OT: Need Third Party Now

[Arraya]

It’s a joke like professional wrestling. Get a grip people.

This is not about ideologies at this point its about the people having a say. If it is not apparent the economic/political entity has taken on a life of its own, you need to pay closer attention.

Check out on of the many bailout protests that was not covered by the media.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=096_1222744802

[patientrenter]

DWCAP: “Why do people keep needing the GOV to “save” us? I dont want the government to save me. I dont want the government deciding who deserves a house and who doesn’t (read: has to pay inflated prices).”

I agree 100%. It is true that risk in financial institutions was poorly regulated. Regulations should have thoroughly exposed all the risks. They didn’t. If they had forced such disclosure, markets would have forced the companies taking too much risk to stop. In future, companies and industries that take on risks that rely on bubbles not bursting should be spotlighted immediately and continuously until the market exuberance causing the pressure comes to its senses.

I am convinced that a very big cause of the housing bubble was govt intervention in the housing market. Without a deduction for mortgage interest, without FNMA, Freddie Mac, FHA loans or loan guarantees, without govt pressure on banks to lend to poor risks, without any of a myriad other govt-backed programs to funnel more and more money into housing, the bubble would have been much smaller, and would have deflated much earlier and quicker.

With little or no govt involvement in the housing market, and with vigorous govt-required disclosure of financial risks, grounded on leaning against cyclical ups and downs, the housing bubble would have been innocuous.

[patientrenter]

DWCAP: “Why do people keep needing the GOV to “save” us? I dont want the government to save me. I dont want the government deciding who deserves a house and who doesn’t (read: has to pay inflated prices).”

I agree 100%. It is true that risk in financial institutions was poorly regulated. Regulations should have thoroughly exposed all the risks. They didn’t. If they had forced such disclosure, markets would have forced the companies taking too much risk to stop. In future, companies and industries that take on risks that rely on bubbles not bursting should be spotlighted immediately and continuously until the market exuberance causing the pressure comes to its senses.

I am convinced that a very big cause of the housing bubble was govt intervention in the housing market. Without a deduction for mortgage interest, without FNMA, Freddie Mac, FHA loans or loan guarantees, without govt pressure on banks to lend to poor risks, without any of a myriad other govt-backed programs to funnel more and more money into housing, the bubble would have been much smaller, and would have deflated much earlier and quicker.

With little or no govt involvement in the housing market, and with vigorous govt-required disclosure of financial risks, grounded on leaning against cyclical ups and downs, the housing bubble would have been innocuous.

[patientrenter]

DWCAP: “Why do people keep needing the GOV to “save” us? I dont want the government to save me. I dont want the government deciding who deserves a house and who doesn’t (read: has to pay inflated prices).”

I agree 100%. It is true that risk in financial institutions was poorly regulated. Regulations should have thoroughly exposed all the risks. They didn’t. If they had forced such disclosure, markets would have forced the companies taking too much risk to stop. In future, companies and industries that take on risks that rely on bubbles not bursting should be spotlighted immediately and continuously until the market exuberance causing the pressure comes to its senses.

I am convinced that a very big cause of the housing bubble was govt intervention in the housing market. Without a deduction for mortgage interest, without FNMA, Freddie Mac, FHA loans or loan guarantees, without govt pressure on banks to lend to poor risks, without any of a myriad other govt-backed programs to funnel more and more money into housing, the bubble would have been much smaller, and would have deflated much earlier and quicker.

With little or no govt involvement in the housing market, and with vigorous govt-required disclosure of financial risks, grounded on leaning against cyclical ups and downs, the housing bubble would have been innocuous.

[patientrenter]

DWCAP: “Why do people keep needing the GOV to “save” us? I dont want the government to save me. I dont want the government deciding who deserves a house and who doesn’t (read: has to pay inflated prices).”

I agree 100%. It is true that risk in financial institutions was poorly regulated. Regulations should have thoroughly exposed all the risks. They didn’t. If they had forced such disclosure, markets would have forced the companies taking too much risk to stop. In future, companies and industries that take on risks that rely on bubbles not bursting should be spotlighted immediately and continuously until the market exuberance causing the pressure comes to its senses.

I am convinced that a very big cause of the housing bubble was govt intervention in the housing market. Without a deduction for mortgage interest, without FNMA, Freddie Mac, FHA loans or loan guarantees, without govt pressure on banks to lend to poor risks, without any of a myriad other govt-backed programs to funnel more and more money into housing, the bubble would have been much smaller, and would have deflated much earlier and quicker.

With little or no govt involvement in the housing market, and with vigorous govt-required disclosure of financial risks, grounded on leaning against cyclical ups and downs, the housing bubble would have been innocuous.

[patientrenter]

DWCAP: “Why do people keep needing the GOV to “save” us? I dont want the government to save me. I dont want the government deciding who deserves a house and who doesn’t (read: has to pay inflated prices).”

I agree 100%. It is true that risk in financial institutions was poorly regulated. Regulations should have thoroughly exposed all the risks. They didn’t. If they had forced such disclosure, markets would have forced the companies taking too much risk to stop. In future, companies and industries that take on risks that rely on bubbles not bursting should be spotlighted immediately and continuously until the market exuberance causing the pressure comes to its senses.

I am convinced that a very big cause of the housing bubble was govt intervention in the housing market. Without a deduction for mortgage interest, without FNMA, Freddie Mac, FHA loans or loan guarantees, without govt pressure on banks to lend to poor risks, without any of a myriad other govt-backed programs to funnel more and more money into housing, the bubble would have been much smaller, and would have deflated much earlier and quicker.

With little or no govt involvement in the housing market, and with vigorous govt-required disclosure of financial risks, grounded on leaning against cyclical ups and downs, the housing bubble would have been innocuous.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=DWCAP]Obama for smaller Gov. RIGHT! Same as he is gonna cut spending like he promised in the last Debate right?

“The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found that both Obama and McCain are proposing combinations of tax and spending policies that would increase the federal deficit. It found that in 2013, Obama’s proposals would produce a net deficit increase of $286 billion, while McCain’s major policies would produce a net deficit increase of between $167 billion and $259 billion. In talking to CNN, CRFB President Maya MacGuineas estimated that McCain’s deficit increase would fall midway between the extremes of that range, at $211 billion.” -Factcheck.org

I know gandoff and breeze and the rest wont listen to this, but those of you saying that Republicans are entirely to blame and Democrats, ANY democrat, is better are no better than the red state blindmen you so hate. Policies matter, not the letter after your name, and frankly our two choices have nearly the same polices. So our choice is bad policies or exactly the same bad policies in a little different wrapper. WOW! whata choice.
[/quote]

Thanks for the objective comparison of deficit results. Interesting. I am curious how far out their projections go? My hope is some plan will work long term. No one has all the answers (and they are all politicians and will, to a greater or lesser extent, say what it takes to get elected).

My bet is, with Obama’s focus on alternative energy development and education, his long term results will be far advanced beyon McCain’s “buy every one a house” technique.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=DWCAP]Obama for smaller Gov. RIGHT! Same as he is gonna cut spending like he promised in the last Debate right?

“The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found that both Obama and McCain are proposing combinations of tax and spending policies that would increase the federal deficit. It found that in 2013, Obama’s proposals would produce a net deficit increase of $286 billion, while McCain’s major policies would produce a net deficit increase of between $167 billion and $259 billion. In talking to CNN, CRFB President Maya MacGuineas estimated that McCain’s deficit increase would fall midway between the extremes of that range, at $211 billion.” -Factcheck.org

I know gandoff and breeze and the rest wont listen to this, but those of you saying that Republicans are entirely to blame and Democrats, ANY democrat, is better are no better than the red state blindmen you so hate. Policies matter, not the letter after your name, and frankly our two choices have nearly the same polices. So our choice is bad policies or exactly the same bad policies in a little different wrapper. WOW! whata choice.
[/quote]

Thanks for the objective comparison of deficit results. Interesting. I am curious how far out their projections go? My hope is some plan will work long term. No one has all the answers (and they are all politicians and will, to a greater or lesser extent, say what it takes to get elected).

My bet is, with Obama’s focus on alternative energy development and education, his long term results will be far advanced beyon McCain’s “buy every one a house” technique.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=DWCAP]Obama for smaller Gov. RIGHT! Same as he is gonna cut spending like he promised in the last Debate right?

“The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found that both Obama and McCain are proposing combinations of tax and spending policies that would increase the federal deficit. It found that in 2013, Obama’s proposals would produce a net deficit increase of $286 billion, while McCain’s major policies would produce a net deficit increase of between $167 billion and $259 billion. In talking to CNN, CRFB President Maya MacGuineas estimated that McCain’s deficit increase would fall midway between the extremes of that range, at $211 billion.” -Factcheck.org

I know gandoff and breeze and the rest wont listen to this, but those of you saying that Republicans are entirely to blame and Democrats, ANY democrat, is better are no better than the red state blindmen you so hate. Policies matter, not the letter after your name, and frankly our two choices have nearly the same polices. So our choice is bad policies or exactly the same bad policies in a little different wrapper. WOW! whata choice.
[/quote]

Thanks for the objective comparison of deficit results. Interesting. I am curious how far out their projections go? My hope is some plan will work long term. No one has all the answers (and they are all politicians and will, to a greater or lesser extent, say what it takes to get elected).

My bet is, with Obama’s focus on alternative energy development and education, his long term results will be far advanced beyon McCain’s “buy every one a house” technique.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=DWCAP]Obama for smaller Gov. RIGHT! Same as he is gonna cut spending like he promised in the last Debate right?

“The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found that both Obama and McCain are proposing combinations of tax and spending policies that would increase the federal deficit. It found that in 2013, Obama’s proposals would produce a net deficit increase of $286 billion, while McCain’s major policies would produce a net deficit increase of between $167 billion and $259 billion. In talking to CNN, CRFB President Maya MacGuineas estimated that McCain’s deficit increase would fall midway between the extremes of that range, at $211 billion.” -Factcheck.org

I know gandoff and breeze and the rest wont listen to this, but those of you saying that Republicans are entirely to blame and Democrats, ANY democrat, is better are no better than the red state blindmen you so hate. Policies matter, not the letter after your name, and frankly our two choices have nearly the same polices. So our choice is bad policies or exactly the same bad policies in a little different wrapper. WOW! whata choice.
[/quote]

Thanks for the objective comparison of deficit results. Interesting. I am curious how far out their projections go? My hope is some plan will work long term. No one has all the answers (and they are all politicians and will, to a greater or lesser extent, say what it takes to get elected).

My bet is, with Obama’s focus on alternative energy development and education, his long term results will be far advanced beyon McCain’s “buy every one a house” technique.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=DWCAP]Obama for smaller Gov. RIGHT! Same as he is gonna cut spending like he promised in the last Debate right?

“The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found that both Obama and McCain are proposing combinations of tax and spending policies that would increase the federal deficit. It found that in 2013, Obama’s proposals would produce a net deficit increase of $286 billion, while McCain’s major policies would produce a net deficit increase of between $167 billion and $259 billion. In talking to CNN, CRFB President Maya MacGuineas estimated that McCain’s deficit increase would fall midway between the extremes of that range, at $211 billion.” -Factcheck.org

I know gandoff and breeze and the rest wont listen to this, but those of you saying that Republicans are entirely to blame and Democrats, ANY democrat, is better are no better than the red state blindmen you so hate. Policies matter, not the letter after your name, and frankly our two choices have nearly the same polices. So our choice is bad policies or exactly the same bad policies in a little different wrapper. WOW! whata choice.
[/quote]

Thanks for the objective comparison of deficit results. Interesting. I am curious how far out their projections go? My hope is some plan will work long term. No one has all the answers (and they are all politicians and will, to a greater or lesser extent, say what it takes to get elected).

My bet is, with Obama’s focus on alternative energy development and education, his long term results will be far advanced beyon McCain’s “buy every one a house” technique.

[an]

[quote=Shadowfax]
My bet is, with Obama’s focus on alternative energy development and education, his long term results will be far advanced beyon McCain’s “buy every one a house” technique.
[/quote]
I don’t know about you, but I much prefer McCain’s solution on energy and education. He wanted to do all of the above for energy, which includes, wind, solar, nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, and of course, oil. His position on education is let the parents have choices and reward good teachers. I don’t see anything wrong w/ that.

[an]

[quote=Shadowfax]
My bet is, with Obama’s focus on alternative energy development and education, his long term results will be far advanced beyon McCain’s “buy every one a house” technique.
[/quote]
I don’t know about you, but I much prefer McCain’s solution on energy and education. He wanted to do all of the above for energy, which includes, wind, solar, nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, and of course, oil. His position on education is let the parents have choices and reward good teachers. I don’t see anything wrong w/ that.

[an]

[quote=Shadowfax]
My bet is, with Obama’s focus on alternative energy development and education, his long term results will be far advanced beyon McCain’s “buy every one a house” technique.
[/quote]
I don’t know about you, but I much prefer McCain’s solution on energy and education. He wanted to do all of the above for energy, which includes, wind, solar, nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, and of course, oil. His position on education is let the parents have choices and reward good teachers. I don’t see anything wrong w/ that.

[an]

[quote=Shadowfax]
My bet is, with Obama’s focus on alternative energy development and education, his long term results will be far advanced beyon McCain’s “buy every one a house” technique.
[/quote]
I don’t know about you, but I much prefer McCain’s solution on energy and education. He wanted to do all of the above for energy, which includes, wind, solar, nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, and of course, oil. His position on education is let the parents have choices and reward good teachers. I don’t see anything wrong w/ that.

[Author]

Posts