#51 2008-10-08 11:01:04

karenw wrote:

sofaking wrote:

I don't care. Tax the fuck out of me, just don't let that fucking asshole McCain anywhere near the Oval Office.

God bless you, sofie -- now that's putting Country First!™

Hellz yeah.

Small businesses will do better with Obama, because he plans to match 50% of health insurance premiums with a tax credit. That will help small businesses more than slightly increasing our tax rate will hurt us. Small businesses who can't write off enough to offset the rate at which they're taxed should find another small business to get into.

Also, my business uses an ungodly amount of fuel, and I think Obama's "Let's not alienate the entire free world" diplomacy plan will help bring down prices.

Offline

 

#52 2008-10-08 11:16:59

headkicker_girl wrote:

I don't think it's the government's place to buy out the mortgages because they will not collect on them and people will essentially be given free housing.  They can't even run their existing agencies.  They certainly should not be in the mortgage business. (Which, by the way, is the same reason I don't want them in the health care business._)

The idea isn't to actually buy up the loans since we're doing that already, but to examine them and restructure or provide bridge insurance, etc, where appropriate.  The idea is to turn these into performing loans and keep the honest home buyer building equity hopefully providing a stronger economic base to rebuild from. 

As opposed to the current plan where we will buy the packaged loans from the companies that wrote the bad paper but allow the foreclosures to continue.

Offline

 

#53 2008-10-08 13:09:59

Emmeran wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

I don't think it's the government's place to buy out the mortgages because they will not collect on them and people will essentially be given free housing.  They can't even run their existing agencies.  They certainly should not be in the mortgage business. (Which, by the way, is the same reason I don't want them in the health care business._)

The idea isn't to actually buy up the loans since we're doing that already, but to examine them and restructure or provide bridge insurance, etc, where appropriate.  The idea is to turn these into performing loans and keep the honest home buyer building equity hopefully providing a stronger economic base to rebuild from. 

As opposed to the current plan where we will buy the packaged loans from the companies that wrote the bad paper but allow the foreclosures to continue.

As I said, it calls for the government to actually oversee the bad loans, which will never happen.

Offline

 

#54 2008-10-08 13:13:15

headkicker_girl wrote:

As I said, it calls for the government to actually oversee the bad loans, which will never happen.

Nah, this is still a Republican administration; it will all be outsourced.  As a matter of fact my company is currently bidding to take down part of that $700b.

Offline

 

#55 2008-10-08 13:17:05

Emmeran wrote:

The idea isn't to actually buy up the loans since we're doing that already, but to examine them and restructure or provide bridge insurance, etc, where appropriate.  The idea is to turn these into performing loans and keep the honest home buyer building equity hopefully providing a stronger economic base to rebuild from.

I see.  We'll create a whole new bureaucracy to reneogiate loans, devise arrangements to protect the borrowers, and generate unrecoverable losses to boot.  I don't know that I oppose it, but all these are among the necessary outcomes of the idea.

Offline

 

#56 2008-10-09 10:10:21

So you would rather have the Treasury Department as your mortgage holder and/or landlord than a bank that has to answer to it's stockholders and customers?

Nothing like a monopoly to really improve the customer service experience and keep costs down.

Offline

 

#57 2008-10-09 10:54:01

That is what Fannie and Freddie originally were before deregulation.

Offline

 

#58 2008-10-09 12:50:09

Here's an interesting take on the VP debate by Ann Coulter.  I know most of you think she is beyond biased, but she truthfully carves up Biden's bullshit from that debate.  Try to read it for the facts rather than fantasizing about Ann's long legs.

Offline

 

#59 2008-10-09 13:20:09

I'd rather go with the legs, but since you force the subjevct on us, I will say that she misconstrues much of what is said.  For example, the $9 Billion refers to the amount spent on reconstruction and development work in Afganistan.  It is probably a reasonably accurate number.  She misconstues it in an attempt to make Biden look bad.  This is her schtick.

Offline

 

#60 2008-10-09 13:45:36

Fled wrote:

I'd rather go with the legs, but since you force the subjevct on us, I will say that she misconstrues much of what is said.  For example, the $9 Billion refers to the amount spent on reconstruction and development work in Afganistan.  It is probably a reasonably accurate number.  She misconstues it in an attempt to make Biden look bad.  This is her schtick.

Yeah, but I think Biden was using the gross numbers for Iraq also.  Some of the other stuff is almost unbelievable, like when he lectured Palin about the duties of the VP and got it all wrong.

Offline

 

#61 2008-10-09 14:25:33

phreddy wrote:

Fled wrote:

I'd rather go with the legs, but since you force the subjevct on us, I will say that she misconstrues much of what is said.  For example, the $9 Billion refers to the amount spent on reconstruction and development work in Afganistan.  It is probably a reasonably accurate number.  She misconstues it in an attempt to make Biden look bad.  This is her schtick.

Yeah, but I think Biden was using the gross numbers for Iraq also.  Some of the other stuff is almost unbelievable, like when he lectured Palin about the duties of the VP and got it all wrong.

He didn't get the duties of the VP wrong.  President of the Senate != ruler of the Senate.  Article II defines clearly the role of the VP with regards to the legislative branch.  Having the title "President of the Senate" doesn't change that.

Also Ann Coulter mocks Biden for getting Article I mixed up with Article II and then makes the same mistake, in writing no less.

Also, money spent on the War != money spent on reconstruction.

Also, the only mistake he made with Lebanon was saying NATO instead of UN.

Also, Ann Coulter is a stupid cunt.

Offline

 

#62 2008-10-09 15:13:23

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye … oter1.html

gonna be a long month. Wonder what Obama's life insurance premiums are?

Offline

 

#63 2008-10-09 15:45:19

tojo2000 wrote:

Also, Ann Coulter is a stupid cunt.

Now, see, I was under the impression Ann Coulter is a malicious cunt.

Offline

 

#64 2008-10-10 02:37:36

orangeplus wrote:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008082voter1.html

gonna be a long month. Wonder what Obama's life insurance premiums are?

It has only just begun...

This is what they meant by “in your face”
By Michelle Malkin  •  October 9, 2008 12:18 PM

A glimpse of things to come?

Ah, the outraged Right.
Fighting to protect you from hateful liberals,
who want to prevent you from calling for Presidential candidates to wind up dead on hospital floors everywhere.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-10-10 02:44:46)

Offline

 

#65 2008-10-10 06:58:07

After watching a smattering of clips from yesterday's McCain rallies, I'm waiting for one of these events to boil over into something really, really ugly.

Offline

 

#66 2008-10-10 10:54:15

One may well be kidding themselves if they do not take Obama threats seriously.  Secret Service will possibly have a very full plate in the near future.

Offline

 

Board footer

cruelery.com