Oh no, agreeement reached. McCain just lost his ace in the hole

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

The_Lillard_King

Westside
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
12,405
Likes
310
Points
83
WASHINGTON - Warned that time was running short to bolster the distressed economy, congressional Republicans and Democrats reported agreement in principle Thursday on a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, and said they would present it to the Bush administration in hopes of a vote within days

. . . . . .
The bipartisan consensus on the general direction of the legislation was reported just hours before President Bush was to host presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain and congressional leaders at the White House for discussions on how to clear obstacles to the unpopular rescue plan.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown
 
That's great news. I'll be interested to read the details of the bill.
 
That's great news. I'll be interested to read the details of the bill.

Hey we finally agree . . . this is great news.

Although the whole topic is not great news. All that happened was an agreement has be met to spend 700 billion dollars (I know it was necessary). Glad I don't have kids, because it will take a couple generations to pay this back.
 
Hey we finally agree . . . this is great news.

Although the whole topic is not great news. All that happened was an agreement has be met to spend 700 billion dollars (I know it was necessary). Glad I don't have kids, because it will take a couple generations to pay this back.

That statement tells me you don't understand the mechanics of how this bill will work. Go and do some research. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them for you.

Edit: I apologize for the arrogant tone of the last two sentences. It just seems that people don't really have an idea of what this bill entails. I don't feel like explaining it, because it will take too long. However, if there are specific questions about the mechanics of the outlay, I'll be happy to try to clear them up.
 
Last edited:
That statement tells me you don't understand the mechanics of how this bill will work. Go and do some research. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them for you.

You are right, I'm not a finance guy and have no idea how the bill works.

I really don't have time to research, I just know this whole thing sucks. That we are bailing failed businesses in order to prevent some terrible consequences. Sucks!

Edit: I take that back. It's all good maxiep . . . you know much more about this than I do (no sarcasm)
 
Last edited:
You are right, I'm not a finance guy and have no idea how the bill works.

I really don't have time to research, I just know this whole thing sucks. That we are bailing failed businesses in order to prevent some terrible consequences. Sucks!

But I will say I'm not buying you have a complete working knowledge of all of this.

Not of every particular detail of the bill, but the overall concept I understand better than I want to. I spent five years on Wall Street doing CMBS. Not only do I understand the underlying problems with the MBS market, I know the bond math required to slice and dice these loans into tranches. I wouldn't wish that knowledge on my worst enemies--it's incredibly boring.
 
Let me add, I think both of us are much more middle of the road than our posts make us out to be. It's just on this board, with all the exagerations, it's easy to slip into that state of mind.

But this is what is fun, talking politics with sports fans. Hopefully I won't get judged too hard for being extreme in the OT forum.
 
Not of every particular detail of the bill, but the overall concept I understand better than I want to. I spent five years on Wall Street doing CMBS. Not only do I understand the underlying problems with the MBS market, I know the bond math required to slice and dice these loans into tranches. I wouldn't wish that knowledge on my worst enemies--it's incredibly boring.

Did you see my edit. . . sorry bud. I'm guessing you know a lot more about this than the majority of posters and I know that I sometimes get pissed when posters try to tell me something and expalin why I am wrong about the area I have studied for years.

And I totally get the statement that someone making a statement just shows they have no idea what they are talking about. I have seen that before.

So yes, I don't know about this area . . . will the next generation be paying for this? In less than 100 words please. : )
 
As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, maxiep, the majority of this debt will get retired over time as the mortgages are paid off.

Besides, it's_GO_time, I think you should just man up and send in your $2,800 share of the $700 tril with your next tax payment. :)
 
Did you see my . . . sorry bud. I'm guessing you know a lot more about this than the majority of posters and I know that I sometimes get pissed when posters try to tell me something and expalin why I am wrong about the area I have studied for years.

And I totally get the statement that someone making a statement just shows they have no idea what they are talking about. I have seen that before.

So yes, I don't know about this area . . . will the next generation be paying for this? In less than 100 words please. : )

Probably not. We'll be issuing T-Bills to purchase these MBS products from firms where they'll be marked-to-market. Right now the market has frozen because no one can value these products. For example, what if every single house in your neighborhood had to be sold in the next 12 hours? What would the value be? That's what's happened with the credit market. The Government is basically buying every house in the neighborhood at just under expected value and then reselling them over the next few years.

The Government will buy these bonds, giving the credit market liquidity and re-creating the MBS market. They'll be sold back to the market over the next few years. In the interim, the Government will receive revenue from these bonds. From analyses I've read and analysts I've spoken with, they think the profit/loss will be +/- $200B.

I hope that helps.
 
As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, maxiep, the majority of this debt will get retired over time as the mortgages are paid off.

Besides, it's_GO_time, I think you should just man up and send in your $2,800 share of the $700 tril with your next tax payment. :)

They'll get paid off sooner than that as all these MBS products will be put back on the market. If you want a parallel, take a look at the Resolution Trust Corporation, but instead of bad loans and real estate, it's mortgage-backed securities.
 
As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, maxiep, the majority of this debt will get retired over time as the mortgages are paid off.

Besides, it's_GO_time, I think you should just man up and send in your $2,800 share of the $700 tril with your next tax payment. :)

You know e . . . if I knew everybody who could afford it would do that, i would do it too. Honestly.
 
They'll get paid off sooner than that as all these MBS products will be put back on the market. If you want a parallel, take a look at the Resolution Trust Corporation, but instead of bad loans and real estate, it's mortgage-backed securities.

This kind of reminds me also a little of the big $40 bil loan we gave to Mexico (in the mid-90's?). It was a big controversy for a few weeks, but it did the job of shoring up their economy and restraining inflation, and eventually they wound up paying us back.

The headline was "We're sending $40 billion to Mexico!" The reality was that it turned out to be a pretty sound decision, and America came out fine on the deal. When we were repaid it barely made page 9 of the newspaper.

Obviously, the stakes are a lot different here, and I don't think there's anything close to a guarantee that we'll recoup all that dough, but there's a tendency to hyperventilate over numbers without giving things a little context.

I'm glad to see they've reached a compromise, but I don't want them to rush it. This disaster has taken a decade to create--a week or two of careful lawmaking to ensure we get it right is probably worth it.

Of course, if they take too long it'll give everybody a chance to insert their favorite piece of pork into the deal.
 
McCain still not comitted to the debate on friday.



WASHINGTON - John McCain's campaign expressed cautious optimism Thursday as congressional Republicans and Democrats agreed in principle on a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry hours before the two presidential candidates were to meet with President Bush on the crisis.

Even so, the action didn't appear to be strong enough to convince McCain to attend Friday's scheduled presidential debate. His campaign has said he wouldn't participate unless there was consensus between Congress and the administration, and a spokesman said the afternoon developments had not changed his plans.

"There's no deal until there's a deal. We're optimistic but we want to get this thing done," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said.

Obama still wants the face-off to go on, and is slated to travel to the debate site in Mississippi on Friday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/candidates_financial_meltdown


As I try to go back to being somewhat normal . . . I don't know what the proper thing is to do here. I do know I want to watch a debate on Friday. Heck i want to see Obama and McCain in Washington working hard today on something other than the debate, get a good night sleep, wake up and be flown to Mississippi and debate by noon. Now that would be good stuff.
 
So let me get this straight, the Obama camp is up in a tizzy because they want the debate to happen tomorrow instead of sometime next week and they want the Biden-Palin debate to happen a few days later instead of Tuesday?

It's not like the debates are going to be canceled or are not going to happen...Seriously I want to know what the big problem is.
 
Last edited:
Good news for the nation (and world) if this deal gets put through. It sucks that it has come to this, but I prefer a little government intervention if it means we don't end up with soup lines and a frozen economy.
 
So let me get this straight, the Obama camp is up in a tizzy because they want the debate to happen tomorrow instead of sometime next week and they want the Biden-Palin debate to happen a few days later instead of Tuesday?

It's not like the debates are going to be canceled or are not going to happen...Seriously I want to know what the big problem is.

I've been trying to read articles on this, but did I miss one where McCain said he wants to reschedule for the next week?

I agree that wouldn't be a big deal. But this is such a game going on and if one side feels they are more ready than the other side, are you suprised they are going to be pushing for it to happen sooner rather than later.

to me it is all a game. First, McCain says got to go to Washington and help get a bipartisian bill done. Then when they have reached an agreement in principle, he says well it isn't final yet so we can't do the debates yet. And i guess Obama can be seen as saying screw the economy, I want a piece of McCain now.

I do think that Palin shouldn't be running (and I don't think is) from Biden. She should be licking her lipstick chops. If she eats up Biden, or Biden shoots himself in the foot . . . that will reinforce all the excitement of the republican ticket.
 
I've been trying to read articles on this, but did I miss one where McCain said he wants to reschedule for the next week?

I agree that wouldn't be a big deal. But this is such a game going on and if one side feels they are more ready than the other side, are you suprised they are going to be pushing for it to happen sooner rather than later.

to me it is all a game. First, McCain says got to go to Washington and help get a bipartisian bill done. Then when they have reached an agreement in principle, he says well it isn't final yet so we can't do the debates yet. And i guess Obama can be seen as saying screw the economy, I want a piece of McCain now.

