Phil Gramm (McCains Chief Economic Advisor) quote

Phil Gramm says that americans are "whiners" for thinking this economy is in bad shape. LOL. Now McCain is saying that he does not agree with that comment but FUCK this guy (Gramm) is McCain's chief economic advisor. Vote for McCain if you think we are whiners.

I hope we hear this comment repeatedly played for us between now and November.

Bman wrote:Phil Gramm says that americans are "whiners" for thinking this economy is in bad shape. LOL. Now McCain is saying that he does not agree with that comment but FUCK this guy (Gramm) is McCain's chief economic advisor. Vote for McCain if you think we are whiners.

I hope we hear this comment repeatedly played for us between now and November.

Someone is finally telling it like it is.

I agree.. most people are whining... look at Europe.. we're still paying half what they do for gas.

People are mad they can't buy the Hummer their neighbor has, or live in the 3,000 sq ft house working their $40K/year job. Yes.. times are hard, for just about everyone. That's life.

I do like how the left wants everyone to believe Gramm is the only advisor though. Completely ignoring folks like Doug Holtz-Ekin.. who is McCain's economic policy maker and "faced off" against Jason Furman (BO's advisor) this morning on CNBC.

Tune in next week for their debate on Taxes.

cardinal5150 wrote: like Doug Holtz-Ekin.. who is McCain's economic policy maker and "faced off" against Jason Furman (BO's advisor) this morning on CNBC.

I'd love to get a link to a YouTube clip of that segment and discuss here

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote: like Doug Holtz-Ekin.. who is McCain's economic policy maker and "faced off" against Jason Furman (BO's advisor) this morning on CNBC.

I'd love to get a link to a YouTube clip of that segment and discuss here

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25623350/site/14081545/

The stupid congressional hearing must have been on when their aired this...

Ok this Phil Gramm thing is getting confusing.

Today after this comment about us being whiners and this economic downtown is a figment of our imagination John McCain stepped up to the microphone and said "Phil Gramm was wrong and he does not speak for me". But a year ago McCain said our economy was not that bad, that it needed a mental uplifting ... and Phil Gramm is McCains most trusted economic advisor add that to the fact that McCain supported and endorsed Phil Gramm for President in 1996 instead of Bob Dole and at the time said "Phil Gramm is one of the brightest economic minds of out time" .. .so knowing all of that I have to assume that Phil Gramm does speak for John McCain.

Oh ... and why can't McCain answer a question about viagra?

Bman wrote:Ok this Phil Gramm thing is getting confusing.

Today after this comment about us being whiners and this economic downtown is a figment of our imagination John McCain stepped up to the microphone and said "Phil Gramm was wrong and he does not speak for me". But a year ago McCain said our economy was not that bad, that it needed a mental uplifting ... and Phil Gramm is McCains most trusted economic advisor add that to the fact that McCain supported and endorsed Phil Gramm for President in 1996 instead of Bob Dole and at the time said "Phil Gramm is one of the brightest economic minds of out time" .. .so knowing all of that I have to assume that Phil Gramm does speak for John McCain.

Oh ... and why can't McCain answer a question about viagra?

I actually agree with you there. Well, I don't know what the viagra thing is all about, but as far as distancing himself from Gramm. Although I suspect his issue was with how Gramm said it, and it won't likely win over voters.

What's Viagra got to do with running for President? Worried that he's going to be popping pills and getting head from interns in the oval office?

McCain came out and said Gramm doesn't speak for him, my guess is that he's going to either come out and give an apology or he'll be replaced. And I don't think it's mutually exclusive to be a brilliant economic mind and call people whiners. Understanding economics and having compassion are two separate issues.

Looking back at your college days or HS days, does anyone remember an economics teacher who they'd consider to be "normal"? For me they were always nut jobs because VERY few can be interested that much in supply/demand relationships and also follow everyday things like sports, local news, life, etc.

That's part of what makes Jim Cramer so different in my eyes.. he reads the front page of the paper, most in finance/economics only read the finance section. Not many can look at the BIG picture.

Meanwhile we have a prominent black leader saying he wants to castrate Obama for speaking down to blacks.. only to have him turn and say he didn't mean, shouldn't have said it, and he gets a free pass.. good job Jessie.

Brian Williams opened last night on these two topics... "with friends like these, who needs enemies" I thought it was quite appropriate.

cardinal5150 wrote:And I don't think it's mutually exclusive to be a brilliant economic mind and call people whiners. Understanding economics and having compassion are two separate issues.

You don't say!

Card you have no credibility left .. come on man. You think Obama's comment about 57 states was worse than McCain screwing up the Shiites and Sunni's. Now you think Jesse's comment about Barack's nuts are worse than McCain's chief economic advisor calling American's whiners. Give me a break ...

Just so everyone knows ... the reason I mentioned the viagra comment is because John McCain voted in the Senate to require insurance to pay for viagra but NOT to be required to pay for birth control. That is why he does not want to discuss the viagra comment when the reporter asked him about it yesterday. The reporter asked the question because another McCain economic advisor Carly Fiorini (sp?) brought the topic up that she felt like if viagra was going to be covered then so should birth control. McCain can't control his own troops how is going to control Iran .. oh I know how "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran".

the reason for the question of how does he currently (since he voted against it in the past) think/feel about viagra needs to be covered by insurance companies but birth control shouldnt--is because the former miz hewlett packard was hoping to have a mccain moment of being supportive of the right-ness of women to be covered for birth control as certainly at least as important as the right for men to get insurance coverage for an artificially stimulated hard on. she was hoping he would answer in a manner that shows he has some consideration for women and he has some vague awarenness of issues important to the female population. but he blew that. it was hilarious watching him bomb on that one

Bman wrote:Phil Gramm says that americans are "whiners" for thinking this economy is in bad shape. LOL. Now McCain is saying that he does not agree with that comment but FUCK this guy (Gramm) is McCain's chief economic advisor. Vote for McCain if you think we are whiners.

I hope we hear this comment repeatedly played for us between now and November.

absolutely agree bman!

Time.com Web Poll: Why, Yes, We Are a Nation of Whiners

"Whiners" is good, but I think maybe even a more accurate description would have been we have become a nation of wanting it all, wanting it now, and blaming others when it doesn't happen.

Bman wrote:Card you have no credibility left .. come on man. You think Obama's comment about 57 states was worse than McCain screwing up the Shiites and Sunni's. Now you think Jesse's comment about Barack's nuts are worse than McCain's chief economic advisor calling American's whiners. Give me a break ...

My point was that the one man in America who should be blindly supporting BO (like you are doing) doesn't even like him. And it got virtually no press. Would you have ignored this comment if it came from Gramm? Hell no, you'd be screaming from the rooftops about how evil the Republicans are.. but since it came from a lefty you won't mention it....

And if you are saying I've lost credibility, I'll take it as a good thing on politics.

Just so everyone knows ... the reason I mentioned the viagra comment is because John McCain voted in the Senate to require insurance to pay for viagra but NOT to be required to pay for birth control. That is why he does not want to discuss the viagra comment when the reporter asked him about it yesterday. The reporter asked the question because another McCain economic advisor Carly Fiorini (sp?) brought the topic up that she felt like if viagra was going to be covered then so should birth control. McCain can't control his own troops how is going to control Iran .. oh I know how "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran".

You really want to go down the road of controlling you're "own troops" when your guy has Bernie Mac open up for him?

Markwes wrote:"Whiners" is good, but I think maybe even a more accurate description would have been we have become a nation of wanting it all, wanting it now, and blaming others when it doesn't happen.

ding ding ding ding ding.... I agree 100%

cardinal5150 wrote:

Markwes wrote:"Whiners" is good, but I think maybe even a more accurate description would have been we have become a nation of wanting it all, wanting it now, and blaming others when it doesn't happen.

ding ding ding ding ding.... I agree 100%

So you agree that the top Executives at these bankrupt mortgage companies are blaming the little guy for ruining their company because of fiscal irresponsibility? Likewise the little guys are blaming the executives for fiscal irresponsibility?

Who the "F" writes an interest only balloon loan (let alone hundreds of thousands) for $100K-$800K with no down payment to a borrower who can afford the monthly payment for the first 3 years?

How about some punishment of the executive individual for a change? If we go back 3-5 years and take away all the earnings from these executives from the companies in trouble, save $100,000 per exec, per year and apply it to the debt wouldn't it make a huge difference?

The taxpayer should not have to pay for this.

These companies are in this position because they have had corrupt, or incompetent leadership. The corporate executive teams are responsible for what happens while they are at the helm, and are compensated for it greatly. To me its the same principle that causes insurance rates to climb. These individuals need to be held accountable for their performance, not only when the numbers look good, but also when we find what they've swept under the carpet.

Perhaps a law that states something like the CEO of a publicly traded company can be compensated, but not collect more than $1M per year in cash, the rest to be held in escrow for 10 years, disbursing 1/10th of the value per year only after the Exec has completely withdrawn from the company.

I must be a whiner for thinking that putting $4.20 per gallon gasoline in my car is bad, it just must be my imagination. Seeing people lose my homes just must be my imagination. Knowing that so far in 2008 this country has LOST ... has LOST 428,000 jobs this year, just must be a figment of my imagination. Seeing banks collapse must be my imagination ... yep, we are a country of whiners. I think this is a perfect campaign theme for the republicans if you guys believe it ... reminds me of the sayings "if you believe it, run on it".

Whiners ... too funny.

Bman wrote:I must be a whiner for thinking that putting $4.20 per gallon gasoline in my car is bad, it just must be my imagination. Seeing people lose my homes just must be my imagination. Knowing that so far in 2008 this country has LOST ... has LOST 428,000 jobs this year, just must be a figment of my imagination. Seeing banks collapse must be my imagination ... yep, we are a country of whiners. I think this is a perfect campaign theme for the republicans if you guys believe it ... reminds me of the sayings "if you believe it, run on it".

Whiners ... too funny.

So what could have been done to prevent gas from going up to $4.20? What caused banks to collapse? Pretty much nothing right? When I went to Europe a couple years back and just about everyone was driving Fiats because gas was $8.00 a gallon, and when I visited in-laws that were living in apartments half the size of ones over here and yet were considered "doing well", I didn't once hear any of them complain about the economy or their financial situation. So yes, you must be whiner.

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

Markwes wrote:"Whiners" is good, but I think maybe even a more accurate description would have been we have become a nation of wanting it all, wanting it now, and blaming others when it doesn't happen.

ding ding ding ding ding.... I agree 100%

So you agree that the top Executives at these bankrupt mortgage companies are blaming the little guy for ruining their company because of fiscal irresponsibility? Likewise the little guys are blaming the executives for fiscal irresponsibility?

Who the "F" writes an interest only balloon loan (let alone hundreds of thousands) for $100K-$800K with no down payment to a borrower who can afford the monthly payment for the first 3 years?

How about some punishment of the executive individual for a change? If we go back 3-5 years and take away all the earnings from these executives from the companies in trouble, save $100,000 per exec, per year and apply it to the debt wouldn't it make a huge difference?

The taxpayer should not have to pay for this.

These companies are in this position because they have had corrupt, or incompetent leadership. The corporate executive teams are responsible for what happens while they are at the helm, and are compensated for it greatly. To me its the same principle that causes insurance rates to climb. These individuals need to be held accountable for their performance, not only when the numbers look good, but also when we find what they've swept under the carpet.

Perhaps a law that states something like the CEO of a publicly traded company can be compensated, but not collect more than $1M per year in cash, the rest to be held in escrow for 10 years, disbursing 1/10th of the value per year only after the Exec has completely withdrawn from the company.

I can't disagree. These mortgage companies surely should be held responsible. But that doesn't mean the consumer doesn't shoulder some of the blame. When my wife and I wanted to get financing, we were approved for a lot more than what we ended up paying for our house. But I know not to count on a bank to tell me how much I can afford.

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:I must be a whiner for thinking that putting $4.20 per gallon gasoline in my car is bad, it just must be my imagination. Seeing people lose my homes just must be my imagination. Knowing that so far in 2008 this country has LOST ... has LOST 428,000 jobs this year, just must be a figment of my imagination. Seeing banks collapse must be my imagination ... yep, we are a country of whiners. I think this is a perfect campaign theme for the republicans if you guys believe it ... reminds me of the sayings "if you believe it, run on it".

Whiners ... too funny.

So what could have been done to prevent gas from going up to $4.20? What caused banks to collapse? Pretty much nothing right? When I went to Europe a couple years back and just about everyone was driving Fiats because gas was $8.00 a gallon, and when I visited in-laws that were living in apartments half the size of ones over here and yet were considered "doing well", I didn't once hear any of them complain about the economy or their financial situation. So yes, you must be whiner.

Then you better be giving John McCain a call and tell him you think this "whiner" issue is a good one for him and he needs to convince Americans that we are whiners and we should just shut the hell up and let him have his war with Iran.

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:I must be a whiner for thinking that putting $4.20 per gallon gasoline in my car is bad, it just must be my imagination. Seeing people lose my homes just must be my imagination. Knowing that so far in 2008 this country has LOST ... has LOST 428,000 jobs this year, just must be a figment of my imagination. Seeing banks collapse must be my imagination ... yep, we are a country of whiners. I think this is a perfect campaign theme for the republicans if you guys believe it ... reminds me of the sayings "if you believe it, run on it".

Whiners ... too funny.

So what could have been done to prevent gas from going up to $4.20? What caused banks to collapse? Pretty much nothing right? When I went to Europe a couple years back and just about everyone was driving Fiats because gas was $8.00 a gallon, and when I visited in-laws that were living in apartments half the size of ones over here and yet were considered "doing well", I didn't once hear any of them complain about the economy or their financial situation. So yes, you must be whiner.

Bman, make sure you recall this comment sometime in the future. He's just put the high water mark for bitching well above gas at $8/gallon. Forget the American dream. You shouldn't be living in a house, but an apartment half the size of your house. Today he's comparing "whiners" in the US to the fine upstanding Fiat driving people living in Europe (that were not whining a couple of years ago) so shame on...

Shame on... Who?

... I gots me a whole mess of stones just waiting for a good target

Yeah, I guess you're right. Let's all bitch together. I don't like the price of beer. Why can't I live in a mansion like Dick Freeland? I always seem to get behind the lady with 50 coupons who stands there and figures out which ones she can use while checking out. Why did they change Oompa candy to that fruit stuff when I remember it as a chocolate/peanut butter combo? I don't like when anyone on this Board disagrees with me.

There, now I can whine with the best of them. Put your stones away.

Maybe we Americans are a bunch of whiners. I like to think this board is a decent slice of the American public, and we've managed to come up with 19 pages of Pet Peeves / Whines of our own...

meta4 wrote:

So you agree that the top Executives at these bankrupt mortgage companies are blaming the little guy for ruining their company because of fiscal irresponsibility? Likewise the little guys are blaming the executives for fiscal irresponsibility?

Who the "F" writes an interest only balloon loan (let alone hundreds of thousands) for $100K-$800K with no down payment to a borrower who can afford the monthly payment for the first 3 years?

How about some punishment of the executive individual for a change? If we go back 3-5 years and take away all the earnings from these executives from the companies in trouble, save $100,000 per exec, per year and apply it to the debt wouldn't it make a huge difference?

The taxpayer should not have to pay for this.

These companies are in this position because they have had corrupt, or incompetent leadership. The corporate executive teams are responsible for what happens while they are at the helm, and are compensated for it greatly. To me its the same principle that causes insurance rates to climb. These individuals need to be held accountable for their performance, not only when the numbers look good, but also when we find what they've swept under the carpet.

Perhaps a law that states something like the CEO of a publicly traded company can be compensated, but not collect more than $1M per year in cash, the rest to be held in escrow for 10 years, disbursing 1/10th of the value per year only after the Exec has completely withdrawn from the company.

So it's the companies fault that they entered into an agreement with someone to loan them money on terms unconventional to you? Ever been to Macedonia? Over there it is unheard of to get a car loan, mortgage or credit card. If you told them you bought a house on a 30 year mortgage they'd think you were as stupid as you are implying those who took out balloon mortgages are.

So it's really all a matter of perspective. To me, if you sign a legal document that means you read the terms of that document and you agree to them. If you don't like the terms, don't sign. It's not like you are picking a doctor to perform life saving surgery.. if you are taking out a loan it's to get something you WANT and maybe need, but not require (you can rent an apartment for shelter and ride a bus or walk for transportation).

So no.. I don't think the execs are to blame for loaning people money in unconventional ways. If they deliberately went out and lied to people, then yes, the company should be blamed. But if they loaned people using ARMs or balloon's, no, it's not their fault, that's the borrowers fault.

As for taking back money.. no, it wouldn't make a huge difference. It'd be like an Aircraft Carrier running over a 15 foot fishing boat. You'd see it, but no one would notice.

If you want to limit/cap executive pay.. just call a spade a spade and admit that you want communism. Not only is that idea one of the dumbest thoughts I've heard come out of the BO camp, it'd be counter productive to turning things around. Merrill Lynch paid John Thain more than any other CEO in America last year to lure him away from the NYSE because he's a proven winner. If you limit pay to $1M you'll get a bunch of CEO's next to nothing and having no incentive to do better.

Putting something in escrow? Sounds kinda like the idea of Social Security.. and we can see how well that's working out...