[kobi]

With all the talk about the $700 Billion bailout of corporate America. It's amazing to me that nobody is bringing up the Keating Five scandal that John McCain was at the heart of. The Keating Five scandal was the reason for the failure of the Savings and Loan crisis in the late 80's and early 90's. That governmental bailout cost the US taxpayers $300 Billion.

Another point of contention is that Phil Gramm, who was John McCain's financial advisor, and still is a un-official advisor; is one, if not the main reason's for this current economic crisis. It's Phil Gramm's Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that took away all the safeguards and regulation of the Glass-Steagall Act that got us out of the Great Depression. The fault also lies in the Republican led congress during the 90's. Before someone says "Well Clinton was president and he signed the bills" diatribe, often this acts were buried within these bills, plus if Clinton wouldn't have signed them, they would have make into law by the veto-proof Republican Majority at the time. Gramm is also responsable for the Enron Loophole Act, and we all know how Enron turned out don't we?

All the financial chickens have come to roost, and the republican's can't deal with it. After Paulson's 3 page economic bailout joke was rejected, McCain is going to try and swoop in and claim victory, after the Democrats plan is passed. That's the only play he has left, and based on the poll numbers this morning the public didn't go for this stunt.

After McCain's badly executed political stunt yesterday, it's clear that given the evidence of corruption and his ties to both of our financial crisis's, McCain has lost his mind. When he goes against 26 years of voting for deregulation and then tries to fix the problem he created, he's trying pull the wool over the public's eyes.

When McCain suspended his campaign, he lost the election (not that he had a chance anyway, but I digress). Before someone defends McCain's action yesterday, by canceling the debate Ol' Miss would be out $5 Million that they spent in preparation for the event. How is that good for the economy John?

Here's links to the above scandals: All are from Wikipedia as I didn't want to accused of partisan bias, or here the "liberal Media bias"/Rush Limbaugh talking point hyperbole this board is so good at. Just plain facts.

Keating Five: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_five
Phil Gramm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
Glass-Steagall Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
Enron Loophole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_loophole

[Chongo]

It is old news, and sorry, McCain was exonerated. Senate lawyer Bob Bennett (Clinton's impeachment attorney) wanted him and John Glenn dropped from the inquiry, but were not because it would have left democrats only being investigated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating..._poor_judgment

Bill Clinton did not veto the bill in question.

What about Raines and Johnson, both former CEOs of Fannie Mae, and both connected to the Obama campaign?

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What about Raines and Johnson, both former CEOs of Fannie Mae, and both connected to the Obama campaign?

Sorry Mr Old news,

Your Raines and Johnson connection to Obama is a LIE. It's been refuted as a LIE, in fact it's a LIE from McCain's camp to rile up the uneducated "bubba" vote.

Hell, I think even the "Bubba" vote saw through it.

And your links are where to back up your story Obama Fannie Mae story?

Here's mine outing the lie.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200809220011

Since you brought it up, how much money did Rick Davis(McCain's Campaign Manager) make from Freddie Mac as a Lobbyist? That's right $2 Million and he was still getting $15,000 a month as of last month. But McCain and Palin said he quit lobbying years ago right? Well guess what they lied once again.

Here's the link to the Washington Post story from this morning:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092303359.html

Any other LIES you want to spread?

Next.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kobi 

SYour Raines and Johnson connection to Obama is a LIE. It's been refuted as a LIE, in fact it's a LIE from McCain's camp to rile up the uneducated "bubba" vote.

Sorry, but you're getting your liars mixed up. This is what the Washington Post reported:

In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae's chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case's D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071502827.html

Either Raines or the Washington Post is lying, not McCain. He's just repeating what the Post insists Raines told them.

Since you brought it up, how much money did Rick Davis(McCain's Campaign Manager) make from Freddie Mac as a Lobbyist? That's right $2 Million and he was still getting $15,000 a month as of last month. But McCain and Palin said he quit lobbying years ago right? Well guess what they lied once again.

Rick Davis got ZERO dollars from Freddie Mac. He hasn't been a registered lobbyist since around 2006 either. There is apparently some discrepancy about how far removed he is from the company he used to work for, though. There's no evidence that Davis has actually gotten any of the post 2006 (the pre-money was from an advocacy organization that F&F belonged to, in addition to companies like Habitat for Humanity) funds that Freddie Mac paid out when he was on leave and working for McCain.

I wouldn't go throwing out the "liar" brand too lightly. Often times, like a boomerang, it will come back and hit you square on the noggin.

[Chongo]

Media Matters huh? Good Old George Soros' rag.

James A Johnson

James A. Johnson (born December 24, 1943) is a United States Democratic Party political figure. He was the campaign manager for Walter Mondale's failed 1984 presidential bid and chaired the vice presidential selection committee for the presidential campaign of John Kerry. He was involved in the vice-presidential selection process for the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama.

As far as Raines is concerned the facts are in dispute. The Washington Post on several occasions stated that Raines was advising the Obama campaign, with no request for retractions by the Obama campaign. It wasn't until McCain ran an ad did they get concerned

When pay stubs from Davis Manafort show up then it will be a problem. If they are out there, Rachael Madcow will find them.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sorry, but you're getting your liars mixed up. This is what the Washington Post reported:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071502827.html

Either Raines or the Washington Post is lying, not McCain. He's just repeating what the Post insists Raines told them.



Rick Davis got ZERO dollars from Freddie Mac. He hasn't been a registered lobbyist since around 2006 either. There is apparently some discrepancy about how far removed he is from the company he used to work for, though. There's no evidence that Davis has actually gotten any of the post 2006 (the pre-money was from an advocacy organization that F&F belonged to, in addition to companies like Habitat for Humanity) funds that Freddie Mac paid out when he was on leave and working for McCain.

I wouldn't go throwing out the "liar" brand too lightly. Often times, like a boomerang, it will come back and hit you square on the noggin.

Sorry but your still haven't shown where Raines works for Obama? Phone calls don't count. Plus Raines was cleared and settled with the Government just like McCain was in the Keating Five scandal.

Good fact checking there.

Rick Davis was and is still a lobbyist, talking points and LIES can't change that.

Watch out for that boomerang because it's coming back to you:

Newsweek-Unfortunately, that's not quite accurate. As NEWSWEEK's tireless investigative ace Mike Isikoff reports this morning, Freddie Mac also paid Davis's consulting and lobbying firm Davis Manafort a consulting fee of $15,000 a month starting in 2005--before Davis took a leave of absence to work on the McCain campaign--and ending only last month, when the U.S. government acquired the firm. (The New York Times has also posted a story on the payments.) Davis is still a partner and equity-holder in Davis Manafort, so he continues to benefit from its income. So far, Team McCain has attacked the messengers--as usual--but they haven't disputed the allegations, except to say Davis isn't profiting personally from Freddie Mac and therefore doesn't have, according to the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, a "direct financial conflict of interest in helping McCain develop policy." But that ignores the larger issue: whether Freddie put Davis's firm on retainer--at Davis's request--because of Davis's relationship with McCain. "The story's not about profit," writes Ambinder. "It's about influence buying.

Link:http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stump...omeranged.aspx

I guess that's him NOT taking money or being a lobbyist. I'd hate to see the bill if Davis was taking money.

New York Times-“The value that he brought to the relationship was the closeness to Senator McCain and the possibility that Senator McCain was going to run for president again,” said Robert McCarson, a former spokesman for Fannie Mae, who said that while he worked there from 2000 to 2002, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together paid Mr. Davis’s firm $35,000 a month. Mr. Davis “didn’t really do anything,” Mr. McCarson, a Democrat, said.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us.../22mccain.html

In the same NYT articles it refutes the Raines LIE once again.

Nice Try.

How'd that boomerang feel the second time around?

Next.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Media Matters huh? Good Old George Soros' rag

You on the Right have Fox News.

We have Media Matters.

Your point is?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Sorry but your still haven't shown where Raines works for Obama? Phone calls don't count.

I don't think that the McCain ad stated that Raines was being payed by Obama, just that he was advising him. That's all the Washington Post claimed as well. I don't have to show something that was never claimed.

Rick Davis was and is still a lobbyist, talking points and LIES can't change that.

Your opinion is noted.

I guess that's him NOT taking money or being a lobbyist. I'd hate to see the bill if Davis was taking money.

Surely someone can come up with receipts to show that Davis got the money the past 2 years then. I can show you the records that prove that Barrack Obama got more money from F&F sources proportionately than ANY OTHER CONGRESSMAN serving.

the same NYT articles it refutes the Raines LIE once again.

I quoted the Washington Post. WHo is lying, them or Raines. Both can't be telling the truth. McCain repeated what the Post claimed.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by kobi 

All are from Wikipedia as I didn't want to accused of partisan bias.

Oh I am sure you will find that there are those who think even Wikipedia has a liberal bias.

[Indecision08]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sorry, but you're getting your liars mixed up. This is what the Washington Post reported:.... edit

Going by the Washington Post coverage it looks like the Obama campaign went further in their denial than is warranted and Anita Huslin was sloppy in her writing of that Raines profile. The Washington Post has since reported that; "Linking Obama to Ex-Fannie Mae Chief Is a Stretch"
Washington Post, Politics. Saturday, September 20, 2008; Page A04

edit
The Obama campaign issued a statement by Raines on Thursday night insisting, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." Obama spokesman Bill Burton went a little further, saying in an e-mail that the campaign had "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter.

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of that passage. She said that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said, 'Oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific?' I asked, and he said 'no.')"

By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and he or she had general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls.

edit

"The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself -- and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release."

Two other WP items on the issue.
link
link
This McCain AD was Rated by the WP fact checker and received two Pinocchios for Significant omissions or exaggerations.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by kobi 

You on the Right have Fox News.

We have Media Matters.

and MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, The NY Times, Tribune newspapers, Gannet newspapers, Hearst newspapers, etc, etc, etc.

And now back to The Keating Three scandal. Cranston, Riegle and DeConcini were found to have interfered, while Glenn and McCain were cleared of impropriety but criticized for poor judgment.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Indecision08 

Going by the Washington Post coverage it looks like the Obama campaign went further in their denial than is warranted and Anita Huslin was sloppy in her writing of that Raines profile.

But Anita Huslin and the Washington Post do not retract what has been written. They do not refute that Raines told them that Obama sought him out for advice on economic matters. Taking away all the extraneous language which attempts to reconcile their reporting with what Obama and Raines NOW claim, they still state that:

"She said that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said, 'Oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific?' I asked, and he said 'no.')"

By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and he or she had general discussions about economic issues."

The Washington Post can't stand behind it's claim that it reported that Obama had solicited Raines for advice on the economy - specifically "housing" issues (which as shown above, it does), then claim that McCain wasn't telling the truth when he promoted the very same claim. It simply doesn't work that way. The Post was caught between having to claim they or Obama/Raines lied, and instead of sticking with their principles they punted, stood by their original report, and blamed McCain for doing the same.

Shameless. Utterly shameless. It appears that BOTH the Washington Post and Obama/Raines are clearly the liars here. All evidence points to that being the case. The only one sticking to the facts here is McCain.

Please explain how the Washington Post can STILL claim that Raines told them that the Obama campaign solicited him for advice on economic matters and it be McCain who is lying when he states that Raines has advised the Obama camp on economic matters? Really, this attempt to distort McCain's words is even worse than what the media dishonestly tried to so with the "sex" ads.

[Chongo]

This was seeds of the current mess
Community Reinvestment Act

Clinton Administration Changes of 1995

In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[5]

The new rules went into effect January 31, 1995 and featured: strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to target to groups to collect a fee from the banks (as of 2000 $9.5 billion had been paid to such nonprofit groups). The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages."[3] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.[6][7]

Related rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.[4] Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.[8]

Whenever changes were attempted, those who were proposing those changes would be accused of not caring about minorities or the poor.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by kobi 

We have Media Matters.

And MoveOn.org, and NPR, and ABC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, etc.

And your point is?

There's enough blame to go around on this, but there's nothing new to be learned. FNMA and FHLMC worked just fine until the social engineers on the Left got loosed on them. The Bush admin made it worse, but by then they really couldn't stop the steamroller without causing what we have now. The whole problem stems from a Congress that has no frigging understanding of economics and markets. You can't WISH for people to have creditworthiness and make it happen POOF! It just doesn't work that way. Wall St. has made things worse by locking things up in a pyramid structure and trying to get "too big to fail" with an uncertain regulatory structure.

As for deregulation being the culprit, all of that was passed by Congress, with plenty voting on each side of the aisle. What happened in large part is that the "re-regulation" part, or new regulatory reality/powers part of the reforms got ignored when the bills were signed. If Congress had followed through on what economists wanted and expected, things wouldn't have gotten this bad so quickly. (By economists, I'm NOT referring to Greenspan et al -- they're politicians, as we know now.)

[Chongo]

Again, the roots of the current crisis are in 1993, when Bill Clinton made changes to the CRA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Again, the roots of the current crisis are in 1993, when Bill Clinton made changes to the CRA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Sorry but you fail. Plus one of your links are broken.

The roots of this go back to passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Republicans want to Deregulate until their isn't anything left. Well guess what nothing is left.

Name one Republican president in the last 50 years that hasn't left this country in financial shambles? There isn't one.

After the failure of the bailout bill today and the Dow dropping -777.68, it just ensures a Democratic House, Senate and Presidency.

Since John McCain took credit for writing this Bill, will he take credit for the failure of it?

Next.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Sorry but you fail. Plus one of your links are broken.

The roots of this go back to passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

So you're saying that the CRA amendments passed in 1993 by Clinton had nothing to do with the Sub-Prime crisis? You can blame the FSMA of 1999 all you want in order to castigate Republicans, but anyone who looks at the two pieces of legislation will see that the CRA amendments under Clinton, which in part punished banks for not "loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race" were far more responsible for the root problem of excessive sub-prime lending than the FSMA, which actually imposed more regulations in general, with the exception of loosening investment banking. While both parties were at fault for not correcting the problem, the lion share of the blame goes to Democrats for their Socialist agenda, their corruption, their collusion with their buddies at the GSEs and their obstruction of Republican led reform.

[tie]

I know you guys like to blame Clinton for everything ("My Pet Goat", Katrina, Iraq, Al Qaeda), but blaming the current crisis on Reagan and Clinton for the CRA all the way back in 1993 is crazy. You do realize that this is 2008?

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Sorry but you fail. Plus one of your links are broken.

The roots of this go back to passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Republicans want to Deregulate until their isn't anything left. Well guess what nothing is left.

Name one Republican president in the last 50 years that hasn't left this country in financial shambles? There isn't one.

After the failure of the bailout bill today and the Dow dropping -777.68, it just ensures a Democratic House, Senate and Presidency.

Since John McCain took credit for writing this Bill, will he take credit for the failure of it?

Next.

Your ignorance is amazing. It really is.

1) The seeds of the crisis have nothing to do with John McCain. They have to do with an exploding housing bubble, lax lending standards, coporporate short-term thinking, greed, and The Community Reinvestment Act. It's because of "deregulation." It's because of incompetent regulation that has been going on for years.

2) Your comment on Republican Presidents is delusional.

• George H. W. Bush saw the economy begin to recover as he lost his reelection bid. But gee...I guess you think it was Clinton that brought us out of it.
• Ronald Reagan's tax policies lifted the country out of a near depression. Millions of jobs were created. But hey...there was the S&L bailout and deficits, so he must have been a disaster, right?
• Richard Nixon did not destroy the economy. The economy was generally strong during his tenure.
• Gerald Ford did preside over the beginning of recession. I'd be interested to hear how it was his fault.
• Dwight Eisenhower helped lift us out of a post WWII recession. Next?

3. I'll bet you some crisp $100 bills (now that they are worthless) that you're wrong about this benefiting Democrats. The Dem base hates the bailout bill because it helps "the rich." Their own classware rhetoric has come back to bite them in the ass. The GOP hates it because it costs too much and meddles with the free market. The net effect has been that ALL incumbent seats are now at risk. Really...go listen to, watch or read some analysis on the subject. The race for Congress is suddenly competitive. So I'm afraid your wrong.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Your ignorance is amazing. It really is.

Not so amazing, really, given the operant conditioning of the media and New Left.

This is all about social engineering. When you try to social engineer with real assets it doesn't work. You can wish all day long for poor folks to afford housing, but no matter how many community organizers you have the economics just isn't there. When you put poor folks into a healthy neighborhood, home values go down (same with rentals). When the poor folks' homes lose value, their equity falls. When they can't pay their home note, they leave, and the dark property (say it with Uncle Soupy) drives home values down. It's a spiral caused by putting someone in the house who can't afford it, can't afford the maintenance and landscaping, etc., and who'll have to leave when their payment ratchets up.

Even without option ARMS and graduated payment mortgages, wishful thinking doesn't put people in houses.

ACORN and their lot don't make it easier.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Your ignorance is amazing. It really is.

1) The seeds of the crisis have nothing to do with John McCain. They have to do with an exploding housing bubble, lax lending standards, coporporate short-term thinking, greed, and The Community Reinvestment Act. It's because of "deregulation." It's because of incompetent regulation that has been going on for years.

2) Your comment on Republican Presidents is delusional.

• George H. W. Bush saw the economy begin to recover as he lost his reelection bid. But gee...I guess you think it was Clinton that brought us out of it.
• Ronald Reagan's tax policies lifted the country out of a near depression. Millions of jobs were created. But hey...there was the S&L bailout and deficits, so he must have been a disaster, right?
• Richard Nixon did not destroy the economy. The economy was generally strong during his tenure.
• Gerald Ford did preside over the beginning of recession. I'd be interested to hear how it was his fault.
• Dwight Eisenhower helped lift us out of a post WWII recession. Next?

3. I'll bet you some crisp $100 bills (now that they are worthless) that you're wrong about this benefiting Democrats. The Dem base hates the bailout bill because it helps "the rich." Their own classware rhetoric has come back to bite them in the ass. The GOP hates it because it costs too much and meddles with the free market. The net effect has been that ALL incumbent seats are now at risk. Really...go listen to, watch or read some analysis on the subject. The race for Congress is suddenly competitive. So I'm afraid your wrong.

Wow. After all the name calling you still haven't said one thing that is true, intelligent or isn't a republican talking point.

I'd love to live in your and John McCain's "reality" where the deregulation didn't cause this crisis.

What ever pills your taking you need to pass them around.

BTW you never correctly listed a Republican president who hasn't raped our economy.

I even found a chart with colors for you to understand. It's below. Sorry it only goes back to Ford.

Thanks for playing though.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Wow. After all the name calling you still haven't said one thing that is true, intelligent or isn't a republican talking point.

I'd love to live in your and John McCain's "reality" where the deregulation didn't cause this crisis.

What ever pills your taking you need to pass them around.

BTW you never correctly listed a Republican president who hasn't raped our economy.

I even found a chart with colors for you to understand. It's below. Sorry it only goes back to Ford.

Thanks for playing though.

Pretty, but very misleading
What this chart fails to display is what party had control of the House of Representatives. The House is the one that controls the budget, what is passed and what does not. Those wonderful "Clinton Budget Surpluses" were when the Republicans had control. Prior to that, the Democrats had over 40 years of continuous control of the House. The Republican Majority started to act like Democrats when Bush was elected, and that is why they were voted out in 2006. The .com bust at the end of the Clinton Administration, and the the affects of 9/11 also come into play.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Pretty, but very misleading
What this chart fails to display is what party had control of the House of Representatives. The House is the one that controls the budget, what is passed and what does not. Those wonderful "Clinton Budget Surpluses" were when the Republicans had control. Prior to that, the Democrats had over 40 years of continuous control of the House. The Republican Majority started to act like Democrats when Bush was elected, and that is why they were voted out in 2006. The .com bust at the end of the Clinton Administration, and the the affects of 9/11 also come into play.

