quote:There's nothing wrong (and quite a bit right) with some leverage. The problem is with too much leverage. The single biggest mistake the gov't made that led to this disaster was probably back in 2004 to allow certain investment banks to use extremely high amounts of leverage. You might recognize some of the list: Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Morgan Stanley.
Some of the stuff I've read suggests that it's not so much the amount of leverage, but rather the risk to leverage balance that was the big culprit.
That is, 10 to 1 leveraging might be okay if you're dealing with extremely conservative/secure securities, but leveraging 4 to 1 or really much of anything on the proposition that housing prices would never decline was always a bad idea and, if done in large enough amounts, pretty much guaranteed to cause a crisis.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, too much leverage varies by the quality of security. But having a global cap makes a lot of sense given the difficulties in estimating that risk in many securities. Indeed, I have a hard time imagining what would warrant 10 to 1 (without counter-positions) other than treasuries.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't really worked out the mechanics and consequences of the short-selling thing, I just thought it was interesting to note the differing responses to the stock market drops.
Lyrhawn: True, unfortunately, I'm roughly two hours away from either the Niagara border or the Sarnia border. Of course, prices would probably drop to 100K as you move closer to the States to either Sarnia or St. Catherines anyways.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if this link will work or not, you might have to click on the link that says "John McCain: Straight Talk." Here is a link to an interview done between McCain and the Des Moines Register's editorial board where McCain defends what is widely viewed as an untruthful, negative ad campaign against Obama.
I realize this will probably come down to opinion, but I think that whole attack against Obama for wanting to teach sex ed to little kids is utter crap. Given that opinion, there are only two things I can glean from McCain's statement. Either he's lying, or he really believes that this is the case, in which case I have serious doubts about his judgment. I'm not sure if I would rather him come right out and admit that the ad is misleading, as I can't imagine he'd actually do that, though I might appreciate the honesty, but sticking to his guns and asserting that his ad is 100% truthful I think smacks of very poor judgment. I think he's seeing whatever he wants, and is telling himself whatever he can in order to soothe what moral problems he might have had with this, and that's spooky to me.
Meanwhile, Obama is gettign some great polling numbers. He's ahead by a few points in most tracking polls now, but the real nuggets of good info are in the demographic questions and in the specifics, like how many see him as a strong leader, or how many women support him, and he's made strong, strong gains in many of those groups. The biggest jump I see is among women. He was +10 with women pre-convention, +1 post convention, and is currently +17. That's a dramatic jump in the last month.
More of the Coric/Palin interview is coming out today. CBS claims they have even more damaging footage of Palin from the interview, but it's unknown whether or not they'll show the worst of it, if it exists. CBS is really dragging this one out. Here is a snippet of what is still to come.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The biggest jump I see is among women. He was +10 with women pre-convention, +1 post convention, and is currently +17.
I get the impression that many women are viewing the selection of Sarah Palin, as it comes out how entirely unsuited she is, as an insult.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that might be part of it, but I think the larger part is that women are more likely to change their vote based on the state of the economy, and more women trust Democrats with the ecnonomy than Republicans.
I think it it's a push/pull. At the beginning of the month, women were excited about Palin, and in the weeks following that announcement, more has come out about her and they were given pause (pushed away) and then this economic mess came about and that pulled them towards Obama. Put all that together and you get the big shift away from McCain and towards Obama.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
1. I'm honestly expecting to see an ad staring Wright/Rezko/Ayers sometime this month, and 2. I think Palin won't do as badly in this debate as everyone seems to expect.
That same poll suggests that McCain's negative ad campaign isn't having the effect that he'd like. The article in that link suggests that McCain's better move might be a POSITIVE ad blitz. Why? Because Obama's favorables, how many people have a favorable opinion of Obama, have gone up sharply over the last couple weeks, and McCain's have gone down.
That might suggest a couple things, but what many are assuming is that it's a backlash to the negative campaign, and that McCain's getting tagged for it.
He's gone negative hardcore for the last month and a half and Obama has the highest polling number he's ever had. Maybe it's time to shift tactics.
