re: Washington Post, July 17, 2008

"The rich and corporations made out like bandits during the Bush "prosperity".

Comment....

I have been a student of the economy ever since I lost a job of almost twenty years, which was supposedly going to be my lifelong job. Since that upsetting time, I decided to chart individual stocks and certain market Indexes...daily.

There has been no noticeable prosperity during the Bush years, as evidenced by the Dow Jones going from about 15000 to about 11000.

Of course, there have been swings that made people feel prosperous, and we had an unprecedented boom in housing during a period of low interest rates when people felt more secure with real estate investing over stock investing.

Now that that boom has turn to bust, which is very similar to dominoes...now the dominoes are going down big time...president Bush tried to shell out even more money by raiding the Treasury, like he did soon after taking office...but this latest stimulus plan evaporated like fresh snow falling on a hot August day.

And soon we are going to the polls again, and we are going to be fed lots and lots of debates and speeches by the candidates...and if by luck they should get into a discussion over what goes with this new economy...besides the screwy issues that get us nowhere and evade the meat and potatoes...then maybe we can determine just what is needed to get this great nation's economic machine going again.

Hey folks, I wish I had answers, but I sure know a thing or two about economics.

The Clinton years were marvelous, but most stocks were touted to ridiculous levels, so that was a flase prosperity although the Clintons will be remembered for fiscal responsibility...because the economy was in a happy, feel-good state.

Not so anymore. We have seen the peak, and now the slipery slopes prevail.

Whoa! As Charlie Gibson said, I got lost in the blizzard of words. I'll shovel out later, but for now, anyone interested in the stock market's peaks could consult Wiki at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_milestones_of_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average

and see that after it's phenomenal and deceptive growth while Clinton was president, it continued to grow under Bush, up to 14,198.10 a year ago. In its present correction it is still above 11,000.

Not that either president had that much to do with it.

Queproblema, many thanks for correcting me. Indeed I went back to my charts, and I was wrong!

During Bush years, and Dow Jones actually did rise, but not as much as it did during the previous two decades.

It stood around 10000, but it was the NasDaq that was way higher than it is today.

The reason for the Dow holding up can be traced to oil companies doing well, while most other giant corporations are on the brink as I type.

I wish I knew more about Wipipedia, because I use it a lot, but from the little I know about this online encyclopedia, they take information from the general public, and don't function as a for-profit company.

Useful, but still quite mysterious given its affinity to the internet.

Thanks again, I stand corrected.

Thank you, (or, "You're welcome.") opentv.

"When pigs fly..." Good one, Bruyere!

I also want to thank fellow members for being reasonable and polite, and thanks to the FT administration for providing such a place.

Here are a few responses to previous comments before adding a fresh one.

1. McCain is renowned for his bipartisan work. Two examples: McCain-Feingold bill in 2002 on campaign financing reform, and his work with Ted Kennedy in 2005 on immigration. Most recently, Joe Lieberman was on his very short VP list.

2. Washington Mutual's PAC and its last two CEO's have donated to both Democrats and Republicans. You can find that information at newsmeat.com.

3. Pres. Clinton's "balanced budget" was an accounting trick.

4. Sarah Palin took her infant son to work with her three days after he was born. She was breastfeeding and bonding with him on the job, like many mothers do these days.

Moving on, did anyone watch the Saddleback Forum? Obama's soaring rhetoric was sorely absent as he stuttered and danced through his replies, while John McCain's were crisp and clear and unequivocal. We need to remember to compare McCain, not Palin, to Obama.

That forum was not, of course, strictly fair to Obama: Rick Warren did himself, his church, and his religion a great disservice in his duplicity regarding the "cone of silence." Yet, even had McCain been given all the questions well ahead of time and listened to each of Obama's responses, and had Obama come in entirely cold, the disparity was still too great.

That was not the case, however. Both participants were given heads-ups on some or all of the questions. We may never know how much of Obama's hour McCain was privy to.

Each candidate's choice of a running mate is telling and important. It's up to us to factor that in with his views, stances, and character when we cast our votes.

I would like to echo the sentiments of previous posters and say a huge thank you to all who post their views, and accept with dignity the views of others.

Never before have I viewed such filibustering among non-candidates about the virutes of actual candidates. I admit to being both surprised and gob-smacked. Why are the posters here not ruling the world? It would be in good hands (and there is absolutely no sarcasm involved in that statement, it's how I feel) due to the sheer level of respect for each other. My opinion is that respect for one another is sadly lacking on this planet - we should all hold our heads high for setting such a great example to others.

