Obama balmes Repub for Wall Street???

This WS free for all has been going on since Bill Clinton was in office and he ignored it.

@Cycloptichorn,

The problem isn't with the SEC.

The basic problem, that is currently rocking our economy, was created with the deregulation in the lending/banking industry which allowed the mortgage brokers to engage in deceptive and irresponsible business practices which were highly profitable to them, but which then exploded in defaults, and this has severely undermined the health of our banks, our financial institutions, and our general economy.

What underlies it all is the Republican's hands-off philosophy when it comes to wanting to regulate or control big business and large corporations. McCain very much agrees with that philosophy.

McCain is also more directly linked to all of this--read my last post.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Meanwhile, McCain is now gaining or leading in all key battleground states...

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Meanwhile, I am worrying that the FDIC will run out of cash, a distinct possibility due to the potential for failure of still more banks, and that will put everyone's money on deposit at a bank at great risk.

I couldn't care less about the polls. I am worried about the economy.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Yes sir.
I do agree as a global person without banal political attachment.
But Bill was a president 8 year's back and now we are enduring another B who had not only shattered the American image in this globe but made the life of the innocent wage-earners a wretched, rotten one by his wishy-washy drilly dally drivels in managing the economy.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Here is one just for this response from you.
Though unconnected with the main subject of this thread, i beg you to read this quote and form you own views.

"The Bush administration hopes to expand "free trade" economics by ratifying a trade agreement with Colombia by the end of the year. During the primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton criticized the deal, citing Colombia's "history of suppression and targeted killings of labor organizers." Thankfully, Obama has also voiced opposition to the accord.

In early July, Senator John McCain traveled to Colombia, a country he has dubbed "a beacon of hope in [the] region," to tout the potential trade deal. In reality, his trip only highlighted the disaster that is current U.S. foreign policy in Latin America. McCain was forced to lavish praise on the dubious achievements of the Colombian government in large part because he has so few other allies to point to. He would likely have been greeted by mass protests had he visited virtually any other nation on the South American continent.

Countries including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay have elected progressive leaders in past years and have asserted a greater level of independence from the White House. They have done so not because of the machinations of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, as the Bush administration would like us to believe, but rather because the "free trade" dictates promoted by Washington in recent decades have created huge inequalities in their societies and failed to serve the majority of their peoples.

By answering the demands of the American people for a new type of trade policy, a President Obama would have the chance to both attend to the needs of working people in this country and improve the United States' relations with its Southern neighbors. But only by avoiding a retreat into corporate globalization will the candidate honor his campaign's much-needed call for change."
http://www.democracyuprising.com/articles/2008/obama_trade.php

0 Replies

A friend of mine points out that the Republicans wanted to give YOUR Social Security funds to the same clowns who have ran our financial trading houses into the ground. Why no discussion on how that would have tanked the savings of every American?

I'm quite sure that Obama will point this out - hopefully during one of next week's debates.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@firefly,

Corrections happen and they sometimes hurt when they happen, but they do happen.
This correction is tied to the housing correction. The housing market is getting better.

I am not worried about the economy.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

...and when was Clinton last in office?
let go of the Clinton obsession.
BTW, how was the economy during the Clinton Administration?

2 Replies

@candidone1,

No Clinton obsession here and the economy sucked when Clinton was in office.

1 Reply

@candidone1,

ANyone remember the DOT COM crash? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

This WS free for all has been going on since Bill Clinton was in office and he ignored it.

Are you looking at the DJIA? If so, your claim above is totally wrong.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Waterboy said

Quote:

the economy sucked when Clinton was in office.

You are referring to America' 42nd President, William Jefferson Clinton, who is likely to be remembered for the longest- running business cycle expansion in American history, which coincided with his two terms?

Son, you have to be one of the stupidest motherfuckers on the planet or a liar who could give ole Jack Scratch a run for the money. Regardless, you are morally bankrupt and have no shame.

Now back to the topic at hand from which you are misdirecting.

As a leader in the Senate Republican caucus, McCain did nothing for years to deliver reform in the face an impending financial crisis.

So here’s the record " 12 years of Republicans, from 1996 to 2007,including John McCain being a committee chairman for much of that period. Zero " zero enactment of any reform. Democrats take power, and in a year and a half, they have passed a bill that did everything the administration asked for, in terms of enhancing the regulatory structure.

Years of right-wing economic policies have created this moment of financial crisis. The mortgage bubble resulted when Fed chief Alan Greenspan kept interest rates at historic lows, and the government failed to regulate questionable practices in the financial sector.

This fact was underscored recently by Republican Mike Oxley, the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Oxley noted that the House passed a bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis by issuing stronger regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

Quote:

“All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.

Oxley recalls that the bipartisan legislation “faced hostility from the Bush administration."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8780c35e-7e91-11dd-b1af-000077b07658,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F8780c35e-7e91-11dd-b1af-000077b07658.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2F&nclick_check=1

Its the Republican's fault, you ******* wankers.

2 Replies

@kuvasz,

Look kid, I know Bill Clinton enjoyed the fruits of Bush One's labors and I also know Clinton rode that wave way to long
without doing anything to keep it going, so don't waste your time lecturing me about your precious Impeached president.

1 Reply

Quote:

Reagan's economic legacy was perhaps the biggest challenge Bush faced. By 1990 the federal budget deficit had swelled to $220 billion a year, three times its 1980 level. The total federal debt had increased to $3.2 trillion, more than three times that of ten years before. Bush believed that the incomes and standard of living of most Americans would not increase (and the United States would not be able to play a leading role in world affairs) if its economy was built on a foundation of debt.

As a result, in 1990 Bush launched an effort to persuade Congress to bring the deficit under control, but found it difficult to build a consensus acceptable to both Democrats and to conservatives in the Republican Party. Many Democrats in Congress believed tax increases on the wealthy were the best solution to the deficit. Conservative Republicans, by contrast, believed that the deficit could be cured only through deep and sustained cuts in federal domestic spending.

and;

Quote:

The unpleasant conclusion of the budget deal coincided with the onset of a mild recession in late 1990 that would last for only six months but linger in the public mind for nearly two years. Bush's third year in office was marked by a wave of corporate reorganizations that caused permanent layoffs of white-collar workers. Many of the newly unemployed were independents and Republicans, who had believed that their jobs were secure. At the same time the recession deprived Bush of the little credit he had achieved for the deficit-cutting deal. During the recession, federal spending on welfare and other government programs increased, wiping out much of the savings the budget deal had promised.

In 1991 Bush proposed a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, which would lower or eliminate tariffs on trade between the three nations. The proposal, favored by Canada and Mexico, was designed to help North America compete against the growing free-trade zones of Europe and Asia. The agreement was eventually taken up by his successor, Bill Clinton, and ratified by the U.S. Congress in November 1993.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571000_2/george_h_w_bush.html

0 Replies

@kuvasz,

A very crisp, cogent logical response.
What i miss here an objective critical observer( there are a few who seldom participant any heated discussion)

I am always critical and with my meagre languae I try my level best to expose my global views.

"There was a time when Republicans campaigned on their ideas, programs and values. This year"lacking ideas, programs or values"John McCain and Sarah Palin are running for the White House on an elaborate fictional narrative of victimhood. Their supposed persecutors are Democrats and the news media, and the aim of this whole charade is to keep Americans from talking about ideas, programs and values."

( those were the opening words in an article and the first respondent has this view
"September 15 at 6:08 am #

Ideas are something not important to people who have their own comfort zone, enamored in their own belief system one that uses religion to guide them to make decisions. People who feel threatened by logic and reason, instead they drape themselves in the flag and accept war as normal. Surrounding themselves in like thinking people pursuing a similar agenda. A way to live ones life with a certain feelings of security by attacking differences of ideas with gusto.

No, ideas are not even in the room with these people and when they see something that even looks like and idea, it is perceived as a threat."
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080912_a_campaign_without_ideas/
I uphold the article and the person who had reacted quickly without any ethical, moral fear

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Frankly, you are not a man, little one, you're a racist puke, and unless you can post something that can support your claim that Clinton's economic successes were really Bush's you are just trying to make your fantasy into reality.

If you are half the person you think you are, go ahead and try to prove your point and also at least attempt to debunk my claim that it was the Republicans who led us into this current economic mess, because even the top Republican in the House for economics admits it.

So come boy, prove your point. Put up or shut up.

2 Replies

@kuvasz,

You are using a traditional left wing tactic of making personal attacks when you have nothing else.

Why do liberals do this?
Are they confused?
Are they that weak?

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

You are using a traditional left wing tactic of making personal attacks when you have nothing else.

Why do liberals do this?
Are they confused?
Are they that weak?

so... you had no point ?

0 Replies

@kuvasz,

Sorry for my interruption. Let us face the world as it is and dream not according to our intellectual depth/acumen/faculties.
Let us also admit that Corporate media in USA is not interested in investigative journalism. Nor it is neutral nor it has some guts to expose the hypocracy that prevails around the surroundings where we tread daily.
This election is nothing to do with real problems and issues.

The journalists uphold the inane “issues” like designer glasses and pigs with lipstick...
My views are straightforward and critical and I wish to repeat that USA's corporate controlled system is stinking and should get cleaned.

0 Replies

Obama balmes Repub for Wall Street???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know