Obama up 8 points

[Asher]

KH's exile ends this month, I think.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

They're not on the same side.

Figures. TCO is on Drake's side also, as I figure.

[Arrian]

The problem comes about when you back them with loads of ****ty sub-prime mortgages. No sub-prime, no crisis.

Likewise, no choosing to back said fancy financial instruments with sub-prime mortgages, no crisis. Or perhaps more accurately, small crisis.

I've been reading a whole lot of opinion on this lately, and it seems to me that subprime in and of itself isn't necessarily a problem when done properly... but it sounds like doing it properly means that it's a pretty small market. It got big. Way too big. And that is at least partly (and perhaps solely) the gummint's fault, for their "implicit" backing of F&F and their refusal, by an large, to crack down on them (until it was too late).

-Arrian

[Naked Gents Rut]

Likewise, no choosing to back said fancy financial instruments with sub-prime mortgages, no crisis. Or perhaps more accurately, small crisis.

I agree. That's why Fannie and Freddie deserve a large share of the blame. They not only edged into risky mortgages themselves, but were also the largest buyer and securitizer of other companies' sub-prime mortgages.

[Velociryx]

Ignoring Ramo's graph on P. 4 of this thread...yes. Except the graph shows otherwise, and what it shows seems to contradict what you're saying, NGR. Fannie and Freddie's share of the blame takes a right prominent nosedive as the pool of toxic loans inflates dramatically.

But balls....it don't matter.

I guess the only real question left to answer then is why to Dems have an undying and apparently endless hatred for America?

At every turn they seem to automatically gravitate toward the worst possible choice. The occasional gaffe could be written off as accidental (as in the longstanding--since Regan days-- Republican love affair with all things de-regulated even when it makes little sense). Those occasional screw ups can be forgiven, cos hey…they’re not ON PURPOSE, but given the frequency with which it occurs on the Democratic side of the aisle, the only conclusion one can draw is that Democrats are soulless, evil, bloodsucking b@stards with not one ounce of patriotism or morality in them.

There's really only one solution to that. Suspend the upcoming election since a Regime Change is inevitable, and will likely result in the Dems taking complete control (both houses of Congress and the Executive), and put all registered Dems in Gitmo and other "interrogation facilities� (you know…the ones that don’t technically exist, where we don’t practice waterboarding and other, less savory “interrogation methodologies�) to be dealt with as enemies of the state.

It's what any real patriot would do.

What's interesting is that the poor, downtrodden Republicans have been in command of BOTH houses of Congress (that's the legislative branch...the folks who make laws) from 1995 - 2005, and yet, despite their repeated attempts at increasing regulation on the banking industry, the evil minority (Democrats) have managed to buy or brainwash *just enough* republican patriots off to prevent such a thing from occurring.

This became even harder to accomplish during the years 2001 - 2005 when republicans not only controlled both houses of congress, but also the executive branch, giving them, for all practical purposes, free reign, and yet still the legislation mentioned managed to be defeated by the satanic, baby eating democrats, who in this case had to resort to blood sacrifices in order to stop the republicans from protecting the citizens of the USA.

There WAS one significant piece of legislation passed in 1999 (resisted strenuously and threatened with veto by the then democratic president, but a last minute deal was brokered with the republican congress and the legislation pushed on through).

Oddly, this legislation undid many of the depression era protections, resulting in…you guessed it...less regulation.

This bill was sponsored by P. Gramm, who has the letter "R" next to his name, and met with stiff Democratic resistance, however, as the minority party in Congress, its passage was a foregone conclusion. At that point, all they had to do was sweeten the pot sufficiently by throwing enough bones out there to diffuse a veto and it was game, set, match.

But none of this matters, right? You’re not convincing me, and I’m not convincing you. We could threaten each other with nukes and not make any significant headway, so I’m gonna take my wife out for a nice anniversary dinner.

-=Vel=-

@ Arrian: Any time a loan is made to someone with a (relatively) higher chance of not paying it back (subprime), its a problem, or at least a potential one.

At that point, it becomes a question of how much risk the lender is willing to take in order to get a better return. So long as there's full transparency and standard "buyer beware" warnings, everybody knows what premium to put on the added risk, but that's not what happened here.

[Zkribbler]

Obamas lose 8 times in one election:

Obamas Lose Battleground … Brazil?
Local Candidates Try To Capitalize On Barack Obama's Name


SAO PAULO, Brazil -- Maybe they should have tried "John McCain."

At least eight "Barack Obamas" who borrowed the Democratic presidential candidate's name to run in Brazilian local elections lost.

The defeat of the so-called Obamas came in municipal elections on Sunday that selected mayors and council members in more than 5,000 cities across the nation -- and saw the ruling Workers Party and allies of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva make gains across the nation.

Brazilian electoral law allows candidates to put any name on the ballot as long as it isn't offensive. Some used the name Bin Laden, and others resorted to French soccer player Zinedine Zidane. No one was known to use the name of McCain, the Republican presidential candidate.

"The name Obama definitely helped," said Claudio Henrique dos Anjos, who used it to run for mayor of Belford Roxo on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro. "It opened the doors for me to talk about projects. It brought a positive result."

But official results show he didn't get a single vote, though he disputes the count.

"I'll still keep the political name Obama," Dos Anjos said. "Not only because of the admiration I have for him, but also because it is the nickname the people gave to me. It's how they know me."

Some Brazilian candidates mistakenly think they can attract more voters by using the quirk in the ballot law, said political scientist David Fleischer said.

"They are opportunists trying to use popular figures to their advantage," Fleischer said. "It doesn't work."

[Kidlicious]

NGR,

You're blaming the spark for the fire. In some cases that might be correct, but in this case it's stupid. It's like keeping open containers of gasoline in your house which eventually ignite, and then saying that there is nothing wrong with keeping open containers of gasoline in your house.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Ignoring Ramo's graph on P. 4 of this thread...yes. Except the graph shows otherwise, and what it shows seems to contradict what you're saying, NGR. Fannie and Freddie's share of the blame takes a right prominent nosedive as the pool of toxic loans inflates dramatically.

I don't think you're reading Ramo's graphs correctly. They clearly show that Fannie and Freddie were the biggest single contributors to the subprime crisis.

Anyway, I'd love to stay and correct you some more, but I have a meeting and dinner with the Japanese Ambassador to the U.S. tonight. Later.

[Arrian]

What's interesting is that the poor, downtrodden Republicans have been in command of BOTH houses of Congress (that's the legislative branch...the folks who make laws) from 1995 - 2005, and yet, despite their repeated attempts at increasing regulation on the banking industry, the evil minority (Democrats) have managed to buy or brainwash *just enough* republican patriots off to prevent such a thing from occurring.

A worthy point. Also worth noting that a bill tightening regulations on F&F was (belatedly, it's true) passed once the Dems retook control of Congress.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Right on.

Yes, I do the same thing the repugnants do...I make blanket statements which lay all the blame at their feet even when it's not that simple, and the reason for that is I don't like the mixing of politics and religion and after ~ a decade of having the religious right dictate terms in this country, to be honest, it feels GOOD to have the polarity reversing again, and IMO, not a moment too soon.

I am (or try to be) an equal opportunity political basher tho. Two of my favorite presidents were republican, so it cannot be argued that I just single them out reflexively, but (and I know I'm not gonna convince a soul), I honestly believe they've been wrong about a d@mn lot of things in the last decade or so...just as I'm sure they feel that very same way about me.

I can live with that.

-=Vel=-

[Blaupanzer]

The Democrats are not innocent. They did pass legislation (with some Republican help) directing Freddie and Fanny to buy subprime mortgages to be made by lenders to "deserving" homebuyers who could not qualify for a standard mortgage.

In the $40 trillion of "funny money" created in the last eight years, those mortgages provide the basis for a tiny sliver of the total overvaluation. The world had $24 to $30 trillion dollars in the monetary system in 2000 and had $70 trillion by August 2008. Where did that additional money come from? It came into existance through borrowers pledging borrowed assets in order to get loans to buy assets and use them to get new loans over and over again, a practice specifically banned post the Great Depression as people had borrowed money to buy stock, used the stock to borrow money, bought more, borrowed more, ad infinitum until the first time stock prices dropped significantly. The Stock Market Crash of October 1929 happened as loan after loan got called because the lender needed the money to cover his own loans and no one was left to buy the stocks. These modern "funny money" instruments are based on the loaned assets that that lender borrowed and so on and are tripping a similar large scale crash.

These loans on loans were possible specifically due to Phil Gramm's legislation in the late '90s killing the 1930's reform legislation. (And yes, Clinton did sign that legislation.) Deregulating Wall Street and bringing commercial banks into this toxic loaning pattern based on borrowed assets is mostly due to the advocacy and activity of the Republicans, who knew and hobnobbed with these CEOs personally. However, the Democrats spent a lot more time figuring how to get some of these unsustainable loans to their own constituency in the lower class than crying out in the wilderness about the coming disaster.

Incidentally, the folks who have bought and will be buying the US bonds that must be sold to raise the money to allow the Treasury to buy these "toxic [non]assets include the Japanese, the Chinese, the Russians, and the Saudis. So NGR is talking tonight to some of the very folk on which our picking up the pieces of the broken mirror will depend. Not sure how important it is to the buyers whether the Dems or Repubs hyped it up to where it is; but the buyers do want to be reassured they will be repaid if they buy our close-to-toxic US bonds. At what point do our children/grandchildren say the heck with this and default on this $10,000,000,000,000 ++ ($10 trillion plus the Bail Out plus the deficits into the future as far as we can reckon) pile of bonds? (The US defense budget that is larger than all the rest of the world combined may well be needed if we try that.)

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Velociryx
... I honestly believe they've been wrong about a d@mn lot of things in the last three decades...just as I'm sure they feel that very same way about me.

I can live with that.

-=Vel=-

Fixed

[Blaupanzer]

It's FOUR decades -- Nixon took office in 1968, 40 years ago. He was the smartest Repub, and the worst Pres ever.

[DinoDoc]

Worse than Kennedy?

[Arrian]

The thing is that my support for Obama pre-dates this mess and I remain in his corner more *in spite of* rather than *because of* this financial mess. I do apportion a bunch of blame to the Dems (particularly Franks and Dodd) for this crisis. Also, McCain does get some points from me for noticing a problem in '05.

This crisis is bad, but will pass. There are other problems we face, and I prefer Obama regarding them.

I think Obama is likely to take a calm, cool, considered approach to policy (foreign and domestic), unlike the McMaverick. He's clearly smart, which is nice, and I think he's got an open mind. I don't want another ideologue in there. Thankfully, I don't actually think McCain is one either (Palin clearly is, which would be irritating if their ticket were to win, but put that aside for now).

-Arrian