As to your second point, that's impossible to say. I think it'll be one of three things:
1. She'll do awesome, and everything we've been seeing has been her sandbagging. 2. She'll adequately regurgitate the prepackaged answers she's been memorizing for the last week and she'll get a pass. 3. She'll absolutely implode all over the stage and will come off horribly.
I don't see any middle ground for it to not be one of those options, and most people are expected 2 or 3. The thing is, we've seen several horrible interviews with her, we've seen her make awful off the cuff comments that McCain has had to spend multiple days explaining away, and we're hearing rumblings from Sedona that campaign staffers are in panic mode from her horrible performances at debate prep. Given the first couple things there, I'm led to believe that those panicky staffers aren't just out lowering expectations. Her actions have already lowered them to subterranean levels.
Now it's entirely possible that tomorrow night's debate will be a civil discussion between the two of them and everyone will be pleasantly surprised, but for the most part I'm expecting a gaffe off. I think Palin will try to use prepackaged answers and will deliver many of them flatly, and I think when Biden presses her, she'll give the same kinds of bad answers she has been giving. I also think that Biden will press home his attacks too much and will say something quite stupid.
I'm interested to see how tomorrow goes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
With how low the expectations have gone on Sarah Palin, I think all she'd have to do is get through the debate without any large gaffes and it would be considered a win. Even if Biden completely drowns her with his knowledge of the issues, if she comes out with an articulate, although vague understanding, she'll have beat expectations.
I'm fairly confident that Biden will 'win' the debate as far as arguing his policy positions better and showing a better understanding of the issues. What I'm afraid of will be the headlines and post-debate talk. I would more easily believe that it would be "Palin defeats expectations and performs in the debate" over "Biden wins debate."
In my mind, there are only two ways Biden can 'win' the debate. Either Governor Palin meets her abysmally low expectations and becomes a laughing stock, or Biden creates such a gap in performance that the story the next day can't be about Palin's beating expectations, but about Biden's superior hold on the issues.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As to your second point, that's impossible to say. I think it'll be one of three things:
1. She'll do awesome, and everything we've been seeing has been her sandbagging. 2. She'll adequately regurgitate the prepackaged answers she's been memorizing for the last week and she'll get a pass. 3. She'll absolutely implode all over the stage and will come off horribly.
I don't see any middle ground for it to not be one of those options, and most people are expected 2 or 3. The thing is, we've seen several horrible interviews with her, we've seen her make awful off the cuff comments that McCain has had to spend multiple days explaining away, and we're hearing rumblings from Sedona that campaign staffers are in panic mode from her horrible performances at debate prep. Given the first couple things there, I'm led to believe that those panicky staffers aren't just out lowering expectations. Her actions have already lowered them to subterranean levels.
My thinking is that expectations for her are now so low that it's fairly difficult for her to fail. I've seen a few clips of her debates in Alaska -- she seems to do OK when she isn't overprepped. Granted, many indications seem to suggest she is being overprepped, but I think campaign has learned from the CBS interview.
quote:In my mind, there are only two ways Biden can 'win' the debate. Either Governor Palin meets her abysmally low expectations and becomes a laughing stock, or Biden creates such a gap in performance that the story the next day can't be about Palin's beating expectations, but about Biden's superior hold on the issues.
Both of those are very, very possible though.
I don't know, I think sometimes we overemphasize "expectations." I don't think anyone expects Palin to do anything but fail except for a few of her fans, but I don't think that means that if she doesn't do horribly that people will declare her victorius and hail her success at the debate. I think that average people will judge this thing differently than politicos, likely including me. There's a big difference between not having an epic fail and commanding the issues. If she just charts a middle of the road course, I don't think that counts as a win, not with Biden there likely giving insightful informative answers. She can't just be a talking parrot, she has to show that she can think on her feet, which is her biggest criticism at the moment.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the grand scheme of things, how important have VP debates been, historically? Lloyd Bensen mopping the floor with Dan Quayle wasn't enough to win Dukakis the presidency in '88.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Palin may turn out to be very good at supplying catchy sound bytes that will play well, and she may be able to play off Biden until he makes his own gaffes or otherwise reacts to her poorly.
As for the Des Moines Registers video, it bugged me. Not because I didn't agree with their questions, but they were so badly phrased. You can't ask McCain about his lies and follow it up with "You know, when you ran that ad." Give him specifics and demand an answer.
"Your ad was clearly meant to suggest that Sen. Obama favored teaching kindergarten children about sexual intercourse, when the legislation actually stressed age-appropriate education and called for teaching young children how to avoid sexual predators, with an opt-out option for any parents who disagree. Since the curriculum was not defined, would you consider it honorable to suggest the absolute worst interpretation is in fact the case?"
"Why do you continue to stress that Gov. Palin stopped the Bridge to Nowhere without ever mentioning that she first supported it for 11 months and even used it as a talking point in her candidacy, and that she only stopped it once it became politically expedient? I believe the road leading to the suggested bridge was completed only this week, would you characterize the funding for that now-useless road as an earmark?"
"You have stated many times that Sen. Obama's tax plans would raise taxes for people making over $42,000 a year, despite the fact that every non-partisan fact-checker has declared this to be wildly inaccurate. Why do you still stand by this figure?"
So far the best interview McCain has experienced has been from The View.
(I also get terribly aggravated at the White House press corps. They continue to ask such rambling, mulit-parted questions that there's no chance they'd ever get a straight answer. Ask yes or no questions, people.)
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Gov. PALIN: I have quite a few people who are giving us information about the record of Obama and Biden, and at the end of the day, though, it is–it’s so clear, again, what those choices are. Either new ideas, new energy and reform of Washington, DC, or more of the same.
Well, she's right about that!
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Gray Lady also ran an article today about Palin and Biden's debate performances in the past. The bits concerning Palin's governor debates were pretty interesting. I honestly want her to perform well on Thursdays debate, as I believe John McCain had some good reasons for selecting her as his running mate rather than purely tactical ones. If she does crash and burn, I hope Biden lets her dig her own grave rather than laying into her.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for those links Blackblade. That video about the debating styles was cool. I didn't know that Biden was practice debating vs. Jennifer Granholm. That should be good practice. Granholm is smart and tough. I'm a big Granholm fanboy. If only she weren't Canadian born! She should have been a perfect choice for Obama as a VP.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I bet this will go down as one of the debates with the highest viewership ever. People are interested, for whatever reason each has. It will be a riveting night, even if nothing special happens.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: In the grand scheme of things, how important have VP debates been, historically? Lloyd Bensen mopping the floor with Dan Quayle wasn't enough to win Dukakis the presidency in '88.
Not very. I know that I personally haven't watched the last two.
But then, when was the last time the hype was this big? In other words, when was the last time a lot of people were actually paying attention?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two hands went up, one of which came down immediately and then enthusiastically went back up for Obama, and the other which also came back up for Obama.
That was just plain goofy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
The difference? Palin's answers weren't wrong per se (except that I think she confused Federalist and Anti-Federalist with her states' rights thing). The differences between them I think were in the details. Biden spoke for the same amount of time but went into the thick of it, whereas Palin provided adequate answers (for church and state at least) but didn't really get into it. The differences on the supreme court decisions were probably the best example. Biden went into it like a constitutional law professor, which he was, and Palin answered on the periphery, though I think her answer was probably fine.
That could be a little preview of how the debate will go. If so, Biden could come off professorial, but not long winded, he kept his answers detailed but brief. And Palin will come off, well, more cogent than she has in the past, but not incredibly knowledgable.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
George W. Bush did such an amazingly horrible job, even John Mccain, a man I respect, admire, like and wish were in charge of our armed forces, doesn't have a chance.
It was neck and neck, until the oops, we need to give Wall Street $700 billion or we all die.
Now, Republicans ONLY have a chance in hell.
I am enjoying the Conservative spin of "This Crisis is Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter's" fault, and yes, i understand how it started the ball rolling, but come on, a decade of letting the Mafia regulate itself? GENIUS!
10 Trillion dollars in the hole.
We owe the Blockbuster in Iraq like 20 billion a month.
Does anyone else remember Bush standing up in 2004 and projecting a 15 Trillion Dollar surplus for 2012?
Clinton is a slime ball. For sure. But i'll take 1992 to 2000 over 2000 to 2008.
And Joe Biden? What a douche.
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard part of a radio interview on NPR this morning with McCain where, when questioned about what advice he might solicit from Palin on foriegn policy matters he states that he has sought her council on foreign policy matters "many times" in the past.
