|
Post by redwolf on Mar 28, 2008 7:52:58 GMT -6
I think his assessment of the crisis, just like his assessment of the Iraq war, is right on target. Obama Casts Wide Blame for Financial Crisis and Proposes Homeowner AidBy MICHAEL POWELL and JEFF ZELENY "Senator Barack Obama called Thursday for tighter regulation of mortgage lenders, banks and financial houses, even as he spoke of pumping $30 billion into the economy to shield homeowners and local governments from the worst effects of the collapse of the housing bubble.
Mr. Obama laid much of the blame for the crisis on lobbyists and politicians who dismantled the regulatory framework governing the energy, telecommunications and financial services sectors."www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/us/politics/28dems.html?th&emc=th
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 28, 2008 17:48:33 GMT -6
I have to disagree about your assessment of Obama.
Once again, he's listing problems, without specific solutions. And even some of his deliberately vague suggestions, are truly bad.
Obama's commentary is typical of his terminal evasiveness. As always, Obama has to throw a bone to his big Corporate & financial industry donors. The following is typical of Obama's comments:
"Mr. Obama said.....Few doubted...that the nation needed to reform the 1930s-era law — the Glass-Steagall Act — that had erected a wall between commercial and investment banks...."
No, Barack. MANY people did doubt the wisdom of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act. In fact, MOST doubt the wisdom of doing so. Many of our problems today are the result of removing the "wall between commercial and investment banks."
Here again, Obama's comments demonstrate whose interests he's really concerned with -- his rich campaign contributors. It also demonstrates his lack of understanding of the economy.
Offering vague suggestions about "modernizing the regulatory regime and demanding transparency" means absolutely nothing. It's just more hot air, which is Obama's specialty. And it's especially meaningless when combined with his comments about Glass Steagall "reform," which has greatly exacerbated our current financial crisis.
A recent poll showed that 25% of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination. I'm part of that 25% of Democrats who'll vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. At least McCain says he won't bail out the financial industry with taxpayers' money, in contrast to Obama (and probably Clinton as well.)
Once again, Obama's position on free trade is ambivalent at best, and awful at worst. At least Clinton has called for a moratorium on free trade agreements. And again, Clinton's private opposition to NAFTA has been verified by both David Gergen and Carl Bernstein.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Mar 28, 2008 18:35:34 GMT -6
You know how you can tell a politicans are lying?
answer: their lips are moving
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Mar 29, 2008 7:54:22 GMT -6
The comments of a republican hack and a has-been journalist do nothing to "verify" the alleged opposition. There are plenty of things on record that Hillary has said and done in support of Nafta that just don't jibe with what Gergen and Berstein have said, and Hillary did not make any public conversion on it until very recently when support of Nafta became a liability for her campaign. With that said, at least she has changed her tune on trade and is marginally better on trade than Obama, who after campaigning against Nafta in OH, gave canada a wink and a nod that it was just campaign rhetoric. Another big black X for Obama is that he is in favor of the fed's bailout of investment banks. Both appear to be in favor of more "public - private partnerships" such as more selling of assets like roads tunnels and bridges to private equity - the unholy combining of corporaton and govt is know as fascism according to Mussolini. Both have also come out in favor of the Trans Texas corridor (aka Nafta Superhighway) texasturf.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=2
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Mar 29, 2008 20:13:29 GMT -6
I can't believe what I am hearing, ULC. Torture sell-out, 100 more years of war, biggest free-trader there ever was McCain Surely Obama must be better if no worse that McCain who would be four more years of Bush. Unless maybe you subscribe to the it has to get much worse before it will get better school. Not sure the country could afford four more years of republicanism at this point. I do believe that all the infighting will once again leave the democrats to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. My plan if the incoreect candidate wins is go third party or skip the presidential and vote to support the down ticket. Could never in good conscience vote republicrit.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 30, 2008 2:47:03 GMT -6
It's because I believe Obama is that bad. I'm not thrilled with Clinton either. But I'd much prefer her over Obama. Obama's disgusting dishonesty, lack of backbone, and his unwillingness to take a position on anything makes me sick. Outside of George Bush, I've never seen anyone as unqualified as Obama get as close to the Presidency as he has (Now that Ghouliani has been eliminated.)
For all of his many faults, at least McCain claims he won't support Wall Street and investment banks bail-outs. These are HUGE amounts of money, already in excess of $500 billion. The Fed's bailouts have already cost nearly as much as the war in Iraq. And if these handouts continue at the current rate, they'll greatly exceed the cost of the war in Iraq before election time. As best I can tell, Obama supports these handouts, and will even increase them if elected.
For all of his abundant faults, McCain is not a supporter of Corporate welfare. In this area, both Democrats are worse.
