A lot of economists believe that China becoming a larger energy consumer outside their own territory is a large part of the global effect. A lot also believe the stagnation of the united European economy has a lot to do with it. There are a lot of contributors. As for the American mortgage crisis, I don't know who thought that the subprime lending program was a good idea. It never was and giant balloon payments coming due or increases in mortgages of more than $300 a month at the end of "interest free" periods was a catastrophe waiting to happen. If some overseas companies invested in subprime lending and lost money, they are smart enough to know it was a gamble.

Does anyone have the exact particulars on the origins of subprime lending? Was it legislation that led to it or was it a loophole in existing lending practices?

I think it was a loophole. I think Mortgage companies have a lot of freedom in deciding who they will lend to and it just blew up on them. I think there also were some problems with house valuations. I saw today where the government is going to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I guess there is no other choice, but what a mess.

I'm going to disagree with you again. The DNC and RNC provide only token amounts of money to political candidates. Cutting them off financially is not that big deal. Now if they somehow coerce the big donors from giving, then it has an effect. Political campaigns have not been controlled by the parties since the primary system began in 1972.

Are the gators supposed to win big tonight?

Well the way I understand it, each party has a central headquarters and individual coalitions that are all able to donate to major campaigns. They have the organization and wherewithall to control advertising and most importantly electoral control. Minor parties have little access to the electoral control which therefore discourges third party alternatives opportunities for success. I shouldn't have just focused on the money aspect (which through their coalitions is significant) they control through the electorate system.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/parties.htm

A further institutional nudge toward two-partyism is provided by the electoral college system for choosing presidents. Under the electoral college system, Americans technically do not vote directly for a presidential slate of candidates. Instead, they vote within each state for a slate of "electors" who are pledged to one or another presidential candidate. Election as president requires an absolute majority of the 50 states' 538 electoral votes. This requirement makes it extremely difficult for a third party to achieve the presidency because the individual states' electoral votes are allocated under a winner-take-all arrangement. That is, whichever candidate receives a plurality of the popular vote in a state — even if it is just a narrow plurality — wins all of that state's electoral votes. Like the single-member district system, the electoral college works to the disadvantage of third parties, which have little chance of winning any state's electoral votes, let alone carrying enough states to elect a president.

That is significant control over party candidates and a lot of leverage to get them to tow the party line.

And I would be seriously surprised if the Gators do not roll out tonight. The Canes have a young team and a coach that's good but hasn't been there long. They should be good in the near future but the Gators are a machine and god knows as a Georgia Bulldog fan it pains me to say that! LOL!

I think it was a loophole. I think Mortgage companies have a lot of freedom in deciding who they will lend to and it just blew up on them. I think there also were some problems with house valuations. I saw today where the government is going to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I guess there is no other choice, but what a mess.

Greed bit them in the hindshanks and we're all paying the price. I do believe a combination of the mortgage crisis and the foreign oil dependance is the cause of the current economic environment. I'm one of those people that do not believe that the American president controls much of the economy. He or She (it WILL happen one day) can only work within the framework of his/her position to try and control the economy's impact on our citizens.

Does anyone have the exact particulars on the origins of subprime lending? Was it legislation that led to it or was it a loophole in existing lending practices?

Many economists think the mortgage crisis was aserbated by the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act by Bill Clinton.

Check out this link to wikipedia's explanation scroll to "Role of government and regulators".

Edited September 7, 200817 yr by Casey008

Greed bit them in the hindshanks and we're all paying the price. I do believe a combination of the mortgage crisis and the foreign oil dependance is the cause of the current economic environment. I'm one of those people that do not believe that the American president controls much of the economy. He or She (it WILL happen one day) can only work within the framework of his/her position to try and control the economy's impact on our citizens.

Ok. Florida is only losing by 6 points, 9-3. against a Top 10 team.

Oh, it's no doubt in my mind a woman will be president one day. I think that when the economic/business community sees the economy going the way it has for the last 2-3 years, and long term since 2001, people wonder, and rightfully so, what will it take to get it going once again.

Edited September 7, 200817 yr by Roman

Many economists think the mortgage crisis was aserbated by the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act by Bill Clinton.

Check out this link to wikipedia's explanation scroll to "Role of government and regulators".

Was Bush's moratorium on foreclosures passed? Are there lending programs out there being curently designed to help people that did not understand the fine print in their loans that said their mortgage would skyrocket at one point and that they were paying unfavorable rates? Mom and Pop Mortgage (Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) should have a redesigned program for those already in program to help prevent them from losing their homes. Of course that may be part of the news from today. I'll have to read more details.

Where are we on that front? Do we know?.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...00.html?cnn=yes

Was Bush's moratorium on foreclosures passed?

Yeah at the first of this year.

Are there lending programs out there being curently designed to help people that did not understand the fine print in their loans that said their mortgage would skyrocket at one point and that they were paying unfavorable rates?

I dont know about that one..

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157376

That is what is what Bush said would happen, that somehow by giving rich folks big tax breaks, they would turn around and invest in business. It did not happen. That is very evident by the fact the unemployment rate is very high and the deficit is soaring.

As far as the global problem, I think a lot of economist, would tell you that the United States mortgage crisis is big contributor to the global problem. Also, economist do not agree with the Bush tax cuts. They argue that instead of him squandering the surplus with tax cuts eight years ago, he should have used it to pay down the national debt. Of course, that isn't an issue now because the surplus has turned into a huge deficit.

I think everyone should pay their fair share too. That is why we have a progressive tax system. People who make more money should have to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

As far as small business, there is a difference between business taxes and individual taxes. A person who makes $250,000 a year being asked to pay more in taxes is not the same thing as saying a small business should have to pay more in taxes. It is two different tax structures --business and personal. When your small business boss hires you or gives you a pay raise, it is a business investment and deductible. For business, the greatest tax benefit is investment.

By the way, McCain is not telling the truth about Obama's tax plan -- I'm really tired of lying to the American public. And McCain is pulling the biggest tax whammy of them all with his plan to tax everyone's health care benefits they receive from their companies. That will to the tax burden of most Americans.

I agree totally that we spend too much money overseas. It is beyond me why our country continues to go into debt and send money to Iraq. If we want to start saving some money, getting our ass out of Iraq is good place to start.

Jess, you've completely forgotten that the cost of doing business has shot sky high due to the high cost of a barrel of oil. That has nothing to do with Bush tax cuts. The lower tax burden has most certainly helped SAVE JOBS given the high costs of fuel. Don't underestimate the damage oil prices have done... and I don't see how you can blame the current administration for that. If you must blame someone, then blame every administration in the past 30 years for not breaking our dependence on foreign oil long before this... By the way, I didn't think much of the latest economic stimulus. I didn't feel it was necessary. I deposited mine into my savings account and did NOT put it back into the economy.

I have, however, been eating out a lot lately.

As for the mortgage crisis, greedy real estate brokers, agents, and banking institutions are at fault, riding the wave of "good times" and trying to milk all they could from it by offering the irresponsible and uninformed "too good to be true" deals and manipulating numbers to force qualification for home loans. Bush had nothing to do with that, either.

Bush has screwed a lot of things up... but none of the things you have described in your post.

With regard to who is lying or not in this campaign, I think it is safe to say that no party has a monopoly on dishonesty. I've gotten to the point where I don't even care anymore what the candidates are saying while on the stump... History speaks volumes -- their records while in public office is what I consider fact.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157376

I actually gained some respect for McCain there. He is definitely NOT your typical Republican. It's amazing he has the party nomination.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/...carol-cafferty/

My prayers go to Jack and his family.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/...carol-cafferty/

My prayers go to Jack and his family.

Let me add my sympathies and prayers.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/07/mc...-to-my-cabinet/

Interesting read. Since I am neither Democrat nor Republican, I had no idea who was in the running for either candidate's V.P. choice before the choice was actually made. McCain actually considered Leiberman as his running mate???

Edited September 7, 200817 yr by wiccachick_1

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin