Obama received $105,849 in Fannie, Freddie campaign money, 3rd Most

jetstream23 · 09-24-2008, 01:12 PM

Just think if he had been in the Senate since 1989, he might have double what Dodd got!

[QUOTE][SIZE="5"][B]Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008[/B][/SIZE]

Name Office Party/State Total
1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900

2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000

[B]3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849[/B]

4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500

6. Bennett, Robert F S R-UT $61,499

7. Johnson, Tim S D-SD $61,000

8. Conrad, Kent S D-ND $58,991

9. Davis, Tom H R-VA $55,499

10. Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' S R-MO $55,400

11. Bachus, Spencer H R-AL $55,300

12. Shelby, Richard C S R-AL $55,000

13. Emanuel, Rahm H D-IL $51,750

14. Reed, Jack S D-RI $50,750

15. Carper, Tom S D-DE $44,389

16. Frank, Barney H D-MA $40,100

17. Maloney, Carolyn B H D-NY $38,750

18. Bean, Melissa H D-IL $37,249

19. Blunt, Roy H R-MO $36,500

20. Pryce, Deborah H R-OH $34,750

21. Miller, Gary H R-CA $33,000

22. Pelosi, Nancy H D-CA $32,750

23. Reynolds, Tom H R-NY $32,700

24. Hoyer, Steny H H D-MD $30,500

25. Hooley, Darlene H D-OR $28,750[/QUOTE]

Klecko73isGod · 09-24-2008, 01:51 PM

Gee, I wonder why a failing financial institution would give money to the front runner in a Presidential campaign.... hmmmm. That's a mystery. :rolleyes:

jetstream23 · 09-24-2008, 01:58 PM

[QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2770170]Gee, I wonder why a failing financial institution would give money to the front runner in a Presidential campaign.... hmmmm. That's a mystery. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

No idea either. Bribes?

McCain isn't even on that list.

EtsFan · 09-24-2008, 01:59 PM

No wonder the Dems did not back the reforms proposed a few years ago.

nuu faaola · 09-24-2008, 02:11 PM

[QUOTE=jetstream23;2770179]No idea either. Bribes?

McCain isn't even on that list.[/QUOTE]

McCain actually got much more money ($169,000 to $16,000) from lobbyists and directors from those companies than Obama did. (This stat was posted on this site in an earlier thread.)

Obama got more from employees, McCain got more from directors and lobbyists, which don't show up in reports like the ones s

All told, Obama took $121,000 while McCain took about $186,000.

2foolish197 · 09-24-2008, 02:16 PM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2770205]McCain actually got much more money ($169,000 to $16,000) from lobbyists and directors from those companies than Obama did. (This stat was posted on this site in an earlier thread.)

Obama got more from employees, McCain got more from directors and lobbyists, which don't show up in reports like the ones s

All told, Obama took $121,000 while McCain took about $186,000.[/QUOTE]why don't they show up in reports like this? we talking monatary limit?

nuu faaola · 09-24-2008, 02:30 PM

[QUOTE=2foolish197;2770214]why don't they show up in reports like this? we talking monatary limit?[/QUOTE]

Because those reports are sorted by "employer." Directors are not employees. They are often executives at other companies or retired former public officials. When they make a donation, their gifts are filed under their own employers for the purposes of lists like this.

Same goes with lobbyists, who are employees of the lobbying firms they work for.

To get a full picture you have to know who the firm's lobbyists and directors are and then look them up individually.

MachineGunFunk · 09-24-2008, 02:34 PM

Is this supposed to be a smoking gun?

Quick reminder fellas, its Bush who's trying to push through this bailout and the Democratic Congress calling for stricter regulation as a prerequisite for any money handed out.

jetstream23 · 09-24-2008, 03:38 PM

[QUOTE=MachineGunFunk;2770259]Is this supposed to be a smoking gun?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Quick reminder fellas, its Bush who's trying to push through this bailout and the Democratic Congress calling for stricter regulation as a prerequisite for any money handed out.[/QUOTE]

Quick reminder??? Bush is the only one trying to push this through??? Are you smoking something or just misinformed?

IT'S NOT A BAILOUT!! Sheesh. Some people don't understand. It's an asset recovery and liquidity support effort. If it's a bailout it is a bailout for you, me and everyone else. Who do you think is getting bailed out here if there's a run on the bank and your deposits go to zero simply because we don't facilitate the orderly function of the market and the disposition of these crappy loans???

And, why didn't the Democrats support the "stricter regulation" when they had the chance? Bush proposed the most comprehensive reform of Fannie and Freddie in years over 5 years ago. Who do you think stopped it?

[QUOTE]
[B]New York Times - 2003[/B]
[SIZE="5"][B]New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae [/B][/SIZE]
By STEPHEN LABATON

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

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

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. [B]And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.[/B]

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.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

[B]''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.'' [/B]

[B]Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. [U]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[/U]. :eek: [/B]

[B]''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' :eek: 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.'' :eek: [/B]

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.[/QUOTE]

MachineGunFunk · 09-24-2008, 06:19 PM

[QUOTE=jetstream23;2770440]Quick reminder??? Bush is the only one trying to push this through??? Are you smoking something or just misinformed?

IT'S NOT A BAILOUT!! Sheesh. Some people don't understand. It's an asset recovery and liquidity support effort. If it's a bailout it is a bailout for you, me and everyone else. Who do you think is getting bailed out here if there's a run on the bank and your deposits go to zero simply because we don't facilitate the orderly function of the market and the disposition of these crappy loans???

And, why didn't the Democrats support the "stricter regulation" when they had the chance? Bush proposed the most comprehensive reform of Fannie and Freddie in years over 5 years ago. Who do you think stopped it?[/QUOTE]

So both the Republicans and Democrats are at fault here. Okay, we're in agreement.

So who's doing more now to make sure this doesn't happen again?

Which party is willing to perform an "asset recovery and liquidity support effort" but favors stricter regulation as a prerequisite?

jetstream23 · 09-24-2008, 06:29 PM

[QUOTE=MachineGunFunk;2770983]So both the Republicans and Democrats are at fault here. Okay, we're in agreement.[/QUOTE]

Yup.

[QUOTE]So who's doing more now to make sure this doesn't happen again? [/QUOTE]

This is the problem in Washington. Who is getting credit? Who is really trying to fix it? Truth is, they both are. But they have different ideas on how to do it.

[QUOTE]Which party is willing to perform an "asset recovery and liquidity support effort" but favors stricter regulation as a prerequisite?[/QUOTE]

What kind of regulation are you talking about? Both sides have agreed to oversight of the Treasury as this program takes effect. I don't think anyone asks that hundreds of billions of dollars be distributed without oversight or regulation. But the fact is that the type of regulations can be debated, and structural reforms are needed but, as I said in another thread, the patient is in cardiac arrest and we can't sit around discussing the fact that he needs to cut red meat out of his diet when what he needs right now is resuscitation.

Tucker134 · 09-24-2008, 06:42 PM

I think the blame game should be over & everyone should write/call their elected officials & beg them to sign this plan that Paulson & Bernanke are asking for....immediately

jetstream23 · 09-24-2008, 07:18 PM

[QUOTE=Tucker134;2771027]I think the blame game should be over & everyone should write/call their elected officials & beg them to sign this plan that Paulson & Bernanke are asking for....immediately[/QUOTE]

:clapper:

Did you see the Q&A session today? Bernanke and Paulson, clearly the smartest guys in the room, are getting drowned out by idiots pandering to voters.

09-24-2008, 01:12 PM	#1
jetstream23 recovering from turf toe Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ (New Jets Stadium Section 246) Posts: 31,611	Obama received $105,849 in Fannie, Freddie campaign money, 3rd Most Just think if he had been in the Senate since 1989, he might have double what Dodd got! [QUOTE][SIZE="5"][B]Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008[/B][/SIZE] Name Office Party/State Total 1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900 2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000 [B]3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849[/B] 4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550 5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500 6. Bennett, Robert F S R-UT $61,499 7. Johnson, Tim S D-SD $61,000 8. Conrad, Kent S D-ND $58,991 9. Davis, Tom H R-VA $55,499 10. Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' S R-MO $55,400 11. Bachus, Spencer H R-AL $55,300 12. Shelby, Richard C S R-AL $55,000 13. Emanuel, Rahm H D-IL $51,750 14. Reed, Jack S D-RI $50,750 15. Carper, Tom S D-DE $44,389 16. Frank, Barney H D-MA $40,100 17. Maloney, Carolyn B H D-NY $38,750 18. Bean, Melissa H D-IL $37,249 19. Blunt, Roy H R-MO $36,500 20. Pryce, Deborah H R-OH $34,750 21. Miller, Gary H R-CA $33,000 22. Pelosi, Nancy H D-CA $32,750 23. Reynolds, Tom H R-NY $32,700 24. Hoyer, Steny H H D-MD $30,500 25. Hooley, Darlene H D-OR $28,750[/QUOTE]

09-24-2008, 03:38 PM	#9
jetstream23 recovering from turf toe Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ (New Jets Stadium Section 246) Posts: 31,611	[QUOTE=MachineGunFunk;2770259]Is this supposed to be a smoking gun?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Quick reminder fellas, its Bush who's trying to push through this bailout and the Democratic Congress calling for stricter regulation as a prerequisite for any money handed out.[/QUOTE] Quick reminder??? Bush is the only one trying to push this through??? Are you smoking something or just misinformed? IT'S NOT A BAILOUT!! Sheesh. Some people don't understand. It's an asset recovery and liquidity support effort. If it's a bailout it is a bailout for you, me and everyone else. Who do you think is getting bailed out here if there's a run on the bank and your deposits go to zero simply because we don't facilitate the orderly function of the market and the disposition of these crappy loans??? And, why didn't the Democrats support the "stricter regulation" when they had the chance? Bush proposed the most comprehensive reform of Fannie and Freddie in years over 5 years ago. Who do you think stopped it? [QUOTE] [B]New York Times - 2003[/B] [SIZE="5"][B]New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae [/B][/SIZE] By STEPHEN LABATON [B]The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. [/B] Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department [B]to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.[/B] 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. [B]And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.[/B] 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. ''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan. Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies. The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session. After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall. ''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies. ''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios. At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past. Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission. After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan. ''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members. Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products. Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.'' The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday. Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators. [B]''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.'' [/B] [B]Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. [U]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[/U]. :eek: [/B] [B]''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' :eek: 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.'' :eek: [/B] 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.[/QUOTE] Last edited by jetstream23; 09-24-2008 at 04:36 PM.

09-24-2008, 01:51 PM	#2
Klecko73isGod Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 22,750	Gee, I wonder why a failing financial institution would give money to the front runner in a Presidential campaign.... hmmmm. That's a mystery. :rolleyes:

09-24-2008, 01:58 PM	#3
jetstream23 recovering from turf toe Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ (New Jets Stadium Section 246) Posts: 31,611	[QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2770170]Gee, I wonder why a failing financial institution would give money to the front runner in a Presidential campaign.... hmmmm. That's a mystery. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] No idea either. Bribes? McCain isn't even on that list.

09-24-2008, 01:59 PM	#4
EtsFan Veteran Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Lawn Guyland Posts: 1,139	No wonder the Dems did not back the reforms proposed a few years ago.

09-24-2008, 02:11 PM	#5
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=jetstream23;2770179]No idea either. Bribes? McCain isn't even on that list.[/QUOTE] McCain actually got much more money ($169,000 to $16,000) from lobbyists and directors from those companies than Obama did. (This stat was posted on this site in an earlier thread.) Obama got more from employees, McCain got more from directors and lobbyists, which don't show up in reports like the ones s All told, Obama took $121,000 while McCain took about $186,000.

