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.
It's Friday night football in Texas and that is big. Most people wouldn't tend in to them anyway.
Originally posted by skyshow
reply to post by wutone
and then what did the Republicans with their majority in all branches do then about it then? Did the dem's not support it because perhaps it was similar to this bailout situation whereby they write it all up and ignore all other possibilities and then try to railroad it through? Maybe we ought to dig deeper and see why exactly the democratic minority in congress weren't in support of it? Anyone?
Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
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.
Originally posted by bknapple32
ps grim, love the avatr. im watching tombstone right now.
A debate prob wont change my mind. Im voting for obama baring some sort of setback or revelation. But I see a lot of intellect come out i na debate. How a person can think on their feet. Use logic. and negotiate the point they are trying to make in a short amount of time. Maybe it doesnt transfer over nicely to real world politics. but I see many clues in a debate that tell me how they will urn the country.
The thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the "subprime" housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers.
Originally posted by skyshow
Well now after the countless posts making the point that he should be in Washington "doing his job"...it's interesting to find out that he hasn't voted on anything since April. In fact he wasn't there to vote on the G.I. Bill. But now suddenly he is the man because he cares so much about working for the American people? Even Ried said not so much that he wasn't needed right now up there, what will all but a half a dozen or less folks in all of congress in support of the bailout Bush supports.
Finally if it's so important, and just last week McCain said the economy was sound, why has George Bush flown away from Washington D.C. and with his now 19% approval ratings down at the ranch in Crawford Texas? What a strategy huh? He plans to try and appeal to this 19%...or or or the 9% who thinks the economy is sound like McCain said last week.
Give me a break!
Originally posted by qonone
In all honesty, i don't think McCain nor Obama deserves the U.S presidency. It sounds like McCain jumped this bus to win some votes,
Originally posted by dgtempe
I knew i would dread this day. I knew that the finger of blame would be pointed at Bill Clinton.
Nope, its too late for that, this administration has had a "new" agenda that perhaps Bill Clinton helped set up, but this is BUSH'S AND CHENEY'S baby right here. 8 years worth of lets make tons of money and then screw.
This is all this is.
I suppose its also a coincidence that the AMERICAN TROOPS will be here patrolling our streets next week???
Originally posted by Spinflow
My question is can't the man multi task? For example if your in an interview for a job and you decide you to suspend your interview so can tend to the job? I mean he hasn't even gotten the job yet and he is acting like he will handle it hands on.. If anything, why not hold the debate in D.C. and take care of both objectives.. or how about send Palin in place for him at the debate? I mean she has to step in for him anyway if something were to happen to him.