Obama / McCain Second Presidential Debate -- Belmont University

Here is the second presidential debate from Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaBiVJtZc00[/YOUTUBE]

I've watched so many debates, speeches, interviews and analysis in the past months that I didn't see much that was new in this debate (except for one dramatic and strange item I talk about below). It mostly seemed pretty familiar. In general, I think they both did a good job of stating their positions and both held their own. There were no knockouts and no serious flubs, so it was not a game-chagning debate with any surpirises.

If you want to call it a tie, then a tie always benefits the one in the lead, and right now that is Obama. I've seen a lot of polls that show most people think Obama won the debate, so that doesn't help McCain any and can only help Obama. This debate will not change the dynamic of the race except maybe to slightly bolster Obama's lead.

There was actually one new policy proposal that was pretty dramatic, but I found it very confusing. In the first part of the debate, McCain was talking about economic issues, and he said he would direct the Treasury Secretary to buy troubled mortgages from banks and renegotiate with the homeowners for lower principle balances and better loan terms so that they could stay in their homes. Holy crap! That's big! But the thing is that he didn't say much in the way of detail, and he didn't call it a new idea. It kind of just floated out there as if it was something he had always proposed. It wasn't clear if he was saying he wanted a new program or if he thought it was something already in the bailout/rescue package already passed last week, which I do not think it is.

Last night and even this morning most of the analysts were baffled by the mortgage bailout idea. These people are experts with access to insiders and no one knew what McCain was talking about. Mitt Romney is one of McCain's economic "surrogates," and he was interviewd after the debate, and he didn't know what it was. Most of the non-partisan analysts were scratching their heads and saying they would need to hear more about what the proposal is. Liberal partisans were doing about the same thing, but also asking about what the idea would cost. Conservative partisans were PISSED OFF and CRITICAL of McCain's idea! It seemed to me that they didn't know any more about the specifics than anyone else, but they seemed convinced it is something new and would only add hundreds of billions to the cost of the economic bailout, and they were ANGRY!

It is very confusing. I think McCain must have felt he needed to hold out something to ordinary people in trouble in their mortgages after the unpopular wall street baliout, so this was his idea to appeal to those ordinary people. But if that is the case, he totally bungled how he presented it. He didn't communicate it in a way that made it clear it was something new to help people, so he didn't get the benefit of people seeing how he was planning to help them. And he didn't prepare the ground with his conservative supporters so that they would not be blindsided and left trying to defend something they didn't even know what it was.

I watched one Fox News partisan commentator basically say that tonight was the night the ship of Republican fiscal responsibiltiy and free-market capitalism finally rolled over on its side and sank to the bottom of the ocean! She was saying that if she understood what he was talking about, and she had some kind of fact sheet that had been emailed to her during the debate, she thought this was a new idea that would cost about $300 billion and would "nationalize" the mortgage industry! Man, she was PISSED!

Today everyone is still puzzling over the proposal. Until I hear more about the specifics, I won't know what I think of the plan. But I know what I think of the rollout of the plan: It is a classic McCain erratic panic maneuver that is not well thought out. It's like it was completely out of the blue. I do not like McCain's decision-making process or his execution. He seemed erratic and unpredictable during the bailout negotiations. And this thing seems erratic too. Why would he decide to throw out a bombshell during the debate and not at least prepare his own side to defend it? If it is something new to appeal to people feeling the mortgage pinch, why not promote it better? As it stands, he gets no help from this from the voters he is probably trying to reach, and he pisses off the conservative supporters who see it costing too much and who were kept in the dark. Today it is a day later, and still no one really knows what he was talking about.

I thought both candidates were equally crappy and dodged answering questions directly. Really I thought the second debate was more of a joke and the moderator was just horrible and so submissive. Didn't even try to hold either of them to the debate rules which were agreed upon before hand.

I wasn't impressed with either candidate. Although I will say that McCain did decently in trying to address economic questions but was obviously uncomfortable.

On the flip side though, Obama did decently well i trying to address foreign policy issues but again. looked uncomfortable; much like McCain did during the first half of the debate.

I don't think the nation benefited at all from this particular debate. I probably would've gotten more out of a south park spoof than I got from what they said :hippy:

And maybe I'm not understanding what McCain said correctly ( I had started to doze off at this point from the bore fest of both candidates), but doesn't Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently buy mortgage debts from other banks (was pretty sure they do this in addition to their other activities). So how would this be much different from what McCain proposes.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), which was created in 1938. Fannie Mae purchases so-called conforming mortgages (mortgages under a certain size) made by other lenders and packages them into securities, which it effectively insures. (Here's a historical table of the conforming loan limit, which was $417,000 for a single home last year.) Fannie Mae and its brother government-sponsored enterprise, Freddie Mac, are playing a central role in the federal response to the housing crisis. The stimulus package boosted the size of the loans Fannie and Freddie can buy, from $417,000 to "125 percent of the area median home price in high-cost areas, not to exceed $729,750." And then earlier this month, OFHEO, the body that regulates Fannie and Freddie, said it would lift the cap on the amount of capital they could use to buy mortgage-backed securities and make loans, providing "up to $200 billion of immediate liquidity to the mortgage-backed securities market.

from Roosevelt-era reforms are saving capitalism�again. - By Daniel Gross - Slate Magazine , which is actually a good quick read.

With both Fannie and Freddie being GSE's. no matter how you look at it the government has their hands all over these two companies. They might as well be part of the government.

Doesn't sound like McCain is saying anything new, more like rehashing what FDR put into place 70-80 years ago.

the way that it is different is that mccain intends to use taxpayer's money to buy individual mortgages, and then renegotiate the mortgages down to market value, and reissue the mortgage at a lower rate, leaving taxpayers to absorb the loss...fannie and freddie bought pooled mortgage backed securities from banks (which contained a ?? percentage of bad loans) in exchange for cash which the banks used to issue more bad mortgages...fannie and freddie were protecting the banks, not the individual distressed homeowners - they still lost their homes even though the banks got their mortgage money

until recently, fannie and freddie were government sponsored, not government owned, and they were legislated to guarantee the mortgage backed securities with their own private assets...the bush administration nationalized fannie and freddie (SOCIALISM!) and now the taxpayer is on the hook for whatever that is going to cost to protect the banks by intentionally buying mortgage backed securities that the invisible hand of the free markets wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole...mccain's plan protects the banks AND the individual homeowners by forcing the taxpayer to eat the difference in market value

privatize the profits, and pass the losses onto the taxpayer...it's a sweet deal!

at least that's the way i understand it...it might mean something entirely different after the flip-floppers and spinners finish massaging it into a final product

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

the way that it is different is that mccain intends to use taxpayer's money to buy individual mortgages, and then renegotiate the mortgages down to market value, and reissue the mortgage at a lower rate, leaving taxpayers to absorb the loss...fannie and freddie bought pooled mortgage backed securities from banks (which contained a ?? percentage of bad loans) in exchange for cash which the banks used to issue more bad mortgages...fannie and freddie were protecting the banks, not the individual distressed homeowners - they still lost their homes even though the banks got their mortgage money

until recently, fannie and freddie were government sponsored, not government owned, and they were legislated to guarantee the mortgage backed securities with their own private assets...the bush administration nationalized fannie and freddie (SOCIALISM!) and now the taxpayer is on the hook for whatever that is going to cost to protect the banks by intentionally buying mortgage backed securities that the invisible hand of the free markets wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole...mccain's plan protects the banks AND the individual homeowners by forcing the taxpayer to eat the difference in market value

privatize the profits, and pass the losses onto the taxpayer...it's a sweet deal!

at least that's the way i understand it...it might mean something entirely different after the flip-floppers and spinners finish massaging it into a final product

---

This is basically how I understand it too. The government buys the bad loan from the bank so that the bank does not take the loss. Then the government renegotiates the loan principal down to current market value for the house, meaning the taxpayers absorb the loss in value of the house. The homeowner who bought the house that dropped in value does not take the loss. The bank who accepted the house as collateral does not take the loss. They both get off the hook, and the taxpayer takes the loss.

It s a great deal for people whose houses dropped in value and for banks, but it is going to cost $300 billion according to McCain.

i think the 2009 budget deficit is going to be over $1 trillion, and the congressional budget office is forecasting a string of deficits over the next decade

the national debt increased by $1 trillion during the 2008 fiscal year ending september 30

that is not sustainable

With GSE's being guaranteed by the government... really our current situation (with the government completely taking over Fannie/Freddie) is not much different from what McCain proposes and I believe it was something similar to what FDR did during the great depression when they first created Fannie and Freddie.

And Maladroit.. you're foaming at the mouth there. Calm down, not everything is Bush's fault believe it or not. Before you pointed out that Bush's reform's for Fannie and Freddie was for the accounting errors that created huge losses for both of these entities. When you lose billions and billions of dollars in "accounting errors" and ceo's and other chairman are making huge bonuses because of these accounting errors.. do you honestly feel that this does not contribute to the crash of the mortgage crisis?

Coupled by the fact that subprime lending to people who honestly should not be getting loans (if you determine who should get loans by calculated risk) and have defaulted on their mortgages has really hurt this industry.

Let's put it this way. I recently got a large loan for a house.. even *I* wouldn't of given myself the loan. If I didn't make my current salary and the total payment of the house including insurance, escrow, pmi, etc etc was not below 20% of my income then I would have refused the loan. I have poor credit and would not trust me if I was a lender.

There is more at hand for the mortgage crisis than the current administration; believe it or not. I think even Dragonrider and I have agreed on this slightly to some degree... and we take very different stances typically.

There is just too much history of poor dealings and corruptness seeping out of many of these companies and entities for me to lay the blame solely on ANY administration. This is a problem that's been brewing and snowballing since 1992. The bubble finally burst and all hell broke loose..

but think what you will, I know you'll counter with another anti bush statement. :hippy: ... just to reitterate, I do not like Bush either, so don't try to paint me a Bush lover.

If I had it my way I would have Ron Paul on one of the Major Tickets instead. I have no doubt that Ron Paul would pick a strong cabinet to make up for some of his weaker areas.

What I liked about Ron Paul is his lifelong commitment to less taxes, less government, and reform. In addition to this he sits on a foreign policy committee and has a strong history against pork barrell programs and bi partisanship.

What I didn't like about Ron Paul was his idea to withdraw just about all our troops worldwide in order to cut spending in the military (I believe in maintaining a strong military and strong presence where allowed) and I questioned his thoughts on eliminating the Federal Reserve. However this is nothing that a few strong cabinet members and a good VP couldn't fix.

He was the most genuine of all the candidates yet his own party mocked him. That really chaps my hide.

I don't think less government is even an option anymore. I for one would LOVE less government, if it worked, but it's like communism. It only works in theory. The population of the U.S. (and the world) is simply too large for the government to not take a primary stance. Face it, humans can NOT take care of themselves for very long, not in the world we live in. The way I see it, it's the government's JOB to start getting more involved. If they wanna dictate how we live then they need to step up and help out their citizens. We all spout our state's rights bullshit, but does it work? Fuck no! We tried it man, we try it all the time. It just doesn't work. Whether we like it or not, big government is the future for all of humanity, and I'm gonna embrace it as best I can, because the alternative is absolute chaos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank

I don't think less government is even an option anymore. I for one would LOVE less government, if it worked, but it's like communism. It only works in theory. The population of the U.S. (and the world) is simply too large for the government to not take a primary stance. Face it, humans can NOT take care of themselves for very long, not in the world we live in. The way I see it, it's the government's JOB to start getting more involved. If they wanna dictate how we live then they need to step up and help out their citizens. We all spout our state's rights bullshit, but does it work? Fuck no! We tried it man, we try it all the time. It just doesn't work. Whether we like it or not, big government is the future for all of humanity, and I'm gonna embrace it as best I can, because the alternative is absolute chaos.

---

Peccimist much? There was a time when the citizens of the United States did make responsible fiscal decisions. When people would save to put 20% down on their home, when people would put aside money for medical emergencies. Ask anyone from the Great depression Era. There was no sense of entitlement because there was no room for it.

There is a difference between creating backstops, insurance, buffers or whatever you want to call it to try to cushion blows in times like these and creating programs that give a sense of entitlement such as subprime lending; 100% financing and handing out money to people who could honestly never pay back the loan that they took out.

For a great deal of time people did things for themselves without the government's aid. Personally I think this false sense of entitlement came about during Ralph Naders consumer advocacy days... with Nader's Raiders (look them up if you don't know what I'm talking about.). After Nader's big win over the automotive industry to put seat belts into cars people began writing to him for everything and anything; most of which Ralph Nader pursued to try to get changed for the benefit of the consumer. Many of which were genuinely needed and beneficial and we probably owe thanks to him; but because of his unconditional willingness to take on cases I believe a great sense of American's got the Idea that it was the governments Job to do things for them, to regulate for them, to take care of basic needs they were previously doing for themselves.

There was a time when American's empowered themselves instead of handing over their choices to the government. With lack of choice comes lack of freedom. Choice in any situation is equivelant to freedom.

I for one am not willing to hand over my choices/freedom to the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Peccimist much? There was a time when the citizens of the United States did make responsible fiscal decisions. When people would save to put 20% down on their home, when people would put aside money for medical emergencies. Ask anyone from the Great depression Era. There was no sense of entitlement because there was no room for it.

There is a difference between creating backstops, insurance, buffers or whatever you want to call it to try to cushion blows in times like these and creating programs that give a sense of entitlement such as subprime lending; 100% financing and handing out money to people who could honestly never pay back the loan that they took out.

For a great deal of time people did things for themselves without the government's aid. Personally I think this false sense of entitlement came about during Ralph Naders consumer advocacy days... with Nader's Raiders (look them up if you don't know what I'm talking about.). After Nader's big win over the automotive industry to put seat belts into cars people began writing to him for everything and anything; most of which Ralph Nader pursued to try to get changed for the benefit of the consumer. Many of which were genuinely needed and beneficial and we probably owe thanks to him; but because of his unconditional willingness to take on cases I believe a great sense of American's got the Idea that it was the governments Job to do things for them, to regulate for them, to take care of basic needs they were previously doing for themselves.

There was a time when American's empowered themselves instead of handing over their choices to the government. With lack of choice comes lack of freedom. Choice in any situation is equivelant to freedom.

I for one am not willing to hand over my choices/freedom to the government.

---

Americans used to. They don't anymore. And I believe it IS the governments job to do these kinds of things. We as citizens are the children of this country and as such, they need to take care of US. Perhaps not to the level of complete socialism where EVERYTHING is in the hands of the government, but I honestly feel that MOST of what we know should be in their hands. I think a lot of people would back this too, IF we had an honest government, IF we were a democracy and not a republic. I don't like it, but I also think it's inevitable. What we need to do is make sure the people making these choices think like WE do, instead of like they want to. Government needs to get bigger, and it needs to be run by regular people, not Harvard-educated elitists who've never REALLY worked a day in their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank

Americans used to. They don't anymore. And I believe it IS the governments job to do these kinds of things. We as citizens are the children of this country and as such, they need to take care of US. Perhaps not to the level of complete socialism where EVERYTHING is in the hands of the government, but I honestly feel that MOST of what we know should be in their hands. I think a lot of people would back this too, IF we had an honest government, IF we were a democracy and not a republic. I don't like it, but I also think it's inevitable. What we need to do is make sure the people making these choices think like WE do, instead of like they want to. Government needs to get bigger, and it needs to be run by regular people, not Harvard-educated elitists who've never REALLY worked a day in their lives.

---

Question for you.. when did we become so incapable to where we can't do the things that we used to do for ourselves?

When you let the government make choices for you then you effectively give away your freedom.

Is a caged bird free? It doesn't matter what level of education a person has, when you allow someone to make your decisions for you then you're living the life of a pet and not as a free citizen capable of contributing to society instead of just leeching off it. Of course there are exceptions to this rule (handicapped, extremely impoverished, mentally unstable, etc etc) but they are in a severe minority compared to the rest of the nation.

I won't be caged and I'll keep on singing until someone hears my song.

It's fairly common that when the economy is bad during an election year, the electorate tends to punish the incumbent party. I think most people actually know that most normal business cycle fluctuations in the economy are not due to policies of the government, and definitely not due to a single adminsitrtion or single president. Still, the psychology is to throw out the incumbents when things get bad.

But I think the reason the Republicans face a bigger problem than the normal punishment of the incumbents this year is there are a few things coming into play with this economic meltdown and the election that are bigger than the normal economic factors.

For one thing, the financial crisis is more than a normal business cycle fluctuaion. There was fraud and incompetence involved, so the desire to punish is even stronger -- even if the punishment does not necessarily fall on the people who caused the problem.

Also, people have no faith at all in what they are being told by the government at this point. There was such a loss of credibiltiy with the Iraq war lies that people just do not believe what they hear from government anymore. The handling of the crisis added to the sense that the current adminstration is a bunch of incompetent liars --- the fact that they told us everything was OK with the economy right up to the point at which they suddenly called it a crisis. McCain faces tha same problem with his "fundamentals of the economy are strong" quote.

And here is something I don't think I have heard a lot of people talk about. I think that on top of the desire to punish whoever they percieve as responsible (right or wrong), people tned to throw in their lot with the Democrats when the economy is REALLY bad. This country has a small upper class and a small lower class and a large middle class. The two parties fight over that middle class. When things are good, that middle class feels the possibility that they too might make it into the upper class and they begin to support policies that open opportunities for the upper class --- Republican policies. When things are bad, that middle class begins to fear that they might actually slip into the lower class, and they begin to favor policies that give a greater safety net to the lower class --- Democratic policies. If you are in the middle class right now, how do you see your near future --- are you more likely to get rich or get poor? Are you more concerned about opening opportunities or having a safety net?

People see every measure of wealth dropping right now -- wages, house values, investment values. Wages are stagnant, and a lot of jobs are just plain gone. House prices keep falling. Banks are closing and the stock market is plummeting. All of your sources of income and wealth are on the decline right now in a big way. On top of that, everything you buy is costing more --- gas, food, healthcare, etc.

I think people are really scared right now that they are going to face poverty --- lose their job, get stuck with a house worth less than the mortgage, and see their investments melt away. So it is more than just punishing the party in charge, and it is more than trying to find the party who will "fix" the economy. They are looking for the party who is likely to see them through a tough time with a decent safety net.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

And here is something I don't think I have heard a lot of people talk about. I think that on top of the desire to punish whoever they percieve as responsible (right or wrong), people tned to throw in their lot with the Democrats when the economy is REALLY bad. This country has a small upper class and a small lower class and a large middle class. The two parties fight over that middle class. When things are good, that middle class feels the possibility that they too might make it into the upper class and they begin to support policies that open opportunities for the upper class --- Republican policies. When things are bad, that middle class begins to fear that they might actually slip into the lower class, and they begin to favor policies that give a greater safety net to the lower class --- Democratic policies. If you are in the middle class right now, how do you see your near future --- are you more likely to get rich or get poor? Are you more concerned about opening opportunities or having a safety net?

---

Excellent post and you're pretty much dead on, everything during an election year, especially this year in particular because of the situation we're in.. is based on perception. How people percieve things and how they actually are are two different things.

Contrary to the rising costs and the banking/financial industry being on the rocks.. the actual economy is not in Horrible shape as many would have you believe. However since stock trading is considered the backbone of this country (even though it's actually not) people perceive times are bad. Truth is you can still get loans, provided you meet the prime criteria, you can still get credit cards (provided you have a fico score 700 and above). Things are not getting bad, it's simply that financial institutions are not making any risky moves at the moment. One of that being loaning to people who have sub par credit history/rating.

Even your example of when people flock to democrats and when they flock to republicans is a perception. Probably the only point in your whole Post I don't agree with. People view the republican party for being for the rich mostly because of how they attack taxation without understanding their reasoning behind it. Republican philosophy revolves around free market and deregulation (which is what brought us out of our last horrible economic mess). They believe that with less taxation that the free market will have room to grow, expand their profits. In turn companies will re invest into themselves through research/development and hiring of new employees. In addition to company funded benefits (due to increased profits from more workers and less taxation). When the companies profits go up, even though the tax percentage on the company is less, the government will still make the same amount of money simply because of the increase in revenue/profit.

However democrats believe in more taxation of corporations and the rich, despite the fact that the top 3% pays well over 90% of the total taxes in the nation. They then hand this back to the middle class; which if you truly think about it the amount each person get's back because of the increase on the upper class is really a marginal amount. Not enough, in my opinion, to make a true impact on the middle class person's lifestyle and living conditions (the actual terminology for this slips my mind at the moment. Long day at work). In addition to this a companies job is not to help the population.. a companies job is to protect it's profits for it's investors. The investors are the companies bosses. The easiest way to protect that is through increasing the cost of their products and reduction in work force.

Two different approaches to try to achieve the same solution. Personally I prefer the republican approach as it benefits more people in the long run.

Anyone ever hear of John Forbes Nash?