John McCain!

I am so happy we have presidential candidates. First Al Gore brought us the internet and now we have McCain who invented the miraculous BlackBerry device for us.

Does this mean Steve Jobs will run up against Bill Gates next time? One button mouse vs ctrl-alt-del? iPod vs Zune? No wait - these two fellows are actually linked with the products in the real world.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama tells the world tomorrow he saved it yesterday - proof: it still exists. Sarah Palin would probably step in say no, it got created just seven days ago and there is no need to save something only a week old.

And by the way, didn't Mr. Biden has a patent on earth rotation and gravity? Or was that George Bush? No wait - Mr Bush was the person who invented invisible weapons of mass destruction. That was soon after Bill Clinton redefined what "having sex" really means but before Mrs. Clinton gut under heavy gun fire in Bosnia.

Well, I'm getting old and think I have to go back to elementary school. Every time there is an election in the US the whole world history gets rewritten so damn fast.

People of both political camps may excuse my attempt at being funny, but it is just so incredibly tempting sometimes.

The only thing that's for sure is that Wall Street write downs now start to get measured in Trillions. That's also very interesting, but not so easy to make fun of, not even on Turnaround-Tuesday.

some low level aid said that in jest. mccain doesn't even know how to use one.

nothing to see here. move along please. move along.

i.... don't have a TV so I seem to be missing the joke here.

in Germany are politics as stupid as in the US? From what I'm told it's the same in Canada, they're just more polite about it up there vs the US.

I find it amazing troubling that companies & trade got so big that when one fails the whole system fails. WTF ever happened to "diversify"????

I find over reactions like this topic to be repulsive. You hear one comment taken out of context and go off on it. You make a ranting post on a forum without any facts behind it and spread it around. Then someone else gets inspired by your post and rants somewhere else.

Before you know it we've got ranting morons everywhere. Before long it devolves into conspiracy theories about Bush's mothers panties being found buried beneath the rubble of the WTC.

I found it funny and should be taken it for what it is, humor. And all those other statements BNA weaved into his text, well, if some politician tries to sell bullshit, they shouldn't get away with it. That's not overreaction.
Ofcourse the overreaction phenomenon does exist, though. But BNA didn't rant like Michael Moore, did he?

The Happy Friar wrote:

in Germany are politics as stupid as in the US? From what I'm told it's the same in Canada, they're just more polite about it up there vs the US.

On a serious sidenote, I am quite happy with German politics whenever I compare them to the US. I don't like it always, but I can take our politicians seriously in their debates. In US politics there is more cheap populism and lets-put-up-a-show attitude, atleast from where I'm watching it appears to be so. The movie "Idiocracy" comes to mind. No offense!

Also I find a political system with less than 3 parties has some disadvantages and can get caught up in polarization and just fighting each other more easily, while they should be constructive instead. Politics are a multidimensional field of economics, foreign affairs, ecology and so on, and only two electable political camps don't do that justice.

To the two gentlemen who feel offended:

A forum post here which carries the clear label to be humorous should be taken lightly, even by you two. This forum post is targeted towards major news institutions and high profile political advisors who blow everything out of proportion. The scary component is that there in fact may be voters in the US who actually believe things said on this campaign trail.

And pbmax - do not worry, this post here wont change the outcome of the election. And since you belong to the group of people spedinding a significant amount of time stressing that Obamas middle name is "Hussein" there is a lot to see here, especially for you. Too bad you cannot take it lightly, but a mirror is just a mirror.

stabinbac wrote:

I find over reactions like this topic to be repulsive. You hear one comment taken out of context and go off on it. You make a ranting post on a forum without any facts behind it and spread it around. Then someone else gets inspired by your post and rants somewhere else.

Before you know it we've got ranting morons everywhere. Before long it devolves into conspiracy theories about Bush's mothers panties being found buried beneath the rubble of the WTC.

You describe the daily work of the campaign trail of both candidates, don't you? Why don't YOU go back and read the whole post rather than the headline only yourself?

And I wouldn't be surprised to find Bush's mother panties buried beneath the rubble of WTC, there is probably an old Kennedy love letter folded inside too, along with an instruction how to shoot a magic bullet.

BNA! wrote:

...how to shoot a magic bullet.

Haven't you seen "Wanted"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ftozVc3lI

All you have to do is throw a hay maker as you pull the trigger. :roll:

Whoa... so JFK wrote love letters to Barbara's panties?!? Holy crap! Does O'Reilly know about this? Someone tell Hannity!! This could change the scope of the election and get more people to vote for the Hockey Mom that has oodles of knowledge about international relations because Alaska is 50 miles away from Russia.

if nothing else this election cycle has been amusing

asmodeus wrote:

Whoa... so JFK wrote love letters to Barbara's panties?!? Holy crap! Does O'Reilly know about this? Someone tell Hannity!! This could change the scope of the election and get more people to vote for the Hockey Mom that has oodles of knowledge about international relations because Alaska is 50 miles away from Russia.

if nothing else this election cycle has been amusing

Well, if people can legitimately portray Obama falsely buy repeatedly stressing his middle name "Hussein", then I would say being able to look out of your window should count as foreign policy experience.

Just as much as issuing press statements saying "Mr. McCain cannot use email because he is a POW". Which means: "Whoever says that McCain may lag behind modern times is discrediting the whole group of war veterans".

Did I already mention that there are masterminds who repeatedly strees that Obamas middle name is "Hussein"? No? so please let me repeat: Mr. Obamas middle name is "Hussein" - not that this means anything, but we just enjoy plying with the fears of the stupid, uneducated fundamentalists in the US. Who of them would want to vote for a person with that middle name? And before I forget - he's black too! But that probably doesn't matter because Sarah Palin is a woman! And McCain is old! And Obama is not! But Biden is is! And he is also white! And male! And doesn't have a middle name worth to dedicated 10 hours of daily broadcasting time on FOX! And so on...

Compared to this German politic is so boring. But I hope we'll leave this kind of campaigning to the US and never adopt this style of primarily catering to the uneducated, easy to manipulate part of the population. Good politics has never been about being popular - otherwise a voting machine on the internet would be the better way to make decisions for America and the rest of the world. Why do yo need a president when it's enough to follow the latest trends in market research.

I haven't heard much about obama's middle name since he was voted democratic nominee. It's been more nitpicking on "he knows person X" or "he once said Y" since then. But I'm not sure if before he was voted it was Hilliary's people trying to use that against him or not. She's a bitch. I don't like her. Never did. don't want her in my state. She doesn't gie one crap about "the middle class" (middle class, Hah! "middle class" according to democrats & republicans have quarter million dollar houses & annual incomes ~$150k!) Doesn't know who they are. she just kisses a lot of union ass, which new york has a lot of. Someone... please take her!

still don't get the blackberry comment. Was that mentioned in the campaign somewhere?

One of his campaign staffers tried to explain that he could lead us out of the economic slump because he helped create the blackberry since he was on the commerce committee. He also stated that McCain regulated and deregulated that industry, when actually voted against deregulation.

Quote:

Did I already mention that there are masterminds who repeatedly strees that Obamas middle name is "Hussein"?

What I never understood about that whole situation is that the same people who were putting the rumors out there that he was Muslim(with people still believing it), at the same time were crying out against his Pastor. They can't make up their mind what they want him to be to the minds of the people who follow them.

The Happy Friar wrote:

"middle class" according to democrats & republicans have quarter million dollar houses & annual incomes ~$150k!

I think with the financial fallout currently you can safely divide both of the above numbers by 2, only the mortgage of 500k still sits on the former 250k now 125k house and the bank is trying to raise new collateral from that middle class person to fill the unsecured gap of 375k.

