Immediate Debate Reax
It seemed like McCain missed a bunch of opportunities. He was asked what should have been his dream question, about sacrifice. And he ended up talking about earmarks. That's just political malpractice.
My sense is that Obama did at least as well as McCain on most issues and much better on certain ones, particularly health care. So I don't see this moving public opinion much (at least in McCain's direction).
The one big news item out of the debate was McCain's announcement, in the first few minutes, that he supports a plan to buy up American's mortgages and refinance them at their current prices. I'm guessing the McCain campaign was rolling that out as the Big Issue he intends to focus on for the remainder of the campaign.
It will be interesting to see how Obama responds to that. It strikes me as bad policy, something that couldn't possibly be administered fairly, at least without completely bankrupting the government. Whether it's good politics is another question. It's definitely gimmicky, but sometimes people like gimmicks.
Finally, I predict the clip that will be played the most over the next few days is McCain calling Obama "that one." That was just weird.
UPDATE: Obama won the CNN poll handily. 54% to 30%.
My sense is that Obama did at least as well as McCain on most issues and much better on certain ones, particularly health care. So I don't see this moving public opinion much (at least in McCain's direction).
The one big news item out of the debate was McCain's announcement, in the first few minutes, that he supports a plan to buy up American's mortgages and refinance them at their current prices. I'm guessing the McCain campaign was rolling that out as the Big Issue he intends to focus on for the remainder of the campaign.
It will be interesting to see how Obama responds to that. It strikes me as bad policy, something that couldn't possibly be administered fairly, at least without completely bankrupting the government. Whether it's good politics is another question. It's definitely gimmicky, but sometimes people like gimmicks.
Finally, I predict the clip that will be played the most over the next few days is McCain calling Obama "that one." That was just weird.
UPDATE: Obama won the CNN poll handily. 54% to 30%.
posted by A.L. at 9:40 PM
14 Comments:
Obama killed when he talked about McCain's tax plan resulting in $700,000 in the pocket of a rich executive. McCain didn't try to refute it.
Obama sucked when he didn't answer the question about the amount of the mysterious "fine" and then McCain called him on it. McCain nearly fumbled it, but he did call him out for not answering the question. You just can't NOT address something like that. Obama was left looking like he was hiding something. Funny, I didn't hear any of the heads talking about the moment at the end. I am really unclear on the whole fine issue, I was not aware that was any part of Obama's plan - I thought I remembered something about it from Edwards' plan.
Obama sucked when he smiled big and looked down as an expression of dissatisfaction with McCain's misrepresentation-of-the-moment. Obama looked like he'd be caught with a hand in the cookie jar. But McCain did the same thing (the guilty grin). For god's sake frown and slightly shake your head or something! Look pissed off when you're being misrepresented.
Overall (politically), I thought it was a draw, slight edge to Obama. Substantively, Obama wiped the floor with McCain.
Obama won - the details of the supposed "fine" are meaningless.
McCain was like a canker sore with legs.
Obama was a human being.
All the rest is commentary.
McCain's mortgage idea sounds like bad socialism - as opposed to single payer, which would be good socialism.
IMO - buying mortgages sounds like what GOP people have said as bad socialism.
The Paulson plans sounds far wiser -- Buy up distressed assets and sell them back when they achieve value.
McCain brings up a lot of things that happened before the energized voting youth population of today was born. So if any of you are wondering about Reagan and Social Security---that's when there was a lot of talk about the elderly living on cat food.
Not kidding.
May not have actually have been as widespread as the media made it seem, but it was definitely happening. I seem to remember that Reagan started taxing the SS checks and it took a big chunk out of an already limited fixed income. And methinks that's when Social Security stopped being called "a benefit" and became "an entitlement"---a term that begs the question.
Have you ever heard McCain talk sports?
Almost all of his sports talk is dated (Ted Williams et al) -
He's like my late grandfather (RIP) in that way.
It can be charming and funny, but it indicates a man out of touch.
I admit I didn't notice the "That one" remark(s). Apparently it is something of a big deal? The Repub's new slogan? WTF?
I think Obama met his objectives.
He was Presidential, he was in control, the major networks have conceded that he won (even Faux News). No histrionics, that suited him.
From his point of view, he has attracted more Undecideds who were tilting his way, and locked down the ones who had already decided for him.
That means his slight slippage in the polls since the weekend will stay that .... slight. McCain did not get his Gamechanger.
My own fervent wish is that he not remain too negative over the next four weeks. He is now the frontrunner, I think he needs to stay positive to close the deal with the American people.
