PDA

View Full Version : McCain "Don’t know much about economy"


tony hipchest
09-08-2008, 04:04 PM
the economy is an issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/story/politico/20080907/pl_politico/13213
In 2005, McCain told the Wall Street Journal, "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

By his own admission, that education hasn’t happened yet. Last year, before the economy passed the war in opinion polls as voters’ foremost concern, he conceded,“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.”

He added, “I’ve got Greenspan’s book” :sofunny:—though given the decline in the former Fed chair’s reputation since the burst of the housing bubble, that remark too might come back to haunt him.

As damaging as print quotes can be, it’s video of similar comments that may prove most damaging with voters.


but atleast he gets good advice and guidance :rolleyes: (entire article too long to post but VERY interesting) -

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure.

Because of the swap-related provisions of Gramm's bill—which were supported by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury secretary Larry Summers—a $62 trillion market (nearly four times the size of the entire US stock market) remained utterly unregulated, meaning no one made sure the banks and hedge funds had the assets to cover the losses they guaranteed.

In essence, Wall Street's biggest players (which, thanks to Gramm's earlier banking deregulation efforts, now incorporated everything from your checking account to your pension fund) ran a secret casino. "Tens of trillions of dollars of transactions were done in the dark," says University of San Diego law professor Frank Partnoy, an expert on financial markets and derivatives. "No one had a picture of where the risks were flowing." Betting on the risk of any given transaction became more important—and more lucrative—than the transactions themselves, Partnoy notes: "So there was more betting on the riskiest subprime mortgages than there were actual mortgages." Banks and hedge funds, notes Michael Greenberger, who directed the cftc's division of trading and markets in the late 1990s, "were betting the subprimes would pay off and they would not need the capital to support their bets."



Gramm's record as a reckless deregulator has not affected his rating as a Republican economic expert. Sen. John McCain has relied on him for policy advice, especially, according to the campaign, on housing matters. The two have been buddies ever since they served together in the House in the 1980s; in 1996, McCain chaired Gramm's flop of a presidential campaign. (Gramm spent $21 million and earned only 10 delegates during the gop primaries.) In 2005, McCain told a Wall Street Journal columnist that Gramm was his economic guru. Two years later, Gramm wrote a piece for the Journal extolling McCain as a modern-day Abraham Lincoln, and he's hailed McCain's love of tax cuts and free trade. Media accounts have identified Gramm as a contender for the top slot at the Treasury Department if McCain reaches the White House. "If McCain gets in," frets Lynn Turner, a former chief sec accountant, "we'll have more of the same deregulatory mess. I like John McCain, but given what I know about Phil Gramm, I wouldn't vote for McCain."

scary, unless it is much ado about nothing. this guy had close ties to enron. enron is being compared as small fries to this mess.

but in discussing the issues, its not so much mccains experience that concerns me, its his ability to surround himself with the people who will be best for america.

MACH1
09-08-2008, 07:15 PM
Hey...Obumer's one Bill O'Riley now. A bit off topic but..... And :sign09:

tony hipchest
09-08-2008, 07:23 PM
Hey...Obumer's one Bill O'Riley now. A bit off topic but..... And :sign09:hey. im just votin for the dude. i aint trying to miss any MNF football for him. :tt03: .....especially opening weekend. :laughing:

(missed it. wow. bill called the obama campaign really smart. hes right. i cant say as much for the mccain camp.)

MACH1
09-08-2008, 07:26 PM
hey. im just votin for the dude. i aint trying to miss any MNF football for him. :tt03: .....especially opening weekend. :laughing:

(missed it. wow. bill called the obama campaign really smart. hes right. i cant say as much for the mccain camp.)

Shhhh....Don't tell anyone, but I forgot about the earlier start time. :banging:

tony hipchest
09-22-2008, 09:16 PM
speaking of "big white elephants"-

Horton hears something....

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/horton.jpg

and it isnt a "Who".... more like a "What".-

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/chirpingcrickets-1.jpg



:hunch:


:smile:

GBMelBlount
09-22-2008, 09:44 PM
Economics 101:
lower taxes better for economy.

McCain: lower taxes
Obama: Higher taxes

tony hipchest
09-22-2008, 10:15 PM
Economics 101:
lower taxes better for economy.

McCain: lower taxes
Obama: Higher taxeshow much are colleges charging for that little tidbit of information nowadays? do they also teach that wall street brokerage firms will make all problems go away? theres more to being an american than "becoming rich".

National (and economic) Security 101:

no debt: good

selling out out our debt to saudi arabia, a democratic iraq, and any other wealthy, oil rich, middle eastern country who isnt on our "axis of evil" list:
bad .

govt bail outs that the average joe taxpayer pays for, while the true beneficiaries get breaks: bad.



hasnt anyone learned from our current crisis of selling (and hedging bets) on debt?

however, ears are open, and Horton hears you. :cheers:

augustashark
09-23-2008, 01:17 AM
It really makes me laugh that you lay this all at the feet of McCain and or Repubs. I just wanted to show some numbers that to me would say that Dems and Repubs are to blame for this mess.

110th congress: House: D=233 R=202, Senate: D=51 R=49

109th congress: House: D=202 R=229, Senate: D=45 R=55

108th congress: House: D=207 R=225, Senate: D=49 R=51

107th congress: House: D=209 R=222, Senate: D=49 R=50

I guess if the Repubs had a number like 335 to dems 100 in house then I guess i could agree with you, but you know what they say about ifs and buts, you know the whole aunt and uncle thing.

Hammer67
09-23-2008, 05:55 AM
I wonder why no one is talking about www.fairtax.org?

In my mind, the current taxation system is unconstitutional and creates a economic class structure...

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-23-2008, 06:28 AM
how much are colleges charging for that little tidbit of information nowadays? do they also teach that wall street brokerage firms will make all problems go away? theres more to being an american than "becoming rich".

National (and economic) Security 101:

no debt: good

selling out out our debt to saudi arabia, a democratic iraq, and any other wealthy, oil rich, middle eastern country who isnt on our "axis of evil" list:
bad .

govt bail outs that the average joe taxpayer pays for, while the true beneficiaries get breaks: bad.



hasnt anyone learned from our current crisis of selling (and hedging bets) on debt?

however, ears are open, and Horton hears you. :cheers:

Horton apparently only hears what he wants....McCain predicted that Fannie and Freddy would turn upside down and tried to do something about it....You can thank Barney Frank and his Cronies for playing the "class/race" card...claiming that it would "hurt" and was targeting lower income families.

Congressional Record > May 25, 2006
FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005
The United States Senate
May 25, 2006
Section 16

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: "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."

(The Democrats blocked this bill before it could come to a vote."

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-23-2008, 06:38 AM
how much are colleges charging for that little tidbit of information nowadays? do they also teach that wall street brokerage firms will make all problems go away? theres more to being an american than "becoming rich".

National (and economic) Security 101:

no debt: good

selling out out our debt to saudi arabia, a democratic iraq, and any other wealthy, oil rich, middle eastern country who isnt on our "axis of evil" list:
bad .

govt bail outs that the average joe taxpayer pays for, while the true beneficiaries get breaks: bad.



hasnt anyone learned from our current crisis of selling (and hedging bets) on debt?

however, ears are open, and Horton hears you. :cheers:

Horton apparently only hears what he wants....McCain predicted that Fannie and Freddy would turn upside down and tried to do something about it....You can thank Barney Frank and his Cronies for playing the "class/race" card...claiming that it would "hurt" and was targeting lower income families.

Congressional Record > May 25, 2006
FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005
The United States Senate
May 25, 2006
Section 16

Here is what McCain said.....Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: "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."

(The Democrats blocked this bill before it could come to a vote.)

1/26/2005--Introduced.
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish:
(1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and
(2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting:
(1) assessment authority;
(2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets;
(3) minimum and critical capital levels;
(4) risk-based capital test;
(5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises;
(6) enforcement actions and penalties;
(7) golden parachutes; and
(8) reporting.
Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.
Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.
Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190&tab=summary

The "average" Joe Taxpayer needs to educate himself/herself as to which party created this crises...and now is trying to cash in on it politically

GBMelBlount
09-23-2008, 07:48 AM
Tony hipchest

How much are colleges charging for that little tidbit of information nowadays? do they also teach that wall street brokerage firms will make all problems go away? theres more to being an american than "becoming rich".

Like what? Having almost half your income taken at gunpoint by the government to fund their failed social engineering problems?