I do think that Palin shouldn't be running (and I don't think is) from Biden. She should be licking her lipstick chops. If she eats up Biden, or Biden shoots himself in the foot . . . that will reinforce all the excitement of the republican ticket.

I haven't read any articles stating anything but that he'd like to potentially delay the debate. Remember, this is a debate on foreign policy. Given Barack Obama's debating prowess and his knowledge of foreign policy compared to McCain, do you really think McCain is trying to avoid debating Obama on this issue?
 
I haven't read any articles stating anything but that he'd like to potentially delay the debate. Remember, this is a debate on foreign policy. Given Barack Obama's debating prowess and his knowledge of foreign policy compared to McCain, do you really think McCain is trying to avoid debating Obama on this issue?

Potentially, since this is likely to be McCain's strongest debate based on the topic, he's trying to move this closer to the election to maximize any potential "bounce" in the polls he'd expect. Final debate is on domestic policy, and Obama is going to destroy McCain on that one.

If you don't think this whole "postpone the debates" thing is political posturing, you're naive. This is a calculated attempt at a "game changer" from McCain, and it has nothing to do with "what's best for the country" and everything to do with "what's best for John McCain."

-Pop
 
I haven't read any articles stating anything but that he'd like to potentially delay the debate. Remember, this is a debate on foreign policy. Given Barack Obama's debating prowess and his knowledge of foreign policy compared to McCain, do you really think McCain is trying to avoid debating Obama on this issue?

I really do think McCain is trying to put off the debates and not for the stated reasons he saying publically . . . especially with this new announcement and him saying well it's not a done deal yet, so let's hold off on the debating.

If this is McCain's strong point, why is Obama pushing for it when he is rising in the polls?
 
Potentially, since this is likely to be McCain's strongest debate based on the topic, he's trying to move this closer to the election to maximize any potential "bounce" in the polls he'd expect. Final debate is on domestic policy, and Obama is going to destroy McCain on that one.

If you don't think this whole "postpone the debates" thing is political posturing, you're naive. This is a calculated attempt at a "game changer" from McCain, and it has nothing to do with "what's best for the country" and everything to do with "what's best for John McCain."

-Pop

Actually, the first debate is considered to be the most important. And if you don't think Obama is posturing just the same, you're even more naive. Bottom line, he thinks his candidacy is more important than doing his part to help shepherd this bill through.
 
I really do think McCain is trying to put off the debates and not for the stated reasons he saying publically . . . especially with this new announcement and him saying well it's not a done deal yet, so let's hold off on the debating.

If this is McCain's strong point, why is Obama pushing for it when he is rising in the polls?

Because if the credit markets haven't been fixed by the time this debate covering national security and foreign policy comes around two things will happen. First, the emphasis in the questions will be on economics, not security issues. Second, any news that is made in these debates will be stepped on by the credit market crisis.
 
McCain wants the first debate moved to Oct. 2 where the VP debate is and to reschedule the VP debate a few days later where the first debate was to be held.

That's what I read.

So, first debate would be next thursday instead of this friday.
 
I don't think a deal has been reached.
 
I don't think a deal has been reached.

Really? What the heck is going on . . . I would hope it isn't politics and this stupid election (I'm a little pissed) that is getting in the way of dealing with this problem.

It doesn't take much to stall an agreement, do you know what happened and who is saying there is no agreement. I'll probably eat crow right now, but my guess is some high powered republican is saying we don't have an agreement.

Agin hope I'm worng and this isn't about politics, but there was a bi-partisian agreement hours ago.
 
Really? What the heck is going on . . . I would hope it isn't politics and this stupid election (I'm a little pissed) that is getting in the way of dealing with this problem.

It doesn't take much to stall an agreement, do you know what happened and who is saying there is no agreement. I'll probably eat crow right now, but my guess is some high powered republican is saying we don't have an agreement.

Agin hope I'm worng and this isn't about politics, but there was a bi-partisian agreement hours ago.


Really? According to who? Dodd was the only one I heard on the radio.
 
From John Boehner on Chairmen Frank and Dodd announcing a “deal” on the rescue package, “As I told our Conference this morning, there is no bipartisan deal at this time. There may be a deal among some Democrats, but House Republicans are not a part of it.”

Sounds like the Dems announced the non-deal. Why?

I just heard that the Paulson plan is basically dead at this point.
 
No bailout agreement after White House meeting

* Story Highlights
* NEW: Dodd: 'I'm not quite sure' what McCain said in the meeting
* Republican senator says no bailout deal is coming
* GOP leaders having difficulty getting Republicans on board
* McCain, Obama meet with Bush, politicians at White House

(CNN) -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama both left President Bush's financial bailout meeting at the White House after 5 p.m. Thursday without making statements to reporters.

