The Red and Black

Originally posted by

Busted ...again?

If that's the case, McCain should look first to his campaign staffers as the cause of that debacle. One of them was Fannie Mae's head of lobbying, and spread tens of millions of dollars around Washington in the form of lobbying contracts. A number of McCain staffers were on the receiving end of those contracts, collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars each from the lenders to rep their interests. And McCain's campaign manager served as president of a lobbying association that fought to protect Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from the sort of regulation that McCain is now proposing.

Originally posted by

Face Check

"The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list -- using figures from the Federal Election Commission -- shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000."

looks like they both received a large amount of money from people who work for and/or are associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Originally posted by

CoastalDawg

The New Times, bastion of liberal news media, certainly a source that I would accept as gospel - NOT. Anyway, check all the figures you want but you will find that Barak Obama is second only to Chris Dodd. Barak Hussein Obama has already told us that he will take from the rich and give to the middle class, a Robin Hood-esque approach toward reassigning wealth in this country, the very opposite to what the American dream has always been. He has said that 95% of Americans would get a tax break under his administration, a 180 degree turn from earlier promises. But far less that 95% of the American population even PAY taxes so does that mean that those who don't pay any taxes will share in the earned revenue of the rich? Somehow the untruths told in the vice presidential debate by Senator Biden (One of the most remarkable is the fact that Senator Biden said that Obama never said he'd sit down with no prior restraints in place to speak with Iran's leader). Obama's take on government is frightening - look at Chicago's condition in all areas, Chicago, Obama's "turf", the place where he was a community committee leader, his one and only claim to any kind of leadership and there is great doubt about that leadership. No, I do NOT want a complete rookie, a man who is being paid as a senator but has only spent 147 days in congress before deciding he wants to run the ship, only dropping in occasionally to consider legislation. It's as if this country has been blinded by some type of "savior", a man who claims to be black, thus dismissing his white mother and instead claiming his race from a black father who did not stick around to help rear him. His associations with such people as William Ayers, not a disassociation, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, another current disassociation, tell the story of who he has chosen for his "partners". Sorry, the only change that might possibly come if Barak Hussein Obama is elected will be frightening unless you happen to be a big money person, maybe a financial institution that needs another bailout. Go to You Tube and seek out a video called Burning Down the House concerning the financial disasters manipulated by Democrats over the years starting in modern times with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, followed by Bill Clinton's demand that lending institutions give money to those who could least afford to repay it, and on and on. Warnings by the Bush administration and attempts by John McCain to curb the wrong practices went unheeded and now we have this mess... Guess who?

Originally posted by

Ridiculous

First of all, the Community Reinvestment Act signed in 1977 has nothing to do with today's credit crisis. The Community Reinvestment Act did not force banks to loan to low-income people, it simply declared that banks couldn't loan to low-income whites but not low-income blacks. Economists are almost entirely in agreement that the credit crisis was caused by Wall Street institutions dodging regulation.

Secondly, Obama never had a "career as a community organizer with the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now. This is simply a complete lie. Obama did represent the organization in a successful anti-voter-suppression lawsuit, but he never worked for the organization as an organizer.

Finally, Neri's article suggests that Obama has received over $100,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is hard to believe considering that the maximum contribution limit is $4600. The number he cites is the amount Obama received from all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees. Using that logic, Obama has also received huge donations from Harvard University and the U.S. Army, both of whose employees have donated extensively to the Obama campaign.

I expect a little more journalistic integrity the next time Mr. Neri writes an editorial.

Originally posted by

Ridiculous

First of all, the Community Reinvestment Act signed in 1977 has nothing to do with today's credit crisis. The Community Reinvestment Act did not force banks to loan to low-income people, it simply declared that banks couldn't loan to low-income whites but not low-income blacks. Economists are almost entirely in agreement that the credit crisis was caused by Wall Street institutions dodging regulation.

Secondly, Obama never had a "career as a community organizer with the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now. This is simply a complete lie. Obama did represent the organization in a successful anti-voter-suppression lawsuit, but he never worked for the organization as an organizer.

Finally, Neri's article suggests that Obama has received over $100,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is hard to believe considering that the maximum contribution limit is $4600. The number he cites is the amount Obama received from all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees. Using that logic, Obama has also received huge donations from Harvard University and the U.S. Army, both of whose employees have donated extensively to the Obama campaign.

I expect a little more journalistic integrity the next time Mr. Neri writes an editorial.

Originally posted by

Ridiculous

First of all, the Community Reinvestment Act signed in 1977 has nothing to do with today's credit crisis. The Community Reinvestment Act did not force banks to loan to low-income people, it simply declared that banks couldn't loan to low-income whites but not low-income blacks. Economists are almost entirely in agreement that the credit crisis was caused by Wall Street institutions dodging regulation.

Secondly, Obama never had a "career as a community organizer with the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now. This is simply a complete lie. Obama did represent the organization in a successful anti-voter-suppression lawsuit, but he never worked for the organization as an organizer.

Finally, Neri's article suggests that Obama has received over $100,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is hard to believe considering that the maximum contribution limit is $4600. The number he cites is the amount Obama received from all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees. Using that logic, Obama has also received huge donations from Harvard University and the U.S. Army, both of whose employees have donated extensively to the Obama campaign.

I expect a little more journalistic integrity the next time Mr. Neri writes an editorial.

Originally posted by

nice

Nicely put. Unfortunately I doubt Obama supporters will actually read the article. They are too blinded by HOPE and CHANGE to listen to FACTS and LOGIC. At least you tried, man. Nice article!

Originally posted by

nice

Nicely put. Unfortunately I doubt Obama supporters will actually read the article. They are too blinded by HOPE and CHANGE to listen to FACTS and LOGIC. At least you tried, man. Nice article!