Digg - Freddie Mac Money Trail Catches Up With McCain

272 Comments
Who Dugg It?

tcbishop12, on 09/27/2008, -8/+158As Robert Schlesinger writes in US News and World Report:

What do they say about stones and glass houses?

John McCain today on the current financial crisis (emphasis mine): "The financial crisis we're living through today started with the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system. At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

Rick Davis in 2000 talking about Fannie and Freddie: "You can say what you want about free-market distortions, but people like the system because it gets them into houses cheap."

Rick Davis was then in charge of the Homeownership Alliance, a Fannie/Freddie lobbying group that was aimed at stopping "unfounded fears about risks to the housing system," according to its website. (Hat tip to my colleague Liz Wolgemuth for flagging this.)

Rick Davis is now running the McCain campaign. (Oh and—at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of Freddie and Fannie in recent years.)

From whence did the problem stem, Senator?

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/200 ...
- drex8, on 09/28/2008, -12/+3The problem stems from stem cells.
  We need to legalize stem cell research.
  - GawtMilk, on 09/28/2008, -4/+3I honestly don't see the comparison. As a lawyer working for Miner, Barnhill and Galland, Obama sued Citibank for not providing enough sub-prime loans. After being elected, Obama has recieved $42,116 per year for three years. McCain, for comparison, has only received $862 per year. Obama's link to Fannie Mae is definitely a liability for him in this upcoming election.
    
    While practically every person in the US Senate has recieved money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - both Republicans and Senators alike, Obama after only three years has already received the second largest amount in the entire senate, almost 50x what McCain has.
    
    http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fan ...
    
    Not only that, but McCain co-sponsored a bill for proper legislation of Fannie Mae in 2005 and 2007, called the "Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act". There really isn't a comparison between the two.
  - GawtMilk, on 09/28/2008, -2/+3Sorry, I typed that in a hurry and it was a bit incoherent. I'd love to get a discussion going. I'm not trying to put McCain on a pedestal here - his roll in the Keating Five scandal is pretty bad. However, Obama plays a roll much more significant as McCain's in the sub-Prime mortgage crisis.
    
    First off, I meant to say that both Republicans and Democrats took campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. They are a huge enterprise, and Senators play a huge part in what their profits are as Fannie Mae is a Government Sponsored Enterprise, controlled by Congress.
    
    If you are going to talk about what helped along the crisis, why don't you look at what some of the prominent Congressmen said about when they blocked the Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act co-sponsored by McCain?
    
    "[they] argued it might diminish their ability to finance loans for low income families"
    - NYTimes, 9/11/2003
    
    "The more people exaggerate these problems ... the less we will see in terms of affordable housing"
    - Barney Frank, D-MA
    
    "...the act will weaken the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing"
    - Melvin Watt, D-NC
    
    I mean, I understand that Rick Davis never warned about the downfall of the American housing market, and even encouraged it at times, but he didn't damage it as much as Jim Johnson, who headed Obama's VP search.
    
    Rick Davis worked a great deal for affordable housing in the private sector, working with Habitat for Humanity and the Urban League. I've built almost 15 houses through Habitat for Humanity, and they are phenomenal. A little too secular for my taste, but hugely efficient and much better than a massive Government loan system.
    
    Lets look at Jim Johnson's history. Managing director of Lehman Brothers from '85-90, CEO of Fannie Mae from '91-98, on the board of Goldman Sachs which has given Obama an additional $700,000. Then there's Franklin Raines, who, like Johnson, has a whole laundry list of relations to the housing crisis [from serving Carter's administration when the Community Restoration Act was launched, to vice chairman of Fannie Mae]. I mean, without a doubt Obama will be very focused towards trying to save Fannie Mae as it has given him so much help over the years.
    
    The point is, they are both tightly tied to this mess. Don't be tied to your party when they say that the candidate has clean hands. It's just not true. In my opinion, Obama has dirtier hands than McCain on this issue, but neither of them should be talking about the ties the other has to FM.
  - GawtMilk, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2Is what I'm saying factually inaccurate, or do you just disagree?
  - bamw69, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1Your facts are accurate. And I agree that they are both in the soup, but Obama does rise to the top of the bowl.
  - nick1971, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1GawtMilk, thank you for your information based post which is a refreshing change. Looking at the situation from abroad I'm not so much interested in the question of who took what this time but in the general question of the buying of political influence.
    Have either of the candidate rolled out a plan which says what they would concretely do to reduce the powers of the lobbyists?
  - GawtMilk, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1A candidate who is anti-Government and anti-Lobbyists is like someone who joins a war to stop the fighting. What company would give money to someone trying to bring them down? Candidates very rarely get enough money, especially in the beginning, to launch a large campaign, so the ones that become popular usually do it with money from Lobbyists. It's like the movie Thank You For Smoking.
    
    Senator Finistirre: I'm sure the health community is thrilled. Mr. Naylor, who provides the financial background for the Academy of Tobacco Studies?
    Nick Naylor: Conglomerated Tobacco.
    Senator Finistirre: That's the cigarette companies.
    Nick Naylor: For the most part, yes.
    Senator Finistirre: Do you think that might affect their priorities?
    Nick Naylor: No. Just as, I'm sure, campaign contributions don't affect yours.
    
    A cigarette company is not going to pay an Academy that researches the effects of tobacco if they are going to bad mouth Big Tobacco. A large corporation is not going to donate to the politician that will hurt their business, a point that is especially true for the Government Sponsored Enterprises like Fannie Mae which get their mandate from Congress itself. Calling for regulation doesn't pay, which is why McCain isn't making forty thousand dollars a year from Fannie Mae.
    
    The "anti-Lobbyist" candidates are the ones who don't have $400,000,000 campaigns, as Obama and McCain have, that can afford flashy, well-made convincing ads running on all the large cable and network television stations. Sure, they're out there. But when was the last time you heard of Bernie Sanders, I-VT? Or James DeMint, R-SC? If you look at the OpenSecrets list of people receiving Campaign Contributions from Fannie Mae, you'll notice that the high-profile members of the Government have all got tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars from the large companies. The ones that don't get the contributions don't ever become household names, partly because they don't ever get enough money to start a real campaign.
    
    The person I originally supported from the Democrats was Mike Gravel. Unfortunately, he ran on an anti-Lobbyist platform and never amounted to anything. His ads were far from flashy*, and he eventually had to resort to riding the bus to the debates. He was pretty rock-solid on the issues, but no one ever heard of him because he never had the money to start a real campaign.
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8
    
    This is what happens when you don't have money for ad campaigns.
- atomicfireball, on 09/28/2008, -11/+9I hate people who throw in "whence" to try and sound smart, especially since they almost always use the term completely wrong.
  
  "From whence" is redundant. Whence is an interrogative verb and needs no preposition. Whence literally means "From where". So, say "whence", or say "from where", but don't say "from whence" - it's the same as saying "from from where".
  
  And, strictly speaking, the term should only be used for physical places ("whence have you traveled?"), though I'd be happy to let the metaphorical usage slide if you had used the verb in a grammatically correct manner.
  - BeefPopsicle, on 09/28/2008, -0/+16from whence has your aggravation come from ?
  - StarlessKnight, on 09/28/2008, -0/+6Not to refute the point, but this easily falls into the incorrect, but common gap of ATM Machine.
  - staticneuron, on 09/28/2008, -0/+10"Although sometimes criticized as redundant on the grounds that “from” is implied by the word whence, the idiom from whence is old in the language, well established, and standard. Among its users are the King James Bible, Shakespeare, Dryden, and Dickens: Hilary finally settled in Paris, from whence she bombarded us with letters, postcards, and sketches. From thence, a parallel construction, occurs infrequently."
    
    I knew I heard it before. And I am sorry but if people thousands of years ago think its ok to say from whence then I don't care what you think..... language is living.
  - drex8, on 09/28/2008, -0/+7I want you to be my grammar teacher, Sir.
  - nick1971, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1To kill my English teacher not to kill my english teacher that is the question.
    Not be it for a student of English as a foreign language to have a view on this but
    
    The construction from whence has been criticized as redundant since the 18th century. It is true that whence incorporates the sense of from: a remote village, whence little news reached the wider world. But from whence has been used steadily by reputable writers since the 14th century, most notably in the King James Bible: "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help" Psalms. Such a respectable precedent makes it difficult to label the construction as incorrect. Still, it may be observed that whence (like thence) is most often used nowadays to impart an archaic or highly formal tone to a passage, and that this effect is probably better realized if the archaic syntax of the wordwithout fromis preserved as well.
    
    Do I need to buy a new book?
- ChronicColonic, on 09/28/2008, -0/+7http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
  - mysql101, on 09/28/2008, -0/+6This video needs to be dug up. It shows the democrats blocking attempts by the republicans to stop freddy/fanny from cooking the books. The democrats go even further as they claim there is no chance for there to be issues from these subprime loans.
- duckley, on 09/28/2008, -3/+3AGAIN:
  
  The reason McCain/Schmidt do these kinds of things to Obama IS:
  
  Of people who see McCain's attack ads, ONLY 25% EVER SEE the denial by Obama.
  
  So, mud sticks. It is proven.
  
  It is REPUBLICAN SCUMBAG EVIL LIAR TACTICS, and they work.
  - camg188, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1AGAIN:
    The facts are that Democrats in congress blocked Republican sponsored regulatory oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, that would have greatly diminished or avoided our current financial situation. Now Obama runs ads blaming the current financial problems on "Bush deregulation" and "corporate tax breaks" and that is total BS.
    
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427 ... "In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent."
    
    Reread the 4th sentence: "All the Republicans on the Commitee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it."
  - duckley, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1Wrong.
    
    Bush did NOT ENFORCE the laws already on the books. THAT's what caused this.
    
    THERE WERE EXISTING LAWS THAT BUSH TOLD WALL STREET "I AM NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THESE LAWS"
- toetagger, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/2008/09/new_d ...
- streamline, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1How about some TRUTH for a change?
  
  http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/2008/09/29/mccai ...
  
  QUOTE: May 26, 2006
  
  Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
  
  The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
  
  The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
  
  For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
  Quick Info
  S-90 Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
  Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
  
  Status: Dead (DEMOCRACT"S KILLED IT)
  
  I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
  
  I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
  
  Why do 70%+ of the people here HATE the TRUTH SO MUCH?
  
  Peace!
  Dan
  http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/
crosstimes3, on 09/27/2008, -7/+118This is getting ridiculous. Anyone with an ounce of dignity would have resigned long ago...
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 09/28/2008, -5/+27You're right.
  
  But he gave up that last ounce of dignity long ago.
  
  He won't be resigning.
- deleo, on 09/28/2008, -4/+14The fact that Rick Davis has not resigned is mind boggling. Why is the media not reporting this more?
  - retssgusa, on 09/28/2008, -19/+5the same reason they are not reporting Obamas ties to fannie mae and freddie mac - corruption at all levels of the liberal party.
  - 5celery, on 09/28/2008, -0/+4SUSPENSION!!!
  - bjornski, on 09/28/2008, -1/+5According to Davis's own rules, he should be fired.
    
    But I'm not expecting it.
- gopnot4me, on 09/28/2008, -1/+7WTF?
  DIGNITY? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH...LMAO
  I don't think that word is in their vocabulary!
  Just like, fair, honest, morality, justice, honor, aren't either.
- pintomp3, on 09/28/2008, -0/+5an ounce of dignity? from a lobbyist?
ChristPissed, on 09/28/2008, -7/+83Culture of Corruption, redux.
- brad3378, on 09/28/2008, -21/+8Culture of Finger Pointing is more like it.
  http://digg.com/politics/Obama_calls_for_Governmen ...
  
  Yet another reason why I don't trust ANY politicians in Washington.
- richirwin, on 09/28/2008, -1/+4Let's look at the culture of corruption during the Bush years...
  
  All of these republicans have been nabbed during this administration.
  
  Jack Abramoff Scandal
  
  Pleaded Guilty
  Jack Abramoff
  Robert E. Coughlin II
  Italia Federici
  J. Steven Griles
  Will Heaton
  Adam Kidan
  Bob Ney
  Tony Rudy
  Michael Scanlon
  Roger Stillwell
  Neil Volz
  Mark Zachares
  
  Convicted
  David Safavian
  
  Under Investigation
  John Doolittle
  
  Charged
  John Albaugh
  Kevin Ring
  
  Named, Not Charged
  Ed Buckham
  Tom Feeney
  Ernest Istook
  
  Others
  Grover Norquist
  Susan Ralston
  Ralph Reed
  Louis P. Sheldon
  Bob Schaffer
  
  Duke Cunningham Scandal
  
  Pleaded Guilty
  Richard Berglund
  Duke Cunningham
  Mitchell Wade
  Thomas Kontogiannis
  Robert Fromm
  
  Convicted
  Brent Wilkes
  
  Indicted
  Kyle "Dusty" Foggo
  John T. Michael
  Brent Wilkes
  
  Miscellaneous
  
  Pleaded Guilty
  Claude Allen
  Larry Craig
  Lester Crawford
  Shaun Hansen
  Vernon Jackson
  Chuck McGee
  Brent Pfeffer
  Allen Raymond
  
  Indicted
  Tom Delay
  Bernard Kerik
  Rick Renzi
  
  Convicted
  Lewis "Scooter" Libby
  James Tobin
  
  No Contest
  Brian Doyle
  
  Under Investigation
  Jerry Lewis
  Don Young
  
  And let's not forget...
  
  Bob Allen
  Glenn Murphy - (President of Young republican National Federation)
  Mark Foley (the godfather of republican scandals)
  Scott Eller Cortelyou
  Mark Paschall
  Gary Miller
  Brent Wilkes
  Kyle "Dusty" Foggo
  Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari (Michael Mixon)
  Pete Domenici
  J. Steven Griles
  Robert Regola
  David Stockman
  Robert Vellanoweth
  Rick Renzi
  Mel Martinez
  David Huckabee (son of Mike)
  Bruce Weyhrauch
  Pete Kott
  Michael Cole
  Patrick McHenry
  Jim Gibbons
  Chris Healy
  Ted Klaudt
  Mark Tate
  Thomas Ravenel
  Ken Calvert
  David Vitter
  Randall Tobias
  Harlan Ullman
  Lisa Murkowski
  Coy Privette
  Michael Flory (another Young Republican!)
  Ted Stevens
  John Boehner
  Alan Fabian
  Angelo Cappelli
  Roger Stone
  Mark Deli Siljander
  Timothy Goeglein
  Felipe Sixto
  Tony Krvaric
  Vito Fossella
  Scott Bloch
  Gary Ostrow
  Capt. Andrew Douglas Franz
  Martin Ozinga III
  Bruce Barclay
  Matthew Joseph Elliott
  Robert A. McKee
  John David Atchison (John David Roy Atchison)
  John Bryan
  John R. Curtin
  Richard Curtis
  Donald Fleischman
  Larry Dale Floyd
  Ronald C. Kline
  Joseph M. McDade
  Patrick Lee McGuire
  Jon Matthews
  Joseph Monteleone Jr.
  Armando Tebano
  Mark Pazuhanich
  Bobby Stumbo
  John Collins
  Mark Seidensticker
  Philip Giordano
  John Gosek
  David Swartz
  Edison Misla Aldarondo
  John R. Curtain
  Howard Scott Heldreth
  Dennis L. Rader
  Nicholas Morency
  Tom Shortridge
  Mike Hintz
  Peter Dibble
  Carey Lee Cramer
  Donald "Buz" Lukens
  Richard A. Delgaudio
  Mark A. Grethen
  Randal David Ankeney
  Dan Crane
  Robert Bauman
  Jeffrey Patti
  Marty Glickman
  Howard L. Brooks
  John Hathaway
  Stephen White
  Earl "Butch" Kimmerling
  Paul Ingram
  Kevin Coan
  Andrew Buhr
  Keith Westmoreland
  John Allen Burt
  Keola Childs
  John Butler
  Richard Gardner
  Merrill Robert Barter
  Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr.
  Parker J. Bena
  Larry Jack Schwarz
  Robin Vanderwall
  Mark Harris
  Jon Grunseth
  Nicholas Elizondo
  Russell Harding
  Richard A. Dasen
  Brent Schepp
  Jeffrey Kyle Randall
  Jeffrey Nielsen
  Larry Corrigan
  Lou Beres
  Randall Casseday
  Robert Holland
  Tom Adams
  Tom Randall
  Vern Buchanan
  Christopher Ward
  Randy Scheunemann (chief foreign policy and national security adviser to John McCain)
  David M. Fish
  Karl Rove
artguyko, on 09/28/2008, -6/+121Another wheel comes off of the Double Talk Express...
- Echota, on 01/05/2009, -0/+17The bus is running on metal now! Look out for the sparks!
  - seltaeb4, on 09/28/2008, -0/+6Wait... what's that in the middle of the road?!?!?!
    
    http://www.mooseinheadlights.com/
- schkura, on 09/28/2008, -0/+13Maybe he could start riding a moose.
  
  Wait...
- ErickStevenson, on 09/28/2008, -1/+7I thought they stripped those out a long time ago? The only thing left in the Double Talk Express are the steering wheels.
  - blandy, on 09/28/2008, -1/+2And those are stuck to the right, making you forever go around in circles.
- bikerz999, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
- mushtakrakish, on 09/28/2008, -0/+0well how many wheels *are* there, goddammit...
pinkmamba54, on 09/28/2008, -5/+85I see a double resignations next week , Davis and Palin.
- gopnot4me, on 09/28/2008, -2/+16Palin is to STUPID to resign. Where will she go? Alaskans hate her now, she's under multiple investigations, and Pond scum sucking McCan't will lease his pitbulls and she'll be on her own.
  "OH WHAT A WEB WE WEAVE,,,,,"
  - osabr22000, on 09/28/2008, -1/+4Hopefully she does a couple of Hustler speads to pay for her legal bills.
  - macsc, on 09/28/2008, -2/+2"Alaskans hate her now, she's under multiple investigations..."
    
    Actually, she has one of the highest approval ratings of all current Governors.
  - hanielperigueux, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1NOT anymore!
  - macsc, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2And you're basing that on what, hanielperigueux?
    
    Alaskans love her.
  - zacharytelschow, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2"Palin is to STUPID to resign."
    
    *too
    
    The irony is just TOO much.
- TechMike, on 09/28/2008, -13/+4Get your eyes checked. Palin's not going anywhere except DC
  - bman1984, on 09/28/2008, -2/+7Have you watched any of her interviews? I really want an answer. I truly don't believe there are people stupid enough to be able to endure one of her interviews, and still think she is capable of possibly being the president of the united states.
  - bjornski, on 09/28/2008, -1/+8Not only is she stupid, but she's shrill as hell. I can't handle listening to that voice for more than a few minutes at a time.
    
    I feel sorry for her kids. I'd take drugs too.
  - TechMike, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Of course I watch her. Been following her as the perfect VP choice for over a year. She's not an expert at the washington bob-and-weave interview trickery, but she's the best option for Chief Administrator of the government.
  - bman1984, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1@ TechMike
    Are you a Colbert style satirist. It is hard to detect with only text. If not, I actually feel bad for you.
- charm803, on 09/28/2008, -2/+15Palin is hurting McCain on all levels.
  
  If she DOES resign, McCain will look like he did not vet her properly and doesn't make the best decisions.
  
  If she DOESN'T resign, McCain will look like still doesn't make the best decisions.
  - bamw69, on 09/28/2008, -6/+1And Biden is a gold star for Obama right? lmfao
  - vatosplace, on 09/28/2008, -0/+3I thought I might make an adjustment...
    
    Palin is hurting McCain on all levels.
    
    If she DOES resign, McCain will look like he did not vet her properly and doesn't make the best decisions.
    
    If she DOESN'T resign, McCain will look like he did not vet her properly and doesn't make the best decisions.
    
    Same outcome regardless of her actions.
    
    McSame / Failin 08 "The Ticket for GOP loyalist and racists."
  - bjornski, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1@bamw69
    
    That's a heck of an argument in support of Palin.
    
    I think you've changed my vote!
    
    LOL
    
    Seriously guys, I know you're desperate, but you're looking pathetic in your "defenseless defenses" now too.
LooseFur, on 09/28/2008, -7/+100Why is anybody surprised that the McCain campaign is filled with lying douchbags?

All you need to do is look at the pathetic lies that their candidates are parroting, day after wretched day on the March to Madness that is the Double-Talk Express. Hell, they even lie about the crowd turnouts!

Palin/McCain 2008: They've hit rock bottom, but keep right on digging!
- hanielperigueux, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1Who knew there was a place actually LOWER than Hell!
- bikerz999, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
  - bamw69, on 09/28/2008, -2/+1I for one am glad you posted that link, but unfortunatly the people here won't take anything from it even though it's very clear who is to blame and who tried to take action before it got to this point
- misshighcharge, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1Obama has only been in the senate since the 2004 election and has already received $126,349 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. John McCain has been in the the senate since 1986 and has only received a total of $21,550. Which would concern you more? It is important in these times that we check out facts from the source, not just from our side of the isle. Politics are hateful and it is a shame that the truth is hard to find sometimes. Read John McCain's statement in 2004, http://littlurl.com/c80ys. In 2005, John McCain put forth the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulator Reform Act of 2005 that would put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This debunks the idea that McCain is not for regulation when needed. This bill was blocked by Congress. I didn't hear anything from Obama during this time. Of course he has been out there the past 2 years saying things, but he is running for President. What has he done?
- streamline, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2How about some TRUTH for a change?
  
  http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/2008/09/29/mccai ...
  
  QUOTE: May 26, 2006
  
  Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
  
  The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
  
  The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
  
  For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
  Quick Info
  S-90 Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
  Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
  
  Status: Dead (DEMOCRACT"S KILLED IT)
  
  I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
  
  I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
  
  Why do 70%+ of the people here HATE the TRUTH SO MUCH?
  
  Now two of the guys who buried Freddie And Fannie our Obama's buddies and work for him....WHAT A JOKE!
  
  Peace!
  Dan
  http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/
grlykool, on 09/28/2008, -4/+54He needs to return that money to the tax payers.
- scoottie, on 09/28/2008, -21/+5Obama has a lot more to return
  - WasabiBomb, on 09/28/2008, -3/+19Except he doesn't, and you know it.
- TechMike, on 09/28/2008, -7/+4that's what McCain said in 2006, right before Obama said the Gov't ought to make sure there are more risky mortgages
  - hanielperigueux, on 09/28/2008, -1/+3Source?
  - TechMike, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Documented at http://mike4mike.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/mccains- ...
avataros, on 09/28/2008, -7/+58PT Barnum called, Senator McCain. They want their clowns back - they're saying you're stealing all their thunder.
- seltaeb4, on 09/28/2008, -2/+9Hmmm... how many clowns will fit inside the "Straight Talk Express?"
  - gnocchi1442, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1They're not on the Straight Talk Express. They're all posting at Digg.
- keymanjim3, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1He replied that he'll return them after he's through debating with them.
GordonFree, on 09/28/2008, -36/+3So... OK lemme get this. Freddie Mac is the guy who invented Mac n Cheese, and Fannie Mae is his wife. They starred in a TV special "Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac" on HBO.

How is this related to politics and the economy? Stupid, this is all so stupid. People are so stupid.
- charm803, on 09/28/2008, -2/+4I can't tell if you're being serious.......and if you are:
  
  OMFG!
  
  No wonder people like Bush and McCain get support.
  - GordonFree, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1LOL calm down. It was a J.O.K.E. :)
- Stavrosian, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1Sarcasm and irony just echo on forever in the bleak void of internet discussions, eh?
  - GordonFree, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1LOL Stavrosian. Soviet power eh? ;)
- GordonFree, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1Oh wait that was Cheesy Mac, not Freddie Mac.
surferjoemaui, on 09/28/2008, -5/+66Keating five (shut up) Keating five (history) Keating five (slap on the wrist) Keating five (poor judgement) Keating five (cut his mike) Keating five ( http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1989-11-29/news/mcc ... ) Keating five ( Keating went to prison, and McCain's Senate career almost ended. Together with the rest of the so-called Keating Five -- Sens. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), John Glenn (D-Ohio), Don Riegle (D-Mich.) and Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), all of whom had also accepted large donations from Keating and intervened on his behalf -- McCain was investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee and ultimately reprimanded for "poor judgment.") Keating five (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/So_what_s_this_K ... )
- ErickStevenson, on 09/28/2008, -1/+9What Keating five? LOL
  McCain = FAIL
  
  Vote Third Party or Obama!
- TheXuu, on 09/28/2008, -0/+3wasn't that the show Michael J. Fox starred in?
- woot4fun, on 09/28/2008, -0/+3It amazes me how people can't see that Keating and this whole financial crisis is a democrat caused disaster. Notice the party affiliations of most of the Keating 5.
  