Officials said Obama will make a statement at the Mayflower Hotel.

Although McCain's campaign said he will spend the night in the Washington area, CNN has learned that the University of Mississippi -- site of the first presidential debate Friday -- has been told by the Presidential Debate Commission to continue preparing for the event.

Both McCain and Obama advance teams were seen on stage going through sound and video checks from their candidates' respective podiums.

In Washington, White House press secretary Dana Perino released a statement saying, "The president appreciates the bipartisan members of the congressional leadership and the two presidential candidates coming to the White House today to discuss how to finalize the financial rescue package. There is a clear sense of urgency and agreement on the need to stabilize the financial markets, and prevent a massive financial crisis from affecting everybody in America."

The statement went on to say that the group will continue to work on a deal.

But according to Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, who attended the meeting, "we will not have a deal."

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who also attended the meeting, said Thursday that the meeting was contentious and blasted what he calls McCain's inaction.

"I'm not quite sure what John McCain said at the meeting. He said something. ... He had no indication he was for any particular plans. I don't know where he is on all of this," Dodd said.

The meeting included the following key players: Bush flanked at the table by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Obama and McCain on opposite ends of the table, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also between the two presidential candidates and Vice President Dick Cheney across from Bush.

In a statement at the beginning of the meeting, Bush said he hopes for a deal to bail out Wall Street "very shortly."

He said the nation is in a "serious economic crisis" that needs to be dealt with "as quickly as possible" and that the historic meeting is "an attempt to move the process forward."

But according to several Republican aides, there is still major opposition to the "agreement on fundamental principles."

The fact that House Republicans are still not coming on board poses a major obstacle for any kind of deal. Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders have repeatedly said that this is Bush's bill and that he and other GOP leaders need to get Republicans to support it.

McCain, who announced Wednesday that he was suspending his presidential campaign until a bailout plan was worked out, met with some Republican House members to try to bring more of them on board to back the agreement, according to a source in the room and one who was briefed on the meeting.

The gist of the meeting, according to sources, was that these members "aren't there yet" on the plan the Senate Banking Committee worked out and say there needs to be greater protection for taxpayers.

One Republican aide said that "not much has changed in the last 24 to 48 hours. I think it has to be pretty radically altered for House Republicans to support it."

This aide stressed, "at the end of the day, these members represent the people who sent them here, and the people who sent them here are so overwhelmingly opposed to this."

This aide said the calls coming into GOP offices are 90 to 1 against the plan.

Boehner, R-Ohio, has tapped a group of House Republicans to develop alternative ideas.

Earlier, Boehner released a statement that said, "I am encouraged by the bipartisan progress being made toward an economic package that protects the interests of families, seniors, small businesses, and all taxpayers."

It's unclear whether McCain agreed with this approach, but one aide said he put the principles "in his satchel to take over to the White House."

Republicans recognize that there is pressure building to get something done before the end of the week. "There sort of a tacit understanding among everyone that it has to happen before Monday," a third GOP aide said.

House Republican leaders are scheduled to meet at 5:30 p.m. ET in Boehner's office to talk about next steps and what comes out of the White House meeting.

Obama turned down McCain's suggestion that they both suspend their campaigns to focus on securing a deal on a bailout plan. He also passed on McCain's suggestion that they postpone Friday night's first presidential debate in Oxford, Mississippi.

Democrats fear that McCain will take credit for bringing reluctant Republicans around to agreeing with a bailout plan in order to bolster his argument that he would be a better leader in crises than Obama.

"The Democrats, of course, are very afraid that McCain is going to swoop into these delicate negotiations on Capitol Hill at the last minute and when they reach an agreement, he's going to claim credit for having brought those negotiations to a successful conclusion," CNN senior political researcher Alan Silverleib said.

A McCain source insists that the Arizona senator is aware of the politics involved and recognizes that Democrats -- and even some Republicans -- are wary of having it appear that McCain is brokering a deal.

Both candidates touched on the economic crisis at former President Clinton's Clinton Global Initiative conference before heading to Washington.

McCain told the audience that it is not the time to engage in presidential politics.

"It's time for everyone to recall that the political process is not an end in itself, nor is it intended to serve those of us who are in the middle of it. In the Senate of the United States, our duty is to serve the people of this country," he said. VideoWatch more of McCain's remarks »

Obama also pressed his position on the crisis plaguing Wall Street -- and Main Street -- to Clinton's group.

"It's outrageous that we find ourselves in a position where taxpayers bear the burden and the risk for greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington," he said. "But we also know that a failure to act would have grave consequences for the jobs, and savings, and retirement of the American people."

CNN's Dana Bash, Peter Hamby and Ed Hornick contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/25/campaign.wrap/index.html
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top