USA Politics

Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

I read somewhere, I can't find it right now, that one of McCain's adviser's (maybe Fiorina?) said that McCain couldn't run a corp like HP, and then, the next day, said that none of the candidates, nor the VP's would be able to run a corp like that.  (did I read that here somewhere?)  The comment was made that it was funny that they were seen as not being able to run a large company, but were now expected to run the worlds largest economy. 

As to the mortgage part, I think that many banks have always been able to sell their loans to other banks/financial institutions.  My local bank will always sell a fixed rate mortgage to a larger institution.  So, and I'm just guessing here, I think the collapse issue would have happened, and the market would be affected, but it would have been another company, if it wasn't AIG.  I could be way wrong on that; its just my opinion.

On another note, commenting on LC's post of the Palin bounce, I have seen mention other places that it has now leveled off and it is finally getting back to the issues (economy, security, etc.) and less on who has the minority/feminist.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

Wasted155 said:
As to the mortgage part, I think that many banks have always been able to sell their loans to other banks/financial institutions.  My local bank will always sell a fixed rate mortgage to a larger institution.  So, and I'm just guessing here, I think the collapse issue would have happened, and the market would be affected, but it would have been another company, if it wasn't AIG.  I could be way wrong on that; its just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, from the way I understand how the mortgage market works/worked, what happened was banks used to manage mortgages themselves.  But what they started doing was taking mortgages and selling them like stocks.  IE, I could buy so much of a mortgage, and then get the annual return from the mortgage for the run of the loan.  Businesses started investing large-scale in mortgages because they were fairly guaranteed income over a period of years to a large return, trusting that banks would not sell mortgages to people who couldn't afford it.  But banks and mortgage companies realized that since they weren't going to be responsible for mortgages in the long term, they could give loans to people who couldn't afford it - plus at the time this started the general finances were good.  So it was a pretty good set so long as people could make the payments, which some could.  But then the bubble burst, and a lot of people couldn't make the payments.  Now the mortgages are worthless, and companies who have invested in them ridiculously are on the downturn.  Some banks invested in them, some large companies like AIG (they'd use the mortgages as collateral, use monthly insurance income to buy stock in mortgages and sell them when they needed to pay off claims, but now their collateral is worth very little), and they need to keep providing their services, but how can they with no capital?

Again, that's how I understand it.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

Ok, that makes sense; you are right on the AIG front-- they won't be able to keep paying claims with out that collateral.  Imagine being the person(s) that have an IRA or annuity with AIG--guess what that annuity/retirement money is doing right now.  And look at how the market responded to their confidence in AIG when they received notification of a Fed cash input. 

(here is the link to the Fiorina article that I was thinking about:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/ ... 3634.shtml )
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

I think the AIG situation is maybe a little different than you describe.  I preface this by saying that I don't pretend to fully understand any of this -- I'm basing my comments on what I have read the past few days.  The AIG problem is not so much that AIG bought a lot of mortgages.  Rather, AIG sold a bunch of credit default swap instruments (CDS's), which effectively are insurance contracts that pay the holders of mortgage debt instruments if the borrowers default.  So, it's a little bit like investing in the mortgages themselves, but in a roundabout way.  AIG was betting that the premiums it got on the CDS instruments would be enough to cover its liabilities to claimants.  But, at least in the short term, they aren't.   It's a little like a homeowner's insurance company insuring nearly every home in a city that gets totally destroyed by a huge fire or something -- if every policyholder files a claim (which almost never happens) the insurance company is screwed.  AIG's core business units, including its insurance companies, are separate and are fairly sound.  As of now, at least, people's insurance policies are safe.  As of last week, I believe AIG had enough collateral at the parent company level to back the CDS's, at least in the short run.  However, the credit rating agencies downgraded AIG's credit rating, which triggered a requirement that AIG come up with billions of dollars in additional collateral -- which AIG didn't have immediately at hand.  Hence, the bridge loan from the Fed.  If AIG had defaulted on its short-term debt, then the CDS's would have been in jeopardy, and every other company that bought CDS's from AIG to hedge against defaults on their mortgage investments would all of a sudden have balance sheets that were out of whack, which in turn might have caused those companies to default on their loans, and so on.  So, allowing AIG to fail arguably would have resulted in what one writer called a "financial death spiral" of defaulting corporate debts, which is why the Fed stepped in an bailed AIG out.  (Lehman was different -- it was simply over-leveraged in its investments in mortgage-based derivatives, and the Fed judged, probably correctly, that the market could handle a Lehman bankruptcy.) 
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

AMSTERDAM, Sept 18 (Reuters) - European Central Bank Governing Council member Nout Wellink does not expect a bank such as Belgian-Dutch financial group Fortis to fail, he told Dutch television programme Nova on Thursday.

Asked whether it was possible that a bank such as Fortis could collapse Wellink said: "To be honest, I do not see that happening."

Wellink, who also heads the Dutch Central Bank (DNB) said that there was a difference between the situation on the Dutch financial market and the United States.

"In the United States there are investment banks, which sell more risky products and are financed in a more risky way."

He added Dutch financial companies have good reserves due to the supervision policy of DNB. "In the past we have forced Dutch banks to hold extra reserves, which has made that they are now pretty sturdy."
(Reporting by Harro ten Wolde and Gilbert Kreijger)


+



Dutch finance minister criticises US greed

In response to the announcement of a US plan to rescue the country's financial institutions, Dutch Finance Minister Wouter Bos has said he cannot imagine the capitalist system in the United States continuing as it used to. The rescue plan, in which government funds will help restore the health of US banks, could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The details of the plan are still being worked on.

Mr Bos said the current system led to greed and ridiculous bonusses. He called the financial watchdog system a mess and hoped that things will now change. Investors in the European markets reacted positively to the rescue plan. Share prices on the stock exchange in Amsterdam were up by an average of six percent.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

I agree with your Finance Minister, Forostar.  I do not claim to understand much of the economics involved here or the complex web that led to this bailout necessity, but if such bankrupcies are possible under current US economics, changes need to be made immediately.  Businesses should not need tax payers to solve their problems.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

I sincerely believe that TRUE Republicans like Dwight D. Eisenhower are rolling in their graves with what's happened over the past couple months with this sort of insane bailouts.  And we are all agreed that they are bailouts, yes?  Because the Bush Administration refuses to call them that.  I'm sure Bill O'Reilly does too, if he's even talked about it.  But anyway.

If it wasn't for the potential ripple effect from these failures, I'd be against it.  In general, I'm more in favour of helping people make their mortgages while significantly tightening legislation, but if Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear-Sterns, AIG, and Merrill-Lynch had been allowed to fail (as they did perhaps deserve) with no government interference, things could be significantly worse.  How worse?  I have no idea, but if millions of Americans lost their insurance provider, for instance...
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

More money problems coming up?

European Union/US Online Gambling Dispute Likely Headed to WTO

A report from Reuters on Thursday indicates that the dispute over online gambling between European Union countries and the United States is increasingly likely to result in a formal World Trade Organization complaint, opening the way for additional claims of tens or hundreds of millions in trade damages against the United States.

The most recent disappointment in the trade negotiations stems from a complaint lodged with the EU by the Remote Gambling Association, which represents the interests of several of the largest European internet-gambling concerns, including PartyGaming. The RGA's complaint had led to the beginning of trade negotiations between EU and US officials, though the US had abruptly cancelled previous meetings on the matter with little advance notice. The latest meeting occurred on Tuesday but appeared to yield no tangible progress.

The latest reports indicate that the US Trade Representative office has again dug in its heels on the topic and that EU efforts to probe related US Justice Department actions were rebuffed. The USTR is the agency that has assumed responsibility for asserting modifications to American trade agreements, despite the fact that such modifications require, by law, Congressional approval.

Reuters quoted RGA outside counsel Lode Van Den Hende as follows: "It looks very much as if this matter will... be sent to the WTO at the end of the commission's investigation." Separately, an unidentified EU official reported his expectations that the EU will decide by year's end whether to file a formal WTO case. That report is scheduled for a November release.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

Quite frankly, everything we've talked about so far is small beans.  Remember when I said Ike is spinning in his grave?  Well, so is Ronald Reagan, and hell, I bet Tricky Dick Nixon is too.

Bush has announced that he wants to buy up all the bad mortgages in the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

That's going to have a price tag of at least $500 billion dollars and may end up being over $1 trillion.  And let's make this clear - he's not going to help homeowners make their loans.  He's going to buy the bad loans from the corporations and make people responsible to the government.  This scares the shit out of me.

1. The government shouldn't be in the business of owning people's homes, but now they own Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and soon will own much much more than that.  What happens when you default on your mortgage payments to THE GOVERNMENT?  Is this some form of tax fraud?
2. Who is going to administer this new series of mortgages?
3. Where is the money coming from?  Do you think that Bush can call up China and ask for another $500 billion?  Regardless, this move may push the United States even further into debt - to as much as 10-11 trillion.
4. If they do what I expect, and that is, print the money needed to bolster federal reserves...what happens to the US dollar, still the currency most are based against?  Will this add more cred to the Euro as the strongest, most stable currency out there?

Honestly, if I was in Congress, I'd find some way to push through a plan that helps homeowners make their loans, not that bails out companies for bad practices.  This move is sweeping, yes, and it's daring.  And if it works...it could be Bush's legacy.  But if it bungles (and lets be honest, that's the biggest possibility here)...well, can it really make him look worse?
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

You know what?  I kind of agree with you.  The gov't should NOT own these loans.  The banks should take the hit for making bad loans, and the home owners should take the hit for owning something they can't afford.  I will agree, there were some horrible decisions made, and some very 'predatory' loans made.  I have seen some of those ARM's that adjust each month, so that no one can predict what their loan will be-- those are just bad deals, bad loans, and bad moves made by both the lender and buyer. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a dick, but there are some people that just shouldn't have loans-- I've seen them, met them, and declined them.  There are some people that should have the ability, and got a raw deal. But, all in all, I believe that the market works, and when the government steps in, it fucks it right up. 

LC, you are right with the assistance program, but I really hope it isn't a 'bail out' to the homeowner either.  Maybe a stabilization of rates or something like that.  However, if they go along and just pull their asses out of the fire, it doesn't make a very big incentive to the rest of us out there that are paying our bills properly.  I had a lender put it this way once:  "The first bill you pay each month is your house, then your food, then you car... after that, pay for your gas, your cable, your credit card, your cable, etc".  It totally sucks to have to make the choice between house and anything else, but sometimes you have to.  Again, I am not placing the blame on the buyer (wholy), but also the lender.  Both knew that they were making loans on 'air' many times. 
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

Ok, I know this loan bit isn't really a 'candidate comparison' anymore, but here is where the topic is at.

It seems that the Senate agrees that the gov't shouldn't really be doing things like this.  That is what I am understanding from the few things I have heard on the news lately.  I heard that someone put forth the idea that the gov't should have a some sort of 'stock' in the companies they are bailing out, but that the idea was tossed out, because companies wouldn't be interested in gov't input there (can't blame them).

I understand that they are going to make a presentation to the House today, following a day in which the Senate wasn't receptive.
I know this is how the housing loan subject got brought up, so here is something I read today, in regards to the economy and its affect on the election:

The poll found that, among likely voters, Obama now leads McCain by 52 percent to 43 percent. Two weeks ago, in the days immediately following the Republican National Convention, the race was essentially even, with McCain at 49 percent and Obama at 47 percent.

That is just a clip, but, basically the author feels that the American people have more faith in Obama to change the economy than they do in McCain.  Which, I believe, is what LC was stating prior.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

Well, that is why the financial crisis is important, because it will affect people's view on the election.  If Iraq was the major issue things would be different.  It's not, it's the economy, stupid.  The fact that Obama and Biden have been hammering McCain with his "fundamentals of the economy are strong", his eight homes and his 13 cars over and over and over doesn't hurt, either.  It's not quite a "Swift Boat", but it is greasy.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

It is 'greasy', but I'm glad to see a (sort of) return to issues, vs. Palin being a woman.  I thought it was a stunt, until I started running into people (women, mostly) that changed their vote strictly because McCain picked a woman as his VP.  I sometimes don't get people, its not even a vote for a single issue, just a vote because she's a woman.  Don't get me wrong, if she was the 'right' woman, I wouldn't have a problem.  Same for Obama-- I'm not voting for him 'cause he's black (that issue doesn't have a bearing on my voting), but because he seems to fit the job the way I want to see it.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

she is the right woman, that's why she raised Mc Cain in polls
she gives the feeling of the woman of the next door, thus a very good choise for republican profile

and it's not me that saying that it's Naom Tsomsky
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

You'd hope most people would vote that way.

New polls are showing Obama is regaining his lead.  Daily tracking polls from all organizations again show Barack Obama in the lead from 1-9 points, averaging at about 6 points ahead of McCain.  Some tracking polls are showing Obama at 51%-53%, a level of approval that was never met by Al Gore nor John Kerry (nor Bush in 2000 or 2004).

The projected electoral college is swinging in favour of Obama again.  After the GOP Convention and the nomination of Palin to the VP slot, McCain had a short-lived command of the electoral college.  But major swing states like Colorado, Virginia, and Pennsylvania are again polling towards Obama by 2-5 points.  A new raft of polls coming out tonight confirms that Iowa and New Mexico are going to vote Democrat this year, with Obama showing between 8-10 points ahead of McCain in those two states.  Michigan is moving more firmly into the Obama column (9 points), New Hampshire is polling Democrat again, and Ohio is still way too close to call.  Regardless, the new polls suggest Obama is going to be solidifying his lead.

____no5 said:
she is the right woman, that's why she raised Mc Cain in polls
she gives the feeling of the woman of the next door, thus a very good choise for republican profile

and it's not me that saying that it's Naom Tsomsky
Click to expand...

Let me make this very clear: Noam Chomsky is an idiot.  Palin was a very good short-term choice for VP.  In the long term, she's tanking.  49% of Americans don't think she's qualified according to a recent poll (62% say Biden is qualified), and she has the lowest net favourability of all candidates in the race.  Basically, the middle-of-the-road independents are realizing that Palin, while a woman, is not a woman like Hillary Clinton - people are finally realizing that Clinton and Obama have the exact same views in 99% of cases is the best way to put it.

This does bring me to another topic, though: where's Hillary?  She's been stumping for Obama, but if they really wanted to tank Palin, they'd have an ad starring Hillary run.  Something like this.

"Everyone should congratulate Sarah Palin for her historic nomination.  She is clearly a strong woman who has powerful family values.  However, Americans should be aware what her values are.  They're values that work for Sarah Palin, but are they values that work for America?  Sarah Palin supports forcing women to bear rape-children.  She forces sexually assaulted women to pay for the rape kits.  She is refusing to participate into investigations into corruption in her office, and has ordered her staffers to ignore subpoenas.  These might be values that work for her, but they don't work for Hillary Clinton and they won't work for America."

Hey Senator Obama: CHECK PLEASE :D
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

I've met the man.  He's an idiot.  He's a mouthpiece who doesn't tend to know what he's talking about but loves to hear himself say it.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

Yes.  I shook his hand and spoke with him for about 10 minutes.  I disagreed with what he had to say and let him know.  He was rude, repeated his points loudly, and then moved on his way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top