Obama, Freddie and Fannie.

[The Paperboy]

From John Gibson, Fox News:

Lehman Brothers' collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago. Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs. A group called the center for responsive politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. Senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were democrats and number two is Senator Barack Obama. Now, remember, he has only been in the Senate four years but still managed to grab the number two spot ahead of John Kerry, decades in the senate, and Chris Dodd who is chairman of the senate banking committee. Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional democrats and the Clinton white house, designed to make mortgages available to more people, and as it turned out, some people who couldn't afford them. Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's white house budget director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected 50 million dollars. Jamie Gurilli, Clinton Justice Apartment Official, worked for Fannie and took home 26 million dollars. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae C.E.O. job. Now remember, Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain, Senator Obama, was at the head of the line when the piggy's lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks. Senator Barack Obama, number two on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the senate. Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem. John McCain is a measly $20,000 after over 20 years so he really doesn't even come close in the political contribution department.

Link to video here

 

[jillian]

you need to link when you're quoting.

thanks.

And I'm sure FauxNews is very "balanced" on the issue.....

 

[The Paperboy]

you need to link when you're quoting.

thanks.

And I'm sure FauxNews is very "balanced" on the issue.....

I just added the link to the original post.

 

[The Paperboy]

you need to link when you're quoting.

thanks.

And I'm sure FauxNews is very "balanced" on the issue.....

The same info is also reported by CNN here.

 

[dilloduck]

The same info is also reported by CNN here.

I'm sure there is something wrong with that too !

 

[The Paperboy]

I'm sure there is something wrong with that too !

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

-John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770, US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

 

[Clay Buster]

After reading the article, I happen to agree that it is simply pathetic that both McCain and Obama took money from these lobbyists.

Both candidates are running on the "change" platform yet they are both taking money from the lobbyists who represent unscrupulous industries which have led to this latest economic meltdown.

Both of them should be ashamed.

We've never needed to eliminate our two party system more than now.

Sen. Barack Obama is the No. 3 recipient of Fannie and Freddie campaign dollars, having collected $123,000 from the companies since he first ran for the Senate in 2004, according to the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Responsive Politics.

The former chief executive of Fannie Mae, James Johnson, was the original head of Obama's vice presidential search team. Johnson resigned from Obama's campaign amid controversy over discounted home loans he had received.

Sen. John McCain has received $19,000 from the two companies in the past ten years.

His campaign manager, Rick Davis, formerly led the Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy group for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's mortgage businesses.

"We had the Keating Five," said Rosner, referring to McCain and four other senators who had supported the head of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association nearly 20 years ago.

"This is closer to the Keating 535," added Rosner referring to all members of Congress. "Those legislators who have cost shareholders, preferred shareholders and taxpayers potentially hundreds of billions of dollars, I think we ought to hold them accountable."

 

[The Paperboy]

After reading the article, I happen to agree that it is simply pathetic that both McCain and Obama took money from these lobbyists.

Both candidates are running on the "change" platform yet they are both taking money from the lobbyists who represent unscrupulous industries which have led to this latest economic meltdown.

Both of them should be ashamed.

We've never needed to eliminate our two party system more than now.

McCain received $20,000 over 20 years not two years.

Obama received $123,000 in less than 4 years.

Obama has requested 3/4 of a billion dollars in earmarks in less than 4 years including a request for one million dollars for the hospital that employs Michelle (whose hospital salary more than doubled when Obama became a Senator)

McCain has never requested an earmark.

On earmarks and lobbyist influence on the banking sector McCain wins easily.

 

[Clay Buster]

McCain received $20,000 over 20 years not two years.

Obama received $123,000 in less than 4 years.

On earmarks and lobbyist influence on the banking sector McCain wins easily.

I'll have to do more research because the CNN article you posted stated McCain excepted the money over 10 years, not 20. I really don't care, however, he accepted money from those lobbyists just like Obama.

I hope we are not going to go down the road of the lesser of two evils argument.

Just remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Obama took a lot of money which is crap.

McCain hired a campaign manager which led the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbyist group Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which is crap.

They are both guilty here and I hope Dems and Repubs alike will realize this.

There is simply no way to spin it.

 

[The Paperboy]

I'll have to do more research because the CNN article you posted stated McCain excepted the money over 10 years, not 20. I really don't care, however, he accepted money from those lobbyists just like Obama.

I hope we are not going to go down the road of the lesser of two evils argument.

Just remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Obama took a lot of money which is crap.

McCain hired a campaign manager which led the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbyist group Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which is crap.

They are both guilty here and I hope Dems and Repubs alike will realize this.

There is simply no way to spin it.

Fair enough. No spin. Just facts. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[SwingVoter]

Obama took a lot of money which is crap.

yup, his anti-lobbyist rhetoric is just a re-hash of Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and will probably be used again in 2012 and 2016 by whichever Dem runs, Dem strategists use it the way Bill Parcells used the running back up the middle play

whole thing is crap, especially when Fannie was an arm of the DNC, but at the same time Mac's reform line is also crap, it's all just campaign marketing

so on balance, not a reason to pick either candidate

 

[The Paperboy]

yup, his anti-lobbyist rhetoric is just a re-hash of Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and will probably be used again in 2012 and 2016 by whichever Dem runs, Dem strategists use it the way Bill Parcells used the running back up the middle play

whole thing is crap, especially when Fannie was an arm of the DNC, but at the same time Mac's reform line is also crap, it's all just campaign marketing

so on balance, not a reason to pick either candidate

Here is why I will vote for McCain at this point:

1. McCain has said he will veto any bill with earmarks.
2. He is against nationalizing the health system.
3. There is far less a chance that my taxes will go up especially when you consider an Obama Administration with a Democratic controlled Congress holding our purse strings.
4. I like that McCain has shown compassion on the immigration issue and that he is for securing the border as a first step.

