Letter to the editor:

McCain won’t acknowledge Bush’s mistakes

Ken Anderson, Las Vegas

Wed, Sep 17, 2008 (2:04 a.m.)

I like John McCain, but not as our next president. I respect his war record and his tenure in the U.S. Senate. McCain would like to follow a president who gave us eight years that included some very bad times, but he does not seem to admit that many of Bush’s decisions were poor.

One of the Bush ideologies, deregulation, has not produced the results we were promised. Speculators have used deregulation to make fortunes.

Wake up, fellow Americans. The result of this brave new ideology has resulted in ridiculous gasoline prices and this week’s chaos on Wall Street.

McCain owes it to the voters to acknowledge the current problems — not in broad strokes, but in everyday language — with the economy, health care, the war in Iraq, immigration and energy. Perhaps the debates will be a time and place for McCain to disclose his ideas on solutions to these problems.

McCain would have us believe that Barack Obama does not have the experience to be president. Let me make an analogy. If two people went into two emergency rooms after an auto accident and Dr. McCain, the veteran doctor, treated his patient for facial cuts, ignoring the broken leg, while Dr. Obama, the younger doctor, recognized the broken leg as the immediate problem and treated it, who would be the effective physician?

Come on, John McCain, you’re a good man, but stop holding back on telling us how badly this administration has led us. Show us you can see America’s problems and are willing to correct them. Stop telling us over and over that Obama has too little experience and show us your personal strengths as a leader.

Discussion: 21 comments so far…

By mwh710

9/17/08 at 5:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

He can't because he is not one. NO - McBush/TrooperMoose - NO!!!!
By esquared

9/17/08 at 6:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

McCain simply cannot acknowledge these problems because to do so would clearly identify himself as one of the major proponents of the policies that got us into the current financial mess. McCain spent 26 years in the senate as an anti-regulator, and in particular, working tirelessly to strip away any common-sense regulation of banking. His chief economic advisor authored the legislation that permitted banks to trade bad loans, to whip up derivative schemes that had no underlying equity and merely amounted to a billion-dollar gamble with the consumer and the government the only ones left to cover the bet. And now he looks us straight in the eye and says he'll enact tough reforms over Wall Street, banking and insurance companies. And we're supposed to believe that, even when his entire career was spent doing the exact opposite! If we are to believe McCain and he really will try to enact curbs on banking schemes that put the consumer and the taxpayer at risk, than Obama is the candidate with more experience, because McCain has NEVER in 26 years attempted anything other than de-regulation and insulating banks and insurance companies from financial responsibility to the consumer. If you believe this leopard can change it's spots in the mere span of time it takes to run for president, than you probably also believe Sarah Palin acquired foreign policy experience simply by living next to Russia.
By jfnance32

9/17/08 at 7:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Obama has economic experts on the mortgage mess.

Why are they experts.....because they are neck deep into it.

He has one economic advisor that was an ex-CEO of Fannie Mae who drove that mortgage company into the ground. He is also involved in an accounting scandel there because he helped cooked the books to get bigger bonuses.

Obama use to have a VP selection chairman that was also an ex-CEO of Fannie Mae. He had to quit for 'reasons' that surrounded a Country Wide discount loan program scandal. He also has been accused of cooking the books at Fannie Mae.

Obama was number two on the list of receiving funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Using the writers analogy, Obama advisors are the ones that broke guy's leg......LOL
By NVMakz

9/17/08 at 8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

I just love reading about liberal delusions - especially the one about how Obama is this sharp-cookie who immediately sees and acts and heals and blesses and rights-wrongs and helps old ladies across the street; except when he ignores what got him to the POTUS dance = and now just dances to any tune.

Obama is in a LOT of trouble right now. The electorate is waking up, and Obama is going down.

Obama has a lot more to lose, wrapping himself in a persona he has neither earned or deserved.
By thebs

9/17/08 at 8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Not quite, Nance.

What broke the leg was deregulation of investment banking and the gutting of the Glass-Stegall act. The main proponent and architect of that was McCain's "Economic Brain" Senator Phil Gramm.

