Article About Obama's Attacks On Mccain

[JayDub]

careful I believe the one of the Great Mods banned politics until the 15th

Considering I've been out of commission post-appendectomy...have at it whilst my give a damn is broken.

Tony had it right...noon DFW time...close enough. I'm surprised you guys made it that long.

United Airlines thinks the internet is doing just fine, thank you.

I blame this for the appendicitis...it scared my appendix into damn near exploding. Seriously...there was 15 minutes on Monday morning where I thought I might be out of a job (our biggest feeder contract is with United).

Edited September 13, 2008 by JayDub

[Guest JohnDenver]

McCain can't even use a keyboard or even tie his shoes because of years of torture in Vietnam. Nice to see Obama making light of a man's disability. A real compassionate man, he is.

Seriously?

This man can't use a keyboard either, but you can't say he is computer illiterate.

Fingers that don't work so well? A computer has the answer -- if you really want to use it.

[EagleD]

Considering I've been out of commission post-appendectomy...have at it whilst my give a damn is broken.

Tony had it right...noon DFW time...close enough. I'm surprised you guys made it that long.

I blame this for the appendicitis...it scared my appendix into damn near exploding. Seriously...there was 15 minutes on Monday morning where I thought I might be out of a job (our biggest feeder contract is with United).

Get well soon.

[Guest JohnDenver]

But then there's the flip side. I found this statement by Green Machine especially telling:

Just let us know how to form a system that caters only to the former and not the latter and we'll be all ears.

You don't throw the baby out with the bath water though.

Hospitals are filled with *exactly* what you are talking about. Should doctors stop caring? Should they just say... "get better on your own." I, personally, like the Hippocratic oath... You need to help, but do no harm. Effectively, leave them in a better state than when you started. It doesn't say --if they can pay. -- if they look like you. --if they aren't assholes. When you work the ER, the majority of your patients are people that put themselves there from their own actions (alcohol, fights, dui, skateboading accident, etc)... and the majority of those can't/won't pay for their bill (young with no insurance, poor, jobless, homeless). Maybe they should fix themselves.

I would love to see some data on private high schools cost per student. I know my mother's boyfriend's daughter was sent to a Christian private school, she got a *terrible* education and he paid ~$20k a year. I know charter schools are failing miserably in most cities... and in a lot of cases are being taken over by the public schools again (to bail them out).

[Mean Green 93-98]

This man can't use a keyboard either, but you can't say he is computer illiterate.

Fingers that don't work so well? A computer has the answer -- if you really want to use it.

A computer has the answer to what? He has the resources to get the answers he needs.

I use the Blackberry, but I don’t e-mail, I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail. I read e-mails all the time, but the communications that I have with my friends and staff are oral and done with my cell phone. I have the luxury of being in contact with them literally all the time. We now have a phone on the plane that is usable on the plane, so I just never really felt a need to do it. But I do – could I just say, really – I understand the impact of blogs on American politics today and political campaigns. I understand that. And I understand that something appears on one blog, can ricochet all around and get into the evening news, the front page of The New York Times. So, I do pay attention to the blogs. And I am not in any way unappreciative of the impact that they have on entire campaigns and world opinion.

Supposedly Bill Clinton sent two e-mails during his entire presidency. I'm not a big Clinton fan, but I fail to see how sending more e-mail would have helped his presidency. E-mail/Internet proficiency is hardly a qualification, and I don't think even a consideration, for the presidency. Some of us would probably accomplish a whole lot more if we didn't have e-mail and the Internet (particularly gmg.com! ).

Edited September 13, 2008 by Mean Green 93-98

[UNTflyer]

We have C-level corporate officers who are brilliant when it comes to strategic management, finance, accounting, and operations... who are completely computer STUPID.

Obama's campaign really needs to be careful about computer skills. I doubt Barack Obama could rebuild a crashed laptop.

[JayDub]

Get well soon.

Shoooot...I was home within 12 hours of surgery and back to work within only a couple of days (just because this happened on my scheduled days off). Just hurts to laugh...

[KingDL1]

Socialized medicine? His plan is to start a government health plan that provides insurance to people (who OPT in) for the same price the senate gets theirs... It does *not* make everyone use this plan. There is still fair competition, hopefully it will drive down some operating costs... ?

Does anyone know what the costs are? I remember it being cheap and pretty comprehensive. Problem is where this leads, if it is cheaper, which it has to be for people not covered, those people paying high premiums will wonder why they are paying taxes and not a part of this system, especially those middle income class families. It is federally subsidized, and probably not taxed, which will make it impossible to be competitive with. I doubt a federal program will be able to throw out preexisting conditions. It seems to me if you follow the natural process, this would be the first step to full scaled Socialized medicine.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---- I get tired of the campaign ads that make statements that are not even close to the truth about what their opponents believe or support. The most offensive (to me) are the ones that show their opponent in some goofy photograph (ever freeze framed your TV and looked at people, can be strange) and the ones that have someone with a desperate almost weeping voice. To me that shows that they know that they can't win on honest issues and their own merit but only by trashing their opponent..

---- I just want politicians that are honest and will make good decisions that is best for the public as a whole and not just their financial supporters (which sure hasn't been happening in the state or US government lately).

Edited September 15, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[untbowler]

---- I just want politicians that are honest and will make good decisions that is best for the public as a whole and not just their financial supporters (which sure hasn't been happening in the state or US government lately).

If you find one please let me know.

[yyz28]

Chris... give me a break. A "successful independent business man(sexist? .. i jest. )" has SO many more tax write-offs associated with business that us successful corporate monkeys have. On top of that, figure in the nice tax shelters, ability to get taxable income in retirement accounts and all that crap... They are not in the 50% tax range. No way. No how. Maybe if they are the successful in business, but fail at using an accountant, they will have this happen.. but I can't see that happening.

It happens EVERY DAY! I have personal experience with it. Unlike you, I've been on both sides. I've been a"corporate monkey" and I've been the small business owner. Despite help from a good CPA who's a former IRS agent and knows the holes, I pay WELL in excess of 50% of my income in total taxes, and I'm not even in the top two tax rates. I take all the writeoffs I can, but It doesn't mean I don't pay a HUGE portion of my income in taxes. The numbers are staggering... ...and this is after my company has paid property tax, sales tax, income tax, franchise tax, etc.

I could provide jobs for 3 more people if it weren't for the tax overhead my company faces.

Yeh, You bring up the Clinton health plan, but as I remember it... it failed. Obama *doesn't* have that health plan. That was a major sticking point in their campaigning.. She said his doesn't go far enough to cover everyone. He said he will be *priced* right for everyone to afford, if they want it.

The logical fallacy in this is so massive, I can't believe nobody is cathing it. We ALL know that once the government is offering subsidized healthcare, companies are going to have no reason to continue to offer healthcare to the employee... Why have an expense item for something you're already paying taxes to provide?

In addition, the math in the plan shows yet another logical fallacy. The problem here is that between them, the five biggest health insurers—UnitedHealthCare, Wellpoint, Aetna, Humana, and Cigna—which cover 105 million members, last year had profits between them of $11.8 billion. This is not a small number; these are very profitable companies. But total U.S. health care costs last year were in the area of $2.3 trillion. So, with a membership that included a little more than half of the Americans covered by private insurance, these five insurers’ profits came to 0.5 percent of total health care costs. Profit on insurance premiums are not the lion's share of the costs. You can't drop your price below your costs and stay in business.

Supporters of the plan claim it will cost the average american 50% less for health insurance through this governemtn. Why do you think that you're going to pay 50% less? Where does that number come from? I don't care who's providing the insurance. If the costs are 89% of the premiums we currently pay, how do we get down to 50% without the Government (meaning the tax-payer) picking up the remaining 35% of the tab? That's 800 Billion Dollars that has to come from somewhere? Where are we gonna get it? ...that's right, we're going to raise taxes on the companies and investors that create the jobs in this country. The dems call them "the rich".

Probably more important than the money is the concern KingDL1 offers up. He's right. This is just a first step to nationalized healthcare. ...and once it starts, you're NEVER going to be able to reign it in short of revolution.

I would love to see some stat about 100k being the delineation of "rich."

Well the two highest tax rates, 33% and 35% kick in at $164K. Feel free to accept that information and make your conclusions on it as you see fit.

And hell.. at a certain point "rich" people should help out the rest of the scrubs for the sake of humanity (ala Warren B or Bill G).

In 2006, Warren Buffett announced that he was going to give away 36 Billion dollars (or 85%) of his net worth to Charity. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation speaks for itself.

...but they aren't being generous enough. The government should confiscate more!

And yes, Corporations SHOULD pay taxes... unlike 2/3rds of them getting away without paying them (as is stands now).

