Pat Buchanon says re debates.
Whether you see one candidate or the other ahead on points:
1. McCains strength is foreign policy and he should of mopped the flloor with Obama. Pat thinks the it was close. Pat is the definition of conservative, but not neocon.
2. Obama demonstated that he can be seen as "presidential" and in that sense he won. He can hold his own with a more experienced man in the area of the other man's strength.
Just a comment from some one who watched on a business chanel w / a moderater, Larry Kodlow, who served in the Reagan administration and is a self-admitted very conservative "free market kind of guy" and shares many neocon viewpoints--although he is not a doctrinaire neocon.
As much as some of you guys hate him
Clinton (Bill) was on the daily show and he was talking about "writing down" these mortgages as part of a bail out program along with a moratorium on foreclosures as done during the depression. He said that this process actually made money for the Government then.
Without making this a partisan "how much Bill Clinton sucks" discussion this seems to make sense to me. People stay in their homes and keep paying, bailout makes money, banks don't fail, taxpayer makes profit, and a plan with a proven track record. It also seems simple.
I'm interested in understanding the why not's from the financial guys that post here. Sid, Exon, Miami Bob or anybody else with an opinion that doesn't smack too much of rabid partisanism.
Clinton is describing the basic framework
Favored by everyone except the house Republicans, Mccain and the majority of the american public. Why--theses are bob's guesses:
1. The american public does not appreciate how close to a major colapse the usa is at this moment. Maybe that is a good thing so that we don't have major "runs on the banks" ie everyone pulling out their money at the same time. Every usa citizen should watch frank capra's movie--it's a wonderful life, now.
2. WE can either watch as the USA economy goes through a very painful cycle or try to cut it off to minimize the pain. This is not free market. This will give a huge financial benefit to wall street financial types. There is no perfect answer.
I am angry, but would rather avoid a serious depression, than keep to a theoretical game plan and punish the financial geniuses who all got rich getting us into this mess.
How many salespeople from merill, lehman and goldman made millions of dollars per year in commissions selling this garbage paper to institutional clients---insurance companies, hedge funds, pension funds. It was safe because the rating agencies said so. The rating agencies--ah an another wonderful group of highly paid and skilled professionals.
This is why I am repeatedly talking about "free market kind of guys" I consider myself a "free market kind of guy" in theory. The reality is that there is no free market. The big fish are eating the little fish and that is a free market without diligent regulation. I am starting to think that lack of regulation means a open ticket for the rich[top 2%] to steal from the rest of us.
3. The conservative house republicans want to use insurance to guarantee instead of buying toxic paper[which may actually be unreasonably undervalued because no one really knows what anything is worth and psychologically everyone is afraid].
Insurance underwriting is based upon statistically assessing risk. At some time in the future we may be able to do this. NOW either we start a fix or we will have a failure. There is no way to calculate risks when we take apart mortgage instruments and break them down into individual mortgages now.
How do you calculate risks on communities in floridaa where 80%+ are behind in their mortgage payments and all the mortgages are greater than the market values of the properties securing those mortgages. There is no insurance private market solution here.
What Bill Clinton is describing is the government buying these bad mortgages at a "fair" value; keeeping the homeowners in the houses where they can and holding this paper purchased at a discount, until the market changes. Eventually[read years] the toxic paper owned by the government should be worth more than the government paid for it aND IN THEORY the government makes a profit. This is what Warren Buffet explained and bill clinton is trying to explain.
Paulson speaks in very complex terms. Clinton speaks in very simple terms. They are saying the same thing. W the president w / a Harvard MBA also agrees.
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE A CONSENSIS. The usa public is not in aggreement and if we wait the month for a full public debate, it may be too late. Almost all of government must be in aggreement or this will be seen like dona kristina F de K acting against the public's will immediately before an election. This is my 2cents
THERE ARE TIMES WHEN POLITICIANS MUST ACT FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD EVEN IF IT CREATES POLITICAL PROBLEMS FOR THOSE POLITICIANS IN A TIME OF CRSIS. A better than average president, JFK, had his university honor thesis publish as "Profiles in Courage" It is a history of couraeous senators who worked for the public good and hurt themselves politically in the process. Even W, the presisdent, sees the need for immediate action and is working with Hank Paulsen and the Democratic leadership of the House and a Senate consensis of both Republicans and Democracts. I do tip my hat to W who is demonstarting political courage before the end of his term.
Right now almost no one can get a mortgage
We need reasonable standards and regulation to make fraud more difficult.
There always will be theives, police and jails.
Is this what you're talking about?
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]We need reasonable standards and regulation to make fraud more difficult.
There always will be theives, police and jails.[/QUOTE][url]http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2008-06-15-ceo-pay_N.htm[/url]
Wonder how many of these guys are going to vote for Obama?
Some More Crap I Dug Up On The Internet. Funny Stuff
Am I supposed to feel threatened?
Quote:
He voted against banning partial " birth abortion.
Good.
Quote:
He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state.
Abortions.
Good.
Quote:
Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.
Ehhh. Not my cup of tea, but hardly a dealbreaker.
Quote:
In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.
I hope everyone questions things.
Quote:
Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage.
Affair.
Huh?
Quote:
Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.
Okay?
Quote:
His religious convictions are very murky.
Good.
Quote:
He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il.
And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
What, and then Jesus will weep?
Quote:
Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to.
Have a conference with all Muslim nations.
Okay? "Conference" and "session of fellatio" are different.
Quote:
Opposed the Patriot Act.
Hooray! He's sane!
Quote:
First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.
Good.
Quote:
Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.
Ambivalent.
I doubt it's possible to force them to stop making guns by suing them, so I think it's pretty misguided to sue them, unless you're just doing it for their pots of gold.
Quote:
Supports universal health-care.
Good.
Quote:
Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
Good.
Quote:
Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
It's that or having them drive without one.
Quote:
Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
Okay.
Quote:
Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
Good.
Quote:
Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social.
Security.
Okay. I think that's all a part of "comprehensive immigration reform" but split up to make it sound like the Mexican Army is in our front yards.
Quote:
Wants to make the minimum wage a "living wage".
Good.
Quote:
Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.
Big surprise. See that little "D" they put after him so much?
Quote:
Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
Good. We don't need any more Christofascists (I know, it's not really fascism, but I like to turn their words around) in the White House (even though Bush is just pretending to do the whole Jesus thing to use them as puppets.
Quote:
Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead.
Supports increasing the amount of tax paid.
Okay.
Quote:
He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Blanket repeals are rarely a good idea, especially when dealing with revenue sources. Something tells me there was a good deal of republican-supported earmarks that wouldn't be stopped if it was repealed.
Quote:
He voted No on repealing the "Death" Tax.
It's just an income tax, deal with it.
Quote:
He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
Okay.
Quote:
Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
Are "succeed" and "fail less miserably" now the same?
Quote:
He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that.
Takes some doing.
Hot damn.
Quote:
If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think.
That his positions will bring America together or make it a better place,
Then you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this Email.
Correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
[b]TOTAL OWNAGE[/b]
Regards,
BM.
