Most S.C. lawmakers vote 'yes'
Five of South Carolina's six congressmen voted in favor of the emergency rescue bill, with Upstate Republican Gresham Barrett, a potential candidate for governor in two years, voting against it.
And while finger-pointing over the vote's failure continued, Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn put the blame squarely on President Bush and presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, accusing both of losing their influence during a time of extreme national crisis.
How they voted
How South Carolina's congressmen voted on the bailout bill in the House:
YES (in favor of the bill): Henry Brown (R), Jim Clyburn (D), Bob Inglis (R), John Spratt (D), Joe Wilson (R)
NO (against the bill): Gresham Barrett (R)
"They are very cannibalistic. They are eating each other," Clyburn said of the splintered Republicans who ignored the wishes of the administration and voted against the bill.
Clyburn, whose 6th District includes parts of Charleston, said he was stunned that some GOP leaders tried to peg Democrats for the loss, calling them childish and adding that he couldn't understand why the "majority of the people in my home state keep voting for these guys."
Charleston's other congressman, 1st District Republican Rep. Henry Brown, also was disappointed at the results, saying segments of Republicans and Democrats were responsible for the stunning failure.
"Somebody as big as the federal government had to come in and take a position, just to stabilize the market," he said, noting the stock market's 777-point drop. "We've never had a situation as critical as we do now."
In a statement on his Web site, Barrett of Westminster in the 3rd District said he voted "no" because the proposal set a bad precedent.
"We cannot allow the American taxpayers to become the insurance policy for financial decisions that did not turn out as planned," he wrote.
He added, "This is not a matter of Wall Street versus Main Street," and that he feared "the government will be forever changing the face of the American free market."
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
ballachulish (anonymous) says...
This bailout stinks to high heaven, but...
The 5 congressmen who voted "yea" to save the economic future of our country should be commended for placing their country above partisan politics.
September 30, 2008 at 4:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
NativeSon (anonymous) says...
Do not forget, they voted yes when 85% of the population are instructing their elected statesmen to vote no! This is the true Washington, do what you want and to hell with Americans.
September 30, 2008 at 4:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mcautodoc (anonymous) says...
Wanna "save the economic future of our country"? How about allowing the private sector to do what it does best; just look at WAMU & Wachovia. Allowing the federal government to get their tentacles into this will be a disaster. And, for any congressmen or lackeys that might be reading these comments, we the people will remember your vote.
September 30, 2008 at 4:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
3olivesmike (anonymous) says...
Actually the idiot vote is quite small and poses no threat to these five members of the house.
September 30, 2008 at 6:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
Absolutely native son, typical Henry Brown. Leads where he is pulled by the nose.
"They are very cannibalistic. They are eating each other," Clyburn said"
Is he referring to the 90 democrats that didn't vote with HIS PARTY?
September 30, 2008 at 6:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tc1 (anonymous) says...
moonpie
Good point. Democrats DO control the house just ask Polosi.
September 30, 2008 at 6:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EqualityB4theLawThinkAgain (anonymous) says...
Persoanally, I am unhappy that Henry Brown voted for the bail out and to rip off the American taxpayers. It is time for the voters to put our "Republican Workhorse" out to pasture. It is too bad that on the ballot the voters can't select "none of the above" and those rejected are barred from running again for at least 5 years. I would vote "none of the above" in the presidential race and our Congressional race. As a nation, we are doomed if these are best choices to run our government. How do we stop the corruption, when the corrupt control the scales of justice?
September 30, 2008 at 7:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoaMM (anonymous) says...
Rough percentages of who voted "No":
Republicans: 66%
Democrats: 40%
...it was a bipartisan refusal.
I look at it as ALL of government has/had a hand in it, but nobody wants to lay down specifics because it will incriminate ALL of government. They're trying to pull a "fall guy" out of their butts, but they can't.
September 30, 2008 at 7:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Riptide (anonymous) says...
There is so much corruption and dishonesty within the beltway it's enough to make a skunk vomit. Allowing politicians of both parties the responsibility to govern and manage our tax money is like giving a whiskey bottle and car keys to a 16 year old. I am so mad I can't even see straight this morning.
September 30, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tc1 (anonymous) says...
"Rough percentages of who voted "No":
Republicans: 66%
Democrats: 40%"
What happened to the party of Big Business? (FYI:sarcastic comment for libs)
September 30, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cwmcpa (anonymous) says...
One of the fundamental cornerstones of the republican party is the free market. Obtaining the yes votes they received was almost a miracle. Pelosi did not want the bill to pass, she being in the almost billionaire status knew how much she could gain at the collapse of the markets, by going in and buying up the below market stocks. Obama showed how much of a leader he is by not being able to get even 70% of the Congressional black caucus votes all of which are in safe districts. Spankerbuns surely takes alot of joy in peoples misery when they see their 401Ks and stock portfolios loose value. Typical left wing glee when they institute class warfare on the masses. He has been up all night reading the hate sights like daily kos and democrat underground, so he can recieve his $20.00 for being an Obama campaign troll. No financial concerns for him since he still lives with his mommy. This so called failure is serving to rally the republican base and certainly they will retake both houses come November. The party of class envy, bankrupt when it comes to leadership, are blaming others when they can not get their own to support their bi partisan legislation. This rejection is a plan by the so called party of the people to tank the economy before the election under the supposed theory that a bad economy will help them with their power addition. I am glad spankerbuns is posting in this forum, it allows reasonable people to see how hate has so infiltrated the left to the point it has affected their ability to judge, govern or just simple communicate in a civilized manner.
September 30, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Riptide (anonymous) says...
The celebration of misery is the foundation for all leftists. To ensure their station in life, poverty and keeping people in poverty is their hallmark. One only needs to look at all the socialist countries in this world and see the misery they bring to the people of these countries. The collapse of our financial institutions brings celebration to the leftist in the country and this board. They take joy of seeing the working class lose everything they work for in life. These people are enough to make a skunk vomit.
September 30, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JoshuasGrandma (anonymous) says...
My IRA lost 20K yesterday and as a retiree, that's half a year's income-and yet the GOP still wants to put SS into the stockmarket? The Republicans DO own this mess...and the guys who voted NO were doing it to save their asses in November - the country be damned. Who's the patriot?
Please, Barney, go talk 'uncharacteristically nice' to these guys and soothe their 'hurt feelings'
September 30, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
strategicgrowth (anonymous) says...
Are we sure about these figures....
Yahoo.com is reporting the following:
SOUTH CAROLINA
Democrats - Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y.
Republicans - Barrett, N; Brown, N; Inglis, N; Wilson, N.
Please check the facts!
September 30, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Riptide (anonymous) says...
Grandma:
Do the research and follow the trail. I blame the republicans for complacency to go along just to get along in this mess we're in. The liberal democrats are at the bottom of this rat hole. But I keep forgetting the liberal democrats are for the little guy, the poor and the working man. If you believe that, then you'll believe in anything.
September 30, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
southbel (anonymous) says...
Some interesting tidbits for you (especially those that believe the media hype that this is a Repulbican failure).
Nancy Pelosi gave permission to 16 freshman representatives to vote Nay on this bill because they were facing tough races and their vote could effect their upcoming races.
12 of the 37 Democrats from Barney Frank's own Banking Committee voted Nay on this bill.
Nancy Pelosi gave permission to several committee chairs to vote Nay on this bill so they wouldn't have to be "linked" to this very unpopular bill.
The Black Caucaus overwhelmingly voted Nay on this bill even though they are in safe seats. Barack Obama had a dinner with them on Saturday night and yet couldn't get them to vote for this legislation even though he has repeatedly said he supports it and it should be passed??
Again, remember that the Democrats are in power in the House, they have the majority. Yet, it is the Democrats who could not deliver the votes. Personally, I think it was a bad bill and there is a much better method that won't use taxpayers' money in what amounts to a gamble. $700 billion is a large amount to gamble!!
September 30, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
msplacedinsc (anonymous) says...
All of you yahoo's out there, Today's lesson #1......... Wall Street in NY has a large presence on Main Street, USA. If Wall Street fails, the majority of Main Street will fail. When Main Street fails, so will hundreds of thousands of families in america. " It's not "trickle down economics" as the GOP once coined the phrase, it's "the great flood of depression". Hope you paid attention?
September 30, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoaMM (anonymous) says...
strategicgrowth,
The 66% vs. 40% numbers were from Washington...not local.
I brought it up to show that (hopefully) not everyone is voting on a party line basis. Some Dems see good and bad in the deal as well as Repubs.
Dems and Repubs can try to lay blame anywhere they want, but the big picture (numbers) at least shows a bipartisan effort at acceptance and/or disgust with the proposal.
September 30, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
algorelost (anonymous) says...
There is no need to bail out wall street, the market will correct itself. Bravo for the congress for turning this bill down, Paulson must think were crazy if were are going to give him a blank check.
September 30, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoaMM (anonymous) says...
msplacedinsc wrote:
"...Wall Street in NY has a large presence on Main Street, USA."
I would venture to say this is a true statement only because of the credit that Main St has extended itself upon and beyond what they should have...NOT because of investments.
"I'm gonna put a second mortgage on my house to start this small business..."
THAT is Main Street's fault...
September 30, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
James and Henry and the rest of OUR district REPs....
If a Bailout is needed ...so be it !!!
BUT...by God ....NO PORK !!!
STOP the Freakin' ...EARMARKS !!!!
Did any Rep stand up in the HOUSE and rip their shirts off and ACCUSE other REPS by NAME of EARMARKING ????
Did YOU HENRY...???
Did YOU ...JAMES ????
DId YOU ...Gresham????
Did YOU ...Lindsey ???????
Did YOU ...DEMINT ?????
WE NEED LEADERSHIP !!!!
WE NEED ETHICS !!!!
WE NEED MORALS !!!
NO INCUMBENTS............PERIOD !!!
Republican or Democrat...........!!!
September 30, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
southbel (anonymous) says...
JoshuasGrandma,
Futures are up thus far this morning. In addition, the Asian markets did not take a huge hit as many doom and gloom naysayers predicted. Thus, you will see a bump in your IRA. The large drop in the market yesterday was an anamoly and will rebound. Look at the history of the market. Huge drops are always followed by large gains, this financial issue with the banks aside. If you are nearing retirement, you should have a large number of your funds in equity anyway at this point, which should rebound well.
It's frightening, yes, but even this bailout bill would not have stemmed losses to your portfolio, unfortunately. This bill was not a immediate fix to the economy. I think people who were for it or against it either thought this bill was the absolute fix to all of their financial woes in their investments or it would do absolutely nothing to help this economy. This is the fundamental problem with this bill; it is a gamble.
September 30, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
selsed (anonymous) says...
When you are checking the votes, look under Jesse Jackson, Jr of Illinois.