In other words - if any US election was ever about economy, than this one. Those who think a war on terror or other interests abroad can still get financed without raising taxes substantially are misled. Putting up trillions while at the same time creating consumer confidence with low interest rates (negative yield against inflation) is a rarity and very expensive adventure. Like any adventure it's great to be part of until something goes wrong.

I used to follow the campaigning of the US, but had to give up a few weeks ago since sides switch so fast. If one gives me a statement to read I couldn't say from which party it got issued, unless it contains "because ... POW...".

I am deeply concerned about the financial state of the USA and do hope only for one thing - a sound president and an equally sound population of the USA to support the largest country restructuring since the great depression. Do I think the US is in a depression? Well, mentally some day for sure, we all are, but not like in the 30's. Recession is inevitable, just as higher taxes (which can also get imposed by closing loopholes, therefore more indirect tax raises rather than unpopular increases in the actual rates).
I know the US economy is much different from other economies in the world since they rely so heavily on customer confidence. With no home appraisal to borrow against and a sharply decrease in revolving credit card lines and a wide loss of jobs, where should it come from?
Deleveraging all fronts will be hard: The banks, the insurers, the state and the private households at the same time is and will be painful. Sending troops somewhere will decrease in popularity when more and more people beg for jobs and / or live on social security pay checks.

As with all expenses there is no free lunch in the world of economy.

In my opinion, which doesn't count and is from far far away anyway, the political opposition to the next president needs to cooperate with the new administration fully. A standstill would create a large misery.

But if I'd be the one to give advice who to vote for, I'd say focus on the candidate who does NOT promise an easy way out. At this point it is irrelevant whether the Iraq war was justified or not, the only thing that matters is how to get out of the financial crisis which probably hasn't fully eclipsed yet (not that wouldn't wish otherwise). The money is spent, for wars, for golden parachutes, for derivates no one fully understands, for houses which decreased in value... and the list goes on and on.

I wish the US luck, the rest of the world depends on a recovery.

Personallyi, I couldnt care less if the US economy tanks and goes under.

Did anyone see Mcains acceptence speech. I just caught the end. It went somthing like this "We're Americans. We need to fight. That's what we do. That's who we are. That's all we are." Highly entertaining. He's a very strange bloke. That's republicans for you I spose.

Apparently Obama said that the USs culture and universities are the envy of the world.

Don't think so mate.

I'd like to see those type of events here in the UK :lol:

Can you imagine Brown looking out at thousends of Brits. Go on then, impress us.

Yea, they're americans. And they fight. And if they don't have to fight, they make up an excuse to fight. Like in Iraq.(and vietnam, and korea, and japan before that, and on and on...).

Thing is, the rest of the world doesnt believe in the "causes" for their "fights".

aardwolf wrote:

Personallyi, I couldnt care less if the US economy tanks and goes under.

Unless you belong to the super rich collecting rents, dividends and fixed bond yields in the seven figures per year I'd say you will soon care more than you would like to.

aardwolf wrote:

Yea, they're americans. And they fight. And if they don't have to fight, they make up an excuse to fight. Like in Iraq.(and vietnam, and korea, and japan before that, and on and on...).

Thing is, the rest of the world doesnt believe in the "causes" for their "fights".

To be fair - a fight for daily survival in the jungle of employment counts too.

I wouldn't necessarily say the remark by McCain was exclusively targeted towards going to yet another war. If anything then US population now needs very strong morals to get out of this mess they have created. It doesn't do any harm to strengthen the moral and spine of this population facing a severe meltdown of their lifestyle.

BNA! wrote:

And since you belong to the group of people spedinding a significant amount of time stressing that Obamas middle name is "Hussein" there is a lot to see here, especially for you. Too bad you cannot take it lightly, but a mirror is just a mirror.

what exactly is your problem with me or anyone else using obama's middle name?

very early on in his primary campaign, he used it himself to stress the fact that if a guy with the middle name of "hussein" can get elected president, then indeed america is in want of change.

but now that he has the nomination, suddenly no one can mention it?

Oboma 2008! "Insane Hussein!" for president! Woot Woot Woot!

pbmax wrote:

BNA! wrote:

And since you belong to the group of people spedinding a significant amount of time stressing that Obamas middle name is "Hussein" there is a lot to see here, especially for you. Too bad you cannot take it lightly, but a mirror is just a mirror.

what exactly is your problem with me or anyone else using obama's middle name?

very early on in his primary campaign, he used it himself to stress the fact that if a guy with the middle name of "hussein" can get elected president, then indeed america is in want of change.

but now that he has the nomination, suddenly no one can mention it?

You used it on purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein

Nothing wrong with being named "handsome"

.

iceheart wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein

Nothing wrong with being named "handsome"

.

Good find!

BNA! wrote:

Well, if people can legitimately portray Obama falsely buy repeatedly stressing his middle name "Hussein", then I would say being able to look out of your window should count as foreign policy experience.

Yes, but those people tend to be bigots or are playing up to racism and bigotry that still exists.

Quote:

Compared to this German politic is so boring. But I hope we'll leave this kind of campaigning to the US and never adopt this style of primarily catering to the uneducated, easy to manipulate part of the population. Good politics has never been about being popular - otherwise a voting machine on the internet would be the better way to make decisions for America and the rest of the world. Why do yo need a president when it's enough to follow the latest trends in market research.

Its not that the majority of the country is uneducated and stupid its that there is no real clear choice for who to vote for unless you are partisan, yes GWB was a horrible choice but when you cut out the rhetoric and compared proposed policies to John Kerry and Al Gore they were similar enough as to make the difference negligible. Even this year the choice isn't clear in the policy department between McCain and Obama. It is yet another choice of who do I hate the least for President because no matter how great Obama's speeches are he will probably screw over the working class and they know it.

But you have to admit that it is a giant step forward for blacks when an old white Millionaire can be portrayed as having more in common with the working class than a black man. http://www.theonion.com/content/video/p ... as_elitist

I never said the majority of the US is uneducated, I said "catering to the uneducated part of the population".

As far as differences in both camps are concerned, I can't any more tell who's standing for what and why. I have a strong dislike for the extreme ends of any politics, also for illustrating things in a black and white manner (in every aspect).

Sometimes things stick out and raise the question: Do they really think people are so incredible stupid and gullible? Like when Nancy Pelosi said she'll bring gas prices down or when McCain claimed he has brought down oil prices because he voted for offshore drilling (in 3 decades the first drop of oil will reach the market from this source - doesn't really affect day to day pricing of the futures). The same goes with the BlackBerry story, the "under fire in Bosnia" story, the "I invented the internet" story and there's plenty more one can dig out if he wants to. I'd love to see a web contest where die hard republican supporters have to list McCain's false claims and frantic Democrats have to list Obama's false claims. Not some cross-camp-dirt-slinging, but cleaning up the own house.

I do not interfere with topics which are US soil only, like abortion or similar topics. I have no say in that, it's all up to them and doesn't shake the grounds the world has to walk on.

There are some really ground shaking things like "Wall Street: The Endgame" as currently played on every exchange near you and of course the any sort of abroad war activity.
What I really do is to wish every American household to do well (again). I'm not a big believer in confessing sins and / or hanging your head in shame for every mistake. But I am a firm believer in going forward positively, stretching for the ceiling and climbing the ladder. The US, always the big brother for people around here, we want to look up again to you, not fear every day to read more horrifying news.

This is probably the reason why I am hit so hard by the way the election campaign plays out this season. It can't be true that only latest popularity data can be the base for getting elected. Do I care how old McCain is or if Obama appears too intellectual and well groomed to associate with the assembly line worker? None of these points will be of any validity after the election when reality settles back in and decisions have to be made quickly.

So youre gonna vote for Obama then.

aardwolf wrote:

So youre gonna vote for Obama then.

