KCRW'S Left Right & Center Show 9.26.08
9.29.08 ANOTHER update! If you're in the LA area in November, LRC will be LIVE ON STAGE (with a special live broadcast) at the brand-new Broad Stage in Santa Monica on Sunday, November 9th. There'll be an audience Q&A and a pre-show no-host reception where you can meet the panelists. Visit http://www.kcrw.com/events/lrc-live/ for details. Tickets go on sale on Oct. 3.
28.08 Update:Thanks for being responsive and respectful. I think the conversation benefits from this! By the way, I don't know if anyone's taken the time to weigh in on the debate...since the panelists recorded the show prior to the debate, maybe you'd all like to share your thoughts on how the candidates fared...I'm back to work on Monday, boo hoo, vacation's over!
NOTE FROM MODERATOR: REMINDER ABOUT THE RULES ON THIS BLOG: NO NAME CALLING, NO DEMONIZATION OF OTHERS POSTING. WATCH YOUR TONE AND BE RESPECTFUL. This is a place where serious dialogue about serious differences of opinion may be worked out -- but not by swearing, calling each other names or being generally obnoxious. I will delete abusers.
NOTE FROM MODERATOR: REMINDER ABOUT THE RULES ON THIS BLOG: NO NAME CALLING, NO DEMONIZATION OF OTHERS POSTING. WATCH YOUR TONE AND BE RESPECTFUL. This is a place where serious dialogue about serious differences of opinion may be worked out -- but not by swearing, calling each other names or being generally obnoxious. I will delete abusers.
700 billion Bail Out, Obama/McCain Debate, Palin on Katie Couric
This week, Matt, Bob, and Arianna discuss what the bail out plan includes and what it's missing (home owner bail outs, according to Bob), while Tony isn't so sure a bail out is a productive solution. Once again, the four discuss whether or not the crisis was caused by deregulation, with Tony stating that deregulation peaked during the Clinton years. As for tonight's debate, Arianna would like the Democrats to take on the wider debate of the role of government in a modern economy. Matt smells a potential landslide for the Democrats in tonight's debate owing to the financial crisis, Palin's poor appearance on Katie Couric, and Obama's cool demeanor.
My Groups
-
the KCRW Music Library Updated: 2 days ago
-
Music News from KCRW.com Updated: 2 days ago
-
The Global Gig Guide on KCRW Updated: 4 days ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) and Thomas Bliley (R-VA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote largely along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[2]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill only after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns.[3]
The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [4]
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[5]
It was perpetrated by Wall Street, enabled by payola--sorry, political contributions--and favors lavished on Capital Hill and in the White House. Blame extends to all members of both political parties in Congress. Regulators at the Fed and at Treasury acted as Wall Street Mafia Lieutenants, turning a conveniently blind regulatory eye to the building credit tsunami as they rotated in and out of "public service," offering their expertise in new-style Wall Street markets and financial instruments that mere career civil servants were too stupid to understand.
This criminal enterprise extended its tentacles from Wall Street to Main Street using mortgage brokers and real estate appraisers as pimps and bag men, playing not only on the ignorance but also the unrealistic hopes and aspirations of the credit junkies they'd hooked. Even if the average citizen didn't get a shady mortgage himself, most of us participated in the fraud by riding the rocket of ever increasing--and increasingly unrealistic--returns through our desperate attempts to insure our retirement investments against a murky future in the new Ownership Society. Thank God we didn't let Wall Street get its hands on Social Security; a lot more people are going to need it now.
This nation was foolish to invest in an opaque, faith-based, financial regulatory system. We were foolish to allow Wall Street thieves to--at last!--finally find a way to tap into the equity in our homes in exchange for cheap plastic crap from China. And in November we will all be exceedingly foolish to re-elect anyone now in office.
Still, just wait until you see the looming credit card panic, coming soon to a government near you.
"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."
http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/23/bailout-paulson-congress-biz-beltway-cx_jz_bw_0923bailout.html
--Sarah, producer/moderator
Sarah, no offense, but you're tone is sounding a bit Bush-like.
(technically, "Bush-like" is not an insult, so I hope I'm not deleted)
But on a serious note, I'm a bit worried that Tony mentioned the word "lie" twice. It sounds like it may become a rightwing talking point. Whenever their flank is exposed, they attack the other side about their own weakness, real or percieved.
So, if and when McCain is caught telling any more lies, sounds like the rightwingers are ready to begin hurling bogus lie chargers against the growing coalition of Democrats and Indepedents supporting Obama and the Conservatives opposing McCain.
And just as I was greatful the podcast was "lie free" again this week, a few of Tony's later comments I feld pushed the edge of credulity.
You're right about the final vote on that measure. But i wasn't wrong about the vote I stated. In fact, the clip I posted from Wikipedia also included a link (4) which stated the final vote. I'm sorry for omitting that fact; it was unintentional so that was a good catch on your part. As far as me being an ignorant democrat however, you're wrong. Everyone who voted for and signed that measure was wrong (Clinton on down). I highly doubt anyone who listens to LRC is ignorant, as I have been listening for well over 13 years. Thank you.
A couple days ago I ran across the funniest musical parody of President Bush I've ever heard! (specifically his "tax cuts for trillionaires and the super-rich" ) on a MySpace music page by a teenage duo named "Tommy
You can find it at:
www.myspace.com/bjsplayhouse
At times like these, a good laugh is more precious than ever! The ending is especially hilarious where the kids explain what the "trickle down theory" really means... You've got to hear it to believe it!
