Re: Question for Aaron

by **ohio county** Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:14 am

Bush is a douchebag.

by ziggy Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:43 am

Why does it take 8 years for honest Republicans to admit that? And the less than honest ones never will admit it.

by Aaron Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:23 am

ziggy wrote:Why does it take 8 years for honest Republicans to admit that? And the less than honest ones never will admit it.

For the same reason no democrat has ever admitted Bill Clinton is a lying sack of man whore and partisans still defend him today. But then you know that, right Frank!!!

by Aaron Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:57 am

I don't think you've taken sides Jimmy and I don't think this bodes well for either party or candidacy. Last week I thought it looked really bad for Obama but over the weekend, he didn't say much while McCain was out there trying to hit Obama hard with this and I think it may have backfired given that McCain's calling himself a regulator when he indeed did vote for de-regulation.

The one thing that I thought was interesting coming out of yesterdays news shows is that democrats are worried this is going to prevent Obama (if elected) from implementing his health care agenda. Cokie Roberts said that while she didn't prescribe to the conspiracy theories, there were Obama supporters who believed this was done intentionally by this administration to hamper an Obama Presidency.

George Will pointed out that as Obama's proposed spending is much greater then McCain's, this indeed hurts his potential presidency more.

Thoughts?

by **ohio county** Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:17 pm

I got an e-mail this morning from a woman who purports to be my cousin and lives in Western Australia. That she has never asked me for money makes me suspicious. She says, however, that they are "feeling the pinch" from our little crisis and watching it closely. While I don't believe Bush is a complete idiot, I don't think he could engineer a global financial crisis and cover his tracks.

That's very interesting. I suspect we all agree that Obama stands to outspend McCain depending who is elected. So, yes, it could make Obama a one-termer. I don't think Americans will easily allow one party to control every branch of government. We always hear how the public doesn't like partisan squabbling, right? Then why do they nearly always vote in such a way that it is assured?

by **ohio county** Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:39 pm

I don't know how anybody feels about Newt Gingrich and I'm not sure I fully understand everything he proposes here but this is the most specific recipe I've seen yet:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGE5MmE0YmRiODA3YTRiNzFlN2FmNDU5N2I0ZDc3YTE=

by Aaron Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:14 pm

I think the single largest contribution factor or our financial problems are the lack of oversight by both parties. I agree, Congress must slow down, debate this bill, stop using scare tactics and make sure it is what is truly needed.

Question Three: Will the Paulson plan be implemented with transparency and oversight?

Answer: Implementation of the Paulson plan is going to be a mess. It is going to be a great opportunity for lobbyists and lawyers to make a lot of money. Who are the financial magicians Paulson is going to hire? Are they from Wall Street? If they’re from Wall Street, aren't they the very people we are saving? And doesn’t that mean that we’re using the taxpayers’ money to hire people to save their friends with even more taxpayer money? Won't this inevitably lead to crony capitalism? Who is going to do oversight? How much transparency is there going to be? We still haven't seen the report which led to bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is "secret". Is our $700 billion going to be spent in "secret" too? In practical terms, will a bill be written in public so people can analyze it? Or will it be written in a closed room by the very people who have been collecting money from the institutions they are now going to use our money to bail out?

by TerryRC Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:45 pm

Question for Aaron - Page 2 10fannie.graphic

Let us not forget that McCain's campaign manager was paid $2 million to defend Fannie & Freddie against stricter regulations.

I wonder how hard it is to get NZ citizenship? Halfway around the world from this shiat seems about right.

by Aaron Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:00 pm

Seems you'res and Jimmy's numbers don't quite add up Terry.

ohio county wrote:
3. Obama, Barack
S
D-IL
$105,849

by TerryRC Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:03 pm

Check with the FEC and the Times.

by Aaron Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:28 pm

So your saying Obama hasn't received in excess of $100k from Fannie/Freddie Terry?

by **ohio county** Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:58 pm

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html

This is where my information originated.

by TerryRC Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:21 am

So your saying Obama hasn't received in excess of $100k from Fannie/Freddie Terry?

I don't know, Aaron. I'll bet that McCain has, though.

I had seen Jimmy's #'s a few days ago and ran across those in the Times with their source as the FEC.

How about that bit about McCain's campaign manager [Terry Nelson], though!

by sodbuster Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:50 am

Nelson is not the only McCain insider that should raise your eyebrows either.

How about the Souleman guy? (sp?)

But maybe that's how it's done in politics.

They say you cant fool those dingleberry gnats...

by Aaron Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:01 am

What did you think of Newt's take on this S?

Do you think the government should provide the $700B for the bailout and give all that power to the Treasury secretary?

by Aaron Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:03 am

As for who's to blame, I think both parties are responsible and I don't believe either candidate will do any better job then the other to clean up this mess as both have taken 7 figures donations from the financial industry.

by sodbuster Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:35 am

Well Aaron I have a basic understanding of points 3 and 4, not too much on point 2, and I don't have a clue on #1.

I will re-post #1 and maybe someone can explain in lay terms...

"First, suspend the mark-to-market rule which is insanely driving companies to unnecessary bankruptcy. If short selling can be suspended on 799 stocks (an arbitrary number and a warning of the rule by bureaucrats which is coming under the Paulson plan), the mark-to-market rule can be suspended for six months and then replaced with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market. "

by Aaron Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:11 am

I can't explain it but from everything I've read over the past few days, much of what is going on could have been prevented simply by the government changing regulations regarding short selling and posting to the market. Once again, a great deal of this could have been prevented by government oversite.

by sodbuster Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:19 am

Well you are still over my head.

I dont know what posting to the market or mark to market...

And not even a real clear understanding of the criticism of short selling...

by Sponsored content