world

Obama, McCain react cautiously to financial rescue plan

102 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

102 Comments
Login to comment

National polls show that McCain’s edge has slipped since the upheaval in the U.S. financial landscape. The latest CBS News-New York Times national survey showed Obama leading McCain by a margin of 48% to 43%—a swing of seven percentage points in just a week. The poll also found Americans believed Obama was more likely than McCain to bring needed change to Washington by a 65-to-37 percentage-point margin.

In an election year where change is the critical theme, the last sentence is devastating to McCain.

The one thing these polls do not factor in is first-time voters. The 18-30 group is massively supporting Senator Obama and this segment is, by and large, left out of the calculations. Also, consider the large increase in voter registration by African-Americans, who want to take part in this historic election. They are not factoring in these polls either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As far as the blame game is concerned, it seems to me that Obama is more nearly correct than McCain. Any campaign contributions that Obama may have received are insignificant compared to the size of Freddie Mae's and Freddie Mac's financial distress. In the realm of causes, those contributions are nothing compared to the administration's failure to develop countermeasures to a growing problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

john mccain has been promoting deregulation of the financial industry for years.

Now he wants to regulate the financial industry.

"On Friday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) proposed a six-point plan, including additional regulation, for coping with the meltdown of the mortgage market and its disastrous fallout on Wall Street."

It seems like john mccain was for deregulation before he was against it.

Similarly, john mccain was against offshore drilling before he was for it.

john mccain was against making Bush's tax cuts permanent before he was for it.

What a joke.

Bottom Line: Sen. McCain was an honorable man before he wasn't.

"The poll also found Americans believed Obama was more likely than McCain to bring needed change to Washington by a 65-to-37 percentage-point margin."

Yabits - "the last sentence is devastating to McCain."

Totally agreed. The tide is turning against mccain bigtime.

The economy - not foreign policy or the war is American's most pressing issue now, and he has put his foot in his mouth not once but twice by

1/ admitting he is an economic dunce, and

2/ hiring a failed CEO in Carly Fliorina as his top economic advisor who only last week came out and declared neither mccain nor his celebrity partner Sarah Palin could run a corporation.

mcain has peaked too early.

Obama and Biden will get this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“A strong dollar will reduce energy and food prices,” McCain told business leaders in Green Bay, Wisconsin. “It will stimulate sustainable economic growth and get this economy moving again.”

Again, what a joke. bush has claimed for years to support a strong US dollar. But its has been in freefall for years.

What has mccain done about this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hahahaha... McCain is done. They can try all they want to smear lies across the campaign and try to undermine the democrats with brazen twisting of facts, but McCain clearly can't try to hide from this one... hahaha. I wonder what lies he'll make up for his next commercial... hmmm...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinJapan - "I wonder what lies he'll make up for his next commercial... hmmm..."

mccain seems to be turning blatant lying into an integral part of his campaign.

"McCain's lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent's character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth. Even after 38 million Americans heard Obama say in his speech at the Democratic National Convention that he was open to offshore oil-drilling and building new nuclear-power plants, McCain flatly said in his acceptance speech that Obama opposed both. Normal political practice would be for McCain to say, "Obama says he's 'open to' offshore drilling, but he's always opposed it. How can we believe him?" This persistence in repeating demonstrably false charges is something new in presidential politics."

http://www.bushwatch.com/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: "McCain is done"

Check out electoral-vote.com

Ha ha ha ha ha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge- Great post as usual. McCain knows what he is doing. this is where his experience and intellect count. Prople will see this and Obama shall lose more votes.

McCain will lead us to prosperity, Obama to a socialist nightmare where only the ignorant and bone idle benefit. just my fair and balaced view.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Awesome to see most top economists back Obama's financial plan and that they agree in effect that mccain's economic "plan" isn't worth toilet paper.

Also good to see Obama's tax strategy will see tax cuts for the bulk of middle class Americans while mccain's tax "strategy" will see the biggest tax cuts for the richest and elite.

It's great news for OBL that mccain wants to continue the "war on terror" - guaranteed more recruits for OBL - while Obama wants to move US troops to Afghanistan (where they should have gone into in the first place), bring the rest of the troops home and divert spending away from Iraq and onto America.

Heck, that's just an entree, but it already highlights that anyone voting mccain is an unpatriotic America-hater :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge and Moderate- Well said guys. Only the low wage, work shy lake of motivation people will gain from Obama's tax cuts. Us hard working decent folk will be worse off.

McCain looks after those who work hardest, and stimulate the economy, not deadbeats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Greenspan spoke of the low debt to equity ratio required of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as being problematic. He did so way back when he left the position of head of the Fed. I refuse to jump on the bandwagon of those who are demonizing the financial experts. Mistakes were made. The two biggest mistakes were the low debt to equity ratio I already mentioned and the very low standards that have been used to determine the suitability and the amounts of loans to be granted.

I do disagree with the majority of people who are saying that the packaging of loans and sale and resale of these packages of loans is a major factor. If that issue is framed as the mix of risk and that these high risk loans were packed with less risky loans then I would say that the issue now has linkage. I do not think that selling a bundle of loans is a bad idea. The problem was the inherently bad loans themselves. The loans were extremely low quality. I will agree once the linkage is attached it greatly exacerbated the problem. Many banks were making bad loans because they new they could bundle them in a package with better and good loans and sell them off. So I still believe that there were two main problems as I outlined above.

I only bring these thoughts to the table because I am sick of the blame game. In the bigger picture many, many people are to blame. But most were just following the rules that were laid out. We need credit in this country. I said it before and I will say it again credit makes this country great. The major automakers need a line of credit to retool and hopefully make hybrids and other fuel efficient autos as an example. We need more solutions and less blame.

I understand that the politicians must do it. If they did not their opposition would take the time to produce a huge ad campaign and blow the other out of the water. It would be too late if the commercials were already produced and your side had none. But when I see people just spouting off hatred for these financial institutions I just wish they could see the services they provide to our economy. They are not going away like I said before. If they do, especially if regulations force the reduction of risk it will stifle the economy. These houses that posters have railed against have provided plasticity; that is this huge strength we have economically in America to adapt and adapt quickly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - Who are these "top economists" who back Barack's financial plan and say McCain's plan isn't worth toilet paper?

And hey, we're still waiting for your source on that Palin quote that you obviously made up!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I for one am glad disaster was averted (though I'm not looking forward to the bill). Paulson and Bernanke, while one can certainly quibble with positions they've taken in the past, are professionals with records of accomplishment who performed well in a crisis. Note the contrast with Brownie's Katrina response. In denigrating government, Republicans acquire the license to appoint those unqualified on the grounds"well any boob can do the job, so why not give it to an out of work political crony?"