Oh, they finally allow the rest of the world to throw in their votes too? Good idea, since they interfere with issues abroad so much we should be allowed to vote for a US president too.

I'd probably vote for Obama for one sole strange reason - he has the backing of Warren Buffett as economy advisor. As far as the other points are concerned, who can tell who stands for what. But admittedly McCains perfect blind spot for economy issues worry me a bit. Calling the US economy to have "strong fundamentals" in the current situation is either bold, the hope of the hopeless or perhaps just a line on his script. Don't know what Obama had to say, but I don't think he outsmarted himself either.

BNA! wrote:

To the two gentlemen who feel offended:

I actually managed to steer this into a very interesting direction. And I doubt there has ever been more discussion of Barbara Bush's panties anywhere!

asmodeus wrote:

no matter how great Obama's speeches are

In many cases that's just his ability to follow a teleprompter of someone elses writing well. Some of his self guided speeches are more cringe worthy than Bush's.

Deadite4 wrote:

What I never understood about that whole situation is that the same people who were putting the rumors out there that he was Muslim(with people still believing it), at the same time were crying out against his Pastor.

You're fighting garbage with garbage! Barrack's father was muslim and in some thinking that automatically makes him muslim, and even a traitor to his religion since he is christian now. But it's only crazy retards that would think and care about things like that. He also attended a muslim school. The biggest issue is Obama's own "smear" fighting site that claims "He has never been Muslim, and was not raised in that faith." It's mainly an issue with the solid denial of his own history instead of acknowledging it and properly playing it down like the pointless issue it is. How many times has "OMG am not!!!" worked as a response to an accusation on the internet?

And his pastor is crazy. Even Obama finally acknowledged that.

I think everyone should just honestly look at both candidates. Forget what you've been told to think about them, and then choose who seems like less of a douche. For me that's Mccain. I feel he'll do less damage. I also have my own opinions on what "damage" is.

The middle name issue was largely pushed simply because it was trying to be crushed. It was used by in Barrack's early campaign, and then they decided to stop. Americans don't like being told what to say, so "stop calling him that!" is responded with a childish "Hussein, Hussein, Hussein, Hussein, Hussein, Hussein!!".

stabinbac wrote:

I also have my own opinions on what "damage" is.

I'd be interested to hear what an American nowadays considers as priority and damage.

The biggest issue I have w/ McCain is his record on saying one thing then a month or year or so later saying the exact opposite... OR not admitting the truth when it's plainly obvious. I've had enough of that with Bush/Cheney.

Examples:

Claim: McCain can walk down the streets of Baghdad with no body armor, no escort. Reality: Tons of U.S. forces everywhere, choppers, snipers, etc. and McCain wearing full body armor.

Claim: I know all I need to know about the economy! Reality: McCain admitted during the repub debates that his knowledge and understanding of the economy is very weak. Him saying the "Fundamentals are strong" as WallStreet pisses and shits itself makes me think he's more interested in echoing Bush than thinking on his own.

Claim: "You know that old song? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"? Reality: That's how you get a lot of people killed, John. See Bush's comments about "Bring it on." Count the bodies. Asshole.

Palin - Claim: I never talked about or even suggested that we pressure the Commissioner out of office. Reality: There are phone call records and testimony from others saying that she, indeed, did apply pressure to have the Commissioner removed.

I find it hilarious that Palin's state was John McCain's best example for terrible government spending that he wanted to stop (See the "bridge to nowhere") a few years ago... even more hilarious that she's now his running mate, and even more hilarious that she switched from supporting the bridge to being against it but STILL spent the money earmarked for it. LOL. Why is no one concerned about this?

Pile onto that the smear campaign that McCain has run filled with absolute lies and false information and I just can't find myself trusting the McCain/Palin ticket at all.

Sad thing is, I used to consider John McCain one of the more sane and moderating voices in our government. He does have a record of supporting some fairly openminded policies... however, it seems he's very willing to put those ideals aside when people with different opinions are paying the bills. His record regarding lobbyists before the election was interesting. Now it's just terrible. He changes his tune to fit their bill almost daily and it's sickening.

BNA! wrote:

You used it on purpose.

and obama's people are not using it, on purpose.

goliathvt wrote:

The biggest issue I have w/ McCain is his record on saying one thing then a month or year or so later saying the exact opposite...

well, he's a moderate.

a moderate by definition has no convictions because first he has to see what were both parties stand on an issue and then he will take the middle.

pbmax wrote:

BNA! wrote:

You used it on purpose.

and obama's people are not using it, on purpose.

Exactly, because others use it on purpose.

Hey - I guess we're caught in a hall of mirrors, aren't we?

Peace.

pbmax wrote:

goliathvt wrote:

The biggest issue I have w/ McCain is his record on saying one thing then a month or year or so later saying the exact opposite...

well, he's a moderate.

a moderate by definition has no convictions because first he has to see what were both parties stand on an issue and then he will take the middle.

Seeing Lehman going bancrupt with 613bn debt and AIG on the verge of collapse by backing over 60 Trillion (!) debt via CDS and talking at the exact same time how strong and sound the US financial system is cannot really get considered "up to the task". Of course he switched overnight from "all fine" to "disaster".

Actually I'm not riding on McCains back here - he was just first to make this mistake. I would say if someone would have handed Obama the micro he would have performed equally abysmal.

That's the real issue I have, with both of them. Neither Obamas middle name nor McCains repeated to death POW history will help the US to get out of the crisis 2009. Both bomb the population with empty word shells. "We'll clean up Wall Street". Sure, but will there enough left to get cleaned up in November?

None of both candidates has made even the slightest suggestion so far on how to battle this epic crisis. Claiming "we'll tighten regulations" is fine, but which regulations? For whom? And why did the same person for years has been advocate to remove regulations? And why doesn't this all of a sudden matter at all?

And just for the record - the sole reason why Obama has an incomparably easy game pointing to others is that he's only senator for a few years. If he'd be in Washington for decades he would have an equally long history of bad decisions or votes which now turn out bad.

goliathvt wrote:

even more hilarious that she's now his running mate

You realize she got picked to counterbalance McCain's age and fish for swinging Clinton supporters, just as Joe Biden got picked to counterbalance Obamas´'s age and swing for swinging McCain supporters.

It's never ever been soooo obvious why a person is chosen as running mate. If McCain wins the election I hope has a loooooong and happy life, because Sarah Palin in office is a scary thought.

BNA! wrote:

None of both candidates has made even the slightest suggestion so far on how to battle this epic crisis.

This isn't accurate.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/economyvideo
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/economyplan

One thing that Obama has been correct on for a long time is that the tax cuts Bush doled out to the wealthiest Americans have been a large piece of the problem. When you cut out that source of revenue at the same time that you're trying to wage a war, don't ask the populace to make any monetary sacrifices or cut down on consumption, hire the worst people for the various jobs that rebuilding a war-torn nation need, thumb your nose at servicemen and women and choose to overpay private corporations to perform security tasks, when you advocate the privatization of everything plus the kitchen sink even if it works worse and costs more, do away with anything and everything that might help regulate things "just because" regulation is a dirty word, like propose SEC nominees that are flatly against regulation and patently for "free trade...". Well you do all that and you plant the seeds of exactly what we have now. A big fucking mess.

Tons of people saw it coming. Hell, I saw it coming and I'm no financial wiz. You can't spend and spend and spend and spend and spend and spend and spend and borrow and spend without it one day catching up. Even an 18 year-old teenager with a credit card knows this lesson.

There are a few large issues here:

One is the lack of money in the government coffers to handle its daily functions and wage a war in Iraq. The daily functions part is fairly safe because of how utterly stupid Congress (even after the Dems got majority... they're just as responsible) has allowed Bush to get away with not including Iraq expenses as part of the annual budget. Many, many, many future generations will be paying for this war. The current "disaster" is just the first crack in the ice.

Shortage in government funding means a reduction in services and programs for the average Joe. At the same time, you have corporations shipping jobs overseas and getting taxbreaks for doing so.... so now you have families unable to survive on what little income they had with what little assistance they got. This increases the unemployment rate and now that family is no longer participating in the economy. Multiply that by six hundred thousand since January and try to ignore the all-time highs of unemployment before 2008 anyway.... Far fewer, viable players in the economy means less economic stability. This isn't hard to figure out.

And then you have bad loans. You have loans being pushed and peddled out to the masses when the lenders knew full-well that "income was not greater than or equal to expenses plus mortgage." Home ownership equals equity and stability. Equity and stability equals borrowing leverage. Borrowing leverage equals an increased chance to participate in and grow the economy. So when people lose their homes, the economy will go to shit. Never mind that REAL wages have stagnated or been reduced by the greatest amount since the great depression over the course of this single administration than any other (the GD was in the late 1920s and early 1930s for those of us who don't know any history).

Oh, and how do you have the housing and lender business be a solid, stable thing for decades and then all of a sudden it all falls apart during Bush's watch? Hmmm...

See above comments about deregulation, overspending by the billions and hiring people that honestly believe that the wonderful and all-powerful "market forces" will take care of everything because they think pure, unadulterated free trade really works.... I'll add to that the notion that most of these people are greedy corporate fucks who care far more about the bottom line than making sure they're performing their jobs in a healthy and responsible manner. If these bank lenders had any sense of responsibility, we wouldn't be in the housing mess. The loans that have caused so much trouble basically packaged things up to essentially transfer the risk somewhere else, which is why investors and banks were so eager to push them onto anyone and everyone. Hmm pushing responsibility over to someone else? Sounds like Bush's plans to pay for Iraq, doesn't it?

But back to these "free market" forces and their utterly stupid disciples. I hate to break it to you folks, but capitalism has never ever worked. Free trade has never worked. "Market forces" are a myth. Sure, you can have some trade that has limited taxation and you might have supply and demand governing some aspects of trade... but the reality is that the U.S. economy has always and will always continue function stably only by the grace of government intervention.

Don't believe me? Then please explain the centuries of bailouts, subsidies and protections that the government has been practicing. Also please note that most of the time we had protections and regulations in place, our economy was fairly strong and stable. Yet when we let the "market forces" have their way, that's when the government needs to swoop in and bail someone out. Want some concrete cases to look up? The automobile industry... for forever. The steel industry in 1999. The coal industry for the last decade or so. Boeing in 2003. Too far back in history for you? Heard of AIG in the news lately? These are only a handful of examples. Put simply, companies that act as the backbones of our economy regularly get handouts and protections and various forms of regulation. They have survived because of regulation. There wouldn't be a Ford, GM or Chrysler on the road today if it hadn't been for government regulation helping to protect the absolute terrible quality and lackluster designs that those auto makers have been putting out for decades. There wouldn't be a U.S. airline functioning today if the government hadn't bailed out the industry countless times.

The free market is a myth. Regulation can be helpful.

Now, that's not to say that all regulation is good... it's quite possible to over-regulate something. You can also regulate it poorly. And it's also possible to over-protect an industry. GM should have gone out of business years ago, for example. They are simply not a successful business.

Anyway, getting back to the point...

The current crisis we're in now was so obvious that it's simply not possible to have missed it. That means Bush and Co have been lying to us (no news there) and morons like McCain who admittedly don't have a strong background in economics just echoed whatever the party line for the day happened to be.

The sad thing is, this big fucking mess is only going to dent the moneybags of the extremely wealthy. On the other hand, it's going to absolutely fuck over thousands of hardworking, honest workers who will lose pensions, jobs and various wage reductions.

Frankly, I'm sending my vote to the guy that has enough sense to say, "Duh! Of course we're in a financial mess... look at the obvious reasons." Rather than the guy that just a day or two ago said the "Fundamentals of the economy are strong."

One more quick note:

Keep a sharp eye on what businesses are being crumbled, what is being consolidated, what is being bought out and which businesses aren't very hurt by the whole mess.

Bank of America gobbling up Merril, for example....

If you look through the history of every other huge economic collapse in U.S. history, you can always find instances where companies that were fairly financially sound and unlikely to topple but faced tough competition from another firm were destroyed or snatched up in the aftermath of an economic disaster... a disaster that was usually later discovered to be orchestrated by those very same competitors and rivals.

The very establishment and foothold of the Federal Reserve into the U.S. economy is a great example of this.

stabinbac wrote:

asmodeus wrote:

no matter how great Obama's speeches are

In many cases that's just his ability to follow a teleprompter of someone elses writing well. Some of his self guided speeches are more cringe worthy than Bush's.

I was talking about the content of the speeches not how they were presented to the audience, but if you want to take that route McCain and Palin's speeches away from a teleprompter and speech writer are also bad, I guess they might actually be human and misspeak once in awhile

goliathvt wrote:

One more quick note:

Keep a sharp eye on what businesses are being crumbled, what is being consolidated, what is being bought out and which businesses aren't very hurt by the whole mess.

Bank of America gobbling up Merril, for example....

If you look through the history of every other huge economic collapse in U.S. history, you can always find instances where companies that were fairly financially sound and unlikely to topple but faced tough competition from another firm were destroyed or snatched up in the aftermath of an economic disaster... a disaster that was usually later discovered to be orchestrated by those very same competitors and rivals.

The very establishment and foothold of the Federal Reserve into the U.S. economy is a great example of this.

I would say a systemic crisis is not an orchestrated effort since it leaves no competitor around. You can also name it more public-comforting and call it a market segment consolidation.

To put it bluntly - this crisis has already wiped out a massive number of competitors and of course anyone still standing in 12 months time will experience brilliant business. The cake shrinks, but the number of coffee guest even more.

Look at the terms and conditions Goldman Sachs had to sign to receive financing from Warren Buffett. They paid him an almost 100% premium over usual corporate bonds they issue. When the best of breed has to agree on such terms, one can only imagine how bad it really is.

What orchestrated this disaster was the common greed of everyone involved. Starting top down with financial institutions amassing, creating and repacking various securities, the common shareholder expecting the institution to return a ridiculous 25% ROE, the local banks with bad lending practices (0% downpayment, undercollateralization, often also financing the furniture along, interest free starting time - all expected to pay off by house price appreciation), the appraisers half voluntarily half forced writing up house values to sustain their client base, insurance companies issuing credit default swaps to secure the lending practices on paper, customers who can't afford a house but expect to get it delivered for free and get rich at the same time, third mortgages to acquire second homes to mortgage them for third cars, revolving credit card debt as a financing source of consumer spending...

Break that chain at some point and you break the system.

If the bailout plan sort of shields the remaining banks and insurers from all their toxic CDS, ABS, MBS and whatever three letter financial innovation else, they can start lending money each other again and the juices flow. Contrary to popular belief the bailout plan is not designed to be the sole purpose of financing - it's the key factor to recreate enough confidence among banks (with a safety net) for them to pick up lending again. The motor may sputter for some time to come, but at least it runs.

House prices will likely come down a little more, bottom for some time and again pick up, growing at more modest rates. Most people cry irreversible disaster, but it's not. Assuming house prices in the US come down somewhere around 30% from their bubble peaks it feels like the end of the world, but compare that to Japan in the 1990ies where real estate prices had to come down 90%. The issue is leverage to equity ratios of 30 to 1. A mere 3.33% decline in house prices wipes out the entire equity in a collateralized debt paper. There is no room for increasing loan default rates in the 8% range in such a case. It's like a pyramid game - as long as it runs fine it's easier than printing money, but once it breaks it will break in it's entirety, not gradually fall apart.

John McCain!

I am so happy we have presidential candidates. First Al Gore brought us the internet and now we have McCain who invented the miraculous BlackBerry device for us.

Does this mean Steve Jobs will run up against Bill Gates next time? One button mouse vs ctrl-alt-del? iPod vs Zune? No wait - these two fellows are actually linked with the products in the real world.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama tells the world tomorrow he saved it yesterday - proof: it still exists. Sarah Palin would probably step in say no, it got created just seven days ago and there is no need to save something only a week old.

And by the way, didn't Mr. Biden has a patent on earth rotation and gravity? Or was that George Bush? No wait - Mr Bush was the person who invented invisible weapons of mass destruction. That was soon after Bill Clinton redefined what "having sex" really means but before Mrs. Clinton gut under heavy gun fire in Bosnia.

Well, I'm getting old and think I have to go back to elementary school. Every time there is an election in the US the whole world history gets rewritten so damn fast.

People of both political camps may excuse my attempt at being funny, but it is just so incredibly tempting sometimes.

The only thing that's for sure is that Wall Street write downs now start to get measured in Trillions. That's also very interesting, but not so easy to make fun of, not even on Turnaround-Tuesday.

some low level aid said that in jest. mccain doesn't even know how to use one.

nothing to see here. move along please. move along.

i.... don't have a TV so I seem to be missing the joke here.

in Germany are politics as stupid as in the US? From what I'm told it's the same in Canada, they're just more polite about it up there vs the US.

I find it amazing troubling that companies & trade got so big that when one fails the whole system fails. WTF ever happened to "diversify"????

I find over reactions like this topic to be repulsive. You hear one comment taken out of context and go off on it. You make a ranting post on a forum without any facts behind it and spread it around. Then someone else gets inspired by your post and rants somewhere else.

Before you know it we've got ranting morons everywhere. Before long it devolves into conspiracy theories about Bush's mothers panties being found buried beneath the rubble of the WTC.

I found it funny and should be taken it for what it is, humor. And all those other statements BNA weaved into his text, well, if some politician tries to sell bullshit, they shouldn't get away with it. That's not overreaction.
Ofcourse the overreaction phenomenon does exist, though. But BNA didn't rant like Michael Moore, did he?

The Happy Friar wrote:

in Germany are politics as stupid as in the US? From what I'm told it's the same in Canada, they're just more polite about it up there vs the US.

On a serious sidenote, I am quite happy with German politics whenever I compare them to the US. I don't like it always, but I can take our politicians seriously in their debates. In US politics there is more cheap populism and lets-put-up-a-show attitude, atleast from where I'm watching it appears to be so. The movie "Idiocracy" comes to mind. No offense!

Also I find a political system with less than 3 parties has some disadvantages and can get caught up in polarization and just fighting each other more easily, while they should be constructive instead. Politics are a multidimensional field of economics, foreign affairs, ecology and so on, and only two electable political camps don't do that justice.

To the two gentlemen who feel offended:

A forum post here which carries the clear label to be humorous should be taken lightly, even by you two. This forum post is targeted towards major news institutions and high profile political advisors who blow everything out of proportion. The scary component is that there in fact may be voters in the US who actually believe things said on this campaign trail.

And pbmax - do not worry, this post here wont change the outcome of the election. And since you belong to the group of people spedinding a significant amount of time stressing that Obamas middle name is "Hussein" there is a lot to see here, especially for you. Too bad you cannot take it lightly, but a mirror is just a mirror.

stabinbac wrote:

I find over reactions like this topic to be repulsive. You hear one comment taken out of context and go off on it. You make a ranting post on a forum without any facts behind it and spread it around. Then someone else gets inspired by your post and rants somewhere else.

Before you know it we've got ranting morons everywhere. Before long it devolves into conspiracy theories about Bush's mothers panties being found buried beneath the rubble of the WTC.

You describe the daily work of the campaign trail of both candidates, don't you? Why don't YOU go back and read the whole post rather than the headline only yourself?

And I wouldn't be surprised to find Bush's mother panties buried beneath the rubble of WTC, there is probably an old Kennedy love letter folded inside too, along with an instruction how to shoot a magic bullet.

BNA! wrote:

...how to shoot a magic bullet.

Haven't you seen "Wanted"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ftozVc3lI

All you have to do is throw a hay maker as you pull the trigger. :roll:

Whoa... so JFK wrote love letters to Barbara's panties?!? Holy crap! Does O'Reilly know about this? Someone tell Hannity!! This could change the scope of the election and get more people to vote for the Hockey Mom that has oodles of knowledge about international relations because Alaska is 50 miles away from Russia.

if nothing else this election cycle has been amusing

asmodeus wrote:

Whoa... so JFK wrote love letters to Barbara's panties?!? Holy crap! Does O'Reilly know about this? Someone tell Hannity!! This could change the scope of the election and get more people to vote for the Hockey Mom that has oodles of knowledge about international relations because Alaska is 50 miles away from Russia.

if nothing else this election cycle has been amusing

Well, if people can legitimately portray Obama falsely buy repeatedly stressing his middle name "Hussein", then I would say being able to look out of your window should count as foreign policy experience.

Just as much as issuing press statements saying "Mr. McCain cannot use email because he is a POW". Which means: "Whoever says that McCain may lag behind modern times is discrediting the whole group of war veterans".

Did I already mention that there are masterminds who repeatedly strees that Obamas middle name is "Hussein"? No? so please let me repeat: Mr. Obamas middle name is "Hussein" - not that this means anything, but we just enjoy plying with the fears of the stupid, uneducated fundamentalists in the US. Who of them would want to vote for a person with that middle name? And before I forget - he's black too! But that probably doesn't matter because Sarah Palin is a woman! And McCain is old! And Obama is not! But Biden is is! And he is also white! And male! And doesn't have a middle name worth to dedicated 10 hours of daily broadcasting time on FOX! And so on...

Compared to this German politic is so boring. But I hope we'll leave this kind of campaigning to the US and never adopt this style of primarily catering to the uneducated, easy to manipulate part of the population. Good politics has never been about being popular - otherwise a voting machine on the internet would be the better way to make decisions for America and the rest of the world. Why do yo need a president when it's enough to follow the latest trends in market research.

I haven't heard much about obama's middle name since he was voted democratic nominee. It's been more nitpicking on "he knows person X" or "he once said Y" since then. But I'm not sure if before he was voted it was Hilliary's people trying to use that against him or not. She's a bitch. I don't like her. Never did. don't want her in my state. She doesn't gie one crap about "the middle class" (middle class, Hah! "middle class" according to democrats & republicans have quarter million dollar houses & annual incomes ~$150k!) Doesn't know who they are. she just kisses a lot of union ass, which new york has a lot of. Someone... please take her!

still don't get the blackberry comment. Was that mentioned in the campaign somewhere?

One of his campaign staffers tried to explain that he could lead us out of the economic slump because he helped create the blackberry since he was on the commerce committee. He also stated that McCain regulated and deregulated that industry, when actually voted against deregulation.

Quote:

Did I already mention that there are masterminds who repeatedly strees that Obamas middle name is "Hussein"?

What I never understood about that whole situation is that the same people who were putting the rumors out there that he was Muslim(with people still believing it), at the same time were crying out against his Pastor. They can't make up their mind what they want him to be to the minds of the people who follow them.

The Happy Friar wrote:

"middle class" according to democrats & republicans have quarter million dollar houses & annual incomes ~$150k!

I think with the financial fallout currently you can safely divide both of the above numbers by 2, only the mortgage of 500k still sits on the former 250k now 125k house and the bank is trying to raise new collateral from that middle class person to fill the unsecured gap of 375k.

