TJones Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 That's the thing. Some people shouldn't be living in 300k homes when they can't afford it or realized that they couldn't after the fact. So how are they going to buy that mortgage and put that person into a 150k home instead? Gets complicated, especially the math.Sifu, McCain's plan doesn't quite work like that. McCain is talking about buying these mortgages at the price of what the over inflated $300k price for the home in 2004 is actually worth right now. Meaning that $300k home is now worth $150k, and the homeowner's NEW mortgage with the Govt. will reflect that. McCain's plan doesn't require anyone MOVING OUT of their home they are in, it is simply an adjustment on the mortgage to reflect the house's actual worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Sifu, McCain's plan doesn't quite work like that. McCain is talking about buying these mortgages at the price of what the over inflated $300k price for the home in 2004 is actually worth right now. Meaning that $300k home is now worth $150k, and the homeowner's NEW mortgage with the Govt. will reflect that. McCain's plan doesn't require anyone MOVING OUT of their home they are in, it is simply an adjustment on the mortgage to reflect the house's actual worth.Source?I haven't read where McCain's "plan" has any details at all. I have only seen offers such as my thoughts, on how it COULD work...nothing from McCain himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Source?I haven't read where McCain's "plan" has any details at all. I have only seen offers such as my thoughts, on how it COULD work...nothing from McCain himself.Maybe you missed that part of the debate while you were giddy over all the free booze you are gonna collect on. That is how McCain explained it last night. "His plan" which I think is actually part Hillary's, if not all Hillary's, The Govt. would buy up all these bad mortgages, and adjust the house value to reflect the new mortgage. i.e. a $300k mortgage is bought at a firesale price, the homeowner gets to stay in the home, but without equity, I would have to speculate that the property tax value would have to be adjusted immediately also. This would basically cut the homeowner's mortgage payment in half, possibly affording them to stay in the home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolBuddy06 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Perhaps I am reading this wrong. Did you not apply for the card because of the others who were applying? This sounds like those parents who do not apply for AFDC because they are 'too good' to apply for assistance. Pride can be a dangerous thing.The year was 2003. I was 27, wife 24, no kids, no medical condition, a graduate. Honestly we wouldn't have qualified for it but we knew little about how that system works and were just following an advice of a well-wisher. The people in the room will average 60 years, many with multiple chronic medical conditions and income surely less than what I just ditched in Africa. we are a couple who will not pay a cent more for social status.Pride is a dangerous thing, it eventually kill the proud. I count myself out of that crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Source?I haven't read where McCain's "plan" has any details at all. I have only seen offers such as my thoughts, on how it COULD work...nothing from McCain himself.From the debate transcript:As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 From the debate transcript:As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.I remembered correctly. Nowhere does McCain state that he would buy the mortgages at less than face value. The cost of the buyout, estimated at $300 Billion, would be the difference between what is currently owed on the loans and the new loan that Treasury makes with the homeowner.If anyone has a quote or other info that supports TJones' contention that Treasury is buying these mortgages at "firesale prices", I'd like to see it.The year was 2003. I was 27, wife 24, no kids, no medical condition, a graduate. Honestly we wouldn't have qualified for it but we knew little about how that system works and were just following an advice of a well-wisher. The people in the room will average 60 years, many with multiple chronic medical conditions and income surely less than what I just ditched in Africa. we are a couple who will not pay a cent more for social status.Pride is a dangerous thing, it eventually kill the proud. I count myself out of that crowd.No problem. Your reply makes sense, but the first one sounded funny. I agree that at that age without children, it is likely that you may not have qualified for any help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 I remembered correctly. Nowhere does McCain state that he would buy the mortgages at less than face value. The cost of the buyout, estimated at $300 Billion, would be the difference between what is currently owed on the loans and the new loan that Treasury makes with the homeowner.If anyone has a quote or other info that supports TJones' contention that Treasury is buying these mortgages at "firesale prices", I'd like to see it.I thought TJones main point was that the plan wouldn't be moving people from $300k houses to $150k houses, just using tax money to reduce the cost of their mortgages to let them stay in their houses. I agree there is nothing in there about the government getting the mortgages for less than face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Agreed, McCain got Obama's attention by patting him on the back and said to Obama that Cindy wanted to say hi. You people have some SERIOUS insecurity issues. I've always agreed that it is one big country club in the Senate. No matter race, politics, gender or religion, those 100 folks up there are buddies that pal around at each others' parties, kids graduations, wives' parties, etc. Obama said the computer was invented by the defense department for communication purposes. I think he meant the internet. I think he meant Al Gore invented the Internet AND the (personal) computer for the defense department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 I thought TJones main point was that the plan wouldn't be moving people from $300k houses to $150k houses, just using tax money to reduce the cost of their mortgages to let them stay in their houses. I agree there is nothing in there about the government getting the mortgages for less than face value.Yes, that is my main point, but I will stand behind the firesale pricing sale as well. If McCain's plan is enacted as President, the "rescue", "bailout" "scratch your arse" whatever they call it, he is gonna buy the mortgages at what the banks will accept, just like they do Downtown at the courthouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Even if he were to have said something about buying at fire-sale prices, where is all this debt going to be absorbed at? It just doesn't go away without recourse, the black hole is not going to make it disappear, nor is the Bermuda Triangle. This is touchy stuff we are playing with. It's kinda like playing Jenga, the economy is in a mess, and any bad moves and you'll have a catastrophic event. This is going to take work and money to fix. Anything but more debt added to it. There was insinuation today the McCain was wanting to include that $300 Billion in the $700 Billion that was voted in, but that is not part of that deal. There is very vague wording in the bailout bill that could possible be interpreted that way, but I can guarantee he will be fought tooth and nail for that. That is if he gets in that position. I just don't see them buying out all that paper and just slashing the value of all that collateral. Then comes the fairness issue. Are you going to reward people who lied and provided false documents, in order to help qualify for this loan? Are you going to reward people for knowingly getting in over their heads, and punish those who acted with personal responsibility, and are making their notes? If you don't think it will punish those people you are sadly mistaken, people with non-fixed rates will pay dearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Yes, that is my main point, but I will stand behind the firesale pricing sale as well. If McCain's plan is enacted as President, the "rescue", "bailout" "scratch your arse" whatever they call it, he is gonna buy the mortgages at what the banks will accept, just like they do Downtown at the courthouse.Here's an article on the McCain "plan".http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27076838/Obama actually pushed for a similar plan on October 24. The provision for such a buyout is included in the $700 Billion Bailout legislation. Still, there is no statement by McCain or anyone else that the buyout would be at firesale prices. In fact, if the Treasury is only offering a firesale price, there is no incentive for the banks to sell. It would do nothing to help.As for Mark's comments, indeed, the devil is in the details. If the buyouts are contingent on buyers having been honest in their applications, I can see buying the mortgage and renegotiating. Remember, we're trying to save a cratering economy here. We're going to have to hold our nose on a lot of this stuff. Poor financial decisions by buyers and lenders alike are what got us into this. Buyers who bought into the financial experts' opinions that prices would continue to rise may qualify. But, outright lying need not be rewarded.As for punishing the self-reliant, we are already being punished. We will be punished further by a collapsing financial system. It does us no good to punish ourselves further by allowing it to fail. We must be pragmatic about it. And, we must be fairly certain that whatever bailout we allow will actually help.That's the hard part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 (edited) Here's an article on the McCain "plan".http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27076838/Obama actually pushed for a similar plan on October 24. The provision for such a buyout is included in the $700 Billion Bailout legislation. Still, there is no statement by McCain or anyone else that the buyout would be at firesale prices. In fact, if the Treasury is only offering a firesale price, there is no incentive for the banks to sell. It would do nothing to help.As for Mark's comments, indeed, the devil is in the details. If the buyouts are contingent on buyers having been honest in their applications, I can see buying the mortgage and renegotiating. Remember, we're trying to save a cratering economy here. We're going to have to hold our nose on a lot of this stuff. Poor financial decisions by buyers and lenders alike are what got us into this. Buyers who bought into the financial experts' opinions that prices would continue to rise may qualify. But, outright lying need not be rewarded.As for punishing the self-reliant, we are already being punished. We will be punished further by a collapsing financial system. It does us no good to punish ourselves further by allowing it to fail. We must be pragmatic about it. And, we must be fairly certain that whatever bailout we allow will actually help.That's the hard part.We agree on this 100%I have had my ass kicked enough in the past two weeks for a lifetime, and Red is dead on, we can't allow the economy to completely collapse, but we may have to shoot a hostage or two. Edited October 8, 2008 by Mark F. Barnes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Mark, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing by simply acknowledging that some old white men (especially in the south) DO have subconscious mannerisms that suggest a subtle racism. To this day, I have never forgotten watching a basketball game on TV with my grandfather, who was born slightly before the turn of the 20th century. It was 1974 (I was 14), and we were watching my