Why McCain would be a mediocre president

[xr7g428]

I'm thinking a Jubilee would be good. Have to be a surprise Jubilee - don't want to give anyone any warning to "position" themselves. Just cancel all debt, wipe all the slates clean, and start over. Everybody gets to keep their properties - no matter how much they owed before, their assets, and their jobs. But they have to burn any IOUs, notes, liens. They guy who owed 300% of his home's value is left in the same boat as the guy who ate Spam and paid his house off in 10 years. Too bad. Anybody with liquidity can start lending again immediately after it's over, and anyone who wants to "grow" can borrow anew. What say you, sages of the automotive board?

 

In a contest for the simplest answer to the most complex question, this has to be the winner.

 

What you suggest would effectively wipe out the savings and retirement benefits for just about every one. Your money is not in the bank, it is in the cars and houses and possessions of your neighbors, and their money is in yours.

 

We ( yes we, every member of society) created the rules that have gotten us in to this mess. We will need to create the rules that get us out of it. What we need to do now is to place the greatest authority at the point of greatest knowledge. This means hire the best people and then get out of the way. We need to let the people we have hired to get the job done, do it. A bunch of know nothings kibutzing over their shoulders is not going to help.

 

No amount of explanation will ever be enough for people who want it all to be just a big conspiracy. Average people have about as much chance to understand the complexities of the economy as they do quantum physics. The effects surround us every day, and that begs for understanding. Mythology helped man understand the weather, and the seasons and day and night. Gods had to be appeased, sacrifices had to be made. Great wars were fought over which god might be true. We are not so far removed. We have placed politicians in the firmament, and now believe that they are responsible for every thing good, and everything bad. Political party has become a substitute for religion. Just because we believe these things does not make them true.

 

The opinions of the vast majority are as helpful to this situation as they are to brain surgery or rocket science.

[RangerM]

Mystifying as to how I see it or that I have a problem with Fiat Money?

 

I have two big jugs of pennies and a bunch of gold and silver that was started long ago by my grandfather. Our big christmas present was the half ounce coins, for our birthdays we would get 1/10 oz coins. Pennies are actually worth, well I remember about a year ago or so I think about 5 to 8 cents in metal value.

 

With regard to your previous link on FLASH: Fed Speaking Out Both Sides Of Mouth

 

Would this article adequately explain the drain? Investment, commercial banks borrow $218 bln from Fed

 

The reason for converting to pennies is the fact that, while in a literal sense it's a "fiat money" and not a hard currency, because of the metal value, it IS a hard currency. In other words, pennies are not a fiat money due to their metal value. It was sort of a joke.

Edited September 26, 2008 by RangerM

[RangerM]

I'm thinking a Jubilee would be good. Have to be a surprise Jubilee - don't want to give anyone any warning to "position" themselves. Just cancel all debt, wipe all the slates clean, and start over. Everybody gets to keep their properties - no matter how much they owed before, their assets, and their jobs. But they have to burn any IOUs, notes, liens. They guy who owed 300% of his home's value is left in the same boat as the guy who ate Spam and paid his house off in 10 years. Too bad. Anybody with liquidity can start lending again immediately after it's over, and anyone who wants to "grow" can borrow anew. What say you, sages of the automotive board?

 

The biggest problem, as I see it, is the fact that if you "wipe the slate clean" then there is no liquidity.

 

The bank lended your money out to the guy who owes 300% of his home value, so unless you put all your money in your mattress, your money isn't there. (FMCCAP, can I borrow some of your pennies?)

 

Same for your employer. You have no job in the sense that he can't pay you. Since he has no accounts receivable (or payable), and nothing in the bank, he has no way to generate revenue. His assets could be considered collateral for a loan, but since the bank invests the money people deposit there in other ways (like the guy who owes 300%), and doesn't keep it in a cookie jar, the money isn't there.

 

We couldn't tap our foreign accounts, because their money is invested as well, and would likely be frozen when we freeze ours. The world financial system would be thrown into a panic.

 

We would be back to the days of bartering (or using a hard currency like gold), not to mention the chaos that would ensue from the roving gangs of those that don't have anything before, except the guns they would use to take your stuff. (the Government can't operate with no liquidity, therefore no police. Witness Katrina. Many police stayed home to protect their property and families)

Edited September 26, 2008 by RangerM

[Len_A]

No amount of explanation will ever be enough for people who want it all to be just a big conspiracy. Average people have about as much chance to understand the complexities of the economy as they do quantum physics.

 

The opinions of the vast majority are as helpful to this situation as they are to brain surgery or rocket science.

An absolute understatement, and all their public griping is going to accomplish is to complicate an already complex situation.

[RangerM]

An absolute understatement, and all their public griping is going to accomplish is to complicate an already complex situation.

 

I don't agree that it's all that complicated.

 

The banks were told (forced?) to start lending to low income persons, with questionable credit.

 

Home prices began going up because so many underqualified people were in the market for houses, allowing many to sell afterward reaping a profit. (sort of like the "tech bubble" and all those irrational people paying huge sums for etoys.com)

 

Mortgage brokers, whose modus operandi was "signing the deals" to get their commission, had little incentive to say no to pentential buyers bacause they didn't have to worry about the repayment of said loans once they were sold off, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act essentially allowed the loans to be repackaged into mortgage backed securities.

 

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac kept the engine going by purchasing huge chunks of the securities.

 

....and now the :fan: :fan: :fan: :fan: :fan:

 

So basically, if the people that borrowed the money had been qualified in the first place, and the number of defaults were kept to a minumum, then none of the rest would have made any difference. The ground on which everything was built (the borrowers) was shaky at best, and the earthquake has come.

Edited September 26, 2008 by RangerM

[retro-man]

The biggest problem, as I see it, is the fact that if you "wipe the slate clean" then there is no liquidity.

 

The bank lended your money out to the guy who owes 300% of his home value, so unless you put all your money in your mattress, your money isn't there. (FMCCAP, can I borrow some of your pennies?)

 

Same for your employer. You have no job in the sense that he can't pay you. Since he has no accounts receivable (or payable), and nothing in the bank, he has no way to generate revenue. His assets could be considered collateral for a loan, but since the bank invests the money people deposit there in other ways (like the guy who owes 300%), and doesn't keep it in a cookie jar, the money isn't there.

 

We couldn't tap our foreign accounts, because their money is invested as well, and would likely be frozen when we freeze ours. The world financial system would be thrown into a panic.

 

We would be back to the days of bartering (or using a hard currency like gold), not to mention the chaos that would ensue from the roving gangs of those that don't have anything before, except the guns they would use to take your stuff. (the Government can't operate with no liquidity, therefore no police. Witness Katrina. Many police stayed home to protect their property and families)

You would keep the paper value of your bank accounts. That money you "own" on paper would still be yours and would be immediately useable (if we can just print up $700,000,000,000.00, we can certainly do that). Likewise your employer. Those stocks you own on paper would still be yours. Likewise the manager of your retirement account. The debts of whatever entities hold that paper would also be wiped clean. Retirement, as xr7g428 points out, could be a problem (but how many of us are seriously counting on that working out anyway?). I feel compelled to point out here that I don't regard this as a serious proposal - it wouldn't be "fair" - there would be winners and losers, and it would take an absolute emperor to implement such a thing - but am interested in discussing "What would happen?" I realize the economy is somewhat more complex than it was in Mosaic times. As xr7g428 points out, us ordinary people don't understand it. Clue: neither do the economists.

 

I hope by the time we're through with this all that the term "complex derivative" will be regarded with as much scorn as "liberal" currently is. This could all go 2 ways you know guys: we could be pulling slowly back out by the 2nd or 3rd quarter of '09 - or a good percentage of us could be selling apples on the street corner.

Edited September 26, 2008 by retro-man

[xr7g428]

I don't agree that it's all that complicated.

 

The banks were told (forced?) to start lending to low income persons, with questionable credit.

 

Home prices began going up because so many underqualified people were in the market for houses, allowing many to sell afterward reaping a profit. (sort of like the "tech bubble" and all those irrational people paying huge sums for etoys.com)

 

Mortgage brokers, whose modus operandi was "signing the deals" to get their commission, had little incentive to say no to pentential buyers bacause they didn't have to worry about the repayment of said loans once they were sold off, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act essentially allowed the loans to be repackaged into mortgage backed securities.

 

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac kept the engine going by purchasing huge chunks of the securities.

 

....and now the :fan: :fan: :fan: :fan: :fan:

 

So basically, if the people that borrowed the money had been qualified in the first place, and the number of defaults were kept to a minumum, then none of the rest would have made any difference. The ground on which everything was built (the borrowers) was shaky at best, and the earthquake has come.

 

 

 

This is a very good description of the underlying problem.

 

The complexity comes in when we begin to consider the securities that were created out of the mortgages. If each individual mortgage could be negotiated out, there really is not a problem. The analogy of the bad watermelons spoiling the whole batch is really quite good. The bad mortgages taint the entire batch that make up the securities. This is further compounded in the way the securities were re bundled into derivatives. That system is called tranching. What it means is that the underlying security was cut up into different slices of risk and reward. Some tranches had rights to early payments, and others had rights to later payments. The early payment guys got less interest for the reduced risk (not many people default, or pay off, a mortgage in the first few years). The guys that bought the later, riskier, tranches got a premium for the greater risk. Regardless, now we are more than two steps away from the original mortgage.

 

If one had the patience to hold the securities to maturity, then the problem washes itself out. But the accounting rules required under SOXA demand that the value of the securities be written down immediately. So when the banks and investment houses that bought these, and by the way, they bought them with money they were managing for a lot of pension funds and 401Ks and so on, have to show a huge loss, right now.

 

If the government, or some other entity, buys these securities for pennies on the dollar, and hangs on to them, the stand to make a huge amount of money. The debate, as I understand it right now, is whether the government will buy this stuff, our whether there will be a non governmental entity doing the buying. The idea behind the non governmental plan is that they would use money from investors to fund the deal instead of from the treasury. The sticking point is that the treasury will have to insure the deal simply because it is too big to go down any other way.

 

There are a few out there that want the system to fail so that they might have the opportunity to rebuild the system in their own image. It worked for the Nazi Party in the 30's. I think we must be very careful that we do not allow them to take advantage of the situation. I am gratified that the Republicans learned enough from the great depression to not let us fall into total collapse for the sake of principal.

 

Now both parties need to hash out a plan. If it needs changed, change it, but the cost of doing nothing is disaster. I know we all have a lot of fun kicking around the politicians, Wall Street, and big business, but we will all learn a very, very, hard lesson if we allow failure to occur. How long do you think Ford could operate without the ability to borrow? IF the money runs out, every one is on the street tomorrow.

Edited September 26, 2008 by xr7g428

[fmccap]

Now both parties need to hash out a plan. If it needs changed, change it, but the cost of doing nothing is disaster. I know we all have a lot of fun kicking around the politicians, Wall Street, and big business, but we will all learn a very, very, hard lesson if we allow failure to occur. How long do you think Ford could operate without the ability to borrow? IF the money runs out, every one is on the street tomorrow.

I know you'll probably trash it but a lot of people say they are taking the wrong course. Looking at the track record of the two fools pushing this rushed and power grabbing plan and the FACT that last week(the 16th) said everything was fine, I don't trust them.

 

I say cut taxes some more and tell all the legislators to cut 25% of the spending by the end of the year. Then a little every year for some years till we cut it 50% total. Some might not like it at first but after they start having more money in there pockets might start to like that idea.

 

Is the bailout needed? Many economists say 'no'

WASHINGTON — A funny thing happened in the drafting of the largest-ever U.S. government intervention in the financial system. Lawmakers of all stripes mostly fell in line, but many of the nation's brightest economic minds are warning that the Wall Street bailout's a dangerous rush job.

[Ron W.]

I like this responce to the article

 

feldsien, just read a poll by a tv news channel, 50 per cent of americains want a stake thur the heart of the whole deal, including most of washington, I suspect.

43 per cent want some kind of a deal and 7 per cent, thats the bush gang and wall street want to get their grubby little hands on the whole 700 billion and to He-- with the taxpayers.

I am in the 50 % group.

Barney frank wants to see wall street bailed out and is mad as can be at those dirty old repubs, in the house who told bush to suck eggs and not way.

Lets hope barney gets what he really needs and the house repubs have the guts to stand up to this blathering idiot in the oval office, the FBI is looking into the failure of Lehman, Fannie, Freddie, AIG and now Washington Mutual, so why is every one in such a flurry to crap this tanker load of bush bulldropping down the throats of america? Must be some truly great thefts planned for there to be this much haste, as all ways in a crime, the question needs be asked: "Who Benfits?" Head of Lehman in 07 only took home 74 MILLION dollars, why do I think he is not suffering as much as the family who has seen their purchasing power slashed by 50 per cent or more in the past 8 years?

If you or any one questions that, I will be glad to provide data to prove my point, simple really, in 2001 the dollar was .98 cents to buy 1 euro, today? $1.47 to buy one euro. how hard is that? In other words regarding financial treason of intentionally devaluing the dollar over 50 per cent has done exactly that

[fmccap]

I think this is a good question.

 

RGE Conference Call on the Economic and Financial Outlook..and why the Treasury TARP bailout is flawed

It is a disgrace that no professional economist was consulted by Congress or invited to present his/her views at the Congressional hearings on the Treasury rescue plan.

 

Thus, the Treasury plan is a disgrace: a bailout of reckless bankers, lenders and investors that provides little direct debt relief to borrowers and financially stressed households and that will come at a very high cost to the US taxpayer. And the plan does nothing to resolve the severe stress in money markets and interbank markets that are now close to a systemic meltdown.

[mettech]

I know you'll probably trash it but a lot of people say they are taking the wrong course. Looking at the track record of the two fools pushing this rushed and power grabbing plan and the FACT that last week(the 16th) said everything was fine, I don't trust them.

 

I say cut taxes some more and tell all the legislators to cut 25% of the spending by the end of the year. Then a little every year for some years till we cut it 50% total. Some might not like it at first but after they start having more money in there pockets might start to like that idea.Is the bailout needed? Many economists say 'no'

 

Not possible.... :shades: Just another "Monday Morning Quarterback" statement.

 

After DoD, SSI and interest on the debt... that leaves around 50% of the budget.. :reading:

 

 

Tell me what programs you would reduce or cut to get your 25%.

 

 

Too many people would be hurt or devastated by such a reduction. It's easy to throw numbers around and talk about it..... especially when you don't have the responsibility.

[mettech]

2007 Budget w/% increase over 2006 budget.

 

The President's actual budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

 

$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security

$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]

$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare

$294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare

$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related

$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt

$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training

$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation

$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits

$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice

$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment

$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs

$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture

$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development

$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology

$23.5 billion (+0.8%) - Energy

$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government

Much of the costs of the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war until FY2008 have been funded through supplemental appropriations or emergency supplemental appropriations, which are treated differently than regular appropriations bills. Senior congressional leaders have contended that those war costs, as much as possible, should go through the regular budget process, which provides for greater transparency. Determining the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is complex. CBO has estimated that "war-related defense activities" in 2007 were "roughly $115 billion." (CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, August 2007, Box 1-1, available at <http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8565&type=0>) See Below for total defense spending.

[RangerM]

Now both parties need to hash out a plan. If it needs changed, change it, but the cost of doing nothing is disaster. I know we all have a lot of fun kicking around the politicians, Wall Street, and big business, but we will all learn a very, very, hard lesson if we allow failure to occur. How long do you think Ford could operate without the ability to borrow? IF the money runs out, every one is on the street tomorrow.

