PDA

View Full Version : Accountability?


Secretariat
09-21-2008, 07:43 PM
Right now the taxpayer apparently will be bending over and holding their ankles, while no one on Wall Street or government has been held accountable for anything.

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/09/20/economists-blame-gramm/

"Economists: Gramm To Blame For The Current Crisis
In recent days, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been promising to “put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street.” This is an interesting development for McCain, who before this week was a champion of deregulation.

It is doubly interesting though, because McCain voted for the bill that deregulated Wall St. and allowed such “reckless conduct” to occur in the first place. And one of the bill’s architects was McCain economic adviser, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX).

In 1999, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which abolished “all of the significant rules put in place at the time of the Great Depression designed to prevent a repeat.” Specifically, this act “destroyed the Depression-era barrier to the merger of stockbrokers, banks and insurance companies.”

Yesterday, a group of economists, including Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, slammed Gramm for having a “mentality that doesn’t understand the nature of systemic risks in financial systems,” and said that his bill helped create the current financial turmoil:

Economic experts say that Gramm and others are to blame for the current crisis that is shaking Wall Street."

...

“As a result, the culture of investment banks was conveyed to commercial banks and everyone got involved in the high-risk gambling mentality. That mentality was core to the problem that we’re facing now,” Stiglitz says.



AND

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

...

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

JustRalph
09-22-2008, 01:32 AM
isn't it funny how when truly bad things happen to our nation,

HCAP and Secretariat Suddenly show up in 20 threads?

Political Motivations wherein they salivate when it comes to bad news for America, shows their true character.

Sec, you guys are too much. If we went into a depression you guys would be dancing in the streets.............I know a bunch of what happens in off topic is just good fun and banter, but you guys sometimes are too much.

I really don't think you are celebrating all this stuff, I give you the benefit of the doubt, because we really don't know each other personally, but come on?
Be objective.

PaceAdvantage
09-22-2008, 02:53 AM
Yes, Sec had been laying very low until recently. With Iraq not in the news and the prospects of Dems being proven wrong with their "We have LOST in Iraq" rhetoric, I guess I should have put 2 + 2 together.

He's not part of the "Four Horsemen" for nothing you know!

hcap
09-22-2008, 05:48 AM
HCAP and Secretariat Suddenly show up in 20 threads?

I've not commented much on the economy. Although I do agree with much of what Sec says. What is ironic however is you have started 50% of the anti-Obama crap threads all by yourself. I have simply challenged the Palin/perch nonsense, and updated poll numbers. Oh yeah, occasionally annoyed Investorater and Boxcar. PA famously has spouted off that the left dominates this board. This board is decidedly turning far right. Thanks to you.

JustRalph
09-22-2008, 04:52 PM
What is ironic however is you have started 50% of the anti-Obama crap threads all by yourself. I have simply challenged the Palin/perch nonsense, and updated poll numbers.

yep, I am here about 5 days a week. The point is you and your brother come running into the room screaming fire only when it suits your political agenda.

Btw, I have been negative on McCain all along. He only gets my vote because he went with one of my two choices for VP.

boxcar
09-22-2008, 05:54 PM
I've not commented much on the economy. Although I do agree with much of what Sec says. What is ironic however is you have started 50% of the anti-Obama crap threads all by yourself. I have simply challenged the Palin/perch nonsense, and updated poll numbers. Oh yeah, occasionally annoyed Investorater and Boxcar. PA famously has spouted off that the left dominates this board. This board is decidedly turning far right. Thanks to you.

Actually, we "far righters" have you and your ilk to thank for the "turning". The more you extreme leftists post, the more people understand that the emperor on the Left ain't wearin' nuttin'! :eek:

Boxcar
P.S. Quit flattering yourself. You have no more annoyed me than a poor, helpless blind man accidentally stepping on my toe -- to borrow a PMer's recent paraphrase.

boxcar
09-22-2008, 05:55 PM
yep, I am here about 5 days a week. The point is you and your brother come running into the room screaming fire only when it suits your political agenda.

Btw, I have been negative on McCain all along. He only gets my vote because he went with one of my two choices for VP.

JR, just curious: Who was your other choice, if you don't mind me asking? And was Palin your top or second choice?

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage
09-22-2008, 08:38 PM
This board is decidedly turning far right. Thanks to you.About time....the left has dominated for far too long.

boxcar
09-22-2008, 09:31 PM
About time....the left has dominated for far too long.

Curious: Did this big turnaround occur at the time I returned? :lol:

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage
09-22-2008, 09:31 PM
Curious: Did this big turnaround occur at the time I returned? :lol:

BoxcarTo be honest, I'm not even sure it's turned around...I'm just going with the flow....

DJofSD
09-22-2008, 09:42 PM
To be honest, I'm not even sure it's turned around...I'm just going with the flow....The trend is you friend.

JustRalph
09-22-2008, 10:07 PM
JR, just curious: Who was your other choice, if you don't mind me asking? And was Palin your top or second choice?

Boxcar

Palin was number 1. I expressed that to some privately here, long before the pick. The 2nd was Fred Thompson. The reason I had Palin over Thompson was the shock value and then the fact that she would pick up some Hillary voters.

I was shocked when McCain chose Palin and it has worked just like I figured it would. I was prepared for Thompson though because I thought McCain would go for a "real Conservative" and someone who might have more gravitas. I figured Thompson would make a good pit bull. Especially up against Biden. Palin fills all the check marks except the gravitas end of it. But, she has turned into a pit bull with a skirt............ which so far has been better. We shall see.............

Secretariat
09-22-2008, 10:27 PM
Back on topic. I could care less about JR's love affair with Palin. We've got more to deal with than her continuous documented lies about the bridge to nowhere.

Accountability. Great article in the NY Times from 2007 covering a Bush speech.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/business/23hedge.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 — The Bush administration said Thursday that there was no need for greater government oversight of the rapidly growing hedge fund industry and other private investment groups to protect the nation’s financial system.

Instead, the administration, in an agreement it reached with the independent regulatory agencies, announced that investors, hedge fund companies and their lenders could adequately take care of themselves by adhering to a set of nonbinding principles."

.........................

Pretty much says it all. These guys change their tune at the drop of a hat.

boxcar
09-22-2008, 10:31 PM
Palin was number 1. I expressed that to some privately here, long before the pick. The 2nd was Fred Thompson. The reason I had Palin over Thompson was the shock value and then the fact that she would pick up some Hillary voters.

I was shocked when McCain chose Palin and it has worked just like I figured it would. I was prepared for Thompson though because I thought McCain would go for a "real Conservative" and someone who might have more gravitas. I figured Thompson would make a good pit bull. Especially up against Biden. Palin fills all the check marks except the gravitas end of it. But, she has turned into a pit bull with a skirt............ which so far has been better. We shall see.............

Palin, too, was my gal. I was thrilled to learn that McCain finally saw the light. It was a brilliant choice, although probably not an idea he owned. Thankfully, someone got him to see that he needed to energize the Conservative base.

But what makes her such great choice is that she will also energize more than a few female voters because many women see her has a gal's gal -- a woman's woman. (She's even managed to turn some feminists on their heads.) And she very nicely contrasts with the Black Male at the top of the
Dem ticket. This "polarization" is going to bring a lot of voters out because the contrast is not merely between a black male and white female, but goes much, much deeper than this.

I also think that she brings more energy and enthusiasm to the plate than Thompson would have. Plus she's every bit as sharp as he is -- so nothing lost in this department.

Boxcar

JustRalph
09-22-2008, 10:32 PM
Another opine

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hasset

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''


~more at the link, much more~

Tom
09-22-2008, 10:41 PM
Funny how Sec talks about accountability, yet fails to mention government bailouts for 50% of the population for generation. At least this bail out helps the economy.....entitlements do not.

And hcap is, well, hcap.......

hcap
09-23-2008, 06:34 AM
Keep plugging away Tom. Eventually you'll get it.
Remember an infinite number of monkeys, an infinite number of typewriters, an infinite number of years, one Shakespearian sonnet.

Oh yeah I forgot, you'll also need an infinite number of spell checkers. :rolleyes:

http://www.tricity.tv/gifs/monkey.jpg

Tom
09-23-2008, 08:05 AM
Jay Leno summed it up nicely last night -

A failed president and a failed congress are taking a trillion of our dollars to buy failed businesses.


Grab your ankles - your government is behind you.

hcap
09-23-2008, 09:18 AM
yep, I am here about 5 days a week. The point is you and your brother come running into the room screaming fire only when it suits your political agenda.

Btw, I have been negative on McCain all along. He only gets my vote because he went with one of my two choices for VP.Only 5? :D

Ok, so let me get this. You post 5 days a week always suiting YOUR political agenda. Which is just ducky.

Sec and I post 1/10 th as much as you, and we are guilty of -let me get this right- "intermittent agenda posting"?????
:jump:

ddog
09-23-2008, 09:30 AM
Funny how Sec talks about accountability, yet fails to mention government bailouts for 50% of the population for generation. At least this bail out helps the economy.....entitlements do not.

And hcap is, well, hcap.......

nope, you don't get it, this bailout won't help, it will hurt, just as the previous trillion or so did nothing to help.

when you overdose on something the fix is not to mainline
more of it.
that kills not helps.

ddog
09-23-2008, 09:33 AM
Another opine

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hasset

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''


~more at the link, much more~

partisan hack just as the other pukes are.
no attempt at comprehensive understanding at least from what you posted here.

Greenspan, without his foolish growth at all costs no matter what absurd pump and dump interest rate policy lots of "this" would never have started.

got to have it NOW NOW NOW.

Tom
09-23-2008, 10:45 AM
hcap - we call it drive-by posting.

DJofSD
09-23-2008, 11:00 AM
hcap - we call it drive-by posting.And then we get to play whack-a-mole.

delayjf
09-23-2008, 11:05 AM
Right now the taxpayer apparently will be bending over and holding their ankles, while no one on Wall Street or government has been held accountable for anything.

Well Sec, look at the bright side, most of the taxes in this country are paid by the rich, so just think of it as a tax increase on the rich, that should make your day.

Tom
09-23-2008, 11:26 AM
:lol::lol::lol:

boxcar
09-23-2008, 11:41 AM
Well Sec, look at the bright side, most of the taxes in this country are paid by the rich, so just think of it as a tax increase on the rich, that should make your day.

Not only that, Sec, but even more importantly the rich will become far more patriotic than you are! Let's not forget that the new measure of patriotism is how much taxes one pays. Are you feeling unpatriotic yet? :D

Boxcar

Secretariat
09-23-2008, 11:44 AM
Funny how Sec talks about accountability, yet fails to mention government bailouts for 50% of the population for generation. At least this bail out helps the economy.....entitlements do not.

And hcap is, well, hcap.......

Not necessarily Tom.

Entitlements primarily go to seniors who generally are forced to spend that money right back into the economy due to low or no income earnings. It also allows the entire medical system to stay afloat because w/o Medicare, the only people profiting quicker would be the undertakers and mortuaries as when older people don't have coverage they simply don't seek care.

Now, your contention that this socialized bail out will help the economy. That's up in the air as to whether this will work or is taxpayer money being flushed down the toilet to help Paulsen's old company (and retirement package) Goldman Sachs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080923/pl_politico/13769

"What if the bailout plan doesn't work?

Lawmakers raised doubts Monday about what would be the largest government bailout in American history, but a bigger, more terrifying question lurked right under the surface: What if it doesn’t work

....

The Banking Committee’s ranking Republican was of a similar mindset. “I am concerned that Treasury’s proposal is neither workable nor comprehensive, despite its enormous price tag,” said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. “In my judgment, it would be foolish to waste massive sums of taxpayer funds testing an idea that has been hastily crafted and may actually cause the government to revert to an inadequate strategy of ad hoc bailouts.”


....

Ultimately, the negotiations will come down to doling out huge new powers, including:

• Buying Power: This is the cornerstone of the proposal — allowing Treasury to buy up to $700 billion of privately held assets in the market. The original proposal called for buying power to be limited to “mortgage-related” assets, but a later draft expanded that to allow the government to purchase any “troubled assets.” There’s a staggering difference in authority between the two phrases, and it is a moving target as of press time. The banking industry generally favors the second version, but that potentially exposes taxpayers to much higher costs.

• Managing Power: Under the Bush administration’s plan, Treasury would hire private managers to handle the hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of assets it will soon own. But Treasury was silent on whether those managers would be able to actually negotiate directly with homeowners who hold the troubled mortgages. Democrats would go further and demand that bankruptcy judges be given the ability to renegotiate those failing mortgages on behalf of homeowners. This will be one of the more contentious sideshow fights of the negotiations.

• Global Power: Under one version of Treasury’s proposal, the government would have the power to buy assets from any institution in the world that it deemed worthy of a bailout.

• Pay Power: Democrats on Capitol Hill say they want the final plan to include restrictions on payouts to the executives of the financial institutions that take the taxpayer lifeline. Paulson says he doesn’t like this idea, but it may be tough for elected officials to oppose this populist carve-out in an election year.

• Equity Power: Democrats would like the government to get shares in the financial institutions that take federal help — effectively giving taxpayers ownership stakes in the nation’s largest banks and providing them with a huge windfall if those institutions prosper in future years.

• Oversight Power: Treasury’s initial proposal included very little room for congressional oversight of the new effort, calling for reports to be sent to the Hill just twice per year. That isn’t flying with Democrats or many Republicans on the Hill; if a bill makes it through Congress, it will almost certainly have much stronger oversight provisions.

Secretariat
09-23-2008, 11:49 AM
Well Sec, look at the bright side, most of the taxes in this country are paid by the rich, so just think of it as a tax increase on the rich, that should make your day.

It's not a tax increase on the rich (McCain wants to cut the rich's taxes because trickle down has been such a success). It's in reality a tax increase on your children's future (and they didn't even get asay in it), because they'll be eventually paying the bill with a much weaker dollar

It's like owning 2000K on a credit card bill, and buying something for 10K, and asking the credit card bill if you can now pay a lower rate. Yuo may get your lower rate, but the interest will kill you, and someone will eventually have to pay the price.

Secretariat
09-23-2008, 11:57 AM
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''


This is it? you've got to be kidding me. No mention of Gramm and Glass Steagall or McCain's continual push for deregulations.

Ok, let's look at the TRUTH of this.

"In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee was controlled by Republicans, who were then the majority party in the Senate. The majority of the committee members AND the chair were Republicans. If they couldn't get the bill out of committee, it means that some Republicans on the committee also voted against it (or didn't vote). It's disingenuous to call it a "party-line vote" if Republicans voted that way, too."

Second,

"S190 was discussed in the Senate Banking Committee on July 28, 2005 with the result, "Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably", which I believe is Congress speak for, "we don't like this, please go rewrite it and we may reconsider", i.e., the bill died in a Republican controlled committee and never came to the floor of the Senate or back to the Senate Banking Committee for reconsideration. S190 died in committee."

The "proposed" bill in committee, couldn't even make it through a committee LED by a MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS WITH A REPUBLICAN CHAIR.

What absolute hogwash.

Instead of distorting the facts, how about soem reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/business/23hedge.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 — The Bush administration said Thursday that there was no need for greater government oversight of the rapidly growing hedge fund industry and other private investment groups to protect the nation’s financial system.

Instead, the administration, in an agreement it reached with the independent regulatory agencies, announced that investors, hedge fund companies and their lenders could adequately take care of themselves by adhering to a set of nonbinding principles. "

Show Me the Wire
09-23-2008, 12:18 PM
Herein lies the problem with partsianship. Both sides of the aisle are responsible for this mess. The administration, as correctly reported in the NYT, recognized the problem and failed to act and the dem leadership either failed to see a problem or looked the other way for money. Both the administration and congress are equally responsible.

Also, both congress and the administration are equally responsible for loss of industries and jobs, to foreign countries, due to unfair free trade.

Both parties use the politics of diviseness to maintain or accquire power.

The remedy people need to stop voting along party lines and vote for individuals, in each party, that understand America comes first.

Tom
09-23-2008, 12:44 PM
The remedy people need to stop voting along party lines and vote for individuals, in each party, that understand America comes first.

:lol::D:lol::D:lol::D Oh my, that was a good one!

Show Me the Wire
09-23-2008, 12:59 PM
:lol::D:lol::D:lol::D Oh my, that was a good one!


Yeah, I know :bang: :bang: :bang:

Show Me the Wire
09-23-2008, 02:01 PM
Astonishing as early as 1994 the GAO warned about this coming financial melt down.

The author supported financial derivitives, and scoffed at the dissenters, but look at the footnote:


"The tremendous growth of the financial derivatives market and reports of major losses associated with derivative products have resulted in a great deal of confusion about those complex instruments. Are derivatives a cancerous growth that is slowly but surely destroying global financial markets? Are people who use derivative products irresponsible because they use financial derivatives as part of their overall risk-management strategy? Are financial derivatives the source of the next U.S. financial fiasco--a bubble on the verge of exploding?

Those who oppose financial derivatives fear a financial disaster of tremendous proportions--a disaster that could paralyze the world's financial markets and force governments to intervene to restore stability and prevent massive economic collapse, all at taxpayers' expense. Critics believe that derivatives create risks that are uncontrollable and not well understood. [1] Some critics liken derivatives to gene splicing: potentially useful, but certainly very dangerous, especially if used by a neophyte or a madman without proper safeguards."


[1]. In May 1994 the General Accounting Office released a two-year study, "Financial Derivatives: Actions Needed to Protect the Financial System," GAO/GGD-94-133, which sounded a call for stiffer government regulation of financial derivatives markets. General Accounting Office, "Derivatives: Actions Taken or Proposed since May 1994," GAO/GGD/AIOMD-97-8, reviewed progress made by financial regulators and industry participants

complete article at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-283.html#FOOTNOTE_1



Bolding is mine added for emphasis.

delayjf
09-23-2008, 02:14 PM
Again, President Bush called for MORE regulation on Fannie / Freddie back in 2003 - Congress did nothing.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&&scp=3&sq=%202003%20fannie%20freddie%20labaton&st=cse

Secretariat
09-23-2008, 06:20 PM
Again, President Bush called for MORE regulation on Fannie / Freddie back in 2003 - Congress did nothing.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&&scp=3&sq=%202003%20fannie%20freddie%20labaton&st=cse

In 2003 Republicans controlled all committes in Congress as well as all bills that came to the floor as well as both houses of Congress.

And if Bush felt that way in 2003, why did he feel differently in February of 2007 before the crisis reached critical mass.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/b...r=1&oref=slogin

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 — The Bush administration said Thursday that there was no need for greater government oversight of the rapidly growing hedge fund industry and other private investment groups to protect the nation’s financial system.

Instead, the administration, in an agreement it reached with the independent regulatory agencies, announced that investors, hedge fund companies and their lenders could adequately take care of themselves by adhering to a set of nonbinding principles. "

........................

Now all of a sudden he's advocating the biggest single corporate welfare project in history at your expense.

I mean, what nutcase here would get in line to buy up as many bad mortgages as they could? And Paulsen is even possibly bailing out non-US companies as well with US taxpayer dollars.

At least conservative French President Sarkozy stated correctly at the UN today that those responsbile for this shoudl be hedl "Accountable." Paulsen can't even bring himself to make CEO Executives help pay for their own mess.

PaceAdvantage
09-23-2008, 06:43 PM
"WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 — The Bush administration said Thursday that there was no need for greater government oversight of the rapidly growing hedge fund industry and other private investment groups to protect the nation’s financial system.What he states here and what was quoted in 2003 seems to be about two different areas of the large financial community, wouldn't you say?

lsbets
09-23-2008, 06:55 PM
What he states here and what was quoted in 2003 seems to be about two different areas of the large financial community, wouldn't you say?


You're asking him to think. He'll have to forward your question on to his superiors and wait for an answer. Chances are it will be on the theme its Bush's fault, and oh yeah, McCain is old and can't type.

Secretariat
09-23-2008, 09:00 PM
What he states here and what was quoted in 2003 seems to be about two different areas of the large financial community, wouldn't you say?

Whew...OK, I'll try again.

In 2003 and in 2005, the Congress and Executive Branch and every committee was controlled by the GOP - not Democrats..whew. Including the Banking committee which was chaired by a Republican WITH a Republican majoirty. Now why would the GOP controlled Banking Commmittee choose not to give up Fannie Mae regulation control over to the Executive Branch? That is a good question. Perhaps they no longer trusted the administration after Iraq's WMD stockpile lies, and the Cheney Mohammad Atta Czech meeting lie. Branches of government don't give up power, and the GOP led Congress was not going to give up their oversight over to the Executive branch. Frankly, I can understand the GOP not wanting to put Fannie Mae Under the Executive branch after the lies we got from them on the case for war.

Now look at the quote again. GW is basically saying in 2007 that these firms can take care of themselves w/o the government bailing them out - govt. interference. What GW was speaking to in 2004 was the accounting scandals that took place at Fannie Mae then (ala Enron that took place back then) He wasn't speaking of a complete bailout off Fannie Mae in 2003. He was reaching for control of the agency through the Executive branch. The GOP led Congress rejected him even in committee).

Now as to GW's comments in 2007 above I think GW is talking about a bailout for pretty much "ALL lenders" as I read that article. His first big bailout w/o much accountability is Fannie Mae, then AIG, now 700 billion for pretty much all bankers on Wall Street.

Hope this clairifies.

Bottom line, GW wants 700 billion w/o any accountability, punitive action, or oversight except for the Sec. of Treasury, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs.

.

JustRalph
09-23-2008, 09:36 PM
maybe there will be "some" accountability from a link at Drudge:

Two law enforcement officials said Tuesday the FBI is looking at potential fraud by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500), Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEH, Fortune 500), and insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG, Fortune 500)

The inquiries, still in preliminary stages, will focus on the financial institutions and the individuals that ran them, a senior law enforcement official said.

Officials said the new inquiries brings the number of corporate lenders under investigation over the last year to 26.

PaceAdvantage
09-24-2008, 01:19 AM
Whew...OK, I'll try again.
.
.
.
Hope this clairifies.One of us is dense. It could be me...I don't know....

But, how does this, published in 2003 by the New York Times:

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

equate to this:

The Bush administration said Thursday that there was no need for greater government oversight of the rapidly growing hedge fund industry and other private investment groups to protect the nation’s financial system.

Ummmmm....FanFred is a completely different egg than hedge funds and other PRIVATE investment groups.

Is it you who isn't getting this? He felt differently in 2007 about HEDGE FUNDS, not Freddie and Fannie (and the other mortgage lenders).

riskman
09-24-2008, 02:40 AM
This is a rough one---almost fell off my seat !


http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253529/comrades_bush_paulson_and_bernanke_welcome_you_to_ the_ussra_united_socialist_state_republic_of_ameri ca

JustRalph
09-24-2008, 03:47 AM
This article is illustrative of some of the predictions from the late 90's and how this problem came to bear over a ten year period. If you are interested in this problem, there are some things in here that I had not heard before.

~ snippet~
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=75717

According to Lott, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston produced a manual in the early '90s that warned mortgage lenders to no longer deny urban and lower-income minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history, down payment or employment income.

Furthermore, claims Lott, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged and praised lenders – like Countrywide and Bear Stearns – for adopting the slackened policies toward minority applicants.

"Given these lending practices mandated by the Fed and encouraged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," writes Lott, "the resulting financial problems for financial institutions such as Countrywide and Bear Stearns are not too surprising."

~much, much more at the link~

You can scream about a Worldnet Daily article (I can hear it coming already) but this article is referring to LA Times, WSJ and NY Times articles as info.

DJofSD
09-24-2008, 09:24 AM
According to Lott, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston produced a manual in the early '90s that warned mortgage lenders to no longer deny urban and lower-income minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history, down payment or employment income.

This is the same mind set that was telling us about the new economy, how so out-of-date brick and mortar stores were and how everything including sex was going to be the exclusive domain of the internet.

hcap
09-24-2008, 09:58 AM
Raines is no comparison.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903604.html

THE PINOCCHIO TEST

The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself -- and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.

.................................................. ..........................

Meanwhile.......

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/w24davis.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

"They said they did not recall Mr. Davis doing much substantive work for the company in return for the money, other than speak to a political action committee composed of high-ranking employees in October 2006 on the coming midterm congressional elections. They said Mr. Davis's his firm, Davis & Manafort, was kept on the payroll because of Mr. Davis's close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who was widely expected by 2006 to run again for the White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/w24davis.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
And this comment.

Public Action Campaign Fund ...

"John McCain's campaign manager and Freddie Mac essentially had what amounts to a secret half a million dollar lay-a-way plan. For almost three years and as late as last month, Freddie Mac made secret, monthly payments of $15,000 to Rick Davis's firm, apparently in exchange for providing special access to a future McCain White House. If McCain knew about this, his presidential campaign should be in serious trouble. If he didn't know about it, he ought to fire Rick Davis immediately," said David Donnelly, Director of Campaign Money Watch."

ddog
09-24-2008, 10:02 AM
maybe there will be "some" accountability from a link at Drudge:

Two law enforcement officials said Tuesday the FBI is looking at potential fraud by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500), Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEH, Fortune 500), and insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG, Fortune 500)

The inquiries, still in preliminary stages, will focus on the financial institutions and the individuals that ran them, a senior law enforcement official said.

Officials said the new inquiries brings the number of corporate lenders under investigation over the last year to 26.

Jr

COME ON, you know what this is , this is the sop to the unwashed, hey look, we are going to get some of these fiends.

pr stunt.

ddog
09-24-2008, 10:05 AM
One of us is dense. It could be me...I don't know....

But, how does this, published in 2003 by the New York Times:



equate to this:



Ummmmm....FanFred is a completely different egg than hedge funds and other PRIVATE investment groups.

Is it you who isn't getting this? He felt differently in 2007 about HEDGE FUNDS, not Freddie and Fannie (and the other mortgage lenders).

Private , so does that imply to you no gvt backstop???

really do you see where we have done that for private inv groups???

hcap
09-24-2008, 10:06 AM
Oh yeah....

"It seems quaint to have been focusing today on the fact that McCain's transition chief was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac when, as Roll Call is now reporting, campaign manager Rick Davis' lobbying firm, Davis & Manafort, still has a $15,000 per month contract with Freddie Mac."

Tom
09-24-2008, 10:21 AM
And don't forget Chris "Countrywide" Dodd.

ddog
09-24-2008, 10:22 AM
if they are in or around DC, they are bought or too stupid to be given any respect at all.

lobby money is nothing....

check the boards and other scams these people rotate in and out of,,,, they get paid just on the chance they may get a little power someday.

it's all beyond repair.
they are so far ahead of the public on this stuff......

if you know who will grease your palm once you are out of power then while you are in you will be very attentive to their needs.

hcap
09-24-2008, 10:50 AM
And don't forget Chris "Countrywide" Dodd.Last time I looked, Dodd was not on the ticket. This boils down to Obama vs McSame, and McSame is in the doghouse this week. Oh yeah before the Davis connection was pointed out by the Times, McCain said this. "My Campaign Manager Had Nothing To Do With Freddie Mac Since 2005... "And I'll Be Glad To Have His Record Examined By Anybody Who Wants To Look At It"

Not a good week for the home team Tom.

hcap
09-24-2008, 11:22 AM
Intrade........

Obama 51.9
McCain 46

BetFair........

Obama 60
McCain 40

Iowa Electronic Markets

Obama .51
McCain .47

Tom
09-24-2008, 11:38 AM
I'm saying Dodd, Schummer, Frank, OBama should all be in jail pending a trial.

The home team, hcap....it was mostly DEMS who cause this. Your side not mine.

hcap
09-24-2008, 11:47 AM
Home team is bush McSame and the repugs. Obviously.
Home team is the party of deregulation. Need I remind you of "the government is the enemy" rhetoric?

The Godlike majesty of the Invisible Hand hovering over the lords of Industry and Finance. Making things just and fair.

http://www.bartcop.com/wall-street-hand1.jpg

Done to us by the party of Big Business.....youse guys

http://www.hoffmania.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/21/youpay_2.jpg

What happened to all the gushing about Palins' bounce? It was squashed by the 2 above.

delayjf
09-24-2008, 12:22 PM
Hcap,

Are you forgetting about Frank Raines??? The former CEO of Fannie Mae who was forced to resign back in 03 due to a "little accounting problem". The same Frank Raines who is now an advisor to Obama.

And like I pointed out to Sec on another thread - unless your in the top 50% of wage earners in the US, (who pay @ 97% of the taxes) you will not be getting the bill for the bail out.

hcap
09-24-2008, 12:44 PM
From the previous page

I said......
Raines is no comparison.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8091903604.html

THE PINOCCHIO TEST

The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself -- and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.

PaceAdvantage
09-24-2008, 07:31 PM
Ahhh, the hard push has arrived. I think the Dems somehow smell blood...:lol:

Tom
09-24-2008, 09:42 PM
Amazing how hcap and sec are totally oblivious to facts.
A major reason we are in the trouble we are today is some people are to stupid and obsessed to face reality. Two very sad individuals.


The blood they smell, though, is dried......from Kerry's campaign! :lol:

hcap
09-25-2008, 06:54 AM
Ahhh, the hard push has arrived. I think the Dems somehow smell blood...:lol:Even Fox now

Opinion Dynamics for Fox News. 9/22-23. Registered voters. 3% (9/8-9 results)

McCain (R) 39
Obama (D) 45

PaceAdvantage
09-25-2008, 10:51 AM
Great. If what you say is true, I can't wait to see what a rube like Obama is going to do with a country, as they say, "at the precipice."

Good luck with that.

delayjf
09-25-2008, 12:33 PM
"It seems quaint to have been focusing today on the fact that McCain's transition chief was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac when, as Roll Call is now reporting, campaign manager Rick Davis' lobbying firm, Davis & Manafort, still has a $15,000 per month contract with Freddie Mac."

According to McCain's website, Davis has not been an active lobbiest since 2005 and has not accepted or received ANY compensation from the lobbying firm that he Partners.

Tom
09-25-2008, 01:10 PM
Zogby was here in town yesterday....he said the polls reflect a point in time opinion, and hanging your hat on a poll was not recommended. Polls, he went on, were mainly to provide people a means to compare their opinions to the masses. I guess that means, hcap, you are so insecure in your opinions that
you need validation? Gee, I don't understand that. I can't imagine not being confident in my beliefs. It probably can be inferred that insecure thinkers are swayed by polls, so polls themselves stop representing real opinions and start echoing themselves.

Show Me the Wire
09-25-2008, 01:13 PM
And it will be very interesting "snapshot" of time when votes actually count on election day.


Especially, since former President Clinton's agenda is to inform the people that dem party is responsible for the current financial crisis, that MCain did the right hing to request the debates to be suspended, in order to focus on the financial crisis, and that he, Clinton, admires McCain.

Tom
09-25-2008, 02:17 PM
In my efforts to remain fair and balanced, I usually listen to Knucklehead Ed Schultz on Airhead America at lunch time. He sounded like a cat coughing up a hairball talking about Clinton.....threatening to "go after him" if he keeps up this nonsense. He accused him of not knowing what side he was on. Gee, I guess the dems need you to toe the line and not tell the truth. :lol:

I can't wait until Randi "Hit the" Rhodes later this afternoon.

Show Me the Wire
09-25-2008, 02:22 PM
And the dems want to censure Liberman too, because he is campaigning for McCain and not Obama.

Have they forgotten Liberman won his seat as an independent? Apparently they have.

Only proves the dems are the party of division.

hcap
09-28-2008, 06:41 AM
Zogby was here in town yesterday....he said the polls reflect a point in time opinion, and hanging your hat on a poll was not recommended. Polls, he went on, were mainly to provide people a means to compare their opinions to the masses. I guess that means, hcap, you are so insecure in your opinions that
you need validation? Gee, I don't understand that. I can't imagine not being confident in my beliefs. It probably can be inferred that insecure thinkers are swayed by polls, so polls themselves stop representing real opinions and start echoing themselves.Sort of like all the hoopla you guys engaged in when Palin was propping up the polls for McSame and you guys thought a female saviour had arrived.

Palin=Perch story Number uno?


OK, whatever...............

Electoral...

Obama/Biden 228

171 Solid 57 Leaning

McCain/Palin 163

158 Solid 5 Leaning

Toss Up 147

hcap
09-28-2008, 06:57 AM
Hey box, maybe you should rethink this, and go back to one of your decidedly ANTI LIBERAL avatars

Still want to use it?????

PaceAdvantage
09-29-2008, 01:10 AM
Hey box, maybe you should rethink this, and go back to one of your decidedly ANTI LIBERAL avatars

Still want to use it?????If Palin holds her own in the debate, you are going to be in serious trouble, aren't you?

You guys are idiots. You and the rest of the tards in the media have set the bar so low for Palin, that she will come away from Thursday night's debate as the WINNER as long as she doesn't vomit on the podium from fear.

Good going!

hcap
09-29-2008, 06:38 AM
Hey box, maybe you should rethink this, and go back to one of your decidedly ANTI LIBERAL avatars

Still want to use it?????
If Palin holds her own in the debate, you are going to be in serious trouble, aren't you?

You guys are idiots. You and the rest of the tards in the media have set the bar so low for Palin, that she will come away from Thursday night's debate as the WINNER as long as she doesn't vomit on the podium from fear.

Good going!I have an interesting scenario in mind. Call it "The Debate Weekend at Bernies". Wheel a lifeless Palin onto the stage-requires little acting from Sarah. Let Kissenger and Lieberman move her lips and arms as though she was actually cognizant and answering questions.

Camera cuts quickly to the raucous cheering repugs in the audience.

Low expections? Thy name is Pa high-fivers.

hcap
09-30-2008, 08:06 AM
The McCain-president contract at Intrade over the course of the last month.

Around the date of the Republican convention-and Sarah Palin- McCain started gaining ground on Obama until around September 11th when he moved ahead of Obama and stayed there for a bit more than a week. Since then straight down. Over the last ten days McCain has gone from a few point lead over Obama to a 25 point deficit.

Regress to the mean. And worse.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/mccain-intrade-sept.jpg

A bit more detail.

McCain's Odds Crash Along With Stock Market
Henry Blodget | September 29, 2008 9:00 PM

"Last week, before John McCain "suspended his campaign" to rush to Washington to save the country's financial system, Intrade gave him a 48% chance of winning the presidency. By Saturday, after two days of bizarre flip-flops on Friday's debate, a broken vow not to leave Washington until a deal was in place, and a debate that most people thought he lost, McCain's odds had dropped to 44%.

But that collapse was nothing. Now, with the stock market plummeting, McCain having failed to deliver enough Republican votes for the bailout, and Americans presumably wanting to do away with anything that reminds them of Bush, McCain's odds have hit a recent, post-Palin low of 37%."

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/9/mccain-s-odds-crash-along-with-stock-market

ArlJim78
09-30-2008, 08:37 AM
the intrade spread mirrors the polls, and the polls are misleading.

hcap
09-30-2008, 08:49 AM
the intrade spread mirrors the polls, and the polls are misleading.
Curiously for you McSame/Palin supporters here on this board, the polls are only "misleading" when your candidates are behind. Shortly after Palin gave her telepromptered pre-written convention speech, all sorts of polling data was trotted out showing the 'strength" of the newly minted repug ticket. I guess you don't remember all the "misleading" polls quoted showing women flocking in mass to Palin. Now they have flocked back to the Dems of course.

I think Intrade is more reliable than your dismissal of the latest polling data-as "misleading".

What goes around, comes around

hcap
09-30-2008, 08:56 AM
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres08_quotes.html

Iowa Electronic Markets.

Market Quotes: Pres08_WTA
2008 Presidential Election Winner-Take-All Market.
Quotes current as of 07:45:02 CST, Tuesday, September 30, 2008.

Symbol Bid Ask
DEM08_WTA 0.692
REP08_WTA 0.300

Tom
09-30-2008, 09:15 AM
hcap...go to ebay and type in "life."

barn32
09-30-2008, 09:48 AM
hcap...go to ebay and type in "life."Hcap is 100% correct.

barn32
09-30-2008, 09:54 AM
If Palin holds her own in the debate, you are going to be in serious trouble, aren't you?

You guys are idiots... Shouldn't you be setting the bar? You lose all credibility when you resort to name calling. Debate the facts, otherwise you stoop to the level of the masses.

Hcap happens to have called this one correctly.

hcap
09-30-2008, 10:11 AM
hcap...go to ebay and type in "life."Don't you remember all the hoopla about Palin and the repug convention? Up until then you were not going to vote. Sitting it out. You and Ralph both. I asked about Palin the next morning and you guys all of a sudden got that old time repug religion, and were now on board. Ralph posted all sorts of stuff 'bout polls showing women moving to the Palin/McSame party. How soon they forget.
hcap...go to ebay and type in "life."Btw, go to

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

and click on your fondest dreams-they are about to evaporate.

Electoral

Obama/Biden 249

171 Solid 78 Leaning

McCain/Palin 163

158 Solid 5 Leaning

Tom
09-30-2008, 10:11 AM
Hcap is 100% correct.

A stopped clock is right twice a day, too.

ArlJim78
09-30-2008, 11:03 AM
Curiously for you McSame/Palin supporters here on this board, the polls are only "misleading" when your candidates are behind. Shortly after Palin gave her telepromptered pre-written convention speech, all sorts of polling data was trotted out showing the 'strength" of the newly minted repug ticket. I guess you don't remember all the "misleading" polls quoted showing women flocking in mass to Palin. Now they have flocked back to the Dems of course.

I think Intrade is more reliable than your dismissal of the latest polling data-as "misleading".

What goes around, comes around
no, the polls always favor dems. even when they swung towards McCain Palin after the convention.

all this intrade and poll watching is rather pointless. they will both start to hone in on the truth during the last week. watch how they will break at the last minute for McCain.

hcap
09-30-2008, 07:03 PM
no, the polls always favor dems. even when they swung towards McCain Palin after the convention.Guess what?. I have rarely linked to Newsmax. But even Dick Morris-not a favorite to say the least has this.

Are you saying Newsmax, the bastion of rightwing propaganda has now converted to the DIM/Lib/Commoe/Socialist party line?
Pu-l-ease!!!!!

http://w3.newsmax.com/a/morrismap/?promo_code=2A89-1

http://w3.newsmax.com/a/morrismap/images/map2.jpg

McCain's Numbers
110
+ 23 leaning

133 Total


Obama's Numbers
291
+ 64 leaning

355 Total Obama

"Dick Morris' Analysis of the Map

The polls now make it clear that McCain lost the first debate, and has lost ground during the entire gambit of suspending his campaign, going off the trail, going to Washington, and working on the bailout. He was tied, or 1 to 2 percent behind when he made the suspension announcement, and he is now 5 to 6 percent behind.

The fallout in the electoral map does not make for a pretty picture. Core Republican states like Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, Arizona, and North Carolina are now really toss ups, and even states like South Carolina and Georgia are in play."

hcap
10-01-2008, 10:19 AM
A stopped clock is right twice a day, too.Damn, I almost forgot, being a stopped clock doesn't help remind me when it's time for my bi-daily report.............

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Campaign-Battlegrounds.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Recently trailing or tied, Democrat Barack Obama now leads Republican John McCain in a trio of the most critical, vote-rich states five weeks before the election, according to presidential poll results released Wednesday.

The Democrat's support jumped to 50 percent or above in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania in Quinnipiac University surveys taken during the weekend -- after the opening presidential debate and during Monday's dramatic stock market plunge as the House rejected a $700 billion financial bailout plan.

Combined, these states offer 68 of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory on Election Day, Nov. 4.

Pollsters attributed Obama's improved standing to the public's general approval of his debate performance, antipathy toward GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and heightened confidence in the Illinois senator's ability to handle the economic crisis."

"The new surveys show Obama leading McCain in Florida 51 percent to 43 percent, in Ohio 50 percent to 42 percent and in Pennsylvania 54 percent to 39 percent.

Since 1960, no president has been elected without winning two of those three states."

................................

Tick Tock

Tom
10-01-2008, 10:59 AM
:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping: Polls.....:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

hcap
10-01-2008, 06:34 PM
Well here is the post shortly after the repug convention.
ElKabong strutting his stuff about the genius of picking Palin....

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50473&highlight=women
" Women's vote-- 20 point move in 3 weeks
(edit- 20 point swing in white women vote)

Ya think Obama wants a do over on Biden?
McCain's choice of Sarah Palin is going to change the way national campaigns & strategies are formulated and planned from now on, I believe."
.................................................. .....................................

Time Magazine released a poll today. It has Obama ahead of McCain, 50% to 43%. And Gov. Sarah Palin is not bringing women to McCain's side. Obama leads among women by 17%:


"Among the poll's most dramatic findings: McCain is losing female voters faster than Sarah Palin attracted them after the Republican National Convention. Obama leads McCain by 17 points with women, 55%-38%. Before the conventions, women preferred Obama by a margin of 10 points, 49%-39%. After McCain picked Palin as his running mate, the gap narrowed to a virtual tie, with Obama holding a 1-point margin, 48%-47%."

PaceAdvantage
10-02-2008, 02:29 AM
Shouldn't you be setting the bar? You lose all credibility when you resort to name calling. Debate the facts, otherwise you stoop to the level of the masses.

Hcap happens to have called this one correctly.The rare time in my life that I call a name, and you call me out on it? Whatever....

hcap
10-03-2008, 06:54 AM
Polls..... :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
At some point you gotta take your head out of the rightwingnut sand.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Oct02.png

Obama is UP 60-65 electoral votes in one week!

Obama 338 McCain 185 Ties 15

PaceAdvantage
10-03-2008, 10:02 PM
Obama's been up big on that map before....doesn't mean much until Nov. 4 is over and done with.

hcap
10-04-2008, 05:47 AM
Obama's been up big on that map before....doesn't mean much until Nov. 4 is over and done with.
But you will admit that shortly after the repug convention and Palin, the right posted about how great the polls were. Whistling a different tune now.

Called poll approval selective theory.

Tom
10-04-2008, 10:27 AM
Maybe if you quit playing with your poll for a minute you would realize one of these rat bastards is going to win. Can you honestly say either one them is qualified? That either one of them will represent the people?

PaceAdvantage
10-05-2008, 09:32 PM
But you will admit that shortly after the repug convention and Palin, the right posted about how great the polls were. Whistling a different tune now.Not at all. It was very amusing to see that electoral map and how Obama was DOMINATING prior to the republican convention, and then, all of a sudden, McCain had the LEAD! Not a very reliable source if you ask me, republican touting of polls or no republican touting of polls.

Polls have been proven time and again to be unreliable. That's a fact.

ElKabong
10-05-2008, 10:07 PM
Well here is the post shortly after the repug convention.
ElKabong strutting his stuff about the genius of picking Palin....

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50473&highlight=women

.................................................. .....................................

Time Magazine released a poll today. It has Obama ahead of McCain, 50% to 43%. And Gov. Sarah Palin is not bringing women to McCain's side. Obama leads among women by 17%:


"Among the poll's most dramatic findings: McCain is losing female voters faster than Sarah Palin attracted them after the Republican National Convention. Obama leads McCain by 17 points with women, 55%-38%. Before the conventions, women preferred Obama by a margin of 10 points, 49%-39%. After McCain picked Palin as his running mate, the gap narrowed to a virtual tie, with Obama holding a 1-point margin, 48%-47%."


Dude, (or is it lil girl?),

The same women I know at work (and relatives, most of which are dems) haven't changed their minds one bit. Sarah won them over in one night. The Gibson and Couric interviews put one of my Minnesota cousins back a bit off PALIN, but she is back in the Palin camp after the debate.

True enuff, the polls are meaningless. But there are some women at work that for the first time in their lives, they're jazzed up about a candidate. Also should note thta no one I work with has been contacted by a pollster. My bldg has 360 employees, I speak to maybe 40 on a personal basis. You'd think one of us had been contacted....Hasn't happened.

hcap
10-06-2008, 06:56 AM
Dude, (or is it lil el burro?),

Polls are not that meaningless, Just that you and the other repug sycophants here jumped the gun and posted a momentary aberration, instead of waiting for things to settle. Things are settling now, and Obama has a commanding lead in all polling indicators. And growing.

The next two debates are McSames only chance to stop the bleeding. But which John McCain will show? The one back in 2000 that showed some true independence, or the bush agreeing, grouchy mean spirited McSame of recent times? As for Palin? Best advice-- keep a low profile

hcap
10-06-2008, 07:12 AM
2 points.

1-You cannot dismiss polls only when they favor the opposition and not your guy.

2-The argument that "Obama should be at least 20 points ahead 'cause blah, blah, blah, etc." is rapidly becoming self defeating. Look at the electoral map. :bang:

hcap
10-06-2008, 08:38 AM
Another strength of the Obama campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/05/AR2008100502524.html?hpid=topnews

Registration Gains Favor Democrats
Voter Rolls Swelling in Key States

"As the deadline for voter registration arrives today in many states, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is poised to benefit from a wave of newcomers to the rolls in key states in numbers that far outweigh any gains made by Republicans.

In Florida, Democratic registration gains this year are more than double those made by Republicans; in Colorado and Nevada the ratio is 4 to 1, and in North Carolina it is 6 to 1. Even in states with nonpartisan registration, the trend is clear -- of the 310,000 new voters in Virginia, a disproportionate share live in Democratic strongholds."

Tom
10-06-2008, 09:18 AM
Registering is not voting, as you saw in 2004.

russowen77
10-06-2008, 09:33 AM
The market is down 1.5% already. After we gave them a trillion dollars or so. They even changed the rules so we can't take advantage of it. Is this place great or what.:)

hcap
10-06-2008, 10:00 AM
Registering is not voting, as you saw in 2004.Tom, first you dismiss Obamas' debating ability claiming McSane will shine in the debates 'cause no teleprompter for Obama

Then you dismiss any poll showing your guys tanking.

Now 4:1 and more ratios of voter registration favoring democrats.

Hint: reality does not always go your way.

Tom
10-06-2008, 10:26 AM
hcap, do you read at all?
Did I dispute the registration numbers?
What I said was, and it is true, is that registering in not voting.
Ask ljb how much money he blew on cigarettes and bus fair in '04 getting the homeless signed up. They left him high and dry on election day.

Perhaps your time might better be spent tracking down these wooden arrow people and why they have so much power over your dems in congress.

hcap
10-06-2008, 03:50 PM
Ratios of 4:1 and greater of dems to repubs dwarf 2004, so yes you did dispute it.

Obamas' ground control beats McSame handily. I think old fashioned pollitical shellacking a-coming your way.

Tom
10-06-2008, 09:41 PM
I do not think dispute means what you think it means.
www.dictionary.com

JustRalph
10-06-2008, 10:07 PM
I am hearing from friends in Ohio that there is a Videotape that has been forwarded to the McCain Campaign, of Obama types picking up homeless persons at the Shelter in Downtown Columbus last week. They drop them back off and hand out cartons of Cigarettes while they get off the bus............ I hope McCain has the balls to use it................

Tom
10-06-2008, 10:44 PM
Wow, Ralph, I was worried about ljb......glad to hear he is ok.
Can he get back to Detroit going only through blue counties?

Lefty
10-07-2008, 02:02 AM
Earlier in this thread sec said something like tax cuts now would lead to a tax raise on our children. That was the gist of his statement and it's easily one of the most ridiculous things he has ever said. The Kennedy tax cuts, The Reagan Tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts all raised more revenue due to increased economic activity. How can having MORE money now cause a tax increase on our children? Ridiculous! We need to curb spending and get rid of money wasters like food stamps and subsidized housing. While we need to cut spending, Obama will add about a Trillion to our budget. Scary...

JustRalph
10-07-2008, 12:35 PM
I am hearing from friends in Ohio that there is a Videotape that has been forwarded to the McCain Campaign, of Obama types picking up homeless persons at the Shelter in Downtown Columbus last week. They drop them back off and hand out cartons of Cigarettes while they get off the bus............ I hope McCain has the balls to use it................

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10062008/news/nationalnews/homeless_driven_to_vote_obama_132395.htm

HOMELESS 'DRIVEN' TO VOTE OBAMA

By JEANE MacINTOSH
Last updated: 10:27 am
October 7, 2008
Posted: 9:34 pm
October 6, 2008

CLEVELAND - Volunteers supporting Barack Obama picked up hundreds of people at homeless shelters, soup kitchens and drug-rehab centers and drove them to a polling place yesterday on the last day that Ohioans could register and vote on the same day, almost no questions asked.

The huge effort by a pro-Obama group, Vote Today Ohio, takes advantage of a quirk in the state's elections laws that allows people to register and cast ballots at the same time without having to prove residency.

Republicans have argued that the window could lead to widespread voter fraud because officials wouldn't have an opportunity to verify registration information before ballots were cast.

Among the volunteers were Yori Stadlin and Vivian Lehrer of the Upper West Side, who got married last week and decided to spend their honeymoon shepherding voters to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.
~more at the link~

From the article:

"I never voted before," Woods said, because of a felony conviction that previously barred him from the polls. "Without this service, I would have had no way to get here."

Hank
10-07-2008, 01:04 PM
I am hearing from friends in Ohio that there is a Videotape that has been forwarded to the McCain Campaign, of Obama types picking up homeless persons at the Shelter in Downtown Columbus last week. They drop them back off and hand out cartons of Cigarettes while they get off the bus............ I hope McCain has the balls to use it................

:lol::lol::lol:

Tom
10-07-2008, 01:08 PM
You find voter fraud funny?

highnote
10-07-2008, 01:22 PM
Everyone should be encouraged to vote.

Pardon me for taking this thread back on topic.

The problem is too many people running these companies overbet. Obviously, they don't understand the mathematics of gambling.

Imagine if you go to your local loan shark and take out a loan 30 times your net worth. Then you go to the racetrack and bet it all on a longshot and your horse runs last and you try to default on the loan.

Guess what happens. You probably get your legs broken.

But in the case of the bankers and investment banks and insurance companies, they get bailed out and the guys responsible for the huge losses walk away with hundreds of millions in compensation.

If they can bet and lose and the consequences are that they walk away making millions then .... well then .... just maybe they know more about the mathematics of gambling than I give them credit for. Who are the suckers here?

ddog
10-07-2008, 02:12 PM
Earlier in this thread sec said something like tax cuts now would lead to a tax raise on our children. That was the gist of his statement and it's easily one of the most ridiculous things he has ever said. The Kennedy tax cuts, The Reagan Tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts all raised more revenue due to increased economic activity. How can having MORE money now cause a tax increase on our children? Ridiculous! We need to curb spending and get rid of money wasters like food stamps and subsidized housing. While we need to cut spending, Obama will add about a Trillion to our budget. Scary...


You are so far out of it.

Tax cuts, welfare to you now, given out of money borrowed from someone else, pick 'em , means someone , sometime has to finance it and/or pay it back.

You are so far out of it.

We are getting rid of subsidized housing, but your boy Gw and friends seem to think that's a bad deal now. Don't you see all the subsidized homes that we have gotten rid of all around you?

Thus all the bail outs.

Maybe if you could ever realize that they are feeding you an endless line of b.s. , only the semantics change , you would have a chance.

ddog
10-07-2008, 02:13 PM
You find voter fraud funny?


I find it irrelevant.

Who cares who steals a corpse.

wonatthewire1
10-07-2008, 02:25 PM
But in the case of the bankers and investment banks and insurance companies, they get bailed out and the guys responsible for the huge losses walk away with hundreds of millions in compensation.

If they can bet and lose and the consequences are that they walk away making millions then .... well then .... just maybe they know more about the mathematics of gambling than I give them credit for. Who are the suckers here?


That's what the requisite Ivy League education is for - get what you can and walk away unscathed.

That class is during the freshman year in undergrad and the first course for grad school/MBA degree

:eek:

PaceAdvantage
10-07-2008, 06:12 PM
I find it irrelevant.

Who cares who steals a corpse.I care. Millions of others seemed to care in 2000 and 2004 when they couldn't comprehend Bush victory, thus endless accusations by Dems of voter fraud carried out by Republicans.

Now, because a Dem is being accused, all of a sudden, it doesn't matter...

Ok then!

ddog
10-07-2008, 08:20 PM
I care. Millions of others seemed to care in 2000 and 2004 when they couldn't comprehend Bush victory, thus endless accusations by Dems of voter fraud carried out by Republicans.

Now, because a Dem is being accused, all of a sudden, it doesn't matter...

Ok then!


I voted Bush back then.
it ain't worth it now.
no matter which of these clowns , it just don't matter.

i would rather see Chney or Bush stay in.
they can't do anything either, but at least they wouldn't do much either.


anything good is going to have to come from main street, you could close the FEDS down , would be for the better.

wonatthewire1
10-08-2008, 09:51 PM
From the article:

"I never voted before," Woods said, because of a felony conviction that previously barred him from the polls. "Without this service, I would have had no way to get here."

Just an FYI JR, came across this one from Cleveland Plain Dealer

http://www.cleveland.com/living/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/living-1/1222849999238060.xml&coll=2

looks like felons can vote in OH these days

:faint: :eek:

JustRalph
10-08-2008, 10:28 PM
Just an FYI JR, came across this one from Cleveland Plain Dealer

http://www.cleveland.com/living/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/living-1/1222849999238060.xml&coll=2

looks like felons can vote in OH these days

:faint: :eek:

no shit. I know that, But I don't agree with it. Which is why I highlighted it in the original post.

wonatthewire1
10-09-2008, 05:50 PM
no shit. I know that, But I don't agree with it. Which is why I highlighted it in the original post.


:ThmbUp:

Lefty
10-09-2008, 08:11 PM
ddog, so actual cash money almost doubles to the Treasury and that isn't good? Tax cuts don't have to be paid for, that's the dimwits line of crap. If you get more money, it's bad? Gimme a break. You're the one buying bullshit, by the tons it appears.