all-time childhood basketball hero, David Thompson. Thompson was performing his usual incredible acrobatic feats against some other hapless college team in North Carolina, and my grandfather and I were duly impressed. After one particularly spectacular play, my grandfather stated that, "he's pretty good for a n____r. I sat there dumbfounded, but said nothing. Here, DT was my hero, and Grandpop just called him a n____r. But, that's just the way things were back then. Grandpop was a good man, and if you asked him, he meant no harm by it. But, it happened.As for McCain, I make no judgements. It IS possible that he made that statement as a subtle racist comment. It is ALSO possible that McCain did not make it as subconsciously racist at all, that he holds this disdain for ALL voters, Black or White. But, to say that it is not remotely imaginable that 71 year old white men cannot have subtle racist thoughts is...well...reaching beyond anything remotely imaginable.Thank you, Redscare.I figured I couldn't be the only white guy to pick up that it MIGHT be a possibility. Plus, it's not as if this event occured in a vacuum. It came in a debate in which Senator McCain sneared and called Senator Obama "that one." This debate followed the one in which McCain simply refused to look at Obama. Additionally, you need to wake up if you don't think race is being played by groups on the right. Groups like the Freedom Defense Fund were running anti-Obama ads in the lily-white suburbs of Detroit comparing Obama to the recently ousted Detroit mayor. They also ran Rev. Wright ads.Then you have the League of American Patriots, which passed out flyers in Roxbury, New Jersey. The flyers depicted Senator Obama as Osama bin Ladin and contained language that was derisive to all black people.Then you have the National Campaign Fund. These are the same folks that brought us the Willie Horton ads years ago. They're back, but this time they are running ads portraying Obama as Muslim. Of course, if you want closer to home, then look at the buttons that were being sold at the Texas Republican Convention that read "If Obama is President...will we still call it the White House?"Seriously, just because you don't see "race" doesn't mean others fail to see it as well. Turn on the tv tonight and see what a weekend's worth of Palin and McCain attacks against Obama as unpatriotic, un-American, different, other, Muslim, untrustworthy, etc... have done. That campaign is inciting hate which has resulted in people yelling out "Treason!" "Terrorist!" and "Kill Him!" at formal Republican rallies. Then you have good ole Rush. He's quoted as saying "I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say No to a black guy" as the only reason Obama won the Democratic nomination.Then you have Congressman Geoff Davis (R-Kentucky) stating at a GOP dinner in "I'm going to tell you something" That boy's finger does not need to be on the button" referring to Obama's access to nuclear power if elected.Of course, you can also buy a Curious George t-shirt with the monkey eating a banana and the words Obama '08 underneath.It is within this context that I question last night's comments. I would like to think McCain wasn't being racist, but I don't know. All I know is that my black friends certainly thought it was and they are a better judge than any white guy on a forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) Let's see if we can figure that out. If someone makes a lot of money and blows most of it on Indian food and video games, let's say, are they not eligible for this mortgage bail out? Why are they less deserving of government help than someone who makes less money and bought too much house or bought a freaky option ARM?Well it's not really a bail-out...if I understand it correctly the government will own part of your house.The root problem is that it rewards irresponsibility and punishes responsibility.Either you're rewarding the homeowners or rewarding the Wall Street CEOs. At least we can say that not every homeowner who defaulted did so because they were flipping houses or had a zany mortgage. Sometimes people just get laid off and miss a payment and they're screwed. That's how it is in a down economy.Anyway the McCain plan, if I understand it correctly, sounds a lot like the plan I came up with a few weeks ago. The government buys up all of the chopped-up securities at a minimal price, thus making it the holder of the underlying mortgages. Rather than kicking people out of their homes repo-style (which is what the banks would do), it undergoes the special step of letting them stay in their homes a la public housing for a monthly amount equal to the monthly payment of what their mortgage would cost were it accurately valued. (If they can't afford that, then by definition they really should not have been living in that house to begin with.) When the mortgages are worth more, the government sells them off (giving existing occupants a first crack at them) and the homes get new owners. Any profits (and there should be, long-term, since the population of the US will only continue to increase) go towards paying off the overall bail-out or paying down the national debt or whatever. Edited October 9, 2008 by N Judah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifuwong Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Even if he were to have said something about buying at fire-sale prices, where is all this debt going to be absorbed at? It just doesn't go away without recourse, the black hole is not going to make it disappear, nor is the Bermuda Triangle. This is touchy stuff we are playing with. It's kinda like playing Jenga, the economy is in a mess, and any bad moves and you'll have a catastrophic event. This is going to take work and money to fix. Anything but more debt added to it. There was insinuation today the McCain was wanting to include that $300 Billion in the $700 Billion that was voted in, but that is not part of that deal. There is very vague wording in the bailout bill that could possible be interpreted that way, but I can guarantee he will be fought tooth and nail for that. That is if he gets in that position. I just don't see them buying out all that paper and just slashing the value of all that collateral. Then comes the fairness issue. Are you going to reward people who lied and provided false documents, in order to help qualify for this loan? Are you going to reward people for knowingly getting in over their heads, and punish those who acted with personal responsibility, and are making their notes? If you don't think it will punish those people you are sadly mistaken, people with non-fixed rates will pay dearly.Good point. The debt continues ... its gotta come from somewhereFrom the debate transcript:When i watched the debate last night, i kinda thought that was what he meant, but really wasn't sure if that was exactly what he meant. Since you pointed that out, then i guess that was what McCain meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) The wording gives the Treasury Secretary a lot of leeway, if my understanding is correct. So McCain could lean on potential Treasury Secretaries prior to selecting a Treasury Secretary. That's what I would do if I wanted things done a really specific way. Edited October 9, 2008 by N Judah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifuwong Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Here's an article on the McCain "plan".http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27076838/Obama actually pushed for a similar plan on October 24. The provision for such a buyout is included in the $700 Billion Bailout legislation. Still, there is no statement by McCain or anyone else that the buyout would be at firesale prices. In fact, if the Treasury is only offering a firesale price, there is no incentive for the banks to sell. It would do nothing to help.As for Mark's comments, indeed, the devil is in the details. If the buyouts are contingent on buyers having been honest in their applications, I can see buying the mortgage and renegotiating. Remember, we're trying to save a cratering economy here. We're going to have to hold our nose on a lot of this stuff. Poor financial decisions by buyers and lenders alike are what got us into this. Buyers who bought into the financial experts' opinions that prices would continue to rise may qualify. But, outright lying need not be rewarded.As for punishing the self-reliant, we are already being punished. We will be punished further by a collapsing financial system. It does us no good to punish ourselves further by allowing it to fail. We must be pragmatic about it. And, we must be fairly certain that whatever bailout we allow will actually help.That's the hard part.Yes, it would be hard for banks to do business or sell at firesale prices by the Treasury unless there is some kind of financial incentive. There will be buyers getting lucked out in order to save their mortgage while others getting kicked out and lose their mortgage anyway. In the end, all of us get screwed anyway. It is kinda scary to think what if the bailout turns out to do really no help in 2 yrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifuwong Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Well it's not really a bail-out...if I understand it correctly the government will own part of your house.Either you're rewarding the homeowners or rewarding the Wall Street CEOs. At least we can say that not every homeowner who defaulted did so because they were flipping houses or had a zany mortgage. Sometimes people just get laid off and miss a payment and they're screwed. That's how it is in a down economy.Anyway the McCain plan, if I understand it correctly, sounds a lot like the plan I came up with a few weeks ago. The government buys up all of the chopped-up securities at a minimal price, thus making it the holder of the underlying mortgages. Rather than kicking people out of their homes repo-style (which is what the banks would do), it undergoes the special step of letting them stay in their homes a la public housing for a monthly amount equal to the monthly payment of what their mortgage would cost were it accurately valued. (If they can't afford that, then by definition they really should not have been living in that house to begin with.) When the mortgages are worth more, the government sells them off (giving existing occupants a first crack at them) and the homes get new owners. Any profits (and there should be, long-term, since the population of the US will only continue to increase) go towards paying off the overall bail-out or paying down the national debt or whatever.How are they factoring in equity? Curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Oh, i don't know. I don't really understand McCain's plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deut28Thirteen Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I did not think McCain was being racist I thought he was just being rude. They say most of the time My opponent or call them by their last name. I always thought there was racism in many older white people, subconsciously or not, because they grew up in it and got some of it from their parents and Grandparents, and you can not forget your past.Ms. Obama is really pretty. She looks like one of my female friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I kinda view this last debate as an Ali/Quarry fight. It's really not that Obama has done such an outstanding job of debating, but McCain has done so poorly. Whoever his head handler is in these debate needs to return the check he took. He constantly let's McCain wander back to that same old boring rhetoric about how he set his campaign aside, suspended his campaign, Jesus somebody shoot the idiot in the leg. The GOP has no one to blame but themselves, because McCain, whose lack of clarity, conviction, and understanding on the economy has handed the Democrats a win on this issue, where a more economically savvy Republican could have won the day. McCain just really sucks as a debater I don't care how they slice it. Obama is poised to win with a clear mandate for his broad message of regulating the economy. McCain has not forced Obama to give specifics - either on which regulations were "shredded" by Republicans and caused this downturn, or on what sort of new regulations Obama wants to create. All is not completely lost for the GOP, though it looks pretty friggin dim. The election less than four weeks away, and anything can happen in that time. Just what could happen to save McCain and stem the GOP losses, though, is hard to imagine right now. It's actually going to take a huge blunder by Obama, or some bombshell of a skeleton to come dancing out of the closet. I think the skirt has peaked her points, and McCain is beginning to flail about, like a fish out of water. I can understand the road the GOP took in trying to strategize this campaign. McCain's campaign was foolishly honest, and correct, in admitting that they need to change the subject away from the economy. But today, with the implosion of the economy, that looks like a long shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Oh, i don't know. I don't really understand McCain's plan. At least you're honest. Regarding your earlier explanation, I don't think McCain proposed the government owning the home after buying the mortgage. I heard McCain say he would direct Treasury to buy the mortgage, and THEN negotiate a new mortgage with the home owner at the CURRENT value at a low fixed rate (probably low to mid 5%). The CDO problem is another reason that Treasury cannot buy the mortgages at firesale prices. The bank is not the owner of the mortgage. All of the owners of the CDOs own the mortgage. Because the mortgage was sliced among several CDOs, it is hard to figure out exactly who owns the mortgage. Therefore, Treasury would have to pay the contract price, or else there would have to be a court order or a new nationalization of the CDOs to pay less than face value. Add to that the goal of pumping money into shaky banks and there is no reason to buy these things at firesale prices. It solves nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 This might be a little off-topic (and it might have been mentioned/discussed before), but are both McCain and Obama left-handed. I was watching a clip from the Today Show (podcast) and saw McCain writing something. Unless the monitor was flipped (or McCain is ambidexterous), he was using his left hand. I know Obama is left-handed (I think?).Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifuwong Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I kinda view this last debate as an Ali/Quarry fight. It's really not that Obama has done such an outstanding job of debating, but McCain has done so poorly. Whoever his head handler is in these debate needs to return the check he took. He constantly let's McCain wander back to that same old boring rhetoric about how he set his campaign aside, suspended his campaign, Jesus somebody shoot the idiot in the leg. The GOP has no one to blame but themselves, because McCain, whose lack of clarity, conviction, and understanding on the economy has handed the Democrats a win on this issue, where a more economically savvy Republican could have won the day. McCain just really sucks as a debater I don't care how they slice it. Obama is poised to win with a clear mandate for his broad message of regulating the economy. McCain has not forced Obama to give specifics - either on which regulations were "shredded" by Republicans and caused this downturn, or on what sort of new regulations Obama wants to create. All is not completely lost for the GOP, though it looks pretty friggin dim. The election less than four weeks away, and anything can happen in that time. Just what could happen to save McCain and stem the GOP losses, though, is hard to imagine right now. It's actually going to take a huge blunder by Obama, or some bombshell of a skeleton to come dancing out of the closet. I think the skirt has peaked her points, and McCain is beginning to flail about, like a fish out of water. I can understand the road the GOP took in trying to strategize this campaign. McCain's campaign was foolishly honest, and correct, in admitting that they need to change the subject away from the economy. But today, with the implosion of the economy, that looks like a long shot.McCain from a physical point of view is just odd. His injuries from his POW days makes him look like a zombie when he walks. He can't lift his arms above his chest. His tone of voice is kinda weird. There will be alot of young people voting in this election which is why Obama will win. Think about it? How many young voters are gonna vote for this guy. I was eating lunch with some co-workers, most in their mid 20s with some college new hires. They all say the same thing. I feel bad for him though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 McCain's campaign was foolishly honest, and correct, in admitting that they need to change the subject away from the economy. But today, with the implosion of the economy, that looks like a long shot.Well, Mark, John McCain and his campaign staff just showed how little they understand of the gravity and scale of this crisis when they thought that they could just stop talking about it and Americans would forget about it. If one needed just one more reason why John McCain is NOT the person to lead this country during the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression, this is it.McCain just doesn't get it. He admitted as much back in the spring, and now that this has ballooned into the most serious crisis of our time, he wishes we would forget that he is incompetent on the economy. There are plenty of people willing to forget his incompetence, people who think abortions and terrorists in caves, and lower taxes are more important than the entire financial system imploding...that is why Obama only has an 8 point lead...but for those of us that have even a limited grasp of the severity of the problem, and the recognition that it will take a person of intelligence AND good advice to get us out of it, McCain is simply the wrong guy. No one can make the claim that Obama will get us out of this mess. But, he at least has the intelligence to understand the problem, and he appears to have the demeanor to listen to his experts, two qualities that McCain lacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Well, Mark, John McCain and his campaign staff just showed how little they understand of the gravity and scale of this crisis when they thought that they could just stop talking about it and Americans would forget about it. If one needed just one more reason why John McCain is NOT the person to lead this country during the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression, this is it.McCain just doesn't get it. He admitted as much back in the spring, and now that this has ballooned into the most serious crisis of our time, he wishes we would forget that he is incompetent on the economy. There are plenty of people willing to forget his incompetence, people who think abortions and terrorists in caves, and lower taxes are more important than the entire financial system imploding...that is why Obama only has an 8 point lead...but for those of us that have even a limited grasp of the severity of the problem, and the recognition that it will take a person of intelligence AND good advice to get us out of it, McCain is simply the wrong guy. No one can make the claim that Obama will get us out of this mess. But, he at least has the intelligence to understand the problem, and he appears to have the demeanor to listen to his experts, two qualities that McCain lacks.And I can go along with a lot of that, actually most of it. Team McCain has let the GOP down in the strategy area of this campaign. I have a hard time fully siding with either of these politicians, because neither have addressed this crisis in a way that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. And the more I read the worse it gets. I am just waiting for the other shoe to drop, because I really have a feeling it's going to. Don't know why, it's just a gut feeling. I've sat and watched my money take a beating in the market, but I'm in the long for it, so I know eventually it will recover. And besides I have more than one backup plan, I use to have a great big plan, before the First Cayman Bank went south, but there's always plan "B". Oh well I can hold my breath for four years, we'll see what the future holds for us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 This might be a little off-topic (and it might have been mentioned/discussed before), but are both McCain and Obama left-handed. I was watching a clip from the Today Show (podcast) and saw McCain writing something. Unless the monitor was flipped (or McCain is ambidexterous), he was using his left hand. I know Obama is left-handed (I think?).Interesting.Indeed...http://prorev.com/2008/02/both-obama-and-m...re-lefties.htmlhttp://www.leftiesforobama.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Here's an update on McCain's plan.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27091196/Under McCain's plan, the government would spend $300 billion to purchase distressed loans and provide new, fixed-rate mortgages. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the Arizona senator's economic adviser, said the plan would help stabilize the plunging values of mortgage-backed securities that are at the heart of the crisis in the financial markets.To do so, the government would pay the full face-value of the distressed mortgages, Holtz-Eakin said.Under that scenario, the government could buy a $200,000 subprime mortgage on a home now worth just $100,000, give the homeowner a 30-year, $90,000 loan with a 5 percent interest rate, and essentially eat the $110,000 difference.There you have it. TJones' belief that McCain would buy at firesale prices is shot down by McCain's economic adviser. Experts say this would reward bad decisions by buyers AND lenders. By contrast, the $300 Billion program that already passed in July allows for Fed guarantee of new mortgages, but only if the lender agrees to take a loss on the original loan. And, there is still the problem that it is difficult to separate a single mortgage from the group of mortgages that make up the CDO. In fact, the contract prohibits it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Hrm...in that case they should separate the loans from the foreclosures.Buy the worthless securities since free money for banks should in principle come with something in return...And set it up so that people facing foreclosures on their (primary) homes get assistance from the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) There you have it. TJones' belief that McCain would buy at firesale prices is shot down by McCain's economic adviser.Not so fast. It turns out McCain did say the government would get a discount (before he said they wouldn't):McCain changes homeowner planThe document posted and e-mailed by the McCain campaign on Tuesday night says at the end of its first full paragraph: "Lenders in these cases must recognize the loss that they've already suffered."So the government would buy the mortgages at a discounted rate, reflecting the declining value of the mortgage paper.But when McCain reissued the document on Wednesday, that sentence was missing, to the dismay of many conservatives.I suppose foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and our wise conservative maverick's mind is vast and constantly refining his proposals, which aren't anyone else'sEdit: Oh yeah, both versions of the plan will cost $300 billion. Somehow. Edited October 9, 2008 by memebag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts