Obama claims McCain has role in financial mess

Sara Burnettand David Montero, Rocky Mountain News

Published September 29, 2008 at 10:41 a.m.

Text size

Photo by Dennis Schroeder / The Rocky

Denver's Jack Martinez reacts as Sen. Barack Obama picks up Martinez's 14-month-old daughter, Dayliha, before the start of his speech in Westminster. "It's about time we had adult supervision in the White House," Obama told a cheering crowd.

Photo by Javier Manzano / The Rocky

Presidential candidate Barack Obama makes a point to the crowd Monday at Mountain Ridge High School in Westminster.

Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.

Video Video: Waiting for Obama outside Mountain Range High School. Watch »

More Barack Obama

Comments

September 29, 2008

11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cawren writes:

McCain’s Volatile Demeanor Disturbing

I would love to play poker with John McCain. He was unable to hide his emotions in a simple debate. Heaven forbid some national catastrophe should emerge needing a calm head. It was clear that McCain was having a very difficult time containing his volatile nature. We have already experienced 8 years of thoughtless, knee jerk reactions. Now combine that with a hot temper.

He could not or would not look at his opponent. How will that translate in to his leadership style? Anyone having a different view will be ignored? We need direction and strength not combustible flux.
September 29, 2008

11:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

fastnloose writes:

In this turbulent world we don't need a pacifist in the head office.Obama does not have the experience to deal with world leaders,McCain schooled the young lad all nite long.
September 29, 2008

12:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

fastnloose,
Certainly unlike a 3/4 of the electorate you failed to see Obama address pressing current events Unlike McCain who reminded us yet again he was a POW. failing to acknowledge his signed confession of war crimes. McSame is a traitor.
September 29, 2008

12:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Salsmom writes:

McCain looked and acted like a tired old man who has no patience for the young. Our future is our children and our grandchildren - McCain represents the past and old ideas. He is part of the party that has brought us war and financial destruction. We don't need a pacifist???? No we need an old man who doesn't care what kind of conflict he gets us into. That thinking is old and tiresome.
September 29, 2008

12:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jace writes:

Should Obama win I hope you enjoy Afghanistan. And should he decide to go into Pakistan he will awaken a hornets nest of terrorist around the world. Pulling out of Iraq and building up in Afghanistan will give you a net gain of "0" because you will still be funding a war. Please be sure to read a little more then the political news as Russia is conducting war games in the Gulf of Mexico with Venezuela. And Venezuela just signed a large oil contract with China. When the little dictator down there decides he will cut off our oil imports from his country.
And thanks to his deal with Russia he will be well armed.

And if you are waiting for the great programs Obama is selling you to put America back to work and tax cuts for 95% of the people you are dreaming.
He is promising you the Moon to get elected just like Clinton did and when he gets into office he will say the same thing. "I looked at the budget and we cannot afford the tax cuts."

Well he can see the budget now it is in the tank. Look at the foreclosures are you out buying like you use to? Wall Street is tanking the fat cats are loosing big how many do you think there are going to be left to pay higher taxes? Get a reality check.
Obviously Obama just does not get it. No taxpayers to fill the federal coffers no money for big programs.

And you are falling for this shell game. Don't sit down and play poker with McCain you would loose if you cannot see through Obama's pretty speeches.

Reality bites. Would you really like to know how we got in this mess and who is playing you?
http://Jace.blogtownhall.com

All of us are going to have a long row to hoe before this is over. Best of luck and keep your nose to the wind.
September 29, 2008

12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

fastnloose- you sure live up to your name. On what do you base your label of Obama as a "pacifist"?
September 29, 2008

1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

meatwad writes:

Very nice jace, attack Obama with assumptions, none can be proven yet, without even mentioning McCains plans. You'd hope McCain's position on issues was strong enough that he, and his fans, don't have to resort to this kind of petty attack. Yet you see it everywhere you go. Issues please, not propoganda or baseless assumptions.
September 29, 2008

1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

DenverDan writes:

fastnloose

The Country does not need a president with a bucket list. Or a prom queen with no experience to back him up! Call it the way I see it..
September 29, 2008

1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

At one point, McCain just stood there reciting the names of foreign leaders in the area near the Middle East. Looking wide eyed straight ahead like a kid in a spelling bee, and making no sense whatsoever, he got out everything he had memorized.

Is this what you mean by "schooled him all night".
September 29, 2008

1:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

cowboy69 writes:

Obama continues to forget which political party started the economic downfall. The crisis began under the Carter administration and mushroomed under Clinton. Today, Americans are paying the price.
September 29, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

LoneTreeLady75 writes:

LOL DenverDan did you watch the Chris Rock comedy special this past weekend? He had the bucket list line in one of his jokes, it was hilarious.
September 29, 2008

1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

FCZ writes:

several large newspapers have removed or censored content related to the Iraqi-British fraudster Nadhmi Auchi, who has been publicly linked to Barack Obama via payments to former fundraiser, Antino “Tony” Rezko . A Guardian article, which no longer exists, stated that Auchi is also linked to senior members of the UK Labour Party.

Wikinews has confirmed that at least some of the articles involved definitely previously existed but have now been removed, including from newspapers that usually keep all of their articles online.
September 29, 2008

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

bph writes:

Who is to blame for the current crisis?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8...
September 29, 2008

1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

daddyblt writes:

It's the geniuses with all of the experience who have us in this economic mess to begin with...i'm willing to gamble my chances with Obama!
September 29, 2008

1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

windbourne writes:

NOW is the time for both McCain and Obama to be presidential and get back there and PUSH THE RIGHT THING.
September 29, 2008

1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

wyhammertime writes:

HEY OBAMMA we the people have been saying that for years:: and what do all you "pocket liner's do all the time I know take the money ,play dumb, and shut your hearing off cause all that matter's are you and the people that "PAY OFF CONGRESS !!!!!
September 29, 2008

2 p.m.

Suggest removal

horsinaround writes:

Right on, Jace. You stated it right. Unfortunately too many people are "Obamafied" to see the truth. NObama '08
September 29, 2008

2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

meatwad writes:

You guys are more anti-Obama than you are pro-McCain.
September 29, 2008

2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

dakar writes:

Bush will get plenty of blame for all of this. But he is definitely not alone in this. Clinton signed the bill to allow bank holding firms to own other financial companies and bring together traditional banks with investment banks. Also Dems such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd AND Obama, Hillary etc. have had their pockets lined for years from many of these firms like Lehman, AIG, Fannie etc. this is not simply a Bush mess, nor a partisan problem. this is the President and ALL of Congress paving the way for most of these issues to happen. Also the people who borrowed that couldn't afford the payment when their arms expired, the lenders for overvaluing and overlending, and the investment firms for rating sub-prime loans as AAA debt.
September 29, 2008

2:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

White House warned 17 times about problems with Fannie and Freddie
September 22, 2008 - 11:07 ET

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."
2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
September 29, 2008

2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

2003
2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
September 29, 2008

2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
September 29, 2008

2:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass

legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

How long did it take for them to listen to President Bush?