09-24-2008, 02:16 PM	#6
2foolish197 i suspect hanky-panky All League Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: astoria Posts: 4,532	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2770205]McCain actually got much more money ($169,000 to $16,000) from lobbyists and directors from those companies than Obama did. (This stat was posted on this site in an earlier thread.) Obama got more from employees, McCain got more from directors and lobbyists, which don't show up in reports like the ones s All told, Obama took $121,000 while McCain took about $186,000.[/QUOTE]why don't they show up in reports like this? we talking monatary limit?

09-24-2008, 02:30 PM	#7
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=2foolish197;2770214]why don't they show up in reports like this? we talking monatary limit?[/QUOTE] Because those reports are sorted by "employer." Directors are not employees. They are often executives at other companies or retired former public officials. When they make a donation, their gifts are filed under their own employers for the purposes of lists like this. Same goes with lobbyists, who are employees of the lobbying firms they work for. To get a full picture you have to know who the firm's lobbyists and directors are and then look them up individually.

09-24-2008, 02:34 PM	#8
MachineGunFunk All Pro Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,176	Is this supposed to be a smoking gun? Quick reminder fellas, its Bush who's trying to push through this bailout and the Democratic Congress calling for stricter regulation as a prerequisite for any money handed out.

09-24-2008, 06:19 PM	#10
MachineGunFunk All Pro Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,176	[QUOTE=jetstream23;2770440]Quick reminder??? Bush is the only one trying to push this through??? Are you smoking something or just misinformed? IT'S NOT A BAILOUT!! Sheesh. Some people don't understand. It's an asset recovery and liquidity support effort. If it's a bailout it is a bailout for you, me and everyone else. Who do you think is getting bailed out here if there's a run on the bank and your deposits go to zero simply because we don't facilitate the orderly function of the market and the disposition of these crappy loans??? And, why didn't the Democrats support the "stricter regulation" when they had the chance? Bush proposed the most comprehensive reform of Fannie and Freddie in years over 5 years ago. Who do you think stopped it?[/QUOTE] So both the Republicans and Democrats are at fault here. Okay, we're in agreement. So who's doing more now to make sure this doesn't happen again? Which party is willing to perform an "asset recovery and liquidity support effort" but favors stricter regulation as a prerequisite?

09-24-2008, 06:29 PM	#11
jetstream23 recovering from turf toe Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ (New Jets Stadium Section 246) Posts: 31,611	[QUOTE=MachineGunFunk;2770983]So both the Republicans and Democrats are at fault here. Okay, we're in agreement.[/QUOTE] Yup. [QUOTE]So who's doing more now to make sure this doesn't happen again? [/QUOTE] This is the problem in Washington. Who is getting credit? Who is really trying to fix it? Truth is, they both are. But they have different ideas on how to do it. [QUOTE]Which party is willing to perform an "asset recovery and liquidity support effort" but favors stricter regulation as a prerequisite?[/QUOTE] What kind of regulation are you talking about? Both sides have agreed to oversight of the Treasury as this program takes effect. I don't think anyone asks that hundreds of billions of dollars be distributed without oversight or regulation. But the fact is that the type of regulations can be debated, and structural reforms are needed but, as I said in another thread, the patient is in cardiac arrest and we can't sit around discussing the fact that he needs to cut red meat out of his diet when what he needs right now is resuscitation.

09-24-2008, 06:42 PM	#12
Tucker134 Let's go Isles! All League Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 2,986	I think the blame game should be over & everyone should write/call their elected officials & beg them to sign this plan that Paulson & Bernanke are asking for....immediately

09-24-2008, 07:18 PM	#13
jetstream23 recovering from turf toe Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ (New Jets Stadium Section 246) Posts: 31,611	[QUOTE=Tucker134;2771027]I think the blame game should be over & everyone should write/call their elected officials & beg them to sign this plan that Paulson & Bernanke are asking for....immediately[/QUOTE] :clapper: Did you see the Q&A session today? Bernanke and Paulson, clearly the smartest guys in the room, are getting drowned out by idiots pandering to voters.