  Clinton himself agrees. He said it last week in an interview with Chris Cuomo
  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bi ...
  see the comment at 02:45 in.
- zacharytelschow, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1"First, I should tell your listeners I'm a registered Democrat, so I'm not on (McCain's) side of a lot of issues. But I investigated John McCain for a year and a half, at least, when I was special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee in the Keating Five. ... And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him."
  
  --Robert Bennett, Senate Ethics Committee lawyer who investigated McCain and the Keating Five.
  
  Bennett had determined early in the investigation that McCain had done nothing wrong, but was forced to continue to investigate McCain in vain because of the party affiliation of the other Senators involved (the Democrats didn't want it to be exclusively their scandal).
  
  Now, if you could provide results of independent investigations of Obama's relationships with convicted felon Tony Rezko, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (that guy that just happens to live in his neighborhood), and other questionable characters.
  - surferjoemaui, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1An honest man Who cheats on his disabled wife?
- vatosplace, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1A long illustrious career of lies and deceit. Sounds like a loyal GOP to me.
brishchik, on 09/28/2008, -6/+30Remember kids what the grampa said, the fundamentals of the economy are very strong.
POW FTW
Alaskan Yoda sans wisdom FTW
NuclearIsShit, on 09/28/2008, -15/+5http://digg.com/political_opinion/Sarah_Palin_Supp ...
smolek5228, on 09/28/2008, -38/+31What about Obama getting $105,849 from Fannie and Freddie?

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate ...
- hiriumi, on 09/28/2008, -6/+14You can't blame a thief when you're a thief yourself.
  - Archimboldo, on 09/28/2008, -8/+16McCain tried to get a bill into Congress regulating Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, but Obama, most Democrats and a few Republicans opposed it, saying they wanted poor people to get loans.
  - scoottie, on 09/28/2008, -8/+17So Obama's people cant blame McCain since they are both guilty of taking money just Obama took a crap load more
  - NoCommies, on 09/28/2008, -7/+6"So Obama's people cant blame McCain since they are both guilty of taking money just Obama took a crap load more"
    
    I think the subtle difference is that McCain hired a person who once lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
    
    Waht is really ironic is that McCain hired the guy who bankrolled Obama's run for the senate.
  - bruce86, on 09/28/2008, -3/+6@archimboldo, If you are talking about the 2005 reform bill, It is important to know that it past the house with bipartisan votes, majority of republican and democrats voted for it. It is also important to note mccain signed on as a co sponser 5 months after it died.
  - draculthemad, on 09/28/2008, -2/+7The loans that poor people were getting were supposed to be the NHRA regulated, federally backed loans.
    
    What they were actually being signed up for were the sub-prime loans that the financial sector could make a profit from derivatives on.
    
    Did you know that 65% of the people getting 'sub-prime' loans were actually qualified for safer 'prime loans'? They were just steered to a bad loan by corrupt brokers because of the deregulation that allowed them to turn around and repackage them.
- charm803, on 09/28/2008, -4/+12The problem was and still is:
  
  McCain has a habit of pointing fingers but forgets that he has bigger problems.
  
  He tied Obama to Freddie Mac and here is Davis.....taking in money....for doing nothing!
  
  Like the time McCain called Obama an elitist, and he's the one with 13 houses and many cars. Like that.
  - userperson, on 09/28/2008, -5/+3So you prefer the dishonest thief to the lying crook?
- doublehead, on 09/28/2008, -2/+13Donations are one thing, but lobbyist gifting to get an insider's position is another. Obama took donations with no strings attached and no obligations, while McCain's campaign has a lobby lover cracking the door open to let the vermin in.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 09/28/2008, -2/+9He got it from individual employees, like you and me, you moron.
- hanielperigueux, on 09/28/2008, -3/+1Source?
  - Gutterpunk, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1Read the comments from Lindsay Renick Mayer in the article (she is the one who made the chart that the Republicans love to get out to excuse McCain's corruption)
    
    "We code only employees of the companies receiving a paycheck. Members of the board of directors could be on the boards of multiple companies, so instead of adding their contributions to all of the companies on which boards they sit, their contributions are lumped in with their actual employer's contributions."
    
    She made that ***** chart.
scoottie, on 09/28/2008, -30/+24http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- ...

"Employees of the mortgage giants give almost $4.3 million to federal elected officials and their various campaign committees since 2005."

"Obama is the largest individual recipient at about $112,000, federal campaign finance reports show."

"Republican nominee John McCain has taken $16,400 from Freddie and Fannie employees since 2005."

"Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, took just one donation, for $500, from one Freddie employee."

"McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, is Fannie- and Freddie-free, having never run for federal office."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=7 ...

"A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions, behind only Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the powerful chairman of the Senate banking committee. Dodd was first elected to the Senate in 1980."

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/09/18/all- ...

Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349
Kerry, John S MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,000
...
Mikulski, Barbara A S MD D $21,750 $16,500 $5,250
McCain, John S AZ R $21,550 $0 $21,550
- poopdigger, on 09/28/2008, -7/+5stop posting your ***** lies get out of here scumbag........... we only listen to truth and hope......
  - userperson, on 09/28/2008, -2/+1Yes we can!
    I don't know what 'we can', but it's always fun to run with!
  - bamw69, on 09/28/2008, -2/+1Why don't you get off digg once in a while and see whats really going on instead of HOPING what you read here is the TRUTH !
zombies187, on 09/28/2008, -10/+16Keep attacking McCain! Make your whole platform an attack on Obama, and we are sure to have a democratic victory in Nov.
TSK05, on 09/28/2008, -28/+22I don't get it - how's it been traced to McCain? McCain is saying no bailouts and more oversight - if the lobbyist influence on him is so strong, that must mean Fannie and Freddie want no bailouts and more oversight? Does that make any sense?

Obama and the rest of Democrats have been getting far more money than McCain has from Freddie and Fannie for the last 20 years. Obama is 3rd, he got there in 4 years unlike the other two Democrats above him (Dodd and Kerry) whom it took 20 years.

If Obama is the enemy of Fannie and Freddie (that is, he'll investigate them for fraud and curb their risky lending), then why has he received so much money from them, and why have the rest of Democrats received so much money from them for the last 20 years? Are they donating to their enemy?
- dsnyder7903, on 09/28/2008, -5/+23I posted this on a different digg post but it has to be said again. This argument that Obama is just as corrupt as Davis is complete bs. Davis was paid directly by Fannie and Freddie because of his connection to McCain. Obama did not get $125k from Fannie and Freddie, he got the money from employees of Fannie and Freddie donating a percentage of their income to his campaign. They have every right to do this as does every other American in our great democracy. And as for the employees at the top, they donated more to the McCain campaign than the Obama campaign. Again this is well within their right to do so. But it also points to the fact that Obama's policies are aimed more at the middle class than the economic elite.
  As for Obama's advisers being employees of F&F. One of the two has been completely proven as false-it was based on misinformation from the Washington Post. The other adviser was only working with Obama for a week until he quit because of a conflict of interest. Davis has had this conflict of interest for a lot longer than a week.
- TSK05, on 09/28/2008, -7/+6"This argument that Obama is just as corrupt as Davis is complete bs"
  
  I don't believe it's a competition between Obama and Davis. Davis isn't running for president.
  
  It's Obama vs McCain. And if Davis is corrupting McCain with Fannie and Freddie interests, it's not showing - exactly as I said above - he's still saying no bailouts and more oversight - that's not in Fannie and Freddie's interest. But Obama on the other hand is saying yes to bailouts and he continues receiving a lot of money from Fannie and Freddie which does not make sense if he's going to investigate them for fraud and curb their risky lending. You wouldn't donate to a guy investigating you for fraud and limiting your profits, would you?
  
  "Obama did not get $125k from Fannie and Freddie, he got the money from employees of Fannie and Freddie donating a percentage of their income to his campaign."
  
  He got his 125k from 2500 a plate dinners and other such things. This whole "it's not the company thing" is disproved by opensecrets "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also strategically given more contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry." Opensecrets is bipartisan.
  - Cavemonster, on 09/28/2008, -2/+5“Those institutions, Fannie and Freddie, have been responsible for millions of Americans to be able to own their own homes, and they will not fail, we will not allow them to fail,’’ Mr. McCain said during a stop at the Senate Coney Island Restaurant here. “They are vital to Americans’ ability to own their own homes. And we will do what’s necessary to make sure that they continue that function.’’
    
    Just because he is paying a lot of lipservice to the generic idea of no bailouts and more oversight (when it's a con venient thing to talk about), doesn't mean he is working against the interests of these institutions. This isn't proof that he is corrupted, just a disproof of your argument that he is clearly uncorrupted, but that isn't the issue.
    
    Time and time again, the McCain campaign makes accusations against Obama of guilt by association, of undesirable moral standing, elitism and on and on. When it comes out that the exact amount of evidence is available to accuse McCain of the same things, THEN the right acknowledges that the argument is weak, but only the argument against McCain.
    
    You can't have it both ways. You can not both make these weak accusations and then dismiss the same line of reasoning when it is shown how vulnerable McCain is to the same line of attack.
  - TSK05, on 09/28/2008, -0/+3You didn't quote the rest of that:
    
    Asked if that meant he supported federal intervention to bail out the two mega-lenders as they cope with the housing slump, McCain re-iterated his position.
    
    “I think that Freddie and Fannie have a vital role to fulfill and that they cannot and will not fail,” he said.
    
    Essentially he's still thinking about what to do, but the very fact that he wants the fed to stop the bailouts (and he did work on that at the meeting, just like "we can't have it both ways," neither can you - if he crashed the meeting then he did not want bailouts).
    
    That said, more oversight has been a steady position for him since 2003. When Bush proposed creating a new agency to watch Fannie and Freddie, McCain said yes, it's needed. That was 2003. He's proposing the same thing today.
    
    It's not guilt by association either, it's guilt by how much money you've gotten. That's how corporations buy politicians, they contribute money to their campaigns. Obama has gotten 125k. McCain hasn't. His campaign manager may have, but McCain isn't bought, even if by some longshot his campaign manager is.
  - whorunbartertwn, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1Hey TSK05 is not following the double-standard attack McCain at all costs no matter how feeble the link to him may be pathos we've got going here on digg. Someone get a digg manual.
- 955701, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1People say things they don't actually do. Sometimes just depending on the audience of their statement.
Pash1994, on 09/28/2008, -9/+19McCain likes the high stakes - See the latest New York Times article:

McCain and Team Have Many Ties to Gambling Industry

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_and_Team_ ...

The Freddie Mac Money Trail isn't the only thing catching up with him.
- gopnot4me, on 09/28/2008, -4/+3McCan't is a pond scum sucking, vile liar. He rapes the Indians in their attempt to save themselves with gambling, all the time they put their trust in the White Man with Forked Tongue who is on the Indian Affairs committee.
  Is there no point so low that this evil snake of a human will go? He reminds me of those crazy Calvary guys killing innocent Indian old men, women and children in the Wild West.
  This old man is a disgrace to everything that is good, fair and honest.
  Being a POW didn't make him a Hero, it just gave him an excuse to carry a grudge through his selfish, indulgent life. Maybe selling his soul to the devil wasn't such a good idea after all huh?
  Evil cannot look in the eyes of the good, lest it be destroyed, but goodness can look in the eyes of evil and rebuke it!
Sfenton, on 09/28/2008, -12/+5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

This is a must watch if you want to know how the sub prime housing crisis began.
- chad9477, on 09/28/2008, -1/+3This video makes at least one claim I find dubious: It says the Republicans tried for legislation that would have placed regulations on Freddie and Fannie three times, but Democrats stopped them.
  
  The problem with this claim: All three of these ostensible attempts occurred while Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, and to a degree that they were essentially unstoppable.
  - keymanjim3, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2Democrats now control congress and they can't get Bush impeached.
    It's the same theory.
- belfastbiker, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1Interesting video, but it eventually turned into a smear fest and I stopped watching.
825143, on 09/28/2008, -15/+3yes it is Bush fault and here are the proves

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

please share with every one and let's end with the liars
- licnyc, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1More *****.
  
  "predatory loans that have led us to this financial mess were originated by non-bank financial institutions and other entities that did NOT have a CRA obligation and lacked strong federal regulatory oversight."
  
  You are the liar.
apastafarian, on 09/28/2008, -11/+5Uh Oh, Is that another "lipstick on a pig" event I smell in the wind?
drex8, on 09/28/2008, -15/+1I can't Digg this all on my own
No, I know..
I'm no Diggerman.
- scot333, on 09/28/2008, -3/+3d-d-d-d-diggerman
  whoaaaaaaooooooooooo!
- drex8, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1from scrubs theme lol..i was watching scrubs when I commented.
- drex8, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1Sigh there're no Scrubs lovers in here. :( Diggers are too stuck up.
  Can't help if I'm both a Digger and a Scrubber at the same time. Came up with it to show my appreciation for both DIgg and Scrubs.
AgainstObama, on 09/28/2008, -37/+15Obama-bots are getting desperate after his poor performance last night.
- AndrewDB, on 09/28/2008, -4/+19POOR?
  
  Approximately 500 uncommitted voters reacting to the debate in the minutes after it happened.
  
  Who Won the Debate? McCain 22%, Obama: 40%, Tie: 38%
  
  Obama got 40% of non-commited voters to say he won the debate..
- mrlivingston, on 09/28/2008, -3/+12Not nearly as desperate as McLamebrains (since we're resorting to name-calling) are getting about their guy's poor polling numbers.
  - keymanjim3, on 09/28/2008, -2/+1Would that be the NBC poll that only 20.6% of the votes came from American voters?
    Or the Drudge poll where 94% came from American voters? Because he won that one.
- 5celery, on 09/28/2008, -3/+10Obama is roundly considered the winner of the first debate.
  - keymanjim3, on 09/28/2008, -3/+1By agreeing with McCain more times than not?
smolek5228, on 09/28/2008, -21/+7How come this isn't being brought up about Obama?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html

"Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job."
- deadbaby, on 09/28/2008, -5/+9Probably because no one has lied about it.
- Cavemonster, on 09/28/2008, -2/+1Because it's an opinion piece that misrepresents the facts.
  
  However, it did lead me to it's information source.
  http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycl ...
  
  BOTH candidates took large sums from bundled employee contributions from many banks and companies that have led us to this crash. These "ties" if you want to claim they have meaning, lead to both candidates.
- charm803, on 09/28/2008, -2/+3Obama's association is what brought up the article in the first place. McCain pointed fingers but forgot to look at his inner circle.
- Skywise, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1Because it goes against truthiness.
pearcewg, on 09/28/2008, -26/+5This election is boring. A liberal Republican versus a super liberal Democrat.
Dig majority should put down the Starbucks and think about that for a while; you win either way.
- CatsAreGods, on 09/28/2008, -1/+6Er, you mean *lose* either way.
  - hanielperigueux, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1You obviously don't know what a liberal is. Neither of them is a liberal.
AgainstObama, on 09/28/2008, -24/+7Obama bans signs....so much for free speech. But lets talk about McCain some more!

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/More_Obama_gangl ...
- deadbaby, on 09/28/2008, -2/+7Not being allowed to bring signs into an arena for security reasons has nothing to do with free speech. You could shout out your views -- although that would be very rude and might get you kicked out. You could wear a hat/tshirt-button. You could setup outside with your signs. You could go on the Internet and make your views known. You could write a letter to the editor.
  - macsc, on 09/28/2008, -2/+2We have to keep out all of those dangerous signs, don't we?
- withoutteeth, on 09/28/2008, -1/+2First of all, think about changing your user name. Your trolling will be exponentially more effective if you don't give away your objective in your handle.
  
  Second of all, it's completely idiotic to call banning signs an infringement on free speech. While the campus is public property, they have effectively rented out the space to Obama, so he can do whatever the ***** he wants. While undoubtedly Anti-Obama signs would destroy the effectiveness of his rally, did you think that safety might be an issue to the university? They wouldn't students getting into fights.
- ceredron, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1Obama bans signs? That was probably in response to the multiple people who brought them to the Republican national convention and... oh wait for it... were kicked out.
  
  Also old Lady who tried to get into a Mccain rally and was arrested for trespassing when she had an anti-Mccain poster. Said Mccain = Bush. So, sorry if I'm not really responding, because not only was Mccain the one to start this bickering about signs, but he's also the one calling out Obama. What a hypocrite.
mvlazysusan, on 09/28/2008, -10/+6wet start forestall fire
only Bush has killed more G.I.'s
- keymanjim3, on 09/28/2008, -3/+1Somebody is months behind the rest of us.
  Does soros provide a remedial internet ***** posting class?
scoottie, on 09/28/2008, -3/+10Obama's Donations:
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/MapAppDownload ...

Biden's Fundraising:
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/MapAppDownload ...

McCain's Fundraising:
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/MapAppDownload ...

Palin isn't listed since she didn't run for president
ka9dgx, on 09/28/2008, -10/+6It looked to me like both McCain and Obama support the bailout. They are both terribly wrong to do so.

This bailout could destroy our Nation, because it will shred the existing structure of or capitol markets and allow a gang of thieves to pillage anyone they like, under the guise of "saving them". Capital will flee the nation at breakneck speed as trust completely evaporates, the dollar will crash, and then we're all f*cked in a depression that makes the 1930's look like a picnic, as the Government won't be able to do anything because they'll be broke too.

Karl Denninger explains it all, coherently, and as well as anybody ever could: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsC2k9opOP0
- TSK05, on 09/28/2008, -3/+5McCain does not support the bailout:
  
  "The Federal Reserve should get back to its core business of responsibly managing our money supply and inflation. It needs to get out of the business of bailouts."
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919/pl_nm/usa_poli ...
- Arrowette, on 09/28/2008, -0/+4"Shred the existing structure"? WTH are you talking about?! The government did this *exact* same thing in the Savings and Loan scandal, under the *exact* same circumstance. Do you really think we have EVER had a free market? We had 95% tariffs in 1916!
  - bjornski, on 09/28/2008, -0/+4And John was defending his failed banking buddies during the S&L failures too.
    
    And now his SON is involved in a failed bank too.
    
    The apple sure doesn't fall far from the tree, does it?
ObamAmerican48, on 09/28/2008, -7/+10Personally, I'm hoping the Federal Student Loan Program goes ***** up. I would so love to get rid of my student loan debt. I wonder if the Feds would bail ME out...?
- zacharytelschow, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1You and me both, haha. Maximum Stafford loans for all of undergrad; currently paying for grad school using federal loans as well.
ObamAmerican48, on 09/28/2008, -3/+17"A serious miscalculation and an amateurish move."

The McPalin campaign? Say it ain't so!
wkrausmann, on 09/28/2008, -19/+13Sure McCain took donations from them, but they gave Obama much more money.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fan ...
- ironhide, on 09/28/2008, -2/+5"they" being individual employees. And since Obama has raised far more money from individual donations than McCain it stands to reason that the numbers would be higher.
  - wkrausmann, on 09/28/2008, -4/+1Um, they being Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 09/28/2008, -1/+3Those are from individual employees, who want to see the system fixed, like you and me, you ignoramus.
  - keymanjim3, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1Apparently this is the lie dujour.
  - ironhide, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1How is it a lie - from the opensecrets link that wkrausmann posted -"Total from PACs $6,000 Total from indivduals - $120,349"
- paintgrl, on 09/28/2008, -1/+2McCain had far more donations from executives at Fannie May and Freddie while Obama was the leader in the average worker at Fannie and Freddie. So what does this mean?
  It means That fat cats who are responsible for the corruption at Fannie and Freddie are donating to McCain, and the employees who are the average American and have little power in the direction of the company donate to Obama. Get it?
cdtoad, on 09/28/2008, -5/+29____________________________________________
######______#_____#_____#__###___#####______
#_____#____#_#____#_____#___#___#_____#_____
#_____#___#___#___#_____#___#___#___________
#_____#__#_____#__#_____#___#____#####______
#_____#__#######___#___#____#_________#_____
#_____#__#_____#____#_#_____#___#_____#_____
######___#_____#_____#_____###___#####______
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
###___#####_____________#___________________
_#___#_____#___________#_#__________________
_#___#________________#___#_________________
_#____#####__________#_____#________________
_#_________#_________#######________________
_#___#_____#_________#_____#________________
###___#####__________#_____#________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
_#####___######___#######__#######__#____#__
#_____#__#_____#__#_____#__#_____#__#___#___
#________#_____#__#_____#__#_____#__#__#____
#________######___#_____#__#_____#__###_____
#________#___#____#_____#__#_____#__#__#____
#_____#__#____#___#_____#__#_____#__#___#___
_#####___#_____#__#######__#######__#____#__
____________________________________________
deadbaby, on 09/28/2008, -3/+29I think McCain was very naive about his campaign staffer's involvement. I guess he just doesn't understand how much of an issue it is to voters.
Dhalsim007, on 09/28/2008, -17/+9That still doesn't excuse Obama having the former Fannie Mae board members on his staff, and doesn't excuse him taking hundreds of thousands in contributions from Fannie.... he should return those to the government....
- dremango, on 09/28/2008, -6/+3Difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain warned about this in 2005 and tried to draft legislation to reform fannie mae and was stopped by Obama and the Dems! Fact!
- bman1984, on 09/28/2008, -1/+6Fannie employees... there fixed it for you.
  - bamw69, on 09/28/2008, -2/+1A couple scenarios....
    The workers at Fannie: We should all get together and support Obama ! ( not likely )
    The heads of Fannie: We should give all our employees $100 apiece and have them donate to Obama ! ( very likely )
    
    I know big corporations use this tactic to help support their candidate of choice.
    I can imagine what that memo would have looked like....
applepro, on 09/28/2008, -9/+25CORRUPTION is patriotic to McCain.

Change in '08.
- Cooperjones, on 09/28/2008, -2/+0You apparently haven't seen this video...
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
DiogenesJr, on 09/28/2008, -18/+4This absolves Obama of his cozy relationship with Haines, how? I know you guys can't say anything bad about black jesus, but come on!

No one in Washington is squeaky clean in this mess. Quite frankly, everyone in Washington should be ***** gold bricks right about now because no one, regardless of party affiliation, is safe from the justified rage felt by all Americans right now.
Nightenglow, on 09/28/2008, -1/+11These scumbags need to get their heads chopped off
ramonjet, on 09/28/2008, -8/+2Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are basically GOVERMENT agencies. Obama and McCain are both politicians. No surprise that they would both be involved. The question is how will each of them proceed from here on?. What will they do to improve the situation?
blackmesa, on 09/28/2008, -3/+5Call it by its real name: "Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation". It's more words but at least you won't sound like a damn fool.
solid12345, on 09/28/2008, -18/+128 years ago, a Democratic congress pushed for public policy to give loans to struggling minorities and the poor so every American could have a home. This backfired on our economy, shame on Bush for going through with it, and now you libs want to subsidize people who can't balance their checkbooks AGAIN. Sure the banks gave the loans and the fat cats on wallstreet went ahead with it, but when you have Uncle Sam telling you to do it, who is ultimately at fault?

No money down, no credit, thats okay, you too can have a home, socialism for all!
- hanielperigueux, on 09/28/2008, -1/+68 years ago the congress was under a republican majority
dremango, on 09/28/2008, -26/+19HA! The Digg front page has become a joke! I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama campaign is now running it!

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Name Office Party/State Total

1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900

2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000

3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849 also know as "The Messiah" "The Chosen One" "Empty Suit" "Nobama"

4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500
- dremango, on 09/28/2008, -6/+7Quick bury the truth! You dont want people to see the truth do you? Of course not
  
  Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement
  
  JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.
  
  “St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
  
  “What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
  
  “This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
  
  “Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”
DavidHHH, on 09/28/2008, -11/+1I honestly don’t know what “politically toxic” means. None of this matters to McCain voters. All the lies and anything negative, confusing, or impulsive is explained away as:

+Liberal Bias. MSN (and Digg) in love with Obama.
+Problems are Democrats fault anyway.
+Nothing McCain or his people had anything to do with, and he will clean it all up.
+Sexism.

I hope I’m proved wrong on election day and we see an Obama landslide, but I think the polarization goes deeper than an individual screw-up candidate.

After all, we Obama supporters are at best stupid, deeply ignorant of what’s really going on and totally fooled by Oberman. At worst, we would let Arabs attack America because we actively hate it.
- streamline, on 09/28/2008, -2/+3Time For Mr. Taxpayers AKA Home Owners Or EX Home Owners To Take Some Responsibility
  September 28th, 2008
  
  Hi,
  
  What no one is mentioning in this whole Financial mess… is Mr. Joe “Taxpayers” FAULT(S) in all of this. They did NOT Have to buy these Financial products and mortgages from these “Wall Street $%%%…And From Mortgage Lenders and Banks.
  
  I bet if someone would have the ‘balls’ to do a study on who’s getting “foreclosed” on….I think you would find most if not all…. Graduated HS…And most Graduated from college.
  
  I also think…you would find most had incomes in the $45,000 - $100,0000+ Range
  
  They NEW EXACTLY…what the terms of their loans were and out of pure GREED…and the need to keep up with the “Jones”….they choose to ignore the downside of their mortgages….who’s fault is that?
  
  That is NOT the banks fault or Wall Streets Fault…..Its MR. Taxpayers fault… its time for some of you other “taxpayers” start putting the BLAME on some of your follow “taxpayers”.
  
  No one sits in an Escrow office for `1-2 hours signing hundreds of pages of “loan docs”…NOT knowing what it is their doing.
  
  The new generation of Americans….Blame everyone else for their mistakes and bad judgment.
  
  No one forced these people to sign on the dotted line…no one force these people to run up huge amounts of credit card debt…after Real Estate p[rices….went up….and no one force them to take out huge line’s of equity loans….borrowed against the equity in their houses…so the could go out and buy the next big best SUV.
  
  Time for Mr. Taxpayer to take some responsibility….for their part of this whole mess.
  
  Just because a product is on the shelve…that looks like its on sale…does not mean you have to buy it.
  
  Point is there is a lot blame to go around…NOT just to Wall Street & Finanical Institutions & Banks.
  
  So, tired of hearing about the BS from congress about the “poor taxpayer”. The democrats act like everyone that choose to get a particular loan was some how cheated or defrauded…which is pure BS!
  
  Peace,
  Dan
  http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com
- ramonjet, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1Keith Olbermann as Obama's press secretary, now that would be a hoot!
dremango, on 09/28/2008, -10/+17The dems were warned over and over and over again! Take a look at this video with an open mind!
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Shocking_Video_U ...
TechMike, on 09/28/2008, -16/+11Buried as inaccurate politicking
Cavemonster, on 09/28/2008, -5/+17McCain got 117k from Lehman Brothers
100k from Bear Stearns
209k from Goldman Sachs

How can "Cannot and will not fail" not mean that he is willing to bail them out?
dremango, on 09/28/2008, -10/+24Obama contributions:

Goldman Sachs $691,930
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
Lehman Brothers $370,524
Moveon.org $347,463
Morgan Stanley $318,070
- ceredron, on 09/28/2008, -0/+5That's from employees of those organizations. Nice dude.
  
  Ahem, bring up Mccain's numbers, please.
  
  Oh wait, are you going to be able to find them? I dunno, Mccain doesn't usually release any information about anything. Sorry.
  
  Also.......... moveon.org isn't a bank. They probably amassed their money through multiple small donors, just like all of the money pictured here.
  
  Nice.
streamline, on 09/28/2008, -13/+9Time For Mr. Taxpayers AKA Home Owners Or EX Home Owners To Take Some Responsibility
September 28th, 2008

Hi,

What no one is mentioning in this whole Financial mess… is Mr. Joe “Taxpayers” FAULT(S) in all of this. They did NOT Have to buy these Financial products and mortgages from these “Wall Street $%%%…And From Mortgage Lenders and Banks.

I bet if someone would have the ‘balls’ to do a study on who’s getting “foreclosed” on….I think you would find most if not all…. Graduated HS…And most Graduated from college.

I also think…you would find most had incomes in the $45,000 - $100,0000+ Range

They NEW EXACTLY…what the terms of their loans were and out of pure GREED…and the need to keep up with the “Jones”….they choose to ignore the downside of their mortgages….who’s fault is that?

That is NOT the banks fault or Wall Streets Fault…..Its MR. Taxpayers fault… its time for some of you other “taxpayers” start putting the BLAME on some of your follow “taxpayers”.

No one sits in an Escrow office for `1-2 hours signing hundreds of pages of “loan docs”…NOT knowing what it is their doing.

The new generation of Americans….Blame everyone else for their mistakes and bad judgment.

No one forced these people to sign on the dotted line…no one force these people to run up huge amounts of credit card debt…after Real Estate p[rices….went up….and no one force them to take out huge line’s of equity loans….borrowed against the equity in their houses…so the could go out and buy the next big best SUV.

Time for Mr. Taxpayer to take some responsibility….for their part of this whole mess.

Just because a product is on the shelve…that looks like its on sale…does not mean you have to buy it.

Point is there is a lot blame to go around…NOT just to Wall Street & Finanical Institutions & Banks.

So, tired of hearing about the BS from congress about the “poor taxpayer”. The democrats act like everyone that choose to get a particular loan was some how cheated or defrauded…which is pure BS!

Peace,
Dan
http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com
- aguita, on 09/28/2008, -0/+3While I agree that the "taxpayer" that bought a bigger house than they could afford is somewhat to blame -- Who lent them the money? Who did or did not do their homework on the earning/debt ratio of the person borrowing the money?
  
  Sound business practices would have stopped the "greed" from the normal taxpayer in a heartbeat. No good banking system would have taken that type of risk. You can't borrow $600,000 on a $40,000 / yr paycheck. A quick phone call or pay stub would have verified that the borrower was lying and then easily denied. However, greed upon the banks to still lend money in such a situation is a huge risk. The key in lending is to have an acceptable level of risk -- with good, solid loans and some risky. If you take on too many risky loans, then that can be a time-bomb waiting to explode.
  
  Go ahead, blame the "taxpayer" for the risk. They were trying to take advantage of the market, and make a profit. If they default, they loose their own shirt. The true problem lies with the banks lending the money. They knew exactly what is on their books, and they still accepted far too many high-risk loans.
  
  In your world -- If you had $100, and wanted to loan it to one of your two friends -- who would you choose? The guy (gal ) who's on time, responsible, and trustworthy, or the guy (gal )who's somewhat flaky, not on time, but a good friend? Remember, it's a loan, not a gift. If you want your money back, you go with the always responsible one. If you don't, you go with the somewhat flaky one. The same goes with a bank.
  
  Most of the blame lies upon the lender. I can't drive that home enough upon you.
- deadbaby, on 09/28/2008, -1/+3I do tend to agree that home buyers are responsible for this problem as much as the banks who gave them the loans. However... I do think the poor and middle class home owners got hit pretty hard with the huge increase in health care & energy costs. A mortgage they could pay 10 years ago suddenly isn't affordable anymore.
  
  This is clearly a failure of this administration and the Republican party to provide growth and sustainability to the poor and middle-class in this country while the richest in our society have done incredibly well over the same time period. The rich got too rich and the poor got too poor. Our system can't work that way for very long. That's why I think it's so dangerous that McCain is advocating we continue down that road. Now is the time to make sure the poor & middle class can catch up and we can try to get ourselves back to a sustainable economy again. There are 4 ways we can do that:
  
  1) Reduce health care costs. I don't think this has to mean socialized medicine per say but we have to do something. Bush had 8 years to do it and he didn't. It's time for someone else to try.
  
  2) Reduce energy costs. Easiest way to do that is ensure the oil companies have to actually pay their fair share of taxes and develop alternative energy so we're not slaves to the oil companies. We need real competition in energy so prices stay low.
  
  3) Cut taxes for the middle-class, raise taxes on the rich. The rich are just going to have to sacrifice for the greater good for a few years. It's not forever. Eventually your taxes will go back down again. You need to help your country right now.
  
  4) Make education affordable. People shouldn't have to worry about how they're going to pay for college. It should be a right of every citizen. Yes, it's going to cost money but it's an investment. In 20 years we're going to have more qualified workers who are more productive and we'll all be better off because of it.
thepalineffect, on 09/28/2008, -19/+13Obama: second leading recipient of bribe money from Freddy Mac/Fanny Mae. The difference? One side argues that a McCain employee worked for the evil, while the other side shows Obama was SPONSORED by the evil. Talk about a conflict of interest in dealing with these groups.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 09/28/2008, -4/+7The bribes went from the corporate execs to McCain and his people in order to keep the graft going.
  
  The donations you mention came from individual employees who want to see the system fixed, like you or me.
  
  There is a HUGE difference here.
- cmootoo, on 09/28/2008, -2/+6I see you back Palin. Did she 'find em' for Katie Couric yet?
  
  I also work for government on the state level and have contributed to Obama's campaign but that doesn't mean my state contributed to him. I've also seen articles about how much money Obama gets from different sources but when you dig into them it shows individual contributions by employees of such companies.
  
