Sarah Makes Katie Nervous

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Sarah Makes Katie Nervous
215
Thu, 09-25-2008 - 12:31am

In all the excitement of today's news I wonder how many saw the interview with Katie Couric today. Sarah did great. Katie had the nervous blinking syndrome. It was so interesting to watch Katie's reactions to Sarah - between all the blinks - I could sense some real hatred. I enjoyed watching it.

Here it is :

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2003
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 12:30pm
I didn't get that vibe from it at all, chilly.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 1:30pm

Well, I have to say that I finally saw the interview. I understand

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-12-2008
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 2:21pm
It's more like Katie makes Sarah nervous. OMG! It was painful listening to all that double talk. There were moments in the interview where she (Sarah) looked like the deer caught in headlights. By the way, don't expect Sarah "to find some and bring ‘em to ya!” cuz their ain't nothin'.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2008
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 2:39pm

The bad mortgages are at the heart of the current “crisis.”

>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...oh, sorry...are you done yet? ; ) You said that the sub-prime mortgages weren't the cause of the problem...you're wrong. Thanks for playing.<

*** That's not what I said. But hey, if you're not going to have a civil discussion about this, why should I bother replying?

Yeah, you kinda did…

”Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were not the only ones involved in this crisis. They were not the cause of this crisis. They're not even the biggest CONCERN of this crisis.”

>I'll just let you deal with the FACTS, that the sub-prime loans were pushed by Barney Frank, had Democrat oversight and that regulations were proposed by Republicans.<

*** CRA doesn't encourage the sort of predatory lending you think it does. It is designed to make it possible for folks who would not normally qualify for mortgages to buy homes, not for folks who are way too risky to purchase a home. You need to have good credit, steady job history, and a bit of savings. The types of loans that led to this mess don't qualify under CRA.

Even the qualifications you described sound dubious. A “steady job history” and “3 months payments in the bank” doesn’t mean you have a job that will support the mortgage payments or that those “3 months payments” in savings will be there if needed.

*** Explain to me again how the sub-prime loans were under Democratic oversight when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress until 2006?

Chris Dodd chairs the Senate Banking Committee and the Dems have the majority. Barney Frank Chairs of the House Financial Services Committee and the Dems have the majority. And when they didn’t have the majority, they were still able to kill bills,like McCain’s, by rallying together as a partisan block.

>The repeal of Glass-Steagall was bi-partisan and signed by Clinton. And while deregulation may have loosed the bonds, it was the liberalism of the left that corrupted the system by pressing institutions to make loans that they knew the “poor” couldn’t pay back.<

*** 1980 & 1982? That was under Reagan. 1999 was under a GOP controlled Congress and proposed by one of McCain's advisors, Phil Gramm. (The 1999 legislation put the final nail in Glass-Steagall's coffin, but as I've shown, the law had already been crippled during the 1980s.)

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

*** And as for the regulation of Fannie & Freddie, not enough of McCain's fellow Republicans supported him to get the legislation passed in a GOP controlled Congress. Is that an example of how well he leads in a financial crisis?

The Dems killed the bill by voting in a partisan block, denying the Republicans the 60% necessary to bring the bill to the floor.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 4:06pm
>Yeah, you kinda did…

”Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were not the only ones involved in this crisis. They were not the cause of this crisis. They're not even the biggest CONCERN of this crisis.”<


Explain to me again how Fannie & Freddie made these loans. Last time I checked they only bought loans on the secondary market. Now, yes, they made a big mistake buying some of these loans, but since Wall Street investment banks made the same mistake, I cannot see how you can portray McCain as a regulation savior in the making.


Greed begets greed. The subprime market was encouraged by a booming housing market that no one saw the end to. (I did, don't know why banks didn't.) Housing glut led to a devaluation of the owned homes, thus not enabling those individuals to pursue refinanced loans (since the value of their homes was now less than the amount of their mortgages.) Borrowers acted stupidly. Lenders acted stupidly. Investment banks and Fannie & Freddie acted stupidly. All these folks thought they were passing the risk to someone else. And everyone was hurt by it. But it all started with the banks and their mortgage products.


>Even the qualifications you described sound dubious. A “steady job history” and “3 months payments in the bank” doesn’t mean you have a job that will support the mortgage payments or that those “3 months payments” in savings will be there if needed.<


The vetting process included taking a look at how much we could afford to pay. I don't recall the figure, but there is a certain percentage of monthly take home income they calculate one can afford to pay out in housing costs. And in our case, the 3 months savings were in retirement monies, money that cannot easily be touched.


>Chris Dodd chairs the Senate Banking Committee and the Dems have the majority. Barney Frank Chairs of the House Financial Services Committee and the Dems have the majority.<


Not until 2007, when the current Congress took office.


>And when they didn’t have the majority, they were still able to kill bills,like McCain’s, by rallying together as a partisan block.<


I can't find any details on how it got "blocked". A lot of Bills never make it past committee. Some of them get absorbed into other Bills.


Did you know

Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2008
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 6:10pm

>Yeah, you kinda did…”Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were not the only ones involved in this crisis. They were not the cause of this crisis. They're not even the biggest CONCERN of this crisis.”<

*** Explain to me again how Fannie & Freddie made these loans. Last time I checked they only bought loans on the secondary market. Now, yes, they made a big mistake buying some of these loans, but since Wall Street investment banks made the same mistake, I cannot see how you can portray McCain as a regulation savior in the making.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (NYSE: FNM), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was a United States publicly traded government sponsored enterprise (GSE). It was a stockholder-owned corporation authorized to make loans and loan guarantees.

In 2007, the subprime mortgage crisis began. An increasing number of borrowers, often with poor credit, that were defaulting on their mortgages caused a precipitous decrease in demand for any mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that weren't guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Home prices declined as increasing foreclosures added to the already large inventory of homes and stricter lending standards made it more and more difficult for borrowers to get mortgages. This depreciation in home prices led to growing losses for the GSEs. In July of 2008, the government attempted to ease market fears by reiterating their view that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in the US housing finance system". The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve took steps to bolster confidence in the corporations, including granting both corporations access to Federal Reserve low-interest loans (at similar rates as commercial banks) and removing the prohibition on the Treasury Department to purchase the GSEs' stock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

*** Greed begets greed. The subprime market was encouraged by a booming housing market that no one saw the end to. (I did, don't know why banks didn't.) Housing glut led to a devaluation of the owned homes, thus not enabling those individuals to pursue refinanced loans (since the value of their homes was now less than the amount of their mortgages.) Borrowers acted stupidly. Lenders acted stupidly. Investment banks and Fannie & Freddie acted stupidly. All these folks thought they were passing the risk to someone else. And everyone was hurt by it. But it all started with the banks and their mortgage products.

It all started with the liberal notion that "everyone deserves to own a home."

>Even the qualifications you described sound dubious. A “steady job history” and “3 months payments in the bank” doesn’t mean you have a job that will support the mortgage payments or that those “3 months payments” in savings will be there if needed.<

*** The vetting process included taking a look at how much we could afford to pay. I don't recall the figure, but there is a certain percentage of monthly take home income they calculate one can afford to pay out in housing costs. And in our case, the 3 months savings were in retirement monies, money that cannot easily be touched.

The same thing is true of all loans...but the problem is that the lenders weren't looking that hard and apparently many people lied or exaggerated. And if the "3 months savings" isn't "frozen," then it's really not much of a guarantee of anything.

>Chris Dodd chairs the Senate Banking Committee and the Dems have the majority. Barney Frank Chairs of the House Financial Services Committee and the Dems have the majority.<

*** Not until 2007, when the current Congress took office.

Right...but the power of these men shouldn't be underestimated.

BARNEY FRANK: As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank "sits at the center of power". Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was quoted as saying, "He is one of the giants of Congress, a real legislator," in his new role.

In 2003, Frank opposed Bush administration and Congressional Republican efforts for the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan a new agency would have been 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," Frank said. He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

As chairman, Frank steered the major housing relief bill of 2008 to passage, which aims to protect thousands of homeowners from foreclosure. This law, H.R. 3221, The American Housing Rescue & Foreclosure Prevention Act, was the most important and complex issues on which he worked. Frank was also instrumental is the passage of H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank

CHRIS DODD: From 1995 to 1997, he served as General Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As General Chairman, Dodd was the DNC's spokesman.

During his tenure, Dodd has taken special interest in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, garnering a total of $133,900 in campaign contributions from them, more than any other person in American politics. When the Bush administration attempted to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in from 2002 to 2007, Dodd actively and successfully opposed Republican-led legislation with the help of John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

No American politician has received more contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than Dodd's combined $133,900.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd

(Dodd chairs the) Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has jurisdiction over matters related to: banks and banking, price controls, deposit insurance, export promotion and controls, federal monetary policy, financial aid to commerce and industry, issuance of redemption of notes, currency and coinage, public and private housing, urban development and mass transit, and government contracts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Banking,_Housing,_and_Urban_Affairs

>And when they didn’t have the majority, they were still able to kill bills,like McCain’s, by rallying together as a partisan block.<

*** Did you know the bill was reintroduced in 2007, S. 1100? McCain's signature is conspicuously MISSING from this bill, which is the same bill. If he thought it was such a great idea in 2005, and is singing its praises today, why hasn't he co-sponsored it this time? http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1100 Or does it only matter that he thought it was a great idea in 2005?

Of course it's important that McCain saw this coming in 2005 and that he took action to address it in 2005...that shows his experience and judgment. I also haven't seen anything suggesting McCain has changed his opinion of the situation.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 6:27pm

>Of course it's important that McCain saw this coming in 2005 and that he took action to address it in 2005...that shows his experience and judgment. I also haven't seen anything suggesting McCain has changed his opinion of the situation.<


Then why, when he's bragging about co-sponsoring the EXACT SAME BILL in 2005 has he not co-sponsored S. 1100?


If you're gonna brag that you signed on to a failed bill, you should make sure you co-sponsor the SAME BILL when it's reintroduced, don't you think? Really, it's very simple. I'm sure they all contacted him about the bill when it was re-introduced in April 2007. Yet almost 1.5 years later his name is still not on the bill. Why?


Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2008
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 6:49pm

*** Then why, when he's bragging about co-sponsoring the EXACT SAME BILL in 2005 has he not co-sponsored S. 1100?

Google it and let us know.

*** If you're gonna brag that you signed on to a failed bill, you should make sure you co-sponsor the SAME BILL when it's reintroduced, don't you think? Really, it's very simple. I'm sure they all contacted him about the bill when it was re-introduced in April 2007. Yet almost 1.5 years later his name is still not on the bill. Why?

Depends on the reasons. I'll wait for your "google" before passing judgment.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 6:56pm

>Google it and let us know.<


Why should I do the work for you? He's your candidate, right?


Thought you might like to see the basic summaries of actions taken in the 110th Congress by the two key players in this election. This is from the THOMAS database.

Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 7:00pm

Don't forget, when you slam Sarah Palin for the things she's said, you're not only guilty of "bashing" her, you're also being a "sexist."

What's that you say? You ARE a woman....and just who the he-double-hockey-sticks do I think **I** am - being male and all - to call YOU a sexist? Well, hey, I can't help it if you hate your own gender enough to visit upon the innocent GOP veep candidate such obvious and despicable gender-based discrimination. Shame on you, though. When you point out that Sarah Palin has about the same qualifications to be Veep (or President) as either Alvin or any of the Chipmunks, you set back the women's movement decades. Shame on you.




(NOTE: FOR THE APPARENTLY INCAPABLE-OF-DISTINCTION (not to mention humorless) CMs OF THIS SITE, ALL OF THE ABOVE WAS SAID WITH TONGUE FIRMLY PLANTED IN CHEEK. I DO NOT CONSIDER THE MOTHER OF KATE AND ZACK TO BE A SEXIST, NEITHER DO I SERIOUSLY QUESTION HER PERSONAL DEDICATION TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN'S ACHIEVEMENT IN THE ARENA OF NATIONAL POLITICAL POLITICS.)

Heh.

Pages