₦airaland Forum

The Sly,

Could you please check the following for me please: JT3HP10VXY7154786.

You can email the result to me at tayo@minnesota.usa.com.

Thanks.

@Ibime,

Firstly, your article just scratches the surface. You need an indepth knowledge of these things to know what is happening. Bad loans alone could never bring down the system. Consider the domino effect of the structured products built on top of these bad loans. They are like a pack of cards. The bottom goes and everything comes crumbling. However, if there were no structured products on top of the bad loans, the banks would have survived. They simply used good money to chase bad money.

Looks like we are now saying the same thing even though weith different conclusions. No doubt there were complex deals relying on the bad loans, but I maintain the position that the institutions would not have crumbled if those loans were honored, and those loans would have been honored if they were not given to high risk borrowers in the first place. And guess who encouraged the socially correct attitude of giving the loans to them?

Let me use something I'm very familiar with to illustrate my point. As a structural engineer, you know that if you want to build a 100 story building, you need a bigger column at the ground floor than you will need if you were building a 2 story. Assuming that someone now goes ahead and continue to develop on my 2-story building regardless of the structural integrity of the pillars, a collapse will be inevitable. So the problem is not the superstructure, but the foundation. In order words, this is a judgement problem (not regulation) on the part of those who should know better - the CEOs.

That is why I said someone needs to be held accountable. These CEOs, aware of what they were doing wrong, bought the consciences of the Congress men that should oversee their activities. Do you think it is mere coincidence that the biggest recipient of the largese from F&F in the Senate is Senator Chris Dodd who happens to be the Chairaman of the Senate Banking Committe? This is the guy who should oversee their activities but has been made a lame duck through lobbying and outright bribery. And as I noted before, the second biggest recipient of money from them is Obama, and one of his economic advisers is the same former CEO of Fanie Mae.

@Ibime,

Bad loans alone cannot bring down so many institutions. The regulation needed now involves the regulation of financial instruments. McCain can, will and is taking the blame for supporting deregulation as witnessed in the current news reports.

Here's an article I read on CNN today. It explains in very simple terms, how the bad loans are the biggest problems. Like I said earlier, if everyone was paying up, we won't have this problem. So default on the loans is the principal cause of the mess - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/17/beck.wallstreet/index.html

Now concerning regulation, I have no problems with regulation to the extent that it is reasonable. As I have mentioned earlier, where does regulation end? The truth is that everything is regulated by the govt, ortherwise there will be no cases in our courts for apparent disregard for laws.

I have a problem with the fact that 3 and still counting of the bigest financial insitutions in this country are now under govt oversight. That is a huge step in the direction of socialism. Governmetnshouldn't be running anything. Laws/regulations must be put in place and implemented to the letter, but tthe govt shouldn't have any administrative power over the corporations.

The govt only messes things up and not make them better (social security and medicaid comes to mind). Why do we prefer private schools and clinics to the public? Why are FEDEX and UPS prefered to USPS? Corporations in the hands of the private sector fairs better than in the hands of the govt.

I disagree that this is a problem for McCain. Rather, he has shown leadership and forsight in this regard. he forewaned of this problem and co-sponsored a bill for oversight over F&F in 2006. But of course, Congress did not let it pass due to its political fallout. Congress had their hands too dirty in it - or should I say their hands were too green in it (Obama's $100,000 in 3 years readily comes to mind). http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16.

Just as an addendum, here's some information from wikipedia about Franklin Raines that McCain mentioned in his address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines

@Davidylan,

Tayo-D, as usual you NEVER quite get around to seeing the real meat in mamajama's write-up. Myopic individuals like you enjoy skirting the truth and never let facts get in the way of their warped assumptions.

I will appreciate if you can disagree without being diagreeable. I don't have time for frivolities this morning,

Obama won the DNC simply because he did far far better than Clinton in the small states and caucuses that the Clinton campaign took for granted. If the DNC apportioned delegates in a winner-takes-all fashion like the republicans, Clinton would have won the nomination by Feb 5. Quit talking about what you don't know.

So how is RACE a factor here? isn't that what the topic is all about? You just keep going off-point each time.

What is McCain's record? What about Palin's?

Is that an answer to Obama's record of Change?

More laughable rubbish. Is this the same "maverick" everyone including the republicans passed on for dullards like George Bush in 2000? Did they suddenly remember he was a maverick worth voting for in 2008? What is McCain campaigning to "change" in washington? Was he not running under the banner of "experience" until he picked Palin and suddenly switched to "change"?

