If Mccain Votes In Favor Of This Bill ...

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='SpareTime' post='1667943' date='Oct 1 2008, 08:15 PM']I wasn't aware politicians were the ones giving out loans. [/quote]
Fannie & Freddie are not free market private businesses. They are political tools that happen to make up more than half of the mortgage industry. Fannie & Freddie were used by the Federal Government, along with some legislation passed by Carter and heavily enforced by Clinton in the early 1990s, to steer the mortgage market. And then the liberals in Congress could pat themselves on the back and ask for votes.

These are the same people who also passed a law in the early 1990s that requires all welfare recipients to be given voter registrations at the welfare office. It was all a major outreach to the people dependent on government in exchange for votes.

A 1999 [url="http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807"]LA Times article congratulates the Clinton administration[/url] for a job well done in the area of mortgage loans:
[indent]
It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

...

What explains the surge? The answer starts with the economy. Historically low rates of minority unemployment have created a larger pool of qualified buyers. And the lowest interest rates in years have made homes more affordable for white and minority buyers alike.

But the economy isn’t the whole story. As HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo says: “There have been points in the past when the economy has done well but minority homeownership has not increased proportionally.” Case in point: Despite generally good times in the 1980s, homeownership among blacks and Latinos actually declined slightly, while rising slightly among whites.

All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.[/indent]

[Lounge Daddy]

Socialist financier George Soros is now [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7842492"]calling on the government to be MORE involved[/url] in the banking markets. I think that I am going to puke.

McCain is on Soros' payroll, and has been [url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=56177"]in league with Soros and Kerry[/url] for at least the better part of a decade.

When McCain tried to say that he was against corruption in his own party, so he is getting in bed with Ted Kennedy; what he really meant was, he is getting paid by [url="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/25/meet-the-open-borders-family-mccain-hernandez-soros-and-the-reform-institute/"]the same people as the others on the Left[/url].

[Lounge Daddy]

A [url="http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1008/Senators_who_voted_No.html"]list of all who voted NO[/url] can be viewed at The Politico. Even my Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow got it right and voted "no" on this thing. Too bad McCain can't get his junk together and do the right thing, and give us a reason to actually support him.

I wrote my Senator an e-mail thanking her (never thought that I would ever do that). And then I took down my McCain yard sign, which I will be bringing back to my local GOP office tomorrow.

[T-Bone _]

Thank you Sen. Wyden (OR).

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='philothea' post='1667886' date='Oct 1 2008, 06:33 PM']Still, it's not like they're planning to hand individual Wall Street bankers big wads of cash, even in the current version, which is what many people seem to believe.[/quote]
I understand your point. I've heard people use the words "wall street fat cats" way more than I care to count. We ought to strongly oppose the bill, but not for that; it's socializing the economy, and paying out cash to Blackshirts in ACORN and others, and enabling Corporatism. Oh well.

I just read this at [url="http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/10/02/bob-barr-and-ron-paul-hate-the-bailout/2296/"]Liberty Maven[/url]:
[indent]There aren’t many people opposed to the bailout who oppose it for the right reasons, but both Ron Paul and Bob Barr (whether they are still on speaking terms or not) do oppose it for the right reasons. Ron Paul has been utilizing his [url="http://campaignforliberty.com/"]Campaign For Liberty [/url]mailing list and web site to urge his 100K plus activist supporters to contact their representatives in opposition to the bailout bill. Paul has also appeared on numerous media outlets in recent days beating the drum that no bailout means a year of recession and passing the bailout means a possible decade of recession.

Bob Barr has called it the “bailout from hell”. He released an [url="http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/30/video-bob-blasts-bailout/"]anti-bailout campaign video [/url]and authored an [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/bob-barr-warns-congress-m_b_130994.html"]article in the Huffington Post[/url] arguing against the out of control federal budget. Barr was given credit in the Politico [url="http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/30/politico-monday-goes-to-barr/"]for being more in line with the people[/url] on the bailout than Washington.[/indent]

Edited October 2, 2008 by Lounge Daddy

[kenrockthefirst]

Look, everyone, the bailout is working:

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081002/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street"]Stocks decline on unemployment, factory reports[/url]

Can I just say that Ron Paul was so good and so right on so many important issues. Let's all write him in.

[Lounge Daddy]

[b]BIGGER[/b]: The bill has grown to[u] $835 billion[/u]! The hundreds of extra pages that our Republican and Democrat leadership have added amount to an extra $135 billion to the original $700 billion bill.

The Bob Barr campaign has issued an e-mail to supporters, reading in part:

[indent]Yesterday, almost like magic, the $700 Billion Bush/Obama/McCain Bailout (B.O.M.B) grew to cost us taxpayers $835 Billion! Like me, you are probably not surprised.

After all, this is what we have come to expect out of Washington. Most important it reveals that the "change" and "straight talk" we have been promised from Barack Obama and John McCain is similarly an illusion. Or, dare I say it is a lie?

...

But McCain wasn't the only one to knuckle under from the pressure of our nation's financial elites. Both Obama and Biden joined in the chorus and the whole cabal decided to add to the budget deficit orgy with another $135 Billion in added expense to taxpayers.

Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts has already suggested that House Democrats have to add more spending as well. Given that the House is four times the size of the Senate, dare I predict that before the week is over, the $700 Billion BOMB will grow to $1 Trillion or more?

My friend, it may take more than a week, but I have no doubt that the feeding frenzy in Congress will not end soon. George Bush is the lamest duck to nest in the White House in a long, long time and he has no interest in stopping the pork fest. And John McCain who campaigns on an end to ear marks is now a cheerleader for massive spending increases.

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that this scheme is going to do far more harm long term than it can help in the immediate term. More than $1 Trillion in new federal debt can only drive up interest rates or create massive inflation - or both.[/indent]

[Lounge Daddy]

The fallout beings! I heard Dave Ramsey on a few different programs already stating that this vote was a win or lose issue for McCain, and his support for the bill will cost him the election. Rush was throwing up his arms and complaining that John McCain, and his entire campaign, do not make any sense at all. And there is more to come I am sure.

The downward spiral begins. McCain blew it, again. And this time he cannot correct the mistakes. There are too many offenses against the base, and there isn't enough time before the election anyhow.

Ramsey was on [url="http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/15906/"]Glenn Beck the other day[/url] and he was already saying it:

[indent]RAMSEY: If we did away with the capital gains tax, we would see a huge flood of money into the real estate market and we would see a healing in about a quarter like you've never seen before. Now, that's a political lightning rod because we can't have rich people making money. That's against the law. But, you know, it would be fun for one of these presidential candidates, maybe the one that's supposed to be a maverick, to actually bring some different ideas to the table and go against Washington and with 70 to 90% of the public, he might win the presidency, were he a real maverick.

GLENN: Right. But he's not going to.

RAMSEY: And he's going to lose. [/indent]

Rush opened his program today announcing that he is broadcasting from Florida which is now, apparently, a part of the United Socialist States of America. And then he went right onto railing at McCain and wondering what happened to McCain's promise, in his speech at the GOP Convention, to stop earmarks and pork. McCain pounded the podium at that convention and promised to "name names." Rush asked today, where are those names?

Rush complained that McCain will not name names because the names are Democrat's names. He went on [url="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100208/content/01125112.guest.html"]later in the program[/url] and told a caller this:
[indent]Don't ask me to explain this! Honestly, folks. I know a lot of things, but you're asking me to explain the McCain campaign? If I had to do an essay for my doctoral thesis, I would have to refuse the assignment. You're asking me to explain this?[/indent]