jjamie12

I know... The article, as I understand it was mostly concerned with Fannie/Freddie 'Agency Debt', which, seems to be referring to their corporate debt, not their mortgage guarantees. Tom seems to be referring to the mortgage bondholders as being 'bailed out', which, while technically true (as I think more about this, I'm not TOTALLY sure that this is correct. I think it is unclear at this time whether or not the MBS are 'guaranteed', as they are still trading at a spread to treasuries... of course, Fan/Fred debt is also trading at a spread to treasuries, even though the gov't has 'guaranteed' those, so I'm not totally sure), isn't the point of the article as I understand it. Edit: And the reason I think Tom is referring to the mortgage debt, specifically, is because a few times he's referenced it, like here: Which is actually incorrect. Fan/Fred issue corporate debt, as well. He also referenced it here (ultimately this quote is actually a little ambiguous, but given his statement above, I interpreted this as referencing mortgage debt, not 'Agency debt'): Again, it isn't totally clear which bondholders he's writing about, as I said before, I interpreted this to be the holders of the mortgage debt. I re-read the original linked article, and it appears that the thrust of the article is about bailing out Corporate bondholders of Fannie/Freddie, not the mortgage bond holders. And this makes sense to me, because Fannie/Freddie (in theory) collect what are known as (I'm pretty sure you know this) 'g-fees' in order to guarantee the principal on these bonds. The article seems to be mainly (again) talking about corporate debt and Fannie/Freddie bondholders, NOT Fannie/Freddie mortgage-backed-securities holders.

I think that is what I was saying, no?

I think his point is that it wasn't the mortgage bond holders that were driving the decisions, but the Fannie/Freddie debt-holders.

That is certainly one reasonable way to interpret what happened. Another very reasonable way to interpret this is her being unsure of what Gibson was getting at, isn't it? The words 'Bush Doctrine,' it seems to me, have been used to describe several different things at different times, no?

Very, very nice... You're on your game these days!

Fair enough. You just appear to be very, very partisan is all.

I'll admit that I'm a little fuzzy on this exact quote here, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that this was "... in large part due to Clinton." In fact, it sounds like complete and total bs to me, but, admittedly, I don't have anything really solid to back it up with, other than a fundamental understanding of economics and the fact that, for at least today, I have my sanity. I'm open to being convinced, though.

And extremely low oil prices, too... Don't forget about the low oil (commidities in general, I suppose) prices.

I agree with all of that, except I don't understand how you can write that with a straight face and be so in the tank for the Democrats. Or do you just think that people who vote Republican are stupid? An alternate reading of this could go: People who DO take the time to really understand issues and values would vote Democrat. Isn't that what you're saying given how Democrat-centric you are?

Just as an aside... Your tag line under the avatar is pretty damn funny.

Maybe this quote isn't accurate, but the rest of the quote goes like this: Emphasis mine. Did you stop reading?

I didn't see any 'whining' in that speech. Again, we may have to agree to disagree, but I don't see any of this as 'whining'. She hit back pretty hard and showed a lot of toughness. She didn't complain about it, she said she didn't care what they thought "... do not seek their good opinion"

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I mean, honestly... if you've got to go to 'code words', then I'm completely missing it. Reading it at face value, I don't see it as whining, I see it as strong and defiant. There's no quote there asking people to stop being mean, or stop writing stories, or any other hallmark of 'whining'. In fact, to me, it sounds like she's telling the media to 'stick it'. That's not whining.

That's 'whining'? Really? Sounds strong and defiant to me. Then again, I don't have a vested interest in that being either 'whining' or 'not whining'.

No, it actually doesn't, especially if you know what 'elitist' means.

It is really comical how your own definition of the word contradicts what you've posted earlier. It bears repeating: Elitist is a state of mind, NOT a wealth measure.

Quite honestly, it sucks to be right about you... I was sincerely hoping that you would take a step back and think about what you were saying and how framing things in that manner broke down discussion more than added to it. Instead, I (we all did, though, I suppose because we're all watching this) got exactly what I predicted from you. Dismissively waving away factual inaccuracies because: Unfortunately, inasumch as this debate pertains to you, I must, with sincere sadness, wholeheartedly agree.

When you make hyperbolic statements like "Most people are struggling to save their home...," you are continuing to spread a falsehood. It is not even close to 'Most people'. Not even close! And it bothers me, because when you play fast and loose with the truth and then later dismiss it as 'splitting hairs', you're doing nothing at all to bring anything of substance to a debate. You're completely wrong, yet, instead of learning something today, you've dismissed the education as 'splitting hairs'. And do you know why I can be pretty confident that this is true? Because I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you'll say, in another debate and another time with someone else, something along the lines of "...most people in this country are losing their homes!" again and not think twice about it. Because it fits your political ideology / agenda. That sucks. edited for clarity

Bolded emphasis mine. pBills- 'Most' people are not struggling to save their home. 'Some' people are struggling to save their home. For example: There are several (ie more than 20) trillion dollars worth of mortgages outstanding. Most estimates have the foreclosure numbers at something less than $5 trillion. How does that = 'Most'? Edit: Don't know, for sure, the updated estimated foreclosure numbers. Pretty sure it's less than $5 trillion

Having money, homes, cars, boats, SUV's, (ie 'things') doesn't and CAN'T make one an 'elitist'. Elitist is an attitude, not a wealth contest. For example: If I win the lottery tonight (let's go Mega Millions!) I don't automatically become an elitist. When I win Mega Millions and start talking about how poor people are saps who don't understand how the world works and can't be trusted to vote for the betterment of the country or even their own self-interest... Now, I'm being an elitist. In fact, even if I don't win Mega Millions tonight and still start talking about how poor people are saps who don't understand how the world works and can't be trusted to vote for the betterment of the country or even their own self-interest... I'll be an elitist. Edit: Dammit! I'm slow on the reply button lately. Point was already made...

This is one of the most unintentionally funny things I have seen in quite some time. Kudos, Bravo, and Well Done, JK.

But sometimes, this is exactly the correct way to handle things (I have no idea if this was the best course of action to take). Do you honestly think that they didn't consider him leaving Beijing and stand up and scream at Russia and tell them to leave? Why do you assume that they were diddling around? Oh, that's right... You are concerned about the 'perception' that they were diddling around. Perceptions that you yourself have admitted are not true and, let's be honest, are nonsense. An argument that, as its logical base, presumes that the President of the United States wasn't doing anything during his time in China... a position that you, yourself, presume to be a false. Edit: Wow... Wait a few minutes and someone else makes your point for you.

If you believe this to be true: How in the world do you get to this: Instead of: Finally, how can you possibly use this quote from the Wall Street Journal as evidence that the President wasn't doing his job (in the first place) when you just admitted that you agree that what they are saying is demonstrably false (at worst) and, at best, completely disingenuous? If someone is making up stories about your friend, are you mad at your friend because of his perception issues, or do you reject the source of the stories as being less than honest?

Pointing out that the President of the United States of America is never actually on 'vacation' is not the same thing as 'supporting' President Bush. Pointing out that you seem to have some inconsistencies in your arguments about diplomacy / unilateralism / multi-lateralism is not the same things as 'supporting' President Bush. I've read through this thread and I don't think I read even ONE single quote suggesting that President Bush is doing "...a helluva job, Bushie!" Finally, disagreeing with you is NOT the same thing as 'supporting' President Bush. You don't have to 'support' President Bush in order to see that much of what you are saying is nonsense.

Obama Tax Plan Obama's tax plan doesn't seem to warrant the outrage it gets from those of us on the conservative side, does it? Can any of our resident economists chime in on this?