McCain's Plan for Presidential Debate #2 - Will He Succeed?

[Cyrus]

I caught that. Glad he didn't connect it with the Internet though or we would start digging up the ghost of Al Gore inventing the darn thing again.

He invented global warming ignoranus.

 

[WarPhalange]

Man, it seems like every time the internet is invented, I'm not around to get some of the glory for it. =/

 

[LowlyPion]

He invented global warming ignoranus.

You may have missed it, but a week or so ago McCain's economic adviser was claiming that McCain had effectively enabled the Blackberry by supporting some communication legislation.

 

[lisab]

He also referred to obama as 'that one' which isn't going to play out nice.

My jaw dropped when I heard that! What a very strange choice of words...

 

[LowlyPion]

My jaw dropped when I heard that! What a very strange choice of words...

It for sure won't play well in minority communities. But then I don't think McCain was ever going to get much of a harvest from minorities.

That's likely the kind of condescension that springs from his inner dialog with himself. It sounded to me like a slip, and I think it was a glimpse of the inner boorish brat that the RollingStone piece addressed..

 

[Cyrus]

I think you all are making too much out of it.

Anyone with half a brain should have realized 'that one over there' meant 'that democrat over there'.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

It for sure won't play well in minority communities. But then I don't think McCain was ever going to get much of a harvest from minorities.

If by "minorities" you mean "black people", yes. I thought Hispanic voters tended to vote Republican? Mostly for religious reasons. I could be wrong.

I don't think either candidate really came out on top. Neither of them answered questions to acceptable detail. Both of them pointed the finger at each other. Neither of them succeeded in connecting with ordinary Americans or inspiring anybody much.

I'm voting for Obama, but I'm kinda disappointed by his lack of excitability. It has been a flaw of three Democratic nominees in a row, now: calm, collected, intelligent, but unable to grab the audience and say, "You and me, we need to work together to make America great". McCain, of course, attempted that sort of rhetoric, but he can't pull it together either.

I think this is the real reason he chose Sarah Palin (I mean, besides the obvious reason of pandering to the [quite scary] Evangelistic Christian vote): She is an excitable character and can get people riled up, even if only with vapid, quasi-grammatical comments and outright lies.

Joe Biden gave a much stronger debate that Obama, and I'm glad he's on the ticket. I hope that the Obama campaign can maintain enough momentum to last through Nov 4, because I don't think the debates are going to propel him in any way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Whewwww! No big scores, but given the post-debate review and my own impressions, I tend to think that Obama will gain a point or two - esp in key swing States.

Obama looked esp good hammering McCain on his cheesy "don't announce your intentions" nonsense. And yes, McCain looked pissed!

 

[cristo]

Obama made a goof when he commented on computers saying that a group of military scientists developed computers due to a need to communicate, nope that was the internet. Probably most people missed that.

He could have been talking about Colossus, the machine at Bletchley Park designed to crack German code.

 

[Borek]

He could have been talking about Colossus, the machine at Bletchley Park designed to crack German code.

Shhh, that's in UK. And substantial part of the work was done by Polish mathematicians

 

[Art]

Boring and predictable. Maybe they should have just shown a rerun of the first debate as many of the comments made by both candidates seem to have been lifted verbatim from there.

Because it was so dull and boring and because neither candidate would answer questions directly there was no runaway victor, though overall I'd say Obama won the debate by a small margin. However by the criteria of who helped their election chances the most Obama won handily, because his mission on the night was not to lose points, in which he succeeded, whereas McCain lost heavily, as he needed an election changing night and failed miserably in accomplishing that.

 

[Art]

He could have been talking about Colossus, the machine at Bletchley Park designed to crack German code.

He may try to claim that, but he wasn't

Besides Bletchley Park scientists were civilians not military and Colossus was for code breaking not communication.

 

[Defennder]

I just saw this website:
http://thatone08.com/

Here's some context from a right-wing source:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/10/08/networks-condemn-mccain-calling-obama-one

 

[Astronuc]

Obama made a goof when he commented on computers saying that a group of military scientists developed computers due to a need to communicate, nope that was the internet. Probably most people missed that.

It's unfortunate that our political leaders are not well informed on science and technology, especially given the significance it has in our economy. I suppose they rely on their staffs and those of various government agencies to draft policy for their approval.

The History of Computers
http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm

The invention of the computer
http://en.hnf.de/Permanent_exhibiti...he_computer/The_invention_of_the_computer.asp

There is not just one inventor of the computer, as the ideas of many scientists and engineers led to its invention. These ideas were developed in the 1930s and 1940s, mostly independently of each other, in Germany, Great Britain and the USA, and were turned into working machines.

And a predecessor to the computer was the analytical engine (Babbage, 1837).
http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/
http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/

McCain's bold new mortgage plan isn't new and apparently isn't his
Commentary: Sounds like he still hasn't read the Paulson plan

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- John McCain proposed a bold new idea to save America from the worst financial crisis in 70 years: Have the federal government buy bad mortgages and modify them to keep people in their homes.

Except his idea isn't so new; it's part of the $700 billion bailout package approved by the Senate and signed by the president last week.

It was all over the news. Right in between the stories about the Dow crashing 1,700 points and the campaign ads about Sen. Barack Obama's terrorist pals.

At the second presidential debate on Tuesday, the very first question the two candidates were asked was on how they would help ordinary citizens weather the crisis. See full story.
Obama started off, going directly into his stump speech, saying the downturn was the "final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years," and then listing all the things he'd do for the middle class.

When his turn came, McCain said he'd protect home values by ordering the Treasury secretary to "immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America" and renegotiate the terms so people could stay in their homes.

"I know how to do that, my friends," McCain said. "And it's my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal."

The problem, of course, is that it is President Bush's proposal. At least, it's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's proposal. It's the heart of the $700 billion plan.

According to Section 110 of the law, the government is going to buy up "troubled assets," including residential mortgages, and then do everything it can to "minimize foreclosures" by modifying the terms of the loans by reducing interest rates, reducing the principal or "other similar modifications."

Is McCain's claim about 'his proposal' going to be like Al Gore's internet claim?

 

[Evo]

I knew they were planning to buy the debt from foreclosed homes, but a loan that has a slow pay on it? A loan that has not been foreclosed? Hell, I'll stop paying my mortgage so I can take advantage of this! If I can get taxpayers to pay off half of what I owe on my house, I won't have to sell it at a loss. YEEHAA! I will just sit on it then until the prices start going back up and make a huge profit. Too bad about all you homeowners out there that scrimp and save to pay your mortgages on time, and all of you people that can't afford a home, too bad for you too!

I think with my reduced payments I'll go to that ritzy spa in CA that the AIG execs went to.

Does anyone else see a problem with this plan?

What about the people that are at risk of becoming homeless or having to move into bad areas because they can't pay their rent? Are they scum because they didn't manage to get a mortgage they can't afford?

As a homeowner of an overpriced house that I'm trying to sell, I could make like a bandit on this bailout. I, however, think it is unfair to ask taxpayers making less money than me that couldn't in their wildest dreams afford a house like mine to buy down my payments so I can live in a large gorgeous home for less than they pay for a 1 bedroom bungalow. Oh heck, what am I saying, give me the money!

 

[Alfi]

Watching the worm was the most enjoyable thing for my wife and I.

I'd like to see the raw data for that worm thing also. If my observations were correct I think Obama won by the amount of top +'s I saw.

 

[Art]

I knew they were planning to buy the debt from foreclosed homes, but a loan that has a slow pay on it? A loan that has not been foreclosed? Hell, I'll stop paying my mortgage so I can take advantage of this! If I can get taxpayers to pay off half of what I owe on my house, I won't have to sell it at a loss. YEEHAA! I will just sit on it then until the prices start going back up and make a huge profit. Too bad about all you homeowners out there that scrimp and save to pay your mortgages on time, and all of you people that can't afford a home, too bad for you too!

I think with my reduced payments I'll go to that ritzy spa in CA that the AIG execs went to.

Does anyone else see a problem with this plan?

What about the people that are at risk of becoming homeless or having to move into bad areas because they can't pay their rent? Are they scum because they didn't manage to get a mortgage they can't afford?

As a homeowner of an overpriced house that I'm trying to sell, I could make like a bandit on this bailout. I, however, think it is unfair to ask taxpayers making less money than me that couldn't in their wildest dreams afford a house like mine to buy down my payments so I can live in a large gorgeous home for less than they pay for a 1 bedroom bungalow. Oh heck, what am I saying, give me the money!

Presumably they will need a formula based on some kind of means test to distinguish between the 'can't pay' and 'won't pay' otherwise as you say it would be grossly unfair on those who are making their payments regularly. Another possibility is the gov't take a stake in the property to the value of their bailout which they hold onto until they are repaid.

 

[Evo]

Presumably they will need a formula based on some kind of means test to distinguish between the 'can't pay' and 'won't pay' otherwise as you say it would be grossly unfair on those who are making their payments regularly. Another possibility is the gov't take a stake in the property to the value of their bailout which they hold onto until they are repaid.

Can you imagine the amount of due diligence and time that it would take to scrutinize every individual mortgage? How many other properties might this person own? What kind of investments do they have, what is their net worth? I know people that own a lot of homes and don't work, they live off of the rental income. Do we give these people a break? This plan is ludicrous. Obama was right when he said what we need to do is address the problems like loss of jobs and income that are making it difficult for people to pay their mortgages in the first place.

 

[Astronuc]

I knew they were planning to buy the debt from foreclosed homes, but a loan that has a slow pay on it? A loan that has not been foreclosed? Hell, I'll stop paying my mortgage so I can take advantage of this! If I can get taxpayers to pay off half of what I owe on my house, I won't have to sell it at a loss. YEEHAA! I will just sit on it then until the prices start going back up and make a huge profit. Too bad about all you homeowners out there that scrimp and save to pay your mortgages on time, and all of you people that can't afford a home, too bad for you too!

I think with my reduced payments I'll go to that ritzy spa in CA that the AIG execs went to.

Does anyone else see a problem with this plan?

What about the people that are at risk of becoming homeless or having to move into bad areas because they can't pay their rent? Are they scum because they didn't manage to get a mortgage they can't afford?

As a homeowner of an overpriced house that I'm trying to sell, I could make like a bandit on this bailout. I, however, think it is unfair to ask taxpayers making less money than me that couldn't in their wildest dreams afford a house like mine to buy down my payments so I can live in a large gorgeous home for less than they pay for a 1 bedroom bungalow. Oh heck, what am I saying, give me the money!

Do I detect a feeling of indignation? One is not alone in this.

Yeah - there's a lot wrong here. I'm not sure how this is going to get handled fairly. The devil is in the details.

 

[Amp1]

Originally Posted by lisab

My jaw dropped when I heard that! What a very strange choice of words...

Yes, Demeaning, condescending and possibly racist. I'm Native American/African American and I have heard the phrase 'that one' used when referring to a thing or chattel, an object. He COULD have said "that Liberal", "That Democrat" more refined and in line with the usual smear. Saying "that one" immeadiately made me suspect he was trying to anger Obama, in the 'Ghetto" it almost like calling out - "Yo mama". That is my feeling and opinion.

 

[Astronuc]

Obama was right when he said what we need to do is address the problems like loss of jobs and income that are making it difficult for people to pay their mortgages in the first place.

That is the crux of the matter.

There's a problem when a CEO or corporate manager makes a multiple in one year of what a typical wage earner might or might not make in a lifetime.

 

[Art]

Can you imagine the amount of due diligence and time that it would take to scrutinize every individual mortgage? How many other properties might this person own? What kind of investments do they have, what is their net worth? I know people that own a lot of homes and don't work, they live off of the rental income. Do we give these people a break? This plan is ludicrous. Obama was right when he said what we need to do is address the problems like loss of jobs and income that are making it difficult for people to pay their mortgages in the first place.

I agree with you, it would be expensive to administer and it would be wide open to abuse. Nevertheless this has been signed into law so I was simply postulating on what controls will be put in place. I suppose one advantage would be the data gathered on incomes etc should help in the prosecution of the greedy financiers who sold them the mortgages in the first place.

 

[Evo]

I agree with you, it would be expensive to administer and it would be wide open to abuse. Nevertheless this has been signed into law so I was simply postulating on what controls will be put in place. I suppose one advantage would be the data gathered on incomes etc should help in the prosecution of the greedy financiers who sold them the mortgages in the first place.

I don't think the majority of the defaults on mortgages were caused by "greedy financiers". That might be a small portion, but most people over the years have been laid off, had to take lower paying jobs, go from a two income family to a one income family, had to pay ever higher taxes, had adjustable rate mortgages that have gone up as expected, but their incomes did not go up as expected. These people I don't blame. I do blame the people that lied and cheated and went along with schemes to qualify for a home they knew was too expensive. "Have your Aunt Sarah deposit $10,000 into your bank account and leave it there until after the mortgage company checks with your bank, then give her the money back". That's an often used trick to make it look like you have money that you don't. I have no pity for these people and I certainly don't think they should be bailed out.

 

[LowlyPion]

If by "minorities" you mean "black people", yes. I thought Hispanic voters tended to vote Republican? Mostly for religious reasons. I could be wrong.

------------White-----------Black--------------Hispanic
Sept 26 - Oct 5
Obama----42%----------------89%----------------62%

McCain----50%----------------2%------------------26%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108040/Candidate-Support-Race.aspx

While McCain likely couldn't have managed to lose much more of the black vote if he had called him the vilest epithets at this point, he does run the risk of further alienating whites, who don't agree with such divisiveness, though more importantly demonstrating in the starkest terms his lack of suitability, sensitivity, and fitness for dealing with Foreign affairs, where gosh darn it all not all our allies or our enemies are white.

 

[WarPhalange]

Okay, doing temporary money transfers like that is just wrong and I had no idea it happened. In that case both sides should definitely not be helped.

But even the greedy financiers had to find victims that were willing to go along. Someone who makes minimum wage should know that he can't afford a $300K house. Obviously the bank was stupid to sucker the guy into it and should be punished for it, especially since they knew the risk a lot better and reassured those buyers that it's fine, but the guy still had to sit down and think things through before buying the house.

 

[Amp1]

Obama made a point that one of the first places he would seek to free up monies to fund his economic initiatives is the war in Iraq; Having the Iraqi gov't take more responsibility for their countrys' recovery and rebuilding. However, he doesn't want to give away to McCain much in the way of details, even to give the public a snapshot. That would allow special interests to plan ways to subvert or plagerize his ideas.

Obama didn't rise to the baiting McCain was throwing at him. HE answered the questions put to him more thoughtfully an lucidly than McCain - who at times almost sounded like Palin, half way stuttering, repeating buzz words several times a second, linking slogans and spin phrases in a somewhat nonsensical way. I can hardly wait for a transcript.

Oh, yeah...Bill Mahr was on Leno last night- he called Palin something 'Avon Lady'. And added if she has such a good learning curve... how dumb was she to start?

 

[WarPhalange]

If by "minorities" you mean "black people", yes. I thought Hispanic voters tended to vote Republican? Mostly for religious reasons. I could be wrong.

I was under the impression that the recent Republican immigration policy (i.e. just build a wall) pissed off a lot of Latinos.

 

[Evo]

Debate Transcript

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/

 

[LowlyPion]

I don't think the majority of the defaults on mortgages were caused by "greedy financiers".

I say yes and no to this. The problem being that the business model for lending changed, and the pooling of interests led to incentives to qualify and turn a blind eye to suitability. The salespeople raked in commissions off the closing points and were incented to close business, any business to profit. They offered advice on how to fill in the form, where to fudge, how to fudge - in short encouraging non-qualifying incomes to over-reach in grabbing the American dream.

I signed a variable rate mortgage some years ago, and I got the nudge, nudge, wink, wink treatment on how to fill it into move it along. I didn't play the game, but got it anyway. Fortunately for me I only used it as a bridge loan that I fully paid off before the variable rate kicked in, but I have thrown out nearly a half ton of paper in the form of mail solicitations and offers for mortgage deals since.

The pressure to just move credit in the market was pretty frantic, is I guess my point, and there were plenty of slick operators out there playing the game. I think Tony Mozilo at Countrywide is a total poster boy for this kind of abuse.

 

[Evo]

I say yes and no to this. The problem being that the business model for lending changed, and the pooling of interests led to incentives to qualify and turn a blind eye to suitability. The salespeople raked in commissions off the closing points and were incented to close business, any business to profit. They offered advice on how to fill in the form, where to fudge, how to fudge - in short encouraging non-qualifying incomes to over-reach in grabbing the American dream.

I signed a variable rate mortgage some years ago, and I got the nudge, nudge, wink, wink treatment on how to fill it into move it along. I didn't play the game, but got it anyway. Fortunately for me I only used it as a bridge loan that I fully paid off before the variable rate kicked in, but I have thrown out nearly a half ton of paper in the form of mail solicitations and offers for mortgage deals since.

The pressure to just move credit in the market was pretty frantic, is I guess my point, and there were plenty of slick operators out there playing the game. I think Tony Mozilo at Countrywide is a total poster boy for this kind of abuse.

I equally blame the people that agreed to go along with the schemes. I guess I just expect people to own up and face the consequences of their actions. Stupidity is not an excuse in my book and I don't feel that taxpayers should have to bail someone out in those situations. But then I am not a nice person.

I'm all for helping people that have suffered financial reversals beyond their control, but if a person is defaulting because they fudged on their loan application, too bad.