Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Bailout thick with corporate thievery
Monday, Oct. 27, 2008 | 2:03 a.m.
Though it may be true that there is honor among thieves, there is no honor among corporate thieves, especially in the financial sector.
They chose to take the $700 billion in taxpayer money the current administration gave them ... and run with it: raises, bonuses, platinum parachutes and, of course, buying more assets to help their bottom lines.
The best answer that Neel Kashkari, the Treasury Department official overseeing the bailout plan, could come up with was that there were no strings attached to the bailout plan because, well, it would keep the financial institutions from participating.
Now is that a political/corporate criminal or what?
Be sure to let the current class of corporate politicians know what you think of the $700 billion bailout.
Don’t forget to vote.
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
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
- UNLV makes key plays down stretch to hold off San Diego State 65-63
- Surprise links, negotiated deals addressed by commissioners
- Hope and change and … what’s missing?
- Motorcycle accident claims life of man in northeast valley
- New York mayor has the right idea
- We don’t need a CEO in charge
- Paying our own way
- Country has ‘given’ citizens a lot
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
The real thieves are Barny Frank and Chris Dodd for taking VIP loans while destroying our banks. These democrats with the help of harry Reid blocked regulators from stopping this for years. McCain's reform bill for Fannie Mae was blocked and then they have the nerve to blame him for this fiasco. Watch Obama blame WHITE people for not wanting to pay taxes that go to the inner city. This is him on video before he was running for President and tell what his agenda really is.
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate...
Jeez, neiman; get some help. It's painful to watch you these past couple of days.
What counterpoint(s) are you making, "P"??
??
I agree Patricia. I think Neiman and crew are becoming weary from all the hatred and misinformation they've been spewing. It's hard to maintain lies, you know, when there is so much evidence to the contrary everywhere.
It occurred to me that to buy the line these people want us to buy, we have to assume that Barack Obama is lying all the time or trying to hide something all the time, whereas John McCain is to be taken at face value on everything all the time. Puhleez!
The most stunning thing about it, is these folks are doing just that very thing. You would have to be filled with fear and or hatred to dispense with sanity and assume those polarities.
And to think I even gave GWB a reasonable chance. These are the same fools that got behind that last really bad choice! They already hate my guy, and he's not even the president yet!
We have a word for this. It's called prejudice. As in, to "pre-judge". So let's all pre-judge the black man as an Arab, Muslim, America hating socialist, Communist, Nazi, Marxist, terrorist, incompetent, inexperienced liar.
Right. And John McCain, like Bush, was selected as the next president by Jesus Christ himself.
And then they call us "elitists".
The Dems Libs have been pushing for banks to lower their lending standards for years so that more minorities can get into homes.
That was a major part in financial meltdown.
Barack "Sub-Prime" Obama is number two on getting cash from the crooked Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac organizations. He accomplished that feat in only 3 years of being a US Senator. Also, he had one of the ex-CEO's of those crooked organizations be in-charge of his VP selection committee before resigning for 'reasons'. The other ex-CEO of one of those crooked organizations gave the Obama campaign some economic advice.
Here is an article praising Clinton on busting open the sub-prime market for minorities to own homes. It was written in 1999 with this scary prediction: "argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers."
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/...
Below is part of McCain's speech in 2005 on the Senate floor. Too bad, they did not listen to him.
"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market."
"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
Very good article on the topic:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12221294...
Please read this article. It has good information on the mess that we are in.
Here are other sources that support the Wall Street facts and assertions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...
http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/125/goi...
http://relistr.com/real-estate/fannie-ma...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09092008/pos...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/080915/issues01...
http://www.fanniemae.com/ir/pdf/earnings...
"Below is part of McCain's speech in 2005 on the Senate floor. Too bad, they did not listen to him."
People might take you a bit more seriously if you could at least get the verifiable facts straight, Nance.
That speech wasn't given in 2005.
It was given in 2006, after McCain signed onto the bill that a Republican-controlled committee had already killed by refusing to send it to the floor.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.x...