It's only a fool that will not change strategy when there is need for it. It shows he's in touch with the American populace. and if change is what Americans need, he and Palin have the pedigree to make that happen. Obama and Biden? No record at all.

Sharrap bro. clinton toed the party line and provided Americans with arguably the best 8 years they have had in 100 years.

And his actions is what brought the Mortgage giants to where they are today, innit?

What has refusing to toe the party line got to do with the ability to govern?

I thought he was supposed to bring americans together too? Toeing Party line only polarises the situation. McCain showed leadership in this regard when Bush appointed Judges. Where was Obama?

Obama spent more time in Washington than McCain? O boy go and drink water, you're begining to sound desperately clueless.

That is why I said you need to read and understand what you are reading before attacking the keyboard. The person at issue in this case is Biden, not Obama. Who really needs a drink of cool aid?

she has no clue about the Bush foreign policy of the past 8 years . . . thinks she knows all about Russia because she can "see it from Alaska" and didnt know the responsibilities of the VP until a month ago.

Are you talking about the same palin who clearly articulated the pre-epmtive policy?

Because whites will NEVER tell you they are voting based on race. I had a discussion with a white guy sometime ago and he kept giving me 1000 flimsy reasons why Obama was bad for the white house . . . i debunked every single one (it turned out he was so poorly informed i couldnt believe it). At the end of the day we silently agreed his real problem was skin color.

Of course, you must think you are right with your rebuttals. This is purely subjective, but as I said before, whites got Obama to where he is today. that you can never deny.

@Mamajama,

Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it’s one that nobody’s talking about.

It is? How come Obama got the DNC nomination even though he ran against white people? I just don't get it. maybe the reason why people are not talking about it is because it is not an issue. That WAZOBIA is a big factor in naija does not make RACE a big factor in the US.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington.

Can you tell me what changes he has brought to Washington since his 3 years there? His record should speak for him I believe!

McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.

There is a reason why McCain is called a Maverick! Though a part of Washington, he nevertheless doesn't toe the path of Washington, no wonder people are taking his call for Reform more seriously than Obama's call for change. Perhaps, its because he has a record that Joe Biden and Obama do not.

Obama Picked Joe Biden a well respected democrat as running mate,

Well respected by whom? He's spent more time in Washington than McCain and always toe the party line. How is that change?

McCain picked a bimbo that those not knows what Nato stands for and tet the race is still close.

You may abuse her from here till tomorrow, it doesn't change a thing about her nor will keep her from being the next VP of the US and hopefully the President in about 4 years. She doesn't know what NATo stands for? Can you prove that?

What will you do if McCain is elected? is race a factor

I will be happy that the lesser of two evils is President. I've discussed politics with a lot of people here, both White and Black and what we discuss are issues and politics. The only discussion about RACE only relates to the fact of its historic nature. Same applies to gender!

@TopBanana,

What puzzles me is, if Israelis are not Arabs then how did they get there in the first place? Ah now I see, its the Europeans who carved out another man's land and gave it to outsiders. Its like carving out a place in Ibadan and giving it to say Indians. Indians are not Yoruba's and should not be in Yoruba land in the first place. The Israelis look out of place.

let's reason together a little bit more. Iranians are not Arabs, so what are they doing in the Middle East? Egyptians are Arabs, what are they doing in Africa?

@topBanana,

The VP is a heartbeat away from the top job and considering Mccain's age, she's more than a heartbeat.

Obama, with comparable if not less experience than Palin will be the heartbeat of the Presidency if he wins. I'll rather take my chances with Palin a heartbeat away, than with Obama being the hearbeat!

@TopBanana,

Using your arguement any body can be president of America considering each Department has a Sec of state. This is rich coming from people who were saying Obama has no experience.

This is funny considering you are comparing the person at the top of one ticket to the no 2 of the other ticket. Besides, is Obama any more experienced than Palin?

@Bastage,

The more time progresses, the more Palin is looking vastly under-qualified for the job of VP.

Last time I checked, it is the job of the US Secretary of State to be the US' primary liaison with other countries, and not the job of the VP.

Executive wise, she is more than qualified and she has someone who is very good with international politics at the top of the ticket. Granted, she is very green to international affairs, but our major problem today is not whether the Europeans like us or not, nor is it Russia's aggression against Europe - let the Europeans deal with their own boogie-man.