I wish that an election here would generate such intelligent debate among such a diverse group of individuals, including the level of respect, acceptance, and intelligence that I see here. I'm tremendously overwhelmed that there is no gutter-crawling going on on this site - each states their opinion, supports it (or not, whatever), then moves forward without resorting to petty, childish name-calling or dirty tactics. Thank you one and all for leaving that to the politicians of the world.

Keep up the great work - I for one find this debate inspirational. Not for the politics, mind, but for the 'grown-up' way it is being conducted.

*edited for typo*

Thank you ecnalubma. I appreciate this open discussion we are having, and apologize for "shooting from the hip", which I may tend to do.

Yes, we are having adult type discussions here, it may be akin to us gathering at some watering hole, and expressing our views.

To abstain from name calling and impolite finger pointing is a sign of maturity and humanity at its finest.

I know I have made a big splash on the scene in a relatively short time, but forgive me because I was harboring all these thoughts and wanted desperately to find a right place to express them.

I will make statements,from time to time, on the economy...and it will sound negative and actually prefering it to fall...but I'm merely expressing what I see going on, and would want this big economic machine we are all part of to be jump started and moving forward on a better path than before.

Which candidate(s) can get it going again is still up in the air.

Thanks again..it's off to work now.

To see whether McCain and the Republicans have the best remedies for the economy, it makes sense to look at how the economy has fared in recent history under both Republican and Democratic presidencies. History is not on McCain's side.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
The New York Times
August 31, 2008
Economic View

Would Obama’s Plan Be Faster, Fairer, Stronger?
By ALAN S. BLINDER

CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution.

The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)

The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.



The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.

The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy.

Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.

The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?

Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians.

----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------

This is not a matter of personalities, of Obama vs McCain, there are significant historical differences between the Democratic and Republican parties in terms of economic strategy and these differences have different impacts on the economy.
George Bush and the Republicans are responsible for the current crumbling state of our economy and our record budget deficit. The lack of any government oversight allowed corporate greed to flourish and directly resulted in the current crisis in the banking/lending/mortgage sphere which has rocked our entire economy, and is continuing to rock it, with no clear end in sight.

History suggests that electing a Democratic president in November will lead to faster economic growth--which is what our country needs now.

Today's financial headlines are grim. Here is a portion of the news...

September 15, 2008

2 Wall St. Banks Falter; Markets Shaken

By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

In one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street’s history, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself on Sunday to Bank of America for roughly $50 billion to avert a deepening financial crisis, while another prominent securities firm, Lehman Brothers, filed for bankruptcy protection and hurtled toward liquidation after it failed to find a buyer.

The humbling moves, which reshape the landscape of American finance, mark the latest chapter in a tumultuous year in which once-proud financial institutions have been brought to their knees as a result of hundreds of billions of dollars in losses because of bad mortgage finance and real estate investments.

But even as the fates of Lehman and Merrill hung in the balance, another crisis loomed as the insurance giant American International Group appeared to teeter. Staggered by losses stemming from the credit crisis, A.I.G. sought a $40 billion lifeline from the Federal Reserve, without which the company may have only days to survive.

The stunning series of events culminated a weekend of frantic around-the-clock negotiations, as Wall Street bankers huddled in meetings at the behest of Bush administration officials to try to avoid a downward spiral in the markets stemming from a crisis of confidence.

“My goodness. I’ve been in the business 35 years, and these are the most extraordinary events I’ve ever seen,” said Peter G. Peterson, co-founder of the private equity firm the Blackstone Group, who was head of Lehman in the 1970s and a secretary of commerce in the Nixon administration.

It remains to be seen whether the sale of Merrill, which was worth more than $100 billion during the last year, and the controlled demise of Lehman will be enough to finally turn the tide in the yearlong financial crisis that has crippled Wall Street and threatened the broader economy.

Early Monday morning, Lehman said it would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New York for its holding company in what would be the largest failure of an investment bank since the collapse of Drexel Burnham Lambert 18 years ago, the Associated Press reported.

Questions remain about how the market will react Monday, particularly to Lehman’s plan to wind down its trading operations, and whether other companies, like A.I.G. and Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest savings and loan, might falter.

Indeed, in a move that echoed Wall Street’s rescue of a big hedge fund a decade ago this week, 10 major banks agreed to create an emergency fund of $70 billion to $100 billion that financial institutions can use to protect themselves from the fallout of Lehman’s failure.

The Fed, meantime, broadened the terms of its emergency loan program for Wall Street banks, a move that could ultimately put taxpayers’ money at risk.

Though the government took control of the troubled mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only a week ago, investors have become increasingly nervous about whether major financial institutions can recover from their losses.

How things play out could affect the broader economy, which has been weakening steadily as the financial crisis has deepened over the last year, with unemployment increasing as the nation’s growth rate has slowed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15lehman.html?hp
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

I am sorry I cannot just post links to some articles. Some newspapers, like the NY Times and Washington Post, require you to sign-up at their sites in order to read articles.


I highlighted some of the above statements in the news article, mainly to point out the connection between lack of government oversight and the rampant corporate greed which led to the crisis in the mortgage and real estate market which has undermined our financial institutions, our credit market, and our economy.

It is also why so many people have lost their homes due to foreclosure--they were lured into sub-prime mortgages or mortgages they could not afford, by enticing low promotional rates, and financial institutions recklessly granted these loans with no regard for whether they could realistically be repaid after they jacked up those initial interest rates. They didn't care what happened to the homeowners, or those loans, because they were making huge sums of money. And they did this on a very wide scale.

The government turned a blind eye to essentially deceptive and irresponsible business practices--they were not concerned about the effects on homeowners, or the stability of our economy, if all these questionable loans could not be repaid. We are now seeing the effects of that government indifference, and it is devastating.

The current Republican administration, and the Republican party as represented by McCain, believe the government should not restrain big business or large corporations. But such entities, mainly driven by greed and profit, are not concerned with the impact of their actions on the consumer or the taxpayer, or even the effect on the broader economy.

"Less government" might sound like an appealing campaign slogan. But, when you look at the effects of government laissez-faire, on our current economy, it is horrifying.

Anyone interested in the economy, should stop listening to campaign slogans and start reading the financial news in newspapers. A Republican administration got us into our current economic crisis--a crisis that will not improve in the near future--and the Republicans are not likely to get us out of it with the solutions proposed by McCain.

Even if McCain's proposals made good sense, they are very long-range approaches which provide very little short term or intermediate term relief for the average American who is currently struggling with rising prices, unemployment or stagnant wages, and poor returns on savings and investments. People who struggle to make ends meet cannot engage in consumer spending to help stimulate the economy.

The proposals made by Obama are far more likely to put more money into the average person's pocket more quickly, and to force big business and large corporations, and the wealthy among us, to shoulder more of the tax burden and provide more revenue to the government.

McCain should try reading today's newspapers and stop harping on "earmarks" as a diversion from our more basic economic problems. As for Sarah Palin, she gives no evidence she has ever read a newspaper except as it pertains to local Alaska news. The woman is clueless about anything beyond the borders of Alaska.

This is very frightening news, also from today's newspaper. It suggests that the money all of us have in banks might be at risk--particularly if the FDIC runs out of cash.

Quote:

---

The Fed and the Treasury may be sticking to their guns for now, but Lehman and Merrill Lynch are hardly the only troubled financial institutions, and some experts wonder how long the government can stand by and watch more failures.

Administration officials acknowledged last week that more bank failures were inevitable, and the main protection for depositors — the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation — is likely to exhaust its reserves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15fed.html?hp

---

I think the question should be, "Can anyone afford to vote Republican?"

Of course the NY Times is going to say that! And of course the National Review is going to say the opposite.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200402260852.asp

The Times article says, "Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy."

Chelseabelle, however, comments, "George Bush and the Republicans are responsible for the current crumbling state of our economy and our record budget deficit."

Those statements are in opposition.

Alan Greenspan was chairman of the Fed from 1987-2006, G. H. W. Bush was president of the US from 1989-2001, Bill Clinton 1993-2001, Dubya 2001-2009. Who gets the credit--and the blame--for the economy? I honestly don't know; these things are "above my paygrade." But it seems to me the GDP indicates economic health more accurately than economic equality does. Here's a view perhaps less biased, if dated, than the Times' or the NRO's:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-04-30-gdp-positive_N.htm

The Times article seems to be promoting socialism. Republicans historically promote capitalism.

However, recent events on Wall St. turn all this on its head.

queproblema, you are quite right to say that recent events on Wall Street should give one pause. Our economy is far from healthy--we are on the critical list. And a Republican is in the White House.

That is why the link you posted to the National Review article, dated February 26, 2004, is out of date and does not address our current economic situation.

No one is "promoting socialism" nor are the Democrats all "left-leaning liberals"--as those on the Republican campaign stump are saying. Both parties want to see capitalism healthy and flourishing--but not necessarilly to the point where the profit motive underminds our basic economy, as has happened in the banking/mortgage sphere..

Name calling, or inaccurate sterotypes, does not help to clarify the two political party positions on the economy--it further distorts them.

When a cash strapped federal government, which ours currently is, needs to raise money in a hurry, it has basically two options--raise taxes and issue government bonds. If you can think of another option, I'd love to hear it. Just cutting down on government spending doesn't help to raise cash fast--as anyone who balances their own personal checkbook will tell you. And reducing government spending doesn't supply available cash quickly, it's a longer term strategy to address part of the problem.

Someone will wind up being taxed more--no matter who the next president is. Our government needs cash fast.

Obama proposes raising taxes only on those who can most easily bear more of the burden--large corporations and the very wealthy. He wants to protect the middle class from tax increases. McCain wants to protect big business and the wealthy. So, you tell me, who do you think will wind up being taxed under a McCain presidency?

When it is possible the FDIC will run out of cash, due to the failures of so many banks, we are in a very precarious economic situation. That possiblity should scare the hell out of everyone. Our government needs cash fast.

I'm sorry, but I do not see the U.S. Treasury's main job description being that of bailing out every greedy investment institution on Wall Street and across the country. Today, everyone on Wall Street is up in arms over their
refusal to provide any takeover aid, as they did six months ago when Bear Stearns faltered and earlier this month when it seized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

chelseabelle, To put the blame solely on Bush and the Republican Party for this is more than short sighted in my opinion. I would also have to ask exactly where Obama is going to get the money to jumpstart the economy? If the money is not physically there, which is pretty clear at this point, the logical path to create more is to increase the National Debt and add yet more phantom monies to the coffer. I have read through his plan, but nowhere do I see a concrete answer as to where the changes are to begin. Now we have 25,000 unemployed workers from Lehman Brothers alone that will need help to keep their families and lives afloat.

(I have to take off for an out of town doctors appointment, but will be checking back here first thing when I return. This is one of the best discussions we have had here in a long time and I am thoroughly enjoying it, especially the lack of game playing by all involved. Sandy)

What I posted at 8:31 was written before Chelsea's 8:09 post, which I have just now seen.

I mixed up the dates of National Review and the USA Today articles in my mind and when I have time will edit to correctly show which one is out of date, although it doesn't really matter since the point still stands that having a Republican in office doesn't automatically ruin the economy. In fact, Bush likely reaped what Clinton sowed. Many today are blaming Clinton's work in helping poor people buy homes for ruining the mortgage market.

I, too, am running off to a busy day--it's only 6:30 am here, and so won't get back till this evening.

Have a good day, all!

jordandog, I agree completely that the Treasury Department should not be bailing out every financial institution that gets into trouble, and I'm not saying they should bail out Lehman Brothers.

But, in case you haven't noticed, the federal government, and the Secretary of the Treasury, spent all weekend issuing emergency loans to financial institutions, and accepting junk bonds and very low rated bonds as backing for those loans, which does put taxpayers money at risk--in rather frantic maneuvers to prevent futher collapse in the financial institutions.

The government stood by and allowed this problem to happen--it allowed irresponsible and deceptive business practices to go on in the lending/housing/banking sector, solely so these institutions could reap huge profits. This is the Republican stance toward large corporations. The government can regulate what goes on--to protect both the consumer/taxpayer, as well as our broader economy--but they stood by until the entire thing collapsed and has rocked our entire economy. Now they have to resort to bail outs just to stem the bleeding.

When there is a possibility that the FDIC might run out of money--the money that protects all of our bank deposits, yours and mine,--because of the failure rate of our banks, the impact of all of this really hits home.

Of course the Republicans are to blame. A Republican president and administration stood by, and did nothing to protect the taxpayer, or restrain irresponsible business practices, and just watched the problems develop that led to our financial/ banking industry falling apart, with reverberations throughout our entire economy. The government could have intervened, they did not.

As I said before, the government only has two options to raise cash fast--raising taxes and issuing bonds. All other proposals--to cut down on government spending, providing stimulus packages to boost the economy, etc. are really more long range, although those things are needed. But, again, it has been the Republicans who have increased government spending under Bush, so we now have a record deficit. There is no way Clinton can be blamed for that. He left office with a budget surplus.

Obama has clearly said he will increase taxes only on big business and the wealthy, and not on the middle class. McCain is committed to not raising taxes on big business and the wealthy. So, who will he tax? Can you see anyway the government can avoid raising taxes?

Obama's plan is rather clear

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

I can't say that McCain's plan makes much sense, at all, in our current economic situation.


McCain is directly linked to the problems in the mortgage market that are currently rocking the entire economy.

McCain guru linked to subprime crisis
By: Lisa Lerer

March 30, 2008

The general co-chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today’s economic turmoil.

“A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business had changed,” the Illinois senator running for president said in a New York economic speech. “But by the time [it] was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework.”

Gramm’s role in the swift and dramatic recent restructuring of the nation’s investment houses and practices didn’t stop there.

A year after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the old regulations, Swiss Bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS’s new investment banking arm.

Later, he became a major player in its government affairs operation. According to federal lobbying disclosure records, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues in 2005 and 2006.

During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.

For his work, Gramm and two other lobbyists collected $750,000 in fees from UBS’s American subsidiary. In the past year, UBS has written down more than $18 billion in exposure to subprime loans and other risky securities and is considering cutting as many as 8,000 jobs.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F62F8AB5-3048-5C12-00C51D7B8EEA6033
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

No wonder McCain just wants to talk about "earmarks" as a distraction from the real problems in our economy--including lobbyists.


Here is a fairly objective, decent article comparing the economic positions of both Obama and McCain--along with comments that neither plan is fully realistic. I still favor Obama's basic approach.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/15/MNRI12RK2N.DTL

Well, I've seen a YouTube video that says "The day we lose our will to fight is the day we lose our freedom." How true that lone statement is!

(I drove 90 minutes one way to find out the hospital was running on generators only due to power outages from the winds we had statewide in the aftermath of Ike. So, no *fun tests*, but a waste of time and gas! )

"McCain is directly linked to the problems in the mortgage market that are currently rocking the entire economy." Well, it is actually Phil Gramm, his 'guru' as the article stated.

Have we all forgotten about what started this? Countrywide Financial which has taken how many hundreds of thousands of homeowners down the tubes? Who was behind that - none other than Liberal Democrat Christopher Dodd, Kent Conrad and many of their Democratic buddies. There are hundreds of articles out there, but this excerpt from Wiki gives a good and brief summary.

--> "As Dodd in his role as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee proposed a housing bailout to the Senate floor in June 2008 that would assist troubled subprime mortgage lenders such as Countrywide Bank in the wake of the United States housing bubble's collapse, Conde Nast Portfolio reported that in 2003 Dodd had refinanced the mortgages on his homes in Washington D.C. and Connecticut through Countrywide Financial and had received favorable terms due to being placed in a "Friends of Angelo" program. Dodd received mortgages from Countrywide at allegedly below-market rates on his Washington, D.C. and Connecticut homes. Dodd has not disclosed the below-market mortgages in any of six financial disclosure statements he filed with the Senate or Office of Government Ethics since obtaining the mortgages in 2003.

Dodd's press secretary said the "Dodds received a competitive rate on their loans," and that they "did not seek or anticipate any special treatment, and they were not aware of any," then declined further comment. Republican State Chairman Chris Healy stated that "Dodd has crossed the ethics line by obtaining two generous mortgage deals with a company that is the corporate poster-child for the national subprime lending meltdown." The Hartford Courant reported Dodd had taken "a major credibility hit" from the scandal. The Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Kent Conrad and the head of Fannie Mae Jim Johnson received mortgages on favorable terms due to their association with Countrywide CEO Angelo R. Mozilo. The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and two Connecticut papers have demanded further disclosure from Dodd regarding the Mozilo loans.

On June 17, 2008, Dodd met twice with reporters and gave accounts of his mortgages with Countrywide. He admitted to reporters in Washington,DC that he knew as of 2003 that he was in a VIP program, but claimed it was due to being a good customer, not due to his political position. He omitted this detail in a press availability to Connecticut media.

Countrywide has also contributed a total of $21,000 to Dodd’s campaigns since 1997. Dodd has received approximately $70,000 in campaign contributions from Bank of America, who is buying Countrywide, in the last year-and-a-half before the Countrywide Financial loan scandal broke. Only Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have received more Bank of America money than Dodd. On June 20, 2008 the Heritage Foundation alleged staffers from Bank of America had drafted Dodd's housing bailout bill (FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act of 2008) in March 2008, before it was introduced in the Senate. The Los Angeles Times also reported on this story on June 21.

On June 19, Dodd told the Danbury News-Times "I don't believe I did anything wrong." The state's leading newspaper, the Hartford Courant however concluded Dodd was negligent in accepting the Countrywide mortgage and suggested it was time "Dodd got off his high horse, came clean and admit he screwed up." A New York Times editorial the same day accused Dodd and fellow Senator Kent Conrad of being painfully out of touch regarding the "Friends of Angelo" loans. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has called for House and Senate to investigate Senators Dodd and Conrad."<--

I took special note of this: On June 20, 2008 the Heritage Foundation alleged staffers from Bank of America had drafted Dodd's housing bailout bill (FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act of 2008) in March 2008, before it was introduced in the Senate. The Los Angeles Times also reported on this story on June 21.

Dodd is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and Conrad is Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Are these people free of guilt and is this the type of person you want in charge of determining the fate of your money and/or the economy? Again, I will say not all blame can be layed at the feet of Republicans.

I can see where a McCain/Palin discussion has now morphed into an economic discussion, which is all relative.

While some of us tend to want to blame a particular administration, and some of us have produced good articles and information...still you can't be absolutely sure who or what is responsible for the significant drop of values in this new global economy.

Fiscal irregularity as evidenced by the Bush/Cheney gang is partly to blame.

However, capitalism itself is mostly to blame...and I'll illustrate how from my own on-the-job observation.

The home, the condo...this is what has been built and sold like hot cakes over the course of several years earlier in this new millennium thanks to low interest rates. That scenerio saw many different home building companies going out on a limb, leveling off vast tracts of land, and building pratically overnight whole new communities.

Today, much of what was built in the later part of this spree now sits vacant (Greenspan supports this statement I made, his last interview on CBS).

Now, many consumers were breezed through mortgages which had no connection to their personal earning power, on the whim that "real estate always goes up".

Today, many consumers are living in dwellings that don't quite come up to their mortgages, so we have a spirilling down of values throughout the economy.

Bear in mind, the home had become the new source of income since the old Reaganomics plan (which was borrowed from the late Milton Friedman) enhances the top corporate leaders while eliminating the bottom rung of working staff.

Fact is, a corporate executive once earned three hundred times more than his company's average worker. That was circa 1975. Today, that executive earns 500 times more.

Of course, with the wild economy now gone global, the executives sit on hot seats and can be eliminated as well. Difference is, most are rewarded for failure and given more than just the boot through elaborate schemes known as golden parachutes.

When a tupical worker is given the boot, chances are he vents his fustration out on his family, thus proliferating the downward spiral of society.

When you understand what I've illustrated, you see where there should be a war going on, but the silent majority wallow in their misery and can't do a darn thing about their situation.

All I pray for is a little reprieve for the working poor, but I guess he will be exploited to the max.

Jordandog, I can see where Dodd may have had a conflict of interest when he accepted a too favorable mortgage rate from Countrywide, and his behavior may not have been ethical. I wouldn't defend Dodd. But I'm not sure the current economic problems we are having today are at all connected to people like Dodd.

Lobbyists throw huge sums of money around in Washington, at members of both parties, and they help to finance campaigns. I think the entire issue of the effects of special interest lobbyists on legislators is a whole different problem and is only tangentially related to the economic problems we are having today. I think it is a very big problem. I said in an earlier post, McCain should stop talking about "earmarks" and start addressing some real problems, like lobbyists. But that is a worthy topic for another thread. This thread is supposed to be about McCain/Palin. The lobbyist issue crosses party lines.

If you believe that big business and large corporations should always be allowed to function unfettered and unregulated, and given preferential tax treatment in a tough economy, then you should, of course, vote Republican. The Republican party is committed to protecting the interests of big business and large corporations--it is inherent in the economic positions always taken by McCain.

Let me give you an example from a completely different area--the cost of prescription drugs.

The V.A. is able to obtain prescription medications at very favorable prices because they can negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical manufactuers and use their buying power as leverage. Medicare cannot do that. Bush threatened to veto any bill that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Therefore the drug companies can continue to charge whatever they want, a situation that puts many older people on limited incomes forced to choose between buying food or their medication.

McCain and Obama both realize that the situation is not good, but they proposed quite different solutions when the legislation (which did not pass) was discussed in the Senate. McCain wants no pressure or restriction put on the drug manufacturers, so he is against allowing Medicare to negotiate price. Instead he wants to allow importation of Canadian drugs, which he feels will generate competitive pricing among American companies and eventually lower prices. I wouldn't want to hold my breath until we saw those prices come down.

Obama is in favor of allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, exactly as the V.A. does, to provide some drop in price and relief for the consumer, and he has made strong statements to that effect.
Their respective positions clearly reflect the difference between Republicans and Democrats in terms of whether their main committment is to the taxpayer/consumer or to big business and large corporations. And the same is true of their positions in almost every area of the economy.

Only this morning, McCain said he believes that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Do you know who else said that in a similar economic crisis? Herbert Hoover. And you know where Hoover led the country.

If McCain could make such a statement this morning, he is not the person to deal with our economic problems or safely navigate us through them. At the very least, we need a president who can clearly and realistically understand the severity of our current economic situation. Remember Herbert Hoover when you listen to McCain.

Meet the real Sarah Palin:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times
September 14, 2008

Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

This article is by Jo Becker, Peter S. Goodman and Michael Powell.


WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.

And four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.

“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”

Ms. Palin walks the national stage as a small-town foe of “good old boy” politics and a champion of ethics reform. The charismatic 44-year-old governor draws enthusiastic audiences and high approval ratings. And as the Republican vice-presidential nominee, she points to her management experience while deriding her Democratic rivals, Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as speechmakers who never have run anything.

But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

------------------------------------------------------------

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.

State legislators are investigating accusations that Ms. Palin and her husband pressured officials to fire a state trooper who had gone through a messy divorce with her sister, charges that she denies. But interviews make clear that the Palins draw few distinctions between the personal and the political.

Last summer State Representative John Harris, the Republican speaker of the House, picked up his phone and heard Mr. Palin’s voice. The governor’s husband sounded edgy. He said he was unhappy that Mr. Harris had hired John Bitney as his chief of staff, the speaker recalled. Mr. Bitney was a high school classmate of the Palins and had worked for Ms. Palin. But she fired Mr. Bitney after learning that he had fallen in love with another longtime friend.

“I understood from the call that Todd wasn’t happy with me hiring John and he’d like to see him not there,” Mr. Harris said.

“The Palin family gets upset at personal issues,” he added. “And at our level, they want to strike back.”

Through a campaign spokesman, Mr. Palin said he “did not recall” referring to Mr. Bitney in the conversation

------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Palin ordered city employees not to talk to the press. And she used city money to buy a white Suburban for the mayor’s use — employees sarcastically called it the mayor-mobile.

The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.

“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”

Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”
------------------------------------------------------------
While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a “personal device” like a BlackBerry “would be confidential and not subject to subpoena.”

Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account “when there was significant state business.”

On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: “Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account.”

Mr. Bailey responded: “Whoops~!”

Mr. Bailey, a former midlevel manager at Alaska Airlines who worked on Ms. Palin’s campaign, has been placed on paid leave; he has emerged as a central figure in the trooper investigation.

Another confidante of Ms. Palin’s is Ms. Frye, 27. She worked as a receptionist for State Senator Lyda Green before she joined Ms. Palin’s campaign for governor. Now Ms. Frye earns $68,664 as a special assistant to the governor. Her frequent interactions with Ms. Palin’s children have prompted some lawmakers to refer to her as “the babysitter,” a title that Ms. Frye disavows.

Like Mr. Bailey, she is an effusive cheerleader for her boss.
------------------------------------------------------------

Democrats and Republicans alike describe her as often missing in action. Since taking office in 2007, Ms. Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, some 600 miles to the north of the governor’s mansion in Juneau, records show.

During the last legislative session, some lawmakers became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing “Where’s Sarah?” pins.

Many politicians say they typically learn of her initiatives — and vetoes — from news releases.

Mayors across the state, from the larger cities to tiny municipalities along the southeastern fiords, are even more frustrated. Often, their letters go unanswered and their pleas ignored, records and interviews show.

Last summer, Mayor Mark Begich of Anchorage, a Democrat, pressed Ms. Palin to meet with him because the state had failed to deliver money needed to operate city traffic lights. At one point, records show, state officials told him to just turn off a dozen of them. Ms. Palin agreed to meet with Mr. Begich when he threatened to go public with his anger, according to city officials.

