CBS: McCain offered last-minute new proposal with fewer regulations and more corporate tax cuts
Quote:
KATIE COURIC: And, Bob, I understand that John McCain actually floated an alternative plan. What can you tell us about that?
BOB ORR: We're told at the White House Senator McCain offered an alternative plan that would include fewer regulations and more corporate tax breaks for businesses, kind of a private solution. But we're also told those ideas angered and surprised Democrats like banking chairman Chris Dodd who now says he thinks the White House summit was more of a political stunt for McCain.
On the bright side this should spell the end of the Republican Party and their candidate.
Aww, you quoted me. Does this mean we're friends again?
Yes. I don't know why this is so hard for you to believe, but the House Republicans were never and have never been aboard this bailout plan. The Senate was but not the House. He mnay be able to twist the House's elbow to agree and maybe get the House dems to back off of some things that the House GOP doesn't like. They need somebody in there with a bully pulpit and Bush just doesn't cut it anymore being a lame duck. Obama should be there too he can help too. They should both be working together. Life goes on if they take a few days off from campaigning and actually do their jobs.
Yes. I don't know why this is so hard for you to believe, but the House Republicans were never and have never been aboard this bailout plan. The Senate was but not the House. He mnay be able to twist the House's elbow to agree and maybe get the House dems to back off of some things that the House GOP doesn't like. They need somebody in there with a bully pulpit and Bush just doesn't cut it anymore being a lame duck. Obama should be there too he can help too. They should both be working together. Life goes on if they take a few days off from campaigning and actually do their jobs.
Here's the problem that I see. When McCain said he would suspend his campaign & go to work, it became a foregone conclusion that the partisan stakes would be raised to the point where it wasn't going to help. I agree that both should be working to get this passed but it would have only worked without a spotlight on either presidential candidate. Nothing is going to be passed if it's seen as McCain saving the day.
Bill Clinton someone you respect and admire MEM agrees that McCain is doing the right thing.
Well I like & respect McCain too, but I don't agree with him all the time either. The way McCain did this just automatically put things in motion that won't be helpful.
I do have to backtrack some & say that I agree that McCain's not somehow afraid to debate McCain even though I think I titled a post saying he was evading the debates.
It wasn't going to get passed anyway. McCain being there is showing some leadership to get something done. Thing is that the current plan could wind up taking a huge chunk out of the taxpayers pockets. The plan the House Republicans want puts the financial burden into the private sector and not the everyday taxpayer. The best bet may be a compromised version of both plans.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
It wasn't going to get passed anyway. McCain being there is showing some leadership to get something done. Thing is that the current plan could wind up taking a huge chunk out of the taxpayers pockets. The plan the House Republicans want puts the financial burden into the private sector and not the everyday taxpayer. The best bet may be a compromised version of both plans.
My point though is he made it a very public show of going to Washington that any good he could have done is out the door now. A miniority party isn't going to be allowed to turn this into an advantage for their presidential candidate.
It already is an advantage to most freethinking people who aren't affiliated with party. Obama needs to stop hanging on to the debate as an excuse and follow McCain's lead. If McCain hadn't been begging for 2 or 3 debates a week all summer Obama could say that he is ducking him but he has no right to say that.
My point though is he made it a very public show of going to Washington that any good he could have done is out the door now.
Was it him that made a big show of it? I was pretty sure it was the otherside that did that.
I think it's fair to say that he did make a big show of it. He spent a good part of a day doing publicity to announce that he was suspending his campaign to "go to work in Washington" before he actually went to Washington the next day.
Polls are showing that most Americans (45% I believe) are against the bailout plan.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Polls are showing that most Americans (45% I believe) are against the bailout plan.
That's easy to understand. It's basically rewarding the companies that screwed us all over & it's alot of money being tossed at it. I would be against it too except no matter what side your on, most of them agree that something has to be done & soon. Seeing the stock market react to the ups & downs of how the bail out bill seems to confirm that.
