«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Wall Street vs. The Democrats: Don't Hold Your Breath

On Monday the House and Senate began considering the $700 billion gift to Wall Street otherwise known as the bailout package, presented to them in recent days by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. How will it fare on the floor of Congress? A clue to what we can expect can be found in the congressional response to the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which helped pave the way for the current economic crisis.

This now infamous piece of legislation repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act, passed in 1933 in response to the banking collapse of the Great Depression. Glass-Steagall enforced a firewall between investment banks, commercial banks, and insurance companies, in order separate high-flying Wall Street risk-takers from the banks where Americans keep their money in checking and savings accounts.

Phil Gramm, then a Republican senator from Texas, and recently an economic advisor to the McCain campaign, took the lead in undoing Glass-Steagall, a move the financial services industry had been lobbying for since at least the 1980s. (James Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa, introduced the House version of the bill. He is now a leader of Republicans for Obama.) Bill Clinton was also an enthusiastic supporter of banking deregulation. And it was Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin who brokered the compromise that allowed the legislation to move forward in Congress—shortly before he left the administration to join Citigroup. (In November 1999, Mother Jones published a piece on the dangerous implications of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, under the headline "Robert Rubin Rewrites the Rules.")

How Democrats in Congress dealt with Gramm-Leach-Bliley has now become a subject of debate. The final version of the legislation won nearly universal bipartisan support and passed by a wide margin in both houses of Congress in November 1998. The Senate's 90 yea votes included those of such prominent Democrats as Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, and Harry Reid, along with VP nominee Joe Biden.

Some, by way of trying to absolve Democrats of responsibility for passing this measure, have argued that the vote on the earlier Senate version of the bill (before the final conference version) was 54 to 44, divided along partisan lines, with all of the above Dems voting against it. This is true—though at the time most Democrats' objections had nothing to do with preserving the Glass-Steagall firewall. In the end, only nine senators, including Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Barbara Mikulski, and Paul Wellstone, along with Independent Bernie Sanders, refused to lend their names to the final bill, regardless of how inevitable its passage was.

But that was then. Now one question is whether Democrats will be as friendly to Wall Street as many were during the 1998 debate. As the current debate gets under way, prominent progressive populists are trying to shape the policy discussion.

On Sunday Clinton-era Labor Secretary Robert Reich, outlined the demands Congress should make of Wall Street in return for the massive bailout that's currently under consideration. He suggests Congress mandate that "Wall Street executives and directors of Wall Street firms relinquish their current stock options and this year's other forms of compensation, and agree to future compensation linked to a rolling five-year average of firm profitability. Why should taxpayers feather their already amply-feathered nests?" And, as part of any bailout legislation, he writes, Congress should require that "the government (i.e. taxpayers) gets an equity stake in every Wall Street financial company proportional to the amount of bad debt that company shoves onto the public. So when and if Wall Street shares rise, taxpayers are rewarded for accepting so much risk."

In a recent op-ed Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) made a similar point, suggesting that "that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies' stock goes up."

...If the government is going to save companies from bankruptcy, the taxpayers of this country should be rewarded for assuming the risk by sharing in the gains that result from this government bailout.

Detailing a four-point plan to address the financial crisis, Sanders notes that "legislation must be passed which undoes the damage caused by excessive deregulation. That means reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were ripped down in 1999." Among other things, he advocates levying a "five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers." According to Sanders, this would raise $300 billion in revenue.

As Congress hammers out the terms of the Wall Street bailout, one that puts US taxpayers at significant financial risk it's worth looking to the past when considering the future. In the current financial crisis, congressional Democrats—not to mention a prospective Democratic president—will need to have steel in their spines to support the interests of Main Street when they clash with the interests of Wall Street. And if they maintain the Clinton triangulation approach of the 1990s, average Americans will once again have no one in their corner.

UPDATE: Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) just issued a statement expressing "serious reservations about the Administration's bailout proposal."

The structure of the plan appears designed to maximize returns for Wall Street and minimize protections for the taxpayer.

The Administration’s plan completely eviscerates the concept of moral hazard. It would enrich the Wall Street executives whose reckless investments caused the financial crisis. The taxpayer is being asked to risk billions to protect the bonuses of investment bankers.

There was public outrage when the CEOs of Countrywide, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars after causing billions of dollars of losses. But what President Bush and Secretary Paulson are proposing is worse: the taxpayer will be funding million-dollar payouts on Wall Street.

Congress needs to insist on firm limits on executive compensation. No financial institution that gets federal relief should pay its CEO more than $2 million annually. That’s over ten times what the Secretary of Treasury makes.

Congress should also insist on greater financial transparency. We should not give bailouts to firms that continue to conceal their balance sheets from investors and the government.

I support intervention to protect the functioning of our capital markets. But we need to consider alternatives to the President’s plan. There are other approaches that could provide more relief more quickly at less cost to the taxpayer. While we need to move quickly, we should not be stampeded into enacting a flawed proposal at huge costs to the taxpayer. We need to expeditiously evaluate a range of options and enact the one with the greatest likelihood of success and the least exposure to the taxpayer.

Photo by flickr user epicharmus used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

I wish the information in this piece was common knowledge to all voters. Maybe we would have better democrats in Congress and a better presidential nominee.

Just because it is beautiful doesn't mean it is good.

Posted by: Liberal Larry on 09/21/08 at 8:34 PM Respond

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wall Street is putting its money behind Democrat Barack Obama for president who has received $7.9 million in contributions from the securities and investment industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.His opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, banked a little under $4.2 million.Overall, Democrats garnered 57 percent of the contributions from the securities and investment industry. If that trend continued through November, it would mark the first time since 1994 that they have drawn more Wall Street cash than Republicans in a presidential election year, according to the data complied by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Vote for Ralph Nader for real change.

Posted by: Ralph on 09/21/08 at 9:02 PM Respond

Ralph, a vote for Ralph Nader is not quite a vote for McCain, but it's sure a vote to risk continuing Republican government. It would be better to have Obama win, and keep him aware that without the liberal base, the same people who are tempted to support Nader when Democrats are Republican-lite. Don't panic over the finance industry money for Obama. A lot of that is cubicle dwellers. If you donate over $200, your information has to be reported, so if you work for a bank, your donation appears to have come from the banking industry. It would be much better to see who the execs and PACs donate to.

Posted by: Eric Ferguson on 09/21/08 at 9:44 PM Respond

Eric, Nader is getting McCain supporters in Florida, giving Obama the victory. Ron Paul told his troops to support Nader. A lot of Paleoconservatives are unhappy with the neocons Bush and McCain. The neocons, according to them, are nothing but modern day Marxists.

Posted by: Ralph on 09/21/08 at 9:48 PM Respond

Responding to the subject of the post, let's use this emergency and the bailout that conservatives want more than liberals do to demand some changes. Let's restore Glass-Steagal. Let's repeal the bankruptcy bill. Demand business interests get out of the way of the Employee Free Choice Act. Let's restore lifeline checking accounts to save the poor from predatory check cashing services and payday lenders. Let's restore usury laws. Let's demand an increase in funding for low income housing. Have a stimulus package in the form of infrastructure improvements.

No, Republican/conservatives/Blue Dog Democrats haven't supported these things before, but let's not lose sight of the fact that they want this bailout much more than liberals do.

Posted by: Eric Ferguson on 09/21/08 at 9:51 PM Respond

I have no objection to McCain supporters switching to Obama. I might not even care about Nader votes in states Obama wins by big margins. I even voted for Nader myself in 2000 to send a message about my disgust with Republican-lite, but I lived in Minnesota. I wouldn't have tried it in a state Gore wasn't sure to win. So if you want to vote for Nader in Illinois or Hawaii, feel free, but please don't do that where Obama isn't sure to win. When the country is collapsing, that's no time for a protest vote.

Posted by: Eric Ferguson on 09/21/08 at 10:05 PM Respond

Ralph, a vote for Nader is wasted and had folks not voted for the malcontent last election, we wouldn't be sitting with Bush. Ralph Nader gave up his right to run for President, when he helped to elect Bush in 2004. The only choice we have is McCain or Obama, like it or lump it! I will vote for Obama because McSame is nothing more than another Bush term. Down with Neocons, Privatizers, and Rovian politics. America has had ENOUGH!

Posted by: cigi on 09/22/08 at 5:56 AM Respond

Cigi, it is hateful comments like yours that make Nader's Raiders even more determined to contribute money and votes to the change campaign of Nader. Nader is not even allowed in the debates. Vote Nader for real change.

Posted by: Ralph on 09/22/08 at 7:57 AM Respond

We are sunk folks.. Let the revolution begin!

Posted by: KansasLiberal on 09/22/08 at 8:01 AM Respond

Some Rich Dems. 8. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
$52.34 million
Together with her husband, financier Richard Blum, Feinstein claims a diversified portfolio that grew by $1.8 million, or an increase of just under 4 percent, since 2006.
The Californian lists assets with her husband that include ownership of all or part of numerous limited partnerships.
Among those, the Blum Family Partners, owned entirely by Blum, claims “over $1 million” in stock in RAE Systems, a manufacturer of chemical and radiation detection equipment. The fund also includes “over $1 million” in a real estate investment trust.
In addition, Feinstein lists a $5 million to $25 million investment in Carlton Hotel Properties in San Francisco and owns condos in both Tahoe City, Calif., and on Kauai in Hawaii, both valued at $1 million to $5 million.
Feinstein also lists at least $2 million in debt to Bank of America for two loans made to Blum Capital Partners

17. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
$18.71 million
The Californian’s net worth rose nearly 16 percent in 2007, adding $2.5 million to her personal wealth.
Among her assets, Pelosi lists a Norden, Calif., town house valued at $1 million to $5 million and a real estate investment in Napa, Calif., worth at least $500,000.
In addition, her husband owns a commercial property in San Francisco valued at $5 million to $25 million. In 2006, the property was listed as worth $1 million to $5 million, so that property alone added $4 million to Pelosi’s net worth last year.
The couple also owns a vineyard in St. Helena, Calif., valued at $5 million to $25 million.
The Speaker’s husband also increased tenfold his holdings in Apple Computer Inc. stock to at least $5 million, up from a minimum of $500,000 in 2006.
Pelosi and her husband also owe mortgage debt on several of their properties, including the vineyard, totaling at least $8.75 million.
Other debts listed by Pelosi include lines of credit totaling at least $3.5 million.

Posted by: Ralph on 09/22/08 at 8:11 AM Respond

I don't see how anyone who still thinks rationally can support any other candidate than Nader.

I like Obama. He's got a lot of style, he's intelligent, he's an idea man. But he works in the two party paradigm, and that system is broken... bad.

Nader, on the other hand, comes to the table with 40 years of public service and commitment to America. He is intimately familiar with the workings of our government and has a proven track record of being able to work within the system to change it.

If it weren't for Nader, the following items which are on his political action resume wouldn't have happened:

*Safe Drinking Water Act
*Clean Air Act
*Freedom of Information Act
*Environmental Protection Agency
*SeatBelts/AirBags/Tire Safety
*Consumer Product Safety Act
*Pension Protection Act
*Whistleblower Protection Act
*Safe Medical Device Act
*National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act
*Clean Water Act
*Occupational Health and Safety Administration

The first order of business is to halt the PDC debates until Nader gets a microphone on the stage. The PDC is dedicated to preventing 3rd party candidates from rising to the national scene. There is a general action planned for this Thursday, September 25. You can read more about it at www.votenader.org and I hope you will.

The time is now. Or never. Our nation is on the brink, we are playing with freefall, and we need to get Nader's ideas into the mix before it's too late.

Nader warned us about this current economic crisis in 2002... and you would have heard him calling for hearings about it except for one thing.

The national press and even progressive websites have a BLACKOUT on Ralph Nader. I didn't use to believe this but I am convinced that it's true. You never read a single word about Nader or his campaign in the newspapers and magazines. Even so-called "progressive" sites refuse to cover his campaign, even though he is on the ballot in 45 states and threatening to upend Obama's "purple state" strategy.

Why is this? What did Nader ever do to deserve this?

HE SPOKE TO POWER, that's what he did.

Now those powers are about to destroy our nation's economy and walk off with your money.

They blew your 401k money and now they're going to TAX YOU to pay it back. Are you GOING TO SIT DOWN FOR THAT?

I sure as hell hope not.

Nader '08... OPEN THE DEBATES, OPEN THEM NOW.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 09/22/08 at 10:38 AM Respond

Exactly!

Posted by: L.S. on 09/22/08 at 11:03 AM Respond

It would be better to have Obama win, and keep him aware that without the liberal base, the same people who are tempted to support Nader when Democrats are Republican-lite.

How'd that work out with Bill Clinton?

Seems I recall a whole lot of that same Liberal base calling him the best Republican president in decades.

"Keep him aware" won't do sh!t unless you convince the Dems that you actually WILL vote for a Nader or a McKinney when they insist on running a Republican-Lite. And how are you going to convince them, if you never actually carry through on the threat??

Liberals will NEVER get the Democrats to offer better candidates as long as they keep voting for whatever crap the party offers, out of a sense of fear of 'the other guy'.

Just as small government, non-interventionist fiscal Conservatives will NEVER get the Repubs to put up a candidate who really represents those views as long as they keep voting for the likes of Dubya, because they fear 'that other guy'.

Face it folks. The two big parties take your votes for granted, because you keep giving them your votes no matter what kind of sh!t they run.

The surest way to keep getting what we've been getting is to keep voting like we've been voting.

Logically, since the economy looks to be in tatters for a good while to come, no matter who gets elected (remember, Ron Paul warned us about this, while nobody else in either party would touch the issue...), this might just be the perfect time to 'sacrife' an election, make a point the Movers & Shakers in the Democratic party can't ignore, and let the Repubs take ALL the blame for the crap economy (even though the Dems are also heavily implicated in the problem).

Libertarian leaning Republicans could do the same to the Repub candidate, and don't you think that if the third parties & independent candidates got 30 or 40% of the votes cast this year that the DemoPublicans & RepubliCrats would furiously scramble to reorganize their parties to suit the way their voters were headed?

If you were running the party, wouldn't YOU??

Posted by: DemoPublicans One And All on 09/22/08 at 11:14 AM Respond

"When the system's collapsing its ... no time for a protest vote."

Ah, that is exactly the time. Why do you think it IS collapsing? Because there is no significant, populist / labor based / black based 3rd Party. Because the 'reasonable' liberals always voted Democrat. Throw them another life line, would you?

Posted by: Elydog on 09/22/08 at 11:37 AM Respond

" and don't you think that if the third parties & independent candidates got 30 or 40% of the votes cast this year"

And here is where your argument comes crashing down. Your assumption that 30-40% of people are intelligent enough to make a tough decision when presented with the facts belies an extreme overconfidence in the nation's educational system. Unfortunately, most of us who are intelligent enough to see the utter hopelessness of the two-party system are also too jaded to care about anything longer-term than keeping the courts balanced or keeping certain civil liberties from being stripped away from us. I, for one, am tempted to learn Mandarin and go take my share out of the Chinese economy. If I'm going to be stuck in a government with limited freedoms, I might as well at least live a middle class lifestyle.

Posted by: Mr. Hush on 09/22/08 at 11:43 AM Respond

Ron Paul was the best man. A vote for Nader is a vote for Obama. Vote away, give your vote away.

Posted by: andy on 09/22/08 at 1:08 PM Respond

I'd sure like to know why this debate is being conducted behind locked doors when it's We, the People being shanghied in this fiasco. Why wasn't CSPAN allowed in the room? Because all politicians are birds of a feather. Russia had its own corrupted form of Marxism and now we're seeing America's misguided version. Only the wealthy will profit. The rest of us will just be paying the bills until we march on Washington and throw them all in jail.

Posted by: Clay on 09/22/08 at 1:43 PM Respond

The problem with this reasoning is that by continuing to vote for either Republicans or Democrats, we will never get a real choice. It is clear from the facts emerging during this crisis that both Democrats and Republicans have contributed to the problem while collecting contributions from the very people and entities that they are supposed to be overseeing.

I do not want any more of George W. Bush, however, I'm not sure that my life will be significantly improved under an Obama presidency, especially if the investment firms and AIG are bailed out and funds are committed before the November election.

The help with mortgages/foreclosure, medical expenses not covered by insurance, job stablility, retirement (or lack thereof)is all too little too late for most of us -- while the fat cats are getting bailed out at our expense.

Why do people say Nader is crazy? (Because it discredits him and therefore his ideas?) He's been pointing these problems out for YEARS!

Posted by: Peggy on 09/22/08 at 2:08 PM Respond

Seems like Phil Gramm and his cronies are whining now ... doesn't it?

Posted by: Peggy on 09/22/08 at 2:13 PM Respond

So you vote for Nader and then what happens? Everyone says, "Uh-oh, look at all those Nader protest votes! We'd better make some changes in Government?"

Not gonna happen. McCain will simply carry on with the Bush agenda. So much for your Nader protest vote.

Posted by: Uncle Don on 09/22/08 at 2:23 PM Respond

Enough, already! Stop with the Nader stuff, will you? Get back to the problem at hand, which is stopping the morons from passing this piece of bailout trash. Precisely WHAT can we poor laughingstocks (at least to Bling Palin) do?

Posted by: Lairderg on 09/22/08 at 2:26 PM Respond

GUIDE FOR INDEPENDENT LIBERAL THINKING

Politicians are not entitled to anyone's vote.

Al Gore lost his home state. (He also won Florida and the popular vote.)

The shock doctrine works both ways.

The democratic Congress controls the agenda.

*Follow the money.*

Don't confuse an electoral victory with a movement victory.

The system won't change, because the other corporate party is in power.

Posted by: Liberal Larry on 09/22/08 at 2:28 PM Respond

This sure sounds like Trump Mcmain offer put the money up sell it back take profit out a few years latter of course writing off losses in between.

Posted by: guion on 09/22/08 at 2:36 PM Respond

"Ron Paul was the best man. A vote for Nader is a vote for Obama. Vote away, give your vote away."

WTF????

A vote for NADER is a vote for NADER.

PERIOD.

A vote for Obama is a vote for the SOS we've been suffering through for the last 7 and a half years.

The Democrats proved that they are worthy of the name "opposition party". WE GAVE them control of Congress in 2006 and they pissed it away.

Spineless, gutless, and clueless morons is what the Dems are. The REASON why they're not an "opposition party" is because THEY DON'T OPPOSE THE GOP. They're in the same business, that's all.

It's time to stop playing dumbsh*t and wake up, people. This game isn't going to last a whole lot longer and they are going to pull your money off the table.

I TRULY believe that both parties are complicit in this financial meltdown. The GOP made it possible by passing Gramm-whatever-whatever and the Dems made it possible by being totally, completely, and fully dysfunctional and derelict in stepping up to stop it.

I shouldn't post when I'm this angry, it just makes me angrier.

I think you all get the point, sorry for venting.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 09/22/08 at 2:37 PM Respond

I meant "un-worthy".

Also, did anyone see that the NASDAQ lost 4.15 PER CENT today?

Why all the Nader stuff? Because it's high time to fix this problem. The kids need to be sent to their rooms and the adults need to take over.

We need to do that so we don't run this nation over the cliff.

There's revolution in the air.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 09/22/08 at 2:41 PM Respond

Anybody care to have
Donald Trump for President??
Still wonder what the late
Lois Rukeyser would have to
say about this financial
mess??

Posted by: Thomas on 09/22/08 at 3:18 PM Respond

Ron Paul is right. Paulites, get out the vote for Nader and send a message. Without our vote, you lose. Nader needs to be in the debates, otherwise we will consider the Democratic Party the party of hate and Wall Street.

Posted by: Todd on 09/22/08 at 5:16 PM Respond

I think Ron Paul has spoken in favor of voting for 3rd party & independent candidates as opposed to voting for a 'more-of-the-same', 'one-party-disguised-as-two' candidate.

He has not, as far as I can ascertain, endorsed any specific candidate. Not even the candidate from the Libertarian party, though Dr. Paul was himself their candidate in '88, and it's hard to argue that Dr. Paul's political philosophy strays much from that of the Libertarians on most issues.

And speaking for myself, I agree, and would much rather see Americans vote for ANY third party (even those I'm diametrically opposed to) or independent candidate than vote for a 'one-party-disguised-as-two' candidate. It's the ONLY message to Washington that says: "We Demand REAL Change!"

Posted by: Paul Ron on 09/22/08 at 5:32 PM Respond

I'm just going to write in Eugene Debs and hope for the best.

Posted by: Chris on 09/22/08 at 6:35 PM Respond

I mean really, you still don't get it? Nader is definitely qualified for the job, but due to the fact that we have a two-party system, it's just not happening. I'm not sure what sort of optimistic haze you reside behind, but it's either Obama or Bush. Please don't kid yourself, or contribute to the election of another Bush.

Posted by: ms on 09/22/08 at 6:45 PM Respond

Why are some folks trying to deny voters (who would stay home otherwise) the chance to vote for the candidate who's political stances they actually agree with?

Posted by: Liberal Larry on 09/22/08 at 7:14 PM Respond

I hope the DOW drops to four. I hope that all the greasy-palm people in D.C. get arrested on-the-spot. I hope that the whole real estate industry falls apart, and most of it gets taken over by the government, and even more people end up getting arrested. The whole ugly little house of cards keeps people's insurance payments sky-high, mortgage payments sky-high, you never own your home, you never get out of debt, what's the point of all that, really? Keep everyone on the treadmill for life? I say, if that's all we're doing, then shut it all off, so everyone can sit down and take some time to figure out how we're going to do all of this differently, because at the rate we're going, asia's basically going to end up owning the United States. And, we can't all be 6-figure government employees. Soooo...there has to be a different economic 'way forward' here.

Posted by: Bert on 09/22/08 at 8:23 PM Respond

Folks,

How do we open up the debates? I've been a supporter of Nader since the early 80's. How can we turn the tide?

Posted by: michael schmitt on 09/22/08 at 9:42 PM Respond

Wexler all of the things you attribute to Nader have been undone by the Bush administration.
We all must hold Congress responsible. It really won't matter who the president is if our Senators and Congressmembers are beholden to corporate america, and not we the people.

Without oversight this is taxation without representation.

Posted by: Alison on 09/23/08 at 3:50 AM Respond

I've voting for McKinney, but yes, Nader and McKinney have no chance. The problem is, when Obama wins, IF he wins, and he doesn't change anything - then all that has happened is he's recruited a new generation of young people to carry water for the Democratic Party leadership, for another 8 years. I certainly hope Obama wins, because it will mean a shift to the center in the U.S. But it will only entrench the Democrats for 8 more years as the party with the 'answers.' Which they aren't.

Posted by: Elydog on 09/23/08 at 9:35 AM Respond

I could never understand why people voted against their own interest in favor of the rich. When you vote that way you aren't doing yourself any favor or any for this country of ours either; and all of the while, those rich people are laughing at the poor "red-necks" that are kissing up to the well-to-do people.

You let Bush lie and steal the election, because you thought that Gore was to "stiff" and you liked Bush's boyish charm and now you act like you are about to "cream in your jeans" about McCain's running mate. If that is your criteria for a leader then I say that you deserve what you get. This country is full of "bigots and racist" people even though most will not admit to it.

So...., go ahead and make the same mistake that you made in 2000..it might be our last.

Posted by: Clarence D. Smart on 09/23/08 at 10:58 AM Respond

Ely Dog votes for McKinney but hopes Obama wins... Interesting.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, let's hope Henry Paulson and George Bush don't get 700 billion because, "We need to hurry this through." Whenever Mr. Bush says, "Trust me" I know we're about to get screwed.