Yours truly,
Joey Monroe
6th Year Senior at Chicago U.
In the who's to blame game George W. is at the tippity top of those responsible, or should I say irresponsible.
When your co-hosts point blame for the credit crisis at deregulation, I expect them to focus on the 1999 Phil Graham sponsored exemptions from regulation for derivatives.
When your co-hosts point blame for the credit crisis at deregulation, I expect them to focus on the 1999 Phil Graham sponsored exemptions from regulation for derivatives. This supports their "left" point of view. However, I would expect you to better hold up your "right" side and, rightly, point out that the problem is not with 1999 era deregulation on derivatives, but with 1994 era government regulation that interferes with market lending decisions to the housing market. More specifically, the 1994 Community Redevelopment Act, which, with much pressure from community groups like ACORN and NACA, imposed requirements on lenders to ignore credit worthiness considerations so that loans would be extended to borrowers in their constituent low income communities. These very same borrowers who are now defaulting and the very same loosing of credit standards that fueled the housing bubble and put many low income borrowers into loans that, based on housing bubble fueled prices, greatly exceeded the true post bubble prices of the houses that they are now saddled with paying for. This distorting interference did not help these low income consituents and it is the underlying cause of the multi Trillion credit crisis which Shearer, Huffington et al wrongly blame on the Phil Graham deregulatory policies. It was not a market failure; it was a government interference in markets failure. There is particular culpability on the Boston Federal Reserve (non government, but most people don't realize so) which published a flawed 1992 study (by Alicia Munnell under Richard Syron (later head of Freddie Mac)) which erroneously concluded that lending practices were systemically discriminatory. This study - rushed through by Syron, but later debunked by Stan Leibowitz, fueled congressional interference into the markets forcing unsound lending and boldtered community advocates like Bruce Marks of NACA to extort lending pools for unsound loans from banks like Fleet and BoA.
Tony, please don't let the distortion of history perpetuated by you colleagues to go unchallenged. Maybe you are too busy to dig up what is really the source of this crisis --- poor mortgage lending imposed by govt on banks.
Thx
-Gordon
Regarding Matt's speculation about an Obama landslide, we can monitor the trends reported by FiveThirtyEight.com. Today, post-debate, their prediction is an Obama's electoral college win of 317.8 to 220.2. Compare to historic super-landslides like Reagan in 1984 (525 to 13) or Nixon in 1968 (520 to 17). Obama's win may be more like Clinton in 1992 (370 to 168).
FiveThirtyEight.com predicts a 78.5% chance that Obama will win. This represents a bump following the first debate, which probably means overall Obama won the debate in the sense that he gained in the polls.
It ain't over yet, though. We all know that in past presidential elections, one debate does not a win make. Remember the uneven performance of the candidates in the Bush vs. Gore debates?
Politically, Obama just needs to hold steady, not make gaffes, and let McCain continue to bury himself with his erratic, desperate behavior like he did this week.
McCain may feel the need to get even more desperate and dramatic, in the hopes that he can break Obama's lead. I wonder if the Republicans can hold another convention? :-)
http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/CPRadio_player.php?podcast=http://www.thisamericanlife.org/xmlfeeds/355.xml&proxyloc=http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/customproxy.php
This seems to be the conservative's revisionist history of the meltdown. As far as I can tell it is absolute garbage. The Community Reinvestment Act has virtually no enforcement provisions, and applies only to "depository institutions" - banks and thrifts that take deposits from people. The CRA rates them as to how well they are giving loans to the people they take deposits from. 98% of them pass. Most of the subprime lending where abusive and predatory lending was developed by companies that were not depositories and were not subject to the CRA. Depositories got in by the back door by buying subprime lenders or becoming securitization trustees, but CRA wasn't involved in that. Actually if CRA had any teeth, local and regional banks would have been making good subprime loans to people rather than these global conglomerates making bad ones.
Deregulation and dysfunctional regulation, particularly at the federal level where there were until recently no regulations against unconscionable and deceptive lending, where regulators like the OCC and OTS competed to protect lenders against state and local restrictions on predatory lending, and where a bunch of statutes from the inflationary 1970s remained on the books and gave a pass to the most abused lending products such as balloon payments and adjustable rate mortgages, empowered abusive loan products to develop. Then Wall Street developed the subprime market which depended on 1. mortgage brokers and originating lenders who got large upfront commissions for selling loans to people whether they were good and bad. These were generally based on how big the loan was, not how much work was done, and might be added to kickbacks for selling more expensive loans. 2. pricing mechanisms and legal documents that were opaque and in most cases incomprehensible to the average person. This was aggravated by complex piles of legal documents where only insiders know where to look, and reliance on things like the London Interbank Offering Rate which no one is familiar with. 3. securitization where Wall Street packaged loans under complex scheme and sold them to themselves, hedge funds and in large measure our 401(k)s. This allowed the originators to sell the loans downstream with no consequences, and gave a free ride to abuses. Perhaps because of the great income transfer to the richest end of the income spectrum, investors awash in money continued to seek high yield investments, first in dot coms and Enrons, then mortgages, who knows what is next. The supply of money seeking loans incentivized loan originators to provide them, and to fabricate them if needed.In other words we had a system set up to make bad loans, and it worked. Then they invented CDOs, debt swaps and other things that essentially created a Ponzi scheme of fake wealth. When it hit the fan, this crisis developed.
Despite all this, many blame the victims for the crimes of trusting the experts, not understanding what Congress does not understand today, and being fooled by sophisticated insiders and con men. Of course the inflation of housing prices contributed, but it was American gospel that housing prices will always go up. The market chose to serve the rich and build fancy expensive houses instead of moderate sized ones. Plus ignoring urban cores and eventually inner ring suburbs as well fuels sprawl and more building. In fact lending abuse spread from the subprime to the more profitable prime market, and with more incomprehensible products like payment option arms that were modelled after credit card minimum payments. To paraphrase Obama in the debate, abusive lending didn't just start in 2006. It has been going on since private securitization got going in the 1990s, and was evident when Paulson's Goldman Sachs was sued, and eventually slapped on the wrist, for funding the abusive activities of First Alliance Mortgage.
Anyway if someone has some evidence supporting this argument that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for forcing the industry to run amok making mortgage loans and make all the money they made from it, please provide this. There is a variation that also blames Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While these organizations had their share of flaws, they probably did more to curtail the worst lending abuses than any government regulators just by their choices of what loans and documents they would securitize. Most abusive loans were securitized outside Fannie and Freddie. Their big problem, like what happened in the 1929 crash, was being overleveraged and dependant on short term financing which dried up when the business lenders realized no one knew how much the debt they owned was worth.
The idea that tiny activist groups like ACORN and Bruce Mark's NACA somehow forced the mortgage industry to make billions over the years peddling this complex mass of bad mortgages and selling them to the public, is absolutely absurd. While both political parties took campaign contributions from industry and went along with deregulation, mostly it seems that conservatives are now stretching to find someone to blame other than themselves.
McCain's last big move will be:
MCCAIN WILL OPPOSITE OF WHATEVER OBAMA VOTES on the bail-out, but he's pretty sure Obama will vote "responsibly" and vote yes.
So, McCain's last big gamble will to vote "no."
Obama will try to paint this as "irresponsible" but that won't work, because McCain will come out all guns blazing that Obama just voted to give the "fat cats" and the "wall street bandits" 700 Billion.
Just like he has done with the Energy Bill--trying to paint Obama as in the tank with big oil--despite McCain's own record.
And the country will fall for it. Because no one cries Wolf better than McCain in crisis mode. Unfortunately, by the time the voters realize it's a trick, it will be too late. The election will be over, and populist, anti-rich, reformer, there's a new sheriff-in-town McCain will have stolen the election
Then he will unzip his sheep suit, and we'll get 4 more years of Bush, let the strongest wolf win economics.
Mark my word.
And then to compound it by paying with more paper, money printed up by the Treasury as needed.
I think Ponzi Scheme is more of a metephor or analogy than what actually happened.
Half the problem was "deregulation" but the other half no one wants to talk about one month before an election is "federal tax cuts and program cuts"
State and local cities have had to make up for lost federal revenue and services by raising local taxes and fees. But only so much of that can be done without a revolt.
So, in order to get higher property tax revenues, local authorities began to gradually increase assessed property values. The more a home is assessed in value, the higher the property tax will be, not to mention sales taxes and other fees.
The problem is not that liberals wanted banks to create bad loans for middle class people, it's that the value of the homes they were buying were over-inflated, and then with deregulation there were interest rates that increased and monthly payments, which were already overinflated, balooned. This made it impossible for the home buyers to make their monthly payments.
That's why the bailout should be for them, not the fat cats and wall street rats.
The CRA was greatly expanded under Clinton to provide loans to people who could not afford them. Banks were monitored by federal regulators and could not expand unless they hand good (CRA) profiles. The CRA and ACORN promoted deregulation of Fannie and Freddie to provide greater access to these loans. Fannie and Freddie are the largest abusers of this process. Barney Frank and other democrats resisted regulation of Fannie and Freddie citing that affordable loans to poor people would dry up. What Frank didn't say was that these were really unaffordable loans...the borrowers did not have the means to repay them so they were set up to fail.
Deregulation of the manner these loans were bundled and sold by Wall Street was the other half of the disaster. The CRA, ACORN, Freddie and Fannie created loans that would eventually fail and deregulation allowed Wall Street to put them into a brown bag and sell them site unseen to investors who assumed the loans were properly assessed.
The sick thing is, we sit on the brink of the abyss, while Frank and his democratic colleagues are trying to attach an earmark that 20% of the bailout profits go to ACORN, which is why the bailout bill is stalled. ACORN promoted subprime loans to people who could not repay them, they promoted the abuses in Freddie and Fannie, and they campaigned for the democrats trying to give them this kickback, including Obama (he was a leadership trainer and legal counsel for ACORN). ACORN will take taxpayer money from the bailout and funnel it right back into unvetted loans that will do nothing more than fail again.
I have no problem with making every effort to keep failing homeowners in their homes with bailout money, but each failed mortgage should undergo the same scrutiny any mortgage application undergoes before their loan is refinance. ACORN and CRA made questions such as "what is your salary and what is your credit history" discriminatory and prevented banks from performing a valid mortgage assessment. We can't afford to have these mortgages fail a second time.
But how does that address the fact that the values of homes have been gradually inflated over the past decade? This is why the mortgages aren't worth the paper they're printed on. It's not so much because of bad loans.
Pyramid Scheme - "The money is made through recruitment only, while the product or service has no real value".Many of the sub-prime mortages would have no real value when it became evident that those holding these mortages would not be able to continue to make payments and the properties would have to be sold as a huge discount.
Putting what the law says aside, I think you could make a case that the sub-prime mortage issue was a combination of both a Ponzi Scheme and a Pyramid Scheme.
Now that homes contract closer to their real values they are dipping below the value of their mortgages. If these mortgages were for 80% of the home value instead of 100% (zero down) there would have been a greater buffer during devaluation. Unfortunately, due to the zeal get people into these loans safeguards such as down payments and proper assessment of borrowers were cast aside.
What about the zeal to send the home buyers jobs overseas? The zeal to move workers from high-paying union jobs to low paying service sector jobs? How about the zeal to give the wealthy tax breaks at the expense of the middle class?
No, let's blame the victims. Good old conservatives. Ruin our lives with your Bush economics and then send in McCain for more of the same.
Thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.
Can you prove any of this? Citations to any credible authority? Versions of this story have been circulating from various conservative sources but it sounds like nonsense, mostly designed to smear Democrats and particularly Obama with some kind of guilt by association. Comparing ACORN and the mortgage industry is like comparing a gnat and an elephant. ACORN, with or without the CRA, was not able to make "what is your salary and what is your credit history" discriminatory and prevented banks from performing a valid mortgage assessment. It never happened. It couldn't happen. In fact, most borrowers were asked those questions. However the industry, not ACORN, invented "stated income" loans (known in the trade as "liar loans") which didn't have to be verified. The securitizers set quotas for them, and mortgage brokers and their in-house counterparts fabricated incomes, particularly of elderly people on fixed incomes, to make loans available and collect their commissions. Lenders depended on these originators as the gateway to the big bucks of securitizations, and looked the other way at faked incomes and appraisals, while often paying them kickbacks known as yield spread premiums if they talked their borrowers into paying higher interest rates. Everyone got a cut of the loot. The high profits encouraged multiple refinances and the use of artifically low "teaser rates" "payment option ARMS" and similar things that made loans that might be affordable for a year or two. After that it meant another refinance and more business for the industry. Borrowers were unprepared and unequipped to evaluate these exotic products.
Investors in securitization were supposed to be protected, not by ACORN, but by rating agencies like Fitch and Moodys on whom the investors relied. However, similar to the accountants in Enron, the rating agencies also made their money by making good ratings. Again everyone got a cut and no one made money protecting the public.
What needs to happen is for all these abusive elements to be removed from loans so that people get a fixed rate loan at a balance equivalent to the value of the property and at an affordable interest rate. Despite various promises to public officials, this is not working as well as promised. If the government gets loans it should repair them into performing loans. This is what will minimize the taxpayers loss. A bigger disaster will happen if there are millions of foreclosures, not just to the economic system but to the people involved, their neighbors and communities.
A good way to put a floor under foreclosures has been to give bankruptcy courts power to modify bad loans, similar to powers that they already have in every secured debt except first mortgages on homes (call this an earmark for a particular business). Unfortunately the administration and the conservatives have called this a deal breaker.
As to the idea that local governments have been inflating home prices to raise taxes, at least here (Ohio) people can and do appeal their tax valuations and submit their own appraisals if they think government is overstating appraisals. Only purchase appraisals count, not the refinance ones. Note that the subprime market has resulted in a net loss of homeownership to its borrowers, as new purchases have been outweighed by refinances lost in foreclosure, so there were more bogus appraisals with refinances. Occasionally house flippers will buy a house cheap in foreclosure and get an overappraisal of the house in order to sell a loan with a lower "loan to value" ratio. However a more serious problem is that the massive number of foreclosures have created a low-ball housing market which has undercut the property values of whole communities as well as ending up with vacant, derelict and looted properties, not just in cities but suburns as well. Stopping foreclosures by modifying bad loans into suitable ones should be seen as an equal ly important crisis to saving investors and the banking system.
As for the "after-debate" debate, none of the "fact checker" journalists and websites said anything about the spat McCain and Obama had over alternative energy.
Obama accused McCain of opposing alternative energy in Arizona, and McCain denied it with fluff about "in Arizona no one is opposed to solar energy" or something like that. It sounded like McCain was trying to cover up or lie, but I have no idea what his record is.
I do believe, though, McCain has opposed nuclear waste passing through his state.
If either of these accusations are true, I hope Obama hits him hard on it next debate.
Don't worry, Sara, I'm not going to get carried away and make a new post every 10 minutes again. I just want to say something about your namesake:
Sarah is an excellent debater in a structured format. Biden's best strategy against her is the same "rope a dope" strategy Obama used against McCain.
Take on McCain directly in a way that irritates her, but don't take the first hard punch at McCain or Palin. It's a long debate. They are desparate ones at this point in the campaign. Give Palin a chance to be Palin.
"Ladies first": But once she takes a cheap shot, Biden needs to have some stiff counterpunches ready.
Above all, don't use attacks most people already have in their minds, most notably: "Bridge to Nowhere" and "I can see Russia from my house," among others. Only pull these out like Obama did when McCain started lecturing him.
"for someone who sang Bomb Bomb Iran" I don't think you should lecture me, type thing.
We all already know the press is going to declare Palin the winner of the debate because she was able to "hold her own" and deliver some "hockey mom" and "lipstick" one-liners. But when does that, Biden needs to put her in her place and remind people she's really NOT one of them, the heck with what the press says.
This mess is a failure of a regulated market, not a failure of deregulation.
To be specific, the whole housing mess was largely set up by the Clinton administration during the late 90's. Here are a few revealing excerpts from a Sep 30, 1999 NYT article (http://tinyurl.com/3hdgss):
"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.
(...)
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.
(...)
''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.''
(...)
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.
(...)
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."
This article makes it clear that Fanny Mae was under pressure to lower its standards in order to fulfill a political, not a financial, objective: increase home ownership among minorities and other low income groups. When Mr. Sheer says Fanny Mae played no role in the sub prime mess, he is at best misinformed.
http://video2.harvard.edu:8080/ramgen/AAD-PAN/FinMktsPanel.rm
What you and other conservatives always pretend to overlook is that the reason people can't make their payments is not because they are low class.
It's because of Bush economics. I'm sure when the Clintons were pushing those loans, they didn't anticipate Bush would go to war in order to increase oil record oil profits at the same time gas prices for those low class people rose 5 times.
So, Clinton was supposed to know Bush would ruin our economy? Cause gas prices to rocket? Encourage the shipment of jobs overseas? Strip away basic worker protections? Stagnate the middle class by giving tax cuts to the rich during the time of war?
Those soldiers fighting and dieing in Iraq don't make much of an income. Under the philosophy you are defending, they could not afford homes.
Clinton did the right thing. You can't use a time machine to now blame Clinton. It's completely out of context.
My points are:
1 - This was a failure of a regulated market, not the failure of deregulation. In fact, this mess was largely *caused* by the Clinton social engineering. Whether or not it seemed a good idea at the time is not the point.
2 - Contrary to what Mr Scheer has stated in the last 2 shows, Fanny Mae was indeed instrumental in pushing the subprime market.
To address your comment "...they could not afford homes", that is partially correct. The left has that weird idea that everyone should be able to own a home. This is silly. Some people simply have to rent and cannot afford to own without taking too much of a financial burden. There is no shame in that (I've never owned my home).
Weather times have been bad for the poor and weather that's all Bush's fault (I don't agree) or not doesn't excuse pushing our institutions to load money to people who would not have qualified.
But Clinton either failed to enact enough regulation to prevent abuse, or else the regulation simply wasn't enforced under Bush. I'd tend to believe the latter, since we see so many other cases where the Bush administration sat on its hands instead of doing its job. Ignoring warnings about Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11, and also the Katrina fiasco being the most catastrophic examples, but we've seen a steady stream of smaller scale neglect during the entire Bush tenure.
You might check Clinton's statement earlier this week where he stated that he and Bush met resistance on reforming Freddie and Fannie. You can also find video of Barney Frank stating there's nothing wrong with Fannie/Freddie. There also a video of Frank stating if we change Freddie and Fannie it will cripple there ability to provide these subprime loans to low income families.
Listen, I'm an Obama supporter, not a Clinton supporter. In fact, lately Bill Clinton sounds more like he's for McCain than Obama.
So, whoever you want to give the blame--put it on both of them if you want.
But to suggest Bush and the Republicans who have controlled the government for 20 years is silly. But we can keep arguing about it if you want. Maybe it's Jimmy Carter's fault! lol
Let's just keep spending 10 Billion a month in Iraq, let's keep deregulating everything, let's try it the neocon way for four more years. Maybe we just haven't given it enough time to work.
Suggesting that Bush and the Republicans have controlled the government for 20 years is just plain wrong.
Your arguments are humorous. Republicans have controled the federal government for about 30 years now, actually.
It's not that you guys want to share blame 50-50, you want to pass all the blame on the party that's been in the minority.
Yes, Democrats are to blame because they lost elections, and when they'v had some power they've failed to stand up to the Big Money Republicans.
Even conservative Republican and SEC chairman admitted that the lack of regulations allowed the fat cats to take advantage of the system.
But that's like the banker saying it's not his fault he didn't lock the safe, it's the theives fault for going in and taking the money.
Sure, they're both right, but the American people see through your deceit, even though as usual, you guys are persistent and bold even when egg is all over your face.
I am perfectly willing to say there is plenty of blame to go around but you say:
This is just partisan screed no matter which party you favor. Democrats bring in just as much money as Republicans when it comes to running campaigns. .
The fact remains that Republicans tried to add new regulation which I argued here but all you seem to find is humor at how the Democrats kept if from happening and make up some fact about the Republicans controlling the federal government which is patently false.
"We started our marriage on a tissue of lies." -- Cindy McCain
I just came across this today. Wow, at least you guys are consistent.
Debate impressions: Generally I think the debates reinforce previous held impressions of your own your candidate and his opponent. If you are an Obama supporter, you will approve of his performance and likely disapprove of McCain’s performance.
And really it is a performance - show biz - more about impressions than content and substance.
I felt Obama did everything that he needed to do in the debate to show himself as someone who would be perfectly comfortable in the roll of President and someone who I would feel comfortable having as my leader. He was steady and thoughtful - unhurried. He had plenty of opportunities to really go after McCain yet he took the high road –something that I strongly believe in. When he did choose to call McCain out, he was polite and almost gentle.
McCain seemed awkward. He answered the questions as if by rote. He wouldn’t look Obama in the eye and that continual smirk on his face made him look weak and on the defensive. He was out classed and his way of handling it was to try and emotionally brush Obama off. To me that smirk said. “You haven’t a clue and I cannot bother to speak directly to you because it’s beneath me.”
Having said all of that a McCain supporter may have had a completely different take.
