Jump to content

I'm voting for Obama. I hope you will, too.


LoyalFanInGA v2.0

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='711396' date='Oct 9 2008, 03:20 PM']Nobody is going to find a canidate the agree 100% with. You like I dont like abortion, and I dont care for his stance on it either, but this is about the war and the ecnomy and ending one (in Iraq) and making sure the folks who got us into the mess cant do worse by having power. Those are my two major issues in this election.[/quote]

I agree with you - you'll never be 100% satisfied. But you just said in your prior post that you're voting against McCain at least as much as for Obama... I hate having to be put in that position. I want to be excited about my candidate. I can't in this election.

I like whodey's proposal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='711400' date='Oct 9 2008, 02:39 PM']I agree with you - you'll never be 100% satisfied. But you just said in your prior post that you're voting against McCain at least as much as for Obama... I hate having to be put in that position. I want to be excited about my candidate. I can't in this election.

I like whodey's proposal.[/quote]



In my voting years I dont think Ive ever been excited for any canidate that was running for president. (Governer and Senator sure, I like Mark Warner, but not president. Its mostly been who sucks the least.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people that got us where we are? Jamie, if you want to have a real debate about how we are here, don't just blame the deregulation... That isn't where this mess started... You make it a law that 10% of your portfolio has to include high risk mortgages, to give the "little guy" an upper hand... You have organizations like ACORN who have the sole purpose of pressuring companies into making these loans... Then on top of that, you have the lack of regulation that you so firmly are against, allowing banks to make their own rules, and make extremely risky moves based on the false notion that home prices never fall...

There isn't one party, person, or company to blame in the mess... Almost all of us are living above our means... Our government was/is definately living above our means... Its time for some real changes here, and if you think that deregulation is the cure all, I think that is naive... A little bit of fiscal conservatism would certainly help the matter too... The only problem is that neither party stands for that any more... I feel similar to Vol in this case, and I did like McCain and was my pick well before it was a fact... But I have seen enough bs from him, and I don't like the people that Obama likes to hang around with... I don't like the fact that he was part of the problem in this mess we are seeing now, yet is someone totally missing any blame at all...

We are all to blame, and we can either bitch about the mess until we destroy ourselves, or we can unite and realize that we all need a little bit of an intervention...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='sois' post='711051' date='Oct 8 2008, 12:51 PM']I will vote for anyone who will pull ALL troops from ALL foreign countries and get our deficit switched to a surplus.

Oh wait, that is nobody.[/quote]
[quote name='steggyD' post='711053' date='Oct 8 2008, 12:55 PM']Correct. Obama has said that he will focus our military efforts in other areas, such as Afghanistan. He is not a bring the troops home kind of guy, which is what I am looking for.[/quote]
I agree. Im still holding out hope that obama will bring at least most of them home. I kinda think he needs to say hes going to go after the terrorists or else the right wingers will say "obama not want kill terrorists" and everyone will buy into it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='711401' date='Oct 9 2008, 02:47 PM']In my voting years I dont think Ive ever been excited for any canidate that was running for president. (Governer and Senator sure, I like Mark Warner, but not president. Its mostly been who sucks the least.[/quote]
x 2

You're not [i]write[/i] in the head if you want to be a politician. I don't know if that is Nature vs. Nurture, but that is what you get as the end result; not the best and brightest.

Who the hell would want to put themselves and their family through the scrutiny of a presidential election?

'Bout the last thing I would want is some skank ass-ho skeleton from college dragged out of my closet.

I don't know anyone who is perfect.

Can you imagine in another 40 years: "Bob, this just in...we have video taken by a cellphone 40 years ago of the Democratic Presidential Nominee doing lines of blow off a stripper's ass during Spring Break in Vegas. The Senator, commenting through his campaign manager, denies any recollection of Spring Break 2008."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading a book right now called "Marching Towards Hell: America and Islam After Iraq" by Michael Scheuer. It's a pretty interesting read from a guy that worked in the CIA from the early 1980's until the late 1990's. Quite interesting.

