A Recipe for Economic Failure

Just as Cindy McCain has stolen her Cookie recipe from Hershey's, John McCain is stealing his economic plan right from the George W. Bush playbook. He is ill at ease when speaking about his plan for the economy because he knows he has been a direct supporter of the deregulation that caused the failures in our economy. Deregulation has allowed the Wall Street crowd to behave as chipmunk’s hording up all their acorns and leaving the scraps for the average American. His one moment of honestly was when John McCain admitted "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should". Where does he get his economic vision from? McCain says "some of my best friends have opinions about economic policy". And who are these best friends? Seven of them run his campaign, and they are lobbyists for big oil, pharmaceutical, foreign dictators, and failed Wall Street giants. Doing more of the same again and again and telling people that they can expect different results does not make you a maverick. At best, it makes you insane. At worst, a liar.

McCain is not telling the truth, about the economy, or Barack Obama. Barack Obama’s middle class tax cut gives 95% of working Americans a tax cut of up to $1,000. He will crack down on predatory lenders, punish corporations who send American jobs overseas, reform requirements on all regulated financial institutions and streamline our regulatory agencies. "This time - this election - is our chance to stand up and say: enough is enough!" (Barack Obama, 2008)

Elite Capitalists Greedy Scam of the Genteel Population

Greedy elite capitalists set the mortgage and securities standard, knowing exactly what they were doing for their own short-term interest benefit -- knowing the genteel buyers were going to lose their property by default -- made bogus mortgages for the last 20 years and bundled them into bogus securities; then sold them to bankers all over the world.

Now, the buyers of the elite capitalists' bogus mortgages are defaulting as the elite capitalists' bogus mortgages and securities have become worthless; but, since the bogus securities have been scattered all over the world, the entire world banking system is dependent upon benefit from the elite capitalists' bogus mortgages; which the elite capitalists are NOT receiving, so one by one the elite capitalists' banks are all defaulting and going bankrupt, while the elite capitalists sit back and say they do not understand what the problem is --- all the elite capitalists did was engage in FREE TRADE and the market is now seeking a correction. The elite capitalists knew they were bundling bogus securities.

How does this affect the elite capitalists? They will get baled out by the communal resources of the people, since all the elite capitalists did was give genteel people an opportunity to have a home they couldn't afford. What the housing and securities crunch really means is that the genteel population of the United States were scammed by the elite capitalists for benefit from short-term profit, and unlike Atlas, the genteel population are/were unable to carry the world of elite capitalist greed on their backs and have lost or are losing their homes. When the scammed population lose their homes, the securities default and the banks holding those securities collapse.

The real sorrow here is not that scamming greedy bankers are going to lose their capital if the government doesn't bale them out, the real sorrow is all of the genteel people that have worked so hard chasing the American Dream, and have lost everything, including their homes to the greedy bankers' scams; and the government using the peoples money is NOT baling out the people who are losing their homes to the greedy bankers, only baling out the scamming greedy bankers, because that protects the the elite capitalists' economy, not the best interest of the people, or the peoples' economy; so without responsibility or punishment, the elite capitalists start the whole dumb show over again, scamming the genteel population as consumers for short-term profit.

The purpose of the consumer is to generate capital for the owner's of the economy. The elite capitalists own the economy. The consumers consume products made by the owners of the economy and generate capital for the owners of the economy. That is the capitalist system. The shame of the thing is that with legislated enforced elite capitalist responsibility the system could be made to work for all who participate in the capitalist system for both capitalists and consumers. Awareness and demand of responsibility is the only way responsibility by the elite capitalists will happen.

Until the population as a whole becomes sufficiently aware to in mass demand responsibility, there will be no responsibility of the elite capitalists and the dumb show will continue to go on indefinitely. Elite capitalist McCain/Palin will protect the elite capitalists.

When banks are going down there are people hitting the streets without homes. Where are these people? They are there, but are being stored out of sight for slavery in jails and prisons. The dumb show must end and it starts with Obama/Biden.

In the spirit of balanced reporting, it would be helpful to know how many of those same types of Wall Street influencers work for Obama's campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if some are involved in similar activities (although I would be surprised if he had that many).

I would also be interested to know how close these individuals are to McCain and Obama. By the sheer numbers, I find it hard to believe that most of them would have direct contact or influence over the candidates.

Don't get me wrong. I shudder at the thought of a McCain/Palin administration. It would be useful, however, to get a fair account of Obama's supporters who fit a similar profile.

Awesome job, guys!

They should use this scroll as part of an economics ad running against McCain.

Maybe pair it with his complete 180 flip-flop on bailing out AIG. He was against it before he was for it!

JM writes: In the spirit of balanced reporting, it would be helpful to know how many of those same types of Wall Street influencers work for Obama's campaign.

Can't say about who is or is not working for Barack's campaign, but it is interesting to note that people in Finance, Insurance and Real Estate are contributing more heavily to Obama than to McCain.

Also of interest is that Lawyers & Lobbyists are contributing far more to Barack than to McCain (3 to 1), as are people in the sectors defined as Miscellaneous Business (not quite 2 to 1) and Communications & Electronics (3 to 1) (which I assume includes "media").
www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorallc.php?cycle=2008

One assumes these people believe an Obama administration would be more favorable to their interests.

Opensecrets, that doesn't actually tell you anything that people from a given industry donate to Obama. If a staunchly liberal cubicle-dweller like me donates, that goes down as a donation from someone in my industry, just as if it came from the CEO. I'd bet money (in fact, as a donor, I have bet) that the people in those industries donating to Obama aren't running the industries, just holding down a job.

So the where the lobbyists work is a much better indicator.

Eric, if you believed a particular candidate, if elected, would be tough on the industry where you're holding down that job, how likely is it that you'd donate to him/her, and work to get them elected?

The Lawyers & Lobbyists sector is one that always jumps out at me, as it's the one that includes lobbyists and those who work for lobbyists, and it's going 3 to 1 for Obama.
Obviously, they're not thinking an Obama administration is going to put Washington Lobbyists out of business.

Open Secrets, there are many reasons to vote for or support a candidate. I work in a WS company that just went bankrupt and have contributed to Obama's campain because I believe that his election is best for the country and my son's future.

The fact that it could cause my employer to make less money than it otherwise could have was not part of my considerations.

I may be naive, but I hope that is the way most people would think.

If You were The Boss... which team would you hire?
>
> With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts,
> stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high
> prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage
> crises, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an unusually
> critical election year.
>
> Let's look at the educational background of the
> candidates and see what they bring to the job:
>
> Obama:
> Occidental College - Two years.
> Columbia University - B.A. political science with a
> specialization in international relations.
> Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
>
> Biden:
> University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in
> political science.
> Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
>
> vs.
>
> McCain:
> United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 out of 899
> (meaning that, like George Bush, McCain was at the bottom of
> his class)
>
>
> Palin:
> Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
> North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
> University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
> Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
> University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism
>
> Now, which team are you going to hire to lead the most
> influential nation in the world?
>
>
>
>
>

I may be naive, but I hope that is the way most people would think.

It's long been said that the American voter votes his pocket book.

It's long been said because it's long been true.

It would appear that Judy Malone is about as computer savvy as I am.

Why should anyone listen to someone who can't figure out how to delete all the '>' marks when they cut & paste somebody else's thoughts, instead of typing out their own?

...and furthermore...

updated 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Some of John McCain's and Barack Obama's biggest fundraisers are executives from the stricken financial services industry, which will need all the help it can get from whoever wins the White House.

Merrill Lynch & Co.'s chief executive, for example, has raised more than $500,000 for McCain's campaign. Obama has received at least $1.5 million collected by three senior executives at Lehman Brothers.
...
Wall Street-based firms were among the most active at "bundling" contributions for the two candidates.

Three executives from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have raised at least half a million dollars for Obama. That firm is Obama's top source of campaign money overall; its employees have contributed more than $690,000 to his campaign, according to the center.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26760673

I can't understand. If the rich pay most of the taxes, how can they stomach what is happening on Wall Street and with all the bailouts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4cK06nCtlU

McCain has intimate personal experience with greed and mismanagement!

Remember the Savings and Loan scandal? Greed and mismanagement and McCain one of the original Keating Five!

He talks about fixing corruption! What a freaking hypocrit! Both he and Palin – corrupt liars!

A huge cause for where we are today!

No thanks McCain; we're not taking your Bridge to Nowhere! Take Palin and your 83 Wall Street Lobbyists working on your campaign and jump off the bridge!

Shame on McCain

corproate donors donate both sides. USUALLY they prefer to donate the most to those who will support their world-view the most, but in an election where Congressional republicans are losing the popularity polls by more than 2 to 1, its not surprising that the Democratic candidate is getting a larger share of contributions than usual. No doubt Obama will be nice who donated a lot of money, but at least he's cut the national PAC money out of the Dem's financial obligations, both for himself, and the Party-as-a-whole.

Obama represents constituents of the left -- the 90% Common Population; whereas John McCain represents constituents of the right -- the 10% Elite Capitalists. When are people ever going to learn. Republicans and Democrats are not equal. The only equality the left's Democrats have with the right's Republicans is through their mass numbers and when the left is too frightened to use their mass numbers, there is no equality.

any links/sites?

So Martha.., if 90% of the people in America are "on the left" as you believe, and judging from your postings, you think the Democrats are much more to the left than the Repubs, how is it that the 10% you think represents the Republican total keeps outvoting the 90%??

How's that even possible?

It reminds me of the people who keep whining that the overwhelming force of the 4 million member NRA keeps outvoting the 140 million voters who are not NRA members, so they don't get the gun bans they hope for.

I think you forgot one. I could be wrong -- it's been a while -- but I'm pretty sure Slade Gorton was a lobbyist for Safeco Insurance after he left the Senate in 2000. Safeco is now owned by Liberty Mutual, so it may be hard to figure out which one to pin on him.

Obama is tied to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who invested in his campaign, also big funders of Senator Christopher Dodd on the Senate Banking Committee since 1980. Obama had considered Dodd for VP but dropped in favor of Joe Biden.

JOHN MCCAIN FOUGHT HIS WHOLE LIFE FOR DEREGULATING EVERYTHING - BANKS, BABY FORMULA COMPANIES, BIG OIL, ETC.

NOW HE IS LYING AND SAYING HE WANTS TO REGULATE. DON'T TRUST HIM. HE IS AS BAD AS DICK CHENEY. HE WILL SAY ANY LIE TO GET ELECTED.

LOL

Jiss
www.anonymize.us.tc

LOL, McBush is the epitome of Wall Street Greed. What a joke. At this point I am surprised anyone believes anything McBush says.

Sarah
www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com

My God... I am just so disgusted with the republicans. How can they walk down the streets knowing what they have done to this country? How can the people of this country let them get away with it? How is it that they HAVE THE GALL to put up someone like John McCain for president when his right hand man Phil Gramm created most of the WORST problems we see in this country today? I just want Phil Gramm and John McCain to answer one question. How many kids in this country went to bed hungry last night because of your past actions and legislation? God help you both...

Maverick is just an euphemistic term for someone who would change their tune with the toss of a penny. No foundation, no policies and no scruples. As my father used to say, a mans color can be judged by the color of those around him. Talk about 'flip flop's'. Senator is better than a fish out of water.

@ attl: Actually, a 'Maverick' in this sense is defined as follows:
1mav·er·ick
Pronunciation: \ˈmav-rik, ˈma-və-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Samuel A. Maverick †1870 American pioneer who did not brand his calves
Date: 1867
1: an unbranded range animal ; especially : a motherless calf
2: an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party

What you're describing is more of a 'reprobate'.
That would be someone like the person described below.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "You were asked, 'Is he ready?' You said, 'I think he can be ready but right now, I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'"

Joe Biden: "I think that I stand by the statement."

Narrator: "And what does he say about John McCain?" Biden: "I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off."

Let's be fair here. They call themselves "Republican" but are they really? I tend to call them Neocons because they don't really embrace the old Republican values - small government, personal responsibility, small-town values, etc. I'd hate to lump together a whole set of people simply because some of them went crazy.

Oh KB, Read this if you have the guts. McCain may have FORMER lobbiest on his staff but OBAMA has REAL crooks, You know, the heads of Fannie and Freddie? Who took down about 110 MILLION

On May 23, 2006, as a jury in Houston deliberated the case against top Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, a little-known regulatory agency in Washington, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), released a study with the dryly bureaucratic title “Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae.” The document received far less attention than the news from Enron, but its conclusions were stunning. In meticulous detail, it outlined a culture of corruption at the Federal National Mortgage Association — better known as Fannie Mae — that rivals the most serious corporate scandals in recent years. In this case, however, the main players are Washington insiders — some of them prominent veterans of the Clinton administration — and the scandal’s effects could ripple through Congress for years.

Fannie Mae is the biggest single source of money for mortgages in the United States. From 1998 to 2004, the years covered by the OFHEO investigation, it was headed by former Clinton budget director Franklin Raines, whose top management team included former Clinton Justice Department official Jamie Gorelick, sometimes mentioned as a future attorney general in a Democratic administration. During that period, the report says, Raines and his team grossly overstated Fannie Mae’s earnings — to the tune of $10.6 billion — for the purpose of paying themselves big bonuses. “By deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings targets,” the report says, “senior management maximized the bonuses and other executive compensation they received, at the expense of shareholders.”

