Indy
Super Administrator
Posts: 4136
Registered: 6/24/2004
Member Is Offline
Points: 79820
Mood: Resident Skeptic
|
Sep 26, 2008 Presidential Debate
So did anyone see the debate tonight? I watched it on CNN HD so you were able to see the analyst score cards. That was only available if you had a widescreen display. If you go by the score cards alone Obama won the debate that McCain should have won handily. There were six analysts and they'd give positive or negative marks to each candidate during the debate. Obama had 60 positive marks and McCain only had 49. McCain also had something like 10 more negative marks than Obama.
They also had a pulse line at the bottom of the screen. It showed the opinions of Republicans, Democrats and Independents at that very moment. There were moments for each where the lines went highly positive for all 3 parties. Often you'd see Republicans and Democrats going opposite directions with Independents in the middle. But you also had times where Independents and one part would go one direction and the 3rd part off in the opposite direction. In that case the Republicans lost handily. They spent more time alienated from the Independents than the Democrats did.
At absolute best the Republicans can say it was a tie which was bad for them. They needed a win and didn't get it. That is the best case scenario. To me it is also obvious that McCain is a terrible speaker. He voted with Bush 90% of the time and he speaks like him too unfortunately.
"I think God gives us children so death won't come as such a disappointment." - Two and a Half Men |
|
|
Indy
Super Administrator
Posts: 4136
Registered: 6/24/2004
Member Is Offline
Points: 79820
Mood: Resident Skeptic
|
BTW I think one of the things that lost this debate for McCain is that he made it perfectly clear that he was basically 4 more years of Bush foreign policy. No matter what Obama said that lost it for McCain. Saw on tv the early poll results CNN and it showed that Obama won in all areas. He beat McCain on Iran and foreign policy which is what happens when you make yourself Bush 44.
"I think God gives us children so death won't come as such a disappointment." - Two and a Half Men |
|
|
FatalWishes
Administrator
Posts: 5531
Registered: 6/24/2004
Location: Fort Worth Texas
Member Is Offline
Points: 102541
Mood: Aging Cynic
|
They should take the warning labels off of everything and let stupidity sort itself out.
Please check out our new website at www.globalwarmingisnotreal.com |
|
|
Indy
Super Administrator
Posts: 4136
Registered: 6/24/2004
Member Is Offline
Points: 79820
Mood: Resident Skeptic
|
How bad are things for McCain?
A Fox News poll shows Obama up 4 points. The debate poll on their site also shows Obama winning 51% to 49%. If its like that on Fox News how bad is it really?
"I think God gives us children so death won't come as such a disappointment." - Two and a Half Men |
|
|
Indy
Super Administrator
Posts: 4136
Registered: 6/24/2004
Member Is Offline
Points: 79820
Mood: Resident Skeptic
|
BTW that video is total bullshit. How do I know? Because I would have been considered a subprime borrow with my credit at the time I applied. I got approved for one of those insured loans. But let me tell you the restrictions are VERY tight. It was so ridiculous that I ended up passing on getting a loan. The reason was because my mortgage broke followed the rules as laid out by the government. There is a significant checklist you have to follow. And you can only get a mortgage payment that is a certain percentage of your income. If you don't have money you can't get a loan. Period. If you have little money you can only get a very cheap home. You have to provide serious proof of income. You may also have to provide proof that your income is expected to continue for a period of 3 years I believe. You cannot have a judgement on your credit and you cannot have any unresolved bad marks on your credit. Even if you pay it off you have to provide a statement in writing of why the item ended up in that condition. You also have to explain why you applied for certain credit accounts and show proof if you paid balances off. If you come up with a down payment you have to prove where it came from.
So the video is total bullshit. What happened is credit became nearly free after 9/11 and banks saw an opportunity to make a killing. They took a gamble that the margins were so large that they could afford some foreclosures. What they didn't expect was that so many would fail. They didn't realize that so many mortgage brokers would get greedy and encourage people to overextend themselves. The once unpopular idea of losing your home all the sudden wasn't so taboo. Now you have people who would have fought to the death to save their homes just walk away. Because nobody would turn their noses up at them.
And to make things worse this current administration made it possible through bullshit rule changes that allowed someone who lost a home less than 2 years ago to buy another.
Nobody is forcing these banks to extend loans to unqualified people. Nobody also forces them to ignore the rules and not get verification of income. That is the choice of the brokers.
The FACT is that if your broker and underwriter followed the established rules many of the people who foreclosed would have never received a loan in the first place. There are many documented abuses by mortgage brokers and appraisers that have caused this problem. For that video to try and imply that it was caused because the government tried to help the poor man is just dishonest and wrong. Thats like getting robbed and the police blaming you for not owning a safe.
"I think God gives us children so death won't come as such a disappointment." - Two and a Half Men |
|
|
FatalWishes
Administrator
Posts: 5531
Registered: 6/24/2004
Location: Fort Worth Texas
Member Is Offline
Points: 102541
Mood: Aging Cynic
|
I agree its partial BS. I blame Greenspan, Clinton and his administration for creating the environment to create these loans.
In the end it was the banks responsibility to find people qualified to get home loans. I agree with you Indy. The banks did the math behind these loans and basically gave anybody with a pulse, a loan.
Let me put it this way. My wife got a Non Income Verification loan. She qualified for a 300,000 house on a 36k a year income.
I'm not very good with math but even with 6.0% interest, that loan is beyond her ability. Especially with two kids and a car payment of 350 a month.
No wonder things were set up for failure. You tell somebody they can have the house of their dreams....they go for it. Greed on both sides did this. Fortunately for my wife she chose a 180k home and was married to me. We can afford our house together. This was in 2001 as the bubble was inflating.
To make matters worse, once you got into your new home, you were offered cash for the equity in it. Many people got their home and another 40k on top of that. There was no protection on the 40k either. Once it was spent, it was gone. Losses are staggering, but the greed of the public is disgusting. People will take advantage.
They should take the warning labels off of everything and let stupidity sort itself out.
Please check out our new website at www.globalwarmingisnotreal.com |
|
|
ghoster
Member
Posts: 127
Registered: 6/18/2007
Member Is Offline
Points: 1270
Mood: Vacillating between complete panic and blissful acceptance
|
Sort of like chumming for fish, offer lots of money to buy toys with and our group of citizens (not all, but a lot) will hot foot it to the toy store. Nope it is the fault of the american consumer, all he did was what was patriotic of him after 9/11 go out and shop and go to disneyland. GW told us to do that, now that's a leader. Inspiring no!!
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H.L. Mencken |
|
|
Indy
Super Administrator
Posts: 4136
Registered: 6/24/2004
Member Is Offline
Points: 79820
Mood: Resident Skeptic
|
If she got a non income verification loan that was the fault of the bank and nobody else. Also the blame was Bush not Clinton. The defaults came from mortgages issued post 9/11. These weren't old loans that all the sudden went bad. The disaster was the post 9/11 ARM loans. Interest rates kept getting lowered because this idiot president wanted a fake recovery after the terror attacks. Banks saw an opportunity to make obscene profits because they were getting the money at around 1%. Their careless lending practices were compounded by greedy brokers overextending people on loans so they could get bigger commissions. This disaster had nothing to do with Clinton or any president before. This goes 100% on Bush 43. Had he not tried to buy our way out of a mess the way he did we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
"I think God gives us children so death won't come as such a disappointment." - Two and a Half Men |
|
|
DanG
Administrator
Posts: 5452
Registered: 6/30/2004
Location: SW FL
Member Is Offline
Points: 113876
Mood: Stunned Amazement
|
our dismal attempt at empire building in the mid-east has already
cost us half a Trillion, not to mention pissed off most of the planet.
some of us (standing on a soapbox) knew this would happen years ago.
/rant
|
|
|
Indy
Super Administrator
Posts: 4136
Registered: 6/24/2004
Member Is Offline
Points: 79820
Mood: Resident Skeptic
|
And McCain stands for 4 more years of it. The moron said he'd veto every spending bill except veterans services (which I agree on) and the military (which I disagree on). You don't cut basic human services at home while maintaining or growing the war machine. That is something I'd expect from the likes of Adolph Hitler. But I don't think even Hitler was that bad when it came to economic matters.
"I think God gives us children so death won't come as such a disappointment." - Two and a Half Men |
|
|
chrisisasavage
Elite Member
Posts: 1068
Registered: 7/10/2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Member Is Offline
Points: 21915
Mood: Mostly harmless
|
I work in the mortgage industry. When the subprime loans became popular, it was obvious what was going to happen.
