It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why aren't the candidates talking about the bank collapses and future economy?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:16 AM
They are scared. What is there to say? It is what it is. It is not like we have not seen this coming for some time now. No candidate wants to impart any negative vibe to there campaign.

Not cricket.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:18 AM
reply to post by Areal51

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by jsobecky
What difference does it make?

It only makes a difference if you are more interested in solutions than you are in finger-pointing designed to appeal to base emotion.

Obama's rhetoric and rich vs poor pablum is designed to incite class warfare in the populace.

Originally posted by Areal51
However, to me, Obama's response provides more insight because he issues a roadmap that illustrates how CEO took advantage of weak consumer protections, oversight, and regulations.

So what? We all know how they got themselves into this pickle. Obama's whining about it does nothing to solve the problems; McCain's positive suggestions do provide a solution.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:45 AM

Originally posted by skyshow

With news just in that Lehman bros. has collapsed; the fourth major financial institution to do so, but they will get no bail out like Freddy and Fannie.

Why aren't they talking about the economy and offer up their respective policy plans for how to deal with it?

if everyone listens carefully.... the big firms you mention by name "Lehman'... and by inferrence 'bear stearns' are not mentioned as 'Bank Failures'

they are termed 'consolidations' and/or 'mergers' into the take-over firms.
~which is a way to not use the really negative terms like, collapse, bankrupty...which could generate undo fear in the public arena and create an atmosphere of paranoia about the stock market and possibly cause a 'run' on the money changers operations~

Fannie & Freddie are also not failures or collapses... the federal government actually seized the mortgage makers & insurers before they became insolvent.

the 2 candidates, don't have the necessary inside track to be able to comment other than broad generalizations about the financial markets... which is different from the 'economy',
the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury, the SEC, FDIC, all have the inside track on how & what actions to take on the banking & brokerage & ratings houses that are being 'consolidated'.

there are some 'bankers' threads on ATS, which address some of the things you bring up...
but there has only been 9 notable bank failures (and resulting seizures) in the nation so far this year... and that, so far, is not a earthshaking number indicating the collapse of the financial cartel

[edit on 15-9-2008 by St Udio]

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by jsobecky

This from the McCain-Palin campaign sounds like a solution to you?

"It is essential for us to make sure that the U.S. remains the pre-eminent financial market of the world. This will be a highest priority of my Administration. In order to do this, major reform must be made in Washington and on Wall Street. We cannot tolerate a system that handicaps our markets and our banks and places at risk the savings of hard-working Americans and investors. The McCain-Palin Administration will replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington and bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street. We will rebuild confidence in our markets and restore our leadership in the financial world."

That's nothing more than imperialistic banter, and it is an "Us or else..." proposition. It is fallacious. It is an appeal to force or the threat of force on two fronts. The statement makes it out that the McCain-Palin campaign are putting Wall Street on notice. "Watch out Wall Street we're going to make sure you're held accountable for this mess." And it unveils a threat to the American people that if they do not put McCain and Palin in office, the market will then crush the voters, because -- Why? -- the Democrats aren't going to do anything about it.

What "outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington" are they talking about? There is no regulatory oversight. And guess who made this possible over 20 years ago?

The Republican's have had a change of heart and now think that government regulation of Wall Street is a good thing? Do you really believe that? Seriously, jsobecky, how long has John McCain been in Washington? Has Senator John McCain pushed for regulation of Wall Street in the past? That quoted statement doesn't sound anything like the Republican crew that McCain has surrounded himself with all these years, and it damn sure does sound a whole lot like the song that the Democrats used to sing circa the Reagan-Bush era of the 80s. That is until the Reagan-Bush Administration ripped out the the vocal cords of the Democrats.

President George Herbert Walker Bush said himself that he was a deregulation man.

So the Right is now the Left, and the Left is now the Right? Simply because the Republicans say so?

The anti-socialists are now pro-socialism? Is that what we are to understand from the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout, and the McCain-Palin campaign statement?


[edit on 15-9-2008 by Areal51]

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:25 AM
Why should they be speaking about this?

The federal government has already proven that short of bailing all this companies out can not do anything to stop this crisis and even if they did the immediate result would be raising taxes to the taxpayers.

Sen.Obama has alreay said that he is going to raise taxes so his economic plan seems more adjusted to the reality of this economic times. Having said that raising taxes would not provide an answer to the economic problems that this country is facing.We got to let the markets solve their problems out, after the slaughter the companies that would survive are those that were able to minimize their risks.

Both candidates are talking about more regulation, that's about all they can do.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:39 AM
Until about a year ago America had the best economy in the history of mankind.
I hate to say it.... almost, but this IS a partisan issue. The housing market brought about the banking problems worldwide, which is a DIRECT result of Democrats forcing the banks to give loans to people who normally couldn't get a loan to buy a happy meal. That happened in 1978, and when Clinton was in office he put the program on steroids.