In doing so, the report says, Raines and his team steered Fannie Mae far afield from its original mission, transforming it from a stable business into a risky one. Fannie Mae has its roots in the New Deal, when it was established to increase the amount of money available for mortgages. Over the years, its main business has been to issue debt and then use the proceeds to buy mortgages from lenders, allowing those lenders to give out new mortgages. Originally a government agency, Fannie Mae went private in 1968, with the goal of “increasing the availability and affordability of homeownership for low-, moderate-, and middle-income Americans,” according to its mission statement.

But Fannie Mae is not just any private institution. It is congressionally chartered, meaning its existence is established in law, it does not have to pay state and local income taxes, and it is not subject to bankruptcy laws. It can borrow money at a lower rate than anyone else except the federal government itself. Given all that, there is a public perception that Fannie Mae is a rock-solid government institution. “There is an implied guarantee,” says Sen. John Sununu, a member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee who has sponsored legislation to reform Fannie Mae. “Investors think they are the next best thing to Treasuries.”...

According to the report, Raines became obsessed with propping up Fannie Mae’s earnings per share, or EPS, even if he had to use creative accounting to make it happen. Raines set a series of increasingly higher EPS goals that, if met, would trigger bonuses for the executive team that far surpassed what they received in salary....

It worked. Fannie Mae met its EPS goals, and Raines rewarded his top executives — and most of all himself — with unheard-of amounts of money.

Even though his salary never topped $1 million, Raines’s total compensation shot from $6.48 million in 1998 to $8.52 million in 1999, to $13.89 million in 2000, to $18.86 million in 2001, to $18.20 million in 2002, to $24.15 million in 2003, all on the strength of EPS bonuses. Investigators found that of the $90.12 million Raines was paid in that six-year period, more than $52 million came from EPS bonuses.

But I guess this dosn't matter does it? You koolaid drinkers make me sick

Who is the eilitist?

According to the report, Raines became obsessed with propping up Fannie Mae’s earnings per share, or EPS, even if he had to use creative accounting to make it happen. Raines set a series of increasingly higher EPS goals that, if met, would trigger bonuses for the executive team that far surpassed what they received in salary....

It worked. Fannie Mae met its EPS goals, and Raines rewarded his top executives — and most of all himself — with unheard-of amounts of money.

Even though his salary never topped $1 million, Raines’s total compensation shot from $6.48 million in 1998 to $8.52 million in 1999, to $13.89 million in 2000, to $18.86 million in 2001, to $18.20 million in 2002, to $24.15 million in 2003, all on the strength of EPS bonuses. Investigators found that of the $90.12 million Raines was paid in that six-year period, more than $52 million came from EPS bonuses.

Gorelick’s situation was similar. OFHEO found that she took home $26.46 million in the period from 1998 to 2002 (she left in that year, so she wasn’t there for the entire period under investigation). Of that figure, nearly $15 million came from EPS bonuses.

Of course, it wasn’t legit. “Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and hit announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter,” the OFHEO report says. “Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by [Fannie Mae’s] senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management.”

In other words, they cooked the books. And to make matters worse, according to OFHEO, when regulators began to catch on to what was happening, Raines and his team then “sought to interfere” with the OFHEO investigation by trying to get Congress to start up a separate probe of OFHEO. Fannie Mae also lobbied Congress to cut OFHEO’s funds unless it got rid of the top official in charge of investigating Fannie Mae.

Um, Obama may not have as many FORMER lobbiests but why does he need them when he has the bosses. Looky who his main economic advisers are!
Looky looky, who has the cookie

According to the report, Raines became obsessed with propping up Fannie Mae’s earnings per share, or EPS, even if he had to use creative accounting to make it happen. Raines set a series of increasingly higher EPS goals that, if met, would trigger bonuses for the executive team that far surpassed what they received in salary....

It worked. Fannie Mae met its EPS goals, and Raines rewarded his top executives — and most of all himself — with unheard-of amounts of money.

Even though his salary never topped $1 million, Raines’s total compensation shot from $6.48 million in 1998 to $8.52 million in 1999, to $13.89 million in 2000, to $18.86 million in 2001, to $18.20 million in 2002, to $24.15 million in 2003, all on the strength of EPS bonuses. Investigators found that of the $90.12 million Raines was paid in that six-year period, more than $52 million came from EPS bonuses.

Gorelick’s situation was similar. OFHEO found that she took home $26.46 million in the period from 1998 to 2002 (she left in that year, so she wasn’t there for the entire period under investigation). Of that figure, nearly $15 million came from EPS bonuses.

Of course, it wasn’t legit. “Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and hit announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter,” the OFHEO report says. “Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by [Fannie Mae’s] senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management.”

In other words, they cooked the books. And to make matters worse, according to OFHEO, when regulators began to catch on to what was happening, Raines and his team then “sought to interfere” with the OFHEO investigation by trying to get Congress to start up a separate probe of OFHEO. Fannie Mae also lobbied Congress to cut OFHEO’s funds unless it got rid of the top official in charge of investigating Fannie Mae.

Thanks for double, triple and quadruple posting your cut & paste.

Oh, get a life. You are so judgement. You don't know why that person didn't delete all the > marks. Maybe they didn't have time. They were sharing a thought that perhaps they copied from an email they wrote or even if it was someone else's, big deal.

This is important information for sure. But what does this have to do with Obama? Does he have Raines in any advisory position in his campaign? I'm seriously interested.

Amala, I believe you mean "judgementAL"...

Somebody has time to peruse internet message boards, but is too busy to put their cut & paste in a readable format?

I'd guess "lazy" before "busy".
That's my judgement.

As far as campaign donations go, the same people give money to both candidates. Becasue remember it doesn't matter who wins. It just matters that they win. Like Yojimbo. He lets the two sides fight it out while he befriends both.

That's the myth. Yeah, rich people may pay more tax as individuals, but combined it is the middle class and low income households who really pay most of the tax. Besides which, many of the rich are probably investors in a lot these companies. If Washington wants to keep my ship from going under, why would I stop them?

If I were the boss I wouldn't hire any of those. I would hire Dr. Ron Paul, because he is note supported by lobbyists!

Average Joe American,

It was Clinton, your guy, who signed that bill. And...it was his right hand man, Rubin, who endorsed it. Give credit where credit is due.

The collective point that has been made in theses comments is that both parties are corrupted to the core.When Americans see that they need new political parties to keep things in balance, then we will see true change in governance. Until then people will just bicker about which party is less corrupt. UGH!!!

Well said, balance.

The government needs to change hands, and I don't mean just change from the right hand back to the left hand again, either!

When DemoPublicans & RepubliCrats see that Americans are finally willing to put people from other parties, or independents into the offices they've come to think of as rightfully their's, then there will be major changes taking place in the DemoPublican & RepubliCrat parties and in how they approach governance. And not until then.

McInsane and Palinmaniac are pointing fingers and boiling mad at Wall Street and Congress for the failures and probable collapse of the system. Never mind that McSlime was a leader for the Commerce committee, and his Chief Economic Advisor was Graham who actually used the system to deregulate the system and allow the greed that has caused this problem in the first place. He is not acting presidential. On the other hand, Obama has approached this with a cool hand and is focused on allowing the system to fix itself and allowing congress to keep the failure from occurring. Obama has not been in congress long enough to have any blame. All the blame should be McSlime's and his deregulation of Wall Street so that his cronies would make money.

Hey So Martha,

It seems you (like many Repubs) can't/won't look past the tissue thin top layer of any issue or discussion. This is clearly why right wing media gets you to believe, support and chant whatever info/talking points they feed you with little to no evidence to substantiate it any of it!
Many on the left don't vote as MarthaA stated "when the left is too frightened to use their mass numbers, there is no equality." Republicans are great at getting their people to vote... by hook or crook!

I have to laugh every time one of you media-fed fools assumes, just because someone doesn't jump on YOUR bandwagon, that they automatically belong on THAT OTHER bandwagon! :^)

I question a lefty on some nonsense she posted, so I must be a righty?
There's My Conclusion..., Let Me Jump To It!!

Talk about what "the media gets you to believe"...
You'd never know there were Libertarians & Greens anywhere on the planet from the way you people act, but that's because your Right Wing & Left Wing Media won't let you in on the fact that there are alternatives to the DemoPublicans and the RepubliCrats, and even Mother Jones won't help you in uncovering those facts.

When will people realize that the political world encompasses more than two dimensional space?
It's not an 'either-or' proposition!
And I'm 'Neither-Nor'.

And just so you'll have the facts on hand, the next time someone wants to spout nonsense about what percentage of Americans would be considered Liberals, this comes from that bastion of right wing conservatism, the New York Times:
At a time when Democrats have made gains after years in which Republicans have dominated Washington, young Americans appear to lean slightly more to the left than the general population: 28 percent described themselves as liberal, compared with 20 percent of the nation at large. And 27 percent called themselves conservative, compared with 32 percent of the general public.
www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/washington/27poll.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182964768-sme99wicr+Uge7tlIKRvoQ&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

20%, vs. 32% who call themselves Conservatives.

Plain enough to suit you?
Direct enough to expose Martha's 90% nonsense for what it is?

Still, it's just another prime example of media trying to constrain the political debate to the two dimensional, left-right, conservative-liberal model.

People just aren't 2 dimensional creatures, Zeke.
It would be good for you to notice that sometime soon, even if the New York Times doesn't want you to.

Considering their small proportion of the population here, doesn't it surprise you how many of these top advisers are of the same persuasion, as around the White House?
Diligent students of names will note the disproportionate number, but then may well think - Ah, of course, McCain too is just the Scottish adaptation of Cain, with all the implictions of that.

This was a great article. Clearly from some of the posts there are folks that still don't get the point that PACs represent the CEOs and board members of these corrupt industry giants, and that it is lobbyists that help funnel that money to campaigns and candidates. Since McCain receives PAC money, and Obama doesn't, who is really in the back-pocekt of corrupt corporate America?
This article clearly shows the corruption and greed that McCain is truly all about, with nearly half of those who are lobbyists in his campaign having direct ties to the same corrupt financial entities that are even now crumbling and taking the lives of the American worker with them? The same man that has recently taken to making claims that he's for the "workers", but has never been for them during his many years of serving in Congress. That's not what you call a "maverick", and that is definitely NOT what will help bring real "change" to America.

I'd much rather vote for the guy who is receiving funds from "individuals" in these companies. You know, the REAL "workers", who want better lives, fair pay, good healthcare, and the ability to save money to one day retired before they die. The little guy who wants to be able to keep his house, or one day even buy one, and then live out the American dream. Obama is the man to do that, and the lies that he receives more money from these same companies than McCain is just another example of how out of touch the Republicans and the McCain campaign are with reality.

Every day someone from the RNC or the McCain campaign is out there blasting Obama because he receives more money from these corrupt companies than McCain does. What they don't tell the truth about is that McCain receives his funds from these companies through PACs and lobbyists, which this article clearly shows he's in bed with. What they don't tell you is that it is individuals in these companies, the real workers, that contribute what they can afford to Obama's campaign. But the Repugs twist the facts and bundle the totals of these individual donations together and then try to spread false tales of how Obama is getting more money than McCain, and then tell you that this "isn't change we can believe in". Well actually it is change we can believe in, because it shows that Obama is working for the every day man and woman, not for corrupt corporations and CEOs. Shame McSame can't say the same thing with his track record.

Oh and Judy Malone, I loved the educational resume breakdown. I showed that to some of my friends who have been on the fence for a while now, and after also pointing out G.W. Bush's education and work resume, they have finally decided to vote for Obama. Great job! :)

Geraldo Manchego informs us:
Diligent students of names ... may well think - Ah, of course, McCain too is just the Scottish adaptation of Cain, with all the implictions of that.

Diligent students of names might just visit ancestry.com, to discover the facts about the name's origins.

McCain
Irish: variant of Scottish McKean.

McKean Name Meaning and History
Scottish: Anglicized form of Gaelic: Mac Iain ‘son of Ian’, a Gaelic form of John.

Translate it to it's fully English equivalent, John McCain becomes John Johnson.

Sorry to burst your little fantasy bubble, Geraldo.

Ask yourself whether physiologically he fits the Celtic pattern or the other.

Ask yourself whether, factually, your claim regarding the origin of that family name was accurate.

Zeke Blatz wrote:This is clearly why right wing media gets you to believe, support and chant whatever info/talking points they feed you with little to no evidence to substantiate it any of it!
Many on the left don't vote as MarthaA stated "when the left is too frightened to use their mass numbers, there is no equality."

OK Zeke. Let's examine that assertion alongside some "evidence" to see if it's substantiated. Shall we?
And let's avoid "The Right Wing Media" in so doing.

We'll start with WikiAnswers.com:
Turnout rates among those eligible to vote have averaged 55.3 percent in presidential elections and 39.4 percent in midterm elections for the past three decades. There has been variation, of course, with turnout as low as 51.7 percent in 1996 and rebounding to 60.3 percent by 2004. Turnout in the most recent election, in fact, is on a par with the low-60 percent turnout rates of the 1950s and '60s."

Many folks have little regard for the accuracy of the web's "Wiki" sites.
So:
Let's turn to the Washington Post. (The newspaper that brought down Tricky Dick Nixon)
The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate reported yesterday that more than 122 million people voted in the November election, a number that translates into the highest turnout -- 60.7 percent -- since 1968.

President Bush officially won 62,028,719 votes, which was 50.8 percent of the ballots cast and 11.5 million more than he won in 2000. Sen John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) took 48.3 percent, or 59,028,550 votes. That was about 8 million more than Al Gore won in 2000.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10492-2005Jan14.html

So let's just examine the 2004 election, since the Democrats managed to turn out 8 million more voters for their candidate than they did in 2000. Let's see if the percentages support Martha's statements.

One source says a 60.7% turnout of eligible voters.
The other says 60.3%

Split the difference if you like, and say 60.5%

Now, let's go with the ridiculous assumption that EVERYONE who didn't vote WOULD have voted for the Democrat, because they were the Frightened Liberals Martha describes.
Obviously, the Democrat would have won.

But could just 10% of all the eligible voting population manage to elect a president, if 60.5% of that population actually DID vote?
Surely you can figure that out without any more help...
but just in case:

This site (United States Elections Project) tells us that there are roughly 203 million eligible voters in the US, as of 2004.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm

So with a bit over 60% turnout, Bush shouldn't have gotten much over 20 million votes if he turned out every one of the 10% Martha claims are his due, and he should have lost in a landslide with Kerry getting over 100 million votes (assuming Martha knows what she's talking about).

Do you really BUY the idea that 39+% of the eligible voters are Liberals too frightened to vote?
Or, would you more likely suspect they are, by and large, people who feel that which group gets elected doesn't make enough difference for them to even bother?

If 39% of the eligible voters ARE Liberals who don't vote because they're too frightened, then they don't deserve to have a say in American politics.

At least get your facts straight before posting this crap

Am I the only one who remembers McCain's involvement in the Keating 5 scandal? That bank scandal was one of the most serious banking scandals in recent history, yet McCain et.al seem to have conveniently forgotten that black page in his past. It also required the government step in to support the banking industry with millions of dollars.

Nope. You're not.

I'm old enough to remember McCain and 4 Democratic Senators being accused of corruption.

One Democrat severely reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee for interfering in an investigation.

Two Democrats criticized by the Senate Ethics committee for improper actions in intervering in the investigation.

John Glenn & John McCain cleared of any impropriety, but their judgement questioned.

That about cover it?

If you want to talk about judgement..... How about this....

1) Past 10 years Obama received the second most amounts of money from Fannie second to Chris Dodd. Chris Dodd accumulated his wealth over 10 years and Obama over 3 years. He did well there.

2) Obama was against the Capital gains tax then for it "if economy doesn't do too well." Should have learned and thought about it before speaking.... a bit dicey to do things like that as a president...

3) Was sitting in Reverent Wright's church for 20 years and didn't know what he was preaching.... I go to church, and reflecting my own experiences, only three explanations are plausible... he slept through all or most of Rev Wright's sermons or he knew it but stays there because Rev Wright can be very valuable for his political career or he believed what the Rev preached. I will give a benefit of doubt on either the first or second, "cause I don't think he agrees with the Rev.

Many more facts are there, but no space or time.... Judgement is an issue, than should be matched one to one with the Senator McCain, and looks like Senator Obama is quite short on his wise ones...

lucero1946,

Did you not read mine and other remarks previous to yours? Once more, IT WAS CLINTON who signed the Gramm-Leach Act of 1999, one of YOUR guys!

Yours and others out front loathing fro Bush and Repub's in general discredits you and your inane arguments.

I think you fight a losing battle when you have to constantly pick fights with each other. We are in a situation few people alive (if any still alive)have ever witnessed. Talk about Gov. Palin being a heart-beat away from the Presidency. We are a heart-beat away from China calling in the marker on this country, They can afford to buy out our mortgage debt, putting us on the same level as everyone else in the UN. Do we really want that in the future? Or do we want to make our own future

And what does this have to do with Obama? Raines is not part of Obama's team.

I am so sick and tired of people trying to blame Obama for other people's actions.

Go back do some more research and this time please take the time to find something that is directly related to Obama.

UHHHHH......MCCAIN AND OBAMA BOTH HAVE MONEY FROM THEM, NOT JUST OBAMA. OH AND FOR MCCAIN SUPPORTERS, MCCAIN USES A TELEPROMTER* ALSO. STUPID REDNECKS

Yesterday saw a statement by McCain, who made a very angry statement to Obama, that I have ever heard. This in my opinion blow below the belt, and i don't know how respond Obama.
Address: http://tubedirect.net/index.php?q=Cindy-Michaels-inair
Highly recommended!

Could you please now populate a list of Obama's lobbyist members on his campaign? Or would that just be to ehtical for a journalist?

I am surprised at the naivity of most of you left-winged bloggers. You truly don't understand destruction that democrats have reeked on this country. It was the democrats that forced these regulations on banks to loan to those unable to afford them. McCain fought against it. The Dems are the cause of our economic failure of the middle class AND have profited while it happened. Especially Dodd, Obama and Barney. How do you think Obama got millions of dollars in his personal bank account when he's never run a business. McCains wealth is legitimate cash from a successful beer distributorship. Wise up and do your homework. Republicans have always been better for the country, have always given much more to charities than the Dems, and have always generated most of the jobs in this great country. If Obama gets in office, you will see the economy deteriorate fast (greed trumps education), even with the 700B gift from Bush to start with.

It is amazing at all the Jewish names and Jewish Wall Street people that I see. Vote for Obama for "Main Street", not Wall Street greedies.

Wow, why would you even care what race or religious background they come from. This is the USA 2008, pull your head out

"You truly don't understand destruction that democrats have reeked on this country. It was the democrats that forced these regulations on banks to loan to those unable to afford them. McCain fought against it. The Dems are the cause of our economic failure of the middle class AND have profited while it happened."

Um, excuse me, but you're misplacing the blame. I work for Wells Fargo - you may have heard of my employer recently, since they're one of the few big banks that's not in trouble at the moment (to put it mildly!). They had to comply with all the same banking regulations as every other bank, so why do you think they're still in good shape, and so many of their competitors are dropping like flies?

Hint - it's not the fault of the legislators... You won't find Wells Fargo's name attached to any of the lobbyists on that list up there, and they didn't get any special regulatory treatment.

As my employer clearly shows, it's possible to comply with the mortgage-lending regulations, turn a profit, and not lend to people who won't be able to make their payments. The problem is with the greedy ones now failing, who lent without proof of income for example, or without many of the other sensible and reasonable criteria for determining the loan applicant's ability to repay the loan. And the greedy ones who did that were doing so because more recent *deregulation* allowed it, and they could get away with selling their junk "securities" to someone else. When the borrower/home owner couldn't make the payments, it wasn't the loan originator who had to handle the default, it was the loan servicer who had (irresponsibly - without due diligence) bought the loan from the irresponsible loan originator.

Learning a little about how all of this mess worked on the inside of the giant banking corporations - you'll be able to make better judgements about who deserves blame for the mess, and how it should be fixed. IMNSHO the solution should be to regulate all the banks so they *have* to follow the same business models and practices as the banks that are still strong and healthy in this climate.

Oh, and by the way, I couldn't get a mortgage loan from my own employer back in '01 when I bought my house, and I couldn't get a refinance from them either in '03. See, I'd had a bankruptcy back in '97 and my credit wasn't good enough. I went to fly-by-night-mortgage-brokers both times, and they found me loans, but they didn't like me at all. I demanded a fixed-rate loan, and wouldn't buy a bigger house than I could afford. They *really* wanted to make more money by getting me into an ARM for a much higher principle, but I knew enough (thanks, WF, for the education, even though you couldn't lend to me) not to be suckered by those unscrupulous greedy people. Instead, of being gullible, I played several of them off against each other, and went with the one who got me the best deal. My 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is at 5.5%. My 1000 sq ft bungalow is tiny, but I'll be living in it long after the kids are grown and gone and I'm retired.

I'd like to know if any lobbyists work for Obama.

So David, maybe my koolaid is spiked but, is the answer to continue to deregulate these greedy political policy makers posing as conscientious administrators?

John, could we stick to the IMPORTANT subject matter, please???

Thanks Judy!!! I just witnessed a Republican Party endorsement on TV that suggested that Obama lacks the "experience" to handle the truly overwhelming conditions OUR future president is going to inherit and all I could think was, Barack is not a stupid man. McBush on the other hand. . . . Thanks again.

let's see, does anyone remember the term "electoral votes"

This was the missing link I needed for my college paper. Thank You!

McCain sounds like he is running for student body president. Very juvenile campaign he is running. Rather than have a thought of his own on anything he continues to keep this very nasty attitude towards Obama during the campaign (and it gets worse as it goes on). Would this be how he would be if president of US? If he sees things getting tough would he immediately get to his nasty and negative attitude (and short tempered attitude). Not good for United States to have a man like this for president.

Think about this--Sarah Palin as president (talk about high school)