Wow! Don't let the facts get in the way of this talking point now... ...a vast majority of corporations are small businesses. They avoid corporate-level tax by paying higher salaries to their owners. This reduces the corporate tax but increases the owners’ personal income taxes. Simple. Effective. Legal. The tax is STILL collected. Close this "loophole" and you won't collect ANY more taxes, you'll just shift the % of amount of taxes collected from businesses up, but not gain so much as an extra $. Then, consider the number of large businesses who have been LOSING money recently; the Airlines come to mind. If American Airlines doesn't make any money, and instead LOSES billions, not only do they not pay tax this year, they get the loss as a carry over credit for years they DO make money. This isn't loopholes. this isn't anyone being dishonest or trying to screw the poor sap on the bottom who depends on tax revenue redistributed to him/her to get by. I find it entertaining that the same crowd who demands that American business not look overseas for employees to be more competitive and profitable and force an artificial salary starting point that does nothing but force even more jobs overseas spends so much effort trying to figure out how to make business pay more. Its sort of like shooting at someone, then asking them out for dinner.

Here’s a crazy idea to address your concerns: Lower the ridiculously high, uncompetitive corporate taxes Uncle Sam attempts to saddle American businesses with. That might “persuade” them to keep jobs, invest in capital and report profits here in the United States.

This is actually one of the simplest, most demonstrable principles of economics: the more government reduces incentives, the more businesses will seek and find them elsewhere.

What the United States cannot afford is another decade of current corporate tax rates that handicap our companies and negate the American advantage.

Who really ends up paying these taxes? According to many leading economists, they are simply passed along to consumers at the retail level.

Edited September 15, 2008 by yyz28

[Censored by Laurie]

It happens EVERY DAY! I have personal experience with it. Unlike you, I've been on both sides. I've been a"corporate monkey" and I've been the small business owner. Despite help from a good CPA who's a former IRS agent and knows the holes, I pay WELL in excess of 50% of my income in total taxes

The logical fallacy in this is so massive, I can't believe nobody is cathing it. We ALL know that once the government is offering subsidized healthcare, companies are going to have no reason to continue to offer healthcare to the employee... Why have an expense item for something you're already paying taxes to provide?

In addition, the math in the plan shows yet another logical fallacy. The problem here is that between them, the five biggest health insurers—UnitedHealthCare, Wellpoint, Aetna, Humana, and Cigna—which cover 105 million members, last year had profits between them of $11.8 billion. This is not a small number; these are very profitable companies. But total U.S. health care costs last year were in the area of $2.3 trillion. So, with a membership that included a little more than half of the Americans covered by private insurance, these five insurers’ profits came to 0.5 percent of total health care costs. Profit on insurance premiums are not the lion's share of the costs. You can't drop your price below your costs and stay in business.

Supporters of the plan claim it will cost the average american 50% less for health insurance through this governemtn. Why do you think that you're going to pay 50% less? Where does that number come from? I don't care who's providing the insurance. If the costs are 89% of the premiums we currently pay, how do we get down to 50% without the Government (meaning the tax-payer) picking up the remaining 35% of the tab? That's 800 Billion Dollars that has to come from somewhere? Where are we gonna get it? ...that's right, we're going to raise taxes on the companies and investors that create the jobs in this country. The dems call them "the rich".

Probably more important than the money is the concern KingDL1 offers up. He's right. This is just a first step to nationalized healthcare. ...and once it starts, you're NEVER going to be able to reign it in short of revolution.

Well the two highest tax rates, 33% and 35% kick in at $164K. Feel free to accept that information and make your conclusions on it as you see fit.

In 2006, Warren Buffett announced that he was going to give away 36 Billion dollars (or 85%) of his net worth to Charity. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation speaks for itself.

...but they aren't being generous enough. The government should confiscate more!

Wow! Don't let the facts get in the way of this talking point now... ...a vast majority of corporations are small businesses. They avoid corporate-level tax by paying higher salaries to their owners. This reduces the corporate tax but increases the owners’ personal income taxes. Simple. Effective. Legal. The tax is STILL collected. Close this "loophole" and you won't collect ANY more taxes, you'll just shift the % of amount of taxes collected from businesses up, but not gain so much as an extra $. Then, consider the number of large businesses who have been LOSING money recently; the Airlines come to mind. If American Airlines doesn't make any money, and instead LOSES billions, not only do they not pay tax this year, they get the loss as a carry over credit for years they DO make money. This isn't loopholes. this isn't anyone being dishonest or trying to screw the poor sap on the bottom who depends on tax revenue redistributed to him/her to get by. I find it entertaining that the same crowd who demands that American business not look overseas for employees to be more competitive and profitable and force an artificial salary starting point that does nothing but force even more jobs overseas spends so much effort trying to figure out how to make business pay more. Its sort of like shooting at someone, then asking them out for dinner.

