PDA

View Full Version : Obama, at it again



phinfan3411
09-17-2008, 09:16 PM
You have probably all seen Obama on tv the last few days BLASTING McCain about not wanting to regulate or reform. Hmmmm really, anyone that wants to google housing reform act 2005 might find something interesting. It seems Mr McCain is on record warning of the dangers with fanny, and freddie, and was one of 3 co-sponsers of this bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Now, why do you suppose it met so much opposition, or who opposed it?

top 5 contributions from Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac Pacs to prevent housing reform:

1. Christopher Dodd (D) $133,900

2. John Kerry (D) $111,000

3. Barack Obama (D) $105,849

4. Hillary Clinton (D) $75,550

5. Paul Kanjorski (D) $65,500

I cannot get the other link up, as I believe it is being overloaded, it is on other political forums I visit. I know it is not one persons fault, but these actions by Obama are terrible imo, it seems the old guy is more in touch than the young guy any day!

Oh, and if any of this is incorrect, please show me my mistake, I believe this to be 100% true.

ohall
09-17-2008, 11:24 PM
All of this will start to come out as the election closes in. I'm not sure Obama is ready for all the 527's that are heading his way.

MDFINFAN
09-17-2008, 11:29 PM
You have probably all seen Obama on tv the last few days BLASTING McCain about not wanting to regulate or reform. Hmmmm really, anyone that wants to google housing reform act 2005 might find something interesting. It seems Mr McCain is on record warning of the dangers with fanny, and freddie, and was one of 3 co-sponsers of this bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Now, why do you suppose it met so much opposition, or who opposed it?

top 5 contributions from Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac Pacs to prevent housing reform:

1. Christopher Dodd (D) $133,900

2. John Kerry (D) $111,000

3. Barack Obama (D) $105,849

4. Hillary Clinton (D) $75,550

5. Paul Kanjorski (D) $65,500

I cannot get the other link up, as I believe it is being overloaded, it is on other political forums I visit. I know it is not one persons fault, but these actions by Obama are terrible imo, it seems the old guy is more in touch than the young guy any day!

Oh, and if any of this is incorrect, please show me my mistake, I believe this to be 100% true.

Good fine, but you have to understand, McCain is on record for saying he's deregulator period...so for him now to say he'll regulate...is little suspect..look at his longer record on the subject of regulating.. it's longer on deregulating.. he doesn't have the cred on this one P3411..he just doesn't.

MDFINFAN
09-17-2008, 11:31 PM
All of this will start to come out as the election closes in. I'm not sure Obama is ready for all the 527's that are heading his way.

Both sides are going to have them and McCain will have to deal with them more, he has a longer record in the senate to examine..to include not supporting equal pay for women and his deregulation stances..and his sound bite on not understanding the economy..

The 527's can get nasty..:up: and that include on Obama too.:up:

poornate
09-17-2008, 11:41 PM
Who opposed what? This was never even voted on in the Senate... You know... spins and spin... but you can't make McCain what he is not.... Doesn't it all get tiring.

phinfan3411
09-18-2008, 05:54 AM
This is not spin, look at the things he is on record saying, if that other link is up, I will bring it over. He basically warned all this was going to happen. Obama got all this money from them in a VERY short time, the people that ran those companies, are on his campaign now. One of the reasons this bill failed is because Obama worked to make it fail. I, am not even sure that those figures are right, I have seen where Obama got more money.

MD, that was a bad answer, even for you. People want to know WHAT HAPPENED? This is a small glimpse as to exactly what did, Obama wanted NOTHING to do with changing this industry, to act like McCain is the problem shows what an *** he is.

phinfan3411
09-18-2008, 07:32 AM
People are always complaining about how unfair everything is to Obama, he says he wants to talk about the issues. This IS THE ISSUE, probably the biggest one of this campaign, and one of the few remaining candidates was on the right side, and one was on the wrong. Whether or not it made it through is irrelevant, because Obama is one of the reasons it did not make it through.

The_Dark_Knight
09-18-2008, 08:26 AM
Good fine, but you have to understand, McCain is on record for saying he's deregulator period...so for him now to say he'll regulate...is little suspect..look at his longer record on the subject of regulating.. it's longer on deregulating.. he doesn't have the cred on this one P3411..he just doesn't.
MD, that response doesn't hold water. The US government is not in the business of regulating business however, when a business is engaged in quesitonable business practices which on the LARGE scale, jeopardizes the economic stability and the security of the nation, the government has the responsibility to step in and if need be, regulate it.

Many businesses in this nation have thrived as a result of government de-regulation. Other businesses have engaged in questionable practices that have jeopardized the financial security of our nation.

