Reverse psychology?
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Should It Matter That McCain Didn't Wear A Flag Pin?
From David Turner, Dayton, OH: What about John McCain not wearing a flag pin on his jacket during the first debate. If a Repbulican goes without a flag pin, he's confident in his patriotism and has nothing to prove? And if a Democrat goes without a pin he's unpatriotic or worse? Just wondering.Here is where Rep. Jack Kingston, (R-GA) on Feb. 27th, 2008 said it was "o.k." to question Obama's patriotism for not regularly wearing a flag lapel pin.
Time Magazine ran a story May 14, 2008, questioning whether Senator Obama was flip-flopping on the issue.
But, as David points out, Senator McCain gets no such flack.
Atlantic blog: Are the Negroes responsible for the state of the economy?
Before you call the NAACP on me; this is the actual title of a post by Ta-Nehisi Coates. So there. Actually, check out his main page today, he had some good things there, including a reader's comments about "uppity".
FoxNews.com; always the voice of reason (!!?!) seems to know what brought Wall Street down; "Reckless Mortgages". By greedy, unethical, all-for-nothing insiders? Um, no. The article asserts that it was not unfair and deceptive practices either; but rather, allowing those with less than perfect credit and minorities to buy homes. It goes on to say that all of these (undeserving, it seems to imply) new homeowners artificially boosted the values of homes, by increasing demand.
Now, I can talk about this from first-hand knowledge and experience. I have been a mortgage lender for over 12 years. I am the first to admit that there have been plenty of unscrupulous, greedy, manipulative "brokers" and lenders out there. And almost all of them are gone, now. But we're seeing, finally, that the corporate forces behind these actions, (Ameriquest was one of the first major mortgage companies to fall, hard, with severe predatory lending penalties and class action lawsuits.) are in large part responsible for creating a mentality of nothing-to-lose lending.
However, these companies were also responsible for creating a culture of entitlement. Within the last year, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began drastically tightening their lending guidelines, most of the time because of pressure from the mortgage insurance companies. The MI companies have been cutting back and are the ones that eliminated, completely, all conventional 100% ("no money down") financing. And they're still making changes. But even with the "mortgage crisis" being a main staple of the nightly news; I still had customers that were seriously ticked that they couldn't finance 100% with extremely low credit scores. So, in a way, raising and raising the minimum credit score and eventually eliminating the programs completely mean, if they ever are restored, that they may be appreciated a bit more.
I have a major issue with tying "little to no verification of income" together with risky/bad credit. NEVER have seriously low credit score borrowers not had to verify their income. As an example; with conventional lending, I cannot think of a time that the lowest credit score available for "convetional low-doc", which was Fannie Mae's "stated" income program, was lower than 620. For those that aren't familiar with credit scores; 620, for years, was the cut off for "standard" (which was the highest tier, they had lower scores risk-priced, with the worst tier being over 4 times the monthly premium as the standard category).
Also, "conforming low-doc", what Fannie Mae did, was NOT a "no doc" loan. In many cases, "assets/reserves", (liquid funds; checking, savings, 401k, etc) had to be documented. A true no-doc loan, with most lenders, has always required a pretty high score. In addition, with most lenders (and I did not ever do business with Ameriquest, WaMU, HSBC, etc), a w2'd job had to be verbally verified, and self employed had to have verification of such from an accountant, business license, etc. So sure, that gave LOTS of leeway, but at the same time, the loans all required the income to be reasonable for the job.
Now, there were plenty of lenders that were the true "sub-prime", doing 2 year adjustable rate loans with THREE year prepayment penalties (pure evil, something I would NEVER have done, ever), that pushed borrowers debt-to-income ratios (the percentage their total payments were to their gross incomes) to unbelievable heights. But as the post by Ta-Nehisi Coates from the Atlantic points out;
People have to be responsible when they sign their names.
I could easily take up 5 pages with my opinions on all things mortgage. So tell you what, post your questions here, or Email me! your questions or comments and I can address them. Whew. Thanks for listening. LT
FoxNews.com; always the voice of reason (!!?!) seems to know what brought Wall Street down; "Reckless Mortgages". By greedy, unethical, all-for-nothing insiders? Um, no. The article asserts that it was not unfair and deceptive practices either; but rather, allowing those with less than perfect credit and minorities to buy homes. It goes on to say that all of these (undeserving, it seems to imply) new homeowners artificially boosted the values of homes, by increasing demand.
Now, I can talk about this from first-hand knowledge and experience. I have been a mortgage lender for over 12 years. I am the first to admit that there have been plenty of unscrupulous, greedy, manipulative "brokers" and lenders out there. And almost all of them are gone, now. But we're seeing, finally, that the corporate forces behind these actions, (Ameriquest was one of the first major mortgage companies to fall, hard, with severe predatory lending penalties and class action lawsuits.) are in large part responsible for creating a mentality of nothing-to-lose lending.
