Do we want a member of the Keating Five to be our next president??? - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Angry American · #1 (**permalink**) 09-17-2008

In the current financial crisis we are in, do we really want a member of the Keating Five to become our next president?

McCain was part of the Savings and Loan scandal, and his own economic adviser, Phil Gramm, helped create the current financial crisis.

If there ever was a worse candidate for president in John McCain, I don't know who would be.

I'm sorry but it's the economy stupid, and the McCain campaign is full of stupid when it comes to the economy.

A member of the Keating Five, really?

mudwhistle · #2 (**permalink**) 09-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

In the current financial crisis we are in, do we really want a member of the Keating Five to become our next president?

McCain was part of the Savings and Loan scandal, and his own economic adviser, Phil Gramm, helped create the current financial crisis.

If there ever was a worse candidate for president in John McCain, I don't know who would be.

I'm sorry but it's the economy stupid, and the McCain campaign is full of stupid when it comes to the economy.

A member of the Keating Five, really?

Funny you should bring that up.

Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae almost went under and we had to spend $200 bil to bail them out.

When it comes to shear numbers this makes Enron look small in comparison.

Strange how all of this is happening while the Democrats have their hand on the till yet they get none of the blame. As a matter of fact Nancy Pelosi was asked if the Democratically controlled congress should shoulder at least some of the blame. She said hell no. Yet this year they have bailed out 4 major financial institutions. The Keating Five doesn't even come close in comparison to Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, and the Democrats.

Truth is Allen Greenspan and Democrats are responsible for this mess. They made it possible for many of these loans that are in foreclosure by relaxing the regulations and requirements needed to get loans. In 2005 McCain tried to do something about the mess it caused and the Dems stopped it.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Whose policies led to the credit crisis?

Quote:

"In the latter years of the Clinton administration -- when I was not there any longer, I should add -- there was an attempt by Alan Greenspan and Bob Rubin and a few others to deregulate financial markets, and they did. They split commercial banking off from investment banking. And many people say, "Well, that was the beginning of the problem," and then, of course, in 2003-2004, Alan Greenspan reduced short-term interest rates to the point where every single bank wanted to lend money. I mean, if you could stand up straight you could get a bank loan because there was so much pressure to get that money out the door. Money was so cheap. So, yes, there is some responsibility on Democrats, some responsibility on Alan Greenspan and the Fed." - Robert Reich Former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Real Culprits In This Meltdown

Five years ago this is what Bush was saying about the shananigans that were going in with Fanny and Freddie and the Democrats objected to it:

Quote:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
This should have been a no-brainer, right? With hindsight, we can see that the Bush administration had accurately diagnosed the problem in the lending market and had a plan to address it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reluctantly supported the plan. However, Democrats objected (emphases mine):
Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
Sounds a little like the Democratic denial of problems in Social Security, doesn’t it? Nothing to see here, no crisis on the horizon. Everybody just move along, now. The Democrats had forced lenders to assume more risk at lower interest rates in the 1990s, as IBD points out today, and they didn’t want to countenance an end to their populist policies:

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - New York Times

mudwhistle · #3 (**permalink**) 09-17-2008

Next time you post a link you might want to read what it contains first:

Quote:

Glenn and McCain: cleared of impropriety but criticized for poor judgment
The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of Glenn in the scheme was minimal, and the charges against him were dropped.[24] He was only criticized by the Committee for "poor judgment."[27]

The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[25][24] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[6] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."[28] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[6]

Several accounts of the controversy contend that McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target.[29][30][31][11] Glenn's inclusion in the investigation has been attributed to Republicans who were angered by the inclusion of McCain, as well as committee members who thought that dropping Glenn (and McCain) would make it look bad for the remaining three Democratic Senators.[29][31] Democrat Robert S. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the scandal, suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee that it pursue charges against neither McCain nor Glenn, saying of McCain, "that there was no evidence against him."[30] The Vice Chairman of the Ethics Committee, Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, agreed with Bennett, but the Chairman, Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama, did not agree.[11]

Regardless of the level of their involvement, both senators were greatly affected by it. McCain would write in 2002 that attending the two April 1987 meetings was "the worst mistake of my life".[32] Glenn has described the Senate Ethics Committee investigation as the low point of his life.[7]

