Obama Tells 60 Minutes 'Damaging Behavior on Wall Street' Was Legal, Wasn't Asked Who Enacted Such Laws
There was an astonishingly revealing moment on Sunday's 60 Minutes when President Obama said, "Some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal."
For what should be obvious reasons, CBS's Steve Kroft didn't bother asking his guest who created, voted for or signed the pieces of legislation that allowed this "damaging behavior on Wall Street" to be legal (video follows with transcript and commentary):
STEVE KROFT (SECOND PART INTRO): In a wide-ranging conversation Friday morning, President Obama discussed everything from the sins of Wall Street to his handling of the deficit negotiations with Congress.
At the heart of our conversation were questions about the effectiveness of his leadership that have been raised not just by Republicans, but by Democrats as well. We also talked about his chances in the upcoming election in the face of some grim public opinion polls, and his thoughts about the Republican challengers.
We start with Wall Street, where President Obama has laid the blame for the country's economic meltdown.
STEVE KROFT (TO PRESIDENT OBAMA): One of the things that surprised me the most about this poll is that when asked who your policies favor the most, 42 percent said Wall Street. Only 35 percent said average Americans. My suspicion is, some of that may have to do with the fact that there's not been any prosecutions, criminal prosecutions, of people on Wall Street. And that the civil charges that have been brought have often resulted in what many people think have been a slap on the wrist, fines. Are you disappointed by that?
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: You know, I can't, as President of the United States, comment on the decisions about particular prosecutions. That's the job of the Justice Department. And we keep those things separate, so that there's no political influence on decisions made by professional prosecutors. I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal. That's exactly why we had to change the laws. And that's why we put in place the toughest financial reform package since F.D.R. and the Great Depression.
Imagine for a moment you were Kroft, and the President of the United States - who has been blaming all the country's problems on Wall Street for years - admitted "that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal."
Wouldn't you ask him when such behaviors became legal and who was responsible for the legislation?
Not if you're Steve Kroft:
KROFT (OFF-CAMERA): The implementation of those reforms is still being fought over, with the banking industry and the Republican leadership trying to limit their scope. Just another symptom of the political standoff that has paralyzed Congress since the negotiations to raise the debt ceiling and reduce the deficit began last summer.
KROFT: There are people that think that you took a very hard line, that the Republicans weren't the only ones that were being intransient. That--
OBAMA: That's based off--
KROFT: Let's take the issue of tax reform.
And that was that. Startlingly un-inquisitive, wouldn't you say?
Is it possible that Kroft didn't want to explore this because it would be embarrassing to Democrats and former President Bill Clinton?
After all, the two pieces of legislation that made "some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street" legal were the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 - which removed the last vestiges of the Depression era Glass Steagall Act thereby completely deregulating banks, insurance companies, and securities firms - and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - which completely deregulated financial derivatives at the heart of the crisis - were overwhelmingly supported by Democrats and signed into law by Clinton.
What makes this even more embarrassing for Kroft is that in October 2008, he did a rather extensive piece on 60 Minutes dealing specifically with CFMA.
As NewsBusters reported at the time:
With nine days left before Election Day, "60 Minutes" aired a segment Sunday evening addressing a complex investment tool at the heart of the current financial crisis without fully explaining the presidential campaign ramifications behind the laws that made the market meltdown almost inevitable. [...]
STEVE KROFT, CO-HOST: The world's financial system teetered on the edge again last week, and anyone with more than a passing interest in their shrinking 401(k) knows it's because of a global credit crisis. It began with the collapse of the US housing market and it's been magnified worldwide by what Warren Buffett once called "financial weapons of mass destruction." They're known as credit derivatives or credit default swaps, and we did a story on the multitrillion-dollar market three weeks ago. But there's a lot more to tell. Essentially they are side bets on the performance of the US mortgage markets and the solvency of some of the biggest financial institutions in the world, a form of legalized gambling that allows you to wager on financial outcomes without ever having to actually buy the stocks and the bonds and the mortgages. It would have been illegal during most of the 20th century, but eight years ago Congress gave Wall Street an exemption. And it's turned to have been a very bad idea. [...]
KROFT: (Voiceover) The vehicle for doing this was an obscure but critical piece of federal legislation called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. And the bill was a big favorite of the financial industry it would eventually help destroy. It not only removed derivatives and credit default swaps from the purview of federal oversight; on page 262 of the legislation, Congress pre-empted the states from enforcing existing gambling and bucket shop laws against Wall Street.
Yet, as NewsBusters reported, Kroft and 60 Minutes withheld some politically sensitive details:
Despite accurately calling credit default swaps "The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street," CBS didn't properly inform viewers that George W. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with the Clinton-signed legislation that deregulated them, and that frequent campaign statements by Barack Obama and Joe Biden blaming the current financial crisis on Bush economic policies are therefore completely false.
The producers also chose not to expose the key Democrats -- most notably House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) -- that voted in favor of this legislation back in 2000 but have in recent weeks dishonestly blamed President Bush for the current crisis.
So, nine days before Obama was elected president, Kroft and 60 Minutes intentionally withheld information from viewers about CFMA that might have been embarrassing to the Democrat presidential candidate and his Party while discrediting their campaign claims that Bush and Republicans were completely to blame for the financial and economic meltdown.
Now, a little over three years later, with the President in the middle of a reelection campaign and admitting on national television "that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal," Kroft, despite being totally familiar with CFMA, once again chose not to bring up anything that might interfere with Obama's ability to blame all the nation's economic problems on George W. Bush and Republicans.
How do these people continue to get away with such blatant bias?
Readers are encouraged to review other syrupy interviews Kroft has done in the past.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
2008 all over again
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 11:11pm.
2008 all over again
aaagh
Submitted by Forbin001 on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 11:27pm.
Ive seen a lot of presidents over the years....this one...pfft I dunno. Yes hes quite bright and well spoken but often times he says things that are just INCREDIBLY stupid.
At this point I will vote for a box of frogs for president....Obama must go.
Bright and well spoken?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 11:31pm.
What Obama are you seeing that I'm not?
Bright? Well spoken?
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 11:54pm.
Bright as a burned out light bulb, and as well spoken as the teleprompter allows. Without notes, rehearsals and soft cuing from his media sycophants, he could not deliver an ad lib speech to save his soul. As was once said about Jack Benny, "he could not ad lib a belch after a Hungarian dinner".
Hes only as...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 6:39am.
Obama is only as bright as David Axelrod makes him!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
Earth to NB...
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 11:29pm.
Yes Clinton signed those laws and the Democrats supported, but they were laws proposed by the Republican controlled Congress and they all voted in the majority for it. I can't believe with all the crap Obama said in that lame interview and you had to focus on that particular subject.
Okay Zenman, I'm all
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 11:43pm.
Okay Zenman, I'm all ears.
Tell me what else in this interview in your mind demonstrated liberal media bias of a greater nature than Kroft neglecting to ask the president who made these awful behaviors legal?
Please be as specific as you can; I'm always interested in tips.
ns
You're still not getting it..
Submitted by zenman1661 on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 12:05am.
It was the Republicans in a move to deregulate the banking industry who proposed, pushed for those two bills and who the majority of them voted for. Now you can make the case that most of those law did help the banks without causing any harm and that the part that did feed the Housing Crisis and the Wall Street meltdown would not have had such an effect without a perfect storm of other factors (Greenspan and Freddie/Fannie for example). So the question becomes why do you think not asking a question where the answer is both parties but the Republicans more than the Democrats is an example of liberal media bais.
By your logic, then....
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 12:50am.
...Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank would have to share in the blame for the financial mess, because they pushed back on Bush's proposals to reform and re-regulate Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other GSEs with loan guarantee or purchase authority.
If Clinton was so against the legislation, why didn't he simply veto it? The Republicans did NOT hold a veto-proof majority in either the house or senate while they had majorities.
As I recall, the first bill that to tear down the Glass-Steagall provisions of 1933 was passed by a very large bipartisan majority in the house, while the senate vote was narrower.
To blame Republicans for banking, securities and insurance deregulation is fallacious reasoning at best. The legislation would never have passed without Democrat support. According to the House vote roll call on the initial bill, 205 Republicans voted for the bill, while 16 voted against it. In the Democrat side, 138 voted for it, while 69 voted against it. The vote in the Senate was largely along party lines, understandable given the dynamics of the initial bill. The bill passed 54 Republicans, 1 Democrat for and 44 Democrats against. After the conference report reconciling the differences between the House and Senate bills was re-introduced, the final house tally was 362 to 57 in the House and 90 to 8 in the Senate. In other words, it was a BIPARTISAN bill.
So please do tell us, Zen, what you do not understand about the constitutional process and the fact that the final 1999 legislation was passed by huge bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed quickly by Clinton? In other words, the final say was to be had by Clinton. To not ask who was the President who signed the bill and thus allowed the provisions to into force was nearly an act of journalistic malpractice, assuming journalism could be considered a profession--which it is most clearly not.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was another notch in the
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 3:33am.
belt of the financial deregulatory zealot, Phil Gramm. Make no mistake, the anti-regulatory component of the bill was a GOP baby, otherwise known as the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act--Republican, Republican, and Republican.
Strangely enough, despite the penchant of Congressional Republicans for launching yet another investigation every time Clinton sneezed, there still existed in that bygone era a measure of comity and accommodation between the parties so that the legislative wheels kept turning while periodically being greased with--wait for it--compromise...rather than grinding to a halt with constant filibustering. What a concept.
So, instead of sabotaging the bill, the Democrats reached an accord with the House and Senate GOP leaders which resulted in the inclusion of anti-redlining and other Dem-friendly provisions, thereby making the bill more palatable and supportable by the Democratic minority. And legislation which originally generated significant opposition among Democrats was now sailing through Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. As such, Clinton's signature was a mere formality. In 20/20 hindsight, I think it safe to say that the bill was one that should have been scuttled by the Democrats and the inevitable cries of "foul"! ignored.
Now the Financial Modernization Act of 2000 is another kettle of fish altogether with a truly byzantine legislative history and one which can be hung around the necks of both parties with far greater justification. But Phil Gramm had his fingerprints all over that one too.
Jer
jer
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 5:02am.
This.
The D's figured it out and spent their majority on getting thru their "vision" without it being made "palatable" to the R's.
Your post is an argument *against* bipartisanship in my mind!
Ronald Reagan
amy...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 5:18am.
If that had been the case, the Republicans would have defeated the bill. They were in the majority in both the House and Senate.
Jer
My bad - at the risk of being
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 5:55am.
My bad - at the risk of being igged for a lengthy post I left out my frame of reference - 2007-2010 midterms.
D's figured out getting R support was a poison pill that would water down/reverse the goal so they passed them by to enact their legislation. And of course, they *would* have been used in the future to beat them up if they had allowed the R's a voice.
Voters {and R's} have *finally* figured out being bipartisan results in this, and thus the TP arose. Expect the pressure from the msm for bipartisanship to increase, the more power they obtain, when they were silent during the D's short reign.
To me it's fairly simple - the US is unique, and the D's ideas are standard practice elsewhere in the world, so why do they not just go where they perceive nirvana exists???
Ronald Reagan
Jer
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 10:05am.
Jer,
Yep, it sure did have Phil Gramm's fingerprints on it, but without Democrat votes, it never would have gotten out of the House. Pure and simple.
Admit it: with the economy and tax receipts exploding as NASDAQ raced towards unthinkable heights, our lawmakers on both sides of the aisle removed most of the restraints on the industry they were at the time in love with. When it all came tumbling down, the Democrats pretended they had nothing to do with it - much like Norman Bates after his mother supposedly killed someone! - and the media completely assisted them.
Sorry - Homey don't play that! ns
Noel...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 7:01pm.
I agree with what I believe to be at least your implicit acknowledgement, i.e. that both sides of the aisle were culpable, and the fingers being pointed at others would be more appropriately pointed at a mirror. I also believe that even Bill Clinton has conceded the fact of bi-partisan responsibility.
Jer
edit. As I reread your comment, I should amend my reply to note your acknowledgement was explicit rather than implicit.
But who cares?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 7:32pm.
Yep, it sure did have Phil Gramm's fingerprints on it
But who cares? The Glass Steagal repeal is a liberal red herring anyway, and had pretty much nothing to do with the financial collapse that occured in 2008.
Context, Jer, context.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 11:08pm.
There was absolutely no guarantee that a presidential veto on the bill would have been overridden. Even though the final law had overwhelming bipartisan support, if Clinton had objected to the bill history shows most of the Democrats would have voted NOT to override a veto. The fact that a compromise was reached fairly easily in the bill's final form means enough Democrats supported regulatory overhauls, as seen in the passage of the first bill which did not have enough Republican votes to pass it without Democrat participation.
And for whatever reason you are dragging the congressional investigations into Bill Clinton into this mix is hardly salient to this topic. When was there any mention of those?
The fact is that the bill would NOT have become law without Bill Clinton's signature and there is no way you can say that a veto would have definitely been overridden, unless you recently changed from reading law to reading tea leaves or tarot cards.
Both parties voted for this bill and a Democrat president signed it. That is the unvarnished, unspinned version.
As I recall, Bush's efforts to re-regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were blocked by Democrats in the house and senate, namely Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. Unless you wish to pin the blame for the recession on the Democrats, remember they had the majority in congress from 2006 until 2010. They crafted the legislation, and unless you wish to say the Democrats allowed themselves to be controlled by Republicans (indicating the Democrats were weak) or that they could do nothing (ever hear of George H. W. Bush?), the argument that it was solely the financial deregulation bills of 1999 and 2000 causing the mess is non-sequitur. Both parties were culpable, no matter how hard anyone spins the rhetoric.
What you refuse to understand is that you proved my point.
Submitted by zenman1661 on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 9:16am.
You were trying to imply that Steve Kroft by not asking who enacted those laws which made the possible the Wall Street mess that he was covering for the Democrats and therefore constitutes liberal media bias. But even you say the votes were Bipartisan so since the answer wouldn't point the finger at any one group it can't be media bias. I say the Republicans are more responsible because though Clinton did sign the laws, they were initiated by the Republicans and even with my poor understanding of the constitutional process I know that both bills would have passed in the senate on the roll cal without any Democratic votes and needed very few in the House. And no Democrats were needed in the final vote.
zenman1661
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 9:22am.
It *still* serves the msm's purposes - if they show it WAS bipartisanship, then that damns bipartisanship, and with the coming upset they NEED bipartisanship!!!
Ronald Reagan
Amy
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 9:38am.
Amy,
Correct. Zenman's chasing windmills. You can't blame all our economic problems on Bush and Republicans if Democrats overwhelmingly voted for two bills signed by Clinton that caused the financial crisis. Kroft like the rest of the media ignored this because it would totally refute Obama's deflections. ns
Noel Sheppard
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 12:07pm.
OT - but apropos:
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2004/02/25/
Ronald Reagan
If truth is a windmill...
Submitted by zenman1661 on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 7:56pm.
then call me Don Quixote. The fact that everyone does not want to acknowledge is that Obama said a lot of garbage on 60 minutes aided by an interviewer who pressed him very little. And all Noel Sheppard could come up with to post was one of the few things he said that had a semblance of accuracy. If Obama had been talking about Obamacare, the Stimulus or Dodd Frank then Kroft would have been sloppy not to have brought up who had been responsible for them. But neither Noel or Amy or anyone can change the history that the two bills were written , pushed through committee and brought to the floor for all necessary votes to get it passed by Republicans.
Don Quixote? No. The backside of his horse? Yes.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 11:13pm.
Please explain how the initial bills could have been passed by the House solely with Republican votes when they only had 205 'yes' votes. The leadership needed all of the Republicans to vote for the bill and they did not get them. The bill also passed by a 54-44 vote in the Senate, but failed to reach a supermajority to override a filibuster. Some cosmetic changes were made and the final bill passsed overwhelmingly. Whatever you fail to understand about that is beyond explanation. Whatever ideology you follow is blinding you to the fact that the bill never would have become law without those overwhelming majorities AND Clinton's signature. Blaming the Republicans alone for the deregulation bills is sheer nonsense.
You use strawman arguments and insults ...
Submitted by zenman1661 on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:16am.
as bad as a liberal. Next time try actually reading what some says before going off on a tirade. I never said the Democrat votes weren't involved in getting them passed. All this started because I was I was saying it was both parties who were involved, therefore Kroft not following up was not liberal bias especially compared to the rest of the interview. . And I notice you never refuted my claim that it was the Republicans who were the driving force behind getting them through the process.. Just like it was the Democrats when they had control of the both Houses when they drove through those excrement bills like the Stimulus, Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. The only difference is they had the votes to get them passed without Republican votes. You got to understand I am Tea Party, but that doesn't mean I ignore truth or history. I am conservative because in most cases, it makes the most sense.
Wrong
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 9:51am.
Wrong.
210 votes were required to pass FSMA. Only 207 Republicans in the House voted for it. Bill doesn't pass without Democrats. 153 voted for it: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1999-570 Dems could have stopped this, but didn't.
As for CFMA, 2/3 of those present were needed to pass it in the House. 2/3. Only 193 Republicans voted for it along with 181 Democrats. Dems could have easily stopped this bill, but they instead voted for it almost unanimously: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2000-540
Bringing this up to the President would have been very embarrassing for him.
Please in the future do your homework before you challenge my knowledge on bills I've written extensively about for years, and do us all a favor by attaching links to government websites to support your views. ns
That will teach me
Submitted by zenman1661 on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 8:10pm.
to write quickly in the morning whlile getting ready for work. But what is your excuse for misrepresenting that Krofts lack of followup was media bias when if the question had been asked and answered truthfully, an answer which would have been according to your own words, that it was a bipartisan vote. It can't be media bias if it is not protecting or falsely slamming one side over another. Please do you have the courage now to admit that
ZM
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 11:27pm.
ZM,
I realize now I've been talking to a wall. You've completely ignored every reply to your contentions. As such, I won't waste anymore time trying to convey what is clearly obvious and irrefutable. Adieu. ns
I know a thing or 2 about some of this, Zenman
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 12:48am.
Off the top of my head:
The Democrats in the House voted 3 to 1 to repeal Glass Stegall.
Even Nancy Pelosi voted for it.
The vote in the Senate was about 90% for repeal.
You can, as they say, "look it up".
I'm still watching football.
ZM
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 1:27am.
ZM,
Because it's not the Republicans more than the Democrats. Only four people voted against this in the House. Four. 180 Democrats voted for it. It passed in the Senate as a voice vote with no nays. More importantly, it was signed by a Democrat president BEFORE BUSH WAS INAUGURATED.
For over three years, we've been told by Obama and the Democrats that Bush caused all our economic problems. But the two pieces of legislation that created the housing and credit bubbles were signed into law by a Democrat president BEFORE Bush was in the White House. Exactly what aren't you getting about this? ns
Here's a look at the deregulation - from the left
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 2:28pm.
ZM might benefit from this effort presented on PBS by Frontline - "The Warning. "
(;~/ gary
PS - Even so, the conversation in front of the public - complements of the MSM and Obama - continues to leave out the fact that the housing bubble was conceived, regulated, and fueled by Clinton's HUD Secretaries, Henry Cisneros and Andrew Cuomo. Without the housing bubble, Wall Street would have had to find something else to play with.
“Wasn't Asked Who Enacted Such Laws”
Submitted by needle on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 11:38pm.
That would be a "Hardball” question {guffaw}
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Actually Obama has dropped
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 12:38am.
Actually Obama has dropped hints before that no one did anything illegal in the mortgage meltdown debacle, etc. and the media were totally oblivious and never bothered to ask why?
But wouldn't it be delicious if a "draft Hillary" campaign started and Clinton let herself be "pushed" into running against Obama.
I'm sure, FINALLY, the media would discover the Community Reinvestment Act and how President Clinton and Janet Reno injected it with federal steroids, and how Clinton rscinded Glass Steagall, etc.
We might even find out where those Whitewater records were all those years before they were "discovered" in the Clinton residence.
Like Kroft not revealing the
Submitted by jdhawk on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 1:06am.
Like Kroft not revealing the architects of the FSMA of 1999 and the CFMA of 2000, NB fails to mention the contents of the Dodd-Frank legislation and the fact that it does nothing to revert back to before FSMA of 1999 and CFMA of 2000.
Instead its intent is to hamstring financial services companies to the extent that they will do whatever the current administration says for it to do and keep quiet about what it is doing. Failure to do so will mean that the next acquistion will not pass the DOJ, the OCC, the SEC, and/or the Department of Commerce.
How can you tell that this is the case? Look at what remains in place after this finanical meltdown. Still remaining in existence and due to cost the American people some 1/4 of trillion dollars are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (they've cost tens of billions in just this calendar year alone). They alone set loan standards for mortgaging lending. And, what is going on there? It is much unchanged. Still, people that shouldn't be lent money for a mortgage to buy a home are getting loans. Still, people that shouldn't be refinanced for a second mortgage in place of the first mortgage that they couldn't pay for in the first place are getting loans.
Kroft failed to bring up MF Global. The logical question to ask O'bummer is now that Dodd-Frank is in law, when can we expect Jon Corzine will be prosecuted under its provisions. The facts are that Dodd-Frank doesn't nothing to address these kind of frauds and malfeasances.
Remember, Wall Street is run by and for dimocrats. And, the biggest contributors to O'bummer's first election campaign was Wall Street; they will be his largest contributors to this relection campaign.
By the way, I trade and invest in futures, ETFs, and stocks. I work for one of the largest banks in the country, but in IT. I am not against the primary function of Wall Street which is to allocate capital. It is vitally important to our nation and the planet. What I am against is the lack of transparency and the crony captialism that permeates Wall Street.
That is so 2008, jd...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 4:59am.
Romney Crushes Obama on Wall Street
Jer
That was a Steve Soft interview
Submitted by OxyCon on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 2:13am.
Kroft looked very nervous and intimidated as if he was afraid to offend or cause Obama any problems. If I didn't know any better, I would have thought it was a Soviet journalist interviewing the General Secretary.
Complete the scene
Submitted by HockeyKid on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 6:57am.
with the KGB behind the camera.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Well, first off
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 8:35am.
the premise that Wall Street was at fault for the downturn is, apparently, incorrect. I just heard DSW on Fox and Friends declare that the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression was the fault of the policies put in place by the Bush Administration. Unfortunately the segment was just about out of time when she said this, and Gretchen didn't ask her which policies specifically she was referring to, but I doubt she'd have asked that question anyway.
This is typical of 60 Minutes; make it look like you're being tough on Democrats by asking a mildly tough question at the outset, then let them off the hook with no follow up and changing direction so that by the end of the piece, the viewer is left with a pro-Dem impression. They did the same thing with the Pelosi credit card scandal; they started with her, then quickly shifted the "insider trading" meme to Republicans, never once coming back to Pelosi. By the end of the segment, all you could remember was Congressman Bachus.
Too bad Stevie Poo couldn't bring himself to bring up slobbering
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 9:57am.
...Bawney Fwank, the boyfriend he was swapping spit with at the time, as well as the duplicity by the likes of Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, UpChuck Shumer, and many others who covered for the FMs when everybody and their brother knew they were in seriously deep doo.
Well, all of them except for Maxine Waters, who has all the intellectual properties of a pet rock.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Root cause
Submitted by grundoon on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 5:37am.
So much for current events but a little root cause analysis still points to the fact that if the Democrat's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 had never been passed (or nothng similar to it since) none of this conversation would be taking place.
Grun
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:06am.
Grun,
Tough to blame it all on CRA. It certainly was a part of the continuous move by government to put more and more pressure on banks and S&Ls to make bad loans, but without the explosion of Fannie and Freddie and the eventual deregulation under Clinton, we never would have seen the excesses like we saw in the previous decade. CRA might be the fuel on the fire, but it's not the match. ns