McCain Names Names

Today in a town hall meeting McCain is asked if he becomes president would he investigate the housing crisis and name names. He responded with yes and went on to name the names Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The audience went nuts.

He should have put BHO at the top of the list.

Shocking!!...McCain trying to pin the blame on the Democrats!?... I don't believe it!!

(he didn't happen to mention the name of GW Bush did he?......You know.....The President for the last 8 years!)

or he could just point & say...."That one"

chemung wrote:Today in a town hall meeting McCain is asked if he becomes president would he investigate the housing crisis and name names. He responded with yes and went on to name the names Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The audience went nuts.

Wow, McCain once again sticks his foot in his mouth. Thanks for posting the joke.

Good to see McCain going on the attack to expose the democrat crooks that made SURE the financial crisis was going to happen..
Under the dem plan, a bank that did not want to lend on a poor risk loan was deemed..... wait for it.... RACIST.
Okay you knew that was coming.
SO in order not to be "RACIST", the banks were FORCED to lend to people who obviously could not afford what they were buying.

The current crisis is brought to you by the dems and political *correctness*

Good to see McCain going on the attack to expose the democrat crooks that made SURE the financial crisis was going to happen..
Under the dem plan, a bank that did not want to lend on a poor risk loan was deemed..... wait for it.... RACIST.
Okay you knew that was coming.
SO in order not to be "RACIST", the banks were FORCED to lend to people who obviously could not afford what they were buying.

The current crisis is brought to you by the dems and political *correctness*

Okay, so that means blacks are the only poor folks, or were you implying that whites are the poor? Better yet, you tell us who you meant so words aaren't being placed in your mouth. And by lending to the poor, which, by the way is not the main problem here. Did you also see where your boy McCain is a Socialist? He wants to buy the loans, renegotiate the value of the properties and change the loans to fixed loans based on the present property values. Funny how quickly the country can sell out a philosophy. Say good by to Capitalism, the GOP just twisted the guts out of it. So, do you have any clue what you are talking about or are you just shooting spew for fun?

[removed text]

Good place to put this:

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=ht ... _modules=1

kootch88 wrote: So, do you have any clue what you are talking about or are you just shooting spew for fun?

Well there's been numerous facts and articles pointed out as to why the Democrats are to blame for this most of which I nicely consolidated in this post:

Crisis Timeline, an Indictment

I'll note that no one on the Democratic side of this has been able to point to facts. Just the facts... I'm not done yet, far from it... Feel free to comment on any of the FACTS that I have posted in that thread.




Edit: just add the Clinton and Democratic policies emphasized low income AND minority loans. Low income Home ownership has exploded over the last decade and half particularly for minorities under the stewardship of Democrats. The racist part comes in when the Republicans question these policies based on their soundness as any reigning in of these policies would disproportionally effect minorities.

The link below is audio from a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee held in 2003, in which both Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines and Freddie Mac representatives were called to testify. Barney Frank (D) MA. ask them if Fannie and Freddie are under-regulated?

Audio: http://www.conservativepunk.com/media/a ... n_2003.mp3

This is how it's reported:
Alina Cho checks out Sen. John McCain's claim that Sen. Barack Obama was in favor of subprime loans at one point.

Video: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politi ... .prime.cnn

BO was for sub prime mortgages until "Certain lenders and brokers, quote, began to lower their standards, Obama said, and borrowers — well, they ended up in places they could never afford."

Hey isn't that the definition of a sub prime, lenders and brokers lowering their standards and borrowers ending up in places they could never afford.

Richard S. wrote:

So are we to infer that high homeownership rates = bad policy? The chart keeps climbing up after 2001 when GWB had a a rubber-stamp _Republican_ congress, appears to level off but doesn't decline, after 2003 when both houses were Republican controlled. Glad to see they did something about the disastrous policies of promoting home ownership.

Hypothetically, IF (a big *IF*) the next administration is Dem and home ownership rates decline is that _good_?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html

In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities.

American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;

One side will make bad policy, then other side will then exploit it for their advantage, while blaming the originating party for the resulting mess. Banks and Wall st. made how much off bad loans?

We can spend days quoting each other facts, charts and political mumbojumbo, none of which address' the fact that both sides of our one party system are out to destroy the middle class.

Corporate welfare or Social welfare, take your choice - notice that both only affect the middle class?. Until there is a major change in US political parties (or the US electorate) the cycle will continue, and at election cycle both parties will use buzzwords and non-issues to keep the masses to distracted from the real problems at hand.

I've never seen a political poll with a "none of the above" choice - it would be interesting to see the results.

(Wish it would get cold so I could watch coal burn instead of entering to political threads )

djackman wrote:So are we to infer that high homeownership rates = bad policy?

High RESPONSIBLE home ownership = good policy.

High IRRESPONSIBLE (sub prime) home ownership = bad policy

The downturn in the market has nothing to do with republicans or Democrats or for that matter with independents. Look at who is making money in the markets right now, the rich are, why because they are and will always be calling the shots. Rich man says I will let you borrow money from me at 10 percent and I want part of the business to. What does business do, well they should of said hell no but to our surprise it was yes. why didn't they go to the fed for funds, everyone else is. Warren Buffet is a good man with deep pockets but the fed has said many times that they have the deepest pockets.

We are being scammed to the hilt, why do we even know any of this. only reason I know of is so the little guys that had a pocket full of change in the market looses his nerve and his shirt in the process. The rich didn't get rich by keeping there mouth shut.

One other thing a broker could care less if you win or loose as long as you keep trading he gets paid. Hmmmm thats just like a republican or democrat they don't care either cause they still get paid.

djackman wrote:So are we to infer that high homeownership rates = bad policy?

If the people that purchased the houses can't afford them than yes. Find some graphs for foreclosure rates and they all mimic that graph. I can't find any at the moment that are public domain so I won't post it here. Foreclosure rates drop after Bush takes office with a steady decline until about 2 or 3 years ago when they begin an upward trend then sky rocket in the last year.

These foreclosures are fueled by Democratic policies going back to 1995 when Clinton changed the CRA rules which I'm still trying to figure out since he did it unilaterally. Do you really think these mortgage comapnies would be writing policies to these people if they didn't think it would be backed by the MAC's? The MAC's in my opion are the cornerstone for this collapse. They held like 50% of U.S. mortages...

The bottom line is this, everything I come across points to Republican wanting to reign in the Mac's starting in 2003 with Bush's proposal and again in 2004 with the video everyone has seen and yet again in 2006 from McCain. They wanted to bring them under control and on the Democratic side of the aisle "there is nothing wrong" ... That's a direct quote FYI.

Richard S. wrote:The bottom line is this, everything I come across points to Republican wanting to reign in the Mac's starting in 2003 with Bush's proposal and again in 2004 with the video everyone has seen and yet again in 2006 from McCain.

My bottom line is this Richard: Republicans had complete control of both the White House & Congress through 2006. Why didn't they reign in the Macs then? (my answer: Because their corporate buddies were making tons of $$$$$ while their Congressional hearings distracted us with investigations of steroid use in baseball & Terry Schiavo)