14
   

The Real Culprits In This Meltdown, no McCain aides listed...

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 12:40 pm
@spendius,
Iceland is unravelling. Small talk about the Isle of Man.

No sweat did I say?

I blame it on granting them those fishing limits after the Cod Wars.

It was a licence to print money and it went to their heads.

I wonder if we could buy it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 12:45 pm
John McCain got fired up at a town hall rally today. A woman asked him if he will now use some plain talk to identify those who created this mess and name names. He not only said that he would with a brief explanation, but he also named Chris Dodd and Barney Frank etc. on the spot and said that many others would be named. And he did so convincingly. He sounded at last like somebody ready to lead.

If he keeps this up and doesn't wimp out and rescind or modify his own statement, look for the polls to begin tightening up again.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 01:17 pm
@Foxfyre,
Number one; Obama ain't Barney Franks, Number Two, McCain's senate staff and compaign staff is just as tied up as anyone else as Obama as already pointed out in the last debate and number three, when you go 100% negative in a compaign as McCain is doing it is a pretty good indication of desperation. So far since McCain has "turned the page" he has only been appealing to the base because most people are just too worried about the economy right now to listen to all this bc politics from McCain.

But maybe you will be right, I guess we will see. Not the first time I would be disapointed.

Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 02:07 pm
@revel,
Obama is on the record as saying he had no problem with sub-prime mortgages as recently as a year ago, however, and he did nothing to reinstate the regulations on those that the Republicans tried to reinstate. His adoring MSM isn't putting that out there of course, but there are a few encouraging signs this week that the people are beginning to catch on who is primarily to blame for this mess. And it isn't McCain. We'll see how it goes.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 02:12 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Obama is on the record as saying he had no problem with sub-prime mortgages as recently as a year ago, however, and he did nothing to reinstate the regulations on those that the Republicans tried to reinstate. His adoring MSM isn't putting that out there of course, but there are a few encouraging signs this week that the people are beginning to catch on who is primarily to blame for this mess. And it isn't McCain. We'll see how it goes.


Sub-prime mortgages are not inherently a bad thing, Fox.

Now, it's when adjustable rate sub-prime mortgages are pushed on tons of people; and then those mortgages are repackaged and sold as securities, that we find ourselves with big problems.

But the vast majority of sub-prime mortgages are current and being paid on time. Make sure you're blaming the right source of the problem, Fox.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 02:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I try to Cyclop. I wonder if you give as much care in choosing those you consistently defend?




Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 02:18 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I try to Cyclop. I wonder if you give as much care in choosing those you consistently defend?


Of course I do. See, I can usually provide some logical support to back up my positions. You ought to try it sometime.

As for the mortgage issue, please try to understand that 'reality' is somewhere between the Dem and Republican opinion on what is to blame, mkay? There is no one over-arcing cause of the failure, and you're not going to pin it on the Democrats no matter how hard ya'll try. So why bother?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 02:33 pm
@Foxfyre,
I must have missed the part where Obama said that, but I take your word for it. I refer you to fact check concerning the crises as I am tired of the whole blame game when both sides can claim equal amounts of the blame. I know of course you think democrats are worse.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html



What are those encouraging signs you have seen this week for McCain and links to back them up?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 02:44 pm
@revel,
revel, That's the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me....
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 02:55 pm
The evidence is pretty clear that Obama did not see any kind of financial crisis coming and said so (see the YouTube clips) and McCain did.

That it is either one's fault personally is a stretch, but the evidence is pretty strong that it was the Democrats' protesting and blocking any investigation into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and who defended these organizations passionately that allowed the problem to arrive at the breaking point. And it was Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who Pelosi put in charge of coming up with a 'fix' who have the dirtiest hands of all.

The GOP did try to get regulations into place that would have a least kept the problem from getting worse at that point, and perhaps might have been able to force a reversal of really dangerous practices in time to do some good, but they could get no Democrat votes and with the RINOs in Congress they didn't have the votes to pass it. Personally I think they should have brought it to the floor anyway and made the Democrats and Rinos go on the record as opposing it. They were unable to get any reform out of committee after the Democrats took over control of Congress in January 2007. Even then, however, if Dodd and Frank had been doing their jobs, they could have headed off much of the damage.

The damage is now done. And when all the dust finally settles, the evidence is clear to me that the Democrats have to assume most--not all--of the responsibility for pushing terrible policy.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 02:59 pm
@Foxfyre,
Fox, "Evidently" you didn't bother to learn from the FactCheck on our deteriorating economy.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 03:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Fox, "Evidently" you didn't bother to learn from the FactCheck on our deteriorating economy.


Actually I read it fairly carefully and it says absolutely nothing to contradict anything in my post. Did you read it? I find it extremely curious that the article mentions nothing about the Congressional oversight committees, however, or that the reason that GOP bill wasn't put up for a vote was because they didn't have enough votes to pass it. Had it done so, it couldn't pretend that the blame is equally spread around.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 03:07 pm
@Foxfyre,
Oh, and also it didn't mention that in the last two years as everything was coming to a head, the Democrats in control in Congress didn't even propose a bill of any kind to forestall the collapse and their members were not kind to anybody who tried to alert them, such as Alan Greenspan and President Bush.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 03:14 pm
@Foxfyre,
It's because you're looking to blame only the democrats. It's much more universal than what you seek.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 03:21 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
The evidence is pretty clear that Obama did not see any kind of financial crisis coming and said so (see the YouTube clips) and McCain did.


Shocked

That YouTube clip is a rather astonishing case of selective quoting and misstating what has been said. Here's is what you are taking as evidence that Obama was clueless on the state of the subprime lending problems:

Quote:
Subprime lending started off as a good idea " helping Americans buy homes who couldn't previously afford to.


In fact, the video misquotes him, claiming he said that "Giving mortgages to people who CAN'T AFFORD them is a GOOD IDEA!!!!"

(Notice the number of exclamation marks.)


Now, let's look at those remarks in context. Here is the transcript of that part of his speech:

Quote:
Subprime lending started off as a good idea " helping Americans buy homes who couldn't previously afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories and spread them out among investors around the country and around the world.

In theory, this should have allowed mortgage lending to be less risky and more diversified. But as certain lenders and brokers began to see how much money could be made, they began to lower their standards. Some appraisers began inflating their estimates to get the deals done. Some borrowers started claiming income they didn't have just to qualify for the loans, and some were engaging in irresponsible speculation. But many borrowers were tricked into glossing over the fine print. And ratings agencies began rating bundles of different kinds of these loans as low-risk even though they were very high-risk.

Most everyone knew that some of these deals were just too good to be true, but all that money flowing in made it tempting to look the other way and ignore the unscrupulous practice of some bad actors

And yet, time and again we were warned this could happen. Ned Gramlich, the former Fed governor who sadly passed away two weeks ago, wrote an entire book predicting this very situation. Repeated calls for better disclosure and stronger oversight were met with millions in mortgage industry lobbying. Far too many continued to put their own short-term gain ahead of what they knew the long-term consequences would be when those rates exploded.

Those consequences are now clear: nearly 2.5 million homeowners could lose their homes. Millions more who had nothing to do with this could see the value of their own home decline " with some estimates projecting a cost of nearly $164 billion, primarily in lost home equity. The projected cost to investors is nearly $150 billion worldwide. And the impact on the housing market and wider economy has been so great that some economists are now predicting a possible recession " a prediction all of us hope does not come to pass.

There are a number of lessons that we must learn from this going forward. We know that much of this could have been avoided if the market operated with more honesty and accountability. We also know we would have been far better off if there were greater transparency and more information had been available to the American people.



Interesting how different it looks when put into context, eh? In this very speech you're using as evidence that Obama is clueless and "did not see any kind of financial crisis coming", he was calling for better disclosure and stronger oversight, for more honesty and accountability, and was warning that a more widespread recession could be the consequence.

And, a bit further into his speech:

Quote:
Here's the real danger " if the public comes to view this like the accounting analyses of Enron, the markets will be ravished by a crisis in confidence. We must take steps to avoid that at all costs, and that is why I believe there should be an immediate investigation of the relationship and business practices of rating agencies and their clients.

[...]

In this modern, interconnected economy, there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street. The decisions that are made in New York's high-rises and hedge funds matter and have consequences for millions of Americans across the country. And whether those Americans keep their homes or their jobs; whether they can spend with confidence and avoid falling into debt " that matters and has consequences for the entire market.



I would say this is pretty clear evidence that Obama did see a financial crisis coming, eh?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 03:24 pm
@old europe,
Thank you, oe, for doing a advance college level analysis on this topic.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 03:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
It's because you're looking to blame only the democrats. It's much more universal than what you seek.


It certainly is ci.

This stuff on the thread is a waste of time. It's actually a part of the problem.

The American public is to blame. They govern themselves don't they? That's their most basic article of faith. Politicians do what the public bid them do. That's what campaign promises represent. Politicians in democracies can't do anything else. They wouldn't be politicians if they did.

But the public have been hypnotised by Media and so my blame is misplaced. One cannot blame someone under hypnosis. Media is to blame and specifically its intimate relation with advertising which only fools would ever have countenanced. As Lord Reith warned.

These ladies on here just want something to rabbit about and somebody to scapegoat. "It wasn't me said the ********". Who Killed Davy Moore.

Hey c.i. Our agreed call of an 8000 bottom is looking pretty good eh? I'm thinking of revising mine further down.

0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 04:36 pm
Real cool story. "Original 'Maverick' family upset that McCain coopts their name" by David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Thursday October 9, 2008

Before "maverick" became an overused trademark of the McCain-Palin campaign, it was a word meaning an unbranded strayed calf. But before that it was the family name of 19th century Texas lawyer and land speculator Samuel A. Maverick, who let some cattle he had acquired in payment of a debt run wild on land he owned while he lived comfortably in town.

Samuel Maverick's descendants have remained prominent in Texas affairs, and some of them are not happy about John McCain's co-opting their family name. "It's very irritating, because he is not a maverick," Fontaine Maverick told CNN.

According to Fontaine, the real "original maverick" was her grandfather, Maury Maverick, "a radical politician from San Antonio who served two terms in Congress (1935-1939). There, he led a bloc of progressive Democrats who sought to push Roosevelt and the New Deal to the left. The press quickly labeled this group 'The Mavericks.' While hugely popular with the the many poor Hispanics in his district, Maverick was far too liberal for the conservative Texas Democratic establishment. In 1938 he lost the Democratic party primary after being slandered as a communist."

"Grandfather Maury was no coward," Fontaine told Huffington Post's Charles Karel Bouley. "He chased the Klan right out of San Antonio once, stood up to the mob... Maury was burned in effigy in San Antonio, for his defense of members of the Communist Party's right to assemble, for his defense of the Hispanic community, support for those who didn't have a voice."

Fontaine's uncle, Maury Maverick, Jr., who died in 2003, became disillusioned with politics but continued to follow in his father's footsteps as a civil rights lawyer for the ACLU. He defended unpopular causes and opposed the Iraq War even on his deathbed.

"It's driving our family crazy," Fontaine says, "upsetting us and the legacy of my family, and we really with the campaign would stop misusing the word and the phrase. ... And Palin, I'm not sure she even knows the history of the word of or my family, but one thing is clear to all of my family, she truly is not a Maverick."


This video is from CNN's American Morning, broadcast October 9, 2008 http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Original_Maverick_family_upset_that_McCain_1009.html
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 04:45 pm
@blueflame1,
That's a "cool" find. LOL
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 05:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Chicken!
0 Replies
 
 

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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 03:57:06