Ironically, there was less, none in fact given the urgency of the situation, public discussion over a USD 1 trillion bailout to the financial industry than the USD 1.5 billion loan to Chrysler before we went down the road of deregulation. It's going to be hard for Republicans to continue to wax on about the miracle of the unfettered market and the evils of big government after this one.

Yet I expect many will continue to do so, blissfully ignorant of the blatant contradiction. In that regard the self-proclaimed deregulator, John McCain, proposed one of the most intrusive responses imaginable today: an "early intervention" system in which the government would monitor the books of all major financial institutions so as to guide them away from behavior that might lead to insolvency??!!! I kid you not. How exactly this is supposed to operate, predictably, he didn't explain.

To say he's flip-flopping would be incorrect; that requires an appreciation you are occupying both sides of the spectrum. Instead it seems to be a matter of saying whatever he thinks sounds good at the given moment. On that score, McCain delivered one of the most absurd critiques of Wall Street ever offered in apportioning blame: "Many in the financial services industry also either forgot or neglected their duty to act ethically and honorably."

In fact, as liberal blogger Andrew Leonard observed: "The bedrock of the conservative belief in free markets is that independent actors pursuing their own economic self-interest create economic prosperity for us all. Honor and ethics have nothing to do with it. Greed is a feature, not a bug."

Paulson and Bernanke could present the conservative position cogently, but too many on the Right are unable to do anything beyond shout slogans and we are certainly poorer, both literally and figuratively, for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Electoral vote Sarge, you just learned that last week. But in case you dont understand that Obama is up by 50.

Elmer Fudd has lost this waskuly wabbit

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush should have hired Greenspan 2 - 1 1/2 years ago to head a commission to fix this thing when it was obvious it was coming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whst? I just heard Obama is 7 points up on mcain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DXXJP: "Obama is up by 50"

According to who? According to electoral-vote.com, McCain's got 274, while Barack's got just 243.

Looks like Elmer just shot the waskaly wabbit! Ha ha ha!

Hey, they're just polls. Polls, schmolls, right? The only poll that counts is the one on Nov.4.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge

There you go again with your fuzzy math that you learned from Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Check again sarge

http://www.270towin.com/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry he was up by 50 last i looked but Obama is still ahead

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The two party system is outrageously fraudulent. Someone gets a lot of fun out of the whole charade, and in the end it isn't the voters. But hey, doesn't the whole fraud depends on voters who don't pay attention to history, who can only remember what they read in their TV guide two days ago, and who have the analytic abilities of 3 day old marmots.

The real issue with this financial rescue plan is that something very similar was attempted before as in an attempt to rescue financial institutions just prior to the Great Depression. No one is talking about what happened next back then. The reality is the amount of debt to pay off now is far greater, and so is the relative amount of money needed to be injected into the financial system. They are forty years too late for any solution of this kind to work.

They may as well be attempting to revive the dead corpse of Lazerus.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Check again DXXJP

electoral-vote.com says Obama 252 and McCain 265 with the rest still up in the air.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Someone gets a lot of fun out of the whole charade, and in the end it isn't the voters.

Who is the someone? Lets name some names. Destroying sarah plain won't be enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3- Strange, every post i have read written by Sarge has always been truthfull, how Queer! McCain will the economy is fine, Obama with no experience and all his yes men, will destroy our great country and make it the laughing stock of the world.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack is a genius not just with words but also numbers.

According to the IRS, the top 50% of all earners in the united states pay 96.93% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% of earners pay 3.07% of all income taxes.

Its almost a shame that it was from the mouth of Joe Biden and not Barack's that recently came the instantly immortal quip: "paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But when I see people just spouting off hatred for these financial institutions I just wish they could see the services they provide to our economy.

GoodDonkey,

I read this comment in another forum: "About 60% of Americans are invested in the stock market through their pension and retirement plans. If they go under so do you. So don't be so quick to pull a Pol Pot and kill the capitalists."

What should be done is to revise the tax code to reward saving (as opposed to consumption). The East Asian countries accomplished great things through their high savings rates. By contrast, many a Latin American country fell into a painful debt trap when they were unable to repay dollar-denominated loans after the value of their currencies tanked in the 1980s. We don't have to worry about that, thankfully, but that doesn't mean the accumulated debt of the past eight years will be painless to pay off. What a great gift from the Republicans to the next generation.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SwiftBoatVet - "McCain will the economy is fine, Obama with no experience and all his yes men,"

McCain's tax plan will tax the working class more than Obama says he will.

Do you support that?

Who are Obama's Yes Men? Can you name 1?

"will destroy our great country and make it the laughing stock of the world."

It already is the laughing stock of the world.

And what do you think about how mcain has retreated on his long-held stance of pushing deregulation to now support financial industry regulation?

How can you trust a man who has can't even put forward a coherant policy without changing his mind a month later??

But that john mccain for you!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SwiftBoatVet - please name one john mccain economic policy that will benefit America.

And "wrapping yourself in the flag" isn't a policy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3- The working class should pay their fair share of taxes. They are working , not middle class as they were too idle at school to be able to hold down a decent job.

The engineof the country are the wealthy and high earning middle class, they are the people who mcCain looks after best, and so he should.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"name one john mccain ( John McCain ) economic policy that will benefit America"

Lower taxes, to name one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack will double the capital gains tax. Put the middle class in their place by showing them how wrong it is strive for 'more, bigger and better.'. It might seem counterintuitive, but thats cuz repubs don't understand social justice and the importance of redistributing america's ill gotten wealth.Watch the right wingers try and bring up Barack's admission of only a few years ago that He and Michelle's own finances were a mess til His late thirties when the first of His two now classic autobiographies lifted Them out of the kind of poverty that the international socialists on these boards have pointed out greets EVERY African American in the states (except Oprah) on a daily basis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SwiftBoatVet, so you're saying wealthy people should be looked after and be damned with the working class because they were too idle at school to be able to hold down a decent job - is that what you're saying?

I don't think many sensible Americans will agree with that idea.

And what do you think about how mcain has retreated on his long-held stance of pushing deregulation to now support financial industry regulation?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "Lower taxes, to name one."

I see you've bought McCain's lies hook, line, and sinker. No surprise there! It's lower taxes via McCain IF YOU ARE IN THE 5% of the American populace that is disgustingly rich like him! Otherwise, it's a guaranteed tax increase! You never could see the forest for the trees, my friend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Barack will double the capital gains tax"

Yeah! Tax those who provide jobs! That'll bring change!

"America's ill-gotten wealth"

Ha ha ha ha! I'm voting for Alinsky!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan - You don't know what you're talking about here. You keep saying McCain would give us 4 more years of Bush. Yet every American who pays taxes has had their taxes LOWERED under Bush.

Jordan fades back...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, you and the majority of Americans will pay more taxes under mccain than you will under Obama.

Do you think rich people need more money than they already have?

Because they'll get more money under mccain.

Just wanted to make that clear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake#- correct, the haard working wealthy folk, who are the engine of the economy, take priority over low pay folks. Study hard live a decent moral life , and you will be blessed with riches, and taht`s a fact!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

You seem to be working with two different versions of electoral-vote.com. Your second version is what my information shows now. Has McCain been losing ground?

Even so, the difference between electoral-vote.com and 270towin.com is that the former awards all battle-ground states with the exception of Pennsylvania while the latter only counts what are considered to be safe states. electoral vote.com also suggests that the new Senate will be overwhelmingly Democratic--which offhand would seem to suggest that either McCain has no coattails or the new Senators will be coming from Democratic safe states.

If you look at the battle ground states, you've got states like Florida where many living on fixed incomes could be hurt by the financial crisis and states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania where job losses are a critical concern. If it's true that voters trust the economy to Democrats more than to Republicans, these states might be too early to call.

There's no doubt that McCain could win the election. But he does not appear to be the popular candidate at the moment, electoral math notwithstanding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans."

Then why the hell try and do better? Politicians have caused almost all the problems relating to people paying more taxes and not seeing crap for them.

Here is the real patriotic thing to do Mr. Joe, Anyone elected to office must cease all business and investment operations under themselves. Any conflict of interest is penalized with imprisonment under embezzlement. All wages earned as a politician, must be taxed at a double rate and no longer can one serve for one year and get a pension of 15000 a month.

Mr. Joe is also one of those who votes himself a raise each year... that stops and must be put forth to the public.

You blind headed groupies have allow politician to tax the hell out of us, use our money at will, and cheer them while they don't let you in the door to fund raisers.

Quit being so blind. Protest the vote until there is a third choice listed as none of the above.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is the real patriotic thing to do Mr. Joe, Anyone elected to office must cease all business and investment operations under themselves. Any conflict of interest is penalized with imprisonment under embezzlement. All wages earned as a politician, must be taxed at a double rate and no longer can one serve for one year and get a pension of 15000 a month.

Thats real nice to bad its too late for dead eye dick and the decider. And you will never see Elmer Fudd voting for that as long as hes on the Budweiser gravy train.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

didn't we at one time revolt against this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yo Dx, I said all politicians. Don't even try that with me. At least my taxes weren't that bad under said dick.. I'm finally doing well and these MF'ers wanna take it away?

Sorry, but this has to go down as one of the stupidest quotes ever in the history of political quotes.. as well as the best sales gimmick to get lower income votes. How about saying its patriotic to pay more in taxes for those making xxx a year and it is just a patriotic for those refusing to make more than xxx a year to ask for less?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

how about asking the military to stop getting married to spouses who will eat and eat and eat and having kids that we pay for including their schools, pools, grade A gyms, bars, Burger Kings, etc.., welfare mothers stop getting paid for more kids, stop paying to illegal immigrants education and health services, government workers take a pay cut, embassy workers don't get paid holidays for both US and host country holidays,

Oh, screw this, I'm either running or asking another country to take me in. I'll pay for it if I have to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Study hard live a decent moral life , and you will be blessed with riches, and taht`s a fact!

More ridiculous sloganeering from a rightie. Most people get rich by taking advantage of others, like by rewriting the rules when it suits them and not sharing the wealth but keeping it all for themselves. By the way, those things are not moral.

correct, the haard working wealthy folk, who are the engine of the economy, take priority over low pay folks.

You have it backwards. Salaried workers are the engine of the economy. Without them, we go nowhere. Some of the wealthy are the mechanics that keep that engine in tune, but not all them. I do not think it wise to spoil either, but both are spoiled rotten at this time. But salaried workers will suffer without government interference if things go wrong. It is the wealthy who must be made to feel the heat.

--Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee

I could not agree more with you. Americans need to save more money. I do believe it is good to invest in the stock market. However if we had the American Public save money even modestly and lower their credit card debt to more modest levels it would have a profound effect on our economy. Our credit economy has some advantages because we can increase consumer spending quickly. Part of what hurt Japan in the early 90's was not spending money during the real estate crisis. They had the money in the bank but held it a little to tight. So there are no easy answers. But the way our economy is structured now we could increase savings for a long time before there was any risk involved unless the public were suddenly scared into not consuming or I should say a halt or major reduction of spending their expendable income.

My parents saved so much money it was ridiculous. It piled up in the late 70's and early 80's because of the huge rate of return on CD's. If people had half the discipline they had we would be a very rich country indeed. I do contend that the U.S. aid helped countries like South Korea and Taiwan in the very early years. But the way the Asian countries saved their money was the core of creating stable economies that had rapid growth on a continuing basis. The countries like Japan that added education into the mix of their saving money provided nothing I can call short of a miracle. I am still amazed at Japan. I think it is because they have such a successful economy even in times of recession and such low crime. I know things have changed with the low birth rate and problems with some kids as far as employment goes but I am still very impressed. I can even learn a few things about Japan though JT. The articles give an inkling but the discussion boards really tell a lot about the problems and the beauty of Japan.

I am also grateful of the work they (Paulson and Bernanke) have done recently to work on a bail out plan. I have a feeling Greenspan was consulted on these matters also. I saw him the other day and he was very sharp for a man 82 years old. I am concerned about new regulations. But I also get concerned with deregulation when they end up allowing corporations to take advantage of consumers and other businesses. I do not claim to have the answers. I have claimed myself as a free trader for decades now. I catch hell from some of my liberal friends who have ties to the upper echelons of unions. When it comes to high finance we must be very careful not to let those at the top become abusive but we have to be careful not to stifle the system either.

I will close with a couple of comments on debt. I was watching Michael Eisner on Charlie Rose many years ago when I heard him say that when he took over Disney he realized that they did not have enough debt. He said Disney was under leveraged. He was right they acquired very valuable assets since then and Disney has improved. The other example is when Alexander Hamilton assumed the debt of the states approved by congress in 1790. By 1794 the U.S. had the highest credit rating in Europe. It turned out to be a huge asset and his effort were noted for greatly helping a fledgling U.S. economy begin to grow. Some people don't understand how debt and lending are good for an economy. Even worse is when people don't realize saving is still very good for an economy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CavemanLawyer- Your ideas are certainly in the stone age. Hee Hee! People are rich by working hard and living moral lives. We are the richest family in our communitty, have been for decades, and we pay are staff well above min wage.

People like myself, are the motor, we employ, and morally we are responsible for ordinary folks welfare. Our riches are spraed amongst reglar folk, and everyone benefits.

If the poorest were given more money, it wouldbenefit, drug drealers, bar owners and strip joints.

McCain is correct, brave and moral, i trust him to run my country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SwiftBoatVet- what you talk about Dude?

Hey , i am typical Democrat, you know what i'm saying. Like, well, kinda , what i mean is Obama is the guy. He will help guys like me in my trailer, you know what i'm saying?

McCain only helps the people with money and their own houses and cars. That aint fair man, why can't i have some more money, i wanna buy a flat screen TV, but i can't afford it, and McCain has loads of houses, tahts bad man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GD: why can't Americans save more? Look at the Japanese, the have, I believe, one of the largest pool of money saved in those Postal accounts and what do they get in interest?

People like myself, are the motor, we employ, and morally we are responsible for ordinary folks welfare. Our riches are spraed amongst reglar folk, and everyone benefits." there you go - sense.

If the poorest were given more money, it wouldbenefit, drug drealers, bar owners and strip joints." Keep talking, keep talking.

McCain is correct (maybe in words, his belief?), brave (that was a long time ago) and moral (?.. since when has that been good?), i trust him to run my country. (I trust no one anymore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

According to the IRS, the top 50% of all earners in the united states pay 96.93% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% of earners pay 3.07% of all income taxes.

The reason for this is simply because nearly all the wealth is at the top in the first place. The wealth is pooled there. It is not a set of numbers saying how great the rich are at paying, it only emphasizes how much the rich already have. Reminds me of medieval times.

Any campaign contributions that Obama may have received are insignificant compared to the size of Freddie Mae's and Freddie Mac's financial distress.

I am surprised you were that gentle with McCain SezWho. McCain trying to blame the crisis on contributions to Obama is the absolute stupidest thing I have heard a politician say in a long time. And it's stupidity cannot even be diminished by a chronically slipping tongue like Bush's.

Either the man really needs an education on economy as he himself admits, or he is desperately grasping at straws to somehow blame Obama. Sad either way. Even with the education, I think the average high schooler could estimate the math on that one.

--Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why can't i have some more money, i wanna buy a flat screen TV, but i can't afford it" I'd go into a longer story, but smith will get on my case. Why don't you get out there and make some cash? Why should someone just give you anything? Job not paying enough, get another one. Or better yet, do what McCain did and marry someone with cash. Don't go messing around with those pro-keds wearing ladies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey, anyone ever think as to why companies started going off shore to begin with? Keep making it hard and harder for people to make cash and then one day find that ain't anything left as its all gone.

If have to pay out any more in benefits than I do now, I'm firing some people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Caveman: McCain is simply inept, bottom line. His absolutely blatant lies are an example of just how stupid he actually thinks Americans are; I mean, the guy's a step away from blaming Obama for a longer period of darkness when it comes to Autumn (around the corner, so we may here it yet!). Only people like sarge are a step away from actually buying it.

McCain talks down to and lies to American citizens, with Palin refusing to speak to them and doing the same lying/covering up, as though they were baying sheep. That the American public even puts up with it is a sure sign of desperate times... or again, utter stupidity (but I don't think Americans are that dumb).

If, god forbid, McCain were elected and not surprisingly went 180 degrees on all his promises IMMEDIATELY (that would definitely happen, IF elected), I can just see the sheep saying, "B-b-b-b-but... why do I have to work more and pay higher taxes? McCain promised that only OBAMA would increase them, while McCain would decrease them! He also promised he would add more days to the year to 380 days, so we could have more holidays! Did... did he l-l-lie to us?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "why can't i have some more money, i wanna buy a flat screen TV, but i can't afford it" I'd go into a longer story, but smith will get on my case."

Why do you assume I would get on your case? Are you on the verge of making some racial epithets about Islam/Muslims and the countries in which they reside? It's not at all related to the thread at hand, and unless you're honestly yourself uncertain as to the objectivity and PC-ness of your post, there's no reason to think I'm going to attack you.

Hell, I want a new flat-screen TV too! (or an old one, for that matter)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hell, I want a new flat-screen TV too! (or an old one, for that matter)" be nice and maybe I'll get you for Christmas..

No, I was not going to go off on Muslims or any religion. What I was going tell that one poster about my mom's family leaving Cuba with nothing and never asked for anything. That whole side of the family is doing well, while father's (rest his soul) family, which most were native born after his parents arrived, is all over the place in terms of economics..

They started with nothing. All lived in small villa as did many of their friends. Now, go to that same place these days. Many of those people are doing real well these days and if you noticed, Caribbeans aren't asking for handouts. Now, because they are doing well, you want to penalize them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack will double the capital gains tax. Put the middle class in their place by showing them how wrong it is strive for 'more, bigger and better.'.

No, he won't. The captial gains increase is only for those making ridiculous amounts of money. Get it right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My parents saved so much money it was ridiculous. It piled up in the late 70's and early 80's because of the huge rate of return on CD's.

It piled up because the economy was growing, and its growth was reflected in wage increases. Now, even when there is growth, there are few if any wage gains. That's the difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People like myself, are the motor, we employ,

A motor does not employ. A motor is employed.

we pay are staff well above min wage.

All year every year no matter how much you personally profited not by hard work or maybe not only, but by simple ownership.

And I have no idea how you define "well above", but paying well above minimum wage in any case is not something to crow about. The minimum wage is deplorable.

Pull out a calculator and tell me how long it will take for any of your employees to own anything significant, like land or a small business, on your wages. Don't forget to include expenses for food and rent and energy. Or are you doing something else to help people get ahead?

Our riches are spraed amongst reglar folk, and everyone benefits.

Your riches are mostly with you, or you would not be the richest family in you community.

If the poorest were given more money, it wouldbenefit, drug drealers, bar owners and strip joints.

Here you have really gone out of your way to justify yourself. You think all poor people are the same, and would just throw it all away. (and what is wrong with bar owners?) Some poor people are quite responsible, and give back to the community what you never could.

Plus you have made it sound like a big part of your responsibility to the community is to keep them poor so they will stay moral. How about educating people on money? Well that would destroy your stanglehold wouldn't it? You might have to tell them how much you are making and how little you are giving.

Well, you are right about one thing: wealth corrupts. You are living proof.

McCain is correct, brave and moral,

Moral? He tossed his wife out for a younger woman, a woman unaffected by a serious car accident, unlike his former wife. Brave is a yes. But he is decidedly incorrect. But of course, being rich, you will vote McCain to keep your own taxes down, and not out of any moral duty, and you know it.

Besides exposing your inattention to correct spelling, you have backed up my point of how the rich are pompous and how they need to be made to feel the heat.

--Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i wanna buy a flat screen TV, but i can't afford it,

Get over it. Frankly, until you can afford one, you do not deserve one. But I will give some friendly advice: Comb the classifieds and get a used one.

You have summed up a good part of how I feel about the mortage crisis though: people thinking they deserve what they cannot yet afford, and that something is of little real benefit to anyone.

and McCain has loads of houses, tahts bad man.

He has a few. And houses go up to the rich quite easily, but come back down to people who need them with far, far, far greater difficulty.

How many houses does one man need? How many should he be allowed to have?

--Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Get over it. Frankly, until you can afford one, you do not deserve one. You have summed up a good part of how I feel about the mortage crisis though: people thinking they deserve what they cannot yet afford, and that something is of little real benefit to anyone." Now, why you making sense here but not before?

How many houses does one man need? How many should he be allowed to have?" allowed to have? You are going way off man. As many as he wants, as many as he can afford. Not everyone who is wealthy came of swinging from their mother's umbilical cord rich. Many of them made it from scratch.

Why stop at houses? how about how many girl friends should a man have? how many cars, since I assume you are talking about McCain, how many cars to the Obamas own? how many of his star supporters own multiple houses and cars, diamond rings, gold necklaces. Why isn't anyone getting them? Because they have been blinded. ever since they let it out that McCain owns a number of houses, everyone has attacked him and I think it is one of only a few good points about the man. his money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

how many of his star supporters own multiple houses and cars, diamond rings, gold necklaces. Why isn't anyone getting them?

Good points. I though Obama was for the "regular people" but yet he was at a fundraing dinner that charged $28,000 a plate.

I don't know which is worse, having 7 houses or being able to go to a dinner that cost you $28,000.

But you don't see too much of that reported in terms of someone being out of touch with reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SwiftBoatVet,

I don't know how to thank you for your noblesse oblige.

I think that you and your family must be exceptional in looking after the welfare of ordinary folks. In a day in which almost all companies have cut back or eliminated health insurance benefits, in which most companies have cut back on fixed pension benefits and in which many companies encourage their employees to invest their pension contribution in increasingly fragile company stock, your private sector interest in the lives and well-being of others stands heads and shoulders above the crowd.

If only McCain had access to the financial secrets that allow your family to succeed where others have failed. Until such time, however, I guess we will have to continue to bear witness to the inadequacy of wages to support a life style which assures people that they are "keeping up", which encourages people to mortgage their future earnings with credit and which continually sinks a greater and greater percentage of Americans below the poverty line. Until administrations learn how to effectively do what your family has so well succeeded in doing, it is suspect to entertain the assumption that favoring business over individuals is what will fuel the economic engine. It appears not that it will only continue to clog our carburetors and fuel lines and choke the very engine it is supposed to serve.

I don't think there is any formula for economic success. However, when you have tried something for 7 or 8 years and find yourself slipping backwards, it's past time to reevaluate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Caveman- get with the program man, don't let your envy of success stories like my family blind you.

I work on average 14 hours a day, sometimes 7 days a week. My staff all earn a mnimum of 10 USD an hour, paid vacations and sick, christmas bonus and some live in apartments i own for less than 300 USD a month.

McCain is the right guy for hardworking folk like me, he realises that we are responsible for supporting our communities.

Heck, i've even taken a couple of homeless guys off the street and housed and employed them. I am doing things the Republican way, working hard and thinking of others, not moaning because i don't have a good tv or whatever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape,

No decent Republican would ever contribute $28,000 to a partisan endeavor. Republicans all wear "good Republican cloth coats" and are the souls of frugality and rectitude. On that we can agree.

Now, if we can get back to the point of economic policy, neither marrying into 7 houses nor selling 28K-capon have much to do with having the right stuff to begin to help us out of this mess--if, that is, you believe this is a mess we have to get out of. Frankly, I do not see that McCain has a plan. And, if he has even a message, I do not see that he has had a consistent message.

I think Obama has both. Of course, you can have both and be wrong and some say that the last seven years have been a testament to that proposition. Nonetheless, I'd rather vote for someone (Obama) who tells me what I know to be true than someone (McCain) who tries to snow me with platitudes and flattery.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "They started with nothing. All lived in small villa as did many of their friends. Now, go to that same place these days. Many of those people are doing real well these days and if you noticed, Caribbeans aren't asking for handouts. Now, because they are doing well, you want to penalize them?"

I would never try to slap down any of your comments based solely on you stating where you come from. True, I do use the fact in counter-arguments against you from time to time, but that is generally to point out that you take it very personally as an exception to any rule when you are making generalizations about everyone else. Anyway, that's another topic.

I DO disagree with you on comments like "if a person can't afford a house they do not deserve one" (stating as such that if one has 17 houses they deserve them all, etc.), and also wanted to point out that in all likelihood 'doing well' where your relatives reside and 'doing well', as in being rich, in the US has quite a number differential. To answer your question more simply, no, I do not think the next American president should go down to the Carribean and make those 'doing well' pay more; I think they should stay in the US and make those earning more than $250,000 a year more while giving a break to those earning more medium and even lesser incomes. While you may be related to those in the Carribean of whom you speak, the issue at hand is not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not an expert at all in economics though I do have some thoughts on both Obama's and McCain's overall economic plans. I think Obama's plan is better overall than McCain's. Though I do not like his capital tax increase. That to me will not help future job growth but rather will have the effect of suppressing it instead. I am heavily invested in mutual funds have been for years and during years of high growth take a pretty hard tax hit as I have to declare to the IRS all capital gains made even though all the dividends I recieved are just re-invested into the funds to keep them growing. It's a tax hit that I anticipate and can manage as of right now. If the capital tax rate goes higher myself and millions of other prudent Americans who invested into private America as a way to grow their money will start to do what I have been thinking about doing. Moving that capital out of the market and into the bank and just declare the interest gained each year to the IRS. If that occurs billions of dollars of working capital that creates job growth in the private sector will no longer do that, but sit in the bank and be loaned out only to safe investments that don't really create new Microsofts or other future start-ups that are just now dreams in peoples eyes. The risks for a higher return that investors in the private market understand also means taking a chance at a loss( no worries about claiming any gains for me this year the way things are going ....Bastards:)......Nah, been in it for the long haul had good growth years and bad ones and I except the risk and it all balances out in the end.

So I don't like that part of Obama's plan of raising the capital gains rate.

McCain I think is right in encouraging job growth through keeping taxes low on capital gains, though that is the only thing I like about his overall plan. The rest does seem status quo as to the mess that got us here in the first place. Though I also think if elected he is the better candidate to stand agaisn't a spendthrift congress and will reel in some fiscal sanity as to how congress spends our money.I'll give him that one over Obama.

Be nice if these two could merge both their plans together to balance helping the working poor and middle class while ensuring enough capital stays in the private market place to create job growth and wealth, and get Government spending back under control by keeping congress on a tight fiscal leash.

Overall, I give the edge to Obama but not by much as far as what we should be doing for our economy in the short term.

Just my thoughts so far on both their plans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CavemanLawyer- Your ideas are certainly in the stone age. Hee Hee! People are rich by working hard and living moral lives. We are the richest family in our communitty, have been for decades, and we pay are staff well above min wage. People like myself, are the motor, we employ, and morally we are responsible for ordinary folks welfare. Our riches are spraed amongst reglar folk, and everyone benefits. If the poorest were given more money, it wouldbenefit, drug drealers, bar owners and strip joints. McCain is correct, brave and moral, i trust him to run my country.

SwiftBoatVet first of all, learn how to spell. For a person who claims to take care of us poor ole' regular folk, you don't seem very educated. And it's people like YOU my friend, that are the problem that is plaguing America. You are the privileged few who vote for an image rather than the facts.

As far as McCain being a 'moral' person, you need to check your facts and McCain's history. He's an opportunist and will do and say anything to get ahead. You can tell this just by looking at his marriage record, he went from one rich woman to another just months after or during his first marriage ended because he was cheating with his second wife.

Taken from his page on Wikipedia: McCain's pre-combat duty began when he was commissioned an ensign, and started two and a half years of training at Pensacola as a naval aviator. While there, he earned a reputation as a partying man.

On July 3, 1965, McCain married Carol Shepp, a model originally from Philadelphia. McCain adopted her two young children Douglas and Andrew. He and Carol then had a daughter named Sidney.

In 1976 he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida. During his period in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, and the McCains' marriage began to falter, for which he later would accept blame.

In April 1979, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, whose father had founded a large beer distributorship.[59] They began dating, and he urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce, which she did in February 1980, with the uncontested divorce taking effect in April 1980. The settlement included two houses, and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments due to her 1969 car accident; they would remain on good terms.[59] McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980, with Senators William Cohen and Gary Hart attending as groomsmen. McCain’s children did not attend, and several years would pass before they reconciled.

McCain decided to leave the Navy. It was doubtful whether he would ever be promoted to the rank of full admiral, as he had poor annual physicals and had been given no major sea command. His chances of being promoted to rear admiral were better, but McCain declined that prospect, as he had already made plans to run for Congress and said he could "do more good there." McCain retired from the Navy on April 1, 1981 as a captain.

McCain set his sights on becoming a Congressman because he was interested in current events, was ready for a new challenge, and had developed political ambitions during his time as Senate liaison.

Living in Phoenix, he went to work for Hensley & Co., his new father-in-law Jim Hensley's large Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship. As Vice President of Public Relations at the distributorship, he gained political support among the local business community, meeting powerful figures such as banker Charles Keating, Jr., real estate developer Fife Symington III and newspaper publisher Darrow "Duke" Tully.

In 1982, McCain ran as a Republican for an open seat in Arizona's 1st congressional district. A newcomer to the state, McCain was hit with repeated charges of being a carpetbagger.

With the assistance of local political endorsements, his Washington connections, as well as money that his wife lent to his campaign, McCain won a highly contested primary election. He then easily won the general election in the heavily Republican district.

In 1983, McCain was elected to lead the incoming group of Republican representatives.

Also that year, he opposed creation of a federal Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but admitted in 2008: "I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support [in 1990] for a state holiday in Arizona." McCain's politics at this point were mainly in line with President Ronald Reagan

(Anyone remember Reaganomics? Which took our country from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. There was a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending that caused large budget deficits, the U.S. trade deficit expansion, and contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis, as well as the stock market crash of 1987. In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.

Sound familiar? Heavily Tax the poor, give tax breaks to the rich and/or large corporations, Spend heavily on War. Wow!, sounds a lot like the Bush administration. And we are now seeing the results of that with the RealEstate Crisis, and meltdown of large financial institutions like Lehman Brothers, high unemployment etc... but that's another subject, let's get back to McCain's moral record.)

To reiterate: **Hensley met John McCain in April 1979 at a military reception in Hawaii. He was the U.S. Navy liaison officer to the United States Senate, almost eighteen years her senior. McCain and Hensley quickly began a relationship, traveling between Arizona and Washington to see each other. John McCain pushed to end his marriage of fourteen years; Carol McCain and John McCain stopped cohabiting in January 1980, and Carol accepted a divorce in February of 1980, effective in April 1980. John and Cindy were married on May 17, 1980 at the Arizona Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix.

Her father's business and political contacts helped gain her husband a foothold into Arizona politics. She campaigned with her husband door-to-door during his successful first bid for U.S. Congress in 1982, and was heavily involved in campaign strategy. Her wealth from an expired trust from her parents provided significant loans to the campaign and helped it survive a period of early debt.**

(Sounds like a plan to me. A recipe for how to get rich. Marry into a wealthy family, use daddy-in-law's business and political contacts to get into local politics and the rest is HIStory. And did I mention that he voted against establishing a holiday for a great humanitarian like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.? What would posses anyone in their right mind to do something like that? McCain is no more moral than any other politician, he just fits the mold of being white and successful so therefore he must be a good person right? WRONG!!!!

Judge the man on what he stands for, his solutions to our economic problems, healthcare, energy crisis, and the war. That is what we should be looking at. IMHO, McCain is the wrong person and has the wrong answers for all of the above.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

marvenp; Two posts fuelled entirely by envy of those of us living the American Dream.

McCain will enable me to look after my staff well and make sure they are happy members of society with fullfilled working lives.

My education is no concern of yours. I write my posts whilst working, so i rush. I just try to make my point , but those to petty or ignorant to see that need not read them

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...I do not like his capital tax increase. That to me will not help future job growth but rather will have the effect of suppressing it instead.

Maybe. Depends on the details. Obama's talking about raising it from 15% to 20-25%. An increase of 5 percentage points to 20% would not provide much of a distortion of incentives.

I am heavily invested in mutual funds have been for years and during years of high growth take a pretty hard tax hit as I have to declare to the IRS all capital gains made even though all the dividends I recieved are just re-invested into the funds to keep them growing. It's a tax hit that I anticipate and can manage as of right now.

It's my understanding that the capital gains tax will remain unchanged except for the 2% or so of households earning more than 250,000 dollars a year. If you're among the unfortunates who are earning more than that, Sailwind, then I imagine you'll still find a way to manage.

If worst come to worst and you still don't have enough left out of your 250,000 dollar paycheck to scrape by, then I'll be delighted to treat you to the soup of your choice: Beluga caviar chowder, black truffle mushroom soup, lobster bisque, bird's nest soup, sharkfin soup...You name it, and I'll be there to soften the sting with a cup of soup and a sympathetic ear.

To quote Mr. Rather: Courage!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie

It's my understanding that the capital gains tax will remain unchanged except for the 2% or so of households earning more than 250,000 dollars a year. If you're among the unfortunates who are earning more than that, Sailwind, then I imagine you'll still find a way to manage.

I'm so poor that the rainbow in my neighborhood is in black and white.

If your understanding is correct that it will only effect the upper two percent then I stand corrected. Though I still think even raising the tax burden on me even by 5 percent is still more like punishment for my decision to invest in mutual funds in hopes of getting better growth for my meager savings than having it stuck in the local stodgy Savings and Loan.

