Okaaaaay.....
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 09-19-2008 - 11:22pm |
Crazy:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/
McCain on banking and health
OK, a correspondent directs me to John McCain’s article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this.
Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!>>>

Pages
The filibuster that you referred to by the democrats.
This one:
In case Sopal is at lunch and in a spirit of a fellow poster acquiring knowledge, here it is:
Nuclear option
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What more do you need to know? Was my post not clear enough? I posted a link at the bottom of the page to the Toledo Blade Newpaper.
Here it is again...
"Lending money to people who probably won't pay it back isn't good business.
If you wrap crummy loans in a clever package, they're still crummy loans.
Your typical Wal-Mart shopper understands this. But the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street and in Washington evidently didn't.
There are a lot of people to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis.
The Federal Reserve Board under Chairman Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) pursued what seems in hindsight clearly to have been way too loose a monetary policy. Banks were awash with money to lend and got careless in how they lent it.
Ostensibly to aid the poor and working class, the Clinton administration and Congress encouraged lenders to give mortgages to bad credit risks. The combination of easy money and the expansion of the number of borrowers unable to repay their loans sent housing prices through the roof, creating the bubble whose bursting has led to this crisis.
Congress in 1999 repealed the law that established a bright line between commercial and investment banks. This meant bad investments by banks could jeopardize depositors.
Wall Street created "derivatives" that multiplied profits in good times, but also multiplied risk if there were defaults.
Most important was corruption and mismanagement at the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac), which together controlled 90 percent of the secondary mortgage market.
Once your bank has lent you money to buy a house, it can't lend the money again until you pay it back. But if your bank sells your mortgage, it can make another loan right away. Without the secondary market, most of the funds for home mortgages would dry up.
Fannie and Freddie went broke because they bought billions of dollars worth of subprime mortgages, on which borrowers defaulted when the housing bubble popped. Fannie bought most of its bad mortgages from Countrywide Financial, whose CEO, Angelo Mozilo, gave sweetheart loans to senior executives of Fannie Mae.
Fannie and Freddie cooked their books so senior executives would be paid millions of dollars in bonuses to which they were not entitled. Inadequate regulation kept the book-cooking from being discovered until the crisis had become a catastrophe.
President Bush proposed regulatory reforms in 2003, but Congress took no action. In 2005, John McCain and three other GOP senators proposed a strong reform bill. It died when Democrats threatened a filibuster. Democrats opposed reform in part because they feared it would mean fewer loans to poor people.
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) told the New York Times when the Bush bill was introduced. "The more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Democrats and some Republicans opposed reform in part because Fannie and Freddie were very good at greasing palms. Fannie has spent $170 million on lobbying since 1998 and $19.3 million on political contributions since 1990.
The principal recipient of Fannie Mae's largesse was Sen. Chris Dodd (D., Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. No. 2 was Barack Obama.
Mr. Dodd was also the second largest recipient in the Senate of contributions from Countrywide's political action committee and its employees, and the recipient of a home loan from Countrywide at well below market rates. The No. 1 senator on Countrywide's list? Barack Obama.
Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines was forced to resign in December, 2004, because of "accounting irregularities." The Washington Post reported July 16 that the Obama campaign has called Mr. Raines "seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."
Mr. Obama appointed Mr. Raines' predecessor, James Johnson, as head of his vice presidential search committee until he also was implicated in "accounting irregularities," and it was revealed he'd received cut-rate loans from Countrywide.
Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker, head of Mr. Obama's finance committee, chaired the now-defunct Superior bank when it began to cook the books to conceal losses from subprime mortgages. The holding company her family owned collected $200 million in dividends on phony profits.
The trouble with crony capitalism isn't capitalism. It's the cronies." -Jack Kelly
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080920/COLUMNIST14/809200351/-1/NEWS01
Where, oh, where is there anything about the democrats filibustering against bill s.190 that never even got to the floor in this article?
The operative word which you used was "filibuster."
Since this quote was taken completely out of context to fool the left I also believe that people should run out and buy it and see for themselves that he was talking about letting people buy insurance from different states, and has nothing to do with today's crisis. It surely makes the left wing bloggers look foolish...Again.
Here is the entire quote:
"I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation. Consumer-friendly insurance policies will be more available and affordable when there is greater competition among insurers on a level playing field. You should be able to buy your insurance from any willing provider—the state bureaucracies are no better than national
ones. Nationwide insurance markets that ensure broad and vigorous competition will wring out excess costs, overhead, and bloated executive compensation."
Weren't you the one who so uncivilly suggested that *I* needed a course in reading comprehension? I hope you have enough graciousness to be embarrassed when you learn that you misread what I said. I never said a filibuster happened. I said it was threatened.
I am open to accepting your apology.
I already did. You didn't read it?
Here's the paragraph in question:
"President Bush proposed regulatory reforms in 2003, but Congress took no action. In 2005, John McCain and three other GOP senators proposed a strong reform bill. It died when Democrats threatened a filibuster. Democrats opposed reform in part because they feared it would mean fewer loans to poor people."
Edited 9/21/2008 2:14 pm ET by chillychillychilly
Again....if you insist that employee contributions to campaigns is a "bribe," then I wonder why the Republican Dept. of JustUs hasn't taken on this case.
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
Pages