55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:42 am
@okie,
okie wrote
Quote:
:"A thought about the green economy producing jobs, this is so wonderful, the 21st century green economy is going to produce jobs by the millions! Liberals do not ever consider the efficiency of a job, which is determined by the free market. If its only jobs we care about, not efficiency, cyclops, lets hire millions to throw bricks through windows, just think of those jobs, and all the glass repair jobs created! That is the genius of Obama's new economy! Everybody could work themselves in this country until we are all totally broke and destitute. Unless jobs are based upon efficiency and actually producing more wealth than is expended, it is not too bright of a path to prosperity. "


This, in a nut shell, is why government spending to do something that can be done cheaper and more efficiently by the private sector is a drain to and not a benefit towards our economy, infrastructure and defense aside. People think twice before spending their own (limited) resources. Would I like to have solar panels on my roof to lower electric bills? Sure, but the expense of that must be compared with how long it would take for me to make up the difference in savings in the electric bill. Additionally, the interest on the loan for the initial outlay for the panels must be added in. Federal subsidies are merely income redistributions that distort the true price of the panels that also lower the incentive of the designers and makers of those panels to make cheaper and more efficient panels (They too, like the home owner, must husband their capital resources wisely). Seems ethanol investors are now in trouble for backing this ideology with their money since the price of oil has plummeted. This was also a political intrusion into the market (Bush) that had all kinds of unintended consequences from increasing the cost of dimple corn to that of the price of meat, and the list goes on.

The efficiency of consumers directly paying only for the goods and services they need cannot be improved upon. When government runs a program efficiency automatically goes down simply because a bureaucracy must be employed. Additionally people in one part of the country usually pay for a service they neither want nor need (see Foxfyre's Texas bindweed/NYC MTA example above)

Governments do not save and do not produce wealth. The most they can do is redistribute wealth inefficiently.

JM

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:43 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Hard to tell since the information is presented so differently on each site.

But there is this:

Quote:
Other pollsters, whose results sometimes vary greatly from Rasmussen’s, respect the rival firm’s process and its ability to grab headlines. Brent Goldrick, a vice president at Financial Dynamics who conducts the monthly Hotline-Diageo poll, was surprised at the closeness of Rasmussen’s generic ballot poll. His most recent poll, conducted in the days after President Barack Obama’s inauguration, gave Democrats a 46-22 lead in the Congressional generic ballot, and gave Democrats in Congress an approval rating 23 points higher than the Republicans. “As the Republicans have become a little more engaged in the policy debate,” said Goldrick, “it doesn’t surprise me that numbers would come up from 22 percent.”

It’s hard for pollsters to knock Rasmussen’s accuracy, especially its election polling. The final pre-election Hotline-Diageo poll had given Barack Obama a 50-45 point lead over John McCain, while the final Rasmussen Reports poll gave Obama a 52-46 lead. Both were close to the result, but Rasmussen was closest.
http://washingtonindependent.com/30539/rasmussen-the-only-poll-that-matters


And there was this when the campaigns had tightened up just before the Wall Street crash:
Quote:
Gallup reports:

The Sept. 13-15 Gallup Poll Daily tracking update shows John McCain (47%) and Barack Obama (46%) locked in a close contest when registered voters are asked for whom they would vote if the election were held today.

The race has been in a statistical dead heat for the last five days, after McCain’s lead grew to as large as five percentage points following the Republican National Convention. In essence, the race is back where it was before the flurry of political activity that began Aug. 25 with the Democratic National Convention and continued through the Republican convention, which concluded on Sept. 4. The candidates were dead even at 45% in Aug. 22-24 tracking, the last report of interviews conducted entirely before the beginning of the Democratic convention.

And the wild-card:

It is unclear to what extent this week’s headline news about the collapse of Wall Street financial institutions and changes in the stock market will affect the race. Obama has generally held the advantage when Americans are asked which candidate would better deal with the economy, though McCain was able to close the gap after the Republican convention. Monday night’s interviewing did show Obama doing better than he has been in recent updates, but it will take several days to see if he can sustain an improved position.

Rasmussen reports McCain still ahead " but barely. He is slowly heading southwards in the polls. Could this be (1) the novelty of his Vice Presidential pick Gov. Sarah Palin wearing off and/or (2) the emergence, even before Black Sunday on Wall Street, of increasingly troubling financial news? Rasmussen:


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows John McCain attracting 48% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 47%. This is the third straight day Obama has been at 47% while McCain has dropped a point on each of the past two days. One week ago, the candidates were tied at 48% …
http://themoderatevoice.com/22707/gallup-and-rasmussen-tracking-polls-obama-mccain-race-a-tie/


And this
Quote:
THE NUMBERS GUY: Grading the Pollsters
By CARL BIALIK, Wall Street Journal

November 2006

Political polling has come a long way since "Dewey Defeats Truman." Pollsters earned high marks in last week's elections: Surveys correctly predicted that the Democrats would win control of the House of Representatives, that the Senate would be closely contested and that Democratic gubernatorial candidates would sweep into statehouses.

That doesn't mean that some pollsters didn't do better than others, however, and firms haven't hesitated to trumpet their results. "Rasmussen Reports is the winner in polling accuracy!" read a news release from the Asbury Park, N.J. , polling firm. The headline from a Zogby International release said the Utica, N.Y., pollster batted "10 for 10" in its telephone polls of competitive Senate races, and asserted the results from its online polls showed its "interactive polling model shines."
http://www.mason-dixon.com/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.Article&ContentRecord_id=f1e66ca1-1372-fa49-99bd-58f6c5a4e505


And this re Gallup poll accuracy which is pretty good
http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/Election-Polls-Accuracy-Record-Presidential-Elections.aspx

And in the overall SurveyUSA report card, Rasmussen was down on the list but did better than Gallup:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/surveyusa-report-cards/
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:55 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote
Quote:
:"... Even while those on the left hold those on the right in contempt, they seem to think it a weakness when the MACs (Modern American Conservatives) criticize the GOP or those who are identified with the right or conservatism. Too many won't criticize those on their side when warranted and will strain at gnats to defend them or they use the "your guy does it too" argument."


A wise man once said: "The American public is never so safe as when Congress in in recess"

If not less government perhaps less time for mischief!

JM
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 11:08 am
@JamesMorrison,
Laughing Laughing

"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a Congressman . . . . But I repeat myself." --- Mark Twain
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 11:16 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

When you speak of the coming of a religion that will be our salvation, I can only assume you are referring to atheism. I thank God that atheism is a growth movement that will drive out the supernatural beliefs that have been so pernicious to mankind.


Oh yes. Those countries that have managed to ordain Atheism as the religion of the land have such exemplary records on such issues as the environment, human rights, tolerance, peace, economic stability, and being good neighbors to the world. I presume that you wish for the United States to emulate them?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 11:23 am
I love how you Conservatives constantly claim the ignorance of government. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, that; and your elected leaders set out to live up to the standards you set for them.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 11:32 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I love how you Conservatives constantly claim the ignorance of government. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, that; and your elected leaders set out to live up to the standards you set for them.

Cycloptichorn


Please cite a nation that has mandated Atheism as the official religion that has significantly improved the plight of the poor to the degree that those nasty mostly Christian nations have. Which ones have practiced policies of human rights, individual liberty, peace, or compassion for others? Which ones have listened to the voice of the people to establish policy and practices?

And then make a short list of major nationwide U.S. problems that did not result from ineffective, inefficient, or wrong headed activity of our government.

Take your time. I'll wait.
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 11:42 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:"
Quote:
Yeah, I wonder how they measure up between the republicans vs democrats. "


Indeed, but don't you feel that the overall number of crooked elected officials could be reduced by decreasing the number of politicians and those who depend on them for their livelihood overall? Remember MACs don't care about party affiliations, all irresponsible politicians look the same to us.

Some unrelated questions to all: Can all Americans ,Salaries aside, have the same benefits (Pension,Health, Franking privilage, ...etc) as members of, say, the Senate? If not, then why?

JM
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 11:49 am
@JamesMorrison,
JM wrote:
Quote:
Indeed, but don't you feel that the overall number of crooked elected officials could be reduced by decreasing the number of politicians and those who depend on them for their livelihood overall?


How do "we" reduce the number of politicians? Pie in the sky idea without much to support it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 11:54 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I love how you Conservatives constantly claim the ignorance of government. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, that; and your elected leaders set out to live up to the standards you set for them.

Cycloptichorn


Please cite a nation that has mandated Atheism as the official religion that has significantly improved the plight of the poor to the degree that those nasty mostly Christian nations have. Which ones have practiced policies of human rights, individual liberty, peace, or compassion for others? Which ones have listened to the voice of the people to establish policy and practices?


You will note that I did not mention Atheism in any way, that was Advocate. So I will not be addressing this paragraph.

Quote:

And then make a short list of major nationwide U.S. problems that did not result from ineffective, inefficient, or wrong headed activity of our government.


Um. You could always claim that greater oversight or some greater government involvement would have forestalled disasters; but that's hindsight and really not a very good argument in a lot of cases. I also doubt you would support the greater levels of gov't involvement that would have prevented said disasters or problems.

Cycloptichorn
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 12:02 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:"
Quote:
In order for a party to survive and win elections, the party must appeal to moderates. Moderates might lean a little to the left or a little to the right, but they reject extremism. Conservatives reject everything other than far-right extremism. They consider themselves the "true Republicans" and everyone else a "Republican in name only." When conservatives, who are only a small minority, are attacking EVERYONE who does not kowtow to their hypocritical extreme-right ideology, they are begging to be held in contempt. "


As an Academic exercise let's try this and examine its logic and any flaws it might have. A Disclaimer: I (JM) wrote the following and any duplication of the above quote is purely intentional.

In order for a party to survive and win elections, the party must appeal to moderates. Moderates might lean a little to the left or a little to the right, but they reject extremism. Liberals reject everything other than far-left extremism. They consider themselves the "true Democrats" and everyone else a "Democrat in name only." When liberals, who are only a small minority, are attacking EVERYONE who does not kowtow to their hypocritical extreme-left ideology, they are begging to be held in contempt.

JM




Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 12:11 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Liberals don't use the term 'DINO' with any real frequency. However, the same cannot be said for Conservatives.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 12:12 pm
@JamesMorrison,
JM, I agree; moderates are the swing voters that can win elections. Even though most are registered as dems or reps, they vote according to who they think will do the best job, and not necessarily by political affiliation of the candidate.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 12:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I love how you Conservatives constantly claim the ignorance of government. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, that; and your elected leaders set out to live up to the standards you set for them.

Cycloptichorn


Please cite a nation that has mandated Atheism as the official religion that has significantly improved the plight of the poor to the degree that those nasty mostly Christian nations have. Which ones have practiced policies of human rights, individual liberty, peace, or compassion for others? Which ones have listened to the voice of the people to establish policy and practices?


You will note that I did not mention Atheism in any way, that was Advocate. So I will not be addressing this paragraph.


Fair enough though your comment immediately followed my post re Atheism and you didn't specify. A comment that Atheism is somehow a 'purer or more noble belief system to hold' though is an illustration of those silly platitudes that can't hold up under any kind of even cursory scrutiny.

Quote:
Quote:

And then make a short list of major nationwide U.S. problems that did not result from ineffective, inefficient, or wrong headed activity of our government.


Um. You could always claim that greater oversight or some greater government involvement would have forestalled disasters; but that's hindsight and really not a very good argument in a lot of cases. I also doubt you would support the greater levels of gov't involvement that would have prevented said disasters or problems.


Yes I could always claim greater oversight would have forestalled disasters--I actually used the word problems rather than disasters though and I think that is an important distinction to make.

I could also claim that lesser government involvement would have resulted in fewer problems. In fact I have said that on a number of issues.

You would be wrong that I would be opposed to a greater level of government involvement when it comes to Constitutional mandates. On the issue of national defense and national security, I would like to see a lot more government involvement. In protection of Constitutional rights and defense of the letter and intent of the Constitution, I would like to see a lot more government involvement. In enforcing federal laws such as those governing illegal immigration, I would like to see a lot more government involvement. In exercising oversight to ensure that the taxpayer dollar is spent in the more efficient, effective, economical, and legal manner possible, I would like to see a lot more government involvement. In promoting the GENERAL welfare as defined by the MACeans on the thread, I would like to see a lot more government involvement.

I want the Federal government to do the job it is obligated to do via the dictates of our Constitution. I do not want government to do what can be done more effectively, efficiently, and/or economically at the more local level and/or the private sector.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 12:48 pm
@JamesMorrison,
JamesMorrison wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:"
Quote:
Yeah, I wonder how they measure up between the republicans vs democrats. "


Indeed, but don't you feel that the overall number of crooked elected officials could be reduced by decreasing the number of politicians and those who depend on them for their livelihood overall? Remember MACs don't care about party affiliations, all irresponsible politicians look the same to us.

Some unrelated questions to all: Can all Americans ,Salaries aside, have the same benefits (Pension,Health, Franking privilage, ...etc) as members of, say, the Senate? If not, then why?

JM


Well then, there wouldn't be any incentive for anybody to run for Congress would there?

But as another academic exercise, since the leftists on the thread don't have a problem with confiscating the property of Citizen A who legally and ethically acquired it and giving that property to Citizen B as a matter of 'fairness' and 'equality', shouldn't we agree on the amount that is due to Citizen B in order for their to BE fairness and equality? What is the proper distance that government should allow between poor and rich?

While we're at it, we should discuss the Constitutional authority that provides every citizen with the right to have--that is the right to have and not the right to work for to obtain:

1. A house or place to live
2. A living income commensurate with the amount others have to live on.
(At the very least establish what the proper amount is in order to be fair.)
3. A free education through college
4. Transportation
5. Health care
6. Access to information and technological advances
7. Cradle to grave security
8. Acceptance and approval by all.
9. Freedom from exposure to offensive concepts.

And once that constitutional authority is established, then we need to narrow down the clauses that specify how these rights are to be distributed and how they can be assigned to certain groups but not others. And if we are not in agreement that it is the God-given (or government dictated) right to have everything on the list, then we should identify the constitutional clauses that specify why one thing should be included on the list as a right while another should not.

Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 01:32 pm
This is ridiculous. The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans"from 35% to 39.6%"even asking if that makes him a socialist.


But do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term? 50%.

Under Richard Nixon? 70%. Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%!

Shocking, right?


And for all the whining about rolling back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, the truth is that Obama's plan cuts taxes for 95% of working Americans. Further, it closes huge tax loopholes for oil companies, hedge funds and corporations that ship jobs overseas so that we can invest in the priorities that will get our economy back on track.

--moveon

Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 01:42 pm
@Advocate,
Can you answer the questions I posed in my immediately previous post? Or will you, as I suspect most leftist will, ignore them?

I'll add another. Citizen A has worked all his life, sometimes holding down several jobs and working long hours against significant odds to achieve financial prosperity and independence so that he is in a position to pay for what he and his family needs. He gives substantial contributions for charitable causes, sponsors Little League teams, funds the arts, helped build a new hospital wing, and provides hundreds of good jobs for others.

What justification can you offer to require Citizen A to pay a significantly higher income tax rate than Citizen B who works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he can go back to fishing and partying?

On what basis can you offer assurance that raising anybody's taxes right now will not have detrimental effect on an already struggling economy? Or are you privy to information that virtually every credible ecoomist including those at CATO, Heritage, Wall Street Journal, and most other financial magazines are not privy to? Was John F. Kennedy that wrong when HE said that it is fiscal folly to raise taxes in times of recession and the best way to spur economic growth is to lower taxes responsibly?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 01:46 pm
@Advocate,
SUMMARY OF THE CONTENT OF LINKS REBUTTING LIES OF OILs (i.e., Obama Invidious Liberals)
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
Unemployed Table 1942 to 2008
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1913 to 2007
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
Budget Receipts etc.1789-2009 ...
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp?FirstYear=1965&LastYear=2008&Freq=Year&SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&MaxValue=14412.8&MaxChars=8&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Legal=&Land=
Gross Domestic Product 1965-2008

CARTER
Unemployment decreased from 7.7% in 1976, to 7.1% in 1980.
Income tax rates constant 14% min to 70% max in 1976 thru 1980.
Revenues increased from 379,292 million in 1976, to 517,112 million in 1980.
GDP increased from 1,825.3 billion in 1976, to 2,789.5 billion in 1980.

REAGAN
Unemployment decreased from 7.1% in 1980, to 5.5% in 1988.
Income tax rates decreased from 14% min to 70% max in 1980, to 15% min to 33% max in 1988.
Revenues increased from 517,112 million in 1980, to 909,303 million in 1988.
GDP increased from 2,789.5 billion in 1980, to 5,103.8 billion in 1988.

BUSH 41
Unemployment increased from 5.5% in 1988, to 7.5% in 1992.
Income tax rates decreased from 15% min to 33% max in 1988, to 15% min to 31% max in 1992.
Revenues increased from 909,303 million in 1988, to 1,091,328 million in 1992.
GDP increased from 5,103.8 billion in 1988, to 6,337.7 billion in 1992.

CLINTON
Unemployment decreased from 7.5% in 1992, to 4.0% in 2000.
Income tax rates increased from 15% min to 31% max in 1992, to 15% min to 39.6% max in 2000.
Revenues increased from 1,091,328 million in 1992, to 2,025,457 million in 2000.
GDP increased from 6,337.7 billion in 1992, to 9,817.0 billion in 2000.

BUSH 43
Unemployment increased from 4.0% in 2000 to 4.6% in 2007.
Unemployment increased from 4.6% in 2007 to 7.2% in 2008.
Income tax rates decreased from 15% min to 39.6% max in 2000, to 10% min to 35% max in 2006,
Income tax rates constant from 10% min to 35% max in 2006, to 10% min to 35% max in 2008,
Revenues increased from 2,025,457 million in 2001, to 2,662,476 million in 2008.
GDP increased from 9,817.0 billion in 2000 to 14,280.7 billion in 2008.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 02:33 pm
Want something else to grit your teeth about and be reassured that the fox is perfectly competent and appropriate to guard the henhouse?:

Quote:
MARCH 12, 2009
Waters Helped Bank Whose Stock She Once Owned
California Democrat Has Championed Minority-Owned OneUnited on Capitol Hill and Criticized Its Government Regulators
By SUSAN SCHMIDT

WASHINGTON -- When Rep. Barney Frank was looking to aid a Boston-based lender last fall, the Massachusetts Democrat urged Maxine Waters, a colleague on the House Financial Services Committee, to "stay out of it," he says.

The reason: Ms. Waters, a longtime congresswoman from California, had close ties to the minority-owned institution, OneUnited Bank.

Ms. Waters and her husband have both held financial stakes in the bank. Until recently, her husband was a director. At the same time, Ms. Waters has publicly boosted OneUnited's executives and criticized its government regulators during congressional hearings. Last fall, she helped secure the bank a meeting with Treasury officials.

Her involvement isn't new. Ms. Waters has detailed her financial ties in a series of federal disclosure forms and has been vocal in public in support of the bank. Those ties, however, have received little public attention. Nor is it well known how the influential lawmaker has over the years acted to support the bank and its executives.

Such potential conflicts of interest are more serious as the banking system's crisis has led the government to take an increasingly active role in overseeing financial institutions, including OneUnited. The financial-services committee on which Ms. Waters sits oversees banking issues, and the lawmaker is a potential future chairman.

Representatives of the bank and Ms. Waters didn't return calls seeking comment. Ms. Waters's congressional staff didn't respond to written questions about her and her husband's relationship with the bank.

Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, says Ms. Waters should have recused herself from any matters involving the bank. If her support helped OneUnited, "it was a disservice to her constituents," Ms. Krumholz says.

Ms. Waters, who represents inner-city Los Angeles, hasn't made a secret of her family's financial interest in OneUnited. Referring to her family's investment, she said in 2007 during a congressional hearing that for African-Americans, "the test of your commitment to economic expansion and development and support for business is whether or not you put your money where your mouth is."

OneUnited's executives have donated $12,500 to Ms. Waters's election campaigns.

Through a series of acquisitions, OneUnited grew to become what it says is the largest African-American-owned bank in the country. It once counted the late Motown Records boss Jheryl Busby as a vice chairman.

Ms. Waters and her husband, Sidney Williams, were investors in two African-American owned California banks that merged with other lenders in 2002 to form OneUnited. Congressional financial-disclosure forms show Ms. Waters acquired OneUnited stock worth between $250,000 and $500,000 in March 2004, as did Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams joined the board of OneUnited that year.

Each sold shares in September 2004 -- including Ms. Waters's entire stake -- but Mr. Williams continued to hold varying amount of the company's stock. In the lawmaker's most recent financial-disclosure form, dated May 2008 and covering the prior year, Ms. Waters reported that her husband held between $250,000 and $500,000 worth of the bank's stock.

ImagesMr. Williams also received interest payments from a separate holding at the bank, also worth between $250,000 and $500,000. The 2008 form doesn't specify what that is. Mr. Williams stepped down from the bank's board last spring. It couldn't be learned whether he still owns stock in the bank. Mr. Williams didn't return calls seeking comment.

At a hearing on minority lending in 2007, Ms. Waters criticized regulators for not doing enough to help minority banks stave off mergers with non-minority institutions. The lawmaker said she had contacted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2002 over such concerns and "I was told that there was nothing that could be done."

In her 2007 remarks, Ms. Waters alluded to two banks, Independence Bank of Washington, D.C., and "another bank that was about to be acquired by a major white bank out of Illinois."

Ms. Waters didn't mention that OneUnited had been an unsuccessful suitor of Independence, which had been taken over several years earlier. The second bank, which she didn't name, appears to have been Family Savings Bank of Los Angeles. In 2002, that bank backed out of a merger agreement with FBOP Bank of Oak Brook, Ill., and shortly afterward was acquired by OneUnited.

News reports at the time credited the intervention of Ms. Waters and others for Family Savings's change of heart.

At the hearing, Ms. Waters praised OneUnited's senior counsel, Robert P. Cooper, as "typical of the young, brilliant minds that have been amassed at OneUnited Bank."

OneUnited's minority-lending record is mixed. The bank received "outstanding" Community Reinvestment Act ratings for lending in Los Angeles. It has weak ratings in Massachusetts and failed to meet minimum standards in Florida.

In January, Ms. Waters acknowledged she made a call to the Treasury on OneUnited's behalf. The bank's capital, which was heavily invested in shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was all but wiped out with the federal takeover of the two mortgage giants, and the bank was seeking help from regulators.

OneUnited eventually secured bailout funds under the government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was set up later that month.

In a brief interview in January, Ms. Waters said she was unaware the bank received $12 million of TARP money, which arrived in December. OneUnited was "just a small" bank, she said.

A provision designed to aid OneUnited was written into the federal bailout legislation by Mr. Frank, who is chairman of the financial-services panel. Mr. Frank has said he inserted the provision to help the only African-American owned bank in his home state. He said in an interview that Ms. Waters's interest "had zero impact on the outcome because I would have done it anyway."

In October, regulators demanded that OneUnited raise fresh capital and name an independent board. The bank was ordered to stop paying for a Porsche used by one of its executives and its chairman's $6.4 million beachfront home in Pacific Palisades, Calif., a luxury enclave between Malibu and Santa Monica.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123682571772404053.html
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 02:39 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, it certainly wasn't Congress. The Exec branch has, to the best of my knowledge, the responsibility to oversee the SEC. So you should realize that Bush's mis-management of the economy began far before 2007. As George says above, their decision not to regulate the Credit Default Swap market directly led to our financial crisis, more than ANY other factor.
Cycloptichorn


I didn't say that. The failure to restrain Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac, compounded by the Community Reinvestment Act, which, instead, pushed them faster down the road to oblivion; the failure to make the SEC more activist in applying its powers; the failure to expand their powers through legislation enabling them to oversee derivatives markets and police securitized debt obligations; and the failure of Wall Street to anticipate the likely excesses associated with its new innovations -- all worked together to create the unholy mess that got us into the present situation. It was the synergestic effect of all of these factors that did it. The Democrat Congress was heavily involved in most of these failures - as was the Republican president.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 02:17:39