The Age of Bloomberg

Gee, are you talking Michael Bloomberg, American Oligarch, who wants to become King of NYC?
We enacted Term Limits for a reason.

why the melt down is not melting economies in africa is because we get real no speulations, what you see is what you have got.The biggest fall out in all of this is the credibility of America as the mecca of the worlds economy where suplus value go to grow.

In the United States, when there is an economic crisis, then the government tries to do strictly, only what is necessary. But the people in the American economy should ask, how did we cause the crisis, if there has been a crisis? Does the American Government run big business? If not, then how is it that the biggest firms in Manhattan can break its finances, or in other words, 'go broke'?

Economic Prosperity in a nation, gives it's citizens more freedom. The government is not required to govern more than necessary. I believe, that the more prosperity there is, the more there is freedom from regulation, and the more there is peace. But for real economic prosperity, the whole market should prosper, or at least, have a sense of peace, and well being. There is more to existence than mere economics, else America should have achieved by now, all there is to achieve, and nothing should be left to achieve. I believe, that the market, should not be competitive, but cooperative.

Thank you George Bush, for running this country into the largest national debt in history with this expensive and unwanted war! The last 8 years have seen nothing but secretive politics from the White House, outright lies and bungled decision-making. Even the national press was bullied into not investigating stories that clearly should have been. Only now that Bush is a lame duck president is the press reporting on some of this administration's deceit. The Patriot Act is the first thing that should go after this election, no matter who wins.

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"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. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, 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 Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "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." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below w/ history]

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The last link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=M2QwNDhkZTg2OGYzZjkzM2E2NDEwM2U5OGVkNTc0YzU=

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080926

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The charade of the so-called Presidential Debates continues. Already a carefully orchestrated question and answer session controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties to the exclusion of other candidates, it now emerges that even the moderators may hold partisan bias. Headlines shot up around the country, raising the question of whether the debates can be considered legitimate if the moderator holds a bias. The question that Americans should really be asking, however, is not merely who???s moderating, but rather, who is controlling the debates?

Gwen Ifill, of PBS, slated to moderate tonight???s Vice-Presidential Debate, has penned a book titled The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. One must instantly wonder how Ifill can call this the ???Age??? of Obama without having a serious predilection towards the outcome of these debates. Moreover, the book is set to be released around the time of the Inauguration, January, 2009, seemingly to usher in the ???age of Obama.??? Columnist Michelle Malkin worries about Ifill???s ability to objectively moderate, but her criticism reveals deeper inadequacies within the system. ???My dictionary, Malkin writes, ???defines 'moderator' as 'the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting.' On Thursday, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will serve as moderator for the first and only vice presidential debate. The stakes are high. The Commission on Presidential Debates, with the assent of the two campaigns, decided not to impose any guidelines on her duties or questions. ???

While it is unfortunate that Ms. Ifill may indeed have a pro-Obama bias while moderating, the bias exhibited against third party or independent candidates by the Commission on Presidential Debates is far greater. The 15 percent polling guideline set by the CPD is arbitrary and restrictive. Compare it to the 5 percent threshold set by the League of Women Voters, which ran the debates until 1988, when it declared, ???The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public. (Full statement found here.)


WWW.VOTENADER.ORG

Excellent article by Mr. Zakaria. It is time to get serious. Serious enough to change the old guard in Washington. Let's not forget that McCain voted in favor of deregulation over and over in the past 20 years. McCain is one of the people that caused this economic meltdown.

The GOP is grasping at straws. They have nothing substantive against Obama, but boy are they good at making up lies. This has been a leading Karl Rove tactic for years, and if America falls for this again we should be ashamed of ourselves. Not to mention the obvious fact that this is all a smokescreen to keep the focus off of the fact that Palin and her Alaska associates are in contempt of court for refusing to testify in the Troopergate hearings. After Nixon and Clinton, Americans are to some extent jaded, but really, would you want a VP who refuses to attend hearings in her own defense, and instructs her employees not to testify? That smells like guilt. It surely doesn't give the impression that she has done no wrong and has nothing to hide.

This year, the GOP offers you an angry old man and a woman who, while personable, is desperately uniformed about national and international issues. Both of them are far right politically. McCain used to be a maverick, but since 2004 he's voted 90% with Bush. McCain's policies are not original or reformist, despite how he's tried to co-opt Obama's popular message of change. Please go to the websites of both of the candidates and read their platforms. Obama's Blueprint for Change has more good ideas than McCain's plan. Compare them yourself. Obama's basic premise is that tax dollars should be spent to make America stronger and to improve the lives and well being of our people. For example, he uses education programs to train a new technology workforce, contributing to energy independence, creating jobs and improving the economy. When you read McCain's plan you will find no over-arching design to get America back on track. Instead you'll find more tax cuts for the wealthy, de-regulation of the health care industry, and a stated intent to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I'm a Republican. Although I embrace some forward-thinking social values, in the past I've rarely voted Democrat. My thinking was that since Republicans grow robust economies, by voting Republican I'd be endorsing a plan that would grow wealth for our nation, and then we'd be able to afford social programs. It was a good strategy for a couple decades, but I have to say that the tenure of W. Bush has changed my mind. Not only is there nothing fiscally responsible about today's GOP, the insidious alignment of the party with religious intolerance has really turned me off.

On the other hand, the intelligent luminous thought of Barack Obama has ignited my passion for politics and my patriotism. I want a President who puts America first and can get the economy back on track. In my mind, values voting takes a back burner when we are faced with a meltdown of the economy. It is time for a change, a real change. The Republicans have controlled the Presidency for 28 of the past 40 years, but they have fallen down on the job. The Democrats have a stellar candidate this year, and I am voting for Obama.

I agree with Fareed. Now try telling this to Palin and the evangelical horde who insist on inventing these culture wars every four years. For the supposed moral majority, they sure do lie a lot.

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918


For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

Well said. Its time for America to join the global economy not as a dominating factor but as a leader and a guiding force. I truly hope that we our country can correct "the most expensive and inefficient health-care system in the industrialized world, the most wasteful energy usage, the lowest savings rate, the worst maintained infrastructure, a complex and corrupt tax code" in our system. So that Americans can feel, once again, this is country of opportunity and prosperity.