September 17, 2008 9:00 AM
On the economy: McCain says feds 'forced' to bail out AIG
John McCain says the government was forced into an $85 billion loan to AIG, a day after he'd rejected the idea.
McCain appeared to soften his opposition to the bailout proposed by the Treasury Department, treating the plan as a necessary evil to protect ordinary Americans with finanical ties to AIG - and asserting that such a financial collapse should not be allowed to happen again. He also called for an investigation to uncover any wrongdoing."The government was forced to commit $85 billion," McCain said in a statement. "These actions stem from failed regulation, reckless management and a casino culture on Wall Street that has crippled one of the most important companies in America," McCain said in a statement.
"The focus of any such action should be to protect the millions of Americans who hold insurance policies, retirement plans and other accounts with AIG," he said. "We must not bail out the management and speculators who created this mess. They had months of warnings following the Bear Stearns debacle, and they failed to act."
Although he is stepping up criticism of government regulators as he seeks the presidency, McCain has long favored a reduction in corporate regulation. A similar free-market thinker, former Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, who led the Senate Banking Committee in Congress, has been an adviser to the campaign.
McCain himself had a hand in economic matters as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which he once chaired. His campaign has noted that McCain was heavily involved in telecommunications regulation and deregulation.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama released a two-minute commercial to detail his plans to deal with the economy.
The new ad was filmed in Denver on Tuesday and was to be broadcast nationally in the wake of one of the worst days on Wall Street, as the stock market, reeling from the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the takeover of Merrill Lynch, fell 500 points. The turmoil continued Tuesday when the Federal Reserve forged an extraordinary $85 billion rescue of insurance giant American International Group Inc.The ad and a hardening of Obama's rhetoric reflected a turning point in the campaign to zero in on the economy as the No. 1 issue for voters.
Obama's point was that Americans didn't have to read newspapers or watch television reports to know that the economy is struggling.
Obama said: "600,000 Americans have lost their jobs since January. Paychecks are flat and home values are falling. It's hard to pay for gas and groceries and if you put it on a credit card they've probably raised your rates
Many analysts agree with McCain's comment about the economy's fundamentals being strong.
McCain later toned down his remarks, but his observation reflected a debate among analysts and policymakers about the economy's underlying health. Plenty of them think he's right.Polls show a majority of voters put the economy as their No. 1 concern with seven weeks to go until the presidential election. Many economists believe we are now in a recession. Signs of economic distress are everywhere as housing prices continue to fall and the nation's financial system is pounded by a series of shocks, including a 504-point drop in the Dow Jones industrials on Monday.
"Strains in financial markets have increased significantly and labor markets have weakened further," the Federal Reserve said in a sober assessment Tuesday. But in deciding against lowering interest rates, the central bank signaled that it didn't see the economy's present situation as dire.
Which candidate do you think has the best policy for improving the economy?
September 15, 2008
3:52 PM
Ken Lay's ghost writes:
See Deregulation works! Lehman is dust. Merril is dust. thats why Im for McCain.
September 15, 2008
4:40 PM
Clark writes:
The economy is the biggest issue right now because it effects us so directly. However, I am most concerned with the environment because it will have a much greater effect on us in the future if we don’t address it now. Given the state we’re in, I think it is very important for us, as consumers, to support ‘green business.’ For example, I came across an interesting website http://www.simplestop.net that stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment. I hope the next President will support the effort.
September 15, 2008
5:46 PM
history buff writes:
When you got $100M and seven houses, the economy probably does look fundamentally sound.
McCain has the answer. Marry a rich woman, and become a politician, or an actor, or a blogger. It's not a bad living if you can get it.
September 15, 2008
7:07 PM
Jimmie writes:
Can Obama have two vice presidents? One to answer questions about foreign policy and one to help with the economy?
September 15, 2008
7:12 PM
KW writes:
Right along with the burst in the real estate market bubble, so has the crude oil bubble finally tanked.
And this bubble bursting party has a far more positive reaching effects on many more Americans than those who bought ill advisedly beyond their means in a price swelling housing market that later collapsed.
September 15, 2008
7:13 PM
KW writes:
Right along with the burst in the real estate market bubble, so has the crude oil bubble finally tanked.
And this bubble bursting party has a far more positive reaching effects on many more Americans. As opposed to those hurting now because the bought ill advisedly beyond their means in a price swelling housing market that later collapsed.
September 15, 2008
9:36 PM
jay writes:
even greenspan has admitted that not only is this the "worst economy he's ever seen" but that the country simply can't afford mccain's tax platform.
considering the data...you have to wonder who folks are still convincing themselves to vote republican.
September 15, 2008
9:54 PM
DenverGuy writes:
I've been saying over and over that we can't cut taxes. Obama's plan is more reasonable because it pays for its tax cuts by taxing other people. But we are running a $400 billion deficit this year. That is for one year!
The second biggest item in our budget is interest on the debt. The Republicans took a net surplus and turned it into this mess just in time for 9/11, a war in Iraq, the destruction of New Orleans, now Texas, and the economic problems we are having now. We have borrowed so much that we no longer have any maneuvering room.
This non-stop Republican chant of cutting taxes and that deficits don't matter is about to sink the ship. Of course, if they follow their usual course of action, they will find a way to blame the problem on liberals.