Just because McCain has been an advocate of de-regulation doesn't negate the fact that he was right on this issue in 2005. Government should be hands off when it needs to me hands off...and government should be involved when it needs to be involved and because McCain has held this position regarding the housing reform act doesn't discredit him one bit. It only elevates his judgement that when the government NEEDS to be involved, they SHOULD get involved.

poornate
09-18-2008, 09:43 AM
Here's the point I am trying to make.... this never left a committee... I mean, a rudimentary understanding of how the Senate works will point out that Obama had neither any influence or say on what happened to this bill... The committees are (normally) composed equally of Republicans and Democrats, to reflect the percentage in the senate, with the chairman coming from the MAJORITY party.... if you look at the 109th Congress, that refused to let this bill out of the committee stage, you will see a Republican majority.... the committee was chaired by Republican Richard Shelby... and had a two member Republican majority....

That being said.... So what? I don't blame the Republican majority for killing this bill... I looked at it... it was bad legislation.... It hampered HUD from helping people... it restricted social programs.... it barred non-profits who had ever engaged in political arenas from assisting the needy.... It was bad legislation.... But let's make one thing clear... The committee was not chaired by Chris Dodd, or any other Democrat... It was chaired and ran by a REPUBLICAN majority who never let it go to the floor... Let's traffic in honesty on this....

....as far as the contributions to Obama... all of Obama's contributions came from individual employees and are recorded as such. That makes it a bit misleading when we are talking about money flowing between the two... I couldn't find a single PAC donation in the lot....

The_Dark_Knight
09-18-2008, 09:58 AM
Here's the point I am trying to make.... this never left a committee... I mean, a rudimentary understanding of how the Senate works will point out that Obama had neither any influence or say on what happened to this bill... The committees are (normally) composed equally of Republicans and Democrats, to reflect the percentage in the senate, with the chairman coming from the MAJORITY party.... if you look at the 109th Congress, that refused to let this bill out of the committee stage, you will see a Republican majority.... the committee was chaired by Republican Richard Shelby... and had a two member Republican majority....

That being said.... So what? I don't blame the Republican majority for killing this bill... I looked at it... it was bad legislation.... It hampered HUD from helping people... it restricted social programs.... it barred non-profits who had ever engaged in political arenas from assisting the needy.... It was bad legislation.... But let's make one thing clear... The committee was not chaired by Chris Dodd, or any other Democrat... It was chaired and ran by a REPUBLICAN majority who never let it go to the floor... Let's traffic in honesty on this....

....as far as the contributions to Obama... all of Obama's contributions came from individual employees and are recorded as such. That makes it a bit misleading when we are talking about money flowing between the two... I couldn't find a single PAC donation in the lot....
Whether or not it left committee is irrelevent when it comes to a person's stance on an issue. Just because the legislation didn't make it to the floor for a vote doesn't change what McCain's position was/is.

What is relevent though...is that what COULD have been averted...wasn't!

poornate
09-18-2008, 10:12 AM
Whether or not it left committee is irrelevent when it comes to a person's stance on an issue. Just because the legislation didn't make it to the floor for a vote doesn't change what McCain's position was/is.

What is relevent though...is that what COULD have been averted...wasn't!

If that is how you feel, then I suggest you should be very upset with the Republican Party... And it is relevant that it didn't leave committee... You, me... noone has any idea what that legislation would have looked like as a finished product.... I don't blame the Republicans for this though... I think it is silly to use hindsight to cast stones... It never even made it to a sub-committee because it was bad legislation.... It is disingenuous to pretend that McCain was for regulation of anything... It has never been his stance so why should we assume that it was then.... The true goal of the bill was to cut down on HUD investment and to restrict traditionally Democratic institutions from being involved in receiving grants for building homes... because that then allows them to do positive things in the community and, the argument is, further endear themselves to the blue collar people who live there... None of that matters... what matters is that this is a nothing.... a breeze.... a wisp... foxfire.... there is a glow but no heat and damn sure no flame.... This was as close to being law as something that we type on here... the Republican Committee had a whole session to consider it and took no action... that happens a lot... they are not be blamed for coulda, shoulda, woulda on not strongly considering badly written legislation...

I cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone can present a real argument that puts the Democrats in opposition to oversight? This is a bunch of fluff...

poornate
09-18-2008, 10:17 AM
What is relevent though...is that what COULD have been averted...wasn't!

... and another thing... if the Republicans hadn't fought (with Clinton) to throw out the Glass/Steagal Act this could have potentially been averted as well... If the Reagan administration hadn't fought for widespread deregulation 25 years ago... this also may have been averted.... If FDR hadn't insisted on..... That tactic can be done forever... It still feels like a bunch of nothing to me... If this had been filibustered... or voted on after refinement... If someone had led a charge against it hitting a sub-committee even... maybe.... But I can't see how the Republican Congress can be judged by what they did not know on legislation that they did not pass....

poornate
09-18-2008, 11:23 AM
... I've got to say one more thing... i am seeing this nothing leak into regular media... what a manipulation of fact...