However, these companies were also responsible for creating a culture of entitlement. Within the last year, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began drastically tightening their lending guidelines, most of the time because of pressure from the mortgage insurance companies. The MI companies have been cutting back and are the ones that eliminated, completely, all conventional 100% ("no money down") financing. And they're still making changes. But even with the "mortgage crisis" being a main staple of the nightly news; I still had customers that were seriously ticked that they couldn't finance 100% with extremely low credit scores. So, in a way, raising and raising the minimum credit score and eventually eliminating the programs completely mean, if they ever are restored, that they may be appreciated a bit more.
I have a major issue with tying "little to no verification of income" together with risky/bad credit. NEVER have seriously low credit score borrowers not had to verify their income. As an example; with conventional lending, I cannot think of a time that the lowest credit score available for "convetional low-doc", which was Fannie Mae's "stated" income program, was lower than 620. For those that aren't familiar with credit scores; 620, for years, was the cut off for "standard" (which was the highest tier, they had lower scores risk-priced, with the worst tier being over 4 times the monthly premium as the standard category).
Also, "conforming low-doc", what Fannie Mae did, was NOT a "no doc" loan. In many cases, "assets/reserves", (liquid funds; checking, savings, 401k, etc) had to be documented. A true no-doc loan, with most lenders, has always required a pretty high score. In addition, with most lenders (and I did not ever do business with Ameriquest, WaMU, HSBC, etc), a w2'd job had to be verbally verified, and self employed had to have verification of such from an accountant, business license, etc. So sure, that gave LOTS of leeway, but at the same time, the loans all required the income to be reasonable for the job.
Now, there were plenty of lenders that were the true "sub-prime", doing 2 year adjustable rate loans with THREE year prepayment penalties (pure evil, something I would NEVER have done, ever), that pushed borrowers debt-to-income ratios (the percentage their total payments were to their gross incomes) to unbelievable heights. But as the post by Ta-Nehisi Coates from the Atlantic points out;
People have to be responsible when they sign their names.
I could easily take up 5 pages with my opinions on all things mortgage. So tell you what, post your questions here, or Email me! your questions or comments and I can address them. Whew. Thanks for listening. LT
What Is Behind John McCain's Total Lack Of Eye Contact With Barack Obama
Josh Silver @ TPM has a great take on this, and the comments are the best. Whenever you can start making analogies to primate behavior, you know it's getting good.
I think people really are missing the point about McCain's failure to look at Obama. McCain was afraid of Obama. It was really clear--look at how much McCain blinked in the first half hour. I study monkey behavior--low ranking monkeys don't look at high ranking monkeys. In a physical, instinctive sense, Obama owned McCain tonight and I think the instant polling reflects that. (TPM reader, TB)
Chris Matthews (MSNBC) and Eugene Robinson (Washington Post) discuss:
I think people really are missing the point about McCain's failure to look at Obama. McCain was afraid of Obama. It was really clear--look at how much McCain blinked in the first half hour. I study monkey behavior--low ranking monkeys don't look at high ranking monkeys. In a physical, instinctive sense, Obama owned McCain tonight and I think the instant polling reflects that. (TPM reader, TB)
Chris Matthews (MSNBC) and Eugene Robinson (Washington Post) discuss:
Sullivan: Obama seems calm and cautious but then ... you realize he cleaned your clock.
Andrew Sullivan: Why Obama Won Big.
As I mentioned in a previous post about why TPM thought some were saying McCain won the debate, he points out this, from Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com:
The CBS poll of undecideds has more confirmatory detail. Obama went from a +18 on "understanding your needs and problems" before the debate to a +56 (!) afterward. And he went from a -9 on "prepared to be president" to a +21.
As I mentioned in a previous post about why TPM thought some were saying McCain won the debate, he points out this, from Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com:
The CBS poll of undecideds has more confirmatory detail. Obama went from a +18 on "understanding your needs and problems" before the debate to a +56 (!) afterward. And he went from a -9 on "prepared to be president" to a +21.
Palintology.
The hope that Democrats would so want a woman in the Executive Branch backfired,
and the photos show someone very out of place with the caliber to people she is expected to be a peer to.
However, a large percentage of the fundamentalist socially conservative GOP base has not abandoned Sarah Palin. Now that she is being almost universally attacked in the media; they are likely becoming more ferociously protective.
Why? For Democrats, it is baffling; not only the appeal of Palin, but how anyone could even consider voting Republican.
Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia associate professor of moral psychology, published an essay recently entitled, "What Makes People Vote Republican?" which shows some compelling arguments about how liberals miss the boat in connecting with non-liberals. He points out that conservatives can understand how liberals think, they just don't agree with many of their beliefs. But liberals just can't understand many conservative points of view.
