|
RINO Flip Flop Alert! |
|
Posted on 03/18/2009 9:26:38 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Despite contrary news reports, sources in the Obama administration insist they did not know until just last week that AIG was paying employees big bonuses.
But it doesn't matter when they figured it out, said Arizona Senator John McCain.
The Republican senator told the Fox News Channel the real screw-up is that the bonuses were allowed.
"What's this, the fourth package that they've gotten of tens of billions of dollars and there was a provision, I'm told, that was an attempt to limit executive compensation and that was killed."
(Excerpt) Read more at ktar.com ...
Another liberal defending the bailout.
[The Republican senator told the Fox News Channel the real screw-up is that the bonuses were allowed.]
No Senator, the real screw-up is that the bailouts were allowed.
McCain's fault also.
|
RINO Flip Flop Alert! |
|
Just as everyone is really getting mad about this AIG thing, and the democrats are feeling real heat...McCain is there to save the day and make sure Republicans get blamed as well. Not saying they don’t deserve it too, but lets let the MSM do that job Johny.
Bingo. The GOP needs to immediately rule out for 2012 consideration everyone who supported the bailout including Romney and Gingrich.
Freddie Mac has retention bonuses, just as large or larger than AIG.
Those bonuses are also guaranteed by contract.
Freddie and Fannie are Democrat protected, Democrat controlled, serve as Democrat piggy banks!
McCain, of course, forgets to mention his role in this mess.
Captain McQueeg cuts the towline yet again.
“But it doesn’t matter when they figured it out, said Arizona Senator John McCain.”
Clueless...STFU John...
Here’s the list of top AIG recipients for the 2008 campaign [from ABC TV]:
1. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., $103,100
2. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., $101,332
3. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., $59,499
4. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., $35,965
5. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., $24,750
6. Former Gov. Mitt Romney, (R) Pres $20,850
7. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., $19,975
8. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn, $19,750
9. Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., $18,500
10. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R) Pres $13,200
11. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., $12,000
12. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., $11,000
So, Juan, are you planning to return those contributions?
In any case, the long and the short of the matter is that your opinion is irrelevant.
Shut up John, you signed onto this thing WITHOUT reading it, so shut up. (yes, I repeated myself on purpose)
Can’t that man just go AWAY!? Who really cares about what he says?? I’d be more interested in whatever Tom Dashcle has to say than this “Man without honor”
And that requirement is still being enforced today by bank examiners....
A Massachusetts banker was on CNBC yesterday saying he was thumped by the examiners because his CRA ratio wasn't right.
I am assuming you know what the CRA is...
The crux of the matter which no one dares to address.
**************************EXCERPT**********************
Problems with the application of a metric for CRA compliance in banking.
by Russakoff, Andrew
[DELTA]TLOAN(i,t) denotes the change in CRA targeted loans, the ratio of low-income mortgage loans to assets for bank i in year t. The implication is that the Federal Reserve is looking for a change in the ratio, rather than simply a change in volume (dollars).
The first explanatory variable, CRA_DG(i, t-1) is a binary variable equal to one for a downgraded bank in year t-1, zero otherwise. The authors seem to want the comparisons to apply for years t-2, t-1, then t for the year of the downgrade. It is not presumed that t=0 refers to the year that showed the poor CRA results and t=1 for the year after the downgrading. With the definition given, this asks the regression to evaluate some constant for the zero year (in addition to the regression constant) that is not present in the year after (or any subsequent year).
ASSET(i,t-1) is the log of bank assets. One might have thought this should be the difference in bank assets. If bank assets had markedly changed, this should be allowed to explain bank lending. As presented this is not the change, but the log. Typically the log is used to make linear factors of multiplied variables. That does not apply here. The log ASSET term must be a rough guide to how a small community bank will be treated differently from a large multinational (for example. Citibank). Larger banks seem to have better results in CRA ratings. They also have more to gain.
[DELTA]MARKET(i.t-1) is the dollar change in the volume of low or moderate income mortgage loans for all financial institutions in the bank's market normalized by lagged total mortgage lending where the Metropolitan Statistical Area is used. This is a wonderful variable. By matching a bank's performance with other banks in that specific area, it precisely looks at performance in a competitive manner. **************************snip***********************
It is significant that the authors report that banks do not respond to the downgrading. Perhaps the explanation for this lies in a closer examination of the decision mechanism of the banks. A better approach might be that the legislation is attempting to solve a social problem with a financial tool that is both inappropriate and ineffective.
It is simplistic to see money as the answer to stagnant economic development. There must be a climate and an opportunity for growth and investment. In this regard, mortgage lending is associated with economic development, but is not, in itself, the answer. How often have we read of money used to enrich people who then take the money out of the neighborhood it was meant to serve?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
