marks2065

it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. what facts? that McCain tried to stop this with a bill in 2005, but in 2006 the dem controlled congress kick it out. The simplest of fact checking shows the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate in 2005 and 2006. So tell us again why this didn't pass in 2005 or 2006. Blues, Dave Because the Republican - controlled banking committee let it sit in committee. Tell us this - why didn't the Democratic - controlled banking committee act on it at any time SINCE 2006? the bill did pas the house but Dodd and his cronies stopped it in the senate. Now before the left gets their undies in a bunch and say "the rep's controlled the senate" remember it takes 60 votes in the senate to pass and just because you have the majority doesn't mean you have 60 votes. it was made this way so the minority could not be pushed over by a slight majority. So McCain got a bill through the House, but not through the Senate? And the minority Dems should be blamed for it not passing in 2005, but the minority Repubs shouldn't be blamed for the bailout not passing yesterday? I get it...you'll just say anything you want as long as it leaves you comfortably believing your guys are infallible. Blues, Dave 95 democrats didn't vote for the plan. some of the dems that put this together didn't vote for it. if you can't convince your own people how can you convince others?

That's cool. Then we are agreed that on an issue which will cost us over $1 TRILLION (when all costs are added up) and over 4000 lives of young Americans, Obama was RIGHT and McCain was WRONG. Obama took the safe road to make himself look good. Obama has never taken a stance on anything that could be used against him. face it Obama is a spineless used car salesman and nothing more. his economic policies will force companies over seas and reduce jobs. Obama is going to rob from the hard workers and give to the lazy period. he has no understanding of what his tax increases will do companies and jobs, and the lower income people are seeing $'s coming their way for free. The lower 40% of income earners already pay very little or no tax and the top 5% pay most of the tax already. Obama's plan is flawed and people are to pissed off at bush to look objectily at the reprocussions of voting in Obama's policies.

it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. what facts? that McCain tried to stop this with a bill in 2005, but in 2006 the dem controlled congress kick it out. The simplest of fact checking shows the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate in 2005 and 2006. So tell us again why this didn't pass in 2005 or 2006. Blues, Dave Because the Republican - controlled banking committee let it sit in committee. Tell us this - why didn't the Democratic - controlled banking committee act on it at any time SINCE 2006? the bill did pas the house but Dodd and his cronies stopped it in the senate. Now before the left gets their undies in a bunch and say "the rep's controlled the senate" remember it takes 60 votes in the senate to pass and just because you have the majority doesn't mean you have 60 votes. it was made this way so the minority could not be pushed over by a slight majority.

it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. the left doesn't want to admit they started the problem because that would mean that Obama, following the left agenda, would be a bad choice for president. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. So you're saying that the NYT lied? the left doesn't want to admit fault because Obama would then be a bad choice for president since he is following left agenda.

it is not the 90% vote with bush that i am curious about, it is the 10% he didn't vote with bush on. these are the things that make the difference. alot of people agree on alot of things but the subtle diferences are the tangebles that make the person unique

i guess if McCain is bush III that means Obama must like Bush's policy. or maybe McCain isn't that close to bush policy and Obama must not know what he is talking about when he says McCain is alot like bush.

funny how you left out the 8 times Obama agreed with McCain

it's in the article from 1999. were it says In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. Oops! And that is exactly what has happened nine years later. And who were the "killjoys" at the time warning against Fannie Mae easing the credit requirements? That answer is also provided in the NY Times article: ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'' is this enough proof?

it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. what facts? that McCain tried to stop this with a bill in 2005, but in 2006 the dem controlled congress kick it out. Yes this problem went unchecked under bush but that doesn't mean that the clinton era didn't start filling the baloon. The blame falls across the board but it is time for the dem's to start pointing fingers at themselves also. this bailout failure is totally on the dem's. they can't even agree with themselves on this issue. i guess we shouldn't expect anything of value from the DO NOTHING CONGRESS. Mark, Please produce evidence that loans to low income people (as defined in that article) are the cause of THIS crisis. No-one forced investment banks to buy "securitized" loans as a result of those changes. No-one forced ratings agencies to give those packages AAA ratings when they were full of junk. No-one forced mortgage brokers to push loans on people who couldn't pay (often fraudulently). Nothing in those 1999 changes made high income people overextend on 2nd and 3rd homes, huge homes, or investment properties. They weren't being snapped up by the low income folks. That article is a transparent attempt to shift blame from where it is due. if the questionable loans were not given, the mortgage backed securities would be stronger, thus relieving some of this mess. so yes this is part of the problem. greed and presure caused this problem and it does not only include wall street greed. the greed on main street is partially to blame along with those that made it possible by putting presure on those that gave out the loans. for someone that is strong on facts you really are trying to exclude some of the most important ones.

So, just so I understand, you are perfectly fine with McCain giving the people that caused this crisis a way to significantly make a profit from it? i'm not fine with with the bailout period. but i like the McCain version alot better. I don't believe in giving money to PAC's, people that pay little or no tax, or to anyone company CEO that helped this problem grow.

the dem's control congress and they don't even like the bill. sounds pretty bad for us if they can't even work together.

No, McCain just asked for tax breaks to be added to the bill. sounds better than what Obama added. he tried to direct funds to Acorn

it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. -------------------------------------------------------- you mean like this? http://journals.aol.com/skip3366/TheMaverickConservative/entries/2008/09/16/mccain-proven-right-federal-housing-regulatory-reform-act-of-2005/4758

it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. what facts? that McCain tried to stop this with a bill in 2005, but in 2006 the dem controlled congress kick it out. Yes this problem went unchecked under bush but that doesn't mean that the clinton era didn't start filling the baloon. The blame falls across the board but it is time for the dem's to start pointing fingers at themselves also. this bailout failure is totally on the dem's. they can't even agree with themselves on this issue. i guess we shouldn't expect anything of value from the DO NOTHING CONGRESS.

AND THE VOTE IS NO on the bail out. maybe we have a chance that congress won't sink us completely.

From your article ... You do realize that low and moderate income people are only part of the current problem, don't you? The blame falls on the Democrats and Republicans but that won't stop people from voting Democrat or Republican ... yes i Know that they are all responsible but the dem's did start the mess and the rep's didn't try hard enough to stop it.

it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading.

he did get the republicans involved and was in washington, more than we can say for Obama. Also he did not add pork to the bill like Obama tried to.

my belief is that forclosures are happening to anyone that over extended themselves. when government and other agencies wanted to help lower income people get a loan to buy a house, they opened a door to no doc and intrest only loans that effected alot of buyers , not just the lower income. people over bought on housing and added credit debt to these loans and never actuually slowed their spending habbits or were able to control the cost increases to normal goods and sevices. the low intrest rates and easy credit opened the doors for alot of people to get ahead, but like as we have seen countless times before, americans are greedy and don't plan for the future and now we are paying for it again. Not just the ceo's are greedy, it is everyone that overextended themselves, and now the responsible people have to pay for it, again.

everybody is up to eyes in this shit and we have no choice but to let this play out.

10 years? Brilliant, gotta tie everything into the Clinton Admin, even if you have to fabricate. I bought a house 10 years ago, they were reasonably priced wth 7% interest. They would appreciate about 4-5% per year; nothing crazy about it. ---------------------------------------------------------- the problem did start back about 1994. the mortgage back securities is the problem. the give any one a loan (mainly to help lower income people get a house) is the pin that popped the balloon

Dude...Sen. Dodd has taken more money from this industry than anyone in Congress. Sen. Obama has the two former CEOs of Freddie/Fannie as advisors to his campaign... There are members of Congress that actually used to be businessmen, not lawyers. Find them to lead this effort. Sen. Dodd is a "dud" and Rep. Frank is doing all sorts of dancing, since he's on the record as little as five years ago saying how Fannie/Freddie are fine, don't need reform, and if they fell, they wouldn't be bailed out anyway. ---------------------------------------------------------- something is VERY wrong here. ceo's need to be held responsible for their leadership (or lack there of). everyone is holding Bush responsible for what happened during his time why not follow that to the ceo's? Also why would we give $700 billion dollars to the people that started this mess (and it starts in 1994 under clinton and continued under Bush) This should be a limited bailout with oversight. the checkbook should be held by one of each party with a presidentially apointed mediator, and the companies involed should be made to bare part of the costs. I like the fact that this thing has stalled, makes people think a little and maybe a wiser descision will prevail. Folks, the democrat party leadership is lining up behind the President (whom they despise) to make this happen...something is very wrong here.

wow the left is really getting impatient. relax the debate is coming.

. . . Why can't you have the bill in progress faxed to you while you are on the road or in the air? . . . I'm guessing that you have never been in a position to be part of an intense and time sensitive negotiation. FAX? Really? When 80% of communication is non-verbal, you need to be there and look the other guys in the eye. This Bail Out is a carreer breaker for every congressman on the hill and a lot of other bureaucrats and politicians - including the president. Those people are very anxious to make sure they are going to have political cover from the new guy in the big white house - party doesn't matter. They are going to feel much better about moving forward if someone is ready to step up and provide them some shade. That's why Obama should go as well. does it really make a difference if Obama votes present or not present? let him continue and let the serious people make descisions. besides Obama would just be in the way of posibly something good happening.

I think this bail out is a crock of shit. break up the companies and sell off the pieces. put the ceo's and board members in jail or take the money they got paid.