Couldn’t agree more, however, there are lot’s of Republicans and Democrats who are really opposed to this, just like there are lots of Democrats and Republicans who support it. We’ll see how they actually vote, but I doubt it will be as partisan as you portray it.
Incidentally, here’s Obama on the reshaping the economy long before it was politically expedient to do so:
Obama’s plan to change the economy
[quote]“Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it,” said Obama. He reached all the way back to the first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, in his effort to argue from first principles that government has the right and responsibility to intervene in the economy to ensure that the few do not benefit at the expense of the many. He referenced the 1999 repeal of the provision in the Glass-Steagall Act that previously separated commercial and investment banking. He even declared that it was “time to realign incentives and compensation packages, so that both high level executives and employees better serve the interests of shareholders” – a broadside unlikely to win him a lot of votes in downtown Manhattan (or at the fundraiser at the investment bank Credit-Suisse that Obama headed to after his speech, as was helpfully pointed out by the Clinton campaign).
The comparison with Sen. John McCain’s speech on Tuesday could not be more stark. Obama’s jibe – that McCain’s “plan … amounts to little more than watching this crisis happen,” is not off the mark. McCain took great pains to stress his intent to intervene in the workings of Wall Street as minimally as possible. For those deluded souls who might still think there is no significant difference between the two major parties in the United States, a review of McCain’s and Obama’s speeches this week is in order. They are like bookends at opposite ends of the economics shelf. Obama snuggles up to John Maynard Keynes, while McCain seeks the warm embrace of Milton Friedman. Obama sounded like he understood what he was talking about. McCain sounded like he was reading a speech designed to make him look like he understood what was going on. [/quote]
Oh, and let me receive major kudos for being the first to post this little doosy (sp?):
[quote]The lobbying firm of Rick Davis, Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) campaign manager, remains on the payroll of mortgage giant Freddie Mac, according to two sources with knowledge of the arrangement.
The firm, Davis Manafort, has collected $15,000 a month from the organization since late 2005, when Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae dissolved a five-year-old advocacy group that Davis earned nearly $2 million leading, the sources said. [/quote]
Mamma Mia! And I thought this thing was lost!
McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac
[quote]One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.
The disclosure undercuts a remark by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.
Mr. Davis’s firm received the payments from the company, Freddie Mac, until it was taken over by the government this month along with Fannie Mae, the other big mortgage lender whose deteriorating finances helped precipitate the cascading problems on Wall Street, the two people said.[/quote]
Oh, I just can’t wait to send this to everyone and their uncle!
PS - blaming Clinton and the Democrats for the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999 is totally bogus:
[quote]Repeal of the Glass Steagall Act
The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[7] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[8]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [/quote]
Aii yooo…what is this? Gotcha posting?
First, Rick Davis left that firm st the beginning of 2006. He received no monetary gain from the firm after he left it.
Second, it was a business. Businesses are set-up to make money. Now I know making money is a terrible terrible thing to some fringe groups. But to intelligent people its what makes life possible. Not everyone wants the ‘big bad gubernment’ to wipe their ass from cradle to grave.
Clinton* was POTUS in 1999. His watch. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was pushed as an act to allow the ‘modernization’ of banking and to strengthen customers personal financial records security. It was aka as ‘The Financial Modernization Act of 1999.’
per Investopedia
[i]"A regulation that Congress passed on November 12, 1999, which attempts to update and modernize the financial industry. The main function of the Act was to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act that said banks and other financial institutions were not allowed to offer financial services, like investments and insurance-related services, as part of normal operations.
The act is also known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act.
Investopedia Says… Due to the horrific losses incurred as a result of 1929’s Black Tuesday and Thursday, the Glass-Steagall act was created originally during the 1930s in order to prevent bank depositors from additional exposure to risk associated with stock market volatilities. As a result, for many years, banks were not legally allowed to act as brokers. Since many regulations have been instituted since the 1930s to protect bank depositors, GLBA was created to allow the financial industry to offer more services. "[/i]
What this created was an situation where banks were now placed under Federal jurisdiction as to the standards of eligibility they were to accept from loan applicants. No longer were banks allowed to require accountability for applicants based on the banks standards of loan re-payment. Ergo, items like this began to occur:
Fraudera Ranch: It’s a Family Affair!
This is not an isolated occurrence…now multiply this and insert reckless ‘flipping’ without accountability and you see the results of this de-regulation.
Now about Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and Obama…Obama was number 2 in monies received from Fannie/Freddie. Watch the #2 video and see who #1 and 3 were.
Its not a partisan thing here. Its a scam that was allowed to fester and now has burst. Lotta puss on both parties.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Aii yooo…what is this? Gotcha posting?
