Fineman: Bailout ushers in the era of Obama

Bravo! couldn't have said it better myself :)

Well if we did not constantly want to borrow, we wouldn't be in this mess. Cut your credit cards and pay them off, giving the banks the money they lent you. If you don't have the resources available to buy something, then don't buy. We don't need credit, we need creditability--something the United States has lost.

Josh, I think it says that this is a good day for representatlive democracy. Two thirds of Americans are not being patriotic. They are being simplistic. They think this will just take money from them.

I think Mr. Fineman has written a very insightful piece on why this is the beginning of the Obama era. The only thing I would have liked more of is how McCain has been absolutely for this trail of deregulation before he was against it. It was considered polite to not mention the Keating Five. Now it is absolutely germane.

Time for a change, which will have its own problems, certainly.

SHERMAN McCOY for Bail-out Czar !!!!

JSHAY -- Americans AREN'T clear on the risks to their own lives if the bail out fails.

Americans have demonstrated themselves as being unable to pay attention to the actual issues time and time again in the past two decades

Also, this is NOT the end of capitalism but hopefully the beginning of an era where we slow down or even avert the bubble / crash and burn cycles we continuoulsy get ourslves into in this country with rampant unchecked capitalism.

We are focusing on executives who intend to walk away from the mess they made as millionaires. And I personally want them to be adjudicated as having breached their contracts and entitled to NO money let alone millions. But the picture is larger than that.

Who allowed this rampant greed in the first place? Oh, that would be us and our apathy.

This bail out is not the end of capitalism and certainly not the end of democracy altho it may be the end, we can hope, of the "haves and the have-mores" getting richer on the backs of the middle class.

NO SYSTEM works in the extreme NONE -- an extreme unmitigated economic situation is akin to extreme fundamentalist religions -- in the extreme capitalism supports the rampant greed and corruption and power bids of wall street and bank and corporate executives. All systems, to actually work, have to have checks and blances.

We have successfully blended socialism and capitalism in certain areas already in the US -our educational system (K - 12) is socialist -- in other words grades K - 12 are free to every American. Something pro-McCain-ers conveniently overlook.

We saw labor laws go into effect to curb the unmitigated greed of the robber barons.

We saw the new deal, which was a bail-out, in response to the depression.

Anti-trust laws, being violated with impunity now to our detriment, were effected to prevent what we have now -- no competition with utility providers and other suppliers.

Unmitigated greed and unchecked capitalism -- in and of itself -- leads to the destruction of capitalism NOT regulation.

Unregulated capitalism eventually impoldes on itself. It's been proved over and over again in this country.

Today's bail out is part of the same old cycle of rich people's greed under unmitigated capaitalism. We allow them to get us into trouble, eventually the entire house of cards collapses, and we have to print a bunch of fake money and make up a bunch of new laws to try to even the keel so the entire ship does not go down.

This is just the tail end of another cycle of unmitigated capitalism -- we're in the crash and burn part of the cycle.

I hope we get some socialization into health care. i watch my 85 year old mother-in-law struggling to pay for hearing aids, prescriptions, eyeglasses, general medical care -- and she has medicare and pays over $400 a month extra for health insurance to supplement medicare, and she still has horrifically insuffcient medical care. I would love to quit the horrific job I have and focus only on the crative work I love and am good at, but can't b/c I need the medical care.

Medical crises is what everyone in the US has to look forward to unless you JSAY are very very rich -- and even then. Your money will dissipate at an unbelievable rate if you ever retire due to medical care issues and costs. Medicare is nearly worthless.

McCain is a master of confusion and chaos -- we see that every single time he is faced with a major even (like a convention, or a debate) he is a drama queen. He is more of the same. We've tried the unstable, chaotic leaders and they got us where we are today.

Nobody says much about the credit of the American people. We have, in my opinion, put ourselves on the line when we let the government (both parties) railroad us into high interest on our credit cards, let people get off basically scott free when they filed bankruptcy and, of course, let the instant gratification phenomenon run wild and gave people what they wanted (i.e. fantastic houses, spectacular vacations, designer clothes, expensive jewelry) that none of them could afford. We people that have always paid our bills, lived within our means and maybe sometimes were late with a payment but never stiffed anyone, sit here....now (with our iffy credit scores) and we are ones bailing out all of the greed. Nobody said life was fair.....Here we go again......All we can hope is that the meek really do inheirit the earth.

The credit market is a result of the Democrats…. This is all public record
The Ninety-fifth United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It met in Washington, DC from January 3, 1977 to January 3, 1979, during the first two years of the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter.
Both chambers had a Democratic majority.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed into law by the 95th United States Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. Only one banker, Ron Grzywinski from ShoreBank in Chicago, testified in favor of the act.[ The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions. The CRA is enforced by the financial regulators (FDIC, OCC, OTS, and FRB).
The bill encouraged the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, to enable mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. It also encouraged the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to buy mortgages on the secondary market and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market.[ Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.
Clinton Administration Changes of 1995
In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.
These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for eview and potential revision.
Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.
Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.
George W. Bush Administration Proposed Changes of 2003
In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing.

Criticism
Some economists have claimed that the CRA encouraged risky lending.[Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has stated that an underlying assumption of the CRA – that more lending is always better for local communities – is questionable. Economist Stan Liebowitz has expressed his opinion that banks were forced to loan to un-credit worthy consumers with "no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment." However, the chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have "bragged" that to approve minority applications "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit", suggesting that, rather than being compelled to do so, Countrywide itself was responsible for relaxing its own standards.
Congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has partially attributed the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis to legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act . A Wall Street Journal editorial recently argued that the law compelled banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often could not repay them, and that this contributed in part to the sub-prime crisis.
Robert Gordon who has pointed out that approximately half of the loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities. In the later part of the crisis, these mortgage companies made subprime loans at twice the rate of CRA banks. Another third of the major subprime lenders were regulated, but had very little CRA involvement. Gordon also makes the argument that the weakening of the CRA in 2004 was followed by intensified subprime lending. Austrian economist Thomas DiLorenzo counters Gordon's statistic by arguing that even if half of the subprime loans were made by non-CRA companies, the CRA had still caused tens of billions in defaults on mortgages by unqualified borrowers. He also argues against Gordon's three main propositions stating that Gordon's first two propositions flatly contradict each other, whereas the third is unequivocally false.