 

At the same time, I can say I'm thankful for those that are hesitant to ask every American to write a $2,300 check for this whole deal.

 

I'd really like to know that a government- (ie citizen-) financed deal is the only, or at least the best, option.

[RaZor]

Joe goes to the track and bets $2 on a horse.

 

Two guys standing nearby get into a discussion and Fred says to Sam, "I'll bet you $5 that Joe wins his bet."

 

Next to them are Bill and Bob. Bill says: "I'll bet you $10 that Fred welshes on his bet if he loses."

 

Next to them is Sally. Sally says: "For $3 I'll guarantee to Bill that if Bob fails to pay off, I'll make good on the bet."

 

Sally then goes to Mary and borrows the $7 needed in case she has to ever pay off and promises to pay back $8. She doesn't expect to every have to pay since she believes Bob will always make good. So she expects to net $2 no matter what happens to Joe.

 

A quick calculation indicates that there is now 2+5+10+3+7 = $27 riding on the outcome of the horse race.

 

Question how much has been "invested" in the horse race?

 

Wait for it:

 

Answer:

 

$50,000 by the owner of the horse who is expecting to recoup his investment from the winnings of the horse and other future deals. Everyone else is gambling, not investing.

 

So, when Hank Paulson and his golfing buddies go to the track and lose the rent money playing the ponies, we should pay up?

[RangerM]

So, when Hank Paulson and his golfing buddies go to the track and lose the rent money playing the ponies, we should pay up?

 

I don't equate the two things (gambling and the credit market) outright.

 

Gambling itself, is not the evil, but a gambling addiction is.

 

Credit itself, is not the evil. The misuse and abuse of credit is.

 

I'll say it again. Were it not for the rampant misuse of credit, by unqualified borrowers (enabled by irresponsible mortgage brokers further enabled by Freddie/Fannie), we would not be having this problem.

 

Problems can have many contributing (aggravating) factors, but ultimately there is often one 'root' cause.

[fmccap]

Not possible.... :shades: Just another "Monday Morning Quarterback" statement.

 

After DoD, SSI and interest on the debt... that leaves around 50% of the budget.. :reading:

 

 

Tell me what programs you would reduce or cut to get your 25%.

 

 

Too many people would be hurt or devastated by such a reduction. It's easy to throw numbers around and talk about it..... especially when you don't have the responsibility.

Maybe those people need to get some responsibility then.

 

Yes my friend it's possible.

 

Now back to McCain, why does he still insist saying "wipe Isreal off the map".

Edited September 27, 2008 by fmccap

[chiefstang]

Yeah, but.... Palin is sooo hot!

[RaZor]

I don't equate the two things (gambling and the credit market) outright.

 

Depends on one's understanding of how derivatives and credit default swaps work, including none of the gamblers having any financial relationship to the underlying asset (the horse, or mortgages)

[RangerM]

Depends on one's understanding of how derivatives and credit default swaps work, including none of the gamblers having any financial relationship to the underlying asset (the horse, or mortgages)

 

Buying a house, purely with the expectation of selling it at a profit, is gambling.

 

Buying a house, when you can't afford the payments when the APR adjusts or if you don't understand the obligations of the contract that you just signed, is not gambling.

 

One can only gamble when he/she is aware of, and does not ignore, the risks that come with it. Anything else is recklessness.

 

I don't have to know about derivatives/credit swaps, to know that they are not the cause of the problem, because even if they never existed, the problem of too many defaulted mortgages would still exist.

Edited September 28, 2008 by RangerM

[retro-man]

RangerM,

 

There are two sides to this, and I am not discounting yours. There were people being given loans that they had no business taking out (and, as I recall, Bush was more than willing to cite rising rates of home ownership as proof of the success of his economic policies). But the derivatives business amplified the problem to catastrophic proportions. The explosion of complex derivatives - largely over the past 15 years - was pointless, parasitic, economic activity that should never have been tolerated, and never should be again. Wall Street became a bloated tick sucking the blood off productive sectors of the economy. It should have been regulated. It should have been questioned. It was neither. Now we have both candidates playing to "Main Street" and decrying Wall Street - is this just political grandstanding, or is a long-neglected truth finally being acknowledged?

Edited September 28, 2008 by retro-man

[fmccap]

The Hanky Panky Banking Bailout Bill

Once the 700 Billion Bailout Bill is passed a new public/private entity will be created. This new entity will be known as the Securitized Housing Investment Trust and will be referred to using the acronym SHIT. Once Paulson and the administration get their SHIT together, all of our financial problems will be behind us. In addition to purchasing illiquid mortgage assets, Detroit crack houses, abandoned FEMA trailers, and other real estate assets, the trust will also purchase porta potties. Paulson is quoted as saying: “ the porta potty acquisition is the crown jewel of our plan. As the US Dollar reaches parity with toilet paper, left over toilet paper in the porta potties could be a valuable asset. We expect a return of 100, 200 or even 1000% on the toilet paper asset alone relative to the US Dollar.”

 

Most analysts are in agreement, this will be the largest SHIT on the face of the planet.

[RangerM]

RangerM,

 

There are two sides to this, and I am not discounting yours. There were people being given loans that they had no business taking out (and, as I recall, Bush was more than willing to cite rising rates of home ownership as proof of the success of his economic policies). But the derivatives business amplified the problem to catastrophic proportions. The explosion of complex derivatives - largely over the past 15 years - was pointless, parasitic, economic activity that should never have been tolerated, and never should be again. Wall Street became a bloated tick sucking the blood off productive sectors of the economy. It should have been regulated. It should have been questioned. It was neither. Now we have both candidates playing to "Main Street" and decrying Wall Street - is this just political grandstanding, or is a long-neglected truth finally being acknowledged?

 

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree that the Wall Street factor is a contributor to the problem (and the scale) at hand, but let's play a thought experiment. What if the Wall Street factor never existed? (ie, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was never passed):

 

The revisions to the Community Reinvestment Act would still exist. (please follow the link and read the article. It was written in 2000). Under the provisions of the CRA the banks were essentially forced to lend to people without regard to their creditworthiness. (I can say this because the CRA doesn't factor in creditworthiness, which was revealed in the article above) There would still be people borrowing money who would not ordinarily qualify under normal banking practice, and with the aid of NACA, they wouldn't have to, since the banks would not be examining their creditworthiness in the first place. The same people defaulting under the current system, would be defaulting anyway.

 

It would likely differ in the scale or degree of the problem. The number of defaults, while higher than normal, would likely be a more localized problem at this stage, since only through the changes to the G-L-B Act did the banks become truly national (across State lines), thus allowing the bad apples to spoil the entire bushel. However, if the local banks fail, the FDIC is automatically on the hook to cover $100K of every account.

 

The key question is: Would the problem have been identified before or after the point at which we are now? I can see a case for both. Your thoughts?

 

SECOND SCENARIO: What if the old lending rules had remained? (The revisions to the CRA never passed?

 

Home prices would likely have risen, albeit at a reduced pace, because (at the time) millions of persons made large sums during the "Tech bubble", and speculation was rampant. With the increase of home prices, many people wouldn't qualify under the old system, and those who were extended were in a better position to endure the financial risks. During the Tech Bust, home prices would likely have remained more static, as the economy slowed, or perhaps home prices may have fallen, making more available to lower income persons?

 

You could make the case, that with the abuses(?) that occurred on Wall Street that, in any economic down-cycle, we'd still be in the same situation we find ourselves, but I'm not sure. Obviously, Wall Street has an effect on the rest of the country, and when it hurts, many like me who have 401Ks will hurt as well. What I believe I CAN say is in the event of a Wall Street "correction", assuming the mortgage-backed securities were still considered solid investments (and without large numbers of defaults, probably would be), the likelihood of a free-market (as opposed to Government) solution would be greater.

 

It still seems to me that if you take away the (ill-qualified) borrowers from the equation, you don't end up with the Government asking (telling?) every man, woman, and child to write a $2,300 check to anyone.

