The Offical TIF American Elections thread

[l0l0lpur32]

 

My preferred solution would be socialism, which contrary to snipersas' belief, has been tried successfully in many cases. Even those who champion capitalism have to look at this system and take a long hard think, because as it is, it's hopelessly unstable.

 

 

yeah, just look at north korea, 1917-1991 russia etc :roll:

[magekillr]

 

My preferred solution would be socialism, which contrary to snipersas' belief, has been tried successfully in many cases. Even those who champion capitalism have to look at this system and take a long hard think, because as it is, it's hopelessly unstable.

 

 

yeah, just look at north korea, 1917-1991 russia etc :roll:

 

 

 

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism.

[jackattack]

Let's not get too obsessed with the debate. I think most here would agree it was a total waste of time, given the poor moderation and lack of clarity between the two candidates.

 

 

 

Instead, let's look at actions. Let's look at the fact we are facing the worst failure of capitalism in 70 years, the US government and Congress are on the verge of breaking a deal, and suddenly McCain comes to town and it's all disrupted again.

 

 

 

They never had a deal. John Boehner said in the beginning that he didn't have the 100 votes that Pelosi wants. House Republicans never were part of the deal. The Senate Republicans are. All that is happening now is that the democrats are playing politics. They could pass the bailout anytime. They just want house Republicans to vote for it so they won't look bad.

 

 

 

 

 

Capitalism works just fine, but it does need regulation. The current US administration believes in low taxes, high spending, and a laissez-faire policy for many things with subsidiaries for "friends." None of that is economically smart and makes you wonder what the US population was thinking these past 8 years...

 

 

 

I don't know what you are talking about. This has been going on long before President bush was in office. He warned several times and tried to take action. In 2003 he tried to create a new office in the Treasury department to supervise Fannie and Freddie but it never happened.

 

 

 

These two entitiesFannie Mae and Freddie Macare not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=all the times President Bush warned]

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

 

 

 

2001

 

 

 

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

 

 

 

2002

 

 

 

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

 

 

 

2003

 

 

 

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

 

 

 

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

 

 

 

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

 

 

 

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

 

 

 

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

 

 

 

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

 

 

 

2004

 

 

 

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and thereforeshould be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

 

 

 

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

 

 

 

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

 

 

 

2005

 

 

 

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

 

 

 

2007

 

 

 

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

 

 

 

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

 

 

 

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August up 115 percent from the year before.

 

 

 

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

 

 

 

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

 

 

 

2008

 

 

 

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

 

 

 

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

 

 

 

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

 

 

 

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

 

 

 

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

 

 

 

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

 

 

 

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

 

*

 

 

 

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that and Congress is making progress on this is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

 

*

 

 

 

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

 

 

 

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

 

 

 

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

[/hide]

[l0l0lpur32]

 

My preferred solution would be socialism, which contrary to snipersas' belief, has been tried successfully in many cases. Even those who champion capitalism have to look at this system and take a long hard think, because as it is, it's hopelessly unstable.

 

 

yeah, just look at north korea, 1917-1991 russia etc :roll:

 

 

 

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism.

 

Ah, the "the USSR wasn't really marxist/socialist/communist" argument.

[1_man_army]

You do realise that Socialism is not the same as Communism, don't you?

[magekillr]

 

My preferred solution would be socialism, which contrary to snipersas' belief, has been tried successfully in many cases. Even those who champion capitalism have to look at this system and take a long hard think, because as it is, it's hopelessly unstable.

 

 

yeah, just look at north korea, 1917-1991 russia etc :roll:

 

 

 

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism.

 

Ah, the "the USSR wasn't really marxist/socialist/communist" argument.

 

 

 

I like how you put the "/'s" there as if to indicate that there's no/slight differences between them.

 

 

 

You dare disagree with His Holiness?

[Quoi_Tu]

I don't know what you are talking about. This has been going on long before President bush was in office. He warned several times and tried to take action. In 2003 he tried to create a new office in the Treasury department to supervise Fannie and Freddie but it never happened.