Gramm got the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed and then inserted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into an omnibus spending bill, and the bill was passed, largely on party lines. The effect of the CFMA was to deregulate and essentially "hide" commodities future trading from any regulatory agency and deregulated the lending industry. What resulted is the current steep increases in commodities prices and trading that was beneath the radar. Trillions of dollars of trading was done behind the curtain, and those unregulated trades are the primary cause of the subprime meltdown.

Without regulation, trillions of dollars in fraudulent loans were secured for people who did not have the income to pay. Further, some teaser rate loans readjusted and increased mortgage payments by hundreds of dollars a month. And, like a house of cards, as those people who should not have been given a loan, defaulted, the situation grew worse.

The cause of the current crisis on Wall Street is due to their hedging against unregulated and subprime loans. And as those loans fail, it brings us futher and further toward economic chaos.

And the man who can take most of the credit? Phil Gramm.

So ask yourself this: knowing how the actions and bills sponsored by Gramm set the stage for the current meltdown, why would John McCain choose Gramm to write his economic platform?

In fact, McCain said he would consider Gramm for the Treasury Secretary!

You can babble about Obama's connections to two former CEOs all you like, but if you want to point a finger at one person to blame for most of what's happening today, you point it at Phil Gramm.

And then you point it at John McCain and ask, "Why would you let such a man write your entire economic plan?"

So who broke the leg? Phil Gramm. And McCain wants to promote him for it.
By Gordon

9/17/08 at 8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

I think when republicans receive their monthly and quarterly statements showing the decline in their 401k, IRA, and savings, will wake them up. The meltdown in the markets is squarely on the Republicans shoulders.

John McCain proudly states "the economy is fundamentally strong" and "I voted 90% of the time WITH the Bush administration". These statements tell you how he will contiue the failed policies that got us in this financial mess.

The meltdown will only get worse as corporations start reporting their 3rd quarter results, mass layoffs, and another round of bankruptcies (which means pensions from those bankrupted corporations will be greatly reduced).

Losing money has a way of shifting political winds.
By esquared

9/17/08 at 9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Until THIS WEEK McCain stated that the economy was sound.

Until THIS WEEK McCain said nothing about Wall Street and the dangerous abuses of the banking industry. Obama has been talking about this since January and published a detailed plan in March.

Until THIS WEEK McCain has always, in every committee and every vote, supported the banking industry's calls for fewer and weaker regulations.

Where was McCain in January and March? Flying alone on a private jet with the pretty, young lobbyist for the banking and insurance industry.

Where was McCain? In the back room with his chief financial policy maker Phil Gramm, who authored the deregulation bills that allowed the banks to build this house of cards. McCain didn't just vote for this deregulation, he championed it, proudly stood with the billion-dollar babies of Wall Street and the banking world and said these banks are good for the country because when they make money, we all make money. And the republican controlled congress let it all happen.

Where is Phil Gramm now? Chief lobbyist for UBS, the foreign banking giant which recruited, trained and set upon the property buyers of America legions of unscrupulous and predatory loan originators who convinced millions of Americans not to wait until their finances were more sound, not to seek a smaller home that was more easily affordable, but to buy, buy, buy. They needed only to sign on the dotted line then cross their fingers that the value of the home would increase enough to cover that balloon looming off in the distance.

What is McCain saying now? Form a commission? Great, John! Thanks. We wouldn't want you to try to demonstrate an understanding of the problem TODAY, when the fecal matter just happens to be hitting the oscillating device.

Obama's plan, issued in March, clearly pulls the plug on 'no-documentation' loans, increases the financial disclosures required of lenders at the point of loan origination, and even includes incentives for the average American who pays all their bills on time. McCain is too late to the table, brings too little, and has demonstrated a desire to stay in the back room with the banking bosses rather than out here with mainstream America. He can't even pay the property taxes on all of his seven homes on time. How can he possibly take care of this monumental task?
By jfnance32

9/17/08 at 9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

This is one of the biggest reasons for the housing and mortgage crisis:

"In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. "......It was pushed by Democrats to get minorities into housing they really would not otherwise qualified for.
By thebs

9/17/08 at 9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

That's utterly laughable, Nance.

I note you didn't bother linking the article, mostly because it places the blame not on Clinton or the Clinton administration, but on the DEREGULATED MARKET, brought to us by John McCain's best friend, Phil Gramm.

Let's read a little MORE from that article, shall we?

"In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications."

"HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans."

"That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not disclose its number."

"In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime loans."

"Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern," an agency report said."

"But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising."

Huh, their purchases of subprime-backed securities grew ten-fold AFTER Gramm inserted the CFMA and created the deregulated trading market?

Had their purchases of those mortage-based securities remained at their low level, Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have needed a bailout.

That you don't understand that shows how you're comically naive when it comes to the mortgage meltdown.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030...
By Gordon

9/17/08 at 10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Actually, Nance, the problem IS deregulation and lack of oversight. The deregulation allowed predatory loans to be made. Loans that did not exist prior to Bush. These 'gimmick' loans rapidly increase the interest rate and are not tied to the Prime rate.

Also, subprime loans used to be packaged as such and identified with the proper risk in the market. Bush policies allowed these subprime loans to be packaged with AAA loans and hide the risk from investors. When these predatory loans started kicking up the interest rates to 15% and above, homeowners could no longer afford the payments. Then forclosures started making these AAA investments toxic.

Now what investors thought were safe investments are finding out they have large subprime exposure and forcing them to dump all mortgage backed securities, because they just don't know what they contain (no transparency because of Bush policies). This all occurred because of deregulation of banking by the Bush administration and republican controlled congress from 2001-2006.
By jfnance32

9/17/08 at 10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Obama should know about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's extremely poor business decisions because he has/had two of the ex-CEO's on this advisors team.

One was involved in an accounting scandal where he made bigger bonuses by cooking the books.

The other had to resign as VP Selection chairman over a Countrywide discount program scandal.

Obama got the second most money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Obama is an expert on bad sub-prime mortgage crisis.
By esquared

9/17/08 at 10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Nice try nance, but you're Wrong there as well. James Johnson resigned because he received a home mortgage at Countrywide lowest available rate and it gave the 'appearance' of impropriety. My mortgage is paid off entirely, and we carry no balances on our credit cards, paid off all three cars and only carry a balance on a Sears card because it's no interest far 2 years. My credit score is over 800, so I would be entitled to the same loan as Johnson. But he resigned because of the onous placed on any dealings with Countryside. You keep harping about these guys as if it has any real meaning. You don't disagree that Phil Gramm and John McCain deregulated the banking industry that lead to this crisis in the first place. Your sideswipes are petty, your arguments hollow and your mother still dresses you funny.
By ksand99

9/17/08 at 11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

We cannot trust John McCain and Phil Gramm to be anywhere near the White House.

Here is a great article on Phil Gramm and his awful policies that helped create such a gigantic mess.

They call him "Foreclosure Phil!"

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/...

John McCain trusts Phil Gramm. We can't trust John McCain with the economy.
By Future2012

9/17/08 at 11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

In 1999, under Clinton/Gore/Rubin; Gramm/Leach/Bliley, the 1993 Glass-Steagall Act was repealed with a Senate vote of 90-8.

Harry Reid voted for it.

Backed by Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson, and subsequent Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, Robert Rubin, Citigroup's director and executive committee chair, and Robert Reich, a former labor secretary during President Bill Clinton's, Jim Leach, Republican spoke at DNC Convention, now Barak Obama has determined that the wall street is broken, and it is only the fault of Republicans.

But what does Obama what to do?

Should we continue to nationalize the financial institutions, as we have with Fannie and Freddie, or institute price control. Should the government become the assigner of risk.
By jfnance32

9/17/08 at 12:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johnson, like Raines, benefited from cooking the books to increase their bonuses. This resulted in hiding the sick nature of Fannie Mae and in a bigger bailout later.

"As CEO of Fannie Mae, Johnson, a former chief of staff to Vice President Walter F. Mondale and chairman of the board of the Kennedy Center, was the beneficiary of accounting in which Fannie Mae's earnings were manipulated so that executives could earn larger bonuses. The accounting manipulation for 1998 resulted in the maximum payouts to Fannie Mae's senior executives -- $1.9 million in Johnson's case -- when the company's performance that year would have otherwise resulted in no bonuses at all, according to reports in 2004 and 2006 by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight."
By esquared

9/17/08 at 4:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hmm. Well at least you seem to agree that the Gramm/McCain banking deregulation is the cause of this current credit crisis, nance. And I note that you don't fire off McCain's detailed response to the situation either. As a beneficiary to an accounting manipulation, I guess that makes Johnson a bad man. Lucky he isn't running for President. McLame IS, and there is no doubt that he has no clue as to our economy. There's also no doubt that Future up there is clueless as well. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government institutions that have been subsequently made private, or shareholder owned. Try again. Obama was talking about banking problems in March, cowboy.
By cmon

9/17/08 at 6:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hey, it's all good, since Good old Johnny boy said that "the economy id fundamentally strong." They are so lucky I'm not doing commercials for Obama.

BTW, Nance and you other chickens****; You are obviously too scared to answer the two SIMPLE questions I posed to you earlier. I gues you just can't support your ticket enough to be honest, so I'll try yet again:

1. Do you support a candidate who supported the secession of their home state? Yes or NO?
2. do you believe that Armageddon is approaching, and that unleashing our nuclear arsenal upon our enemies, to bring it on? Yes or NO

Cmon, answer the questions or hang up your Keyboards and drink more Kool Aid
By jfnance32

9/17/08 at 6:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

cmon....please answer these questions:

1. Do you support a candidate who hangs around people that believe that USA gave AIDS to blacks?

2. Do you support a candidate who hangs around people who believe that USA gives drugs to blacks?

3. Do you support a candidate hangs around people who bombs police stations and who wished that he could have done more?

4. Do you support someone that hangs around people who hate Israel?

5. Do you support someone that said that he wants a Palenstine that is contiguous and cohesive therefore making Israel non-contiguous?

6. Do you support someone who Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"?

7. Do you support someone who must Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System?

8. Do you support someone who must become soldiers for Black freedom?

Cmon, answer the questions or hang up your Keyboards and drink more Kool Aid.
By esquared

9/17/08 at 9:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oh nance, what happened to your little brain?

You've disclosed that deep seeded racism that fuels all your relatively insane comments. The true nance comes forth!

What happened to the Maverick, who was really just in the pocket of the banking and Insurance industry?
What happened to the patriot, who cannot see that thousands of the finest young men and women are wasted in Iraq and we're no closer to Osama Bin Laden than we were 5 years ago?
what happened to the Maverick who said no earmarks for his administration, only to have the Republican legisaltive leadership say, well, earmarks are important and we'll keep sendin them to the white house?
What happened to the DE-REGULATOR, who told us that banking profit benefited everyone. Are YOU better today than you were 8 years ago?
What happened to the honor of a POW who publically abused his first wife so that he could chase his trophy blond down to the big money in Arizona where he sucked up to the crooked bankers there like Charles Keating?
What happened to the man of honor, who has sold his soul to Karl Rove to get elected?

You think that Obama represents some sort of revolutionary Black guard. But in fact, Obama represents people like Paul Simon and Abner Mikva and Newton Minow, some of the most brilliant minds, and open hearts in American history.

You try to paint him as some sort of South side Chicago ganster when the truth is that he was President of Harvard's Law Review, a brilliant legal mind that chose public service over personal profit.

You show yourself as the racist we all knew you were, nance, and we won't let you off the hook ever again. You'll burn in hell for your last post, regardless of who wins the election. Bring sunscreen, it's mighty hot down there.
By esquared

9/17/08 at 9:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

And nance? your mother STILL dresses you funny.
By esquared

9/17/08 at 10:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

I name you, again, BUG, nance. You personally offend me and I spit whenever I type your name. You have shown yourself to be the lowest of low, the cheapest of cheap, the most racist of all the animals we see in these comments. If you and I were in a bar, I'd take you out back and beat you, bloody, senseless and then laugh over your wimpering countenance. I'm sure you'll keep offering your fecal matter here in the comments, but right now, this day, you are a bug, and my heel is searching for your like a divining rod to water. You are, in a word, unworthy.