Nuff Said!
September 29, 2008

2:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

RBN writes:

Clinton signed it, but republicans gave out the loans. Everyone is to blame for this. However, if Bush had not started a war there would be more money floating around the US then we could stand.
September 29, 2008

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

meatwad writes:

Solomon, sounds like you guys just bash obama saying it wouldn't work, showing a complete bias. Where as with McCain, or lack there of, you don't mention anything, not his policies, nothing. I'd expect you to critique him like you have Obama, wait, than you might actually be informed. So you're just against obama, not for McCain or Mrs. everones a sexist all of the sudden. So again, you are anti-obama instead of Pro-McCain.
September 29, 2008

2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

my wife and i were in the crowd at the speech this morning.

the speech came about 45 minutes late...which makes sense after hearing about the failed bailout vote.

my wife and i talked about how it wasn't a standard stump speech that he's done a hundred times before. he really ad libbed a few things...talked off the teleprompters several times.

mccain apparently stepped on his johnson earlier in his own speech this morning. i appreciate that obama had a few minutes to think about what the next step should be for the country and deliver that plan consicely and clearly.

i like that he's smart enough to do that. i like that he has the economic knowledge to think on the fly and make decisions about where the country should go from here.

i'm probably not gonna vote for the guy that not only apparently doesn't have a clue what is going on in bill he's "worked" so hard on this past thursday and friday.....but is gonna tell us that the last 26 years of his record of deregulation means nothing because now he feels a different way...just over a month from the election.

maybe that's just me.
September 29, 2008

3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mona_M writes:

Well all I have to say is that Obama is most in touch with how I feel as a person. The next president of the USA will obviously be affecting how things are in my life and I sure know that Mccain is waaaaaaayy out of touch and represents ideas of the past.

As I watched the debate I notices Mccain didn’t even look at Obama not once. He seemed like he was talking to the podium and didn’t even look at the American people… In all honesty I feel like he is another Bush whose policies have failed. He may be right about his experience being more than Obama however, presidents always have people who help them and I feel that Mccain’s experience may even be a negative in the sense that he will not be open to different approaches. Just same old same old......................
September 29, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

chickenlittle1234 writes:

Shaggy writes: "...by all means it was going to pass until Pelosi came out and gave a partisian speech giving the credit to Obama and the Democrats and then it back fired."

I seem to recall in the not-to-distant past the shrill cry of Republicans calling Democrats a bunch of whiners. How's that shoe feel, now that it's on the other foot? A little tight? Too bad the Republican boys and girls you refer to as leaders haven't learned much since kindergarten.
September 29, 2008

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

snowsurfer writes:

McCain could not even look at Obama during the dabate, much less address him directly. Hmmm... It is hard to look a man in the eye when you know you are lying about him. Obama repeatedly called him on his lies and he never offered any evidence otherwise.

McSame and Palinocchio are finished!

Obama 08!
September 29, 2008

3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mayor_Quimby writes:

"She is so disgusting. We need to have IQ exams for the people running/ruining our lives."

Would it have an affirmative action component? Otherwise, how will Obama make it?
September 29, 2008

3:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

chickenlittle1234 writes:

FYI for all who want to make up their own mind, here's the prepared text for the Pelosi speech that apparently has all the House Republicans crying to their mothers: This is Part I, by the way. I'll post the rest in a sec.

“Madam Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion?

“It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration’s failed economic policies—policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.

“Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.

“That chaos is the dismal picture painted by Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke a week and a half ago in the Capitol. As they pointed out, we confront a crisis of historic magnitude that has the ability to do serious injury not simply to our economy, but to the American people: not just to Wall Street, but to everyday Americans on Main Street.

“It is our responsibility today, to help avert that catastrophic outcome.

“Let us be clear: This is a crisis caused on Wall Street. But it is a crisis that reaches to Main Street in every city and town of the United States.

“It is a crisis that freezes credit, causes families to lose their homes, cripples small businesses, and makes it harder to find jobs.

“It is a crisis that never had to happen. It is now the duty of every Member of this body to recognize that the failure to act responsibly, with full protections for the American taxpayer, would compound the damage already done to the financial security of millions of American families.

“Over the past several days, we have worked with our Republican colleagues to fashion an alternative to the original plan of the Bush Administration.

“I must recognize the outstanding leadership provided by Chairman Barney Frank, whose enormous intellectual and strategic abilities have never before been so urgently needed, or so widely admired.

“I also want to recognize Rahm Emanuel, who combined his deep knowledge of financial institutions with his pragmatic policy experience, to resolve key disagreements.

“Secretary Paulson deserves credit for working day and night to help reach an agreement and for his flexibility in negotiating changes to his original proposal.

“Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street.

“The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardize the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilization bill.
September 29, 2008

3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

chickenlittle1234 writes:

Part II:

“The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardize the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilization bill.

“So we insisted that this bill contain several key provisions:

“This legislation must contain independent and ongoing oversight to ensure that the recovery program is managed with full transparency and strict accountability.

“The legislation must do everything possible to allow as many people to stay in their homes rather than face foreclosure.

“The corporate CEOs whose companies will benefit from the public’s participation in this recovery must not benefit by exorbitant salaries and golden parachute retirement bonuses.

“Our message to Wall Street is this: the party is over. The era of golden parachutes for high-flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will the U.S. taxpayer bailout the recklessness of Wall Street.

“The taxpayers who bear the risk in this recovery must share in the upside as the economy recovers.

“And should this program not pay for itself, the financial institutions that benefited, not the taxpayers, must bear responsibility for making up the difference.

“These were the Democratic demands to safeguard the American taxpayer, to help the economy recover, and to impose tough accountability as a central component of this recovery effort.

“This legislation is not the end of congressional activity on this crisis. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will continue to hold investigative and oversight hearings to find out how the crisis developed, where mistakes were made, and how the recovery must be managed to protect the middle class and the American taxpayer.

“With passage of this legislation today, we can begin the difficult job of turning our economy around, of helping those who depend on a growing economy and stable financial institutions for a secure retirement, for the education of their children, for jobs and small business credit.

“Today we must act for those Americans, for Main Street, and we must act now, with the bipartisan spirit of cooperation which allowed us to fashion this legislation.

“This not enough. We are also working to restore our nation’s economic strength by passing a new economic recovery stimulus package—a robust, job creating bill—that will help Americans struggling with high prices, get our economy back on track, and renew the American Dream.

“Today, we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership that has left us left capable of meeting the challenges of the future.