This has little to do with this discussion. Or does it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='DontPushMe' post='711434' date='Oct 9 2008, 04:35 PM']I agree. Im still holding out hope that obama will bring at least most of them home. I kinda think he needs to say hes going to go after the terrorists or else the right wingers will say "obama not want kill terrorists" and everyone will buy into it.[/quote]
I don't know. I think the drug line must remain open no matter what.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='whodey319' post='711398' date='Oct 9 2008, 03:33 PM']the presidential election should be like voting for city council. There are like 10 people running for 2 spots and #1 guy gets president and # 2 guy gets VP[/quote]
well it used to be that way but outside of appointing #2 vice president i dont know what can realistically be done about political parties

who was it that warned us of this, washington or franklin?

[img]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/jrod9927/gwash.jpg[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='711386' date='Oct 9 2008, 01:54 PM']Homer - I know what you're saying and typically I agree with you. I've voted in all previous presidential elections because I felt like it was extremely important.


But, in this go around, what am I accomplishing by being engaged? Both of these guys aren't worth the potential jury duty that would be brought into play. I'm being sincere in that. You (not you specifically Homer) guys that are all gung-ho for Obama... are you because you really like what Obama presents (which I've not received a nice detail of) or just anti-republican and McCain is "another Bush"...

you guys voting for McCain - is it because you like what McCain is offering or is it becaue you just don't want Obama and what he represents / a democrat in the White House?

Because I here a lot of Obama support that is actually anti-repub / anti-McCain / anti-Bush support. You know the "anybody but Bush, Jr."... or, "I'm voting McCain because I can't vote a black guy / democrat into the White House". Very few are actually enamored with Obama or McCain and rightly so. There isn't much to be enamored with.

I know what you're saying just feels like this cycle engaging isn't going to be productive.[/quote]

This is a good statement / question, so though I rarely post, I'll throw 2 cents in:

I'll preface by saying that the way politicians have behaved for decades now, Abraham Lincoln or George Washington could be up for election right now and no one would be gung ho about either....such is the cynicism that's been beaten into the American public.....

That said, I feel "hopeful" about Obama because:
- During the summer when both Hillary and McCain going on about rolling back the gas tax (politicking), it was Obama who stood up and said it would save the average American $20 over the summer and we'd have no money for highways.

- Sitting down with Iran without pre-conditions ain't a bad thing...I don't think he meant that he'd be sitting down personally, his office would open a dialogue without pre-conditions.

- He had the resume to be one of the guys that everyone routinely bitches about (high powered corporate lawyer, Wall Street lawyer, etc) but he chose to go to Chicago to help the underprivileged. I think that's pretty commendable and I don't know a lot of people who would've done that. (Sadly he became a politician and everyone bitches about him anyway).

- I think his health care plan is sound. Its not a massive change, still provides "freedom" for the libertarians out there (adult coverage not required) but expands coverage significantly. I'm gonna love the savings of having my small business provide health care out of a Federal pool instead of the Chamber of Commerce pool.

- I think he'll regain our respect within the international community again. We NEED their support to clean up the messes that we're stuck with now (Iraq / Afghanistan / Iran / North Korea / and on and on).

- Despite inexperience and the flogging he took in his first run for Congress, he managed to learn his lessons and knock off the woman who a year ago was the odds on favorite for the Presidency. Shows serious leadership and organizational skill.

- He's charismatic as hell and has a clear message of "Hope" in his campaign that can emotionally uplift America. Haven't seen that since Ronald Reagan. During bad times, never underestimate the power of an uplifting message. Say what you will about Reagan's policies (this means you BJ ;) ) , his message of optimism helped pull America out of the hangover of Vietnam, Watergate, oil crisis, etc.

- Despite the "surge" argument, I think Obama has it right. We're fighting and spending to much money in the wrong place. Give the Iraqi government a time-bound goal to get their shit together and go get the enemy that we were supposed to be going after in the first place.

I might be fooling myself based on who he's surrounded himself with, but I think he will re-regulate the markets a bit. I know that he'll at least take the leash off of the SEC and let them do their job again.

There, bullet points off the top of my head on why I like Obama.....and without bashing McCain!

PS...on a selfish note, I'm up for a tax cut as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='scrotos' post='711562' date='Oct 9 2008, 10:47 PM']This is a good statement / question, so though I rarely post, I'll throw 2 cents in:

I'll preface by saying that the way politicians have behaved for decades now, Abraham Lincoln or George Washington could be up for election right now and no one would be gung ho about either....such is the cynicism that's been beaten into the American public.....

That said, I feel "hopeful" about Obama because:
- During the summer when both Hillary and McCain going on about rolling back the gas tax (politicking), it was Obama who stood up and said it would save the average American $20 over the summer and we'd have no money for highways.

- Sitting down with Iran without pre-conditions ain't a bad thing...I don't think he meant that he'd be sitting down personally, his office would open a dialogue without pre-conditions.

- He had the resume to be one of the guys that everyone routinely bitches about (high powered corporate lawyer, Wall Street lawyer, etc) but he chose to go to Chicago to help the underprivileged. I think that's pretty commendable and I don't know a lot of people who would've done that. (Sadly he became a politician and everyone bitches about him anyway).

- I think his health care plan is sound. Its not a massive change, still provides "freedom" for the libertarians out there (adult coverage not required) but expands coverage significantly. I'm gonna love the savings of having my small business provide health care out of a Federal pool instead of the Chamber of Commerce pool.

- I think he'll regain our respect within the international community again. We NEED their support to clean up the messes that we're stuck with now (Iraq / Afghanistan / Iran / North Korea / and on and on).

- Despite inexperience and the flogging he took in his first run for Congress, he managed to learn his lessons and knock off the woman who a year ago was the odds on favorite for the Presidency. Shows serious leadership and organizational skill.

- He's charismatic as hell and has a clear message of "Hope" in his campaign that can emotionally uplift America. Haven't seen that since Ronald Reagan. During bad times, never underestimate the power of an uplifting message. Say what you will about Reagan's policies (this means you BJ ;) ) , his message of optimism helped pull America out of the hangover of Vietnam, Watergate, oil crisis, etc.

- Despite the "surge" argument, I think Obama has it right. We're fighting and spending to much money in the wrong place. Give the Iraqi government a time-bound goal to get their shit together and go get the enemy that we were supposed to be going after in the first place.

I might be fooling myself based on who he's surrounded himself with, but I think he will re-regulate the markets a bit. I know that he'll at least take the leash off of the SEC and let them do their job again.

There, bullet points off the top of my head on why I like Obama.....and without bashing McCain!

PS...on a selfish note, I'm up for a tax cut as well.[/quote]
Well said.

Exactly the kind of debate I was hoping to spark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='scrotos' post='711562' date='Oct 9 2008, 11:47 PM']This is a good statement / question, so though I rarely post, I'll throw 2 cents in:

I'll preface by saying that the way politicians have behaved for decades now, Abraham Lincoln or George Washington could be up for election right now and no one would be gung ho about either....such is the cynicism that's been beaten into the American public.....

That said, I feel "hopeful" about Obama because:
- During the summer when both Hillary and McCain going on about rolling back the gas tax (politicking), it was Obama who stood up and said it would save the average American $20 over the summer and we'd have no money for highways.

- Sitting down with Iran without pre-conditions ain't a bad thing...I don't think he meant that he'd be sitting down personally, his office would open a dialogue without pre-conditions.

- He had the resume to be one of the guys that everyone routinely bitches about (high powered corporate lawyer, Wall Street lawyer, etc) but he chose to go to Chicago to help the underprivileged. I think that's pretty commendable and I don't know a lot of people who would've done that. (Sadly he became a politician and everyone bitches about him anyway).

- I think his health care plan is sound. Its not a massive change, still provides "freedom" for the libertarians out there (adult coverage not required) but expands coverage significantly. I'm gonna love the savings of having my small business provide health care out of a Federal pool instead of the Chamber of Commerce pool.

- I think he'll regain our respect within the international community again. We NEED their support to clean up the messes that we're stuck with now (Iraq / Afghanistan / Iran / North Korea / and on and on).

- Despite inexperience and the flogging he took in his first run for Congress, he managed to learn his lessons and knock off the woman who a year ago was the odds on favorite for the Presidency. Shows serious leadership and organizational skill.

- He's charismatic as hell and has a clear message of "Hope" in his campaign that can emotionally uplift America. Haven't seen that since Ronald Reagan. During bad times, never underestimate the power of an uplifting message. Say what you will about Reagan's policies (this means you BJ ;) ) , his message of optimism helped pull America out of the hangover of Vietnam, Watergate, oil crisis, etc.

- Despite the "surge" argument, I think Obama has it right. We're fighting and spending to much money in the wrong place. Give the Iraqi government a time-bound goal to get their shit together and go get the enemy that we were supposed to be going after in the first place.

