The Project for Excellence in Journalism's report shows John McCain's media coverage has been 57 percent negative, while Barack Obama's has been 29 percent negative.
Full article here: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/study-shows-mccain-media-coverage-negative/
Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
McCain's Med Plan Offers Consumers More Long-Term Choice...
By Editorial, Rocky Mountain News October 13, 2008
Article Excerpt: Click here to read entire post.
If there's one issue Coloradans have been intently listening to in the season of never-ending political debates - besides the economy, of course - it's probably health care. A new Census Bureau report, after all, reveals that nearly one in five Coloradans under age 65 lack health insurance. The number jumps to 35 percent when only counting the Hispanic community. And while that doesn't mean every one of those residents is in financial straits because of health care costs, one catastrophic medical crisis can send a family to the poorhouse. Both political parties and their candidates are quick to agree that America's health care system is fractured. Both John McCain and Barack Obama are touting preventive care and better information technology to cut costs, and have proposed safety nets (though markedly different) to cover the hard-to-insure, such as patients with pre-existing conditions. That's where the agreement stops. How can voters wade through the health care rhetoric to pick the best offered solution? If you're uninsured, your focus is on securing adequate coverage. If you're insured, you want to know whether proposals will ding your wallet or the quality and scope of your coverage. In either case, you probably value some degree of choice. If that's a high priority, we'd recommend John McCain's plan. Barack Obama's plan extols choice, too, but over time leads in another direction. McCain's health care proposal hinges on a $5,000 tax credit for families ($2,500 for individuals) under which individuals could either keep their current insurance or go out and buy coverage, even shopping across state lines to get the best rates. And under McCain's plan, if you don't spend the entire allotted amount on coverage, the remainder can be deposited in Health Savings Accounts (which McCain wants to expand). The Obama plan, meanwhile, gives birth to a bouncing new bureaucracy: the National Health Insurance Exchange, which would offer private policies and a public insurance plan "based on benefits available to members of Congress" - generous benefits, in other words. All wanting insurance in the public plan would have to be covered under the same premium, without regard to lifestyle choices such as smoking that increase health risks. Obama's plan purports to maintain personal choice - and to some exent does at first - but a growing entitlement program will almost certainly crowd private insurers out of the market.
Article Excerpt: Click here to read entire post.
If there's one issue Coloradans have been intently listening to in the season of never-ending political debates - besides the economy, of course - it's probably health care. A new Census Bureau report, after all, reveals that nearly one in five Coloradans under age 65 lack health insurance. The number jumps to 35 percent when only counting the Hispanic community. And while that doesn't mean every one of those residents is in financial straits because of health care costs, one catastrophic medical crisis can send a family to the poorhouse. Both political parties and their candidates are quick to agree that America's health care system is fractured. Both John McCain and Barack Obama are touting preventive care and better information technology to cut costs, and have proposed safety nets (though markedly different) to cover the hard-to-insure, such as patients with pre-existing conditions. That's where the agreement stops. How can voters wade through the health care rhetoric to pick the best offered solution? If you're uninsured, your focus is on securing adequate coverage. If you're insured, you want to know whether proposals will ding your wallet or the quality and scope of your coverage. In either case, you probably value some degree of choice. If that's a high priority, we'd recommend John McCain's plan. Barack Obama's plan extols choice, too, but over time leads in another direction. McCain's health care proposal hinges on a $5,000 tax credit for families ($2,500 for individuals) under which individuals could either keep their current insurance or go out and buy coverage, even shopping across state lines to get the best rates. And under McCain's plan, if you don't spend the entire allotted amount on coverage, the remainder can be deposited in Health Savings Accounts (which McCain wants to expand). The Obama plan, meanwhile, gives birth to a bouncing new bureaucracy: the National Health Insurance Exchange, which would offer private policies and a public insurance plan "based on benefits available to members of Congress" - generous benefits, in other words. All wanting insurance in the public plan would have to be covered under the same premium, without regard to lifestyle choices such as smoking that increase health risks. Obama's plan purports to maintain personal choice - and to some exent does at first - but a growing entitlement program will almost certainly crowd private insurers out of the market.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Greenspan's Warning, and How the Dems Crashed the Economy...
...Commentary by Kevin Hassett
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. 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.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
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.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
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.
Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. 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.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
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.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
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.
Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Uncommon Sense from Guest Editor George Lake...
It’s been a pretty wild couple weeks in politics! Obama gave a good speech at the Democratic convention and got his bounce but I’d have to describe it as pretty standard democratic/populous content describing what government is going to give us, or do for us. Where was the “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” that another famous Democrat once stated in an inauguration speech??
Followed right behind this speech was the announcement of Sarah Palin to the McCain ticket. At first the generic and reasonable (as I have to add myself to this group and who cannot describe me as anything but reasonable!!) reaction was “who is this unknown” and is she going to be an embarrassment?? Everyone was initially questioning this choice (and whether McCain had lost his mind!),but she carried herself beautifully in her introductory speech.
Because of the way she handled herself in the initial spotlight and her fine address, I was perfectly willing to wait and get more input on her background, accomplishments, and positions before I made a decision about her. I can’t say our mainstream media has taken the same position. She has been pilloried and even slandered by supposedly mainstream media for the whole week before her nomination speech. I truly feel that large portions of our media were bent on destroying her. (Case in point is the NY Times- after not even commenting on John Edward’s affair until it was well known, published 3 articles on their FRONT page on Sarah Palin mostly using the fact that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant to question McCain’s choice and her ability to be VP). Also, quickly discussed in the mainstream media was some crazy blogger’s assertion that Sarah was not the one that had Trig (the baby with Down’s Syndrome) but it was in fact her 17 yr old daughter’s baby!!!
By the time the Governor gave her speech at the RNC, people could have been forgiven if they were watching just to see a total simpleton come on stage and completely embarrass herself. But the results could not have been more polar opposite. What we saw was an extremely competent PERSON who has a track record of reform in Alaska that covers both ethics and budgetary matters. I will readily admit she has little in the way of foreign affairs experience BUT she is being considered for the VP slot NOT the President! Obama also has a complete scarcity of foreign policy experience and he indirectly acknowledged this by picking Biden as his running mate. People can like Obama as a man but it must be acknowledged that he has very little in the way of any accomplishments or public background that would qualify him for President, at least by historical standards.
I know there are quite a few that are tired of Bush and can’t stand some of his positions especially in the way he has prosecuted the war on terrorism. This would lead people to vote for anybody but Bush. I ask that you reflect on your upcoming decision and consider how McCain has had some very public disagreements with Bush on some of these matters. McCain came out publicly against “torture” and what Bush was doing or had done. He also is for closing “Gitmo”. Now I’m not sure I agree with either of these positions by McCain, but it does show he makes his own decisions and would not simply be another Bush. The Democrats are trying to make McCain synonymous to Bush but this defies almost a decade of reports of McCain liking the “maverick” label and “even enjoying putting a finger in the Republican’s eye”.
McCain also took a very public stand on the “surge” back in the darkest days when it looked like the Iraqi war was getting away from us. He pushed to make it happen. Both Obama and Biden were adamantly against the surge which by this time had become the popular choice. Their solution was to simply put together a timeline to get the troops out. This would have been catastrophic to America’s national interest and to world stability.
McCain pushed for the surge and the results have been “more than anyone could have hoped for” as Obama recently admitted and stated on the O’Reilly factor while at the same time adamantly refusing to admit that NOT backing the surge was a mistake by him.
I am confident McCain can bring about the “change” from Bush that people want while at the same time having the experience and record WE NEED on foreign affairs in these dangerous times. I hope everyone can consider this as they form their decisions on the next President.
Followed right behind this speech was the announcement of Sarah Palin to the McCain ticket. At first the generic and reasonable (as I have to add myself to this group and who cannot describe me as anything but reasonable!!) reaction was “who is this unknown” and is she going to be an embarrassment?? Everyone was initially questioning this choice (and whether McCain had lost his mind!),but she carried herself beautifully in her introductory speech.
Because of the way she handled herself in the initial spotlight and her fine address, I was perfectly willing to wait and get more input on her background, accomplishments, and positions before I made a decision about her. I can’t say our mainstream media has taken the same position. She has been pilloried and even slandered by supposedly mainstream media for the whole week before her nomination speech. I truly feel that large portions of our media were bent on destroying her. (Case in point is the NY Times- after not even commenting on John Edward’s affair until it was well known, published 3 articles on their FRONT page on Sarah Palin mostly using the fact that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant to question McCain’s choice and her ability to be VP). Also, quickly discussed in the mainstream media was some crazy blogger’s assertion that Sarah was not the one that had Trig (the baby with Down’s Syndrome) but it was in fact her 17 yr old daughter’s baby!!!
By the time the Governor gave her speech at the RNC, people could have been forgiven if they were watching just to see a total simpleton come on stage and completely embarrass herself. But the results could not have been more polar opposite. What we saw was an extremely competent PERSON who has a track record of reform in Alaska that covers both ethics and budgetary matters. I will readily admit she has little in the way of foreign affairs experience BUT she is being considered for the VP slot NOT the President! Obama also has a complete scarcity of foreign policy experience and he indirectly acknowledged this by picking Biden as his running mate. People can like Obama as a man but it must be acknowledged that he has very little in the way of any accomplishments or public background that would qualify him for President, at least by historical standards.
