McCain Shows Leadership...Obama Shows Politics As Usual

The problem with Obama is he is incapable of staying on message.  He HAD a winning one with "multi-tasking" and then backed off at the first little sign of criticism.  I am beginning to believe that his problem is the exact opposite of Kerry's.  IN other words instead of sticking with a failed message too long, he is dropping winning ones too quickly.

So McCain's an economic genius that will fix the country, eh?

Well, good luck with that.  I'm glad he responded so quickly...around a week since this became a problem.  Good reflexes...and conveniently interferes with the debate.

Wonder if there will be any other issues that coincide with debates...or we'll never get to see them duke it out.

~Zoo

McCain tried to reform this years ago.  When is Obama going to respond instead of worrying about his campaign?  Still waiting from that call from Pelosi I guess.

When you say that what you mean is that he once, two years ago, in his decades as a senator, he warned about the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? That doesn't mean McCain gets to call himself a financial reformer. He's consistently voted for less regulation of the financial markets (per Katie Couric's interview with the Beauty Queen).

Wrong chamber - Reid.

I saw reports on the new that seem to show that maybe if we hold back a bit on this "bailout" that the markets may actually correct themselves. A few examples are JP Morgan acquiring WaMu and Warren Buffet paying 5 billion for Goldman Sachs. I admit I know very little if anything about the stock market and these companies merging or buying each other out. But that sounds like a good thing to me in a way.

Actually, Obama is the one who thinks he can solve all of our problems and he can do it while multitasking a radio station and sending a text while driving. McCain simply has a plan to avoid using so much of the tax payers money. A plan, not a solution, a plan.

Well thank you. I hope it works out too.

Smart politics. Hmmm, McCain sounds better and better every time.

Come on now Zoo. Do you really wanna have Obama ridiculed on live TV? I mean, he does a good job all by himself as it is every time he does not have a teleprompter there to help.

And?  Less regulation is not a bad thing, and regulation isn't the cause of this problem.

 

Yes, but isn't Pelosi pulling Obama's strings?

Not bloddy likely!  Have you seen what happens to the stock exchange when they hint one way or another on the bailout?  If we hold back then confidence in our system will be lost, people will make a run on their banks, our dollar will be worthless and we'll be in a new depression.  I'm not saying that the $700 billion is the answer.  I do believe they need to do something before the opening of the market on Monday.

Do you realize how gross the image you just put in my mind is?  Ewwww!

Hussein continues to show his "LEADERSHIP" through his vote, his total now is "PRESENT 160 TIMES" BECAUSE THERE IS NO TELEPROMPTER IN FRONT of his face telling him how to vote and he gets confused very easy

Maybe you should look up the Glass Steagall Act that was enacted during the Great Depression and then look up the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed certain parts of it in 1999.

 

Maybe you should look up the CRA.  That is the root of the problem.

No it isnt.....Most of those loans are not ARM's...And part of fixing the GSA's involves expanding CRA in order to get some of the bad ARMs that were made by Mortgage companies not related to CRA switched over to Fixed Rate loans that are lower risk.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS135259+07-Jan-2008+BW20080107

ARMs are only part of the problem.  The problem is people getting loans they cannot afford.  And what did the CRA do?  Make home owenership "affordable" to those that could not before, and are defaulting now.  YOu keep trying to bob and weave around the truth.  The truth is that the CRA is just "Good intentions" in bad legislation.  The CRises was caused by democrat politicans wishing to protect their pork so protecting the rotten institutions until the rot showed through the exterior.  But then it was too late (you do no see the rot in a tree until it falls).

You brought up ARMs.  But that is just a dodge to deflect scrutiny of the core problem.  The whole reason that home ownership worked in the past is that  it does require discipline.  And that has to be learned while saving for a down payment.  WHen you give something to someone - the value is diminished since they did not earn it.  And so with diminished value, there is less incentive to protect it "They gave it to me, they will save it for me!"

It does not and cannot work that way.  Even in communist countries, people are not "given" a house to abuse.  They are "rented" one to take care of.  WHich they probably do not anyway, but then that is Comrade's problem.

I guess it is obvious by now that McCain was clueless to what the problem actually is seeing how his statement does nothing to address it. Not only would these things not solve the credit problem but it would also make it harder for banks to raise more capital.

Why don't you take a look yourself so you dont continue to keeping exposing how little you know about the situation.

CRA encourages financial institutions to reinvest in their own communities. It does not mandate loan rates, or qualifications. It encourages investment that includes both residential as well as business investment within the community as opposed to many other banks which take deposits and invest them elsewhere.

I acgtually know a great deal since I studied,  I also hate long posts, so try to avoid them.  WHen you actually post some supporting documention showing how I am wrong, I will refute it. Until then, it is just a he said she said situation, and not really worth the time.  We know the CRA was bad law.  Glass Steagle was not the boogey man, but it is one thing that the "hands in the cookie jar" democrats can point to to deflect blame.  But I will tell you the old cliche is still true.  Dont listen to the words, follow the money.  SO far, you are only folliowing the words.

Is that why all the CRA banks in my area are solid? Im in a very rural area that is mostly small businesses. CRA serves this area a very republican area quite well. One of the reasons is because CRA home loans are for primary residences and it is the second and investment home markets that truly caused the blowout.

Follow where the foreclosure rates have risen and real estate values have dropped the most. Miami .Lauderdale, Orlando, Phoenix, Vegas, Palm Beach, Tampa, Then Califonia.

Its the overdevelopment of condos condos condos just like back in the 80's.  And California probably has a lot to do with the tech bubble bursting.

The "housing" market is a misnomer.  Housing is not a national market.  It is very regional.  You only point out where past practices have been the worst.  And yes, housing is not in a bubble.  But you are looking at symptoms, not the cause.  The symtoms will manifest themselves in the most vulnerable areas first, as they have.

No these statistics were for the month of August this year and if you look further they are also the areas where ARMS resetting next year and and 2010 are most prominent. CRA is not the root of the problem as you try to claim because a vast majority of the problem is shown and known to be second and investment homes in mainly areas where the home values are well above what CRA, HUD and other govt programs allow. ARMS are what is keeping fuel on the fire. CRA, HUD, etc type loans are mainly for first time homeowners, not for second homes, not for investment homes, and are not ARMS.

Then why the bailout?  Why the nightly stories of Poor Laura Richardson (ok, that one proves your contention).

Why the nightly stories of how all will be homeless now?  No, they are part of the problem, and when it comes down to it not even a matter.  The fear that is driving this is the one home family losing it all.  And those rates are up more than the second home foreclosure rates.

You argue out of both sides of your mouth.  One for the bailout, but then that would just help the rich by your standards.  And then argue that it is all a big smoke screen that is all about the rich.  It is either needed for the adversly affected, or it is not and is for the rich.  If it is for the rich, why are we doing it?  And that may be why wall street loves it, but america does not.

If it is for the poor, then we go back to my contention, and your dodging is not germaine to the point.

No it keeps the credit market liquid which effects everybody. Where have I ever said it would only help the rich? Nowhere. It seems that this is your standard because you do not understand what the bailout is about.

What you need to realize is that the core of the bailout is meant to deal with a credit crisis, which is a result of the subprime problem. It was not meant to solve the subprime problem, however solving the credit problem will also have an effect on easing the subprime problem.  Unfortunately partisanship got involved and they are stuffing the bill with all kinds of partisan crap that IMHO shouldnt be in there. They should have taken the initially proposed framework and structured the 700bill within a trustlike mechanism and added oversight and taxpayer protections. Instead they are adding all kinds of crap which should be dealt with later. The faster credit tightens not only will ARMS skyrocket as they reset but it is also effecting overnight lending for businesses. Look at what GE had to do because they could not get overnight credit. ATT is having problems,etc.  and many small businesses currently have no options, some that have already closed their doors.

Personally I think every single politician who voted against the bill should be voted out of congress. These politicians either do not fully understand what is going on, or are pandering for votes in the upcoming election. This does not mean I like the bill. There are provisions in it from both sides which I don't agree with, but I do understand how important the core of the bill is, and how important it is to act rather quickly.