• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2nd Pres. Debate 2008 Thread (DOW dropping, Biden is off to Home Depot)

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

speculawyer

Member
1-D_FTW said:
Kind of reminds me of a right-wing church I often drive by. It's on an unpopulated road (so there's usually no cars around), but they often have the most obnoxious slogans on their sign. And lateley, I've been finding myself flipping it the bird and yelling, "fuck you" as I drive past. If Obamo loses for the Dems again, I'm pretty sure I'll be ready for the Revolution.
Click to expand...
What do the signs say?

I think someone should organize a movement to get people to go to various churches and record them. (Assuming these churches are open the public and welcome visitors.) I wonder how much illegal partisan preaching goes on.
 
F

Freedom = $1.05

Banned
Now that McCain get's to be all Mavericky in this town hall his negative ads should stop, right? He's been waiting all of Sarah Palin's life for this thing.
 
1

1-D_FTW

Member
speculawyer said:
What do the signs say?

I think someone should organize a movement to get people to go to various churches and record them. (Assuming these churches are open the public and welcome visitors.) I wonder how much illegal partisan preaching goes on.
Click to expand...

Your usual parroted right-wing propoganda. Although some are more insulting than others.

I surprised myself the first time I flipped it off. I was like, "Wow, I can't believe I just did that." I've only done it 3 times (all involuntarily), but they were warranted on each occasion.

The sad thing? It's a polling place for those neighborhoods. That really chafes me.
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
MaddenNFL64 said:
That's the main fucking issue. If mortgages were not allowed to be sold as securities, and these investment banks, and insurance companies weren't selling bullshit "swaps", which is basically unregulated, no mandate to be funded insurance. This is the shit that brought us down. The housing crisis would have stayed a housing crisis, without polluting everything. Complete, unabashed risky greed.
Click to expand...

Without the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, I'm pretty sure that the housing crisis could not have occurred. Yes, real estate prices rise over time since land is a finite resource, due to inflation, and due to growing populations, but they would not have have risen at their incredulous rates had it not been for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act because mortgages would have been much harder to obtain.

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act caused the real estate market to grow unnaturally in the way that the cells in a cancerous tumor multiply out of control; it was an unsustainable growth driven by Wall Street but also fueled by Main Street.

If ANYONE attempts to blame the poor or minorities, the first thing you need to check is whether their net worth is more than 7 figures. The next thing you need to check is whether their IQ is lower than 70 :lol
 
E

electricpirate

Member
CharlieDigital said:
BTW, to chime in on the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act led by Phil Gramm: what this allowed banks to do is to securitize mortgages and then sell these securities. This is the primary driver for the mortgage crisis by creating a new type of financial product/investment vehicle that could not have otherwise been created.

Repeat this to yourself: the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, led by Phil Gramm on behalf of Citi (and other banks), allowed mortgages to be packaged into financial instruments which could be sold as an investment vehicle in the financial markets.

If there is any doubt as to what caused the crash, you only have to look and see who profited the most from the repeal of the Glass-Steagall and the consequent rise in mortgages: real estate investors, land developers, mortgage lenders, and -- of course -- banks. It's not just the poor who went over their heads, it was the middle class and even the wealthy upper class (Foreclosures on million-dollar homes surge) lead on by this myth that housing prices will always rise so that it's okay to buy more than you can afford because you can always cash out for a profit. Even the banks and lenders bought into this idea, fed by a few good years of insane rises in housing prices.

The fancy loans were created, in part, to create more product -- mortgages -- to sell to investors. These products were viewed as "safe" because people wouldn't want to lose their homes, would they? Besides, everyone knew that home prices always rise, right? There's no way these products would fail so spectacularly. Every new loan made was more product to sell to investors. Banks and mortgage lenders were giving them out like candy to anyone that wanted one. Think about this: no responsible lender in their right mind should ever provide 100% financing with nothing down. No fucking way. It was all about creating more mortgages.

I'm not trying to blame the rich or anything like that, but the fact of the matter is that this boom was driven by greed at all levels but made possible by lobbyists for banks (in particular, Citigroup). Look at the value of financial stocks from 1999 onwards to the crash. You'll see that their stock values rose to obscene levels based in large part to the popularity of these new investment vehicles.