“We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a New Direction to a better future.”
September 29, 2008

3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

snowsurfer writes:

McCain could not even look at Obama during the dabate, much less address him directly. Hmmm... It is hard to look a man in the eye when you know you are lying about him.
September 29, 2008

3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

wyhammertime writes:

If JOHN WAYNE was still around he would go to Washinton and kick some a$$ then go to Wall Street and mop that up with a few ceo's I think he WAS the only one around that "had a pair " not nowadays nobody seems to have any we all want the other guy to do it we should fight this together right ???
September 29, 2008

3:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

TnT writes:

gary…jace…soloman…you seem to be missing the fundamental problems in all of this. Jace…I won’t enjoy Afghanistan any more than I’ve enjoyed Iraq. Equate victory in Afghanistan in 2003 and the elimination of Osama Bin Laden and we wouldn’t be reading your ridiculous rant. Gary…fool us once shame on you/fool us twice shame on us/trying to fool us three times,WTF no thanks! Bush side talk so many times that even good information sounded bad, no one listens to a fool. By his own cause, Bush is a fool. Want proof? Your information was more than the three paragraphs he tried to present to congress on this bailout. Soloman…one word! Palin. To waste your God given privileged vote on the biggest political scam in US history is a reflection of your intelligence. There is no defending or explaining her.
Nuff Said
September 29, 2008

3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

TnT writes:

shaggy..add your name to the list of fools also.
September 29, 2008

4:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

Cowboy69- Learn some history. Carter inherited a crap economy from Ford. Those are the facts. Reagan "improved" the economy by injecting 100s of millions into it with borrow and spend. The deficit, and national debt, ballooned. RR also initiated the deregulation that has now bitten us in the butt.
Seriously, get your facts straight, or shut up.
September 29, 2008

4:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Rainbow522 writes:

Cawren writes:
"He could not or would not look at his opponent. How will that translate in to his leadership style? Anyone having a different view will be ignored? We need direction and strength not combustible flux."
I agree.
What kind of war hero refuses to look his enemy in the eye? McCain's behavior at last week's debate was inexcusable.
September 29, 2008

4:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

roger44 writes:

Both of them were lying, par for the course. that's politics today, spin and scare tactics. Neither is fit for office. Pelosi and her big mouth and pushy manner got her what she deserved. Palin blocking the troopergate deal is working against her. McCain temper getting him in trouble. And of course we know about bush. The people in this country are finally waking up to the fact we have little leadership. Ritter throwing in his scare tactics to get his agenda promoted. Employers going out in their shops and using the situation to scare employees into thinking their jobs are in jeopardy and raises cancelled, and smiling all the way to the bank. And here's a sobering thought, look at the generation that is coming! Cell phones in their ears while driving down the road speeding in that car the folks bought them for not failing a course, head full of metal. lazy, overweight and always for a party. we are doomed.
September 29, 2008

4:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Rainbow522 writes:

Ooooo Flaming Liberal.
I kind of like that...it has a nice ring to it.
Reminds me of this song..."the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire...".

Burn baby burn!!!
=D
September 29, 2008

4:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Nobama writes:

It's all Bush's fault, right? There were no Democrats in congress when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being savaged by Democrat managers? There were no Democrats in the Senate when increased regulation was proposed by Republicans? Pelosi, Frank, Dobbs, Reid, Schumer and Byrd weren't around when social programs were sponsored so "poor people" could buy houses they couldn't afford? Are you Liberals really that naive and gullible? These are the same old tired Democrats that will still be in charge of Washington but will supposedly help Obama "change" the way things work there. God help us all if Obama wins the election. But, if so, I'm betting the news media will paint a much different picture of "reality".
September 29, 2008

4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

chickenlittle1234 writes:

cynical_one - I did finally find a transcript of the actual speech -what I posted was the "prepared text." She did diverge somewhat. Following is the only thing I could find that may have, if you really squint your eyes, caused such a hubristic backlash:

"Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, it can create many good things in our economy. But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the republicans, some in the Republican Party, not all, it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos. It is that chaos that the Secretary of the Treasury and the chairman of the fed came to see us just about a week and a half ago, seems like an eternity, doesn't it it, so much has happened, the news was so bad."

This is apparently what caused House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) to state that Pelosi’s speech “poisoned” the Republican caucus and “caused a number of members we thought we could get to go south.”

For those of you further interested in what she actually said, the transcript can be found at http://www.c-span.org/pdf/pelosi_bail...
September 29, 2008

4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

LuvAmerica writes:

Listen to law professor Michael Greenberger, a former director at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, dissect the mortgage crisis.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...

Scary scary stuff.

(spoiler: Phil Gramm comes up a lot. Jimmy Carter does not.)
September 29, 2008

4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

TnT writes:

Not at all. I believe war is war. Responsible force for a just cause. The last "Shaggy" I remember was riding around in a van with a cartoon dog...not all Democrats are liberals,but safe to say all right wing lunitic Republicans who vote for Palin are fools, cast your vote fool!
September 29, 2008

4:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

chickenlittle1234 writes:

Yup, my goodness, that was one harsh statement.
September 29, 2008

4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Americans4Liberty writes:

Lipstick on a Bailout

"This time last week, the biggest bailout in the history of the world seemed to be a fait accompli. Last weekend, the Fed Chairman and the Secretary of the Treasury had harsh words of doom and gloom for Congressional leaders, with the rest of the administration parroting along, and by last Monday it seemed both parties were about to fall in line and vote our Republic away by socializing the banking industry through this bailout…"

Click here to read the full article: http://www.house.gov/paul/index.shtml

You're Going To Destroy A Worldwide Economy! Says Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBVB1U...
September 29, 2008

4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

tromiano writes:

Those who place blame on any one entity lose all credibility with regard to their understanding of this mess. The most likely scapegoat, naturally, is the Bush administration. While I agree that Bush should have used the bully pulpit of the presidency to put pressure on lawmakers and regulators who have the responsibility of overseeing our financial markets, the blame is not his alone. The first six years of his presidency, republicans held majorities in both houses, and did nothing to prevent this. When voters determined that they were doing a lousy job two years ago, democrats had their turn, and they did nothing as well. Besides these, we can point to policies enacted during the Clinton administration, corruption at Freddy and Fannie, Wall Street greed, predatory lending institutions, adjusters who inflate home values, and home buyers who signed on for mortgages they would never be able to afford, just to name a few. More or less regulation is, unfortunately, not the answer; nor should it be used as a mechanism for placing blame. Rather, truly effective regulation, along with absolute accountability, should be sought. The system is broken: those who were entrusted with our economy dropped the ball; it is time they are held accountable.