At an Alaska Municipal League gathering in Juneau in January, mayors across the political spectrum swapped stories of the governor’s remoteness. How many of you, someone asked, have tried to meet with her? Every hand went up, recalled Mayor Fred Shields of Haines Borough. And how many met with her? Just a few hands rose. Ms. Palin soon walked in, delivered a few remarks and left for an anti-abortion rally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?hp

---------------------------------
-----------------------------------


This is the woman whose "executive experience" is being touted as qualifying her to be VP?

This is the woman who is claiming she is going to reform Washington?

I want to add that there is nobody I can think of who knows exactly where this economy is heading.

The news today was grim with many financial institutions.

They don't know how many billions they need in new cash to keep them going.

Some are a little better off than others.

You might want to see the following stock picks going back to the end of last year, on www.nbr.com, click on "AIR", then click "Monitors".

If you go back to 12/21/07, Al Goldman, a respected Wall Streeter for many years, picked A.I.G.

Today, A.I.G. announced it needs forty billion dollars, and was hoping the government would help them out.

Bush said, sorry, but you need to go somewhere else now, we're running out.

(Not in these words, but similar words).

Other market monitors made similar picks, and of course, they must feel a bit lousy...ya think?

Truth is, after I gave you my illustration, just how long it takes to correct this malaise is anybody's guess.

It may just feed on itself like a cancer, or it may get better eventually.

Nobody knows for sure. Nobody.

opentv--the topic of this thread is the McCain/Palin ticket.
Your remarks are very interesting, but perhaps you should relate them more directly to the topic.


On the issue of whether Bush and the Republicans exhibited an indifference to the looming crisis in the credit sphere, here is an additional perspective.

-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

On Bloomberg Television this weekend, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank noted that, as a leader in the Senate Republican caucus, McCain did nothing for years to deliver reform in the face an impending credit crisis:

So here’s the record – 12 years of Republicans, including John McCain being a committee chairman for much of that period. Zero – zero enactment of any reform. Democrats take power, and in a year and a half, we have passed a bill that did everything the administration asked for, in terms of enhancing the regulatory structure.

Years of right-wing economic policies have created this moment of financial crisis. The mortgage bubble resulted when Fed chief Alan Greenspan kept interest rates at historic lows, and the government failed to regulate questionable practices in the financial sector.

This fact was underscored recently by Republican Mike Oxley, the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Oxley noted that the House passed a bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis by issuing stronger regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

“All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/barney-frank-mccain-reform/


----------------------------------------
---------------------------------------

And Oxley is a Republican. So no one can say this is Democratic propoganda.

So, how does John McCain's ideological position differ significantly from that of Bush?

I know chelseabelle I deviated from the subject. Sorry.

The McCain/Palin ticket is a joke.

Somewhere I read (must have been the Philadelphia Inquirer), that McCain's surprise pick received more than the customary 15 minutes of fame.

All that free press, and all the mimicking of her hair and eyeglasses...when will they get it?

I like the attitude of Joe Biden lately, acting humble, saying "they should have picked Hillary over me"...it seems like a "rope-a-dope" tactic, trying to lure our latest female rage into believing the debate will be a winner for her.

Then maybe he'll lay a "Lloyd Bensen" on her, or something.

I have tried to read the many intelligent and interesting comments here in regards to the McCain/Palin Ticket.
One simple observation I have, is that Sarah Palin seems to resemble George W Bush in several ways, in my view.
Level of Intelligence, Inability to give a straightforward , coherent answer to most questions, and shooting from the hip.
If I had the opportunity to vote in the US election, I would be very wary of casting my vote for the McCain/Palin pair.

I agree with you on that one, Trigger.

After reading the post by chelseabelle and Ms Palin's overt nepotism and abuse of power, I would be greatly hesitant to vote for Mr McCain on that basis alone.

If what chelseabelle has posted is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), I would urge anyone who is able to vote in this election to consider if this (Sarah Palin's actions) is representative of the America they want.

I said it before, and I'll say it again - that woman scares me.

I don't know that much about Obama, though. Do you have other options?

In Australia, there is always someone else (other than the two/three) major parties to vote for. We don't have the Monster Raving Looney Party like they do in the UK, but we have some very close facsimilies. Not that they would have a polar bear's chance in Alaska of getting elected mind, but there is always the Green party, Democratic party (our two majors are Liberal and Labor, with the Nationals being considered the third by many) or even independants to hold the balance of power. This often makes the major parties sit up and take notice - and get things done.

I think economics is important, however, perhaps there needs to be a new thread given the state of the global economy at the moment. I don't think the US elections is the sole driving factor behind the looming global recession somehow.