O/T: What's Next?

First it was "Slick Willy", now it appears to be "Slippery John, The Chameleon.

McCain has repeatably emphasized that he is for less gov't, less regulation.

Even voted for some of the legislation that created the loop holes the wall St sleaze balls used to their advantage.

Now, with the fiasco on Wall St coming down around the countries ears, he wants to legislation so that it won't happen again.

Well "Slippery", which is it?

Total free market or a market with some gov't controls?

You don't get both, pick one.

Tell us a vision has come to you while you slept and it has given you new insight.

If so, tell us something.

McCain was against the "bailout" of AIG, now he admits it was a necessity.

BTW, Hank Greenberg, founder and former majority stockholder of AIG, whose personal loss exceeds over $3.5 billion as a result of the AIG problem, calls the $85B transaction a "bridge loan" rather than a bailout, a short term loan to be repaid with interest.

He indicates AIG can be saved and rebuilt.

He built it the first time, maybe he knows something.

Sure hope so.

Some how, I think he has a better handle on things than any of the politicians.

Wonder what position Chameleon John will take tomorrow?

Stay tuned.....................

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett
Loading thread data ...

So did, apparently, the majority of house and senate members.

So do, apparently, the majority of house and senate members.

You can't possibly come up with a cite for him railing for "total free market", can you? Didn't think so. Stop making stuff up.

see above.

...

Successful business people usually do.

He's a politican. No telling.

Reply to
Woodie

And... as most successful business people would do, they alter their course and their actions based on what lies before them. Only a fool would want a business leader or a politician to embrace a course and hold to it regardless of what faces them now. Things change - smart people change to deal with those changes. Fools sit and decry these things simply for the sake of complaining. Bigger fools simply do not realize the need for constant changes in direction in response to conditions surrounding you. Then there are those who simply like to bitch...

Reply to
Mike Marlow

I want to see Lew rant equally about those who initiated this mess -- those who have used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for both their personal aggrandizement (Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, etc.) and for the political benefit of their benefactors in the Congress (Barnie Frank, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangle, Chuck Schumer) by using those institutions for the massive re-distribution we are about to see in the name of "affordable housing". Those entities required that lenders give loans to people they knew would not be able to repay -- the real people who were going to pay were the taxpayers of the US because those loans were federally backed.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

Nice try to divert the discussion, but that crap doesn't stick on the wall.

Back to the subject.

What's next?

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

Except it's what happened... :(

--

Reply to
dpb

Well soon Obama will be in office and use his VAST experience to fix it all.........maybe NOT!

Reply to
cm

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:8318f$48d3139e$6215a85a$ snipped-for-privacy@ALLTEL.NET:

I love it.

Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound" to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and you characterize it as 'altering course.'

With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.

If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full justification.

Priceless.

Scott

Reply to
Elrond Hubbard

I'd also like to hear Lew's take on it. After all, he brought up in his post the fiasco on wall street. M & J's post spot on as to the root cause of the current mess.

If you want to talk about politicians playing to the audience and the changing environment, then you better bring them all into that discussion, not just the one you don't care for. And then we would be here all week.

Frank

Reply to
Frank Boettcher

You noticed.

McCain appears to have become a practioner of the Mitt Romney school of politics:

IOW, say and do anything necessary to satisfy your audience at the moment.

Forget principles, they no longer seem to matter.

It's a damn shame.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

Lew,

The real shame is the two choices we have for President.

cm

Reply to
cm

Why, thank you. Really - I find that to be a great phrase. Though... you misunderstand my point. McCain didn't simply assume the former position three or four days ago. He reversed a position that he held of some time. He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances that nobody predicted, or could predict. If you wish to see it as flip flopping, that's exactly how you'll see it. It appears to me to be more of a response to events.

Why do you say that? You've never seen me do that, and you don't even know enough about me to guess whether I'd do so, or not. Your projections are showing, sir.

Reply to
Mike Marlow

Buy that man a beer.

Reply to
Mike Marlow

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:17b54$48d3eafa$6215a85a$ snipped-for-privacy@ALLTEL.NET:

Excuse me? In light of *recent* circumstances? Does the man not read the news? Do you?

It appears to me to be a response to his handlers. To go from "fundamentally sound" to "worst crisis since the depression" without any steps in between... there hasn't been a conversion that quick since Paul ambled off to Damascus.

My apologies for putting words into your mouth. I should not have assumed that just because you came to the defense of McCain's expedient philosophical backflip you would find the similar behavior in the other party to be absurd.

Scott

Reply to
Elrond Hubbard

Yep, that's pretty much what I expected. ... and people accuse *me* of being partisan.

It doesn't take much rummaging around to find significant amounts of issues with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; problem is, they all lead to Lew's favorite party. One of the Obama's leading economic advisors is Frank Raines, the guy who got off with over $50M while Fannie Mae was writing mortgages for which we taxpayers are going to wind up paying.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

That is a lie, Mark. Raines has never been an advisor to Obama. Simply not true.

Next time you join the smear gang, do your homework. Guess you don't want to talk about McCain's advisors?

Reply to
Robatoy

Close but no cigar. This from

formatting link
From NBC's Mark Murray and NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy On the campaign trail in Minnesota today, McCain incorrectly suggested that the executive pay that former Fannie Mae CEOs Frank Raines and Jim Johnson earned came from taxpayers.

"That same executive got $21 million of your money," McCain said of Johnson. "And the other CEO, another supporter of Senator Obama, Mr. Raines got $25 million of your money. Let's tell them to give it back. Let's tell them to give it back."

Lucian Bebchuk of Harvard Law School, an expert on corporate governance, confirmed to First Read that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were private companies until being recently taken over by the federal government (which came after Raines' and Johnson's tenures).

Bebchuk said that maybe McCain was referring to past Fannie shareholders in the audience when he asserted that the executive compensation was "your money." Or perhaps McCain was making the point -- very loosely -- that now the federal government has taken over Fannie, any money that Raines or Johnson received is money taxpayers no longer have. But both assertions, he said, would be stretches.

Rich Ferlauto, the director of corporate governance and pension investment at the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees -- a union which has endorsed Obama in the presidential contest -- was more blunt about Raines' and Johnson's compensation

"It was not taxpayer money," he said. "It was shareholder money."

hang in there, jo4hn

Reply to
jo4hn

It misses the point. Those two companies were government-backed companies. They set policies in accordance with government objectives ("affordable housing", etc). The push to expand the "American dream" was expounded upon in an address to the Congressional Black Caucus by Daniel Mudd for example are indicative of what this "company" was doing, knowing its loans were backed by the government so the taxpayers would wind up paying for any bad loans. . You can take or leave the pieces of commentary in the clip, but the real words of Mudd (all strung together, not taken out of context) show a political agenda and objectives that were running this GSE.

A GSE (government sponsored enterprise)that couldn't even obey government accounting rules when real private enterprises were expected to do so: .

As I pointed out in a previous link, their sponsors in Congress (who were using "affordable housing" to buy votes) ridiculed the administration when the administration rightly attempted to exert additional oversight and loudly claimed that there was no impending disaster looming with those agencies (Barney Frank).

Is it a bit of hyperbole to say that Raines, Gorelick, Mudd, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH coalition, Chris Dodd, Obama, Kerry, et al got away with taxpayer money? Perhaps, but only a bit when you look at where they were spending money, how they were spending it and the low likelihood that the borrowers would be able to repay and that taxpayers were ultimately going to have to back up those loans.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

Good, glad you understand.

This is a thread I started, so don't try to hijack it, if you want a thread, try starting your own.

Back to the subject.

What's next?

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

I'll tell you what's next. You became a socialist nation today.

Reply to
Robatoy

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.