I know there are quite a few that are tired of Bush and can’t stand some of his positions especially in the way he has prosecuted the war on terrorism. This would lead people to vote for anybody but Bush. I ask that you reflect on your upcoming decision and consider how McCain has had some very public disagreements with Bush on some of these matters. McCain came out publicly against “torture” and what Bush was doing or had done. He also is for closing “Gitmo”. Now I’m not sure I agree with either of these positions by McCain, but it does show he makes his own decisions and would not simply be another Bush. The Democrats are trying to make McCain synonymous to Bush but this defies almost a decade of reports of McCain liking the “maverick” label and “even enjoying putting a finger in the Republican’s eye”.
McCain also took a very public stand on the “surge” back in the darkest days when it looked like the Iraqi war was getting away from us. He pushed to make it happen. Both Obama and Biden were adamantly against the surge which by this time had become the popular choice. Their solution was to simply put together a timeline to get the troops out. This would have been catastrophic to America’s national interest and to world stability.
McCain pushed for the surge and the results have been “more than anyone could have hoped for” as Obama recently admitted and stated on the O’Reilly factor while at the same time adamantly refusing to admit that NOT backing the surge was a mistake by him.
I am confident McCain can bring about the “change” from Bush that people want while at the same time having the experience and record WE NEED on foreign affairs in these dangerous times. I hope everyone can consider this as they form their decisions on the next President.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Barracuda?
Tough; determined; driven; conviction; respect; maverick; honest; unafraid; unimpressed; unknown; no comparison; grounded; smart; sacrifice; executive; seasoned; attitude; on-course; realistic; caring; mother; CEO; Alaskan; rugged; individualistic; Mayor; Governor; elected; respected; fiesty; hockey; stunning; fresh; leader; Chairwoman; energy; natural resource; self made; America; family.
Bring it on!
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Biden Bites Off More Than He Can Eschew....
es·chew: to abstain or keep away from; shun; avoid: to eschew evil.
Joe Biden has done it again. He can't help himself...he could not keep his mouth shut long enough.... even 'Slick Willy' refrained from personal attacks this time!!! But Biden? ...say it ain't so, Joe...
Why, just a few months ago, John McCain was someone with whom Biden would "proudly have shared the Presidential ticket". Not now. Times change quickly when the political winds blow up the skirts of the misinformed. Tonight, he has stabbed his good friend and colleague in the back. Not surprising I guess, for these Damn Democrats are desperate. It is now very obvious that they are having trouble identifying and setting their sights on target John McCain.
Joe Biden has done it again. He can't help himself...he could not keep his mouth shut long enough.... even 'Slick Willy' refrained from personal attacks this time!!! But Biden? ...say it ain't so, Joe...
Why, just a few months ago, John McCain was someone with whom Biden would "proudly have shared the Presidential ticket". Not now. Times change quickly when the political winds blow up the skirts of the misinformed. Tonight, he has stabbed his good friend and colleague in the back. Not surprising I guess, for these Damn Democrats are desperate. It is now very obvious that they are having trouble identifying and setting their sights on target John McCain.
..and they are also having swift boatloads of trouble puffing up the Obama resume, or shall we say, reference sheet. I enjoyed Biden's initial part of the speech, but the direct, personal attack on McCain was way, way out of line. It will backfire on him.
And what is this about President Clinton "putting people first?" John Kerry...patriotism? Huh? How could Barack Obama be right,as Joe Biden quipped, when he wasn't even around when the Iraq war started. Who proved Barack Obama right? He's only been in the senate for such a short time? What the HELL is Joe Biden talking about?!?!?!?!? Are these people fools?
I am praying for rain at Mile High Stadium....can I get a hallelujah? Can someone give me an AMEN?Thursday, August 21, 2008
I say again, Emperor Obama Has No Close (3/4/08 post)...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Obama Wants to Change Greatest Nation on Earth...
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."
- Barack Hussein Obama
- Barack Hussein Obama
Friday, August 1, 2008
Hollywood Heaps Hypocritical Hoopla Upon Hussein
It seems that Hollywood is more upset about the latest McCAIN ad depicting a few seconds of Spears, Hilton and BHO as Hollywood hype.
Where is the outrage for the Ludacris' song/video otherwise that's hit the airwaves?
lu·di·crous
/ˈludɪkrəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[loo-di-kruhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable: a ludicrous lack of efficiency.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Obama Chokes on a "Clark Bar"
Funny thing....BHO says "I respect the military", and "I will never question John McCain's patriotism..." So we are to believe that his pinhead puppet, Bill's old pal, professional soldier and military college brat, Wesley Clark was speaking out of turn again?
...and BHO knew nothing about it. Oops. Obama's choking and he can't stand up!
...and BHO knew nothing about it. Oops. Obama's choking and he can't stand up!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
McCAIN Straight Talk on the Economy...
**Sen. McCain's remarks as prepared for delivery to open Orange County Hispanic small business roundtable today at 9:45am PST in Santa Ana, CA.
Thank you for joining me here today. I just returned from a trip overseas that included assessing the state of affairs in Iraq, the Middle East, and Europe. I will have more to say on those important issues in the days and weeks to come.
While I was traveling overseas, our financial markets experienced another round of upheaval. This market turmoil leaves many Americans feeling both concerned and angry. People see the value of their homes fall at the same time that the price of gasoline and food is rising. Already tight household budgets are getting tighter. A lot of Americans read the headlines about credit crunches and liquidity crises and ask: “How did we get here?” In the end, the motivation and behaviors that caused the current crisis are not terribly complicated, even though the alphabet soup of financial instruments is complex. The past decade witnessed the largest increase in home ownership in the past 50 years. Home ownership is part of the American dream, and we want as many Americans as possible to be able to afford their own home. But in the process of a huge, and largely positive, upturn in home construction and ownership, a housing bubble was created.
A bubble occurs when prices are driven up too quickly, speculators move into markets, and these players begin to suspend the normal rules of risk and assume that prices can only move up - but never down. We've seen this kind of bubble before - in the late 1990s, we had the technology bubble, when money poured into technology stocks and people assumed that those stock values would rise indefinitely. Between 2001 and 2006, housing prices rose by nearly 15 percent every year. The normal market forces of people buying and selling their homes were overwhelmed by rampant speculation. Our system of market checks and balances did not correct this until the bubble burst.
A sustained period of rising home prices made many home lenders complacent, giving them a false sense of security and causing them to lower their lending standards. They stopped asking basic questions of their borrowers like "can you afford this home? Can you put a reasonable amount of money down?" Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: don’t lend people money who can’t pay it back. Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates. There are 80 million family homes in America and those homeowners are now facing the reality that the bubble has burst and prices go down as well as up.
Of those 80 million homeowners, only 55 million have a mortgage at all, and 51 million are doing what is necessary – working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets – to make their payments on time. That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages cause this much trouble for us all?
The other part of what happened was an explosion of complex financial instruments that weren't particularly well understood by even the most sophisticated banks, lenders and hedge funds. To make matters worse, these instruments - which basically bundled together mortgages and sold them to others to spread risk throughout our capital markets - were mostly off-balance sheets, and hidden from scrutiny. In other words, the housing bubble was made worse by a series of complex, inter-connected financial bets that were not transparent or fully understood. That means they weren't always managed wisely because people couldn't properly quantify the risk or the value of these bets. And because these instruments were bundled and sold and resold, it became harder and harder to find and connect up a real lender with a real borrower. Capital markets work best when there is both accountability and transparency. In the case of our current crisis, both were lacking.
Because managers did not fully understand the complex financial instruments and because there was insufficient transparency when they did try to learn, the initial losses spawned a crisis of confidence in the markets. Market players are increasingly unnerved by the uncertainty surrounding the level of risk, liability and loss currently in the financial system. Banks no longer trust each other and are increasingly unwilling to put their money to work. Credit is drying up and liquidity is now severely limited – and small business and hard-working families find themselves unable to get their usual loans.
The net result is the crisis we face. What started as a problem in subprime loans has now convulsed the entire financial system.
Let's start with some straight talk:
I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis. I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now.
I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.
In our effort to help deserving homeowners, no assistance should be given to speculators. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes. Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren’t. I will consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits. In this crisis, as in all I may face in the future, I will not allow dogma to override common sense.
When we commit taxpayer dollars as assistance, it should be accompanied by reforms that ensure that we never face this problem again. Central to those reforms should be transparency and accountability.
Homeowners should be able to understand easily the terms and obligations of a mortgage. In return, they have an obligation to provide truthful financial information and should be subject to penalty if they do not. Lenders who initiate loans should be held accountable for the quality and performance of those loans and strict standards should be required in the lending process. We must have greater transparency in the lending process so that every borrower knows exactly what he is agreeing to and where every lender is required to meet the highest standards of ethical behavior.
Policies should move toward ensuring that homeowners provide a responsible down payment of equity at the initial purchase of a home. I therefore oppose reducing the down payment requirement for FHA mortgages and believe that, as conditions allow, the down payment requirement should be raised. So many homeowners have found themselves owing more than their home is worth, because many never had much equity in the house to begin with. When conditions return to normal, GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) should never insure loans when the homeowner clearly does not have skin in the game.
In financial institutions, there is no substitute for adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses. Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.
I am prepared to examine new proposals and evaluate them based on these principals. But I think we need to do two things right away. First, it is time to convene a meeting of the nation's accounting professionals to discuss the current mark to market accounting systems. We are witnessing an unprecedented situation as banks and investors try to determine the appropriate value of the assets they are holding and there is widespread concern that this approach is exacerbating the credit crunch.
We should also convene a meeting of the nation's top mortgage lenders. Working together, they should pledge to provide maximum support and help to their cash-strapped, but credit worthy customers. They should pledge to do everything possible to keep families in their homes and businesses growing. Recall that immediately after September 11, 2001 General Motors stepped in to provide 0 percent financing as part of keeping the economy growing. We need a similar response by the mortgage lenders. They've been asking the government to help them out. I'm now calling upon them to help their customers, and their nation out. It's time to help American families.
More important than the events of the past is the promise of the future. The American economy is resilient and diverse. Even as financial troubles weigh upon it other parts of the economy hold up or even continue to grow. I have spoken at length in other settings about the need to keep taxes low on our families, entrepreneurs, and small businesses; to make the tax code simpler and fair by eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax that the middle class was never intended to pay; to improve the ability of our companies to compete by reducing our corporate tax rate, which today are the second highest rates in the world;to provide investment incentives; to control rising health care costs that threaten the budgets of our businesses and families; to improve education and training programs; and to ensure our ability to sell to the 95 percent of the world’s customers that lie outside U.S. borders.
These are important steps to strengthen the foundations of the millions of businesses small and large that provide jobs for American workers. There is no government program or policy that is a substitute for a good job. These steps would also strengthen the U.S. dollar and help to control the rising cost of living that hurts our families. These are important issues in this campaign and the debate with my Democrat rivals. But I will get my chance to talk further another day. Now I look forward to hearing from our small business owners – the very lifeblood of our economy.
Thank you for joining me here today. I just returned from a trip overseas that included assessing the state of affairs in Iraq, the Middle East, and Europe. I will have more to say on those important issues in the days and weeks to come.
While I was traveling overseas, our financial markets experienced another round of upheaval. This market turmoil leaves many Americans feeling both concerned and angry. People see the value of their homes fall at the same time that the price of gasoline and food is rising. Already tight household budgets are getting tighter. A lot of Americans read the headlines about credit crunches and liquidity crises and ask: “How did we get here?” In the end, the motivation and behaviors that caused the current crisis are not terribly complicated, even though the alphabet soup of financial instruments is complex. The past decade witnessed the largest increase in home ownership in the past 50 years. Home ownership is part of the American dream, and we want as many Americans as possible to be able to afford their own home. But in the process of a huge, and largely positive, upturn in home construction and ownership, a housing bubble was created.
A bubble occurs when prices are driven up too quickly, speculators move into markets, and these players begin to suspend the normal rules of risk and assume that prices can only move up - but never down. We've seen this kind of bubble before - in the late 1990s, we had the technology bubble, when money poured into technology stocks and people assumed that those stock values would rise indefinitely. Between 2001 and 2006, housing prices rose by nearly 15 percent every year. The normal market forces of people buying and selling their homes were overwhelmed by rampant speculation. Our system of market checks and balances did not correct this until the bubble burst.
A sustained period of rising home prices made many home lenders complacent, giving them a false sense of security and causing them to lower their lending standards. They stopped asking basic questions of their borrowers like "can you afford this home? Can you put a reasonable amount of money down?" Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: don’t lend people money who can’t pay it back. Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates. There are 80 million family homes in America and those homeowners are now facing the reality that the bubble has burst and prices go down as well as up.
Of those 80 million homeowners, only 55 million have a mortgage at all, and 51 million are doing what is necessary – working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets – to make their payments on time. That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages cause this much trouble for us all?
The other part of what happened was an explosion of complex financial instruments that weren't particularly well understood by even the most sophisticated banks, lenders and hedge funds. To make matters worse, these instruments - which basically bundled together mortgages and sold them to others to spread risk throughout our capital markets - were mostly off-balance sheets, and hidden from scrutiny. In other words, the housing bubble was made worse by a series of complex, inter-connected financial bets that were not transparent or fully understood. That means they weren't always managed wisely because people couldn't properly quantify the risk or the value of these bets. And because these instruments were bundled and sold and resold, it became harder and harder to find and connect up a real lender with a real borrower. Capital markets work best when there is both accountability and transparency. In the case of our current crisis, both were lacking.
