LET'S EXAMINE OBAMA'S POSITION ON THE SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS

[Orwellian_Ghost]

As the subprime mortgage debacle drives a recession that threatens financial markets around the world, the Democratic presidential candidates are pushing plans to address the crisis. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are pledging substantial federal resources to stabilize the mortgage market and intervene on behalf of borrowers. Barack Obama's proposal is tepid by comparison, short on aggressive government involvement and infused with conservative rhetoric about fiscal responsibility. As he has done on domestic issues like healthcare, job creation and energy policy, Obama is staking out a position to the right of not only populist Edwards but Clinton as well.

Edwards's plan includes a mandatory moratorium on foreclosures, a freeze on rising interest rates for at least seven years, federal subsidies to help homeowners keep up with payments and restructure loans, and explicit measures to rein in predatory lenders and regulate the financial sector. Clinton's plan is weaker--a voluntary moratorium, a shorter freeze, less commitment to new regulations--but she has promised $30 billion in federal aid to help reeling homeowners and communities.

Only Obama has not called for a moratorium and interest-rate freeze. Though he has been a proponent of mortgage fraud legislation in the Senate, he has remained silent on further financial regulations. And much like his broader economic stimulus package, Obama's foreclosure plan mostly avoids direct government spending in favor of a tax credit for homeowners, which amounts to about $500 on average, beyond which only certain borrowers would be eligible for help from an additional fund.

...

"There's been less emphasis from the Obama campaign on the really dysfunctional role of the financial industry in the subprime mess," says Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute. "Edwards and Clinton talk much more about regulation of the financial industry going forward, and to the extent that blame is placed, they tend to place it on the lenders for steering people into loans they couldn't afford."

Obama's disappointing foreclosure plan stems from the centrist politics of his three chief economic advisers and his campaign's ties to Wall Street institutions opposed to increased financial regulation. David Cutler and Jeffrey Liebman are both Harvard economists who served in the Clinton Administration, and they work on market-oriented solutions to social welfare issues. Cutler advocates improving healthcare through financial incentives; Liebman, the partial privatization of Social Security.

...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser


Examining Clinton & Obama’s Stances on the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, Universal Healthcare, Privatizing Social Security and Nuclear Energy
With Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a dead heat, we look at their stances on some of the most pressing domestic issues with Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect, Max Fraser of The Nation and Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear.
....

JUAN GONZALEZ: Could you outline the differences between—the major differences between the candidates? And it would be instructive also to talk about John Edwards’s policies, as well.

MAX FRASER: Sure. Well, when he was in the race, Edwards’s plan was by far the most comprehensive and aggressive, insofar as it really committed the government to intervening on behalf of homeowners and resolving the crisis in such a way that it would keep people from losing their homes. Edwards called for a mandatory moratorium on foreclosures, a freeze on rising interest rates, a real kind of redoubled efforts to not only regulate the mortgage markets, but financial markets generally.

Clinton and Obama fall short of that, and Obama falls short most significantly. He is the only one of the three who hasn’t called for a moratorium on foreclosures or a freeze on interest rates, which really are the most effective short-term measures that can be taken to keep homeowners in their homes. And beyond that, his plan calls for the least aggressive government intervention, the most limited spending to bail out homeowners and to especially borrowers who are at risk of defaulting on their mortgages and to help them restructure their loans in such a way that they’re affordable moving forward. And his plan actually really most relies on a pretty insignificant tax credit, which comes out to about $500 on average for homeowners, which might make a difference for those who are just barely falling behind, but not for those who are falling further and further behind.

AMY GOODMAN: Max, in your piece, “Subprime Obama,” you talk about his three main economic advisers.

MAX FRASER: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: Tell us who they are.

MAX FRASER: Well, there are these three young economists: David Cutler, Jeffrey Liebman and Austan Goolsbee. Cutler and Liebman are Harvard economists who hail from the Clinton administration. Goolsbee, who does the lion’s share of the work on this issue, comes from the University of Chicago. They’re all centrist market economists, I mean, what you would call them Clintonian in their politics, and that’s really where they’re coming from. They are oriented towards, you know, market-based solutions to social welfare issues. Cutler writes about incentivizing the healthcare industry as a way to improving care. Liebman has endorsed the partial privatization of Social Security. And Goolsbee also is one of the kind of market faithful.