Gambatte Ness!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans and their lousy oversight of the economy are to blame for all this. MacCain is doomed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Henry Paulson announced the taxpayer will foot the bill, “hundreds of billions” of dollars to bail out the banks and financial institutions on Wall Street. So, what do you get for your tax bucks? Well, what you get is worthless mortgage-backed assets no one wants to buy anymore.

Oh, and lets not forget what else you will get --- a bankrupt government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As FDR said during the great depression, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.

I would update that to we have nothing to fear but more republican leadership.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Both of the presidential hopeful, Obama and McCain, have endorsed the big bail out.

That’s it. Legislation will be passed quick smart by the end of the week. But how could it be any other way?

After all, Obama and McCain both are funded by the financial industry, 22.5 million US dollars for Obama, and 19.6 million for McCain. Guess that tells you which candidate the Street prefers.

There has been some good news though.

Well, news of the government intervention did give the share market a big boost, anyone holding Morgan and Stanley stock might be very happy. The super-rich will be happy to know they actually got wealthier out of this mess. Paulson himself as chairman of Goldman Sachs made hundreds of millions. Pelosi apparently has major investments in AIG. Little wonder the ruling class looked after their own interests.

Who could blame them for that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith: I guess deserve was the wrong word. But look at it in a different way - if you aren't making enough money to get a house, you need to change what you are doing if what you want is a house. Do you feel like paying for something at a higher price because the person selling you that item wants something he doesn't have money for?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These days with the internet alone (for example) is increasing business chances for many. Look at this site we are on... started as a tiny magazine and look how much it has grown. There is always a possible different way to do better if you are out there looking for it, but if you sit back and spend the time thinking about why you are doing bad and expecting something for virtually nothing, you really shouldn't be expecting anything at all.

Stat: Republicans and their lousy oversight of the economy are to blame for all this" McCain is doomed even if he had the perfect plan. Don't go getting yourself on the let's blame this one party for it band wagon. There is a whole government (how many is that?) There is more than enough blame that is warranted on both sides of the issue which is more of the reason we need a different party. No new party, no change will come. All we will be doing is going around in circles again and four or eight years later, we'll be blaming the democrats for the next set of problems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie,

Maybe. Depends on the details. Obama's talking about raising it from 15% to 20-25%. An increase of 5 percentage points to 20% would not provide much of a distortion of incentives.

I'm still not sure if that won't kill off job growth. Though I do like Obama's plan to keep the jobs we have in the U.S from fleeing to other countries.

http://www.youtube.com/user/theonion?ob=4

Enjoy!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans and their lousy oversight of the economy are to blame for all this. MacCain is doomed.

Props to you my friend. That is talking point numero uno. Say it often and, as Barack recently ordered us to - GET IN PEOPLE'S FACES!

Otherwise, those NY Times articles from 2002 and 2003 which repeatedly show bush and the repubs wanted more oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular, are gonna kill Barack's hopes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A bankrupt US government means what exactly?

It means sucking in big time which will likely entail all of the following:

Kissing goodbye to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. McCain or Obama, that first big speech by the new president will be all about how you are going to pay for corporate bailouts and loans. It’ll be all about the need to knuckle down and take your medicine, accept less money for more hours, and that’s if you are lucky and have a job at that stage. Add your own to the list...

Yes, the needs of the corporate world are far far greater than that of the average citizen, and those needs are going to cost you for decades. And that is why US debt is going to rise like its got rockets under it, while the American dollar spirals into free fall.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"A bankrupt US government means what exactly?"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha The U.S. government's been "bankrupt" for decades!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SwiftBoatVet,

If you write your posts while working and if you rush your posts, I think it is only natural for people to then wonder about the quality of your work. I wouldn't want my surgeon to be distracted by message boards, for example. One of the greatest myths is the ability of humans to multi-task.

Yes, people will make mistakes. However, people who are contributing in good faith to any enterprise, even an exchange of messages, will extend certain courtesies to others. Among those courtesies is the courtesy of authenticity and the courtesy of effort to eliminate mistakes.

If you post on individual responsibility and the necessity to work hard, your posts are undercut by failure to present your ideas in respectable English. It is not that people do not understand your idea about why you support McCain. It is more that the poor presentation of your idea makes it indistinguishable from radio diatribe.

To date you have not said anything about McCain's policies which separate him from Obama. You say that the working class should pay its fair share of taxes. Who disagrees with that? Obama does not. McCain does not.

You also say that if you study hard, work hard and live a moral and decent life, riches will follow. Who disagrees with that? Many people do. But that does not depend on whether one is a Democrat or a Republican. For either of McCain or Obama to make a statement such as that would be equivalent to saying that if you do not have riches, you have been a slacker either at school or at work or that you do not live a moral or decent life. Show me a candidate who will go on record as saying that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The news item is about the financial plan proposed and the attitude of the contestants to that. This is not to be a 79 blog history of I like Democrats/Republicans. If the readers want that tell them to go to Washington Post or NY Times.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge.

Succinct, and I think I agree. Morally bankrupt for years, yes definitely. But that would go for every Western government over the past few decades.

The Capitalist free market may have its own set of ethics but its been entirely morally bankrupt. This financial rescue plan though is almost Machiavellian would it not be that philosopher actually had morals.

The deviousness duplicity by which this so called 'rescue plan' is being sold to the punters/people as the means by which democracy can be maintained is matched only by desperation. That being the desperation to hide what it really means - the failure of Capitalism and the revealing of the greedy parasitic thin layer of society that have sought to hold it together for so long.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That being the desperation to hide what it really means - the failure of Capitalism and the revealing of the greedy parasitic thin layer of society that have sought to hold it together for so long.

Funny, isn't it comrade?

People like you and I and Barack have known this, have seen it coming for decades.

And still you these mental midgets like warren buffet jumping back in by Friday.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hilarious - Bush is now the most socialist president that the US has had since FDR. Seems to have forgotten that capitalism means assuming the risk, not just taking the profits. As some pundit said - people seem to have forgotten that in capitalism you need hell, not just heaven.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I could not agree more with you. Americans need to save more money. I do believe it is good to invest in the stock market.

GoodDonkey,

I put much of my disposable income into the stock market (which I think is a better investment than real estate). My Dad was a banker, so he paid interest if we saved our allowances. He also made a point to familiarize me with investment strategies, etc., because he'd seen too women afraid to make financial decisions on their own and unable to recognize a good broker from a shyster.

At the heart of this crisis was the fact too many people bought homes they couldn't afford. And banks were happy to sign them on for mortgages that could be packaged as collatarized debt which were then resold to other concerns such as AIG (infecting the entire financial system).

Why didn't anyone see this coming? Well, initially the benefits were good. A flourishing market had the effect of raising real estate prices (which encouraged home owners to borrow against their ever rising equity). But when the bubble burst, everyone was affected whether you'd behaved irresponsibly or not. (I have a colleague who didn't go for a risky loan that would have enabled him to make a down payment on a more expensive house. He's angry those who did may now be able to keep those homes thanks to this rescue plan.)