  McCain on the other hand takes corporate donations directly.
- Gutterpunk, on 09/28/2008, -2/+2From Lindsay Renick Mayer, who made the OpenSecrets chart that you idiots like to link to so much :
  
  "We code only employees of the companies receiving a paycheck. Members of the board of directors could be on the boards of multiple companies, so instead of adding their contributions to all of the companies on which boards they sit, their contributions are lumped in with their actual employer's contributions. As for lobbyists who are "hired guns," their contributions would fall under the name of the lobbying firm for which they work, since, similar to directors, lobbyists usually represent multiple clients. In-house lobbyists for a company would be included in the company's totals, however, since the company is their sole employer."
  
  So yeah, you FAIL. Epicly.
thensley, on 09/28/2008, -16/+10Ok all you Democrats it is your time to show me one thing that Obama has done for this country. Give us some links the shows Obama personally responsible for helping one middle class American.

Obama, " McCain voted 95% of the time with Bush." Did Obama ever take government in college? The President doesn't vote with the House or Senate. A Bill is voted in the House and Senate and if passed is sent to President. The President then signs it into Law or vetoes it. The funny thing is that the Democrats have had control in both the House and Senate since Jan '07. So that means that every Bill passed in the House and Senate and signed into Law proves that Democrats voted with President Bush.

Vote for Obama and all you will have is "Change" and lint in your pockets.

One last thing. Why do Democrats like giving their money to the government?
- Cavemonster, on 09/28/2008, -1/+4I won't address the rest, but your last question is a good one.
  
  We like giving money to our government to use our collective power to make our country strong.
  We want to fund education, innovation, job creation (in THIS country) and the middle class so that our economy grows. It's kind of like putting good food into a body so it stays healthy. When you don't do that the body get's sick and needs medicine, kindof like right now.
  
  Liberals tend to think holistically. Conservatives sometimes don't seem to understand that it's always cheaper to PREVENT problems than to react to them
  - bobcat7407, on 09/28/2008, -2/+1Cavemonster
    I think that's one way of looking at it. I also think many liberals just want things taken care of by the government, with no individual responsibility. My question is, why in the world do you want the government in control of those things? They are the most inefficient institution in our country. I'm a conservative and I understand it is to the benefit of all to take care of those things, but I think that should be done through charities, private funding, etc... Government doesn't do anything well as far as I can tell.
    
    I'm digging you up for your well thought out response even though I disagree.
  - Cavemonster, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2Bob,
    I'll agree that, for instance the state of welfare is damaging to personal responsibility and that liberal legislators are largely to blame for that.
    
    But some things, like education, need to be taken care of by the government, and we're not doing a good job of that right now.
    
    Charities are never going to raise enough money or be large enough to do things like overhaul or energy sources. Even McCain acknowledges that we have to federally fund research and implementation of alternative energy. Nuclear energy, for instance, cannot be expanded without government assistance.
    
    Government can be terribly inefficient, but as we have seen with contractors in Iraq, you can easily still get worse from the private sector.
  - bobcat7407, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1Cavemonster,
    I completely disagree that education should be taken care of by government. It has gotten worse and worse and all the government does is put more money towards it. It's never enough because the government can't run anything efficiently. I would argue that the government has never done a good job of educating.
    
    Funding is a different thing, government grants for research and such are fine because they support advancement, but the government doesn't control things. Or at least it shouldn't.
    
    I'm not sure what you mean about the contractors. I haven't heard anything about them being inefficient. In my experience, the civilian sector is almost always more efficient and better run than the government. I'm not saying that it doesn't have its problems, just that it's still better than the government taking things over. I don't think there is a perfect system out there.
  - Cavemonster, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1The thing is, we're actually spending less and less money on education. I have a lot of friends who are teachers and there have been massive layoffs, canceled programs and increased class size everywhere for years now due to shrinking budgets. No child left behind cuts funding for schools doing poorly making it harder for them to compete. Every teacher I know pays for neccessary supplies from their own pocket.
    
    Above that, even if government doesn't organize education, they will need to pay for it. A huge chunk of the population could never afford to pay for private school without massive, if not complete assistance. We all lose if the country is filled with an uneducated underclass, so if we don't run the program, we still must foot the bill.
    
    As for the contractors, a Blackwater Mercenary costs about 6x as much as a soldier doing the same job, including training costs etc. That's just one example.
  - bobcat7407, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1Cavemonster,
    We spend more money on education than we ever have before. I also have friends that are teachers and there haven't been any of those things where they're at, which is at least three states. I think that we spend more and more on government bureaucracy and that is why things are cut. Here's a link that backs up what I'm saying: http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/bg2179. ...
    I think it's pretty clear that more money does not equal a better education. I'm not saying the solution is private schools, but the government doesn't do a good job of things no matter how much money they have. If they got rid of the DOE and gave that money back to taxpayers, there would be a lot more money for people to pay for private schools. I'd rather choose where my kids will be educated than let the government.
    
    I'd never heard that about the contractors. I find that kind of hard to believe because training a soldier costs a ton of money. Does that include all the things that a soldier gets, like medical, education, housing, etc...? Do you have a source for that? I'm not saying your lying, I'm just curious to read more about it.
  - Cavemonster, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1Here's a link to just one instance of teacher layoffs.
    http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr08/yr08rel31.asp
    Of course, spending by itself doesn't improve anything, it needs to be wise spending managed well, but I don't think any teacher would say that less teachers and larger class size helps anyone.
    A large chunk of school funding comes from local budgets too, notably real estate tax. If your friends live in communities that have wealthier areas, they may indeed be doing better than the average. The money they get is still from taxes, and local government involvement is still government involvement.
    
    I'm guessing that we may agree that as long as government is involved, it would be better the more power goes to state and local vs national government.
    
    I can't find the number for soldiers, but here's an article on intelligence workers
    http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/benjamins-fo ...
    
    But the general argument doesn't need those examples, look at all the private sector banks screwing the pooch. The only reason that a private enterprise would do better than a government run one would be if there were competition. If you look now at utilities, for instance, in areas where there is very little competition the customers get screwed. I was just staying with some friends in Vermont, where the only way to get high speed internet was through one satellite company. They got a terrible price, a sketchy connection and actual had a download LIMIT.
    
    Of course there are serious problems with the schools and many other government run programs, but the only way it would make sense to privatize would be if there was a clear, specific plan that showed real competition and served the needs of people with less resources (because in the long run, that serves all of us) Such a plan might be possible, but I haven't seen one brought up.
  - bobcat7407, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1Cavemonster, I do agree that power should be held much more at the local level. I'm sure layoffs happen, obviously from your link it is a problem in CA, although I wouldn't lump the rest of the country in with anything in CA. They are about the most liberal state and their economy is in shambles. I'd be interested to know if that is a nation wide thing or just CA. I think that competition is good, which there really isn't much of one now because people are taxed for public education and can't afford anything else, and I don't really think they'd have less resources. No matter what, the federal government should become way less involved.
    
    That link is focused on the intelligence community, which is different from military contractors. One of the reasons the military goes with contractors is because they don't have to pay for the housing, medical expenses, retirement, etc... that comes with normal soldiers.
    
    I completely agree about the competition part. It drives me nuts that our local power company has a corner on the market and my crappy city leaders don't do anything about it. The only way our capitalistic economy works is with competition.
- thensley, on 09/28/2008, -2/+1You are so right! We have the best primary and secondary education in the World......Not!!!!! We lead the World in new Innovation......Not....we did years ago!!!!! Jobs are being created everyday and businesses are not relocating to other countries.....Not!!!!
  
  Services / Goods produced in US = Jobs in the US
  
  More money in my pocket to buy Services / Goods produced in the US = Jobs in the US
  
  "Liberals tend to think holistically." Please give me an example where that is true and how more money made it work better.
  - rahamm, on 09/28/2008, -1/+2Education is a local issue not a federal one. In areas which get more tax dollars test scores tend to be higher so your arguement that more tax dollars doesn't equal better education is a poor one.
- cmootoo, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2Actually I'd like to tack

Freddie Mac Money Trail Catches Up With McCain

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Freddie Mac Money Trail Catches Up With McCain

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Related by Keyword

Stimulus math: $30B in spending equals 950K tech jobs

John Gotti Dumps His Son's Killer in a Vat of Acid

6 Classic Movies (That Narrowly Avoided Disaster)