Reply With Quote
The won't directly endorse him under any cir stances just like they won't leave the Democratic Party under any cir stances.
Clinton blames dems for financial mess.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...clinton-agrees
Major Clinton supporter will be working to deliver hispanic vote for McCainGoing very much against the media meme that the current financial crisis is all George W. Bush and the Republicans' fault, Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC's Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been"resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1221...googlenews_wsj
How long before the Clintons just come out and endorse McCain? They might as well since it's clear they want him to win. Maybe that will be the big October suprise this election.
The won't directly endorse him under any cir stances just like they won't leave the Democratic Party under any cir stances.
Clinton blames dems for financial mess.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...clinton-agrees
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 bypassing 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."
Republicans were foolish to vote for this bill. And they don't mention that the Bush administration opposed it because it was weak...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legisl...r1461sap-h.pdf
The Administration has long called for legislation to create a stronger, more effective regulatory regime to improve oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks ("housing government-sponsored enterprises" or "housing GSEs") and appreciates the considerable efforts of Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker in crafting H.R. 1461. However, H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.
The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial ins utions. This regime is of particular concern given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently hold only about half of the capital of comparable financial ins utions. In order for a financial regulator to be respected and credible, it must have the authority and ability to adjust capital requirements of the ins utions it oversees as cir stances dictate to ensure prudential operations. An effective oversight regime must also provide for clear review of business activities to ensure the integrity of the housing finance system and consistency with the GSEs' housing mission. The Administration does not believe that the housing GSEs should be exempt from these important standards of world-class regulation.
In other words this bill was a toothless, flawed, giveaway to GSEs. It was right up Fannie and Freddie's alley. To give specifics this bill expanded the maximum loan amount to allow the GSEs to take over the jumbo market. It still mandated affordable housing funds. The bill neither increased capital requirements nor set a cap on portfolio size. Fannie and Freddie could continue to grow their portfolios to cook the books on their earnings. Their new regulator wouldn't have much more say than the old one and they'd get a full year without anyone looking over their shoulders. Completely worthless. Even the Bush administration saw how silly this bill was.
Republicans sure don't read too good. Just because Clinton can put the blame on multiple people doesn't mean he's saying it's "all the Democrats fault." It's certainly as much McSame's fault since he's been in office for all these years while economics of deregulation have been happening.
shutup butch
We can thank the GOP and George W Bush for the economy today! We need more of this so let's all vote GOP!
Why won't Clinton just go ahead and start wearing a McCain/Palin for president t-shirt and save us his famous quotes of how great McCain is....
Is that how I should make up my mind?
O.K, I will. I've got a good job, make quite a bit more than I did when Clinton was President, AND I pay lower taxes on what I do make. The GOP, therefore, is great.
But wait, I made more under Clinton, a lot more, than I did under George's dad. I need to vote for the Democrat.
. Now I'm confused.
Maybe, I make my own way in the World; and create my own success no matter who the is in the White House. Maybe just about everybody else is the same ing way.
I think I'm gonna choose the candidate who I feel is most likely NOT going to get in my way.
As everything collapses around you. So if everything else in the economy goes to wouldn't that affect you at least indirectly?
Are you saying Obama would save the economy/nation?
Seriously, what is "collapsing around me?"
Maybe around you. My friends and business associates are doing fine; none the deals I have working with existing or potential clients are in jeopardy in any way. What happens in November effects my pocket book only so far as the tax code changes, frankly. I am not in a high enough bracket to get seriously soaked; nor do I suspect, is any one else on this board (there are a couple I suspect, however).
So what is crumbling, other than some financial ins utions on WalStreet? Stop watching the news and look outside.
What I am asking is, can we afford 4 more years of what got us into this mess? I guess with Obama he 'could' do better or worse but we know it won't be more of the same.
Would it be more of the same?
don't believe the talking points. It was all about housing for minorities and lower income individuals. A good cause, but poorly implemented. So we messed up, who gives a darn, our country will do better later. People act like we won't make mistakes. It's not learning from your mistakes that's the problem.
Sen McCain is running on George Bush's/ Conservative economic platform so I'd say YEA!
you're giving me clarity on how dumb boths sides can be.
Do you only get your news from Obama adds?
McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent; Obama wants to give MORE tax cuts. What, exactly, is the "George Bush/Conservative economic platform" that "got us into this mess".
Be specific.
What policies that Bush had, and that McCain is going to continue, and that Obama wants to change, SPECIFICALLY caused this, and will cause it to continue.
Best Case Scenario, he wins, does 4 mo years 4 mo years...kills off the republican party...then real conservatives step in after a couple decades of failed liberal ideologies.
do you know if we do not significantly increase our tax revenue our national debt and budget deficit will come crashing down on you? Paying a little more now or paying a little less now leads us to the same result, apocolyptic devestation. Our politicians are a joke.
I think we're headed into a free-for-all. Get what you can while you can.
I will get as many houses bought, sold, and rented with as much government assistance as possible.
And Obama is giving 95% of Americans a tax cut, which he is taking from 5%. No net increase to the treasury.
He is also going to implement a universal healthcare plan, give a huge education credit, and I think childcare, as well as several other new programs.
Deficit is the big problem?
O.K. Good luck with that.
Hey 2cents, the Bush tax cuts have actually increased federal revenues exponentially.
The only thing that will solve a budget/debt problem is to cut spending...raising taxes only decreases revenues.
Uh No. I can barely stomach Obama you moron. Mr Obama wants to rescind tax cuts for the upper echelon on the tax bracket. He wants to cut taxas for middle income families. Now I understand that the middle income families pay less in taxes as compared the upper tax bracket but with the additonal money people will have more money to spend. Will the upper income bracket stop investing? Strop trying to make money? I don't think so.
Yoni, I'm as conservative as the next guy, but I haven't found a ton of proof for that. If you can find a link to the data, please post it. Let's not let this current discussion devolve into a debate on supply-side economics.
How much more $1,000 per year per family? Is THAT gonna make a HUGE difference on the economy? The stimulus package, which was more than that for many - and didn't take from any, sure didn't. My point is neither plan is going to affect me personally.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