First, Rick Davis left that firm st the beginning of 2006. He received no monetary gain from the firm after he left it.
[/quote]
Really?
[quote] Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager, has remained the treasurer and a corporate director of his lobbying firm this year, despite repeated statements by campaign officials that he had ended his relationship with the firm in 2006, according to corporate records.
…
In its initial statements to reporters this week, the McCain campaign said that the disclosure of the payments from Freddie Mac was irrelevant because Davis, who was never a registered lobbyist for the troubled housing corporation, had severed his relationship with Davis Manafort in 2006, and was no longer drawing any income from it. Jill Hazelbaker, the campaign’s communications director, said in an e-mail Tuesday that Davis “left” Davis Manafort in 2006. In a statement attacking The New York Times, posted on the campaign’s Web site on Wednesday, campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb said that Davis “separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006.” (A senior campaign official, in an e-mail statement to NEWSWEEK that was not for attribution on Tuesday night, said “Rick is no longer affiliated with the firm.”)
But those statements appear to have overstated the extent to which Davis had severed his relationship with his lobbying firm. Filings made by “Davis Manafort Partners” with the Virginia Corporation Commission as recently as April 1, 2008, show that Davis was still listed as one of only two corporate officers and directors of the firm, according to records on the commission’s Web site reviewed by NEWSWEEK. That filing records Davis as the “treas/clerk” of the firm; his business partner, Paul Manafort is listed as the president and chief executive officer.
Another filing by “Davis Manafort, Inc.” (with the same Alexandria, Va. address, and recorded on Oct. 17, 2007) also lists Davis as an officer and director of the firm, reporting his position as “T/Clerk,” a reference to his formal title as corporate treasurer and clerk.
…
Hazelbaker directed all other questions about the matter to Davis Manafort. (Among those questions she said she was not in a position to answer were: whether there was any documentation of Davis’s changed relationship with his firm, and why Davis Manafort continued to bill and accept the consulting fees if Davis wasn’t performing any work for Freddie Mac.) For the second day in a row, Davis Manafort did not return phone calls about the matter.[/quote]
And of course Davis is not taking phone calls and has cancelled scheduled press conferences- expect him to as hard to question as Sarah Palin.
Agreed. Any Democrat or Liberal would agree with that. Most people do have to make money to live - unless they divorce their crippled wife and marry a rich heiress, that is!
Yeah. And the legislation under discussion was written by Republicans. In fact, one of them was McCain’s current (allegedly dismissed, but I think we all know that was for show) economic advisor and likely pick for Secretary of the Treasury - a guy whose name I’d imagine you are getting very tired of! 
[quote]The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was pushed as an act to allow the ‘modernization’ of banking and to strengthen customers personal financial records security. It was aka as ‘The Financial Modernization Act of 1999.’
per Investopedia
"A regulation that Congress passed on November 12, 1999, which attempts to update and modernize the financial industry. The main function of the Act was to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act that said banks and other financial institutions were not allowed to offer financial services, like investments and insurance-related services, as part of normal operations.
The act is also known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act.
Investopedia Says… Due to the horrific losses incurred as a result of 1929’s Black Tuesday and Thursday, the Glass-Steagall act was created originally during the 1930s in order to prevent bank depositors from additional exposure to risk associated with stock market volatilities. As a result, for many years, banks were not legally allowed to act as brokers. Since many regulations have been instituted since the 1930s to protect bank depositors, GLBA was created to allow the financial industry to offer more services. "
What this created was an situation where banks were now placed under Federal jurisdiction as to the standards of eligibility they were to accept from loan applicants. No longer were banks allowed to require accountability for applicants based on the banks standards of loan re-payment. Ergo, items like this began to occur:
Fraudera Ranch: It’s a Family Affair!
This is not an isolated occurrence…now multiply this and insert reckless ‘flipping’ without accountability and you see the results of this de-regulation.[/quote]
Yeah I get all this. The point is, whose economic policies does this bill best represent? A lot of new Democrats jumped on the de-regulation, ‘Big government is over’ band-wagon in the nineties (hence the bi-partisan support for the repeal of Glass-Steagle) , but the Republicans have been for this kind of no-holds-barred, free-market-at-all-costs economic policies since Reagan.
Yep, much like McCain and just about everyone in Washington, he has a finger or two in that pie. That was my point in the post about McCain’s campaign manager.
Agreed. That is why I posted the article about Bush’s recommendation to Congress back in '03 and pointed out that obviously he was right and Democrats were wrong. I think the main point to be made out of all this is that this big de-regulation fervor was mis-guided. Now, if we accept that premise, which candidate is more likely to lead a charge for change?
