Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
There’s plenty of blame to go around
Monday, Oct. 20, 2008 | 2:04 a.m.
With only two weeks or so left before America votes for the next president, I am sad to see so many Americans focused primarily on the economy and making their choice because of it. There are so many other issues that are involved in this election.
Yes, President Bush and his administration made bad calls. Are they the only ones to blame for our nation’s crisis? I don’t think so. Are we to blame just one side of the aisle in Congress? I don’t think so. Congress is as much, if not primarily, to blame for our economic crisis.
If anyone wants to find the people responsible for the current financial meltdown, they need look no further than the Democrats — Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and their Fannie Mae pal, Franklin Raines — to indentify the culprits.
The $700 billion bailout bill looms on the horizon to fail ... or hopefully succeed. Time will tell. Did this bill pass the Senate because of bipartisan partnership? I don’t think so. It only passed when a handful of senators got to add their pet projects (pork) to it. Government at its best!
The most most frightening aspect of this bill is its hidden attack on every aspect of our economy under the cover of anti-carbon measures contained in what is essentially an energy bill tacked on to the bailout — an energy bill which would not pass Congress were it to come up for a vote.
Sen. Barack Obama isn’t a miracle worker. Sen. John McCain isn’t a miracle worker. Neither are the Democrats or Republicans.
Our country needs a balanced political machine working hand in hand to bring this country back from the brink of disaster. They need to listen to each other and some of the best minds outside of government.
Remember, the president doesn’t make law, he enforces it. Our next Congress is the key to success or failure.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Photos: Olivia Culpo, 20, of Rhode Island is crowned 2012 Miss USA at Planet Hollywood
- Photos: Derek Hough celebrates 27th birthday at Tabu Ultra Lounge
- Nearly 40,000 have voted early in Clark County
- Firefighters respond to reports of explosion; find vacant building in flames
- Learning about fans of the Electric Daisy Carnival will help Las Vegas court them long-term
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
Entering debut at Tryst, Nick Hissom is a model for a rapid rise to prominence (3 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
"Our country needs a balanced political machine working hand in hand to bring this country back from the brink of disaster. They need to listen to each other and some of the best minds outside of government."
I have to wonder whether or not you were saying this when the republicans controlled the congress.
Somehow, I doubt it. I've come to notice that the "there's plenty of blame to go around" crowd are predominantly from the right side of the aisle.
While most debates are still looking backward, the question is what President-elect Barack Obama is going to do in the future.
Barack Obama has said that the Gen. David Petraeus troops in Afghanistan are "air-raiding villages and killing civilians".
Obama has made actionable decisions of:
-disapproving of Gen. David Petraeus,
-disapproving the Petraeus designed Surge operation (because he said it would fail),
-and refused to approve funding for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet Obama wants to send 15,000 more U.S. troops - not NATO troops. Obama's old campaign position of immediate "withdraw" has had a tactical change to one of a drawdown to "something" in 16 months in Iraq, and Obama now wants funding for an on-the-cheap long term two combat brigades surge in Afghanistan.
Barack Obama has not explained what his combat strategy (Obama calls this a tactic) would be in Afghanistan. Why 15,000 more troops? What will they do?
The Gen. David Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy of clearing, holding, rebuilding, the civil society and the infrastructure, can work in Afghanistan.
From the 2nd debate we know Obama's primary consideration to go to war is genocide (though that was not the case in Afghanistan, but was in Iraq), then the question still is what is President-elect Barack Obama principled policy that going to be used in the future.
Since Obama has already learned and lectured us on the past, can any Democrat explain the details of what Obama is going to do and why in the future?
- Does Obama have a plan to win in Afghanistan? He never says "I will win".
-Will Barak Obama fire Gen. David Petraeus? If not, why not?
-Will Obama continue to air-raiding villages and kill civilians in the Pakistan's tribal areas using the "Over-the-Horizon" fighting strategy?
-What is Obama going to do with the 15,000 new U.S. troops in Afghanistan?
-What Afghanistan combat strategy is Obama going use?
-Who is Obama's new General going to be?
-What is the timetable to leave Afghanistan?
