Fri, 09/26/2008 - 12:56
I expect this to be a very boring endeavor.
They have gotten all the questions ahead of time I am sure.
All we will get is some speech writers BS.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 17:11
#2
Where do you stand on the $700 billion bailout.
Obama - skirted the question.
McSame - will vote in favor of it.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 19:08
#3
I'm against it. Much like the govt. was in 1930.
Let the chips fall where they do rather than prolong the inevitable. This, in my humble opinion would be doing the wrong action for all of the wrong reasons. There's no way in hell many of these businesses should've been operating that way, especially the banks. A good dose of pain would be good for all of us. I would also scrap Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There must be a better way.
Until then, give the damn freepers a taste of their own meds.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 19:38
#4
Damn, MF (MF?? That could be taken out of context? 
)
I think I actually agree with you on this one.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 19:39
#5
I actually thought it was a good debate.
While both candidates obviously had their points they wanted to get across it was entertaining to watch!
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 20:04
#6
It was entertaining for sure.
I didn't see any game-changing plays though. 
I think McCrispy needed to win this one. He didn't win it though.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 20:10
#7
Well, you may agree with me, but to what point? Do you also agree that the freepers got out of control here as well?
As for the debates, therfe was too much finger pointing for my personal tastes. Both were floored by Lehrer's question of what programs would be scrapped due to this financial mess. No answers from either side whatsoever. Obama could've scored some points in my book by identifying the programs that were old and outdated and weren't working (according to him). McSame was the same old, samee old by stating the obvious talking points of the right, which sound good in principal, but rarely get practiced. He couldn't say how we could save money and stay in this mess of a war either.
Both left me totally disappointed in this election. Pagan's right when he says this election is the dems to lose. And, it's beginning to look like its a possibility.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 20:20
#8
I agree that it's the Dem's to lose. I disagree that it's beginning to look like it's a possibility. 
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 20:32
#9
I've learned to take a step back at times like these. You know that I've taken on liberals as well as conservatives. It gives me a totally different perspective when I do that. I agree we need change. I'm just not sure change is being represented properly in this campaign, by either Obama or McCain.
Obama is reluctant to state which types of change he is for beyond nationalized health care and getting out of the war. And, I do question how he will get out of this mess. Besides, with the financial mess this country is in, we can't afford much change either. He admits tax revenues will be down, yet says he will reduce taxes for most. I haver a hard time buying what he is selling here as specifics are hard to come by, especially when the budget is brought into play. This is a political campaign. I expect to be lied to. How's that for some hardball?
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 21:11
#10
by M/F "Well, you may agree with me, but to what point? Do you also agree that the freepers got out of control here as well?"
Free enterprise, free market folks?
I see your point but I don't agree.
Basically, things got out of control and it was home buyers, lenders, and investors that did it.
However, it wouldn't have happened without the government involvement. The very creation of Fannie and Freddie, a entity whose sole purpose is to get credit riskier, lower income, people into houses, was the start of this crisis.
Article from 1999
If the market had been left to it's own, not as many people would be in houses (or kicked out as the case may be) but we would not be in the situation we are in now.
Here is what appears to be a good article about it. (I haven't read it all myself yet but the 1st couple pages look good)
So to summarize, no I don't blame the free market, for all the hype these days about how lack of oversight got us here, it's lack of oversight of the government entities.
And for all the talk about deregulation, I say BULLSHIT!. Not a damn thing has been deregulated. Govco may have changed some regs, may have loosened some regs, but they ain't Dereged shit.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 21:40
#11
Trying to post 100% of the blame on those who only had part of the responsibility doesn't address those that made CEO buyouts, and mortgage loan resales, boan. And you know it. Especially the part where you saw what I meant. Deregulation of the poor policies was like pouring gasoline on the fire. You know that as well.
That's why I say let the freepers get a taste of their own meds, bud. 
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 21:49
#12
Fuck 'em let 'em go out of business.
A depression creates stronger workers!
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 22:02
#13
Quote:
Basically, things got out of control and it was home buyers, lenders, and investors that did it.
Home buyers, lenders, and investors = FREEPERS
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 07:08
#14
Show me where a free market exists, MF.
This meltdown is because the GOVERNMENT put artificial funds into the market.
It's called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Do just a little research.
If you do you will find the very government you are screaming to regulate this mess are the ones that caused it in the 1st place.
About Fannie Mae
A "temporary" government program that was never eliminated and turn rotten and sour.
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 10:39
#15
So, all of your freeper talk about the market up until this point has been TOTAL HOGWASH?????
Pssssstttt....... They took the regulation of of this market and look what happened.
IT FAILED!
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 19:31
#16
They didn't take regulation off this market.
They far from took government influence out of this market.
The libertarian free market people have been predicting this for YEARS!
Government was supporting mortgages that the market wouldn't. Do you disagree with this statement?
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 21:12
#17
Somewhat.
Especially when it comes to government interests. Can you define this "interest"? I would say it was hands off to the freepers, money grubbers and mortgage company executives. If there was any government control, it certainly didn't stop any of this folly, did it?
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 21:37
#18
Basically it boils down to this.
If the market had supported the mortgages Fannie/Freddie were buying, we wouldn't need Fannie/Freddie.
The only reason for them to exist is to get people in homes that wouldn't otherwise be approved by the banks/mortgage companies.
Like most government programs, they (Legislators) kept expanding the scope and breadth of the program.
That in turn expanded the amount of questionable loans made by lenders.
Which in turn expanded the amount of mortgage backed securities purchased by investors
Which in turn.........you know the rest of the story.
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 21:45
#19
Quote:
Like most government programs, they (Legislators) kept expanding the scope and breadth of the program.
That in turn expanded the amount of questionable loans made by lenders.
Which in turn expanded the amount of mortgage backed securities purchased by investors
Which in turn.........you know the rest of the story.
I'll buy the reasoning, but I will reject the "expanding" as one could easily substitute "deregulated" for that word and come to the same result, which has been my point all along.
A-G-A-I-N ...... If there was any government control, it certainly didn't stop any of this folly, did it?
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 21:56
#20
"Expanding" a program and "deregulating" aren't the same. They would in most situations be exact opposites. The government expanding a program is increasing their influence not decreasing.
MF wrote:
A-G-A-I-N ...... If there was any government control, it certainly didn't stop any of this folly, did it?
A-G-A-I-N There was / is government control and not only did it fail to prevent this mess, it directly influenced and contributed to the creation of it.
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 22:02
#21
I've heard a lot of weird and strange excuses in my life, but justify away here, Boan. How did government control contribute to this mess? Please, I'm all ears. And I'm also betting it has more to do with less control (deregulation) than any of your excuses.
But, I will humor the next upcoming excuse as you want to be right moreso than be accurate. And i don't say that in an absolutist sense either. There's not just one cause that lead up to this mess. But the deregulation of the last eight years from the freepers accelerated it like gas on fire.
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 05:05
#22
I've given several examples already of the government's role in this mess.
From you all we get is "I'm betting" with no reason why you think that.
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 10:15
#23
Quote:
I've given several examples already of the government's role in this mess.
No you haven't. You made general statements without mentioning ANY specifics of government interference.
A-G-A-I-N ...... If there was any government control, it certainly didn't stop any of this folly, did it?
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 11:15
#24
MF wrote:
No you haven't. You made general statements without mentioning ANY specifics of government interference.
Sure, I have.
Bo from earlier in this thread wrote:
However, it wouldn't have happened without the government involvement. The very creation of Fannie and Freddie, a entity whose sole purpose is to get credit riskier, lower income, people into houses, was the start of this crisis.
Article from 1999
I followed that with
Bo wrote:
Here is what appears to be a good article about it. (I haven't read it all myself yet but the 1st couple pages look good)
Fannie / Freddie...that's government right?
Housing and Urban Development secretary that a cabinet position in the government right?
MF wrote:
A-G-A-I-N ...... If there was any government control, it certainly didn't stop any of this folly, did it?
I answered that one also.
Bo wrote:
A-G-A-I-N There was / is government control and not only did it fail to prevent this mess, it directly influenced and contributed to the creation of it.
Ala fannie mae / freddie mac.
So can you provide for me one piece of deregulation in the last 8 years that contributed to this situation?
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 13:32
#25
Quote:
Sure, I have.
Bo from earlier in this thread wrote:
And I agree. But you keep dodging how DEREGULATION BY THE FREEPERS accelerated this mess. THAT is what I was talking about here. And you know it. Try to stay on topic and keep up here. Stop changing the meaning to suit yourself.
Quote:
Fannie / Freddie...that's government right?
Housing and Urban Development secretary that a cabinet position in the government right?
Let's take a look at what was in that article, shall we?
It all starts, as the headlines of recent weeks do, with these two giant banks. But in the hubbub about their bailout, few have noticed that the only federal agency with the power to regulate what Cuomo has called "the gods of Washington" was HUD. Congress granted that power in 1992, so there were only four pre-crisis secretaries at the notoriously political agency that had the ability to rein in Fannie and Freddie: ex–Texas mayor Henry Cisneros and Bush confidante Alfonso Jackson, who were driven from office by criminal investigations; Mel Martinez, who left to chase a U.S. Senate seat in Florida; and Cuomo, who used the agency as a launching pad for his disastrous 2002 gubernatorial candidacy.
Quote:
So can you provide for me one piece of deregulation in the last 8 years that contributed to this situation?
Yes, I can. From the article that you posted and apparently didn't read...... A-G-A-I-N.....
It all starts, as the headlines of recent weeks do, with these two giant banks. But in the hubbub about their bailout, few have noticed that the only federal agency with the power to regulate what Cuomo has called "the gods of Washington" was HUD. Congress granted that power in 1992, so there were only four pre-crisis secretaries at the notoriously political agency that had the ability to rein in Fannie and Freddie: ex–Texas mayor Henry Cisneros and Bush confidante Alfonso Jackson, who were driven from office by criminal investigations; Mel Martinez, who left to chase a U.S. Senate seat in Florida; and Cuomo, who used the agency as a launching pad for his disastrous 2002 gubernatorial candidacy.
The government did not step in and regulate these illegal activities. That is WHY the FBI is investigating this as we speak. Are you TOTALLY clueless to that FACT as well?
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 13:42
#26
So where is the deregulation?
Not in what you posted that is for sure.
Quote:
The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992
The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act ("FHEFSSA") of 1992 modernized the regulatory oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It created the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight ("OFHEO") as a new regulatory office within HUD with the responsibility to "ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are adequately capitalized and operating safely." OFHEO is funded by assessments on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is authorized to act without HUD oversight on a range of regulatory issues enumerated in the statute. FHEFSSA established risk-based and minimum capital standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, it established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and underserved areas.
So creating an Office in the government specifically to oversee Fannie and Freddie is deregulation?
Nope.
Swing and a miss.
Try Again.
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 13:59
#27
Uhhhhh...
Not acting and taking a "hands off" approach nets the same result of deregulation, boan. I wonder why that happened? Don't you?
Quote:
Here's my direct quote:The government did not step in and regulate these illegal activities. That is WHY the FBI is investigating this as we speak. Are you TOTALLY clueless to that FACT as well?
Dodging the FACTS A-G-A-I-N.
I'll bet you're right. Just another bunch of pre-packaged garbage. Thank God for football!