XPost: alt.support.attn-deficit, alt.support.tourette   
   From: dawgface@ten.hut   
      
   "John Palmer"  wrote in message   
   news:a5cpg45ir7h1smm56bcgc0mmli9r0o2v2o@4ax.com...   
   > On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:49:01 -0700, "Frank"  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>"stanw"  wrote in message   
   >>news:055c467f-39cd-46e3-971d-0e9716164f5e@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...   
   >>Come November 4th, I honestly have tremendous hope that we will see   
   >>the return to health of not just our economy, but our morale,   
   >>reputation, and culture as well.   
   >>===================================================   
   >>Really? Our economy started turning south about two years ago, the   
   >>land   
   >>mines were set up then. The socialist idea for every man there is a   
   >>house is what caused this problem, yet you want more of the same?   
   >   
      
   LOL, that was a part of it, yes, but not a major part. The people   
   involved in such dealings were unscroupulus, and swayed by TV promo's.   
   The truely rich are now buying up all the other peoples messups at   
   extremely low prices, some require a little investment to clean up and   
   repair, but they are very busy building up their holdings. The main   
   difference is these people could pay cash if they wanted to or needed   
   to, the people you are talking about couldn't, even on their best day.   
      
   >   
   > The economic issues were not caused by people buying homes. It was   
   > caused by speculation, greed, and stupidity in an underregulated   
   > market.   
   >   
      
   It wasn't under regulated, it was under monitored. All the regs were   
   there and still are. There was an unwillingness or just plain old lazy   
   slothful creatures that let it go and declared everything was bright and   
   rosy. Marcia wrote about the old queer that was in large part   
   responsible.   
      
   > I know, it's a common game people are playing right now. Somehow, they   
   > think, banks were forced to make idiotic loans that they knew wouldn't   
   > be paid back.   
   >   
   > But lending standards still exist. No one has ever been forced to make   
   > a loan that they could show wasn't a good risk. And more importantly,   
   > loans made under the CRA tend to be good quality loans, with lower   
   > default rates.   
   >   
      
   Then why was Obama's name on a law suit to enforce those ignorant   
   practices?   
      
   > No, the problem was, a lot of people smelled a lot of money in making   
   > loans without concern about risk, and then selling those loans, so   
   > some other poor loser gets stuck holding the bag.   
   >   
      
   There were some to be sure, and they are all broke now along with some   
   innocent bystanders.   
      
   > There's a lot more to it. Not only were the loans sold, they were   
   > securitized and backed by tricky investments known as Credit Default   
   > Swaps (basically a form of insurance against an investment losing   
   > value). And, people leveraged themselves to the hilt - I believe   
   > Lehman Brothers was investing 30 borrowed dollars for every "real"   
   > dollar - because they thought it was raining soup, and wanted a bigger   
   > bucket. Once they learned that it was not raining soup, it was just a   
   > sewage pipe bursting, it was too late for them to back out in an   
   > orderly fashion.   
   >   
   > But don't worry - if you think the Bush administration's record on   
   > economics and regulation are the kind of thing you need to help rein   
   > in a problem like this, then, sure, vote for McCain; he and Bush see   
   > eye-to-eye on economic issues. If you think that Obama is more likely   
   > to understand what's going on, and come up with sensible regulations,   
   > then maybe you should vote for him instead.   
   >   
      
   ) have you ever fallen prey to the party line. Sorry, but you are   
   wrong. Do you by any chance remember when McCain was seriously thinking   
   about dropping out of the Rep party and becoming a Dem? Hmmmm? The   
   constant warring between Bush and McCain? The false unity they put up,   
   the front with rather sloppy makeup on it? It is one of the reasons I   
   wouldn't ever trust McCain.   
      
   But when I look at the basic principles of their beliefs, their core   
   values, the lies each of them spew out I choose the lessor of the two   
   evils. Obama lets his brother starve, lets his auntie starve in a slum,   
   cares little about any of his relatives while he lives high on the hog.   
      
   He says he was born one place, his mom another and his grandma yet   
   another.   
      
   Anyone who thinks Louis Faracan (sp) is a great  is looney tunes in my   
   book.   
      
   >   
   > John Palmer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)