Examine events of 2005 to see where the financial crisis came from
There's a lot of finger-pointing and what-if scenarios floating around about how and why today's financial problems came about, but everyone agrees that it started with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac imploding.
[Kudos to mauser for the link to this article ( Read more... )
[Kudos to mauser for the link to this article ( Read more... )
So then....John McCain was for regulation, before he was against it in the primaries and convention, and is now for it again?
I can't keep up with his position on regulation. He seems to change it with every poll... Jesus, talk about your flip floppers. :)
Reply
[edited to amend the following]
More specifically, can you cite where he was against regulation of Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac?
Because being against regulation of private businesses is a whole different matter. Freddie/Fannie were Congressionally sanctioned entities, not private businesses.
Reply
Jesus, Darrel, you're grasping here. Didn't the Republicans go against this kind of word lawyering when they were trying to pin Bill Clnton back in 1998? So the right is now for nitpicking before they were against it? :)
McCain's candidate position (again, not counting pre-candidate flip flops)...until this past week...has always been for no regulation and smaller government. He can't run around (and if you really want, I'll root around and find the video montage of him repeating this over the last year) saying "no regulation! No regulation!" then decry an exception when his Q rating drops. It's that same situation of rules for some people and rules for others that put us in this situation in the first place--and playing Clintonesque word games don't help address the issue. :)
Reply
McCain has been VERY FIRM in his positions, yet you claim to call him a flip-flopper without citing any evidence of it.
McCain has been for less regulation of businesses, but has been for tighter regulation of Freddie/Fannie. This is not a Flip-flop, it is a CONSISTENT position on specific issues.
Specific cases need specific attention, and history proves that THIS position (authoring S.190) was in fact the right one that would have avoided this entire mess we're in now... but S.190 was defeated not by a vote in the Senate, but by a democratic push to PREVENT IT FROM BEING VOTED ON at all.
My edit was to clarify what I was asking, so that you wouldn't confuse the two issues. I'm laughing back at you for trying to muddy the issue and avoid answering the challenge.
I'm not playing lawyerese or clintonesque word games... I am citing historial FACTS. Do you care to do the same without resorting to name-calling?
Reply
You can't run around screaming about wanting small government, while insisting that an opponent advocates large government...all whilst exponentially expanding government. Again, it's that whole Republican "rules for party "a" and rules for party "b"" mindset that got us here in the first place.
...and let's be honest, I don't think that history can judge a bill that was shot down only three years ago. There's not been enough time to play things out, and you--in your desperate finger pointing--know that. If that's your line of thinking--history can judge something in as few as three years--we can officially chalk up the Bush regime as a catastrophic failure.
...oh, and name calling? Where did we get "flip flopper" from? Thanks, I thought so... :)
Reply
Leave a comment