-How much money will be spent each month before we stop fighting for the month?
-How many U.S. troops can be lost each month, before we stop fighting for the month?
Why would we elect Nancy Pelosi queen. That is what this wacko lady from San Fransisco will be if Obama wins. She gave him the nomination by delivering the Super delegate members of the House for Obama and she will rule with Obama's rubber stamp once he is there. Pelosi is dangerous, and so is Obama.
"Somehow, I doubt it. I've come to notice that the "there's plenty of blame to go around" crowd are predominantly from the right side of the aisle."
That's because the left side of the aisle is in full-blown denial of their sins, Pat. The vitriol levels have risen since both Algore AND Kerry were dismissed = and da liberal is responsible for about 329% of it.
Denial, thy name IS liberal socialist democrat (lsd)!
There was no such thing as "deregulation" of derivatives and credit default swaps.
Those things have been around for decades.
LOL.....I guess that you did not read your own articles.
Some of them talk about Clinton pushing against new regulations against derivatives.
In fact, they show that Clinton was the one who signed the law that deregulated derivatives.
The articles talk about derivatives being around for decades (in agreement with me).
Just to clue in on derivatives....Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the biggest entities in the USA who took mortgages that they purchased and bundled them into complex derivaties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/busine...
"For more than a decade, the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has fiercely objected whenever derivatives have come under scrutiny in Congress "
The key words are "more than a decade".
Here are other words from the same article: 'Throughout the 1990s, some argued that derivatives had become so vast, intertwined and inscrutable that they required federal oversight to protect the financial system"
Key words: "Throughout the 1990's"
"Ms. Born pushed ahead. On June 5, 1998, Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Levitt called on Congress to prevent Ms. Born from acting until more senior regulators developed their own recommendations"
Rubin and Levitt were Clinton guys in a Clinton Adminstration.
http://www.cftc.gov/stellent/groups/publ...
That was a bill that Bill Clinton signed into law...not George Bush.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2817...
This article says nothing about when derivates came into place nor when they got deregulated.
It just says the derivatives are bad investments in 2003, which was correct.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/...
Again, Clinton sign the law and not George Bush and it had lots of support from Democrats, too.
I agree that derivatives were a problem but it was not because they were derivatives that hide some very poor quality sub-prime mortgages.
Clintons and the Democrats for years have pushed, pushed and pushed the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the banks to reduce lending standards so that minorities can get into homes.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reduced there standards of buying these poor quality sub-prime loans.
The greedy people were making the loans. They turned around and sold them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae at a profit and no longer had to worry about the risk.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae bundled those crazy loans into complex derivatives which poisoned the entire marketplace.
There is plenty of blame to go around.
Democrats should step up and say, "Yep, we made a mistake. No more social engineering of mortgage loans".
Until the DEMs can admit to all of the failed the regulations (forced social engineering loans, lack of adequate income check, the most recent problem in this environment is homeowners and lenders have schemed to "Buy and Bail") and deregulations (derivatives, naked shorts,rating scores).
If DEMS can not be honest about the past how can they regulate the future?
As an example, the SEC forced SunTrust Bank, in 1998, to restate financials with regard to holding more the one year's worth of reserve, effectively causing them to reduce reserves to a limit of one year. The central bankers in Basel in 1988, agreed to worldwide reserves standards, and updated them in Basel in 1999, with no positive result.
But there is also the unforseen activities that are not yet recognized that regulation is needed.
For example dark pools of liquidity (or virtual trading arenas) are secretive trading tool used by the top Wall Street investment banks and hedge funds and are off limits to normal investors, are where large-volume funds can quickly move large blocks of stock. Dark pools have created a two-tiered system where big players can move stock, while retail investors are left, well, in the dark. Now what used to be a several hour process can be done immediately and with dizzying efficiency through dark pools -- large blocks of stock can move from buyer to sellers without even the market knowing they traded until at least 90 seconds later. It all comes down to transparency and accountability and there is no transparency in a dark pool, there is no accountability.
Can we trust the DEMs to know what to regulate.
Projection: Thy Name Is NVMakz. LOL.