Co'mon Nancy and Harry! Stand up and do your Jobs!

Posted by: Steven on 09/23/08 at 11:49 AM Respond

I could never understand why some know-it-alls think they can define what kind of vote is in someone else's 'own interest'.
Or what kind of vote isn't.

That's one marvelous thing about America. We get to decide such things for ourselves, and we get to tell anyone who presumes to tell us what our own interests are, that they can take a long walk off a short pier.

Posted by: Clifford B. Wise on 09/23/08 at 12:44 PM Respond

In 2003, what was involved in the " Administration-wide effort to bring new tools and resources to would-be homeowners.” ?

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 13, 2003
National Homeownership Month, 2003
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Homeownership is more than just a symbol of the American Dream; it is an important part of our way of life. Core American values of individuality, thrift, responsibility, and self-reliance are embodied in homeownership. I am committed to helping more families know the security and sense of pride that comes with owning a home.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is leading an Administration-wide effort to bring new tools and resources to would-be homeowners. We are providing financial assistance to qualified families through the American Dream Downpayment Fund, funding educational programs that stress financial literacy, and offering a compassionate hand to those who dream of moving from subsidized housing into homeownership. And through the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program, my Administration partners with nonprofit organizations that offer homeownership oppor-tunities to families willing to contribute their skills and labor to help build a home of their own. We are also proposing ways to make it easier to shop for a mortgage and to make mortgages available to more families through the Federal Housing Administration.
Today, the United States is fortunate in that our homeownership rate is at an all-time high, and low interest rates continue to encourage millions of Americans to become first-time homeowners. Although a record number of Americans own their own homes, we continue to see a gap between the homeowner-ship rates of minorities and nonminorities. By a significant margin, minority families are less likely to own their own homes. Therefore, I have called upon the entire housing industry to join with my Administration to expand minority homeownership across the Nation. Our goal is to help at least 5.5 million minority families become homeowners by the end of this decade, and our Blueprint for the American Dream Partnership is taking bold steps to make this a reality.

Posted by: sasha123 on 09/24/08 at 8:41 AM Respond

I agree. VOTE for Ralph Nader!

Posted by: Cathy on 09/24/08 at 6:05 PM Respond

The REASON Shrub won BOTH times is because the Republicans CHEATED BOTH times. If the debates were opened to third parties instead of keeping them "locked out" by BOTH Dems & Republicans by any means they can, people WOULD be able to make an informed choice. Both parties do everything in their power to prevent that because they KNOW they would lose. Especially now.

Posted by: Cathy on 09/24/08 at 6:15 PM Respond

There is an apparent error in the fifth paragraph. Sanders was not elected to the Senate until 2006, so he wasn't around the Senate for the 1999 vote. He was in the House, and I'm sure he voted against it there.

Posted by: Dave on 09/24/08 at 8:29 PM Respond

Here is the basic human problem.

A leveraged fiat money market is not free. It is a
debt market. It is a slave market. Proof
is the statement "One who borrows what isn't
his'n must pay it back or go to prisn."

I believe the first three sentences are the
Occam's Razor of the cause of the
current crisis.

I don't see anything in world history or
long term economic history to disprove this.

Of course one may argue that an economic
slave market is a good and/or necessary
state. In my opinion this argument has
always necessitated a state of war untill
settled. And then the cycle starts again,
because resentment inhabits the laws of
desire more intimately than the worm does
the apple.

Welcome to the new world disorder. I think
I'll watch "Judge Dredd" dvd tonight to get
prepared.

Posted by: Aristotle on 09/27/08 at 12:39 PM Respond

I don't think there is any politician in Washington who hasn't had their hand in the pockets of the banking/finance industries. It's common knowledge that lobbying is nothing more than a political circle jerk, and Congress will continue to pimp for these industries as long as the average voter continues to vote for their scoundrel.

Posted by: FastJack on 09/28/08 at 7:54 AM Respond