No stated income, no doc loans, interest only, NO PAYMENT loans, negative amortization, and other forms of ARMS were clearly a bad idea, even during the boom. They were also really popular. The idea is the increased equity would make it OK, you could always flip the home or something. The average house price here was to 550k a year ago, most buyers couldn't afford it.
A lot of people in the industry knew this was coming, but a lot of people pushed them any because they got their cut. The lenders hedged on increased equity, when the prices were already out of whack with reality.
And also, it ALL occurred under Bush's watch. That doesn't mean the deregulation didn't start with Clinton and Greenspan, but it accelerated fast post 9/11, and nobody tried to reign in because the economy was booming.
I know more than one person who had that happen Fatal. I saw crap like someone making 2K a month after taxes qualify for a 2K a month mortgage. That is not an exaggeration. |
|
|
chrisisasavage
Elite Member
Posts: 1068
Registered: 7/10/2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Member Is Offline
Points: 21915
Mood: Mostly harmless
|
Yeah, that's why I keep saying McCain is the worst choice. War. It's not going to stop under him, and we'll probably see him do something crazy with Iran or even worse, Russia. World War III anybody? |
|
|
Indy
Super Administrator
Posts: 4136
Registered: 6/24/2004
Member Is Offline
Points: 79820
Mood: Resident Skeptic
|
The only sensible thing he said was cutting spending except for the military but that is only sensible in the time of war. This thing in Iraq is bullshit. It would have been an appropriate action back in 2002. This thinking is 6 years late. Instead of cutting spending across the board and continuing to fund the war machine he needs to figure out how he is going to stop the bleeding of money in Iraq. That is where he needs to cut spending. He needs to bring the troops home to defend the homeland which is what they are supposed to be doing.
Again he is 6 years behind the times in his thinking.
"I think God gives us children so death won't come as such a disappointment." - Two and a Half Men |
|
|
chrisisasavage
Elite Member
Posts: 1068
Registered: 7/10/2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Member Is Offline
Points: 21915
Mood: Mostly harmless
|
I'm not even sure it was sensible then. Our paranoia about 9/11 was unreal. Yes what happened was bad, but the amount of resources we put into the war on terror it was ridiculous.
The war on terror is as big a joke as the war on drugs. |
|
|
Indy
Super Administrator
Posts: 4136
Registered: 6/24/2004
Member Is Offline
Points: 79820
Mood: Resident Skeptic
|
Wars against ideas are always bad things.
"I think God gives us children so death won't come as such a disappointment." - Two and a Half Men |
|
|
DanG
Administrator
Posts: 5452
Registered: 6/30/2004
Location: SW FL
Member Is Offline
Points: 113876
Mood: Stunned Amazement
|
the frikin USSR had what - 40,000 nukes and we still lived FREE
but -- ooooooo - a dozen guys in a cave - take away our freedoms
to save us !
puh leeeze
|
|
|
DanG
Administrator
Posts: 5452
Registered: 6/30/2004
Location: SW FL
Member Is Offline
Points: 113876
Mood: Stunned Amazement
|
| Quote From Source: | Once upon a time, a politician took campaign contributions and favors from a friendly constituent who happened to run a savings and loan association. The contributions were generous: They came to about $200,000 in today's dollars, and on top of that there were several free vacations for the politician and his family, along with private jet trips and other perks. The politician voted repeatedly against congressional efforts to tighten regulation of S&Ls, and in 1987, when he learned that his constituent's S&L was the target of a federal investigation, he met with regulators in an effort to get them to back off.
| | Click source url to view entire story. |
http://www.latimes.com/news/...467109.column?track=ntothtml |
|
|
chrisisasavage
Elite Member
Posts: 1068
Registered: 7/10/2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Member Is Offline
Points: 21915
Mood: Mostly harmless
|
| Quote From Source: | The politician voted repeatedly against congressional efforts to tighten regulation of S&Ls, and in 1987, when he learned that his constituent's S&L was the target of a federal investigation, he met with regulators in an effort to get them to back off.
| | Click source url to view entire story. |
sigh |
|
|
![[*]](/images/corporate/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
posted on 9/26/2008 at 21:59