September 15, 2008
9:56 PM
Anonymous writes:
You conveniently misquoted Greenspan jay.
He said that the proposed tax cuts would not be affordable without cuts in spending.
I'm sure you and your liberal blogging aliases just missed that nuance.
Right?
Wouldn't want to post propaganda and spin - because you NEVER do that.
(lol)
September 15, 2008
10:08 PM
CPA writes:
Hey DenverDolt:
When in our history has deficit spending ever sunk the ship?
These chicken little platitudes are great for the sheeple but don't work with thinking voters.
The so-called budget surplus you seem to pin your argument on was as much a construction and ledger phenomenon as the deficits have been. It's the way our government does business.
Come up with something original and palpable for a change.
September 15, 2008
11:09 PM
KW writes:
jay- Would that be the same Greenspan you've spent the last eight years clamoring on about how his opinion wasn't worth squat?
Yet today you hold up a misquoted version of Greenspan's actual words as Gospel?
You sound like you've been over at the dailykos too long my friend. Here, have a sip of coffee and get back to reality.
You could use a dose.
September 16, 2008
7:34 AM
Anonymous writes:
You people are idiots, there is nothing McCain or Obama can do about the economy. The only ones to blame are Congress for allowing these paper trading schemes to go on for so long. A sound economy is manufacturing, science / tech, etc. Not the trading of paper you dolts. Why dont you arm chair politicans get off line and run out and buy yourselves a clue.
September 16, 2008
7:37 AM
McCain has gone to the gutter writes:
Whats really sad is McCains lies are too much for Karl Rove to handle.
September 16, 2008
8:07 AM
JW writes:
KW,
How does your adhominem attack refute Jay's quoting of Greenspan? It doesnt. Not at all. Just hot wind.
The only valid point you make is that Jay took Greenspan's quote "out of context". Even that is suspicious, becuase you and your wingnut ilk are the KINGS of taking quotes out of context. Hell, you dont even need them to be anywhere NEAR context (see "Al Gore said he invented the internet"). Yet here you are abusing Jay for taking Greenspan out of context (which he actually did not do. He simply did not quote the ENTIRE statemet.) Ever heard of a "double standard"? You partisan hacks use them ALL THE TIME.
The reality is that Greenspan said just what Jay said he did. He also said that spending cuts could change that. The problem here is that McCain doesnt seem to have any way to cut spending. His "I'll stop all pork!" comments are both pathetic and untrue. Pathetic because total pork in 07 amounted to $18 billion, which is alot of money, but not when compared to a $400 billion dollar yearly deficit, or a multi TRILLION dollar debt. Untrue because he will NOT kill all pork. Hes stated himself that earmarks to Israel at the very least will continue. Anyone stupid enough to believe those are the ONLY earmarks he will allow? Yes, I know, several of you wingnuts ARE that stupid, and I pity you (and the rest of America if you are in the majority this november).
"Whats really sad is McCains lies are too much for Karl Rove to handle."
LOL! Yes, I was flatly AMAZED by that. I think it was less "too much for Karl Rove to handle" and more "So blatant Karl was forced to call him out". What Rove is really saying is "Get some subtlety for fucks sake! Americans are stupid and will buy ANYTHING, but it cant be THAT obvious! Learn how to lie!" Its sad really. I used to like John McCain. Then he went and caved on EVERYTHING for the Religious Right, and became a scumbag willing to say anything and do anything, no matter how dishonest, to win. Disgusting.
September 16, 2008
9:30 AM
jay writes:
"Would that be the same Greenspan you've spent the last eight years clamoring on about how his opinion wasn't worth squat?"
completely inaccurate.
i have been the one pointing to greenspan for years (remember his dire warnings about the deficit spending and the value of the dollar?)
nice try though.
you're batting a goose egg so far...i know you can't actually discuss policy or The Track Record, but you couldn't do any worse.
considering The Track Record...the republicans have actually been as bad, maybe worse, for the country that the terrorists who hit us on 9/11.
the real question now is do they have a good plan to fix the mess they created?
September 16, 2008
1:09 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Clinton's croneys created the mortgage crisis writes:
Denver Guy,
The surplus you talk about was due to the peace dividend. Then 9-11 happened and the economy took a hit and our expenses went up to fight the terrorists. In spite of that, Federal revenues went up $625 billion from 2003 to 2006. So the problem was not the tax cut but rather the failure to rein in spending. Both sides of the aisle are to blame for that, and so neither side can claim any real leadership on that issue.
Regarding the mortgage crisis, where is the real problem there? Could it be people like Jamie Gorelick who helped push Freddie and Fannie to give mortgages to everyone with a pulse? Then she took her $26 million bonus and headed for the hills.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf
September 16, 2008
1:53 PM
Froward69 writes:
about Greenspan's rosey picture of the economic melt down republicans gave us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO9idrZs30M
OBAMA/BIDEN '08
September 16, 2008
1:57 PM
jay writes:
"Both sides of the aisle are to blame for that, and so neither side can claim any real leadership on that issue"
no, hogar, both sides are not equally to blame for the skyrocketing spending over the last 8 years.
do we really have to go over that again?
accountability.
embrace it.
