Obama already off on the wrong foot:

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN0653969820081107

Hiring Rahm Emanuel (a man who supported the bailout and also supports NAFTA) to be his chief of staff... Rahm also worked for Clinton :rolleyes:

I like Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. Emanuel has a wealth of knowledge in the financial markets that will benefit Obama well. In the same breath I'd also like to say that I'm dang glad he wasn't named Secretary of the Treasury.

As Chief of Staff Emanuel will be extremely knowledgeable on the ins and outs of Washington politics, and a diligent political enforcer, much in the vein of W in Bush, the firsts administration.

An excellent answer to the already entrenched powers of Pelosi.

I like Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. Emanuel has a wealth of knowledge in the financial markets that will benefit Obama well. In the same breath I'd also like to say that I'm dang glad he wasn't named Secretary of the Treasury.

As Chief of Staff Emanuel will be extremely knowledgeable on the ins and outs of Washington politics, and a diligent political enforcer, much in the vein of W in Bush, the firsts administration.

An excellent answer to the already entrenched powers of Pelosi.

IMO his appointment will be a train wreck for the Obama administration in the near future. It will be interesting to see how the Israelis take his appointment although he is a Jew. Also, the Democrats failed to reach enough gains in Congress to get a questionable bill to the Senate floor and prevent the filibuster that Republicans could bring. Emanuel will just piss them off. And he was on the board of Freddie Mac. :rolleyes:.......:shakehead



From The Sunday Times
November 9, 2008

Obama means business – just ask his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel

Still, there are worries. In 2000, Emanuel was on the board of Freddie Mac, the now disgraced mortgage public-private entity whose overly generous loans helped to bring about the financial meltdown of the past two months. He has received a huge amount of campaign money from hedge funds, private equity firms and the financial industry. He unnerves some liberals because he is a brutal pragmatist and deeply aware of the danger of overreach.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article5113223.ece

Was he really tied to the collapse? He left Mac 7 years before it. Mac misrepresented profits to sway lenders. Mac got caught and paid their fines. But I can't find anything that has emerged to actually tie Rahm to the scandal. And nothing prior to Nov 7th 2008

If your idea of tied is "he worked for Mac, mac collapsed therefore he is involved", then I just have to say, "Bin Laden crashed planed into your country, Bush knows the family, therefore Bush flew planes into your country".

I just love a good straw man argument.

Call me an idiot if you will, but until Obama and his Cabinet have been in office and actually made some decisions/moves, I'm going to withhold any severe judgment. I want to see the pieces of the puzzle fall into place before I make any remarks on how shoddy the picture looks.

Was he really tied to the collapse? He left Mac 7 years before it. Mac misrepresented profits to sway lenders. Mac got caught and paid their fines. But I can't find anything that has emerged to actually tie Rahm to the scandal. And nothing prior to Nov 7th 2008

If your idea of tied is "he worked for Mac, mac collapsed therefore he is involved", then I just have to say, "Bin Laden crashed planed into your country, Bush knows the family, therefore Bush flew planes into your country".

I just love a good straw man argument.

Then who or what are you blaming.....Bush? :rofl: That is about as "Straw Man" argument as you can get. The investigation is not over to draw any conclusions and whether Emanuel was directly involved.

FBI Subprime Probe Adds Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Lehman (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acZBwgNm6Uxc&refer=home)


NOTE: This is from a liberal rag/source.

New York Times
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)


Truth or Fiction? Bush Administration Proposed a New Agency to oversee Housing Industry in 2003 (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bush-administration-lending.htm)


Sorry but you need to talk to the people that published the article. I didn't say whether I agreed with it or not or said he was directly involved. I guess living upside down does weird things to your logic. :lol:

Call me an idiot if you will, but until Obama and his Cabinet have been in office and actually made some decisions/moves, I'm going to withhold any severe judgment. I want to see the pieces of the puzzle fall into place before I make any remarks on how shoddy the picture looks.

Well he's not in office, but this is a decision he has made, and I do not think it was one made in the best interests of our country.
This is a man who supported the war on Iraq, supported NAFTA, supported the bailout of wallstreet.... this is a guy who would royally screw the entire country given the chance. And he may just have gotten it.

Well he's not in office, but this is a decision he has made, and I do not think it was one made in the best interests of our country.
This is a man who supported the war on Iraq, supported NAFTA, supported the bailout of wallstreet.... this is a guy who would royally screw the entire country given the chance. And he may just have gotten it.
While I understand what you're saying, I don't think I worded my comment to the point where it made the most sense.

Despite past "transgressions" as they seem to be looked at as, the Presidential Staff isn't even assembled yet. I'll pass judgment on the man when he's shown me in this administration that he is only out for his best interest. I'm fairly confident that Barack Obama KNOWS what the man voted on and knows his feelings/intentions on previous issues. Say what you want about Obama, but I don't think he's a complete idiot. The fact of the matter is Rahm DOES have economic savvy and experience in that area. Does that mean Obama is going to let him run wild with his influence? We don't know yet because said president and his staff have yet to take office and start making decisions.

I'm not saying it's the absolute best choice of a person for chief of staff, however, I'm not going to automatically say "this is a terrible, terrible choice," until I've seen something from this complete administration that leads me to that conclusion.

Then who or what are you blaming.....Bush? :rofl: That is about as "Straw Man" argument as you can get. The investigation is not over to draw any conclusions and whether Emanuel was directly involved.

FBI Subprime Probe Adds Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Lehman (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acZBwgNm6Uxc&refer=home)

[/i]

Truth or Fiction? Bush Administration Proposed a New Agency to oversee Housing Industry in 2003 (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bush-administration-lending.htm)


Sorry but you need to talk to the people that published the article. I didn't say whether I agreed with it or not or said he was directly involved. I guess living upside down does weird things to your logic. :lol:

I understand exactly what you are saying, but I found articles that swang both ways really, but I couldn't find any real sources that actually had evidence that he was at fault for anything really.

If you are to quote a news source (and it can be from anywhere), but there is not one shred of public evidence the claims are true (or anywhere near the claims), then it's safe to dismiss those claims until something comes up to shed more light onto the situation, that is the straw man.


I aint blaming anyone, I do not understand economic very well to pass judgment onto anything. But I know how to research a claim, when one is made. All I was saying was you can blame who ever you want, but there will be one bloke (and that is me) who will challenge it, if I am proven wrong, then more credibility to the claimer. I challenged your post because you do not have a track record of handling logic very well. And yeah, living up side down sucks :lol2:

Peace

If you are to quote a news source (and it can be from anywhere), but there is not one shred of public evidence the claims are true (or anywhere near the claims), then it's safe to dismiss those claims until something comes up to shed more light onto the situation, that is the straw man.

That is an invalid assumption and you challenged my post....with what? You can research all you want but that doesn't do any good when you do not support your position with facts whether good or bad. From what you are saying I doubt whether you understand what a "straw man argument" really is. Further, whether anyone fully understands my logic which IMO is sound would depend on one's intelligence level.


I aint blaming anyone, I do not understand economic very well to pass judgment onto anything. But I know how to research a claim, when one is made. All I was saying was you can blame who ever you want, but there will be one bloke (and that is me) who will challenge it, if I am proven wrong, then more credibility to the claimer. I challenged your post because you do not have a track record of handling logic very well. And yeah, living up side down sucks :lol2:

Let me see if I have this straight. You do not understand economics very well but know how to research a claim? :rolleyes: That doesn't make sense. Obviously you are not going to blame Obama and you can defend him all you want until you turn blue.

Your claim that Rahm Emanuel had nothing to do or no wrongdoing with Freddie Mac is misplaced but regardless the perception is there. With the full blown financial meltdown I'm quite sure more negative will turn up as time goes on and we see the results of ongoing federal investigations which makes Obama's choice of Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff dubious at best. He was on the board of Freddie Mac when the problems surfaced and turned a blind eye to the troubles. And now Obama wants him to help oversee his economic plan(s)? :screwy: In 2003 a federal watchdog agency the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) which is part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development heavily criticized the 18 member board which included Emanuel. See below.


Source: ABC News
Emanuel Was Director Of Freddie Mac During Scandal
New Obama Chief of Staff, Others on Board, Missed "Red Flags" of Alleged Fraud Scheme

During the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to the SEC, Freddie Mac substantially misrepresented its income to "present investors with the image of a company that would continue to generate predictable and growing earnings."

The role of the 18-member board of directors, including Emanuel, was not addressed in the SEC's public action but was heavily criticized by the oversight group (OFHEO) in 2003.

The oversight report said the board had been apprised of the suspect accounting tactics but "failed to make reasonable inquiries of management."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6201900&page=2