Popdose: Pop Politico: “Crisis Politics” | Popdose
Zack
· 1 year ago
I know it's not practical, but I'd really, really, really love to see these firms get nationalized and see some seriously punitive measures come down on the executives. Don't like a 60% pay cut? Fine - go ahead and quit. Why did we take the money that was set aside for your Christmas bonuses and give it to the Salvation army? Fuck you, that's why.
Brinksmanship is the way to go for Congress on this one. Stick it to them, good and hard, and if they don't like the terms, too goddamned bad.
J
· 1 year ago
I'm with Zack...
Ted
· 1 year ago
Would the Xmas card say: "Fuck you, and a Merry Christmas!"
DwDunphy
· 1 year ago
No. Not at all. Their stocking gets reindeer feces.
Siobhan
· 1 year ago
Well, bank executives have little at a fundamental level in nurturing this mess; it disgusts me that government (Congress, the Fed, the Treasury) is disingenuously avoiding its responsibility. But come on, whose idea was it to denounce lenders as racist redliners and pass regulation after regulation pressuring them to lower industry standards make more loans to unqualified borrowers and bad credit risks in the name of diversity? Haven't heard of the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that forces banks to make such loans and the several Federal agencies that enforce compliance, giving a "CRA rating" to banks based on how many of these loans they make? The 70s-era CRA was expanded further under Clinton to--surprise--raise the amount of home loans made to risky borrowers. Certainly not every bad loan is under the CRA aegis, but many... Recall which bank was trumpeted by Fannie Mae as a role model for making so many billions of CRA loans to low-income folks?... It was Countrywide, one of the more spectacular recent bank flameouts....
(Reluctant contribution from someone who generally deplores the shoehorning of political discussion into a music blog.)
jefito
· 1 year ago
This isn't a music site, it's a pop culture site with a lot of music content. That's hair-splitting, perhaps, but we're trying to cover the spectrum here.
Ted
· 1 year ago
Trying to put this all on the CRA is pretty one-sided. It completely ignores how elements like mortgage-backed securities played in fueling this crisis.
Old_Davy
· 1 year ago
Zack for prez
steve
· 1 year ago
60%? Please. That means they'll still make a couple million a year. How about 95%....
Most would still make way more than you and me...
Jon
· 1 year ago
Bush has little to nothing to do with this. This crisis is largely the work of Senate Democrats. The Senate Banking Committee had a bill in 2005 to reform Freddie & Fannie. The mounting problems were apparent - Alan Greenspan has made it clear that year that we would be seeing exactly what we have now.
What happened? The Democrats on the Banking Committee killed the bill in Committee so it never even reached the floor for a vote. You can look it up - the Committee vote went down on strict party lines.
Now: which presidential candidate has gotten the most money from scandal ridden Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Bros, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, AIG, Countrywide & Washington Mutual? It isn't McCain. It's Obama. He received over $1,093,000 from those 8 companies.
Their contributions to McCain aren't even close to that level. As they say, Follow The Money.
It's a perfect set up. Blame Bush & GOP while the Democrats get off scot-free WITH the money! Republicans aren't perfect, but this is one place where they don't deserve the blame.
You're basically summarizing what Hassett says, so I can only conclude that you read the piece. However, readers ought to know that Hassett's opinions are from the perspective of an adviser to the McCain campaign, a member of the American Enterprise Institute, and a Bloomberg News columnist. In short, his job is the shift blame to the Dems and Obama and take the responsibility off the shoulders of the financial institutions and the Republican party.
Class warfare is alive and well among the Right!
Jon
· 1 year ago
Actually I didn't read the piece. However, let me address something. you're saying that it is purely Hassettt's 'Perspective' that the Senate Democrats on the Banking Comittee voted unanimously to kill the Fannie/Frieddie reform bill? So their on-record votes aren't facts - they're opinions in the eye of the beholder? I don't follow that.
It's also merely Hassett's 'Perspective' that Obama has scored more money in 2 years from those 8 companies than McCain did in over 20 years? Even though it's documented that this money is in Obamas' pocket. I'm not sure how you believe anything at all, including your own existence if documented facts are just 'perspective'.
How do you know you're actually reading this post? It could just be my perspective that you're reading it. Ending with a slogan without any argument is not a response. You're better than that.
steve
· 1 year ago
Jon's facts are right - Obama took more money from Freddie & Fannie. And Senate Democrats did help ease regulation. But so did Republicans. Actually Siobhan's post above gets to the root of it which starts way back in the 70's. Clinton is guilty as are many many Congressmen from both deplorable parties.
There's a lot of blame to go around, and it's just another reason we need to end the failure of the two party system. I truly believe that 99% of Americans actually have opinions on different issues that fall on both sides of the R & D line, but feel the need to robotically tow a party line to fit into a social group or to conform to what they think they "should be" based on what others will think of them.
Ted
· 1 year ago
To say that a Senate Banking Committee vote in 2005 is the cause of this mess is too simplistic. I don’t know the details of the vote you’re referring to -- even though you ask me to “look it up.” What am I supposed to look up? You don’t say what Senate Bill is it, neither does Hassett, and so how are we supposed to know the details surrounding this vote that has caused so much harm when all that has been mentioned is that the Democrats voted against the bill in committee at a time when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and had majority seats on all committees. Did some Republicans vote with the Democrats on the committee? If so, why? What was so objectionable about the bill that it died in committee? Where there earmarks attached that were so odious that all the Dems and some Reps couldn’t even hold their nose and vote “yes?” Again, I don’t know, you don’t know (or haven’t told me), and Hassett clearly doesn’t know. That’s why I say it’s Hassett’s perspective; a perspective of a McCain operative who is trying to influence public opinion through a selective reading of facts.
Regarding your second point ...
The “documented fact” that Obama and Clinton took more money from eight companies in two year than McCain did in 20 years. So this means ... what. That McCain is a “cleaner” politician than Obama or Clinton? Why? Because he took less money than his Democratic colleagues? And doing so inoculates McCain against being corrupt and “in the pocket” of lobbyists like he was during the Keating Five days?
Ted, again, they're all guilty. So stop playing the "my party is less morally decrepit than yours" game and join me and millions of others who hate them both. Take the "D" away from your name and go independent. The more of us who do it, the more of us who point out the lying and corruption in both parties, we can eventually bring them both down. The "I know you are but what am I" stuff gets so old.....
All Comments
Brinksmanship is the way to go for Congress on this one. Stick it to them, good and hard, and if they don't like the terms, too goddamned bad.
(Reluctant contribution from someone who generally deplores the shoehorning of political discussion into a music blog.)
Most would still make way more than you and me...
What happened? The Democrats on the Banking Committee killed the bill in Committee so it never even reached the floor for a vote. You can look it up - the Committee vote went down on strict party lines.
Now: which presidential candidate has gotten the most money from scandal ridden Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Bros, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, AIG, Countrywide & Washington Mutual? It isn't McCain. It's Obama. He received over $1,093,000 from those 8 companies.
Their contributions to McCain aren't even close to that level. As they say, Follow The Money.
It's a perfect set up. Blame Bush & GOP while the Democrats get off scot-free WITH the money! Republicans aren't perfect, but this is one place where they don't deserve the blame.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039...
You're basically summarizing what Hassett says, so I can only conclude that you read the piece. However, readers ought to know that Hassett's opinions are from the perspective of an adviser to the McCain campaign, a member of the American Enterprise Institute, and a Bloomberg News columnist. In short, his job is the shift blame to the Dems and Obama and take the responsibility off the shoulders of the financial institutions and the Republican party.
Class warfare is alive and well among the Right!
It's also merely Hassett's 'Perspective' that Obama has scored more money in 2 years from those 8 companies than McCain did in over 20 years? Even though it's documented that this money is in Obamas' pocket. I'm not sure how you believe anything at all, including your own existence if documented facts are just 'perspective'.
How do you know you're actually reading this post? It could just be my perspective that you're reading it. Ending with a slogan without any argument is not a response. You're better than that.
There's a lot of blame to go around, and it's just another reason we need to end the failure of the two party system. I truly believe that 99% of Americans actually have opinions on different issues that fall on both sides of the R & D line, but feel the need to robotically tow a party line to fit into a social group or to conform to what they think they "should be" based on what others will think of them.
Regarding your second point ...
The “documented fact” that Obama and Clinton took more money from eight companies in two year than McCain did in 20 years. So this means ... what. That McCain is a “cleaner” politician than Obama or Clinton? Why? Because he took less money than his Democratic colleagues? And doing so inoculates McCain against being corrupt and “in the pocket” of lobbyists like he was during the Keating Five days?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/2...