It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas (for Obama)

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You may or may not think the associations mean very much, but do you really buy Obama's explanations?

No. Not really... not 2 out of 3.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Yes, horrific sliming like bringing up his associations with

Bill "He was just a guy in the neighborhood" Ayers

This one I think is slime, yes. I've known some pretty disreputable rogues in my time, but never have I thought about going out of my way to publicly ostracize them on the outside chance I may someday run for President. 8 year old Obama didn't know that Bill Ayers.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Jeremiah "I never heard him say those things" Wright

I think the statement is probably legally true, or we'd know otherwise by now... but no; I think he knew exactly what kind of crap spilled out of Wright's mouth and dismissed it as the crap it was. I just don't happen to care what his spiritual advisor's political opinions are any more than I care what his butcher, gardener, or mechanic thinks.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Tony "I didn't know about his problems" Rezko

Here you've got something. Rezko is a scumbag and Obama damn sure knew it. I don’t think that should have meant not cooperating with him on projects that were good for the community… but the land deal was bad. I think he tiptoed up to the legal line in the sand with him, not unlike MANY business men do every day of their lives, but it damn sure was a "boneheaded" decision. In my mind, this was a bit too close to the edge for a public servant. I don't think he broke any laws, but it does show he isn't immune to the favor system. On the other hand; who is?

Ross Perot was the only Presidential candidate I ever believed might be completely immune to the favor system. And that's only because he had already won the game.

None of this is the really effective (oops) last minute slime I was predicting. If that’s all they got, they’re already sunk.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

This one I think is slime, yes. I've known some pretty disreputable rogues in my time, but never have I thought about going out of my way to publicly ostracize them on the outside chance I may someday run for President. 8 year old Obama didn't know that Bill Ayers.

The 8 year old Obama excuse? Please!

This is such a feeble argument it doesn't even warrant refutation.

Ayers is much more than a disreputable rogue. He is an unrepentant domestic terrorist. Slice and dice; parse and cherry pick, but the man is what he is. I don't care what he's done since his terrorist days because

1) He never paid for his crimes
2) He doesn't regret his crimes

Obama's association with Ayers doesn't make him a terrorist, and I don't believe for a second that he condones Ayer's terrorist activities, but arguments based on such allegations are smoke screens.

The import of Obama's association with Ayers is:

1) He can rationalize anything to promote his political career
2) He is at best a knuckle headed buffoon and at worst a dissembler when he tells us he didn't know of Ayer's past or that he was just another guy in the neighborhood.

Quote:

I think the statement is probably legally true, or we'd know otherwise by now... but no; I think he knew exactly what kind of crap spilled out of Wright's mouth and dismissed it as the crap it was. I just don't happen to care what his spiritual advisor's political opinions are any more than I care what his butcher, gardener, or mechanic thinks.

Why? Because there were no video tapes of each and every service Obama attended? Something that can't be proven is not legally true.

Here is why the Wright/Obama association is of import:

1) It is utterly unbelievable that Obama didn't know the sort of bilious sermons Wright was giving. Even if he never actually heard one (and I don't believe that unless his appearance at services were, despite his claims, very rare) he knew what they were about. Because he knew what they were about , he joined the church. I think you've read his books. This is a man who went through a personal crisis about his racial identity. When he decided to be black, (no criticism intended) AND when he decided to go into politics in Chicago, he needed street cred, and where better to get it than at Wright's black radical church.
2) He can rationalize anything to promote his political career.

Quote:

Here you've got something. Rezko is a scumbag and Obama damn sure knew it. I don’t think that should have meant not cooperating with him on projects that were good for the community… but the land deal was bad. I think he tiptoed up to the legal line in the sand with him, not unlike MANY business men do every day of their lives, but it damn sure was a "boneheaded" decision. In my mind, this was a bit too close to the edge for a public servant. I don't think he broke any laws, but it does show he isn't immune to the favor system. On the other hand; who is?

If you wish to excuse Obama for his dealing with Rezko, that's your choice, but someone who opposes his candidacy and brings it up can hardly be accused of "sliming."

Here's why the Rezco/Obama association is of import:

1) He is selling himself as the herald of New Politics, someone who is not beholding to any special interest, and who wants to clean up Washington. Whether or not he broke any law, that he came so close to the edge belies all of his pompous rhetoric.
2) Once more he has tried to blow off the potential scandal with an excuse that every American should find an insult to their intelligence: "I didn't know about his problems."
3) He can rationalize anything to promote his political career.