MoFinz
09-18-2008, 11:46 AM
... I've got to say one more thing... i am seeing this nothing leak into regular media... what a manipulation of fact...

I've barely seen the media pick up on Palins email theft, other than to want to dig deeper into her personal private emails.....see a pattern here?

btw, saw that Obama was into Fannies pocket a few weeks back for more than 100k....think it was on Drudge.

phinfan3411
09-18-2008, 11:51 AM
I know a little about all of these stages, not bragging, nothing to brag about. Are you saying with a straight face, that just like the NRA pays many republicans, and some democrats to try and defeat, or get stopped in committee things like assault weapons bans etc. Many times they do it behind closed doors, many times with other "favors" to vote on other legislation.

Are you actually saying Barack Obama was not "one" of fannie mae, freddie mac etc. etc's leading people to shoot down legislation such as this, what ever way he could. Please I know he did not vote on it, there were other things happening here. The companies in question did not want legislation like this to come down, they were making money hand over fist.

The same legislation you say is bad, I read and think this is exactly what needed to be done, take personal feelings out of it. McCain was absolutely right on this, Obama was following orders.

poornate
09-18-2008, 12:41 PM
The point here is that everything this post insinuates is false.... Obama had never received dime one from Freddie Mac or Fanny Mae when this potential legislation was introduced or during the entire time it was in committee. So yes... i am saying that Obama was not one of the leading people to shoot down this legislation. Please, my reasonable friend, explain to me how he has ANY culpability in this not reaching the Senate floor?

phinfan3411
09-18-2008, 01:31 PM
Obama took office Jan 4,2005, This act was introduced on jan 26, 2005, and was last acted on in committee on july 28, 2005.

I will ask you again, was he, or was he not one of persons that the institutions in question would go to to table this type of legislation?

Would he ever have brought up this type of legislation before now?

I do not know when he began taking money from Fannie and Freddie, but he certainly got a ton in a small amount of time, look at this:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

I cannot give you time lines, I will try to research them, I am talking about as a whole, please answer the questions.

You know he would have NEVER done any type of legislation like this, he was in the tank for them, whether you want to admit it or not.

poornate
09-18-2008, 01:53 PM
It isn't hard to research... go to opensecrets.org and look at the Congressional cycle... he never had money given to him by either organization.... So tell me why it is fair to insinuate what is being insinuated here?

If you want to move to the presidential cycle then I ask you why McCain, the "deregulator", has received more money from financial institutions and real estate than any other group that has contributed to him? Didn't he take $169,000 in individual contributions from employees of the two firms?

I am saying that this is a huge GIANT ENORMOUS nothing thread... This isn't anything to do with you posting it... i can see how the way it is worded it implies and lies to the reader... I am just trying to share with you that there is nothing here... If you see something i don't... just share...

I could start the same thing about how the Republican majority refused to get this legislation to the floor... and how the chair of the Banking, Finance Committee... Republican Richard Shelby received more money from the two than any other Congressman the year he let it die in committee.... But i won't... because I don't see anything here... It was BAD legislation... It had all kinds of facets and conditions embedded in it that doomed it to failure.

Dolphan7
09-18-2008, 01:58 PM
Good fine, but you have to understand, McCain is on record for saying he's deregulator period...so for him now to say he'll regulate...is little suspect..look at his longer record on the subject of regulating.. it's longer on deregulating.. he doesn't have the cred on this one P3411..he just doesn't.
:fireball:

Look at the spin on that ball. Nice tight spiral!

Dolphan7
09-18-2008, 02:09 PM
I just don't understand or appreciate how our Congress makes these bills with so much other stuff in them that it makes these discussions harder and harder to have.

Voting against a bill for one thing, but by doing that you go on record as being against everything in the bill. Makes no sense.

This is how we overspend fella's!

Each bill should be introduced and voted on based on it's own merits

MDFINFAN
09-18-2008, 02:42 PM
:fireball:

Look at the spin on that ball. Nice tight spiral!

Okay you answer the question since my answer was a spin according to you, based on my knowledge of McCain's record and what he has said several times during the primaries, and his record in the senate, McCain has been a deregulator, you show us where he hasn't, I'll bring my proof a little later, as I have to work on a project right now.:up: Let's see who's spinning..:D

Dolphan7
09-18-2008, 03:25 PM
Okay you answer the question since my answer was a spin according to you, based on my knowledge of McCain's record and what he has said several times during the primaries, and his record in the senate, McCain has been a deregulator, you show us where he hasn't, I'll bring my proof a little later, as I have to work on a project right now.:up: Let's see who's spinning..:DNo. I think you were spinning like a top at a top spinners convention.

I refer you to Sir Nate, whom I present to you as one who brought a much more coherent and well thought out response to the original thread topic.:up:

MDFINFAN
09-18-2008, 05:16 PM
No. I think you were spinning like a top at a top spinners convention.

I refer you to Sir Nate, whom I present to you as one who brought a much more coherent and well thought out response to the original thread topic.:up:

I was referring to this part of his statement:

You have probably all seen Obama on tv the last few days BLASTING McCain about not wanting to regulate or reform.

I felt that was a valid case from Obama, based on McCain's record. I didn't address the particular bill P4311 presented, because i felt it was one instance..I felt McCain's total body of work on the issue of deregulation was more of a judge of him than one issue, I should have made myself clearer..

phinfan3411
09-18-2008, 06:49 PM
Here's the point I am trying to make.... this never left a committee... I mean, a rudimentary understanding of how the Senate works will point out that Obama had neither any influence or say on what happened to this bill... The committees are (normally) composed equally of Republicans and Democrats, to reflect the percentage in the senate, with the chairman coming from the MAJORITY party.... if you look at the 109th Congress, that refused to let this bill out of the committee stage, you will see a Republican majority.... the committee was chaired by Republican Richard Shelby... and had a two member Republican majority....

That being said.... So what? I don't blame the Republican majority for killing this bill... I looked at it... it was bad legislation.... It hampered HUD from helping people... it restricted social programs.... it barred non-profits who had ever engaged in political arenas from assisting the needy.... It was bad legislation.... But let's make one thing clear... The committee was not chaired by Chris Dodd, or any other Democrat... It was chaired and ran by a REPUBLICAN majority who never let it go to the floor... Let's traffic in honesty on this....

....as far as the contributions to Obama... all of Obama's contributions came from individual employees and are recorded as such. That makes it a bit misleading when we are talking about money flowing between the two... I couldn't find a single PAC donation in the lot....


I am not giving up on this, I believe there is something there. I know you want to help people, especially poor, needy. I grew up that way, I would have liked a house, we could not afford one, that is the key. All the items you state as reasons you did not like, are some of the main reasons this system failed.

Please do not make this dem vs rep, you are making it more complicated than it needs to be, this is two guys running for POTUS, and the country in a bad economic way for reasons ONE of them recognized years ago, and took steps to avert.

If Obama didn't shoot this down, tell me what did he do to try and prevent it? He had a chance. MD is always saying how great his decision making is, well what did he do? We see that McCain tried something, please what did the great Obama do? I know, even if nobody else will back me up that he would do NOTHING that was against the wishes of the higher ups at fannie, and freddie.

I am going to read (not looking forward to it) the entire bill, to try and find the things you say make it bad legislation, so far I see nothing.

phinfan3411
09-18-2008, 06:55 PM
I was referring to this part of his statement:


I felt that was a valid case from Obama, based on McCain's record. I didn't address the particular bill P4311 presented, because i felt it was one instance..I felt McCain's total body of work on the issue of deregulation was more of a judge of him than one issue, I should have made myself clearer..


You act like we need to regulate everything, yeah thats the ticket, Uncle Sams hand in every facet of life here in the good ol' USA. Somethings need regulation, one of the candidates realized it one got payed not to.

MDFINFAN
09-18-2008, 10:45 PM
You act like we need to regulate everything, yeah thats the ticket, Uncle Sams hand in every facet of life here in the good ol' USA. Somethings need regulation, one of the candidates realized it one got payed not to.

Hmm, where did I say that...I merely pointed out that for McCain now to come and say regulators didn't do their jobs, or act like he's in favor of regulation when he's clearly been a deregulator is simply disingenious..that's all, I think regulation is base on need, not just blanket coverage, especially when you don't need it. That's my personal view, expressed for the first time, thank you.. McCain is a deregulator P3411 period.. He's for less regulation and always have been...that's the truth and the facts. Your argument on this one issue is your argument, notice I didn't debate you on it. But McCain rheotric of late doesn't match his long held stances.. sorry it just doesn't...but I know flip flop is okay for a canidate that you support..and not tolerated for those you don't, I get it..:up:

phinfan3411
09-18-2008, 11:03 PM
Hmm, where did I say that...I merely pointed out that for McCain now to come and say regulators didn't do their jobs, or act like he's in favor of regulation when he's clearly been a deregulator is simply disingenious..that's all, I think regulation is base on need, not just blanket coverage, especially when you don't need it. That's my personal view, expressed for the first time, thank you.. McCain is a deregulator P3411 period.. He's for less regulation and always have been...that's the truth and the facts. Your argument on this one issue is your argument, notice I didn't debate you on it. But McCain rheotric of late doesn't match his long held stances.. sorry it just doesn't...but I know flip flop is okay for a canidate that you support..and not tolerated for those you don't, I get it..:up:

I cannot even begin to decifer this post. I know McCain is not a regulator, I believe I was trying to argue that not everything needs to be regulated....do you follow?

He tried to reform/regulate the very things that have just come tumbling down all around us JUST LIKE HE SAID THEY WOULD, and Obama did not lift a finger, would not ever.

This is not my opinion, this connection between Obama and all these failed financial institutions is all over the net EVERYWHERE. Google "Obama fannie", "obama freddie", Obama lehman, and read, believe it or not there IS a connection! If you don't like that look at his staff, maybe....oh...financial advisor, who would you find there huh? Boy, why would a guy as smart as Obama want a guy that ran his company into the ground as his financial advisor? hmmmmm. Geez, yeah no connection.

Dolphan7
09-18-2008, 11:24 PM
Hmm, where did I say that...I merely pointed out that for McCain now to come and say regulators didn't do their jobs, or act like he's in favor of regulation when he's clearly been a deregulator is simply disingenious..that's all, I think regulation is base on need, not just blanket coverage, especially when you don't need it. That's my personal view, expressed for the first time, thank you.. McCain is a deregulator P3411 period.. He's for less regulation and always have been...that's the truth and the facts. Your argument on this one issue is your argument, notice I didn't debate you on it. But McCain rheotric of late doesn't match his long held stances.. sorry it just doesn't...but I know flip flop is okay for a canidate that you support..and not tolerated for those you don't, I get it..:up:If MCain is for de-regulation, and I am not arguing that point, then why did he support regulation in this instance?

That is the first question. The second question is has he flipped on this specific issue?

poornate
09-18-2008, 11:26 PM
Please do not make this dem vs rep....

If Obama didn't shoot this down, tell me what did he do to try and prevent it? He had a chance. MD is always saying how great his decision making is, well what did he do? We see that McCain tried something, please what did the great Obama do? I know, even if nobody else will back me up that he would do NOTHING that was against the wishes of the higher ups at fannie, and freddie.

I am going to read (not looking forward to it) the entire bill, to try and find the things you say make it bad legislation, so far I see nothing.

Save your time... whatever you do or do not find does nothing to change my position... Obama had been in the Senate for three weeks when this went to committee... a committee he wasn't on.... A committee that the Republicans were running.... He had never received any money from either institution... He had no ties to them...Where is the connection? There isn't one...

I don't care what the legislation angle is... McCain didn't write it... but perhaps he co-sponsored it for all of the right reasons...There was a time where I believe he tried to always do the right thing... I have given him lots of credit for the past...you know that.... that doesn't even really matter to me... Because it died in committee... it was a nothing... a note to friends...

MDFINFAN
09-19-2008, 12:14 AM
I cannot even begin to decifer this post. I know McCain is not a regulator, I believe I was trying to argue that not everything needs to be regulated....do you follow?

He tried to reform/regulate the very things that have just come tumbling down all around us JUST LIKE HE SAID THEY WOULD, and Obama did not lift a finger, would not ever.

This is not my opinion, this connection between Obama and all these failed financial institutions is all over the net EVERYWHERE. Google "Obama fannie", "obama freddie", Obama lehman, and read, believe it or not there IS a connection! If you don't like that look at his staff, maybe....oh...financial advisor, who would you find there huh? Boy, why would a guy as smart as Obama want a guy that ran his company into the ground as his financial advisor? hmmmmm. Geez, yeah no connection.

P4311 I didn't debate you on the one issue because by the time I started to get back into the debate poornate had already pointed out what I was going to say....so I left it along.. again I'm not arguring with you on the McCain bill here...it's one instance he tried to do something regulation wise, that's not the norm is all I'm saying... that's it.. you can have the last word..

phinfan3411
09-19-2008, 05:55 AM
P4311 I didn't debate you on the one issue because by the time I started to get back into the debate poornate had already pointed out what I was going to say....so I left it along.. again I'm not arguring with you on the McCain bill here...it's one instance he tried to do something regulation wise, that's not the norm is all I'm saying... that's it.. you can have the last word..

I agree with you, and I agree with him, I do not believe that not being a "regulator" makes you a bad Presidential pick, especially when you made a right choice to regulate, in hindsight, the exact few companies that needed it.

Dolphins9954
09-19-2008, 09:45 AM
Save your time... whatever you do or do not find does nothing to change my position... Obama had been in the Senate for three weeks when this went to committee... a committee he wasn't on.... A committee that the Republicans were running.... He had never received any money from either institution... He had no ties to them...Where is the connection? There isn't one...

I don't care what the legislation angle is... McCain didn't write it... but perhaps he co-sponsored it for all of the right reasons...There was a time where I believe he tried to always do the right thing... I have given him lots of credit for the past...you know that.... that doesn't even really matter to me... Because it died in committee... it was a nothing... a note to friends...


Obama never recieved money from Fannie Mae? And has no connection?

What about all the money he got from them?
What about the fact that he tapped former Fannie Mae chief Jim Johnson to head his VP selection?

I've read that Obama is the second biggest recipient of money and political donations from Fannie Mae. Obama also takes alot of money from
Lehman Brothers who are also connected to Fannie Mae. And just filed for bankruptcy. Do you really believe this nonsense that Obama has no connections to these guys? Obama critizes Mccain for having former lobbyists working for his campaign. But guess what. So does Obama. This election has become a battle of two candidates and two parties living in glass houses throwing stones at each other. It's sickening.

poornate
09-19-2008, 09:56 AM
Obama never recieved money from Fannie Mae? And has no connection?

What about all the money he got from them?
What about the fact that he tapped former Fannie Mae chief Jim Johnson to head his VP selection?

I've read that Obama is the second biggest recipient of money and political donations from Fannie Mae. Obama also takes alot of money from
Lehman Brothers who are also connected to Fannie Mae. And just filed for bankruptcy. Do you really believe this nonsense that Obama has no connections to these guys? Obama critizes Mccain for having former lobbyists working for his campaign. But guess what. So does Obama. This election has become a battle of two candidates and two parties living in glass houses throwing stones at each other. It's sickening.

What's sickening is the eagerness you show to come roaring in and attack everything without bothering to read or consider the information contained in the conversation....

We are, of course, not discussing the contributions of the presidential campaign... since it is not relevant to what happened in 2005... Thanks for paying attention! :up:

Dolphins9954
09-19-2008, 10:41 AM
What's sickening is the eagerness you show to come roaring in and attack everything without bothering to read or consider the information contained in the conversation....

We are, of course, not discussing the contributions of the presidential campaign... since it is not relevant to what happened in 2005... Thanks for paying attention! :up:


Calm down buddy. Take a deep breath. Hold it. A little longer. Now let it out.

Sorry if I came in a little late on this coversation. The point I was making is that Obama does have ties and did take money from Fannie Mae. When I read that you said he didn't I didn't know that you were refering to 2005. But the fact remains that Obama has taken quite a bit of money from Fannie Mae, Lehman Brothers and the like. Obama is in no postition to critize Mccain for his ties to these guys and lobbyists. When Obama has the same ties, money and lobbyists. It's called hypocrisy.

poornate
09-19-2008, 10:47 AM
Calm down buddy. Take a deep breath. Hold it. A little longer. Now let it out.

Sorry if I came in a little late on this coversation. The point I was making is that Obama does have ties and did take money from Fannie Mae. When I read that you said he didn't I didn't know that you were refering to 2005. But the fact remains that Obama has taken quite a bit of money from Fannie Mae, Lehman Brothers and the like. Obama is in no postition to critize Mccain for his ties to these guys and lobbyists. When Obama has the same ties, money and lobbyists. It's called hypocrisy.

They ALL have ties to Fannie Mae... and Freddie Mac.... every Congressman... look at the contributions for this year in the presidential campaign... i posted the link to the numbers.... See, it's different talking to you about this stuff... because you believe in some type of fantasy land where the economic interests and the interests of government have no ties or relationship... It's impossible...

The point here is that this whole line of "He did this" and "He did that" has no merit. Look at McCain's contributors... now look at Obama's... virtually identical... because industry covers the bases... They want the support of government regardless... There are NO ties to Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae extending to Obama until he ran for POTUS... It is a moot point...

Dolphins9954
09-19-2008, 10:54 AM
They ALL have ties to Fannie Mae... and Freddie Mac.... every Congressman... look at the contributions for this year in the presidential campaign... i posted the link to the numbers.... See, it's different talking to you about this stuff... because you believe in some type of fantasy land where the economic interests and the interests of government have no ties or relationship... It's impossible...

The point here is that this whole line of "He did this" and "He did that" has no merit. Look at McCain's contributors... now look at Obama's... virtually identical... because industry covers the bases... They want the support of government regardless... There are NO ties to Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae extending to Obama until he ran for POTUS... It is a moot point...


It's not a moot point when Obama goes after Mccain for the same exact thing that he does as well. That's the point.

poornate
09-19-2008, 11:02 AM
It's not a moot point when Obama goes after Mccain for the same exact thing that he does as well. That's the point.

Obama hasn't spent a generation fighting to deregulate finance... so he should blast away as far as I'm concerned...

Dolphins9954
09-19-2008, 11:14 AM
Obama hasn't spent a generation fighting to deregulate finance... so he should blast away as far as I'm concerned...


Obama has the same exact ties, money and lobbyists. That puts him in no position what so ever to go after Mccain and critize him for doing the same exact thing that he does. Don't you see that? Don't you get it?
It's no different than the pot calling the kettle black.

poornate
09-19-2008, 11:16 AM
Obama has the same exact ties, money and lobbyists. That puts him in no position what so ever to go after Mccain and critize him for doing the same exact thing that he does. Don't you see that? Don't you get it?
It's no different than the pot calling the kettle black.

But this is only true if I am able to work from your false and misguided opinion that there is a vast homogenized politic that harbors greed and ill-will before all other interests..... well? I can't do that... I believe that they take money... so what... their goals and agendas are different...

Dolphins9954
09-19-2008, 11:36 AM
But this is only true if I am able to work from your false and misguided opinion that there is a vast homogenized politic that harbors greed and ill-will before all other interests..... well? I can't do that... I believe that they take money... so what... their goals and agendas are different...


So it's OK for Obama to critize people for doing the same exact thing that he does. Now I get it.:up:

You really believe that politicians have our interests at heart? And all this money they get from Special Interests, Lobbyists and Big Business doesn't affect them? It's a forgone conclusion that Washington doesn't care for the people. They no longer follow the Constitution. They take away our rights and liberties. They put us in major debt. They tax us to mush. They spend to much. The government and Washington have become a burden on the people. And the billions that Special Interests, Lobbyists and Big Business pump into Washington every year. Assures the fact that they will get what they want. And we the people get the short end of the stick every time.

poornate
09-19-2008, 11:42 AM
What a fresh and new perspective... I've never heard this point of view from you before...

Dolphins9954
09-19-2008, 11:50 AM
What a fresh and new perspective... I've never heard this point of view from you before...


Once again you got nothing to say.

If you really believe that all this money that Special Interest, Lobbyists and Big Business gives to Washington every year. Doesn't affect the government and politicians. Then you my friend have the "false and misguided opinion".

poornate
09-19-2008, 12:03 PM
I don't think it doesn't affect them... i just am able to realize that it is evened out by two things... One, in the end we hire and fire with votes... this makes them somewhat responsible for their actions... number two... for every force there is an equal and opposite... for every dollar McCain takes from one interest, Obama takes from another... Obama is for the government regulating finance... Therefore interests that support that stance will try and support his campaign to ensure that he wins... McCain is for military spending... therefore Lockheed Martin will try to get him elected... Obama is a lawyer who will perhaps appoint as many as three Supreme Court Justices... lawyers see an opportunity to i9mprove teh judiciary in his presidency and curb some of the activist conservative tendencies of the current court.... so lawyers will contribute to Obama... it makes sense... it doesn't mean it is all bad.... Why do you think the Constitution was written in the first place? Taxes and money... How do you expect us to escape what makes us, us?

phinfan3411
09-19-2008, 12:25 PM
This has gone passed the question I should have asked from the begining. I think we can all agree that we have a terrible problem on our hands with the financial market. In particular a few lenders like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, can we agree that these three have been a large portion of this huge problem?

If we can agree here, it seems we have two main candidates, and in this thread we have seen where McCain at least, saw the problem, and tried to do something about it. Obama, we have been told is so smart, and a change, and on, and on..... Please I just have one question to try, and tie all my ramblings together. Please show me something, even a bill that got stuck in committee, like the one in question, where Obama identified the problem, and tried to solve it, for the institutions IN QUESTION, you know the ones that just went down the tubes.

If you can show this, I will concede all points to you, and appoint you supreme ruler of the universe, or srotu for short.

MDFINFAN
09-19-2008, 12:34 PM
Once again you got nothing to say.

If you really believe that all this money that Special Interest, Lobbyists and Big Business gives to Washington every year. Doesn't affect the government and politicians. Then you my friend have the "false and misguided opinion".

From you perspective, should we just forget about voting or should we just start a new government say put the capitol of the US in the heart of the country and go from there and ignore DC?

poornate
09-19-2008, 12:39 PM
The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.

2/14/2006--Introduced.
Stopping Transactions which Operate to Promote Fraud, Risk, and Underdevelopment Act or the STOP FRAUD Act - Amends federal criminal law to make it unlawful for any mortgage professional (as defined by this Act) to execute, or attempt to execute, a scheme or artifice to: (1) defraud any natural person or financial institution in connection with the offer of consumer credit secured by an interest in real property, or in personal property used or expected to be used as a principal dwelling; or (2) falsely obtain any money or property from a natural person in connection with an extension of consumer credit secured by an interest in real property, or in personal property used or expected to be used as the principal dwelling of such natural person.
Provides for: (1) fines and/or imprisonment for violations of such provisions; and (2) a private right of action.
Includes within the definition of "financial institution" for specified federal monetary transaction provisions the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), mortgage appraisers, real estate accountants, real estate attorneys, real estate brokers, mortgage underwriters, mortgage processors, mortgage settlement and title companies, mortgage brokers, mortgage loan originators, and any other mortgage professional engaged in the mortgage industry.
Amends the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to provide tenants, homeowners, and other consumers with mortgage fraud counseling.

Introduced by Obama... In the U.S. Senate, Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud and provide more protections for low-income homebuyers... Incorrect income reporting to secure loans beyond the brorrowers means causede a lot of this turmoil... the lack of accountability encouraged the continuation of this practice... Obama introduced a bill to change it... one that he actually authored... Died in committee... So it is, as McCain's bill was, irrelevant... But i still like S.R.O.T.U.... it has a nice ring to it... and I need something to feel good about...

FinFatale
09-19-2008, 12:48 PM
"Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged Freddie Mac
had engaged in accounting fraud from 2000 to 2002, imposing a $50
million fine on the company and on four executives fines for amounts
ranging from $65,000 to $250,000.

Raines currently advises Obama on housing policy.

Johnson was appointed to head Obama's vice presidential selection
committee, until a controversy concerning an alleged $7 millions in
questionable real estate loans he received on favorable terms from
failed sub-prime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial surfaced and
forced him to step down.

WND previously reported a panel chaired by Elena Kagan, dean and
professor of law at Harvard Law School, speculated at the June two-day
meeting of the American Constitution Society that Gorelick was a
possible attorney general cabinet appointment if Obama should be
elected president."

http://www.mail-archive.com/abc_politics_forum@googlegroups.com/msg20418.html

so just in two years............Senator obama got in so deep with these guys????????

Dolphins9954
09-19-2008, 12:53 PM
From you perspective, should we just forget about voting or should we just start a new government say put the capitol of the US in the heart of the country and go from there and ignore DC?


Your vote this election won't matter because both candidates will have the same exact result. So you really have no choice at all. Choice is an illusion. There really isn't much difference at all betweens the two candidates and parties. The best course of action (besides a Revolution). Would be to start a third party or back a truly independent candidate that will bring true change and not "more of the same". That has already started with Ron Paul, Nader and all the other third party candidates combining together to offer a true opposition party and will offer a clear difference. That's the best chance we have right now. Because both parties don't have any solutions at all.

BillParFan
09-19-2008, 06:44 PM
Calm down buddy. Take a deep breath. Hold it. A little longer. Now let it out.

Sorry if I came in a little late on this coversation. The point I was making is that Obama does have ties and did take money from Fannie Mae. When I read that you said he didn't I didn't know that you were refering to 2005. But the fact remains that Obama has taken quite a bit of money from Fannie Mae, Lehman Brothers and the like. Obama is in no postition to critize Mccain for his ties to these guys and lobbyists. When Obama has the same ties, money and lobbyists. It's called hypocrisy.

You want HYPOCRISY?

Aquiles Suarez is listed as an economic adviser to McCains campaign! I'd gladly give you the link to the McCain press release but like so many other things they removed the info.

Who is Suarez?

He oversaw the lending giant's $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.

The bill was a joke that couldn't even make it to the floor for a vote in a REPUBLICAN held congress!:sidelol:

Did you even READ this bill?

"Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act(oversight) to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation(no oversight). Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation. Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements."

Dolphins9954
09-19-2008, 07:41 PM
You want HYPOCRISY?

Aquiles Suarez is listed as an economic adviser to McCains campaign! I'd gladly give you the link to the McCain press release but like so many other things they removed the info.

Who is Suarez?

He oversaw the lending giant's $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.

The bill was a joke that couldn't even make it to the floor for a vote in a REPUBLICAN held congress!:sidelol:

Did you even READ this bill?

"Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act(oversight) to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation(no oversight). Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation. Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements."



Calm down buddy. If you know anything about me. You would know that I attack Mccain as well. I don't support him or the GOP at all. Both candidates have the same exact ties to big business and special interests. Both candidates will give us the same exact result. No difference at all.

phinfan3411
09-19-2008, 08:46 PM
A few things, number one, I think 9954 is probably more correct than any of us.

Number two, Nate, can you give me a link to that bill, I would like to read it before I comment.

Number three, Bill par fan, what bill are you talking about, I have been reading the 2005 housing reform act, if this is the one you are talking about, where is it, I do not recall that.

poornate
09-19-2008, 10:33 PM
... Nate, can you give me a link to that bill, I would like to read it before I comment.


Your wish is my command... I think section 3 point A item 3 will be of special interest to you...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2280

poornate
09-21-2008, 11:42 PM
3411? Have you decided this doesn't pass muster in making me the s.r.o.t.u.?

phinfan3411
09-22-2008, 12:06 PM
I honestly do not want to argue this point any longer, but to be honest with you, I do not see how you can read both bills and think they are designed to do close to the same thing. One of them is designed to rein in a few companies that had gone off, whether McCain actually wrote it or not, he cosponsered it.

Obama's is not aimed at the same thing, read his statements, the bill itself (its not that long), and I do not see where it tried to rein in these companies at all.

MDFINFAN
09-22-2008, 12:27 PM
Hey Miami won, so I'm going to be nice no matter what the subject for the next week.. McCain's nice, so is Obama...one's a deregulator, one's not.. One has long voted for degulations, the other hasn't, but has voted to deregulate in his life time, at the state level that is. Doesn't matter at this point, these are things we have to consider during this election..