CBS Webcast: Examining McCain-Obama debate No. 1

Foreign policy was to be the sole topic of the first debate of the 2008 presidential campaign, but urgent political realities also brought the economy front and center.

Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain squared off Friday evening at the University of Mississippi in the first of three debates between them ahead of Election Day on November 4. (Next up, though, is the vice-presidential debate on Thursday between Sen. Joe Biden and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.)

Both men offered their takes on, among other things, how and when to engage in talks with Iran and what may come of ongoing talks in Congress about a financial bailout tied to the banking crisis--the latter a topic that could well be a continuing, and even defining, issue for whichever of the two becomes the next president.

For a recap of the debate, see the Webcast presented here from Katie Couric and the CBS News political team (originally presented immediately after Friday's debate).

Along with offering reaction to the debate from politicos including Rudy Giuliani, himself earlier this year a hopeful for the Republican nomination, the CBS Webcast features questions submitted from ordinary folk via the Web. Among the topics raised in the Web questions: pork-barrel spending, corporate taxes, military experience, and the age of the candidates.

[Blondshag]

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is a "CROOK" taking all the money from Fannie Mae.

SHAME ON BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

GOD DOES NOT LIKE UGLY!

~~~~~~~MUST READ ARTICLES~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~MUST READ ARTICLES~~~~~~~~

SOURCES: REZKO, FEDS IN DISCUSSION
by: Suntimes
date: 09/28/2008
THIS ARTICLE IS LOCATED AT:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metor/rezko/index.html


REZKO'S "INTENSE" DISCUSSIONS WITH FEDS
by: Natasha Koreckion
date: 09/27/2008
THIS ARTICLE IS LOCATED AT:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/rezko/



REZKO TO START SINGING?
by: Ed Morrissey
date: 09/28/2007
THIS ARTICLE IS LOCATED AT:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/28/rezko-to-start-singing/

AMERICA DESERVES TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REZKO AND OBAMA.

PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE ON.

THANKS.

[pjhenry1216]

Out of curiosity, but mostly out of boredom, I did indeed check your links. It seems clear to me that you failed reading comprehension to jump to your conclusions. Why does it seem the political fanatics are the one's with the worst information? You'd think the ones who were die-hard fans one way or the other would at least have their facts straight due to their apparent obsession. All fanaticism appears to do however is to cause them to distort information they hear into polar extremes. Anything involving their chosen candidate is twisted to make them a great person and anything involving the other guy is twisted to make them into a villain. Why do they always feel that the other guy would be a horrible person. Why can't they just realize that, neither are the anti-christ as people from both sides would have you believe. yes, its fine to realize that one is more closely aligned to your ideals, but the other guy isn't out to destroy the country.

[Thomas, David]

Hmmm ... post much spam lately?

[ecovelli]

I watched the presidential debate and I was appalled by the candidates' comments that they both were aware of the financial crisis before it happened and that they felt many in congress were too. Yet, nothing was done about it.

McCain said he had tried to propose changes. Obama blamed "eight years of failed fiscal policy". When pressed on the policy, he stated several times that tax cuts were responsible. I found it hard to believe that tax cuts caused the failure of the banking system. So, I researched it:

In 1977 president Carter signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which allowed people with low to moderate income to qualify for mortgages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

A change in regulation to the CRA was enacted in 1995 by Robert Rubin under Clinton, making it very easy for minority constituents with bad credit to obtain mortgages. Creating a sub-prime market.

This allowed financial institutions to write risky mortgages. Not necessarily a dangerous thing. This alone did not cause the crisis. Even though subprime mortgage increased by 39%.

HOWEVER, an additional change allowed financial institutions to leverage additional lending on top of these risky mortgages, creating a house of cards, pun intended. Instead of 10% holdings like banks, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae only needed to hold 2.5%. Simplistically, this means that if only 2.6% of borrowers default, the lender is in trouble.

These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule in 2002 after it had been fully implemented for seven years.

The intent of these changes were to create affordable housing. Unfortunately, by allowing easy credit to unqualified buyers, housing prices skyrocketed. Normally housing prices run parallel to inflation. After 1995, home prices increased at two to three times the inflation rate. Even worse, the people who the law was supposed to help were now locked into mortgages that they couldn't afford.

In 2003 Bush recommended changes to plug this. It was blocked by democrats because "These two entities?Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) 2003 house debate on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
"...and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Melvin Watt (D-NC)

The other bill I could find that addressed the issue was:
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 190) co-sponsored in 2005 by McCain.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190
Sec 1351(a)(2): "the extent to which the unlimited holdings by federally insured depository institutions of the obligations of the enterprises could produce systemic risk issues, particularly for the safety and soundness of the banking system in the United States, in the event of default or failure by a regulated entity;"
It didn't pass because it was blocked by the democrats and wasn't even allowed to go to committee debate. But the issue it was to correct did happen.

In 2007 it was proposed again, but blocked by democrats.

Obama said he spoke to the Bush administration about this issue. But there is no record of him supporting any legislation to fix it. Although, in fairness he isn't on any financial committees and the democrats didn't sponsor any bills addressing this issue for him to co-sponsor. He did however take huge campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Over $42,000 per year compared to McCain's $862. Obabma's website lists Franklin Raines, former CEO of Fannie Mae as his financial advisor.

McCain said he was aware of the issue and he did in fact sponsor legislation to correct the issue.

A lot of the debate is posturing, opinion and spin. However, regardless of your opinion on the other issues, this one is pretty clear. Even ignoring which administration was at fault for the problem, The Bush administration, despite all their faults, was aware of the issue and tried to fix it. McCain was also aware of the issue and tried to fix it. Democrats were so concerned about getting people into affordable housing (that they really couldn't afford) that they ignored the entire financial structure of the US.
--

Eddie Covelli
www.ecovelli.com

[phildder]

you are correct It was not the bush admit. It started long before during clinton years the banks were told to keep the party going and get creative so they did. I feel that cbs news anchors are to blame it all on bush and republician party and and cover their butts and obama's too .They do not report the true facts they dig around in the dirt and twist everything that was said to make obama look and sound perfect. Beware of a smooth talker. The media tries to control the election America need to get the facts not twisted sound bites and spins. We pay too many taxes for what Please say NO to the bailout of the CEO and higher taxes.

[c|net Reader]

Why is this lopsided evaluation of the debate posted at cnet? It's pure politics and belies the poster's political bent.

[dianerenz]

I give a lot of credit to Sarah Palin for her ability to perform under pressure. Over time though, the emptiness of her performance leaves me terrified at the thought of her being anywhere near the most powerful position in the world. She was unclear on how to handle the current Nuclear weapons issues throughout the world, (still does not know how to even pronounce the word), revealed how little she knows about past and current policies regarding Israel. When she got in a tight spot, she parroted slogans and attacks against Obama, or repeated soundbites on "change is coming", redirected questions that she knew nothing about. I think Palin would have done better to stick with her aspirations to become a TV sports announcer.