Well, he's either lying or, I don't know. He only talked to her twice prior to naming her his VP a month ago. So I have two reactions to this. 1. He's full of it. What could he possibly have asked her for advice about over the past month? And why would he have called her BEFORE this month for advice? 2. If he's not full of it, then that's friggin scary. Why would a self proclaimed master of foreign policy issues need to call a woman totally out of her depth on those issues and ask for advice?
***********************************************
On another matter, has anyone been watching Jon Stewart for the last couple nights? He's been pretty pissed on a number of matters and he's been ranting about it pretty loudly (and I think correctly and cogently). But one point that he touched on last night was when he was talking about Palin and McCain trumpeting small town values, and this struck a chord with me.
Why do the Republicans, and for that matter why do people respond so well to the idea of "small town values?" They say it while in the same breath decrying the elitist notions of the big city folk, but to me it suggests two things: 1. They in fact think they are better than me because of some inherent positive quality in growing up in a small town. 2. That they work hard for a living while somehow people like me have things handed out for free.
That second part was evidenced when Palin was talking about her world travels. She said that when she graduated high school, unlike other kids whose parents handed them a passport and sent them off to Europe with backpacks, she worked for a living. What is up with that stereotype?
I don't come from small little town in the middle of nowhere, but that doesn't mean I don't have a set of moral values equal to or better than whatever she grew up with, and it doesn't mean I have things handed to me without working for them. I've had a job since I was 16. I would've liked to go to Europe myself, and have had a couple chances ruined by circumstance. What does that even have to do with anything?
Trumpeting small towns as bastions of some idyllic version of everything we champion in American society, and as the last redoubts of a good strong upbringing full of some vague notion of what make up "good values," and at the same time decrying everything urban smacks of elitism. Rural elitism. And that's not even touching on far larger issues, like politicians giving complicated answers to complicated questions being called "professorial" or "elitist," and championing the simple platitudes as representative of small town upbringings. The fact that we hold that up as the higher standard rather than education I think shows a certain mental degradation in our society.
posted
Lyrhawn: I honestly don't even know what they're talking about when they say "small town values." Maybe it's because I was born in a city and raised in the suburbs, but I don't get what the number of people who lived in your hometown has to do with much. Maybe more people know one another in a small town. If you want to talk stereotypes, I can get negative on small town stereotypes as easily as someone could go positive. For example: gossip, fear of outsiders, and pressure for everyone to be the same.
I hate emotional "feel good" politics. That's one reason that I like Obama. The other night on the debate I remember one part where McCain was talking about this time when he received a bracelet from a dead soldier's mom who asked him that her son's sacrifice not be in vein....a real tear-jerker effort. I recognized the move for what it was and loved Obama's response -- he had a bracelet too from a mom who asked him not to let other moms lose their children. The way he said it, I clearly understood him to say, "We shouldn't make strategy decisions based on grieving mother's wishes." and also "There's always another side."
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
what's up with all the silence on Biden? Or on the links to Obama from Fannie & Freddie with his advisors, donations, and pressures to make exactly the kinds of loans being demonized now?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: what's up with all the silence on Biden? Or on the links to Obama from Fannie & Freddie with his advisors, donations, and pressures to make exactly the kinds of loans being demonized now?
There are former financial lobbyists in prominent positions of both campaigns, which is probably why we're not hearing too much about it. If it became a bigger story, I fear it would look a lot worse for McCain:
quote:Aquiles Suarez, listed as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign in a July 2007 McCain press release, was formerly the director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae. The Senate Lobbying Database says Suarez oversaw the lending giant's $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.
And other current McCain campaign staffers were the lobbyists receiving shares of that money. According to the Senate Lobbying Database, the lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004. The McCain campaign's vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP. In addition, Politico reports that at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years.
For years McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits. According to Politico, the organization opposed congressional attempts at regulation of Fannie and Freddie, along the lines of what John McCain is currently proposing. In his capacity of president of the group, Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary, in contradiction to his current boss's sentiments. "[Fannie and Freddie] are subject to an innovative and stringent risk-based capital stress test," Davis wrote. "The toughest in the financial services industry."
quote:Why do the Republicans, and for that matter why do people respond so well to the idea of "small town values?" They say it while in the same breath decrying the elitist notions of the big city folk, but to me it suggests two things: 1. They in fact think they are better than me because of some inherent positive quality in growing up in a small town. 2. That they work hard for a living while somehow people like me have things handed out for free.
A friend once told me that this country could be boiled down to this: we hate them because we think they are stupid and they hate us because they know we think they are stupid. Of course, both sides are wrong, the liberal intelligent elite and the hard working farmers of the midwest cannot be placed into such easy groups nor can the labels I used here perfectly describe each group, and yet, it is true that there is a divide between small town America and those who live elsewhere. The difference can be seen in states like Texas and Missouri where Obama will win the cities and lose the countryside.
In some sense, it's a reaction to academic elitism because if a politician is from a small town, then they know that politician doesn't think they are stupid like all those other elitists. Didn't we have this debate though lyrhawn? And don't you think that maybe Jon Stewart was talking to you too?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions, behind only Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the powerful chairman of the Senate banking committee. Dodd was first elected to the Senate in 1980.
According to OpenSecrets.com, from 1989 to 2008, Dodd received $165,400 in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, including contributions from PACs and individuals, followed by Obama, who received $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004.
In contrast, McCain warned of the coming mortgage crisis as he pressed in 2005 for regulatory reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
posted
McCain would still come off worse in a comparison, and the influence of those three execs has been exaggerated and debunked.
Actually I recommend snopes.com's pages on Obama and McCain. Very handy. And interesting to see which candidate is getting more lies spread about him.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to today’s voter registration reports, Democrats now hold a 60,068 voter registration advantage in Nevada. That is almost 14 times the voter registration advantage held by Republicans in the 2004 election, when George Bush narrowly won the state.
I'm not quite sure how old that press release is, but this morning I heard on the local NPR station that number now exceeds 80,000. I know I can't go to a mall, supermarket or even walk down the Las Vegas strip without encountering volunteers asking people to register to vote...
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're being inundated with voter registration people in Philly. From what I've seen, they're looking specifically for college age kids and blacks, although are obiously willing to help anyone. It's been funny seeing the voter reg people swooping down on the 20+ people hordes of college freshman tentatively exploring the city.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: The campaign contributions are not exaggerated for Obama.
Anyone can donate money to anyone. That alone isn't any indictment, though it certainly should draw scrutiny. Lobbying however, is unambiguous, and McCain's staff includes much more of the lobbying types that McCain blames the crisis on than Obamas.
I suggest reading the article I linked.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by Humean In some sense, it's a reaction to academic elitism because if a politician is from a small town, then they know that politician doesn't think they are stupid like all those other elitists. Didn't we have this debate though lyrhawn? And don't you think that maybe Jon Stewart was talking to you too?
We had a debate that was similar, but I don't think the same. The difference is that I don't think small town people are any stupider by nature than the average America. I think you might be right to a degree that they think that city people think they are stupid, but I think their reaction to that was to instead entrench themselves in the idea that THEY are in fact better because their lifestyle or values or morals and what not are inherently better than the city snobs, despite the fact that there are just as many if not more hardships in city living than there are in rural living. They've reacted, when hearing that someone thinks they are better than them, by coming up with a way to downplay that and insist that THEY are actually better. It's an ironic reaction, but I guess not surprising when you look at the history of sectional reactions in this country.
This is only a rehash of our last debate if you start with the assumption that I think all rural people are stupid, which is far from the truth. But where does the idea come from that everyone not from a rural lifestyle is an elitist? And where do they get off assuming that they are better than everyone else for having grown up in a small town? And for that matter, how is that NOT a type of elitism?
I'm not sure what you meant about Stewart. He was ranting in general.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: The campaign contributions are not exaggerated for Obama.
Anyone can donate money to anyone. That alone isn't any indictment, though it certainly should draw scrutiny. Lobbying however, is unambiguous, and McCain's staff includes much more of the lobbying types that McCain blames the crisis on than Obamas.
I suggest reading the article I linked.
I read an article that put side by side the amount of money contributed from FM to Obama and McCains campaigns, Obama had roughly 9000$ McCain had 200,000$
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