Tony Hipchest
National (and economic) Security 101:

no debt: good

Something we completely agree on Tony. Government overspending is a huge problem. They need to be downsized just like companies that aren't efficient or profitable.

That's obviously why I am voting for McCain. :drink:

tony hipchest
09-23-2008, 09:54 AM
Horton apparently only hears what he wants....McCain predicted that Fannie and Freddy would turn upside down and tried to do something about it....You can thank Barney Frank and his Cronies for playing the "class/race" card...claiming that it would "hurt" and was targeting lower income families.

(The Democrats blocked this bill before it could come to a vote.)

The "average" Joe Taxpayer needs to educate himself/herself as to which party created this crises...and now is trying to cash in on it politicallywow. so an "insider" who saw the groundwork for this mess being laid, is now Nostrodamus? go figure.

as you desperately try to affix blame to the democrats, i will assume you have no insight or critisizm to offer in regards to the esteemed Phil Gramm. :thumbsup: or do you just plead the 5th on the matter?

however, ears are open, and Horton has heard. :drink:

a blind eye appearantly only sees what it wants to see. :mg:

tony hipchest
09-23-2008, 10:00 AM
It really makes me laugh :chuckle: that you lay this all at the feet :footinmou of McCain and or Repubs. I just wanted to show some numbers :laughing: that to me would say that Dems and Repubs are to blame for this mess.

:cookie:


107th congress: House: D=209 R=222, Senate: D=49 R=50 Republican Majority

108th congress: House: D=207 R=225, Senate: D=49 R=51 Republican Majority

109th congress: House: D=202 R=229, Senate: D=45 R=55 Republican Majority

110th congress: House: D=233 R=202, Senate: D=51 R=49 Failed policies cause the AMERICAN people to vote for change.

I guess if the Repubs had a number like 335 to dems 100 in house then I guess i could agree with you, but you know what they say about ifs and buts, you know the whole aunt and uncle thing. :blah:

see a pattern here?

revefsreleets
09-23-2008, 10:01 AM
What's interesting here is that, for a guy who self-confessingly doesn't know as muc about the economy as he'd like, McCain seems to be demonstrating a much more clear and concise train of thought concerning the bailout than Obama, who still, for the most part, has simply played the blame game rather than asserting any meaningful rhetoric on the subject.

tony hipchest
09-23-2008, 10:08 AM
What's interesting here is that, for a guy who self-confessingly doesn't know as muc about the economy as he'd like, McCain seems to be demonstrating a much more clear and concise train of thought concerning the bailout than Obama, who still, for the most part, has simply played the blame game rather than asserting any meaningful rhetoric on the subject.appearantly george will disagrees-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092202583.html

"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."

-- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" ...

For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. ...

By a Gresham's Law of political discourse, McCain's Queen of Hearts intervention in the opaque financial crisis overshadowed a solid conservative complaint from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the RSC decried the improvised torrent of bailouts as a "dangerous and unmistakable precedent for the federal government both to be looked to and indeed relied upon to save private sector companies from the consequences of their poor economic decisions." This letter, listing just $650 billion of the perhaps more than $1 trillion in new federal exposures to risk, was sent while McCain's campaign, characteristically substituting vehemence for coherence, was airing an ad warning that Obama favors "massive government, billions in spending increases."

The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels? ...

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?



what is really interesting is how HUGE of a white elephant sen. gramm really is.

again, Horton has heard....

revefsreleets
09-23-2008, 10:12 AM
Your argument is interesting, except that it only mentions McCain's party, and not the man himself or his views. Will is taking a swipe, but only peripherally...

And we know that McCain will break with his party...

Hmmm...where has Atlanta Dan been lately...hmmmm...

tony hipchest
09-23-2008, 10:22 AM
Your argument is interesting, except that it only mentions McCain's party, and not the man himself or his views. Will is taking a swipe, but only peripherally...

And we know that McCain will break with his party...

Hmmm...where has Atlanta Dan been lately...hmmmm...unfortunately it seems Dan tired of the echochamber this specific forum has become in regards to politics.

looks like im the lone wolf.

anyways, to your point...

mccain on ABC with Stephanuffalugus (speaking of elephants) shows that G. Will is taking more than a swipe at just the party.

btw- see post #1 in this thread for some thoughts on the man himself and "his" views.

revefsreleets
09-23-2008, 10:34 AM
But what does that have to do with the bailout? You are trying to tie two unrelated things together here. Yes, we get it, you're not voting for McCain, but the fact is, he's actually breaking with his party YET AGAIN in saying that "I believe we need a high level of oversight and an oversight board to impose real criteria for those who need help and those who do not and that we have a careful steward of the taxpayer's dollars,"

tony hipchest
09-23-2008, 11:28 AM
But what does that have to do with the bailout? You are trying to tie two unrelated things together here. Yes, we get it, you're not voting for McCain, but the fact is, he's actually breaking with his party YET AGAIN in saying that "I believe we need a high level of oversight and an oversight board to impose real criteria for those who need help and those who do not and that we have a careful steward of the taxpayer's dollars,"2 unrelated things?

cause and effect are never unrelated.

so what you are saying is mccain is flip flopping on his stance?

once vehemently against regulation/ big brother oversight and now he's for it?

hmmm..... how convinient. wouldnt this be an example of the most disgusting form of pandering you laid at the feet of obama?

anyways, his "oversight board" will be another 9/11 commission. ho hum.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-23-2008, 12:16 PM
. :drink:

a blind eye appearantly only sees what it wants to see. :mg:

LIke ignoring the fact that McCain wanted to fix this before it got out of hand? (you called him an insider instead...:rofl:)

Or that Obama now has only show himself able to lead in regards to his #1 ranking as voting liberal (real agent of change isnt he).....his #2 ranking in pork spending ....and his #2 ranking in accepting money from Freddy and Fanny...

...you can call it a turd....but it still smells like shit to those who refuse to pray to Chicago's Porcelain God.

MACH1
09-23-2008, 12:36 PM
LIke ignoring the fact that McCain wanted to fix this before it got out of hand? (you called him an insider instead...:rofl:)

Or that Obama now has only show himself able to lead in regards to his #1 ranking as voting liberal (real agent of change isnt he).....his #2 ranking in pork spending ....and his #2 ranking in accepting money from Freddy and Fanny...

...you can call it a turd....but it still smells like shit to those who refuse to pray to Chicago's Porcelain God.

As Obama said you can put lipstick on a pig, its still a pig.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Sj_Eabs4qv6ekM:http://bp0.blogger.com/_BWD3jaICbzg/R-i1qXHZcSI/AAAAAAAAAMo/GIPOORueULo/s400/pig-lipstick.jpg

tony hipchest
09-23-2008, 01:21 PM
LIke ignoring the fact that McCain wanted to fix this before it got out of hand? (you called him an insider instead...:rofl:)

Or that Obama now has only show himself able to lead in regards to his #1 ranking as voting liberal (real agent of change isnt he).....his #2 ranking in pork spending ....and his #2 ranking in accepting money from Freddy and Fanny...

...you can call it a turd....but it still smells like shit to those who refuse to pray to Chicago's Porcelain God.:rolleyes: pitiful deflection aside (this thread has nothing to do with obama) i guess you are devoid of any thoughts regarding john mccain's economic mentor. huh? :hunch:

i dont blame you guys. if i were a staunch supporter of mccain i guess i would simply ignore the giant elephant in the room too.

after all they are both from the school of thought that the ecomomy is "fundamentally sound", that americans are just a bunch of "whiners" and that the recession is a figment of their imagination, i.e. "mental recession".

ANYWHO (get it? Horton hears a who?)-

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html

McCain guru linked to subprime crisis


The general co-chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today’s economic turmoil.

“A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business had changed,” the Illinois senator running for president said in a New York economic speech. “But by the time [it] was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework.”

Gramm’s role in the swift and dramatic recent restructuring of the nation’s investment houses and practices didn’t stop there.

A year after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the old regulations, Swiss Bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS’s new investment banking arm.

Later, he became a major player in its government affairs operation. According to federal lobbying disclosure records, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues in 2005 and 2006.

During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.

For his work, Gramm and two other lobbyists collected $750,000 in fees from UBS’s American subsidiary. In the past year, UBS has written down more than $18 billion in exposure to subprime loans and other risky securities and is considering cutting as many as 8,000 jobs.