How to prevent a reocurrence of the need to be bailed out by Uncle Sam (with tax dollars)? Should the government set regulations requiring asset to debt ratios or minimum down payments for home buyers? Probably not. But the mortgage industry could be required to carry some sort of insurance so that if the market goes belly up again, owing to bad decisions on the part of both buyers and sellers, the taxpayers will not get stuck holding the bag.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why didn't anyone see this coming? Well, initially the benefits were good. A flourishing market had the effect of raising real estate prices (which encouraged home owners to borrow against their ever rising equity). But when the bubble burst, everyone was affected whether you'd behaved irresponsibly or not.

It's called avoiding the recession.....Spend. Spend, Spend.

Both Parties....Guilty

0 ( +0 / -0 )

check my math:

1Trillion/300million = 3.333K

Where do I send my check for $3,333 and is it tax deductable?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When what used to cost billions is now costing trillions you know that you are in trouble. I don't like the way the Gov is throwing around the word "trillion" either.

The way they are going they better start printing Million dollar bills.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disgusting. I hope this is the last of the Bush Administration's screw ups. The moral hazard he and his bone headed crew have created because of poor oversight and a willingness to look the other way will be a legacy that will feed the far left for decades.

There are some ideas from the right that I agree with but I do not see Bush following them. I do not see him doing anything but destroying confidence in not only government, but also business.

What good is America if it cannot lead?

Disgusting!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The way they are going they better start printing Million dollar bills.

I do not want to see Reagan's mug on my million dollar bill. I'm thinking Harry Truman or Roosevelt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also that year, he opposed creation of a federal Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but admitted in 2008: "I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support [in 1990] for a state holiday in Arizona." McCain's politics at this point were mainly in line with President Ronald Reagan

McCain at least did admit the error of his ways. My home state, Arkansas did not exactly jump on ratification of the King Holiday also. It was still under the leadership of Gov. Bill Clinton. He got it through but with a compromise. The state employees can take the holiday off if they want, or they can take the following Monday off. That day is Gen. Robert E. Lee's birthday (they still do that to this day in Arkansas). So much for Bill Clinton and his Democratic machine saying that they are for minorities. They will do only as much as they can get away with. To be fair and balanced, Gov. Mike Huckabee had a chance to change this, and he didn't either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I still think even raising the tax burden on me even by 5 percent is still more like punishment for my decision to invest in mutual funds in hopes of getting better growth for my meager savings than having it stuck in the local stodgy Savings and Loan.

Only if you're in the 2% who are making more than 250,000 dollars a year. In which case it's more like punishment for hiding your assets in overseas shell companies. (Strike up the thumb-and-forefinger violin.) But I know how you feel. I don't make much money, but I scrimp and save, and I invest what money I DO save. Capital gains affects me more than wealth-poor people who earn more but fritter it all away.

Good thing we're both under the threshold and won't have to pay any extra taxes when Obama wins, assuming he keeps his promises (?). The soup offer still stands, though, since you seem like a decent guy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ness

The soup offer still stands, though, since you seem like a decent guy.

Thanks, I just hope that with the way things are going with my investments recently and I take it with yours, that we can have that bowl of soup in a decent restaurant with cute Japanese waitresses and not have it dished out to both of us in a soup line instead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The bottom line is that we must change the economic policies that led us down this dangerous path in the first place. For the last eight years, we’ve had an “on your own-anything goes” philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street that lavished tax cuts on the wealthy and big corporations; that viewed even common-sense regulation and oversight as unwise and unnecessary; and that shredded consumer protections and loosened the rules of the road. Ordinary Americans are now paying the price. The events of this week have rendered a final verdict on that failed philosophy, and it is a philosophy I will end as President of the United States,” said Senator Barack Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ordinary Americans are now paying the price. The events of this week have rendered a final verdict on that failed philosophy, and it is a philosophy I will end as President of the United States,” said Senator Barack Obama.

We can only hope he means capitalism, eh friend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is worse than you all think. Follow the link below, Comrade Paulson wants unlimited authority, he does not even want his decisions reviewed by a court! Completely unconstitutional. While Comrade Bush merely looks on in approval. Look at Section 8, it in effect suspends the U.S. Constittution!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html?ref=business

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain will be president.

Even though the polls may well favour Obama, the polls simply don't count in recent elections. No reason at all to think this one will be any different.

Barack Obama represents nothing so much as a deflection for public discontent, a safety valve to ensure the fraud of a democracy becomes overtly transparent - and really the financial crises and plan to 'solve' should have made the fraud transparent enough to everyone.

The Democrats, beyond kicking up a fuss, will not even put up a real fight. As I’ve already noted many times on JT the Dems don't have a good record in representing their supporters’ vote. The Democratic party have a dismal record of representing the interests of their support base which has time and again expressed outrage at the undemocratic domestic economic and social policies, and the war (in Iraq at least).

During the entire two terms of the Bush Administration the Democrats did all but nothing when they could have done a lot. The made noises about impeaching the president when they certainly had legitimate reasons to call for impeachment, yet they did nothing - just as I so often posted on JT would be the case.

The reality is the next president will be Republican because that faction of the Plutocracy ruling the US is the one in control. They will not let a moderate into power in what is for them, and actually for all of us, the critical moment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack Obama a moderate, hmm, perhaps I should retract that label.

Given the content and direction of Obama's recent round of speeches, squarely aimed at reassuring his corporate and reactionary overlords as they have been, he has in fact morphed from being an anti-war moderate as he initially posed, into something altogether quite different.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The reality is the next president will be Republican because that faction of the Plutocracy ruling the US is the one in control.

You are an enemy of hope, change, and unicorns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are an enemy of hope, change, and unicorns.

I remain ever optimistic. To change from Capitalism would definitely be a very good thing, so long as it was embraced internationally.

Unicorns? Perhaps you watched the movie Blade Runner? Phillip K Dick the author of the book that movie lived in a state of paranoia and wrote about it a lot. You might want to move yourself back into the real world for a while.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zucronium:

" The bottom line is that we must change the economic policies that led us down this dangerous path in the first place. "

I think you should indeed. A good first step would be to stop the political meddling that is at the root cause of the mortgage debacle in the US. Remember that all these junk mortgages that are now falling apart are a result of social engineering gone bad, namely pressure from the Clinton administration, Janet Reno etc etc on financial institutions to stop "redlining" and give loans to people who cant afford it.

Now, this rot is distributed throughout the financial market, and the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost.

Alas, the solution of the political parties is to make the innocent taxpayers pay for it, and in the case of the Democrats, even repeat this disaster on a bigger scale.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Janet Reno is responsible for the financial crisis?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites