bravo! yea watching him unravel under pressure was all too clear in that show with whoopie , the one with like 4 ladies
This won't help McCain. Just compare and contrast Obama and McCain's comments: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pmfeesYmx1Y&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pmfeesYmx1Y&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I believe he was rebutting an off topic claim made in this leftist dog pile. "Here, Fido... here boy! More kibble?" There is no reason to rebut out of context dog piling. It's counter productive and a time waster to try and correct those that can't understand contextual basis. It's funny, actually to sit back and watch the rage build over semantics.
I notice you didn't offer any defense of McCain either. If it was truly out of context rubbish then it would be good point out the context and it would disappear for McCain. So far McCain supporters have still offered ZERO DEFENSE.
Assuming, of course that the health care system operates the same way as banks and investment houses do...which of course they are completely different. You just go ahead and keep comparing apples to footballs.
Unbelievable. Obama is talking about solutions and working together. McCain is talking about Obama. The funny thing is that McCain was talking about Obama being a Washington insider and gaming the system. It sounded like he could have been talking about himself. He was the one who's been in congress for 26 years. He's the one who's economic advisor was Phil Gramm. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-tie-wall-street-woes-to-phil-gramm-2008-09-16.html McCain's the one who got in trouble with the Keating Five S&L thing because of his ties to lobbyists and gaming the system. He's the one knee deep in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists. http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9663_mccain_fannie_freddie.html That side to side comparison shows Obama looking ready to lead, and McCain trying to play the blame game while offering no solutions. Much like his supporters on this bbs. When trouble rears it's head there are no McCain lead solutions just talk about Obama.
It was McCain who first brought up the comparison. Whether the two can actually be compared legitimately is not the problem. The problem is that McCain still believes that the course of action he took regarding banks and investment houses worked well. Look at the results. After McCain got busted for calling the fundamentals of the economy strong you'd think that he might have looked into what was actually going on.
In some regards, it has worked well. Look at what is going on. The major problems are with investment houses that made bad investments. Some of this would have gone on prior to deregulation. Banks would have had problems with bad mortgages regardless. Fannie and Freddie are the most horrible examples of the deregulation. As for things that are working well: 1. Your local bank is able to offer you a wider array of financial products than ever before. Convenient and competitive for the customer. 2. Prior to deregulation, B of A would not have been able to buy Merril Lynch. It would have just gone under entirely.
This misses the point that the completely unregulated, under the counter, and ultra-shadowy, multi trillion dollar swaps and derivatives market is what caused the entire mess and why the government is having to step in. If it was just mortgages going bust that would be one thing, but the free market evolved to the point where it created what Buffet correctly and famously called "financial weapons of mass destruction" - they started going off this year and the damage has been even worse than anticipated.
But the deregulation is exactly what allowed the mortgages to be sold on the market as stock which made the lenders and banks to not be as critical about the loans they gave out, because they knew they were going to be selling the mortgages. It wasn't going to be them who had to suffer through poor lending decisions. They just wanted more mortgages to sell because that meant more money for them. That's bad enough because these are homes and the economy. It would be much worse if it was health care. That's a horrible thought to think of less regulation on our health care. Just think of all the lawsuits and backed up courts when shady practices are going on. Look at the insurance companies now that aren't approving payments on various medicines and procedures. It's horrible. To have less oversight and regulation on them wouldn't do wonders for them. And it is amazing to think that McCain thinks it worked on banking.
Sure, but the other point is that deregulation of the financial sector has had some intended advantages. An example is the wider array of products available at the bank. You cannot look at things in a vaccuum. You have to express the good with the bad. Similarly, deregulation of insurers would have some intended advantages to the consumer. The idea is not necessarily that deregulation is bad. You must learn from it. You have to do it better next time. The last thing that we need to do with insurance is to make it more inefficient by overregulating. Of course, any regulation of the insurance industry is largely window dressing, since a large portion of the regulations have no teeth.
This is woefully inaccurate. There are actually bonds held on most of these mortgages, and they are held by a select, small number of organizations. There is a group of companies that service these mortgages, ironically called servicers. These are my clients. The original bondholder and the servicer suffers when these loans fail to perform. That is why you are seeing a lot of the Wall Street fallout from these bad debts. It is a lot more complicated with more levels than I have described. You may want to Google it and get a description. Except that there would be no secondary market for health care bonds. Apples and footballs. You do, of course, realize that decreased insurance payouts generally occur when the insurance company follows a decreased payout by Medicare for a given procedure. So, when it comes to not paying for things, the government that people are clammoring for to take over health care is leading the no pay charge. As far as commercial banking goes, it has worked. It has not worked for mortgages. You have to analyze the good with the bad rather than just scrap the whole thing.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your first point. Are you saying that mortgages weren't being approved by one bank, and then sold to a different company? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding. As for insurance companies or Medicare not paying for procedures that people need it's wrong. I can't see how deregulation would do anything but make it worse though.
