Who would you Vote for?

[mdr]

\\"Obama's gonna win... The economy sucks and the repubs are being blamed because they were in power. I have high hopes for Obama!\\"


The \\"repub's\\" are not in power. The Dem's control the House and Senate...

A little civics reminder is perhaps in order - CONTROL in the senate requires a majority of 60 votes. That's what it takes to override a filibuster. DOMINANCE in the Senate requires a majority of 66 votes, because that's what it takes to override a presidential veto. Since 2006 the senate "Rep/Dem party line split" is 49-49 and two independents, Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. To call this "a Democratic controlled Senate" is to misuse the English language. What you're calling control is more accurately called "influence". The influence is that the Dems get to select the committee chairs and set the legislative agenda. While important, maybe even "very important", it is a far cry from control.

 

[FzPilot]

wow that's a close race!

 

[DrummerBoy83]

I am voting McCain. I am a strong conservative and while he does not support some of My values, Obama supports NONE of them. I can not bring myself to vote for someone who would have our country dive head first into socialism, and think that it is ok. A persons own wealth is just that, Their own, it does not belong to the government in anyway, nor does it belong to someone who neither worked for it to earn it, or deserves it. That is only a very small example of why I will be rejecting Obama, and his collectivist form of government.

John

 

[mdr]

I am voting McCain. I am a strong conservative and while he does not support some of My values, Obama supports NONE of them. I can not bring myself to vote for someone who would have our country dive head first into socialism, and think that it is ok. A persons own wealth is just that, Their own, it does not belong to the government in anyway, nor does it belong to someone who neither worked for it to earn it, or deserves it. That is only a very small example of why I will be rejecting Obama, and his collectivist form of government.

John

I find it hard to comprehend that Obama is being called the socialist when it is George Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson that are driving the country headlong towards socialism by the government investing directly in banks. As US Citizens we are going to own shares in hundreds if not thousands of financial companies. Unfortunately, you and I aren't picking the best companies to own, Bush and Paulson are going to pick the WORST ones, since they are the ones that are failing and need the bailout!!

I applaud your fiscal conservatism, but you really are blaming the wrong person if you think Obama is doing this.

If you're bitching about socialized medicine, that's another argument. Most civilized countries have decided that socialized medicine is OK. We're one of the few that lag behind on that score and in my view, it's time we caught up. There's no reason a country as strong and decent as America should lack decent health care for all its citizens. Yes, ALL of them.

 

[FzPilot]

<<<<<<<bump>>>>>>

 

[FZ6771]

McCain!!!!

 

[mikebike]

McCain....
we have enough guys in Washington asking for change as it is

 

[Raid The Revenge]

Undecided. I had an old geezer tell me about elections. He claimed elections were like a strong current, where people had a choice to either get drawn into them or stay far away.

Old man said: The best thing to strive for, is always AGAINST the current.

I never fully understood it. Did he mean, "Do the opposite of both candidates?"
Or did he mean, "Aim for the decisions that are hardest on the country?"
Or maybe he was on leaves?

Either way, I'm undecided.

 

[sportrider]

I find it hard to comprehend that Obama is being called the socialist when it is George Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson that are driving the country headlong towards socialism by the government investing directly in banks. As US Citizens we are going to own shares in hundreds if not thousands of financial companies. Unfortunately, you and I aren't picking the best companies to own, Bush and Paulson are going to pick the WORST ones, since they are the ones that are failing and need the bailout!!

I applaud your fiscal conservatism, but you really are blaming the wrong person if you think Obama is doing this.

If you're bitching about socialized medicine, that's another argument. Most civilized countries have decided that socialized medicine is OK. We're one of the few that lag behind on that score and in my view, it's time we caught up. There's no reason a country as strong and decent as America should lack decent health care for all its citizens. Yes, ALL of them.

to everyone who's for Obama, to you tis will just be like more conservative rhetoric. but... I listen to "conservative talk radio, yes I'm talking about Hannity,Glen Beck ect. I've found that I agree with about 99% of their opinions. but I'm not just cattle being lead the the slaughter house. I firmly believe that the problems we are having is due to the loss or good old values and common sense. Obama is for redistribution of wealth, universal health care. so who pays for it? I'm sorry but if I have $100.00 and you have nothing, because I work and you don't want to. why should I be forced to give you 1/2 of my money? taxing the wealthy will only contribute to more businesses being forced to move elsewhere. who really spends the money that supports the "working class". I don't know too many poor people buying cars, adding on to their houses, ect. aside from that I'm pro-life.I don't see how anyone with children can look at there kids and think abortion is not Murder. true either of the two candidates are a perfect choice for me but I'm afraid this go around simply comes down to the lesser of two evils. (now just relax, I'm not calling Obama the anti-Christ) but I don't like the "change" he's talking about.

 

[oldfast007]

I thinks this covers it best....

545 PEOPLE

By Charlie Rise, former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.



Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party!

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood u p and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ .

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way!

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

 

[wolfc70]

Cuba, you didn't provide the requested sources. I would like to see the legislation that forces banks to lend to those with risky credit.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly...opedcolumnists/spreading_the_virus_133375.htm


This is what really happened. I work for a financial institution, and I have seen the CRA programs at work. Very scary, if you make the loans, you may be able to sell them. If you do not make the loans, ACORN and other "organizations" are knocking on your door with law suits claiming that you are discriminating against certain sectors of the population. Yes, lets force financials to make bad loans, that way everyone can own a home they can not afford, or otherwise would not qualify for.

The Republicans tried to stop this in 2003, 2005, and 2007 and each time the Dems stopped it. Why? Because for a long time the sub prime mortgage market was a massive cash cow.
I probably would have voted for Hillary, but Obama is just way to far to the left for me to even consider. Now that ACORN is under fire here in WI for massive voter fraud, I simply can not vote for their former lawyer.

 

[Juan1]

CRA only applies to depository banks (WaMu, BOA, Wells Fargo, etc...). The majority of subprime loans weren't made by depository banks. Sorry folks, but CRA and ACORN aren't the cause of our mess. Most bad loans were made because subprime loans were over valued, so lenders got greedy. Add the lack of capital requirements and interest rates that have been held too low, and you have an economy that was ready to blow up as soon as a sector went bad.

As a long time political junkie, I think we finally have 2 great candidates to choose from.

As an aside, this poll indicates what I have long thought: The motorcycle riding community is more conservative than most of the country.

 

[Jadon01]

I'm getting tired of having to vote for the lessor of two evils...:banghead:

 

[Jman]

OldFast007...I feel like what you wrote was very good food for thought -thank you. No accountability is a huge problem in this country. If there are no consequences for wrongful behavior then you get lots and lots of wrongful behavior - simple cause and effect.

 

[Oblisk]

FactCheck.org

a non profit non biast resorse for both candidates polociys learn what there going to do and make an informed desision excuse my typos i am pressed for time in typing this

 

[wolfc70]

CRA only applies to depository banks (WaMu, BOA, Wells Fargo, etc...). The majority of subprime loans weren't made by depository banks. Sorry folks, but CRA and ACORN aren't the cause of our mess.

Um, depository banks are the only form of financial (CU's included) that can make loans, and are FDIC insured. Investment banks can not make loans to the general public. Investment banks have to follow SEC and FINRA guidelines. Even mortgage brokerage houses have to follow Truth In Lending Acts to lend money, which allows them to borrow money from the Fed or other central banks. The sub prime market was on the heals of depository financials, pushed through by legislation. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, all bought these loans from the deposit banks. This enabled the banks to keep making sub prime loans to keep the local legislators off the financials back. If the legislators had never pushed the CRA progams though, or forced them so heavily, the depository financials never would have made so many questionable loans.

I am not saying that greed did not get ahold of some CEO's at the larger depository institutions. It did, and those institutions are either hurting, or being taken over by the FDIC.

 

[mdr]

Um, depository banks are the only form of financial (CU's included) that can make loans, and are FDIC insured. Investment banks can not make loans to the general public. <snip>

I think you're mistaken. While buying my last car my insurance company asked me if I wanted to take out a car loan with them. This is possible because of the deregulation that happened when Senator Phil Gramm sponsored and passed a bill ( Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) to repeal Glass-Stegal (which used to prevent such things and limited activity like this to depository banks). Gramm was/is McCain's senior economic policy advisor. Many folks are pointing the finger of blame for enabling the "meltdown" at this piece of legislation. To be fair there are some notable Dems who praised and voted for this bill also. Just saying there is plenty of blame to go around on this one.

 

[wolfc70]

I think you're mistaken. While buying my last car my insurance company asked me if I wanted to take out a car loan with them. This is possible because of the deregulation that happened when Senator Phil Gramm sponsored and passed a bill ( Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) to repeal Glass-Stegal (which used to prevent such things and limited activity like this to depository banks). Gramm was/is McCain's senior economic policy advisor. Many folks are pointing the finger of blame for enabling the \\\\"meltdown\\\\" at this piece of legislation. To be fair there are some notable Dems who praised and voted for this bill also. Just saying there is plenty of blame to go around on this one.

There is more than enough blame to go around!
Your insurance company is just a broker for the actual lender (sometimes called Boutique Lending). The Bank Holding Act is still in place, which prohibits corporations outside of the banking or finance industry from entering retail and/or commercial banking, which includes underwriting/holding loans. The GLBA only allows a financial institution to offer insurance and other services. The GLBA also allows depository and investment banks to consolidate, as long as the lending institution has a good CRA rating.

 

[Rizzer]

I think Obama is a good man but I fear the bad guys will test him. Not so much the case with John. I will support the winner either way.

 

[Juan1]

Um, depository banks are the only form of financial (CU's included) that can make loans, and are FDIC insured. Investment banks can not make loans to the general public. Investment banks have to follow SEC and FINRA guidelines. Even mortgage brokerage houses have to follow Truth In Lending Acts to lend money, which allows them to borrow money from the Fed or other central banks. The sub prime market was on the heals of depository financials, pushed through by legislation. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, all bought these loans from the deposit banks. This enabled the banks to keep making sub prime loans to keep the local legislators off the financials back. If the legislators had never pushed the CRA progams though, or forced them so heavily, the depository financials never would have made so many questionable loans.

I am not saying that greed did not get ahold of some CEO's at the larger depository institutions. It did, and those institutions are either hurting, or being taken over by the FDIC.

50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. How was this caused by CRA?

What about "No Money Down" Mortgages (0% down payments)? Were they required by the CRA?

Explain the shift in Loan to value from 80% to 120%: What was it in the Act that changed this traditional lending requirement?

How exactly did legislation force Moody's, S&Ps and Fitch to rate junk paper as Triple A?

Subprime loans were not made to meet regulations, they were made for profit.

When JP Morgan Chase has memos circulating between employees illustrating how to get questionable loans approved, like this one, I have to think GREED, not CRA is to blame.