I wasn't going to talk politics any more, but...

[PrairieAir]

Someone just emailed this video to me. It is definitely anti-Obama/pro-McCain. Some of the things in it I already knew. Some were new to me. I feel absolutely sick after watching it. (Great music though.) Since I don't trust whoever made the video to be fair and impartial in presenting the facts, would anyone care to discuss this video? What about it is right? What about it is wrong? I'm putting it out there, but then I'm just going to step back and read replies and try to make sense of things. I'd like this to be a civil discussion with no name calling and just simple statement of facts or facts as you see them. I thought I had my mind made up on who I would be voting for but was starting to have doubts and now I really want to go hide until it's all over. I won't. It's not the responsible thing to do and wouldn't help any, but I need to figure this out. I wish I could be more confident about my decision.

 

BTW, could we please just stick to this one issue for this thread?

[Dayle in Guatemala]

I had this e-mailed to me earlier this week and am in the process of really looking into it. I haven't had much computer time for that, but, if I find out anything, I will let you know.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

BTW, could we please just stick to this one issue for this thread?

 

Do you have this in writing somewhere? Any links? Because I can't do it by video. It's too fast, and I can't check the sources.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

Because I can't do it by video. It's too fast, and I can't check the sources.

 

Pam, as the video played, I paused it to write down some thoughts and then kept playing. It helped me to see what they were referencing as well.

[Amy in NY]

Do you have this in writing somewhere? Any links? Because I can't do it by video. It's too fast, and I can't check the sources.

 

I think it is possible to check the veracity of this video. I would start by googling the Act they are referring too.

 

 

But I agree - it moves too fast. That alone makes me suspicious of the facts as they are presented.

[mcconnellboys]

I noticed that it said something at the beginning about pausing it in order to be able to read through it. You can hit the pause button on every frame to freeze it and read.

[Caroline]

One thing I saw was that it blamed the Democrats for something that happened in Congress in 2003. Congress was controlled by the Republicans in 2003. The Democrats have only had the majority since 2007. Now certainly, the Democrats in Congress could have voted agianst this bill. However, a number of Republicans must have, too. That just stuck out at me.

[Demal]

A rebuttal to the "'Dems and minorities caused the subprime mortgage crisis' smear":

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/28/165119/719/709/613561

 

But as the last comment points out, both political parties are to blame.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

BTW, could we please just stick to this one issue for this thread?

 

For the Raines bit, here's Factcheck.

 

Oh, and I find it amusing that they "accuse" Raines of living in a $7.6M house. LOL "He lives in a $7.6M house. Do you?" ROFLSDCOMN! I know that on Sen. Obama's official denial of this, he mentions Sen. McCain not throwing stones in his seven glass houses. Politico:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton added an attack:

 

This is another flat-out lie from a dishonorable campaign that is increasingly incapable of telling the truth. Frank Raines has never advised Senator Obama about anything -- ever. And by the way, someone whose campaign manager and top advisor worked and lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shouldn't be throwing stones from his seven glass houses.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Pam "SFSOM" in TN

[Aggie]

This one is slower :)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=email

[Jenny in Atl]

More dirt for the other side....:tongue_smilie:

[Haiku]

I think I got ADD from that video. :drool:

 

Throwing a bunch of cropped web-page articles at us at light-speed with catchy music does not illuminate the issue.

 

I am an Obama supporter, so take my comments with a grain of salt, but I would not let a You-Tube video sway my vote. The video's creator urges us to Google it, so I would urge you to do the same and read for yourself.

 

I personally believe that both parties are culpable in this mess and that "dirt" could be dug up on both sides about who is in bed with whom. The video seems to make a lot of "guilt-by-association" connections that could probably be made of people on the both sides of the aisle. This is a partisan video that will show you only the snippets that support to creator's agenda.

 

I am not trying to defend Barack Obama here. I am merely saying, this video doesn't truly illuminate the facts. No nine-minute video could, no matter whom it was supporting. I think that a lot of reading is the only way to determine for yourself.

 

Tara

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

For the donations to Sen. Obama part, we discussed last week that when an employee of an organization donates, they list where they work if the donation is over, what, $200? I think. I'll try to find the post. So it's a big number (? sorry, I didn't look at the exact number), but there's a cap to individual and corporate donations. It's not a large number. Anyone?

[Laura in VA]

For the Raines bit, here's Factcheck.

 

Oh, and I find it amusing that they "accuse" Raines of living in a $7.6M house. LOL "He lives in a $7.6M house. Do you?" ROFLSDCOMN! I know that on Sen. Obama's official denial of this, he mentions Sen. McCain not throwing stones in his seven glass houses. Politico:

 

As far as Obama's connection to Raines, I'm not surprised Raines is denying it.

[Laura in VA]

A rebuttal to the "'Dems and minorities caused the subprime mortgage crisis' smear":

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/28/165119/719/709/613561

 

But as the last comment points out, both political parties are to blame.

 

Sorry, won't go to the Daily Kos. That would be like me posting something Ann Coulter said.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

For the donations to Sen. Obama part, we discussed last week that when an employee of an organization donates, they list where they work if the donation is over, what, $200? I think. I'll try to find the post. So it's a big number (? sorry, I didn't look at the exact number), but there's a cap to individual and corporate donations. It's not a large number. Anyone?

 

So that's two parts that are false, but are made to look true. And honestly? I think Franklin Raines might has put out the "news" that he had taken a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I can't be sure about that, but that's how it "smells" to me. *shrug* I dunno.

 

Look at the current McCain campain ad with

. In the end, an elderly white woman is his "victim." So. *shrug again* Edited September 28, 2008 by Pam "SFSOM" in TN

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Sorry, won't go to the Daily Kos. That would be like me posting something Ann Coulter said.

 

If Ann Coulter cites her sources as well as this particular Kos diary does, then I would say please post Ann Coulter.

[Demal]

Sorry, won't go to the Daily Kos. That would be like me posting something Ann Coulter said.

 

Oh, that's too bad. You'll miss the links to articles from The Wall Street Journal, US News & World Report, Associated Press, Washington Business Journal and The Nation. Well, maybe you wouldn't miss reading The Nation.

[PrairieAir]

Do you have this in writing somewhere? Any links? Because I can't do it by video. It's too fast, and I can't check the sources.

 

No, I just got the video. I sat there and paused and replayed repeatedly just to halfway catch it. That's part of my problem right there. I was hoping someone else would have more info. or be able to confirm/refute the different things said.

[Laura in VA]

Come on, Jenny. How do you think he can afford those 7 houses? ;)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

As far as Obama's connection to Raines, I'm not surprised Raines is denying it.

 

Of course there's the outside chance that he's denying it because it didn't happen?

 

I dunno much about Mr. Raines' character. I hope I'm discerning Sen. Obama's character correctly, though.

[Stacy in NJ]

You know, rather than turning this whole thread into a Rep. Vs. Dem. thread, why not focus on our political class? We are poorly serves by both parties. Factually the mess started with Fanny and Freddie, who are both *suppose* to be regulated by congress. Both institutions were used as slush funds for political hacks. Congresses interference in the market had profound repercussions. They should be held accountable.

 

Why not demand that the individuals who are suppose to represent *our* interests explain to us how the situation developed. Call your Senator or Congressman and ask for a detailed explanation.

[PrairieAir]

For the Raines bit, here's Factcheck.

 

Oh, and I find it amusing that they "accuse" Raines of living in a $7.6M house. LOL "He lives in a $7.6M house. Do you?" ROFLSDCOMN! I know that on Sen. Obama's official denial of this, he mentions Sen. McCain not throwing stones in his seven glass houses. Politico:

 

Thank you for the clarification on Raines, Pam. FWIW, I think someone's entitled to live in a $7.6M house (or seven) and not have it held against them. What I don't get is when these banks and large companies fail--especially when due to poor or outright crooked leadership--and the CEOs aren't penalized and, in fact, sometimes get paid money they still had coming to them. I don't get it.

[PrairieAir]

More dirt for the other side....:tongue_smilie:

 

I admit I didn't read the whole thing, but it appears this article doesn't have anything to do with the issue. There are things I don't like about McCain as presented in this article, but they just aren't the things I'm most interested in at the moment.

[PrairieAir]

I am merely saying, this video doesn't truly illuminate the facts. No nine-minute video could, no matter whom it was supporting. I think that a lot of reading is the only way to determine for yourself.

Tara

 

Well, yes. That's what I was saying. I didn't believe this video did fairly represent the facts and that's why I brought it up here for discussion. I was hoping some discussion and good links (call me lazy) would help clarify things for me. Reading discussions here have helped me find things I might not have on my own and consider points which I may not have considered. Dh doesn't get this. He'd rather just read it all for himself. I'd rather read and discuss. Not argue, mind you. I want to see issues from all sides.

[PrairieAir]

Why not demand that the individuals who are suppose to represent *our* interests explain to us how the situation developed. Call your Senator or Congressman and ask for a detailed explanation.

 

I agree with your first paragraph. As for the second paragraph quoted here, won't they all just have their own version? Who do we believe any more?

[PrairieAir]

Oh, that's too bad. You'll miss the links to articles from The Wall Street Journal, US News & World Report, Associated Press, Washington Business Journal and The Nation. Well, maybe you wouldn't miss reading The Nation.

 

Thank you. I'm off to read this article now.

[LizzyBee]

If Ann Coulter cites her sources as well as this particular Kos diary does, then I would say please post Ann Coulter.

 

I've only read 2 of Ann Coulter's books, I think, but one of the things I liked about them was that she cited her sources extensively and meticulously. I'm not familiar with the Kos diary; I'll check it out.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I've only read 2 of Ann Coulter's books, I think, but one of the things I liked about them was that she cited her sources extensively and meticulously. I'm not familiar with the Kos diary; I'll check it out.

 

Ok, just to be clear: The Daily Kos is a collection of independent diarists. The community reads and rates and "recommends" diaries they want, collectively, to be read by the entire community. The diaries, individually, range from the absurd to the sublime, and are almost unfailingly from a liberal, or moderate almost tipping over to liberal viewpoint. But some of them are STUPID. And some of them are hateful. And some of them are crazy. But when they're good and well-cited, well, they're good and well-cited. Or even if I don't agree with them, I have to say -- Hmmm. Well cited. :D

 

The main page is written, though I'm not sure I'm right here, by moderator/regular contributors, much like if Bob or SWB would write an "official" daily sticky that slowly moved off the boards.

 

So all the opinions there are not the opinions of the owners, just the users. Sort of like here. Some folks there are merely tolerated.

 

And what I like about online vs. books (such as Coulter or Franken or whomever) is that online, the links to the source docs can just be linked and it's instant gratification. But I would welcome reading Coulter if she accurately backed up what she wrote without snark or vituperation. And if I didn't have to watch her flip her hair.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Well, maybe you wouldn't miss reading The Nation.

 

:D

[Haiku]

I have been doing some reading about this. I found this on the Wikipedia article about the Community Reinvestment Act:

 

In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended that a new Department of the Treasury agency should supervise the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressional support was approximately split along Party lines and the proposal eventually failed.[11]

 

I found this here. This article contends that it's the Democrats who caused the problem.

 

As for presidential contender John McCain, just 2 yrs

after Bush's plan, he also called for badly needed

reforms to prevent a crisis like one we're now-in.

'If Congress does not act,' McCain said in

2005, 'American taxpayers will continue to be exposed

to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac pose

to the housing market, the overall financial system &

economy as a whole'..:!!

 

Sounds like McCain was spot-on. But his warnings, too,

were ignored by Congress.

 

Ok, now I have some questions. Forgive me if my ignorance is showing.

 

1) The Republicans had a majority in Congress in 2003. If it was so important to them to pass this act, why couldn't they do so?

 

2) The second quote blames Congress for failing to heed Senator McCain's warnings. But again, Congress was controlled by the Republicans in 2005. What caused them not to do anything?

 

3) I have been reading about the CRA and I haven't seen anywhere that banks were forced to extend risky credit. I have read that the CRA required lending institutions to do away with redlining, but nothing I read says that they were "forced" to lend to credit-risky borrowers. Was the problem that banks made sub-prime mortgages at all or that they made mortgages that were too large? For example, when we were house-hunting, my dh and I came up with what we considered to be an acceptable mortgage amount based on what we were comfortable paying. Several lending institutions gave us the hard sell for mortgages way higher than we felt we could handle (fortunately, we didn't take them). Couldn't the banks simply have said, "We can give you $60,000 but not $100,000"?

 

Again, forgive me if my ignorance is showing. I'm still learning about this.

 

Tara

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Someone just emailed this video to me. It is definitely anti-Obama/pro-McCain. Some of the things in it I already knew. Some were new to me. I feel absolutely sick after watching it. (Great music though.) Since I don't trust whoever made the video to be fair and impartial in presenting the facts, would anyone care to discuss this video? What about it is right? What about it is wrong? I'm putting it out there, but then I'm just going to step back and read replies and try to make sense of things. I'd like this to be a civil discussion with no name calling and just simple statement of facts or facts as you see them. I thought I had my mind made up on who I would be voting for but was starting to have doubts and now I really want to go hide until it's all over. I won't. It's not the responsible thing to do and wouldn't help any, but I need to figure this out. I wish I could be more confident about my decision.

 

BTW, could we please just stick to this one issue for this thread?

 

Will you forgive me if I just claim a headache and refer to to two other threads? (I would be lying about the headache, but I promise I'll link the threads.) I just can't concentrate on this anymore, not with all the breathless "AND GUESS WHO? AND GUESS WHAT?" And graphs from ... where? Sorry. I love ya. But this is overload. :tongue_smilie:

 

Here.

 

And here.

[Haiku]

I just found this article, which answers my question #3 above, if one chooses to believe the author.

 

Tara

[LizzyBee]

FWIW, the editorial in my hometown newspaper last week was about this issue. I am posting it in its entirety because when they post this week's editorial, the previous one will go away.

 

A Telling Article…

 

Sep. 25, 2008

“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, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt - is broken.â€

 

The above is from a news article that was published in the New York Times - on September 11, 2003.

 

Continuing, “Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

 

“‘These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’ said Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Service 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. 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.â€

 

With the current disastrous news about the nation’s finances, it is interesting that the Democratic candidate has received a positive bounce in the polls, apparently because it is the party of the Republican candidate that currently controls the White House. “Just look at the economic mess that a Republican administration has caused.†The above article is quite telling, however.

 

There is a letter to the editor on this page reiterating that Congress is as much or more to blame for many of the problems our nation is facing today. While presidents sometimes take credit for things that were really the accomplishments of their predecessors, they are also sometimes the victims of blame for things that really may not be their fault.

 

Here is the link: http://www.therepublicannews.com/article.asp?type=editorial . In spite of the name of the paper, it is not a political paper. By way of background, back when my parents were first married (late 1940's), there were two newspapers, The Republican and The Democrat. The Democrat went out of business a long time ago, so now The Republican is the only newspaper in the county. The editor is pretty moderate, in my opinion. When the editorial addresses a political issue, it sometimes favors the Democrats, sometimes the Republicans, and sometimes neither.

 

I don't understand enough about the situation to discuss it intelligently, unfortunately.

[Mama Lynx]

You know, rather than turning this whole thread into a Rep. Vs. Dem. thread, why not focus on our political class? We are poorly serves by both parties. Factually the mess started with Fanny and Freddie, who are both *suppose* to be regulated by congress. Both institutions were used as slush funds for political hacks. Congresses interference in the market had profound repercussions. They should be held accountable.

 

Why not demand that the individuals who are suppose to represent *our* interests explain to us how the situation developed. Call your Senator or Congressman and ask for a detailed explanation.

 

My goodness, THANK YOU. We ARE poorly served by both parties. And I am so tired of political threads turning into Rep vs. Dem. That kind of back and forth doesn't help ANYONE.

 

Guess what? The Republicans have done some rotten things. So have the Dems. Obama has things in his background that concern me *greatly*. And John McCain cannot exactly claim to be without blemish - hardly. It pretty much comes down to whose story do you like better; the rest of this back and forth is just trying to stick up for, or convert others to, the story you've picked.

 

Sorry, Prairie Air ... yes, they will each have their own versions. I do believe there are some honest politicians out there - really, I do - but I can't tell you how to find them. Most of them will tell you whatever is necessary to 1) get themselves re-elected, and 2) to get their party in power. The Republicans will do anything to blame everything on the Democrats, and the Democrats will do anything to blame everything on the Republicans. Neither candidate can do any good. Everything he does is evil, or stupid. We are not allowed to say anything good about either, without fans of the other side jumping to tell us why we've been snowed. The truth be ****ed. To sort it out you have to do your own research, and decide who you're going to trust, and why. It's quite the learning curve.

 

I'm a bit bitter, tonight. I hope you get your discussion.

 

ETA: Ah, sorry folks. I seem to have forgotten my sense of humor tonight. I'm going away until I can find it.

Can we vote now, and get it over with?

Edited September 29, 2008 by Mama Lynx

[lovemyboys]

Pam, as the video played, I paused it to write down some thoughts and then kept playing. It helped me to see what they were referencing as well.

 

Time out!

 

For our kids, let's please consider this video and look at the facts.

 

I posted a couple of weeks ago here that the housing/banking regulations were changed way back in the 90s under Pres. Clinton because he had a vision for everyone to own their own homes. That's well known. We were talking about unintended consequences at the time, I think. He started with good intentions, but it got away from them. Maybe we should look at the history to see who/what is involved -- especially we WTMers who love to study our history -- so we don't repeat it.

 

But seriously, before we start dissolving into a "well I'm going to post something that's pro-Obama," or "let's look at this anti-McCain tidbit" why can't we look into this and study it? Before we dismiss it as campaign propaganda, can't we look at the citations -- there are a lot, because the person probably wanted to get it all in under 10 min.

 

Before we knee-jerk reject the contents, can't we acknowledge that it's worth it for our children's future to look at it?

 

I remember some of those things happening, like the Franklin Raines troubles and issues with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac several years ago, and a variety of people talking about the housing bubble. This guy took the time to connect some dots and it's worth considering.

 

Don't turn this into a dem/rep. thing, please. Like OP suggested, let's try to look at the contents.

[Jean too]

It is absolutely true! Here are a few articles to get you started.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/COLUMNIST0130/809280396/1008/OPINION01

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306632135350949

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/

 

Just found this too. This fellow does a pretty good job of explaining how we got here with links embedded. http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/in-plain-english-how-did-the-biggest-financial-scandal-in-history-happen/

 

PrairieAir, here is an audio explanation of how we got here. It's embedded in the above link too. I urge you to listen to this to better understand how this meltdown happened.

http://marklevinshow.com/wp-content/themes/levin/player/?url=http://podloc.andomedia.com/dloadTrack.mp3?prm=2824xhttp://abcrad.vo.llnwd.net/o1/levin/rss/levin09192008.mp3

Edited September 29, 2008 by Jean too

[Mama Lynx]

I wish I could rep you.

[laylamcb]

FWIW, the editorial in my hometown newspaper last week was about this issue. I am posting it in its entirety because when they post this week's editorial, the previous one will go away.

 

 

 

Thanks for this, LizzyBee! You can argue with the "editorial" parts of the editorial; it's hard to argue with the quotes.

 

I do believe there are some honest politicians out there - really, I do - but I can't tell you how to find them.

 

 

 

Well, well, Mama Lynx--hope really does spring eternal. :001_smile: I wish I could believe it, too, but I'm becoming so very discouraged that honesty precludes one from entering politics altogether. :glare:

 

Why not demand that the individuals who are suppose to represent *our* interests explain to us how the situation developed. Call your Senator or Congressman and ask for a detailed explanation.

 

:iagree: Our congressional rep called us (and I think that Kathleen in VA got the call, too!), and DH participated in a really cool "virtual" town hall meeting, complete with voting and with callers taking turns to express their outrage and ask questions. It was so awesome. I just wish that the first time I'd ever heard directly from my congressional representative wasn't as a result of the Great American Meltdown and the consequent Fleecing of the American Taxpayer.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Time out!

 

For our kids, let's please consider this video and look at the facts.

 

I posted a couple of weeks ago here that the housing/banking regulations were changed way back in the 90s under Pres. Clinton because he had a vision for everyone to own their own homes. That's well known. We were talking about unintended consequences at the time, I think. He started with good intentions, but it got away from them. Maybe we should look at the history to see who/what is involved -- especially we WTMers who love to study our history -- so we don't repeat it.

 

But seriously, before we start dissolving into a "well I'm going to post something that's pro-Obama," or "let's look at this anti-McCain tidbit" why can't we look into this and study it? Before we dismiss it as campaign propaganda, can't we look at the citations -- there are a lot, because the person probably wanted to get it all in under 10 min.

 

Before we knee-jerk reject the contents, can't we acknowledge that it's worth it for our children's future to look at it?

 

I remember some of those things happening, like the Franklin Raines troubles and issues with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac several years ago, and a variety of people talking about the housing bubble. This guy took the time to connect some dots and it's worth considering.

 

Don't turn this into a dem/rep. thing, please. Like OP suggested, let's try to look at the contents.

 

I looked at two, but I don't know if the answers were sufficiently non-partisan.

[lovemyboys]

3) I have been reading about the CRA and I haven't seen anywhere that banks were forced to extend risky credit. Tara

 

I believe it was in the late 90s that the banking regulations were changed so that investment banks and lending banks could do similar investments. Before that, I think, they were much more separate.

 

Mortgage lenders were getting a lot of pressure to make loans happen for the vision of home-ownership. As with anything, some of it was predatory and not in the best interests of the consumer, but much of it was in an effort to fulfill those expectations from the gov't, etc.

[Mama Lynx]

But you see, most things I see on Kos, in my opinion, come with the snark and vituperation. That, to me, does not make it worth the "well-cited" part.

 

No, I don't read Ann Coulter, either, and for the same reason. Snark-filled political discourse serves no one, and it just really chaps my hide. Nor do I ever go to Democratic Underground, or Free Republic.

 

If the relevant material at Kos is that well cited, then I will more than likely find that same information through my own internet searches.

[lovemyboys]

I looked at two, but I don't know if the answers were sufficiently non-partisan.

 

The video producer is obviously making a statement that's pro-McCain. But don't you remember some of these things that he/she has cited here? I do.

 

I'm feeling half sick to my stomach here with this situation, for my kids. And I'm glad those House Republicans whoever they are put the brakes on this a bit, at least it makes everyone look at it all more closely. If I'm not mistaken, the Democrats have enough votes that they could pass something right now if they wanted to but they want it to be a joint effort. I don't blame them. The sky didn't fall when it didn't get passed last week, it won't fall tomorrow.

 

There's a 1/4 page ad in today's paper from a national credit union offering fixed rate 30 yr. mortgages for under 6%. The credit industry isn't failing either.

 

We need to look at this.

 

You know -- what if it is true? What if most of what is cited there is a decent representation of the facts? Sure, you'll probably find a few sources you're not thrilled with or a few things you think are a questionable view, but what if the overall import of it is factual and accurate.........

[laylamcb]

Great job on those sources, Jean! Let's just go with the NYT piece alone, which I think most people would agree is from a reputable source and certainly not a particularly conservative one. I think this is my favorite quote, dated 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.''

 

:eek:

 

How in the name of all that is holy is this very man at the forefront of the bailout?!

Edited September 29, 2008 by laylamcb

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Great job on those sources, Jean! Let's just go with the NYT piece alone, which I think most people would agree is a reputable source and certainly not particularly conservative. I think this is my favorite quote, dated 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.''

 

:eek:

 

How in the name of all that is holy is this very man at the forefront of the bailout?!

 

 

Because he's the House Financial Services Committee Chairman?

 

Some question about Paulson. He's writing and demanding no oversight and no accountablity WHY, exactly?

[lovemyboys]

Great job on those sources, Jean! Let's just go with the NYT piece alone, which I think most people would agree is a reputable source and certainly not particularly conservative. I think this is my favorite quote, dated 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.''

 

:eek:

 

How in the name of all that is holy is this very man at the forefront of the bailout?!

 

Because he's been involved since at least the mid-90s. I think he's the Finance Chair in the House.

[laylamcb]

I think perhaps that y'all may have missed my point, but I'll just go flog something to get out my pent-up frustration. :001_smile:

 

But you'll get no argument from me on Paulson whatsoever, Pam. No oversight AND immunity from any consequent litigation. Nice try, big guy.

[Mrs Mungo]

Can we vote now, and get it over with?

 

You can if you have absentee voting in your state. My husband and I have already voted. :tongue_smilie:

[Mama Lynx]

You can if you have absentee voting in your state. My husband and I have already voted. :tongue_smilie:

 

Yeah, but the rest of you would just keep talking ;-)

 

We keep laughing because ... we just moved. We are registered to vote in our new state. And John McCain has sent me THREE letters urging me to absentee vote in our old state :lol:

[Confuzzled]

My goodness, THANK YOU. We ARE poorly served by both parties. And I am so tired of political threads turning into Rep vs. Dem. That kind of back and forth doesn't help ANYONE.

 

Guess what? The Republicans have done some rotten things. So have the Dems. Obama has things in his background that concern me *greatly*. And John McCain cannot exactly claim to be without blemish - hardly. It pretty much comes down to whose story do you like better; the rest of this back and forth is just trying to stick up for, or convert others to, the story you've picked.

 

Sorry, Prairie Air ... yes, they will each have their own versions. I do believe there are some honest politicians out there - really, I do - but I can't tell you how to find them. Most of them will tell you whatever is necessary to 1) get themselves re-elected, and 2) to get their party in power. The Republicans will do anything to blame everything on the Democrats, and the Democrats will do anything to blame everything on the Republicans. Neither candidate can do any good. Everything he does is evil, or stupid. We are not allowed to say anything good about either, without fans of the other side jumping to tell us why we've been snowed. The truth be ****ed. To sort it out you have to do your own research, and decide who you're going to trust, and why. It's quite the learning curve.

 

I'm a bit bitter, tonight. I hope you get your discussion.

 

ETA: Ah, sorry folks. I seem to have forgotten my sense of humor tonight. I'm going away until I can find it.

Can we vote now, and get it over with?

 

:iagree: Amen and Amen! This is my first post on a political thread but I just had to let you know that I think you are right! I can't wait until the election is over!