Drew Dowdell

Absolutely, positively, completely, utterly incorrect. 1st the cancer was well established and metastasized by 2005. 2nd McCain proposing regulation on Fannie and Freddie at that point is like him suggesting a new lock on the chicken coupe after he let the foxes in to have dinner. 3rd Fannie and Freddie aren't the cause, merely the symptom.

Interesting... What is more interesting is McCain's top donor list v. Obama's top donor list. McCain Obama You'd think those left wing institutions, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley would all be worried about Obama's tax plan turning the U.S. into a welfare state and aborting their babies.....

The "rightest" had the last 8 years to screw up our country like it's never been screwed before. Now it's our turn! </simulated Bush quote> Obama has demonstrated more than once the thoughtfulness and temperament I require of a President. He DOES BLINK! He is NOT "Shoot first, don't ask questions, and resist any congressional inquiry that would ask questions by invoking executive privilege."

I think this thread has served it's purpose. We don't need a debate on the merits of other members.

There are different kinds of short sales and I wish the article mentioned which kind. ...... and no, it's not a good thing if it's *all* short sales...

But they get free health care, cheap transportation, some of the best education <11th grade here doesn't even count for credit there), etc etc etc. Right now, the "demand side" countries with the exception of Britain, are fairing much better than the supply siders. edit: Unionization without some domestic protections will just lead to more offshoring.

Of course we want the same thing. We want prosperity and the ability to grow beyond ourselves. We want a healthy populace and fair taxes. What I disagree with is the idea that we need to continue to shovel money to the wealthy in order to get there. 80 years of this and we have financial crisis after crisis. Know who has the most stable economies? Those pinko, tree-huggin, socialist Dutch and Scandinavian countries. We have massive wealth disparity and it's getting worse. If we continue at this rate, in 10 years the wealthy will get another tax cut and in the same bill the rest of us will be offered cake. Japan has a VERY progressive tax system, their CEOs make a 10th of what ours do... yet that tiny little country is kicking our ass economically! What I don't understand is why the conservatives can't seem to grasp the reverse of the theories they propose. If you spend money to make the middle classes wealthier, then they'll have money to purchase things. The middle class are the bulk of the purchasing power who buy computers (Dell, HP, Microsoft), new cars, (GM, Chrysler, Ford), food (Purdue, Sysco), and pay their mortgages on time (Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, any bank EVAR). So, Paris Hilton may have to have only two Bentley Continental GTs instead of 3, but if that makes the occupancy rate at Hilton Hotel increase by 10%, doesn't that work out better for her in the long run? You espouse "supply side" so vehemently, but if the "demand" isn't there, all the supply in the world isn't going to help you. If you create a "demand", prices will increase until more supply follows.

I'm the same way as you. I am very allergic to most anti-biotics so I refuse to take them unless I'm being carted to the ER. I don't want the few that I'm not allergic to lose their effectiveness.

Did you just advocate taxing the rich more to aid the poor? *hugs* I'm so proud of you! You're growing up so fast! *wipes away a tear* I think you missed my point though. McCain's idea of dissuading companies from offering health care is shifting the burden away from the companies and onto the employees. It removes the advantage of buying in bulk and makes it more difficult for those with the tendency to be ill to get insurance. This is yet another Rich get Richer and Poor get Poorer scheme and nothing more. Just stick it up there with McCain's S&L credentials, Banking deregulation, and the Enron Loophole. Edit: And after seeing all of these HUGE institution belly up to the trough to feed more after stealing so many people's life savings.... How bad could universal healthcare really be? I mean, we're now NEVER EVER going to kill this debt. We will have to pay $1.00 per second for the next 300 years* just to cover the principle on the amount borrowed today. *not making that up.

I'm not sure you are following me. Sometimes the fraud was committed by the borrower via "Stated Income" or more rudely, "Liar Loans". Sometimes the fraud was committed by the brokers who switched out paper work or even went so far as to use Photoshop to move someone's signature to a document they never even saw. Sometimes the borrower and brokers worked together to commit the fraud. Re: NAFTA... again Dodgefan's quote comes into play here. But even still, non-manufacturing jobs have had stagnant wages. Re in bold: Initially, yes it would cost more to the taxpayer. However, the Federal government is the single largest healthcare payer in the nation right now. Just adding Walmart employees alone would create a LARGE downward pressure on healthcare rates. Re in italics: Be careful of unintended consequences. McCain's policy might look good on the surface, but look 15 years down the road when NO employers offer healthcare to their employees anymore. I know you're all Nelson Capitalist Rockefeller and all, but that is a MASSIVE shift of burden from the wealthy to the non-wealthy. Considering we're already suffering substantially from Rich getting Richer and Poor getting Poorer, it might not be such a good idea to accelerate that trend.

Correct. He is just opening up the healthcare program offered to federal employees to everyone. You'll still need to pay to play unless you are the most destitute out there.... which basically is happening already anyway.

If you're going to do Socialism, at least give the money to the poor people. To quote Dodgefan, "It's not so much that I care about what you're doing, it's the stupid way you're doing it." Actually, there were a lot of people who were duped by mortgage brokers and real estate agents. There were papers slipped in at the last minute and signatures that "magically" jumped from document to document. That isn't to say there weren't dumb consumers.... but fraud in the industry was rampant. This is the deregulation I was speaking to earlier. Mortgage brokers sold bad loans to people who were fraudulently representing their income to the banks. The banks would then package up a group of these mortgages into financial funds and sell the fund to some other institution. At this point, the visibility of who the mortgages are written to disappears. These funds would get traded around to other institutions, portioned out, repackaged with others, and resold. The funds were then rated as AAA by the financial ratings agencies....because these securities are backed by real estate and real estate never goes down in value.... "they aren't making more land" <insert cheesy salesman laugh here>. Now if you're a bank and you KNOW you're going to package these mortgages up and sell them to some poor schmuck who walks by, what do you care if the mortgage was based on fraud? Now you get a new job and start filling out the 401k paperwork and see this highly rated fund that's backed with real estate. Sounds like a good thing to bank your retirement on...right? Well, lots of people did. Government and Corporate were in it together. We probably wouldn't be where we are if there hadn't been a concerted effort <NAFTA> to keep the wages of the middle and lower classes down. I'm not saying this was a cause, but the situation wouldn't be nearly as dire had wages kept up with inflation.

Oh no.... as a kid I went by Andy... by my very late teens, I was Andrew... and for the past 10 years or so, I've been Drew. I am now ineligible for elected office?

Just imagine for a moment if it were the black candidate in this election, rather than the white candidate, who was born in Central America, was an indifferent churchgoer, had graduated near the bottom of his university class, had dumped his first wife, had regularly displayed an explosive and profane temper, and had referred to the Pakistani-Iraqi border ...

So, you're more pissed at the guy who is friends with the foxes than the guy who was paid to pick the lock on the hen house and let the foxes in....... got it. edit: Oh yeah, and this was the 3rd time the foxes got in and ate all the chickens.

Rizzo? wouldn't have been able to do any of it without the deregulation John McCain and Phil Gramm provided. It wasn't millionaires* getting the sub-prime loans btw. Gramm promptly retired at the end of his term and became a well paid lobbyist for one of the banks that helped write the legislation. *Mostly... I'm sure you can find a few who did.... but millionaires aren't generally defined as "sub-prime". The buddy-loans were mostly sweet deals at low interest rates, not mortgages made on fraudulent data to people unable to repay.

BUT BUT!!!!! THAT"S SOCIALISM!!!@#!@!! **SPUTTER** *SPITTLE*** We're privatizing the gains and socializing the losses. This is the biggest robbery of the American public ever orchestrated.

Some even use lies to try and accelerate themselves.

Dragon Naturally Speaking It's like $350.... surely a man with 7.... 9..... 11? houses can afford it.

Thanks to McCain for what? All he did was say "+1" when Bush proposed it.

Uhm...if you haven't been paying attention, we just socialized the two biggest mortgage companies, the two remaining investment banks, and the worlds largest insurance company.

You know that there are now website up just to keep track of the lies McCain and Palin are passing out... right?

Considering Fannie and Freddie both got where they are today because of John McCain and pals, I can understand they may be less willing to donate to McCain.

Well.. to be more specific, they're looking into if "naked" short selling should be illegal. Naked short selling (for those who don't know) is the practice of selling a stock short without first borrowing the shares or ensuring that the shares can be borrowed as is done in a conventional short sale. When the seller does not then obtain the shares within the required time frame, the result is known as a "fail to deliver". However, the transaction generally continues to sit open until the shares are acquired by the seller or the seller's broker, allowing a trade to occur when the order is filled. It's the process of selling something you don't have. And yes, it's the lack of regulation. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act allowed conflicts of interest to evolve. Please read this whole article carefully. It shows John McCain at the heart of the S&L Crisis, Keating 5, Enron, and todays mess.

Oh nooo! Someone who was CEO in the 90s of a company that is failing today got a cheap loan from a buddy!