Again, you miss the salient point: the market collapse was not due to sub-prime loans, it was due to the securitization of those sub-prime loans and the greediness of traders willing to inflate the value of worthless paper. Had the banks not tied up all of their capital in worthless paper, the bail out wouldn't have been necessary. The blame here belongs to the greediness of Wall Street
All of these simple facts are lost in you in your rush to pin the entire crisis on Democrats, though. It's Clinton's fault! It's not McCain's fault!
Tell me, why didn't McCain work to stop the sub-prime mess BEFORE we were neck-deep in it? Why did he feel the need to co-sponsor a dead bill?
It's funny how you're so enamored with his obvious political pandering. He took a "stand" after the fact. Way to go, maverick! Country first!
Had he stood up to his party during the early naughts, when loans were being handed out like Halloween candy, then I'd give him some credit.
But this? All for show, and you fell for it.
Kinda like Makz falling for Ashley "The Carver" Todd's fantasy.
So gullible!
"Here's a simple request: You said it went to the Senate floor. Find me a single reference to S.190 on the floor after July 28, 2005. You can't. The Republicans never scheduled it to be brought to the floor."
Adding irrelevancies as in "moving the goalposts" is all you have "left". Did S.160, as Dole will confirm as co-sponsor, PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE to the floor?? THAT was the point. Checkmate, again (213)
ttp://dole.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=d692e1c0-224d-4109-ac5e-14a5cfee0af8&Month=7&Year=2005
"The Senate Banking Committee today approved legislation introduced by U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole and her colleagues Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and John Sununu (R-NH) that would improve oversight of Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). The bill, the Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 190), must now be considered by the full Senate.'
(202)
From 9/23/08 3:50pm.
The final argument from which I blew you out of here for a month. You said you went to "rural Asia" = to escape, I am positive. Turns out - that was a lie as well.
xxx
"Fact is, the 2005 reform bill, which passed the Senate Banking Committee when controlled by Republicans, failed on the Senate floor due to the Democrats uniting against reform and threatening a filibuster. The 2006 bill, in fact sponsored by McCain, met a similar fate. When the Democrats took control that November, they did nothing. The only thing Obama has jumped on in his short tenure? Fannie and Freddie political contributions."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...
"Tell me, why didn't McCain work to stop the sub-prime mess BEFORE we were neck-deep in it? Why did he feel the need to co-sponsor a dead bill?
Liar or delusionist = which one are you?
As far as your latest obsession - after being blown out recently:
Six hours of believing, then disowning a liar - or a month in hiding because you ARE a liar?
When will anyone take you seriously here. It seems you're the only one who does!
"Adding irrelevancies as in "moving the goalposts" is all you have "left". Did S.160, as Dole will confirm as co-sponsor, PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE to the floor?? THAT was the point. Checkmate, again"
Oh, bit by your own failure to proofread, Makz. S.160? What are you talking about?
And thanks for proving my point, S.190 (190, that's the bill McCain signed onto AFTER it was dead) It was dead in 2005, it was dead in 2006. My point stands, and you helped prove it, while simultaneously bringing up an irrelevant bill.
What does S.160 have to do with anything?
The FACT remains that your "maverick" failed to move his party to action. He gave a meaningless speech on a bill that was NEVER VOTED ON, hence DEAD.
You fail to address the substance of my post, that Nance couldn't even get basic dates straight, and that the market collapse was not due to sub-prime loans, it was due to the securitization of those sub-prime loans and the greediness of traders willing to inflate the value of worthless paper. Had the banks not tied up all of their capital in worthless paper, the bail out wouldn't have been necessary. The blame here belongs to the greediness of Wall Street.
I'm sorry, don't you have any other psychotic women carving Bs into their face to back you up? Your sources have been exposed as frauds and liars.
You have as much credibility as Ashley "The Carver" Todd.
The proof is the Dole link and the IBD link. Nit-picking one number isn't an out for your lies.
Did this bill (S.190) go out of committee or not!
The month off you needed is also proof of your lies.
I carved up your credibility with this forum a long time ago.
Six hours of Ashley Todd's lie - or a month in hiding BECAUSE YOU LIE?