....

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/8/examining_clinton_obamas_stances_on_the

[Postman]

1. How do you explain Ted Kennedy's endorsement?

Isn't Ted Kennedy "liberal"?

The fact of the matter is that in order for Democrats to control gov't they have to get elected, they have to "win".

Fair or unfair, Obama is being seen as something different than what has been in DC and is energizing people to go out and vote in a manner that has been lacking for some time.

I think Hillary is smarter and more on top of the issues but it means nothing unless she wins and wins big in a way that allows for more democrats to ride to congressional victory on her coattails.

That doesn't seem to be the case with her and applies moreso to Obama.

As the saying goes..."any port in a storm"

[Iris]

2. I'm baffled by how many people here think Ted Kennedy's endorsement is an answer to

concerns people have about Obama.

[Catchawave]

12. Teddy Kennedy helped Carter lose in '80.

I'll never forgive him for helping Reagan win :cry:

From wiki:

Carter was still able to maintain a substantial lead even after Kennedy swept the last batch of primaries in June. Despite this, Kennedy refused to drop out, and the 1980 Democratic National Convention was one of the nastiest on record. On the penultimate day, Kennedy conceded the nomination and called for a more liberal party platform in what many saw as the best speech of his career. On the platform on the final day, Kennedy for the most part ignored Carter

[Orwellian_Ghost]

5. Wouldn't try

There are a constellation of reasons why people endorse one candidate over the other. I wouldn't try to make a guess.

I'm merely pointing out the position.

Let people do as they wish. Hopefully they will then understand what is happening when the reality hits home.

Again I care nothing for Hillary and as a total package Obama is only slightly better. Their voting records and proposals are quite similar. On the subprime meltdown Obama's position is terrible. In fact I omitted direct quotes from Obama initially but may add them later. They are not very appealing and in short the folks who were bilked are held to blame with the lecherous financial institutions let off the hook.

[whistle]

3. Well that should tell the people that Obama is quite willing to save

...Wall Street speculators, usurious mortgage bankers, hedge fund gamblers, accountants and lawyers while throwing the rest of the country under the bus :wtf:

[zabet]

4. What do you expect?

Obama has Big Hedge Fund
Money backing him. He is
Wall Street's candidate.

[QC]

6. It's getting awfully crowded under his bus. n/t

[sandnsea]

11. It's actually the opposite

I don't even want to get into the upside down thinking of the left at times, but billion dollar programs that "help people stay in their homes" is nothing more than a multi-billion dollar bail out for the mortgage companies. Understanding his approach to the economy is to look at it from the bottom up, not the top down method of the economic elites.

Obama does offer real assistance. He calls for a change in the bankruptcy law so that the court can modify mortgage payments, which they can't do now. He'll create a fund to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, and to help homeowners sell their homes if they need to. He also has a variety of legislation to regulate the industry, some of which he first introduced back in 2006. The $500 refundable tax credit is just something to help working class families, something he has included in every economic plan so far.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/family/

[Orwellian_Ghost]

15. And the poor?

Interesting spin there.

Obama's number one contributor?

Take a guess.

[sandnsea]

16. The poor with mortgages??

I'm confused. What poor with mortgages?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

18. Look into it

Get the details of who were the primary victims of these predatory practices.

Many folks who are considered working poor were "allowed" to get these mortgages under the most criminal of methods.

And yes despite all allegiances and blind spots Obama's plan here is pretty awful and is in fact favored by the banking industry.

Difficult to swallow hard truths if it shatters illusions.

[sandnsea]

20. Oh, you mean working people

The ones who will benefit from his targeted fund to help them refinance, or sell their home. Or from his proposal to change the bankruptcy law so judges can make the mortgage companies accept the kind of payment they should have all along. You mean a plan that makes the mortgage industry responsible for what they did, instead of the taxpayer.

[tabatha]

7. Obama has stated the following:

a) He will not privatize social security
b) He will penalize and regulate those in the mortgage industry

Just because of one of his advisors believes something, does not mean he goes along with everything he/she says.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

9. Do you have direct comments

Of course he will not directly do Part A but that can be fudged in a thousand different ways.

Part B doesn't really say much so I can't comment.

What we do know is that Obama has made promises that were then held in check by advisers and financial backers. Look into what occured with local communities in Illinois and nuclear waste seeping into the groundwater and how that played out and how that connects.

More to the specific OP there is little in the way of refutation to suggest Obama is to confront the large financial sector, who lavishly finance his campaign, on this very urgent issue.

[tabatha]

26. No, I don't have direct links on hand.

Did not save them. But I carefully remember what each side says, to get a better understanding of what they are about.

However, Clinton's campaign has bigger financial backers.
I don't think they lavishly finance his campaign.
Obama does not want to be beholden to corporations or other business institutions.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

38. Here are some details

Obama's presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama's top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry." Eight of Obama's top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (#2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates.

These figures are not up to date and they are assuredly higher at this point.

[anigbrowl]

8. An interest rate freeze is an idiotic idea

A moratorium on foreclosures is a good thing, as is expanding the pool of loans that can be taken over by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. But an interest rate freeze is both impractical and inefficient. In the short to medium term, interest rates are likely to decline rather than rise. The only people likely to benefit from a rate freeze are those who got super-attractive teaser rates, which are highly unlikely to qualify under either the Clinton or the Edwards plan.

On a larger level, imposing a mortgage rate freeze is equivalent to a bank bailout where taxpayers hold all the risk. It's bad for inward investment and in particular would act as a huge brake on the purchase of new homes. As with any economic issues, populist policies here are a feel-good solution that doesn't address the structural faults of the problem and sacrifices long-term economic performance for short-term relief. No central banker in his or her right mind is going to endorse such a plan, and neither will the markets. It's practically guaranteed to result in a recession, a classic example of the cure being worse than the disease.

[sandnsea]

13. A bank bailout

That's all I see with these massive plans that supposedly "protect" everybody. I much prefer Obama's targeted approach, as posted above. Regulate the mortgage companies, help the people who are in trouble, provide some assistance to the working class who always get ignored.

[anigbrowl]

19. Exactly. The populist 'solutions' are nothing mote than...

interventionist rhetoric that have little or nothing to do with the real world. The President can't just freeze interest rates by fiat, or even demand that Congress do so. I severely doubt whether it even be would be constitutional to step in and adjust the terms of a private contract, and it would seriously hurt the US's standing in international markets. This is the sort of lunacy that makes Venezuela an increasingly useless country to do business with. The banks etc., would (quite rightly) fight it all the way to the Supreme court because it's essentially retroactive regulation and would almost certainly be struck down as abd law.

The only way the Clinton'/Edwards plan could come to pass would be with a VAST handout to the banks etc. and a publicity campaign to deceive the public into thinking that the White House had somehow brought the banks to heel. Far better to put safeguards in place that were directly targeted to struggling homeowners facing foreclosure due to force majeure or obviously bogus contracts, and allow less responsible institutions (and less responsible homebuyers) to face the music.

[Ravy]

17. I think they are talking a rate freeze on existing mortgages,

so that the interest rate on them does not drive people from their homes.

[anigbrowl]

21. Yes, that's what I'm talking about too. It's a stupid idea.

Who's going to pick up the cost? New home buyers, that's who. People who need to get a small business loan. Bank customers hit with higher fees.

What rise in interest rates are they being protected against? Federal fund rates have gone down 1.25% in the last month and are expected to drop further.

This 'freeze' is nothing more than feel-good bullshit, designed to pander to people who are horrified by stories of people whose mortgage payments went through the roof...after they got a mortgage that had some unrealistically low APR for the first 24 or 36 months.

That's like when you get a credit card offer that says '0% APR on balance transfers for the first 12 months!!' or 'No payments for 6 months!!'. Sounds good, right? And if you're smart, you can use an offer like that to save a little money, eg by transferring balance form one of your other cards to take advantage of the low introductory rate. BUT unless you're a rube, you know that the introductory offer doesn't last forever, it's an incentive to get you to sign up. If you start screaming when the normal rates kick in, then all it means is that you didn't read the offer carefully, and you're foolish for not thinking ahead.