Here’s a crazy idea to address your concerns: Lower the ridiculously high, uncompetitive corporate taxes Uncle Sam attempts to saddle American businesses with. That might “persuade” them to keep jobs, invest in capital and report profits here in the United States.

This is actually one of the simplest, most demonstrable principles of economics: the more government reduces incentives, the more businesses will seek and find them elsewhere.

What the United States cannot afford is another decade of current corporate tax rates that handicap our companies and negate the American advantage.

Who really ends up paying these taxes? According to many leading economists, they are simply passed along to consumers at the retail level.

Taxes are the American way. If you don't like them you can just go live somewhere else, Frenchy.

[yyz28]

Taxes are the American way. If you don't like them you can just go live somewhere else, Frenchy.

There's a solution to our problems!

[Censored by Laurie]

There's a solution to our problems!

Ohh...thats what we've been doing...finding solutions for world problems while we penalty kill at our day jobs. Sorry for being so flippant earlier

[Quoner]

Ohh...thats what we've been doing...finding solutions for world problems while we penalty kill at our day jobs. Sorry for being so flippant earlier

Getting wireless on my laptop makes it much easier to post and mow lawns at the same time!

/SMUed

Edited September 15, 2008 by Quoner

[chrisfisher]

I'm very glad to see some folks backing up what I said. The American public are so easily bamboozled. Apparently, not here. Everyone knows that government funded healthcare will lead to socialized medicine. Obama will not say that explicitly in his plan, but it is a huge first step toward this in the U.S. as several good posters have pointed out in this thread. Liberals believe in big, government sponsored social programs..... that's just what they do.

Edited September 16, 2008 by chrisfisher

[untbowler]

I'm very glad to see some folks backing up what I said. The American public are so easily bamboozled. Apparently, not here. Everyone knows that government funded healthcare will lead to socialized medicine. Obama will not say that explicitly in his plan, but it is a huge first step toward this in the U.S. as several good posters have pointed out in this thread. Liberals believe in big, government sponsored social programs..... that's just what they do.

Obama's purposedly hiding his true views right now so he can come off as much more moderate than he truly is, of course he has the human gaffe machine as his sidekick so the fun should really rachet up now. Does anyone have life support since apparently to "Long Dong" Biden the middle class is dying, considering I am firmly entrenched into the middle class I will need the paddles soon for others mistakes.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---The one thing that now bothers me about McCain is his caving in the the extreme right and selecting Palin. Other than that there are several things about him that I like. --no wasteful earmarks for example---

---To me those is think Palin is a great pick probably think that a major 4-year university should consider selecting a fine Christian successful "junior high coach" to be their next head football coach. That makes more sense to me since winning football games is less important then "running" a country..

---Experience and knowledge do matter. Electing a president is not a popularity contest or beauty pageant... It is far more important.... it is no game.

---When selecting a surgeon---Would you rather have a fine Christian incompetent one --or-- an excellent Surgeon that doesn't go around thumping his Bible. You get to chose.

-----------

---Don't even think that I am anti-Christian... I even attend Church regularly. I just want competent people in office.

Edited September 17, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[KRAM1]

ScreamingEagle...then with that "experience" thing going for you...I have to assume you will be voting for McCain.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

ScreamingEagle...then with that "experience" thing going for you...I have to assume you will be voting for McCain.

---I was considering it --until he made this dumb decision and caved in to the extreme right*... now I really don't know. Sounds like he really won't stand up for what he really believes. I am not anti-GOP, but I am anti Bush because of some of the crazy decisions he has made including claiming he is conservative and then he doubles the national debt which drives up prices including gasoline.. If you doubt me.... check out how much the international rate of exchange of the dollar vs. other currencies has dropped in eight years**. Blame the increased debt and the changes in China for at lot of increased prices.. I also live in Midland and have heard a lot of nutty stories about GWB from people who know him. He lived about 1/2 mile from me, don't really know him but have seen him around several places. . .

* The Christian right as much as anybody wanted to invade Iraq as a Crusade again Moslem countries (Falwell and P.Robertson et.al.) ... Bush, unfortunateley, even used that term a couple of times. It sure wasn't about 9-11, Bush admits that.