One last note… OBAMA received over $105,000 in campaign funds from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. That is public record…. The Fox guarding the Hen House….. right

"....ushers in the Obama era"....bullseye...with humongess government spending and ineptitude.

One last note… OBAMA received over $105,000 in campaign funds from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. That is public record…. The Fox guarding the Hen House….. right

And McCain got over $80,000 while his campaign manager was on the payroll (to increase access to McCain) for $30,000 per month for 2 years and for $15,000 per month this year until Fannie and Freddie got taken over by the government.

You can try to blame the Democrats if you like, but to do so you must ignore McCain's quarter century of pushing deregulation and his support of Phil Gramm at your intellectual peril. The facts are not on your side.

This article is nothing more than a political commentary promoting Obama cleverly disguised as journalism and it does so while completely ignoring the facts of how the economy got to where it is now and whose fault it is. Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame and to go in to the history of how this all came about would be too much to list here.

It ends the era of Bush-Cheney-Gramm-McCain irresponsibility, deregulation and the rape of America.

Thank God. About time.

Now Obama and the rest of us are left to roll up our sleeves and get us out of this mess.

JShay: I agree with you that Americans are willing to sacrifice, but why weren't we asked to sacrifice after we went into the Iraqui war? Instead,we were told to shop, shop, shop, and the country went on a wild spending spree. That's part of the reason why we're in so much trouble now.
What I'm afraid of,however, is that if we allow the system to crash we're setting ourselves up for another depression. During the Great Depression unemployment was up to 25%. I remember those days and would hate be in that shape again.

It is time to get rid of Mr. Deregulation Mccain. First Mccain LIED about his campaign manager not receiving money from Fannie Mae and now he wants to pick and choose who he regulates. It is true folks what Mccain talked about, this government freeze, has already been happening since the war. 26 needed social programs cut and your police powers reduced to a skeleton crew. Bush has cut spending and almost every social program and you seen just the tip of the iceberg at Katrina. Do you thing the freeze Mccain is talking about means Congresses salary? No it means your programs that keep you safe. You will not notice it until it is too late.

Ushers in the Obama Era. Exactly right. Just a lot more proof who stands for big business and not the common man. A democratic designed bailout of big business. I have been reading blogs for days that say the republicans were for big business, but the smoke has now cleared.

When it all boils down to it the bank bailout couldn't fix the problem with the economy it could only satisfy the bankers that are in trouble for making irresponsible decisions. I believe the fix is to not bail them out, refinance loans at the value that Greenspan speaks of for the future; open up bankruptcy laws to allow victims to have options to file. However the option of being able to file bankruptcy on all and others will quite the concerns of the citizens. Rather its student loans to child support because it's not just the banks that have their hands in the pot of corruption that disable people from paying. The quick fix is no bailout new Bankruptcy laws. Just my opinion what do you all think.

OK Pat, The fact that this plan was put forth by the Republican administration aside, please explain why big business donates so much more to the GOP than the Dems and why the GOP consistently promotes big tax cuts and so-called incentives for Big corporations? The House GOPers even wanted more tax cuts for rich investment firms in this "bail out" package. You want four more years? How many times do you have to hit yourself in the head before you realize that it's hurting you?

It's an economic fact that without corporations there would be no jobs in America. Fact, not fiction, not opinion, fact. So if you tax companies out of existence, who's going to pay your salary? The government? Where does the government get its money? The tax payers, including corporations. It's a parasitic relationship. But if you kill the host (corporations) by bleeding them dry, then our economy dies with them.

k-12 education is not free. it is funded by the government through taxes, and it is terrible - and getting worse. something pro-obama-ers conveniently overlook. his answer to pay teachers more based on "merit" is already proving itself to be a massive failure, as teachers' unions in chicago already have raised the average pay for a teacher to $83,000, even though they only work until 1:30 in the afternoon, for 9 months of the year. and they fought as hard as they could to prevent mayor daley's proposal to extend the school day so that they might actually have enough time to actually teach their students. the "merit pay" wouldn't even be determined by student achievement, but instead the teachers' unions would be able to put together their own system for determining who deserves the pay increases.

we saw the new deal deepen and prolong the great depression while hurting the poor the most through excise taxes and continued unemployment cause by the massive tax increases and poorly thought out regulations on industry. excise taxes on things such as alcohol, cigarettes, electricity, tires, movie tickets, telephone calls, and radios all hit the poor disproportionately hard, and exceeded the tax revenue generated by the hikes in the corporate and personal income tax rates until 1937, and didn't exceed the taxes collected from the income tax increases until 1942, well after the military and industrial buildup to world war two had put an end to the great depression.

when the NIRA forced wages above market rate, it caused employers to cut back on employment, costing over 500,000 jobs. the AAA cut back farm production, hurting small farmers and the black tenant workers who relied on agriculture for work. the TVA displaced huge numbers of poor black sharecroppers who did not own the land they worked on, and thus received no compensation when they were kicked off of it. the new deal taxed the poor, and then forced them to pay above-market prices for goods.

so how exactly did the "bail-out" of the new deal help?

