Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[bodhitree]

I don't see how anyone can be happy with the economy getting worse...

When the loss of a job affects them they wont be happy.

[sanjuro_ronin]

When the loss of a job affects them they wont be happy.

People happy the a financial sector is in trouble are just as silly as those saying that everything is OK because THEY are OK, **** the rest.
Silly people is what got us here to begin with.
Silly or stupid, pick your poison.

[bodhitree]

People happy the a financial sector is in trouble are just as silly as those saying that everything is OK because THEY are OK, **** the rest.
Silly people is what got us here to begin with.
Silly or stupid, pick your poison.

I agree 100%

[Badger]

My opinion was based on a personal observation. McCain refused to look Obama in the eye and, through body language, seemed to suggest he might catch some sort of disease by shaking his hand.

Also, let's remember this was a man who fought tooth and nail against the MLK holiday (That was until it was politicallly advantageous to support it). Let's also remember this was a man that supported the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina capital.

Given his recent treatment of Obama there are valid questions McCain needs to address when it comes to race relations.

ROTFLMAO!!! That is really lame
Whiney lame Azz Liberals always playing the race card. It's comments like that that turn being called a racist into a compliment.....

[1bad65]

Both candidates have extreme weaknesses. McCain's biggest weakness and a potential reason I may not vote for anyone is Palin. She is an ideological dingbat who is not smart enough to be president.

I've voted in every election since I've turned voting age but see no hope for 2008's election. Hopefully whoever wins the election proves me wrong.

I think Obama's promise to tax those employing people (ie corporations) and his $800 billion in NEW spending should be enough to make you vote McCain.

If you think the economy is bad now, if Obama wins it will be a nightmare.

[1bad65]

ROTFLMAO!!! That is really lame
Whiney lame Azz Liberals always playing the race card. It's comments like that that turn being called a racist into a compliment.....

And what's even worse is that when he got called on it, he still stands by it.

[1bad65]

It was a welfare program that started the whole risky lending thing. The Community Reinvestment Act, look it up. It encouraged banks to lend to low income people on the basis of race. Prior to that banks, for the most part, avoided risky loans.

You must be new to the discussion.

That doesn't count as proof. Only op-ed pieces by liberals count as proof to those you are debating.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think Obama's promise to tax those employing people (ie corporations) and his $800 billion in NEW spending should be enough to make you vote McCain.

If you think the economy is bad now, if Obama wins it will be a nightmare.

Hey, that's only 100 billion more than Bush wanted and that's less than a year at war.

[Reality_Check]

You must be new to the discussion.

That doesn't count as proof. Only op-ed pieces by liberals count as proof to those you are debating.

Clearly you never read my posts on this.

It would also be nice to know how many CRA loans have been initiated since 1977 (when the law was passed). Of those loans, how many of them are a part of the current mess?

Here is some interesting information: http://www.traigerlaw.com/publicatio...udy_1-7-08.pdf

"Our study concludes that CRA Banks were substantially less likely than other lenders to make the kinds of risky home purchase loans that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis.

Specifically, our analysis shows that:

(1) CRA Banks were significantly less likely than other lenders to make a high cost loan;

(2) The average APR on high cost loans originated by CRA Banks was appreciably lower than the average APR on high cost loans originated by other lenders;

(3) CRA Banks were more than twice as likely as other lenders to retain originated loans in their portfolio; and

(4) Foreclosure rates were lower in MSAs with greater concentrations of bank branches."

"More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts."

I.e., the majority of the subprime loans were made by companies not subject to CRA.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/heari...barr021308.pdf

Janet Yellin, President of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Board:

"There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households. We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term."

"According to the 2006 HMDA data, 19 percent of the conventional first lien mortgage loans originated by depository institutions were higher-priced, compared to 23 percent by bank subsidiaries, 38 percent by other bank affiliates, and more than 40 percent by independent mortgage companies. Robert B. Avery, Kenneth P. Brevoort, and Glenn B. Canner, “The 2006 HMDA Data,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Volume 94 (2007), p. A89."

http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html

As I noted above, independent mortgage companies are not subject to the CRA.

Which one of those is a liberal op-ed?

[1bad65]

Hey, that's only 100 billion more than Bush wanted and that's less than a year at war.

That's the kind of thinking that has us in the budget mess we are in now.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's the kind of thinking that has us in the budget mess we are in now.

No, 10 billion per month going out and very little coming in got us in a mess.
My kind of thinking = humour, sorry if you can't tell the difference, did you get choked out again?

[1bad65]

I read them.

I've NEVER blamed only poor people. I've blamed EVERYONE who signed one these retarded mortgages, AND the banks who made the loans. I do think the CRA got the ball rolling. It showed banks that risky lending was ok, at least in the short term and while housing values were rising. So other banks did it to people with a little more money. And on and on. Soon the whole house of cards came crashing down. It was not a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

I was pitched one. I declined. And I'm rich. There were quite a few people who qualified for a decent home, but since the lenders were playing so loose they would offer them loans on bigger, nicer homes they really had no business buying.

Without running the numbers, I'd guess that 'starter' homes are not the vast majority of defaults. They may be alot, yes. But I know that there alot of very nice homes being defaulted on because the people who got them should have chosen a cheaper home.

[1bad65]

No, 10 billion per month going out and very little coming in got us in a mess.
My kind of thinking = humour, sorry if you can't tell the difference, did you get choked out again?

So that's $120 billion a year causing a 'mess'. What do you think Obama's $800 billion NEW spending will cause?

I get choked out from time to time. It happens when you train.

[Reality_Check]

I read them.

I've NEVER blamed only poor people. I've blamed EVERYONE who signed one these retarded mortgages, AND the banks who made the loans. I do think the CRA got the ball rolling. It showed banks that risky lending was ok, at least in the short term and while housing values were rising. So other banks did it to people with a little more money. And on and on. Soon the whole house of cards came crashing down. It was not a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

I was pitched one. I declined. And I'm rich. There were quite a few people who qualified for a decent home, but since the lenders were playing so loose they would offer them loans on bigger, nicer homes they really had no business buying.

Without running the numbers, I'd guess that 'starter' homes are not the vast majority of defaults. They may be alot, yes. But I know that there alot of very nice homes being defaulted on because the people who got them should have chosen a cheaper home.

Your post quoting Ron Paul implied that the Community Reinvestment Act was one of the prime reasons for the current subprime mess. And you said above that you think the CRA "got the ball rolling." bodhitree clearly blamed the CRA. I posted evidence that would contradict that. You implied that what I posted consisted of "op-ed pieces by liberals." Yet when I asked you which were liberal op-eds, you did not answer. Why is that? Are they liberal op-ed pieces? If not, would you care to address the points made in them?

[sanjuro_ronin]

So that's $120 billion a year causing a 'mess'. What do you think Obama's $800 billion NEW spending will cause?

I get choked out from time to time. It happens when you train.

Causing? nope.
Helping? Yes.
There was a surplus before the wars remember?