Jesse Jr is an Obama National Campaign chair!
Guess how he voted, Rep. Clyburn.
He voted NO!
Maybe Barney the Clown should talk nice to him too!
September 30, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
spankerbum is an ignorant fool. A lot of those stocks are owned by rank and file workers saving for their retirement. He's one of these crazy socialists who would cut off his own nose if it will cause injury to a non-socialist.
I'm against the bailout or any government intervention other than getting government out of the mortgage business. Fannie and Freddie both bought these bad papers to encourage loans to people who the banks would not give loans to, for exactly this reason. Congress encourages banks to make these crap loans and punishes banks who fail to do so. Government made this mess, to expect government to fix it is spankerbum, i mean crazy. This is exactly like the stupid government insurance that allows people to put houses where no private insurance company would insure them, then we have to pay for the damage done when a hurricane or flood happens.
September 30, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
southbel (anonymous) says...
Spanker,
Go back to May 2006. Review the Congressional Record on Barney Frank's Banking Committee. The Republicans warned against Frannie and Freddie and called for reforms warning it was a disaster waiting to happen.
Frank and his fellow Democrats refused to do anything and with having the majority, voted down the measure. Frank himself said he saw no evidence and no reason to worry.
You are wrong. Look, I have tried to ignore what can only can be construed as a diatribe against anything Republican, but I must, in good conscience, point out when you are just wrong.
September 30, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
farmlandsc (anonymous) says...
I found this 9 line excerpt online from an article written by US Presidential candidate, Dr. Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. The link to the whole article is below the excerpt. I ***URGE*** you to read at least the quote by President Andrew Jackson in 1832 given to bankers. (How wise these Founding Fathers were) How uncanny is it that these are the same words we are hearing threatened to us today if we do not bail Wall Street out?:
###If George W. Bush, John McCain, or Barack Obama had any honesty and integrity, they would approach the current banking malady in much the same way that President Andrew Jackson did. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out." ###
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/...
Please pass this on if you want to help Americans wake up.
September 30, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannyofseven_2 (anonymous) says...
I have a problem with people who are in government who, have money coming out their ears, and could care less about the people who live paycheck to paycheck. If it is good for them, then the hell with the rest.. I will never understand why they are this way but I do feel before anyone could be in government they should have to live like a low middle class citizen for one month. See how hard it is to survive with there bills . Maybe we could have a change
September 30, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoaMM (anonymous) says...
granny,
It's greed, plain and simple. And I would recommend a year as a lower middle class citizen...not just a month.
There's not a Politician in America that would vote "Yes" on a bill unless they had something to gain from it, regardless of what the people want.
We need term limits and caps on their salaries, period.
September 30, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JC (anonymous) says...
They voted yes...I shall vote NO for them come election day!
September 30, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tc1 (anonymous) says...
I have read 3-4 times since this issue became Hot that PAULSON IS A DEMOCRAT. No proof but the few times it came up that is what was stated.
September 30, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madd_dog2020 (anonymous) says...
NO ONE IS MENTIONING HOW THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN WENT ON THE SUNDAY MORNING TALK SHOWS TO TAKE CREDIT FOR THE BILL PASTAGE, EVEN MCCAIN, WHILE ON THE STUMP MONDAY BRAGGED ABOUT GOING TO DC LAST WEEK TO SAVE THE DAY; I GUESS NOW HE HAS TO EAT CROW!!! LAST WEEK WAS A POLITICAL STUNT THAT BLOW-UP IN THE OLD GUY'S FACE. WHAT HE NEED TO DO, IS TO STOP TAKING THE CREDIT FOR OBAMA'S IDEAS!!! NOW THAT REAL LEADERSHIP.
September 30, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mkris (anonymous) says...
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience. George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905
US (Spanish-born) philosopher (1863 - 1952)
The cost of borrowing in dollars overnight surged the most on record after the U.S. Congress rejected a $700 billion bank rescue plan, heightening concern more institutions will fail.
The London interbank offered rate, or Libor, that banks charge each other for such loans climbed 431 basis points to an all-time high of 6.88 percent today, the British Bankers' Association said. The euro interbank offered rate, or Euribor, for one-month loans climbed to record 5.05 percent, the European Banking Federation said. The Libor-OIS spread, a gauge of the scarcity of cash, advanced to a record. Rates in Asia also rose.
``The money markets have completely broken down, with no trading taking place at all,'' said Christoph Rieger, a fixed- income strategist at Dresdner Kleinwort in Frankfurt. ``There is no market any more. Central banks are the only providers of cash to the market, no-one else is lending.''....
The two-month Libor rose to 5.13 percent today, also a record. Libor, set by 16 banks including Citigroup Inc. and UBS AG in a daily survey by the BBA, is used to calculate rates on $360 trillion of financial products worldwide, from home loans to credit derivatives.
Funding constraints are being exacerbated as companies try to settle trades and buttress balance sheets over the quarter- end, balking at lending for more than a day.....
September 30, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mkris (anonymous) says...
Futures on the Chicago Board of Trade show a 66 percent chance the Fed will trim its 2 percent federal funds target rate by 50 basis points in October, surging from zero percent a month ago. The odds of a quarter-point reduction are 34 percent....
The Libor-OIS spread, the difference between the three- month dollar rate and the overnight indexed swap rate, widened to 246 basis points, showing cash scarcity is at a record.
The difference between what banks and the U.S. Treasury pay to borrow money for three months, the so-called TED spread, was at 338 basis points today after breaching 350 basis points for the first time yesterday. The spread was at 110 basis points a month ago.
Asian borrowing costs rose, with Japanese and Singapore money market rates reaching the highest in at least eight months, even as central banks pumped in cash to ease lending after U.S. lawmakers rejected a banking rescue.
Japan's overnight call loan rate rose to 0.6 percent, the highest in more than six weeks, and the three-month interbank offered dollar rate in Singapore jumped 11 basis points, or 0.11 percentage point, to an eight-month high of 3.90 percent as banks hoarded cash. Australian funding costs surged by the most since July.
``Counterparty fear in the banking sector is at a new extreme,'' said Greg Gibbs, director of currency strategy at ABN Amro Holdings Bank NV in Sydney. ``Credit conditions are as tight as a drum. Unless this settles down, central banks would need to cut rates globally to bring funding costs down.''...
September 30, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mkris (anonymous) says...
``This crisis is not driven by corporate defaults but by a systematic failure of the banks themselves,'' said Anita Yadav, head of credit and hybrid research at UBS AG in Sydney. ``It's no longer about just paying higher borrowing costs, but also about being able to get the money from the market at all.''
1929 - 1933, credit contracted in the US Economy and resulted in Bank collapse. The result was the Great Depression of the 1930's. Conservative republicans voted against expanding credit in the 1930's on the basis of a Laisse-faire approach to market regulation. Today in 2009 the Conservative republicans voted against expanding credit on the basis of "free Markets".
September 30, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ballachulish (anonymous) says...
Spanker,
I liquidated in 2005, sold all real estate at 100% profit and bought Po' folk stocks, like Campbell soup (the only gainer yesterday) and McDonalds.
How come we're the socialists, when we're smart enough to exploit capitalism......
September 30, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...
Most of our delegation voted correctly. I would prefer to devote two months to hearings, debate and national dialogue. I'm sure we could eventually get a better plan, however, I doubt much of our banking system would survive that long.
I tremble at what might happen if the economy is crashing when we vote in November and then don't have a president because so much of the voting is screwed up that the election ends up in the Federal courts as it did in 2000. At that point the question would be how many Americans are on Zoloft and how many are rioting in the streets.
We'll have to eat the "mud sandwich" for now in it's newer, bite sized revised version or lose most of everything.
The Yahoos which don't understand economics will just have to be frustrated for now. I'm infuriated that our financial system was deregulated and integrated to the point that nearly all the firewalls were down. It was fun while it lasted for a lot of people. It's time to start pumping water, not to bitch about how much a fire department costs.
After that we can hunt bankers down and put them in Federal prison with full due process of law for as long as we like. They'll have to take turns with the dishonest contractors who stole billions in Iraq. Hopefully constrution of all these additional, Republican grade, Federal minimun security prisons will stimulate the economy.
The can share cells with Al Parrish.
Linda Ketner, candicate for congress for the First district has a great position paper on the economy on her website. She write it herself, got some expert feedback and put it out there. It's no soundbite, but well worth reading.
http://www.lindaketner.com/issues/eco...
September 30, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Missing_Home (anonymous) says...
JC You said it, If they voted yes, you should vote No on election day.
This is by far the worst congress I have ever seen, I say scrap the lot, vote in all new blood.
September 30, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lovely_One (anonymous) says...
Posted by cwmcpa on September 30, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Obama showed how much of a leader he is by not being able to get even 70% of the Congressional black caucus votes all of which are in safe districts."
So, because Obama is Black was the Black Caucus supposed to vote with him? Bush is a Republican, already the President and has been for the last 8 years, and his fellow Repubs didn't vote with him. What kind of leader does that make him? I am not bashing Bush, I just want to know the logic behind the comment about the Black Caucus and Obama.
September 30, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
UrGatorbait (anonymous) says...
Hey zoomru get back on your meds dude, Graham/Demint are members of the house. Caps lock......... and !!!!!! and some more....... are not needed to get the message across.
Screw the bailout. Let America feel the pain. Take down both parties with their greedy, lying, unethical and corrupt backsides. The American people need to find a new way to represent themselves. the current bunch isn't doing a very good job but it appears most here are content with them and they point fingers, call names and not get anything done at the end of the day.
Henry Brown voted against the new GI Bill but voted for the bailout. Cares for vets my butt. No vote for you man.
Let the free markets do what they do best and innovate a way out.
On another note, Lets clear Washington DC out period. To the "enlightened progressive" ones on here, your side, my side, their side or whatever side, has their paws dirty. Though people like GBS will try and minimize the complicity of the Dems, they are knee deep in the sewer with a can of air freshener, shouting "It's Change" The repubs, well they just got lost and got stupid. The rest of us, got fueled by greed and now it's someone else's fault.
Let Wall Street unf$#$%k themselves, vote the current cesspool out of DC by the "idiot" vote.
Investment is risk, if you lost yesterday, I feel for ya but don't ask me to bail you out unless you want to start paying my bills. If you had it all tied up in the market than it's poor planning.
The Market is up and I don't believe the "Sky is falling" mentality is going to work anymore.
September 30, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mkris (anonymous) says...