Keating Five - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

mudwhistle · #4 (**permalink**) 09-17-2008

McCain was cleared of all wrongdoing but Cranston (D) was not:

Quote:

Cranston: severely reprimanded
The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that Cranston had acted improperly by interfering with the investigation by the FHLBB.[24] He had received more than a million dollars from Keating, had done more arm-twisting than the other Senators on Keating's behalf, and was the only Senator officially rebuked by the Senate in this matter.[25]

Cranston was given the harshest penalty of all five Senators. In November of 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to reprimand Cranston, instead of the more severe measure that was under consideration: censure by the full Senate. Extenuating circumstances that helped to save Cranston from censure were the fact that he was suffering from cancer, and that he had decided to not seek reelection, according to the Chairman of the Ethics Committee, Democratic Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama. The Ethics Committee took the unusual step of delivering its reprimand to Cranston during a formal session of the full Senate, with almost all 100 Senators present.[16]

TheLastBoyScout · #5 (**permalink**) 09-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

In the current financial crisis we are in, do we really want a member of the Keating Five to become our next president?

McCain was part of the Savings and Loan scandal, and his own economic adviser, Phil Gramm, helped create the current financial crisis.

If there ever was a worse candidate for president in John McCain, I don't know who would be.

I'm sorry but it's the economy stupid, and the McCain campaign is full of stupid when it comes to the economy.

A member of the Keating Five, really?

I'm surprised that the Keating 5 hasn't been a bigger issue for McCain in this campaign.

The truth is that all of the Keating 5 only got a slap on the wrist. 2 congressmen got criticized heavily for acting improperly.

- Cranston, the guy considered most guilty was let off from harsh penalty because he had cancer and was getting ready to retire anyway.

- Glenn got criticized only for poor judgement for going along with it.

- McCain got criticized only for poor judgement for going along with it.

The Bottom line is that all these Senators did something pretty serious and got off scott free because this was a case of the senate policing itself... which is always going to give a break to it's own.

But the Astronaut, the War Hero, and the guy with Cancer got an extra break out of the deal. Escaping even deserved harsh criticism or scrutiny.

Johnny K · #6 (**permalink**) 09-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

McCain was cleared of all wrongdoing but Cranston (D) was not:

Nice catch! There goes any chance Cranston had of getting MY vote for POTUS in November!

mudwhistle · #7 (**permalink**) 09-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

I'm surprised that the Keating 5 hasn't been a bigger issue for McCain in this campaign.

The truth is that all of the Keating 5 only got a slap on the wrist. 2 congressmen got criticized heavily for acting improperly.

- Cranston, the guy considered most guilty was let off from harsh penalty because he had cancer and was getting ready to retire anyway.

- Glenn got criticized only for poor judgement for going along with it.

- McCain got criticized only for poor judgement for going along with it.

The Bottom line is that all these Senators did something pretty serious and got off scott free because this was a case of the senate policing itself... which is always going to give a break to it's own.

But the Astronaut, the War Hero, and the guy with Cancer got an extra break out of the deal. Escaping even deserved harsh criticism or scrutiny.

By gosh, they did something really, really, really serious.

If poor judgement was a serious issue then Obama would be toast.

TheLastBoyScout · #8 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

By gosh, they did something really, really, really serious.

If poor judgement was a serious issue then Obama would be toast.

Yeah, I'd condisider Keating giving money to these 5 senators for the purpose of holding regulators at bay is pretty serious.

Especially since that same type of deregulation or lack of regulation pretty much got the economy where it is today......

I'm not sure how Obama rebuttals fit in with a discussion of the Keating 5. Help me out and draw the parallel.

mudwhistle · #9 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Yeah, I'd condisider Keating giving money to these 5 senators for the purpose of holding regulators at bay is pretty serious.

Especially since that same type of deregulation or lack of regulation pretty much got the economy where it is today......

I'm not sure how Obama rebuttals fit in with a discussion of the Keating 5. Help me out and draw the parallel.

The biggest flaw Obama has is he continually has made the wrong choice. He has plenty of hind-sight and no foresight.

Obama is free to claim he has made good choices but his words in the past say otherwise. The reason this is so is because what he has said in the past is a matter of record. No matter how much he lies about what he has said in the past it continues to haunt him.

He has a problem associating with the wrong type of people. How many of his advisors has he had to let go because their backgrounds became public? How many of his friends has he had to cut ties with?

Some people are trying to link McCain in a manner to Keating that is worse then the record shows. I provided proof to this fact. The only reason that is ignored is because of the willful ignorance of those who oppose McCain and support Obama. Obama has to lie about his associations and his judgment but McCain doesn't.

TheHighForester · #10 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008

Frankly, McCain's shady past dealings, including his acceptance of what were really bribes from Charles Keating, are not my chief concern about the prospect that he might become president. The more serious issue is that McCain is simply incompetent. He has ridden the achievements of his father and grandfather (and his wife's money) as far as they can carry him, and now he feels entitled to more. But he can only "govern" by relying on some of the most questionable characters to occupy government office in my lifetime, including Phil Gramm and the entire advisory staff which has led George Bush so far astray.

But I have confidence that the American people will not compound past mistakes by electing John McCain to the highest office. eEvery time he opens his mouth, he gives more evidence of his unsuitability for the office he seeks. This week he has twice told us that "the economy is fundamentally sound." Right! And just three weeks ago he announced that "The economy is not my strong suit." Coming from a man who spent ten years as chair of the Senate's Commerce Committee, this is pretty damning. Didn't he learn ANYTHING in those ten years? Evidently not.

mudwhistle · #11 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHighForester

Frankly, McCain's shady past dealings, including his acceptance of what were really bribes from Charles Keating, are not my chief concern about the prospect that he might become president. The more serious issue is that McCain is simply incompetent. He has ridden the achievements of his father and grandfather (and his wife's money) as far as they can carry him, and now he feels entitled to more. But he can only "govern" by relying on some of the most questionable characters to occupy government office in my lifetime, including Phil Gramm and the entire advisory staff which has led George Bush so far astray.

But I have confidence that the American people will not compound past mistakes by electing John McCain to the highest office. eEvery time he opens his mouth, he gives more evidence of his unsuitability for the office he seeks. This week he has twice told us that "the economy is fundamentally sound." Right! And just three weeks ago he announced that "The economy is not my strong suit." Coming from a man who spent ten years as chair of the Senate's Commerce Committee, this is pretty damning. Didn't he learn ANYTHING in those ten years? Evidently not.

Horseshit.

He said the fundamentals of the economy are sound. There is a world of difference.

It won't take much to get the economy going again.

Most of the problem is consumer confidence is waning after the constant negativity of Barack Obama and his media stooges.

When you are constantly hearing bad news it depresses the market, the housing industry, and the banking industry.

If the media would stop blowing things out of proportion and cheerleading a possible collapse it would reverse the panic selling we're getting in the market this week.

Obama is so full of shit where the economy is concerned. He claims we're in the worst financial shape since the Great Depression. Bullshit.

This is the same thing John Kerry said. Remember?

I don't see any soup-lines. 93% of us are gainfully employed, we aren't eating onion sandwiches like some of us were during the Depression. I can't remember having to run down and kill my food lately. I can still go to Micky D's any time I want. If this was a Depression you can kiss eating out goodby.

But the easy life most of us are living would suddenly come to an end and we would have a Depression if Obama gets in and starts raising taxes and cutting our military like he says he will. Regardless of the ability our economy has of recovering raising taxes will ruin it.

Steve · #12 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008

Between Obama and a member of the Keating Five, I'll take the member of the Keating Five.

Between Obama and my neighbor's Great Dane, I'll take the Great Dane.

In no way would I ever, ever, vote for Obama. If someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to vote for Obama "or else", well, I'll just say that I'm glad my affairs are in order...

Angry American · #13 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Between Obama and a member of the Keating Five, I'll take the member of the Keating Five.

Between Obama and my neighbor's Great Dane, I'll take the Great Dane.

In no way would I ever, ever, vote for Obama. If someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to vote for Obama "or else", well, I'll just say that I'm glad my affairs are in order...

Which proves the point, that Republicans would vote for a ham sandwich.

Steve · #14 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

Which proves the point, that Republicans would vote for a ham sandwich.

Well, I'm not a Republican.

But would they vote for a ham sandwich over Obama? Probably, yeah.

The ham sandwich wouldn't be able to fuck things up as much...