These are pretty specific positions especially No. 1 & 2.

 

[glockmail]

I'll have to do more research because the CNN article you posted stated McCain excepted the money over 10 years, not 20. I really don't care, however, he accepted money from those lobbyists just like Obama......

Whatever. That's still 15 times on an annual basis more for Obama, but its the same thing, right?

 

[SwingVoter]

Here is why I will vote for McCain at this point:

1. McCain has said he will veto any bill with earmarks.
2. He is against nationalizing the health system.
3. There is far less a chance that my taxes will go up especially when you consider an Obama Administration with a Democratic controlled Congress holding our purse strings.
4. I like that McCain has shown compassion on the immigration issue and that he is for securing the border as a first step.

These are pretty specific positions especially No. 1 & 2.

...and 1 and 2 are why I'm leaning Obama because

1. Earmarks represent a much smaller share of the budget than medicare, socialist security, medicaid, defense, and interest, none of which Mac can or will cut
2. Bush expanded socialized medicine faster than any pres since LBJ with medicare part d, which now costs $60 billion a year, Mac won't roll it back

 

[Clay Buster]

Whatever. That's still 15 times on an annual basis more for Obama, but its the same thing, right?

I understand the rationalization you are trying to make, but let me put this into an analogy which may explain the way I look at it.

Person A sees a purse sitting on someone's desk and decides to open it. Inside they see some cash and they decide to take $20 dollars and put it in their pocket.

Person B knows where the company's petty cash is located and when they find an opportune time, they sneak in and take $400 and put it in their pocket.

In monetary terms there is a huge difference between $20 and $400 and maybe we can rationalize why one did this versus the other.

The way I look at is:

I don't care how much money they took, they are both thieves.

If someone steals less, are they less of a thief? Not in my book.

Yes, I oversimplified the whole thing with this analogy, but maybe it will give you a better understanding of what I am saying.

 

[The Paperboy]

...and 1 and 2 are why I'm leaning Obama because

1. Earmarks represent a much smaller share of the budget than medicare, socialist security, medicaid, defense, and interest, none of which Mac can or will cut
2. Bush expanded socialized medicine faster than any pres since LBJ with medicare part d, which now costs $60 billion a year, Mac won't roll it back

Good points but then why would you vote for Obama???

 

[rayboyusmc]

And Mumbles McCain got money from Merril Lynch. All his advisors are loybists.


Get a life.

 

[The Paperboy]

Fair enough. But I think what has happened at Fannie and Freddie is the seminal economic event of our times because of the massive effect it has across our economy. Surely the public has a right to know who are the people behind this. This stretches back to the mid 1990s. I'm not blaming Obama but it curious Fannie and Freddie would be so interested in donating to him.

 

[The Paperboy]

I understand the rationalization you are trying to make, but let me put this into an analogy which may explain the way I look at it.

Person A sees a purse sitting on someone's desk and decides to open it. Inside they see some cash and they decide to take $20 dollars and put it in their pocket.

Person B knows where the company's petty cash is located and when they find an opportune time, they sneak in and take $400 and put it in their pocket.

In monetary terms there is a huge difference between $20 and $400 and maybe we can rationalize why one did this versus the other.

The way I look at is:

I don't care how much money they took, they are both thieves.

If someone steals less, are they less of a thief? Not in my book.

Yes, I oversimplified the whole thing with this analogy, but maybe it will give you a better understanding of what I am saying.

The analogy you use is in error as there is nothing illegal done here. Lobbyist have a right to donate to political campaigns. They are citizens. I doubt anyone would have an issue with a lobbyist for ASPCA donating to a politician.

However a politician does not have to take the money. Obviously the Fannie and Freddie folks thought Obama was a good investment in his short time in the Senate.

Does anyone know what votes Obama has made in connection with Fannie Freddie since he's been in the Senate?

 

[glockmail]

I understand the rationalization you are trying to make, but let me put this into an analogy which may explain the way I look at it.

Person A sees a purse sitting on someone's desk and decides to open it. Inside they see some cash and they decide to take $20 dollars and put it in their pocket.

Person B knows where the company's petty cash is located and when they find an opportune time, they sneak in and take $400 and put it in their pocket.

In monetary terms there is a huge difference between $20 and $400 and maybe we can rationalize why one did this versus the other.

The way I look at is:

I don't care how much money they took, they are both thieves.

If someone steals less, are they less of a thief? Not in my book.

Yes, I oversimplified the whole thing with this analogy, but maybe it will give you a better understanding of what I am saying.

Not a reasonable analogy. Both candidates run multi-million dollar fund raising operations. The acceptance of $2000 in such an endeavor would be considered routine, and in fact when looking at the long list of beneficiaries was. Not so with closer to $31,000 and the #2 beneficiary.