The latest CNN Poll show Obama leading by 8 points over McCain. Which of the following do think is the main reason for this.
Submitted 57 days ago by Hauli  Favorite
Embed
Options
|
|
Loading...
| Results | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Record low approval ratings for President Bush. | |
|
|
| 69 votes 35% | |
| A drop in the public's perception of McCain's running mate. | |
|
|
| 39 votes 20% | |
| The people just don't buy that Crap that Palin is smearing about Obama. The personal attacks are being balked at. | |
|
|
| 48 votes 24% | |
| Many Repulicans are doubting McCain's ability to be President and are considering voting for Obama as well. | |
|
|
| 44 votes 22% | |
The latest poll doubles the spread from 4 points in mid-September to 8 points . -- http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/06/poll.of.polls/index.html
It still ain't over. And then there's the Dibold machines to out maneuver ...
It's a bit of all of them, but I think it's mostly an indicator that there is zero confidence in McCain's capabilities. He is not convincing.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
U R not convincing!
U R pathetic though!
At least he reads and pays attention to what's going on in the world. Something that you appear unable or worse, unwilling to do.
I think as the economy continues to tank, people see it as a failing of the GOP and are switching sides.
WAIT, WAIT! Let me set the people straight! Read this:
“Under [Bill] Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001. Instead of looking at ‘outdated criteria,’ such as the mortgage applicant’s credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named ‘Caylee.’ Threatening lawsuits, Clinton’s Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn’t a joke—it’s a fact. ... In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration’s affirmative action lending policies as one of the ‘hidden success stories’ of the Clinton administration, saying that ‘black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded.’ Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn’t get out of their loans by selling their houses. A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it’s gone off.” —Ann Coulter
GOVERNMENT
“Much of that mess [in the financial markets] is due to the very people we are now turning to for solutions—members of Congress. Past Congresses created the hybrid financial institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private institutions with government backing and political influence. About half of the mortgages in this country are backed by these two institutions. Such institutions—exempt from laws that apply to other financial institutions and backed by the implicit promise of government support with the taxpayers’ money—are an open invitation to risky behavior. When these risks blew up in their faces, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars. For years the Wall Street Journal has been warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking reckless chances but liberal Democrats especially have pooh-poohed the dangers. Back in 2002, the Wall Street Journal said: ‘The time for the political system to focus on Fannie and Fred isn’t when we have a housing crisis; by then it will be too late.’ The hybrid public-and-private nature of these financial giants amounts to ‘privatizing profit and socializing risk,’ since taxpayers get stuck with the tab when high-risk finances don’t work out... Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been generous in their contributions to politicians’ political campaigns, so it is perhaps not surprising that politicians have been generous to them. This is certainly part of ‘the mess in Washington’ that Barack Obama talks about. But don’t expect him to clean it up. Franklin Raines, who made mega-millions for himself while mismanaging Fannie Mae into a financial disaster, is one of Obama’s advisers.” —Thomas Sowell
Dood, while I appreciate your continued efforts to get a handle on this, your partisanship is only giving you half the picture.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
MoveOn.org fact check! Is that supposed to be funny?
Fact Check about page: "We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation"
They are not afiliated with MoveOn, and share no staff. Indeed, on their home page they have a story which shows they are declaring MoveOn wrong on some facts.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
My "partisanship" also found this well documented list of "occurrences" that propagated this mess. You might check the facts here and see if you can refute any of them...
Financial Crisis: How We Got Here
1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.
Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.
How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?
Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.
1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.
1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopoies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.
1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.
1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.
1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Developement, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.
With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as musch as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.
Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.
1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.
2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.
2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.
2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.
2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk". Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "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". Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership" The bill went nowhere.
2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market fell in '07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.
2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion!!
If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to your lawmakers own words. They are condeming!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CSY4&feature=related#
= = = = = =
Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/ Freddie's slush funds. They are currently under indictment or investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal counsel, defending their activities for several years.
I could post just as many "facts" about Republicans. The problem isn't the political parties. It is that the love of money is the root of all evil - and politics these days is all about money.
So what, Jon?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
So what?
It is the Demo's and congress's lack of paying attention to where this country was going. It is good to have a place to point your finger and maybe by looking at what was NOT DONE and what COULD HAVE BEEN DONE and the lack of interest that was placed on this whole financial subject thru the years, it might be prevented from happening again - that is "So What, Jon!"
The Republicans had control of Congress for 15 years. The Dems - 1.5 years. Yet you follow your partisan websites and believe this financial mess is the COMPLETE FAULT of the Dems. Jeez, Jon. I blame the Dems for some things, Republicans for others. You only listen to the most extremist of websites that present you with propaganda. That's why nobody bothers to click your links anymore.
Your information that you choose to believe as fact is from propaganda sites. Not valid information.
He certainly isn't being abandoned by the right wing, neoconservative Christian base. Maybe this will show the Republicans that catering their stances completely to and for their benefit doesn't REALLY work. I'd like to see the party fracture - and the Christian neocons get their own party. That way we can ALL be sure to vote against them. (lol)
Amen to that!