The perfect counter-point. More to come. Depends on your maschocism tolerances.
"Your sources have been exposed as frauds and liars."
Not in fact and certainly not by you, and that's no lie, liar!
Another post, another "the bs" humiliation.
HAHAHA, have you looked up NVMakz's bill?
S.160? It's about reimbursement for the destruction of tribal lands! LOLOLOLOL!!!!
S.160: "Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribal Compensation Act"
"A bill to provide for compensation to the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes of South Dakota for damage to tribal land caused by Pick-Sloan projects along the Missouri River."
It has nothing to do with the subprime mortgage meltdown!
Poor NVMakz, first he fell for Ashley Todd's lies, now he's just gone crazy and bringing up tribal bills? He's off his rocker!
"The proof is the Dole link and the IBD link. Nit-picking one number isn't an out for your lies."
WRONG. Neither of those prove it was scheduled on the floor, which was my original assertion, which you still have not disproved. Not on the floor? Died in committee. Try again!
"Not in fact and certainly not by you, and that's no lie, liar!"
LOL, yup. Your source, Ashley Todd, has been disgraced and humiliated as a lunatic. You happily repeated her fantasy.
And again, I'll ask, what does the "Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribal Compensation Act" have to do with this?
Irrelevant, of course. Again, you ignore the salient points, which I have brought up here twice. You choose not to argue them because you know they are true.
Your failure to vet Ashley Todd's lies before repeating them has really gotten to you, hasn't it?
"WRONG. Neither of those prove it was scheduled on the floor, which was my original assertion, which you still have not disproved. Not on the floor? Died in committee. Try again!"
Being SENT TO THE FLOOR was the point you're running from now = then, you kept running for a month!
"S.190, written by Chuck Hagel, was killed in a REPUBLICAN committee. Y'all have no one to blame but yourselves."
"the bs" = 9/23/2008 @7:12AM
XXX
""All the Democrats voted against the bill in committee which effectively killed the bill. It signaled that they would fight tooth and nail on the bill."
"the bs" = 9/23/2008 @9:34am.
THIS argument, with "the bs" firmly under the bus, ran you out for a month.
You credibility ended long before that.
Hiding away for a month has done nothing for your pre-SENSE here.
Actually, a Republican lobbying group helped kill Chuck Hagel's bill.
"Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse."
"In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September."
"Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it."
"In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote."
"If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole," the senators wrote in a letter that proved prescient."
"Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side."
"In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress."
Bill Frist killed your bill, NVMakz, and a lobbyist who was PAID to kill that bill is now an employee of McCain's campaign.
Excellent find, ksand.
Sorry, but an IBD editorial doesn't cut it, Makz. Ksand's article debunks your entire argument. REPUBLICAN Frist did NOT schedule the bill on the floor, and blocked a vote on the bill, only after a REPUBLICAN lobbyist was paid $2 million to ensure it's defeat amongst REPUBLICANS. Effectively, it died in committee, since it never even got on the schedule on the floor.
Case closed, you lose!
Why don't you go and read your Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribal Compensation Act, which has NOTHING TO DO with, uh, the mortgage crisis.
You can carve a D into your face, for DEBUNKED!
Yes, the man who stood in the way of a vote was Bill Frist.
NVMakz is blaming the Democrats for blocking reform when the Republican leadership, after being lobbied by Freddie Mac, refused to allow a vote.
And the man who wrote that reform, Chuck Hagel? He's an Obama supporter.
When a point is made, NV, I will make a counterpoint.
I believe I've told you that many, many times before. Too bad "retention" isn't one of your traits.
I also love Makz insistence on saying he's throwing people under the bus. Throwing someone under the bus usually means to reject and/or scapegoat. It is mostly used by friendlies, ie Larry Craig's comment about Romney's rebuke of him, "He didn't just throw me under the bus, he backed up and ran me over again."
By JOE NOCERA in Saturday's NY Times:
"Chase recently received $25 billion in federal funding. What effect will that have on the business side and will it change our strategic lending policy?"
It was Oct. 17, just four days after JPMorgan Chase's chief executive, Jamie Dimon, agreed to take a $25 billion capital injection courtesy of the United States government, when a JPMorgan employee asked that question. It came toward the end of an employee-only conference call that had been largely devoted to meshing certain divisions of JPMorgan with its new acquisition, Washington Mutual.
Which, of course, it also got thanks to the federal government. Christmas came early at JPMorgan Chase.
The JPMorgan executive who was moderating the employee conference call didn't hesitate to answer a question that was pretty politically sensitive given the events of the previous few weeks.
Given the way, that is, that Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. had decided to use the first installment of the $700 billion bailout money to recapitalize banks instead of buying up their toxic securities, which he had then sold to Congress and the American people as the best and fastest way to get the banks to start making loans again, and help prevent this recession from getting much, much worse.
More from Nocera:
In point of fact, the dirty little secret of the banking industry is that it has no intention of using the money to make new loans. But this executive was the first insider who's been indiscreet enough to say it within earshot of a journalist.
(He didn't mean to, of course, but I obtained the call-in number and listened to a recording.)
"Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase," he began. "What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop."
Read that answer as many times as you want -- you are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy. On the contrary: at another point in the conference call, the same executive (who I'm not naming because he didn't know I would be listening in) explained that "loan dollars are down significantly." He added, "We would think that loan volume will continue to go down as we continue to tighten credit to fully reflect the high cost of pricing on the loan side." In other words JPMorgan has no intention of turning on the lending spigot.
It is starting to appear as if one of Treasury's key rationales for the recapitalization program -- namely, that it will cause banks to start lending again -- is a fig leaf, Treasury's version of the weapons of mass destruction.
In fact, Treasury wants banks to acquire each other and is using its power to inject capital to force a new and wrenching round of bank consolidation. As Mark Landler reported in The New York Times earlier this week, "the government wants not only to stabilize the industry, but also to reshape it." Now they tell us.
Indeed, Mr. Landler's story noted that Treasury would even funnel some of the bailout money to help banks buy other banks. And, in an almost unnoticed move, it recently put in place a new tax break, worth billions to the banking industry, that has only one purpose: to encourage bank mergers. As a tax expert, Robert Willens, put it: "It couldn't be clearer if they had taken out an ad."
Finally, also from Nocera:
Friday delivered the first piece of evidence that this is, indeed, the plan. PNC announced that it was purchasing National City, an acquisition that will be greatly aided by the new tax break, which will allow it to immediately deduct any losses on National City's books.
As part of the deal, it is also tapping the bailout fund for $7.7 billion, giving the government preferred stock in return. At least some of that $7.7 billion would have gone to NatCity if the government had deemed it worth saving. In other words, the government is giving PNC money that might otherwise have gone to NatCity as a reward for taking over NatCity.
I don't know about you, but I'm starting to feel as if we've been sold a bill of goods.
This is the Treasury Department doing this, folks. That's the Bush Administration. With our tax dollars. If you like this, by all means vote for McCain.
johnevegas re: "It occurred to me that to buy the line these people want us to buy, we have to assume that Barack Obama is lying all the time or trying to hide something all the time, whereas John McCain is to be taken at face value on everything all the time."
But that's been their M.O. since .... well, at least since the campaign of 1992, but it was probably back to the 1980s and the days when Lee Atwater invented the politics of destruction (by his own admission).
This is the belief system upon which was based their "faith" in Gee Dubya as some kind of "leader". And the sum total of HIS qualifications? He tanked every business he ever ran, he "served" in the TANG (protecting the skies of Texas from the godless commies ... in between working on Daddy's friends' campaigns in other states), he apparently didn't learn to drive (or at least get a license) until he was 40, oh and he did serve as governor of Texas ... a job which involves "working" approximately 120 days out of every two years or so.
But he was more qualified than Al Gore.
Uh, OK. There aren't enough prescription drugs in the world to help me understand that particular "logic".
Yeah, ferret, that gave me pause as well.
Honestly, I think Makz's rabid personal attacks in the guise of "arguments" are just proof that the Makz/Ashley Todd saga was the last nail in his coffin.
I mean, months ago at least he attempted to be amusing. This frothing-at-the-mouth rabies-infested Makz, kinda bonkers and humorless in light of his sources being revealed as psychopathic frauds, makes me yearn for the days of yore.
Actually, NV, thebs is absolutely right. That bill never made it out of committee OR to the floor ... but the reasoning upon which you are basing your "victory" is patently false.
The actual reasoning was because the Republicans (who held a COMFORTABLE MAJORITY in the Senate in the beginning of 2005) ***were afraid the Democrats would block it on the floor***.
Yes, the same Democrats who couldn't muster ONE SINGLE filibuster in the previous three years.
McMaverick signed on in May of 2006, five months after the bill was officially dead thanks to the turnover of the Senate to the Democrats.
Sorry you can't accept the truth and have to nit-pick little things you think are "points".
They aren't. You lose.
Oh one last thing, NV. There's no shame in admitting you made a typo. It would actually show that you have a human quality to do so.
Too much to ask I suppose.
"99". THANK YOU for SO much help in debunking the liar, "the bs" in this whole S.190 thing)
".... shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it."
xxxxxxxxx
"the bs" - 9/23/2008 @ 9:37am
( He still has yet to prove that Democrats, or ANY Democrat, voted against the bill in committee.)
THEY ALL DID!
xxxxxxxx
AND, at 1:24pm:
(S.190 NEVER CAME TO A VOTE IN THE COMMITTEE. Your claim that the Democrats voted against it is nothing more than a LIE.)
S.190 DID come to a vote; and ALL the Dems voted against it.
xxxxxxxxxx
AND, at 7:12am, same day:
(.190, written by Chuck Hagel, was killed in a REPUBLICAN committee. Y'all have no one to blame but yourselves.)
Anyway, leaving the committee to the Senate floor WAS THE POINT - not the spin y'all are woofing now.
AND, "Patricia tries to help "the bs" lie today! Go to the argument "the bs' hopes you all will forget - "the bs's" file: 9/23/2008 - mid-day.
(That bill never made it out of committee OR to the floor ... but the reasoning upon which you are basing your "victory" is patently false.)
Debunking "99", the always-the-loser "the bs" and someone who adds nothing to this forum, "Patricia" IN ONE, SINGLE POST!
A triple-header!
9/23/2008 was a BAD day for "the bs". He SAID he high-tailed it to "rural Asia" for a month soon thereafter. Turns out as true = he was under the bus.
That post did not debunk thebs points. You gloss over the fact that S.190, as written by Chuck Hagel, was thrown out in that committee meeting in 2005 for a bill written by Richard Shelby. S.190 then became UNRECOGNIZABLE as Hagel's bill. Shelby's bill is the one the Dems voted against.
The language and contentions of Hagel's S.190 were thrown out in that committee meeting.
The dead bill that John McCain signed onto in 2006 was the language of the ORIGINAL S.190, not Shelby's substitution.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
And then, it never made it to the floor, as Republican Majority Leader Frist would not allow a vote on the bill. It was never considered on the floor of the Congress.
You need to look past the number of the bill and look at the contents. Thebs is right, you are wrong.
Eitherway any of you spin this, the government created the mess and the government probably won't fix it.
http://npri.org/blog/the-anatomy-of-a-cr...
EXACTLY, Kevin!
Makz is arguing all over himself. He's confusing Hagel's bill with Shelby's bill. The bill entered the committee as Hagel's bill, but the contents were removed and replaced with a substitution by Shelby. S.190 went in as Hagel's bill (which McCain supported after the fact) but left as Shelby's bill.
And the bill that ended up NOT LEAVING COMMITTEE was Hagel's bill.
Makz is clueless. And very, very wrong.
Shelby's name was not on as any kind of sponsor.
Remember, "99's" post earlier:
"".... began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee SENT HAGEL'S BILL (my caps) to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it."
xxx
"the bs" - 9/23/2008 @ 11:08am.
"S.190 was WRITTEN BY(my caps) Hagel, not McCain, you gave credit to the wrong man, of course."
(NV: I guess you did too just now - "the bs"?)
"S.190 died in a REPUBLICAN committee."
(No, it didn't, "the bs")
"Stop passing the buck and wake up to reality".
Take you own advice
Thanks again "99"! You were invaluable.
Gotta go for a while. Spin yourselves dizzy!
Wow, you are comically naive, NVMakz.
Looking back on that page that you are selectively quoting (the hallmark of a coward, taking words out of context), thebs is 100% right.
Look at the Govtrack for S.190 that Hagel submitted. The last date of action was July 28, 2005. It says, "Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably."
You should also read this, which proves you wrong:
"On July 28, 2005, the Senate Banking Committee considered and reported S. 190, the "Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005." This bill would create a new independent regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks (GSEs)."
"The Committee accepted a substitute bill authored by Banking Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL). They disagreed to a Democratic substitute by Ranking Member Paul Sarbanes (D-MD). The Sarbanes substitute would have created an affordable housing fund based on the GSEs' profits, eased portfolio limits, streamlined program approval and increased the conforming loan limits for high cost areas. It failed 9 yeas to 11 nays, and the Shelby bill passed on a straight party line vote of 11 yeas to 9 nays."
http://www.realtor.org/government_affair...
Can you read that? "The Shelby bill." The language that Hagel wrote was stripped and replaced with language from Richard Shelby (via amendment), who was the chairman of that committee . Coincidentally, Chairman Shelby was also lobbied by Freddie Mac days before as a part of that $2 Republican lobbying scandal I posted earlier.
S.190 entered the bill with language written by Hagel and left with language written by Shelby. It was a completely different bill. The party line vote was on Shelby's version, not Hagel's. NOT the version of the bill that McCain later supported after HAGEL's language died in the subcommittee. Hagel's language never left the subcommittee.
The bill, submitted to Bill Frist, fell on deaf ears and no vote was ever scheduled on the legislation... either with Hagel's language or Shelby's language.
Thebs is right, you are just patently wrong.
Want someone to blame for no action being taken on that bill? Blame BILL FRIST!
Um, yeah, so... ditto. HA!
First Makz is humiliated with repeating/believing the race-baiting lies of Ashley "The Carver" Todd, now he's humiliated with his poor legislative knowledge.
The only similarity between S.190 before and after its appearance in the committee was its name. The text was completely different.
So, let's see here, I'm vindicated and Makz is left with even MORE egg on his face? He's bound to need a straight-jacket one of these days.
Sorry, thebs; apparently I was also confused. I had posted links to Jim some time ago from the Congressional Record that showed the when/how/why if S.190 specifically as it related to McMaverick "signing on".
Apparently I didn't read thoroughly enough; I apologize for any confusion.
But NV, believe what you will; that was NOT a Democratic Committee. Couldn't have been; the REPUBLICANS held the majority. Now unless they were sooooooooooooooo magnanimous in their committee appointments ..... yeah, right LOL.
Yeah, what's so funny about it is that most of this info was posted already, by Nance. He just had no clue what it all meant and kept insisting that Hagel's S.190 was killed by Dems.
McMaverick signed onto the dead bill the day after a report came out identifying Fannie/Freddie as having involvement in sub-prime securities. As always, the "maverick" didn't get "mavericky" until after the fact. I'll say that about McCain, he loves to Monday morning quarterback.
I may have argued it poorly and inconsistently (guilty as charged!), but ksand ties a nice bow around S.190 and the collapse of Makz's argument.
uddeboda: What's even more amazing than calling it a "bailout" is that it's (GASP!) **true wealth redistribution** ... you know, that horrifying thing that the rightards are accusing Obama of wanting to do.
Funny how they don't seem to see this .....
It's convenient that Palin accuses Obama of socialism, because she would know from experience what it is. You see, Palin took on Big Oil and won. Those big companies that provide jobs up there made too much money. Palin then comes in and takes some of that money and gives it to every Alaskan. Sounds a little like spreading around the wealth, socialism, or whatever phrase you want. In any case, it's a little disingenuous for Palin to be so riled up against socialism, when that is what she practices back home.