Will this hurt or help either candidate?

[Slytovhand]

Thanks FashionLad.

But I was thinking more along the lines of... we have a financial problem developing, let's throw our money somewhere else instead...

IDAR, how many times throughout history have policitians done what was necessary that may well end up with a politician in deep do-do? It's pretty rare, cos I think they know that if they stuff up, then they can end up on the receiving end later down the track. How much of a committee was done to find out about those missing WMD's?


Slyt

[Gravekeeper]

Huge political stunt on Mccain's part I'd say and its backfiring rather spectacularly. You do not lie to and piss off Letterman of all people. Letterman's been railing on him for two nights straight now. -.-

He canceled his appearance on the Letterman saying he had to fly back to Washington immediately to save the economy and what not.....then he turned up down the hall from Letterman doing an interview with Couric while Letterman was still on the air. Then didn't even fly out to Washington till the following day.

Letterman was pissed.

Now he's causing problems with this bail out deal by suggesting and arguing for alternatives that were already considered and shot down to begin with.

I guess the plan was to have him grandstand that he's suspending his campaign ( though he did not actually "suspend' anything. His aides appeared on *6* cable shows within hours of the apparent suspension and berated Obama and the democrats. ). Then fly back to Washington and present an alternative plan that the GOP would back and he could take credit for. Thus saving the day.

Problem being the Democrats and even some of the Republicans wanted nothing to do with his attempt to derail. ><

It seems like its falling apart much like picking Palin as his VP did as a publicity stunt.

I really think its going to hurt him fairly bad at this rate.

[Boozy]

This is a non-partisan problem.

So we could blame Clinton and the Democrats, or we could blame Bush and the Republicans, but that doesn't really get us anywhere. It's true that much of the groundwork for collapse was laid in the 1990's, while Clinton was President, but despite popular belief, the economy isn't a puppet whose strings are pulled by the government. The economy is notoriously resistant to regulation. Free market capitalism is a monster over which we have very little control.

With that said, there are things the government can do to mitigate these problems. This isn't about "more" or "less" regulation -- more like "smart" and "stupid" regulation. Neither candidate has proposed a workable solution, in my opinion. If I were an American, I'd be sorely tempted to reject my ballot in November.

[IDrinkaRum]

You're right Boozy. Much as I hate to admit it, neither have come up with a solution. McCain is in Washington doing anything but coming up with a solution. Obama is still in wherever the debate is, rehearsing for the debate or a big town meeting (as seeing as how McCain has not said whether or not he'll be there).

As for Letterman? I hate Letterman. He's an annoying whiny little man who can retire at any time now and I wouldn't miss him. I am not basing my election choice on whether my candidate did or did not show up on the show.

As for the Couric interview? Who cares? She's more of a serious reporter and McCain wanted to make sure more of the U.S. knew why he was suspending his campaign.

[anriana]

As for Letterman? I hate Letterman. He's an annoying whiny little man who can retire at any time now and I wouldn't miss him. I am not basing my election choice on whether my candidate did or did not show up on the show.

He originally scheduled an interview with Letterman. Instead of saying "Sorry man, you're a comedian, I'm going to go to an interview with a more serious reporter due to the serious crisis that is facing the country right now, can we reschedule for later?" he said "Uh... I have to get back to Washington... right now" and then gave an interview with someone else down the hall from Letterman's studio. He runs a straight talk express and can't even bother covering up his lies to television journalists?

As for the Couric interview? Who cares? She's more of a serious reporter and McCain wanted to make sure more of the U.S. knew why he was suspending his campaign.

I can't find recent ratings for either of them but isn't Katie Couric the person who was going to get fired for tanking her show's ratings?

[AdminAssistant]

Last I heard, the debate is on for tonight.

According to the few minutes I caught of CNN today, the people who have been working on this problem for a week are actually highly annoyed that McCain and Obama have swooped in. The meeting yesterday apparently just turned into a shouting match.

One of the things I want is a limit on CEO compensation for these companies. In my opinion, capitalism does not call for a CEO getting millions of dollars for running his/her company into the ground.

[Gravekeeper]

Obama is still in wherever the debate is, rehearsing for the debate or a big town meeting (as seeing as how McCain has not said whether or not he'll be there).

No, Obama was in Washington too. Mccain only gave notice he'd show up at the debate 10 hours before it was to air. Thus undoing the entire "campaign suspension to save America!" thing to begin with.

He has to find a way to save face now that its all backfired. -.-

As for Letterman, doesn't matter what you think of him, but he's a very powerful media influence. You do not just blow off Letterman and outright lie to him like that. He can and will hurt your image and his voice reachs a lot of people.

As for Couric, I'm guessing McCain flew over there to get in an interview with her to try and head off the sheer amount of damage Palin's painfully embarrassing interview the night before was doing.

[Amethyst Hunter]

No, Obama was in Washington too. Mccain only gave notice he'd show up at the debate 10 hours before it was to air. Thus undoing the entire "campaign suspension to save America!" thing to begin with.

He has to find a way to save face now that its all backfired. -.-

Obama had the right idea. He didn't stick his nose into the business until he was actually called on, basically saying that the process didn't need to be any more complicated by 'celebrity' presence (his or McCain's). Neither did he brush off anything as blithely as some folks seem to imply. He's doing the right thing, which in this case is to keep a calm head, not panic, and try to work on sensible problem-solving when asked to do so.

As for Couric, I'm guessing McCain flew over there to get in an interview with her to try and head off the sheer amount of damage Palin's painfully embarrassing interview the night before was doing.

Oh God. I saw a clip from that interview. I hope Katie had some brain bleach to rinse with afterwards (not that I like Couric all that much, but I have to take pity on her for being exposed to Ms.-I-Am-A-Walking-Insult-To-Pit-Bulls). Where's the puking icon when you need it here, heh...

[Fashion Lad!]

This is a non-partisan problem.

So we could blame Clinton and the Democrats, or we could blame Bush and the Republicans, but that doesn't really get us anywhere. It's true that much of the groundwork for collapse was laid in the 1990's, while Clinton was President, but despite popular belief, the economy isn't a puppet whose strings are pulled by the government. The economy is notoriously resistant to regulation. Free market capitalism is a monster over which we have very little control.

With that said, there are things the government can do to mitigate these problems. This isn't about "more" or "less" regulation -- more like "smart" and "stupid" regulation. Neither candidate has proposed a workable solution, in my opinion. If I were an American, I'd be sorely tempted to reject my ballot in November.

Actually, you wouldn't believe how much of our law making is politics. It's all politics. Each party votes down the party lines whether it's good for the country or not. There are very few that will vote on something regardless of what party came up with the idea. So, no, it's not exactly a non-partisan issue. And the people that opposed to regulation for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were democrats. And non defended them more than Senator Dodd and Senator Obama. Why did the defend them so much? Well, let's see... Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

The Senate BANKING Committee Chairman was in their pocket the entire time. The worst part about it, they have to come up with a solution before the Asian markets open because this is all intertwined and it can take the world economy with it. Why aren't more people mad at the key people in blocking the regulations?? Because, this is a blame Bush and the Republicans world. Bush was wrong on the war, but on regulating these businesses, he was absolutely right.

Another thing that led up to this, since the regulations were so loose. These companies would guarantee extremely high-risk loans. And bankers would offer loans that were irresponsible. They put people in these loans that were right up to their means, not leaving any room for any sort of emergency. The regulations that Bush and the Republicans wanted to put in place would've prevented a lot of this.

Also, it's not politics when it's just stating the facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

I like time lines and you will too...

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

I do believe that it was correct for McCain to go and try and work on this as it is serious. He needs to prove himself a leader of the Republicans if he wants a shot any the presidency. At the same time, I do not agree to the $700 billion bailout that Bush and the Democrats are wanting to pass. I agree with the Republicans that Wall-Street needs to fund this and leave the tax payer dollar out of it. McCain needs to get this idea out, all people hear is $700 billion bail out. McCain is the Republican everyone is going to listen to right now. People want to know how the candidates are going to fix this and they don't want to pay $700 billion. Getting out what the Republicans want to do is going to help, but he needs to be vocal and clear.

[AFPheonix]

Actually, you wouldn't believe how much of our law making is politics. It's all politics. Each party votes down the party lines whether it's good for the country or not. There are very few that will vote on something regardless of what party came up with the idea. So, no, it's not exactly a non-partisan issue. And the people that opposed to regulation for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were democrats. And non defended them more than Senator Dodd and Senator Obama. Why did the defend them so much? Well, let's see... Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.


I do believe that it was correct for McCain to go and try and work on this as it is serious. He needs to prove himself a leader of the Republicans if he wants a shot any the presidency. At the same time, I do not agree to the $700 billion bailout that Bush and the Democrats are wanting to pass. I agree with the Republicans that Wall-Street needs to fund this and leave the tax payer dollar out of it. McCain needs to get this idea out, all people hear is $700 billion bail out. McCain is the Republican everyone is going to listen to right now. People want to know how the candidates are going to fix this and they don't want to pay $700 billion. Getting out what the Republicans want to do is going to help, but he needs to be vocal and clear.

What is confusing to me about those articles on regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is that the congress at the time was a fairly strong republican majority. I'm not sure why democrat opposition (and I haven't bothered to go onto the congressional website to see who voted how) would necessarily be a deal killer unless a good number of republicans also voted against it.

As for the bailout, if it was structured the way a lot of private firms handle that sort of thing where we as the taxpayer reap the benefits and profit for investing in such a move, it could be a pretty good thing overall. In any case, we've just survived some of the largest bank collapses in US history. Something does need to be done.

[Boozy]

Actually, you wouldn't believe how much of our law making is politics.

I understand that, but that doesn't change the fact that free market economies tend to be resistant to laws.

Some Scandanavian countries have loads of regulations to prevent problems like this... and the black market in these countries comprise upwards of forty percent of their GDP.

Again, I'm not saying that there's nothing that can be done by the government. There is - but they have to be smart about this. Ideas like capping executive pay (Obama) and cutting corporate taxes (McCain) isn't going to cut it. Neither plan provides any incentive to cut back on high risk investing, and incentives are the only thing that have ever provided results in a capitalist system.

[Fashion Lad!]

I understand that, but that doesn't change the fact that free market economies tend to be resistant to laws.

Again, I'm not saying that there's nothing that can be done by the government. There is - but they have to be smart about this. Ideas like capping executive pay (Obama) and cutting corporate taxes (McCain) isn't going to cut it. Neither plan provides any incentive to cut back on high risk investing, and incentives are the only thing that have ever provided results in a capitalist system.

This was directly caused by the governments requirement for subprime mortgages to be issued. Directly in fact, banks were being fined and sued if they didn't issue enough subprime mortgages. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were the ones that guaranteed these loans.

Bad credit, no credit, no problem. Everyone could get a house. Whether they could truly afford it or not. This left no room for error. So, since everyone could get a house, house prices grew out of proportion with inflation. People were put into adjustable rate mortgages. Yeah, payments are low for a month or two, but their payments could double, they couldn't pay. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were losing a lot of money because of this. Some loans that were being issued, people never paid a dime to principle, it all went to interest.

What Bush wanted to do is regulate these businesses that were losing money on these subprime loans. No longer would people with bad credit or no credit be able to get a house. Only people that would be able to pay for their houses would be able to own a home. That makes sense, right? In 2008 alone Bush brought this up 17 times, each time blocked by democrats.

Once again, with the bill that was signed in 1999, if banks did not issue enough subprime mortgages, they were either sued or fined. They had to issue these high-risk loans that got us into this mess.

Bush wanted this requirement of banks to be abolished. This is the requirement that put people into houses they could not afford. Now tell me, how is this bad policy? And tell me again, how is when the democrats blocked this 17 times in 2008 alone, and who knows how many times throughout Bush's entire presidency not their fault?

You can keep mentioning smart regulations vs just regulating. But Bush wanted to regulate and abolish the very thing that got us into this mess. Why do you keep mentioning smart regulations vs just any regulating about this when Bush wanted to regulate the very thing that brought us here? It seems to me, the regulations Bush wanted to put in effect were smart regulations.

And about the free market, it was the law that banks had to issue these loans that got us into this mess. So, that blows your theory in this issue out the window. It works in a lot of other instances, but not when the government forces you to take on loans that should not have been issued. Between that bill in 1999 and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae not accurately reporting their income, we are in this mess.

[Fashion Lad!]

What is confusing to me about those articles on regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is that the congress at the time was a fairly strong republican majority. I'm not sure why democrat opposition (and I haven't bothered to go onto the congressional website to see who voted how) would necessarily be a deal killer unless a good number of republicans also voted against it.

Every Republican voted for it. There is a "neat" little procedural element in lawmaking called committees. The "committee" that held hearings on the new regulations for Freddie and Fannie was the Senate Banking and Finance Committee. The bill never made it out of committee because EVERY single Democrat voted against it. Yep, the same guys throwing stones at glass houses today, Schumer, Frank and Dodd all voted against it and now say it is completely the Republican's fault.

That's why even though the Republicans held the majority the bill never finalized.

[AFPheonix]

Interesting. I suppose at the time they were trying to get more loans available to minorities, who statistically are not always good credit risks. For some it turned out to be a good gamble in that quite a few made it out of poverty, but for many others it pushed them right back into it.

[Slytovhand]

Hey Fashion Lad, I'd like to see exactly what those 17 Bills contained. Quite often, though they may sound great when you just brush over them, some of the details are completely crock!

eg - that link about Obama and gun laws. yeah, there might have been some good in principle, but others were just barmy! (like, not making someone responsible for handing a gun over to someone you knew was going to commit a crime with it... now, that should be illegal. The bill would have thrown that out...)

It's all the small print that makes the difference... and what makes them get held up or thrown out. Easier to reject it now, and have it go through modified, than pass it now, and have it altered later.