 

With regard to the question of grandstanding, I'd say that is the nature of politics, unfortunately.

 

In most cases, candidates' desire is to stoke the electorates' fears or prejudices about a situation, place blame for the plight, and convince the people that they are the solution. "Put me in office and I'll fix it", is the order of the day.

Edited September 28, 2008 by RangerM

[Edstock]

FWIW, the NYT has a good article on how AIG got into trouble.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/business/28melt.html?em

 

In the case of A.I.G., the virus exploded from a freewheeling little 377-person unit in London, and flourished in a climate of opulent pay, lax oversight and blind faith in financial risk models. It nearly decimated one of the world’s most admired companies, a seemingly sturdy insurer with a trillion-dollar balance sheet, 116,000 employees and operations in 130 countries.

[RaZor]

Then someone has a cancelled check, an invoice, or there is some sort of trail. Wouldn't you agree?

 

There needs to be more than anonymous sources here.

 

In an e-mail to NEWSWEEK, a senior McCain official said that when the campaign began last year, it signed a contract with Davis Manafort "in which we purchased

all

of [Davis's] time, and he agreed not to work for

any

other clients." The official also said that though Davis was an "investor" in 3eDC, Davis has received no salary from it. As to why Davis permitted the Freddie Mac payments to continue, the official referred NEWSWEEK to Davis Manafort, which did not respond to repeated phone calls. One senior McCain adviser said the entire flap could have been avoided if the campaign had resisted attacking Barack Obama for his ties to two former Fannie Mae executives, which prompted the media to take a second look at Davis. "It was stupid," the adviser said. "A serious miscalculation and an amateurish move." Still, this adviser said, McCain's faith in his campaign manager remains unswerving.

 

Source

(I suppose that they could identify the senior McCain campaign official, but then you would probably scream foul, eh?)

[RangerM]

 

Source

(I suppose that they could identify the senior McCain campaign official, but then you would probably scream foul, eh?)

 

Your original post (#459 of this thread, on Sep 25 2008, 02:42 PM and uneditted since that time) says the following:

 

Both the New York Times and Newsweek are reporting that McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was paid $15,000 a month by Freddie Mac as recently as last month, directly contradicting statements made by the entire campaign as late as Tuesday.

 

I have read the article twice looking for the evidence that Davis (as in McCain's campaign manager) was paid $15,000 per month by Freddie Mac.

 

Where is it?

 

I see that Davis' firm was paid. Quote the article:

But the payments to Davis's firm, Davis Manafort, are especially problematic because he requested the consulting retainer in 2006—and then did barely any work for the fees, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement who asked not to be identified discussing Freddie Mac business. Aside from attending a few breakfasts and a political-action-committee meeting with Democratic strategist Paul Begala (another Freddie consultant), Davis did "zero" for the housing firm, one of the sources said. Freddie Mac also had no dealings with the lobbying firm beyond paying monthly invoices—but it agreed to the arrangement because of Davis's close relationship with McCain, the source said, which led top executives to conclude "you couldn't say no."

So now, we have a McCain campaign manager's firm being paid by Freddie Mac, the manager doing no work for Freddie Mac (as quoted from a presumably Freddie Mac source), and the manager deriving no salary from the firm, because he was being paid by the McCain campaign to only serve the campaign.

 

Has the argument now changed from "Davis being paid" to "Davis's FIRM being paid"?

 

Remember, Davis wasn't working for the firm at the time Freddie payments were being made.

 

Also remember:

 

Obama's former head of his vice presidential vetting panel, James A. Johnson, was a chief executive of Fannie Mae

Obama campaign consultant on housing issues, Franklin D Raines, was also a chief executive of Fannie Mae.

Obama advisor Maria Echaveste is married to Christopher Edley, Jr, is a lobbyist for Freddie Mac. (that one is a bit of a stretch, I admit)

 

This video is a bit partisan, but you may find interesting.

Edited September 28, 2008 by RangerM