Obama has been going around proclaiming that McCain doesn't get it. Unfortunately, the facts prove otherwise.
McCain co-sponsored a bill more than three years ago that would have curtailed the disaster at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac years ago. Looks like McCain "got it" long before most of the rest of Congress did. He is on record as saying this:
quote:
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.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
Congressional Record (//%22http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190%22)
Obama's right, he's got audacity, but it's not of hope...
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P
interesting that McCain is a 'co-sponsor' of this bill approximately 10 months after any action taken on it.
He was not an original co-sponsor of this bill.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P
interesting that McCain is a 'co-sponsor' of this bill approximately 10 months after any action taken on it.
He was not an original co-sponsor of this bill.
Your post is meaningless. Do you know why he signed onto the bill later? It's because all bills not considered at the end of the term are essentially terminated. The bill was IMPORTANT enough to him that he took the initiative to revive debate on the bill to keep it from dying of the senate floor. BTW, this was LONG before the debacle at Fannie and Freddie, so it wasn't for political expediency either.
really?
this was before the 'debacle' at Fannie & Freddie?
Sounds to me as if there were plenty of 'debacle' brewing there before...
by McCain's own words:
So, how are you going to go about proving (spinning) that this was not for 'political expediency' as you claim. I never said it was. I am merely pointing out a fact that you omitted.
Please explain that to us poor plebeians.
"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.
You are ridiculous. You want to downplay what McCain really did here and you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm in the mortgage business and it didn't look like Fan and Fred had a real problem. They had what I will call criminal fraud occurring and you point a finger at and attack McCain for trying to fix it? There was nothing political about it. The point still stands. McCain tried to fix this problem long before it grew in to a disaster and YOU, being an ASL, don't want to admit it.
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
You are ridiculous. You want to downplay what McCain really did here and you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm in the mortgage business and it didn't look like Fan and Fred had a real problem. They had what I will call criminal fraud occurring and you point a finger at and attack McCain for trying to fix it? There was nothing political about it. The point still stands. McCain tried to fix this problem long before it grew in to a disaster and YOU, being an ASL, don't want to admit it.
when a 10.6 billion dollar accounting scandal is not a "real problem."
you might be a republican.
meanwhile this occurred, when? during THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
really?
this was before the 'debacle' at Fannie & Freddie?
Sounds to me as if there were plenty of 'debacle' brewing there before...
by McCain's own words:
So, how are you going to go about proving (spinning) that this was not for 'political expediency' as you claim. I never said it was. I am merely pointing out a fact that you omitted.
Please explain that to us poor plebeians.
How could it be for political expediency? McCain wasn't running for president at the time.
Besides dear graham, the burden of proof is on the accuser. If you believe it was for political expediency, please provide us some evidence.
quote:
"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.
You prove my point. McCain was astute enough to see the writing on the wall long before these companies failed. Was he the ONLY one, of course not. Was he prepared to deal with it long before the proverbial sh#t hit the fan? Clearly, yes.
Your candidate stumps around making speeches about what problems we have and offers no solutions. McCain has been in the trenches trying to enact solutions and get things done for years now...
Speeches versus action.
You first used the phrase 'political expediency' in this thread.
I never made an accusation it was, you did:
You said it was 'not for political expediency'.
what do you have to support your claim that it was not?
You're putting words into my keyboard I did not type.
I merely pointed out the fact that JMC 'co-sponsored' this bill approx. 10 months after it any 'major action' was taken up on it.
You immediately took the defensive on this.
Furthermore, who authored this bill?
Chuck Hagel.
and who pray tell does Chuck Hagel support for president?
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
You first used the phrase 'political expediency' in this thread.
I never made an accusation it was, you did:
You said it was 'not for political expediency'.
what do you have to support your claim that it was not?
Take an intro class in philosophy and come back and ask me that question again.
quote:
I merely pointed out the fact that JMC 'co-sponsored' this bill approx. 10 months after it any 'major action' was taken up on it.