The blame for Clinton comes into play because he signed it into law. But what is rarely mentioned is that it was a veto proof bill. He could not have vetoed it due to the overwhelming support for it in Congress (Citigroup spent millions of dollars lobbying for this repeal).
Click to expand...

I think the effects of Gramm Leach Bailey are being overstated here, the specific over-ruling of Glass Steagel means that Investment banks could merge with depository banks. If we see a run on Citi Bank or Bank of America, then we could call out Gramm on this.

The ability to securitize mortgages has been around since the depression, that's what Fannie and Freddie did. In the last 15 years, financial institutions have gone around, and repackaged them to make them look better/ fool the rating agencies. These are the CDOs we talk about.

The really odious thing that Gramm did; attaching a 280 page financial services deregulation act to an 11k page federal budget resulted in the "shadow markets," we see today. This is the famous, put forth 3 hours before congress went on christmas break rider. It totally deregulated the complex dividends and credit default swaps, this insured no company could see how leveraged another company was when entering a Credit Default Swap, and there were no basic rules on how leveraged a company could be when entering. This is why these companies are in deep shit now, because they are totally leveraged to other giant companies in totally dark markets, when one falls so do the rest.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
Goold ole Dick Morris:


FANNIE MAE EASES CREDIT TO AID MORTGAGE LENDING

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published in the New York Times on September 30, 1999.

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.


''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
Click to expand...
 
B

Barrett2

Member
electricpirate said:
The really odious thing that Gramm did; attaching a 280 page financial services deregulation act to an 11k page federal budget resulted in the "shadow markets," we see today. This is the famous, put forth 3 hours before congress went on christmas break rider. It totally deregulated the complex dividends and credit default swaps, this insured no company could see how leveraged another company was when entering a Credit Default Swap, and there were no basic rules on how leveraged a company could be when entering. This is why these companies are in deep shit now, because they are totally leveraged to other giant companies in totally dark markets, when one falls so do the rest.
Click to expand...

I have only a shallow knowledge of this meltdown, but based on what I have read, the bolded section above cannot be understated.

By ensuring that the credit default swaps were completely unregulated, this completely eliminated any safeguards when protecting against default. This allowed investment banks to leverage their securitized mortgage debts to ridiculous multiples, with nothing guaranteeing the assets other than the worthless swaps. The idea that government officials would allow the insurance policies on $40 trillion worth of assets to be completely unregulated and have absolutely no minimum capital requirements is absolutely insane! That is complete madness... Thats like saying Met Life can issue 1,000 life insurance policies, even though they are only capable of paying out 10 of them at a time.
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
On a merrier note, Obama Jack-O-Lanterns (with stencils!):

http://yeswecarve.com/index.php

img_0503_adj2.jpg

img_2483.jpg


via: http://cynical-c.com
 
1

1-D_FTW

Member
speculawyer said:
What do the signs say?

I think someone should organize a movement to get people to go to various churches and record them. (Assuming these churches are open the public and welcome visitors.) I wonder how much illegal partisan preaching goes on.
Click to expand...

This is the second quote, but I've just remembered what the sign was the other day (and, no, I didn't flip that off). It's telling people to vote "No" on some marriage amendment. That's their prerogative, but I really don't think a voting polling place should have a huge sign that reads Vote NO on Amendment 2. Call me old fashioned.
 
S

SpeedingUptoStop

will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
On another note, my brother says mccain is still gonna win because Obama's 6 point poll numbers are "STILL IN THE DIFFERENTIAL!!!11111!11":lol Then I told him I read Rasmussen, he replied" THAT'S A GERMAN COMPANY, WHAT DO I CARE":lol
 
B

Barrett2

Member
SpeedingUptoStop said:
On another note, my brother says mccain is still gonna win because Obama's 6 point poll numbers are "STILL IN THE DIFFERENTIAL!!!11111!11":lol Then I told him I read Rasmussen, he replied" THAT'S A GERMAN COMPANY, WHAT DO I CARE":lol
Click to expand...

Your brother..... is stupid.






He sounds just like most of my relatives :(
 
V

ViperVisor

Member
JayDubya said:
Olbermann called the AIP terrorists, though.

Do people in Great Britain regularly call the Scottish National Party terrorists?

Then again, Olbermann's not just some generic person, he's a media pundit blowhard tardfuck, but hey.

