It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As president, Barack Obama will implement a 21st century economic agenda to help ensure that America can compete in a global economy, and ensure the middle class is thriving and growing. He will increase investments in infrastructure, energy independence, education, and research and development; modernize and simplify our tax code so it provides greater opportunity and relief to more Americans; and implement trade policies that benefit American workers and increase the export of American goods.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
Obama clearly deserves credit for offering a plan to bolster the sagging economy before Congress acted. But he is exaggerating the role his plan played in the stimulus package, which was jointly constructed with congressional leaders and the White House. For these reasons, we judge his claim Barely True.
McCain was referring to his 2006 decision to sign on to a Republican-led regulatory overhaul of the mortgage-financing firms, which both went through multibillion-dollar accounting scandals earlier in the decade. The occasion that prompted McCain’s involvement was the release of a 340-page report from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight that concluded that Fannie Mae had manipulated earnings and violated basic accounting principles. It describes an “arrogant and unethical corporate culture” in which executives were more concerned about their bonuses than meeting the company’s housing mission.
We give McCain some credit for weighing in on problems surrounding Fannie Mae, even though he got involved after a comprehensive government report issued a loud alarm to anyone watching. However, his attempts to depict those efforts as some sort of early warning that could have lessened the current credit crisis just don’t wash. All McCain was talking about then was the potential fallout of accounting troubles in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He didn’t say anything about a freewheeling climate among creditors that had major financial institutions becoming badly leveraged on bad loans. We rule his claim Barely True.
The fact remains that McCain's top campaign advisor made a fortune deregulating Fannie and Freddie.
Originally posted by DINSTAAR
Obama is worse than Bush on the economy, and that is saying a lot.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said in an interview aired Tuesday that the cost of the mortgage bailout plan may rein in his ambitious plans for health care, energy, education and infrastructure.
Obama's comments reflect the possible new constraints on the next president's ability to expand or start programs or cut taxes. The government financial interventions of the past two weeks could cost more than $1 trillion.
Does that mean that I can do everything that I've called for in this campaign right away?” Obama said. “Probably not. I think we're going to have to phase it in. And a lot of it's going to depend on what our tax revenues look like.”
Negative. His tax and spend proposals would push the economy over the precipice. He is totally out of touch with economic reality.