Definition

For the etymologically challenged, a refresher:

mortgage, equiv. to mort (dead) + gage (pledge).

It's a deathpledge, got that?

Reminder

Freedom Democrats has a thank-you note up to Democrats and the media.

First, on the topic of the "Wall Street meltdown" I am completely and totally heartless and callous. I don't blame this on George W. Bush and the Republicans. I don't blame this on Bill Clinton and the 1990s. It's the entire system at fault and to lay the blame at any one individual is absurd and just political opportunism.

I am in complete agreement.

Blame game

An Investor's Business Daily editorial from Monday, September 15 lays the blame for the financial and housing sector meltdown at the Clinton Administration's doorstep. However, they stop short of laying out exactly how the market was motivated to offer high-risk products.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that
dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the
market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the
balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they
had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound
business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or
face stiff government penalties.

Unfortunately, the site has no comments at the bottom, so the normal user-content Q&A activity is absent.

Questions:

1) What rules made banks have no choice?
2) If they knew it was a bad decision, why did they still do it?
3) Since businesses operate on self-preservation, wouldn't it be up to the business to identify a losing prospect and not enter into that line of business, knowing how risky it could be?

To me, with no details or research, the IBD is saying that the Clinton Administration created a noose, and the market put their collective necks in it. Mixing metaphors, if we're to understand profit motive, there must have been some huge carrot on the other side of the noose.

The IBD is saying that it's the government's fault for even allowing the option in the first place, which cannot be reconciled with smart business decisions.

**UPDATE**

I didn't address the "stiff government penalties".

1) Did the banks and lenders do an assessment to decide whether high-risk loans carried a higher risk for loss than the goverment fines?

2) Did they think about not offering the products, and taking the hit from the goverment, while they were wallowing in the derivative benefits from the high-risk products?

3) Which was the harsher result: being fined by the government, or not being in existence 10 years later?

Hydrogen

“Basically, we can mass produce these now,” said Kazuaki Umezu, head of Honda’s Automobile New Model Center, where the FCX Clarity is built. “We are waiting for the infrastructure to catch up.”

Must have skipped over this ground-breaking news in an article from the NYT. For the record, Umezu is referring to hydrogen powered cars.

Audiences

This ability to have the presence to schedule time with these two audiences and use ideas/products of each to form progressive, intelligent policies differentiates Obama from McCain and/or the GOP.

The Naders and Kucinichs that criticize the second meeting clearly have their heads up their asses.

R&D

I wonder how much research and development dollars collectively are being spent on the new Viagra or Propecia or other boutique drug compared to the money being spent on researching alternative fuels. In other words:

"Great, you get an erection at the snap of a finger for exactly one hour! However, a terrorist just blew up your apartment building with money you spent in Saudi Arabia for that unleaded that filled your SUV take your date to the restaurant."

Cost-Benefit and Short-sightedness

The Institute for Analysis of Global Security says:

including the loss in stock market wealth -- the market's own estimate arising from expectations of lower corporate profits and higher discount rates for economic volatility -- the price tag [of 9/11] approaches $2 trillion.

Back in March 2006, the price tag of the Iraq War was predicted to reach $1 trillion or more.

Let's set aside the fact we're talking "trillions" with a "t" here and do a cost-benefit analysis. If we get attacked it costs us two bucks. To attack them costs maybe a buck twenty. Based on that extremely simplified conclusion, we should just nuke them (at a cost of 1 cent) and be done with it. Obviously the big differentiating factor in the analysis is the loss of life.

Should we unleash nuclear weapons on a Third World country because it's cheaper than getting troops killed? Should we send more of our soldiers to get killed over there rather than innocents die here? At least the soldiers were volunteers. Thankfully, I will never be in a position to make that call.

I think Sen. Kennedy's proposal reflects the sentiment: "This guy has already f----d up HUGE, are we going to let him f--k up MORE?".

The proposal is a little short-sighted in that it begs the question: "For which decisions does the President not have ask Congress for permission?" It's kind of like Brutus and Cassius, and the rest of the conspirators who didn't like Caesar and his influence, decided to gut-check his power (rather than assassinate him). But they don't take into account that they too can be gut-checked when they get power.

Related to this, Republicans were just assuming they would be in the majority eternally and never have to worry about having to filibuster something they didn't like.

As far as a surge, I think that word is just for PR purposes. It's meant to give the illusion that something is changing. Even McCain has said he would only support a "surge" if it was sustained and lasting. I personally believe that is not the definition of a surge; it's an escalation.

President Bush would rather stay away from the word "escalation" because it's too closely associated with the Vietnam War. While our troops are in Iraq trying to help they freely admit they are also targets. We're basically giving them more targets.

The Taliban is making a comeback and we're sending more troops to Iraq not Afghanistan, where that guy is...what's his name...it's on the tip of my tongue...

The Minimum Wage is Racist?

One of the priorities of Democrats in the 110th Congress is to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 over the course of two years. In 1995, the Joint Economic Committee in Congress (made up of a majority of Republicans) published talking points against a raise in the minimum wage. One point stated:

The minimum wage hurts blacks generally.

Other detractors said:

The economic case against minimum wage laws is simple. Employers pay a wage no higher than the value of an additional hour's work. Raising minimum wages forces employers to dismiss low productivity workers. This policy has the largest affect on those with the least education, job experience, and maturity. Consequently, we should expect minimum wage laws to affect teenagers and those with less education.

"Low productivity" workers are those with the "least education, job experience and maturity". It's easy to connect the dots that opponents are saying that those with less education, less job experience and "maturity" are blacks.

Their simple conclusion is that a raise in the minimum wage is racist because of this. Nevermind themselves.