He also links to www.YourMorals.org, which is a very interesting set of quizzes about morality, beliefs, political views, social issues, etc.
and the photos show someone very out of place with the caliber to people she is expected to be a peer to.
However, a large percentage of the fundamentalist socially conservative GOP base has not abandoned Sarah Palin. Now that she is being almost universally attacked in the media; they are likely becoming more ferociously protective.
Why? For Democrats, it is baffling; not only the appeal of Palin, but how anyone could even consider voting Republican.
Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia associate professor of moral psychology, published an essay recently entitled, "What Makes People Vote Republican?" which shows some compelling arguments about how liberals miss the boat in connecting with non-liberals. He points out that conservatives can understand how liberals think, they just don't agree with many of their beliefs. But liberals just can't understand many conservative points of view.
He also links to www.YourMorals.org, which is a very interesting set of quizzes about morality, beliefs, political views, social issues, etc.
Who Is Behind The Battleground Poll On Real Clear Politics
Don and I have been perplexed by exactly who was behind this; google searches, etc. weren't helping us. Well, a big "duh" moment; I'd been researching it at my office, and my wireless laptop at home is apparently a tad slower. When I clicked "Battleground" (which just today is called GW/Battleground Tracking, which I would have surely been able to investigate and figure out). Anyhow; today, I click on the +2 McCain GW/Battleground link on RCP, and voila; it's a many page pdf. I only realized it when my laptop briefly flashed the cover page before going to the poll data page. Everyone else may have already figured this out, but I know Don and I had been puzzled. So if nothing else, Don, here you go. :)
Assessment by TPM As To Why Some Say McCain Won The Debate (When The Polls Did Not)
This makes a lot of sense to me. All of the general polls show Obama winning the debate from what I have found so far. But quite a few pundits disagree. Even David Yepsen from our paper, The Des Moines Register; handed it to McCain. Why?
Here's part of this article:
Obama’s eye contact was directly with the camera, i.e. the voters at home. McCain seemed to be speaking literally to the people in the room in Mississippi, but figuratively to the punditry. It is no surprise that a small majority of pundits seemed to have thought that McCain won, even when the polls indicated otherwise; the pundits were his target audience.
Here's part of this article:
Obama’s eye contact was directly with the camera, i.e. the voters at home. McCain seemed to be speaking literally to the people in the room in Mississippi, but figuratively to the punditry. It is no surprise that a small majority of pundits seemed to have thought that McCain won, even when the polls indicated otherwise; the pundits were his target audience.
VP Guiliani? Romney? Some InTrader-s Seem To Think So
Yes, for a while we were seeing Hillary in the positive zone, as recently as last week (obviously someone thinking/hoping that Biden would drop out and she would swoop in).
Now, it appears that thinking is going towards Guiliani or Romney on the GOP side. I can find a ton of examples of pundits saying McCain keeping Sarah or replacing her both are likely to be bad for him, which means ultimately he's viewed as swimming upstream no matter what he does at this point. ??? LT
Now, it appears that thinking is going towards Guiliani or Romney on the GOP side. I can find a ton of examples of pundits saying McCain keeping Sarah or replacing her both are likely to be bad for him, which means ultimately he's viewed as swimming upstream no matter what he does at this point. ??? LT
More Debate Opinions (Who Won?)
Rod Dreher, Conservative Republican: Obama
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/09/liveblogging-the-mccainobama-d.html
Ross Douthat: McCain
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/a_win_for_mccain.php
CNN Poll: Obama (Males split evenly, Women preferred Obama)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
MSNBC: Live Poll: Obama
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26906945/
Newsweek: Stumper Blog: McCain (sort of)
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/26/mccain-won-but-will-it-matter.aspx
And, what I am VERY disappointed about:
Des Moines Register: McCain
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080927/OPINION01/809270337/1001/NEWS
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/09/liveblogging-the-mccainobama-d.html
Ross Douthat: McCain
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/a_win_for_mccain.php
CNN Poll: Obama (Males split evenly, Women preferred Obama)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
MSNBC: Live Poll: Obama
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26906945/
Newsweek: Stumper Blog: McCain (sort of)
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/26/mccain-won-but-will-it-matter.aspx
And, what I am VERY disappointed about:
Des Moines Register: McCain
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080927/OPINION01/809270337/1001/NEWS
TPM: Initial Polls Show Obama Winning The Debate
And, in the commentary on the site, here's an observation from the poster debbiedoesnothing;
(click title to see full post)
've already posted this in a couple of other threads but I think Palin's off the ticket and Giuliani's on. Just a hunch.