Jane, the point is not that a law was repealed. The Graham-Leachey bill removed the Depression Era laws separating the commerical, savings and loan, investmnet bank and insuance companies invetment choices. They were separated to lower risk to the system. Prior to the Depression markets were "laisee faire", today known as "free markets." Consequent of Graham Lechey there developed a "shadow" banking system of deriviatives, credit swaps and default swaps that is completely unregulated and bearly understood, having been developed by mathematicians and physicists. However rates of return were extrodianrily high. TO THIS DAY, THE SHADOW BANKING SYSTZEM IS UNREGULATED. Money flows from the safest investment witht he lowest rate of return to the riskest with the greatest rate of return. Greed is the prevailing emotion of the business world.
September 30, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outrage (anonymous) says...
proletariat - "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."
I used that quote a few months back, but I thought it was Ben Franklin. Thanks for correcting me.
That quote is starting to come true, so anyone on federal assistance should not have the privilege to vote. JMO
September 30, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jsks (anonymous) says...
The bailout is not perfect but neither are the options. When 1 in 30 constituents opposed the measure, it tells you one thing. People don't understand the legislation.
I have worked on Capitol Hill and I purchased my first home in 2005. Let me tell you a few things.
a. I was living in Charleston at the time and making about 40K a year. I applied for a home loan through CountryWide and they told me I could afford a 250K home if I wanted to. They tried to sell me on an interest free loan. They tried to tell me I could refinance in a year or two. Yes, I was smart enough to know better, but as a first time home buyer, I listened to them. Don't tell me predatory lending didn't occur and that it was the government's fault. The goverment created a policy that was intended to bring homeownership to a larger part of the citizenry but it was not the policy that created this, it was those making the decisions to lend money.
b. When constituents would call the congressional office, we would invariably get a wide variety of opinions on the issue. The public has no idea what the ramifications of NOT approving a bail out means. 1 in 30 approve of it!
No one has explained it to them. The only thing they see is $700 billion. Give it a few more weeks or months.
September 30, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ballachulish (anonymous) says...
mkris,
The only Democrat that voted for Gramm-Leach was Fritz Hollins, Biden voted Nay, McCain voted for it, of course, although now he claims he was absent.
September 30, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rebel_Yell (anonymous) says...
It's just sad to have to read comments from lefties and righties who know nothing about how the economy works but will bend over backwards to try and shift the blame so that their idiot wins in November. To think that only one party caused this is not thinking at all.
September 30, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lovely_One (anonymous) says...
Posted by Rebel_Yell on September 30, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's just sad to have to read comments from lefties and righties who know nothing about how the economy works but will bend over backwards to try and shift the blame so that their idiot wins in November. To think that only one party caused this is not thinking at all.
AMEN!!!!
September 30, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sherlock (anonymous) says...
...and so the real winners are...the american people. we overwhelmingly said no to a bailout of wall street and we were heard (this does not happen often). the true mavericks are the ones that said no because they know that there are ALTERNATIVE menas by which to fix the problem. now lets get a bill in the house that truly looks out for the taxpayer. as for those that voted yes here in sc? they ownt get my vote and I wont forget it.
September 30, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
James Clyburn........... (Yes YOU!)
So you think your seat is SAFE in this election !!!
YOU ...IDIOT !!!
DO you realize that all it will take is for ONE strong WOMAN named WEEZY (Movin' on UP !)to stand up and campaign with NANCY !!!
Once your female VOTERS actually think about what you have DONE ???? For OUR state ???!!
Once your female VOTERS think about WHO holds a whip! and they are paying almost 4 Dollar Gas ???!! Uh OH ?!!
Once your FEMALE voters realize that you LEFT Nancy Pelosi out in the WIND with the Bail out Laundry ??!! That you could not stand beside YOUR LEADER ??!!
Your a SITTING DUCK !!!!!
September 30, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ballachulish (anonymous) says...
Jane,
How many US troops died in Kosovo?
How many lives were saved by stopping the genocide?
How many countries other than the US shared the military and financial burden?
How many of our allies still patrol Bosnia/Kosova along side US NATO troops?
The mission was a success, we saved many lives at little risk to our military and with minimal cost to the American taxpayer.
I'm still waiting for your citation about Bush & Fannie & Freddie, the Fudge report doesn't count...
September 30, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
James CLYBURN .......(Yes YOU!)
Once your Female Voters realize just what your WHIP position means; DO YOU think they will think your any kind of LEADER ??
Your position as HOUSE whip is to go around and ask other REPS how they are going to VOTE !! You mean to tell us all here that you did NOT inform Nancy Pelosi of the Out COME of the VOTE before the vote was taken???
Why did YOU not come to the HOUSE floor and ask for a DELAY in the VOTE ??!! YOU ..KNEW ?!!!
Are your actions the Actions of a corrupt politician or a REAL ....South Carolinian??!! How do you think any women working on her feet all day in any HAIR Salon would have reacted ???!!
What would Weezy have DONE ???!
"George Jefferson" ....I highly suggest you review your ACTIONS ??!!? Are you going to appease your voters with FREE Dry Cleaning ???
September 30, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
Government broke it, more government can only break it worse.
"The only Democrat that voted for Gramm-Leach was Fritz Hollins, Biden voted Nay, McCain voted for it, of course, although now he claims he was absent."
The person who wrote this doesn't know what he's talking about. In the original senate vote yes, but for the conference report the senate vote was was 90 Ayes, 8 Nays, 1 Present/Not Voting. McCain was not present for the vote on the conference report, Hollings and Biden both voted Aye.
