Politics – The general co-chairman of John McCain's presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today's economic turmoil.
I hate to say it , but we do not have a good choice. The worst one being McCain (McWar)!!
Mike Gravel just left the Dem party and went Libertarian. He has integrity and balls. The Dems wouldn't give him any more credence than the Repubs gave to Ron Paul. So Gravel is still running as a Libertarian. Isn't it about time we gave really gave some other party a chance instead of the two "Approved" ones?
FTA:
"I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers," McCain said. "Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy."
So if investment banks engage in risky behavior that might cause the whole system to fail the government will bail you out. Sounds fair to me, if I was an investment banker.
If the govt is going to keep bailing out these risk-taker companies, the govt (as our rep) should get stock at the bottom-dollar price. That way, when the stock price goes up we the tax payers and risk takers get the profit. No business person would act differently.
So why, as in the case of Bear Stearns, should we take the risk to cover up massive mistakes of those who handsomely profited from their mistakes? The firm that bought up BS after the govt stepped in bought at $2/share and last I heard it went up to $10/share because we the taxpayers are taking on so much of the risk.
The financial manipulators get rich going both ways, whereas we as consumer get stuck with zero bailout and we as taxpayers get doubling punished with the risk of the BS bailout.
I don't know who you are, and what your beef is, but this is not the proper forum to air it. The link you've posted is an advertisement to buy some CDs or DVDs, and it is also irrelevant to the topic, which makes your comment spam. You should reread the TOU.
It seems like Senator McCain's choice of Phil Gramm as an advisor and a possible Cabinet member may come back to haunt him. Former Senator Gramm and his wife have had some controversial business dealings in their past.
"Wendy Gramm has been a member of Enron's board of directors for eight years and of the crucial Audit and Compliance Committee as the giant company's financial condition was deteriorating."
"Phil Gramm is the second-largest recipient in the Senate of financial contributions from Enron, receiving $97,350 from the company between 1989 and 2001, according to data provided by The Center for Responsive Politics.
The senator receiving the largest contribution from Enron is Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, who received $99,500."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opi...
"The crisis has its roots in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, a Carter-era law that purported to prevent "redlining" - denying mortgages to black borrowers - by pressuring banks to make home loans in "low- and moderate-income neighborhoods." Under the act, banks were to be graded on their attentiveness to the "credit needs" of "predominantly minority neighborhoods." The higher a bank's rating, the more likely that regulators would say yes when the bank sought to open a new branch or undertake a merger or acquisition.
But to earn high ratings, banks were forced to make increasingly risky loans to borrowers who wouldn't qualify for a mortgage under normal standards of creditworthiness. The Community Reinvestment Act, made even more stringent during the Clinton administration, trapped lenders in a Catch-22.
But to earn high ratings, banks were forced to make increasingly risky loans to borrowers who wouldn't qualify for a mortgage under normal standards of creditworthiness. The Community Reinvestment Act, made even more stringent during the Clinton administration, trapped lenders in a Catch-22.
"If they comply," wrote Loyola College economist Thomas DiLorenzo, "they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties . . . which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars."
Banks nationwide thus ended up making more and more subprime loans and agreeing to dangerously lax underwriting standards - no down payment, no verification of income, interest-only payment plans, weak credit history. If they tried to compensate for the higher risks they were taking by charging higher interest rates, they were accused of unfairly steering borrowers into "predatory" loans they couldn't afford
Trapped in a no-win situation entirely of the government's making, lenders could only hope that home prices would continue to rise, staving off the inevitable collapse. But once the housing bubble burst, there was no escape. Mortgage lenders have been bankrupted, thousands of subprime homeowners have been foreclosed on, and countless would-be borrowers can no longer get credit. The financial fallout has hurt investors around the world. And all of it thanks to the government, which was sure it understood the credit industry better than the free market did, and confidently created the conditions that made disaster unavoidable.
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe," warned Mark Twain, "while Congress is in session." Mark Twain was a humorist, but that was no joke.
I'd like to see some data on home loan defaults starting at CRA in 77 to the present. I'd like to pay particular attention to the amount of "subprime loans" banks were "forced" to make after 6/02.
Why that date you ask? Because that's when W gave this press conference.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/...
"President Bush touted his goal Monday of boosting minority home ownership by 5.5 million before the end of the decade through grants to low-income families and credits to developers."
Because I wonder just when the subprime fiasco developed. It's easy to say it has its roots in 1977, but when did the bad loans that are sinking us really start? Was it when Bush was pushing the "ownership" society? (And notice he does not talk about THAT anymore.)
I admit I enjoyed the narrative of the Boston Globe article, but without data, it's just a story.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
TGrass3001
Shankari25
fyuuuuut
gabriel19671968
juvel
derasticanos
idyll
pradit25
Lurch
jordan11
RichFatCat
Grrr
complicious
DoseASpinoza
chukajung
dunkirk
smulf13
samurnovsky
kungfudunk13
bluetexasvalley
2sidestoeverything
happycat462
wh0car3s
jrmunro
NoWayMan
Eagle Eye
BronxBomber
dstargel
Tessylo
Goppy
Helixbuilder
Eavesy
_kam0_
Coldsun
BillSmythe
OnionHead
rhp567
uebersetzung
doppich
texangelwings
RickyDawkins
tomboy501
arunsamiss
schristoforides
I-LoveYou
Endoscopy
dandt1612
wonkydonkey
JessicaLaurie
sailr
88)
I guess we shouldnt be too shocked by this considering this is the Candidate who said he "doesn't really understand economics".
I think McCain is completely senile, the only things holding him together are his coaches and speech writers. If he is elected, he will be a figurehead ONLY!
But...if he chooses the right advisors...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdLO3jKkPo&feat...
What he needs is a nurse to wipe up the drool.
LOL the progressives speak of old age!
THis coming from the party that says we should do no such thing.
The light is shown,,,, racism is bad, well until the right time of need comes and it's fair game ,,,,, discrimination against someone because of their age is wrong,,,,,, well until the right time of need comes and it's fair game.
Next thing you know you'll be talking trash about some gay person that stands in your way of victory. Ayup, you progressives are 'progressively' showing your true colors,,,, and it's a very dark shade of hypocrisy.
Simply slamming McCain because he is old is ageism and is wrong. Questioning his current mental agility is only common sense, however. It is foolish to argue that a presidential candidate's mental capacity should not be a campaign issue.
ET, taking jabs saying "What he needs is a nurse to wipe up the drool" isn't anywhere close to what you advocated.
True, slate. That was included in my meaning.
~ Gambling ~
Welcome to Gambling !
~ http://tnij.org/gambling.com ~
Our site is a ratings guide to the best online casinos, poker rooms and gaming sites on the web. Our team has been wagering at online casino sites since 2000 and we know which casinos are reputable through personal experience. For the best online gambling experience we recommend the following casinos.
~ http://tnij.org/online-gambling.com ~
LMAO!!!...hypocracy???...you mean like you cons whining for months about how McCain is such a "liberal" and a "RINO" and how you would NEVER vote for him ...yet now he is your hero? LMAO!!!
That's your "concrete principles" in action.
LOl 444 I don't care much about McCain, and I never have, so point that finger elsewhere. However, I was correct to call you guys on the 'he's too old thing' one day we all get 'older' and hopefully 'wiser'. You tell me, out of the three candidates, which one has lived more 'life'.... which one faced 'true' hardships and perils and with valor?
One stands out, and he has an R next to his name.
Maybe those hardships broke something inside, and if your side would have said, he may be too unstable for the job instead of the He's too old I may have agreed with you, yet your side decided to go the hypocrite approach instead.(BTW, he's probably in better health and shape than most of us on this blog)
So you would vote for a senile candidate? Oh wait your party DID do that with RayGun.
LOL the Mensa member is at it again. Don't quit our day job Dunk
ROFLMAO, "our" day job? ROFLMAO, Slatey I would say based on the track record of YOUR boys (RayGun taking advice from tarot card readers had to be the best one) and YOUR support of them I would think the last thing you need to worry about is a JOB period day OR night. ROFLMAO.
Humm. Reminds me of another Recent Republican president.
Anybody see the PBS special about how GWB got us into the Iraq quagmire? It really shows the dangers of electing somebody dumb enough to be lead around by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
"I guess we shouldnt be too shocked by this considering this is the Candidate who said he 'doesn't really understand economics.'"
Could be worse, like being in the pocket of Tony Rezko.
Or it could be even worse than either of those.. Like McCain being one of the Keating Five...
The Keating 5 were investigated, and McCain was found to not be involved Criminally. Even the Democrats favorite spokesman, Lanny Davis, exonerated McCain. McCain was not even charged as an unindicted co-conspirator, so check your facts.
"McCain was not even charged"...you forget to mention that Obama has not only never been charged for any wrongdoing in the Rezko case...he has not even been ACCUSED!...(except by YOU)
Remember that the next time you go trying to spread your lies.
He only brokered a 2.6 million house for 1.6 million. He was Rezco's fair haired boy while still working for the law firm that Rezco hired. Long term association by doing and receiving favors for each other. Rezco helped him pu the ladder in the local politics of Chicago. Nothing quite illegal but very suspicious.
"Nothing quite illegal but very suspicious"...well if that clears McCain why are you trying to say it's different for Obama?
so his crime is that he got a good deal on his home?
the seller of the house and adjacent lot was a doctor at the univ. of chicago. the pieces of adjacnet land that rezko and obama bought had to close on the same day as per the seller's pre-condition of the sale. then obama bought one-sixth of rezko's land for one-sixth of rezko's purchase price.
rekzo's fair haired boy? got a link on that? from all accounts I've read Obama never worked on cases on Rezko's behalf. In 1999, when Obama was a State Senator, he opposed legislation to allow casino gambling at docked riverboats. Tony Rezko was in favor of the legislation.
----
In 2003, Rezko hosted a multi-million dollar fundraiser for George W. Bush. I'm sure it was nothing illegal, but still, you gotta be suspicious about their connection, right?
Ya know you keep throwing up facts and it just makes Ani and her friends more and more flustered. Especially when it covers things not covered by the GOP talking points of the day.
Ani is never interested in facts. Just spews sh$t.
lol ani.
McCain was found to be less involved than the worst of the Keating Five. Nice try on the spin though.
He still was in there, he still dumped his wife for a younger, richer home-wrecker, he still pressured the FCC on behalf of the blond lobbyist, and he still stuck earmarks in bills for his constituents.
Bush`s brother Neil was never charged either, but the facts, if you bother to check them, are that he got rich helping others get even richer all off the taxpayer.
Gee, Mc Cain's co-chairman sponsored the bill, I wonder who in the Hillary camp signed it into law?