It's not just that it rewards incompetence. A lot of people see it as the antithesis of a free market society. You basically have the nationalization of a large portion of the private sector.
The AP: "it was hard to tell who had suffered a worse evening, Bush or McCain."
Any article with the line "it was a remarkably bad day for Republicans" in the first paragraph is going to pique my interest:
Quote:
Even for a party whose president suffers dismal approval ratings, whose legislative wing lost control of Congress and whose presidential nominee trails in the polls, it was a remarkably bad day for Republicans.
The drama that unfolded yesterday wasn't as much about the underlying policy, but on the underlying politics -- internal Republican politics. Neither Bush or McCain have any leadership abilities:
Quote:
By midnight, it was hard to tell who had suffered a worse evening, Bush or McCain. McCain, eager to shore up his image as a leader who rises above partisanship, was undercut by a fierce political squabble within his own party's ranks.
The consequences could be worse for Bush, and for millions of Americans if the impasse sends financial markets tumbling, as some officials fear. Closed-door negotiations were to resume Friday, but it was unclear whether House Republicans would attend.
Republicans and Democrats alike seemed unsure which way McCain was leaning. His campaign's statement late Thursday shed little light.
"At this moment, the plan that has been put forth by the administration does not enjoy the confidence of the American people," it said. It was unclear whether McCain would attend Friday night's scheduled debate against Democratic nominee Barack Obama in Oxford, Miss.
So, get this straight: McCain made a big announcement that he was suspending his campaign (which he didn't do) and planning to bag the first debate because of the economic crisis. He swooped into D.C., caused a stir -- but no one knows what his position is. That's some kind of crazy. He hasn't solved the problem. It's no kind of leadership.
In fact, watching how McCain has handled himself in the economic crisis has put his temperament front and center in the campaign. There's no way to avoid it. McCain made it the issue himself. From Politico:
Quote:
McCain’s high-wire intervention in the financial crisis is his latest showstopper move – and his riskiest. He might succeed, but the candidate’s penchant for the dramatic has also raised anew potentially damaging questions of his age, executive abilities and, most of all, his temperament.
"He has been pretty erratic – there's no other way to describe what we've seen out of this guy in the last week," an Obama aide said of McCain's conduct during the financial crisis.
Another Democratic official cited McCain's "erratic, all over the map response to the economic crisis."
"Erratic" is one of the best words to describe McCain. "Erratic" is one of the worst words to describe a president.
Ok, granted, I realize G-man is going to complain that it's Democrats lobbing the criticism of McCain... So lets hear what an EX McCain staffer, a Republican has to say.
After days of saying that John McCain would not attend Friday's presidential debate unless an agreement on a bailout package for the markets was "locked-down," the McCain campaign has gone back on its word.
On Friday, it announced that the Senator would head down to Mississippi even though, as they readily admit, much work remained needed on the bailout agreement.
The whole episode left even conservatives admitting that the McCain campaign looked erratic and a bit foolish with no apparent direction or guiding principle.
"It just proves his campaign is governed by tactics and not ideology," said Republican consultant Craig Shirley, who advised McCain earlier in this cycle. "In the end, he blinked and Obama did not. The 'steady hand in a storm' argument looks now to more favor Obama, not McCain."
Shirley added, "My guess is that plasma units are rushing to the McCain campaign as we speak to replace the blood flowing there from the fights among the staff."
Ok, granted that I know G-Man's game well by now. he'll probably accuse this guy of being "disgruntled" or something. So let's hear what other Republican lawmakers have to say...
House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) was just interviewed by Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC, and he told Mitchell that McCain killed the deal yesterday at the White House:
Quote:
"I do think that John McCain was very helpful in what he did. I saw him this morning, we've been talking with his staff. Clearly, yesterday, his position in that discussion yesterday was one that stopped a deal from, uh, finalizing that no House Republican, in my view, would've been for. Which means it probably wouldn't have passed the House. Now, Democrats are in the majority, they can pass anything they want to without a single Republican vote. But they don't seem to be willing to do that. I'm please we can have negotiations now that guess us back to things that we think can protect the taxpayers better, create more options, are, frankly, be better understood in the country than the plan, than the path that we were on just a couple of days ago."