** The last time I was in London (late 90's) it took $1.50 to buy a British pound, now it takes over $2.00. Against many other currencies (includes the Euro) the dollar has deteriorated worse. --- That has really driven prices up of things that are imported or trade internationally.

Edited September 17, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[FirefightnRick]

---I was considering it --until he made this dumb decision and caved in to the extreme right*... now I really don't know. Sounds like he really won't stand up for what he really believes. I am not anti-GOP, but I am anti Bush because of some of the crazy decisions he has made including claiming he is conservative and then he doubles the national debt which drives up prices including gasoline.. If you doubt me.... check out how much the international rate of exchange of the dollar vs. other currencies has dropped in eight years**. Blame the increased debt and the changes in China for at lot of increased prices.. I also live in Midland and have heard a lot of nutty stories about GWB from people who know him. He lived about 1/2 mile from me, don't really know him but have seen him around several places. . .

* The Christian right as much as anybody wanted to invade Iraq as a Crusade again Moslem countries (Falwell and P.Robertson et.al.) ... Bush, unfortunateley, even used that term a couple of times. It sure wasn't about 9-11, Bush admits that.

** The last time I was in London (late 90's) it took $1.50 to buy a British pound, now it takes over $2.00. Against many other currencies (includes the Euro) the dollar has deteriorated worse. --- That has really driven prices up of things that are imported or trade internationally.

Along with the Bush bashing, I suppose you have a way to spin around THIS. from the New York Slimes in 2003

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

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

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

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

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

Sure am glad we didn't listen to that crazy George Bush on that one, or that dumb John McCain for fighting for this proposal on the Senate Floor back in 2003.

Rick

Edited September 17, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[yyz28]

Rick,

Assuming the TRUTH of what has happend here actually gets out, the Democrats are in serious trouble on this one. I don't need a bunch of fancy news stories to prove this one... I just need the congressional record.

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.

– John McCain, May 25, 2006

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together hold or own up to FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS in mortgage debt. That’s more than half the total of the current U.S. national debt.

Their failure is what has sparked the world financial crisis and the blame lies solely with the Democrats in Congress who shielded them from reform for years while Democrat party hacks running the companies enriched themselves. The cooking of the FM/FM books will make Enron look like a corner grocer fudged the number to make his sales look better to the bank.

Looking back to the root of the problem Wayne Barret describes how the snowball started:

Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie

How the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history gave birth to the mortgage crisis

By Wayne Barrett

The Village Voice

Tuesday, August 5th

…Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded “kickbacks” to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

In the year 2000 Congressman Richard Baker (R-La.) then the chairman of the House subcommittee that had jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie introduced legislation to more tightly regulate the mortgage giants. The bill never saw the light of day. Congresspersons from both parties receive contributions from Fan & Fred and collectively they spent $174 million lobbying Congress the last ten years.

The result of Rep. Baker’s legislation would not have been a surprise to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who had proposed tighter regulation in the 1990’s only to find a highly paid Fannie Mae lobbyist stalking him at events in his district and who played hardball by directing calls to every mortgage holder in the Congressman’s district falsely implying that Ryan meant to raise their rates.

In 2004 another attempt was launched. The Senate took up a measure put forwarded by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) only to have it blocked again by Fan & Fred using Democrats as a partisan attack machine.

Fannie and Freddie chose to fight legislation in the Senate Banking Committee that embodied the administration’s minimum requirements, particularly the receivership provision, in the late spring of 2004. The companies called in their chits and managed to obtain solid Democratic opposition to the bill crafted by the committee’s chairman, Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). The committee also watered down the receivership provision. The partisan nature of the vote to send the bill to the floor virtually assured that it would not be taken up in the Senate unless Fannie and Freddie relented in their opposition … but Fannie and Freddie would not budge. It may be that the [Fan&Fred] were banking on the defeat of President George W. Bush and on the assumption that a Democratic president would abandon the effort to pass tougher regulation. If that was their thinking, it was an exceedingly costly error.

In the last year of the Republican Congress House GOP leaders were determined to try again. They put forward H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. The bill would have stripped control of Fan & Fred from the Housing and Urban Development Department where Cuomo had turned it into a regulatory farce.

The bill would also introduce “anti advocacy provisions” barring money from Fan & Fred being used as a slush fund for liberal lobbying organizations.

Despite Democrat opposition to that measure the bill passed the House, but could not get a vote in the Senate even after the anti-lobbying provision was removed.

John McCain was one of three Republicans in the U.S. Senate to sponsor the bill. Rising to propose the legislation Senator McCain’s words now sound prophetic:

Senator McCain Speaks in Support of

The FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005

The United States Senate

May 25, 2006

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

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.

Now you've got Obama and Pelosi running around trying to blame Republican policy for the problems we face today. From 1989-2008, Fannie May/Freddie Mac gave $4.8 Million to politicians. Number one on that list is Democrat Chris Dodd, who took in $165,400. Number Two on that list? Any guesses? Anyone? Take a stab.

BARAK OBAMA, who raked in $120K. Now, consider how he's number TWO on a list that tallys totals since '89, then stop and realize he's only been in Congress for 3 years... He's raking it in from FM/FM faster than any other politician in Washington.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/up...nd-freddie.html Here's the link to this information if you're interested.

[Guest JohnDenver]

It sounds as though the Bush administration wanted to *create another* government agency to oversee an agency that (from my understanding of platforms) Republicans think should be in the public sector. Let free market economics regulate low-interest loans for housing...

So in effect (as I read it), the Republicans wanted a bigger government, while the democrats didn't. The democrats opposed the President's ability to appoint someone to oversee the agency, while the Republicans wanted a non-competitive appointment?

Doesn't it seem reversed by the general stereotypes?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- Both parties get the blame on this one [Freddie Mac etc.).. As for political donations from them, the percent is about equal to both political groups. Both parties have had control of congress during the past 10 years... so that is push also.... both could have done something....They didn't. I notice only Democrats were mentioned being on the committee you mentioned but I am pretty certain McCain was on that committee as well. Let's be honest about blame and not spin it to either party. Just tell the truth..... or read and think if you don't know.

---Bush bashing .. I suppose.... but most of what he has claimed and what has happened doesn't fit... What WMD?, he claimed he knew where they were. What convervative policies...?. The Cinton era (some with a GOP congress) had a balanced budget with a surplus... Bush era has never balanced a budget with either party of power in Congress. Quoting facts and not ignoring other contrary facts isn't spin.

--I am certain yawl think I am a radical Democrat... really... I voted for Ford. Reagan, and Bush Sr. but never for this one who can't seem to do what he claims and to me is nothing but a puppet for others ( the right, the religious fanatics, the rich, business--Enron provided him a plane in 2000 campaign). The locals' (he once lived in this town) opinion of him ( many) is that he isn't the brightest bulb on the planet and he has done nothing to convince people otherwise while in office. When the horse is dead.. get off. Unless you are the super wealthy you haven't been getting much in tax cuts (nothing close to what the super wealthy received-- and I mean percentwise not just dollar amounts) ... we have a lot of folks who just think are getting sizable ones but aren't -- just small ones adjusted for inflation...the steps have always slid up some it doesn't matter which party was in power. You are just believing what some are claiming... and not what is fact.

Feel free to check out my budget claims...they are true.

[yyz28]

It sounds as though the Bush administration wanted to *create another* government agency to oversee an agency that (from my understanding of platforms) Republicans think should be in the public sector. Let free market economics regulate low-interest loans for housing...

So in effect (as I read it), the Republicans wanted a bigger government, while the democrats didn't. The democrats opposed the President's ability to appoint someone to oversee the agency, while the Republicans wanted a non-competitive appointment?

Doesn't it seem reversed by the general stereotypes?

Not exactly.

FM/FM are not private companies. They are funded and regulated by the government, and historiacally, due to pressure placed on congress, have been allowed to do whatever they want with little to no regulation. The organization turned into wealth generators for those running them, and the only body charged with oversight (congress) was turning a blind eye.

What McCain and other pushed for and President Bush supported was getting a 3rd party to regulate the companies who are subsidized by taxpayer monies to make sure the companies were making good business decisions with the taxpayer's dollars, and not lining their own pockets.

The Freemarket SHOULD regulate low-interest loans for housing, the problem is that wasn't happening as a result of the continued existance of FM/FM, and, as it is turning out, we had the fox watching the henhouse the entire time. Now that the companies are in trouble, the truth of what has been going on that has been hidden (with the help of congress) for so long is coming to the surface.

I, and probably most conservatives, prefer that FM/FM be phased out, but since they currently own so many of the mortgages in this country, the collapse would be a disaster for those who can least afford it. The best option now would be to prop up the compaines to meet their current obligations and dis-allow them from aquiring more loans, so that once they have taken care of their existing customers they could quitely go away and let the free market take care of what it should be taking care of in the first place.