random off-topic thread

[BigRapidsJackass]

The Wall St Journal article on Sarah Palin's ridiculous $15 million sports facility, in which she went ahead with construction without having first acquired legal title to all of the land on which the facility sits:

Palin's Hockey Rink Leads To Legal Trouble in Town She Led - WSJ.com

I'm a lawyer, and I fully understand why most people can't stand lawyers. But here's a case where the failure to consult a competent lawyer before proceeding with the project is nothing other than gross incompetence. And it cost the little town at least $1.5 million bucks -- given the population of a couple thousand families or so, that's serious money.

And that's what she touts as "real-world experience?"

[GerryInCS]

Originally Posted by Newman

<SNIP>

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed over the weekend. I don't pretend to understand this high finance stuff but it certainly can't be good. This all happened under Bush's mismanagement, his eight year tenure as the head of our country. McCain is the same, MORE OF THE SAME. The choice is clear. Will America make the correct choice? We shall see.

Fannie and Freddie may have failed during the Bush tenure, but the foundation of that failure was built during the Clinton Years. Personally, I blame the cabal of idiots who believed that sub prime loans would be a good idea. The only benefit it gave was an overinfalted housing boom, which deflated as soon as the first foreclosure was filed.

[Newman]

Well, it was either Jimmy Carter's fault or Clinton's fault.

Is it ever the fault of Ronald Reagan or the neocons? Is anything ever George W. Bush's fault? Is he responsible for anything? Or is he simply totally irresponsible?!

Jackass, I hadn't heard about the hockey rink. So much to learn about Sarah Palin.

[indianadrew]

newman gerry did not blame ANY administration. fannie and freddie are failing because people cannot pay their sub-prime mortgages. i blame the stupid people who wanted to live beyond their means and failed to be responsible when it came time to pay the piper.

[Roxpert]

This is from Wikipedia....

On November 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the effects of the repeal was to allow commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Some economists have criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.

So, YES, a major piece of legislation that I think led to this credit collapse happened under the Clinton administration. HOWEVER, it was the GOP Congress that was lobbied by the commerical and investment banking industries that led to the legislation that they passed and that Clinton signed. This is just one more example of how our democracy had turned into a "corporatocracy" a while ago.

As the above quote says, Glass-Steagall separated commercial banking from investment banking. After its repeal, Bank of America bought Montgomery Securites, Citigroup bought Salomon Smith Barney, etc. Following such consolidation, some smart-ass bankers got the idea to package bundles of home loans and "securitize" them into products that S&P and Moodys (the rating agencies) gave AAA ratings. The individual pieces were hardly AAA, and a lot of it was the subprime junk. That's led to the $500 billion of bank writeoffs that have occurred in the last year and the Fannie/Freddie mess.

The supply/demand situation in housing is NOT solved by today's bailout. There is still 11.5 months of housing inventory on the market, Case-Schiller index shows year-over-year declines of 16% in the latest month in average home prices, lenders are tightening standards, and more unemployed people will lead to more foreclosures and fewer people able to afford a house. This is the biggest financial mess since the Great Depression.

It's all due to a lack of LEADERSHIP that understands that laissez-faire policies toward the financial markets leads to dislocations and bubbles/busts. In other words, the LACK of regulations preventing loan securitization or highly creative "no money down" mortgage products is what has put our economy at the brink. This happened with the stock market in the 1920's under Herbert Hoover. People could buy stocks with 10% capital down. After the market crashed, and the Great Depression happened, a new president, liberal Democrat Frankin Roosevelt, brought change to Washington. He gave us the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and The Securities Act of 1934, which gave birth to the SEC and a whole slew of regulations over the stock market. This led to a slow restoration of confidence and trust in financial markets at the time.

Obama may very well be our era's FDR. The point is that government is supposed to protect the citizens against corporate greed and abuses. Over the past 10 to 15 years, it has failed miserably at that role. We need a more activist government to restore trust and confidence. It's the only way we'll recover in the long-run.

Do you think the GOP will hasten the regulatory fixes needed? I don't. Obama and his economic team, headed by Paul Volcker (the best Fed chairman of my lifetime), Robert Rubin, and Warren Buffett, understand what I am talking about. McCain/Palin don't have a clue. McCain has admitted to not understanding the economy.

If McCain wins, we got tough economic times over the next 4 to 6 years. Y'all better save what you can, because it ain't gonna be pretty.

[BigRapidsJackass]

I am no expert on mortgage-backed securities. But I do know that both parties share the blame here.

What amazes me is this: McCain is out this morning talking about the sick culture of Washington being at fault. Obama is making bland statements about reassuring markets. Obama should own this issue - after all, you can draw a direct parallel between the S&L scandal (remember the Keating 5?) and the latest crisis. Yet McCain is laying claim to the high ground, and Obama is letting him grab it. As any NFL fan knows, this is what happens when you sit on a 7-point lead in the first half. You let the other guy catch up, and the next thing you know you're 10 points behind

[Roxpert]

Sure, both parties share the blame. But, at any point in time, there is only one LEADER. Our country has been led by a GOP administration for 28 of the past 40 years. We have a $10 trillion debt and rising, a labor force with declining skiills, loss of competitiveness to China and other emerging markets, an addiction to militarism that other nations don't have to feed ($700 billion and rising per anum), and the world's lowest savings rate among the industrialized nations. Combine that with inferior health-care delivery system with costs rising 13% CAGR this decade, decaying schools, loss of jobs, foreclosures, and a credit contraction like none other since the 1930's, and you have a "witch's brew" of problems.

And we STILL want to give the NEXT four years to another GOP administration? That's truly the definition of insanity......doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results.

Obama may not be a panacea to all our problems. But he would be an improvement. This country may be screwed either way, but let's hope the nation picks the best and brightest to solve our problems, and not stick with the same ol', same 'ol. Otherwise, the U.S.A. is to the presidency what the Monforts are to O'Dowd and Hurdle! (my first Rockies reference since returning!).

[Newman]

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

I am no expert on mortgage-backed securities. But I do know that both parties share the blame here.

What amazes me is this: McCain is out this morning talking about the sick culture of Washington being at fault. Obama is making bland statements about reassuring markets. Obama should own this issue - after all, you can draw a direct parallel between the S&L scandal (remember the Keating 5?) and the latest crisis. Yet McCain is laying claim to the high ground, and Obama is letting him grab it. As any NFL fan knows, this is what happens when you sit on a 7-point lead in the first half. You let the other guy catch up, and the next thing you know you're 10 points behind

Good sports analogy here, Jackass. Obama had the lead and he went to the prevent defense, which just prevents you from winning.

Do what got you there, Barack! Do what you did to beat the Clintons in the primary! That was no easy feat.

Sarah Palin appeals to the low information voter. When you gather info about her you find that she is a hypocrite, a liar, a religious fanatic, and allowing herself to be used by the neocons who have led this country for the past 8 years.

People who gather information and learn now know this. Unfortunately the people who will decide this election get their info from talk radio or 527 ads. Obama needs to go on the attack. He can maintain the high ground but his surrogates and attack ads must get thru to the low information voter.

Trying to label McCain and Palin as two MAVERICKS is laughable. Reformers? Please! The top advisers in McCain's campaign are lobbyists. Sarah took all sorts of earmarks. That's the Alaskan way. She was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it (at the very end). She says it's "God's Will" that the pipeline be built. She's a Pentecostal who speaks in tongues and believes in End Times. Do we want her radical righteous finger anywhere near THAT button?

[BigRapidsJackass]

Newman, watch the videos of Sarah's church. As one commented said, "looks like a scene from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Why won't obama mention the subprime mess? Well, he's in the Top 3 recipients of Fannie/Freddie contributions over the last 4 years . Change? Not so much.

Meanwhile, buried in a WSJ story this morning: clean politics reformer McCain "hosted" by indicted financial scammed (and boyfriend of actress Ann Hathaway) "on a rented yacht off the coast of Montenegro" just a few years ago. Must have been having high-level ethics reform chats on that yacht. Or maybe putting country first by meeting with an Italian fraud artist. Obama: where's the commercial about this? Rumble young man, rumble.

[Roxpert]

Obama has mentioned the subprime mess. Numerous times. I will let you find the links, Jackass. Too busy in a 3% market meltdown today.

[BigRapidsJackass]

From opensecrets.org

Current members of Congress have received $3.8 million from the two companies since 1998 (including only their candidate committees). Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, collected the most from the employees and PACs of both mortgage buyers at $133,900. Democrat Barack Obama collected the most from individuals associated with Fannie Mae at $101,150 and a total of $122,850 from both companies, putting him behind Dodd. Obama's opponent in the presidential election, John McCain, has received only $21,300 from both since 1989.

And I'm quite sure that this is why Obama hasn't been out front and center on the issue. What issue? The issue of how lax federal regulators -- Bush Administration lax federal regulators -- allowed Fannie/Freddie to take on extreme risk, ultimately leaving the feds with no option but a bailout if we are to avoid a global financial calamity.

[Roxpert]

Jackass, I frankly don't know what you're talking about. Obama has spoken on this subject in depth, and has blamed lax oversight in Washington. Your cynicism about Obama somehow being influenced on his policy positions or how much he's willing to talk about certain issues based on contributions he has received is unfounded. I really think he wants to do good and help solve the country's problems. You may differ with him on his position on issues, but to think he's been tainted by influence peddling or lobbyist involvement in his campaign is just....plain....wrong....look to McCain's 7 lobbyists running his campaign for that...

YouTube - Obama on mortgage giants

[BigRapidsJackass]

Roxpert, my point is this: Obama has allowed his campaign staff to steer him in a very standard Democratic direction. He should own this issue. McCain: Keating 5 scandal. McCain's son is on the board of a failed bank, just like GHW Bush's son was on the board of a failed S&L. And these ARE similar debacles: both were the direct result of lax government oversight of institutions subject to either an explicit federal guaranty (S&Ls in the late 1980s) or an implicit one that has now been made explicit (Fannie/Freddie).

Perhaps even more importantly, Obama seems to be 100% for Henry Paulson's bailout plan. Here's Gregg Easterbrook (buried in his Tuesday Morning Quarterback espn article!) on the real issue:

Perhaps Washington had no choice but to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, considering what we now know about years of self-serving lying by the management of both institutions. But taxpayers have been put on the hook for at least $200 billion in loan guarantees. Buried in the conservatorship declaration is word Congress may add extra subsidies to Fannie and Freddie to keep mortgage interest rates low. Washington has been involved in many loan guarantees, but never in mortgage rates. This all-new subsidy will make mortgage markets political on a permanent basis -- any time rates rise, borrowers seeking mortgages will demand taxpayers subsidize them. By shifting to taxpayers (and to our children, via still more deficit spending) some of the cost of borrowing, this may only further distort the mortgage market, encouraging buyers and brokers to generate imprudent loans and then passing costs along to taxpayers.
Note another aspect of the Fannie-Freddie takeover that politicians don't want to talk about. On paper, the takeover looks like a bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy, creditors receive preference (because they hold a promise of payment) while shareholders are wiped out (because equity positions are speculative and known to buyers to guarantee nothing). The Fannie-Freddie takeover preserves the companies' bondholders, while making shareholders appear to get clobbered -- the government receives a warrant to claim up to 80 percent of shares, which would slash a share in Fannie or Freddie to 20 percent of current value. But the government must exercise that warrant. If not, shareholders are bailed out too. As soon as attention shifts to the next screw-up, lobbyists for the rich quietly will twist White House and Congressional arms for assurances the warrants are never exercised. If this happens, average people will be taxed to protect the wealth of Fannie and Freddie shareholders. "We only wish [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson had gone further and erased all private equity holders the way the feds do in a typical bank failure … [share]holders deserve to lose everything." Who said this, some left-wing fanatic? The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

Yes, I think someone like Obama can communicate to average Americans exactly how corrupt this deal is. Yet he chooses to simply accept it with that bland look of concern that he specializes in. He is actually letting John McCain seize this issue as his own. That's ridiculous. What's wrong with his campaign? Is he really too soft to be President after all?

As I've said before, I'm a libertarian. This year, I've decided that the Republicans must be punished for horrific mismanagement and their complete loss of any kind of coherent theory of governance. So I want Obama to win.

This sums up my thinking better than anything else (scroll down to "Why Libertarians Should Vote for Obama):

Marginal Revolution

Fight back, Barack!

[Newman]

"Americans aren't afraid of Mexicans, Americans are
afraid that Mexicans are turning America into Mexico."

Gerry, the big local issue here in Denver is the killing of 3 innocents, including a toddler eating an ice cream cone at a Baskin Robbins, by an illegal immigrant, Francis Hernandez, who had been arrested 16 times in the past 5 years.

Peter Boyles is pounding the anti Mexican drumbeat on his talk show as I type. Tom Tancredo is on deck.

Doesn't the solution to the problem lay at the feet of George W. Bush, who's been in office for 8 years, and done nothing? Couldn't the $12B/month we waste in Iraq been better used to fund ICE, to solve these problems? The neocons who run this country so love cheap labor that they don't really care about these little tragedies.

PS I liked your "Libertarians for Obama" post, Jackass.

[GerryInCS]

As far as Illegal Immigration I lean to the Tancredo point of view and I think we should shut the border down. My idea is a bit more extreme and involves cutting a channel from Baja California ( Just east of theColorado River, actually) to the Gulf Mexico with a 30' high wall on our side of it. Another chanell would extend from the Pacific to the just west of the Colorad River, as well. I have no problem with people coming to the USA by legal means, it's the border jumpers who are bringing drugs, guns and the Gods know what else with them that annoy the crap out of me.