Unfortunately, both of the presidential nominees are part of this system. While each side has supporters who argue that their guy is truly the Agent of Change, only one of them vocalized their concern regarding this calamity in a piece of legislation over the past 6 years. One thing is for sure: the next president will either inherit an enormous deficit (assuming bailout legislation is eventually passed) or some degree of a modern day Depression or both. Regardless of who is elected, their domestic plans will need to be put on ice for the majority of their first term. Whoever embraces this reality first (neither seemed ready to concede this point on Friday’s debate) is most credibly able to lead the country out of this pit.
September 29, 2008

4:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

westwoods writes:

I believe this is the part that Republicans found objectionable:

"When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton's surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies within two years, he had turned that around ... and now eight years later the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything-goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today. They claim to be free-market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality, no regulation, no supervision, no discipline. ..."

"... Democrats believe in a free market ... but in this case, in its unbridled form as encouraged, supported by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos."

-Nancy Pelosi

So is it Pelosi's fault?

Or another 'smoke and mirrors' tactic by the Republicans to divert attention away from the fact that they couldn't muster enough votes (despite Maverick McCain's best efforts) to pass it.

The Democrats had enough votes for it to pass.

So whose fault is it?

Now, I'm not even sure this bailout was a good idea; however, if anyone is participating in partisianship it appears to be the GOP.

If the GOP is going to argue that Nancy Pelosi hurt the feelings of 12 Republican Senators enough that they would undermine the best interest of the country to show their discontent with her speach...then the GOP has no business in the Senate, Congress, or White House.
September 29, 2008

4:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

jwbeuk writes:

Hey cynical one, why couldn't nancy get more of her friends in her party to vote for this mess? The Dems could pass this on their own, they could only get 60%. As for her speech, go listen to it; is she really the speaker of the house. She sounds like an idiot. She is also a partisan hack who is corrupt and clueless. As for your buddy Barack, get used to seeing commercials with a lot of CSPAN footage of liberals making fools of themselves trying to block any oversight of Freddie and Fannie.
September 29, 2008

5:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

westwoods writes:

And now Republican are arguing that the bill not passing is the Democrats fault because they could have passed the bill "all by themselves". Man, the GOP is REALLY desperate to find a scapegoat.
September 29, 2008

5:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Americans4Liberty writes:

THANKS TO REP'S MUSGRAVE, UDALL, LAMBORN AND JOHN SALAZAR FOR VOTING NO BAILOUT! :D

SHAME ON REP'S DEGETTE, TANCREDO AND PERLMUTTER FOR VOTING YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :x

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-...

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Title: "An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief and protections for military personnel, and for other purposes."

This is the bailout bill for the nation's troubled financial system. It is being considered as a substitute amendment to an old tax bill that passed the Senate and the House last year in order to bring it the the House floor quickly under parliamentary rules. The full text of the bailout bill can be seen at PublicMarkup.org.

The bill would allow the government to use up to $700 billion in taxpayer money - $350 billion initially, and the rest with Congress's approval - to buy troubled assets from struggling financial institutions.

The bill was rejected by the House on 9/29/08. The vote result can be viewed here:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll6...
September 29, 2008

5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

To the republicans Joe average voter can suffer, if they do not get their way.
Barney frank on what REALLY happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLPki4...

Wah, Wah, Wah, Desperation of the GOP is shameless.
Looking for a scapegoat for their own FAILURES!!!

like palin writing her OWN SNL skit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMypX...

It would be laughable if it weren't so serious.
September 29, 2008

6:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

uh... excuse me. Isn't Obama a member of the same Congress that is responsible for the "outrage"?

Remind me again which party is in control of Congress, and has been for the last two years.

(Now go and read the "McCain sought fix in '06" story)

McCain/Palin '08 - Thank God it isn't too late to make the right decision!
September 29, 2008

6:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

DagnyH writes:

1) Carter was the president who, in 1979, warned of everything that is happening now and tried in vain to get people to realize what was happening. Look it up! He was called a naysayer. Reagan proceeded to create the biggest government and the biggest deficit. Sound familiar? The Dems get called big government? Give me a break. Look at REALITY. Dems end up paying off Republicans excessive and irresponsible debts while Republicans continue to manipulate those with IQs low enough to buy their BS. Republicans go straight to emotional manipulation every time and avoid rational thinking at all costs. Wake up, America! We are digging our own grave.

2) The war on terrorism should not be a war at all. 19 people were part of a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. None of them were from Iraq. There are more terrorist organizations now than ever before and MORE hatred toward America than ever before. How does that help anyone? As Colonel Bacevich has stated: "We need to recognize that the threat posed by violent Islamic radicalism, by terrorist organizations, al Qaeda, really is akin to a criminal conspiracy, a violent conspiracy, a dangerous conspiracy. But it's a criminal enterprise. And the primary response to a criminal enterprise is policing.

Policing as in organizations like the FBI, intelligence organizations, some special operations forces. That would undertake a concerted campaign to identify and root out and destroy this criminal conspiracy. But that doesn't require invading and occupying countries. Again, one of the big mistakes the Bush Administration made, and it's a mistake we're still paying for, is that the President persuaded us that the best way to prevent another 9/11 is to embark upon a global war. Wrong. The best way to prevent another 9/11 is to organize an intensive international effort to root out and destroy that criminal conspiracy."
September 29, 2008

6:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

HolierThanThou writes:

The bailout can't work because the government would buy the mortgages and the folks in trouble would be foreclosed out their homes anyway.

The problem is that working middle Americans are not making enough money to pay their bills.

Assigning blame is only part of the solution. The wealthy conservatives who made this mess need time in prison. We can let them buy their way out by forcing them to pay restitution to the American public. Make the following actions felonies:

1. Paying yourself a salary and bonus while tanking a publicly traded corporation causing it to shed jobs or loose money. Make restitution to former employees and shareholders mandatory and non-payment a class one felony punishable by 100 years in the penitentiary.

2. Taking executive action to offshore any job from the USA. Make restitution mandatory as above.

Use that $700 billion to rebuild passengers railroads in America to eliminate our dependence on oil. Railroads can run on solar, wind, coal, and nuclear power. Electric trains running downhill can generate electricity for those running uphill.

We need to build production capacity for rail cars, rails, electric motors, generators, cabling, control systems, tunnel borers, and much more. That would be a start to a new economy where working people get paid and spend their money here on American goods and services.
September 29, 2008

6:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Americans4Liberty writes:

Congress votes no, but the Fed says yes. It just printed $630 billion after the bailout bill failed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pi...

"The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.

"[...]

"The Fed's expansion of liquidity, the biggest since credit markets seized up last year, came hours before the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry."

As mentioned elsewhere on blog.lewrockwell.com, we have entered a period of hyperinflation, as the annualized inflation rate over the past two weeks is 680%.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw...

The newly minted $630 billion today only add to that. That's over $1.5 TRILLION in bailouts to date!

Today's victory was a hollow one. IT'S TIME TO REPEAL THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT!!!!!
September 29, 2008

6:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

The New York Times reported on Sept. 11, 2003:

''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."

Rep. Barney Frank (D)

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said the following on Sept. 11, 2003: "We see entities that are fundamentally sound financially. . . . And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn't bail them out."

Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.), later that year: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

“The facts are that Fannie and Freddie are in sound situations,” Dodd said. “They have more that adequate capital, in fact more than the law requires.”

Sen Chris Dodd (D) July 13, 2008

McCain on May 25, 2006, backed specific legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

Sen.John McCain (R)

"Congress needs to pass legislation strengthening the independent regulator of government-sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so we can keep them focused on the mission to expand home ownership," he said in December.

President Bush 2004

So who has worked up the sensitive Obama to the point of outrage?
September 29, 2008

6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

awakenedcitizen writes:

Dagny great post. calm logical

I want a calm, logical leader; someone who respects excellence. someone who will surround himself with the best and the brightest, someone who is not afraid if someone has a different opinion or point of view. Someone who will judicously weigh the pros and cons of a situation for the best solution. That is what you can count on in an Obama Presidency.

What did each of the candidates do when the market crashed? This is such a perfect example.

Obama made a speech at the Colorado School of Mines the first week where he laid out specific economic principles for the economy.

That same week, McCain was bouncing all over the place, he's FOR regulation, no, he's always been AGAINST regulation, no, he's for regulation; he's AGAINST bailing out AIG, no, he's FOR bailing out AIG; the economy is better now than in 2000, oops, the economy is in a crisis.

Week Two:
Obama releases a three point plan to modify Paulson's plan to not give Paulson 100% control of the money with no oversight.
McCain dramatically announces he will "suspend" his campaign to go to DC to forge an agreement. But when a reporter asks what he thinks of Paulson's plan, McCaina admits that he has NOT YET READ IT!

Guys and gals . . . how much clearer can it get?
September 29, 2008

6:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Creative_N_Denver writes:

We are in this mess Mr. Obama because of ALL the people who are running this country! Pointing fingers doesn't make you the best choice either! The mess that we are under started long before the Bush administration took office. All parties can stand up and take the blame here. Getting heated up in a no win discussion isn't going to make one person change their minds about who or not to vote for.
September 29, 2008

7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Prism writes:

It's forth down and Bush's team is on their own 2 yardline. Bush just sent the play in and it's a run up the middle...It's the end of the season for him. Guess it's time for him and he's coaches to go. Packit in GOP you're going home! Time for change!
September 29, 2008

7:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

FCZ writes:

The vote was bipartisan, with Democrats in favor by 140-95 and Republicans against by 133-65.
September 29, 2008

8:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

eventempered writes:

Obama is a socialist, plane and simple, look at his policies. If you want a socialist then vote for him, plane and simple.
September 29, 2008

8:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

campesino60 writes:

Apparently Barock star Obama has forgotten that both Freddie Mac
and Fannie Mae had their hands deep into his pockets at one time, but that's all past tense now. What matters now is that he bamboozals his way into the white house. Some say Hispanics will play a big role in this election. Can anyone say voter fraud....
September 29, 2008

8:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

SouthArapahoePeak writes:

As I told my Congress-critters, we must abandon the failed f*sc*st Reagan/Bush Economic policies ASAP as it's NOW time to revive the successful template of F.D. Roosevelt's 1933 NEW DEAL!
1st step - let's stop ALL foreclosures!
2nd - NATIONALIZE the FED, FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC, then use these financial institutions to restore public confidence by issuing SECURE credit for business.
3rd - Seize ALL failed banks/financial insts. - put them thru Ch. XI - audit them - cancel ALL derivatives W/O compensation as THEY'RE ALL ILLEGAL & these debts deserve NO PUBLIC MONEY!
4th - Stop ALL commodity speculation (NO artificially inflated oil & food prices)!
5th - Ensure all protection of all entitlement programs, NOTHING for bankers/speculators (it is THEY who'll get to taste "austerity")!
6th - No tax increases on households, MAKE CORPORATIONS PAY ALL OF THEIR TAXES @ THE RATE THEY PAID DURING EISENHOWER'S 2 TERMS!
7th - IMPEACH ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION & remove THE FED'S BEN BERNANKE!
8th - WE'LL DO EVEN MORE ON THE SECOND DAY TO ENSURE A GENUINE, WORLD-WIDE RECOVERY!
September 29, 2008

9:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

geriatric1943 writes:

While it may be an outrage, a greater outrage will be to pass a bailout. As it is, this bailout will lead to another bailout down the road, until we end up in a worse situation than we are in, even now.

If you chase the problem back, you will see that it has its roots in the Jimmy Carter presidency when he ordered more capability of home ownership, then even more loosening of normal and accepted lending procedures happened during Clinton's presidency. In fact, if you look at the upper level of leadership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac you will find many ex Clintonites, along with a few put out to pasture Republicans.

The blame lies with government on both sides. I'm more outraged at Obama and McCain supporting the bailout.
September 29, 2008

9:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

BigSky182 writes:

"It SHOULD stabilize the economy"

"We MIGHT be able to sell them later for a profit"

Are you seriously, SERIOUSLY, trying to sell me a 700 HUNDRED BILLION dollar MAYBE????????? Seriously?

Make no mistake, the Politicians have known this was coming for AT LEAST 3 years... very probably longer. They have made it easier and easier for illegal immigrants to get loans.. for low income families to get loans... for middle class people to get loans that they KNEW FULLY WELL couldn't be repaid. "live beyond your means"... "you'll probably get a raise in the next 3 years"... " you can always refinance later for a better rate".... "get that second mortgage"... "get 125% ltv".... "borrow even MORE"... "think bigger".... "go with an ARM so you can get an even BIGGER house"....This was not an accident... this was deliberate deception engineered to garner future votes.

Stand fast America!! The Politicians are listening (for now). Let them know that we WILL NOT ACCEPT A SELL OUT on this issue.

Bear in mind, while YOU are paying YOUR share ($2,000+ dollars per Man, Woman, and Child in the entire country) the CEO's who are responsible for this crisis are collecting MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR severance packages.

GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE!!!

"You made your bed... now LIE IN IT!!!!"
September 29, 2008

9:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

Tbone- well, he certainly got the "simple" part right, lol.
September 29, 2008

9:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

GeorgeLillyforCongress writes:

Take note of the Congressmen from Colorado and how they voted on this issue. That is the best evidence for whose interest they have in mind.

Diana DeGette, CD1 Denver, voted in favor of this Bogus Billionaire Bailout / Rescue the Rich plan and, to hear it from her, did so "because it was the right thing to do." The right thing for who?

After the bill was voted down, Diana expressed concerns that value in the stock market would quickly evaporate. Well, this is true of course and goes without saying. Despite DeGette's sudden "transformation" into an Economist with the arrival of this bail-out bill, her summary of what would happen explains what happens in any market. A boom, followed by a bust. This happened to be a bust that was long overdue.

So despite what DeGette's well-crafted press releases might have you believe, she is not so well informed on the issue of our economy after all. How else can you explain 12-years of inaction and ignorance of the mounting crisis that was realized in the stock market today? Yes, people will be hurt by this and something should have been done much sooner by those we elect to Congress.

But for Diana DeGette, having been in Congress for the past twelve years with every opportunity to foresee and work to avoid this crisis, it is too little too late for DeGette to be entering this conversation with her "economic insight into the markets." And be careful of the stance she takes, as some kind of economic expert who can guide the economy through the tough times ahead. The markets are far too complicated for few, if any people to truly understand, and for that reason are best left alone.

Call Diana DeGette (202-225-4431) and tell her to stop working to bring a new version of the Bogus Billionaire Bailout / Rescue the Rich plan to the floor so they can try to pass it again. Ask her who she is working for- the bank CEO's or the people of Denver, Colorado, United States?

---Sean Doherty
campaign manager for George "Lilly for Liberty"
www.GeorgeLillyforCongress.com
September 29, 2008

10:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

richardboyd writes:

Random thought: Does everybody out there know that Obama is a smoker? No big deal, but why does he hide it? It might tarnish his pretty-boy image. What else is he hiding? How about his radical left wing voting record on virtually every issue? Don't hear much talk about that in the so-called mainstream media. He can do no wrong. Now he's mister middle-of-the-road, I'm-gonna-unite-the-country. Strong America. Change We Need. Socialism We Need is more like it. God Bless America? No, no, no, God Dam# America is how he really feels.
September 29, 2008

10:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Americans4Liberty writes:

Fed makes (hundreds of) billions available to battle crisis!????
By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
Mon Sep 29, 4:20 PM ET

The Federal Reserve and foreign central banks moved Monday to pump billions of dollars to cash-strapped banks at home and abroad in a dramatic bid to break through a credit clog and spur lending. The Fed action came hours before the House defeated a $700 billion financial bailout plan, ignoring urgent pleas by Bush and Bernanke to move swiftly.

The Fed said the action is intended to "expand significantly" the cash available to financial institutions, its latest effort to relieve the worst credit crisis since the Great Depression.

The goal is to boost the amount of quick cash available to banks and other financial institutions so that they'll feel more confident and inclined to lend not only to each other but also to people and businesses.

Credit is the economy's lifeblood. The global credit clog — which started a year ago and grew much more severe in the past few weeks — has made it increasingly difficult for people and businesses to borrow money. The crisis — if it persists — could plunge the economy into a recession, President Bush and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke have warned.

Moreover, the Fed made an extra $330 billion available to other central banks. That boosted to $620 billion the total amount available to the central bank through currency "swap" arrangements, where dollars are traded for their currencies. That total is up from $290 billion previously being made available through such arrangements.

************
September 29, 2008

10:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sue3275 writes:

Give it up..........You will not wake up these blind, clueless, Obama zombies.

Piglosi, Reid, Obama, etc. know that they can lie to them----and they will just blindly listen, agree, and follow-----no matter what truth is exposed or comes out.

Have any of you heard of Hussein Obama's new marxist stunts??? He is now trying to have people "ARRESTED" for running ads, articles, etc. that are anti-Obama.

If you do not believe me......Go to this site, made up of former Hillary supporters, to read all about it!!

http://www.noquarterusa.net
September 29, 2008

10:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

LuvAmerica writes:

Cowboy63 writes:
"Remind me again which party is in control of Congress, and has been for the last two years."

If you are asking which party has exerted the most effect on Congress the last two years, then credit should certainly go to the Republicans for their record breaking number of filibusters that have rendered Congress a do-nothing logjam.

Not exactly the kind of accomplishment most people would want to brag about.
September 29, 2008

11:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jack_Durden writes:

Hey campesino60, don't forget your precious McAss was getting money in his pockets from those failing companies up until last month... Something you should think about...
September 29, 2008

11:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_Galt writes:

WHY THE BAILOUT VOTE FAILED.

Apparently, Pelosi gave permission to vote against the bill to several of the Democratic House committee chairmen because of the heat they were taking from their constituents. She assumed that the House Republicans would deliver the votes for her instead.

Then, she proceeded to blame the Bush administration and Republicans for the mortgage mess due to a lack of regulations during her speech in front of Congress.

This was very stupid. First of all, it is on record that Democrats unanimously voted against stricter oversite and regulations for FNMA and FHLMC in 2005 when they were proposed by Republicans, including McCain.

Then, as the voting poll went on, Republicans saw all of these House Democratic committee chairmen voting AGAINST the bailout. Republicans figured why should they take the blame for the bailout when Democrats were unwilling to step up to the plate.

The final tally showed that 95 Democrats voted AGAINST the bailout (about 40%). Only 65 Republicans voted for it.
September 29, 2008

11:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_Galt writes:

IF OBAMA CANNOT GET HIS OWN PARTY TO VOTE IN A BIPARTISAN MANNER, HOW CAN WE EXPECT HIM TO LEAD AMERICA IN THE BIPARTISAN MANNER THAT HE CLAIMS?
September 30, 2008

1 a.m.

Suggest removal

BenchBoss writes:

McCain picked Palin.

There's really not much else to say. Forget the bailout, Iraq, POW, all of it. If he can make such a BAD decision, what other lunacy is this guy really capable of?!???!?!?!?!?

I say again - McCain picked Palin.
September 30, 2008

1:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

fromItaly writes:

Dear American friends, I'm an Italian attorney and I love the USA more than I love my country.
This summer I have spent a couple of weeks in Colorado and have had a wonderful stay.
My question is: why on earth the word "liberal" is an insult to many American people?
Excuse for my poor English.
God bless America.
September 30, 2008

1:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

hkwhite writes:

Are you people idiots...How is it that some ignorant borrowers bought a house they couldn't afford, they lose it and now it is the Presidents fault??? When you live in a $900/month apartment, living paycheck to paycheck, and someone says you can buy a $300,000 home, that is where the problem is.
Reading some of these rants is insane, this is major economics here. I have my Masters in Economics and some of the details are difficut for me to understand...Obammy doesn't have a plan...his advisors do, just as McCain has his advisors. The reality is the deregulation was a GOOD thing, and still is. In Colorado any fool can be a mortgage broker, that is the problem here and in many states. I am very against a bailout, Wall St. got rich off the sub-prime notes, let them figure it out. I now work for a small community bank and my institution is VERY safe, with plenty of $$ for loans and it is business as usual. I applaud the Republicans for their standout against the bail out...Pelosi is an idiot mouth piece. Obama gives great speeches and nothing else. A lot of posters attack Palin, when she has been in politics longer and has more experience than bammy. McCain has decades of expereince, decades of listening to advisors( what all presidents do) and has tried several times to submit bills to help regulate these mortgage brokers. Giving loans to low-income families was wrong, now we all pay for it.

Please look beyond the speeches....
September 30, 2008

1:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jack_Durden writes:

It's the republicans who made the bailout fail... If McCain was so willing to suspend his campaigning to make sure the bailout went through, than why did so many republicans vote against it? So tell me John_Galt, how can we expect McCain to run this country if the numbers for the bailout were 141 Democrats and 66 Republicans voted yes for the bill, 94 Democrats and 132 Republicans voted against the bill. Hence the republicans are to blame for the bill not going through. Due to your standards about being president, looks like McCain failed for not getting more fellow repubs to vote for it.

Can't republicans take responsibility of their actions for once instead of pawning the blame to the democrats.
September 30, 2008

1:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

hkwhite writes:

Jack (A**)

It's you dumbocraps that are constantly blaming the President for this mess, when educated people know you cannot point this back at one person. You blame the president for Iraq when the flip-flopping dumbocraps approved it. Get over your self and look in your own mirror.

Dems only strenghts in this election is that they prey on the young, uneducated voter, and the poor. I heard one idiot say he was voting for bammy because he is black and so is bammy, now there is a good reason....If he wants to vote with one of the greatest black men in our country, Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican.....
September 30, 2008

1:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

BenchBoss writes:

hkwhite writes:
"The reality is the deregulation was a GOOD thing, and still is. In Colorado any fool can be a mortgage broker, that is the problem here and in many states."

Most everything you've typed just got derailed by that contradiction. You kinda need regulations to keep fools from becoming mortgage brokers. So - you don't want government to tell you what to do but complain about it when they don't!?!?!?!?
September 30, 2008

3:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

rip84 writes:

hkwhite:
Blaming Democrats for the failure of this bill is just plain wrong. Have you looked at who voted for and who voted against? Degette and Tancredo both voted for and Udall and Musgrave both voted against. Also, did you watch Meet the Press on Sunday? John McCain's Campaign Manager identified John McCain himself as the individual who brought the two parties together to get this bill passed.

Speaking of community banks. No community bank really understands its existing treasury situation. All banks have liquidity premiums right now but community banks just don't understand that they have such a premium. Also, the OCC will take a hardline on commercial real estate in the near term. I suspect many community banks will fail in the next 12-18 months as the commercial real estate market gets really soft. Community banks are known for doing commercial real estate deals that the big banks wouldn't do.
September 30, 2008

4:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

disenchanted1 writes:

700 billion bail out not passed (thanks to whining repugs) now cost us on main street to lose 1.2 TRILLION I think 700 billion was easier to swallow than where we are now and just wait till later today.
September 30, 2008

4:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

roger44 writes:

hkwhite is on the money, how do you blame any Politician for the bad choices an investment bank makes? people seen the ads and went for a loan they couldn't afford. And the credit market getting tight is not a bad thing, I see people out there that have kids and buy them cars, cell phones, games etc and spoil the heck out of them, and then can't pay the credit card bills. Their fault. Some need a wake up call.
September 30, 2008

5:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

diggtbks writes:

Wasn't it the Dems who took the month of August off. Why are they now trying to rush this bill through?

The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190 (an independent oversight of Fannie Mar, Freddy Mac) co-sponsored by John McCain and 19 other Republican House and Senate members could of averted the crisis we are in now.

It never left the Senate floor due to threat of a fillibuster by Dems which resulted in a vote along party lines.

The current Dem controlled House and Senate, which Uh-bama is a part of could of resurrected this Bill or a form of it. Why didn't they? Maybe it's because of this:

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
1. Dodd, Christopher J D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary D-NY $75,550

Funny how out of the top three recipients, one was a presidential candidate and the other in a presidential candidate.
September 30, 2008

7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

KnoWhatYoureTalkinAbout writes:

diggtbks: I beleive the article you pulled that from was titled, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac invest in Lawmakers." I agree that the top three are Dems; however I got two words for you...Rick Davis. Try this on for size, it actually dwarfs the totals you show..."Since 2006, the federally sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac has paid at least $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain 's campaign manager, Rick Davis"

Keep in mind that your citation shows totals from 1989-2008, whereas my totals only show from 2006-present (last month). Nice try, but, do some more research...The following are all the Lobbiest in the McCain campaign who are tied to the big oil companies.

1 Rebecca Anderson Women for McCain Steering Committee Williams & Jensen Sunoco

2 Wayne Berman National Finance Co-Chairman Ogilvy Government Relations Amerada Hess Chevron Texaco American Petroleum Institute

3 Charlie Black Senior Political Adviser BKSH Occidental Petroleum Corp. Yukos Oil Chinese National Off-Shore Oil Corp.

4 Carlos Bonilla* Economic Adviser Washington Group Chesapeake Energy

5 Eric Burgeson** Fundraiser Barbour Griffith & Rogers BP

6 Kerry Cammack Fundraiser Cammack and Strong Exxon Mobil

7 Frank Donatelli McCain Pick as Deputy RNC Chair McGuire Woods Exxon Mobil Dominion Resources

8 Melissa Edwards Fundraiser Washington Group Chesapeake Energy

9 John Green Congressional Liaison Ogilvy Government Relations Amerada-Hess Chevon Texaco El Paso Energy American Petroleum Institute

10 Robert Harding Fundraiser Greenberg Traurig Chevron Murphy Oil Phillips Petroleum Company***

11 Richard Hohlt Fundraiser Hohlt and Associates Chevron

12 James "Jim" Hyland Fundraiser Pennsylvania Avenue Group BP America Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Assoc. Occidental Petroleum Corp. Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Assoc.

13 Peter Madigan Fundraiser Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart Shell Oil

14 Susan Molinari Women for McCain Steering Committee Washington Group Chesapeake Energy

15 Jack Oliver Fundraiser Bryan Cave Strategies Shell Oil

16 Nancy Pfotenhauer Adviser Koch Industries Koch Industries

17 Steve Phillips Fundraiser DLA Piper BP America Occidental Petroleum

18 Elise Pickering Women for McCain Steering Committee Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti Koch Industries

19 Sloan Rappoport Fundraiser Downey McGrath Group Koch Industries

20 Matt Salmon Fundraiser Greenberg Traurig El Paso Energy

21 Randy Scheunemann Defense and Foreign Policy Coordinator Scheunemann and Associates BP Amoco

22 Jeffrey Weiss Fundraiser BKSH Yukos Oil Company
September 30, 2008

7:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

panicstrickin writes:

JACK BAUER FOR PRESIDENT!! Enough said.
September 30, 2008

7:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

panicstrickin writes:

Everyone points the finger at each other for this mess... Why? First and foremost it is the peoples fault. If they don't know how to read a contract to see if and when their mortgage will go up 5 percent, to a point they will not be able to make the payments then it is not anyones fault but their own.

The government is NOT here to take care of you. If you want or need to be told what to do then move to a socialist country... (or vote for Obama). It is also the banks fault for running their business on pure greed. If these banks were run by people who cared about you like they say in their commercials, then they would take the time to really give people the rundown and explain to them what they are signing. That is just good business period.

It is always about power and money nothing else. These banks got really rich off of really stupid people and now they are paying the price for it. I say let 'em suffer. All of us are still going to pay the price for this no matter what happens.
September 30, 2008

8:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wagthedog1001 writes:

We have budget problems. Budgets have TWO major columns: incomes and expenses. McCain only talks of the ONE side. He doesn't get it.

McCain claims he'll fix the budget by cutting spending alone. He'll cut incomes by keeping that unholy tax break for the rich. That's just irresponsible.

Also get out of Iraq and we can save billions every month.
September 30, 2008

8:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

KnoWhatYoureTalkinAbout writes:

panicstrickin writes: The government is NOT here to take care of you. If you want or need to be told what to do then move to a socialist country... (or vote for Obama).

Please humor me...and explain yourself. I'd love to hear this. REALLY! Please indulge me. How do you associate Obama with Socialism?
September 30, 2008

8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

KnoWhatYoureTalkinAbout writes:

Putting regulations/stipulations in place for the Banking industry is Socialism? Deregulation is word that comes to mind when thinking of irresponsible thinking in a time of Economic Crisis.
September 30, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

according to mcsame and his handlers, he was the one instrumental in getting congress to "cooperate" on the failed bailout bill. he took credit for it monday morning.

seems to me that we need to elect a president who can actually work with congress when he says he has and is aware when things aren't going as planned.
September 30, 2008

8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

horsinaround writes:

It started with Clinton! Read the below article.
The question I have most often been asked during the past several weeks is how did this economic mess get started?
We researched this topic exhaustively and believe the seminal event in the residential mortgage industry can be traced back to 1999 when the Clinton administration pressured Fannie Mae to ease borrower-credit requirements [ref. article below]. This action by Fannie Mae created the domino effect among competing lenders to in turn lower their standards. It basically became a game of “how low can you go” with the SFR lending industry.
You’ll note from the contents of this article the current government bailout was a foregone conclusion in 1999.
The purpose in pointing this out is not politically motivated; we aspire to report facts and not opinion.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending
By Steven A. Holmes

The New York Times
September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
September 30, 2008

8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

horsinaround writes:

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
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.
''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.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
September 30, 2008

8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

horsinaround writes:

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University 's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
September 30, 2008

8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

by the way...it's about time obama took off the gloves.

quite simply, it is an ignorant notion at best to expect that continuing the policies that are responsible for the messes we're in is going to fix the messes we're in.

it's just the worst kind of stupid to double down on bad cards.
September 30, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

DenverDan writes:

JAY in 2012

Well said! They don't understand facts. There narrow minds are made up. Their Party First, Country second.
September 30, 2008

10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

Want to understand why various individuals voted as they did? Remember it is a campaign season and it's every candidate for himself. Look at those who voted NO. Especially among the Democrats, but covering a few Republicans as well, those who voted NO are in difficult races or swing states and don't want to give voters a target or want to inspire a tidal wave of angry voters who might tip the state the opposite way.

Voters are not generally economic experts. Most of us think that if you work hard, pay your bills and obey the laws, all will be well. We also think that if you don't do those things you will have to face the consequences. To ask those who do the right thing to pick up the bills for, bailout, those others is wrong.

When a business that fails, most people think that the managers of that business should end up with no paycheck not millions of dollars as a reward for either stupidity or fraud. Asking the general public to pay the bills while the ex-managers drift off rich is not only wrong it is criminal.

The average voter is going to look at this whole situation from an individual perspective, not a political one. That means most won't approve of the bailout and will punish anyone they can find if it passes.

Yesterday you saw a bipartisan CYA party. Next week you will see fancy speeches from everyone. While you listen remember that what is passed today can be changed on Nov. 5.
September 30, 2008

1 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

On a brighter note...

It seems the "Obama Jugend" is taking recruits:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/artic...
September 30, 2008

1:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

Call him if you need him? Hu?......That is what he will say a lot if he is president......
September 30, 2008

2:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

BigSky182 writes:

Of course he does:

http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=...
September 30, 2008

3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

diggtbks writes:

KnoWhatYoureTalkinAbout writes:

diggtbks: I beleive the article you pulled that from was titled, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac invest in Lawmakers." I agree that the top three are Dems; however I got two words for you...Rick Davis. Try this on for size, it actually dwarfs the totals you show..."Since 2006, the federally sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac has paid at least $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain 's campaign manager, Rick Davis"

So Rick Davis is part of McCain's campaign. So Rick Davis's lobbying firm received $ from Freddie and Fannie.

Now prove McCain received that much $ either via Rick Davis or from Freddie and Fannie directly. You can't.
September 30, 2008

3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

DenverDan writes: "They don't understand facts. There narrow minds are made up. Their Party First, Country second."

So, anything less than blind obedience to Obama is putting your "Country second"?

(Where else have I heard that?.. Oh yeah, Munich, 1932.)
September 30, 2008

7:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

diggtbks writes:

Sep 30, 6:10 PM EDT

Bill Clinton in McCain ad leading role

By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bill Clinton is playing a starring role in a John McCain commercial. And here's the ad's kicker: "You're right Mr. President."

Fancy that. The Republican presidential nominee with a tip of the hat to the last Democratic president.

A new minute-long McCain commercial features the former president asserting that congressional Democrats could have done more to regulate the nation's major mortgage financiers.

In a clip taken from a Sept. 25 interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Clinton says: "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
September 30, 2008

8:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

A USA Today/Gallup poll on politicians' handling of the financial crisis shows only Barack Obama getting a higher approval than disapproval rating on the subject, with 46% approving and 43% disapproving. John McCain, who "suspended" his campaign to deal with the issue, had an approval rating of 37% and disapproval rating of 53% on the subject.
September 30, 2008

9:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

T208 writes:

Obama is like the couch potato during a sporting event, who finds it easy to point the finger and scream at the TV on what mistakes are being made. Very immature as a candidate for president. He doesn't have the resilience or experience to crossover to the republican side to get the deal done himself. John McCain continues to prove himself as a leader who completes priority tasks. Obama continues to prove to me he talks the talk, but can't/won't walk the walk.
September 30, 2008

11:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Creative_N_Denver writes:

Once again, Obama has to point the finger away from himself! Doesn't anyone understand that everyone that has anything to do with the being a Politician in the United States has their hands dirty? All this man does is talk, when will we see some real action? He promises change- lets see it start before we vote him in as President! Geeez!
October 1, 2008

2:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Reason writes:

That picture of Obama with the baby is classic, reminds me of the Lion King.

Home › Politics › Barack Obama

Obama claims McCain has role in financial mess

Sara Burnettand David Montero, Rocky Mountain News

Published September 29, 2008 at 10:41 a.m.

Related Links

Related Stories

More Barack Obama

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs