Big B1:

It is also confirmed that this is what the republicans have been wishing for; by the time democrats finish (killing themselves) with the primary election, the elected candidate will be too tired mentally, physically and financially to put up a good fight for the real presidential election against Sen McCain.

Therefore, Democrats might already be indirectly giving away this crown to the republicans; and this is sad.
This is also why I do not care too much for Hillary; her do or die political tactics is spilling and degrading the priceless value of her party (Democratic party).

It is a total turn off!

DUMB ASS DUDE!

Your Tėvas!

As a Proposed Republican Nominee, John McCain is holding out from selecting his running mate.
Sen McCain is waiting for the Proposed Democratic Nominee to be elected before picking a running mate.
To balance things, if Obama wins, McCain will be picking Colin Powell as his VP; but if Hillary wins, he will pick one of the Republican Female governors as his running mate.
It seems to me that it's all about winning the presidential election and absolutely not about saving weak American economic anymore.
It is also obvious that John McCain is an extension of George Bush; hence, United States will be the New Republic of Congo if this man wins.

I hope Democrats get themselves together before it's too late!

Who cares!

Always good to note that the opinions expressed in here do not necessarily show that of the majority of the people living in the USA. If Obama wins, I am predicting, McCain will have an easy win but if Clinton wins the democratic Normination, McCain will definitely have a fight on his hands. I am not really a clinton fan but considering she has a strong plan on her side, the backing of the name CLINTON to run with and being female, she will have a better chance than the other dude will.

Who cares!

I do. . . . .
Even more than Nigeria's politics!

I am not really a clinton fan but considering she has a strong plan on her side, the backing of the name CLINTON to run with and being female, she will have a better chance than the other dude will.

Firstly, Hillary and Obama's Plans or policies are 98% similar, this has been stated over and over by both parties; therefore the assumption that Hillary has a better chance against Sen McCain because her plan is stronger, is absolutely baseless.

Secondly,  again the assumption that Hillary has a better chance against Sen McCain because she has the backing of the name CLINTON to run with, is another baseless information.
Infact the only major enemy Hillary has as a presidential candidate is that same name "CLINTON". The name has so much bagage and several shady businesses attached to it. Many insiders (big fish) would rather see OSAMA as the next president before witnessing Hillary (the Clintons) as the president of United States. This is also one of the reasons why Bill Clinton has distanced himself from Hillary lately on the campaign trail.
(Please, keep in mind that the name "Clinton" is incredible only to the outsiders who do not know much about the dark side of the Clintons) Furthermore, there is a reason why Hillary is the only candidate who hasn't released her tax return. If these folks are so clean, why is it taking this long to release this tax return?

Thirdly, there is no way Hillary (a female) will pull through against an old American soldier (McCain), a former prisoner of war; it just wouldn't happen.
Trust me, they will not allow it to happen, McCain will find his way to the white house the same way Bush did for 2 terms.

Finally, there is speculation that McCain might be selecting Colin Powell as his running mate; if this is true, Iraq war will be brought back as the main idea or main issue of this presidential election. The war will be linked to all crisis facing United States; and who could solve these issues better than 2 former US Army.

So far, it looks like another 4 years of republican if Democrats do not immediately get themselves together.

@vowiski

This is not the only topic on this forum, why can't you do yourself a favor and go straight to hell?

Big B1:

Firstly, Hillary and Obama's Plans or policies are 98% similar, this has been stated over and over by both parties; therefore the assumption that Hillary has a better chance against Sen McCain because her plan is stronger, is absolutely baseless.

Secondly, again the assumption that Hillary has a better chance against Sen McCain because she has the backing of the name CLINTON to run with, is another baseless information.
Infact the only major enemy Hillary has as a presidential candidate is that same name "CLINTON". The name has so much bagage and several shady businesses attached to it. Many insiders (big fish) would rather see OSAMA as the next president before witnessing Hillary (the Clintons) as the president of United States. This is also one of the reasons why Bill Clinton has distanced himself from Hillary lately on the campaign trail.
(Please, keep in mind that the name "Clinton" is incredible only to the outsiders who do not know much about the dark side of the Clintons) Furthermore, there is a reason why Hillary is the only candidate who hasn't released her tax return. If these folks are so clean, why is it taking this long to release this tax return?

Thirdly, there is no way Hillary (a female) will pull through against an old American soldier (McCain), a former prisoner of war; it just wouldn't happen.
Trust me, they will not allow it to happen, McCain will find his way to the white house the same way Bush did for 2 terms.

Finally, there is speculation that McCain might be selecting Colin Powell as his running mate; if this is true, Iraq war will be brought back as the main idea or main issue of this presidential election. The war will be linked to all crisis facing United States; and who could solve these issues better than 2 former US Army.

So far, it looks like another 4 years of republican if Democrats do not immediately get themselves together.

1) You might claim that there plans are 98% similar. I am not sure of that actually. I have read and compared obama's economic plan, health plan as well as his plan for the war, to that of hillary and to be honest that clinton's is actually fairer than Obama's is. I mean increasing taxes during a recession, what the heck LMAO!!! When it comes to health care, clinton takes the Universal health approach requiring all persons be covered while Obama's does not do that but pushes more for affordable plan and leaving the option open to the people. When it comes to the war, Obama takes an "end it now" approach while clinton takes a gradual withdrawal approach. These are just 3 of the areas alone, are you sure they are 98% the same?? And mind you, this proves that the claim I made earlier is not baseless, just that you do not want to see it as I explained it.

2) I don't know what insiders you claim will prefer CLINTON on there but the average people still consider CLINTON of the America's best presidents, baggage or not. Even in the black community, you will still find people who will echo that sentiment. Forward the pundits you watch on TV, the CLINTON name, even after so many controversies still holds a higher place with people when it comes down to basics. Given that majority of those who will be voting and are still voting are not insiders, you see why it does not matter what the insiders think or say, the people's votes speak much. The very fact that Hillary's is still up there should tell you something.

3) So, based on your deduction, there is a better chance for Obama ( A BLACK) man to pull through against an old American soldier(McCain), a former prisoner of war. Well, I say Hillary has a better chance at a fight than Obama does. Woman or not. Black or not.

4) Obama and hillary have continued to push the war in their debates and if you have not noticed, majority of the people do not care much for that side of that debate, it seems. Over the past 8 months, news of the war, in the media has dwindled down to just a couple of mentions every other hour. The Republicans can decide to bring the war back up but considering that Obama and Clinton will only be repeating the same old rants and bash tactics, it will actually work against them. infact, Clinton has the better plan of the two. I do not know if you heard of what Obama's spokeperson or whatever her post said last week when questioned about his plan. Even she conceded that it was not really a good plan and tried to twist it but I guess they did not consider it a good twist.

5) I am ok with another 4 years of republican rule cause to me the democrats are not doing a great job coming up with a better plan, if you ask me. They promise to curb spending since they took over the house and to this day, all they have been doing is offering us more and more excuses, so why do I want them to control the country??

No need to waste anymore time writing another chapter. Let's just wait and see, time will tell.
It is for sure that if Obama fails to win the primary election, Hillary will not get my vote and many other black votes.

I live in Columbus ohio and just last week, clinton got a lot of the black votes here, even votes from black women here in Ohio as well. Are you sure the majority of the black votes will not be for her should she then be the nominee on the democratic side in the end?? Anyways, I like to take the wait and see approach myself and I happen to be one of those who prefers to remain as neutral as possible till the end when I make my final decision based on what is on the table and not if the candidate has one eye or not or if his tongue is green or blue. You offer me a good plan for my family and you give me an idea of how you expect to carry it out, you got my vote, if not, I don't care who your mama be, I no be your person.

All the black folks around here in Ajegunle are pulling for Obama; and still think he will be the next United States president.
For now, I will chill and hope for the best.

Big B1:

All the black folks around here in Ajegunle are pulling for Obama; and still think he will be the next United States president.
For now, I will chill and hope for the best.

yeah,  all the black folks in Ajegunle who are not even able to get their voices heard in their own LGA are the ones who opinions and choices should count when it comes to selecting the president in America,  YEEHAAAWWW!!!! Let's break out the champagne and celebrate,  !!!! the voiceless boys in the Ajegunle hoods have spoken and so america should be concerned, and listen,  NOT!!

Hillary Clinton calls Bosnia sniper story a mistake Lie

GREENSBURG, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday she made a mistake when she claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady.


In a speech in Washington and in several interviews last week Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia.

Several news outlets disputed the claim and a video of the trip, showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger.

"I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently," Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania where she was campaigning before the state's April 22 primary. She said she had a "different memory" about the landing.

"So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I'm human, which, you know, for some people, is a revelation."

"This is really about what policy experience we have and who's ready to be commander in chief. And I'm happy to put my experience up against Senator Obama's any day."

Democratic rival Barack Obama's campaign accused Clinton, a New York senator, of mischaracterizing the Bosnia trip and overstating her foreign policy experience, particularly during the eight years when her husband, Bill Clinton, was president.

In a speech in Washington on March 17 Clinton said of the Bosnia trip: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

She also told CNN last week: "There was no greeting ceremony and we were basically told to run to our cars. Now that is what happened."

Turning to a subject that has dogged Obama, Clinton said she would not have remained a member of his Chicago church where the pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made inflammatory comments about racism and the September 11, 2001 attacks.

"We don't have a choice when it comes to our relatives. We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend," she said. "Given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor."

Clinton had previously deflected questions about the topic, saying they should be posed to Obama, who gave an emotional speech last week rejecting Wright's remarks and urging Americans to move past their "racial stalemate."

A spokesman for Obama, a senator from Illinois, said Clinton was simply trying to change the subject from the Bosnia story.

"After originally refusing to play politics with this issue, it's disappointing to see Hillary Clinton's campaign sink to this low in a transparent effort to distract attention away from the story she made up about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia," spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

"The truth is, Barack Obama has already spoken out against his pastor's offensive comments and addressed the issue of race in America with a deeply personal and uncommonly honest speech."

Wright, who retired recently, has railed that the September 11 attacks were retribution for aggressive U.S. foreign policy, called the government the source of the AIDS virus and expressed anger over what he called racist America.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080326/pl_nm/usa_politics_clinton_dc_3

Again, everything the Clintons do is absolutely strategic (full of tricks).
They've used different types of tricks in the past to indirectly take Americans for a ride, but I'm glade that the current awful economy is waking up many people in America. These folks are tired of tax cuts for the rich, an increasing awful economy, high oil prices, environmental protect progress not being made, high nation debt, Iraq war failures, a bad health care system.
This is the main reason why Hillary Clinton continues to run into a solid brick wall with her deviousness. The bad economy makes it extremely difficult to get away with obvious deception; I guess Americans are not stupid anymore.
The last thing United States needs at the moment is electing a crafty president.

FYI: War in Iraq is the main problem United States is facing today. Every negative or awful situation in America is directly linked to Iraq War (from president not following the constitution to corruption, to high gas prices, to high rate of unemployment, to bad mortgages, and many many more).
Osama predicted this nightmare, and it is sad to say that the bastard is right.

The only solution to Iraq is Obama; he has the wisdom to unite people without relying on a defective foreign policy.
Furthermore, the middle Easterners are determined to make things difficult for white Americans and will absolutely not  comply or cooperate with McCain or Clinton (these folks are directly seen by Middle Easterners as another version of Mr. BUSH)

Big B1:

FYI: War in Iraq is the main problem United States is facing today. Everything negative situation in America is directly linked to Iraq War (from president not following the constitution to corruption, to high gas price to high rate of unemployment to bad mortgages and many many more).
Osama predicted this nightmare, and it is sad to say that the bastard is right.

That is flat out wrong.How can you link things like sub-prime mortgages to the Iraq war?

High gas prices is as a result of high crude oil prices.The latter is mainly a result of the rise of the likes of China and India whose economic growth has created an unprecedented spurt in demand for oil.

The initiation of the bad mortgages was implemented to intercept the awful economy, The economists thought this implementation would revive the bad economy, but guess what, they were wrong.

My man, please do your homework before attacking Big B1

The Iraq war on the other hand was parts of the factor that created bad economy in the first place.
The bad mortages were designed to create market boom to resolve the problem.

Big B1. . . .4play might have his errrr ''pedestal-ic'' way of argument but I do agree, there is hardly any connection between the Iraq war and
the subprime debacle.

Big B1:

The initiation of the bad mortgages was implemented to intercept the awful economy, The economists thought this implementation would revive the bad economy, but guess what, they were wrong.

My man, please do your homework before attacking Big B1

You make it sound like sub-prime mortgages were the product of a Govt policy.If you are saying low interest rates created a liquidity bubble that spun off the sub-prime market,interest rates reached their nadir in 2002,before the Iraq war.

The Iraq war on the other hand was parts of the factor that created bad economy in the first place.
The bad mortages were designed to create market boom to resolve the problem.

Sub-prime mortgages took off way before the Iraq war.As for the Iraq war "creating a bad economy". . . . . . .GDP growth was much stronger after the invasion,not prior.

Conclusion:You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

@Doyin:
I do not expect you guys (from UK) to see the connections, but Iraq war has been a major distraction and the mighty reason for awful economy in America.
I could see it and feel it over here in Ajegunle, but I will allow folks from United States to confirm my statement.

Don't take mortgage advice from Alan Greenspan

The Fed boss says homeowners should switch to adjustable-rate loans and save the difference. His record is full of dangerous moments like this when hes been way, way off.

Last week, Alan Greenspan was a study in contradiction. On Monday, he extolled the virtues of the levered-up homeowner to a credit union conference. The next day, in a speech to the Senate Banking Committee, he was singing a different tune altogether. Fannie Mae (FNM, news, msgs) and Freddie Mac (FRE, news, msgs), the giant providers of mortgage capital, he warned, "are expanding at a pace beyond that consistent with systemic safety," and that "preventative actions are required sooner, rather than later."

For a Federal Reserve chairman who has demonstrated that he couldn't identify reckless behavior if it ran him over, it was rather surprising to hear him chide Fannie and Freddie for their recklessness. (I should state, however, its an opinion I tend to share.)

His scolding might better be directed inward. What he advocated last Monday should send cold shivers down the spine of anyone so engaged. I already thought that what was going on in real estate was dangerous, but what he now cites as a good thing is not only dangerous, it will be disastrous -- guaranteed.Start investing with $100.
Explore our
new ETF center.



All hail, Al's paper trail
Before quoting from the above, I would just note that Greenspan's latest comments reminded me of a speech he gave on March 6, 2000, which I have dubbed "An Ode to Technology." In the speech, he waxed on about the wonders of technology and how it had brought us a new era and all that other stuff. Folks may not remember that date, but it was four days before the Nasdaq Composite (COMPX) hit its all-time high of 5,048.62. Despite the recovery over the past year ago, the composite is still down nearly 60% from the March 2000 peak.

This is not the first time Easy Al has been way off. On March 7, 2000, I wrote a column called Alan Greenspan: Friend or Foe that chronicled some of his prior quotes, speeches and the like. It includes his Jan. 7, 1973, utterance (right before the recession that ranks as our worst, at least until we get through the one we're in but haven't completed): "It is very rare that you can be as unqualifiedly bullish as you can be now."

That, coupled with his ode to technology and cluelessness about bubbles (which folks have seen real-time), is a pretty fair indictment.

And, there are other examples prior to his latest "Ode to Real Estate." For instance, in 1984, he wrote a letter to Edwin Gray, then-chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, advising the regulator to exempt Charles Keating's Lincoln Savings & Loan, a Greenspan client, from harsh federal regulations about its investments. He told Gray he should "stop worrying so much" about such things as junk bonds, and that "deregulation (of the savings & loan industry) was working just as planned."

Lincoln Savings failed rather spectacularly a few years later. And its worth noting that within four years, 15 of the 17 thrifts he mentioned in this letter were broke, costing the old Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp. some $3 billion.

What if adjustable-rates ratchet up?
Now onto his latest comments. The first was set up in a rather glowing Wall Street Journal article by Greg Ip on Feb. 24. Called "Fed chief questions loan choices," it begins: "In a rare evaluation of interest-rate options that households face, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan questioned whether American homeowners are well served by popular fixed-rate long-term mortgages."

I realize that fixed-interest-rate mortgages tend to have slightly higher rates than adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs). Unless one either believes rates will collapse or plans to move fairly soon, however, fixed-rate mortgages are always the right way to go. You know what you're getting into, so you're not gambling with your house payment. And of course, if rates drop, you can do as everyone has done: You can refinance.

The notion of the whole country piling into ARMs when rates are at multi-decade lows is a truly destabilizing concept to contemplate. What happens if rates go up (because my view is incorrect) and the economy roars ahead?

Twisted logician makes short shrift of bankruptcy
Turning to a more objective analysis in The New York Times of Feb. 24, titled "Greenspan says personal debt Is mitigated by housing value," I note some even more outrageous comments. (I would call them guffaws, were it not so serious.)

"Bankruptcy rates are not a reliable measure of the overall health of the household sector, Greenspan said, because they do not tend to forecast general economic conditions." (The emphasis is mine.) So, the fact that we have had record and near-record bankruptcies in the last couple years is immaterial, since bankruptcies don't forecast the future!

Similarly, he reached into his linguistic bag of tricks to say why homeowners' increased leverage doesn't count: "An extended period of low interest rates and extra cash from mortgage refinancing has given borrowers flexibility (again, my emphasis) to better manage their debt. So you see, this cash-out-mortgage-facilitated debt assumption is termed "flexibility" on his part, not an increase in leverage. Rather than fun with numbers, he has fun with definitions.

The Times article then paraphrases him thusly: ]"Mortgage refinancing and the rise in home values have helped to bolster economic spending in economic hard times, as well as better periods." That is, of course, what has happened, as folks have groped around to get through the aftermath of the 1990s stock market bubble. We have postponed the inevitable via this leveraging of home values and aggressive lending tactics to keep the housing market alive and percolating. But we are running out of steam
'Assets are contingent; debt is forever'
Now think back to what Easy Al had to say about Keating's Lincoln Savings and other S&Ls. The chairman has forgotten something that everyone who went through the period should have learned: Assets are contingent; debt is forever. Granted, folks get around that pretty easily these days with the bankruptcy laws but -- oops -- we don't have to talk about that because it doesn't mean anything, because it's not a forecasting tool.

So the most irresponsible central banker in the history of the world created the biggest bubble in the history of the world, which had disastrous consequences for the stock market and the economy. In order to ameliorate that, he has created bubble-like conditions and absurd financing schemes in real estate. Meanwhile, we've seen an enormous concentration of risk develop inside the financial system: We are down to just a handful of big banks and government-sponsored entities that are using his other favorite toy, derivatives, to theoretically manage away all their risks.

Fed prudence takes a powder
The summation of these variables has only increased the risk of something bad happening. And, of course, that risk has been heightened by the tanking of the dollar. The dollars decline has been promoted by Greenspan's irresponsible policies and attempts to continually bail out his most recent mistake. He has been doing this serially since junk bonds and bad lending nearly took down the financial system at the end of the 1980s and wiped out the savings and loan industry in 1990-1991.

I believe we are at the end of the string, and things are in the process of slowly deteriorating once again. The pace of that deterioration may pick up speed over the course of the year.

Perhaps we will look back on the speech Greenspan made last week and say that the Fed chairman in essence nailed the top of the housing market -- just as he did with technology in 2000 and the economy in 1973. And hes probably just as wrong about what happens next.

Bill Fleckenstein is president of Fleckenstein Capital, which manages a hedge fund based in Seattle. He also writes a daily Market Rap column on his Fleckensteincapital.com site. His investment positions can change at any time. Under no circumstances does the information in this column represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in Bill Fleckenstein's columns are his own and not necessarily those of MSN Money.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P73977.asp

And besides most of these loans were made by less than stellar organisations, the Countrywide's and Household's(subprime companies) of this world
hardly vessels through which the Fed would influence economic activity.

I do agree with 4play. The economic boom had its genesis prior to the mess in Iraq and you must remember even up till June/July last year, the global economy was still on a tear with the US at the vanguard.

Besides much of the cheap credit of the past few years have been sourced from wealthy investors outside of America not from within.

The Federal Reserve chairman's weird affection for adjustable-rate mortgages.

Democrats frothed and Republicans shuddered this week when Alan Greenspan suggested that Congress slash Social Security benefits. The frenzy was a shame, because it overshadowed an even more controversial statement the Fed chairman made earlier in the week. On Monday, the 78-year-old banker seemed momentarily to morph into peppy-personal finance maven Jean Chtatzky. As the headliner at the Credit Union National Association's meeting—although I'm sure the bankers were also eager to see "David Landis performing as the U.S. Sen. George Norris, original signer of the 1934 Federal Credit Union Act"—Greenspan explained why consumers might be better off considering adjustable-rate mortgages, or ARMs, instead of standard fixed-rate mortgages. While fixed-rate mortgages have their benefits, he noted that:

Calculations by market analysts of the "option-adjusted spread" on mortgages suggest that the cost of these benefits conferred by fixed-rate mortgages can range from 0.5 percent to 1.2 percent, raising homeowners' annual after-tax mortgage payments by several thousand dollars. Indeed, recent research within the Federal Reserve suggests that many homeowners might have saved tens of thousands of dollars had they held adjustable-rate mortgages rather than fixed-rate mortgages during the past decade, though this would not have been the case, of course, had interest rates trended sharply upward.


http://www.slate.com/id/2096313/

@BigB1

All this your "copy and paste".Is it part of proving the link between the Iraq war and sub-prime?

And besides most of these loans were made by less than stellar organisations, the Countrywide's and Household's(subprime companies) of this world
hardly vessels through which the Fed would influence economic activity

.

These type of loans were made or allowed to be made with the assumption that it would revive the awful economy.

And I think, (Al Grenspan) was involved in making this decision; I'm currently working on finding a reliable information to support my statement.

4 Play:

@BigB1

All this your "copy and paste".Is it part of proving the link between the Iraq war and sub-prime?

LMAO!!!!!

4 Play:

@BigB1

All this your "copy and paste".Is it part of proving the link between the Iraq war and sub-prime?

I was just about to ask the same question oo

Daycare center must be closed for the day; the kids (Kobojunkie) are out playing!