Presidential Debate #2

I'm getting a late start on this. But I've got to say a couple things. Warning! This post contains an excessive use of parentheses!

Also, the debate is being aired again. Any additions that I've seen from the second airing, are in blue.

Both candidates talk of keeping people in their homes. Both also spoke of declining house values. At least one of them made it seem like this makes it difficult for people to pay their mortgages. McCain says the government should buy up these mortgages and reissue them at the current value of the home. A couple questions:

1. What does the house value have anything to do with what you pay in mortgage payments? If you paid too much for your house, uh, tough cookies. (Likely neither candidate have to worry about mortgage payments.)
   
2. $800 Bil for a bailout, but we need more money to buy these loans? We (Americans) are buying the loans on the back end and on the front end. Seems like we'll be paying for all this twice.
   
3. Everybody wants their money. If someone buys a house from a builder for $200k, it's actually the bank that pays the builder. US buys the mortgage from the bank (at $200k) and reissues the mortgage at the "value" of the house (say $150k). Someone has to eat that $50k. Me, as an American taxpayer? No thanks.

A question was asked, who would you appoint for Secretary of the Treasury. Both candidates named Warren Buffett and no one else. Who says he would want to take the job? They named him because a lot of people know him and know he's made a ton of money. As far as I know, he's not shown any desire for public office. Naming Buffett is a political ploy, I don't think either would actually nominate him. At first, I was skeptical. I don't think either would actually nominate him. He does a fantastic job with his own money, and I think he would do an even better job with the nation's money. The bailout is money that the government doesn't have. Buffett doesn't spend money that he doesn't have. For that reason, I don't think he would consider the job. Also, this bailout will require the government to take on risks and deals that savvy business people (Buffett included) wouldn't take. That said, his philosophy is to invest in companies that are undervalued (by the time he would take the job, all banking institutions will probably be undervalued) and/or are poorly run. No one would argue that most financial institutions are poorly run. Buffett says "Be fearful when others are greedy, be greedy when others are fearful." I'd trust Warren Buffett with my money, but would he be up for the job?

Ron Paul voted against the bailout.

If McCain knows how to get Bin Laden. If he will get Bin Laden, why does he need to wait until he becomes president? Why doesn't he share this knowledge with the ground forces in Afghanistan? Why can he keep saying this and not get called on it?

Also, John McCain says the solution to Social Security is "easy." He says he's watched other people "do it." Why hasn't he, as a senior member of the Senate, fixed it already? Fixing Social Security (if such is possible) would be handled by the Senate, not the President. There isn't much the executive branch can do to change a legislative issue. McCain trivialized the Social Security issue. Probably because to him, and old people (babyboomers included) who might vote for McCain, Social Security isn't an issue for them. They'll get their money, and we (as young taxpayers) will be paying for it.

Health care. McCain thinks it's a responsibility. Obama thinks it's a right. Obama says in a country as wealthy as ours, everyone should have health care. Unfortunately, I don't think our country is as wealthy as Obama and others would have us believe. This should be painfully obvious over the last few weeks. There is a better way for Americans to get health care than through the emergency room, but I don't think either candidate has articulated this. As an aside, those without health care (illegals, etc.) will continue to use emergency rooms, which is a waste of specialized services and a drain on taxpayers. A more moderate stance on illegal immigrant health care (clinics or something) would ease the strain on taxpayers and make all of our health care cheaper and more efficient.

What the F. is Waziristan? I've heard McCain say three times or more that he's been to Waziristan, and I've never heard about this place. Turns out, Waziristan is a part of Pakistan. Why is he going to Pakistan? Last time I checked, we aren't at war with Pakistan. Who was he visiting there? Better yet, who paid for that trip? (U.S. taxpayers)

Neither of these people answer any of the questions directly. What's the point of taking questions from the crowd and the internet if neither will answer them?

Is a "petrodollar" different from a regular dollar? ("petrodollar" courtesy of Obama and McCain, incidentally)

McCain again brings up this notion of a "league of democracies." What, exactly, is the difference between this and the United Nations? Obama's terminology is "community of nations." I wish these two would speak in terms of what we already have.

The final question was, more or less, "What don't you know?" Obama makes a joke, and then says what he does know is that his mother was on food stamps but he could still go to Harvard, I guess. Indicidive of how this debate has gone. Nobody answers the questions. McCain tried to answer this question, but still didn't do much with it.

I wonder what Ron Paul thinks when he watches these debates? He should have run a third-party candidacy and demanded to take part in the debates. If nothing else, it would have kept the other two honest. My coworker Jonathon brought up a good point. With two candidates, they can't talk about what the other has done or won't do. Three candidates forces each candidate to talk about themselves and what they'll do.

My feelings of this debate, and the first one for that matter, are best summed up by American commentator Jay-Z. No video for it, so you'll just have to listen.