I suppose it goes without saying that you could find some media pundit blowhard tardfuck in GB that would call the SNP terrorists, but it don't make it so until they're "Guy Fawkes"-ing Parliament.
Click to expand...

Keith's substance is there with this comment and others have pointed it out.

It's too bad that when you are a supporter of the ultimate fraud that is Ron Paul like Tucker Carlson is you have no option but to keep it mostly hidden. If you tried to vocalize it above a whisper you would be blown the fuck out of any conversation not taking place in Gummi Glen.
 
L

Leonsito

Member
Just heard Kate Beckinsale saying basically that she supports Sarah Palin and likes the idea of that woman being VP :(
 
P

Ponn

Banned
Leonsito said:
Just heard Kate Beckinsale saying basically that she supports Sarah Palin and likes the idea of that woman being VP :(
Click to expand...

Thats a fair decison. Not sexist at all.
 
C

capslock

Is jealous of Matlock's emoticon
Leonsito said:
Just heard Kate Beckinsale saying basically that she supports Sarah Palin and likes the idea of that woman being VP :(
Click to expand...

Obama just lost the Underworld vote.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
Wait a minute. I'm confused. I thought that the 2005 bill (s.190) would've regulated Freddie and Fannie, resulting to securitized mortages, thus bypassing interest rate risks for credit risk?
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
devilhawk said:
Too many people want to make this a strict partisan issue. People need to realize that it isn't either or as far as who was right or wrong. The lack of strict regulation in lending was just one facet in this crisis. There are oversight polices enacted that should have been enforced better but obviously were not. The creation of the housing bubble itself was a problem because no one wanted to believe it was just where all the money from the dot com bubble went. I don't pretend to know everything or even much about this crisis but I do know it can't be simplified into a single cause. I also know that we can't simply throw massive regulation and honestly believe that everything will be perfect - I don't believe it ever was.

You may not want to hear it, but the truth is there were some that had no business getting a mortgage or a loan. There were idiots all the way around; the people who thought it was within their means, the institutions that allowed them knowing full well it wouldn't last, the people doing the oversights of the institutions, and even the government policies that allowed them to begin with. There truly is no personal responsibility anymore in our society. Just because some other idiot is doing something wrong doesn't make you less of an idiot for doing it too.

Part of this crisis relates to socioeconomic issues, there is no doubt. It is hard to discuss because it carries connotations that can easily offend.
Click to expand...


Yeah but the point is, what I bolded is so small that it shouldn't really be brought up.
 
Z

Zeliard

Member
AniHawk said:
On a side note, my mom read something from The New York Times (supposedly) that said Obama is a "staunch supporter of abortion." I asked her again if that's what it said and she said it was. She's VERY pro-life, about as much as Palin is (so she says), although she's a registered Democrat and definitely wont vote Republican this cycle. So this has left her conflicted.

Is there an article that says this? I did a google search and all that "staunch supporter of abortion" + Obama showed up on were what seemed like anti-Obama and right-wing websites. It seems like a very slanted way of wording things.
Click to expand...

How can she be a registered Democrat and have abortion be such a huge, decision-making issue for her? Who does she vote for in presidential elections?
 
T

typhonsentra

Banned
Zeliard said:
How can she be a registered Democrat and have abortion be such a huge, decision-making issue for her? Who does she vote for in presidential elections?
Click to expand...
I'm actually in a similar boat. It's all a matter of all the bad on the Republican side outweighing that one issue even if it is important.
 
S

SpeedingUptoStop

will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
Leonsito said:
Just heard Kate Beckinsale saying basically that she supports Sarah Palin and likes the idea of that woman being VP :(
Click to expand...
So basicaly you just heard Kate beckinsale say she's a moron.
 
S

Sleeker

Member
B

Barrett2

Member
Leonsito said:
Just heard Kate Beckinsale saying basically that she supports Sarah Palin and likes the idea of that woman being VP :(
Click to expand...

Liberal Hollywood foreigners want Palin elected, America should be outraged!
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
Ras Daily

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Barack Obama attracting 52% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This is the second straight day that Obama has led by eight percentage points, his largest lead of the year. For the past twelve days, Obama’s support has ranged from 50% to 52% while McCain has been at 44% of 45% every day (see trends).

Obama is viewed favorably by 58% of voters, McCain by 52% (see trends). Obama is viewed Very Favorably by 39% of voters and Very Unfavorably by 28%. For McCain, those numbers are 24% Very Favorable and 26% Very Unfavorable. The two Presidential candidates will debate tonight in Nashville, Tennessee using a town hall format.
Click to expand...

Obama: 52
McCain: 44
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
Zeliard said:
How can she be a registered Democrat and have abortion be such a huge, decision-making issue for her? Who does she vote for in presidential elections?
Click to expand...

Sometimes, I think there are people out there who think Obama is going to personally make the rounds and kill unborn fetuses with a falcon punch to the gut...
 
S

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
While I love these poll numbers, I'll play the soft pessimist - election day will be much closer.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
kkaabboomm said:
R2K: Obama 52, McCain 41

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27053921/

and, ummm, it's DEBATE DAY!
Click to expand...
Dipped one point; the internals are trending down. Rasmussen held stead at +8 today.

The new Obama "ad" is really good - I do wish it would run on TV other than by the cable shows (which is what I assume they mean by "national cable").

I'm kind of nervous about tonight's debate. It's a soundbite-friendly format, and McCain is going to be slinging mud like mad.

The Time/CNN polls are pretty good. A touch disappointed in the Indiana number, but it's close enough that the RNC is dumping resources into it. Looks like Obama is putting New Hampshire away.
 
P

pxleyes

Banned
So this "debate" tonight is again supposed to favor McCain based on its format, but what will be the focus in terms of issues? I assume the audience questions are pre-screened.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
pxleyes said:
So this "debate" tonight is again supposed to favor McCain based on its format, but what will be the focus in terms of issues? I assume the audience questions are pre-screened.
Click to expand...
Questions are screened. I think the topics are wide-open.

Of course, the first debate was mostly about foreign policy, McCain's supposed strong suit, and Obama won that debate. So he's proved that he can win on McCain's turf. I'm just high-strung at this point.
 
S

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Don't know how this is actually supposed to favor McCain - a question is asked and the candidate answers. That's it.

I'm interested to see if McCain incorporates the insidious "he's not one of us" lines that has cropped up in his stump speeches. I can't imagine that working well in this setting tonight.
 
C

Cheebs

Member
GhaleonEB said:
I'm kind of nervous about tonight's debate. It's a soundbite-friendly format, and McCain is going to be slinging mud like mad.
Click to expand...
Another factor is after the 2 minute answers in the first debate they got 5 minutes for back and forth discussion which helped Obama since he is not a fan of soundbites. The back and forth response in this debate is only 1 minute.

Also the audience members nor brokaw can ask follow up questions.
 
MaddenNFL64

MaddenNFL64

Member
typhonsentra said:
I'm actually in a similar boat. It's all a matter of all the bad on the Republican side outweighing that one issue even if it is important.
Click to expand...

On this issue, what proposals do republicans want to enact that make you support them?

To be frank, do you expect a change in the status quo if we have a repub congress, president, and at least a majority conservative supreme court?
 
P

pxleyes

Banned
scorcho said:
Don't know how this is actually supposed to favor McCain - a question is asked and the candidate answers. That's it.

I'm interested to see if McCain incorporates the insidious "he's not one of us" lines that has cropped up in his stump speeches. I can't imagine that working well in this setting tonight.
Click to expand...
The whole townhall format has been hyped by the McCain campaign and he has done well in that format in the past. That does not mean he has any sort of advantage over Obama though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
[TNYT] Brazil Blocks X After Musk Ignores Court Orders
Social News Community 2
69
3K
ManaByte replied
CNN Healthcare Debate Townhall |OT| Graham,Cassidy vs Bernie, Klobuchar 9/25 9pm ET
2 3 4 5
240
29K
Inuhanyou replied
  • Locked
  • Poll
Presidential Debate #2 |Washington University| Grab me right in the Ken Bone
226 227 228 229 230
11K
1M
Calion replied
  • Locked
Fear of Diversity Made People More Likely to Vote Trump (The Nation)
2 3 4
192
21K
Shrike_Priest replied
  • Locked
Khizr Khan: John McCain was my son's 'hero'
2 3
123
17K
i-Lo replied
Top Bottom