his crap and the bailout doesn't pass. (I have many friends who've called their rep and demanded we not do this) The Economy goes in the tank, Bush suspends the elections(He's passed numerous laws that give him Dictator power over the last few years) Declares martial Law and we're FUBARED.

That speach tonight was scary. Scary in the fact that Bush acts like he's on our side. He wants the bailout to fail. And so do I.

At least you're giving JohnnyMack a run for his money.

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 10:39 AM
Additionally, my understanding is that McCain only signed onto the bill after it was (for all intents and purposes) dead, did not take any real action to resurrect it, and didn't sign on when the bill was reintroduced in a later session.

Link?

Even if that does turn out to be true, what does it mean? Are you suggesting that McCain signed on to a dead bill so that he could use it as political capital two years later in his presidential campaign to offset the appearance of impropriety garnered by having a former Freddie/Fannie lobbyist as his campaign manager? If so, you've got to give the guy credit for his foresight. :rolleyes:


http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22705/pub_detail.asp

I'm somewhat suspicious of the AEI -- they're a "conservative" group, so they clearly have an agenda -- but a major concern they had was that the bill had the effect of expanding the charter of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac to additional lines of business and potentially resulted in weaker regulation than already existed.

Apparently the Bush Administration didn't like it either.

I personally find it... worthy of note... when conservative economic think-tanks and the Bush Administration have problems with a bill for proposing regulation that is too weak.

Ummm, suddenly the Bush administration and conservative economic think-tanks know a good bill when they see one?

Regardless, let me reiterate that the point is that McCain saw a problem and proposed a solution. Maybe you don't like the solution, that's fine. But if you look at his language he definitely identified a problem that could seriously hurt our economy (and it did).

What exactly did Obama have to say about any of this back in 05/06?

Chuck Bao
9/25/2008, 10:44 AM
Where’s the outrage? Oh, I’ve got it.

I’m seething with anger over this proposed “bail-out” or “support” of the financial system using taxpayers’ money (at least as I now understand the different proposals).

I’m seething with anger because –

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke want US$700bn of taxpayers’ money at their discretion to buy mortgage-backed securities to bail out certain financial institutions. I DO NOT TRUST THEM. I do not trust them to get the right price since they are basically saying “mark-to-market” is wrong because there is no market or it is a fire sale. They are not saying on what basis they would price their purchases. They are not saying how much taxpayers will lose. It is a moving target anyway since mortgage defaults continue to rise.

I say let the financial institutions fail and only after all shareholders’ equity is completely wiped out, then nationalize them. Then start lending and restore confidence to the interbank lending market. Do it one bank at a time. Then, I would agree to a US$700bn fund with the proviso that the nationalized financial institutions are eventually privatized and part of the “bail-out” money is recouped.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress are demanding oversight on how this money is spent and the US$700bn to be allocated in installments. Great, more foxes in the henhouse. I DO NOT TRUST THEM EITHER. If the financial institutions are nationalized, why are they worried about executive salaries and golden parachutes instead of criminal charges of fraud and gross negligence? I really think something can be worked out with the help of the FBI.

Much more worrisome is the Democrats’ idea of giving relief to homeowners. Someone told me today that even Paulson is proposing allowing home owners to buy back their defaulted mortgages at steep discounts from a new state-owned entity that had bought up the increasingly sour mortgage-backed securities. Okay, this idea may be expedient and may appear to be practical in stopping the downward spiral in the housing market. On the other hand, it is bad practice, creates moral hazard and could further worsen the situation.

Trust me, I know about this. In the Asian economic crisis when more than 50% of Thailand’s total loans turned bad, we experienced the “selective default” or borrowers who could pay but choose not to pay to force the bank to give them a haircut.

If you stopped paying your mortgage payments for several months and then you were able to buy back the mortgage at a 30-40% discount with financing from one of the new nationalized banks because you actually have the means to pay, would you? What if all of your neighbors started doing that? What if all of your business competitors were doing that and they could then undercut you in price? Please note that I’m not really saying you should default on your mortgage and negotiate a haircut.

I’m also seething in anger because of US arrogance. US-based hedge funds attacked Thailand in 1997. The forced devaluation of the baht sent the entire Southeast Asia region into a downward spiral when the fundamentals were actually quite strong. An entire region of 400 million people lost a huge amount of wealth from this attack. Many US economists came out to say that Thailand deserved it because of lack of transparency, poor corporate governance and corruption. I so want to devote all of my time tracking down each and every one of these economists and publicly asking them if the US deserves this.

I have my own proposal.

1. The $700bn should NOT be used to buy any mortgage-backed securities.

2. If the intent is support Main Street and legitimate businesses, step in to support them. That is way, way more efficient and cheaper than trying to cure the problem by guaranteeing and cleaning up the most rotten part of it.

3. Let the mortgage market sort out itself. No haircuts. No incentives to default.

4. The vast derivatives markets at several multiples of the underlying economic value should die anyway. It was just insane and the gearing of the Wall Street firms was even more insane. This was the tail killing the dog.

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 10:54 AM
I think I agree with Chuck, but I'm not smart enough to say for sure.

SoonerProphet
9/25/2008, 11:05 AM
Price fixing and bailing out failing businesses is a recipe for continued financial turmoil.

tommieharris91
9/25/2008, 11:24 AM
Price fixing and bailing out failing businesses is a recipe for continued financial turmoil.

The worst part of this is that, if anyone involved in this mess understands this, it's Ben Bernanke. Before he became Fed chairman, he was a professor that did a ton of work studying the minute details of the Great Depression.

Chuck Bao
9/25/2008, 11:31 AM
I admit that I have no idea about the negotiations of the proposal.

There was a Reuters story earlier that tried to encapsulate the key positions of the three major participants.

It is a 24-hour old story, so it may no longer be in play. But, the posturing of the different participants still seems to provide a very good insight into a very murky business.


TREASURY'S PLAN

* Would allow up to $700 billion in mortgage assets to be held by Treasury at any one time.

* Allows the Treasury to buy any mortgage-related assets, both residential and commercial, for a two-year period. The plan does not detail the types of mortgage assets this could cover and/or how long the government could hold them and does not establish how they would be valued. However, if deemed necessary to promote financial market stability, any type of financial instrument could be bought.

* Assets must have been originated or issued before Sept. 17, 2008, by a financial institution having "significant operations" in the United States. This provision could also be waived if deemed needed to promote financial stability.

* Assets could be bought from any financial institution, including but not limited to banks, thrifts, credit unions, broker-dealers and insurance companies. If needed to promote market stability, assets could be purchased from non-financial companies.

* Grants the Treasury Department broad authority to decide how to purchase, manage and dispose of the assets, including through a special fund, and names financial institutions to work for the agency.

* The Treasury secretary would be given these powers to ensure stability or prevent disruption of financial markets and protect the taxpayer.

* No court or government agency could review the secretary's decisions. The secretary would report to Congress within the first three months and then twice yearly.

* The U.S. debt limit would be increased by $700 billion to fund the plan, to $11.315 trillion from $10.615 trillion.

SENATE DEMOCRATS' COUNTERPROPOSAL

* Calls for Treasury to get 'contingent shares' in companies selling assets. These can be shares of the financial institution, its parent company, its holding company or any of its subsidiaries.

* Calls for monitoring the bailout by establishing an emergency oversight board that would include the chairmen of U.S. Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp,
Securities and Exchange Commission and others. Also allows oversight board to review the appointment of "financial agents" running the funds.

* Calls for a portion of any proceeds to provide assistance to homeowners, localities to prevent foreclosures.

* Calls for limits on executive compensation for entities selling assets in bailout.

* Says Treasury secretary's decisions subject to review.

* Gives the government the authority to "claw-back" executive pay that based on information such as earnings later proves to be inaccurate.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS' COUNTERPROPOSAL

* Treasury must obtain warrants (or similar assets) if they buy troubled assets from a company and must remit any profits back to the U.S. general fund.

* Limits executive compensation that provides a "perverse" incentive for inappropriate or excessive risk-taking.

* Includes a "claw-back" provision for any executive bonuses based on information later shown to be false and prohibits golden parachute severance payments while the
government holds warrants.

* Participating companies must provide proxy access to shareholders to nominate board members and set an annual nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation.

* Foreclosure avoidance and mitigation efforts will help homeowners including encouraging servicers to use the Hope for Homeowners Program and other available programs.

* Contains a measure to help families save their homes in bankruptcy proceedings.

* Includes intensive oversight of the program by the Government Accountability Office and regular reports to Congress.

* Would allow courts to fully review the program but let the Treasury act swiftly as courts could not grant an injunction or equitable relief.

* Eliminates carve-outs sought by Treasury to contract outside government contracting rules.

* Eligible institutions must be organized, regulated and have significant operations in the United States except for foreign sovereign wealth funds and central banks holding eligible assets of failed U.S. financial institutions.

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 01:53 PM
Link?

Timeline (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@L&summ2=m)

Introduced Jan 26 2005
McCain joins in co-sponsorship May 25 2006

Look at the actions on the bill. It was introduced (January), read twice (January), and then tabled (July).

My inference is that, essentially, the bill was more or less DOA.


Even if that does turn out to be true, what does it mean? Are you suggesting that McCain signed on to a dead bill so that he could use it as political capital two years later in his presidential campaign to offset the appearance of impropriety garnered by having a former Freddie/Fannie lobbyist as his campaign manager? If so, you've got to give the guy credit for his foresight. :rolleyes:

I don't give a lot of credit to folks who say, "wow, there's something wrong here" and don't actually do anything real to fix it. Mere co-sponsorship and a 45 second speech on the floor of the Senate announcing co-sponsorship approximates that, IMO.


Ummm, suddenly the Bush administration and conservative economic think-tanks know a good bill when they see one?

No, but these are people who are downright allergic to increased regulation, and in this case, they're advocating increased regulation?

Doesn't that strike you as noteworthy?


Regardless, let me reiterate that the point is that McCain saw a problem and proposed a solution.

And did next to nothing to actually see that proposal implemented. You'll excuse me if I'm utterly unimpressed.


What exactly did Obama have to say about any of this back in 05/06?

Nothing. Which is only marginally less than McCain.

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 01:57 PM
The worst part of this is that, if anyone involved in this mess understands this, it's Ben Bernanke. Before he became Fed chairman, he was a professor that did a ton of work studying the minute details of the Great Depression.

Yep, which should cause you to ask the question: If this is the case, and the guy is an expert on financial crises, what other pieces of information does he have that he's doing what he's doing?

Is it really incompetence on the part of an extremely competent person, or does he know something you don't?

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 02:19 PM
And did next to nothing to actually see that proposal implemented. You'll excuse me if I'm utterly unimpressed.

If co-sponsorship of a bill is "next to nothing" then I have no idea what it might take to be viewed as "doing something".

The bottom line is that McCain backed legislation intended to address the problem that has created the "crisis" we have now. Would it have made a difference? I don't know. Did he back it with his full efforts? I don't know. Does seeing the problem and acting on it (to whatever extent) inspire me more than sitting back and taking hand-outs from the companies causing the problem? Yes. But I guess you and I just differ in that way.

Big Red Ron
9/25/2008, 02:21 PM
Obama's top financial advisor and chairman of the VP selection process is the former CEO of fannie mae. 90 mill that dude burned us for.

Ooops

JohnnyMack
9/25/2008, 02:23 PM
Obama's top financial advisor and chairman of the VP selection process is the former CEO of fannie mae. 90 mill that dude burned us for.

Ooops

Rick. Davis.

Ooops

Big Red Ron
9/25/2008, 02:25 PM
Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate.

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 02:28 PM
So we're agreed that both candidates hired dubious individuals from failed companies to be on their campaign.

The problem, IMO, is the inference that hiring these guys means that either candidate explicitly supports their former actions. Why not look at things like voting records and bill sponsorships instead of who works on their campaign?

Except, of course, for the fact that Obama has no bill sponsorships and precious little voting record.

Big Red Ron
9/25/2008, 02:28 PM
Rick. Davis.

Ooops
lol, Rick hasn't worked or received compensation from the firm that got that pittance of money.

30k?

So, it's OK for Obama to be the second biggest recipient of campaign bucks from fannie and freddie but a guy that worked at a firm that got some chump change to lobby for them is worse?

You are just silly man, and you look desperate, like the Obama campaign.

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 02:31 PM
If co-sponsorship of a bill is "next to nothing" then I have no idea what it might take to be viewed as "doing something".

Bill is introduced, with two co-sponsors. McCain shows up four months later, makes a 30 second speech and announces that he's a co-sponsor.

Nothing else happens.

That's doing something, but only by the least amount. To me, it's like walking by a store getting looted, saying to someone else on the street, "Man, that's a damn shame. They should stop doing that." And then walking away.

What it would take is if the dude had been talking about this stuff ad nauseum, beating down doors to make the problem known. Say what you like about Nader, Coburn, etc, but when they see a problem, they make sure you know about it and do everything they can about it. That's what impresses me.

Big Red Ron
9/25/2008, 02:34 PM
Bill is introduced, with two co-sponsors. McCain shows up four months later, makes a 30 second speech and announces that he's a co-sponsor.

Nothing else happens.

That's doing something, but only by the least amount. To me, it's like walking by a store getting looted, saying to someone else on the street, "Man, that's a damn shame. They should stop doing that." And then walking away.So, because the Democratic controlled Senate and House did nothing with his Bill, he did nothing?

He only foresaw this problem and tried to fix it 3 years ago. Sheesh, if Obama would have done that people here would be claiming that as evidence of something, anything Obama as accomplished in his life.

C&CDean
9/25/2008, 02:34 PM
I'm gonna hold JM down and let Tuba and RLIMC **** him in the ***. To death. Why? Cause he deserves it.

Go hug your kids JM and quit being a weasely little ****wad. We all thank you.

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 02:35 PM
Bill is introduced, with two co-sponsors. McCain shows up four months later, makes a 30 second speech and announces that he's a co-sponsor.

Nothing else happens.

I'm guessing that you have some super-secret info (that scuba referred to in the other thread) that "nothing else happens"? It appears that nothing else happened on the record, but I'm thinking that there is a lot that goes on in Washington outside the capitol.

I'm curious why you think McCain would have added his name as a co-sponsor if he had no intention of doing anything to promote it? Was there some political capital to be gained back in 2006 for sponsoring such a bill?

KC//CRIMSON
9/25/2008, 02:38 PM
You are just silly man, and you look desperate, like the Obama campaign.


Yeah, about as desperate as bringing in big tits with nerd glasses from Alaska and trying to cancel the first debate.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/c/G/2/mcdesperate.jpg

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 02:38 PM
So, because the Democratic controlled Senate and House did nothing with his Bill, he did nothing?

McCain's been the presumptive/actual Republican nominee for how long?

He's been on the campaign trail for how long?

When did you start hearing him talk about this? Dude's had a mighty big platform to speak from for some time. What did he choose to use it on?

JohnnyMack
9/25/2008, 02:45 PM
lol, Rick hasn't worked or received compensation from the firm that got that pittance of money.

30k?

So, it's OK for Obama to be the second biggest recipient of campaign bucks from fannie and freddie but a guy that worked at a firm that got some chump change to lobby for them is worse?

You are just silly man, and you look desperate, like the Obama campaign.

Desperate? Really? Obama kicked back, smoked a Kool and said "let's just chill". It was McCain who was running around like Chicken Little.

And to the Rick Davis / John McCain angle. McCain has over 20 people who have lobbied or are currently lobbying for Fannie & Freddie according to this:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/24/on-davis-s-ties-to-freddie-mac-mccain-gets-boomeranged.aspx

Big Red Ron
9/25/2008, 02:47 PM
McCain's been the presumptive/actual Republican nominee for how long?

He's been on the campaign trail for how long?

When did you start hearing him talk about this? Dude's had a mighty big platform to speak from for some time. What did he choose to use it on?
A few months, so because you didn't hear about it it didn't happen? huh, must be like the tree in the woods thing.

I see KC's dropped in, I have you back on my ignore list, so keep that right hand a pumpin pal.

Big Red Ron
9/25/2008, 02:48 PM
Frank Raines.

KC//CRIMSON
9/25/2008, 02:49 PM
I have you back on my ignore list

chicken*hit.

OUthunder
9/25/2008, 03:20 PM
What was that?
http://www.observer.com/files/imagecache/vertical/files/davis.jpg

John McCain's campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month (more than 2 million dollars total) by an "advocacy group" set up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The advocacy group was established to prevent stricter regulations from being imposed on the companies.

Mavrick.

Where is your post stating what the Obama got from either company. I know it was a crap load of cash.

47straight
9/25/2008, 03:25 PM
Yeah, about as desperate as bringing in big tits with nerd glasses from Alaska and trying to cancel the first debate.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/c/G/2/mcdesperate.jpg

Once again, Obama looks like a decent enough fellow, it's his followers that are scary.

47straight
9/25/2008, 03:26 PM
When did you start hearing him talk about this? Dude's had a mighty big platform to speak from for some time. What did he choose to use it on?

2006. But you've already dismissed it because you like the other guy better.

soonerscuba
9/25/2008, 03:30 PM
You guys want to know another fun fact? McCain's chief of staff is gay. True story.

I just like stirring the pot.

C&CDean
9/25/2008, 03:32 PM
You guys want to know another fun fact? McCain's chief of staff is gay. True story.

I just like stirring the pot.

Cool. He can help decorate the Rose Garden for McCain's inauguration party.

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 03:33 PM
2006. But you've already dismissed it because you like the other guy better.

All I saw was one half page speech announcing his co-sponsorship.

Compare this to the full-court press on the surge.

Seriously guys, I can't even begin to count all the disparaging remarks about how Obama's done nothing, but hey, McCain co-sponsors a bill, and that's something. Obama's co-sponsored plenty of bills.

So which is it? Is co-sponsoring nothing, or is it leadership?

You don't get to have it both ways.

C&CDean
9/25/2008, 03:35 PM
All I saw was one half page speech announcing his co-sponsorship.

Compare this to the full-court press on the surge.

Seriously guys, I can't even begin to count all the disparaging remarks about how Obama's done nothing, but hey, McCain co-sponsors a bill, and that's something. Obama's co-sponsored plenty of bills.

So which is it? Is co-sponsoring nothing, or is it leadership?

You don't get to have it both ways.

It's neither way. You're voting for OBro and I'm voting for McCain. WTF does all this silliness have to do with anything? If anyone is still undecided they've got lots bigger issues to deal with. Like ****ing insanity.

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 03:39 PM
WTF does all this silliness have to do with anything?

It's political masturbation. You don't actually accomplish anything, but for... various reasons, people do it anyway.

Widescreen
9/25/2008, 04:47 PM
Once again, Obama looks like a decent enough fellow, it's his disciples that are scary.
Fixed.

KC//CRIMSON
9/25/2008, 06:43 PM
Once again, Obama looks like a decent enough fellow, it's his followers that are scary.

Have you seen moose tits last few interviews? Including the one with Couric?

That's f-ing scary.

47straight
9/25/2008, 07:13 PM
Have you seen moose tits last few interviews? Including the one with Couric?

That's f-ing scary.


With your class and judgement you could have your own show on MSNBC.

KC//CRIMSON
9/25/2008, 07:17 PM
With your class and judgement you could have your own show on MSNBC.


I'm more of a E! guy myself.

Whet
9/25/2008, 07:18 PM
Obama? Think of his upbringing and ideas and where he gets them:

http://worldnetdaily.com/images/0924alinsky.jpghttp://worldnetdaily.com/images/0924mcknight.jpghttp://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaJudge_small.jpghttp://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaFrank.jpg
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/AyersOnFlag.jpg

http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaCrotchSaluteLarge.jpg

http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/DemocracyAlliance.jpghttp://www.theobamafile.com/_images/JodieEvans.jpghttp://www.theobamafile.com/_images/farrakhan_small.jpghttp://www.theobamafile.com/_images/JaneFonda.jpghttp://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaS3.jpghttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:tcRXfgGJ0XczRM:http://beattrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/barbra-streisand.JPG (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:tcRXfgGJ0XczRM:http://beattrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/barbra-streisand.JPG)http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaWright.jpghttp://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaHalo.jpg

KC//CRIMSON
9/25/2008, 07:21 PM
Obama? Think of his upbringing and ideas and where he gets them:

http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaCrotchSaluteLarge.jpg


How did Kirsten Dunst get in that picture?

soonerscuba
9/25/2008, 07:38 PM
Sweden lives to tell about the exact same thing we are facing. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin)

Apparently besides having unbelievably hot women and Ace of Base, they have some knowledge.

yermom
9/26/2008, 12:26 AM
What was that?
http://www.observer.com/files/imagecache/vertical/files/davis.jpg

John McCain's campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month (more than 2 million dollars total) by an "advocacy group" set up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The advocacy group was established to prevent stricter regulations from being imposed on the companies.

Mavrick.

where does he say that he wasn't one of them? :P

Stoop Dawg
9/29/2008, 10:25 PM
Sweden lives to tell about the exact same thing we are facing. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin)

Apparently besides having unbelievably hot women and Ace of Base, they have some knowledge.

Luckily the monstrosity put before the U.S. congress was shot down. Maybe a more palatable plan will be proposed this time. One that holds the banks accountable. I think the American people would go for the plan described in that article.

Blue
9/29/2008, 10:34 PM
Sweden lives to tell about the exact same thing we are facing. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin)

Apparently besides having unbelievably hot women and Ace of Base, they have some knowledge.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now today the workers of Sweden pay a minimum of 52% of their income in taxes.

Stoop Dawg
9/30/2008, 09:50 AM
Is there a link between the "bail out plan" described in the link and the fact that their income tax is so high? If so, I'd be interested in hearing it.