I might be fooling myself based on who he's surrounded himself with, but I think he will re-regulate the markets a bit. I know that he'll at least take the leash off of the SEC and let them do their job again.

There, bullet points off the top of my head on why I like Obama.....and without bashing McCain!

PS...on a selfish note, I'm up for a tax cut as well.[/quote]

Well done.

While I don't agree with many of your points you're the first person I've seen concisely state why you're voting for Obama (with something beyond "change")... I appreciate your positions. Thank you for the input.

I agree with you on the gas tax... it would have been a drop in the bucket to Americans but would have hurt the infrastructure budget significantly.

I'll disagree regarding Iran... I wouldn't want to lend any more credence to their position and quite honestly sitting down with them (without an intermediary) isn't going to solve anything as they flat out hate us.

As for going to Chicago... again I appreciate your view as to why he did so. I look at it from a different vantage point. Mine says the Chicago political machine... which is crooked as hell.

Nationalized health care plans scare me in general... while I think the insurance companies need to be reigned in as costs are skyrocketing having the government tell me who I can go to, etc. isn't my idea of a good solution. I'm not aware of any nationalized health care plan in the world that is run efficiently and actually works well. As for it being cheaper on your small business insurance... have you factored in what your additional taxes are going to cost you with Obama's increased taxes on small businesses? Because his plan pretty much blisters small business owners, while reducing tax loads for the below middle class.

As for international support - I agree that he'll regain their respect - don't know if it'll be true respect or more of a superiority position as Obama scares me with his "we've got to be play nice, nice". I agree that diplomatic channels should be exhausted, but when those avenues run out additional measures must be taken. Foreign leaders and countries must know those measures can come about - I don't think Obama portrays that. To me anyway.

Agree with you on Hillary. She was the presumptive nominee even 4 years ago down to probably 1 1/2 years ago. In the last 9-12 months Obama has taken that away from her. I don't know what organizationally a candidate actually does (as they have handlers, campaign managers, advisors, etc.) but from a personality standpoint he definitely beat her.

Agree with his charisma. He does offer a sense of hope, but my concern is at what cost? Hope with nothing substantial behind it is false hope. There has be be concrete ideas behind that hope to keep it going.

As for surge. I think we're in a quagmire in Iraq. But if you put a published timeline on withdrawal doesn't the enemy just sit in hiding and wait for that timeline to come and go? You leave and then they have free run? I'd like a timeline too, but it should be a private thing which obviously such a thing could exist and we wouldn't know - which is the problem with my idea. I don't know the answer here unless we pretty much just tell Iraq, good luck and sorry for you. We're out in 12 months... Not a good solution but I don't know of a good solution.

I don't see him re-regulating GSE's... not with his democratic brethren so adimantly against it. They're huge donors to several high-placing democrats , Obama chief amongst them, and it is already on record with many democrats blocking any such move. As for other areas, republicans will attempt to block any such regulation as they're large donor base is in those markets... until we get special interest out of Washington I don't see a good answer.

Again, appreciate the give and take. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...since this is give and take, I now get to respond with a little more detail

I don't think that sitting down with Iran lends credence to their position. I disagree with the "legitimizing" argument because they are, after all, a sovereign nation. I don't think they'll take back the "rotting corpse" statement by sitting down with them, but with concerted International pressure and some diplomacy, I think we can get them to ramp down nuclear development...something that's good for us and Israel (and Russia, China, etc). Doesn't hurt to try.

The Chicago thing is admittedly an opinion based on observation and our own personal filters. Since we can't read minds, no sense in carrying on.

In general I'm for choices as well, but I'm not seeing where the Obama health plan is limiting choices. Seems to me he's keeping the current system intact while making available the Federal employee system. As for the efficiencies and quality of nationalized health care, our own Medicare system seems to do fine (http://www.kff.org/insurance/7031/ti2004-1-10.cfm) with some high satisfaction rates (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=221504). Now admittedly FEHB (the system in question) is less efficient than Medicare, but it's comparable to private firms still (I'm pissed that I lost that link)

As far as Obama's plan "blistering" small business, I don't see it. Most small businesses that I deal with (and as it happens, nationally) are sole proprietor ships and partnerships organized into LLCs or S Corps. The income from those pass straight to the owner(s). I know some who are exceeding the $250,000 income level from their business, but most are not. I also know that I would jump for joy to be able to pay that extra 4-5% taxes on income over $250,000...cause that means I'm making over $250,000. Even on the margin I would say that you're not quite thinking clearly if you are going to reduce production, not hire someone or fundamentally rearrange your business to avoid that extra 4-5% tax. I'm also digging the 50% tax credit proposed on the health insurance we do provide to our employees. Would I mind the extra 4-5%, sure. But I also know that we've got some digging out to do and I wouldn't mind paying the extra tax. Even at my (much) lower income, I've managed to take care of my family, save a little, and allow my wife to raise our 3 kids at home. As long as my family is taken care of I don't mind giving a little bit more to help people down on their luck and pay off the massive national debt.
Now I will say that I live in the professional small business realm and am not impacted in changes in the minimum wage. I'm not as familiar with builders (though I have one as a client), landscapers, franchise owners, etc. I'd be very interested in hearing from other small business owners and how they see the proposed tax plans from both sides impacting them.

Diplomacy and international support: another opinion issue, but I will point out that Obama does consistently mention that military action will never be taken off the table.

By organizationally I mean that he put the right people in the right place, set the overall tone and helped in formulating the grassrootsiness (is that a word?) of it. Certainly there are advisers, campaign managers, etc, but the Democrats are normally a mess compared to Republicans and I believe that he had a hand in changing that.

eh...enough for now...gotta work.

Vol_Bengal, I'll thank you for the the very civil give and take. I know that you take some shit on this forum and I appreciate you not taking your ball and going elsewhere to play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='scrotos' post='711654' date='Oct 10 2008, 10:00 AM']Well...since this is give and take, I now get to respond with a little more detail

I don't think that sitting down with Iran lends credence to their position. I disagree with the "legitimizing" argument because they are, after all, a sovereign nation. I don't think they'll take back the "rotting corpse" statement by sitting down with them, but with concerted International pressure and some diplomacy, I think we can get them to ramp down nuclear development...something that's good for us and Israel (and Russia, China, etc). Doesn't hurt to try.

The Chicago thing is admittedly an opinion based on observation and our own personal filters. Since we can't read minds, no sense in carrying on.

In general I'm for choices as well, but I'm not seeing where the Obama health plan is limiting choices. Seems to me he's keeping the current system intact while making available the Federal employee system. As for the efficiencies and quality of nationalized health care, our own Medicare system seems to do fine (http://www.kff.org/insurance/7031/ti2004-1-10.cfm) with some high satisfaction rates (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=221504). Now admittedly FEHB (the system in question) is less efficient than Medicare, but it's comparable to private firms still (I'm pissed that I lost that link)

As far as Obama's plan "blistering" small business, I don't see it. Most small businesses that I deal with (and as it happens, nationally) are sole proprietor ships and partnerships organized into LLCs or S Corps. The income from those pass straight to the owner(s). I know some who are exceeding the $250,000 income level from their business, but most are not. I also know that I would jump for joy to be able to pay that extra 4-5% taxes on income over $250,000...cause that means I'm making over $250,000. Even on the margin I would say that you're not quite thinking clearly if you are going to reduce production, not hire someone or fundamentally rearrange your business to avoid that extra 4-5% tax. I'm also digging the 50% tax credit proposed on the health insurance we do provide to our employees. Would I mind the extra 4-5%, sure. But I also know that we've got some digging out to do and I wouldn't mind paying the extra tax. Even at my (much) lower income, I've managed to take care of my family, save a little, and allow my wife to raise our 3 kids at home. As long as my family is taken care of I don't mind giving a little bit more to help people down on their luck and pay off the massive national debt.
Now I will say that I live in the professional small business realm and am not impacted in changes in the minimum wage. I'm not as familiar with builders (though I have one as a client), landscapers, franchise owners, etc. I'd be very interested in hearing from other small business owners and how they see the proposed tax plans from both sides impacting them.

Diplomacy and international support: another opinion issue, but I will point out that Obama does consistently mention that military action will never be taken off the table.

By organizationally I mean that he put the right people in the right place, set the overall tone and helped in formulating the grassrootsiness (is that a word?) of it. Certainly there are advisers, campaign managers, etc, but the Democrats are normally a mess compared to Republicans and I believe that he had a hand in changing that.

eh...enough for now...gotta work.

[color="#FF0000"]Vol_Bengal, I'll thank you for the the very civil give and take. I know that you take some shit on this forum and I appreciate you not taking your ball and going elsewhere to play.[/color][/quote]


x2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='scrotos' post='711654' date='Oct 10 2008, 11:00 AM']Vol_Bengal, I'll thank you for the the very civil give and take. I know that you take some shit on this forum and I appreciate you not taking your ball and going elsewhere to play.[/quote]

Thank you. I take a little bit, but not bad. I get sarcastic at times but by and large I try to keep things in a good discussion manner. Otherwise, there will absolutely be no changing of minds.


I'm generally a conservative person regarding both finances and social issues... but McCain does as much for me as Obama does... and that is nothing. Just my opinion.

I appreciate the banter and wish these discussions would flow more in this light - might bring facts to the table that people were not aware of. If you do it in a civil manner people are more responsive to listen. Like your discussion of the business tax vs. health care credit, etc. that is good stuff.


And, Eva's mine. You can look at the avatar, but you can't have her!!! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is actually a good conversation, not littered with name calling and such.

I cant understand why a person would not vote, unless of course they dont care to learn about the candidates. IMO each person has to have one issue that they care deeply about and that alone should be reason enough to cast a vote.

Also more so than any other election you have two candidates whose overall view of America is completely different. You have one candidate who believes America is at its best when we operating as global powerhouse and obvious leader in industry and military and on other side you have a candidate that believes we are better off trying integrate further into the global community, and to be honest they are both interesting stances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='711511' date='Oct 9 2008, 09:01 PM']Curious Rick as Im not caught up in ACORN yet, was there anything saying the banks were not allowed to say no to ACORN?[/quote]


Rick I saw you in here before, this is an honest question, you brought up ACORN so educate me on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='711764' date='Oct 10 2008, 03:29 PM']Rick I saw you in here before, this is an honest question, you brought up ACORN so educate me on it.[/quote]

:lol: Good luck with that. You're going to have to wait for today's talking-points-du-jour email to arrive. Yesterday's apparently didn't have the specifics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='711315' date='Oct 9 2008, 10:28 AM']Sorry but this election and this time in our histroy is too important to even give those who got us into this mess even the slightest chance by voting 3rd party. I will be voting for Obama.[/quote]

See this is why we have such pitiful choices in the election. In the primaries, we pretty well knew it would come down to hillary and Obama. On the Republican side, it was a little more open, but really it was Gulliani or McCain. Romney would have been a good choice, but being Mormon and all, it's all must as bad as the Muslim we are about to have as president (By the way, this is a joke, as I know Obama is not Muslim, but it shouldn't matter and we lost a good option because of his religion). Hucakbee, well he was just a little to evangelical to put on the ticket. Hell in 1998 it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that Bush would be the Nominee in 2000, at least from my perspective. At any rate, it is becoming a game of who has the most money, which makes it even worse.

So any way, the media, and the parties give us two or three choices, all of which are very similar, so we can pair it down like it's the finals of a tennis tournament and we are left with party picks, and no viable option to vote for. Hell, they won't even let the 3rd party's debate, or get any "equal" time on any network. In truth, they should have the same right to coverage and exposure on the networks as the two major parties. It's about picking the best for the job, and not the one we think will screw up the least.

The only "Change" that we could ever hope to see is vote both parties out of power. And I'm not saying just on the national level, if the opportunity is there in a local election, go for it. The system is not going to change in a day, but it's got to start somewhere. Just too bad the country didn't bother to continue the momentum that Perrot had with the Reform Party. Voting in a third party would send a real message of change to Washington. And that is "Change that is needed."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='711773' date='Oct 10 2008, 04:05 PM']:lol: Good luck with that. You're going to have to wait for today's talking-points-du-jour email to arrive. Yesterday's apparently didn't have the specifics.[/quote]

when have i avoided debates?

Jamie... Sorry, busy, busy, busy... I can only give you the talking points :) because I am not as educated on ACORN as i probably should be...

Basically though, ACORN would use tactics to bully companies into making risks they might not make without them... They have been known to sue companies to get their way, badger company execs, etc... Considering most put at least some blame on the Community Reinvestment Act of the 1970's and the fact that companies are forced to make loans they wouldn't otherwise make, I think it is important...

To answer your question though, of course the companies could refuse... That is, until they were sued and were forced legally to make the loans... But that isn't the question here, is it? The question is: does ACORN and the CRA have anything to do with this current "crash" we are experienced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' post='711800' date='Oct 10 2008, 05:33 PM']when have i avoided debates?

Jamie... Sorry, busy, busy, busy... I can only give you the talking points :) because I am not as educated on ACORN as i probably should be...

Basically though, ACORN would use tactics to bully companies into making risks they might not make without them... They have been known to sue companies to get their way, badger company execs, etc... Considering most put at least some blame on the Community Reinvestment Act of the 1970's and the fact that companies are forced to make loans they wouldn't otherwise make, I think it is important...

To answer your question though, of course the companies could refuse... That is, until they were sued and were forced legally to make the loans... But that isn't the question here, is it? The question is: does ACORN and the CRA have anything to do with this current "crash" we are experienced?[/quote]


I beg to differ, it is the question because if a banker can still say no then they dont have to take on the risk. However what the problem we had really doenst have any thing to do with ACORN or the CRA (and I have posted on the CRA reasons why before) what were looking at it the unregualted securites even the most netural of analyists will tell you this. ACORN and the CRA blame comes from conservitive blogs.

Here is some info on mortgage backed security swapping. I blame this.

[url="http://www.idahostatesman.com/business/story/527667.html"]http://www.idahostatesman.com/business/story/527667.html[/url]

[quote]WASHINGTON - It can be a fine line between investing and gambling. But in Las Vegas, you know the odds. On Wall Street, that's not always the case.

Especially when it comes to the $62 trillion market in arcane financial contracts known as "credit default swaps."

"Moreover," adds Michael Greenberger, former director of trading and markets for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, "Las Vegas is regulated."

These swaps are increasingly being blamed for the near-collapse of insurance giant American International Group Inc., the bankruptcy of investment bank Lehman Brothers, and the downfall of other investment houses and financial institutions.

Members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Tuesday accused AIG of opening "a casino in London" when it began dealing in these complex derivative contracts.

So what are credit default swaps and how have they caused all this trouble?

The swaps are a form of insurance, but they aren't regulated that way.

Say a big investor buys a bond from a company. But the investor is worried about the company's ability to pay off that bond. The investor turns to a third party like AIG and buys protection in the form of a credit default swap contract. AIG agrees to pay the investor the value of the bond in the event the company defaults on it.

The issuer of the credit default swap doesn't write this insurance for free. It gets a fee, usually a percentage of the value of the bond.

The transactions are made "over the counter," meaning they are not regulated by any public exchange.

And since these contracts are not considered "insurance," Greenberger says, the companies that guarantee the bonds are not required to keep enough capital on hand to pay them off in the event of a default.

The swaps have given those invested in all manner of debt, including mortgage-backed securities, a false sense of security.

"Everyone walked around saying 'we're insured,' " said Greenberger, who is a law professor at the University of Maryland.

As housing prices rose and more people could get mortgages despite questionable credit records, mortgage-backed securities were an attractive place for pension funds and other investors to park their money.

Mortgage-backed securities have turned sour with plummeting home prices and increasing default rates. The securities have clogged the credit market, prompting the Bush administration and Congress to put taxpayers on the hook buying them up.

As the government buys mortgage-backed securities from teetering financial institutions at less than face value prices, issuers of the credit default swaps could be liable for the difference.

That's troublesome enough, but it actually gets worse.

Buyers of credit default swap insurance are not required to own the underlying securities they are insuring.

In other words, the investor can buy insurance on a mortgage-backed security without having to buy the security itself. When that security turns sour, whoever is holding the credit default contract - whether they actually own the security or not - can demand payment for the face value of the security.

This has created a market in which speculators actually are betting that mortgage-backed securities will lose their value.

Because the market is unregulated, the size of the credit default market is difficult to estimate.

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, a trade group, estimates its "notional value" for year-end 2007 at $62.2 trillion - roughly five times the entire U.S. production of goods and services last year. The total represents how much sellers of the protection would have to pay if every one of the securities were to default, an unlikely scenario to be sure.

But even this is a rough estimate. Participation on the survey was voluntary.

What is helping drive the panic in these contracts is that little is known about who owes what to whom.

"Nobody knows where all the credit default swaps lie," Greenberger said. "And that's really proven to be a big problem."[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...