In other words - if any US election was ever about economy, than this one. Those who think a war on terror or other interests abroad can still get financed without raising taxes substantially are misled. Putting up trillions while at the same time creating consumer confidence with low interest rates (negative yield against inflation) is a rarity and very expensive adventure. Like any adventure it's great to be part of until something goes wrong.

I used to follow the campaigning of the US, but had to give up a few weeks ago since sides switch so fast. If one gives me a statement to read I couldn't say from which party it got issued, unless it contains "because ... POW...".

I am deeply concerned about the financial state of the USA and do hope only for one thing - a sound president and an equally sound population of the USA to support the largest country restructuring since the great depression. Do I think the US is in a depression? Well, mentally some day for sure, we all are, but not like in the 30's. Recession is inevitable, just as higher taxes (which can also get imposed by closing loopholes, therefore more indirect tax raises rather than unpopular increases in the actual rates).
I know the US economy is much different from other economies in the world since they rely so heavily on customer confidence. With no home appraisal to borrow against and a sharply decrease in revolving credit card lines and a wide loss of jobs, where should it come from?
Deleveraging all fronts will be hard: The banks, the insurers, the state and the private households at the same time is and will be painful. Sending troops somewhere will decrease in popularity when more and more people beg for jobs and / or live on social security pay checks.

As with all expenses there is no free lunch in the world of economy.

In my opinion, which doesn't count and is from far far away anyway, the political opposition to the next president needs to cooperate with the new administration fully. A standstill would create a large misery.

But if I'd be the one to give advice who to vote for, I'd say focus on the candidate who does NOT promise an easy way out. At this point it is irrelevant whether the Iraq war was justified or not, the only thing that matters is how to get out of the financial crisis which probably hasn't fully eclipsed yet (not that wouldn't wish otherwise). The money is spent, for wars, for golden parachutes, for derivates no one fully understands, for houses which decreased in value... and the list goes on and on.

I wish the US luck, the rest of the world depends on a recovery.

Personallyi, I couldnt care less if the US economy tanks and goes under.

Did anyone see Mcains acceptence speech. I just caught the end. It went somthing like this "We're Americans. We need to fight. That's what we do. That's who we are. That's all we are." Highly entertaining. He's a very strange bloke. That's republicans for you I spose.

Apparently Obama said that the USs culture and universities are the envy of the world.

Don't think so mate.

I'd like to see those type of events here in the UK :lol:

Can you imagine Brown looking out at thousends of Brits. Go on then, impress us.

Yea, they're americans. And they fight. And if they don't have to fight, they make up an excuse to fight. Like in Iraq.(and vietnam, and korea, and japan before that, and on and on...).

Thing is, the rest of the world doesnt believe in the "causes" for their "fights".

aardwolf wrote:

Personallyi, I couldnt care less if the US economy tanks and goes under.

Unless you belong to the super rich collecting rents, dividends and fixed bond yields in the seven figures per year I'd say you will soon care more than you would like to.

aardwolf wrote:

Yea, they're americans. And they fight. And if they don't have to fight, they make up an excuse to fight. Like in Iraq.(and vietnam, and korea, and japan before that, and on and on...).

Thing is, the rest of the world doesnt believe in the "causes" for their "fights".

To be fair - a fight for daily survival in the jungle of employment counts too.

I wouldn't necessarily say the remark by McCain was exclusively targeted towards going to yet another war. If anything then US population now needs very strong morals to get out of this mess they have created. It doesn't do any harm to strengthen the moral and spine of this population facing a severe meltdown of their lifestyle.

BNA! wrote:

And since you belong to the group of people spedinding a significant amount of time stressing that Obamas middle name is "Hussein" there is a lot to see here, especially for you. Too bad you cannot take it lightly, but a mirror is just a mirror.

what exactly is your problem with me or anyone else using obama's middle name?

very early on in his primary campaign, he used it himself to stress the fact that if a guy with the middle name of "hussein" can get elected president, then indeed america is in want of change.

but now that he has the nomination, suddenly no one can mention it?

Oboma 2008! "Insane Hussein!" for president! Woot Woot Woot!

pbmax wrote:

BNA! wrote:

And since you belong to the group of people spedinding a significant amount of time stressing that Obamas middle name is "Hussein" there is a lot to see here, especially for you. Too bad you cannot take it lightly, but a mirror is just a mirror.

what exactly is your problem with me or anyone else using obama's middle name?

very early on in his primary campaign, he used it himself to stress the fact that if a guy with the middle name of "hussein" can get elected president, then indeed america is in want of change.

but now that he has the nomination, suddenly no one can mention it?

You used it on purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein

Nothing wrong with being named "handsome"

.

iceheart wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein

Nothing wrong with being named "handsome"

.

Good find!

BNA! wrote:

Well, if people can legitimately portray Obama falsely buy repeatedly stressing his middle name "Hussein", then I would say being able to look out of your window should count as foreign policy experience.

Yes, but those people tend to be bigots or are playing up to racism and bigotry that still exists.

Quote:

Compared to this German politic is so boring. But I hope we'll leave this kind of campaigning to the US and never adopt this style of primarily catering to the uneducated, easy to manipulate part of the population. Good politics has never been about being popular - otherwise a voting machine on the internet would be the better way to make decisions for America and the rest of the world. Why do yo need a president when it's enough to follow the latest trends in market research.

Its not that the majority of the country is uneducated and stupid its that there is no real clear choice for who to vote for unless you are partisan, yes GWB was a horrible choice but when you cut out the rhetoric and compared proposed policies to John Kerry and Al Gore they were similar enough as to make the difference negligible. Even this year the choice isn't clear in the policy department between McCain and Obama. It is yet another choice of who do I hate the least for President because no matter how great Obama's speeches are he will probably screw over the working class and they know it.

But you have to admit that it is a giant step forward for blacks when an old white Millionaire can be portrayed as having more in common with the working class than a black man. http://www.theonion.com/content/video/p ... as_elitist

I never said the majority of the US is uneducated, I said "catering to the uneducated part of the population".

As far as differences in both camps are concerned, I can't any more tell who's standing for what and why. I have a strong dislike for the extreme ends of any politics, also for illustrating things in a black and white manner (in every aspect).

Sometimes things stick out and raise the question: Do they really think people are so incredible stupid and gullible? Like when Nancy Pelosi said she'll bring gas prices down or when McCain claimed he has brought down oil prices because he voted for offshore drilling (in 3 decades the first drop of oil will reach the market from this source - doesn't really affect day to day pricing of the futures). The same goes with the BlackBerry story, the "under fire in Bosnia" story, the "I invented the internet" story and there's plenty more one can dig out if he wants to. I'd love to see a web contest where die hard republican supporters have to list McCain's false claims and frantic Democrats have to list Obama's false claims. Not some cross-camp-dirt-slinging, but cleaning up the own house.

I do not interfere with topics which are US soil only, like abortion or similar topics. I have no say in that, it's all up to them and doesn't shake the grounds the world has to walk on.

There are some really ground shaking things like "Wall Street: The Endgame" as currently played on every exchange near you and of course the any sort of abroad war activity.
What I really do is to wish every American household to do well (again). I'm not a big believer in confessing sins and / or hanging your head in shame for every mistake. But I am a firm believer in going forward positively, stretching for the ceiling and climbing the ladder. The US, always the big brother for people around here, we want to look up again to you, not fear every day to read more horrifying news.

This is probably the reason why I am hit so hard by the way the election campaign plays out this season. It can't be true that only latest popularity data can be the base for getting elected. Do I care how old McCain is or if Obama appears too intellectual and well groomed to associate with the assembly line worker? None of these points will be of any validity after the election when reality settles back in and decisions have to be made quickly.

So youre gonna vote for Obama then.

aardwolf wrote:

So youre gonna vote for Obama then.

Oh, they finally allow the rest of the world to throw in their votes too? Good idea, since they interfere with issues abroad so much we should be allowed to vote for a US president too.

I'd probably vote for Obama for one sole strange reason - he has the backing of Warren Buffett as economy advisor. As far as the other points are concerned, who can tell who stands for what. But admittedly McCains perfect blind spot for economy issues worry me a bit. Calling the US economy to have "strong fundamentals" in the current situation is either bold, the hope of the hopeless or perhaps just a line on his script. Don't know what Obama had to say, but I don't think he outsmarted himself either.

BNA! wrote:

To the two gentlemen who feel offended:

I actually managed to steer this into a very interesting direction. And I doubt there has ever been more discussion of Barbara Bush's panties anywhere!

asmodeus wrote:

no matter how great Obama's speeches are

In many cases that's just his ability to follow a teleprompter of someone elses writing well. Some of his self guided speeches are more cringe worthy than Bush's.

Deadite4 wrote:

What I never understood about that whole situation is that the same people who were putting the rumors out there that he was Muslim(with people still believing it), at the same time were crying out against his Pastor.

You're fighting garbage with garbage! Barrack's father was muslim and in some thinking that automatically makes him muslim, and even a traitor to his religion since he is christian now. But it's only crazy retards that would think and care about things like that. He also attended a muslim school. The biggest issue is Obama's own "smear" fighting site that claims "He has never been Muslim, and was not raised in that faith." It's mainly an issue with the solid denial of his own history instead of acknowledging it and properly playing it down like the pointless issue it is. How many times has "OMG am not!!!" worked as a response to an accusation on the internet?

And his pastor is crazy. Even Obama finally acknowledged that.

I think everyone should just honestly look at both candidates. Forget what you've been told to think about them, and then choose who seems like less of a douche. For me that's Mccain. I feel he'll do less damage. I also have my own opinions on what "damage" is.

The middle name issue was largely pushed simply because it was trying to be crushed. It was used by in Barrack's early campaign, and then they decided to stop. Americans don't like being told what to say, so "stop calling him that!" is responded with a childish "Hussein, Hussein, Hussein, Hussein, Hussein, Hussein!!".

stabinbac wrote:

I also have my own opinions on what "damage" is.

I'd be interested to hear what an American nowadays considers as priority and damage.

The biggest issue I have w/ McCain is his record on saying one thing then a month or year or so later saying the exact opposite... OR not admitting the truth when it's plainly obvious. I've had enough of that with Bush/Cheney.

Examples:

Claim: McCain can walk down the streets of Baghdad with no body armor, no escort. Reality: Tons of U.S. forces everywhere, choppers, snipers, etc. and McCain wearing full body armor.

Claim: I know all I need to know about the economy! Reality: McCain admitted during the repub debates that his knowledge and understanding of the economy is very weak. Him saying the "Fundamentals are strong" as WallStreet pisses and shits itself makes me think he's more interested in echoing Bush than thinking on his own.

Claim: "You know that old song? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"? Reality: That's how you get a lot of people killed, John. See Bush's comments about "Bring it on." Count the bodies. Asshole.

Palin - Claim: I never talked about or even suggested that we pressure the Commissioner out of office. Reality: There are phone call records and testimony from others saying that she, indeed, did apply pressure to have the Commissioner removed.

I find it hilarious that Palin's state was John McCain's best example for terrible government spending that he wanted to stop (See the "bridge to nowhere") a few years ago... even more hilarious that she's now his running mate, and even more hilarious that she switched from supporting the bridge to being against it but STILL spent the money earmarked for it. LOL. Why is no one concerned about this?

Pile onto that the smear campaign that McCain has run filled with absolute lies and false information and I just can't find myself trusting the McCain/Palin ticket at all.

Sad thing is, I used to consider John McCain one of the more sane and moderating voices in our government. He does have a record of supporting some fairly openminded policies... however, it seems he's very willing to put those ideals aside when people with different opinions are paying the bills. His record regarding lobbyists before the election was interesting. Now it's just terrible. He changes his tune to fit their bill almost daily and it's sickening.

BNA! wrote:

You used it on purpose.

and obama's people are not using it, on purpose.

goliathvt wrote:

The biggest issue I have w/ McCain is his record on saying one thing then a month or year or so later saying the exact opposite...

well, he's a moderate.

a moderate by definition has no convictions because first he has to see what were both parties stand on an issue and then he will take the middle.

pbmax wrote:

BNA! wrote:

You used it on purpose.

and obama's people are not using it, on purpose.

Exactly, because others use it on purpose.

Hey - I guess we're caught in a hall of mirrors, aren't we?

Peace.

pbmax wrote:

goliathvt wrote:

The biggest issue I have w/ McCain is his record on saying one thing then a month or year or so later saying the exact opposite...

well, he's a moderate.

a moderate by definition has no convictions because first he has to see what were both parties stand on an issue and then he will take the middle.

Seeing Lehman going bancrupt with 613bn debt and AIG on the verge of collapse by backing over 60 Trillion (!) debt via CDS and talking at the exact same time how strong and sound the US financial system is cannot really get considered "up to the task". Of course he switched overnight from "all fine" to "disaster".

Actually I'm not riding on McCains back here - he was just first to make this mistake. I would say if someone would have handed Obama the micro he would have performed equally abysmal.

That's the real issue I have, with both of them. Neither Obamas middle name nor McCains repeated to death POW history will help the US to get out of the crisis 2009. Both bomb the population with empty word shells. "We'll clean up Wall Street". Sure, but will there enough left to get cleaned up in November?

None of both candidates has made even the slightest suggestion so far on how to battle this epic crisis. Claiming "we'll tighten regulations" is fine, but which regulations? For whom? And why did the same person for years has been advocate to remove regulations? And why doesn't this all of a sudden matter at all?

And just for the record - the sole reason why Obama has an incomparably easy game pointing to others is that he's only senator for a few years. If he'd be in Washington for decades he would have an equally long history of bad decisions or votes which now turn out bad.

goliathvt wrote:

even more hilarious that she's now his running mate

You realize she got picked to counterbalance McCain's age and fish for swinging Clinton supporters, just as Joe Biden got picked to counterbalance Obamas´'s age and swing for swinging McCain supporters.

It's never ever been soooo obvious why a person is chosen as running mate. If McCain wins the election I hope has a loooooong and happy life, because Sarah Palin in office is a scary thought.

BNA! wrote:

None of both candidates has made even the slightest suggestion so far on how to battle this epic crisis.

This isn't accurate.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/economyvideo
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/economyplan

One thing that Obama has been correct on for a long time is that the tax cuts Bush doled out to the wealthiest Americans have been a large piece of the problem. When you cut out that source of revenue at the same time that you're trying to wage a war, don't ask the populace to make any monetary sacrifices or cut down on consumption, hire the worst people for the various jobs that rebuilding a war-torn nation need, thumb your nose at servicemen and women and choose to overpay private corporations to perform security tasks, when you advocate the privatization of everything plus the kitchen sink even if it works worse and costs more, do away with anything and everything that might help regulate things "just because" regulation is a dirty word, like propose SEC nominees that are flatly against regulation and patently for "free trade...". Well you do all that and you plant the seeds of exactly what we have now. A big fucking mess.

Tons of people saw it coming. Hell, I saw it coming and I'm no financial wiz. You can't spend and spend and spend and spend and spend and spend and spend and borrow and spend without it one day catching up. Even an 18 year-old teenager with a credit card knows this lesson.

There are a few large issues here:

One is the lack of money in the government coffers to handle its daily functions and wage a war in Iraq. The daily functions part is fairly safe because of how utterly stupid Congress (even after the Dems got majority... they're just as responsible) has allowed Bush to get away with not including Iraq expenses as part of the annual budget. Many, many, many future generations will be paying for this war. The current "disaster" is just the first crack in the ice.