To me, Obama took his usual high road of talking around his answers and never committing completely and obviously to any point that had any political consequence. When asked what programs he would cut in the face of the nation's economic programs, he answered by listing all of the social programs that he'd advocate. I wish that someone would compare the 700 million dollar bailout with the 800 billion dollar estimate that Obama's proposed programs would require. You don't get 1.5 trillion dollars by just increasing taxes on the "rich" and the corporations. Obama seemed naive when discussing his foreign policy, at times, it seems as if he would have loved to say, "I can see Russia from my home in Chicago." Compared to McCain's specific experience with the countries currently in perile, Obama had none, he only had theories and not good ones. I thought Obama appeared shaken and shifty whenever the camara focused on him as McCain spoke, much like Nixon in the Kennedy-Nixon debate. I didn't look at Obama silence as being respectful, he just didn't have any retort to many of McCain's challenges. Obama's only dig came as he chided McCain about his judgement about entering the war. I have always viewed Obama's claim to fame about being right on the Iraq war as empty. He was in state government at the time and was not privy to the intelligence (we may now say lack of intelligence) that compelled the majority of the congress into voting for the Iraq War, including many Democrats, such as Kerry and Biden. A better harbinger of Obama's judgement is the decision to go forward with the surge or pull out of Iraq, both candidates had equal information at the time and came to opposite conclusions. McCain was correct and Obama was wrong. Obama has always said that we can pull out of Iraq and if the place blows-up we can always go back again, which will only result in more loss lives, both Iraqi and American.
By the way, McCain's smirk is the result of reinnervation of his face after partial paralysis from his surgery and resection of his jaw muscles. The nerves regrow and take different paths resulting incorrect facial movements. Obama's facial expressions were the result of frustration, anger, and panic.
Popular logic concerning the "bailout" plan includes the assumption that the bailed-out institutions will immediately make funds donated by taxpayers available to satisfy the need for liquidity in the US. But is there really any control over how these institutions would invest our gift? If their choices in the past were not in the US public interest - why should we assume they will be now? These institutions have already demonstrated a tendency to participate in the kind of economic “bubbles” that gave us the housing crisis. What if the banks allocate the trillion to oil futures or other risky investments – creating a new “bailout bubble”? This could easily lead to an even more serious economic crisis. Or what if the recipients decide to invest our gift overseas? It would add insult to injury if, after donating a precious trillion, taxpayers awoke to realize that their money was gone with little or no benefit to the US economy.
This (see my previous comment) is not to say that Congress should take no action on the economic crisis – intervention on the order of $1 Trillion is needed. But donating money to failed institutions is not the only way to inject cash into the economy. Instead, the money should be allocated to liquidity programs such as small business loans and student loans. And funds should be made available to State and Local Governments to support new infrastructure initiatives such as mass transit, hospitals, sustainable power and highways. By retaining control over the allocations, Congress can ensure that investment is directed to activities which genuinely support and develop US economic interests - true investments to support US economic growth for years to come.
I'm not suggesting McCain is a bad person. I think he's a good person.
But when there is a pattern of mistruths like his it usually indicates some degree of Personality Disorder.
That does not mean he's crazy. A person with a Personality Disorder is completely competent in other areas of their lives. It's a mental illness that is not treatable by medication. Also, it doesn't cause the individual to be dangerous to themselvs or others.
It's usually triggered by severe trauma, like that which you mentioned.
A person who lies because of a personality disorder can not help it. They lie even when it's easier to tell the truth, but usually lie when fhey perceive something is extremely important or a benefit to themselves.
The fact that Cindy McCain says he lied to her from Day 1 should be of concern to us all.
Presidential debates seem to function like a Rorschach ink blot. People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Even if you take away the comments of paid spinmeisters and committed ideologues, everyone seems to see, hear and value what they want. One person's alpha male behavior is the next person's condescension. The media calls for "knockout punches" but how are such things possible? This election remains counterintuitively close given the unpopularity of Bush. But Congress is unpopular too, perhaps because given the structure, it is unable or unwilling to do much but have gridlock. The bailout was temporarily scuttled by conservatives who instinctively oppose government and want to privatize everything and liberals who want to help the ordinary folks with bad mortgages. Both sides have their own historical narratives based on their view of the world. Conservatives blame the unqualified borrowers (generally racial minorities) empowered by community activists, civil rights laws and Democratic politicians. Liberals blame the greed, exploitation and corruption inherent in capitalism run amok because the money in politics has weakened the ability to police the market. How much truth there is in the views (not necessarily equal or evenly in between) may be less important than the fact that people can look at the same planet have these radically diametrical views. Politics can be the art of getting ones side's hands on the levers of power and removing the other side. However there is also exceptional mistrust out there, and not a lot of community. Part of this is that above the local level people have little personal contact with or ability to evaluate professional politicians. Part is that politics brings us either people who are driven like Clinton or privileged above their abilities like Bush. And when you get someone like Palin who is mostly a local politician unconnected to the present government, she looks attractive until we recognize how little she knows about what is needed to run the country.
Add the constant if phony urgency of the 24 hour news cycle, dependence on the media to provide the community function formerly performed by friends and neighbors, the past exaggerations about Y2K and WMDs, and the high degree of uncertainty that everyone faces about their job, their future and the state of the world. It may not be surprising that people are wary, particularly when being asked to bet the farm and spend an unprecendented sum of money on the financial sector. If they could be trusted, we wouldn't have a crisis with bad mortgages being sold to people who thought they were getting good ones.
It also may not be surprising that presidential debates are mostly show business, perhaps a "reality" game show to create stress and see how they will function, or slightly better an attempt to connect with everyone's personal dreams that can probably not be realized. The most important issue, what kind of an administration will the candidate run, is the least amenable to the campaign process. Various good ideas on how best to fix the economy appear on blogs like this, as well as various professionals. However it is not clear that we have ways to get these ideas before the leadership, and then evaluate them in ways that both make the best of our collective wisdom and also give a valid perception that what people think matters. Getting the credit markets going is a short term need, and building institutions of trust in modern society a long term one. Electing a better president is a need for the short term future. However Presidents do not by themselves solve America's problems, and are more likely to follow social movements than lead them. More significant may be whether the ideological and political gridlock, and the people who created it, are up for dealing with the unprecedented challenges we face.
I agree that the debate showed this potential personality disorder as well.
His inability to look at Obama directly, to make eye contact, even when prodded is another sign of a personality disorder. Now, just in case people don't have time to scroll up you intentionally long post, let me be clear. I'm not calling John McCain crazy or showing signs of age-related dymensia. I honestly believe he has a personality disorder.
When there is a pattern of mistruths like his it usually indicates some degree of Personality Disorder. His wife said, "our marriage began on a tissue of lies."
That does not mean he's crazy. A person with a Personality Disorder is completely competent in other areas of their lives. It's a mental illness that is not treatable by medication. Also, it doesn't cause the individual to be dangerous to themselvs or others.
It's usually triggered by severe trauma, like that which you mentioned.
(if you're interested in more, googld personality disorder or scroll above)
So what, big F-ing deal, they both lied to each other about their age, she told him she was older than she was and he told her that he was younger then he was. Nobody has tried to claim that the way they got married was right out of some fairy tale. Should we take the fact that Michelle Obama said, "Keep an eye on him, and call me if you see him smoking," as prof that she doesn't trust her husband to keep his word?
Why don't you give us a break from this kind of "McCain is an addled liar" garbage and stick to the topic of the forum.
First of all, the revised bailout bill also includes a "Mental Health Parity" provision, which would require health insurance companies to cover mental illness at parity with physical illness. Not to mention, Tony Blankley mentioned "lies" twice in the podcast. So I'm not off-topic.
Besides, if the next President of the U.S. has a Personality Disorder, why wouldn't that be relevant? Why wouldn't you want to know that? Why can't McCain provide his medical records for more than 3 hours and no photocopying? It's 1200 pages.
A Personality Disorder, if he's receiving counseling, does not necessarily disqualify him for president. It's not that kind of illness.
But it is one most American don't understand or know enough about. McCain can help educate the American people about it.
I'm suspicious of ALL politicians, because more than we would like share a quality that most dislike; they have the ability to compromise their principals for either the betterment of their campaigns, their personal ideologies, or both.
I may not be correct on this, but I suspect that McCain tried to take the high ground during his first run for presidency and was crunched by Bush's mudslinging. He has a conservative agenda, but he is not one of the "old-guard" republicans. His record is one of conviction and anti-partisan. He seems to have put his principals into idle in order to achieve his goal of presidency, knowing that he would not be able to compete with Obama any other way.
Again, I may not be correct on this, but I view Obama as grooming himself for presidency ever since he became active in the Chicago political machine and has played the game of compromise since that time (look up how he used a legal technicality to eliminate his opponent during his original run for state senate). I believe that he says and does whatever necessary to become president to bolster his underlying agenda, and agenda that is extremely liberal, socialistic, and something that would prevent his election if truly known.
In the end, we have to look beneath the political-speak of any politician and see if we may glean their true agenda from the rhetoric and then make a decision according to our own convictions.
I really enjoyed this well thought out post and agree with many of your comments. At times, our political process seems to come down to “I'm smart; you're dumb. I'm big; you're small. I'm right, you're wrong. And there's nothing you can do about it”
I think that many concerned citizens are turning away from the mainstream media as it becomes more and more intent on maintaining market share rather than maintaining an informed audience. People want something other than spin. They want to hear the various ideas set out so that they can make up their own minds. I don’t believe that we want to be told what to think. However, learning how to think about a certain issue is a continual process and requires our full attention.
There is enormous potential in the Internet to inform and provide the forum to share ideas and potential solutions for various issues. However continually defending a position and attacking others for the positions they hold is not a conversation – it is diatribe.
Thank you both. This is the kind of conversation I am hoping that this LRC blog will foster.
-Sarah S
Which of Rightguy's comments are you so proud of?
Just a listing of a few of Rightguys ridiculous rightwing comments:
Here is more evidence, just today...not history, that McCain may be suffering from a personality disorder in which it's difficult for him to separate fact from self-serving fiction:
On NPR, McCain said that he has has turned to Palin for foreign policy advice quite frequently.
NPR: Is there an occasion where you could imagine turning to Governor Palin for advice in a foreign policy crisis?
According to the McCain campaign, Palin’s foreign policy experience that the senator is relying upon includes: 1) Alaska is near Russia, and 2) she allegedly “knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.”
In the NPR interview, McCain talked about Palin’s proximity to Russia, stating that it was important because “they have had certain relationships.”
A report just yesterday on CNN shows Palin has never visited the island where you can see Russia and has never discussed watching the border with anyone on the island.
I'm not saying he DOES have one. I'm suggesting there are SIGNS.
I just want his medical/mental health records opened up. If he has nothing to hide, then there's nothing to fear.
Of course I am sure you have a better understanding of neurophychology then Dr. Moore but I would bet he's no lightweight in the field.
I don't blame McCain for not wanting his medical records photocopied by the press because is a good bet that someone would anonymously "leak" them to a kook, left wing group so that every single page can be posted on the web just to humiliate the man.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's medical correspondent, was one of only a handful of reporters allowed into the review:
For those who pay a lot of attention to this blog, they may be aware that I've tried to support and defend McCain. I switched over from Obama to McCain at the beginning of July. A lot has happened in the last few weeks. I'm revisiting my position.
As a rule, I think that one has a responsibility in matters of importance to try to act rationally and to recognize and (inasmuch as possible) ignore emotional reactions which can cause you to make illogical decisions. Politics is rife with opportunities to support people or ideas irrationally. Because of this, I have my own system which gives points to candidates in a number of different categories, which are weighted by importance, and I vote for the fellow (or lady if the case were to arise) with the best overall score.
Ordinarily, economic policy gets less than a third of the total points for me. These don't seem to be ordinary circumstances. When it comes to confidence in the candidates (or trusting them to enact their policies well) on financial issues, I'm not sure who I prefer- but when I consider the policies themselves apart from the candidates abilities to shepherd them through Washington, I absolutely prefer Obama.
I've never felt at home with either US party because I am an economic populist, but I am right of center on a number of other issues. There are European parties that I like, but neither American party represents me well.
When I think about the gravity of the financial crisis, I realize that I have to readjust the weight I give to economic matters to reflect their current importance.
As of today, I consider myself to be an undecided voter.
I wish that there were some way to vote for one candidate for economic matters, and the other for everything else.
I have sometimes argued for a different system of government that would allow for such a thing, but that is just theoretical, and we all live in a grainy and imperfect world which makes me relish the clarity that comes from studying philosophy, logic, and other abstract fields of study.
Anyway- my vote is more or less up for grabs again.
Mr. X, we finally have something we can agree on. I think Obama should also provide full medical and mental health details.
This election more than any other in history shows how important that is.
Will you join me in asking both candidates to submit their records. McCain has continued to show signs of an advanced Personality Disorders:
1. unable to look adversary in the eye
2. pattern of mistruths beginning with a marriage based on "a tissue of lies" according to his wife, and continued lieing, even as recent as today. (not talking about policy flip flops or resume inflating here, which all politicians are guilty of)
3. projection of own weaknesses or mistakes upon someone else.
Between this agreement with you and Ockraz recent statement, I too am now an independent. My vote is up for grabs.
I dont' know who won the debate, don't particularly care. And I'm sure others will flip this comment around and parrot it.
But one thing happened during the debate.
I love Joe Biden.
This is just nonsense you have made up.
There is no need to mock Ockraz, his post seemed genuine.
Your post seems convenient.
McCain has two more chances to win my vote.
Please don't question my motives, Mr. X. That's a personal attack
that is not necessary on this forum.
Obama sometimes pulled me back when he commited to a reasonable position, but each time he did, I discover it is diametrically opposed to his original position and politically expediant for his centrist shift. For example, his current stance on Afirmative Action is similar to my own, we must begin with the education of the children, making them so qualified they can't be turned down in our schools. The trouble is, during his tenure in Chicago and Illinois his position was more the classical.
Sean Hannity aside, I still have trouble getting past Obama's associations. I don't believe him when he says he never heard Rev. Wright discuss racist policy in the pews, he gives the attorney answer, "I wasn't in the pew when Wright said those particular statements," but what about the other twenty years? One of those videos of Wright's vitriolic rhetoric was a Christmas Eve sermon. If the guy can say those things on Christmas Eve, I'm sure he said them pretty often and Obama was present and accounted for. Racism will not die until it dies on both sides and based on his association with Wright and Trinity Church, I worry that Obama is a closet racist on the order of his counter-parts wearing white sheets and hoods. I don't know what to say about the Bill Ayres thing, there isn't enough information. I don't believe it's a coincidence that Tony Rezko assisted Obama in buying his house and just happens to be convicted of political pandering. Innocent politicians keep themselves at arm's length of such individuals, they don't embrace them. Bottom line, Obama has chipped away at any trust I could have placed in him or his benificent social policies.
Despite my moniker, I don't consider myself a member of the Republican or Democratic parties, I'm a member of the Pessimistic Party...I haven't voted for a presidential candidate my entire life, I've always felt as if I've voted against the other candidate. Seems like I'll continue doing the same until we get another type of politics in America. This year I'll be voting against Obama.
After all the vitriol you have hurled toward McCain? Yeah, right.
So, if you call it as you see it. Why can't you see John McCain's pattern of lies. I'm not allowed to post the list anymore. But's nothing short of terrifying.
That said, he has two more chances to change my mind.
We'll see.
If Mr. X will stop antagonizing me with meaningless attacks, i'd like to change the subect with something a little more positive. Because I'm actually a very positive person. I just happen to be one of the people who lost their job and their home because of Bush policies, supported so far by McCain 90 percent of the time. I'm doing just fine now. Couldn't be happier. But I was a McCain supporter once, so it's possible i could have a change of heart. Doubtful but possible if he stop lieing.
But what i wanted to say was how much affection I have for Joe Biden. I think he'd make a great president and i supported him during the primaries, thought htat was a very short trip for him. I have followed him since he first ran for president back in the 80's.
I couldn't sleep last night because I was so worried Palin would run circles around him during the debate. Instead of just being satisfied that Biden escaped unscratched, instead I found a new personal and political hero. As someone who has also known what it's like to be a single father facing long odds, I really identified with him. And I truly believe he understands who I am and what people like me have gone through.
Q: Why not declare a moratorium on foreclosures?
A: If you do that, can I stop paying my monthly mortgage payment and still stay in my house? I could get an extra $2,000 a month to spend. ... It would create bigger problems than it solves because those mortgage payments ultimately flow back to investors of all kinds, state and local governments, pension funds and so forth.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/10/the-mercury-new.html
-Sarah (producer, not Palin)