[quote=“Barrack Obama”] Ironically, it was in reaction to the high taxes and some of the outmoded structures of the New Deal that both individuals and institutions in the '80s and '90s began pushing for changes to this regulatory structure. But instead of sensible reform that rewarded success and freed the creative forces of the market, too often we’ve excused and even embraced an ethic of greed, corner cutting, insider dealing, things that have always threatened the long-term stability of our economic system. Too often we’ve lost that common stake in each other’s prosperity. Now, let me be clear. The American economy does not stand still and neither should the rules that govern it. The evolution of industries often warrants regulatory reform to foster competition, lower prices or replace outdated oversight structures. Old institutions cannot adequately oversee new practices. Old rules may not fit the roads where our economy is leading. So there were good arguments for changing the rules of the road in the 1990s. Our economy was undergoing a fundamental shift, carried along by the swift currents of technological change and globalization. For the sake of our common prosperity, we needed to adapt to keep markets competitive and fair. Unfortunately, instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one, aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight. In doing so we encouraged a winner take all, anything goes environment that helped foster devastating dislocations in our economy. Deregulation of the telecommunications sector, for example, fostered competition, but also contributed to massive over-investment.
Partial deregulation of the electricity sector enabled (inaudible). Companies like Enron and WorldCom took advantage of the new regulatory environment to push the envelope, pump up earnings, disguise losses and otherwise engage in accounting fraud to make their profits look better, a practice that led investors to question the balance sheets of all companies and severely damaged public trust in capital markets. This was not the invisible hand at work. Instead, it was the hand of industry lobbyists tilting the playing field in Washington as well as an accounting industry that had developed powerful conflicts of interest and a financial sector that had fueled over-investment. A decade later we have deregulated the financial sector and we face another crisis. A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change, because the nature of business had changed. But by the time the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework. And since then we’ve overseen 21st century innovation, including the aggressive introduction of new and complex financial instruments like hedge funds and non-bank financial companies, with outdated 20th century regulatory tools. New conflicts of interest recalled the worst excesses of the past, like the outrageous news that we learned just yesterday of KPMG allowing a lender to report profits instead of losses so that both parties could make a quick buck…
…I do believe that government has a role to play in advancing our common prosperity, by providing stable macroeconomic and financial conditions for sustained growth, by demanding transparency and by ensuring fair competition in the marketplace. Our history should give us confidence that we don’t have to choose between an oppressive government-run economy and a chaotic, unforgiving capitalism. It tells us we can emerge from great economic upheavals stronger, not weaker. But we can only do so if we restore confidence in our markets, only if we rebuild trust between investors and lenders, and only if we renew that common interest between Wall Street and Main street that is the key to our long-term success. Now, as most experts agree, our economy is in a recession. To renew our economy and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again and again, we need to address not only the immediate crisis in the housing market, we also need to create a 21st-century regulatory framework and we need to pursue a bold opportunity agenda for the American people. [/quote]
Obama on ‘Renewing the American Economy’
This was said, as I’ve pointed out, back in March, when it wasn’t so politically-expedient to be in favor of “re-regulating” the finance industry. Now here’s John McCain, a few days ago:
[quote]Scott Pelley: “In 1999, you were one of the senators who helped pass deregulation of Wall Street. Do you regret that now?”
Sen. McCain: “No. I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy.”[/quote]
Which brings us full-circle back to the topic of this thread! Nice.
No argument there, the repeal was a completely bi-partisan effort. So if someone doesn’t like what was done, then they can’t just blame one party.
[quote]Scott Pelley: “In 1999, you were one of the senators who helped pass deregulation of Wall Street. Do you regret that now?”
Sen. McCain: “No. I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy.”
Which brings us full-circle back to the topic of this thread! Nice.[/quote]
You’re right, we have come full circle. And this is the big question that we as a nation face in this election. I agree with McCain that deregulation was helpful for growing the economy. I don’t think that’s really debatable. I also think it’s not debatable that the repeal also contributed to the current economic situation we have now. So the question is; do we as a nation want relative flat line growth in our economy and wages, but without drastic rises and falls in the economy? Or do we want to have economic growth that is accompanied by periodic downturns in the economy, which will leave people hurting? Personally, I support the latter, but I don’t, like many others, think that those who disagree with me are somehow stupid, or deserving of ridicule. We just have different visions for what our nation should look like.
Well, if you would describe “vastly increasing the gap between rich and poor” as “growing the economy”, then yeah, I guess I can see that.
Won’t argue with that!