You immediately took the defensive on this.
Yes, because it's a distortion of fact. What evidence did you provide that "major action" was not taken on this bill after it was presented? I must have missed that one.
quote:
Furthermore, who authored this bill?
Chuck Hagel.
and who pray tell does Chuck Hagel support for president?
What in Gods name does that have to do with anything? Let me see, since Hagel is supporting Obama, then every bill that Hagel ever authored is now imputed OBAMA as if he authored and supported it. You need to grab ahold of your head before it completely spins off your shoulders.
right there on the link I previously posted.
had you bothered to click and read it, which i'm assuming based your question and accusation, you apparently did not.
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2005 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P
there's the link again.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
You are ridiculous. You want to downplay what McCain really did here and you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm in the mortgage business and it didn't look like Fan and Fred had a real problem. They had what I will call criminal fraud occurring and you point a finger at and attack McCain for trying to fix it? There was nothing political about it. The point still stands. McCain tried to fix this problem long before it grew in to a disaster and YOU, being an ASL, don't want to admit it.
when a 10.6 billion dollar accounting scandal is not a "real problem."
you might be a republican.
meanwhile this occurred, when? during THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS.
You see, it WAS a problem and McCain tried to fix it. BUSTED!! On top of that, I'm talking about the fact that it wasn't a problem that appeared to most, would cause Fan and Fred to collapse, but you probably already understood that and again just made a hollow attack, since you have no real ammo on this one.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
right there on the link I previously posted.
had you bothered to click and read it, which i'm assuming based your question and accusation, you apparently did not.
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2005 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P
there's the link again.
Maybe you should do some actual research into the bill and it's legislative history before you make blind statements about it from generic terms on Thomas.
You misunderstand what "Last Major Action" means. It simply means it was sent to a committee where it later died. McCain tried to avoid that by co-sponsoring the bill and giving it new life.
McCain's statements come from a May session of the Senate during floor comments (//%22http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190%22). Debate on the bill was still ongoing, even though the bill was being debated in committee. He thought the bill important enough that he co-sponsored it in an effort to get it through committee and passed.
quote:
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.
His statements are unequivocal and the passage of that bill would have done much to stave off the later crisis with these companies.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
right there on the link I previously posted.
had you bothered to click and read it, which i'm assuming based your question and accusation, you apparently did not.
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2005 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P
there's the link again.
Maybe you should do some actual research into the bill and it's legislative history before you make blind statements about it from generic terms on Thomas.
You misunderstand what "Last Major Action" means. It simply means it was sent to a committee where it later died. McCain tried to avoid that by co-sponsoring the bill and giving it new life.
McCain's statements come from a May session of the Senate during floor comments (//%22http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190%22). Debate on the bill was still ongoing, even though the bill was being debated in committee. He thought the bill important enough that he co-sponsored it in an effort to get it through committee and passed.
quote:
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.
His statements are unequivocal and the passage of that bill would have done much to stave off the later crisis with these companies.
no, actually i think I understand:
The committee may vote to approve or "report" the bill favorably (i.e., recommending passage) for further deliberation by the full House or Senate on the floor.
Technically, the final vote in committee is to order the bill reported. The bill actually is reported back to the House or Senate when the committee chairman returns it to an official of his or her chamber, usually with the accompanying written report that discusses the bill and its provisions.
http://thomas.loc.gov/tfaqs/tfaq16.html
Gee thanks. How does any of that affect the substance of what I posted? You answered a completely unasked question.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Gee thanks. How does any of that affect the substance of what I posted? You answered a completely unasked question.
Ya, but look at the brain power! I'm tell'n ya iplaw, I'm underwhelmed with flabbergastment.
(http://simpsonovi.comics.cz/media/Obrazky/WALL/images/BRAIN.JPG)
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Gee thanks. How does any of that affect the substance of what I posted? You answered a completely unasked question.
how about this statement:
You misunderstand what "Last Major Action" means. It simply means it was sent to a committee where it later died. McCain tried to avoid that by co-sponsoring the bill and giving it new life.
McCain's statements come from a May session of the Senate during floor comments.
Debate on the bill was still ongoing, even though the bill was being debated in committee. He thought the bill important enough that he co-sponsored it in an effort to get it through committee and passed.
You accused me of "misunderstanding what "Last Major Action" means. It simply means it was sent to a committee where it later died."
Perhaps, I am not the one that needs education on this issue:
Because it would seem to me, that the committee voted to report it favorably or as this states:
"he committee may vote to approve or "report" the bill favorably (i.e., recommending passage) for further deliberation by the full House or Senate on the floor"
So this was still being debated from July 05 to May 06? Still being debated in committee even though the committee ordered the bill to be reported favorably in July of 2005?
Despite the Thomas FAQ that states, "Technically, the
final vote in committee is to order the bill reported."
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Gee thanks. How does any of that affect the substance of what I posted? You answered a completely unasked question.
Ya, but look at the brain power! I'm tell'n ya iplaw, I'm underwhelmed with flabbergastment. He's so good he's even capable of answering unasked questions.
(http://simpsonovi.comics.cz/media/Obrazky/WALL/images/BRAIN.JPG)
keep up your little ad-hom attacks. It works. Really, does.
So, Crash:
I would suggest if John McCain, a career politician knows more about the looming crisis at Fannie & Freddie and the broader state of the mortgage industry more than a person on the front lines of the 'mortgage business' apparently does.
Then, I'd make the suggestion you spend less time "arguing" on an internet forum and more time learning your industry.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
You accused me of "misunderstanding what "Last Major Action" means. It simply means it was sent to a committee where it later died."
Perhaps, I am not the one that needs education on this issue:
Because it would seem to me, that the committee voted to report it favorably or as this states:
"he committee may vote to approve or "report" the bill favorably (i.e., recommending passage) for further deliberation by the full House or Senate on the floor"
So this was still being debated from July 05 to May 06? Still being debated in committee even though the committee ordered the bill to be reported favorably in July of 2005?
Despite the Thomas FAQ that states, "Technically, the final vote in committee is to order the bill reported."
I'll ask you again, how does any of that address the substance of my post. Would you care to get the substance of the bill, the legislative history, or anything pertinent or should we discuss committee policy procedures for the rest of the day?
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P
interesting that McCain is a 'co-sponsor' of this bill approximately 10 months after any action taken on it.
He was not an original co-sponsor of this bill.
Why is this relevant or different than all the bills St. Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored? Obama supporters keep citing all this legislation he has co-sponsored or sponsored in lieu of pointing to any legislation he's actually ever written.
I believe IP's point was that McCain was a supporter of reining in the tomfoolery a couple of years ago. By adding his co-sponsorship he WAS IN FACT trying to revive the legislation instead of treading new ground. Looks as if Obama was more interested in securing earmarks for Tinley Park at the time than to help out with banking and lending bills.
Sure appears Obama's been paid plenty to look the other way by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, considering that out of 19 years of contributions tracked since 1989, Obama is #2 on the all-time earner's list right behind the Democrat chairman of the Senate Banking Committee (which also has housing and urban affairs oversight).
WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain was racing Wednesday to stay abreast of the turmoil in the U.S. economy, saying the $85 billion government bailout of the world's biggest insurance company — which he vigorously opposed just hours earlier — would protect millions of Americans from further financial hardship.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26754552/
Honestly, I think that this economy just needs to collapse. No more bail outs, no more stimulous packages. I don't know that there is any way to actually correct the economy, other than to let it correct itself. We're robbing Peter to pay Paul and we gotta pay up at some point or our children will. We made this bed and it's time to sleep in it.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
You accused me of "misunderstanding what "Last Major Action" means. It simply means it was sent to a committee where it later died."
Perhaps, I am not the one that needs education on this issue:
Because it would seem to me, that the committee voted to report it favorably or as this states:
"he committee may vote to approve or "report" the bill favorably (i.e., recommending passage) for further deliberation by the full House or Senate on the floor"
So this was still being debated from July 05 to May 06? Still being debated in committee even though the committee ordered the bill to be reported favorably in July of 2005?
Despite the Thomas FAQ that states, "Technically, the final vote in committee is to order the bill reported."
I'll ask you again, how does any of that address the substance of my post. Would you care to get the substance of the bill, the legislative history, or anything pertinent or should we discuss committee policy procedures for the rest of the day?
Please don't assume or accuse that I'm 'misunderstanding' or somehow incapable of grasping this when it's apparent you do not either.
Hey and guess what?
I can admit when I'm wrong.
Which coincidentally, would be a perfect time for you to do so. Instead, you just completely ignore what I typed.
Conan: May I remind you again of the time of this bill's introduction? In 2005 and 2006...and which party had a narrow majority in the Senate then? (Jan, 05 and May 06, the dates in question).
But, yet this is Obama's fault...
This has nothing to do with it being Obama's fault or not, even though he took plenty of money from them. It highlights how McCain was right about Fannie and Freddie long ago and co-sponsored legislation to actually deal with the problem rather than make speeches about it.
You can continue to play in the weeds but I'm not going to follow you in.
"The mounting crisis, Obama said, is "a stark reminder of the failures of crony capitalism and an economic philosophy that sees any regulation at all as unwise and unnecessary."
Why, pray-tell, is Obama #2 on a list of benefactors from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac AND A.I.G.? Did they grease his campaign to have him tighten regs on them? Did Obama sponsor any legislation for more regulation the last three-plus years to help protect tax payers?
Here's the numbers again- Obama accepted $45,111 from AIG and $126,349 from Fannie & Freddie.
Obama needs to be careful who he's accusing of "crony capitalism", it's got a hollow ring to the tune of $171,000.
Misdirection is yet another honed and heavily used weapon of the left.
Parry, stick, parry, slash, parry again. Don't let them pull you off target.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
You accused me of "misunderstanding what "Last Major Action" means. It simply means it was sent to a committee where it later died."
Perhaps, I am not the one that needs education on this issue:
Because it would seem to me, that the committee voted to report it favorably or as this states:
"he committee may vote to approve or "report" the bill favorably (i.e., recommending passage) for further deliberation by the full House or Senate on the floor"
So this was still being debated from July 05 to May 06? Still being debated in committee even though the committee ordered the bill to be reported favorably in July of 2005?
Despite the Thomas FAQ that states, "Technically, the final vote in committee is to order the bill reported."
I'll ask you again, how does any of that address the substance of my post. Would you care to get the substance of the bill, the legislative history, or anything pertinent or should we discuss committee policy procedures for the rest of the day?
Please don't assume or accuse that I'm 'misunderstanding' or somehow incapable of grasping this when it's apparent you do not either.
Hey and guess what?
I can admit when I'm wrong.
Which coincidentally, would be a perfect time for you to do so. Instead, you just completely ignore what I typed.
Conan: May I remind you again of the time of this bill's introduction? In 2005 and 2006...and which party had a narrow majority in the Senate then? (Jan, 05 and May 06, the dates in question).
But, yet this is Obama's fault...
The original point was that McCain got it. Obama accused him of "not getting it". So you lead us on a round-about journey telling us basically nothing new. All I've seen Obama do is lend his name to and vote on token legislation in preparation for running for President.
Obama dismisses any effort McCain made to head this off, yet did nothing about it himself. At least McCain can point to some sort of action.
Chris Dodd needs to have his corrupt balls cut off after all this. Separate post coming.
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
Misdirection is yet another honed and heavily used weapon of the left.
