AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

The nuclear option was threated when the Democrats were using the filibuster to block almost all of President Bush's appointments.

It's quite clear that you didn't read what he or I said.

Foxfyre wrote:

It's quite clear that you didn't read what he or I said.

Actually, I read both of what you and he wrote, every word of it. You just didn't write what you meant to write. Nimh has also pointed out that what you wrote was perfectly false.

Cycloptichorn

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't blame the financial crisis on the Democrats, but I damn sure can see that it wasn't all the GOP's fault. McG suggested that your reading comprehension isn't up to par today. That's three times in a row now that supports his observation about that.

It was primarily the GOP's fault, because they were the ones in charge of the Regulatory agencies which chose not to oversee the Credit Default Swap market. Bush's handling of the SEC was terrible, and he sure was a Republican; does the buck not stop at the top? Are those in charge no longer held responsible for what happens on their watch?

It was also the GOP who pushed through the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagal act... though the Dems surely helped.

You and McG can complain about what you 'meant,' but it's quite clear what you actually said; which was a falsehood, and you know it.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

The nuclear option was threated when the Democrats were using the filibuster to block almost all of President Bush's appointments.

RW World is such a fantastic place

Almost all? What kind of nonsense are you talking about Fox. The record of Bush appointments is far greater than Clinton appointments when it comes to voting and confirmation. To somehow claim "almost all" of Bush's appointments were being blocked shows a real disconnect with reality.

Between January, 2003, and January, 2005 (the 108th Congress) the Senate Democrats, in an unprecedented manner, effectively blocked 10 of 34 Bush nominees (29 percent of all Circuit Court nominees) for various Circuit Court of Appeals positions by using a technique known as a "filibuster."

But if you read the history of that period with any kind of objectivity, you will see that the threat of the nuclear option did become necessary in order for most of Bush's appointments to be confirmed

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

It's quite clear that you didn't read what he or I said.

Actually, I read both of what you and he wrote, every word of it. You just didn't write what you meant to write. Nimh has also pointed out that what you wrote was perfectly false.

Cycloptichorn

LOL. This one I have to save. It's bound to come in handy sooner or later.

(So now I know when I am completely misquoted, it's because I didn't write what I meant to write.)

Nimh is going to have to come up with something more than not wanting to believe what I'm saying to show that what I wrote was perfectly false, however.

The Republicans did not control the Senate in 2007 or 2008. The Democrats could pass ANY bill in the world that they wanted and present it to the President. Then if he failed to sign it, you could blame it on him. They didn't. He didn't. He did on multiple occasions ask them to do so.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't blame the financial crisis on the Democrats, but I damn sure can see that it wasn't all the GOP's fault. McG suggested that your reading comprehension isn't up to par today. That's three times in a row now that supports his observation about that.

It was primarily the GOP's fault, because they were the ones in charge of the Regulatory agencies which chose not to oversee the Credit Default Swap market. Bush's handling of the SEC was terrible, and he sure was a Republican; does the buck not stop at the top? Are those in charge no longer held responsible for what happens on their watch?

It was also the GOP who pushed through the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagal act... though the Dems surely helped.

You and McG can complain about what you 'meant,' but it's quite clear what you actually said; which was a falsehood, and you know it.

Cycloptichorn

You mean the bill that deregulated the markets and only 8 senate Democrats voted against and Bill Clinton signed into law? The Gramm-Leech-Bliley Act was the name. I believe the only way the Reps were able to pass that bill was by getting rid of redlining the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). You remember the CRA, don't you? The very thing that lead to so many people getting into homes they couldn't afford which led to foreclosure which led to debt which led to the crisis we are in... So, who is to blame? Congress. take your anti-Republican pablam and go feed it to the mindless drones I have on ignore. I am sure they will raise their pom-poms for you and cheer from the sidelines.

At least Walter knows that English is his second language. Unfortunately you do not have that as an excuse for your poor reading skills when dealing with topics you vehemently disagree with. All you see is the red cape and charge away.

And you either didn't read my subsequent explanation for why my statement was true or conveniently decided to ignore it I guess.

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.[1]

The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

It was during the Clinton years that the dam broke. In the 103rd Congress (1993-1994), 32 filibusters were employed to kill a variety of presidential initiatives ranging from campaign finance reform to grazing fees on federal land. Between 1999 and 2007, the number of Senate filibusters varied between 20 and 37 per session, a bipartisan effort.

(Foxfyre's note: The Democrats were in power in 1993-1994 - the Republicans in power 1995 to 2006)

So ingrained has the filibuster become, that in 2005 when Senate Majority Leader William Frist talked about amending the Senate’s rules to ban filibusters on judicial nominations, the move was universally dubbed the “nuclear option,” evoking images of Armageddon and total destruction.

The routine use of the filibuster as a matter of everyday politics has transformed the Senate’s legislative process from majority rule into minority tyranny. Leaving party affiliation aside, it is now possible for the senators representing the 34 million people who live in the 21 least populous states " a little more than 11 percent of the nation’s population " to nullify the wishes of the representatives of the remaining 88 percent of Americans.
http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/filibusters-the-senates-self-inflicted-wound/

Quote:

Many much larger capital projects have been undertaken by private sector mining, petroleum and manufacturing companies. You are simply dead wrong on this.

Yes, but presumably, they do so for a profit. Why would these companies get involved in projects that cannot possibly turn a profit, such as the new Bay Bridge?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Many much larger capital projects have been undertaken by private sector mining, petroleum and manufacturing companies. You are simply dead wrong on this.

Yes, but presumably, they do so for a profit. Why would these companies get involved in projects that cannot possibly turn a profit, such as the new Bay Bridge?

Cycloptichorn

Usually they do make a profit - sometimes they don't.

At $4.00 per crossing (soon to be $5.00), and the original construction bonds paid off years ago, I believe the Bay Bridge does indeed make a very large profit - and has done so for years. Had any organization other than CALTRANS been running it, the profit would likely have been much greater. Similarly, I don't think we would have seen the billion dollar overruns had a more proficient organization been running the new project.

The Community Reinvestment Act was not responsible for the financial crisis. You don't really understand how the crisis happened, do you? Do you even know what the Credit Default-swap market was, Mcg?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Community Reinvestment Act was not responsible for the financial crisis. You don't really understand how the crisis happened, do you? Do you even know what the Credit Default-swap market was, Mcg?

Cycloptichorn

More so then you do apparently.

Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at mortgage giant
Short Freddie Mac stay made him at least $320,000
By Bob Secter and Andrew Zajac | Tribune reporters
March 26, 2009


The White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel listens as President Barack Obama delivers remarks to open the White House Forum on Health Reform in the East Room of the White House. (Tribune photo by Zbigniew Bzdak / March 5, 2009)

Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.

One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuel"now chief of staff to President Barack Obama"who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.

As gatekeeper to Obama, Emanuel now plays a critical role in addressing the nation's mortgage woes and fulfilling the administration's pledge to impose responsibility on the financial world.

Emanuel's Freddie Mac involvement has been a prominent point on his political résumé, and his healthy payday from the firm has been no secret either. What is less known, however, is how little he apparently did for his money and how he benefited from the kind of cozy ties between Washington and Wall Street that have fueled the nation's current economic mess.

Though just 49, Emanuel is a veteran Democratic strategist and fundraiser who served three terms in the U.S. House after helping elect Mayor Richard Daley and former President Bill Clinton. The Freddie Mac money was a small piece of the $16 million he made in a three-year interlude as an investment banker a decade ago.

In business as in politics, Emanuel has cultivated an aggressive, take-charge reputation that made him rich and propelled his rise to the front of the national stage. But buried deep in corporate and government documents on the Freddie Mac scandal is a little-known and very different story involving Emanuel.

He was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals.

The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.

On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.

The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure.

During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.

The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm.

Many of those same risky investment practices tied to the accounting scandal eventually brought the firm to the brink of insolvency and led to its seizure last year by the Bush administration, which pledged to inject up to $100 billion in new capital to keep the firm afloat. The Obama administration has doubled that commitment.

Freddie Mac reported recently that it lost $50 billion in 2008. It so far has tapped $14 billion of the government's guarantee and said it soon will need an additional $30 billion to keep operating.

Like its larger government-chartered cousin Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac was created by Congress to promote home ownership, though both are private corporations with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The two firms hold stakes in half the nation's residential mortgages.

Because of Freddie Mac's federal charter, the board in Emanuel's day was a hybrid of directors elected by shareholders and those appointed by the president.

In his final year in office, Clinton tapped three close pals: Emanuel, Washington lobbyist and golfing partner James Free, and Harold Ickes, a former White House aide instrumental in securing the election of Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Senate. Free's appointment was good for four months, and Ickes' only three months.

Falcon, director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, found that presidential appointees played no "meaningful role" in overseeing the company and recommended that their positions be eliminated.

John Coffee, a law professor and expert on corporate governance at Columbia University, said the financial crisis at Freddie Mac was years in the making and fueled by chronically weak oversight by the firm's directors. The presence of presidential appointees on the board didn't help, he added.

"You know there was a patronage system and these people were only going to serve a short time," Coffee said. "That's why [they] get the stock upfront."
MORE HERE:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story