[Ravy]

32. They are being protected against the last rise in interest rates...

And I agree with you to a certain point, particularly about the rubes... but the alternative is not that great either with vacant homes and a lowered tax base.

In a way, it might be good to let the housing market drop to a reasonable level, in other ways, it might be too painful, particularly if done too quickly.

That is the problem with bad situations. It costs to get out of them.

[sandnsea]

33. He has a targeted plan

Obama will create a Foreclosure Prevention Fund to help people facing foreclosure stay in their homes and renegotiate with their lenders or sell their homes. The Fund will not help speculators, people who bought vacation homes or people who falsely represented their incomes. Given the downturn in the economy, Obama has called for immediate creation of this $10 billion fund as part of his economic stimulus package.

The Fund will:
�� Dramatically increase emergency pre-foreclosure counseling resources.
�� Allow families facing foreclosure to responsibly refinance their mortgages by working through the
Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Resources will also be provided to
these agencies to develop new loan products that are more flexible and enable distressed borrowers
to refinance on terms that enable them to keep their homes.
�� Assist individuals who purchased homes that are simply too expensive for their income levels to sell
their homes. The fund will help offset the costs of selling a home, including by helping low-income
borrowers get additional time and support to pay back any losses from the sale of their home, and
waiving certain state and local income taxes that result from an individual selling their home to
avoid foreclosure.
�� Partner with state governments, community organizations and loan providers to ensure fair loan
modifications can be made in a timely manner that avoids the need for foreclosure or bankruptcy.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/MortgageFactSheet.pdf

[ProgressIn2008]

10. Interesting - I hadn't heard coverage on this until now. Wasn't Goolsbee with the DLC?

I know George Will thinks he's nifty.

[stillcool]

25. here's a little info...

http://experts.uchicago.edu/experts.php?id=411



Austan Goolsbee's research activities center on the Internet, tax policy and business decisions, capital investment, and government policy. He is currently a research associate for the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a research fellow for the American Bar Foundation. He has previously served as editor of the Journal of Law and Economics, as an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellow, and as a Special Consultant for Internet Policy for the Department of Justice Antitrust Division. Goolsbee is the author of numerous journal articles, including "Does the Internet Make Markets More Competitive? Evidence from the Life Insurance Industry," Journal of Political Economy (2002); "In a World Without Borders: The Impact of Taxes on Internet Commerce," Quarterly Journal of Economics (2000); and "What Happens When You Tax the Rich? Evidence from Executive Compensation," Journal of Political Economy (2000).

The DLC is elected officials...

New Democrat Movement

GROUP

The right wing current of the Democratic party, characterized by its neoliberal economic policies, support of Israel, desire to increase defense spending, and links to heavy donors and fundraisers.

Believes that "left-wing" positions are not politically viable. Describes itself as "moderate and pro-growth". Probably responsible for erosion of the Democratic Party's historical labor and minority base due to support of treaties like NAFTA, lack of support for affirmative action and poverty programs, and their siphoning away of campaign funds from minority groups.

At the national level, the movement was founded by the Democratic Leadership Council (501c4 educational non-profit, founded 1984) and includes the House New Democrat Coalition (founded 1997), the Senate New Democrat Coalition (founded 2000), the New Democrat Network PAC (founded 1996), the misnamed Progressive Policy Institute (501c4 think tank, "Bill Clinton's idea mill", founded 1989), and the umbrella funding group The Third Way Foundation (501c3 non-profit, founded 1996).

Since coming to power within the Democratic Party with Bill Clinton's presidency, the New Democrats/DLC have worked towards "essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition... to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right" according to John Nichols of The Progressive.

DLC operatives actively worked to sabotage Howard Dean's candidacy for the US Presidency in 2004, claiming that the "far-left" Democrat was wrong to attack George W. Bush's tax cuts and national security policies.

Corporate contributors to the DLC and New Democratic Network include Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation of America, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco, Chevron, Prudential Foundation, Amoco Foundation, AT&T, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and many other Fortune 500 companies.

The New Democrat Movement is sometimes referred to as the Dixiecrat movement due to the DLC's origination in the southern states, their desire to get rid of affirmative action, and their membership's overwhelming whiteness.

" shift the primary focus from racism, the traditional enemy without, to self-defeating patterns of behavior " --Chuck Robb, 2nd DLC Chairman, Governor & Senator of the Great State of Virginia, White Man, 1986.

"I'm from the democratic wing of the Democrat Party" --Paul Wellstone, progressive Democrat, criticizing the New Democrat Movement.

"Democrats for the Leadership Class" --Jesse Jackson, progressive black Democrat, describing the DLC.

[ProgressIn2008]

27. Thanks for this -- turns out Goolsbee is Senior Economist to the DLC

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254329&kaid=86&subid=191

This is from May 2007.

[stillcool]

31. that does not seem kosher at all...

pretty scary if he's pushing right wing economics. I haven't read enough about him to form an opinion, but then Economics and Technology are two fields in which I have no clue what is 'good'.

[madrchsod]

14. by the time obama or clinton sit in the oval office

the "subprime issue" will have been resolved.this issue has to be resolved by the house and senate this year,because by the middle of 2009 there won`t be anything left...

maybe these writers should be asking the democrats in the house and senate what they are going to do right now instead of waiting over a year.

[stillcool]

22. Everything is going to be put

on hold until 2009, so the President can push her/his will on the people. I wonder if that's why it's such a disaster when Washington tries to fix anything.

[rodeodance]

23. Hillary on producing legislation 2 years ago on the mortage issue: *

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject Google is your friend
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4620680#4621528
4621528, Google is your friend
Posted by Marie26 on Sat Feb-16-08 07:07 PM

It really is. All the Obamaistas are claiming that she's never done anything about the mortgage crisis in the Senate, when she has. Now they back-track to, oh, she didn't fight for it. What does that even mean? Of course any Senator will fight for passage of legislation that they have sponsored & introduced. That's all they can do - they can't control the rest of the Senate. HRC introduced this bill in early 2006, during the 109th Repuke Congress. Of course the Republicans wouldn't pass it. But this tells me that she saw this mortgage crisis coming from far away. She reintroduced the bill in the 110th Congress, and the bill was approved by the Senate.

I've googled this for you as a favor -

First introduced May 2006 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-3173

Clinton re-introduced it in 2007 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-947

The bill passed overwhelmingly, w/93 Senators voting for the legislation.

Sen. Clinton statement on Senate approval of FHA reform -

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=289092

She has also introduced a separate bill, called the "American Home Ownership Preservation Act of 2007". This bill would require mortgage companies to fully disclose the terms of a mortgage & prevent abusive & predatory loan practices.

"9/27/2007--Introduced.

S. 2114: American Home Ownership Preservation Act of 2007

A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to provide for enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation of mortgage brokers, and for other purposes.

Sponsor:

Sen. Hillary Clinton (no cosponsors)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2114

And another bill to help people who lose their homes as a result of natural disasters like Katrina.

S. 2310: Homeowners' Defense Act of 2007

A bill to establish a National Catastrophic Risks Consortium and a National Homeowners' Insurance Stabilization Program, and for other purposes.

Sponsor:
Sen. Hillary Clinton

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2310

She's also introduced a bill that would create incentives for employers to assist employees in their home payments - allowing more working class workers to own their own home.

S. 1078: Housing America's Workforce Act

A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for employer-provided employee housing assistance, and for other purposes.

Sponsor:
Sen. Hillary Clinton

Sen. Clinton speech in support of bill:

"The sad truth is that across the Nation, working full-time no longer guarantees the security and comfort of a home. The shortage of workforce housing has emerged as a national crisis as housing costs have far outgrown the rate of inflation in many markets. As the gap between wages and housing costs widens, affordable housing is pushed beyond the reach of an increasing number of working families.

As a result, people who provide the bulk of vital community services--teachers, firefighters, police officers, and laundry and restaurant workers--often cannot themselves afford to live in the high-priced communities in which they serve. That is why I am reintroducing the Housing America's Workforce Act.

This bill creates incentives to expand employer assisted housing initiatives across the Nation. ... Research has shown that this legislation is needed. Recent data shows that the number of working families with critical housing problems, defined as those paying more than half of their income for housing and/or living in dilapidated conditions, has increased 67 percent from 1997 to approximately 5 million families."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1078


She also introduced another bill just two weeks ago to reduce foreclosures.


January 30, 2008

Senator Clinton Introduces the Mortgage Refinancing Initiative Act of 2008

Legislation Would Enable Tens of Thousands of Families in Danger of Foreclosure to Refinance their Mortgages

Washington, DC – In response to the escalating housing crisis that is devastating communities, shaking our economy, and putting the financial security of millions of families at risk, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton introduced the Mortgage Refinancing Initiative of 2008 which would provide an opportunity for at-risk households to refinance unworkable mortgages. Newly released data shows that 1.3 million households received foreclosure notices last year. Mounting foreclosures are contributing to the weakness in house prices, and therefore even families who are not at risk of losing their homes are affected. The decline in home prices has already cost families an estimated $1.6 trillion.

“We can reduce foreclosures by helping families replace costly and risky mortgages with stable, affordable ones. Today I am introducing the Mortgage Refinancing Initiative Act of 2008 to help states do just that”, said Senator Clinton.

Senator Clinton’s proposal has been applauded by groups such as the National Association of Realtors who have called Senator Clinton’s proposal a “flexible, timely and much-needed improvement to current law”, that would ensure that “more individuals and families would be able to stay in their homes without the threat of foreclosure.”

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=291526

[DUyellow]

24. "Only Obama has not called for a moratorium and interest-rate freeze." He is right in this... Read.

more about it.

[high density]

28. I don't think the government should get into the business

of bailing out companies that take inordinate amounts of risk.

I also wonder why people who made very poor financial decisions should be let off the hook. If they had dumped all of their money into Worldcom or Enron stock, we'd be saying tough luck. But since these people gambled with their homes we seem to be being more emotional about it. I'm not happy to see people losing their dwellings, but I don't see what else can be done while remaining equitable to those who lived more responsibly. Why should a family that made very poor decisions get bailed out while the family that made more wise choices get nothing? It just rewards bad behavior in my opinion. It's a tough pill to swallow but we can't afford anything else.

[TheDonkey]

29. Freezing interest rates for these subprimes would RAISE interest rates on new mortgages

Obama is trying to protect middle class people like ME who did not sign up for a ridiculous sub prime but would like to buy a house someday and not be screwed over by those who carelessly tried rolling the dice with their finances.

[Skittles]

30. OMG ORWELLIAN

don't present the facts to the swooners - they may FAINT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[high density]

34. Do you want to present some facts or reasoning to add to the conversation

Or just keep calling everybody names?

I guess you've already chosen the latter.

[Skittles]

35. like talking to a fucking brick wall

I want people to stop swooning over ANY candidate and RESEARCH FOR THEMSELVES

[high density]

36. I guess you now know how we feel.

;)

[Skittles]

37. PLEASE

you have NO F***ING CLUE unless you are on the OUTSIDE LOOKING IN

[RoadRage]

39. Maybe i'm taking the "repug" approach on this - but SCREW STUPID PEOPLE!

We purchased a house in 2005. We purchased a house well within our means. We didn't get the shiny house with an all brick exterior, a pool in the back yard, 6 bedrooms, and granite counter tops.

We purchased one that we could afford, and still be able to save for our kids college fund, and make our car payments each month.

We also did something else dramatic. We locked in on a 30 year mortgage.. no arm... no 2% interest only for the first 2 years, with it climbing up from there as we hope & prayed that MAYBE our home value would continue to skyrocket at unprecedented rates. Nope, we took the "safe" route at 5.9% - locked for good, knowing we're paying slightly more now, but it won't be going up later.

So, why the HELL should anyone who wasn't "smart" about this deserve a bailout? I'm sorry - I don't want there to be a lock on forclosures.. if you bought a house you can't afford - then you don't get to live in it. I don't want there to be a lock on interest rates to pander to people who are not smart enough to read the details of the loan they are signing.

I do like Obama's plan... i'm sorry, but I'm not "for" supporting people who are to stupid, greedy or BOTH to do so for themselves.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

40. That is the Republican approach

You have pretty well summed up the line that is being used in right-wing circles.

I suggest you look into the matter more deeply as this has nothing to do with "stupid people" and all to do with predatory financial institutions.

Blaming the victims is a time honored technique by reactionary parties are you sure you want to echo those sentiments?