The real reason why we have to bail out the banks. TWICE!

I don't trust either one of them :)

Is my money is in municipal bonds, tax free plus I am earning 6%.

Obama has no history yet of screwing the public in favor of the almighty mega corp. He gets the benefit of the doubt from me until that happens. One thing's for sure. I know exactly who McCain represents and it's not me. He thinks it takes $5 million a year to even be considered rich. That's how out of touch he is.

McCain has over 20 years of a voting record that has favored banks and oil companies. Both are industries we need but, unfortunately, neither can be trusted. That's why got created regulation. :)

Just so I understand, why did Clinton HAVE to sign the bill you refer to? Could he have not signed it for cosmetic reasons alone to show not only his opposition but the Democrats as a whole?

Clinton had no chance. The vote went through the Senate down party lines and a veto may have worked but before it went to Clinton it was sent to conference committee where they tweaked it and got a veto-proof majority.

Let's not forget, though, that Clinton was a fairly moderate Democrat.

The bailout failed to pass. Market just lost 5% of it's value in about 10 minutes. Wow!

This is what happens when such huge institutions are not properly regulated. Phil Gramm deserves to be called out for this because he engineered this deregulation in 1999. McCain voted for it and STILL does not regret it according to his remarks on 60 Minutes.

I expect they'll tweak the bill and it will pass.

Think again.

The reason for it failing makes pretty good sense. Executive payouts is one, there are several others.

i am surprised that you posted that, i thought you was for obama, i thought that is why you took the name, lol looks like i was wrong..i dont know who to vote for, where are the down to earth people, the average day working man ,lol, i know they dont have the money to run, but i wish they could get someone in office who is intouch with the people here in the united states..not out for the all mighty dollar..

Dear All,

Everyone is partisan. We all think that our side does no wrong and all of the ills of the world are caused by the other party. The truth of the matter is, these guys are all thick as thieves. McCain will always be remembered for the Keating 5, Obama is tied to illegal activity in Chicago. The only reason I will vote for anyone this election is due to Sarah Palin. She's not a Washington regular, hell, I'd rather see her as President than any of the other yea hoos that are running. She hasn't been corrupted yet.

Read the article below about Obama's ties to the same ole' people in Washington, same problems, different face, that's all. Get government out of our lives, stop propping up the housing market, let it fall, it's artificially being held up anyway. Let the market set the price.

Obama’s Friends at Fannie Mae
by Lynn Woolley
10/01/2008
Print This
Forward
Feedback
Digg This!
Subscribe
Sponsored By:
To be sure, the nation’s current financial mess is a bipartisan disaster -- but how curious it was to hear Barack Obama at the first debate claim that he sounded warnings two years ago. Perhaps he did, but some us of would like to hear more about the warnings and the letter he says he wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury urging a meeting of all “stakeholders.”

After all, many of Sen. Obama’s friends, advisors and fellow Democrats have direct connections to the quasi-governmental agency at the center all this -- the Federal National Mortgage Association, better known as Fannie Mae.

Back in 2004, Fannie was embroiled in an accounting scandal and in October of that year, the House conducted hearings. According to the Wall Street Journal, the staunchest defenders of Fannie were members of the Congressional Black Caucus. By a strange coincidence, the Fannie Mae Foundation was making annual contributions to the Caucus. And get this – Maxine Waters (D-CA) “cooed all over Mr. Raines” and Clay Lacy (D-MO) “played the race card by calling the hearings a ‘political lynching’ of Mr. Raines.”
Continued
Sponsored Links:

* BRIC Investor Report: Brazil, Russia, India & China stocks
* Barack Obama Exposed! A Human Events Special Report
* New From Dick Morris: "Outrage" -- Yours Free!
* Breaking News: Over 2,000 Failing Mutual Funds to Dump Right Now!

<A HREF="http://a.tribalfusion.com/h.click/aCmMfj5bIuWTrsWTYiQqBZdRsFZbPU6tPHnkVGvT2FTqmder0qXx3WjBQsZbZa5AvZaotIyUtf8YF3bYbbeXayoPbrZbTrvSVdJ5nb3rRU7tXaFp5aFa4qQ0nq7H1rZbgWWfWn67CnV7mpHbD3TFh3teM5mvGMGvOuQwJFZa/http://popularscreensavers.smileycentral.com/download/index.jhtml?partner=ZRxdm694652660040" TARGET="_blank"><IMG SRC=http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/1384696/screensaver_halloween_300a.gif WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></A>

That would be Franklin Raines, an African American who stepped down as chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae on December 21, 2004. This followed an investigation by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that accused Fannie of cooking the books so that its officers could “earn” big bonuses. Two years ago, the OFHEO filed suit against Raines to try to recover the $50 million in payments that were made to him based on the faulty accounting. He settled for a small fine that was paid by Fannie’s insurance company.

Connection to Sen. Obama: Both Raines and Obama insist there is no connection, but he is likely a behind-the-scenes advisor. The Washington Post has reported that Raines had “taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters” and that Raines is a member of Obama’s “political circle.” Obama did not request a correction until after a McCain ad quoted the paper.

Next is J. Timothy Howard, who resigned along with Raines and who was Fannie’s Chief Financial Officer. In that position, he was a key figure in shaping the company’s books to make it seem that Fannie had reached goals that would lead to executive bonuses. Howard was part of the Raines settlement. His connection to Barack Obama: Murky at best but likely since Howard is tied to Raines.

It’s interesting to note that by 2006, both Raines and Howard were being investigated by both the OFHEO and the SEC, by then headed by Christopher Cox, whom Sen. McCain now wants to see fired.

Then there is Jamie Gorelick, a Harvard lawyer who always seems to turn up in interesting places. You’ll remember her as a member of the 9/11 Commission and the criticism of her related to a “wall” that may have limited the ability of agencies to cooperate against terrorism. Turns out that she was Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 until 2003 -- smack in the middle of the accounting scandal. On March 25, 2002, Business Week quoted her as saying about the agency, “We believe we are managed safely.” Gorelick was among those who received large bonuses.

Her connection to Obama: None that we know of other than her association with the Democratic Party.

Next is Jim Johnson, a Democratic figure dating back to the Carter years. He was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 until 1998 (preceding Raines) and was a subject of the OFHEO investigation. The investigation showed that Fannie had substantially underreported Johnson’s compensation, listing it as $6 million when it was really some $21 million.

Johnson is a strong Obama supporter who was tapped to head up the vice-presidential selection committee. He had to drop out when it was disclosed that he received a sweetheart loan from Countrywide Financial, as had Mr. Raines.

We should also mention former Clinton Commerce Secretary William Daley who served as a Fannie Mae board member collecting stock options and director’s fees and whose son Bill Jr. was a Fannie Mae lobbyist from 2002 until 2005. His connection to Obama: The Politico reports that he is serving as an advisor for the senator and he has been mentioned as a potential Treasury Secretary in an Obama administration.

Of course, Sen. Obama himself is second on the list of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae since 1989. Regardless of what he may have stated at the debate, the Washington Post editorialized on September 19, 2008, “In 2006, [McCain] pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while Mr. Obama was strangely silent.” Perhaps his $126,000 in contributions kept him that way.

Obama now claims to champion “Main Street” by fighting against so-called golden parachutes for CEO’s. That’s something he should know about since so many of his friends and advisors have hands-on experience with creating them.

To say that you would rather have Palin as President because she's less tainted seems a bit odd to me. One would assume that she is at least knowledgable in politics and a bit of US history before anything else. Once that is established then it seems to make sense that one would start to hone in on a candidate for their policy positions. Once we narrow down who best represents the positions that one aligns themselves with then that would seem the natural choice.

To put positions aside in favor of a candidate who is not a regular Washington insider BUT who also lacks the understanding of many things we would expect of somebody running for such high office seems strange.

We have Obama, who is no more tainted than anybody and far less tainted than most.

We have McCain who, until a month or so ago, was touting Phil Gramm as his chief economic advisor. WHAT? We are on the brink of the biggest economic collapse since the great depression. Why? Phil Gramm sponsored the bill to deregulate the investment banks in 1999. It passed. John Dingell warned on the house floor that very night that we'd pay for this someday. Just the same as we paid $500 Billion for the S&L failure (Keating 5). McCain voted for that deregulation. On 60 minutes 10 days ago he said he does not regret that vote in '99. McCain has actually recently admitted that economics are not his strong suit. One can argue that this is the reason they choose cabinet members and advisors. This is true but a FAR bigger threat than the pesky middle eastern terrorists is our own economis collapse. Why do you think 9/11 occurred at the twin towers? They were not aiming at those towers because they were tall. They were aiming for them because they are at the heart of our massive economy. They know how to bring us down. Same way China plans to do it. Economically. McCain is a deregulator. He always has been. It wasn't until last week that he started preaching regulation.

I hope you and any other voters will consider this before you vote this man into office. Why do you think the polls are starting to swing toward Obama? The economy trumps the war, guns, god and every other single issue because when this economy fails then the rest of that stuff will pale in comparison to the self inflicted ruin of this country that was brought on by the greed of massive financial institutions who have been given the gift of heavy deregulation.

Barack Obama is in favor of heavy regulation of any industry whose actions could cause serious harm to the public. That is why we have regulation. Most regulations are a result of an event that resulted harm to the public good. Large greedy industries throw money at campaign coffers and expect favors in return. It usually works. Political donations are the best deals money can buy. Obama takes FAR FAR fewer from these heathens and the only reason they even bother to give him money is to hedge their bets in case their favorite loses the race.

In the 3 "key" states that McCain must win he is falling behind in the polls. Democrat or Republican, I'll vote for who I believe is the
best person to do the job. No way the Republicans can get us out of this mess. Clinton said in his conventions speech that if you
want to see how clearly the Republicans govern then look at the 1st 6 years of the Bush Admn. I can only look at the plain facts.

If tomorrow nights debate has the same format as last Fridays, McCain/Palin are in HUGE trouble, Biden is going to rip her apart.
McCain's campaign knows it too as they're already saying that the debate moderator will support Biden. It's going to be ugly.

Yes, it will be ugly. The thing that may backfire is that Biden is a tough guy. Known for his stern tone. If he does not tone it down then they will accuse him of beating up on a woman or taking advantage of her "newness" to this whole business of national politics. I suspect we will see that coming from the McCain campaign.

They are resorting to some pretty dirty tricks these days. Like, for example, the ad they ran about Obama voting to fund sex ed for kindergarteners. What he REALLY did was vote to support K thru 12 funding of teaching kids what to look out for when it concerns sexual predators. Trying to get them wise to these freaks seems like a noble thing to me. McCain calls that giving sex ed to a kindergartener. Pretty deceiving, don't ya think?

I have no doubt that Biden with score a TKO on the issues but they'll cry fowl over something that has nothing to do with the issues in an effort to derail the factual outcome of the debate.

Yep, you're right about his "tough guy" personality but I imagine he's being coached correctly. As we all know it's not what you say,
it's how you say it. If he practices this I feel it will be McCains failure, not Palins, and seal the deal for Obama. Unless McCain
intends on standing next to her during this debate as he has in a couple of interviews with journalists ?? NOT!

So only 2 people think that Obama is the guy to vote for. That's pretty good % of elwood. That reminds me of another statistic about elwood. I just cant put my finger on what it is. Can anyone else?

You might wanna have a look around town. There may only 2 in this thread who are bold enough to proclaim their votes but there are an awful lot of Obama/Biden signs around Elwood. Not bad for a town that was heavily KKK for many years.

As a matter of fact you might wanna look below and see the status of America's feelings about Obama as of today.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Oct02.html

By the way, your post makes you sound like a racist.

were quoting clinton now ? as i recall there was a scandal where he was getting his nob polished, he never inhaled, but boy he could play the sax..lol...the first time my little girl asked me what oral sex was is when she heard that the president was accused of it, she was in 1st grade...i lost all the respect i had for the man then and there...if i vote, and the only reason is out of civic duty, i really dont like either candidates ..another damned if you do damned if you dont situation....i would vote for hillary or the lady from alaska... they seem ok ....unless i hear later about a bunch of junk, the one thing hillary should of done was shake bill off her high heals and kicked his butt to the curb.

I hear what you're saying about Clinton. But taking away what you said above the country was in good shape. The Economy was
great and there were lots of jobs. The deficit was in check and he was not a bully to the rest of the world.

I'm sure he did inhale. LOL!

I have to say that I liked Clinton as President also. He was a bad role model, but, unlike ANY Republican president, he did cut some spending and was unable to pass his own pet programs.

As a matter of fact, in my lifetime, the presidents seem to wind up doing pretty much the opposite of what they said they would do.
I'm not saying that they were lying, just that most of what they promise is beyond what a president can really do.
I also note the neither of the major candidates say anything about what spending they will cut. Out of 2.7 trillion, you'd think that they could find something.

Personally, I gave up on the two current parties a long time ago. It's better to vote your conscience that to guess the lesser of two evils.

Bill Clinton on the Banking Crisis, McCain, and Hillary
"The people who are most against market intervention wind up having to preside over the biggest market intervention"

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

by Maria Bartiromo

This Issue
October 6, 2008

Where to Invest (Stash) Your Money
Previous IssueNext Issue

Greenspan and Clinton at the 1999 signing of the bank deregulation act Khue Bui/AP Photo

Story Tools
post a comment
e-mail this story
print this story
order a reprint
suggest a story
digg this
save to del.icio.us
linkedin connections There is no shortage of blame for the financial debacle rocking America and scaring the world. And among the names popping up in the pathology of this vicious malaise are former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, and former President Bill Clinton. It was on their watch that the banking strictures of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act were dismantled. Some critics say tearing down the barriers between commercial and investment banks contributed to the current crisis because it allowed commercial banks such as Citigroup (C) to trade mortgage-backed securities. In fact, former Citi CEO Sandy Weill led the fight for deregulation. President Clinton was in New York this week for the annual meeting of his philanthropy, the Clinton Global Initiative, and I asked him about the banking crisis.

MARIA BARTIROMO
Mr. President, in 1999 you signed a bill essentially rolling back Glass-Steagall and deregulating banking. In light of what has gone on, do you regret that decision?

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter. But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch (MER) by Bank of America (BAC), which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.

Phil Gramm, who was then the head of the Senate Banking Committee and until recently a close economic adviser of Senator McCain, was a fierce proponent of banking deregulation. Did he sell you a bill of goods?
Not on this bill I don't think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment.

Joe Biden voted for that as well. Also I don't see anything in my other statemate that is racist. If you don't want race to become an issue then quit bringing it up.

How very interesting!

You accuse a man that has been through POW torture for serving your country of being corrupt. You are the one that is a discrace to this country, and if the majority of elwood share's your views like you claim then you may have just figured out the problem.

Don't Smoke Crack

So why is it that Obama/Biden think that the Iraq is not important?

Is there something about being a former POW that exempts one from being called corrupt? He's corrupt. As far back as the Keating 5.

Racist? If the show fits........

man i dont want neither one in office lol