CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The economy - oops
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The economy - oops

post #1 of 3031
Thread Starter 
Ok, so far this week, One investment bank has gone bust, another one thinks it will go bust so puts itself up for sale. And the biggest insurance company in the world, with about 125,000 employees, has 'a day' to save itslef.

Despite this, the real economy (in the US) outside financial markets has showed signs of improvment in the last couple of months. But how long will this last?
post #2 of 3031
Don't forget the Dow dropping 500 points.
post #3 of 3031
Yeah, but you think Barack Osama is going to be able to fix it for you?!?! Idiot.

Sorry, my disdain grows by the hour.
post #4 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post
Yeah, but you think Barack Osama is going to be able to fix it for you?!?! Idiot.

Sorry, my disdain grows by the hour.
High Five for originality. Also the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And by that I mean the American workers or something.
post #5 of 3031
...as long as the average American has a bag of Cheetos resting on its belly and 'America's Got Talent' on the tube, I don't predict much change.
post #6 of 3031
I know a lot of people who aren't concerned about any of this and claim the economy will be "better for it" which is disturbing.

I've got an email into someone I know that works at AIG here in town (works pretty high up in New Business Developments or some such) because I'm worried about him and I haven't gottten a response back yet....which is scary. The scuttlebutt here in Nashville (which has a 15 billion a year Financial Services industry) is like it's the fall of Rome.
post #7 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
I know a lot of people who aren't concerned about any of this and claim the economy will be "better for it" which is disturbing.

I've got an email into someone I know that works at AIG here in town (works pretty high up in New Business Developments or some such) because I'm worried about him and I haven't gotten a response back yet....which is scary. The scuttlebutt here in Nashville (which has a 15 billion a year Financial Services industry) is like it's the fall of Rome.
Maybe. Or maybe it's end of the howling jackasses who made a living shuffling crap. Yes they made a ton of dough, but they also Created a house of cards that's now collapsing. This is just like the Internet Bubble. Except this time the assholes behind it are getting caught.

It's instructive that the Fed refused to rescue Lehman while saving Bear (sort of) and Freddie and Fannie. Of course in the case of the later two they pretty much had to if the US Gov't was to retain credibility. If effect Lehman is sending a message that yes the US will pull out the stops to maintain stability in the financial markets but no, there will not be free passes issued to investment bankers who made pathalogically bad decisions.
post #8 of 3031
Lehman's was in debt 615 Billion dollars. The Fed wasn't going to bail them out because they couldn't. No one could.

I'm a little worried about the AIG bailout the Fed just made, if they weren't willing to show their balance sheet to Buffet, (that isn't good)... I doubt the Fed got a look at it and we just sunk 85 Billion into them. The plus side is, my ROP Term Life insurance policy with AIG may yet survive this whole ordeal.
post #9 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Lehman's was in debt 615 Billion dollars. The Fed wasn't going to bail them out because they couldn't. No one could.

I'm a little worried about the AIG bailout the Fed just made, if they weren't willing to show their balance sheet to Buffet, (that isn't good)... I doubt the Fed got a look at it and we just sunk 85 Billion into them. The plus side is, my ROP Term Life insurance policy with AIG may yet survive this whole ordeal.
I'd be curious to see the terms the Fed laid down for that bailout. I hope it involves AIG execs getting fucked up the ass by AIDs infested Baboons
post #10 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
I'd be curious to see the terms the Fed laid down for that bailout. I hope it involves AIG execs getting fucked up the ass by AIDs infested Baboons
I wouldn't count on it. The inverse law of Republican economics is that those who cynically torch the zeppelin are the ones that get the golden parachutes.
post #11 of 3031
Thread Starter 
The gov't now has an 80% stake in AIG. So they've nationalised it, just about. They couldn't let it fail.
post #12 of 3031
You know, for a party that rails against socialism it seems that the GOP is really starting to bury their claws into our financial sector.
post #13 of 3031
The past few years have been so full of irony, to the point of overload.

Maybe we should give irony a rest. I'm afraid we'll wear it out.
post #14 of 3031
9/11 killed irony.. it is a thing of the past.
post #15 of 3031
Don´t worry too much. We got very clever people working at our public banks for sure:
Quote:
FRANKFURT -(Dow Jones)- The German government Wednesday called a EUR300 million payment by KfW Bankengruppe made to insolvent U.S. bank Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEH) after the latter filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. "questionable" and "irritating," and called for an explanation of the transaction.

KfW confirmed Wednesday a report by German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine earlier in the day that the bank had completed a EUR300 million payment to Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy Monday.
post #16 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
I'd be curious to see the terms the Fed laid down for that bailout. I hope it involves AIG execs getting fucked up the ass by AIDs infested Baboons
Terms

I have to say, from a taxpayer standpoint... the terms are acceptable.

Quote:
Here is the full text of the Federal Reserve's statement on Tuesday announcing an 85 billion dollar rescue loan for insurance giant American International Group, an unprecedented move designed to save the firm from bankruptcy amid fears of a meltdown on financial markets.
"The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday, with the full support of the Treasury Department, authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to lend up to 85 billion dollars to the American International Group (AIG) under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The secured loan has terms and conditions designed to protect the interests of the U.S. government and taxpayers.

"The Board determined that, in current circumstances, a disorderly failure of AIG could add to already significant levels of financial market fragility and lead to substantially higher borrowing costs, reduced household wealth and materially weaker economic performance.

"The purpose of this liquidity facility is to assist AIG in meeting its obligations as they come due. This loan will facilitate a process under which AIG will sell certain of its businesses in an orderly manner, with the least possible disruption to the overall economy.

"The AIG facility has a 24-month term. Interest will accrue on the outstanding balance at a rate of three-month Libor plus 850 basis points. AIG will be permitted to draw up to 85 billion dollars under the facility.

"The interests of taxpayers are protected by key terms of the loan. The loan is collateralized by all the assets of AIG, and of its primary non-regulated subsidiaries. These assets include the stock of substantially all of the regulated subsidiaries. The loan is expected to be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the firm's assets. The US government will receive a 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG and has the right to veto the payment of dividends to common and preferred shareholders.
post #17 of 3031
Thread Starter 
8.5% above Libor! I'd take that.

But....the market is now worried about Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

And most worryingly, the Fed has run out of money. Great.
post #18 of 3031
It seems to me that this is akin to the little boy trying to plug holes in the dyke with his fingers.

Eventually you run out of fingers, the holes widen and the water comes rushing in-destroying everything in its path.
post #19 of 3031
Thread Starter 
Exactly.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8058d308-8...0779fd18c.html

"The panic in world credit markets reached historic intensity on Wednesday prompting a flight to safety of the kind not seen since the second world war.

Barometers of financial stress hit record peaks across the world. Yields on short-term US Treasuries hit their lowest level since the London Blitz. Lending between banks in effect halted and investors scrambled to pull their funding from any institution or sector whose future had been called into doubt."
post #20 of 3031
When is somebody going to lay this disaster at the Republicans' feet, where it belongs? If the situation were reversed, and Democrats had stripped the regulatory laws resulting in a global financial meltdown, Republican mouthpieces would be screaming it from the rooftops. It would be the end of any kind of Democratic party power for a long, long time.
post #21 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
When is somebody going to lay this disaster at the Republicans' feet, where it belongs? If the situation were reversed, and Democrats had stripped the regulatory laws resulting in a global financial meltdown, Republican mouthpieces would be screaming it from the rooftops. It would be the end of any kind of Democratic party power for a long, long time.
Isn't it amazing (and ironic) that the Treasury of Republican George W Bush just nationalised a major insurance company? I really hope Obma nails the Republicans on this

EDITED TO ADD: Just heard on NPR how the past 8 years have seen an "Anti-Regulatory" enviornment pervailed and even now Sec Paulson still doesn't think regulation is needed!
post #22 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
Isn't it amazing (and ironic) that the Treasury of Republican George W Bush just nationalised a major insurance company? I really hope Obma nails the Republicans on this
Unfortunately, Obama came out with an ambiguous statement on the AIG bailout (not for or against) as opposed to McCain and even Biden who are against it.
post #23 of 3031
In Bush's America we taxpayers share in all the losses, socialist-style, but don't share in the profits, socialist-style.

In terms of AIG, the elephant in the room seems to be China and the integrity of the US as a business partner in general. I would think losing a bank is one thing -- losing a guarantor of monetary transactions is a much more complex concept. So maybe Obama needs time to take in what this is and come up with a constructive and realistic solution. But I haven't had enough time to research this situation, whereas the downward spiral of these big banks has been on the horizon for a while.
post #24 of 3031
couldn't congress have jumped in when this was all going to shit and do something?
post #25 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post
couldn't congress have jumped in when this was all going to shit and do something?
Congress....do something? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
post #26 of 3031
It has been a Republican dominated congress until two years ago and even now the Dems don't have a veto-proof majority in the senate (60 votes - there are 51 dems).

ps. Larisa Alexandrovna has a funny and sadly true post today:

Quote:
1. And bailouts for all...

Looks like AIG and its fraudulent business practices have gotten themselves a nice big bailout to the tune of $85 billion. So Conservative economics works like this:

-step 1: deregulate (let the looting begin)
-step 2: hide profits to avoid taxes (preferably in a Swiss bank)
-step 3: deny taxpayers any right to bankruptcy protection or legal protection from corporate thugs (think big tobacco), citing bootstraps and the American dream.
-step 4: demand that taxpayers bail you out once you have stolen everything
-step 5: make profits, don't pay taxpayers back

In response to this, the very first step that should be taken by Congress (assuming we ever get one) is to strip corporations of their "person-hood" and put behind bars every white collar crook anywhere near this fiasco - including those taking bribes in government.
Source.
post #27 of 3031
In 2003 ...

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print

Quote:
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.


Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.


The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.


....


Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.


''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
post #28 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudgeSmails View Post
Congress....do something? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
I know, stupid question huh...
post #29 of 3031
McCain 2005

Quote:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.


The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.


The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.


For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

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.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.



post #30 of 3031
Broken clocks, twice a day, etc.

Too bad he decided to go balls out for that neo-con Kool-Aid, eh?
post #31 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
It has been a Republican dominated congress until two years ago and even now the Dems don't have a veto-proof majority in the senate (60 votes - there are 51 dems).

ps. Larisa Alexandrovna has a funny and sadly true post today:



Source.

jesus quoting a far left site like that as a source is like someone using Fox News as a source for the right wingers.
post #32 of 3031
post #33 of 3031
Neither does the Republican President.

Of course, God knows we always look to the Congress to lead the way.
post #34 of 3031
Just because these guys were waving their arms around about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac doesn't necessarily mean they were onto what ultimately befell these two institutions. I think it's presumptuous to assume that Bush and McCain had the good of the people in mind when they made these overtures. We know that McCain is a committed "deregulator" and Bush isn't exactly FDR either, so whatever was up their sleeve may not have been what you think it was. I'm going to look into this and if Bush and McCain were purely honorable, then good for them, but don't forget that McCain's campaign chairman, Rick Davis, was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
post #35 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Just because these guys were waving their arms around about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac doesn't necessarily mean they were onto what ultimately befell these two institutions. I think it's presumptuous to assume that Bush and McCain had the good of the people in mind when they made these overtures. We know that McCain is a committed "deregulator" and Bush isn't exactly FDR either, so whatever was up their sleeve may not have been what you think it was. I'm going to look into this and if Bush and McCain were purely honorable, then good for them, but don't forget that McCain's campaign chairman, Rick Davis, was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
This. The lip-service thing is nothing less than apologist bullshit for a cabal of people who have done nothing to curb the shameless money-grubbing, and it's especially hypocritical coming from Keatin...oops, I mean McCain.
post #36 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
I'm going to look into this and if Bush and McCain were purely honorable, then good for them, but don't forget that McCain's campaign chairman, Rick Davis, was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
You should look into it, but I find it funny that had these quotes been from a Democrat you wouldn't say this at all. Also, if you talk about lobbyists on this one issue, you should also bring up the fact that Obama received lots of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
post #37 of 3031
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/tra...ying-ties.aspx

Former and future lobbyists are OK. The Obama campaign restricts current lobbyists from joining the campaign. But a bunch of former lobbyists have helped out—including deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand, Teal Baker, and Emmett Beliveau—who could easily slip back onto K Street once the campaign is over. Obama now has 14 bundlers who are also federally registered lobbyists, but they are currently inactive, according to Public Citizen.

Every side has it's lobbyists

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aVPBaUbYV_qQ

Seems like congress has no idea what to do huh..
post #38 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/tra...ying-ties.aspx

Former and future lobbyists are OK. The Obama campaign restricts current lobbyists from joining the campaign. But a bunch of former lobbyists have helped out—including deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand, Teal Baker, and Emmett Beliveau—who could easily slip back onto K Street once the campaign is over. Obama now has 14 bundlers who are also federally registered lobbyists, but they are currently inactive, according to Public Citizen.

Every side has it's lobbyists

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aVPBaUbYV_qQ

Seems like congress has no idea what to do huh..
It's apples and oranges. McCain's core team of advisers and the head of his transition team are some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington. And the bulk of Obama's war chest is from individual donors, like all of those in this forum who have donated to his campaign in what was, for some of us, our first political campaign donations ever. As opposed to McCain.

And to ElCap's post, you're right. On this particular issue, I think it's deregulation-mad Republicans' cross to bear. On another issue, I might be more willing to contemplate Dem culpability, because as I've said many times over, Dems piss me off a lot too, but they're leagues closer to my ideals than Repubs.

And in looking back at congress' flirtation with addressing this looming disaster, I ran across this McCain interview from December 2007:
Quote:
Q: “Well the dimension of this problem may be surprising to a lot of people, but to many people, to many others there were feelings that there was something amiss, something was going too fast, something was a little too hot. Going back several years. Were you one of them? Or, I mean you’re a busy guy, you’re looking at a lot of things, maybe subprime mortgages wasn’t something you focused on every day. Were you surprised?

McCain: “Yeah. And I was surprised at the dot-com collapse and I was surprised at other times in our history. I don’t know if surprised is the word, but...

Q: “S&Ls?”

McCain: “I don’t -- what did you say?”

Q: “The S&Ls."

McCain: "Yeah, the S&Ls."

Q: "Is this bigger than that?

McCain: “I don’t know the dimensions of this. It’s hard to know what the dimensions are. As I say, I never thought I’d pick up the paper and see a city in Norway is somehow dramatically impacted by it. When I say ‘surprised’ I’m not surprised when in capitalist systems that there’s greed and excess. I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who said ‘unfettered capitalism leads to corruption’ or something like that, that people have disputed for years.

“But so, in this whole new derivative stuff, and SIBs and all of this kind of new ways of packaging mortgages together and all that is something that frankly I don’t know a lot about.

"But I do rely on a lot of smart people that I have that are both in my employ and acquaintances of mine. And most of them did not anticipate this. Most of them, I mean I can find some that did. But, a guy that’s on my staff named Doug Holtz-Eakin, who was once the head of the Office of Management and Budget, said that there was nervousness out there. There’s nervousness. There was nervousness that we had such a long period of prosperity without a downturn because of the history of our economy. But I don’t know of hardly anybody, with the exception of a handful, that said ‘wait a minute, this thing is getting completely out of hand and is overheating.'

"So, I’d like to tell you that I did anticipate it, but I have to give you straight talk, I did not.
Source.

And again, there's the Gramm-Leach-Billey act during Clinton's administration in which the Republicans in Congress stripped away the Glass-Steagall act which protected Americans from exactly this kind of disaster. McCain was one of the Senators that voted for it, giving it a veto-proof majority. His best pal Phil Gramm was one of the sponsors. Phil Gramm and his wife, who went to work for Enron and made a killing. Phil Gramm who is even now a lobbyist for French bank UBS, in addition to being McCain's shadow economic adviser.
post #39 of 3031
For those who're so inclined, here's a neat flash anim about CDOs.
post #40 of 3031
This is depressing.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/...us/tent_cities

Return of Hoovervilles?
post #41 of 3031
That McCain quote from 2005 regarding Fannie and Freddie could seem like political posturing without knowing the strength of the submitted bill. There are plenty of examples of McCain taking political stances that felt right but had no substance to back them up. That's part of what has made McCain a likable but infuriating politician throughout the years. His conduct before and after the Keating 5 scandal says a lot about his character.
post #42 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post
This is depressing.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/...us/tent_cities

Return of Hoovervilles?
Sounds like they could use some change.

(you're damned if you never saw that episode, it was classic!)
post #43 of 3031
Quote:
That McCain quote from 2005 regarding Fannie and Freddie could seem like political posturing without knowing the strength of the submitted bill. There are plenty of examples of McCain taking political stances that felt right but had no substance to back them up. That's part of what has made McCain a likable but infuriating politician throughout the years.
I don't understand, so you mean he's kind of like a political Mr. Magoo, an old blind guy occasionally stumbling upon the right decision and bill to support without really knowing what is going on?

'Always for Less Regulation'?
John McCain's record on Wall Street oversight gets some misleading spin from Barack Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...803159_pf.html

Quote:
However, when it comes to regulating financial institutions and corporate misconduct, Mr. McCain's record is more in keeping with his current rhetoric. In the aftermath of the Enron collapse and other accounting scandals, he was a leader, with Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), in pushing to require that companies treat stock options granted to employees as expenses on their balance sheets. "I have long opposed unnecessary regulation of business activity, mindful that the heavy hand of government can discourage innovation," he wrote in a July 2002 op-ed in the New York Times. "But in the current climate only a restoration of the system of checks and balances that once protected the American investor -- and that has seriously deteriorated over the past 10 years -- can restore the confidence that makes financial markets work."


Mr. McCain was an early voice calling for the resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt, charging that he "seems to prefer industry self-policing to necessary lawmaking. Government's demands for corporate accountability are only credible if government executives are held accountable as well."


In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- while Mr. Obama was notably silent. "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," Mr. McCain warned at the time.
post #44 of 3031
I'm not one to agree with the regulators, but this is a bit much.

I would rather have my government regulating businesses more than they have than bailing them out when THEY fuck up.
post #45 of 3031
I'm curious, what companies have we bailed out? In your opinion.
post #46 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
I don't understand, so you mean he's kind of like a political Mr. Magoo, an old blind guy occasionally stumbling upon the right decision and bill to support without really knowing what is going on?

'Always for Less Regulation'?
John McCain's record on Wall Street oversight gets some misleading spin from Barack Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...803159_pf.html
No. John McCain is a partisan politician first and foremost. He does occasionally take a "good" position on an issue, but the motivation is almost always partisan politics, not out any genuine sense of doing good. This is borne out by the fact that he rarely sees an issue to its end.

The only times he's called for more regulation, seemingly, is when Democrats were the ones who were pushing for deregulating more vociferously. (Fannie and Freddie) Or when something's obviously gone fubar and he needs to do a mea culpa. (Energy dereg and Enron) Otherwise he's been doctrinaire conservative/deregulator in his economic policies, espousing a philosophy that has directly lead to many of these crises.

But ultimately, what's more important than John McCain occasionally taking on "corruption" within the Democratic ranks is his utter inability to take on the corruption within his own ranks. In fact, he was often a cheerleader for terrible policy that originated from his side. This goes to the heart of what kind of politician McCain is. He might say the right things about an issue, but his motivation is really to make the other side look bad, not necessarily to do right because otherwise, he'd have more follow-through and just be more consistent.
post #47 of 3031
So, ignore the vote and statements regarding Fannie Mae and attribute that to being a partisan hack. Only interested in making Democrats look bad.

Also, any bi-partisan legislation he's ever worked with, is for show. All of these efforts should be viewed as cynical attempts to undermine the Democrats.

Did I get it right?
post #48 of 3031
I'd like to know more about what he was getting at, because as he explains in his 2007 interview, he "didn't see it coming."

But I have a question for you and Snaieke: are you saying that McCain is historically pro-government regulation?
post #49 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
So, ignore the vote and statements regarding Fannie Mae and attribute that to being a partisan hack. Only interested in making Democrats look bad.

Also, any bi-partisan legislation he's ever worked with, is for show. All of these efforts should be viewed as cynical attempts to undermine the Democrats.

Did I get it right?

Sorta. You're obviously free to make your own determination as to why McCain only supported regulation on these 2 issues throughout his entire 26 year career of deregulation.

I'm not saying there isn't a hint of honesty in what he's saying. I'm saying that the John McCain who voted correctly on these issues and the John McCain who as voted incorrectly dozens of times do not make any sense when placed together. Why that is the case is certainly up for debate.

My ultimate point here is that the John McCain that has been running this campaign, the craven opportunist and, yeah, partisan that has bubbled up to the surface, is perhaps the real John McCain. Its just more obvious and splayed out there for all to see now that he is running a national general election campaign.

You like McCain. I get that. (I kinda sorta did too at one point.) But at this moment before we're asked to vote for him, can anyone really say with any confidence that they know what he stands for? Its a genuinely troubling situation that is entirely of his own making. All I'm saying is that the clues to the McCain we're seeing today are there in his past, if you want to see them.
post #50 of 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
I'd like to know more about what he was getting at, because as he explains in his 2007 interview, he "didn't see it coming."

But I have a question for you and Snaieke: are you saying that McCain is historically pro-government regulation?
I didn't say anything. I only asked Muharulz what companies he thought we bailed out.

Here's the catch YT. Everyone SAW it coming the real question was when the music would stop and who would be left without chairs and no one knew that answer.

McCain isn't an economic dynomo but he's been on the ball this week, we do need some regulations and Cox should have been fired and he took the bullet and said the fundamentals of our economy are sound. It doesn't matter if the fundamentals of our economy are sound when there is a disaster on Wall Street. What matters is leaders SAYING the fundamentals are sound so Johnny the teacher doesn't take his money out of the bank in a panic and turn his 401k from funds to CASH. That was why I was so very disappointed in the partisan politics Obama was playing on Monday..then Tuesday... then Wednesday.. You don't come out and say the fundamentals are bad when we're in a financial crisis.. that's to be said later on after it is over.

Apparently, Obama got the memo.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919/...a_financial_dc
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The economy - oops