The way bills are passed is that both the senate and house vote, if it passes both houses it goes to a conference committee consisting of both senators and representatives, and what comes out of that committee is voted on by both houses. That's the conference report, and that's what actually becomes law, not the originals which were passed in separate houses. You might learn how your government works before you start running your mouth with bad information ballachulish. Biden did vote no for the original bill, but voted yes for the conference report.
September 30, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mkris (anonymous) says...
ballachulish:
Who cares who voted for it? It was a terrible bill. The unregulated Shadow banking system and its consequences are the result. And before the wing-nuts come out of the closet... it was signed as a result of a threat to stop all administraiton legislative adgendas, unless it was signed.
proletariat:
Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, AND A PARTISAN WITH AN ADGENDA. Thats the problem, alot of ideologuges and very few pragmatists... Keep spewing the right-wing nut adgenda.
Conservative republicans voted for the Great Depression in 1929, conservative republcians are again voting for a depression in 2009.
September 30, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
mkris,
I agree, to many ideologuges and very few pragmatists!
September 30, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
southbel (anonymous) says...
mkris, again with the Depression comparisons and yet still wrong. Let's compare, shall we?
1929 vs 2008
In 1929, a very large sector of the economy was agrarian, particularly the Midwest. Ah, but we do all remember the Midwest pictures of the Dust Bowl, right? Yes, that massive drought that modern irrigation of 2008 could control but in 1929 they did not have.
In 2008, we are a service oriented nation, a large sector of economy, approximately 45%, employed by small business. Different economy, one that does not rely upon commodities in order to survive. Big factor here.
1929 (really 1930) - Hawley-Smoot Tariff. This charged a very high tax on imports. Reason for this was supposedly to help American companies. You know, it was supposed to help keep American jobs in America (now where have I heard that line before).
2008 - Inexpensive imported goods. Lots of trade - heck you name it. Some criticize too much, too little, whatever. Either way, the "main street" contingent pays less for goods.
And finally - the big evil banks...
In 1929, several thousand banks failed, well over 8,000. However, because there was not FDIC, when a bank failed, you lost your deposits, period. There were no safeguards for the regular person. This, of course, led to widespread distrust and a run on the banks as those failures increased. This created a snowball effect. The more the banks failed, the more people pulled their money out, causing a major capilization problem.
In 2008, WaMu fails, FDIC kicks in. No runs on all of the other banks, business continues. In 1987, more banks failed than what is currently occurring now and yet, here we all are, no doomsday, no Depression. Sure, there was a repression, a bad one. However, we survived. Our economy survived. Yes, credit is restricted, but local banks are faring well and banks that are well capitalized without toxic assets are faring well. Do not forget this.
Ok, I'm done. History lesson over!!
September 30, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoaMM (anonymous) says...
It's only a matter of time before politicians have no one to blame...except the public:
"You voted me in! This is the public's fault!! Hurumph, hurumph, hurumph!"
September 30, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mastermariner (anonymous) says...
This is the strongest evidence for term limits. Henry Brown does not have the capacity to understand how his buddies created this mess, but he sure knows how to take their money and bail them out. Lindsey, what do you expect, since when did he ever have to work a real job that did not carry the insurance of job security provided by working stiffs like me. It is is so easy for our representatives to live in Washington, fed by the system, while we starve. In the end run, we are all to blame. We bought into the panic created by the people that caused the problem and continue to elect the individuals that do not have the mental or financial interst to protect our interests. We need to clean house. Let the cards fall where they fall, get back to the basics that made this great country what it is. Money is money, it comes and goes. We need to get our troops home, and create jobs for them. Let Wall street, it bankers and legislatures, choke on the mess that they created.
September 30, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
southbel (anonymous) says...
As a side note, is anyone getting tired of the media, the financial experts, the politicians, etc. saying that we, the taxpayers, just do not understand what is going on with the banks and financial markets right now?
I am getting tired of this mantra pretty quickly. I must say that while I disagree with many peoples' opinions, a lot of people do seem to at least grasp the situation. I don't think it's an issue of a lack of understanding, but rather a lack of agreement with the aforementioned groups.
September 30, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
People have been continually mis-stating the Community Reinvestment Act as being the sole blame for this crisis. The Act itself has many parts and has been changed many times, but it is definitely not the sole blame behind this. It starts with banks and mortgage companies and ends with consumers, small lendors, the Fed and the failure of the bank regulators.
Banks profited heavily at first from subprime lending, and those they lended to and targeted were not only people affected or under the CRA, it was also many first-time home buyers who lived beyond their means or just didn't plain no better. That's only one end of the spectrum. The other end is that the banks now have lots of defaulted loans from subprime lending which has great risks but also potentially great rewards (the interest rate is higher, and higher fees are associated). More so, over half of suprime loans and mortgages were given by independent companies not governed by the CRA and only a quarter of the entire amount of subprime loans given during the housing buble were by banks that were governed by the CRA. I doubt banks were complying with CRA just to up their ratings, rather they were doing it to profit heavily and it blew up in their faces.
The law was weakened in 2004 under the Bush administration, it's not perfect, but it surely doesn't warrant the entire blame for this crisis.
September 30, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ballachulish (anonymous) says...
So Jane ,
You say Bush tried to reign in Freddie and Fannie, but you can't prove it, I guess you're just repeating talking points.
Clinton's push for minority loans has been parsed and dismissed as having an integral impact on the current crisis.
Prole,
I noticed you served "during" not in Kosovo, I have first hand knowledge of that conflict, do you?
Oh, the "we haven't been hit since 9/11 argument" is lame, I guess every administration should get kudos for NEVER allowing our country to get attacked, unlike Bush.
September 30, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lovely_One (anonymous) says...
I asked a question a while back and haven't seen an answer. Maybe it got lost in the shuffle. I will post it again...you know, "just in case."
Posted by cwmcpa on September 30, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Obama showed how much of a leader he is by not being able to get even 70% of the Congressional black caucus votes all of which are in safe districts."
So, because Obama is Black was the Black Caucus supposed to vote with him? Bush is a Republican, already the President and has been for the last 8 years, and his fellow Repubs didn't vote with him. What kind of leader does that make him? I am not bashing Bush, I just want to know the logic behind the comment about the Black Caucus and Obama.
September 30, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
Jane, you are one of the ones that has their ideology so far up their back sides, that would not know what an original rational thought was if you saw it. I know that you have the propaganda machine on speed dial to do the thinking for you. Kind of reminds me of some type Orwellian Dystopia, where original thought is against the law.
Sure there was irresponsible behavior on the consumers' part, but what about financial institutions. Have you ever heard of some the tactics the financial companies used to dupe the consumer just because the loan officer wanted a greater commission? What about teaser loans and other forms of creative financing? What about the spiels like "I know that it is a variable interest rate, but once you build your equity, you can always get it refinanced"? No wonder people were duped into believing they could have afforded this! Yep, these people should have been more responsible!
September 30, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
southbel (anonymous) says...
balla, this is so not going to make your day, but I found all of the evidence you are accusing Jane doesn't exist. (2003 here, 2004 to follow) Right off the White House website. However, I suggest you go and look up each and every one of these items for independent verification.
2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releas...
September 30, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
People on this board, who obviously have common sense of their own (which I would argue many American don't, and we shouldn't forget that) know that "living beyond your means" or "buying beyond your means is a problem. But of course, that never stops anyone.
The fact is we have a tax system that is tilted towards people who own rather than rent, so the pressure is on for people who can't afford it to "own" a house regardless of their financial situation.
Finally, we have a kooky credit rating system, that has never been able to accurately predict people's "credit-worthiness", the more credit you've amassed the higher you are rated, as long as you have are paying most of it. If I go buy a house tomorrow and I only have one credit card and one banking account, my credit is worth less than someone with 3 student loans, three credit cards, et cetera. At least, that's how I've understood it to be. Everyone wants a system where first time home buyers aren't discriminated against, but there's never been a perfect recipe for determining credit worthiness and hence lending-worthiness, essentially you are just trusting people to live within their means, understand the complex rules around housing mortgages and pay their bills! Which is a lot of trust in America these days.
September 30, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
southbel (anonymous) says...
Here's 2004 as a follow-on to my previous post.
2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore:should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releas...
September 30, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
Lovely, do you really think your question will be answered? Come on now!! :)
September 30, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lovely_One (anonymous) says...
SCDea: "Finally, we have a kooky credit rating system, that has never been able to accurately predict people's "credit-worthiness", the more credit you've amassed the higher you are rated, as long as you have are paying most of it. If I go buy a house tomorrow and I only have one credit card and one banking account, my credit is worth less than someone with 3 student loans, three credit cards, et cetera. At least, that's how I've understood it to be."
That is correct, my dear. They would rather you be a person who borrows a lot and often than to be the person who does so sporadically. It's like Dave Ramsey says the FICO score is nothing more than the "I love debt score." We have a warped system indeed.
September 30, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lovely_One (anonymous) says...
SCDea, I should know better! It was a valid question and wasn't full of vitriolic language and actually made sense so it goes into the circular file never to be mentioned again..Lol!
September 30, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
"That is correct, my dear. They would rather you be a person who borrows a lot and often than to be the person who does so sporadically. It's like Dave Ramsey says the FICO score is nothing more than the "I love debt score." We have a warped system indeed."
Great post Lovely!
September 30, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
southbel (anonymous) says...
Okay Lovely, I'll bite at your question. Generally, the Black Caucus votes as a block. They are, for all purposes, a PAC in that regard. Obama is a member but there was some divide among the group during the primaries. However, once he became the candidate, the Black Caucus threw their full support behind him, and most importantly, his agenda. This is why their 70% nay vote on this bill is surprising.
Now, the House Republicans have also been a different group. There are several different factions within that group and they will often times go against the party leadership. They are at times considered problematic to their party leadership when they decide to break with party lines. In the House Republicans, you will see your most staunch conservatives and the "base" as you often hear it. Thus, voting against the Administration is not something completely our of the ordinary for the House Republicans.
Hope that answers it!
September 30, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
Well southbel, let's not disregard the fact that both Dems and Repubs are all fearful of faving repercussions in the elections next month. House Republicans arguably have more to lose, so they are less willing to belly up and tow the party line, when most of their constituency is against that party line and the Bush Administration in general. In other words, it's definitely not been in their best political interests to cozy up to a president with low approval ratings and for all intent purposes is a lame duck. The political risks are much greater than the political rewards.
September 30, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lovely_One (anonymous) says...
Thanks, southbel, for the sensible and well thought out answer. I am leaning towards the fact that the person I posed the question to was probably not thinking along those lines!
And thank you as well, Stewart. I would have never made the connection with FICO and debt had I not gone to see Mr. Ramsey last month. It makes perfect since.
September 30, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
Lovely, I agree about the FICO score. Thinking about the prospect of buying a house in the next five or six years, gets me worried. Who knows how they will rate my (or mine and my husband's) credit worthiness when it seems to all be all irrelevant in the end. To me, it's like SAT scores. It really is no indicator on how you will perform later on.
September 30, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lovely_One (anonymous) says...
SCdea: "To me, it's like SAT scores. It really is no indicator on how you will perform later on."
You better preach, sistah!!!!
September 30, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
southbel (anonymous) says...
SCdeacinNYC,
Believe it or not, there are still banks out there that lend to people based on actual credit worthiness vice FICO. How to find them? They are called "conservative mortgage lenders". That's the buzz word needed when looking for them. Those are banks that perform manual underwriting, actually look at your payments on your credit report, rental(s), etc. They also take into account other factors. In addition, conservative banks do not offer "creative financing" so you won't find ARMs, interest only or any of that junk there. Good news for the stability of the bank, IMHO.
I found the process a little longer but SO worth it, especially now!
September 30, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
Lovely, LOL! You are a mess....
Southbel, thanks for the advice. As of now, I KNOW I can't afford the sort of house I want yet, so I won't even be trying.
September 30, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
UrGatorbait (anonymous) says...
From another site:
"What keeps people honest in the market place is *RISK*.
A bailout removes risk from the equation, and what will ultimately have to be used in it's place is Government oversight.
You cannot lobby marketplace risk. You cannot buy favors in the marketplace. There are no "good ole boys" in the market. Risk does not discriminate, nor does it cater to friends or lobby groups. Risk is blind and risk is fair."
Some folks just don't need to be involved in the market if they cannot understand that.
Yes have the gubmint save us.
September 30, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
willie08 (anonymous) says...
Here is a bill which will provide for a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. It has provisions in it where it talks about helping homeowners, but when you read the fine print, you see it has language like "may" instead of "shall" and "encouraging" instead of "mandating" help for the millions of homeowners who are worried right now about whether they're going to lose their home. There's no help for them in this.
So what we have here is a rescue plan that essentially gives all the speculators a bailout and puts the bad debts in the custody of the government. The president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank has said that this plan could create a fiscal chasm, says that the problem isn't tight monetary policy, it's the reckless behavior of some of these investors who have now found themselves in a position where a government bailout is going to help reward their bad behavior.
September 30, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigSargeofSC (anonymous) says...
So, we just did avoid becoming a Socialist-Marxist nation.
Viva Freedom!
September 30, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
Whether you all like it or not, some form ofa "bailout" or "rescue" or whatever you call it plan will eventually be passed, it's going to happen.
I'm with whoever said it earlier, biting the bullet is the name of the game here. Now its up to our "lawmakers" to prove to us why this is necessary and perhaps this gives them a chance to come up with a better bill than the previous one.
September 30, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Thomas1776,, come on they will not find anything,, remember the $100,000 fire he had awhile back....the Dow went up 500 points,, what does that mean?????
September 30, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
feb251939 (anonymous) says...
PLEASE EVERYONE CHECK THIS SITE OUT FOR THE TRUTH.
http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com...
September 30, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mkhaynes (anonymous) says...
Because Jane keeps bringing it up as the "devil" in this mess, here's an opinion from an economist (someone who probably knows more about this than any of us) about the Community Reinvestment Act. True, it is just an opinion, but raises some valid points.
http://www.businessweek.com/investing...
September 30, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mkhaynes (anonymous) says...
And Jane, Raines is not, nor has he ever been, an Obama advisor.
September 30, 2008 at 8:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SwampFox2 (anonymous) says...
Press Release
--- Draft Copy - not for release until verified ---
November 5, 2008 The Sixth District, SC In a stunning defeat, incumbent James Clyburn lost his Congressional seat to his relatively unknown challenger, Republican Nancy Harrelson. Clyburn's loss is largely attributed to his turning on voters and supporting the massive bailout package, after he also earned his constituents' ire by voting for the bailout legislation twice! Angry voters fired a record number of incumbent Senators and Congressmen this year. South Carolina voter Mary Dobbs said, "We have had enough. Bailing out Wall Street, while we are struggling to buy gas and groceries was just too much." Grass Roots activists used the Internet to rally opposition.
One blogger using the pseudonym 'End the Fed' posted this question: "Will America now be more Socialist than Russia?" Many voters joined former Speaker Newt Gingrich in calling for the firing of Treasury Secretary Paulson, an insider, who wrote the first bailout bill and profited over 100 million dollars from Goldman Sachs Bank. Goldman Sachs is one of the companies the bailout was designed to help. "It's a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house," said farmer Todd Earnest, "Reforms are clearly needed to help our economy, but an 850 billion dollar bail out filled with pork that benefits Wall Street and foreign banks, and is paid for by middle class Americans like me was not the right answer."
U.S. Senator, the Honorable Jim DeMint had this to say about the bailout bill, ""As the blood of our young men and women fall on foreign soil in the defense of freedom, our own government appears to be leading our country into the pit of socialism." Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.
A constituent added that "The socialism Senator DeMint is referring to is the worst kind of socialism, because it is not taking from you to help your neighbor, it is taking from you, and your children's, children's children to help your CORPORATE FUEDAL LORD, AKA fascism!. This horrible bill will lead to all of us being share croppers for the globalists. "
Clyburn had support across party lines and rural to urban areas. He was favored to win, and many pundits thought he would do just that. The financial crisis pitted Main Street against Washington just a few weeks ago. When Clyburn sided with Washington and Wall Street on the bail out South Carolina voters bailed on him.
October 2, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.