Okay....let's see...McCain picked the financial meltdown...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-24
In Reply to: He needs to learn to multitask - mt
as the #1 issue. OBama picked his run for the Presidency. Meaning he is always going to put Barack first. McCain put his country first. End of story.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Fact remains....McCain saw this meltdown coming....
and the Dems would not listen. They did not want to upset the golden apple cart. And we the people are left holding the bag. Do I want one of them in the white house while we are trying to work our way out of this? No way, no how, nobama.
And that is why McCain picked SP.n/m
x
On CNN this morning, John McCain picked...sm
Sarah Palin because of her ideology. She was never veted. Investigators are in Alaska now doing so. Smart move John. 
McCain knew about Bristol before he picked her so what on Earth does that say...sm
about his judgment?!?! Palin has her hands full at home...I understand why he chose a woman but why this one I will never understand?!?!
mcCain blames financial
crisis on Obama. Get that man a posey and some Aricept.
Actually, McCain was in financial meetings all morning....sm
and what I read on CNN is that McCain wasn't told of the content of Obama's first call. I can't find the link to it now, because their news keeps changing.
I believe McCain decided this on his own, without any input from Obama, or even knowing about the call.
I'm willing to bet that he won't give a darn if he loses the debate if he doesn't show up, as it sounds as if Obama refuses to cancel the debate to another time.
Just proves to me that McCain does, indeed, put the country first. He's acting like a true leader.
Chris is on the way to a meltdown
Not only was he rude but he's getting worse and worse as the democrats ratings keep dropping. Talk about a pit bull (without lipstick). He's attacking his guests not giving them a chance to answer the questions. That's not "pinning someone to the wall like a bug". That's just rude. He should ask the guest a question, let him answer, and then respond to his answer. To badger and not let your guest answer a question you ask while giving free reighn (sp?) to the democratic guest is just pure horse hockey. After today I no longer watch his show. I want some truth and clear cut answers and I believe every guest should be allowed to answer a question in full without the host bullying him (which by the way I do not believe Obama called Sarah a pig). Still is no excuse for Mathews to act like that. He's supposed to be a host and treat both sides fairly. That he does not do. He did this to other guests and luckily they said to him let me answer your question. MSNBCs ratings are going down the tube and they just lost one more viewer.
We are broke now in an economic meltdown and
post-911 mindset. There is only one way out for those who look forward to what lays beyond that quagmire. I'll give you a hint. It does not involve a right turn.
It's a meltdown, and heads are starting
to explode!
The candidate who runs from the economy during a meltdown
it is plain to see which side of the fence the hate is coming from.
I prefer the definition of economic meltdown.
Ignore it and your campaign will go down in flames.
Bush is the one that CAUSED this economic meltdown.
x
In the current economic meltdown....he has to inspire confidence...
fortunately for me, I am reaping the benefits of one of his agendas. I would be absolutely THRILLED if he can accomplish it all within the time limits he has imposed upon himself - but, he has an army of congress to aid our progress - how much will the pubs obstruct? I guess we will have to wait to see. I could pisss in my cheerios and embrace your negativity but I'd rather go to bed and have fabulous sex with my husband - we have something to celebrate.
Wrong. Democrats are responsible for the mortgage meltdown, not Bush....
McCain tried to tell them in 2005...Dems blocked the regulation he begged for for Fannie/Freddie. But the Dems were too deep in the pockets...Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson, Timothy Howard...all democrats, all walked away from fannie Mae with golden parachutes of millions...and we are left holding the bag. Fannie contributed more to Chris Dodd, Democratic head of Banking and COmmerce committe than any other senator in the past 20 years...followed closely by Barack Obama, who has only been IN the senate for 2 years...you do the math and follow the money. Democrats largely responsible for this. ANd you want to put one in the white house. Who wants to raise taxes in this financial crisis. What part of collapse of the economy don't you...and Mr. Obama...understand?
We all know why he picked her.....
It is so obvious that he would pick a female to back him even though he is not for EQUALITY!!
Picked him probably because
x
Yep and ABC picked that up, plus she
was interviewed on NBC today by Matt Lauer.
Certainly WOULD NOT have picked
x
She was picked loooong before the
xx
Glad I'm not the only one who picked up on that.
It is so dreadfully uncomfortable listening to him. He's got a good speaking voice, but the uhh, um, uh, uh, um gets very old and I sit at the TV and shout "spit it out".
At first I was thinking wow they picked up....sm
on that quick, but I forgot that I get a late showing. It happened less than 5 minutes ago on the 4 pm broadcast.
Well, Obama picked her?
nm
My pardons to you, then. It was evidently picked up by
Fox and of course had the 'ole Fox spin put on it, riling up once again the unstable.
And Nancy Palosi hand picked more
than 11 of her people to vote NO, people who owed her favors.
Why I think Palin was picked as VP running mate - sm
I have this feeling that somewhere near the end of this campaign, McCain had second thoughts. I think he changed his mind about wanting to try to lead this mess of a country for the next 4 years. He's no spring chicken. I think Palin was plucked from practically out of nowhere to become his running mate because she was such a joke, so inept and incpable of handling the job of being a US vice-pres., that he knew he would lose, but didn't have to stop running and be viewed as a quitter.
Any thoughts on that?
I picked up the quack word from the original post.
No double standard here...unless only Obama detractors are allow to use the quack word. Since you have a hard time talking about more than one thing at a time, let's not divert our attention to include the third subject of homosexual marriage, OK...just keep it simple so you can keep up.
That wasn't my whole message - you just picked out the sentence you wanted to
But that's no surprise. There was one sentence in those two paragraphs about how the crats always blame the pubs, but they never take responsibility and blame the people in their own party who are at fault too. So you take one sentence out of the whole two paragraphs and say that's what the whole message was about. Nice try. My message was about this admistration so far being a disaster in less than one month. The only ones who see it okay are the kool-aid drinkers, and that I'm sick of all the people acting as though there was never a United States until Obama came along. Since you evidently did not read my message I'll repeat it now.
American has been around for over 200 years. We've had some good presidents and we've had some bad presidents, but Obama did not discover a new country here.
Since McCain was not elected nobody can say whether or not he would have been a better president or not, so time to put that dog to rest.
I think you picked the wrong time to make such a suggestion...nm
nm
I know everyone's focus is on the financial...sm
news of the last several days just heard about a special on CNN tomorrow night and Sunday where Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker and Warren Christopher engage in a forum and talk about foreign policy. I heard a few sound bites and it sounds very interesting. I am glad to see a forum where respected people from both parties with experience get together and express their views, agree or disagree respectfully. I will definitely be watching.
A financial attack?
Tell that to the thousands who lost their lives or their loved ones that day. Wow, how cold can you be?
Financial bonuses
Two days ago on C-Span they seemed to congratulate the bigwigs of the financial companies who got BILLIONS in BONUSES. They ran down the list of those that were being questioned and how much they received. It's absolutely sickening. I had to turn it off.
Picked Rahm Emanuel, most left wing liberal for
Wow, real great choice. I wished he would have picked more of a conservative or at least someone for both sides of party. Great way to make start as President.
I think most know that Air America has had financial woes.
Once it was learned that they had misappropriated monies which were supposed to have been used for charity, they lost some good backers. I would think it most probably is financial. There is not a plot behind every business dealing.
We have had our financial plan in order
for quite some time for just such a thing. We haven't spent foolishly or lived above our means. New toys and technology don't impress us much. We have been fortunate and blessed.
Well....buck up little soldier. I think the financial...
well being of the country trumps your party. Oh wait...what am I thinking.
I do agree with you about financial irresponsibility
they need to find some sort of middle ground ......
looked at her financial records lately?
she is definitely not a poor girl in my opinion. I think she could afford to buy her own clothes...
Financial crisis meeting;
November 14, 2008
World leaders dine in style as they discuss financial crisis
(CNN) – The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.
After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.
According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as "Fruitwood-smoked Quail," "Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb," and "Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus."
To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com.
The exceedingly pricey wine may seem a bit peculiar given leaders are in Washington to discuss a possible world financial meltdown, but Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for Laura Bush, said it "was the most appropriate wine that we had in the White House wine cellar for such a gathering.
McDonough also said the White House purchased the wine at a "significantly lower price" than what it is listed at.
"Of course the White House gets its wine at wholesale prices," she said. "Given the intimate size of the group, it was an appropriate time for The White House to use this stock."
The leaders of the U.K., France, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey and 11 developing economies have all come to Washington at the behest of President Bush in an effort to express confidence in the fundamental underpinnings of the world's economy.
– CNN's Becky Brittain contributed to this report
With the looming financial situation...... sm
I don't think Obama's current "plan" will hold much water. A plan is just that....a plan, and we know what John Steinbeck had to say about that. Even if he could tax the upper crust enough to cover the financial crisis, his redistribution of wealth would be moot point because there would likely be nothing left to distribute.
Whether Obama or McCain were elected would make no appreciabe difference in our tax situation because this huge bailout has to be recouped in some fashion and it will be off the backs of ALL Americans.....at least the ones who pay taxes.
No, unions DO put them in a financial hole.
nm
Right back at ya...with the addition of financial ruin...
if Obama and Biden are "hired."
Financial crisis a democratic scandal....sm
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/financial-crisis-a-democrat-scandal/
Read all the comments underneath this, if you have time.
financial disaster, war, health care
You decide what is most important to think about.
How The Democrats Created The Financial Crisis....sm
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
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.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
I am not in favor of the financial institution bailout either..... sm
I think it was just the first in a long line of folks parading to the White House with their hands out. I think we have opened a huge can of worms by bailing them out and there does not seem to be an end in sight.
I'd sure like to know when MTs are going to get their bailout! I'd probably get in line for that one! LOL
25 people to blame for the financial crisis
You can vote on each of these.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/
I'm sorry, you are aware of what caused the financial crisis aren't you?
or you will just blame BUSH BUSH BUSH/CHENEY.
Please, do some research.
If my memory serves me, it started going downhill when a democratic congress took over.
Not only that, this MORTGAGE crisis was set into effect by the CLINTON administration and helped by a DEMOCRATIC congress.
Now let me be clear, I do not think Bush was a great president and he made mistakes, but DO NOT tell me that this financial crisis was his doing. I know you are going to flame me, but don't ignore the facts! Actually, that's what liberals do so nevermind, go ahead anyway.
I agree. I am helping the victims with all the financial support I can spare BUT
if we don't ask the question what happened to the levees, what can we do to make sure this doesn't happen again, where did the funding go? then we will find ourselves in the same position again. We can not afford to be policing other countries when the funding is bankrupt for our own needs. That's just the truth.
Best friend to Hillary, a democratic supporter and financial contributer,
a member of the DNC's (Democrat) platform committee has decided to endorse John McCain. Lynn DE Rothchild is best friends of Hillary and gave her 100,000 for Hillary compaign. She had not even spoke to Hillary yet about her news, but Lynn announced on CNN today that she was resigning the DNC and voting for McCain. Lynn stated that our country is divided due to the Democrats and Congress. She also stated that we need to vote only for the president who will get us through what is going on with our country (which is a lot of things currently) and she stated the only one would be McCain and Palin. She stated, "I care more about my country right now than I do my democratic party." Wolf Blitzer stated to Lynn "You know you are are going to get a lot of flack from this?" Lynn stated that she knew this and just cares more about our country. Even Joe Lieberman endorses McCain who used to be AL Gore's running mate. I am sorry, but I agree that our country is divided.
war, depression, recession, collapse of financial system, people losing
homes, natural disasters unattended to, collapsing bridges, earmark bridges. Address those first, save flag for later.
who could possibly care? War, financial ruin, health care needs.
nm
|