as for health care, your mother in law's situation is a perfect example of why socialism in the health care system would just make matters worse. medicare and medicaid already exist, and they are bankrupt. medicare overpaid by $6.5 million to pfizer for a cancer drug at $126 per does when the average low-cost generic was available at $41. medicare pays as much as 8 times more than other federal agencies for the same medical supplies ($8.26 per liter of saline solution, compared to $1.02 per liter paid by the va). senior citizens' co-payments (a demographic i assume includes or will soon include your mother in law) account for 20% of the more than $9 billion in claims for medical supplies and equipment. and while medicare is overpaying, doctors are receiving less and many are opting out of accepting medicare patients, resulting in longer wait times and less access.

it's not that private health insurance is much better at the moment, however that is not due to a lack of government regulation in the industry, but rather by too much. you yourself said medicare is nearly worthless. so how exactly is more socialization of health care the answer, when you have already acknowledged that it is worthless.

socialism bankrupts itself.

deregulation is not the enemy. anti-competitive practices are. promoting competition in the marketplace while allowing for government investigation in fraud, anti-trust cases, and other anti-competitive practices is the way for the economy to move forward.

sarbanes-oxley is a perfect example of government regulation's inability to get things right. it has a direct cost of between $500,000 and $2 million on small public companies, which is, at its lowest, already 100 times higher than the sec's $5,000 estimate. some companies are buying back their stock and becoming private again because of the costs of compliance with SOX, reducing the investment opportunities for the public and reducing the individual companies' capital that could otherwise have been reinvested in the company. not only that, but it discourages foreign investment in the us. for example, porsche cancelled its american ipo because it couldn't comply with sarbanes-oxley simply because they have employee representatives on its supervisory boards and audit committees.

as for mccain not proving himself in debates or conventions, you are somewhat right. mccain has done very well at times and been very weak at others. but your implication that barack obama has done any better are completely false though. obama thrives through the public's lack of knowledge of current events and a lack of understanding of history and the fundamentals of economics. mccain's failure has been to not directly challenge obama when the two confront each other.

for example, how exactly is the freddie mac and fannie mae debacle the fault of the republicans' deregulation of the industry. bush tried to push through a regulation bill to oversee freddie and fannie in 2003, citing the fraud that had been discovered as well as the unsound lending practices it was engaging by providing homes to people who did not have the money or credit to afford them (they were forced to do this by the CRA). barney frank of masschusetts, the ranking democrat on the financial services committee, said at the time. the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

two years later in 2005, mccain and three other republicans came in front of the banking committee to try to regulate fannie and freddie again, but it never made it out of the committee headed by chris dodd (despite obama's claims of being the head of the committee). obama didn't cross party lines and support the bill. he didn't try to bring the world together in support of real reform. his only action was to go in front of the committee and ask to convene an investigation after reading about predatory lending and its effects on his constituents in chicago in the chicago tribune. he took no action to combat the actual fraud that had been proven and exposed already in freddie mac and fannie mae, instead opting to continue to accept money from them. in three years he has already taken more than 6 times more from fannie and freddie than john mccain has in 20 years. barack obama and the democrats were able to trick the poor into voting for them under the guise of helping the lower and middle classes achieve the dream of home ownership, while in reality all the democrats were doing was buying their votes while setting them up for failure and setting our economy up for disaster.

as for mccain being a master of confusion of chaos, what does that even mean? and how is he more of the same? he is proposing continuing the policies that have worked for our economy (tax cuts, encouraging investment), and has a proven record of eliminating the policies that have not worked (wasteful spending, expansion of government). that is exactly what this country needs right now. what he is proposing have been proven throughout our history to be beneficial for all. look at kennedy's tax cuts in the 60's and the republican tax cuts in the mid 90s that undid the growth crushing clinton tax cuts of 1993, as well as the reduction of the capital gains (which obama is promising to raise, which will impact the 401k's and pension plans of every american, rich or poor).

if the bush spending is what you don't like, then barack obama is the one who is offering more of the same. he is proposing almost a trillion dollars in new spending into programs that are already failures, or creating new version of the same things that failed throughout the 20th century.

he isn't offering change. he is offering the same old crap that has been trying to bankrupt us for the last 75 years.

barack obama is just the best snake oil salesman this country has seen in a long, long time.

kim, dr stuart....deregulation had nothing to do with this. besides, deregulation of the financial industry started in 1979. definitely not the bush era.

keating five? can you spell e-x-o-n-a-r-a-t-e-d?

the bailout isn't the ushering in of the obama era, rather, a crown jewel of the obama era. read. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm

""....ushers in the Obama era"....bullseye...with humongess government spending and ineptitude."

I think you may be confusing the Obama campaign with those who have increased the federal debt by $3 trillion and continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq when we didn't need to be there in the first place.

Just one question answers WHO is most at fault. Which party has pushed deregulation and denies government (the people's) oversight? We ALL know the answer to that.

To JSHAY;

The truth? You want the truth? Try this on for size,

Aviation has an axiom: Regardless of ALL else that is going on around you - "fly the aircraft." McCain, the pilot, knows this instinctively, and that is why he broke off campaigning this past week to do the job he is elected to do in the senate. Obama, who has never piloted anything of consequence, including his own senate seat, was clueless regarding priorities. Ahem, that is also an indication of the manner in which an Obama presidency would unfold. Are we ready for that?

Who was it that said Obama is not ready? Didn't they mention something about a 3:00 AM wakeup call?

Oh yeah, that was Hillary..........

A must read for anyone who wants a clear understanding of the proposed bailout.

You'll likely rethink your position after reading this article.

Most of you are merely "shooting from the hip" with your uninformed comments on the bailout proposal.

Do your research before you open your yap.

To Diane Larkin;

"The news media have been shamefully stoking the idea that the only way Barack Obama could possibly lose the presidential election is if American racists have their way.
Indeed, the fact that Obama isn't leading in polls by a wide margin 'doesn't make sense... unless it's race,' says CNN's Jack Cafferty...

Many journalists are so convinced that racism is the only possible explanation for an Obama loss that they are beginning to see any effective anti-Obama ad as an attempt by John McCain to 'viciously exacerbate' America's 'race-fueled angst,' in the words of one New York magazine writer...

The only racists who matter in this election are the ones in the Democratic Party.

News flash: Republicans aren't voting for the Democratic nominee because they're Republicans...

Obama's problem is with precisely those voters the Democratic Party claims to fight for, working- and middle-class white folks.

Of course, Democrats can't openly complain that their own vital constituency is racist.

If the media were more objective, we'd be hearing a lot more about the racism at the heart of the Democratic Party (imagine if the black nominee this year were a Republican!).

But such objectivity would cause too much cognitive dissonance for a press corps that defines 'racist' as shorthand for Republican and sees itself as the publicity arm of the Obama campaign."

This article written by — Jonah Goldberg --- The Patriot Post

This was not cowboy capitalism. This was an unfunded government mandated program that forced lenders to lower standards so that unqualified people could get loans. The GSEs and anti-redlining rules and minority quotas mostly unofficial is what caused this.

redlining is devaluing property based on the community it's in. What does that have to do with someone getting a loan.
Undervaluing a property because of where it is, is un-American. If a home cost $120,000 to build it is worth at least that much, not $50, 000 because it's in an African American neighborhood.
That is wrong, and that is what redlining is!

Please get to know the facts, don't just quote Limbach!

You'd better vote Democratic or you will sink with all the other people in this Country who think that the Republicans will help you. Obama's platform is the only way for our financial institutions are to survive.

This grave economic mess just paved the way wide open for an Obama victory. Those who were undecided before, could not be more convinced that this country can no longer be trusted in the hands of the same Republicans. The problems just keep mounting and the Republicans allowed it to reach to this level.

The world no longer respects America and Americans no longer feel secure.

If you look at your rising bills and payments compounded by the mortgage in your house, you know that Obama must win.

I hope so fisherman and gradanidot -- i hope people see that McCain is more of the same old same old. didnd't work. won't work.

not only is he 'deregulate McCain" but he is unstable and will also get us immediately into more wars -- on what money and with what manpower?

The only thing holding most people back from voting Obama is race and that -- my friends -- is disgusting. I thought Americans were better than that but unfortunately they do not seem to be. Obama is a better man and better educated than McCain.

McCain has demonstrated himself to be unstable at every turn -- chaos, confusion, flip flopping, negative campaigning, crises, drama, inability to walk a straight line. We do not need someone that chaotic and unstable at the helm, not to even mention pregnant-high-school-daughtyer, "I can see Russia from Alaska," book-banning, eliminate-anyone-who-says-no-to-me, white trash Palin.

VOTE OBAMA !!!!!!!

Dian Dian, you cry racism of the non Obama fans, sounds to me like your worse with your hateful crys against, as you say"white trash Palin" You all who think Obama is your God send better look very hard at the truths that are out there. You certainly are not getting the whole truth and nothing but the truth from your liberal media. Obama out right lied numerous times in his debate the other night. Ah but I'm sure most of you will not seek the truth. Obama was one of those who voted against legislation to fix the Fannie Mae problems a couple of years ago. I sincerely hope you will visit this you tube site and view the 9 plus minute video. It will surely open your eyes to the true cause of this financial crisis, and it aint from the current administration. In fact both Bush and McCain tried to avert this a few years ago but the Dem's voted down legislation which would have fixed this crisis. Please just look at the video and all it's contents which can be verified as truth. Do not let the wool be pulled over your eyes by the vindictive liberal left media. Save the hateful replies to this at least until after you have at least taken the time to look into this matter. I really feel sorry for us all if Obama becomes out next president. Also Dian, talk to a few people from Canada who have what you wish for in socialized medicine. They will tell you that trying to get medical attention in a timely manner in their system is a nightmare. The waiting lists for treatment can be very very long. Again please view this short video before you all sling your arrows and slash your swords. I see they will not let me give you the link so I will give you the title to the ytube video, it is called, Burning down the house : what caused our economic crisis.

"You'd better vote Democratic or you will sink with all the other people in this Country who think that the Republicans will help you. Obama's platform is the only way for our financial institutions are to survive."

Obama's platform will help? Ummm, maintaining our world record corporate tax rate that causes the bulk of our outsourcing problems while simultaneously increasing taxes on business executive salaries....vote for that mess and EVERYONE will sink. Obama is the way for our financial institutions to crash, nothing less.
The poor and middle class are 100% dependent on the wealthy and big business in order to see affordable consumer costs and job growth, same as the wealthy and big business are 100% dependent on the poor and middle class in order to see continued growth and rising profits. Attack one, you might as well attack them all. Obama shows just how little he cares for the "little people" by waving a few dollars in the faces of the poor, leading them to completely ignore the long term consequences of his actions. His economic policy is nothing more than bribing the poor, ignoring that giving five dollars while taking ten in return still leads to a total of five being taken. One of the worst lines ever given by a presidential candidate was Obama's promise that he was only going to increase taxes on the wealthy and big business, so nobody else should worry because he's not going to tax them. By his methodology, taxes don't influence anyone else in the slightest, there's no costs or fluctuations that result from modifying the tax rates. Of course, outsourcing alone proves him wrong, it's very expensive to outsource but it's done anyway when government rates because so expensive that it's cheaper to send and hire elsewhere. So what does he propose? That we keep going with the problems we already have.
If you vote Democrat and Obama wins, it will be the poor like me along with the middle class that will sink, and bring businesses down with us. You CANNOT attack one without negative influences to the rest. His platform is simply one of the worst seen in years.
Yes, Republicans will help. Lowering the world record corporate rate while NOT increasing the tax burden on businesses during poor economic times, increasing worker incentive programs, boosting invention incentive programs to give individuals a voice outside of big business, and reductions in multi-billion dollar wasted subsidies such as the $10 billion yearly given to the three main ethanol corporations that already see profit percentages well above any oil has ever seen (yet Obama wants to increase those subsidies, thus providing less to individual farmers who actually need those subsidies).
Obama will kill our financial institutions, there's no way around that if his proposals are passed (most wouldn't actually survive the approval stage anyway). My job ends next month, and yet you tell people to vote Democrat. You're doing nothing but tell them to take most of my job possibilities away, outsourcing and costs are already bad enough without Obama in office.

New Yorker 2000

What the heck are you? A Grade School Teacher?
Typical American who can't handle the truth, when it goes against what they want to be true. i.e.: Republican.
Don't worry about the Issues, and the History of this past corrupt administration, and the damage that they have done to the constitution, the American People, our own economy, our own Soldiers, and their families, not to mention ending the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraq women and children.
You're worried about SPELLING?
Ha. Where do you get your facts? Fox news? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? Sean Hannity?
Bill Maher, and Ron Paul are right about most Americans. They haven't the Brains or the Attention Span to analyze the facts and issues. Many are too lazy to investigate anything. They would rather send someone else's sons and daughters off to an unjust war just so they can feed their own ego about "Kicking Ass".
You were never in the military. It is obvious. War should always be a last resort.
Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran. Really professional and Presidential. Not to mention his choice for the VP. A mental Midget, in a skirt.
Here is a lesson in how Military Orders are assigned post Schooling:
John McCain by all rights should have never been a Naval Aviator in the first place. Those Orders/slots, go to only the top 25-30% in any naval Acadamy Graduating class. Since he was lucky to graduate, by all historical accounts, with numerous demerits, and 894th out of 899, do you really think that the Navy actually assigns anyone from the bottom of any Graduating class to be responsible for handling Million Dollar Jet aircraft?
I'll answer this for you: NO WAY.
Of course if daddy is an Admiral, we can overlook this assigning of naval aviators from the top of the class.
Not to mention what really happened to cause the accident on the Forestal. John was removed from the ship the day after. Here is an assignment for you: Find out why. You will dismiss the reason because you won't want to believe it is true. Again typical Right Wing American.
You do know that the Navy was right about only the top 25%. John had a dismal flying record, with the destruction of four aircraft in flying accidents, of which 3 were proven to be Pilot Error. Don't believe it? Look it up.

That's the kind of man I want to be president: Perhaps we can have a spelling bee and see which one spells the best.

You are the one who is a joke.

P.S I don't care about my punctuation or spelling. Spelling correctly doesn't make your facts any truer than mine.

Bruce

Beckwolf

Outsourcing? You mean like selling a major American beer company to Belgium? Yeah, Mccain knows outsourcing first hand since he is part of the problem.

Yes, vote dumbucratic, we just got another glimpse of how they help the people. NOT Big business bailout brought to you by the dumbucrats to help protect their own financial interests.

Carol - Your information comes from hoax blogs and inflammatory rhetoric. If you actually believe what you are writing then you have lost your home to foreclosure, or just shouldn't have bought that house in the first place. That's the problem with our Country....we want everything, but aren't willing to work hard and be honest to ourselves. If you have a lot of credit card debt you will see the rates increase. If you want to borrow home equity money, you won't be able to convince a bank to lend you money because your house is worth less than your mortgage. Stop disparaging others and organizations who have nothing to do with what's going on and think about how you will survive!

Actually, ACORN is a part of this problem. Although I thank you for mentioning that there are hoax blogs and inflammatory websites of incorrect information. However, the media has been paid off to hide info about Obama and the accusations are being investigated. This is not a hoax, it is a commonly known item about this organization that it is corrupt right from the get-go. They are trying to spread the wealth world wide, with our tax money, instead of helping those in the U.S.

Honestly, I agree with Carol, but I still thank you for making us more aware of the many hoax sites and incorrect information. Get reliable sources from CSPAN and PBS.

carol thank you GRAB AN IDIOT is a zealot of the worst kind their eyes, ears and mind are shut tight!

Please explain how ACORN is part of the problem.

CAROL

Keating Five -- McCain is a convicted criminal

McCain was NOT MAN ENOUGH to (1) keep his commitment to debate until a mere 10 hours prior to the debate and (2) during the debate McCain did not look at Obama once -- dehumanizing the enemy I guess like he learned to 50 years ago in Vietnam.

McCain is a master of confusion, chaos and negativity.

McCain is not the man -- period.

thank you shaken but not stirred for your abusive contribution

people on this site please note how consistently abusive the repulbicans are

actually, it all depends on which side you are on. I can go to a conservative/McCain site and the dems are abusive there. So please keep comments like this to yourself. I AM A REPUBLICAN but I am never as abusive as you say. Dian don't you think that you might be being abusive right now? A forum is a place for people from different views to come together and express them.
Putting others down is not one of them.

I have yet to see a SINGLE study that shows the foreclosure rates on minority vs non-minority owned homes.

Please point to one.

AND THE PROBLEM WAS NOT THE HIGHER FORECLOSURE RATES. The problem was parting out mortgages into security investments and giving them AAA ratings.

That was not the homeowner. That was Wall Street pulling a fast one.

However, the media has been paid off to hide info about Obama and the accusations are being investigated.

Proof. Evidence. A link. Facts.

Bring them.

AND THE PROBLEM WAS NOT THE HIGHER FORECLOSURE RATES. The problem was parting out mortgages into security investments and giving them AAA ratings.

Yeah, that was SO not investment-grade paper. Whoever thought that crap up is due for butt-kicking.

Fishermann, your blogs come from hate and lack of knowledge. Study more and come back when you can look at the facts.

I agree Repubs use words like prophet, Muslim, LIBERAL, right, racist, and make fun of the guys name because they are finding it increasingly harder to defend Mccain or Palin. Some hardliner Repubs were talking to me about Mccain and after awhile we came to the same conclusion. First Mccain is more liberal than most Repubs will admit and second Mccains actions contradicts the truth and that would be alright for him if there was not evidence to back the contradiction. Fact is the Repubs quickly grabbed the guy because they needed a hard sell to people who were leaning to the Democrat side. The problem was they also needed a sell to the Repubs. So a lot of liberal issues Mccain sided with needed changed for Mccain and throw in a woman for support. It did not work because these candidates do not fit the Repub base and they just are not prepared. I mean Palin is getting blessed against witchcraft? You just can not make that up.

jpokergman - How would you like to fight in Afghanistan and not be able to go after the Al Quaida and Taliban that are going across the Pakistan border? Why don't you volunteer instead of just talking about Bush/McCain's failed policies?

The fight is in Afghanistan, always has been. If Al Quida and the Taliban carry it across into Pakistan, so be it. Pakistan can get on board with us and help or step aside, doesnt matter to me.

The war in Iraq was all about bush and cheney profiteering. They are pirates, and they have stolen the wealth of the United States of America.

Where did you see or hear that Obama " wants to invade Pakistan " ?
You must be hearing things because Obama never said that in the debate.

Obama has said many times that if we had any specific and reliable intel on high priority targets in Pakistan, he's be ok with striking those targets. He's never talked about invading.

Remember that the terrorist supposedly responsible for 9/11 and other attacks on American soldiers and civilians in the M.E. are operating and hiding inside Pakistan.

If Pakistan refuses to go after them, then they should shut up and stay out of the way so others can.

McCain has all but promised to invade both Russia and Iran

McCain can't wait to declare more war on more countries

And Obama did not say he wanted to invade Pakistan he said -- rightly -- we need more presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan HELLO have you noticed the terrorists are in those countries and NOT in Iraq!!! WE should never have gone into Iraq.

You people just simply do not like honesty

McCain has all but promised to invade both Russia and Iran

Going to war with Russia?

Do you know how that begins AND ends? Vladimir Putin's little Medvedyev puppet puts his finger on a red button and we all go KABOOM.

McCain is a bad-tempered guy who could get us and the whole world killed with his hasty judgments and bellicose temperament.

"INVADE PAKISTAN"
Gov Palin agrees! They really should get together on the war issues... Bush doctrine, teen pregnancy, the view of russia from alaska, subpoena dodging, lipstickin' pigs, McCain's record, foreign policy in general, how to give better interviews if you want to be vp, caring for your children so that America can see you handle more than two things at once like every other working mother, and infamous notion of energy expertise, etc., etc, etc...

"Why isn't your headline..."OBAMA WANTS TO INVADE PAHKISTAN...!"....????????
It is what he said in the debate."

I watched the entire debate on Friday. Making up lies doesn't make them the truth. You really need to learn that.

jpokergman

...the issue isn't.... Dems..,Rebs.., BLACK.,WHITE.,RED,GREEN,YELLOW,BROWN, or BLUE

the issue in the last 25 years is.. 1% of the wealthy.. in America have used Race and Party

to obfuscate what has really been TRUTH....ECONOMIC PARITY...ECONOMIC PARTY has

always been the issue in America from 1772 until the present day.(FOUNDING FATHERS were

WEALTHIEST)... people in COLONIAL AMERICA

Every citizen who is not apart of the 1%.. will find out that...all of us are going to end up

in a CANOE without...PADDLES.

Keeping the public occupied by nonsense.... like RACE and PARTY is what has enabled

the 1% to become the WEALTHIEST.....This is the WHOLE premise behind what is

happening NOW

Keep the people confused about politics...run a republican that EVERYONE KNOWS is JUST

like BUSH...let Obama become the First Black man to legitimately run for PRESIDENT

and while the NATION is BICKERING over those PETTY THINGS we will STEAL ALL WE CAN

WHILE BUSH IS OUR LEADER...TAKE THE MONEY AND BE COMFORTABLE THE REST OF

OUR AND OUR CHILDREN'S LIVES and F....the Citizens.......IT WORKED.

Keeping the public occupied by nonsense.... like RACE and PARTY

In Rome they had bread and circuses.

sorry Jim, but the current bailout proposed by bush, bernanke, and paulson is as far from "free markets" as it gets in our country. unless you mean "free to make lots of cash, and free to not suffer the consequences if our risks fall through." so, as for who is or is not for "free markets and capitalism," I think you need to step back and take a look at this new definition of "free" that includes the freedom to succeed, but not the freedom to fail. this is not a free market, nor is it pure capitalism. government subsidies undercut the very notion of free market capitalism, but weve been using those for a long, long time. industry bailouts? this is hardly the first. free market capitalism? who, what, where, when? we havent been a truly free-market capitalist society in a long time, if ever.

now, if only we could start acting like what we truly are - an awkward socialist-capitalist hybrid society with more than its fair share of crooks who exploit the inherent socialism in our system while clinging to capitalist theory that they are too chicken to actually engage themselves in. then, maybe we would see that these corporations pillage and plunder under the capitalist side of the coin, and then take refuge under our "dirty" socialist underbelly. in the meantime, most americans get caught up in paying for the bailout of the wolves (ie socialism) while the wolves feast freely from the tables of the majority (capitalism). thanks, but no thanks. the sooner we look at the reality of american socialist-capitalism, the sooner we can clarify the mess and make some progress toward a healthily functioning society and economy.