Not surprisingly, the Wall Street firms getting the handouts are huge contributors to both Obama and Clinton. Their contributions to Obama and Clinton individually, are over twice that given to McCain.
McCain is not going to keep the Iraq war going indefinitely. We simply don't have the resources to do so. McCain may keep it going longer than Obama, but we simply cannot continue supporting the war, regardless of who becomes President.
McCain is a free trader to be sure, but Obama doesn't seem to be that far from McCain on the issue, especially when he makes such comments as "we can't stop globalization, and we shouldn't try." Obama's economic advisors are just as bad as McCain's on free trade.
Hillary at least claims to have shifted more towards opposition to unrestricted free trade. Though I have doubts about Clinton's sincerity, I have none about Obama's pro-free trade advocacy. (Nor his pro-amnesty, pro-open borders advocacy.)
The difference between McCain and Obama on trade appears negligible.
Though McCain co-sponsored the Senate's Comprehensive Amnesty and Open Borders Bill, he now claims to have seen the light, stating he now understands that Americans want the borders secured first. In contrast, Obama continues to regurgitate the "we're scapegoating immigrants" line, if we enforce our immigration laws. Obama still supports driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, which both Clinton and McCain oppose. Obama is clearly the worst of the 3 on illegal immigration.
McCain has touted the right-wing "tax cuts are next to godliness" theme, but he can't prevent Bush's tax cuts from expiring. Meanwhile, Obama has no intention of repealing them before they expire. The net effect of their policies on high-end tax cuts is essentially the same.
Though I'd like to see a national health care system, I'd rather not see anything passed if it's just a Corporate welfare scam for the health insurance industry. The numbers simply don't add up regarding the health care plans of either of the Democrats. Both Obama's and Hillary's plans sound like budget-breaking giveaways to health care insurers.
There's an old saying that goes something like: "If you can't do anything right, then don't do anything at all." I think it's especially applicable to health care reform.
I don't think McCain will do much of anything right. But I don't think he'll do much of anything in the first place. That means he won't do as much wrong as well. In contrast, I believe Obama will try to do a lot, and most of it will be wrong. I think Obama's potential to do damage is greater than McCain's.
I had initially considered Obama better than Clinton. But Clinton has improved somewhat. In contrast, Obama has gone right down the drain. He's remained evasive and non-specific on almost every issue. And when he's been even the slightest bit specific, he's been wrong each time.
I have major problems with someone who's spent over $100 billion campaigning, while saying nothing substantive while spending that money. I strongly dislike crybabies like Obama. He constantly whines about the most minuscule criticism, and even the implication of criticism, and even fabricates false criticism to whine about.
Obama is a good talker and a clever orator. And that's it. After that, he's got nothing. His only agenda is getting himself elected. He's done nothing beneficial in the Senate, and he'll do nothing but harm in the White House.
|
|
|
Post by lasher on Mar 30, 2008 12:17:49 GMT -6
ULC, I'm also surprised you would consider voting for McCain and I'm having trouble understanding why this is so. John McCain is George Bush. First and foremost, he is a Republican, the party that brought us Reaganomics since 1981. He would appoint all the same types of corporatist trickle-downers to the same positions that Junior has, and in many cases the very same people. I see no big difference on the issues between him and Junior. Any change would be an improvement but that's not what we would get with McSame. OK let's compare McCain and Obama on their positions regarding corporations: McCain:
Cut corporate income taxes to keep jobs here. (Jan 2008) People worry about corporations unduly influencing elections. (Sep 2007) Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005) Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005) Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001) Rated 61% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Obama:
Cap the farm subsidies for Fortune 500 companies. (Dec 2007) End tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. (Aug 2007) Hold corporations responsible for pensions & work conditions. (Aug 2007) Tax incentives for corporate responsibility. (Jun 2004) Close tax loopholes for US companies relocating abroad. (Jun 2004) REAL USA Plan: Reward companies that create domestic jobs. (Jun 2004) Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005) Voted NO on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
www.ontheissues.org/Corporations.htm#Barack_Obama I think the record shows that McCain is much more of a corporate welfare supporter than is Obama. The differences go on and on. McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years and make the tax cuts permanent but you dismiss that by saying he would be ineffective at it. McCain said, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” Then he lied about it. www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/01/mccains_economics_education/I don't think we need another president who doesn't understand the US economy. One more point if I may: I agree our government should not generally intervene to prop up failing companies. But regulation has been sadly lacking thanks to corporatists, and now we face an unusual situation that calls for unusual remedies. What we don't need right now is a resurection of Herbert Hoover's policies.
|
|
|
Post by db on Mar 30, 2008 13:26:10 GMT -6
Unlawful, so the mask comes off. List problems without giving solutions. Part of the solution is re regulation. Of course, Obama offers vague solutions and where did you get the BS about McCain not bailing out the financial industry? Get real. Of course, Obama, like all, throws bones to wealthy contributors. Either Democrat is better than John McSame. Sure, vote Republican! They got you into this mess, why not a bigger mess. There are no guarantees; but I still think straight, unlike the liar McCain's "straight talk" (What a joke!). I thought you might be a Republican in disguise, who else would vote McCain. The way he kisses Bush's ass and the right wing; McCain is severely, mentally damaged, possibly from Viet Nam prison experiences.
|
|
|
Post by rwc on Mar 30, 2008 15:43:52 GMT -6
Funny, when the country had only 2-3 million people we produced leaders like Adams, Washington, Jefferson and Franklin. Hell 60 years we still had men like FDR, Truman and Eisenhower to lead us. Today with a population of 300 million we come up with Bush, Hillary, Obama and McCain.
So much for progress.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Mar 30, 2008 19:44:17 GMT -6
Funny, when the country had only 2-3 million people we produced leaders like Adams, Washington, Jefferson and Franklin. Hell 60 years we still had men like FDR, Truman and Eisenhower to lead us. Today with a population of 300 million we come up with Bush, Hillary, Obama and McCain. So much for progress. Sad really, isnt it.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 30, 2008 21:48:35 GMT -6
"Prosperity breeds no genius."
I don't remember whose quote.
McSame slithered out of the Keating Five scandal in the 1980s. He can't be trusted.
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 30, 2008 22:17:53 GMT -6
One more point if I may: I agree our government should not generally intervene to prop up failing companies. But regulation has been sadly lacking thanks to corporatists, and now we face an unusual situation that calls for unusual remedies. What we don't need right now is a resurrection of Herbert Hoover's policies. Lasher, I agree with what you're saying, but giving money to the wrong people will make things worse. The Fed can only give away so much before it runs out, or until interest rates rise so much that most of our Federal budget goes to paying the interest. The money being given to Wall Street is not preventing foreclosures. It's only keeping Investment banks and speculators from losing money from the foreclosures. A struggling homeowner's monthly mortgage payments are not affected by a change in his home's market price. A price change may affect his refinancing ability, but not current payments. Propping up home prices at taxpayer expense only helps banks. And if the goal is to increase mortgage lending and reduce mortgage rates, the $400 billion+ already squandered has done little. Investment banks are facing insolvency problems. The Fed is simply preventing them from going under, and eliminating their necessity to sell overvalued assets at true market prices. Unlike the times of Hoover, public and private debt is astronomical. Money pumped into the system has to be paid back, and it can only be paid back if it's wisely and productively invested. If the "payback" is via inflation alone, it will further redistribute wealth upward, by giving the money to wealthy investment bankers first — while a lesser amount trickles down to the rest of us. Devoting huge amounts of money to bail out non-productive, purely financial capitalism won't produce the wealth we'll need to pay down the debt we're incurring. No jobs or real wealth are created by leveraged buyouts, mergers, or acquisitions. No real wealth is produced from exchanges of ownership or interest receipts. The Fed's handouts of taxpayer-backed money are not spurring job creation, goods production, or real wealth production. They are simply being used to maintain overvalued prices, especially paper assets. If the Fed gives a way a $1 trillion dollars, the money will need to be repaid by the sale of something of value. Unless that $1 trillion increases the production of tangible wealth, it is not helping the overall economy. It's only bailing out financial speculators, while dumping new indebtedness onto American workers and the American middle class. The best suggestions I've heard are to freeze mortgage rates for 5 years, and maybe to put a temporary moratorium on foreclosures. Such policies would force the investment banks and speculators to absorb a larger part of the loss, rather than American taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by lasher on Mar 31, 2008 0:44:13 GMT -6
Boy you got that right. Case in point: The government loans billions to the banks at a low interest rate. Banks use the money to buy T bills bearing a higher interest rate than the loans. Net result: Banks pocket the difference, paid by you and me.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Mar 31, 2008 16:48:29 GMT -6
The latest myth being floated by the "free" marketeers to justify the Fed's bailout of investment banks is very much like what they are saying about the Smoot Hawley myth, that the bank runs caused the depression. But of course the reality is that the bank runs were a symptom of the depression as people rushed to salvage their rapidly depreciating assets. The investment banks are nothing like the commercial banks and have little connection to peoples daily lives like the banks once had. One thing we do have in common with great depression is that our assets are declining, and for many of the same reasons, flood of money causing devaluation and inflations, rampant speculation, debt fueled consumption and negative saving.
|
|