Good grief don't you see the future of President Obama?

Obama benefits from an association with a terrorist: "I didn't know what he did. He was just a guy in the neighborhood."

Obama benefits from an association with a wild-eyed, bigoted clergyman: "I never heard him say those things."

Obama benefits from an association with a crook: "I didn't know about his problems."

What do you imagine we can expect to hear from President Obama when he gets in a fix:

"I didn't know?"

"I never heard?"

"I was only 8 years old?"

He is not

1) A terrorist or terrorist sympathizer
2) A black racist
3) A Muslim
4) A traitor
5) The anti-Christ

He is someone who plays fast and loose with the truth for the sake of political expediency.

You may argue that "they all do it," and in so doing may be right, but why should we trust someone who "does it" but has no track record over someone "who does it" but has a long record of experience which we can judge?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

He is someone who plays fast and loose with the truth for the sake of political expediency.

So stipulated… certainly in the case of Wright and Rezko.

You don't seem to get it that only conservatives who think like you do hold Obama to a higher standard because of his rhetoric. The rest of us recognize his rhetoric for what it is, and judge him based on merit against the field. He can rationalize things to promote his political career: Name me one politician who doesn't. You can beat your higher standard because of his rhetoric drum till the cows come home; but only the your choir will dance to the beat. This should be getting clearer by now.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You may argue that "they all do it," and in so doing may be right, but why should we trust someone who "does it" but has no track record over someone "who does it" but has a long record of experience which we can judge?

This is a nonsensical question. Experience isn't the only difference between them. I don't think many are framing their decision around "who is the more experienced corner cutter?" Most people seem to be more concerned about their actual positions. And in the corner cutting experience department; I for one think less is more, anyway.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

McCain pushed for the privatization of social security; that's his kind of "judgment." Any buyers yet?

McCain is now pushing for government to buy those mortgages in default; that's not a conservative position. Any buyers yet?

McCain uses "my friend" often. Are you his "friend?"

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain pushed for the privatization of social security; that's his kind of "judgment." Any buyers yet?

Much as you may hate to admit it; had Bush's limited privatization plan been written into law, it would have gone a long way towards reducing the effects of the current crisis. Think it through. The result in the short term (and by short I mean decades) would be a large, steady influx of new money (buy orders) that wouldn't begin to be equalized by sell orders (retirees) for quite some time. Bottom line? More buyers than sellers fortify the market and the steady influx of new cash goes a long way to stabilize it.

cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain is now pushing for government to buy those mortgages in default; that's not a conservative position. Any buyers yet?

So, if I understand you right; you like the idea if Obama pushes it, but not if McCain does? You do realize these same mortgages are what's bleeding the banks of cash and freezing the credit that our business's need to survive, don't you?

Would you prefer we just throw the bailout dough solely at the creditors that are holding the worthless paper, and receive no stake in the investment in return? How does it make more sense to have millions of properties sitting empty, molding and going to hell, with their former occupants flooding the rental market or worse? An owner occupied home is 100 times more likely to retain/recover value than an empty one... so owning the renegotiated note is a hell of a lot better investment than simply insuring the bank's loss.

I'm all for personal responsibility too, but cutting off your nose to spite a foolish home buyer/lender's face is a fool's game. As much as we'd like to hold the lending institutions responsible for their ill-conceived paper; we cannot as a nation afford to have banks fail. Our economy is too dependent on credit to ever allow that to happen, so we have little choice but to fix the problems we face from poor regulation and take steps to reduce the risk of it coming up again.

cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain uses "my friend" often. Are you his "friend?"

Nothing in the two examples you listed above would lead me to believe otherwise.

3 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Much as you may hate to admit it; had Bush's limited privatization plan been written into law, it would have gone a long way towards reducing the effects of the current crisis. Think it through. The result in the short term (and by short I mean decades) would be a large, steady influx of new money (buy orders) that wouldn't begin to be equalized by sell orders (retirees) for quite some time. Bottom line? More buyers than sellers fortify the market and the steady influx of new cash goes a long way to stabilize it.

You are assuming that the buyers are chasing the stocks being sold by the sellers. There is no reason to believe that is what would happen. There was no requirement that privatization required investment in stocks. What we could see is the reduction of stock prices and the reduction of bond yields just as we are seeing today with the flight from stocks to bonds.

We haven't factored in the increase in deficit spending due to the loss of SS revenue. If all the money in SS was privatized and people invested all the money in treasuries there would be no difference from today (other than the US deficit would have ballooned scaring investors.) If they invested in stocks and then fled stocks to treasuries we would see a larger collapse than we have at present.

Privatization doesn't force them to stay in one investment nor does it mean they would. People are still people and putting more money into the market driving it up only means it can drop farther when they move that money out.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Code:

So, if I understand you right; you like the idea if Obama pushes it, but not if McCain does? You do realize these same mortgages are what's bleeding the banks of cash and freezing the credit that our business's need to survive, don't you?

No, the mortgages may have been the root cause but they are not the reason for the illiquid credit market.

The mortgages were insured by institutions when repackaged. What is freezing the market is the fear that the insurers of record won't pay up. Institution A won't loan to institution B because they have no guarantee that the institution B will repay and no guarantee that the institution C that is insuring the loan to institution B can pay up if B fails to pay. This is an issue of insurance on the loans and whether any company that writes that insurance will be around to cover the losses. The credit rating system has collapsed to the point where no one is willing to trust that a loan rated AAA is really AAA.

2 Replies

@parados,

That's generally true; there's no assurance that bank A will return any borrowings from bank B. There's a freeze on.

0 Replies

@parados,

You are assuming the bill would have passed both houses of Congress in a form that allowed a great deal more freedom than I think likely. I'm inclined to believe that the "private stock market investment option" would have came out in law as something akin to a check box that said, "Yes. I would like a percentage of my SS to be invested in the Wilshire 5000 (for example) or some super massive Index like it. I think the magnitude of the proposed investment dollars we're talking about would have required such a massive diversification (and the assumed increase in safety intrinsic in it) to pass through Congress. I think there is every reason to believe the common sense aspect of massive restrictions would have found their way into law before the President ever got a chance to sign it. There is just no way the legislators were or will ever allow the average Joe to play his SS dollars like a gambling day trader. No way.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
So, if I understand you right; you like the idea if Obama pushes it, but not if McCain does? You do realize these same mortgages are what's bleeding the banks of cash and freezing the credit that our business's need to survive, don't you?

No, the mortgages may have been the root cause but they are not the reason for the illiquid credit market.

The mortgages were insured by institutions when repackaged. What is freezing the market is the fear that the insurers of record won't pay up. Institution A won't loan to institution B because they have no guarantee that the institution B will repay and no guarantee that the institution C that is insuring the loan to institution B can pay up if B fails to pay. This is an issue of insurance on the loans and whether any company that writes that insurance will be around to cover the losses. The credit rating system has collapsed to the point where no one is willing to trust that a loan rated AAA is really AAA.

You haven't got a clear idea on this portion of the problem and I'm not interested in a drawn out debate to clarify it (and I'm no expert myself). Suffice to say, for the purpose of solutions; we can agree on the basics that the combination of bundled high risk loans, on inflated real estate prices (which created massive negative equity), a 40 to 50 trillion dollar unregulated CDS market (not exactly insurance as it is unregulated by the insurance industry or the SEC) was a predictable time bomb set to go off as soon as the bubble broke. It broke.

Converting the paper to stocks wouldn't be a problem if the property backing the notes was worth what is owed. It isn't. Yes: Wall street’s rush to create more and more securities with Time-Bomb paper is a major part of the problem... but ultimately it is the inevitable defaults that are freezing the credit. For example: if everyone would pay their loans (even though they can't or won't because their investment isn't worth what they owe on it) there would be no problem. But we know this won't happen. So do lenders who are already cash strapped from past and current defaults, and have to anticipate more of the same.

Solutions: We can A. Act as a free insurance policy and pay the losses. This would free the finance industry's money up to keep our economy moving... but would basically be a big giveaway. B. We can re-negotiate the notes to keep people in their homes (to the extent private housing is part of the problem-> that isn’t all of it). The net result is the same; except plan B. keeps the owners in their homes, who in turn keep maintaining them (and paying something, rather than nothing.) Plan B. puts the U.S. government in the unsavory position of being a note-holder; but if it's done right that is only a temporary thing. They need only hold the paper long enough to determine how much of the initial note needs to be eaten (to return it to a reasonable equity position), before dumping it back on the open market as a viable asset. Plan B. is therefore, IMO, the lesser of two evils. I think it would ultimately cost less and benefit more. Pity; I doubt it will happen that way.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

You don't seem to get it... The rest of us recognize his rhetoric for what it is, and judge him based on merit against the field.

Since he has no record of substantive performance, how can you judge him based on merit against the field without relying almost exclusively on his rhetoric?

You want to have it both ways to rationalize your irrational support of this man.

You were attracted to him from the beginning because of his rhetoric, but now you claim it is of little import.

What has he achieved between the time his eloquence beguiled you and now when you claim to have shaken off the spell? Run a campaign?

If Obama wins, he will be the first man elected to the presidency who has had more experience running for office than governing.

Quote:

This is a nonsensical question.

How so?

It may be one you do not wish to confront, but it is entirely sensible.

If we assume both candidates will say anything to get elected, then what they say is not a reliable reason to vote for one or the other.

Agreed? And if not, why not?

If we cannot rely on what they say we only have left to us what they have done.

One candidate has done quite a lot while in public office and the other has done very little.

If you are repelled by what McCain has done, that's fair enough, but I know, based on your prior posts, that you are not.

And so, since you discount Obama's rhetoric, you are left with basing your support for him on what he has done. What has he done?

The positions that he states are part of his rhetoric as he has virtually no record of actually supporting them through the only role he has played in government - legislating.

For instance, he makes much of the position that we should have a united, non-partisan government. Certainly this is featured in his rhetoric, but what has he actually done to promote this position?

The handful of examples he and his supporters trot out are absurd when faced with the reality that his voting record is one of lock step adherence to his party's agenda.

His reference to "reaching across the aisle" to Sen. Lugar in an effort to retard nuclear proliferation is ludicrous, and I can't believe anyone can advance it with a straight face.

First of all dampening nuclear proliferation is, in no way, a controversial, partisan charged subject (Like immigration, Supreme Court appointments, and campaign spending). There was no need to "reach across the aisle" to Sen. Lugar. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are opposed to controlling nuclear proliferation. Lugar didn't need bi-partisan cover to make his play.

Secondly, he and Lugar didn't achieve anything of significance. Obama didn't risk anything, nor did he accomplish anything.

When his supporters parrot his campaign's talking points on this subject they reduce themselves to programmed automatons.

Clearly you support Obama, but I have to say that I don't understand why.

Since he threw is hat in the ring you have made much of his eloquence and the significance of electing a black president. Beyond that, I don't understand why you support him.

Your prior posts reflect economic and foreign policy positions which do not
resonate with his, and yet you support him to such a degree that you find it somehow serious to occasionally end your current posts with emboldened slogans: Go 'Bama

I don't get it.

I understand why so many others in this forum have fallen in lock step behind Obama. If the Democrats chose Paris Hilton to represent them these folks would be arguing her virtues, but I don't get your support.

Obviously my getting it is not required nor of any real importance, but there are so few posters in this forum who are actually interesting that when one, who is, follows a route I cannot understand, it, at least, intrigues me.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn: The first half of your post was answered by the parts you cut out of the quotes in my last post. Your attempt to take me from not believing all of his rhetoric to not believing anything he says is just plain silly, Finn. Reducing the equation, based on that ridiculous jump, to which man has a better history is a fantasy of yours that won't be played out in reality. Merit has plenty to do with stated intentions as well as history.

The second half of your post is more interesting, so I'll pick it up there.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Clearly you support Obama, but I have to say that I don't understand why.

Since he threw is hat in the ring you have made much of his eloquence and the significance of electing a black president. Beyond that, I don't understand why you support him.

You are correct. I decided to support him for the purpose of canceling a bigot's vote before I had even gotten around to choosing between two candidates that I like. He won my vote by default.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Your prior posts reflect economic and foreign policy positions which do not
resonate with his, and yet you support him to such a degree that you find it somehow serious to occasionally end your current posts with emboldened slogans: Go 'Bama

I don't get it.

This is more reflective of the fact that I am excited by the prospect of our first black President than it does my liking of his policy positions... but more on those in a minute too.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I understand why so many others in this forum have fallen in lock step behind Obama. If the Democrats chose Paris Hilton to represent them these folks would be arguing her virtues, but I don't get your support.

A fair point, but I haven't fallen in lockstep. Part of it is the first quality... and part of it is an actual evolution of my politics. For instance:

Terrorism and despotic regimes: I have always thought that the world would be a better place if the U.S., as the world’s only super power, kicked a few more asses that really do need kicking (Saddam, Kim, etc.)... and put the rest of them on notice. I don't think Bush's incompetent management of postwar Iraq totally nullifies the wisdom of the PNAC either. I believe in these things because I think it would make the world a better place for all of its citizens as well as those of us who were lucky enough to be born in these United States.

On the other hand; I've now done the math on what it would cost to provide food, water, basic health and education to the entire world... and being as that has a smaller price tag than the liberation of one country (Iraq); I can see no way to justify not spending that money first.

If reducing terrorism is the objective; don't you have to concede it would be a hell of a lot more difficult to get recruits to hate the country that took it upon itself to end world hunger? To see that everyone has clean water? I'm not suggesting we should ever take the stick off the table... but why not distribute boatloads of carrots if it's a more effective, more cost efficient solution?

I've also done an about face on Healthcare. Where I've always believed (and still do) the free market will provide the absolute top notch healthcare for those who can afford it; I've come to realize that healthcare, like education and law enforcement shouldn't be available to only those who can afford it. Our current middle ground solution is an economic time bomb as the value of healthcare (I mean ****, we're talking about our very lives) will always continue to be paramount... and the cost of providing it to even most people at free-market prices will not always be sustainable.

Further, the free market isn't the ideal vehicle to provide incentives to cure disease or encourage healthy lifestyles. Maintenance, not cures, is more in the free market's best interest. A single payer could (and likely would) simply place a bounty on cures which would provide an incentive to find them. The free market system makes more dough by treating more problems and that is obviously NOT in our best interest.

Further, private insurance is the surest fire way to get bean counters rather than doctors to be making medical decisions. The countless billions spent on the parasitic health insurance industry would be better spent on medicine.

Immigration: I'm all for tearing down walls; not building new ones. I don't like the idea that one is born into a shittier life, with half (or less) the opportunity to better his own lot in life, than another... simply because he was born on the wrong side of some line in the sand. I think it's patently unfair to tell people, who were essentially welcomed here many years ago, that we're now going to kick them out of the country. I believe there are ways to temper immigration without putting up walls and making criminals who seek nothing more than an opportunity to better their own lot in life through work. McCain used to agree (somewhat), but now says "He's gotten the message."

Now I don't think Obama is going to feed the world or go after single payer healthcare or handle immigration my way... and I'm not ignorant enough to think a President could necessarily effect those changes if he wanted to, but frankly Finn, I am quite certain any Democrat is more likely to shift the middle towards these ideals than pretty much any Republican. Hence, my politics are evolving accordingly. I've always been Independent, while leaning Right. Now it seems I'm leaning Left more than ever before... but it certainly isn't out of some Messiah worship or any of the other labels you like to blanket Obama fans with.

Almost forgot: Bush's inheritance tax cuts... are easily the most idiotic, irresponsible policy changes in my lifetime. Every Conservative that understands the term conservative should be 100% behind a balanced budget amendment. How can any rational thinker (let alone a conservative) possibly reconcile these tax cuts with the enormous advance in deficit spending? It is flat out friggin ludicrous... and it's another place McCain used to be right, but is no more.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Obviously my getting it is not required nor of any real importance, but there are so few posters in this forum who are actually interesting that when one, who is, follows a route I cannot understand, it, at least, intrigues me.

Nonsense. I think you're among the most interesting posters here, and I am flattered by your interest.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain pushed for the privatization of social security; that's his kind of "judgment." Any buyers yet?

Much as you may hate to admit it; had Bush's limited privatization plan been written into law, it would have gone a long way towards reducing the effects of the current crisis.
You're wrong; the subprime mortgage crisis had nothing to do with social security privatization. Where did you study econonmics?

Think it through. The result in the short term (and by short I mean decades) would be a large, steady influx of new money (buy orders) that wouldn't begin to be equalized by sell orders (retirees) for quite some time. Bottom line? More buyers than sellers fortify the market and the steady influx of new cash goes a long way to stabilize it.
Think it through? ROFLMAO

cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain is now pushing for government to buy those mortgages in default; that's not a conservative position. Any buyers yet?

So, if I understand you right; you like the idea if Obama pushes it, but not if McCain does?
It's quite evident you have no idea what I've been saying about this bailout.

You do realize these same mortgages are what's bleeding the banks of cash and freezing the credit that our business's need to survive, don't you?
When did you see I said anything different? Show me.

Would you prefer we just throw the bailout dough solely at the creditors that are holding the worthless paper, and receive no stake in the investment in return? How does it make more sense to have millions of properties sitting empty, molding and going to hell, with their former occupants flooding the rental market or worse? An owner occupied home is 100 times more likely to retain/recover value than an empty one... so owning the renegotiated note is a hell of a lot better investment than simply insuring the bank's loss.
Where did you dream this up? In your own brain? Your imagination sounds an awful like some conservatives who dream up things I have not said or denied.

I'm all for personal responsibility too, but cutting off your nose to spite a foolish home buyer/lender's face is a fool's game. As much as we'd like to hold the lending institutions responsible for their ill-conceived paper; we cannot as a nation afford to have banks fail.
Here again, you're implying I didn't make this same argument.

Our economy is too dependent on credit to ever allow that to happen, so we have little choice but to fix the problems we face from poor regulation and take steps to reduce the risk of it coming up again.
Same.

cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain uses "my friend" often. Are you his "friend?"

Nothing in the two examples you listed above would lead me to believe otherwise.

That's your problem, not mine.

Go spam somebody else; you are tiresome and a bore.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bill wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain pushed for the privatization of social security; that's his kind of "judgment." Any buyers yet?

Much as you may hate to admit it; had Bush's limited privatization plan been written into law, it would have gone a long way towards reducing the effects of the current crisis.

You're wrong; the subprime mortgage crisis had nothing to do with social security privatization. Where did you study econonmics?

I didn't say the crisis had anything to do with SS, CI. I pointed out that a steady substantial increase in market investment would have bolstered the market. How could you possibly argue otherwise?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bill wrote:
Think it through. The result in the short term (and by short I mean decades) would be a large, steady influx of new money (buy orders) that wouldn't begin to be equalized by sell orders (retirees) for quite some time. Bottom line? More buyers than sellers fortify the market and the steady influx of new cash goes a long way to stabilize it.

Think it through? ROFLMAO

Then I'm concerned about your sanity, my friend. Increased demand results in higher prices. Increases in steady purchases provides increased stability. That logic is nearly bulletproof... and certainly isn't that funny enough to ROFLYAO.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bill wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain is now pushing for government to buy those mortgages in default; that's not a conservative position. Any buyers yet?

So, if I understand you right; you like the idea if Obama pushes it, but not if McCain does?

It's quite evident you have no idea what I've been saying about this bailout.

Bill wrote:
You do realize these same mortgages are what's bleeding the banks of cash and freezing the credit that our business's need to survive, don't you?

When did you see I said anything different? Show me.

Bill wrote:
Would you prefer we just throw the bailout dough solely at the creditors that are holding the worthless paper, and receive no stake in the investment in return? How does it make more sense to have millions of properties sitting empty, molding and going to hell, with their former occupants flooding the rental market or worse? An owner occupied home is 100 times more likely to retain/recover value than an empty one... so owning the renegotiated note is a hell of a lot better investment than simply insuring the bank's loss.

Where did you dream this up? In your own brain? Your imagination sounds an awful like some conservatives who dream up things I have not said or denied.

Bill wrote:
I'm all for personal responsibility too, but cutting off your nose to spite a foolish home buyer/lender's face is a fool's game. As much as we'd like to hold the lending institutions responsible for their ill-conceived paper; we cannot as a nation afford to have banks fail.

Here again, you're implying I didn't make this same argument.

Bill wrote:
Our economy is too dependent on credit to ever allow that to happen, so we have little choice but to fix the problems we face from poor regulation and take steps to reduce the risk of it coming up again.

Same.

If you agree with those statements; why are you being so argumentative, and frankly, rude?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bill wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain uses "my friend" often. Are you his "friend?"

Nothing in the two examples you listed above would lead me to believe otherwise.

That's your problem, not mine.

Go spam somebody else; you are tiresome and a bore.

You responded to my post with three questions... so I dutifully answered them in a timely fashion. Once. How exactly is that spam? And why are you being so rude and insulting?

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Forget 3 to 1... How about 4 to 1?

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5900/52460697an5.jpg

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Make that 5 to 1 post debate:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/1509/44502756dc9.jpg

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

How exactly is that spam? And why are you being so rude and insulting?

Especially to a fellow Obama supporter!

Apparently, Bill, you are not sufficently adulatory of Obama or scornful of McCain.

0 Replies

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas (for Obama)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know