Jim we are still waiting for you to pay back the money that was spent educating you for free during your grades K - 12

a socialist program we have here in the US is our K - 12 educational system

no one thinks it is a bad thing

nor would it be bad to have some checks and balances on rampant greed in the US

some decent and real health care

and possibly even affordable college educations

are all of you people on this site who fear all socialist measures (1) unaware that our educational system is socialism and (2) really really really really rich beyond ever having to worry about money?

well said history-time

Jim688771

If the evil Bush Regime had been RIGHT at every turn.....America would not be at this

PLACE (NEAR DEPRESSION) TODAY. OBVIOUSLY BUSH and his REGIMES policies have

FAILED....other wise this particular BAILOUT would not be Necessary

BY the way I am sure EUROPE is really looking forward to following in Americas footsteps.

That is why the U.N disagreed with Bush's decissions at all levels his ideas were to

dangerous to agree with..... even for EUROPEANS.

Maybe the IDEOLOGUES that have been running the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of our GOV.

...want to be in CONTROL of the World......not mimic Europe.

Since Capitalism is what has driven us to this point......Could YOU please give me the

(COMPLETE DEFINITION of SOCIALISM)...Republicans seem to toss the term around a lot

....however I have yet to have them DEFINE what it ( Really) is....I do know EXTREMISM

on any LEVEL is absolutely DANGEROUS....from any COUNTRY...INCLUDING..USA.

So explain to me... (if you can)....how Obama will be MORE DETRIMENTAL to AMERICA

.....than GW DUMMY and McMummy have been.

history-time, a little history for you, it may have been a Bush plan, but the dems changed it to help big business more so they could help their pocketbook, and big business they represent.

I do not think that this country will move toward socialism. I am pretty sure everyone, including the two candidates, agrees that what has happened to our markets is awful, but the only way to stop our economy from collapsing is with government intervention.

I think everyone should read the book, Flat, Hot and Crowded. If we don't begin creating "green jobs," our future looks grim.

Sometimes people need a leader to tell them what to do because it is the right thing. This is not socialism; it is leadership.

Without a doubt, this election is the most important election in a while. We need leadership to restore our standing in the world. We need leadership to teach Americans how to sacrifice, again, for their country. We need leadership to move us toward energy independence. And we need leadership who will govern by using the Constituion.

Barack Obama is the future - for my son and his children. As a baby boomer I can recognize that my generation is done. It is time for a new, forward-looking generation to begin its era.

You are so out of context that its a wonder your post even appears here.

What Fineman was saying here is that NO system is perfect (strict capitalism or strict socialism), but what we have seen is that a mixture of capitalism and socialism seems to work about the best.

The only thing I've heard this morning is; "If we don't DO something now, we will go into a depression." "Throwing money at Wall St. will solve the problem." "The taxpayer won't lose any money." My question is - where in hell are we, the United States, going to get the money to bail out the failed institutions?

Where will the money come from? One words answer, China. We buy their junk, they buy ours (aka US Treasuries).

In this day and age you can get an BA, MA, Ph.D, MBA off the internet. Box of cracker jacks may soon offer such a degree prize.... History is so ready to judge this presidency, and of course Oliver Stone can't wait to stamp his approval on it too. W.

Every time the dumbocrats show their support of big business, they bring out all the uneducated blogs to cover up their greed.

I doubt you would get a VISA for any other country if they read what u just wrote retard.

Opposition to drilling increased oil dependancy- funny as hell...
where did you hear Obama say that he is some sort of savior...
Worked his whole life supporting sub-prime mortgages, where do you get your information from?

You do not like the guy, that s fine. It is respectful to not lie about what others do or say.

jacobsnodgrass:

"If he wins in spite of these things I am moving to another country."

Goodbye and good riddance.

"And frankly Europe is more interesting."

Leave the USA for a more socialist nation suffering for that socialism? Their economy is several times more damaged than ours, taxes are much higher, average salaries are lower, the homeless rate is through the roof, and there is little employment because businesses can't afford the costs there. Leave a socialist President by traveling to an even more socialist nation...I'd pick somewhere else personally.

Well, Jacobsnodgrass, the uneducated just showed you they could read, even if they can't understand.
And John, if the truth hurts, live with it. Nothing funny about his stance on drilling for oil, nothing funny about working with fannie and freddie, and other subprime lenders. and then nothing funny about his stance on gun laws. If he wins, maybe instead of hello we can just say HEIL

Hey Beckwolf,

When did you become the authority on Europe?

The only socialist country I know of in Europe is Russia. Most of the other countries have democratic elections or are republics. I could be mistaken as I'm not the authority on the subject that you claim to be. If any one else out there is knowledgable on this area, clue us in. (But don't just make stuff up if you don't really know).

I lived in Germany for four years. I don't think you have ever been outside the continental U. S.

By the way, I hear you can live pretty good on the US dollar in Mexico, if you can tolerate living in a third world country.

Actually if you watch CSPAN and get the info from the horses end, you will see that Republicans in the house want BUSH out--never to make another executive order as long as he is in office. They want him out and the Republicans are the ones that did not want this to go through. Unfortunately, Democrats outweigh the Republicans in the Senate and they have no power to disapprove and stop this. Food fights and all kinds of things occurred this weekend over this. Do not blame Republicans because they do not have a voice or a choice. Bush has given Republicans a bad name. The Republican party has known to work the best throughout history, but a few loose marbles like Bush ruin quite a bit.

arachnyd, I think that this is not a time for tax cuts either. McCain is going to decrease taxes for the wealthiest americans running up the national debt by another 650 billion per year. His proposed "spending cuts" are not going to fill the gap and neither is eliminating "earmarks". (actually I think earmarks have gotten a bad wrap. A lot of that money goes for good things in our communities, along with others that are very wasteful.)

I do not know the answers, but our county living on credit needs to stop.

Cheryl, buy a clue. The Dems wanted security for the taxpayers $700,000,000,000.00. The Repubs wanted to hand over the money with no restrictions, just like it was before all of this came to light.

Of course, the House Republicans want Bush out; they want to get re-elected. They see how unpopoular (finally) and lacking in credibility that he is.