Fuel costs are the direct result of the Dems being in bed with the
Environmental whackos for 35 years, and not allowing (greatly restricting) drilling and the building of refineries.

Think of this: it has been estimated that since the beginning of the "Age Of Oil", about one Trillion barrels of oil have been pumped. In Colorado, alone, there is an estimated 1.3 to 1.8 Trillion barrels of oil. Under the great state of Pennsylvania, there's a pocket of natural gas that would last 1100 years. America is the only country whose government and special interests do not allow us to access our own resources.

Now, research is showing more and more that oil is not a fossil fuel, but is produced by the earth as a reaction of Methane, heat, pressure. There may be no end of oil. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't develop alternative sources of energy, which we will.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by zappafan1]

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by Bunch

Both candidates are talking about more regulation, that's about all they can do.

I was hopeful that some proactive ideas would come forth and that we might get some insight into what each one would do in the aftermath of a major meltdown of the economy. Perhaps it's still to soon to tell and unrealistic to get comments on it now? I'm sure once it happens and people are living in Hooverville’s again all over the place (to be called McCainville’s or Obamadale’s) then we will hear about plans for the people.

During the New Deal, FDR rolled out all kinds of massive public works projects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority damn projects. These programs put people to work building our infrastructure and at the same time pumped a lot of working dollars into society. I've heard Barack Obama get close to talking about public works projects when he speaks about alternative energies and how we will get off of foreign oil so I have a little more faith in him, but right now the economy is volatile as Hades with a surplus of hand baskets.

Excellent posts too btw everyone. I got up this morning to check the thread and was surprised with all the replies and even more at the quality of posts. These are some well thought out statements on something that is truly going to effect us all. Hopefully we’ve seen the worst of it; keep your fingers crossed!

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:47 AM

Originally posted by zappafan1
Until about a year ago America had the best economy in the history of mankind.
I hate to say it.... almost, but this IS a partisan issue. The housing market brought about the banking problems worldwide, which is a DIRECT result of Democrats forcing the banks to give loans to people who normally couldn't get a loan to buy a happy meal. That happened in 1978, and when Clinton was in office he put the program on steroids.


Seriously -- what?


AND: In 1978, Clinton was where?

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:47 AM
Why aren't the candidates talking about the bank collapses and future economy?

Because is election year and the present situation will be linked more to one party than the other.

For McCain as the Republican candidate this issue will be to painful to digest.

But for Obama he at least can remain detach while offering solutions to an issue that is happening under the Republican hold of 8 years.

The economy right now is too much in trouble to campaign on it. So politicians prefer to campaign around it.

It doesn't matter who win the elections next year they will be faced with the American economy meltdown.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:55 AM
The bought and paid for candidates cannot discuss the real cause of the problem because as someone has posted here already, you cannot bite the hand that feeds you. Ron Paul has outlined what the REAL problems are.

OUR TAXES only Pay the FED interest on the Govt. Debt --> FED Creates Money Lent to GOVT adding to the Debt ----> GOVT spends freely ---> IRS the FEDs collection agency takes more money from our wages to service the debt which goes to the FED and the foreign investors who OWN us.

The REAL solution to the problem is to break the cycle and simply stop all the wasteful spending !
They can't say that because they are part of that elitist political system and the problem itself.

I do feel that Obama was a bit more honest in his assessment of the severity of the situation though he couldn't say too much because they KNOW what the root cause is and what it requires to resolve the situation.

McCain's statement was interesting in that it doesn't describe the seriousness of the situation but instead puts a little makeup on the pig (our economy) by:

1.) saying they're watching the Lehman situation (Thats good) What about recent Fannie Freddie bailouts that we now have to pay for John ?

2.) He wants to protect peoples savings and investments - Sounds good but What about protecting their homes John , the working class's , single largest investment ? Americans haven't any savings anymore !

3.) He'll solve the problem by fixing the govt regulation of the system.
Thats telling the FED how to run their business which isn't going to happen especially when they are the ones that OWN you.

I presume McCain will fix the economy and banking system right after he and Palin return from their hunting trip capturing Osama Bin Laden ?!

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:56 AM
Honestly, I think neither one of them have any idea what to do about it, and are doing a wait and see.

The situation is unique, and an economic mess or disaster on the brink like nothing has been seen before.

I think they both have teams of finance gurus studying it, trying to find the best course of action.Before they say anything.

The last thing either of them want to do right now is spit out a plan, and next week something else happens that changes the face of everything.

And you know what, I think approaching it cautiously, is a good thing on their part. We don't need any more rootin tootin cowboys jumping to action at sundown.

Yes, it is a scarey situation. But a big scarey situation requires a lot of planning and forethought. Unlike the Iraq War.

The economy is a lot like ecology. It is so hard to predict if you take an action what the repercussions are going to be. I am sure it takes a lot of careful consideration.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by nixie_nox]

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:59 AM

Originally posted by nh_ee

I presume McCain will fix the economy and banking system right after he and Palin return from their hunting trip capturing Osama Bin Laden ?!

Thanks for that one it made my day but you forgot to add that they occurs will do a prayer night before digging into the financial chaos.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:04 PM
reply to post by marg6043

You two!

I'm busting my gut with laughter!

[Edit. Changed "but" to "gut".]

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Areal51]

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
No. I do not expect them to break it down in the manner of Ron Paul. That's part of the point that I made.

Ron Paul's assessment is a merger of the cold, hard reality of the situation and his belief in American sovereignty. McCain and Obama aren't on the same page as Paul; they're not even in the same book.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:14 PM
Kudos to the OP!
This is one of the points I tried to make regarding the new limitations on political threads. It is hard to discuss either candidates' position on specific issues, because, for the most part, they don't have SPECIFIC positions. It is hard to debate when specific positions don't exist, and the MSM does not seem interested in reporting them.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:25 PM

Originally posted by zappafan1
Until about a year ago America had the best economy in the history of mankind.

Have you been living under a rock?

The U.S. economy has been a mirage for the past 7 years, and now you are seeing that mirage dissapear and reality surfacing. We have lost more jobs to outsourcing, and Bush economic policies since the Great Depression. Inflation and oil prices are through the roof (oil is coming down though) also in part to Bush policies.

You want to make this a partisan issue? Sen. McCain economic plan is so alike to Bush economics that it wont help this country AT ALL. The Bush taxcuts where supposed to be the linchpin of his economic plan, by giving more money to the companies they were supposed to create jobs and improve the economy instead what it did was to give more revenue to the companies who them move their operations overseas slashing jobs in the U.S. which help in great part to the foreclosures that ignited this current economic crisis that has claimed many banks and investment firms and also has expanded our national debt with all the bailouts that has been given so far. Thats Bush economics in its simpler form.

Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent: A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe.

This is a repeat of Bush economics, the wishful thinking that if we give more money to BIG corporations they would return the favor by creating more jobs here in the U.S. The reality is that the companies dont care about doing any favors, they only care about their bottom line as they should.

John McCain believes that globalization is an opportunity for American workers today and in the future. Ninety-five percent of the world's customers lie outside our borders and we need to be at the table when the rules for access to those markets are written. To do so, the U.S. should engage in multilateral, regional and bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade, level the global playing field and build effective enforcement of global trading rules.

I read somewhere a statement that is very true, it went something like this : "The U.S. has never "LOST" a war but has never WON a trade agreement"

All this NAFTA and FTA's that Bush has signed have resulted in the job losses that we now face, the idea in theory is good but the result are better for those that sit on the other side of the table.

Bottomline, Sen. McCain economic plan is basically and sorry for the cliche "MORE OF THE SAME" failed Bush policies that have created this present economic chaos.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Bunch]

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by Bunch

When I encounter a poster with that state of mind, I just don't even try to made them understand the situation. because is beyond understanding for them.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by marg6043]

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:20 PM
It's quite an easy answer really.

In the 2006 election cycle, Fannie Mae was giving 53 percent of its total $1.3 million in contributions to Republicans, who controlled Congress at that time. This cycle, with Democrats in control, they've reversed course, giving the party 56 percent of their total $1.1 million in contributions.

source = Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also strategically given more contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry.

Whoever opens this can of worms better be sure the media is on their side because this is a nasty issue.

We know that Jim Johnson a former campaign guy for Obama had ties to Countrywide. I know that the subject is somewhere on these forums.

he Politico reported Tuesday that Johnson's connections with the chief executive officer of Countrywide Financial (NYSE:CFC), a lender blamed by some as a key contributor to the mortgage crisis, could put Johnson at risk of being a political liability for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the party's presumptive presidential nominee.


The major candidates have some cozy ties to these guys who are ruining the economy, how the hell can they be trusted to run the country?

Beyond the anti-lobbyist message, Obama also indicts the Bush administration and the Republicans who controlled Congress for a dozen years until 2007, including McCain. He blames them for hands-off regulation that freed the companies to go deep into debt to buy the mortgages that crushed them as the housing crisis persisted.

Yet his fellow Democrats in Congress have been well known as enablers of the two companies for years, protecting the firms' dueling responsibilities to support affordable housing as well as to maximize shareholder profits.

More than Obama, McCain's circle of advisers and contributors includes current and former lobbyists or directors for the companies, though since July he has called for a ban on any lobbying by the two firms.

Many of the people involved in the current financial mess should be on their way to jail right now, not getting golden parachutes or running for political power.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:27 PM
reply to post by wutone

One star for you, this is the best way to open the eyes of those that wants to have their eyes opened and to show how corrupted is our political system.

This is why no matter who rats gets in the government this time, is all about money talks and BS walks, and guess what is not for you, me, or any regular Joe in this nation.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:54 PM
reply to post by wutone

Great post!

Definitely puts an end to the partisan bickering.

Everybody has homework.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in