<<USA Senator John McCain won this debate, and he shall also win the 2008 USA Presidential election, because first and formost, his love for America and his works in putting our country first, come shining through him, always. Trusting our nation to our shared future USA President John McCain is truly about to be our shared America reality. Pray for all of our leaders, support them, and support America's troops. Visit http://JohnMcCain.com >>
why do i feel like a mccain campaign worker posted this?
I thought that hearing McCain was like hearing someone who is unwilling to let go of the past and the way things were done then, and heaing Obama was like hearing someone who will lead America into the future. Obama won this debate!
Thank you for posting that. The article really helped me understand the difference in the numbers. I didn't realize that board members weren't considered employees.
The next question would be, why were they donating to him. Did they know that he was trying to regulate them more? Did they want more regulations themselves? Makes me wonder. Did the higher ups at Fannie and Freddie not like the way things were heading?
>>They both had ineresting points- but either way - I gotta vote for the guy that socks the higher taxes to the upper class and gives the lower class a break - Go Obama!<<
All jealousy aside, that's what is so scary about Obama.
He's all about redistribution whether it hurts the poor or middle income in the long run doesn't matter to him. Sounds like it doesn't matter to anyone so long as they can hurt those they are envious of or whom they feel it's OK to steal from.
Personally I like to support economic policies that make the best long term sense for the country. I think it's sad that many people don't understand things well enough to make good choices.
I think McCain would do himself some good if he wouldn't give Obama a pass on so many things. For instance I like what McCain had to say about reigning in cost-plus contracts. I wish he'd have asked Obama for his opinion on that because it likely would have been lost on him as it was on most of the viewers.
And this one kills me:
>> Distorting History In the debate last night, Barack Obama asked a good question about the present financial crisis but then gave an answer that was, at best, incomplete:
The question, I think, that we have to ask ourselves is, how did we get into this situation in the first place? Two years ago, I warned that, because of the subprime lending mess, because of the lax regulation, that we were potentially going to have a problem and tried to stop some of the abuses in mortgages that were taking place at the time....we're also going to have to look at, how is it that we shredded so many regulations? We did not set up a 21st-century regulatory framework to deal with these problems. And that in part has to do with an economic philosophy that says that regulation is always bad.
The main problem, we are led to believe, was a Republican ideology of unfettered capitalism that led to insufficient government involvement in the financial system.
Senator Obama might want to read this NY Times article from 1999:
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders....Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.
I am not suggesting that the entire crisis should be put in the lap of the Clinton team. There is plenty of blame to go around. Indeed, the problem goes back at least as far as the Johnson administration, which helped set up a housing finance system that was always fundamentally flawed.
If Senator Obama really wants to transcend partisan politics, as he would sometimes have us believe, he might want to give a slightly more balanced view of the history of how this all started. He also might want to take note that the Bush administration warned about some of these problems five years ago and had its reform efforts stymied by prominent members of Senator Obama's own party.<< http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
Pages
<<USA Senator John McCain won this debate, and he shall also win the 2008 USA Presidential election, because first and formost, his love for America and his works in putting our country first, come shining through him, always. Trusting our nation to our shared future USA President John McCain is truly about to be our shared America reality. Pray for all of our leaders, support them, and support America's troops.
Visit http://JohnMcCain.com >>
why do i feel like a mccain campaign worker posted this?
Thank you for posting that. The article really helped me understand the difference in the numbers. I didn't realize that board members weren't considered employees.
The next question would be, why were they donating to him. Did they know that he was trying to regulate them more? Did they want more regulations themselves? Makes me wonder. Did the higher ups at Fannie and Freddie not like the way things were heading?
>>They both had ineresting points- but either way - I gotta vote for the guy that socks the higher taxes to the upper class and gives the lower class a break - Go Obama!<<
All jealousy aside, that's what is so scary about Obama.
He's all about redistribution whether it hurts the poor or middle income in the long run doesn't matter to him. Sounds like it doesn't matter to anyone so long as they can hurt those they are envious of or whom they feel it's OK to steal from.
Personally I like to support economic policies that make the best long term sense for the country. I think it's sad that many people don't understand things well enough to make good choices.
I think McCain would do himself some good if he wouldn't give Obama a pass on so many things. For instance I like what McCain had to say about reigning in cost-plus contracts. I wish he'd have asked Obama for his opinion on that because it likely would have been lost on him as it was on most of the viewers.
And this one kills me:
>> Distorting History
In the debate last night, Barack Obama asked a good question about the present financial crisis but then gave an answer that was, at best, incomplete:
The question, I think, that we have to ask ourselves is, how did we get into this situation in the first place? Two years ago, I warned that, because of the subprime lending mess, because of the lax regulation, that we were potentially going to have a problem and tried to stop some of the abuses in mortgages that were taking place at the time....we're also going to have to look at, how is it that we shredded so many regulations? We did not set up a 21st-century regulatory framework to deal with these problems. And that in part has to do with an economic philosophy that says that regulation is always bad.
The main problem, we are led to believe, was a Republican ideology of unfettered capitalism that led to insufficient government involvement in the financial system.
Senator Obama might want to read this NY Times article from 1999:
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders....Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.
I am not suggesting that the entire crisis should be put in the lap of the Clinton team. There is plenty of blame to go around. Indeed, the problem goes back at least as far as the Johnson administration, which helped set up a housing finance system that was always fundamentally flawed.
If Senator Obama really wants to transcend partisan politics, as he would sometimes have us believe, he might want to give a slightly more balanced view of the history of how this all started. He also might want to take note that the Bush administration warned about some of these problems five years ago and had its reform efforts stymied by prominent members of Senator Obama's own party.<<
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
Pages