Iowa: The Recap, or A response to the responses…
If you happened to come here, oh accidentally. Say a wayward search engine dropped you here…then I ask that before reading on, go here first…
OK, now that you’re all caught up..
First off, let me just say that I’m not completely shocked by either Obama’s, or Huckabee’s win.
First on the right, Huckabee played well in Iowa because they have a lot of evangelicals, and he’s loved by Jesus. Let’s not go anointing him the savior of “American values” just yet. Yes, he spent much less than Romney for a greater return, but he also let everyone and their cat know about it, and that thing plays well in a state with a lot of corn. New Hampshire will be a much bigger (and probably more important test) because the Reps in the granite state lean much more to Romney’s kind of conservativity. I doubt Huckabee will even rank in the top three there (probably 5th, behind even Paul), but if he does hit a top three finish in New Hampshire (based, I think, mostly on his momentum from Iowa) then he might be able to start raising more money and compete with Romney…but I doubt it heartily.
Obama…oh how much hope we have for you at this moment…and how I fear it will soon evaporate. Much of the coverage that I saw last night focused on both, the amount of Obama’s victory (his pull with voters across several categories was strong) and the depth of Hilary’s collapse (sidenote: little was made that Edwards finished above, albeit by a small margin, Hillary…even NPR this morning still touted Hillary as Obama’s chief rival), and how Obama = change. Just as with the Republicans, I feel that Obama may not play as well in New Hampshire as he did in Iowa.
OK, so on to responding…
First I’ll start with exsulis’ final point about the loan bail out. When you really look at it, the government isn’t really bailing out those who took the loans, so much as those who GAVE them. Yes, people shouldn’t take loans they can’t pay, but, you know what, a bank shouldn’t give a loan to someone who can’t pay it and then bitch when that loan goes into default.
Sorry, but just like the S&L bail out in the 80’s, this is more about american lending corporations saving face (read; stock price = international trust in said companies = less impact on the dollar which is, by the way, in the shit!). A few people might save their houses as a result, but that’s more or less collateral damage…
OK, another point from exsulis…yes, the economy is driven by business, but as you pointed out, 16 years (yeah, Clinton is at fault too) of near unchecked business practice causes the shit we are seeing now. Business needs some sort of governmental oversight because the fact that business is only in the “business” of making money and all other concerns (human rights, environment, etc) will, inevitably, fall by the wayside. Look, I’m not a socialist (really, I’m not), but anything unchecked (whether it’s business, government, zombies, whatever) is just bad.
Tengu, what doesn’t jive about Ron Paul is the fact that he is a golem controlled by a secret occult consortium run by the gold mining industry.
Kerri, one of the reasons that Obama is getting such good returns is that he has such little experience. Bush (inexplicably, since his dad was head of the CIA, Vice-President and President, plus he’s got a governor brother) sold himself as a Washington outsider and it worked because people wanted “change.” Obama’s doing the same thing, really. And he is a Senator. No he hasn’t been there since the ice-age, like say, Bob Dole. But it’s not like he doesn’t know anybody in Washington.
I do agree with exsulis assertion that Obama’s approach to the war is the most sensible. Look, I actually marched against the war before it started, but I’ve been saying since before then that if we went into Iraq we would have to be there for 2 decades. If we were to pull the troops out now, we’d turn that country (and much of that region) into an f-ing wasp’s nest! What we need is a true international coalition, backed by the UN and NATO, to help us sort out Iraq so that some stability can be brought to the area. Pulling out now will only cause the next generation of Iraqis, who will see us as a bunch of assholes who raped their country then left when we longer wanted to stay, to become Al Qaeda’s next crop of willing recruits.
C, I wouldn’t call them puppets, more like semi-autonomous constructs with advanced emotive matrices…but it’s really just nitpicking.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
January 4th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I didn’t want to fully rant on said posts but oh well.
My point on the loan fiasco is Hillary, Obama, and Edwards were each toting HUGE, and I do mean huge plans to stop the variable loan rates, as well as funding parts of low income home owners’ loans. Yes, it does have a side effect of helping companies, and banks but the main point of their plans was stopping homes from going into forclosure. Several polls were showing a large spike in the older generations that “had looked at their home as a investment.”