Parry, stick, parry, slash, parry again. Don't let them pull you off target.
yeah, maybe i just need to post some smart-donkey pictures, right?
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
Misdirection is yet another honed and heavily used weapon of the left.
Parry, stick, parry, slash, parry again. Don't let them pull you off target.
yeah, maybe i just need to post some smart-donkey pictures, right?
Better than your dumb-donkey comments. [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
You accused me of "misunderstanding what "Last Major Action" means. It simply means it was sent to a committee where it later died."
Perhaps, I am not the one that needs education on this issue:
Because it would seem to me, that the committee voted to report it favorably or as this states:
"he committee may vote to approve or "report" the bill favorably (i.e., recommending passage) for further deliberation by the full House or Senate on the floor"
So this was still being debated from July 05 to May 06? Still being debated in committee even though the committee ordered the bill to be reported favorably in July of 2005?
Despite the Thomas FAQ that states, "Technically, the final vote in committee is to order the bill reported."
I'll ask you again, how does any of that address the substance of my post. Would you care to get the substance of the bill, the legislative history, or anything pertinent or should we discuss committee policy procedures for the rest of the day?
Please don't assume or accuse that I'm 'misunderstanding' or somehow incapable of grasping this when it's apparent you do not either.
Hey and guess what?
I can admit when I'm wrong.
Which coincidentally, would be a perfect time for you to do so. Instead, you just completely ignore what I typed.
Conan: May I remind you again of the time of this bill's introduction? In 2005 and 2006...and which party had a narrow majority in the Senate then? (Jan, 05 and May 06, the dates in question).
But, yet this is Obama's fault...
The original point was that McCain got it. Obama accused him of "not getting it". So you lead us on a round-about journey telling us basically nothing new. All I've seen Obama do is lend his name to and vote on token legislation in preparation for running for President.
Obama dismisses any effort McCain made to head this off, yet did nothing about it himself. At least McCain can point to some sort of action.
Chris Dodd needs to have his corrupt balls cut off after all this. Separate post coming.
so, care to explain to me how this is different?
lending his name to 'token legislation' after committee debate has concluded and been recommended to which, the republican leadership of the Senate apparently sat on it & let it die.
so yes, in this 'round-about journey' telling you exactly nothing new and exactly what Iplaw tacitly admitted in his third post, it was merely a political move.
McCain was trying to revive the legislation. He was not running for President at the time, so it was hardly a token move.
I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
McCain was trying to revive the legislation. He was not running for President at the time, so it was hardly a token move.
I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this.
right.
the guy that screwed over in 2000, did not have the White House in mind in 2008....
of course not!
as if McCain is not a career politician...
give me a break.
So he fights for legislation that he obviously feels strong about, simply for the sake of a Presidential bid. I guess if he weren't constantly running for President, he would support nothing at all[?]
Wrong answer. You are the weakest link..., good by.
Holy buttmonkey you just quoted Anne Robinson.
Crash, the devil requested you quit using that Reagan quote because the Reagan's thought John McSame was a loser and a bad family man.
Here. Use this quote:
"Beware of the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the
citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a
double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the
mind....the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the
citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by
patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly
so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am
Caesar." - Julius Caesar
Sent from my BlackBerry -
another miracle from the mind of John McCain!
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
So he fights for legislation that he obviously feels strong about, simply for the sake of a Presidential bid. I guess if he weren't constantly running for President, he would support nothing at all[?]
Wrong answer. You are the weakest link..., good by.
That might have been a clever dig in 2001. Might, being the operative word.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
McCain was trying to revive the legislation. He was not running for President at the time, so it was hardly a token move.
I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this.
right.
the guy that screwed over in 2000, did not have the White House in mind in 2008....
of course not!
as if McCain is not a career politician...
give me a break.
So...McCain co-sponsored an obscure piece of legislation, over two years ago, to set himself up to look good two years later?
Either he's Nostradamus or you need a tinfoil hat.