Because managers did not fully understand the complex financial instruments and because there was insufficient transparency when they did try to learn, the initial losses spawned a crisis of confidence in the markets. Market players are increasingly unnerved by the uncertainty surrounding the level of risk, liability and loss currently in the financial system. Banks no longer trust each other and are increasingly unwilling to put their money to work. Credit is drying up and liquidity is now severely limited – and small business and hard-working families find themselves unable to get their usual loans.
The net result is the crisis we face. What started as a problem in subprime loans has now convulsed the entire financial system.
Let's start with some straight talk:
I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis. I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now.
I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.
In our effort to help deserving homeowners, no assistance should be given to speculators. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes. Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren’t. I will consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits. In this crisis, as in all I may face in the future, I will not allow dogma to override common sense.
When we commit taxpayer dollars as assistance, it should be accompanied by reforms that ensure that we never face this problem again. Central to those reforms should be transparency and accountability.
Homeowners should be able to understand easily the terms and obligations of a mortgage. In return, they have an obligation to provide truthful financial information and should be subject to penalty if they do not. Lenders who initiate loans should be held accountable for the quality and performance of those loans and strict standards should be required in the lending process. We must have greater transparency in the lending process so that every borrower knows exactly what he is agreeing to and where every lender is required to meet the highest standards of ethical behavior.
Policies should move toward ensuring that homeowners provide a responsible down payment of equity at the initial purchase of a home. I therefore oppose reducing the down payment requirement for FHA mortgages and believe that, as conditions allow, the down payment requirement should be raised. So many homeowners have found themselves owing more than their home is worth, because many never had much equity in the house to begin with. When conditions return to normal, GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) should never insure loans when the homeowner clearly does not have skin in the game.
In financial institutions, there is no substitute for adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses. Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.
I am prepared to examine new proposals and evaluate them based on these principals. But I think we need to do two things right away. First, it is time to convene a meeting of the nation's accounting professionals to discuss the current mark to market accounting systems. We are witnessing an unprecedented situation as banks and investors try to determine the appropriate value of the assets they are holding and there is widespread concern that this approach is exacerbating the credit crunch.
We should also convene a meeting of the nation's top mortgage lenders. Working together, they should pledge to provide maximum support and help to their cash-strapped, but credit worthy customers. They should pledge to do everything possible to keep families in their homes and businesses growing. Recall that immediately after September 11, 2001 General Motors stepped in to provide 0 percent financing as part of keeping the economy growing. We need a similar response by the mortgage lenders. They've been asking the government to help them out. I'm now calling upon them to help their customers, and their nation out. It's time to help American families.
More important than the events of the past is the promise of the future. The American economy is resilient and diverse. Even as financial troubles weigh upon it other parts of the economy hold up or even continue to grow. I have spoken at length in other settings about the need to keep taxes low on our families, entrepreneurs, and small businesses; to make the tax code simpler and fair by eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax that the middle class was never intended to pay; to improve the ability of our companies to compete by reducing our corporate tax rate, which today are the second highest rates in the world;to provide investment incentives; to control rising health care costs that threaten the budgets of our businesses and families; to improve education and training programs; and to ensure our ability to sell to the 95 percent of the world’s customers that lie outside U.S. borders.
These are important steps to strengthen the foundations of the millions of businesses small and large that provide jobs for American workers. There is no government program or policy that is a substitute for a good job. These steps would also strengthen the U.S. dollar and help to control the rising cost of living that hurts our families. These are important issues in this campaign and the debate with my Democrat rivals. But I will get my chance to talk further another day. Now I look forward to hearing from our small business owners – the very lifeblood of our economy.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
SENATOR OBAMA'S FANTASY PLAN FOR MAKING US SAFER...
For Immediate Release
Contact: Press Office
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
703-650-5550
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released the following statement by Senior Advisor Mark Salter on Senator Barack Obama's Iraq speech today:
"Senator Obama says that ending the war will not be easy, that 'there will be dangers involved.' Yet, in that patented way of his, he declines to name those dangers. Let me enumerate a few: al Qaeda, which is now on the run, will survive, claim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the 'tactics' of the surge, still exist and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda, which would almost certainly ignite again civil war in Iraq, a civil war that could easily descend into genocide. To say that invading Iraq was used as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda is one thing. To pretend that our defeat there won't provide an even bigger one is foolish supposition. Iran, which trains Shia extremists and is known to arm and equip Sunni extremists, a fact Senator Obama is apparently unaware of, will also view our premature withdrawal as a victory, as will other countries in the region, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly. These are some of 'dangers,' that our premature withdrawal from Iraq will engender, and they all have the potential to destabilize the entire region. A realistic plan to prevent them from occurring is what people with experience in statecraft call 'strategy,' something Senator Obama has not offered yet.
"Senator Obama, as has also become a habit of his 'new politics,' mischaracterizes John McCain's position by saying McCain did not want to reduce troops because the violence in Iraq was too high, and now do not wish to do so because the violence in down. The reason violence is down is because General Petraeus' counterinsurgency is, which even Senator Obama recognizes, succeeding. Those 'tactics,' are advancing our 'strategy.' Deprive General Petraeus of the resources and manpower to employ those tactics, or worse, leave Iraq altogether, and our strategy will collapse. That is national security 101. John McCain wants American forces to come home when our clear and serious interests at stake in Iraq, which nearly 4,000 Americans have given their lives to secure, are truly safe, when al Qaeda is defeated; Iran's influence is contained, and the potential for a truly cataclysmic civil war in Iraq is remote. That, I think, is what is called 'making us safer.' Senator Obama's plan, if it can be charitably described as one, would do the reverse."
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Black Madrassas, BO and the United Church of Christ...
At the Trinity United Church of Christ, Reverend Jeremiah Wright preaches hatred, separatism, and asserts that we brought 9-11 upon ourselves; that we planted the AIDS virus in the Black commuity on purpose; that God damned America...we've all seen and heard that preacher's race laced diatribe all over the 'net.
This sounds hauntingly familiar to some schools in the Middle East. The only thing different is the Holy One being praised. And it worries me that BO was unable to leave the church--as Oprah did years ago.
How will BO's poor decision making affect the Supreme Court? When will he use the "I didn't know..." excuse while commanding the country? BO is 44, and has been going to this church for some 20 years, so he says. He also says that this man, Reverend Wright lead him to Christ. I thought he grew up Christian? For whom did he toll the bell for during his first 24 formative years of his young life? Hmmm...things are not adding up. Some say he had to join this popular Chicago church to gain the support of the black community--being half Muslim, that is, in order to get elected. To use BO's own words, "he contains within himself the contradictions, the good and the bad of thh community he serves..."
I smell something nasty, do you?. There is a man that deserves your vote, and that man is in the Middle East right now. Vote McCAIN.
STATEMENT BY JOHN MCCAIN ON TIBET
For Immediate Release
Contact: Press Office
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
703-650-5550
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on the situation in Tibet:
"The unfolding tragedy in Tibet should draw the attention of the entire world. I deplore the violent crackdown by Chinese authorities and the continuing oppression in Tibet of those merely wishing to practice their faith and preserve their culture and heritage. I have listened carefully to the Dalai Lama and am convinced he is a man of peace who reflects the hopes and aspirations of Tibetans. I urge the government of the People's Republic of China to address the root causes of unrest in Tibet by opening a genuine dialogue with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. Reports of shutting down YouTube and confiscation of SIM cards are disturbing and reports of multiple deaths are far more so, especially in a year when China is preparing to host the Olympic Games. I urge the Chinese authorities to ensure peaceful protest is not met with violence, to release monks and others detained for peacefully expressing their views and to allow full outside access to Tibet."
Monday, March 17, 2008
** Newflash ** Michelle Obama Desires to Support McCain...
She said it herself, at a rally in Villa Nova, PA. She preached the Obama Gospel my friends....passionately, and at great length. "By any measure", she said, "Barak is BRILLIANT!" And this terrible country NEEDS him! And we are all fools....and stupid, and unable to think for ourselves.....but then, in an epiphany laden with soulful sorrow and tactical terrorism, lo and behold....she has seen the light, and finally said something of Princeton and Harvard learned intelligence....
She said point blank, and I quote: "...that the country needs a leader with Character, Leadership and Choice."
Can I get a Amen, friends? ......AMEN!
Can I get a Hallelujah, my people? ......Hallelujah!
Now where can we find a candidate with Character, Leadership and Choice?
Character, Leadership, and Choice....ahh, I thought she'd never ask...Vote McCAIN.
She said point blank, and I quote: "...that the country needs a leader with Character, Leadership and Choice."
Can I get a Amen, friends? ......AMEN!
Can I get a Hallelujah, my people? ......Hallelujah!
Now where can we find a candidate with Character, Leadership and Choice?
Character, Leadership, and Choice....ahh, I thought she'd never ask...Vote McCAIN.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Emperor Obama Has No Close...
Finally, the country is getting a taste of the real Obama...he is now getting testy with reporters asking the tough(?) questions. He is getting caught in lies and sticky situations--like the NAFTA chit chat with Canada; like the support from Louis Farrakan; like the Christian Church he has belonged to for the last 20 years.
If you get past the oratory, the teerful crowds in search of "hope" and those looking for the magic CHANGE pill, you will see that there is nothing there. It's all feel good fluff. Passionate, yes. Inspirational, yes. But a lousy way to pick a COMMANDER IN CHIEF!
During a sales call, the salesperson orates about a product and how it will solve the problems at hand. The benefits of the product shine through the myriad of colorful brochures strewn about the table. But, when the prospect asks for a demonstration of the product's superior capabilities, the salesperson falls short. He can't prove what is said in the brochures, and cannot close the deal...
The soon to be crowned Democrat emperor has no CLOSE!
If you get past the oratory, the teerful crowds in search of "hope" and those looking for the magic CHANGE pill, you will see that there is nothing there. It's all feel good fluff. Passionate, yes. Inspirational, yes. But a lousy way to pick a COMMANDER IN CHIEF!
During a sales call, the salesperson orates about a product and how it will solve the problems at hand. The benefits of the product shine through the myriad of colorful brochures strewn about the table. But, when the prospect asks for a demonstration of the product's superior capabilities, the salesperson falls short. He can't prove what is said in the brochures, and cannot close the deal...
The soon to be crowned Democrat emperor has no CLOSE!
Three Questions for Obama, Clinton, and McCain...
Here are a few questions an American CITIZEN should consider when selecting the next President of these United States...
1) Will you wear an American Flag pin?
2) As Commander in Chief, will you salute the military in your entrourage, and the troops across the land protecting our interests?
3) Will you pledge allegience to the Flag of the United States of America?
--> Clinton has already failed #2, as documented in "Deriliction of Duty".
--> Obama has already failed #1, as documented on video.
--> As for John McCAIN, his patriotism and sacrifice are unquestionable.
--> If any candidate fails this simple test, all other tests are meaningless.
1) Will you wear an American Flag pin?
2) As Commander in Chief, will you salute the military in your entrourage, and the troops across the land protecting our interests?
3) Will you pledge allegience to the Flag of the United States of America?
--> Clinton has already failed #2, as documented in "Deriliction of Duty".
--> Obama has already failed #1, as documented on video.
--> As for John McCAIN, his patriotism and sacrifice are unquestionable.
--> If any candidate fails this simple test, all other tests are meaningless.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Lazarus Lives! John McCain for President!
You know the story of Lazarus from the bible. Lazarus, a beloved friend of Christ, dies and is eventually brought back to life by Jesus...when performing this miracle, Jesus proclaimed: "He who believes in me will live...."
Similiarly, John McCain was left on the side of Campaign Freeway, all but dead not too long ago. His campaign team fired, funds all but gone, and the prospect of a Presidential bid dimming like a Sanibel sunset.
But alas, he stuck to his guns and prevailed, and now look at him. Marvel at the strength of this man. Be awed by the power of this man's quiet convictions. John McCain has the tenacity to fight for what he believes in. John McCain has the strength to persevere.
Lazarus lives! John McCain for President!
Similiarly, John McCain was left on the side of Campaign Freeway, all but dead not too long ago. His campaign team fired, funds all but gone, and the prospect of a Presidential bid dimming like a Sanibel sunset.
But alas, he stuck to his guns and prevailed, and now look at him. Marvel at the strength of this man. Be awed by the power of this man's quiet convictions. John McCain has the tenacity to fight for what he believes in. John McCain has the strength to persevere.
Lazarus lives! John McCain for President!
McCain 'Winds' Florida....
The winds of change are blowing, my friends. The warm southern breezes of South Carolina and Florida are warming the hearts and thawing the conservative minds, liberal minds, black minds and white minds.
The winds of change are helping the people realize that experience matters. These southern breezes are helping the people think, and think hard. People are realizing that REAL, honest dedication matters. Moderates and conservatives are beginning to board the McCain train on its trip to the White House.
Hillary is speaking right now, commenting on her 'win' in Florida...
She says that "...one of the qualities that next President needs to have is that he or she must be a problem solver; when the speaches are over, he needs to get up every morning, run the government, manage the economy, and dedicate himself to the task at hand. More and more people are waking up and realizing that is this is THE most important choice for their family and their country.....and they will make the right choice."
Well said, Senator Clinton, well said.
The winds of change are helping the people realize that experience matters. These southern breezes are helping the people think, and think hard. People are realizing that REAL, honest dedication matters. Moderates and conservatives are beginning to board the McCain train on its trip to the White House.
Hillary is speaking right now, commenting on her 'win' in Florida...
She says that "...one of the qualities that next President needs to have is that he or she must be a problem solver; when the speaches are over, he needs to get up every morning, run the government, manage the economy, and dedicate himself to the task at hand. More and more people are waking up and realizing that is this is THE most important choice for their family and their country.....and they will make the right choice."
Well said, Senator Clinton, well said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Please suppport our advertisers...
Posts