I’m totally in agreement on the whole giving loans to people who shouldn’t have gottten loans in the first place. I know bailing out these people, and banks does indeed save international trust, and investers. But it isn’t the government’s job to patrol, if people make good investment choices. This goes to the problem of investors pushing what pretty risky investments as safe ones. Just looking at some 401Ks that I have access to the “Conservative” otherwise known as safe place to put your 401K went into said toilet. Where as the riskier, and more aggressive 401K options have stayed the same, or benefited from this incident. Kinda tells you how some options have been viewed by the average person.
I’m all for trust busting, and regulations but not so much for outright controls on everything. Kicking said busineses so the average person isn’t a tiny cog is a good thing. If you try, and impose too many restrictions on anything it will either die, or slip through the perverbial fingers. So there is a balance to be had but it isn’t always the same solution depending on who runs what, and how. I do blame Clinton, Bush, the Pub congress, and Dem congress on the current shit that hit the fan.
I was against going into Iraq on the sole ideal of lets make sure Afganistan is in good shape before we do anything else. I’d rather have made said country an ideal nation than split funds, and forces for a protracted period of time. But thats just me.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
OK, true, but what I’m talking about is not what the candidates are proposing in relation to the variable rate issue, but rather what was instituted a few weeks ago…it’s just a way to bail out the banks that are now posting ridiculous losses because of the lending practices they were engaging in.
I agree that too much control is just as bad as too little.
But I disagree with your assertion that government isn’t or shouldn’t get involved in situations like this…as I said, it’s necessary in order to keep our already fragile economy in some sort of holding pattern. That’s exactly what the government should do, but the way it’s being done isn’t very good…first off, in many cases the rate freeze is voluntary on the part of the lender…also I’m just upset that many people want to tout the current situation as either A) government looking out for the “little guy” while stiffing corporations (which is not true) or B) some sort of hand out program (which is also untrue)…in fact, the biggest complaint that the lending industry had with the recent “bail out” was that the rate hike freeze would go on too long…not, mind you, that it was taking place at all….
As for Afghanistan…at least we had a viable reason to go there…
January 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I was refering to what they had proposed not what Bush, and the current congress put into action. Which Hillary, Obama, and Edwards all said wasn’t enough. If you think some of the numbers here are crazy you should check out European invester’s markets right now.
I’m not saying the government shouldn’t do something but nor should they try, and wipe this mess under the rug, and have everyone else who didn’t make these dumb ass mistakes pay for it.
I know what you mean by A it only helps some lenders, and really doesn’t help the little guy in most cases. The handout plan is what some have proposed(as in still not happening) as a fix to the current issue which won’t fix the problem its is just a stop gap like lowering interest rates, or freezing said rates.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Sure.
I agree with your assessment that, on some level, you need to make people accountable for the choices they make, both individuals and corporations. The issue here is that the problem is so big that not doing anything (i.e., making people suck it up) would be much worse in the long run. Now if there had been a reasonable amount of oversight in the first place, this whole thing might not have occurred. It might have, but would probably have been less likely.
And much of the European problem is in direct relation to our housing crises because a lot of European banks started lending over here, both directly and through proxy, because, I guess, they wanted to gorge at the same trough as the american banks.
Just goes to show whether you deal in dollars, euros, or yak milk, greed can make you a lot of money, but also cost you a lot.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I’m not saying that the governament shouldn’t regulate busineses on some levels. But trying to go in and bail these people out isn’t going to fix the problem we’re currently in. Its only going to string the problem along at this point. Look at the fedral reserve, its doing most of the lending that most banking/lenders do normally(call it a lesser debt wiping), and its not fixing the problem.
The big problem with trying to regulate the Economy is the nature of governments. The bigger the economy gets the bigger Big Brother needs to be, and the of the support for regulations needs to grow as well. Governments naturally grow its fundamental with more people it increases the likelyhood that someone in the Morgage industry will line someone’s pockets to get the Okay on something stupid. Remember Morgage Lenders are pretty high up there for candidates compaign funds.
The European problem is not due to directly to the housing market. Its part of the ownership of debt. Companies regularly sell off their debts to other larger companies some of which are overseas. Some depts are bought as a package like a CD from a bank with a given variable rate. So when a company buys a debt(s) from a morgage company they are normally told that said debt(s) is not a risky one, or if there is a risky one in the bunch that they get a few more not so risky ones to off-set it I think Mojo had a pretty good analysis(and links) on the current causes of the credit crunch.
http://www.poormojo.org/pmjadaily/archives/019335.php
http://www.poormojo.org/pmjadaily/archives/018789.php