Shortage in government funding means a reduction in services and programs for the average Joe. At the same time, you have corporations shipping jobs overseas and getting taxbreaks for doing so.... so now you have families unable to survive on what little income they had with what little assistance they got. This increases the unemployment rate and now that family is no longer participating in the economy. Multiply that by six hundred thousand since January and try to ignore the all-time highs of unemployment before 2008 anyway.... Far fewer, viable players in the economy means less economic stability. This isn't hard to figure out.

And then you have bad loans. You have loans being pushed and peddled out to the masses when the lenders knew full-well that "income was not greater than or equal to expenses plus mortgage." Home ownership equals equity and stability. Equity and stability equals borrowing leverage. Borrowing leverage equals an increased chance to participate in and grow the economy. So when people lose their homes, the economy will go to shit. Never mind that REAL wages have stagnated or been reduced by the greatest amount since the great depression over the course of this single administration than any other (the GD was in the late 1920s and early 1930s for those of us who don't know any history).

Oh, and how do you have the housing and lender business be a solid, stable thing for decades and then all of a sudden it all falls apart during Bush's watch? Hmmm...

See above comments about deregulation, overspending by the billions and hiring people that honestly believe that the wonderful and all-powerful "market forces" will take care of everything because they think pure, unadulterated free trade really works.... I'll add to that the notion that most of these people are greedy corporate fucks who care far more about the bottom line than making sure they're performing their jobs in a healthy and responsible manner. If these bank lenders had any sense of responsibility, we wouldn't be in the housing mess. The loans that have caused so much trouble basically packaged things up to essentially transfer the risk somewhere else, which is why investors and banks were so eager to push them onto anyone and everyone. Hmm pushing responsibility over to someone else? Sounds like Bush's plans to pay for Iraq, doesn't it?

But back to these "free market" forces and their utterly stupid disciples. I hate to break it to you folks, but capitalism has never ever worked. Free trade has never worked. "Market forces" are a myth. Sure, you can have some trade that has limited taxation and you might have supply and demand governing some aspects of trade... but the reality is that the U.S. economy has always and will always continue function stably only by the grace of government intervention.

Don't believe me? Then please explain the centuries of bailouts, subsidies and protections that the government has been practicing. Also please note that most of the time we had protections and regulations in place, our economy was fairly strong and stable. Yet when we let the "market forces" have their way, that's when the government needs to swoop in and bail someone out. Want some concrete cases to look up? The automobile industry... for forever. The steel industry in 1999. The coal industry for the last decade or so. Boeing in 2003. Too far back in history for you? Heard of AIG in the news lately? These are only a handful of examples. Put simply, companies that act as the backbones of our economy regularly get handouts and protections and various forms of regulation. They have survived because of regulation. There wouldn't be a Ford, GM or Chrysler on the road today if it hadn't been for government regulation helping to protect the absolute terrible quality and lackluster designs that those auto makers have been putting out for decades. There wouldn't be a U.S. airline functioning today if the government hadn't bailed out the industry countless times.

The free market is a myth. Regulation can be helpful.

Now, that's not to say that all regulation is good... it's quite possible to over-regulate something. You can also regulate it poorly. And it's also possible to over-protect an industry. GM should have gone out of business years ago, for example. They are simply not a successful business.

Anyway, getting back to the point...

The current crisis we're in now was so obvious that it's simply not possible to have missed it. That means Bush and Co have been lying to us (no news there) and morons like McCain who admittedly don't have a strong background in economics just echoed whatever the party line for the day happened to be.

The sad thing is, this big fucking mess is only going to dent the moneybags of the extremely wealthy. On the other hand, it's going to absolutely fuck over thousands of hardworking, honest workers who will lose pensions, jobs and various wage reductions.

Frankly, I'm sending my vote to the guy that has enough sense to say, "Duh! Of course we're in a financial mess... look at the obvious reasons." Rather than the guy that just a day or two ago said the "Fundamentals of the economy are strong."

One more quick note:

Keep a sharp eye on what businesses are being crumbled, what is being consolidated, what is being bought out and which businesses aren't very hurt by the whole mess.

Bank of America gobbling up Merril, for example....

If you look through the history of every other huge economic collapse in U.S. history, you can always find instances where companies that were fairly financially sound and unlikely to topple but faced tough competition from another firm were destroyed or snatched up in the aftermath of an economic disaster... a disaster that was usually later discovered to be orchestrated by those very same competitors and rivals.

The very establishment and foothold of the Federal Reserve into the U.S. economy is a great example of this.

stabinbac wrote:

asmodeus wrote:

no matter how great Obama's speeches are

In many cases that's just his ability to follow a teleprompter of someone elses writing well. Some of his self guided speeches are more cringe worthy than Bush's.

I was talking about the content of the speeches not how they were presented to the audience, but if you want to take that route McCain and Palin's speeches away from a teleprompter and speech writer are also bad, I guess they might actually be human and misspeak once in awhile

goliathvt wrote:

One more quick note:

Keep a sharp eye on what businesses are being crumbled, what is being consolidated, what is being bought out and which businesses aren't very hurt by the whole mess.

Bank of America gobbling up Merril, for example....

If you look through the history of every other huge economic collapse in U.S. history, you can always find instances where companies that were fairly financially sound and unlikely to topple but faced tough competition from another firm were destroyed or snatched up in the aftermath of an economic disaster... a disaster that was usually later discovered to be orchestrated by those very same competitors and rivals.

The very establishment and foothold of the Federal Reserve into the U.S. economy is a great example of this.

I would say a systemic crisis is not an orchestrated effort since it leaves no competitor around. You can also name it more public-comforting and call it a market segment consolidation.

To put it bluntly - this crisis has already wiped out a massive number of competitors and of course anyone still standing in 12 months time will experience brilliant business. The cake shrinks, but the number of coffee guest even more.

Look at the terms and conditions Goldman Sachs had to sign to receive financing from Warren Buffett. They paid him an almost 100% premium over usual corporate bonds they issue. When the best of breed has to agree on such terms, one can only imagine how bad it really is.

What orchestrated this disaster was the common greed of everyone involved. Starting top down with financial institutions amassing, creating and repacking various securities, the common shareholder expecting the institution to return a ridiculous 25% ROE, the local banks with bad lending practices (0% downpayment, undercollateralization, often also financing the furniture along, interest free starting time - all expected to pay off by house price appreciation), the appraisers half voluntarily half forced writing up house values to sustain their client base, insurance companies issuing credit default swaps to secure the lending practices on paper, customers who can't afford a house but expect to get it delivered for free and get rich at the same time, third mortgages to acquire second homes to mortgage them for third cars, revolving credit card debt as a financing source of consumer spending...

Break that chain at some point and you break the system.

If the bailout plan sort of shields the remaining banks and insurers from all their toxic CDS, ABS, MBS and whatever three letter financial innovation else, they can start lending money each other again and the juices flow. Contrary to popular belief the bailout plan is not designed to be the sole purpose of financing - it's the key factor to recreate enough confidence among banks (with a safety net) for them to pick up lending again. The motor may sputter for some time to come, but at least it runs.

House prices will likely come down a little more, bottom for some time and again pick up, growing at more modest rates. Most people cry irreversible disaster, but it's not. Assuming house prices in the US come down somewhere around 30% from their bubble peaks it feels like the end of the world, but compare that to Japan in the 1990ies where real estate prices had to come down 90%. The issue is leverage to equity ratios of 30 to 1. A mere 3.33% decline in house prices wipes out the entire equity in a collateralized debt paper. There is no room for increasing loan default rates in the 8% range in such a case. It's like a pyramid game - as long as it runs fine it's easier than printing money, but once it breaks it will break in it's entirety, not gradually fall apart.