September 16, 2008
2:10 PM
RLK McDonald writes:
Just browsing the site, I noticed one inescapable item in your posts about Barack Obama. The KKK is alive and well and on a Rocky Mountain high delving into the bottom of the muck-rakers barrel. I haven't seen such blatant racism since Reverend King tried to get the unfettered vote for black people.
Greenspan comments reflect the expected posturing of the radical right and the liberal left; the first group says it ain't our fault, the second says yah, it is. Neither has a solution for the nightmare George Bush created with a budget surplus and a healthy economy.
September 16, 2008
2:18 PM
Anonymous writes:
here's what I have to wonder; if Greenspan says McCain's plan won't work, and Obama says his tax cuts are even deeper and for more people, then why doesn't Greenspan say that Obama's plan won't work either? .. seems odd, no?
September 16, 2008
2:19 PM
DenverGuy writes:
CPA is a bit dense. Claiming that deficits won't hurt us because they haven't done so yet is like saying that playing Russian roulette won't hurt us because it never has before. Look at all the countries that have run huge deficits for too long besides us in the last 100 years and they have all wound up suffering big time.
The tax cuts are the problem. When you have a surplus, you want to be sure to save the money for a rainy day. And guess what happened? We have had a lot of rainy days since Bush took office! That's why the tax cuts turned out to be so disastrous.
And when Bush decided to launch a war, he made no effort to pay for it.
If the problem were spending too much, why hasn't a Republican president since Eisenhower proposed a balanced budget? Because they are wimps and don't want to take the heat for making the cuts.
At this point, there is only $600 billion in discretionary non-military spending anyway. All the rest of the money is committed to things that can't be cut. No one is going to go for cutting two thirds of the discretionary spending, that is why Bush hasn't tried to cut it. McCain wants to cut $300 billion more in taxes. This is insane.
September 16, 2008
2:19 PM
Kayla Walker writes:
"You can please some of the people SOME of the time, but you cannot please ALL the people ALL the time." "You are a risk taker-or you are a non-risk taker." "You are lucky or unlucky." "You know how and when to get out of the market, or you do not." "You ride the waves or you sit on the beach." I am a risk taker, however I only take risks if the risk is safe or secure. We as the Ameircan people take risks everyday. I believe that Obama is a NEW THINKER in 2008 and I believe he is smarter than McCain will ever dream because McCain is stuck in a rut and cannot think outside the box. We all follow rules and regulations, but we have to follow the rules to a certain degree and control regulation when needed. After 8 years of Republican thought, it is time for Democratic thought. We as the people allowed the Republicans to do this to us....that is why there is bi-partisanship. The Repulicans ruled too long and too narrow minded. We as the people have to pick ourselves up from whatever financial loss that we have incurred and change our thinking to make America better and by electing Obama as our democratic leader.
September 16, 2008
2:27 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
In some ways (and I hate to say this), but McCain is right in that the fundamentals are still strong. We are still the world's most powerful economy, though for how long will later be determined.
The housing crisis was to a great extent, self-inflicted. Let's face it: Lots of people got mortgages who had no business doing so. In a number of brief years, homeownership went from something that you had to qualify for to something that pretty much anyone could do. That should be truly scary to us all.
To a great extent, I am disappointed in BOTH candidates. Niether are talking about how to balance the budget and niether is talking about spending cuts. This is a pill we are going to have to swallow sooner or later.
Lastly, we should see the value of the dollar as a vote in what the rest of the world (aka our creditors) sees in our future. Without getting our financial house in order, we are going to have to offer higher interest rates to our creditors in the future. This will essentially tie the hands of the FED should the economy falter. We cannot let this happen.
September 16, 2008
2:27 PM
JMH writes:
Let's see... We have Obama who has a plan, and is willing to see reality in regards to the economy. He is someone who is from a middle class background and knows a thing or two about what we struggle with everyday...
Then we have McSame, who has a plan also, but it is to continue the same economic plan of G. W. Bush (deficit spending, rewarding corporations who outsource jobs, obey his masters in teh military industrial complex, etc.) that got us here, but was born with a "silver spoon in his mouth", never been in the middle class and has no clue what we have to do day to day, has more homes than he can count and probably never even cut out a coupon struggling to make "ends meet" in his life. Hell he probably doesn't even know how to use sissors, probably has someone to do that for him too...
Who do you think is going to help us?
September 16, 2008
2:33 PM
jay writes:
"if Greenspan says McCain's plan won't work, and Obama says his tax cuts are even deeper and for more people, then why doesn't Greenspan say that Obama's plan won't work either?"
because mccain's plan increases the debt more.
September 16, 2008
2:46 PM
Shaggy writes:
Obama may have a plan but it is a bad plan that will bankrupt this Country.
His tax plan involves the single largest tax increase the United States has ever seen.
He says it will not effect middle America which is an out right lie.
errr well unless you don't buy food, clothes, gas or buy anything from any company, business or store of any kind.
He will kill small business.
He will raise unemployment when small business can't afford to provide health care to all.
He will kill big time investors that invest in Businesses thus raising unemployment higher.
Obama is bad bad bad for America.
He is nothing but a typical Liberal bent on turning America into a Socialist Country.
He is for big Government and Nationalization.
September 16, 2008
3:06 PM
JMH writes:
Shaggy, can you stop lying ever? Nop wonder you are supporting all the LIARS, I guess birds of a feather DO flock together...
From the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats:
FACT CHECK: Obama wants to raise taxes?
McCain says Obama wants to raise taxes. True?
The Statement:
"First of all, Sen. Obama wants to raise taxes," John McCain said in an interview on CNN's "American Morning" on Tuesday, Sept. 16. "I'm not going to raise anybody's taxes … ."
The FACTS:
While it's impossible to know what policies any candidate would implement in the future, as described by his public statements, Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top one-percent of earners. That's according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.
September 16, 2008
3:06 PM
JMH writes:
Shaggy, can you stop lying ever? Nop wonder you are supporting all the LIARS, I guess birds of a feather DO flock together...
From the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats:
FACT CHECK: Obama wants to raise taxes?
McCain says Obama wants to raise taxes. True?
The Statement:
"First of all, Sen. Obama wants to raise taxes," John McCain said in an interview on CNN's "American Morning" on Tuesday, Sept. 16. "I'm not going to raise anybody's taxes … ."
The FACTS:
While it's impossible to know what policies any candidate would implement in the future, as described by his public statements, Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top one-percent of earners. That's according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.
September 16, 2008
3:12 PM
mojambo writes:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E2DB1F3BF936A35752C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
NY Times article
November 5, 1999
CONGRESS PASSES WIDE-RANGING BILL EASING BANK LAWS
By STEPHEN LABATON
Congress approved landmark legislation today that opens the door for a new era on Wall Street in which commercial banks, securities houses and insurers will find it easier and cheaper to enter one another's businesses.
The measure, considered by many the most important banking legislation in 66 years, was approved in the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8 and in the House tonight by 362 to 57. The bill will now be sent to the president, who is expected to sign it, aides said. It would become one of the most significant achievements this year by the White House and the Republicans leading the 106th Congress.
''Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,'' Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said. ''This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.''
The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation's financial system. The original idea behind Glass-Steagall was that separation between bankers and brokers would reduce the potential conflicts of interest that were thought to have contributed to the speculative stock frenzy before the Depression.
Today's action followed a rich Congressional debate about the history of finance in America in this century, the causes of the banking crisis of the 1930's, the globalization of banking and the future of the nation's economy.
Administration officials and many Republicans and Democrats said the measure would save consumers billions of dollars and was necessary to keep up with trends in both domestic and international banking. Some institutions, like Citigroup, already have banking, insurance and securities arms but could have been forced to divest their insurance underwriting under existing law. Many foreign banks already enjoy the ability to enter the securities and insurance industries.
''The world changes, and we have to change with it,'' said Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who wrote the law that will bear his name along with the two other main Republican sponsors, Representative Jim Leach of Iowa and Representative Thomas J. Bliley Jr. of Virginia. ''We have a new century coming, and we have an opportunity to dominate that century the same way we dominated this century. Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, came at a time when the thinking was that the government was the answer. In this era of economic prosperity, we have decided that freedom is the answer.''
In the House debate, Mr. Leach said, ''This is a historic day. The landscape for delivery of financial services will now surely shift.''
But consumer groups and civil rights advocates criticized the legislation for being a sop to the nation's biggest financial institutions. They say that it fails to protect the privacy interests of consumers and community lending standards for the disadvantaged and that it will create more problems than it solves.
The opponents of the measure gloomily predicted that by unshackling banks and enabling them to move more freely into new kinds of financial activities, the new law could lead to an economic crisis down the road when the marketplace is no longer growing briskly.
''I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ''I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.''
Senator Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, said that Congress had ''seemed determined to unlearn the lessons from our past mistakes.''
''Scores of banks failed in the Great Depression as a result of unsound banking practices, and their failure only deepened the crisis,'' Mr. Wellstone said. ''Glass-Steagall was intended to protect our financial system by insulating commercial banking from other forms of risk. It was one of several stabilizers designed to keep a similar tragedy from recurring. Now Congress is about to repeal that economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place.''
Supporters of the legislation rejected those arguments. They responded that historians and economists have concluded that the Glass-Steagall Act was not the correct response to the banking crisis because it was the failure of the Federal Reserve in carrying out monetary policy, not speculation in the stock market, that caused the collapse of 11,000 banks. If anything, the supporters said, the new law will give financial companies the ability to diversify and therefore reduce their risks. The new law, they said, will also give regulators new tools to supervise shaky institutions.
''The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown,'' said Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska.
Others said the legislation was essential for the future leadership of the American banking system.
''If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world,'' said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. ''There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive.''
But other lawmakers criticized the provisions of the legislation aimed at discouraging community groups from pressing banks to make more loans to the disadvantaged. Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, said during the House debate that the legislation was ''mean-spirited in the way it had tried to undermine the Community Reinvestment Act.'' And Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, said it was ironic that while the legislation was deregulating financial services, it had begun a new system of onerous regulation on community advocates.
Many experts predict that, even though the legislation has been trailing market trends that have begun to see the cross-ownership of banks, securities firms and insurers, the new law is certain to lead to a wave of large financial mergers.
The White House has estimated the legislation could save consumers as much as $18 billion a year as new financial conglomerates gain economies of scale and cut costs.
Other experts have disputed those estimates as overly optimistic, and said that the bulk of any profits seen from the deregulation of financial services would be returned not to customers but to shareholders.
These are some of the key provisions of the legislation:
*Banks will be able to affiliate with insurance companies and securities concerns with far fewer restrictions than in the past.
*The legislation preserves the regulatory structure in Washington and gives the Federal Reserve and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency roles in regulating new financial conglomerates. The Securities and Exchange Commission will oversee securities operations at any bank, and the states will continue to regulate insurance.
*It will be more difficult for industrial companies to control a bank. The measure closes a loophole that had permitted a number of commercial enterprises to open savings associations known as unitary thrifts.
One Republican Senator, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, voted against the legislation. He was joined by seven Democrats: Barbara Boxer of California, Richard H. Bryan of Nevada, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Wellstone.
In the House, 155 Democrats and 207 Republicans voted for the measure, while 51 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 independent opposed it. Fifteen members did not vote.
Tucked away in the legislation is a provision that some experts today warned could cost insurance policyholders as much as $50 billion. The provision would allow mutual insurance companies to move to other states to avoid payments they would otherwise owe policyholders as they reorganize their corporate structure. Many states, including New York and New Jersey, do not allow such relocations without the consent of the insurer's domicile state. But the legislation before Congress would pre-empt the states.
Both the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and the Prudential Life Insurance Company are in the midst of reorganizing into stock-based corporations that are requiring them to pay billions of dollars to policyholders from years of accumulated surplus. In exchange, the policyholders give up their ownership in the mutual insurance company.
The legislation would permit any mutual insurance company to avoid making surplus payments to policyholders by simply moving to states with more permissive laws and setting up a hybrid corporate structure known as a mutual holding company.
The provision was inserted by Representative Bliley at the urging of a trade association. It attracted little opposition because it was attached to a provision that forbids insurers from discriminating against domestic-violence victims.
In a letter sent to Congress this week, Mr. Summers said that the provision ''could allow insurance companies to avoid state law protecting policyholders, enriching insiders at the expense of consumers.''
September 16, 2008
3:15 PM
PRICELESS... This says it all! writes:
WARREN, Ohio (CNN) – Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO turned John McCain Victory chair, said Tuesday that Sarah Palin isn’t qualified to run her old company.
Appearing on a KTRS Radio show in St. Louis, Fiorina was asked by the host, “Do you think she has the experience to run a major company like Hewlett Packard?”
“No, I don’t,” Fiorina answered.
The response that was immediately circulated by Obama's campaign.
“If John McCain’s top economic advisor doesn’t think he can run a corporation, how on Earth can he run the largest economy in the world in the midst of a financial crisis?" said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor. "Apparently even the people who run his campaign agree that the economy is an issue John McCain doesn’t understand as well as he should."
September 16, 2008
3:18 PM
Kevin J Jones writes:
Any truth to the American Spectator's report that Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, former CEOs of Fannie Mae, are key donors and political and economic advisers to Obama?
September 16, 2008
3:20 PM
Duane Bair writes:
Let's hope McCain puts Mitt Romney in as a cabinet member and has him work on the economy. I think if he announced that today he would win the election in a land slide. That is if the Liberal media would even let the public know.
September 16, 2008
3:25 PM
DenverGuy writes:
CPA is a bit dense. Claiming that deficits won't hurt us because they haven't done so yet is like saying that playing Russian roulette won't hurt us because it never has before. Look at all the countries that have run huge deficits for too long besides us in the last 100 years and they have all wound up suffering big time.
The tax cuts are the problem. When you have a surplus, you want to be sure to save the money for a rainy day. And guess what happened? We have had a lot of rainy days since Bush took office! That's why the tax cuts turned out to be so disastrous.
And when Bush decided to launch a war, he made no effort to pay for it.
If the problem were spending too much, why hasn't a Republican president since Eisenhower proposed a balanced budget? Because they are wimps and don't want to take the heat for making the cuts.
At this point, there is only $600 billion in discretionary non-military spending anyway. All the rest of the money is committed to things that can't be cut. No one is going to go for cutting two thirds of the discretionary spending, that is why Bush hasn't tried to cut it. McCain wants to cut $300 billion more in taxes. This is insane.
September 16, 2008
3:34 PM
JMH writes:
Mojambo,
Thanks for that article. Great bit of info there...This quote jumped right out at me...
"It would become one of the most significant achievements this year by the White House and the Republicans leading the 106th Congress."
...and so did this one...
''I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ''I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.''
Dorgan nailed that didn't he?
This bill was also another GOP failure (it was a GOP sponsered bill)... will suprises never end? WOW... Thanks GOP, are you guys really trying to run America into the ground?
September 16, 2008
4:12 PM
Duane Bair writes:
Let's hope McCain puts Mitt Romney in as a cabinet member and has him work on the economy. I think if he announced that today he would win the election in a land slide. That is if the Liberal media would even let the public know.
September 16, 2008
4:15 PM
KING writes:
Blow me over with a feather..the dumocrats solution is more government...shocker !!!
September 16, 2008
7:01 PM
rick_e_bear writes:
McCain says he knows the economy because he was "head of the Commerce Committee". Here's what the Commerce Committee does:
The full list of Commerce Committee oversight areas follows:
1. Coast Guard.
2. Coastal zone management.
3. Communications.
4. Highway safety.
5. Inland waterways, except construction.
6. Interstate commerce.
7. Marine and ocean navigation, safety, and transportation, including
navigational aspects of deepwater ports.
8. Marine fisheries.
9. Merchant marine and navigation.
10. Nonmilitary aeronautical and space sciences.
11. Oceans, weather, and atmospheric activities.
12. Panama Canal and interoceanic canals generally, except as provided
in subparagraph (c).
13. Regulation of consumer products and services, including testing
related to toxic substances, other than pesticides, and except for
credit, financial services, and housing.
14. Regulation of interstate common carriers, including railroads,
buses, trucks, vessels, pipelines, and civil aviation.
15. Science, engineering, and technology research and development and
policy.
16. Sports.
17. Standards and measurement.
18. Transportation.
19. Transportation and commerce aspects of Outer Continental Shelf
lands.
September 16, 2008
11:07 PM
Politicians & Whores Screw You 4 $ writes:
-Hey, JMH. Here's what jumps out the most to counter your spin doctoring on the article Mojambo posted,
November 5, 1999
CONGRESS PASSES WIDE-RANGING BILL EASING BANK LAWS
"The measure, ... was approved in the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8 and in the House tonight by 362 to 57. The bill will now be sent to the president, who is expected to sign it, aides said"
"In the House, 155 Democrats and 207 Republicans voted for the measure, while 51 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 independent opposed it. Fifteen members did not vote."
-Looks like the majority of both parties supported it and then none other than Bill Clinton signed it. When will all you dipsticks of both parties come to the realization that politicians are not your friends. They continually put their own interests above the country and then point their sactimonious fingers at each other. This will continue unabated as long as we have the 2 party system. America, send a real message to Washington, vote for a third party candidate and ignore McSame and Hussein.
September 17, 2008
5:54 AM
Anonymous writes:
The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.
But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.
Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.
While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.
Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it
September 17, 2008
6:34 AM
Froward69 writes:
so to stave off another Great Depression Regulations were put in place...
republicans like bush and McSame Deregulated so their cronies could rob Taxpayers. and bring on another Depression.
Obama/Biden '08
September 17, 2008
7:13 AM
Anonymous writes:
Froward, you are an idiot, neither one of them deregulated anything you dolt
September 17, 2008
8:16 AM
Jim writes:
On the economy: Obama offers blueprint with stiffer market regulations
So what does McCain offer to fix this?
anyone
September 17, 2008
8:42 AM
Anonymous writes:
Is it true that Chris Dodd and Obama received large donations from these failed enterprises?
Amazing the media doesn't have this on the front page.
September 17, 2008
8:43 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) The Federal government causes more problems than it solves writes:
Here is the list of the top five recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie & Freddie. Well I gues that proves that the mortgage crisis is a Republican problem.
1. Dodd, Christopher J Senate D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John Senate D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack Senate D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary Senate D-NY $75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E House D-PA $65,500
September 17, 2008
8:46 AM
Tom writes:
Here is how our maverick promises to fight corruption.
http: //news.yahoo.com/s/ap/palin_mccain_operatives
"JUNEAU, Alaska - GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is effectively turning over questions about her record as Alaska's governor to John McCain's political campaign, part of an ambitious Republican strategy to limit any embarrassing disclosures and carefully shape her image for voters in the rest of the country. "
"Republican efforts include dispatching a former top U.S. terrorism prosecutor from New York, Ed O'Callaghan, to assist Palin's personal lawyer working to derail or delay a pending ethics investigation in Alaska. The probe, known as "Troopergate," is examining whether the governor abused her power by trying to remove her former brother-in-law as a state trooper."
you gotta be kidding
September 17, 2008
8:47 AM
Gloom&Doom writes:
Nobama has NO clue on the economy. He reads off the promter and still fumbles. He represents the welfare party who instills fears into potential voters that you will have everything while paying for nothing. I guess his thoughts evolve around money grows on trees and bait & switch. He can't deliver on his promises because of the law of economics. If, by some remote chance he is elected, Those mis-informed & mis-represented voters will cry foul. Maybe they can vote to impeach.
Exercize caution in your vote as Nobama will have all your money
September 17, 2008
8:49 AM
60s4ever writes:
As the economy tumbles, George Bush is reading "My Pet Pig with Lipstick".
September 17, 2008
8:56 AM
Shaggy writes:
Hog,
Isn't it ironic that Chris Dodd is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and he gets the lions share of Donations from these failed enterprises?
Doom,
Are you saying Obama has to have a tele prompter even when he is just doing rally?
hehehe, this guy is such an embarrassment.
September 17, 2008
9:01 AM
history buff writes:
McCain's four options concerning his promise to cut taxes, balance the budget, fight foreign wars, and solve the financial crises, all in one fell swoop.
1. Have the federal government bail out the federal government.
2. Print several million billion dollars and pay everything off.
3. Sarah Palin has a machine that converts lead to gold. What? You don't believe it? Then you are just an negative elitist liberal sexist snob.