@Ibime,

Come on - is this plagiarism or what? This bitch doesn't know what she is talking about. She watched Henry Paulsons press conference and stole the journalists words. Last week, she was against regulation. Poto-poto Journalism degree doesn't qualify you to hold an opinion on economic matters, I'm afraid!

Why do you have to call her that? You make debates about issues more difficult when you embark on character assassinations.

hmmmmmm. . . . my political anlysis was spot on. . . . last week I said the impending collapse of Lehmann brothers was going to shift the goalposts in the political debate. . . . today, I said regulation would become the hot topic on the campaign trail. . . . and guess what. . . . it is!. . . .Tayo-D tried to cloud the argument by talking about campaign donations which has nothing to do with it and is completely off the radar. . . . . it seems McCain and Palin have been reading this thread. . . . this is what they've had to say in the past few hours. . . .

That's one of the problems have had with the Republicans so far. They have been moving more and more to the center, while the Democrats are moving more and more to the Left. And by the way, they have been talking about regulation before you opened this thread, so take it easy on your ego a little bit.

Like I said before, the main cause of the belly-up is the greed of the financial institutions as well as the borrowers. I'll explain. Despite all the complex financial instruments, there wouldn't have been a problem if the borrowers have the resources to pay and are paying up. The problems only came to light due to default on the loans. I personal do not blame the govt for the problems. I know I have 2 of those kind of loans on my investment properties and they are absolutely killing me. I do not blame the govt but myself for signing those documents. I believe in individual and corporate responsibility, and I consider myself to blame and to an extent, the Mortgage companies for ignoring financial common sense and giving me those loans worth about $400,000.00.

Now concerning regulation, the question is: where does it end? And if I may add, the Banks are now using the same sense they should have had before to offer loans today - under existing regulations. Even though the regulation is the same for now, their practices have changed. So the problem is not the regulations or lack of it, but corporate and managerial irresponsibilities. That is why I said before that McCain needs to hype this a lot. We can't give people a get-out-of-jail-free card for their fiscal irreponsibilites. Where are the probes right now? Where are the special tribunals? Why isn't anyone in jail?

I have a feeling all the legislators have their hands mired in this mess, and that is one reason why govt intervention is bing called for without asking and prosecuting who is responsible.

@Ibime,

Campaign financing has nothing to do with policy. .

You serious? You put your money only where you expect to get some returns!

. . both Republicans and Democrats collect contributions from all the major financials. .

True

. . McCains campaign manager is a lobbyist for Frannie and Freddie so I don't know what you are talking about. .

Lobbying is legal and a necessary evil caused by too much govt regulations. The more regulations we have, the more lobbyists we will see, unless of course it becomes illegal. McCain has no problems with lobbyists but Obama who has is seen getting more money than every other person except 1.

. . Lehmann Brothers also contributed to both campaigns. . . . it is normal for banks to hedge their bets by contributing to both candidates campaigns. . . .

Like I said, I have no problems with lobbying, and they do so to both campaigns, but compare their contributions of
$126,000 to Obama (in 2 years) and just $16,000 to McCain in a space of 10 years. Something is wrong somewhere.

the question is, whose fiscal policy represents these special interests?. . . .

Of course it is the Democrats. They are certain that a bail-out will come despite their irresponsible lending practices.

McCains policies favour less regulation and lower taxes for them whilst Obama's policies favours more regulation and higher taxes for them. . . . . so whose policy is like George Bush's. . . . infact, McCains economic policies are an almost exact replica of Bush's policies.

There is nothing wrong with the policy. What is wrong is the fact that they have been under too much regulation and under control of an arm of govt. More govt control and regulations ensured they had to play "fair" by making sure they give loans to minorities who otherwise would not have qualified for a loan. The sub-prime mortgage problem is a creation of not just the govt, but the private sector greed. And their boldness is underscored by the confidence of a govt bail-out.

@Ibime,

Nah. . . .the debate is about regulatory policy, not about blahdeblah. . . .why are Republicans always quick to advise Obama not to pursue a certain strategy. . . . are they scared or what?

First I am not a Republican. Second, you can have your guy make this a big campaign issue. Like Gullianin said, you can't substitute a record for rhetoric. Obama's record of being a bed-fellow with F & F will forever overshadow his rhetoric.

. . . . suddenly Frannie and Freddie are the cause of all economic problems just because Obama took money from them. . . . we can look into McCains campaign contributions and cancel out that debate completely. .

The housing bubble and slow down is the biggest problem facing the US economy today. What is Obama's record in this area? Not only does he receive lobbying funds but he obtained favorable loans from Countrywide. he is neck deep in the problem. Like I said, he won't be doing himself a whole lot of favor making this a campaign issue.

. . the issue here is that Obama should argue that the Republicans laissez faire attitude to regulation led to the problems we are seeing now. . . . and it is up to him to convince the American public of such. . . . McCain fully subscribes to all of George Bush's economic policies. . . . so he has to make the argument that the same policies which caused these meltdowns will be carried on under McCain. . . . like Bill Clinton said, it's the economy stupid!

McCain on the other hand should insist not on more Govt control, but on holding people responsible for the failure. From those who took advantage of their political posts to obtain questionable financing (like Obama), to the Congress that continually takes money from these guys so as to bail them out at such times as this.

@Ibime,

My comment: A golden egg just landed in Obama's lap. He needs to make political capital out of this.

Are you serious? Obama will be wise to stay clear of this. Fanine mae and Freddie Mac have also gone belly up, and guess who is the second biggest recipient of their politically motivated contributions? You got it right - Obama. While he claims he is against lobbying, he has received so much from them in his short stint as a Senator. Check out the figures here: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
http://www.uncorrelated.com/2008/09/barack_obama_dfannie_mae.html

@crazylegs,

Nigeria1 should be restrained

I second that motion!

@Dayokanu,

Attack Russia? Does this woman knows what she is talking about?

Or maybe it is those making such an accusation that do not know what they are talking about. She never ever said anything in that interview about attacking Russia.

@RichyBlack,

Setup? Wasn't it the McCain campaign that anointed Gibson as the one anchor-man that would give Palin enough "deferential treatment"?

No doubt Charlie is still much fairer than the other Anchor men. It only makes sense that they get her into such an arangement ahead of more hostile once. In any case, I'm sure you'll agree from the entire context and manner of response that she wasn't claiming foreign experience by neighborliness with Russia. She could have easily cited her trip to Canada and/or Iraq as well as her discussion with the Georgian President.

@RischyBlack,

Why would she bring up Alaska's proximity to Russia in any case? Isn't it totally irrelevant to the discussion of foreign policy experience regarding Russia?

Go back and watch the inteview again. In asking the question, Charlie Gibson qualified it by citing Alaska's proximity to Russia. She took off where Charlie stopped by throwing more light on the latter part of the question. Charlie on the other hand fired another question before she could answer the first part.

It kind of looked like a setup, and if it was, she fell for it. Considering how Charlie twisted and edited out her response regarding the US Soldiers fighting a war from God, I am disposed to thinking it was a setup.

@Ibime,

Yes - and you would expect an aspiring VP to know the foreign policy of the previous government.

Actually, she articulated the pre-emptemtive strike policy of Bush as soon as she realises the question was about that. What threw her off was the phrase "Bush doctrine". Like I said before, the phrase is a derogatory way of saying "Bush policy".

@topic,

4Play wins it for me. Astute.

I do agree. I think he takes the crown. I must say that Ibime is also a rising star. But what has this got to do with the price of fish in the market? Negro_Nts also writes with a lot of insight.

@topbanana,

Your doctrin including that of your sister Kobo na to argue.

You have said it all. Case closed.

@RichyBlack,

Palin said she had insights into US. relations with Russia because "they're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska , from an island in Alaska."

You know this statement you quoted above takes a whole new meaning with the word "because" that the report puts in it. This is obviously a calculated attempt to deceive the readers as to what Palin was saying.

She was only responding and expanding on Charles' question and his prompting that Alaska is next to Russia. She obviously didn't finish answering the question before Charles asked another. To claim she believe she has foreign credentials based on her neighbourliness with Russia is simply a lie.

@Afam,

A classic nonsense by TayoD whenever he cannot comprehend issues.

I would have been surprised if your response was different than this. You are ever true to type.

@karmaMod,

It is not enough sometimes to look at the YES and NO vote to crucify or praise a Legislator. Details of each Bill needs to be looked at. For instance, it is not impossible that several "porks" were inserted in the Bill. His stand could well be that many of his colleagues were taking advantagge of the sensitive issue of Veteran's welfare to further their insatiable appetite for more money.

I know he also opposed the last Bill that was supposed to increase some education benefits for Veterans. That also was done for a legitimate reason. It's not easy to stand up for your principles even when some use the occassion to score cheap political point.

What I am saying in essesnce is that each situation has to be examined for its merit.

@davidylan,

Imagine if someone identified you as a "probable" suspect in a crime WITHOUT PROOF.

That is why there's the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." In the mean time, the justice system encourages and considers it proper, to suspect someone of an action based on their precedence. I have clearly established Obama's precedence and they are not contradictory with the currrent attack on Palin.

@davidylan,

I hope Tayo-D will have the good grace to come back here and apologise shld he be proved wrong. Talk they say is cheap.

Funny Tayo is talking about "ignorant postings", his first post here was a poster child for "ignorant posts".

Why don't you try and pause a little bit before you just go on a tangent. What do you understand by the word "probably"?

@RichyBlack,

What are you yarning? If Palin has anything to hide, Obama will do the voters proud to reveal it. However, you can't attribute this vlog to Obama. And even if you do, what is wrong in the nation knowing the true baby daddy of Bristol Palin?

I believe politics is a contact sport. In this regard, playing fair is nothing but a pipe dream. Do I believe the RNC has anything to do with exposing Obama and Wright, as well as his other associations? Not impossible! But it smirks of either naivity or just plain foolishness to think or imply that Obama and the DNC are above this.

@samir101ng,

On the issue of precedence in a court of law i would have to agree with tayo-d on this one. If you are known to use or have used dirty tactics in the past to get something, then automatically you become suspect number one even if you are innocent unless clear evidence is shown proving your innocence. As unfair as it sounds, thats the hard truth.

Thanks for explaining this further to them.  Unfortunately, when it comes to Obama, Davidylan and co tend to turn reason on its head. Emotions take over, and what we get is nothing but unrestrained outburst of ignorant postingts.

@RichyBlack,

I'm afraid Tayo-D is sinking to Kobojunkie levels with an alarming speed. This is truly pathetic!

That is probably a good thing. At this rate, it might just be better to just laugh at the glaring childishness of some of the posts on nairaland.

Trying to pin this on the Obama campaign shows that this Tayo-D character is just another redneck in dark skin - what a waste!

You mean your lord, messaiah Obama is above this? His record says otherwise.

@Davidylan,

you're just full of yourself. Just hear him talk of "educating you".

The fact is I have done that times and again, and I'm so amused by your ability to spew bull-crap with bravado

you clearly shot yourself in the foot by jumping to a possibly erroneous conclusion. What if the video is actually true? What if the video is merely a prank by a jobless fellow? What if the video was made in jest? Did you carefully consider other possible scenarios before labelling this the work of the Obama campaign?

Isn't that why I used the word "probably"? You have freely created many scenarios while depriving me the right to create just one. Talk about a hypocrit.

Based on the issue of precedent, would you be happy if someone treated you with suspicion based on an unfortunate precedent set by another Nigeria 10yrs ago?

You see why I said you need education? I wasn't using someone else's record to judge Obama. I was using his!

Get off your high horse please. Learn to admit when you're wrong, it really doesnt take skin off you please. You make me sick.

I admit when I am wrong, and I do not lie about what I have said.

@Davidylan,

Tayo-D, all you have said is pretty much irrelevant to the issue. What has all that (some as late as 1996) got to do with your claim that this video may probably be the work of the Obama campaign?

As is your response to mine.

That is the issue to deal with, all you're doing is merely sticking your foot deeper into your mouth. Since when did we start convicting innocent people based on "similar precedent"?

I am no longer interested in educating you, especially with that attitude. You may want to study about how important precedence is in a court of law.

@Sisikill,

I honestly don't see how relevant your question is to the topic at hand. . . except there is something about you and Ibime, some of us don't know.

Going on the premise that. . .

1) You are not the present President
2) Ibime is not running for VP.
3) He's not sitting across from Charles Gibson on National TV, trying to make people see and understand why he is the best person for the position of Second in command of the United States of America.

I have to wonder what exactly does Ibime's knowledge of Obama's doctrine have to do with anything? Or better still, what does knowing your doctrine have to do with anything?

Thanks for the questions. The issue is that the inital question is very vague! She clearly wasn't sure what he meant which is why she was asking if the guy was asking about Bush's world view. That is a very vague question.  Assuming Palin had answered the question by talking about preemptive strike, the guy could turn around and say he was talking about his economic doctrine, or any other doctrine for that matter.

Besides, the use of the word 'doctrine' is very derogatory. The word should have been "policy".

And the important thing here is that her view is no differnet than Bush's or even Obama. They all believe in preemptive strikes when actionable intelligence dictates it necessary to defend the country.

@Ibime,

Do you know my doctrine? Or better still, do you know Obama's doctrine?