This might be old news, but I want to reiterate that in Obama's 3 years in the Senate, he has received $126K from Fannie Mae (Franklin Raines).

Do you want to know what's strange about the contribution? Obama has only been in the Senate for 3 years and he received more than $126k while Harry Reid(Senate Majority Leader) has been in Congress since 1974(32 yrs), and he has only received a total of $77k. OTOH, John McCain who has been in Congress since 1982(26 yrs), and he only received $21k.

IMHO, Obama is corrupt. He voted against McCain's FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT in May 2006 that would've regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Politicians like Obama shouldn't be in Senate, and most specially in the Oval Office. So I hope everyone on this board will find it right in their mind and heart what's best for this country come November 2008, and vote for McCain/Palin.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

Find out more about the Fannie Mae contributions by clicking on the above link.

-- Modified on 9/21/2008 9:27:14 PM

And guess who got the most from Fannie. Sen Chris Dodd, Obama supporter and Dem, who is the chairman of the senate banking committee. The comittee sharged with CONTROLLING ENTITIES SUCH AS FANNIE. Not talking point, just a bold faced fact!! Sure, there is plenty of blame to go around in both parties but it was liberal politicians who thought it a good idea to grant a mortgage to folks who didn't have the finances to afford a home simply to get thier votes. NOW WE ALL PAY FOR FAILED LIBERAL POLICIES.

. . . via the internet.

Fact is, he doesn't need Fannie Mae. If ever there was a politician who could afford to tell Fannie Mae to screw off, it's Obama. What's more, it's more in his interest not to piss off his grass-root donors.

So, what's Fannie Mae going to do if he doesn't exactly give it what it asks for? Demand its money back? Ethically and legally, there's no real quid pro quo.

I'm not worried because he received money from FM. It might just be another one of FM's poor investments. He's not a candidate who really needs them.

Of course I give just one scenario. I think Obama is a good gamble.

Take a guess as to who is the chief financial/economic advisor for Obama's campaign for POTUS. Does the name Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae ring a bell?

-- Modified on 9/21/2008 10:39:43 PM

Maybe you haven't heard of Rick Davis, but he's McCain's campaign manager.  He was paid almost $2 million ($30,000/month for 5 years) on behalf of Fannie and Freddie because of his closeness to McCain.

He was hired to help beat back regulator challenges when he served as the head of their advocacy group.  This is the guy who runs McCain's campaign.

You're making up the number, dd. Rick Davis ran McCain's 2000 presidential campaign, which is well before he was the head of Homeownership Alliance. Rick Davis received the money for himself and his firm, Davis, Manafort & Freedman. Just because Ricky Davis got the money, doesn't mean that McCain did. If that's the case, then it would be the same for Obama with Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson.

Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines, who made a fortune from abusing Fannie Mae, are Obama's top vetter and adviser respectively. Both Raines and Johnson have profited more than a hundred million dollars from Fannie Mae.

*Franklin Raines settled for $24.7 million with the OFHEO (OFHEO was seeking $100 million) for the Fannie Mae lawsuit. (The govt should've sent Raines to jail!!!) http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004358433_webraines18.html

McCain co-sponsored the FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT which would've regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama blocked this bill in May 2006, and that's a fact. Here's the link.  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Obama received more than $126K from Fannie Mae, and that's another fact. Stop distracting folks from the facts.

Like many of his claims, this is superficial.

Yes, he recieved a lot from "grass root," but you have to remember that a huge part of his offician campaing funding is not funded by "his campaign," but other sources.

Trial lawyers are one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic party, but since they give huge amounts to the democratic party, they aren't "Obama's supporters" for purposes of campaign finacing.

The entire presense of groups like MoveOn, are not "part of his campaign," for that calculation, so even if MoveOn is funded by tens millions of dollars from Sorous, Obama can "disclaim" it, and say he is a grass roots kind of guy.

The same goes for a lot of other perpetual backers of the Dems, who also can donate millions dollars, and more importantly, hours, without being listed as "Obama supporters."

Finally, at one time when he was refusing certain lobby money, he was still willing to take money from the law offices of lobbyists.  

Hey, the man is from Chicago and went through the system never offending the Chicago political scene, and you think he is pure.

-- Modified on 9/22/2008 4:24:39 AM

The 126k figure is not from Fannie Mae since corporations cannot donate money directly to candidates. It represents the total contributions to Obama from all employees of Fannie. Franklin Raines has donated no money directly to Obama's campaign and looking at personal contributions of board members and lobbyists of Fannie gives a different picture.

"The New York Times looked at contributions from Fannie and Freddie's boards of directors and lobbyists, who are technically not employees.  That analysis found Fannie and Freddie-related contributors gave $116,000 to John McCain and his related committees, compared with $16,000 to Obama and his related committees." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/727/

Hmmm. So the people who actually run Fannie donated more money to McCain than Obama. Looks like your info from the echo chamber is a little misleading. Imagine that!!

And how about this? McCain  (actually the RNC) received almost $300,000 from Hess Oil Corp employees just a few days after McCain reversed his opposition to offshore drilling. Two of the donors were a Hess office manager and her husband who is a track foreman for Amtrack. Hmmm. Wonder where they got $57,000 to donate to the RN/McCain?

-- Modified on 9/22/2008 5:43:51 AM

[joke] As opposed to Sara Palin, who'd make a very poor president.[/joke]

Tonight I'll check you description against the numbers. I seem to remember that early in the election that the number of Obama donors was extremely high compared to the amounts raised.

I really don't mind if lawyers are supporting him, nor does Soros's name cause my soul to recoil in horror. I really don't understand the conservative disgust at both.  


-- Modified on 9/22/2008 6:51:54 AM

Let's just say that your source is correct that folks who are NOT considered as employees of Fannie and Freddie made contributions of $116K to McCain. McCain has been in the Senate for 26 years while Obama has been in the Senate for 3 years, and received more than $126K. So if you divide 116K by 24, you get 4.46K while if you divide 126K by 3, you get 42K. This means that Obama is getting an average of 42K each year from official Fannie Mae employees (This doesn't include people who are NOT technically considered as Employees of Fannie and Freddie! The 126K number will probably skyrocket if you include them.).

WW, why are you bringing up some Hess Oil Corp info? Stick with the topic. The topic is Fannie Mae, so stop trying to confuse folks with info that are not related with the topic.

WW still can't refute the other FACT that Obama blocked McCain's FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT in May 2006 that would've regulated Fannie and Freddie. and do you know why he can't?....because it's a FACT!

I use trial lawyers and Soros as just two examples.  The starting point was your premise that his campaign is so much grass roots.  It was at first, but no longer, and I was only trying to show that a huge amount is not, listing just a few sources.  Remember, there are hundreds of others.

Whether these two are good or not is really irrelevant to the question of whether they donate huge amounts, thereby negating the claim that Obama is STILL mostly grass roots.

I do happen to think they are not good for several reasons to numerous to go into detail, so I will just kick out a few sentence.  

First, it is not just lawyers, but trial lawyers that are one of the backbones of the Dems.

I think have generally had a negative impact on society.  Teachers are afriad to hug kids, schools and parks have removed see-saws, neighbors hesitate to let neighbors use their pool, lawyers advise clients never to appologize, and there are a million other examples of the negative effect of the fear of law suits.  I tried to operate a low-income housing project - yes for a profit, but it would have still been low income.  I gave up, mostly because of legal crap.

I know very liberal doctors who have limited their practice, and the percent of their hourly fee that goes to malpractice is astronomical.  If a policy cost $50,000 per year, that means a doctor has to charge $50 an hour before he hires a nurse, rents an office, buys a stethesccope, or gets a chair for his patients to sit in while waiting.  One of the largest percentages of a doctor's hourly salary is malpractice.  Should I go on?)

Soros is another story, but I have to get to work.

than corrupt. He is the complete douche bag.

Distracting from the facts?  Respectfully, JW, I'm NOT making up the number.  Here's the link to the NY Times article where that figure is referenced:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html?_r=2&ei=5070&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1222056908-k38W66Tg7nuznBsIw26YZg&oref=slogin

If that doesn't work, just search for "Loan Titans paid McCain Advisor Nearly $2 million."

I'll give you McCain's bill and  Obama's vote against it until I do some further research.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html
Source: Washington Post

(...) The latest McCain attack is particularly dubious.

The Facts

The McCain video attempts to link Obama to Franklin Raines, the former CEO of the bankrupt mortgage giant, Fannie Mae, who also happens to be African-American. It then shows a photograph of an elderly white woman taxpayer who has supposedly been "stuck with the bill" as a result of the "extensive financial fraud" at Fannie Mae.

The Obama campaign last night issued a statement by Raines insisting, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." (...)

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a Style section profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of the quote. She explained that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said 'oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,' I asked, and he said 'no.')"

By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and they had some general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls, and will let you know if I receive a reply.

The Pinocchio Test

The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy."

(...)

thanks for the well reasoned argument.  When he moves into the White House, it'll be a seamless transition from one douche bag to another.

You are indeed welcome. I was not, however, making an "argument". I made a stement of FACT!!!!

An epitome of American eloquence.  People like this casting their votes are why we are where are today.

"I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campiagn with advice on housing or economic matters".


"By Raines own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campiagn and they had some general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls, and will let you know if I receive a reply."

Don't hold your breath.....

Looks to me like he is telling it both ways. This from a man who can't be trusted to tell the truth about his guidance at Fannie Mae. He's a liar.

Typical pseudo-liberal. Your efforts to claim the intellectual high ground have the same effect as your efforts to claim the moral high ground, i.e., you slide quickly into the cesspool. You may feel smug and superior and even look that way to the monkey you see in the mirror but your long arrogant snout reveals your true substance, which is nothing.

This is a fun game!

The contributions from the people who direct Fannie Mae are only to McCain's presidential campaign, although indirectly through the RNC. The fact remains that the people who direct FNMA gave more money to support MCCain than they did Obama. $16k from people who are not considered employess of FNMA won't cause the size of the contribution to skyrocket. That's not misleading, it's simply a fact. Interpret it as you will. I'm sure you can get some help from Rush or Hannity if you can't figure it out yourself.

I bring up Hess Oil because the larger point is that donations taint the person receiving the donations, right? If it's somehow wrong for Obama to receive $126k from FNMA emplyess, then how is it not equally wrong for McCain to receive over twice that amount from even fewer Hess employees, especially since it's obvious that the top Hess people skirted the law by giving lower level emplyess money to give to McCain?

I didn't try to refute Obama's vote against the bill co-sponsored by McCain because, as you said, that's a fact. So what? If the bill was defeated then there were many other people voting against it, too. Obama hardly defeated it himself.

So it is true that his workers are selling pot to finance his campaign.  I KNEW it.

So...the amount of substance one possesses is inversely proportional to the length of his "snout?"  lol...

Despite having a thesaurus close by, you were still unsuccessful in covering up how much of a dumbass you are.  Think about that when YOU'RE in the mirror getting ready for work and buttoning up that dirty light blue shirt...the one with name "Bob "Ray" or "Joe" stitched in the oval.

How about this? Instead of limitless putative damages awarded to the claimant, why should they go to the claimant? Above a fixed amount with costs, make it a fine, send it into a fund for improving health care.

That kills the gold-rush aspect, and let's the jury think in terms of how heinous the malpractice was instead of having thoughts clouded by sympathy for the claimant.

Also there's a certain reluctance of medical boards to revoke incompetent doctors' licenses, thus keeping butchers in the field to raise everyone else's malpractice insurance.  

But don't cut out "frivolous" lawsuits. For most people, torts are the only protection they have from criminal negligence, incompetence or even malice. I am informed just recently of a case where a patient went into the hospital of pancreatitus and three days later, the hospital had killed him from dehydration. That's in a modern hospital, in America. Some of my favorite cases are when the doctor performed a three-hour surgery, afterward gets in his car to go home and five minutes later he's pulled over and arrested for drunk driving. Another classic where the doctor removed the wrong lung because he had the X-Ray up backward.

Lawyers are literally freelance regulators. It's an example of privatization of regulators that mostly works. For that reason alone, it's amazing that conservatives are so completely disdainful of them.

There must be some protection in the courts for consumers. Otherwise we're just waiting in the road with headlights in our eyes. Just a few changes would correct the problems.

I suggest you go to Europe sometime. If you go to a fair, just look at the rickety, poorly maintained rides. You look at infant's clothes with these huge buttons on them large enough to choke the baby it they are pulled off and put in the mouth.

Really, think of what limiting the putative damages going to the claimant. It would solve so many problems.    

-- Modified on 9/22/2008 7:00:22 PM

There may be better ways to do the reform than Bush suggested, but the Dems never proposed any of them.

As the saying goes: Either lead, follow, or get out of the way.  

Since the Dems would not lead - come up with better ideas - they should follow those who at least had SOME improvement.

To just bitch and support the trial lawyers is to continue to perpetuate the problem, which is what the Dems did.

There is no "protection" from the current trial lawyers.  If a product is good for society, but they can shut it down by convincing ONE JURY, they will do so.

Your favorite case of a doctor removing the wrong lung is bullshit.  You say he was driving a few hours later. If you had either lung removed you would not be driving that quickly. You would be in the hospital for two weeks.  THINK. LUNG REMOVED. you don't hop in your car and drive home.  SILLY, SILLY, SILLY.

My favorite case is banning breast implants, which was so harmless but threw a legit company into bankrupcy.

P.S. I have been to Europe about 30 times.  It is my experience seeing Europe, on its death bed, that makes me conservative.

-- Modified on 9/22/2008 7:33:19 PM

I'll pick this up tomorrow, I'm too drowsy now.

Monday's L.A. Times has Obama raising 66 million in August, 22 million from "grass roots" and 44 million from larger groups.

I admit the 22 million is impressive, but he still has 44 million worth of special interest money from August alone, and that does not count all the other sources I discussed already.

account for less than 1% of total medical costs yet malpractice insurance premiums account for a much larger percentage of a doctor's costs of doing business.

Lawyers are not the problem.

When are you ever going to sober up?  You have got to stop drinking & then posting the first thing that comes out of your head. It makes you look like the uneducated, petty, mean-spirited, small-minded & angry old drunk that you are.

because you didn't get some of the action?

For every malpractice award, there are 20 cases that are settled and therefore never "reported."

And plaintiffs don't settle unless they are getting something.

On top of that, every time a doctor fights a law suit that is finally deemed to be not meritorious, he can recover "costs," but not attorney's fees, which are about 95% of the total expense.  Therefore, when the doctor "wins" the case, it cost the defense tens of thousands of dollars that they don't get back.

Futhermore, when there is an injury in the hospital, clinic, or many other medical organizations, a dozen people may be named as defendants.

In a case that is ultimately ruled to be not meritorious, every one of those defendants had to hire his own attorney and eat the thousands of dollars of legal fees.

To just look at "award" is to ignore the reality of the expenses.

because I didn't get any of the action, but I will end up paying more than my share of the bill. Especially if Obama and Co decide I am too rich for their taste. Remember even if we keep him out of the white house he and his ilk will still be in control of Congress.

deleted posted in new thread .

-- Modified on 9/23/2008 11:40:51 PM