However, I must ask - and no ridicule intended here, honestly: if you are an Ayn Randian, no-holds-barred Laisez Faire (sp?) Capitalism , social-Darwinist economy kind of guy, then you must be fervently opposed to the $700 billion-dollar act of altruism the government is now proposing, yes? I mean, those titans at the top of the food chain should have to stick it out, be rugged individualists, take responsibility for the consequences of their actions just like everyone else has to, ne? ‘Privatize profit but socialize responsibility’ was not a maxim extolled in Atlas Shrugged…
Also, frankly, I would LOVE love to have the debate you described (“So the question is; do we as a nation want relative flat line growth in our economy and wages, but without drastic rises and falls in the economy? Or do we want to have economic growth that is accompanied by periodic downturns in the economy, which will leave people hurting?”), but McCain won’t even admit which side of that debate he’s on. If he did, I can just about promise you he’d get stomped - which is why he’s suddenly pretending to be this Trust-busting, anti-golden parachute champion of the little guy. Will he stick to this story, if elected, though? I think not.
Thanks for the posts all you guys. Didn’t know about the CRA, and was wondering about the beginnings of the current financial meltdown. I suspect there is more to this than the CRA and subprime loans, though.
From personal experience, I do know that companies like Countrywide, for one, were offering loans to folks like me without any ANY paperwork - just my word about my finances. They didn’t even require a real appraisal when I looked into refinancing my current mortgage about a year ago. Seems kinda crazy, huh? I guess back in the heyday it was all about the profits.
Bodo
As if things are not strange enough, Bill ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton* came to the defense of John McCains bail out plan. Is that weird or what?
Bill Clinton Says Democrats Resisted Standards For Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac
[i]“It is difficult to decide which political party Bill Clinton thinks he belongs to after he praised McCain and Palin, showed his “tepid” support for Obama and now he asserted that Democrats resisted standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
"NewsBusters caught a segment from a video shown over at ABC’s Political Radar in an article titled “Bill Clinton: Don’t ‘Overly Parse’ McCain Request to Delay Debate,” and within the video embedded at the article, at the 2 minute 45 second mark in the discussion dealing with the economy, ABC’s Chris Cuomo asked Bill Clinton if Nancy Pelosi’s recent statements were “playing politics,” and Bill Clinton’s answer has taken many by surprise.
[b]Chris Cuomo, ABC News:[/b] A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?
[b]Bill Clinton:[/b] Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."[/i]
Slick accepting a part of the blame for this mess? Hmmmmm…
Here is a link to the mentioned article:
Bill Clinton: Don’t ‘Overly Parse’ McCain Request to Delay Debate
and the magnificent NewsBusters article also mentioned:
Leftwing Blogosphere Enraged Over Bill Clinton’s Defense of McCain Debate Delay Request
Also has Clinton* video.
Enjoy!
where’s the two snaps up emoticons? :bravo: :bravo: Besides, what’s $2500 per American (from every man, woman and child). 
A drop in the bucket for Oprah, but out on your ass for some of my neighbors. Oh 2009 is gonna be happy happy joy joy. :s
You know what I really miss? fred smith and his paeans to the brilliance and wonder of the George W. Bush economy.
[quote]The odds are, instead, that the U.S. government will end up having to do what governments always do in financial crises: use taxpayers’ money to pump capital into the financial system. Under the original Paulson plan, the Treasury would probably have done this by buying toxic waste for much more than it was worth — and gotten nothing in return. What taxpayers should get is what people who provide capital are entitled to: a share in ownership. And that’s what the equity sharing is about.
The Congressional plan, then, looks a lot better — a lot more adult — than the Paulson plan did. That said, it’s very short on detail, and the details are crucial. What prices will taxpayers pay to take over some of that toxic waste? How much equity will they get in return? Those numbers will make all the difference.
And in any case, it seems that we don’t have a deal.
This has to be a bipartisan plan, and not just at the leadership level. Democrats won’t pass the plan without votes from rank-and-file Republicans — and as of Thursday night, those rank-and-file Republicans were balking.
Furthermore, one non-rank-and-file Republican, Senator John McCain, is apparently playing spoiler. Earlier this week, while refusing to say whether he supported the Paulson plan, he claimed not to have had a chance to read it; the plan is all of three pages long. Then he inserted himself into the delicate negotiations over the Congressional plan, insisting on a White House meeting at which he reportedly said little — but during which consensus collapsed.
The bottom line, then, is that there do seem to be some adults in Congress, ready to do something to help us get through this crisis. But the adults are not yet in charge. [/quote]
More McCain leadership in a crisis 