 

 

 

These two entitiesFannie Mae and Freddie Macare not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=all the times President Bush warned]

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

 

 

 

2001

 

 

 

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

 

 

 

2002

 

 

 

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

 

 

 

2003

 

 

 

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

 

 

 

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

 

 

 

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

 

 

 

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

 

 

 

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

 

 

 

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

 

 

 

2004

 

 

 

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and thereforeshould be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

 

 

 

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

 

 

 

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

 

 

 

2005

 

 

 

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

 

 

 

2007

 

 

 

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

 

 

 

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

 

 

 

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August up 115 percent from the year before.

 

 

 

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

 

 

 

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

 

 

 

2008

 

 

 

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

 

 

 

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

 

 

 

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

 

 

 

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

 

 

 

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

 

 

 

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

 

 

 

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

 

*

 

 

 

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that and Congress is making progress on this is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

 

*

 

 

 

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

 

 

 

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

 

 

 

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Kind of reminds me of what happened to Hoover in the Great Depression. And one reason he might not have been able to get that much done was because he wasn't, as far that list goes, trying to fix the source of the problem, sub-prime mortgages. This problem has stemmed from that lack of regulation. Who would've thought giving mortgages to people with bad credit could ever turn out disastrous?

[Ginger_Warrior]

True it is fact, but you mention this fact quite often, always labeling it capitalism. Meaning you're making a point about it being bad. Hence the "broken record" and "rhetoric" part of my post. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I've been getting from a lot of your posts.

 

Ideologically, if the impression you are getting is that I'm against laissez-faire capitalism, for the very situation we are in, then yes, that is the correct impression you are receiving.

 

 

 

I assure you, Condoleezza Rice coming on British TV and telling us there is no alternative to laissez-faire capitalism was equally as irksome.

 

 

 

As for the deal, I'm not particularly overjoyed with the deal on the table. If I was American, I wouldn't be happy about bailing the banks when their bosses earned bucket-loads in the first place for a "good job".

 

 

 

They never had a deal. John Boehner said in the beginning that he didn't have the 100 votes that Pelosi wants. House Republicans never were part of the deal. The Senate Republicans are. All that is happening now is that the democrats are playing politics. They could pass the bailout anytime. They just want house Republicans to vote for it so they won't look bad.

 

The Democrats are trying to do what's right - make sure this money isn't going to those who put us into this mess in the first place, and make sure regulation is in place to prevent it happening again. For all your pro-Americanism, you seem ironically hostile when it's the Democrats - not the Republicans - who are doing what's right for the country.

 

 

 

His attendance was (is) quite clearly a disturbance. Instead of making the discussion purely about economics, it's also brought the baggage from the presidential election. His behaviour over the whole thing reeks of desperation given his position in the race, and frankly, there are Republicans saying the same thing.

 

 

 

For the matter, these talks had been going on for days before McCain decided to honourably drop his campaign. The extent to which McCain can offer his expertise is also questionable.

 

 

 

Finally, he said he'll drop his campaign until a deal is sorted. A deal hadn't been sorted by last night, when he decided to attend the debate, had it? If that's not continuing your campaign, I don't know what is.

 

 

 

He's a liar, and he's desperate. Take away all the ideological differences between him and Obama, and he's already unsuitable to be the most powerful man in the world.

[Quoi_Tu]

True it is fact, but you mention this fact quite often, always labeling it capitalism. Meaning you're making a point about it being bad. Hence the "broken record" and "rhetoric" part of my post. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I've been getting from a lot of your posts.

 

Ideologically, if the impression you are getting is that I'm against laissez-faire capitalism, for the very situation we are in, then yes, that is the correct impression you are receiving.

 

 

 

I assure you, Condoleezza Rice coming on British TV and telling us there is no alternative to laissez-faire capitalism was equally as irksome.

 

 

 

As for the deal, I'm not particularly overjoyed with the deal on the table. If I was American, I wouldn't be happy about bailing the banks when their bosses earned bucket-loads in the first place for a "good job".

 

 

 

 

So, if I understand correctly, you're against the current US administration's application of economic policy (which I think is a rather corrupted version of capitalism) rather than capitalism itself. If that's the case, then I agree.

 

 

 

From what I understand, the banks actually won't be making that much money from the bailout, but will see their net worth go up. The government's going to buy the bad assets of the banks, which are worth a lot less than they should be. Once the economy rebounds (whenever that happens) a lot of those assets should gain their original worth back and the government will not have lost too significant amount of money. Of course, that's just the theory, which has a chance of falling to shreds.

[jackattack]

 

They never had a deal. John Boehner said in the beginning that he didn't have the 100 votes that Pelosi wants. House Republicans never were part of the deal. The Senate Republicans are. All that is happening now is that the democrats are playing politics. They could pass the bailout anytime. They just want house Republicans to vote for it so they won't look bad.

 

The Democrats are trying to do what's right - make sure this money isn't going to those who put us into this mess in the first place, and make sure regulation is in place to prevent it happening again. For all your pro-Americanism, you seem ironically hostile when it's the Democrats - not the Republicans - who are doing what's right for the country.

 

 

 

His attendance was (is) quite clearly a disturbance. Instead of making the discussion purely about economics, it's also brought the baggage from the presidential election. His behaviour over the whole thing reeks of desperation given his position in the race, and frankly, there are Republicans saying the same thing.

 

 

 

Obama was at the meeting too. But I guess he wasn't a disturbance right? And the democrats aren't trying to do whats right. They could have passed the bill anytime they wanted but instead they are trying to play political games so they won't look bad.

 

 

 

I don't know what you are talking about. This has been going on long before President bush was in office. He warned several times and tried to take action. In 2003 he tried to create a new office in the Treasury department to supervise Fannie and Freddie but it never happened.

 

 

 

These two entitiesFannie Mae and Freddie Macare not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=all the times President Bush warned]

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

 

 

 

2001

 

 

 

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

 

 

 

2002

 

 

 

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

 

 

 

2003

 

 

 

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

 

 

 

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

 

 

 

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

 

 

 

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

 

 

 

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

 

 

 

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

 

 

 

2004

 

 

 

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and thereforeshould be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

 

 

 

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

 

 

 

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

 

 

 

2005

 

 

 

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

 

 

 

2007

 

 

 

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

 

 

 

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

 

 

 

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August up 115 percent from the year before.

 

 

 

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

 

 

 

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

 

 

 

2008

 

 

 

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

 

 

 

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

 

 

 

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

 

 

 

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

 

 

 

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

 

 

 

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

 

 

 

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

 

*

 

 

 

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that and Congress is making progress on this is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

 

*

 

 

 

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

 

 

 

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

 

 

 

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Kind of reminds me of what happened to Hoover in the Great Depression. And one reason he might not have been able to get that much done was because he wasn't, as far that list goes, trying to fix the source of the problem, sub-prime mortgages. This problem has stemmed from that lack of regulation. Who would've thought giving mortgages to people with bad credit could ever turn out disastrous?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=]

Its one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

 

 

 

These numbers are dramatic enough to deserve more detail. When President Clinton took office in 1993, 42% of African Americans and 39% of Latinos owned their own home. By this spring, those figures had jumped to 46.9% of blacks and 46.2% of Latinos.

 

 

 

Thats a lot of new picket fences. Since 1994, when the numbers really took off, the number of black and Latino homeowners has increased by 2 million. In all, the minority homeownership rate is on track to increase more in the 1990s than in any decade this century except the 1940s, when minorities joined in the wartime surge out of the Depression.

 

 

 

This trend is good news on many fronts. Homeownership stabilizes neighborhoods and even families. Housing scholar William C. Apgar, now an assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, says that research shows homeowners are more likely than renters to participate in their community. The children of homeowners even tend to perform better in school. Most significantly, increased homeownership allows minority families, who have accumulated far less wealth than whites, to amass assets and transmit them to future generations.

 

 

 

What explains the surge? The answer starts with the economy. Historically low rates of minority unemployment have created a larger pool of qualified buyers. And the lowest interest rates in years have made homes more affordable for white and minority buyers alike.

 

 

 

But the economy isnt the whole story. As HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo says: There have been points in the past when the economy has done well but minority homeownership has not increased proportionally. Case in point: Despite generally good times in the 1980s, homeownership among blacks and Latinos actually declined slightly, while rising slightly among whites.

 

 

 

All of this suggests that Clintons efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decades gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat redlining by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

 

 

 

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Macthe giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.

 

 

 

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down paymentsor with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyers income. Thats made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.

 

 

 

But for all that progress, the black and Latino homeownership rates, at about 46%, still significantly trail the white rate, which is nearing 73%. Much of that difference represents structural social disparitiesin education levels, wealth and the percentage of single-parent familiesthat will only change slowly. Still, Apgar says, HUDs analysis suggests there are enough qualified buyers to move the minority homeownership rate into the mid-50% range.

 

 

 

The market itself will probably produce some of that progress. For many builders and lenders, serving minority buyers is now less a social obligation than a business opportunity. Because blacks and Latinos, as groups, are younger than whites, many experts believe they will continue to lead the housing market for years.

 

 

 

But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs.

 

 

 

The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.

 

 

 

Barry Zigas, who heads Fannie Maes low-income efforts, is undoubtedly correct when he argues, There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] cant push [the banks] to produce. But with the housing market still sizzling, minority unemployment down and Fannie Mae enjoying record profits (over $3.4 billion last year), it doesnt appear that the limit has been reached.

 

 

 

All signs point toward a high-velocity collision this summer between two strong-willed protagonists: HUDs Cuomo and Fannie Mae CEO Franklin D. Raines, the first African American to hold the post. Better they reach a reasonable agreement that provides more fuel for the extraordinary boom transforming millions of minority families from renters into owners.

[/hide]

[Ginger_Warrior]

 

They never had a deal. John Boehner said in the beginning that he didn't have the 100 votes that Pelosi wants. House Republicans never were part of the deal. The Senate Republicans are. All that is happening now is that the democrats are playing politics. They could pass the bailout anytime. They just want house Republicans to vote for it so they won't look bad.

 

The Democrats are trying to do what's right - make sure this money isn't going to those who put us into this mess in the first place, and make sure regulation is in place to prevent it happening again. For all your pro-Americanism, you seem ironically hostile when it's the Democrats - not the Republicans - who are doing what's right for the country.

 

 

 

His attendance was (is) quite clearly a disturbance. Instead of making the discussion purely about economics, it's also brought the baggage from the presidential election. His behaviour over the whole thing reeks of desperation given his position in the race, and frankly, there are Republicans saying the same thing.

 

 

 

Obama was at the meeting too. But I guess he wasn't a disturbance right? And the democrats aren't trying to do whats right. They could have passed the bill anytime they wanted but instead they are trying to play political games so they won't look bad.

 

Obama didn't want to attend the meeting. Obama made it quite clear he would rather be campaigning than getting involved with talks that had been going on for days without them.

 

 

 

What games are the Democrats playing? If the Democrats were playing games, they'd let the banks fall into chaos and use the fallout for ammo against the Republicans in future. Pelosi, a Democrat, hopes a Bill will be passed.

 

 

 

On the other hand, there's a handful of Republicans refusing the agree to the Bill.

 

 

 

Use logic. Who's really stopping this Bill from being passed?

[jackattack]

Of course Pelosi hopes a bill will be passed. She just doesn't want it to look bad for the democrats. There are enough votes in both the Senate and the house to pass the bill. Republicans can't stop a bill from being passed in the house. They are the minority. And in the Senate it would pass as well. The Democrats just don't want it to look like they were the ones who supported the bailout while the Republicans opposed it.

[Quoi_Tu]

 

[hide=]

Its one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

 

 

 

These numbers are dramatic enough to deserve more detail. When President Clinton took office in 1993, 42% of African Americans and 39% of Latinos owned their own home. By this spring, those figures had jumped to 46.9% of blacks and 46.2% of Latinos.

 

 

 

Thats a lot of new picket fences. Since 1994, when the numbers really took off, the number of black and Latino homeowners has increased by 2 million. In all, the minority homeownership rate is on track to increase more in the 1990s than in any decade this century except the 1940s, when minorities joined in the wartime surge out of the Depression.

 

 

 

This trend is good news on many fronts. Homeownership stabilizes neighborhoods and even families. Housing scholar William C. Apgar, now an assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, says that research shows homeowners are more likely than renters to participate in their community. The children of homeowners even tend to perform better in school. Most significantly, increased homeownership allows minority families, who have accumulated far less wealth than whites, to amass assets and transmit them to future generations.

 

 

 

What explains the surge? The answer starts with the economy. Historically low rates of minority unemployment have created a larger pool of qualified buyers. And the lowest interest rates in years have made homes more affordable for white and minority buyers alike.

 

 

 

But the economy isnt the whole story. As HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo says: There have been points in the past when the economy has done well but minority homeownership has not increased proportionally. Case in point: Despite generally good times in the 1980s, homeownership among blacks and Latinos actually declined slightly, while rising slightly among whites.

 

 

 

All of this suggests that Clintons efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decades gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat redlining by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

 

 

 

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Macthe giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.

 

 

 

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down paymentsor with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyers income. Thats made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.

 

 

 

But for all that progress, the black and Latino homeownership rates, at about 46%, still significantly trail the white rate, which is nearing 73%. Much of that difference represents structural social disparitiesin education levels, wealth and the percentage of single-parent familiesthat will only change slowly. Still, Apgar says, HUDs analysis suggests there are enough qualified buyers to move the minority homeownership rate into the mid-50% range.

 

 

 

The market itself will probably produce some of that progress. For many builders and lenders, serving minority buyers is now less a social obligation than a business opportunity. Because blacks and Latinos, as groups, are younger than whites, many experts believe they will continue to lead the housing market for years.

 

 

 

But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs.

 

 

 

The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.

 

 

 

Barry Zigas, who heads Fannie Maes low-income efforts, is undoubtedly correct when he argues, There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] cant push [the banks] to produce. But with the housing market still sizzling, minority unemployment down and Fannie Mae enjoying record profits (over $3.4 billion last year), it doesnt appear that the limit has been reached.

 

 

 

All signs point toward a high-velocity collision this summer between two strong-willed protagonists: HUDs Cuomo and Fannie Mae CEO Franklin D. Raines, the first African American to hold the post. Better they reach a reasonable agreement that provides more fuel for the extraordinary boom transforming millions of minority families from renters into owners.

[/hide]

 

 

 

[hide=]

This years serial bailouts are proof of a colossal regulatory failure. But it is not the system that failed, as President Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and others who are complicit in the calamity would like Americans to believe. People failed.

 

 

 

For decades now, antiregulation disciples of the Reagan Revolution have eliminated vital laws, blocked the enactment of much-needed new regulations, or simply refused to exercise their legal authority.

 

 

 

The regulatory system for banks, securities, commodities and insurance is unwieldy and in need of modernization. The system has gaps, like the absence of regulation for innovations such as credit default swaps, the insurance-like contracts now valued at $62 trillion whose destructive potential prompted the bailouts of Bear Stearns and the American International Group.

 

 

 

But the failures that have landed us in the mess we are in today are not mainly structural. To assert that they are masks deeper failings and sets false terms for the upcoming debate on regulatory reform.

 

 

 

Under a law passed in 1994, for example, the Federal Reserve was obligated to regulate banks and nonbank lenders to curb unfair, deceptive and predatory lending. Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, ignored his responsibility, even as junk mortgage lending proliferated in plain sight.

 

 

 

Mr. Greenspan later said the law defined unfair and deceptive too vaguely. If so, he should have asked Congress for clarification. Instead, he did nothing and the Republican-led Congress did not question him. When Ben Bernanke took over as Fed chairman in early 2006, the negligence continued. It was not until mid-2007, after the housing bubble had begun to burst, that federal regulators offered guidelines for subprime lending.

 

 

 

The systematic dismantling of laws that called for regulation also contributed to the current crisis.

 

 

 

In 1995, Congress passed a law that restricted the ability of investors to sue companies, securities firms and accounting firms for misstatements and pie-in-the-sky projections. That helped inflate the dot-com bubble and contributed to the Enron debacle. It also engendered a sense of impunity that helped to foster the excessive risk-taking so prevalent in the mortgage mess.

 

 

 

Then, in 1999, Congress dismantled the Glass- Steagall Act, a pillar of the New Deal, which separated commercial and investment banking. That enormous change was undertaken with no thought or effort or desire to regulate the world that it would help to create. Now we know that an entire shadow banking system has grown up, without rules or transparency, but with the ability to topple the financial system itself.

 

 

 

But perhaps no deregulatory effort had more catastrophic effect than the 2000 law that explicitly excluded derivatives, including those credit default swaps, from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936.

 

 

 

And there is probably no greater missed opportunity than the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac passed by the House in 2005. If the law had been enacted, the takeover of those companies may have been avoided. It failed in large part because President Bush wanted to fully privatize them and feared that if they were adequately reformed, privatization would lose steam.

 

 

 

Indeed, it was in the Bush years that antiregulation and deregulation found full expression, fueled by an ideology that markets know best, government hampers markets, and problems will magically fix themselves.

 

 

 

The nation is now painfully relearning that the opposite is true. Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, admitted on Friday that his agencys voluntary regulation of investment banks was a failure that contributed to the current crisis.

 

 

 

That is a good starting point for a debate about how to get back on the road to sensible, responsible government regulation.

[/hide]

 

 

 

You seem to be pointing the finger of blame at the Clinton Administration when the Bush administration didn't do anything until after August 2007. Not to mention the Fed practically ignored the issue until about the same time.

[magekillr]

Few things about the debate:

 

 

 

I thought Lehrer was brilliant. I don't see how you thought this was a poorly moderated debate Ginger, I thought it was refreshing because he allowed and DIRECTED them to talk to each other, rather than to him, AND he pressed his questions if they didn't answer.

 

 

 

Anyway, if this debate doesn't convince you to vote for Obama or do everything in your power to stop John McCain, nothing will.

 

 

 

I wonder if the clip I am referring to is on youtube yet, or is at all, but the most telling part of the debate was this question:

 

 

 

Lehrer asked the candidates to talk about what priorities the financial crisis would prompt them to put on hold. They both used a lot of dumb flowery language about what they WOULDN'T cut. Lehrer kept at it.

 

 

 

Eventually, he got McCain to say that aside from defense, veterans spending, and like one other thing that I can't remember off of the top of my head, that we should consider a total budget freeze.

 

 

 

I mean....WTF! Total budget freeze? Are you INSANE!?! This isn't like Ron Paul, who proposed specific measures against specific federal departments...this is a total budget freeze.

 

 

 

Basically, he wants us to go into wartime mode because of this financial crisis. It's bread lines, instead of trying to get people to take positive action.

 

 

 

What a complete tool bag.

[assassin_696]

Obama was at the meeting too. But I guess he wasn't a disturbance right? And the democrats aren't trying to do whats right. They could have passed the bill anytime they wanted but instead they are trying to play political games so they won't look bad.

 

 

 

Obama didn't rush to Washington on a warpath designed to make him look like he was the one prioritising the economy and brokering the deal. It doesn't take a genius to see that what McCain did was a rashly thought out political stunt that's backfired. If anyone's playing political games here it's the Republican nominee and the obstructionist Republican rebels who set the negotiations back with their poorly thought out insurance style alternative to the bailout.

[jackattack]

^^ They don't need the house Republicans votes to pass the bill.

 

 

 

Few things about the debate:

 

 

 

I thought Lehrer was brilliant. I don't see how you thought this was a poorly moderated debate Ginger, I thought it was refreshing because he allowed and DIRECTED them to talk to each other, rather than to him, AND he pressed his questions if they didn't answer.

 

 

 

Anyway, if this debate doesn't convince you to vote for Obama or do everything in your power to stop John McCain, nothing will.

 

 

 

I wonder if the clip I am referring to is on youtube yet, or is at all, but the most telling part of the debate was this question:

 

 

 

Lehrer asked the candidates to talk about what priorities the financial crisis would prompt them to put on hold. They both used a lot of dumb flowery language about what they WOULDN'T cut. Lehrer kept at it.

 

 

 

Eventually, he got McCain to say that aside from defense, veterans spending, and like one other thing that I can't remember off of the top of my head, that we should consider a total budget freeze.

 

 

 

I mean....WTF! Total budget freeze? Are you INSANE!?! This isn't like Ron Paul, who proposed specific measures against specific federal departments...this is a total budget freeze.

 

 

 

Basically, he wants us to go into wartime mode because of this financial crisis. It's bread lines, instead of trying to get people to take positive action.

 

 

 

What a complete tool bag.

 

 

 

If we had a spending freeze it would only take a few years until we had a surplus instead of these massive deficits.

[magekillr]

^^ They don't need the house Republicans votes to pass the bill.

 

 

 

Few things about the debate:

 

 

 

I thought Lehrer was brilliant. I don't see how you thought this was a poorly moderated debate Ginger, I thought it was refreshing because he allowed and DIRECTED them to talk to each other, rather than to him, AND he pressed his questions if they didn't answer.

 

 

 

Anyway, if this debate doesn't convince you to vote for Obama or do everything in your power to stop John McCain, nothing will.

 

 

 

I wonder if the clip I am referring to is on youtube yet, or is at all, but the most telling part of the debate was this question:

 

 

 

Lehrer asked the candidates to talk about what priorities the financial crisis would prompt them to put on hold. They both used a lot of dumb flowery language about what they WOULDN'T cut. Lehrer kept at it.

 

 

 

Eventually, he got McCain to say that aside from defense, veterans spending, and like one other thing that I can't remember off of the top of my head, that we should consider a total budget freeze.

 

 

 

I mean....WTF! Total budget freeze? Are you INSANE!?! This isn't like Ron Paul, who proposed specific measures against specific federal departments...this is a total budget freeze.

 

 

 

Basically, he wants us to go into wartime mode because of this financial crisis. It's bread lines, instead of trying to get people to take positive action.

 

 

 

What a complete tool bag.

 

 

 

If we had a spending freeze it would only take a few years until we had a surplus instead of these massive deficits.

 

 

 

You're out of your [bleep]ing mind, and so is John McCain; not even Ron "Get Rid of Most of the Federal Government and End All Spending" Paul is that insane.

 

 

 

You don't have a total spending freeze, even people who aren't Keynesian Economists know that. Just as a rule you don't stop buying everything except bread in hard financial times, you buy durable goods.

 

 

 

This man is not just an idiot or insane anymore...he's dangerous.

[Deiophobus]

Mage, although I agree with you, I just wanted to point out something. The debate will probably not have a big effect on swaying people who are already supporting one candidate. For one, a lot of them don't understand what is being talked about. And really, no matter what is said, they've already declared their loyalty, they aren't really voting on the issues, they're voting for whichever party they have liked in the past. It's stupid, but that's just how it is.

[Yes_Its_Ross]

Mike Gravel '08

 

 

 

:P

[cryztalwing]

Few things about the debate:

 

 

 

I thought Lehrer was brilliant. I don't see how you thought this was a poorly moderated debate Ginger, I thought it was refreshing because he allowed and DIRECTED them to talk to each other, rather than to him, AND he pressed his questions if they didn't answer.

 

 

 

Anyway, if this debate doesn't convince you to vote for Obama or do everything in your power to stop John McCain, nothing will.

 

 

 

I wonder if the clip I am referring to is on youtube yet, or is at all, but the most telling part of the debate was this question:

 

 

 

Lehrer asked the candidates to talk about what priorities the financial crisis would prompt them to put on hold. They both used a lot of dumb flowery language about what they WOULDN'T cut. Lehrer kept at it.

 

 

 

Eventually, he got McCain to say that aside from defense, veterans spending, and like one other thing that I can't remember off of the top of my head, that we should consider a total budget freeze.

 

 

 

I mean....WTF! Total budget freeze? Are you INSANE!?! This isn't like Ron Paul, who proposed specific measures against specific federal departments...this is a total budget freeze.

 

 

 

Basically, he wants us to go into wartime mode because of this financial crisis. It's bread lines, instead of trying to get people to take positive action.

 

 

 

What a complete tool bag.

 

 

 

Here is what Ron Paul wants to do, help Support the Abolition of the Federal Reserve System.

 

 

 

http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=10887821

[magekillr]

No thanks, only idiots believe that our problems lie at the Federal Reserve and don't understand what "deflation" is.

 

 

 

Canada has a nearly identical system as we do, and they have no issues.

[jackattack]

^^ They don't need the house Republicans votes to pass the bill.

 

 

 

Few things about the debate:

 

 

 

I thought Lehrer was brilliant. I don't see how you thought this was a poorly moderated debate Ginger, I thought it was refreshing because he allowed and DIRECTED them to talk to each other, rather than to him, AND he pressed his questions if they didn't answer.

 

 

 

Anyway, if this debate doesn't convince you to vote for Obama or do everything in your power to stop John McCain, nothing will.

