***What about the undecided?!?! (Political topic)***

I agree with Amber that both sides have imperfections, but I don't believe that not giving a sure answer about when life begins is an imperfection.  The US Supreme Court would not make that decision because they recognized that they were not qualified to do so.  I agree whole heartedly with Obama that I cannot answer this question either.  It is a question as personal as religion - each person has to answer it for themselves.

I am voting for Obama because I fear McCain.  It's that simple.  Truth be told, I would much rather cast my vote for Al Gore.  I do feel that Obama has the common sense to surround himself with people who know more than he does as exemplified by his choice of Biden.  I believe Obama will do a better job than McCain.

I'm still a registered Democrat - but more independent as I cross party lines to vote for the person I think can do the best job.

My vote will be cast for McCain.  I fear Obama - not McCain.  I fear we will have Obama, Peloski and Reid - heaven help us!!  Two big Democratic fund raisers have left Obama and are putting their vote with McCain.  I think Obama talks a good talk - he is a great politican - you can't get a straight answer from the man it is always, in my opinion spin.

I realize we have very serious problems in this country but I can't lay the blame solely at the feet of Bush - we had Democrats saying "give us the power and we will fix things".  Well, they got the power and two years later they haven't done anything to help us. 

McCain has said he will ask both Dems and Rep. to be in his cabinet - to reach out to get things moving again.  I don't think any Dem will do that quite honestly - Lieberman maybe but Peloski has already said the Dems are going to strip him of any power.   I don't like or agree with Obama and his tax policy - no matter what he say anytime supposedly the rich gets taxed more, so do I.  I'm not rich!! 

Bottom line, Obama scares me to no end.  Where is all his "friends" that can talk about his good qualities?  Where is Michelle's friends?  Where is college friends that can talk fondly of him ?

I guess I am confused by your post.  I mean, these men are polar opposites.  The question you have to ask yourself is:  Do I like the direction the country is going in?  Because McCain will not waver from the Bush policies.  He may say something different, but ultimately, things won't change under McCain.  I am mystified that anyone would support a Republican candidate, given the way we are going, and especially, the events of the last few days.  

.

NBN, I might get in trouble by replying to you, after your great story of new found love, my wife thinks I come to this site only to meet girls..congrads on your marriage.

One thing I've learned, a new company comander that has never been in war will get you into a fight and get you killed much faster than a seasoned veteran will.  A seasoned veteran knows that a battle can be won with out firing a shot if you confront an enemy from a position of strength.  If you are weak or wavering in your resolve you will be attacked.  You can't be a comander in chief and vote present.  Once you have writen a letter that begins, "We, the officers and men of A Troop, express out sincere condolances at the loss of your... "  then armys are no longer armys, they are all your brothers and sisters that you stood beside.  

I do believe that McCain will protect our country and our interest with a strong and determined foriegn policy.  He is someone that knows war is not an option unless it is the only option.

He is not a clone of Bush, he is the thorn in Bush's side. He demanded the firing of Rumsfield when donald was popular and Bush's man, he opposed tax cuts without spending caps, he was willing to give up the repub's big financial advantage by campain reform, he formed a compromise to get judges confirmed, he commited near political sucide to get the surge in place to reduce US casualties, he tried to pass legislation two years ago to get oversite on Fannin and Freddie.    He is not Bush.  

Take the advise of Joe Biden when he said McCain will make a better President than Obama.  Biden the third most liberal senator said he would be proud to serve in a McCain administration.  

At this point I wish both of them would start talking about their plans to guide our economy.  Neither is talking about the high cost of immigration or illegal immigration and the strain on our jobs and healthcare system because of that. Neither is talking about gas anymore.

I don't know what the answer is regarding the bail outs but I think that the CEO's and all the big shots who get those big bonuses should be jailed! This is criminal that the bankers did this but there were alot of stupid consumers who did the zero down with ARMs who really shouldn't be blaming the bank.  They should never have signed up for that unless it was a house they were selling right away, not living in!!

'

Everyone who is in support of McCain has said everything I would say (but they say it better ).  I'm certainly no Obama. LOL

While I was waiting for my onc (for one hour in the examining room ) I picked up Oprah's magazine from 2004.  She heard Obama speak at the democratic convention.  She was in awe of Obama.  Her comment was something like, maybe he is the "One."  Anyway, in the interview Obama admits he's good with words.  That's not good enough for me.  Words mean nothing.

I like the fact that McCain IS willing to work across party lines AND has proved it.

Roctobermom, I believe Pelosi is jumping up and down with joy now that we are dealing with another crises other than gas prices.  However, there are still repubs working on it.   And, as far as Palin's interview, much of what she said was edited.  I believe the link may be on the repub thread.

I'll add this for anyone who wants to read it.  Would this have made a difference if it had passed?  Looks like he was on to something!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002 Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m

 FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005

The United States Senate

May 25, 2006

Section 16

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, AND THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Quick Info S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. Status: Dead

The economic crisis followed the economic growth that is now global.  We are living the history of this natural evolution.  

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/#

MOTC said it well.  The Federal government is managing the collapse of a system to keep us all from soup lines and dust bowls.

I spent the entire week trying to manage my pension to save it from complete destruction (small that it is).  The money market fund where it sits was not FDIC insured....like most of the funds out there.  Simply put, we didn't believe it could happen again...a Depression.  The safe guards put in place after the thirties were functional for the economic models of that time.  But those models changed with deregulation starting in the 70's.

 It was not so easy to find a safe haven.  Had it not been for the decision by the Federal government on Friday to cover money markets under FDIC (up to $100K or $250K if pension), I would have liquidated my pension and moved it.  I was not the only one.  This is the bank run that they stopped.

The other was selling securities short.  A necessary element to a healthy market.  The problem was that the market was no longer healthy and the short sellers were not wearing white hats.

This PBS web site offers video discussions (non partisan and without gotchas) of this very complicated issue .  And if you miss the debates you can find them here.  

Actually I believe that this election year - we have not been given any good choices.

Nicki

This is interesting because McCain scares me.  Palin scares me even more.  What was he thinking?

I won't make a habit of posting here because I really don't belong here.  First, I'm not undecided, and more to the point, I'm Canadian so I can't vote anyways.  But the hot topic of the campaigns these days is the financial crisis and since we in Canada have been just as affected by this as those of you in the U.S. (as Blundin points out, this is now a global crisis, even though the root cause of the problem was exclusive to the U.S.), I thought I would add to the discussion with regards to this topic.  One of the things that I find so frustrating lately is the way that the campaigns - both of them - have been talking about the financial crisis. 

- I hate Obama's superior, mocking tone when he points out (or his ads say) that McCain said that the fundamentals of the market are strong.  Obama implies that McCain is a completely out of touch and unknowledgeable when he says this. 

- Similarly, watching the Hannity interview, I was frustrated by Sarah Palin's simple "it was the greed of Wall St." explanation for the current crisis.

Obama is mostly wrong and Palin is mostly wrong.  And McCain was mostly right about the fundamentals of the U.S. market being strong.  What has caused this entire world-wide financial crisis was the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.  One single issue.  One single problem.  The rest of the economy, if it was not for the repercussions of this one issue, would be fine.  As for the cause being the greed of those on Wall St., well yes that certainly played into it, but for the crisis to be so large and so all-encompassing, there had to be a lot of people who played along.  Local financial institutions.  Real estate companies.  Individuals who bought homes they could not afford.  The government for not taking action. 

What I find interesting is that of all the politicians out there, McCain seems to be one of the few who foresaw this and suggested that action needed to be taken, years ago.  Agree with McCain or not, like McCain or not, the fact is that on the big issues, more often than not, he's been proven right.  He spoke up about the issues with sub-prime mortgages when it was not the popular thing to do, and he was right.  On the topic of Iraq, he spoke up in favor of the surge when it was not the popular thing to do, and he was right.  (Biden, the foreign policy expert on the Obama ticket, was against the surge and suggested breaking up Iraq.) 

Obama says that his lack of experience is made up for my his strong judgement.  But when I compare the two candidates, using good old 20/20 hindsight, I only see one candidate who in fact has exhibited strong, and ultimately correct,  judgement, more often than not.  And that's McCain.  Obama made one good call - don't go to war with Iraq (and I agreed with that, even back then), but any other 'judgement' call that he's made has been off base.  Often, way off base.  The fact is that I've never liked Bush and I like him even less now. I don't agree with a lot that is on the Republican platform.  Socially, I certainly lean more to the Democratic positions.  But, as a world leader who I feel can best address whatever might be thrown at him over the next 4 years, I trust McCain much more than I trust Obama.  McCain has a track-record of making the right call.  Obama does not.

FYI, here is an editorial from the WSJ that provides one of the best explanations of the current financial crisis that I've read:

**************************************************************

SEPTEMBER 19, 2008

How to Save the Financial System

By Willian M. Isaac

I am astounded and deeply saddened to witness the senseless destruction in the U.S. financial system, which has been the envy of the world. We have always gone through periods of correction, but today's problems are so much worse than they needed to be.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and bank regulators must act immediately to suspend the Fair Value Accounting rules, clamp down on abuses by short sellers, and withdraw the Basel II capital rules. These three actions will go a long way toward arresting the carnage in our financial system.

During the 1980s, our underlying economic problems were far more serious than the economic problems we're facing this time around. The prime rate exceeded 21%. The savings bank industry was more than $100 billion insolvent (if we had valued it on a market basis), the S&L industry was in even worse shape, the economy plunged into a deep recession, and the agricultural sector was in a depression.

These economic problems led to massive credit problems in the banking and thrift industries. Some 3,000 banks and thrifts ultimately failed, and many others were merged out of existence. Continental Illinois failed, many of the regional banks tanked, hundreds of farm banks went down, and thousands of thrifts failed or were taken over.

It could have been much worse. The country's 10-largest banks were loaded up with Third World debt that was valued in the markets at cents on the dollar. If we had marked those loans to market prices, virtually every one of them would have been insolvent. Indeed, we developed contingency plans to nationalize them.

At the outset of the current crisis in the credit markets, we had no serious economic problems. Inflation was under control, GDP growth was good, unemployment was low, and there were no major credit problems in the banking system.

The dark cloud on the horizon was about $1.2 trillion of subprime mortgage-backed securities, about $200 billion to $300 billion of which was estimated to be held by FDIC-insured banks and thrifts. The rest were spread among investors throughout the world.

The likely losses on these assets were estimated by regulators to be roughly 20%. Losses of this magnitude would have caused pain for institutions that held these assets, but would have been quite manageable.

How did we let this serious but manageable situation get so far out of hand -- to the point where several of our most respected American financial companies are being put out of business, sometimes involving massive government bailouts?

Lots of folks are assigning blame for the underlying problems -- management greed, inept regulation, rating-agency incompetency, unregulated mortgage brokers and too much government emphasis on creating more housing stock. My interest is not in assigning blame for the problems but in trying to identify what is causing a situation, that should have been resolved easily, to develop into a crisis that is spreading like a cancer throughout the financial system.

The biggest culprit is a change in our accounting rules that the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the SEC put into place over the past 15 years: Fair Value Accounting. Fair Value Accounting dictates that financial institutions holding financial instruments available for sale (such as mortgage-backed securities) must mark those assets to market. That sounds reasonable. But what do we do when the already thin market for those assets freezes up and only a handful of transactions occur at extremely depressed prices?

The answer to date from the SEC, FASB, bank regulators and the Treasury has been (more or less) "mark the assets to market even though there is no meaningful market." The accounting profession, scarred by decades of costly litigation, just keeps marking down the assets as fast as it can.

This is contrary to everything we know about bank regulation. When there are temporary impairments of asset values due to economic and marketplace events, regulators must give institutions an opportunity to survive the temporary impairment. Assets should not be marked to unrealistic fire-sale prices. Regulators must evaluate the assets on the basis of their true economic value (a discounted cash-flow analysis).

If we had followed today's approach during the 1980s, we would have nationalized all of the major banks in the country and thousands of additional banks and thrifts would have failed. I have little doubt that the country would have gone from a serious recession into a depression.

If we do not halt the insanity of forcing financial firms to mark assets to a nonexistent market rather than their realistic economic value, the cancer will keep spreading and will plunge the world into very difficult economic times for years to come.

I argued against adopting Fair Value Accounting as it was being considered two decades ago. I believed we would come to regret its implementation when we hit the next big financial crisis, as it would deny regulators the ability to exercise judgment when circumstances called for restraint. That day has clearly arrived.

Equally egregious are the actions by the SEC in recent years lifting the restraints on short sellers of stocks to allow "naked selling" (shorting a stock without actually possessing it) and to eliminate the requirement that short sellers could sell only on an uptick in the market.

On top of this, it is my understanding that short sellers are engaged in abuses such as purchasing credit default swaps on corporate bonds (essentially bets on whether a borrower will default), which lowers the price of the bonds, which in turn causes the price of the company's stock to decline further. Then the ratings agencies pile on and reduce the ratings of a company because its reduced stock price will prevent it from raising new capital. The SEC must act immediately to eliminate these and other potential abuses by short sellers.

The Basel II capital rules adopted by the FDIC, Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision and the Comptroller of the Currency last year are too new to have caused big problems, but they must be eliminated before they do. Basel II requires the use of very complex mathematical models to set capital levels in banks. The models use historical data to project future losses. If banks have a period of low losses (such as in the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s), the models require relatively little capital and encourage even more heated growth. When we go into a period like today where losses are enormous (on paper, at least), the models require more capital when none is available, forcing banks to cut back lending.

As I write this article, I am seeing proposals by some to create a new Resolution Trust Corp., as we did in the 1990s to clean up the S&L problems. The RTC managed and sold assets from S&Ls that had already failed. It was run by the FDIC, just like the FDIC. We needed to create the RTC in the 1990s only because we could not comingle the assets from failed banks with those of failed thrifts, because we had two separate deposit insurance funds absorbing the respective losses from bank and thrift failures.

I can't imagine why we would want to create another government bureaucracy to handle the assets from bank failures. What we need to do urgently is stop the failures, and an RTC won't do that.

Again, we must take three immediate steps to prevent a further rash of financial failures and taxpayer bailouts. First, the SEC must suspend Fair Value Accounting and require that assets be marked to their true economic value. Second, the SEC needs to immediately clamp down on abusive practices by short sellers. It has taken a first step in reinstituting the prohibition against "naked selling." Finally, the bank regulators need to acknowledge that the Basel II capital rules represent a serious policy mistake and repeal the rules before they do real damage.

We are almost out of time if we hope to eradicate the cancer in our financial system.

Mr. Isaac, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. from 1981-1985, is chairman of the Washington financial services consulting firm The Secura Group, an LECG company.

There's too much fighting on "the Hill."  Ya can't get anything done if no one's getting along.  Pelosi wouldn't even allow a vote on the energy bill.  She went on vacation instead, selling her book.  Too much partisanship.  She absolutely HATES Bush and, IMO, is holding HIM against us.  We're just political footballs. 

Threre's a lot of blame to go around.  Now it's time to fix it.  And I'm sure Pelosi will get her way about the stimulus package that she wants added on to the bill bailing out Wall Street.  Heck, I like getting money, but it's got to be paid back.

I'll take my chances on McCain/Palin.  I'm getting a little tired of this "heartbeat away" stuff.  And I'm getting tired of the media's bias.  Palin's interview was highly edited.  But, of course you either like her or you don't.  Several of us were thinking about her before she was every nominated.

Shirley