(click title to see full post)
've already posted this in a couple of other threads but I think Palin's off the ticket and Giuliani's on. Just a hunch.
Palin was remarkably absent from the spin machine after the debate, which is normally a VP's job. Biden did a great job on Countdown while nobody's heard from Moose girl.
We all know McCain needs another gimmick to distract people. Palin's going to give a tearful goodbye speech about how she didn't know how vicious the press would be in attacking her family and it's taking a toll on her children, and as a good Christian mom, she has to put her kids first.
She has to do it in a way that her evangelical base won't hold it against McCain. He'll play the whole thing for a sympathy vote for himself.
Veterans Organizations Have Had Serious Issues With McCain
As ThinkProgress documented, McCain’s so-called “perfect” record has been roundly criticized by prominent veterans groups: He received a grade of D from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a 20 percent vote rating from the Disabled Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America noted McCain had “voted against us” in 15 “key votes.”
Louisiana State Representative Studies Paying Poor Women $1000 To Have Their Tubes Tied
“he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.” LaBruzzo worries that people receiving food and housing assistance “are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated residents”:
Friday, September 26, 2008
Sentence Writing, A Brief Grammar Lesson
I saw a post today entitled: The 15 things you should never do on Facebook. http://www.bspcn.com/2008/09/26/top-15-things-you-should-never-do-on-facebook/ An entry was about "lazy grammar and spelling mistrakes". (yes, it said mistrakes). So that has been on my mind. Seeing these two blog posts from Orange Crate Art about punctuation made me think about our punctuation conversation over New Year's at my in-laws. So here you go. (And you may now correct all of my improperly placed punctuation marks; as I'm sure there are plenty to be found.)
Some lessons:
http://mleddy.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-to-punctuate-sentence.html
and,
More "lessons".
http://mleddy.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-to-punctuate-more-sentences.html
Some lessons:
http://mleddy.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-to-punctuate-sentence.html
and,
More "lessons".
http://mleddy.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-to-punctuate-more-sentences.html
John King talks about McCain's "Campaign Suspension"
As this article states; how could McCain have taken down his ads for 72 hours when the campaign suspension was only annouced 57 hours ago?
What Kissinger Really Said About Iran
I believe that Senator McCain said that Henry Kissinger did not say that he would meet with Iran with no conditons. Correct me if I'm wrong. But here's what Kissinger actually did say:
Kissinger, speaking Monday at George Washington University along with four other former U.S. State Department secretaries, said the next president should initiate high-level discussions with Iran "without conditions," ABC News reported.(click title for full story)
Kissinger, speaking Monday at George Washington University along with four other former U.S. State Department secretaries, said the next president should initiate high-level discussions with Iran "without conditions," ABC News reported.(click title for full story)
During The Debate
InTrade numbers are not looking good; 1:27pm yesterday, the price spread was +17.1, it's been falling today, it was +11.3 at 9:04pm, now at 9:44pm it's only +7.7.
Ok, here's blips from different live blogs I'm seeing right now, during the debate. (by the way, I'm leaving these in the EST format; and have changed the inTrade times in this post to EST; so they are consistent.
UPDATE 9/28/08: This post was just too long. I'm going to cut/paste the rest of the post in to a comment; and I'll title it, "REST OF POST". So if you want to read some interesting live-blogging commentary from the debate; it will be in the comment link below. LT
Ok, here's blips from different live blogs I'm seeing right now, during the debate. (by the way, I'm leaving these in the EST format; and have changed the inTrade times in this post to EST; so they are consistent.
UPDATE 9/28/08: This post was just too long. I'm going to cut/paste the rest of the post in to a comment; and I'll title it, "REST OF POST". So if you want to read some interesting live-blogging commentary from the debate; it will be in the comment link below. LT
You did NOT just slam ethanol, did you Senator?
BROOK SAID IT, and Nate on www.fivethirtyeight.com liveblog of the debate concurs....
8:29 CDT: [Nate] McCain, calling out ethanol subsidies as a bad thing, would seem (correctly) to have recognized that he's lost Iowa.
8:29 CDT: [Nate] McCain, calling out ethanol subsidies as a bad thing, would seem (correctly) to have recognized that he's lost Iowa.
"I'm Speechless"
Conde Nasts Portfolio.com; Zubin Jelveh posts a transcript of Katie Couric's conversation about her Palin interviews. Then Zubin tries to explain Sarah's interesting logic about how the bailout will work.
As he says,
As he says,
Before I try to find the words to rip into this, maybe I can try to see what Palin is really saying.
Let's break it down:
First, Palin suggests the bailout is tied to health care reform which will "shore up the economy." How are these connected? Through the mechanism of "those who are concerned."
Hmmm...
OK, let's stay open-minded..... (click the title to read the whole post)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