 

 

 

I wonder if the clip I am referring to is on youtube yet, or is at all, but the most telling part of the debate was this question:

 

 

 

Lehrer asked the candidates to talk about what priorities the financial crisis would prompt them to put on hold. They both used a lot of dumb flowery language about what they WOULDN'T cut. Lehrer kept at it.

 

 

 

Eventually, he got McCain to say that aside from defense, veterans spending, and like one other thing that I can't remember off of the top of my head, that we should consider a total budget freeze.

 

 

 

I mean....WTF! Total budget freeze? Are you INSANE!?! This isn't like Ron Paul, who proposed specific measures against specific federal departments...this is a total budget freeze.

 

 

 

Basically, he wants us to go into wartime mode because of this financial crisis. It's bread lines, instead of trying to get people to take positive action.

 

 

 

What a complete tool bag.

 

 

 

If we had a spending freeze it would only take a few years until we had a surplus instead of these massive deficits.

 

 

 

You're out of your [bleep] mind, and so is John McCain; not even Ron "Get Rid of Most of the Federal Government and End All Spending" Paul is that insane.

 

 

 

You don't have a total spending freeze, even people who aren't Keynesian Economists know that. Just as a rule you don't stop buying everything except bread in hard financial times, you buy durable goods.

 

 

 

This man is not just an idiot or insane anymore...he's dangerous.

 

 

 

a $700 billion dollar bailout combined with the massive deficit make a spending freeze look pretty good. Not in dollars but as a % of gdp. This ridiculous spending has to stop sometime.

[Meldar]

I'm voting McCain since Ron Paul threw in the towel and endorsed Chuck Baldwin, who is insane.

[l0l0lpur32]

^^ They don't need the house Republicans votes to pass the bill.

 

 

 

Few things about the debate:

 

 

 

I thought Lehrer was brilliant. I don't see how you thought this was a poorly moderated debate Ginger, I thought it was refreshing because he allowed and DIRECTED them to talk to each other, rather than to him, AND he pressed his questions if they didn't answer.

 

 

 

Anyway, if this debate doesn't convince you to vote for Obama or do everything in your power to stop John McCain, nothing will.

 

 

 

I wonder if the clip I am referring to is on youtube yet, or is at all, but the most telling part of the debate was this question:

 

 

 

Lehrer asked the candidates to talk about what priorities the financial crisis would prompt them to put on hold. They both used a lot of dumb flowery language about what they WOULDN'T cut. Lehrer kept at it.

 

 

 

Eventually, he got McCain to say that aside from defense, veterans spending, and like one other thing that I can't remember off of the top of my head, that we should consider a total budget freeze.

 

 

 

I mean....WTF! Total budget freeze? Are you INSANE!?! This isn't like Ron Paul, who proposed specific measures against specific federal departments...this is a total budget freeze.

 

 

 

Basically, he wants us to go into wartime mode because of this financial crisis. It's bread lines, instead of trying to get people to take positive action.

 

 

 

What a complete tool bag.

 

 

 

If we had a spending freeze it would only take a few years until we had a surplus instead of these massive deficits.

 

 

 

You're out of your [bleep] mind, and so is John McCain; not even Ron "Get Rid of Most of the Federal Government and End All Spending" Paul is that insane.

 

 

 

You don't have a total spending freeze, even people who aren't Keynesian Economists know that. Just as a rule you don't stop buying everything except bread in hard financial times, you buy durable goods.

 

 

 

This man is not just an idiot or insane anymore...he's dangerous.

 

The current policy of massive spending isn't sustainable.

 

No thanks, only idiots believe that our problems lie at the Federal Reserve and don't understand what "deflation" is.

 

 

 

Canada has a nearly identical system as we do, and they have no issues.

 

Define "no issues"...

[Ginger_Warrior]

a $700 billion dollar bailout combined with the massive deficit make a spending freeze look pretty good. Not in dollars but as a % of gdp. This ridiculous spending has to stop sometime.

 

*cough* Iraq *cough*

 

 

 

How much money has been spent on the War on Terror? That didn't come from nowhere. Yet McCain (and Obama admittedly) would continue it.

 

 

 

For the matter, according to this poll by the BBC's World Service, al-Qaeda isn't even being weakened by the War on Terror (I'm concerned for that 4% though -.-). Just two out of 23 countries generally said the WoT had had a positive impact on weakening al-Qaeda: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7638566.stm