Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
I am looking for why the Democrats voted down that bill. Probably because it was bad. I found some opinions on why and I'll share them with you. But they are not my answers. I'm guessing the bills were bullshit. I'm guessing they did little to fix the problem and there was a ton of earmarks in them. Based on the last 8 years, I would be reluctant to sign anything the GOP want. How about you?
And Obama didn't get campaign money from Fannie May. He got the money from collections taken up between Fannie May employees---big difference. McCain got more campaign money than Obama from Fannie May CEOs and lobbyists.
It was one regulatory bill, one which not only didn't go nearly far enough, but did little to stymie the heads of corporations just raking in money at the people's expense with little consequence. If you want to talk about who voted down regulation, who has spent the last 26 years in the Senate talking all about how he doesn't want regulation in the corporate world? Who has been in office as president, vetoing passed bills that would provide regulations? Many of the regulations that Bush and McCain are talking about now were brought before them before, and their response was no. The only reason it's yes now is because we're in crisis, and they have no choice.
Besides, your point overall doesn't make sense. Obama caused the economic crisis by voting against one bill? This is a man who's been in the Senate for 4 years. McCain's been there for 26. Who do you think could have done more to the economy? And do you really believe that the last 4 years were the only ones that could have caused this? If so, take a long hard look at what's going on, it comes from almost a decade of neglect.
Why did McCain's Economics advisor , Phil Gramm (R-TX) draft the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act that de-regulated the industry. And that was back in 1999-2000.
First, I'm not going to be set up to be some big McCain defender. I'm on record here as saying I've never liked the guy. I'm just reporting what I found when I researched the Congressional Bills on the Library of Congress research site because I found it interesting that he was co-sponsoring bills way back then and I hadn't heard anything about it.
Second, I never said Obama had anything to do with it one way or another. I think he was still a back-bencher voting "Present" in the Illinois Senate at the time. But that's OK he was probably already running for US Senate at the time and didn't have time to understand the bills he was voting....errr...not voting on.
The regulatory scheme at issue, as I understand it, was to put an agency under the treasury dept. and give control of Fannie and Freddie to that. The agency would have had independent audit authority and a primary focus was to ensure Fannie and Freddie maintain appropriate capitalization for the loans they were making.
If you can actually cite how crapped up with pork the bills were, fine. Otherwise, I'll just assume you are full of shit on that point.