Tue 30 Sep 2008
Who Really Caused the Bailout Failure? The Media is Lying to You!
Posted by Jack Gamble - Man Overboard under Business, Current Events, History, Politics
Notice how, despite what Barack Obama and the media will tell you, it was the Republicans calling for tighter oversight of Fannie and Freddie back in 2004. But the Democrats were quick to defend those who made them rich, even going so far as to lob pathetic personal insults at regulators attempting to raise the alarm.
Now let’s hear Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi’s viscious politcal rhetoric and finger-pointing only moments before the Bailout vote on what was supposed to be a non-partisan bill to help the American people.
Are House Republicans expected to endorse her comments by voting for the measure? So why did the Media give Speaker Pelosi a free pass after they called the following a “Political Stunt.”
But nothing was ever said about Obama’s casual attitude on the subject or his refusal to set aside politics for two days to do his job. Could this be because Obama benefits from economic turmoil?
So, America, does the montage you just saw at all represent the picture that the media has painted for you about the two parties, the economic crisis, and the candidates?
On the first video, what party attempted to raise the alarm FOUR YEARS AGO on Fannie and Freddie while Senator Obama lined his pockets with their dirty money? What party was on the side of the “Wall Street Fat Cats?”
On the last three videos, which of those three appeared to reach across the aisle to work with both parties?
Who is the leader and who are the dividers?
The media is lying to you! Don’t fall for it.
~Man Overboard
About the Author
September 30th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I’m not really sure what you are driving at here, Jack. I understand that Democrats are just as, if not more so, dirty as Republicans.
I am glad to hear that Republicans tried to raise the alarm four years ago, but then have to ask the question, “With the Senate and House under their control, how did they not manage to do something about it?” Partisan politics isn’t satisfactory because they controlled the majority and could have gotten anything they wanted through, including lots of bad legislation.
Pelosi’s comments were derogatory and critical of the Bush adminisration (rightfully so), but she was far too complimentary of the Clinton administration. After all, Bill Clinton “balanced” the budget off of the political suicide that is raising taxes, which Bush Sr. did, not Billy. She is also hypocritical in that she spoke so negatively of the Bush administration and the bail-out, but then voted for it despite her comments. Ludicrous - when will this woman leave?
I do not commend McCain for “putting aside his campaign to work on the rescue measure” for two reasons: (1) he announced his intentions as if he were going to rush right back to Washington, when in reality he chilled out in NYC for 22 hours and even did an interview with Katie Couric (much to the chagrin of David Letterman) before going to sleep to get a good night’s rest and then going to Washingt (this is political stunt at it’s finest); and (2) McCain hadn’t voted on a single thing since April 6th before “rushing” to Washington to work on this bail-out.
In the end, why will no one discuss the real reason for this mess - the introduction of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which deregulated banking?
September 30th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
So before the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks had to stick to what the Fed set the prime rate at?
September 30th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Sorry Jay, I probably should have asked that in your other post.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
No problem. The Banking Act of 1933 declared banks that accept deposits from customers can not underwrite securities (the mechanism by which corporations issue stock, bonds, or mortgage-backed securities, among other creative financial instruments). It also declared that corporations that engage in the business of underwriting securities can not accept deposits from customers due to the risky nature of securities underwriting.
The Gramm Leach Bliley Act reversed this decision so that banks could go back to underwriting securities. And look what happened in less than ten years.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
My point being
1. It was Democrats pushing for ‘politcially correct loans’ to people who could not repay them. At the same time, they were taking plenty in the way of money from these companies.
2. It was Democrats who made the issue into a politcal one because Bush is easy to pin this on. Republicans made attempts, perhaps with other motives but attempts nonetheless, at working on a bipartisan issue.
3. Pelosi and Obama politicised the issue to the point where Republicans bailed.
4. Somehow, with all the above, the media spins this to make Bush, McCain, and House Republicans to blame for this entire crisis and there is no accountability whatsoever on the part of the Democrats.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:01 am
There a lot of people accountable for what happened. However the “evil” media is correct when it says that this happened under George W. Bush’s time in office and as Jay pointed out during a time when the republicans had control of the house and senate. You can spin it anyway you want but those are the facts. I wish Sarah Palin had been in power none of this would have happened.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:31 am
Jack,
Pelosi’s speech was wrong in every way. It just doesn’t make sense that she would be so divisive when trying to seek a unified voice.
But come on…the Republicans voted against this thing with a majority! And if they did it in response to Pelosi’s speech…well that’s just a shame.
And Obama and McCain are still senators until they are elected president - so their influence on this bill is limited to how they decided to vote.
I just don’t think its realistic to pin this on one person.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:54 am
Its probably a good thing that the bill didn’t get passed in such a hurried manner anyway. There should be revisions to the bill before it is passed and I’m not just talking about tax breaks.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Oh yeah, Pelosi is apparently under Federal investigation for giving her husbands firm money. Ha…haha.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
It is alleged that she is also Satan’s Concubine
October 1st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
So now that Senate has passed the act, what does this mean?
October 1st, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I’ve actually visually confirmed that one. But I deny all allegations of wire-tapping the nether-world without proper written authority.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I have to read the bill first, but then I will let you know. I have heard rumors floating around about $805 billion and tax cuts, which would seem to me to be polar opposite sides of the economic corrective spectrum. I really need to read the act to ascertain its substance since most of what you hear is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:47 pm
The ‘wooden arrow’ clause sounds fishy to me