4. Tinker bell will waive her magic wand and sprinkle fairy dust on it and everything will be better.
September 17, 2008
9:06 AM
Anonymous writes:
This reminds me of that old Beauprez ad where bob is standing in front of an old mavericks butt saying something smells.
and our local posters respond
Shaggy: I don't smell anything .Tastes great
Hogar: Must be Clinton
Kw: Spot on Shaggy ! spot on!
September 17, 2008
9:06 AM
am 760 writes:
The economy and country is at the worst its ever been after 8 years of repubs deregulating everything. No oversight, no accountability, no morals. 600,000 jobs lost each month for the last 3 months, record foreclosures, record debt, boy those repub policies are just doing great. How can you repubs sit here and say everything is okay and that mccain who's part of the party who gave us this crisis is the person that can solve the problems his party has created.
I mean do you understand how insane that sounds! No I guess you don't, thats why you keep voting against yours and all americans best interests.
September 17, 2008
9:14 AM
JMH writes:
LOL... Do the Republicans EVER accept responsibility? Now it's all Clinton's fault huh?
Congress makes the laws, Congress deregulated all these industries (with John "Mr. Keating 5" McSame on the front lines) and Congress was controlled by Republicans when all this deregulation was going on!
I fell for the "talking points" on deregulation as well at the time (more compition, citizens would get cheaper, rates, prices, etc.). Well it hasn't worked and we are now seeing the results! Step one is to accept that fact.
The fact that some Dems went along is true and they do deserve some of the blame, but lets be real here. DEREGULATION of all industries is the GOP's "baby"! You can try to spin it all you want, but now that we let the market take care of it self (and run amock) we now have socialism in it's place (government buyouts) to help protect citizens being caught up in the greed.
If the regulations were kept in place, we wouldn't be seeing this today... and who is the champion of DE-regulation - the GOP and all it's corporate slaves that are suppoesed to be working for us, the citizens of the USA. They did the bidding of their corporate and Wall St. masters and now WE are paying the price.
It's called accountablity, and the GOP needs to learn some, especially when they are so keen on preaching it to all of us!
"It's Clinton's fault"... now that is some spin! The only thing he is at fault for was going along with the GOP and not vetoing all this when he had the chance! See what you get when you trust Republicans!
September 17, 2008
9:16 AM
Anonymous writes:
Good copy of this mornings rants on AM 760, AM760. Actually this mess is a direct result of Clintons policies forcing banks and lenders to lend to minorities with high risk. Why dont you actually read you stooge?
Why dont you list what the republicans deregulated you dumbass>?
September 17, 2008
9:27 AM
JMH writes:
Anonymous... Get a grip. It's Clinton's fault because he tried to help more Americans reach the "American Dream"? You really didn't just imply this did you? Who is the F*CKIN ELITIST NOW?
The only thing that Clinton is guilty of in this mess in not REGULATING the Republicans!
But thanks for coping teh morning "spin" from all the clear channel propaganda staions. Get your head out of your a$$!
September 17, 2008
9:37 AM
Liberal Man writes:
Bill Clinton was the best President we have ever had next to Jimmy Carter and Obama will be just like Jimmy Carter and finally succeed at bringing socialism to America. It is about time BIG Government controls all aspects of our lives.
September 17, 2008
9:47 AM
history buff writes:
Hey LM. Would you call these Bush bailouts corporate socialism. I think the GOP has already brought it to America.
September 17, 2008
10:00 AM
Shawn writes:
Jay
You're a CLOWN!!!
September 17, 2008
10:03 AM
Shawn writes:
Jay
You're a CLOWN!!!
September 17, 2008
10:20 AM
GladysKravitz writes:
you have to ask? Well since it's only NOW that McCain-omics seems to be realizing the trouble we are in somehow I doubt he is the better candidate. Obama has been right about this from day one of his campaign. Now to be fair, Obama it was also only recently that we've seen the any results of the surge in Iraq having any "good" effect. But it's the economic war at home that is REALLY having any effect on Americans. That be ing said...I think Obama has the better side this.
September 17, 2008
10:37 AM
jay writes:
let's recap.
mccain's economic advisor phil gramm...the architect of the deregulation that has us in this mess...has told mccain that the economy is strong.
greenspan...who has warned us about the folly of mcbush economic policies for years...says it's the worst economy he's ever seen.
who are you going to believe?
it is terrifying to consider that there are voters out there who are gullible and naive enough to vote for these clowns.
September 17, 2008
10:37 AM
Liberal Man writes:
HB,
Yes, Bush single handily is bailing these private Companies.
Hey I know, lets blame Bush for causing the capsize in the first place.
This why we need to vote someone for Obama who is for change and shows it by picking someone who has been in the Senate since the Nixon days and is the third most Liberal Senator with Obama being the number one, T. Kennedy the number two.
I might add they all three vote strictly party lines without putting the Country first.
September 17, 2008
10:39 AM
Advil.... writes:
Saying, in regards to Obama, "His tax plan involves the single largest tax increase the United States has ever seen." Is simply pandering to those moved by fear mongering. The real issue is: what is the impact to the average American family, and what is the impact to the country as a whole,,,,NOT nonsense that The Tax Center Policy has debunked.
September 17, 2008
10:55 AM
Maxine Waters writes:
This liberal would be all about socializing -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.
September 17, 2008
11:15 AM
bigbadthor writes:
I still don't understand how Republicans can't understand simple economics, you have to pay for things wether or not you want to. To sit here and say decreasing the taxes will on the wealthy will fix the economy is stupid, it hasn't worked for Regan or Bush, just made the rich richer and forced a greater burden on the middle class.
September 17, 2008
11:27 AM
Anonymous writes:
bigbadthor,
We don't expect you to understand simple economics..It is above your pay grade.
When wealthy people no longer can afford to employ people due to abnormally high taxes they have to pay, they simply get rid of people thus cause more unemployment which causes a trickle down economics which leads to a worse economy.
I'll bet that just zoomed right over your head.
September 17, 2008
11:38 AM
history buff writes:
1127 -- that's brilliant. Sounds like you advocate industrial feudalism. I guess life would be better if we were all divided into serfs and vassals.
I got news for you, little buddy. Economics isn't simple. It's a flunk out course for those that go to college. And even its most brilliant practitioners are known to occasionally $*(& things up.
September 17, 2008
11:40 AM
jay writes:
actually, cruton, you're defending trickle down...not disparaging it.
as we've seen...the job data doesn't support your mythical position.
see clinton's vs. bush's job numbers if you don't believe me.
September 17, 2008
2:08 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Clinton's croneys created the mortgage crisis writes:
This much I know. Both parties have and will inflate away all problems. The money supply will reinflate the tire to avoid a blowout, but it is unlikely the tire will really be repaired, and a large number of people will be permanently damaged as a result. Too bad the same can't be said for the long string of policially connected heads of Fannie and Fredie who have walked away with $ millions.
September 17, 2008
6:05 PM
Liberal Hypocrisy writes:
Something you won't hear on MSNBC, CNN or in the big city newspapers.
Fannie and Freddie MAC were the creation of democratic lawmakers (primarily) as part of an overall plan to loosen loan requirements to minority borrowers whose credit was poor. The idea was to open up home ownership to folks who could not afford to purchase homes. This affirmative economic action sparked the loaning frenzy following the Clinton Admins repealing of loan requirements that culminated in the crash we see today.
It is also not widely known that both Fannie and Freddie liked to hire retiring democratic lawmakers to top positions and earned them tens of millions of dollars throughout these fraudulent loans and subsequent crash.
Anyone want to guess when Obama will own up to his party's mistakes and demand reparations from his democratic buddies who were enriched throughout all of this?
For all the railing about deficit spending, the current crash resulting from deficit spending will be ignored by the party that started the ball rolling.
Typical
September 17, 2008
9:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
Idiot righties, mccain has been saying he is a champion of deregulation for most of his political career. That has been one of the GOP talking points for years also. Well we have tried these polices now for over 10 years since repubs took control in 1994. Remember your battle cry repubs, let the free market work itself out. Well you got what you wanted, greed, no oversight and no regulations, which has lead to where we are now.
And now repubs are saving these failed/corrupt institutions by basically nationalizing them, or do we dare say socializing. But I thought repubs hated government and didn't want government involved. Make up your mind you freaking wackos. You lie every day here depending on what the political winds tell you. Mccain continues to copy whatever obama say regarding the economy, the war, etc... They have tried to steal the Change theme, they are now trying to label the dems as the same liberal group that can't lead. Well morons you've lead the country since the Gingrinch revolution and now our country and its people our going bankrupt. Have freaking stupid are you.
September 17, 2008
9:54 PM
Liberal Sheeple writes:
Obama is the changeling candidate.
Jay said so.
September 18, 2008
7:18 AM
Anonymous writes:
Whoa...changeling.
That invokes in interesting concept. We all know that Barack is completely inexperienced, that he has no executive creds, and that his ideology is on the fringe along with his terrorist associates and his racist pastor and former church of several decades.
Changeling..... a plant, a false representative, someone destined to harm the institutions it now has access to.....
Whoa.
September 18, 2008
9:08 AM
Anonymous writes:
God sent Obama to save us.
Pelosi said so.
September 20, 2008
6:16 PM
awakenedcitizen writes:
sorry for the repeats, the webpage was not responding and I clicked too many times.
McCain on the economy:
I am against regulations, I am for regulations, I am against bailing out AIG, I am for bailing out AIG, I have confidence in the American worker (?!), I don't know how to solve the mortgage crisis; I don't know much about the economy; his advisors are Phil Gramm, who introduced legislation that deregulated the financial markets and Carly Fiorini who got a $47,000,000 severance package after ruining HP
September 20, 2008
6:23 PM
Awakenedcitizen writes:
Obama at Colorado School for Mines
In February of 2006, I introduced legislation to stop mortgage transactions that promoted fraud, risk or abuse. A year later, before the crisis hit, I warned Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke about the risks of mounting foreclosures and urged them to bring together all the stakeholders to find solutions to the subprime mortgage meltdown. Senator McCain did nothing.
Last September, I stood up at NASDAQ and said it's time to realize that we are in this together - that there is no dividing line between Wall Street and Main Street - and warned of a growing loss of trust in our capital markets. Months later, Senator McCain told a newspaper that he'd love to give them a solution to the mortgage crisis, "but" - he said - "I don't know one."