Rod Father, you need to buy a clue, and not on credit, you are not big business and the democrats don't care if you starve as long as big business prevails and protects their investments and funding they receive for political donations. Carter 1977, Cllinton 1997 wanted to give money away in wholesale for bad risk mortgages, the only taxpayers that the dems wanted to help were those who had these subprime loans. Other than that their proposal was one of self interest!

Pat have you been living in a hole the last 10 years?

Phil Gramm sponsored the Commodoties Modernization Act, the amendment that stripped the regulations away from the financial institutions. This was put in place to make sure that Wall Street never tanked again like it did to cause The Great Depression.

Phil Gramm the same guy that McCain touts as his Treasurey Secretary if elected. McCain's proposal was made long after the train had left the station. Grandstanding, that is all that McCain knows how to do.

Yes, you are right about Graham, back when he was a dem he worked for deregulation and then he woke up when he saw dem leaders advise was flawed.

And it was John McCain who cosponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to provide additional regulations and over site for Government Sponsored Entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But the Democrats don't want to talk about that because it proves that Senator McCain recognized the danger years ago (when Obama was still having to ask directions to the men's room).

Gramm was a dem in 2000? I think not!

"Maybe Palin and McCain should agree with each other before they mount an attack on Obama's positions about Pakistan and Afghanistan."

Why? Obama and Biden disagree entirely on foreign policy matters, yet Obama attacks McCain for those same issues. No difference there at all.

well, when obama chose biden, he acknowledged their differences and said he chose biden in part because he wanted a vice president who would challenge him and offer other perspectives. i think this was very wise and showed the type of inclusive perspectives that are needed at this time. tunnel-vision, you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us types of analysis are a part of what has gotten us here. a strong vp shouldnt just be a yes-man (or woman).

What are obamas positions, PRESENT< PRESENT< PRESENT< and I hope I don't have to make a decision?

I fully agree. Thanks for being smart and using history and sense to see this through.

I concur.

i disagree.

History time, once again history is getting you in trouble. It is true history.

Are you kidding me? The country has been run by your ancestory all this time, I already assume your European because this could only explain your narrowed view of the world. If you think that Obama being voted into the White House will divide the country racially, White people truly have been living in two separate America's from other races...ridiculous.

Some of these postings are ridiculous, where did you glean that Obama wants to turn the society into a Socialist one? Why are we so selfish and nasty and swear to God that someone wants to take something from us? Who thinks like this?

You all need to seek some help, nobody wants to socialize the entire country so that no profits are made and no businesses prosper, chill out and please present some facts if you want to argue that Obama is a socialist! Otherwise, I'm going to call you a typical GOP'r, want to capitalize the profits and socialize the losses - hence the original bail out plan produced by Paulson until the Dems and some sane GOP'rs stepped in and said its not happening.

PatG: history is a matter of interpretation. apparently, i interpret this issue differently than you. true story.

I fully agree, but would like to add to that. If McCain--bless his soul--would perish, Sarah would of course take over. However, from day one Obama will have Biden take over. I rather have a strong command at the start then to start off with a fake president. Besides, if McCain is lucky like his mother, he may live into his nineties. I don't really think this is a matter of right or left wing, or conservative or liberal, but rather a matter of having someone like Obama running the country is like having four years of Halloween. Scary!

I'm a conservative too, but I will not allow a bunch of liberals run my country. People take their liberties too far. The country is crazy enough.

You sound Sooooooooooo ignorant!!

I love Gin & Tonic!!!! Is that American made?

Ray I have traveled extensively throughout the world and more so Europe and you are totally correct my good man. I want to move to Europe now, they cherish and value family and friends, they do not try to keep up with the Jones's and they are polite, classy and sophisticated

I've spent a lot of time in Europe and have a lot of friends that are from Europe.

I won't go so far as to call them classy and sophisticated I will call them very friendly with a better value system than a lot of Americans I also know. they don't have to setup 'play dates, family time activities or have a Blackberry to keep up with their kid's appointments'. Everything takes into account the family and that is what they are ultimately working for and towards.

A lot of Hispanic families I know also work towards this same goal.

No one culture is perfect but a broadening of a lot of American's perspectives on the world may be beneficial in the long run

Agree!

can not agree more!

He might not have all the answers and he is yet to prove himself as a leader but we sure as heck know what we get with McCain...and more of the same is not what we need right now

well GoUSA, it looks like Joe falls outside of your paradigm of what it means to be a conservative. strangely, i bet that happens a lot.

Are you saying most conservatives are either in the Pub or in the Can?

MONTE

Can you say bipolar disorder. Look up the symptom's and then take a good look at Mccain.

He would not look at Obama during the entire debate which just made him look weird.

If McCain had looked at Obama, he still wouldn't have seen anything. Obama is just big ears with nothing in between.

"A QUESTION FOR ALL, is it me or is Mccain beginning to come across as unstable, rash, unpredictable and just scary."

I started thinking that of Obama, but not nearly as much McCain. He seems to be hitting the panic button every chance he can get now. His accusations before were merely based on stereotypes and not even accurate about the candidate he was opposing, but now he's adding the accusations with new stereotypes, finger pointing, wild eyes, and shouting, along with threats of lawsuits and attacks towards anyone who shows his record as a negative. Now THAT'S unpredictable and scary, a man his age but stamping his foot like a little kid while making threats. It doesn't reflect well at all, not to mention his staredowns and finger stabs during the debate.

McCain is from the older generation who grew up with Jim Crow. Yeah, civil rights are alright in his book, but deep down he is freaking out that not only is he running against a person who he was taught growing up is inferior - he is getting increasingly clear that he just might lose.

The guy is 72, and I think he's dropping marbles out his ears every time he gets up in the morning. That shows in all kinds of ways. He's regressing, and that's part of the problem.

John McCain of 2000, I think should have won.
This one is a lunatic.