finknottle

What I fear about an Obama candidacy is less him than the tactics of his followers throughout tjhis campaign. The blind eye by his supporters to the way in which they campaign and how the media covers it, all out of out of a simple belief that the ends justifies the means, is a dangerous precedent for this democracy. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/o...draws-backlash/ This story brought back to mind the recent story (misrepresented by the TV station that broadcasted it) that Obama was asking law enforcement to prevent false campaign ads. His campaign was only having them investigate and object as private citizens, which is perfectly fine. But as I reviewed the story I noticed that the Obama press release did not single out any non-law enforcement volunteers among the group. In hindsight, what should we conclude from that other than the fact that they were emphasizing that these were law enforcement officials? The initiative may have been perfectly acceptable, but the selling of it suggests a goal of intimidation.

And once again the scum of the left is turning a question of loose lending standards into one about race, as they have done opportunistically since the early primaries. But to your point about where the defaults are occuring, it has been explained many times: - if you relax lending standards for low income borrowers, there is more demand and more capital available. - if there is more demand and more capital available for low end housing the prices there increase. - if the prices increase for low end housing, it drives up the price for middle range housing and ultimately high end housing. - if lending standards have been relaxed for low income borrowers, the same relaxed standards must be allowed for all borrowers. This increases the buyers of mid- and high-end properties who are bad credit risks.

You have this illusion that Americans are living in the dust bowl, families walking around barefoot, scraping together to buy a $500 car so that they can get to and from work, shivering by a home-made fire... I get the feeling that it's an important narrative for you, that the average american is eating tuna and stale bread, unable to afford the fast food restuarants that are the domain of the rich. There are some people in thoise dire straights, but not the middle class. And that's what we are talking about, isn't it? The middle class, who chooses a gym membership at $40 a month. HDTV for another $50. Taking the spouse out for dinner on Saturdays, $120 a month. Buying CD's or a DVD or two a month, $20. And let's not forget the occasional foray into BestBuy for that HD bigscreen TV (4k), season tickets (1K) or an annual vacation for two (2k). These people can save if they want to. And many choose to.

No, not a false alarm - it is what it is. The question is where it goes from here. How would you compare this debate with the debate on climate change? In both cases we are being asked to commit ourselves to dubious plans, with the clock ticking, and no consensus when you cherry pick the experts. Some say (and have been saying for a year now) that the worst is over. Some say this will do it. Some say it will cost much more. Some say this approach will actually undermine the system. Who do we believe?

It's a choice. Some people sacrifice for the long term, and some decide that toys today are what matter. If you don't like work and save, fine - just don't complain to me if you don't have anything saved. And don't try to tell me you are justified in taking money from those who did choose to put their noses to the grindstone, live frugally, and put savings ahead of gratification. Yeah, work sucks, and it's worse when you don't have any money to spend. But there are a lot of people who think it's worth it, whether we are talking about saving for retirement or putting a spouce through medical school.

I thought the thread is whether or not Palin was average economically. What does McCain (or more precisely, his wife) have to do with it? Is this a straw man, like if I made fun of Obama's 4 million dollar income last year?

C'mon, they are in the upper part of the middle class. If you are calling that rich - two well-paying salaried jobs - then we are in for one wild ride under Obama.

Well, there is no real reason for it to exist. The original reason was to give it a monopoly on the secondary mortgage market - buying mortgages in bulk from banks to free up their capital, and reselling them (with a federal guarantee) on the open market. That usefullness has been superceeded over the last 50 years. There are plenty of players with the assets who can play that role. The secondary reason, dovetailing with the first, is the social engineering mandate of pushing affordable housing. That means pressuring banks to create and bundle loans to those who would not otherwise qualify. But *that* aspect is not something that would be done otherwise, since a commercial company in the secondary mortgage market would see it for the bad investment that it is.

True. The problem is that the solution, while distastefull to both the left and the right, is not self-evidently the right thing to do. Will it fix things, or will it be good money after bad losses? And will the alternative really play out as described? We just don't know. It's some mighty foul medicine being pushed by Doctor Nick Riviera, who may or may not have a financial interest in selling it to you.

So who is out there buying designer sneakers? Bill Gates? I see a lot of people going to pricey sports events and concerts. I guess those are the rich, not average Americans. And premium cable, $50 a month? Only for the well-off? Movies at the theater? Booze and lottery tickets? And what about vacations? Is it the affluent who are taking all those weekend Vegas getaways?

Well, congressional oversight certainly stifled the administrations efforts to reign in Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and hold their CEO's (you know, Obama's advisors) to account after being found in violation of the regulations. So they can't be that un-influential.

Good - people don't appreciate the difference that 5-10 years of hard saving can make to their retirement. And that pays off by taking a lot of anxiety out of their working years. (The only question is: what will be the dividend and capital gains rates when you retire? Double those, and you need to double your nest egg.)

I supported him early in the primaries, primarily because of Bosnia and Darfur, until I started to learn about his legislative record. Now I'm smacking my head over it.

Great. More people for me to bail out because they chose to spend instead of save. All those years that you've been hearing about the plight of social security, it never occured to you that if *you* don't suck it up for a few years and put away a lot of money now, you'll never have enough to retire on? Or do you have a pension?

I disagree. The market dropped 10% Monday - if you have 200k in something tracking the overall market, that's it right there. I would hardly call that a really badly invested portfolio. And IMO 200k is on the low end for a couple in their mid-40's saving for retirement.

Correct (I think). The problem is the perception that the regulartory oversight that is promised will be created - if not managed - under guidence of Frank and Dodd.

Wasn't there a bit of a controversary recently over his having written letters to educational officials calling for religious teaching in the schools? I would disagree that religion is an issue here. Obviously there are always people who would like it to be, but none of the candidates have raised the issue on their own nor gone out on a limb to promise anything. There is no reason to believe any of them will be activists (and that includes Palin, based on her record). It's been a complete non-issue as far as the media goes. (That's not 100% true - the Democrats, specifically Biden and Pelosi, got into a mess talking about religion. But the mess had to do with whether they knew Catholic doctrine, not anthing they were advocating.)

This is one of the reasons the bailout is so unpalatable - we will be turning over the oversight to the very fools who got us into it, and are now trying to blame the Republicans. The bald-faced lying about the role of regulation in this crisis in unconscionable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs PS Not mentioned in the hearings, obviously, is that the FM/FM leaders being discussed are now advisors to Obama.

Honeymoon? The payments so back a decade. She will blame it on deregulation in the Reagan administration. Any odds on if or when the WP/NYT investigates?

So - Sarkozy will be unable to foist his nutty religious beliefs on his public, but the would-be VP of the United States will. You asked how a public could consider voting for someone with fringe religious beliefs. Your response that the French public doesn't share Sarkozy's views only shows that they are at least as crazy to elect such a person.

What exactly is the message for those who live simply, within their means, and avoid debt? That they should sacrifice further to ensure that everybody but them can continue to live in a house bigger than their means warrants? Is this the whole Biden 'patriotism' thing? When you are punished for being financially responsible, maybe it is time to simply abandon the ship. How are the tax-heavy states like NY doing, by the way?

So let me educate you. Home prices skyrocketed within about 50 miles of the coast making it impossible for many high income folks to buy a home and when they tried they got stuck with a high interest loan in a low interest market on a house that wasn't worth it, but they were told this was their nest egg. So when the housing market really crashed and their loans went up because there were things like a 3 year no-interest loan. Are you as sympathetic to that narrative? It's true too. High income people also rely on their house and their portfolio as their nest egg, even more so than the poor - they are less likely to have pensions. Or are the missteps of the poor inherently more acceptable than the missteps of the rich?

Talk to me after they start bailing too - I'd be more sympathetic, but I'm sick of carrying the load. Where do you think the money will come from? The pockets of those responsible enough forgo living beyond their means and not to extend themselves. You would have me fund my neighbors so that they can continue to live as I do, but on handouts. 38% of households pay no income tax or receive a net credit. I'd be willing to bet that most of the forclosures fall within that grouping. I want to see them pay for their mistakes before I am forced to kick in for them too. There are two arguments for the bailout. The macro implications of the liquidity problem in the financial community are serious, and might be enough to make me grimace and pay. But the argument that the money should go to prevent forclosures and inherently insolvant companies, because people are hurting as a result of their own financial choices, only makes me defiant.

I too have many friends who wonder how stupid Frenchmen can be to elect a President that believes that some old guy in a big hat living in the Vatican is the direct infallible messenger of God. They find it quite backwards, in this day and age, that the French would elect a man who advocates bringing religious education back into the schools. What should I tell them?

I agree in essence, but put most of the blame on Frank. Regardless, I was answering from the political perspective of whether it was a good ad for McCain, not as an assessmnt of whether it was a complete and fair accounting of the situation. And in that sense, Frank should definately be a target. To preempt any examination of his role in this mess, he has been leading the charge in blaming Republican deregulation for the situation, and has assumed the role of being the savior who can clean up the mess with better oversight. Left unchecked, this spin will stick, and we'll have the same guy who caused many of the problems in charge of fixing them.