O'Bama & Romney not alike!

[NiftyNiblick]

It's been expressed several times on these pages, mainly by those believing to have a greater insight than the sheepish masses, that the two major party candidates are really not very different.

I actually understand where this is coming from. If you supported Ron Paul, or if you're actually considering wasting your protest vote on Gary Johnson, then yes, Willard Mitt Romany and Barak Hussein O'Bama probably do seem alike.

However, if these are not your political slants, and they're certainly not mine, then the two major candidates are not alike at all. They’re no more alike, say, than Antonin Scalia (who can’t pronounce his own surname) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are alike.

If you believe that paying more taxes is more efficient than doing everything individually, if you believe in cradle to grave social programs for all being the hallmark of a civilized society, if you believe in worker protections, if you believe in science, and if you believe that there's no place for theocracy in government, than Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are too much alike and O'Bama is the practical solution when Jill Stein can't win.

So I'd say, samers, that you don't have a sophisticated view that's over the head of we unsophisticated sheep. To me, you're just relatively common libertarian contrarians. You may just as well stay home Tuesday. But I won’t.

[buddha33]

Your vote is a continuation of the same policies that have gotten us in this fiscal mess in the first place. Do you spend beyond your means, Double N? Are you perpetually running up your credit cards because you'd hate to tell yourself the truth that you can't afford everything you want?

Sure, there are differences between Mittens and the black guy. But they're not material to some of us who expect more from our leaders. I don't want a country strewn with objectivist libertarian policies, but I'm also astute enough to realize we keep making the same mistake time and time again. Paul represented the truth; not the 'feel good' story that the sheep seem content to vote for. As Einstein defined insanity, it's doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. As long as we continue to vote for whatever the blue and red teams offer, we should expect more of the same.

As for staying at home, you live in a state whose electoral votes are already decided. Per your own argument, why even bother going through the motions?

[NiftyNiblick]

As for staying at home, you live in a state whose electoral votes are already decided. Per your own argument, why even bother going through the motions?

Because unlike libertarians, I believe societal obligations are mandatory, not optional. I don't want the kind of freedom you want. You want the freedom Kris Kristofferson wrote about and Janice Joplin sang about:

"Freedom's just another word for nuthin' left to lose. Nuthin' ain't worth nuthin' but it's free."

I never whined about paying my full share of taxes when I was making decent money--never--and my votes reflected that. I paid plenty, and for the part of my income that came from my work, I happily paid union dues on top of it.

Now I want what I've earned. I've no sympathy for some younger guy whining about his taxes now. That's the ultimate ***** move to me, and I simply don't respect it. I take a stand against it, as I'm morally obligated to do.

[buddha33]

Because unlike libertarians, I believe societal obligations are mandatory, not optional. I don't want the kind of freedom you want. You want the freedom Kris Kristofferson wrote about and Janice Joplin sang about:

"Freedom's just another word for nuthin' left to lose. Nuthin' ain't worth nuthin' but it's free."

I never whined about paying my full share of taxes when I was making decent money--never--and my votes reflected that. I paid plenty, and for the part of my income that came from my work, I happily paid union dues on top of it.

Now I want what I've earned. I've no sympathy for some younger guy whining about his taxes now. That's the ultimate ***** move to me, and I simply don't respect it. I take a stand against it, as I'm morally obligated to do.

Where did someone whine about having to pay taxes? This conversation would probably go a lot better if you read what is written and left the baggage at home.

[NiftyNiblick]

Where did someone whine about having to pay taxes? This conversation would probably go a lot better if you read what is written and left the baggage at home.

That's what reducing spending is all about--an alternative to raising revenue. It's the exact topic of which you spoke but from the opposite perspective.

From a global perspective, we do less collectively than any other fully developed democracy on the planet. (Except for overspending on defense. Even libertarians agree that we sure do plenty of that.)

Conservative and libertarian Americans want the kind of democracy that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. If anybody is delusional, it is they.

[buddha33]

That's what reducing spending is all about--an alternative to raising revenue. It's the exact topic of which you spoke but from the opposite perspective.

From a global perspective, we do less collectively than any other fully developed democracy on the planet. (Except for overspending on defense. Even libertarians agree that we sure do plenty of that.)

Conservative and libertarian Americans want the kind of democracy that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. If anybody is delusional, it is they.

Again, where did I say we need to reduce entitlements? All I ask is for a balanced budget. To accomplish that, we need to raise taxes and/or reduce spending. Defense spending was just increased another 11% for next year. Spending on healthcare will go up some double digit percentage too. How does that get paid for? Did you hear either candidate talk about raising taxes to pay for their promises? Sure, Obama mentioned raising taxes on those making $1M plus, but that's a drop in the bucket. Neither candidate tells us the truth about our predicament. So I'll ask again, do you spend more than you make? If not, why don't you expect your government to live by the same principles?

[NiftyNiblick]

So I'll ask again, do you spend more than you make? If not, why don't you expect your government to live by the same principles?

I absolutely did spend more than I made when I had to. I didn't just write a check for my first home. Not even for my first car.

FDR didn't just write a check for World War II, but that was perhaps the only must win situation America was ever in. War was declared on us first.

Universal healthcare is what a civilized country does, period. So is a post work age pension like Social Security.

Think about it. We have three very expensive ways to drop nuclear weapons on a Soviet Union that doesn't exist--

1. the Strategic Air Command
2. Nuclear missle armed nuclear submarines
3. Intercontinental Ballistic Missles.

That's to keep a non-existent USSR in check.

What if we kept two of those and spent the rest on education and healthcare?

[The Purist]

Buddha is right as usual. A vote for either candidate is a vote for maintaining the corporatocracy. You would think Nifty would be less of a shill for corporate special interests.

Most of the things Nifty acts like he wants are not what Obama is supporting. Obama (like Romney) is for mandated healtcare...not Universal healtcare. Jill Stein of the Green Party is for universal healthcare (so is Rocky Anderson). Obama (like Romney) is for little or no reduction in military spending. Ron Paul, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Rocky Anderson are for drastic cuts to military spending (especially when it comes to foreign conflicts).

Obama and Romney both seem to support things like NDAA, Patriot Act, and Homeland Security which take away from individual liberties. Paul, Stein, Johnson, and Anderson are all strongly opposed to things like the NDAA.

I would bet most Liberterian supporters would be more comfortable with the Green Party than the Republican or Democratic parities.

[hubijerk]

Buddha is right as usual. A vote for either candidate is a vote for maintaining the corporatocracy. You would think Nifty would be less of a shill for corporate special interests.

Most of the things Nifty acts like he wants are not what Obama is supporting. Obama (like Romney) is for mandated healtcare...not Universal healtcare. Jill Stein of the Green Party is for universal healthcare (so is Rocky Anderson). Obama (like Romney) is for little or no reduction in military spending. Ron Paul, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Rocky Anderson are for drastic cuts to military spending (especially when it comes to foreign conflicts).

Obama and Romney both seem to support things like NDAA, Patriot Act, and Homeland Security which take away from individual liberties. Paul, Stein, Johnson, and Anderson are all strongly opposed to things like the NDAA.

I would bet most Liberterian supporters would be more comfortable with the Green Party than the Republican or Democratic parities.

Your average Liberal politician has absolutely nothing in common with your typical liberal on the street, same goes for the repubs and their "base" ironically the parties are just a strategic choice for votes, they are playing a game and they can't be bothered with such things as a budget... I personally don't care about paying taxes, I'd pay more if I saw any benefit whatsoever, but my roads suck, every year I seem to have less and less privacy and freedom, and taxes such as tolls, sales tax, inflation, etc.. get more expensive, meanwhile we give millions to countries that hate us, millions to sham companies with political ties, and millions to welfare systems that are ineffective... The federal gvt. is actually charged with doing very little, the job/power of the president is, or is supposed to be extremely limited.... but in this new era of executive orders apparently a president can just do whatever he wants... that doesn't sound like a president to me... I think the problem is that there are too many secrets... to many secret deals, to many secret organizations that are seemingly above reproach... and what were seeing now is a thousand layers deep of cover for secrets from both the past, and present... I think Bengazi is probably a good example... something secret was going on thus we're told BS stories and hope no one asks too many questions... In my opinion the main purpose of the 2 big parties is to keep the country divided so we continue to debate and argue with each other... Larry and Nifty are the prime example of how this works... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, just keep looking at those sparkly red shoes, aren't they nice?

[Larryrsf]

Your vote is a continuation of the same policies that have gotten us in this fiscal mess in the first place. ?

I hear the libs on discussion panels say that over and over again, but when challenged, they cannot name the policy that caused the present recession. That because the policy that caused this CAME FROM THE DEMOCRATS in congress-- OVER the objections of the Republicans and GW Bush. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Maxine Watters, with Senator Obama wanted to "spread the wealth" and GIVE nice houses to poor people. When they got control of the banking Committees in House and Senate, they FORCED banks to make sub-prime loans.

So no, we don't want to go back to the liberal "spread the wealth" mindlessly stupid policies that caused this.

Not likely Romney would do that. 100% chance that Obama would do that and add $1.3 TRILLION to the national debt every year he were president.

Larry

[Larryrsf]

[QUOTE=NiftyNiblick;285250
Universal healthcare is what a civilized country does?[/QUOTE]

Good idea, we would all love to see that, but in the real world, NO COUNTRY HAS EVER been able to afford it! Every country that tries to do universal health care starts down the path toward fiscal insolvency! The entire EU including Germany are great examples. It always fails because when you GIVE free stuff to people, they will take it and more besides--and then millions more will flood in to take advantage. Very shortly the whole thing is out of control. There are too few productive people in any society to carry the whole burden. As Margaret Thatcher said about Socialism, "you always run out of other people's money!"

Romney knows that. So he will try to do as much as possible because it is a political reality, but he will also put strong limits in place, a viable compromise.

Larry

[Larryrsf]

Again, where did I say we need to reduce entitlements? All I ask is for a balanced budget. To accomplish that, we need to raise taxes and/or reduce spending. Defense spending was just increased another 11% for next year. Spending on healthcare will go up some double digit percentage too. How does that get paid for? Did you hear either candidate talk about raising taxes to pay for their promises? Sure, Obama mentioned raising taxes on those making $1M plus, but that's a drop in the bucket. Neither candidate tells us the truth about our predicament. So I'll ask again, do you spend more than you make? If not, why don't you expect your government to live by the same principles?

Everyone here should study the Laffer curve. At a certain rate of taxation, adding additional taxes actually REDUCES the revenue to government. There are many reasons, but no doubt that is what happens in every society, US and Europe. People will simply refuse to pay taxes beyond rates they perceive to be unfair. France has waves of millionaires MOVING TO OTHER COUNTRIES to avoid high taxes. Some would close their business if necessary to avoid too high taxes. It is a matter of principle, they just won't pay!!!

So dream on, but the reality is that no society can finance universal health care and massive entitlements. Can't be done. So government has to be pragmatic. Romney understands the Laffer Curve. Obama does also, but he wants to ignore it.

Larry

[The Purist]

I hear the libs on discussion panels say that over and over again, but when challenged, they cannot name the policy that caused the present recession. That because the policy that caused this CAME FROM THE DEMOCRATS in congress-- OVER the objections of the Republicans and GW Bush. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Maxine Watters, with Senator Obama wanted to "spread the wealth" and GIVE nice houses to poor people. When they got control of the banking Committees in House and Senate, they FORCED banks to make sub-prime loans.

So no, we don't want to go back to the liberal "spread the wealth" mindlessly stupid policies that caused this.

Not likely Romney would do that. 100% chance that Obama would do that and add $1.3 TRILLION to the national debt every year he were president.

Larry

I really didn't think Buddha's post was that hard to understand, but you and Nifty seem to have zero reading comprehension skills.

No single policy has led to the current economic mess we are now in. This recession and move towards a currency collapse is a compound problem that has been building for decades and accelerating with each passing year. The democrat and republican parties have both been compromised by big money special interests.

[buddha33]

I really didn't think Buddha's post was that hard to understand, but you and Nifty seem to have zero reading comprehension skills.

No single policy has led to the current economic mess we are now in.his recession and move towards a currency collapse is a compound problem that has been building for decades and accelerating with each passing year. The democrat and republican parties have both been compromised by big money special interests.

I don't even bother reading liary's posts anymore because 1. I already know it's going to be the same partisan drivel and 2. He's not capable of intelligent dialogue.

[Not a German]

I really didn't think Buddha's post was that hard to understand, but you and Nifty seem to have zero reading comprehension skills.

No single policy has led to the current economic mess we are now in. This recession and move towards a currency collapse is a compound problem that has been building for decades and accelerating with each passing year. The democrat and republican parties have both been compromised by big money special interests.

I think it was Golfprofrank who said having a closed mind is like having no mind at all. Wait, no, I think it was someone else. Golfprofrank was just a sales whore, plain and simple. Kiwi, who said that?

Wow, the time does fly.

[Larryrsf]

I don't even bother reading liary's posts anymore because 1. I already know it's going to be the same partisan drivel and 2. He's not capable of intelligent dialogue.

And yet his IQ is 50+ points higher and his formal educational level is higher too. And then his professional level is so much higher than yours that you would have had to ask his secretary for permission to ask his private secretary for permission to have the elevator stop on the floor where his corner office was.

Larry

[buddha33]

And yet his IQ is 50+ points higher and his formal educational level is higher too. And then his professional level is so much higher than yours that you would have had to ask his secretary for permission to ask his private secretary for permission to have the elevator stop on the floor where his corner office was.

Larry

This was given as a clue during an episode of $25,000 pyramid. The answer was, "things a complete toolbox might say." I miss that show.

This also reminds me that i saw a schizophrenic today who was blabbering to himself and laughing. He thought he was talking to someone else. The rest of us knew better.

[Kiwi Player]

I don't even bother reading liary's posts anymore because 1. I already know it's going to be the same partisan drivel and 2. He's not capable of intelligent dialogue.

Alan is the only guy that reads Larry's posts as he types his line by line rebuttals.

[mongrel]

Everyone here should study the Laffer curve. At a certain rate of taxation, adding additional taxes actually REDUCES the revenue to government. There are many reasons, but no doubt that is what happens in every society, US and Europe. People will simply refuse to pay taxes beyond rates they perceive to be unfair. France has waves of millionaires MOVING TO OTHER COUNTRIES to avoid high taxes. Some would close their business if necessary to avoid too high taxes. It is a matter of principle, they just won't pay!!!

So dream on, but the reality is that no society can finance universal health care and massive entitlements. Can't be done. So government has to be pragmatic. Romney understands the Laffer Curve. Obama does also, but he wants to ignore it.

Larry

I think you're wrong on one point. There are a few countries that could provide free services for their indigent populations,. Take a country like Saudi Arabia and all its oil revenue. It could divert a portion of this revenue and all the peoples would be covered. If the Royal family would be a bit less extravagent in its spending. Of course Saudi Arabia is a totally homogenous society with a labor shortage that necessitates importing labor. If the US would start tapping domestic reserves and loosening restrictions on coal fired power generation, we could maybe afford more largesse for the slacker segment.

As for the Laffer curve, I still remember meeting Art Laffer in an elevator on the way to the financial conference that was about to kick off in the East Wing of the White House. Reagan had been recently inaugurated and G.W.H. Bush made the opening remarks. As for being able to understand the Laffer Curve, it doesn't take a Mensa level of brain function. Obama probably skipped the class to go out and sell a couple of quarter OZ's of blow and shoot some hoops and then one of his acolytes gave him the notes so that he would be able to limp past the next quiz with an 80.

[Not a German]

I think you're wrong on one point. There are a few countries that could provide free services for their indigent populations,. Take a country like Saudi Arabia and all its oil revenue. It could divert a portion of this revenue and all the peoples would be covered. If the Royal family would be a bit less extravagent in its spending. Of course Saudi Arabia is a totally homogenous society with a labor shortage that necessitates importing labor. If the US would start tapping domestic reserves and loosening restrictions on coal fired power generation, we could maybe afford more largesse for the slacker segment.

As for the Laffer curve, I still remember meeting Art Laffer in an elevator on the way to the financial conference that was about to kick off in the East Wing of the White House. Reagan had been recently inaugurated and G.W.H. Bush made the opening remarks. As for being able to understand the Laffer Curve, it doesn't take a Mensa level of brain function. Obama probably skipped the class to go out and sell a couple of quarter OZ's of blow and shoot some hoops and then one of his acolytes gave him the notes so that he would be able to limp past the next quiz with an 80.

Yeah, and on the eve the other side is talking about what wackos Mormons are and how they're naturally repressors of women. Don't be sore, you haven't lost yet.

[poe4soul]

I think you're wrong on one point. There are a few countries that could provide free services for their indigent populations,. Take a country like Saudi Arabia and all its oil revenue. It could divert a portion of this revenue and all the peoples would be covered. If the Royal family would be a bit less extravagent in its spending. Of course Saudi Arabia is a totally homogenous society with a labor shortage that necessitates importing labor. If the US would start tapping domestic reserves and loosening restrictions on coal fired power generation, we could maybe afford more largesse for the slacker segment.

As for the Laffer curve, I still remember meeting Art Laffer in an elevator on the way to the financial conference that was about to kick off in the East Wing of the White House. Reagan had been recently inaugurated and G.W.H. Bush made the opening remarks. As for being able to understand the Laffer Curve, it doesn't take a Mensa level of brain function. Obama probably skipped the class to go out and sell a couple of quarter OZ's of blow and shoot some hoops and then one of his acolytes gave him the notes so that he would be able to limp past the next quiz with an 80.

The question is what side of the curve are we on? Every time you hear a GOP bring up Laffer it's about lowering taxes. But it's not. It's about finding the sweet spot of the curve for the highest tax revenue. Listening to a republican we should lower our taxes to zero to collect the most tax revenue.

So honestly, Mongrel and Lary, where is the sweet spot on the curve in your mind. What combined tax rate should we be at? Mind you, this is a rate that will yield the most taxes.

[buddha33]

So honestly, Mongrel and Lary, where is the sweet spot on the curve in your mind. What combined tax rate should we be at? Mind you, this is a rate that will yield the most taxes.

Wait...I got it. This is a trick question. It's "less". Disregard the fact that taxes are lower under Obama than they have been in decades. We're still overtaxed. Unless, of course, the money is spent on defense or corporate subsidies. In that case, tax away.

[CPS]

Wait...I got it. This is a trick question. It's "less". Disregard the fact that taxes are lower under Obama than they have been in decades. We're still overtaxed. Unless, of course, the money is spent on defense or corporate subsidies. In that case, tax away.

What bugs me is lumping property and excise taxes in with federal taxes and blaming it all on Democrats. Most state legislatures and town councils are Republican, and they have no problem taxing the shiit out of their electorate.

Half of Texas probably doesn't understand that half their mortgage payments are escrowed property taxes. I always use Texas as a good argument because there are no labor unions to blame the bankrupt municipal budgets on.

[famousdavis]

I absolutely did spend more than I made when I had to. I didn't just write a check for my first home. Not even for my first car.

FDR didn't just write a check for World War II, but that was perhaps the only must win situation America was ever in. War was declared on us first.

Universal healthcare is what a civilized country does, period. So is a post work age pension like Social Security.

Think about it. We have three very expensive ways to drop nuclear weapons on a Soviet Union that doesn't exist--

1. the Strategic Air Command
2. Nuclear missle armed nuclear submarines
3. Intercontinental Ballistic Missles.

That's to keep a non-existent USSR in check.

What if we kept two of those and spent the rest on education and healthcare?

Just out of curiosity, why would you spend all of that money attending Harvard University and then take a job working in the public sector for a union?

This is a legitimate question.

[jt1135]

Just out of curiosity, why would you spend all of that money attending Harvard University and then take a job working in the public sector for a union?

This is a legitimate question.

My guess is that is where he learned about liberalism. Everybody knows that almost all college profs are leftists.

[mongrel]

The question is what side of the curve are we on? Every time you hear a GOP bring up Laffer it's about lowering taxes. But it's not. It's about finding the sweet spot of the curve for the highest tax revenue. Listening to a republican we should lower our taxes to zero to collect the most tax revenue.

So honestly, Mongrel and Lary, where is the sweet spot on the curve in your mind. What combined tax rate should we be at? Mind you, this is a rate that will yield the most taxes.

Who knows? I certainly don't. But fiscal policy is certainly something that can be tweaked easily. The other side of the coin is the amount of spending of the revenue taken in. In the Government DNA is the primal urge to spend ever cent of revenue and then borrow some more based on a promise to pay. The current form of national government is unequipped to administer either effective fiscal or monetary policy regardless of which letter follows the chief executive or members of the legislative branch or the federal judiciary.

The first step I would take as the new Fuhrer of Amerika is to move the national capitol to another location like was done in Brazil in the middle of the last century. Stick that sucker somewhere out in the middle of nowhere and build a capitol up from scratch. Constituional amendments would, among other things, prohibit any lobbyist from coming closer than 300 miles from the jurisdictional limits of the new capitol.

[famousdavis]

My guess is that is where he learned about liberalism. Everybody knows that almost all college profs are leftists.

No doubt. I remember taking an English course in college and we had this left wing idiot for a teacher who was a big time "women's libber". She would not allow us to turn in papers referring to a person as simply "he". We had to write "he/she".

How stupid is that? Everyone knows men are superior to women.

[poe4soul]

Who knows? I certainly don't. But fiscal policy is certainly something that can be tweaked easily. The other side of the coin is the amount of spending of the revenue taken in. In the Government DNA is the primal urge to spend ever cent of revenue and then borrow some more based on a promise to pay. The current form of national government is unequipped to administer either effective fiscal or monetary policy regardless of which letter follows the chief executive or members of the legislative branch or the federal judiciary.

The first step I would take as the new Fuhrer of Amerika is to move the national capitol to another location like was done in Brazil in the middle of the last century. Stick that sucker somewhere out in the middle of nowhere and build a capitol up from scratch. Constituional amendments would, among other things, prohibit any lobbyist from coming closer than 300 miles from the jurisdictional limits of the new capitol.

Who Knows, really? If we don't know why the constant creed of the GOP to lower taxes? Interesting that you admit it. Many economist agreed that the last bush tax cuts put us on the back side of the curve.

Spending is the other side of the coin. Of course spending needs to get under control. What bothers me is we have known for the last 20 years that the baby boomers were reaching retirement. It wasn't a big secret. Now they, you, are there and we couldn't afford the plans that are in place. It's not a secret. We knew it was coming. duh.

I agree that lobbyist are one of the real problems. But hey, the corporations behind them now have the rights of people. Well, until there are liabilities, then, not so much.

[The Purist]

Who Knows, really? If we don't know why the constant creed of the GOP to lower taxes? Interesting that you admit it. Many economist agreed that the last bush tax cuts put us on the back side of the curve.

Spending is the other side of the coin. Of course spending needs to get under control. What bothers me is we have known for the last 20 years that the baby boomers were reaching retirement. It wasn't a big secret. Now they, you, are there and we couldn't afford the plans that are in place. It's not a secret. We knew it was coming. duh.

I agree that lobbyist are one of the real problems. But hey, the corporations behind them now have the rights of people. Well, until there are liabilities, then, not so much.

What if the dollar still held the same value it had 50 years ago...or even 10 years ago?

[poe4soul]

What if the dollar still held the same value it had 50 years ago...or even 10 years ago?

Why would the fed's want that? We're going to see inflation in our life time. Once the economy becomes stable, the feds are going to run the dollar into the ground.

[buddha33]

Why would the fed's want that? We're going to see inflation in our life time. Once the economy becomes stable, the feds are going to run the dollar into the ground.

The process is already underway. The only reason the dollar is relatively strong is because it's still considered a safe haven currency when compared to the Euro. The Fed is currently monetizing the debt on the backs of those who can least afford it in the form of higher food and energy prices. Meanwhile, investors are forced to flock to risky assets because of the negative real interest rates the fed has manipulated. It's a real nice game they're playing.

[mongrel]

Who Knows, really? If we don't know why the constant creed of the GOP to lower taxes? Interesting that you admit it. Many economist agreed that the last bush tax cuts put us on the back side of the curve.

Spending is the other side of the coin. Of course spending needs to get under control. What bothers me is we have known for the last 20 years that the baby boomers were reaching retirement. It wasn't a big secret. Now they, you, are there and we couldn't afford the plans that are in place. It's not a secret. We knew it was coming. duh.

I agree that lobbyist are one of the real problems. But hey, the corporations behind them now have the rights of people. Well, until there are liabilities, then, not so much.

I am a boomer and I could have already retired per Social Security guidelines. However, I will continue to work so long as my employer will have me. I will continue to contribute to the state and fed tax coffers as I have done since Eisenhower was president.

[famousdavis]

I think it's interesting how people won't tell you how they voted. That is, until after the election. Why is that?

I voted for ;alskjf;oq3

Oops. Gotta go.

[mongrel]

Why would the fed's want that? We're going to see inflation in our life time. Once the economy becomes stable, the feds are going to run the dollar into the ground.

There is a huge problem for the economy no politician has had the stones to discuss. The millions of Americans who own real estate but owe more than their homes are worth. Forget pointing fingers at who was probably responsible for that-- the blame lies across party lines-- the problem is how to fix it. Inflating is one way out but that has been going on in earnest for the last four years and it ain't working.

[buddha33]

There is a huge problem for the economy no politician has had the stones to discuss. The millions of Americans who own real estate but owe more than their homes are worth. Forget pointing fingers at who was probably responsible for that-- the blame lies across party lines-- the problem is how to fix it. Inflating is one way out but that has been going on in earnest for the last four years and it ain't working.

The government needs to step back and let the market clear. Sure there will be pain, but that's the only answer toward a true recovery. Not sure if you noticed, but neither candidate offered that as a solution.

[mongrel]

The government needs to step back and let the market clear. Sure there will be pain, but that's the only answer toward a true recovery. Not sure if you noticed, but neither candidate offered that as a solution.

I notice everything. The residential real estate liquidity problem is the new Third Rail in American politics. Shame on the Media for ignoring it during the campaign.

[famousdavis]

There is a huge problem for the economy no politician has had the stones to discuss. The millions of Americans who own real estate but owe more than their homes are worth. Forget pointing fingers at who was probably responsible for that-- the blame lies across party lines-- the problem is how to fix it. Inflating is one way out but that has been going on in earnest for the last four years and it ain't working.

I'm not sure what either politician could discuss in regards to people who own homes where the appraised value is less than the mortgage. To me it isn't a political issue. It's an issue of common sense. You don't buy a home with 5% down and a mortgage that takes away over 50% of your paycheck.

Also, it's short term thinking. Unless you plan on selling your home right now, you have nothing to be concerned about. Your monthly payment is no different than it was before.

Sometimes people want to blame someone for something when there really is nobody to blame. The housing market went crazy from 1998 to 2006 (well, in California it did) and people who bought from 2003 to 2006 are not happy.

Upside down mortgages have nothing to do with people not being able to pay their mortgage. It's simply a matter of the housing market taking a predictable downturn.

[hubijerk]

I'm not sure what either politician could discuss in regards to people who own homes where the appraised value is less than the mortgage. To me it isn't a political issue. It's an issue of common sense. You don't buy a home with 5% down and a mortgage that takes away over 50% of your paycheck.

Also, it's short term thinking. Unless you plan on selling your home right now, you have nothing to be concerned about. Your monthly payment is no different than it was before.

Sometimes people want to blame someone for something when there really is nobody to blame. The housing market went crazy from 1998 to 2006 (well, in California it did) and people who bought from 2003 to 2006 are not happy.

Upside down mortgages have nothing to do with people not being able to pay their mortgage. It's simply a matter of the housing market taking a predictable downturn.

When the federal gvt. underwrites almost all of the mortgages I think that does make it a political issue...

[mongrel]

When the federal gvt. underwrites almost all of the mortgages I think that does make it a political issue...

And the underwriting standards are like the handle of the faucet. A small turn enables a flood of easy mortgage money and an equal turn the other way has the real estate industry looking for other careers.