McCain was "helpful," Blunt says, because McCain killed the deal - he didn't help get a deal, he helped kill it. That isn't a maverick bringing everyone together, it's an erratic, confused bull in a China shop doing what his trigger-happy gut tells him (if I may mix my metaphors). When the choice is between making war brokering peace, John McCain always goes for war. It's what hot-heads do. Especially when they're no longer at their prime.
But knowing G-Man, he'll spin this as good because if you're a partisan Republican who puts ideology ahead of the future of this country, you don't do "weak" things like compromise with Democrats and your own President. You think about yourself and the ideology that caused this mess in the first place and you stick to your guns all the way down the cliff.
Think what you want about McCain's actions the past few days, but he derailed nothing. House Republicans were already working on another plan before McCain stepped in. They already weren't going to vote for the bailout as it.
here's an email I got, I dont know if the numbers match up, but since whomod posts stuff that doesnt match up, I though it wouldnt hurt to add it to the conversation:
Quote:
This idea sounds just crazy enough to possibly work, so naturally it won't be given serious consideration. How great is our bureaucracy!!
Hi Pals,
I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.
To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.
Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
So divide 200 million20adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00.
My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.
Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.
Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.
But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it'll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else
Remember this is for every adult U S C itizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.
If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.
If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!
As for AIG - liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.
Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.
Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."
But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
How do you spell Economic Boom?
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in< br> > >> Washington DC
And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Kindest personal regards,
Birk
T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic
I think this would work since most Americans would spend through their shit like the blacks who just got their reparations checks in that Dave Chappelle sketch.
Minorities’ Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites’ By Ronald Brownstein May 31, 1999
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.
These numbers are dramatic enough to deserve more detail. When President Clinton took office in 1993, 42% of African Americans and 39% of Latinos owned their own home. By this spring, those figures had jumped to 46.9% of blacks and 46.2% of Latinos.
That’s a lot of new picket fences. Since 1994, when the numbers really took off, the number of black and Latino homeowners has increased by 2 million. In all, the minority homeownership rate is on track to increase more in the 1990s than in any decade this century except the 1940s, when minorities joined in the wartime surge out of the Depression.
This trend is good news on many fronts. Homeownership stabilizes neighborhoods and even families. Housing scholar William C. Apgar, now an assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, says that research shows homeowners are more likely than renters to participate in their community. The children of homeowners even tend to perform better in school. Most significantly, increased homeownership allows minority families, who have accumulated far less wealth than whites, to amass assets and transmit them to future generations.
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.
But for all that progress, the black and Latino homeownership rates, at about 46%, still significantly trail the white rate, which is nearing 73%. Much of that difference represents structural social disparities–in education levels, wealth and the percentage of single-parent families–that will only change slowly. Still, Apgar says, HUD’s analysis suggests there are enough qualified buyers to move the minority homeownership rate into the mid-50% range.
The market itself will probably produce some of that progress. For many builders and lenders, serving minority buyers is now less a social obligation than a business opportunity. Because blacks and Latinos, as groups, are younger than whites, many experts believe they will continue to lead the housing market for years.
But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs.
The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.
Barry Zigas, who heads Fannie Mae’s low-income efforts, is undoubtedly correct when he argues, “There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can’t push [the banks] to produce.” But with the housing market still sizzling, minority unemployment down and Fannie Mae enjoying record profits (over $3.4 billion last year), it doesn’t appear that the limit has been reached.
All signs point toward a high-velocity collision this summer between two strong-willed protagonists: HUD’s Cuomo and Fannie Mae CEO Franklin D. Raines, the first African American to hold the post. Better they reach a reasonable agreement that provides more fuel for the extraordinary boom transforming millions of minority families from renters into owners.
apparently owning your home is something everyone is entitled to. I wonder how this worked out...
I think this would work since most Americans would spend through their shit like the blacks who just got their reparations checks in that Dave Chappelle sketch.
Totally agree. This plan makes more sense than anything else I've seen. If McCain brings THAT to the table, I'll officially register as a Republican. It would be awesome...
Jeremy happy Moderator Hangin' out like double D's 15000+ posts Fri Sep 26 2008 11:05 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: The Great Crash of 2008
Think what you want about McCain's actions the past few days, but he derailed nothing. House Republicans were already working on another plan before McCain stepped in. They already weren't going to vote for the bailout as it.
Look up.
Too bad you don't know anything about politics. The House Dems weren't going to vote for this plan if the Reps didn't even if they had the numbers already because if it failed, they didn't want to shoulder the burden by themselves come next election.
Also, the Dems in the White House meeting spun it that McCain fucked the plan; but a lot of new shows, including PBS's In Washington, reported that McCain hardly spoke at all during the meeting. Of course, the Republicans are saying that Pelosi and the other Dems relegated to Obama who then blamed House Republicans for everything and started the row that ended the meeting.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
The Market is plummeting as Republican prepare to kill bailout bill. The vote is taking place in the House right now, it looks like it's going to lose, and the market is falling through the floor. Down 700. Jesus Christ.
You are, in your own words, a "moron." The Democrats control congress. The only way this bill could fail would be if a sizeable portion of Democrats joined with the GOP to vote no.
I'm mixed about the bailout. We need to do something and fast, but doing something isn't enough. We need to make sure this doesn't happen again. All a bailout is going to do is pave the way for history to repeat itself. If you don't believe me, just look back 20 years to the S&L crisis. It's the fucking prequel to what's going on now.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
this bailout plan is nothing more than slapping a band-aid on the current crisis. it won't even address the symptoms in full, let alone do anything about the ongoing disease.
The Market is plummeting as Republican prepare to kill bailout bill. The vote is taking place in the House right now, it looks like it's going to lose, and the market is falling through the floor.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
You are, in your own words, a "moron." The Democrats control congress. The only way this bill could fail would be if a sizeable portion of Democrats joined with the GOP to vote no.
I, too, found it odd that he, in this very thread, stated that that Dems didn't need the House Reps to pass this bill and now is saying that it's the House Reps that are going to keep if from passing.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I'm mixed about the bailout. We need to do something and fast, but doing something isn't enough. We need to make sure this doesn't happen again. All a bailout is going to do is pave the way for history to repeat itself. If you don't believe me, just look back 20 years to the S&L crisis. It's the fucking prequel to what's going on now.
I'm with you, Doc. These sorts of things are, at best, short term fixes with long term repercussions.
The Market is plummeting as Republican prepare to kill bailout bill. The vote is taking place in the House right now, it looks like it's going to lose, and the market is falling through the floor.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
You are, in your own words, a "moron." The Democrats control congress. The only way this bill could fail would be if a sizeable portion of Democrats joined with the GOP to vote no.
I, too, found it odd that he, in this very thread, stated that that Dems didn't need the House Reps to pass this bill and now is saying that it's the House Reps that are going to keep if from passing.
I should check out the "who's online" page. I bet we see him editing that post even as I type this.
Still playing politics in the face of economic disaster.
the fact is the opposition came mostly from the Republican House members to great fanfare BTW.
Hold on to you ass BTW.
The fact that anyone, the White House or the House Dems, are even doing anything right now is because of politics. There's a presidential election a little over a month away. If this were '07, I doubt we'd be seeing this much move from anyone to correct this problem this quickly. Maybe not rushing through this and coming up with a plan that won't jeopardize $700 billion taxpayer dollars isn't that bad of an idea.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Also, weren't you the one who earlier said that the House Dems could pass it without the Reps? What happened? They weren't able to man-up just before the election and pass a bill that is now opposed by over 50% of the voters?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