It's a lovely fairy tale.

The reality is that the Regan Deficits were down largely to defence spending to put the Soviets out of business and the Bush mess has been driven mostly by Government "bailouts" (tax breaks/rebates) to try and get the economy moving and the cost of the "war on terror." The latest bailouts will only add to the debt. Neither Bush nor Regan made any attempts to reign in spending, in fact they encouraged the opposite.

And the Republicans did not lose congress because they were "acting like democrats," it was because of Iraq.

Show me one bill that Bush vetoed to reign in spending. Show me where he reduced the size of government. How the republicans have gotten away with the big lie that they are fiscally responsible or conservative for so long is a mystery. I'm not saying the Democrats are better, but asserting fiscal authority as a Republican is laughable.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It's a lovely fairy tale.

The reality is that the Regan Deficits were down largely to defence spending to put the Soviets out of business

Reagan winning the Cold War - Check

and the Bush mess has been driven mostly by Government "bailouts" (tax breaks/rebates) to try and get the economy moving and the cost of the "war on terror."

Cost of the "War on Terror", caused by emboldened terrorists who learned that they could strike on American soil (WTC Bombing #1) without any real serious ramifications - CHECK.

The latest bailouts will only add to the debt. Neither Bush nor Regan made any attempts to reign in spending, in fact they encouraged the opposite.

Both Reagan and Bush had real problems that either Clinton never would have dreamed of knowing how to solve, or simply would have ignored. The fact remains that the only time in a long time that the budget was balanced was when Republicans where in charge of the purse strings. Democrats have pretty much had control of the housing regulations (McCain sponsored regulations that where shot down by Democrats). Raines was their guy and they've had Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Obama Barrack being paid lots of money to keep regulators off their back. I think that Frank at one time even claimed that what F&F where doing was "riskless"

And the Republicans did not lose congress because they were "acting like democrats," it was because of Iraq.

Not true. Polling showed it had nothing to do with Iraq. It was lack of economic restraint and scandals that gave some conservative (sounding) Democrats an upper hand.

Show me one bill that Bush vetoed to reign in spending. Show me where he reduced the size of government. How the republicans have gotten away with the big lie that they are fiscally responsible or conservative for so long is a mystery. I'm not saying the Democrats are better, but asserting fiscal authority as a Republican is laughable.

Using George Bush during a time when we've had to spend A LOT of money on the War on Terror is a really bad point of reference. There is a guy who is about the only one not to do stuff like request big money earmarks and wasteful spending currently up for vote. It's either him or a guy who has shown he doesn't have a problem with wasting a lot of taxpayer dollars. If it truly bothers you, you can make your concerns known at the polls in November.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Sorry Mr Old news,

Your Raines and Johnson connection to Obama is a LIE. It's been refuted as a LIE, in fact it's a LIE from McCain's camp to rile up the uneducated "bubba" vote.

Hell, I think even the "Bubba" vote saw through it.

And your links are where to back up your story Obama Fannie Mae story?

Here's mine outing the lie.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200809220011

Since you brought it up, how much money did Rick Davis(McCain's Campaign Manager) make from Freddie Mac as a Lobbyist? That's right $2 Million and he was still getting $15,000 a month as of last month. But McCain and Palin said he quit lobbying years ago right? Well guess what they lied once again.

Here's the link to the Washington Post story from this morning:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092303359.html

Any other LIES you want to spread?

Next.

- An industry source told the Washington Post...
- Two unidentified sources told the newspaper...

These are great. My favorites were;

"It's pretty clear that the same people who ran Fannie and Freddie into the ground and stuck the taxpayers with the bill are now attacking John McCain, one of the few people in Washington who has ever stood up to them," Bounds said. "That shouldn't surprise anyone -- it's business as usual in Washington."

and this gem...

McCain has begun to run television commercials that link Sen. Barack Obama to two former chief executives of the once-venerated housing lenders. One ad ties Obama to Franklin Raines, who now denies comments he made to The Post this summer about sharing housing and economic advice with the senator from Illinois.

The other McCain ad links Obama to Jim Johnson, who was briefly in charge of Obama's vice presidential selection process before resigning amid public concern about his ties to the housing crisis.

The link you provided was insightful kobi, but your own commentary is even more telling;

Originally Posted by kobi

the Keating Five scandal that John McCain was at the heart of.

Yeah, string him up, but unfortunately...

Originally Posted by kobi

Plus Raines was cleared and settled with the Government just like McCain was in the Keating Five scandal.

Two things I've learned today;
- responsible journalism has taken this year off.
- kobi is a partisan shill of the highest order.

Next...

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Reagan winning the Cold War - Check

If it was the right or the wrong thing to do is irrelevant. Regardless of the mythology, Regan was not a paradigm of financial restraint.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Cost of the "War on Terror", caused by emboldened terrorists who learned that they could strike on American soil (WTC Bombing #1) without any real serious ramifications - CHECK.

See above.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Both Reagan and Bush had real problems that either Clinton never would have dreamed of knowing how to solve, or simply would have ignored.

Pure speculation, which is ultimately meaningless.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The fact remains that the only time in a long time that the budget was balanced was when Republicans where in charge of the purse strings. Democrats have pretty much had control of the housing regulations (McCain sponsored regulations that where shot down by Democrats). Raines was their guy and they've had Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Obama Barrack being paid lots of money to keep regulators off their back. I think that Frank at one time even claimed that what F&F where doing was "riskless"

I'm willing to admit democrats need to own up to a lot of the responsibility for the creation of the sub-prime mortgage culture. Are you willing to admit the role of McCain and the Republicans for the culture of rampant deregulation?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not true. Polling showed it had nothing to do with Iraq. It was lack of economic restraint and scandals that gave some conservative (sounding) Democrats an upper hand.

This is, quite frankly, crap. I will grant you the scandals played a factor that may have rivaled the Iraq as an issue, but the statement that they were voted out because they started to "act like Democrats" is crap. And illogical.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Using George Bush during a time when we've had to spend A LOT of money on the War on Terror is a really bad point of reference. There is a guy who is about the only one not to do stuff like request big money earmarks and wasteful spending currently up for vote. It's either him or a guy who has shown he doesn't have a problem with wasting a lot of taxpayer dollars. If it truly bothers you, you can make your concerns known at the polls in November.

So let me get this straight. When ever Republicans spend us into record debt, it's because they are either victims of circumstance OR it's really the Democrats fault. Why in the world would we want to elect a party with an unprecedented run of bad luck that can't stand up for itself? Sounds like your team needs to stop whining and grow a backbone.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I'm willing to admit democrats need to own up to a lot of the responsibility for the creation of the sub-prime mortgage culture. Are you willing to admit the role of McCain and the Republicans for the culture of rampant deregulation?

Try all of the responsibility. Freddie and Fannie are (D) creations and have been run by them until the recent receivership.
Watch and learn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Who is calling for regulation, and who is attacking the messenger?

here is the CSPAN link
http://www.c-span.org/congress/fanniemae.asp

[Chongo]

Bill Clinton admits the (D) in congress not so blameless as Pelosi claims. He also does a little CHA

From Thursday's ABC news interview.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...linton-do.html

CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?

BILL CLINTON: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in 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.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- responsible journalism has taken this year off.

It's even worse that you suspect: responsible journalism knows better than what they're saying, but they're still saying it.

[ebuddy]

What's funniest of all this (and I know it's cliché at this point) is that both sides are plenty to blame. Even if you weren't aware of any of the details, you'd know it by nothing more than the fact that if it were primarily one party, or even just several people, these politicians would be dragging names down in chains of fire this election season.