This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...agewanted=print

September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

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

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Hmmmmm. Very interesting, Golden. Is this the only change they made since assuming power in 2001? And wasn't the Congress in Republican control when Clinton and his administration made changes to allow easier financing rules?

As you know, the majority of the loans that are now failing happened during the housing boom from 2002 - 2005. Since this change was made in 2003, why did these loans get approved? What happened to the oversight from this agency?

There's no denying that it's a compelling article and an argument for what you believe is all Clinton's fault. But there are still answered questions....

I have no doubt many, many people were preyed upon by real estate brokers, agents, and mortgage lenders. It was all to keep the party going. I do expect a level of personal responsibility, though, from grown people managing their financial affairs. Sounds like you guys did pretty well for yourself and that's cool! I've always looked at ARM's suspiciously and won't do it... When I bought my place, I insisted on a fixed rate. Next time I buy, I'll go fixed...

We agree on many, many things Greg! We just don't talk about them.

Again, IA.

I wanted everyone to see this article on race relations - a topic that has been discussed on this thread the last few days. It's an interesting read.

Race relations in America

Hmmmmm. Very interesting, Golden. Is this the only change they made since assuming power in 2001? And wasn't the Congress in Republican control when Clinton and his administration made changes to allow easier financing rules?

As you know, the majority of the loans that are now failing happened during the housing boom from 2002 - 2005. Since this change was made in 2003, why did these loans get approved? What happened to the oversight from this agency?

There's no denying that it's a compelling article and an argument for what you believe is all Clinton's fault. But there are still answered questions....

Well, I can't answer all of your questions, Greg. Obviously what the Bush Administration proposed here never came to be... It was up to lawmakers to craft a bill and they never did. I'm with you in blaming both parties for their failure to make that happen. I do know (and I think information on this was previously posted in this thread) that John McCain introduced a similar bit of legislation in 2005 -- and that is what McCain and Palin have been promoting on the stump.

The biggest challenge during that time, though, was convincing Democrats that there was a problem. As you could see in the article, the two Dems quoted there refused to acknowledge the very existence of a problem... that being the case, I can see that it would be impossible to even get a bill out of committee. They don't advance things they perceive to be non-issues. Sadly, they employed the ever-popular "class warfare" strategy -- making it sound as if someone were trying to deny housing to the poor... politics as usual.

Well, I can't answer all of your questions, Greg. Obviously what the Bush Administration proposed here never came to be... It was up to lawmakers to craft a bill and they never did. I'm with you in blaming both parties for their failure to make that happen. I do know (and I think information on this was previously posted in this thread) that John McCain introduced a similar bit of legislation in 2005 -- and that is what McCain and Palin have been promoting on the stump.

The biggest challenge during that time, though, was convincing Democrats that there was a problem. As you could see in the article, the two Dems quoted there refused to acknowledge the very existence of a problem... that being the case, I can see that it would be impossible to even get a bill out of committee. They don't advance things they perceive to be non-issues. Sadly, they employed the ever-popular "class warfare" strategy -- making it sound as if someone were trying to deny housing to the poor... politics as usual.

Yes, I did see that in the article and it does give me pause. It was certainly eye-opening. Thanks for the info.

This almost made me laugh. I guess you just can't help yourself....I thought you were all about issues but now you're happy that your candidate can draw a crowd...yay she's a celebrity now.

I can't be happy that Palin drew a crowd? Sorry.. It means (to me) that many many people are interested in the Republican stance on issues...

No, the record hasn't been contrived.....McCain's reporting of it is misleading. That's what politicians do. I'm sure Obama is misleading at times so are you saying that McCain is never misleading?

How do you feel McCain's reporting is misleading?

Me too....I think the Democrats have been hoping for the market to crash so they can be all full of glee about how they can fix it. Too bad if you really believe something like that....I know a member of McCain's campaign staff suggested that a terrorist attack or something of the sort would benefit McCain but I haven't heard that the Democrats said that it would be great if the market fell apart so we could pump another $700 billion plus into the ever growing deficit just to be able to implement more regulation.

That's a pretty pathetic reach. I could see if you said that the Democrats will use this situation as a reason for implementing regulation but saying that they have been waiting for it shows how much contempt you have for Democrats. You make them sound like like extremely heartess people....and you shake your head at my silliness.

I don't believe the Democrats "wanted" the market to crash...I don't believe I said anything to that effect.

That's like saying they hope America fails in Iraq because they are against the war.

That was my point..the Dems will use this situation to excuse their agenda of big government and regulation.

And Obama is supposed to be the "rock star". Right.

Nah. I was talking about all of the concerts before his speech at Mile High Stadium before his speech..Sheryl Crow...Kanye West..etc.

I can't be happy that Palin drew a crowd? Sorry.. It means (to me) that many many people are interested in the Republican stance on issues...

Be as happy as you want to be. It's not for me to tell you not to be happy. All I'm saying is that the Repub's argument against Obama being a "rock star" is apparently out the window.

That's like saying they hope America fails in Iraq because they are against the war.

That accusation has happened in the past as well. Perhaps not from mainstream Repubs, but it has been said.

That was my point..the Dems will use this situation to excuse their agenda of big government and regulation.

You know that your candidate is proposing more regulations as well, don't you? Do you not feel that more regulation is now necessary because of what has happened, or do you think things would "straighten out" on their own without government assistance?

Jess, do you think it was a mistake for the Clinton Administration to pressure lenders to make risky loans?

The liberal Village Voice previously chronicled how Clinton Administration housing secretary Andrew Cuomo helped spawn the mortgage crisis through his pressure on lenders to promote affordable housing and diversity. “Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments.

http://www.openmarket.org/2008/09/16/clint...tgage-meltdown/

Yesterday on 60 Minutes, John McCain said if he were elected he would appoint Andrew Cuomo to his Cabinet and put him in charge of the mortgage crisis, do you think that shows good judgement on John McCain's part?

I think it is much like his VP choice, something he did independent of judgement and just to try to get elected.

Edited September 22, 200817 yr by Jess

Be as happy as you want to be. It's not for me to tell you not to be happy. All I'm saying is that the Repub's argument against Obama being a "rock star" is apparently out the window.

Yeah I guess Obama doesn't have the monopoly on the rock star market any longer.

That accusation has happened in the past as well. Perhaps not from mainstream Repubs, but it has been said.

I know..that's why I used it as an example..

You know that your candidate is proposing more regulations as well, don't you? Do you not feel that more regulation is now necessary because of what has happened, or do you think things would "straighten out" on their own without government assistance?

I know. I'm not happy about that..From what I have heard, however, it is not to the same extent that Dems are calling for.

This financial crisis would never have happened if we had not entered the subprime mess...The subprime crisis was furthered because of government musings in the past..Now they have an excuse to add more regulation (Reps and Dems!)..This is NOT the free market's fault IMO.

Yesterday on 60 Minutes, John McCain said if he were elected he would appoint Andrew Cuomo to his Cabinet and put him in charge of the mortgage crisis, do you think that shows good judgement on John McCain's part?

I think it is much like his VP choice, something he did independent of judgement and just to try to get elected.

Wow. Thanks, Jess. I didn't see 60 Minutes yesterday. I'm speechless.

I know. I'm not happy about that..From what I have heard, however, it is not to the same extent that Dems are calling for.

This financial crisis would never have happened if we had not entered the subprime mess...The subprime crisis was furthered because of government musings in the past..Now they have an excuse to add more regulation (Reps and Dems!)..This is NOT the free market's fault IMO.

How do you feel about my earlier post regarding Dems and CEO pay/severence pay? Would you agree with their position on that issue?

I can see now that you are a very staunch free market advocate. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it explains quite a bit.

Going along with our discussion of the financial crisis, a commentary by Ed Rollins that is very unbiased, believe it or not....

McCain, Obama botching responses to crisis

Edited September 22, 200817 yr by Greg's GL

Now let me see here.

When the government uses tax payers' money to take control of financial institutions, that sounds like a form of........

Socialism.

Hmmmmm.........interesting.

But what conversation is going on? Once again, it's calling Obama a "rock star" because thousands of people want to hear what he has to say. And why? Because some of those making the argument can't come up with too much on why John McCain should be the nations next president.

I now sit back and wait for proof, while holding my breath, that John McCain has a paln.

(Right before I start holding my breath, and before my demise, I would to thank those who posted on my behalf. You sacrifice.....OUR sacrifice, made the discussion possible.)

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8374

Yes, There Are Deeply Angry Democratic Members of Congress

Me and Wales should get together here in California and volunteer at the local GOP office...

You can go solo on with that plan. I don't do political campaign volunteering. The only time I might be prompted is if it has to do with prevention of harmful legislation or implementation of some critical legislation. The less I know about a politician....the better off I am.

I wonder why it's okay for Hollywood types, like Jay Leno, to have a collection of automobiles, but not the McCain's.

I'm happy for Barack that he owns a Ford Escape Hybrid. I'm sure that offsets the fuel consumption of his campaign plane...

The media has nothing to do but maybe they're trying to make a point about who is more out of touch with the every day person in terms of material possessions. Anyhow, I don't care how many things they have or do not have unless it's weapons or unless they've acquired them illegally.....as long as they're not fleecing the taxpayers then they should live the fabulous life like other people want to do or are doing.

I'm not going to pick on any one for jet fuel consumption when I have a governor who talks about cleaning up the environment but burns up the air on his private plane going from Sacramento to Brentwood because he promised his kids to be home before bedtime or their homework is done or whatever he said that I didn't retain. It's sweet and all that....so since Obama is on a mission to be the next President then methinks he needs to burn fuel making the national rounds.

Now let me see here.

When the government uses tax payers' money to take control of financial institutions, that sounds like a form of........

Socialism.

Hmmmmm.........interesting.

But what conversation is going on? Once again, it's calling Obama a "rock star" because thousands of people want to hear what he has to say. And why? Because some of those making the argument can't come up with too much on why John McCain should be the nations next president.

I now sit back and wait for proof, while holding my breath, that John McCain has a paln.

(Right before I start holding my breath, and before my demise, I would to thank those who posted on my behalf. You sacrifice.....OUR sacrifice, made the discussion possible.)

I'll hold my breath with ya, Roman. I'm still waiting to see if McCain has a stance on equal pay. I asked that question a couple times a few pages back.

And I'm still curious how McCain supporters feel about the Dems wanting the pay/severance pay provision on the bailout package. In all fairness, GoldenDogs did answer that one, but I'm curious what others have to say....

Edited September 22, 200817 yr by Greg's GL