Gramm did not respond to an e-mail and was unavailable for comment, according to a UBS spokesman. The bank has no official position on the subprime crisis, the spokesman said, but is a member of the Financial Services Roundtable and other industry groups that are actively lobbying Congress on the issue.

Now, some housing experts and economists see Gramm’s thinking in the recent housing proposal from McCain, the Republican Party’s presumed presidential nominee. Gramm is often a surrogate for the Arizona senator, particularly in meetings focused on the economy. And McCain has hinted he’d consider the former Texas senator for Treasury secretary in a McCain administration.

McCain delivered an economic speech Tuesday that had Gramm's input, but it was written by domestic policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

“Sen. Gramm was one of dozens of folks whom Sen. McCain has consulted on the housing issue, including Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman from eBay," said McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers. "They've been friends for years, and he values Sen. Gramm's advice."

In the speech, McCain rejected the type of aggressive government intervention in the economic meltdown that has been embraced by his Democratic opponents — and even some Bush advisers.

“I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers,” McCain said. “Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.”

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-23-2008, 02:23 PM
:rolleyes: pitiful deflection aside



I forgive you for deflecting...its all the Dems have left.

i dont blame you guys. if i were a staunch supporter of mccain i guess i would simply ignore the giant elephant in the room too.

I quess if you can ignore a elitist racist jackass...we should be allowed to ignore an honorable elephant.

after all they are both from the school of thought that the ecomomy is "fundamentally sound",

Poor Tony....you only got to hear the CNN soundbyte...let someone who actually has more than 15 seconds to make a political decision help you out....McCain said that the economy was in CRISES..but that certain aspects of our economy are fundementally sound.....

Its okay...I dont mind doing the homework for you.

ANYWHO (get it? Horton hears a who?)-

Horton needs a socialist- government controlled- health care provided- hearing aid.

tony hipchest
09-23-2008, 02:33 PM
we should be allowed to ignore an honorable elephant.


:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

:thumbsup:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-23-2008, 02:50 PM
:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

:thumbsup:

I quess if you can ignore a elitist racist jackass

:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

:thumbsup:

Steelerstrength
09-23-2008, 03:14 PM
Interesting posts! Some hard feelings and insults being hurled seems a bit over the top. But, to each his own.

As stated before, I am a registered Independent, and have always voted for whom I thought would be the best candidate for the job they are basically applying for.

We have heard plenty of information from many posters for McCain, and it appears that TH is one against many. This has encouraged me to take a brief look into S.190 and McCains foray into regulatory waters. I found this bit of interesting information not mentioned before, and kindly ask for clarification.

This was a rather damning article, in my opinion, with plenty of sources, but I thought it should be open for some informative rebuttal. I'm hoping to learn more on the subject, but I don't expect this to change the opinion of anyone who has posted here.

__________________________________

The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac show has been playing for some time now. A bill to subject Fannie and Freddie to independent regulation in 1992 to avoid problems created by possible increasing defaults, nearly faltered on objections by Sen. Jake Garn (R-UT) who wanted to amend it to shield those who purchased property from environmental clean up lawsuits. [NYT] Congressman Richard Baker (R-LA) introduced legislation in 2000 “to augment the powers of their regulator,” the measure didn't get out of committee, and attempts in 2002 and 2003 also failed. [AEI] A “weak bill” developed by Michael Oxley (R-OH) in 2004 was “blown apart just before mark up by administration opposition.” [AEI]
Senator McCain's supporters have made much of his co-sponsorship of S. 190, an attempt to reform Fannie and Freddie during the 109th Congress. However, it may well be worth remembering that this was initially Senator Charles Hagel's bill, and secondly that its provisions met with significant opposition from conservative quarters. The real “maverick” in this tale certainly could be the Man Not Running, Senator Charles Hagel (R-NE). Neither have the other two co-sponsors assumed the Maverick Label – Senators Dole and Sununu.
Senator McCain signed on as co-sponsor of Hagel's Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, urging its quick passage, [GovTrak] and this vocal support appears to be the totality of his exertions. S.190 promptly ran into controversies over policy differences between the House version (H.R. 1461, 109th) and the Senate edition in terms of housing requirements, portfolio limits, and program/product approval. [NAHB] From the National Association of Home Builder's perspective S. 190 had some serious flaws: “In contrast, (to the House version) the Senate bill, S. 190, contained many restrictive provisions that could harm the nation’s housing finance system, including: restrictions on asset holdings, discretion to raise minimum capital, burdensome program approval process, and a regulatory structure tilted away from housing. In addition, S. 190 did not require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to set aside monies to fund affordable housing initiatives, as provided in the House-passed bill.” [NAHB] S. 190 died quietly in the Republican controlled Senate Banking Committee at the end of the 109th Congress. The stronger of the two pieces of legislation, H.R. 1461, didn't draw rave reviews either.
The American Enterprise Institute called H.R. 1461 “A GSE 'Reform” That Is Worse than Current Law.” The AEI took the following position: “Not only does it fail to improve significantly upon the regulatory authority of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), but it actually increases the opportunities for Fannie and Freddie to exploit their subsidies in order to expand into other areas of residential finance. While the bill makes some modest improvements to the weak regulatory structure of OFHEO today, these improvements do not bring the authority of the new regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the level currently exercised by federal bank regulators. Moreover, the deficiencies of the bill so far outweigh its modest regulatory improvements that the taxpayers and the economy generally would be better off with current law.” The House passed the bill on October 26, 2005, 331 to 90. [GovTrak] Attempts to create a compromise measure with S. 190 were unsuccessful, and when S. 190 died in committee so did H.R. 1461.


A more pertinent question for Senator McCain is why he would make much of his co-sponsorship of S. 190 in the 109th Congress, but when Senator Hagel introduced the current version of the bill, S. 1100, Senator McCain's name does not appear on the current list of co-sponsors. [Thomas] Senators Dole and Sununu continued their support from S. 190, but not Senator McCain to date. The bill was introduced on April 12, 2007 and has been referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Taking the point a step further, why is Senator McCain now railing against the actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while employing their lobbyists in his presidential campaign? His assertion that he would vigorously pursue the reform of these two GSEs is tempered not only by his failure to continue his co-sponsorship of Hagel's legislation, but also by his use of Aquiles Suarez, a former Director of Government and Industry Relations for Fannie Mae, as an economic advisor. Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides made at least $820,000 lobbying for Freddie Mac between 1999 and 2004. [MJ] It's harder still to take McCain Campaign assertions of “neutrality” seriously when the McCain Campaign manager, Rick Davis served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that defended the two companies against increased regulation. “At least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, netting at least $12.3 million in fees over the past nine years.” [Politico]
The advocacy group in question, Homeownership Alliance, was a lobbying association including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits. [MJ] This would be the self-same Homeownership Alliance on behalf of which Davis echoed the Bush Administration's talking points about the Ownership Society in 2005: “Homeownership has been a cornerstone of the country’s economic strength throughout the past decade. “State and local governments nationwide must expand their efforts to ensure that every family in America has the opportunity to own a home,” said Davis. “The more Americans we have owning homes, the stronger our economy and the greater the benefit.” [FrdMcPR] Well, as it turns out, not quite. Others have been left to try to clean up the mess created by this cheerleading in the housing sector.
The Senate Banking Committee is currently working on legislation pertaining to the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and its chairman, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) issued a statement on September 7, 2008 concerning the Bush Administration's proposals on the subject: “There are still many unanswered questions about the Administration’s plan, and Americans deserve to know if this unprecedented proposal will help keep mortgages affordable, stabilize the markets, and protect taxpayer interests. Furthermore, we need to understand the circumstances which led the Administration to change course. Just weeks ago, Secretary Paulson testified that he thought he would never use this authority – a message he reiterated until very recently. “In the coming days, I will invite the architects of this plan to come before the Banking Committee to provide Members of Congress and the public with more information. This Administration has presided over the greatest financial crisis in 70 years. Americans need to know if this plan will alleviate, not deepen, our current economic problems.” Events in the stock market have taken the spotlight from this segment of the housing market fiasco.
Senator McCain may tout his “support” for S.190 and the “reformed” oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but if a bill co-sponsorship and a speech are the basis for this claim, it is a thin one indeed, especially as others have equal – or even more current claims. The candidate may assert his independence on the subject, but not while using the immediate and significant services of the very lobbyists who helped create the problem in the first place. And, Senator McCain may wish us to believe that he is a “Maverick-Reforming-Deregulator” but his underlying philosophy hasn't been seriously challenged by his occasional forays into regulatory waters. In the process of campaigning in these waters, Senator McCain is asking us all to lend credence into one rather large Fish Story.

________________________________________

Thanks for reading! I'm hoping to keep it civil. :smile:

revefsreleets
09-23-2008, 04:50 PM
At least people are digging deep here...which is good. And, believe me, with a voting record as long as McCains there will be plenty to find.

Let's simplify, since I see people trying to trump things that happened in 05 with things that occurred in 99 . It doesn't work that way unless you own a wayback machine. '05 is more recent then '99, if you didn't know...

Also, someone help me out here. If 190 is so bad, why is it bad that McCain has apparently distanced himself from it? Or did he? Is it really that bad? And did he really distance himself in the first place? And how can a house bill be called into question when McCain is in the senate? Those dots are awful hard to connect...(Mary Poppins) Spin spinnery, spin spinnery, spin spin spurry! There is some real obfuscation going on here, and the last article REALLY stretched things a bit by tying McCain to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae by tying his SUPPORTERS to the lobbyists...that skips a step. What about DIRECT PAC/lobby contributions to the candidates?

You'll find that both Clinton (whom Obama has at least claimed to take on as an adviser in this matter) and Obama himself have received more campaign support from these entities than McCain.

The problem with wielding a a two-edged sword is that it cuts both ways...

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-24-2008, 03:45 AM
s190 was NOT bad.......Steelerstrengths article is obviously full of good information but also just as obviously slanted to the left.

For instance....

s190...contained many restrictive provisions that could harm the nation’s housing finance system, including: restrictions on asset holdings, discretion to raise minimum capital, burdensome program approval process,

These things being called "restrictive" is purely opinion and not fact.

I think even those who havnt looked very deep into this crisis can see that Fannie and Freddie were, in fact, incredibly lenient in approving loans ...and the inability of some to keep up with their mortgage payments..and the subsequent default of those loans is the core issue.

In fact, "budensome approval process" was the class warfare term being thrown around at the time by people like Barney Frank....making it look as if the bill as discrimatory against certain ethnic groups and against the poor. (Yes ..as ridiculous as it sounds...the arguement was that it discrimanated against those who..COULDNT AFFORD THE LOANS)

There are also misleading statements in the article such as...

A more pertinent question for Senator McCain is why he would make much of his co-sponsorship of S. 190 in the 109th Congress, but when Senator Hagel introduced the current version of the bill, S. 1100, Senator McCain's name does not appear on the current list of co-sponsors. [Thomas] Senators Dole and Sununu continued their support from S. 190, but not Senator McCain to date

The writer of the article makes an illogical assumption that "sponsership" and "support" are the same thing. If that was the case, there would be hundreds of "sponsers" on all favorable bills. The last time I looked it was not necessary to sponsor every bill that you voted in favor of.

...and as has already been pointed out...the writer of the article is technically taking McCain to task for NOT supporting a bill (through non-sponsoprship?)...that the writer later paints in a negative light. (Wouldn't the writer think this to be a positive thing?)

The article even makes a totally opinionated and incredibly arbitrary statement that McCain cannot be a "maverick" since he hasnt added his name as a co-sponser.


Also...as has become typical of the media left...there are several "tie-ins" with McCain and some his staff and fundraisers with Freddie and Fanny...but noticeably missing is the other side of that finger-pointing that would have made the article at least seem "neutral". Specifically the fact that Obama is MORE directly tied into this mess as the senator ranked #2 in accepting money from Fannie and Freddie...and in the fact that Obama has a past CEO of the now defunct Lehman Brothers and a past CEO of AIG on his BUDGET team....two people who made up to 20 MILLION off of bad loans ...who are now going to "Fix" our countries budget woes.

appreciate the article for its facts...but as usual with todays "news"....its more of an op-ed then it is "coverage" of a story.

revefsreleets
09-24-2008, 09:19 AM
Upon further review, in searching for root causes, I've run across some interesting stuff about how it was actually Clinton who started this whole mess by unleashing Freddie and Fannie, letting them run like private companies with government sponsorship. Housing numbers were stagnant around 64% from '68-93, and peaked in 2005 at 69%.

Food for thought...