Maybe I didn't understand the $700B buyout. I thought it was about buying up "toxic" mortgage paper. And we essentially own Fannie and Freddie (which neither McCain nor Palin seems to understand were not subprime mortgage companies) so can forgive mortgages of 90 years olds who shoot themselves and renegotiate others if we wish. So I am not clear how McCain's proposal is anything new. I checked a few right wing blogs this morning and they hated McCain's proposal ... another $300B for pure socialism is the basic gist. Before this is all over we'll probably end up having to nationalize the entire banking system, as Sweden did in the early 90s) so the GOP, aka Party of Whiners, should save their breath.
The sequence that was most indicative to me was the one about setting priorities for health care, energy, and entitlements. McCain was unable to prioritize (also a Bush failing ... let's do two wars, have a tax cut, go shopping, no sacrifices). Obama laid them out in order and had reasons why.
It also caught my attention - I think it was during the "that one" bit - where McCain pointedly bragged about voting against Bush and Cheney. So his only mention of the two of them in either debate (that I can recall) was to say he voted against something they wanted. Extraordinary.
i respectfully disagree. john mccain's new plan is actually the best way out of the crisis. all the bailout did was shift the risk from banks to the taxpayers. the underlying problem - bad mortgages - still remains. if the federal government bought up and refinanced the debts of those mortgagers who could become stable, the assets that are derivative to them would increase in value, since the defaults would hopefully diminish. then a market would reemerge for them - although probably at a lower price that the last purchase price by the bank, since the coupon is still far from guaranteed. but hey, that's how it should work. there are moral hazard problems, but no worse (or less workable) than the current plan.
the "rescue" plan simply shifts the risk to the federal government, and allows the banks to begin making money again. these assets will never increase in value until people can pay their mortgages again, or housing values increase and refinancing occurs. the things are toxic, and will remain so until the obligations are paying out again.
although i would combine the mccain plan with a buyout plan for equity, to give banks capital since they are so overextended.
Nerp,
I disagree. If you buy out all the problematic mortgages directly, which is what McCain is suggesting, you're actually compensating the banks and investors in full. Instead of getting, say, 50 cents on the dollar for their bad loans, they're getting the full dollar.
And where do you draw the line? Everyone's homes have lost value. Do we all get to refinance at our the new price? If not, who gets to? Only those who've missed payments? What about the people who are struggling but still making their payments? When gets compensated for falling home values and who doesn't?
a.l.
at least we have a good way of valuing the homes. further, because of the tranche structure, the banks that choose the most conservative securities will be paid out first. there will probably be defaults as we get to the alt-a and sub-prime stuff, which will hit those banks in the lowest tranches.
First, on mortgages that are currently larger than the value of the house, the government could force banks to take a haircut on the payoffs. a bank may be willing to take 10%-20% less than having to foreclose on a home that won't sell at all. this would cut into the profitability of the securities, since the actual cashflow will necessarily decrease. second, the feds could give a loan - to people who could afford it - for more than the value of the house at a better rate that they could afford. if the goal is to keep people in their houses and prevent forclosures, this may help. if they sell it at a loss, the government may have to eat it, or there could be some kind of repayment plan on the extra principle. third, if there was a modest profit over the appraised value at the time of the new government loan at the selling time in the future, the government could share it at a 50/50 ratio to help the homeowner, up to the double the difference in the loan. again, a loss, but what can you do.
the Paulson plan does not present any kind of solution, because in order to fix the crisis, the government has to necessarily pay more than these assets are worth to recapitalize the banks. if we bought them at market value, the balance sheets of the banks remain exactly the same. all the risk is on the government - and again, these things aren't worth anything until the underlying problem is fixed. home values will continue to decline until the defaults and foreclosures stop (and we reach the bottom of the bubble). the government's buying these homes will stabilize the market, even in cases where the owners cannot afford, under any terms, the home. the government becomes a holding company for these assets until the market stablizes - which just by holding them, it hastens.
further, the bigger concern - and the more easily fixable one from my plan - is those homeowners who could afford a reasonable interest rate but have been rocked by adjustments on their arms. those are the simplest ones to refinance.
under either plan, the banks are going to lose money on these securities. at least under mine and mccain's, we actually fix the problem while we're doing it. and keep people in their homes.
not everyone's home has lost value. my house here in the midwest has actually gone up a modest 1.5%. it is the bubble spots where the situation is most dire.
Those bad mortgages McCain wants to buy - many of those people cannot afford a re-financed mortage. Many are barely literate and marginally employed - They cannot pay any mortgage.
Plus - McCain just wanst to Fed Gov to have financial levers over people
The Paulson plan is better for many reasons - There is a real opportunity to make money over a ten year period.
When real estate goes up again - the value of much of that debt will skyrocket and Paulson will be able to wait to sell into a growing economy.
IMO - Obama knows this, but he has to be careful because the plan is unpopular and relies on elite judgement.
McCain lacks the financial understanding - He is just spouting crap his advisors tell hi,
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home