ACORN, Obama, and the Mortgage Mess

well, they didn't "lower the bar" for president. that honor goes to the republicans. congrats

do you ever make a post that doesn't blame someone else for america's problems?

Lefty "2.1"

Your hypocrisy is monumental in scope and scale!
You and yours (Pelosi, Dodd, Frank) blame all of this on Bush and the republicans when they are as responsible or more so in historical fact. If they would own up to their culpability along with the republicans we would all be better off.

"thou dost protest too much, methinks"

"Encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks."

Obama was part of a community group, ACORN, that complained vigerously when "banks were not loaning enough to specified neighbourhood, income group, and race".

Dr D...this is NOT an economic plan, nor is it economic experience. What in the world convinces the lemmings that Obama has an economic leg to stand on? Emperor's new clothes!

dark, i think pelosi is an idiot. i'm against this "party line" bs that is taking over 100%

but i didn't blame bush for all of america's problems. i replied to a ridiculous and useless post, and said that bush was horrendous. do you really think that bush didn't lower the bar for president?

so show me where my grand hypocrisy lies?

Wronghanded. This entire concept of personal destruction started 8 years ago about five minutes after Bush was declared the winner in Florida.

The Dems have B***** and whined for 8 solid years about every single idea Bush has tried. They have gone out of thier way to avoid saying anything positive about the Republican party. Pelosi just reiterated the Dem party line when she lambasted the Repubs and Bush just minutes before a "Bi-partisan" vote was needed yesterday. Her's and Harry Reed's entire platform is based on hatred for Bush and Republicans.

Got news for you. The Democrat elected Mayor of the most Democrat City in the US (WASH DC), brought in a new Democrat Head for the worst school district in the country. She fired about 40 democrat hired, useless principles, and has endorsed "No Child Left Behind" and McCains education plan over Obama's. Have you heard that in the news. Probably not.

Biden can't even figure out who was president during the depression, nor when TV was invented, but he'll gladly put out misinformation for political purposes. I've been listening to the Dems call Repubs names for eight years. Payback is hell.

so, is that to say, that bush wasn't a horrible president?

Wronghanded, No Bush was not a horrible president, Bush did have some rather disasterous turn of events during his administration, but Bush was also up against the anti-Bush regime. Its like BK said, the dems in congress have been out to get him because of the hanging chad crap (which was Gore) in 2000. There's some bad blood in the dem camp and like little children they won't let go, so the American people suffer for it.

Actually it's turned the mortgage industry into an entitlement program. That transformation will continue unless congress is stopped. If you took out a housing loan you can't pay back then you need to start looking for an apartment to rent. If you made stock market investments, you need to talk to the person that somehow convinced you that there were no risks in the stock market. It's time to take responsibility for yourself. It's not the government's job to make you happy or financially secure. Deal with it.

" I agree with your sentiments too, people need to stop looking to blame others for their own mistakes."

100% agree. So what's with this article and John McCain blaming Obama? Hypocrite much?

he's blaming Obama and Pelosi for the bailout being rejected right after taking credit for uniting the GOP. even though more reps voted against it than dems.

um, no. McCain and the GOP is blaming speeches given by Pelosi and Obama for the bailout being rejected (in large part by the 133 republicans voting against it)

you can't say "...people need to stop looking to blame others for their own mistakes." while looking to blame Obama for this Doc

just shoving his foot further down his throat.

and that's not really a response to my quote you used, but ok...

either stop trying to blame obama for this, or quit preaching "individual responsibility"

one or the other doc

ah, the classic "i don't have to answer to anything cause you haven't answered me the way i want yet."

obama trained the staff for a little bit. how is that a "means to an ends?"

mccain is blaming obama for swaying the republicans into voting against the bailout. the same bailout that mccain had already taken credit for passing. even though it didn't pass. that work for ya? probably not, it never does.

you on the other hand have created an entire thread about how Obama is the reason for this crisis, while at the same time shouting down from your ivory tower that we really need to stop blaming others. i thought doctors took the Hippocratic oath, not the hypocrite one

McCain is a double talking hypocrite because:

1st: He accused Obama of "sitting on the sidelines" and not doing anything for the bailout.
Then: He blamed Obama for causing it not to be passed.

How could he do both? He can't, thus the hypocrisy.

as for the rest...

i never said McCain is solely responsible for the state we're in. You, and McCain, are trying to pin it on Obama. The blame doesn't fall on one person like you seem to think it does.

i never said that was the extent of his community organizing, no need to put words in my mouth. i said it was the extent of his ACORN affiliation. good try though

Of course people shouldn't have taken out loans they couldn't afford to repay, but organizations Obama was a part of helped fuel this kind of lending.

that sort of sounds like you admitting people shouldn't have taken these loans, and then blaming obama for it

damn, didn't close my tag.

research, but doesn't that involve facts and crap? to hell with that man. facts are for liberal dumb asses

The fundamentals of our economy are strong, and Americans are just a bunch of whiners... No, wait, we mean the American workers are strong.

Obama has no executive experience and hasn't been around long enough to accomplish anything of substance... except this huge financial mess.

John McCain can step in and fix this mess by forging a bipartisan agreement, because that's what he does so well. Obama is just going to phone it in. No, wait, the deals a mess now and it's all Obama's fault.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

i agree. how can mccain blame of not doing anything (while the deal's going well) and then blame him for doing everything (when it doesn't pass)

Could be the Ambien McCain is taking. The first side affects mentioned are: Sleepwalking, and eating or driving while not fully awake, with amnesia for the event, have been reported.

The truth is that in a time of turmoil everyone is looking for change, but no one is actually looking at facts, they hear a good speech by a man of color and right away they think this is change lets go for it, but no one is looking at the man himself, his background and his beliefs, He lies and twists his words to fit the mission and still no one is checking him out. I don't know if they just don't care, if they don't have time or what it is , but making an uninformed vote, will be the most devastating decision you could make for your children and grandchildren, we will lose America and that is a fact.

He lies and twists his words to fit the mission and still no one is checking him out. I don't know if they just don't care, if they don't have time or what it is , but making an uninformed vote, will be the most devastating decision you could make for your children and grandchildren, we will lose America and that is a fact.

i think you meant to put mccain there bev...

Wrong, thats funny I didn't mention any names...But no I don't think McCain is a man of color

isn't pale a color?

and it's not exactly a secret from your other posts who you're rootin for here bev.

so tell me, what's your opinion on McCain going about how Obama is on the sidelines doing nothing for the bailout, then about facing now and blaming him for ruining everything? tell me, would you say...

...He lies and twists his words to fit the mission?

Here's what I'll say Wrong, McCain made the right choice to put the politics aside last week and join congress to try to rally the repubs, I think that it showed that he has not totally abandoned his position as senator, the dems really didn't want him there because they were accusing him of trying to take credit for it, all the while Obama put his position as senator on the back burner to persue his political swindling of the American people, unless they CALLED him. The democrates tried to screw the American people some more with their legislation that even they knew was a blunder and got pissed off because the repub's saw through it, because the dems could've passed it by themselves. And as far as Obama on the sidelines I agree because Obama doesn't know what to do and he doesn't have the balls to admit it.

1. McCain contributed nothing to the bailout bill.

2. Giving an interview with Katie Couric, while cancelling his Letterman appearance, is putting your campaign on hold?

3. McCain did take credit for "rallying" the republicans. Then most of them voted against it.

4. McCain was for the bill, so wouldn't he be trying to "screw us" too then?

5. You completely avoided the double talk of McCain. How could Obama ruin the bill while doing nothing on the sidelines? Either he wasn't "on the sidelines", or he didn't "blow it." or maybe, just maybe, that he didn't do either of those. there's a saying involving cake that fits here i think...

6. Obama doesn't know what to do and he doesn't have the balls to admit it. So tell me, what's McCain's plan?

1. It wasn't about contribution, it was about rallying the repubs to vote.
2. the interview with Couric, was done on the day he suspended the campaign where he said he would go to Washington the next day, which he did.
3. He did rally the repubs and they saw through the corrupt legislation the dems tried to pass.
4. McCain agreed with part of the bill but the dems tried to swindle the American people adding in things like 20% to Acorn organizations with no payback to the taxpayers.
5. Obama was on the sidelines because he like the rest of the dems were expecting it to pass by having repubs get it through, so they wouldn't have to admit to the blunders later.
6. McCain feels there should be accountability by the banks and corp. that failed, he would like to have the money insured with restrictions for non-payment and hold the companies accountable, not the taxpayers

Obama was on the sidelines

Ok, so then he isn't to blame for it not passing then. McCain lied when he said that.

"It wasn't about contribution, it was about rallying the repubs to vote"

haha, give me V! give me a O! give me a T! give me E!

Obama did sit on the sidelines and no he isn't responsible for not passing it, but at the same time the legislation was flawed and the Dems knew it and thats why it didn't pass muster, If they really wanted it to pass they could have gotten through without the repubs.
It was all set up so if it did pass the dems would get their earmarks through by using the financial crisis, making it worse for the American taxpayers, because they would not get repayment from Organizations like ACORN. It was sneaky and underminded by the democrats. This is an indication as to what will happen should O get elected, because with the democratic congress they will be putting through a bunch of expensive policies and plans that the American taxpayers will be responsible for, and we can't afford it.
And I wouldn't be saying McCain lied, because I can bring up several times that Obama has been less than honest, If you'd like.

unlike you, apparently, i'm not a big believer in the "he did it too" mentality. you could tell me that obama lied every time he opened his mouth and it wouldn't take away from all the times mccain has lied, double talked, flipped, etc.

wronghanded, I suppose in your mind it wouldn't "TAKE AWAY", because it is easy to see
how you will support O regardless of the slimbag he really is. But I guess he's pretty.

you're not getting it, and you're actually guilty of exactly the same thing you're accusing me of bev. one slime bag doesn't make the next any better

I suppose

Yes Ron, it was Barney. Did you check out the video in 1.14 ?

Brian, There is every oppotunity in America to lift yourself up, but it should not be the responsible taxpayers having to support the ones that fail to take the opportunities. Most people are not born with silver spoons in their mouths, but work hard doing the right things to achieve their goals. Why should the ones that work hard at being productive American's be the ones Mr. Obama points to, to pay the bill?

Danny,

I did, in fact, read the seeded article. The perspective I've gained from it suggests that the fault for this financial crisis lies with ACORN, and Obama's support of it.

Which, stepping outside of partisan politics, is really the only card the GOP has to play here. I understand that. I mean, what else are you going to talk about? The fervent Republican economic mantra of less regulation - free-up capital - let business grow?

No, of course not.

Or, will you talk about the virtues of top-down economics in which heavy tax-cuts, loopholes and government subsidies for big corporations and the wealthy few are actually in the best interest of average Americans? No, you won't...er, can't - seeing how the average worker's pay, given inflation has actually gone down over the last 30years while the average CEOs pay has increased 300times in that same period.

No, what you are left to do is to reach into your bag of tricks and pull out a stalwart Republican issue of great cultural divisiveness. It posits that hardworking Americans will have to fund lazy, freeloading Americans with their hard-earned tax dollars.

Of course, "hardworking", in this argument, implies white, and "freeloading" implies minority.

So, McCain via 527s in the coming weeks will do everything short of asking the public directly, "Do you feel comfortable with a black man as President."

Wow, Brian, it took you 6 paragraphs to play the race card. I wish you had put it in the first paragraph then I could skip the rest of your post.

Truth hurts, Janice.

Brian, Hard working does not imply anything except hard work. If you catagorize yourself as a lazy minority thats your problem, But the truth is the ones that pay the taxes in this country are getting tired of supporting those that don't.
I see it everyday in my line of work, People taking tax money for section 8 housing yet they drive their fancy cars around town.
When I was a foster mom with 3 abused babies I would get a wic subsidey to get milk for these children and everytime I'd go there I would see people come in to get their handouts driving brand new escalades, BMW's and cadillacs. And yet you say they are the have nots. They are lazy, no good leaches.

Look Beverly, I'm not trying to change your mind. I think I know where you're coming from.

All I'm doing is saying that I understand the strategic motive behind this argument.

It is what it is. And, what it is, is all the McCain camp has left in the tank.

And Brian if you research some of the associations and organizations that Obama has afilliated himself with you will see that is not all the MCCAIN CAMP has to go on, I'm sure it will get uglier in the next few weeks.

I know many Obama supporters support him because he is a liberal and liberals tend to politicize vicimization, playing on the ones that feel they are victims, but you make your own bed in this life and if you continuously run to someone else to bail you out, you have not taken responsibility for your own actions. That is the number one cause of all of this financial mess, its ruthless spending on organizations set forth to protect the people when in actuality they are in place to exploit the ones that they are there to "HELP".
Until the American people understand that they are responsible for the choices they make, we will never enjoy the prosperity that this nation once had, again.
Its the mentality that some people share as to the government will pay for their individual mistakes that hurts us all.

politicalcenter:

Top-down economics is working swimmingly. Carry on.

Brian, he mis-typed. He meant to say McCain instead of Obama. Then it makes sense.

Four more years of the stagnation and failed economic policies of King W.

Brian/CuriousG - You couldn't be more wrong. The economy was doing great until the Dems took over Congress. Our economy was hardly "stagnated" prior to that.

hahahahaha. my god, you're serious? oh, sorry.

the dems took over congress and,

the country goes to hell like that. nevermind the effect the current admin and previous republican controlled congress had. it's their mess now!

Wronghanded1 - Yep.

What you said is something that people who don't want to take responsibility usually say.

You've been on mental vacation the last eight years? We have some of the worst eight years not because of the republicans but because we've had an attack on our land, Hurricans be the dozens, floods, and recovery that walls street has raped us with. We've had a mortgage bubble that grew so fast that it burst, and for the last two years a democratic congress that was aware of the potential financial crisis that did not curtail the inevidable.

Excellent points, Beverly.

And completely inept leadership.

Right now Obama's in a corner somewhere trying to figure out how he can rewrite history so he never had any association with Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson. It'll be interesting to see that work of fiction.

Look, the past eight years haven't been nearly as bad as the past year and a half - which is when the Dems took over Congress.

Other than this and Sept 11th (which was essentially outside of our control and is not reflective of economic policy) the years in between were some of the most profitable in our entire history.

If you want to get out of this mess, not only do we need a Republican President, but we need a Republican Congress again.

I hear ya sc

There was a culture of deregulation, greed and failure long before the Democrats retook congress. In fact that is the very reason the Democrats retook congress if you will recall. Enron, Tyco, Worldcom and a several other huge corporate disasters come to mind as part of the Republican business mindset. Trillions in borrowed money doesn't get counted a profitable.

Dan, So your saying the Dem's came riding in on their silver horses to save the day? They did a lousy job didn't they? The great Dem superhero's failed emphatically, look at the approval rating of your great superhero's, not to impressive.
You also commented on the enept leadership, I agree Nancy Pelosi has to go.

Beverly, I wish we could abolish the party system, pack up all of DC, and start over.

Dan, I agree with you as far as the party system. That is one of the major reasons for supporting JM, Even though I know he is part of the party system, he is the only hope to get away from it, His record shows that, He does not always walk the line with his party, but you know as well as I do, If you don't belong to the 2 party system, your likelyhood of getting elected are nil to none.

I am inclined to agree. We have suffered at the hands of the 2 party system long enough. I would rather vote for anyone other than these 2 right now. I am going to be looking for any viable choice besides the good ole' boys club on either side.

Honestly, though, it will never happen - at least not in this election. It's either going to be BO or JM.

There are 6 people running for the presidency right now, one is even a black American woman. Go figure.

I totally agree with you, Lisa. ACORN is under investigation for Voter fraud, housing fraud, embexxlement and misuses of taxpayerfunds. And the dems thought it was wise to slip it into the bail-out bill...thats responsible. They knew if it had passed they would get the blame later, thats why they wanted the house repubs to vote, because they could've passed it on their own.

Lisaed and Beverly.

Ditto.

It was pretty brazen trying to attach an ACORN earmark to this bill! What are they smoking? Must be some good stuff!

AMR. I agree, they know exactly what happened and they are just going to give it a pass, like they always do.

AMR,
Thanks for your comments! I boggles my mind how far they will take things. When you follow the money trail, it is kind of suspicious, don't you think? Obama worked for ACORN..Obama asks for earmarks for ACORN...ACORN gives to Obama's campaign. Does anyone else think this is fishy?

(D) Clo

Nahhhhhhh!

I like the analogy.

What grows from $20 BILLION ACORNS?

May not be the anti-christ be it surely isn't something Obama should be proud of... but then neither are the other organizations and associations that I posted above. He clearly has one Agenda and its not for the betterment of our nation.

No, they're not the anti-Christ. They're a left-wing radical organization promoting anti-capitalist redistributionism of wealth.

"We are the majority, forged from all the minorities," reads the group's "People's Platform,"... "We will continue our fight . . . until we have shared the wealth, until we have won our freedom . . . . We have nothing to show for the work of our hand, the tax of our labor"

Janice, don't forget the voter registration fraud they throw in for free.

Unproven. Just like the voter registration fraud by the Republican Party, so far.

Hey Orwell!

Voter fraud...Unproven???

Democrat children will be delighted to know that these characters took time from their incredibly busy schedules to vote for Kerry in '04: Cinderella, Snow White, Goofy, Lancelot, Pinocchio, plus several other beloved Disney icons...not to mention thousands of the dearly departed (i.e. DEAD people).

It truly is a small, small world.

Proof? Your statement is not proof of ACORN having anything to do with that, if it happened at all. Your statement is just your opinion until you provide proof.

The source for the following recitation of facts is from a well known tabloid rag (yes, ladies and gentlemen, the lowly regarded Wall Street Journal):

"Acorn and its affiliates have pulled some real stunts in recent years. In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a Congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained Acorn's practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier."

Recitation of opinion. That is an opinion piece. Please provide verifiable proof. Otherwise, I will just consider you what you are: another republican shill.

Headline: ACORN Workers Indicted For Alleged Voter Fraud

Of course, Orwell, the indictment only came about because it was the OPINION of the Grand Jury who heard the evidence, so maybe that doesn't count in leftist fantasy-land.

Oops..."ACORN Worker Pleads Guilty to Vote Fraud in Kansas City, Mo."

Sources:

ACORN Workers Indicted For Alleged Voter Fraud:
(dot)com/politics/10214492/detail.html

ACORN Worker Pleads Guilty to Vote Fraud in Kansas City, Mo.":
(dot)org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=2048

Right Doc,

What they really meant to say was that all of the others involved in the fraud got away with it. It's like prosecuting any criminal...even though they've been caught in ONE crime you know darn well that they've gotten away with dozens of others before getting busted.

George, I'll I ever see you write in your comments is PROOF, how about you disproving what is out there?
You have no argument to make nothing you say is credible, try researching, you can start with list I provided above.

hahahaha. "george, you prove things too much. you're an idiot because you don't disprove me.

Canis

Thank you for the information. Would you be so kind as to supply the same for the Republican Party. I happen to know of at least two cases.

until we have shared the wealth

Speaks volumes of the socialist agenda of this group and Barak Obama.

What ever happened to working for your money instead of having it handed to you for nothing? That is what it is all about. Bringing the free enterprise system and just do nothing and get the same as those that do something.

I think I remember that kind of thinking somewhere else, what was it called?

OH YEAH!

Communism is the word.

so what does one does Palin belong to? NUT?

Wronghanded, thats all you got? Typical liberal reply bring in Palin, but what your forgetting is Palin trumps Obama on readiness and experience.

Wronghanded1 - Palin is running for VP, not P. And, you'd be surprised how many people like her because of her ACTUAL STANCE on the REAL ISSUES - not her gotcha interview by Charles Gibson or the sharpshooting by Katie Couric. Could Palin be more polished? Yes, and I think she will be. But why don't we vote on the issues instead of whether or not McCain looked at Obama during a debate? So what?

Your comment has nothing to do with the fact that Obama has ties to this radical organization.

he said underqualified. Palin is as underqualified as they come. thus the connection. want to talk about the real issues? GREAT! how about we talk about them? you accuse me of taking the subject off of them, yet you want to talk about who Obama has talked to in the past. How exactly is ACORN a radical orginization? How about the Keating 5? Should we talk about that too?

Wronghanded, HERE WE GO AGAIN, Keating 5 is not worth the air it takes to say it, MCCain was mislead and yes involved but was exonerated for any involvment, the other 4 were Democrates. Would you like to continue with Rezco, Wright, Farrakhan, bill Ayers, Saul alinski, frankiln Raines, jim johnson and I can go on.

yeah, lets.

Rezco, Wright, Farrakhan, bill Ayers, Saul alinski, frankiln Raines, jim johnson are not worth the air it takes to say them.

i know it's dumb to talk about the Keating 5. but it is exactly the same as you bringing up the same garbage.

let's talk about the actual issues people

Keating 5 = the PAST

Rezco, Wright, Farrakhan, Ayers, Alinski, Raines, Johnson, etc. = the PRESENT

interesting. all of these are past affiliates of Obama. where is the line that separates past from present bev?

Canis, your right, but thats all they have, can't blame em for trying, they know their candidate is up his eyebrows in shiot and continously say his affiliations amount to nothing, I guess if your a Muslim, Commie you wouldn't be able to see the problem.

Wrong, I would say you could draw the line by dates of prosecution, If they relate to the current events of the day, and if you go by actual years, I say 10 maybe 15 years past, if the candidate is still on the same belief system.

"I guess if your a Muslim, Commie you wouldn't be able to see the problem."

there it is. a whole board without seeing, he''s a muslim come out.

so much for logical debate

Wronghanded, is the fact that he is a Muslim a problem for you, it was he who said he was a Muslim, it is he who held citizenship in Indonesia (which was illegal to hold dual citizenship in Indo. prior to 2007), it was he who said in his book that he would stand with the Muslims.
It was he that sat in a church for 20 years with an anti-american racist preacher (and never heard his sermons) It was he who was a chairperson for an organization founded by a known terrorist. This is your candidate, why does it make you uncomfortable to speak of his "accomplishments" ?

is the fact that he is a Muslim a problem for you, it was he who said he was a Muslim, it is he who held citizenship in Indonesia (which was illegal to hold dual citizenship in Indo. prior to 2007), it was he who said in his book that he would stand with the Muslims.
It was he that sat in a church for 20 years with an anti-american racist preacher (and never heard his sermons) It was he who was a chairperson for an organization founded by a known terrorist. This is your candidate, why does it make you uncomfortable to speak of his "accomplishments" ?

All debunked, Bev.

this is a pointless conversation. you refuse to accept facts, yet spout forth factless smears like old faithful.

is the fact that he's a not muslim, a terrorist, anti-american, commie a problem for you? oh wait, i think i know the answer. because when you run out of lies and smears he drop kicks your ol' buddy mccain up and down the race.

"Good luck trying." So you are not open to the truth?

"For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which in turn pressured banks and other lenders -- to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity.

Were there some predatory lenders? Of course. But only a fool or a demagogue -- i.e., a presidential candidate -- would suggest that this is a major part of the problem."

To shift the blame only to the GOP is ludicrous.

I tried but if you are so closed to the truth, that would be a personal problem!

"Bill Clinton backed some deregulation legislation in the mid '90s if I remember correctly"

That's a big point that everyone is ignoring.

Phil Gramm is John McCain's good friend and until recently his campaign co-chair and senior economic advisor. McCain threw him under the bus when he publicly said American's are a bunch of whiners and the fundamentals of the economy are strong. McCain said the same thing recently, but then when the economy slipped a couple of days later insisted that he was referring to the American workers being fundamentally strong — instead of whiners.

Gramm was a strong believer in deregulation and is responsible for the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act" which was voted in by the Republican congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton during 1999. This act deregulated the banks and undid the protections of the "Glass-Steagall Act" established after the Great Depression. That's the beginning of where we are today. Although as written above some would like to go back to the 1970s to be able to blame it on Jimmy Carter. (Who knew it would explode so suddenly after 30 years — 22 of them under Republican rule?)

Castenada, take the time to watch the video posted in 1.14, maybe it will give you some in site

Darkdonnie is slightly misinformed. Until 2002, the percentage of mortgages which were subprime was a whopping 2%. In 2002, that number jumped to 20%.

There's plenty of blame to go around. It's just interesting that all these articles are trying to blame the Democrats.

"There's plenty of blame to go around. It's just interesting that all these articles are trying to blame the Democrats."

What about "bipartisan" do you not understand?

It is funny how you are pointing out blame and missed "To shift the blame only to the GOP is ludicrous."

Only I have clearly said it was both, are you trying to say the dems are blameless?

no, but this whole board is about how it's all the dems fault

DD,

Aren't you reading what the other posters write? Except for WH and a very few others, every poster has blamed the Dems for everything from the present credit crisis to the sinking of the Titanic.

I can't wait to see how these posters will blame Democrats for the War of 1812.

Wronghanded, George,and Dark donnie, You know what, there are boards I can go to right now that don't "play fair"' if you are a republican, just lick your wounds and stop crying...we still like you, we have to have someone to spar with.

Well, that's not true. Most of the liberals posting here have spent their time debunking the bull@!$%# you and yours have tried to ram down our throats. Or do you not read your own thread.

We have had to retaliate in kind in some places because the complete and utter bull@!$%# you have spewn leaves only one way to respond; in kind. Instead of having a reasoned discussion, we've had to respond to outright lies (the CRA is the cause of the credit meltdown) and half-truths (Obama worked in the past with ACORN; ACORN did some things which were wrong: Therefore Obama did something wrong).

Not only that, but you have tried to blame the whole mortgage mess on Obama and denied that McCain tried to do exact same thing concerning the bailout. You're seriously delusional if you believe that you have in any way been fair and/or even-handed.

This is just more Republican bull@!$%#.

Still waiting for that debunking. Here's a partial debunking, right here: GOP sound and fury about ACORN is a little bit nutty.

It addresses the voter registration portion of your "article"-- ACORN members have been prosecuted for voter fraud in a number of states. (See www.rottenacorn.com.) Their philosophy seems to be that everyone deserves the right to vote, whether legal or illegal, living or dead.

The CRA portion is debunked here:

The "Liberal" Subprime Crisis: Myth and Reality

and here:

The Republican Roots of the Subprime Crisis

There's more if you need it.

From what I can make out from "GOP sound and fury about ACORN is a little bit nutty" it's claiming that ACORN have never been found guilty of wrong doing. The evidence says otherwise. It doesn't debunk a thing. Then apparently you didn't actually read it.

The charge that ACORN engages in "outright voter fraud" and "illegal voting" activity seems to be based on a handful of cases over many years. For example, three ACORN canvassers pleaded guilty to voter fraud in Seattle in 2007, and eight pleaded guilty to fraud in Missouri in 2004. By comparison, ACORN had thousands of canvassers across the country and more than 100 canvassers working in Michigan alone in these instances.

In one case in 2004, ACORN was sued in a Florida court for voter fraud and filed counter charges of defamation and won. The judge dismissed the initial suit with prejudice and agreed that the allegations of fraud were false and defamatory.

...Gerald Hebert, a retired U.S. Department of Justice voting rights expert who served under Republican and Democratic presidents, says the kind of fraud that the GOP is charging ACORN with — deliberately registering fictitious people or registering the same person in two different precincts — is extremely rare.

Extremely rare means a small but non-zero number of cases. Please educate yourself.

The CRA started the snowball on this and Obama played his part too. Bull@!$%#. The facts are that the CRA mitigated the subprime crisis. The CRA was intended to address discrimination against creditworthy customers, not extend credit to uncreditworthy ones.

(b) Purposes. In enacting the CRA, the Congress required each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to assess an institution's record of helping to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which the institution is chartered, consistent with the safe and sound operation of the institution, and to take this record into account in the agency's evaluation of an application for a deposit facility by the institution.

The legislation allowing the abuse came from the Democrats and Bush appears to have rendered the situation worse. The legislation allowing the abuse came from Republicans-- the GLBA, for instance. As few as one in four subprime mortgages came from CRA regulated institutions. It's a bit of a problem, then, for you to be claiming the CRA drove the crisis, especially as after 2001 there was very little CRA activity, even as subprime lending bloomed.

I haven't said in here that Republicans are blameless. Nor have you admitted any complicity by Republicans. In fact, you've taken every opportunity to simply brush aside their responsibility in the mess.

For Obama to be claiming he's the strong one on the economy is somewhat disingenuous and that's putting it politely. He's far stronger on the economy than McCain. Obama actually introduced the STOP FRAUD Act, some three months before McCain saw fit to mumble a few repetitions of the OFHEO report in 2005. So you'll pardon me if I look at your judgment and conclude that, like John McCain's, it's a bit faulty.

This seed was about Obama, ACORN and the mortgage mess. The three are linked. Your seed makes insupportable assertions about ACORN and the CRA. Therefore, I don't think it has much credibility in the long run.

But don't let facts get in the way of your rant. Have at it.

You are about as wet as a wetdream in a category 1 Hurricane. Yeah, that's about the quality of response I expected. Thanks for playing.

I'd tread carefully there. I'd hate to have to embarrass you by getting into a "my education was better than yours" slanging match. Whatever.

due the weakness of your argument requiring a personal attack, "rare" is subjective. Whine much? "Rare" may be subjective, but a handful of cases out of tens of thousands of registrations hardly rises to the level of "common," nor do the handful of people implicated, out of the thousands of ACORN employees. You think that's "quite frequent," but the quoted voting rights expert disagrees with you. I'm assuming you're not a retired US Department of Justice voting rights expert. Are you?

It's possible that he's wrong and you're right, but I seriously doubt it.

The result wasn't quite the same though, was it? Actually, as the link I provided showed, the result was the same. The number of CRA loans involved in this mess is small. CRA loans were much likelier not to default than non-CRA subprime loans.

Uh, read the comment again. I did, what I see is you saying "OK, Bush-- but many Republicans disagreed with him." Care to explain how that statement does not fit the description "taking opportunity to simply brush aside Republican responsibility in the mess"?

Obama is planning widespread tax cuts along with over $800 billion in new spending I thought Republican dismay about Obama centered around his tax increases. Now the problem is tax cuts? Make up your mind as to which is supposed to be "bad."

John McCain's tax plan results in an additional $5 trillion added to the debt. Obama's, plan adds about $1.5 trillion less than McCain's to the debt. Yes, it's still deficit spending, but it's actually more responsible than McCain's plan by the tune of one and a half trillion dollars. That's going by the analysis of the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan organization. Additionally, Obama has been up front about the fact that under either plan (his or McCain's) the budget can't be balanced. McCain, on the other hand, has claimed that he WILL balance the budget. His claim is fraudulent (or simply ignorant), as noted by the Tax Policy center; Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition — a bipartisan fiscal responsibility advocacy group; and other organizations. He's claiming something that he simply cannot do.

You say Obama is proposing over $800 billion in new spending. There are many who would disagree.

The most detailed analysis of McCain's and Obama's budget plans comes from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The group's president, Maya MacGuineas (pronounced "McGuiness"), called McCain's statement "a misleading figure taken out of context."

The committee has looked at how much spending Obama and McCain are proposing and how much they say they'll save. The candidates have been more specific about spending than saving, but the committee gave them leeway, assuming that the savings they promise could actually happen, MacGuineas said. The committee's figures include the candidates' tax plans as well, because both include spending changes as part of their tax plans, she said.

The committee found that both candidates' fiscal policies call for spending a lot more than they bring in. By 2013, Obama's policies would add $286 billion to that year's deficit, while McCain's policies would add $211 billion, MacGuineas said.

That sure doesn't look like $800 billion to me.

They're supported. I suggest you read it. Read and rebutted. I suggest you read the links in the rebuttal.

Don't forget, your puny little personal attacks demonstrate the weakness of your argument. More bull@!$%#. Demonstrating the weakness of my argument would "demonstrate the weakness of my argument." This is something you've failed to do. On the other hand, I've detailed how your claims are simply so much horse@!$%#. I recognize that this is uncomfortable for you, but the way to address that is to either revise your claims, show how your claims actually evade the rebuttal, or remain silent. Whining about the fact that I think you should educate yourself is irrelevant.

You clearly didn't read the information contained in the links I provided-- hence, you should educate yourself. It's a simple statement of fact, which none of your histrionics obscure.

As I said previously; I fault both parties for this economic crisis. On the other hand I have trouble reconciling the statements that Mr. Bush, Mr. Paulson, and Mr. Graham made just a few weeks ago. They all said that the economy was in good shape. Mr. Paulson specifically said that the banks were strong. This can only mean that these people were either a) lying or b) too incompetent to see what others had been warning us about for quite some time.

With that being said I generally agree with Dr. Danny that profanity and personal attacks cloud the issue and if not weaken at least cheapen an argument. I think that for the most part newsviners are smart enough to stick to the facts. There is a saying that goes "If you are not angry your not paying attention" I, as a Buddhist, feel that if you are angry you are not entirely working with reason.

Oh, I'm sorry, pointing out that "rare" is subjective is a whine? No, whining that you're being attacked when someone notes that you're blabbering about an article that you haven't bothered to read is a whine.

Big, small, little or large, they played a part. Thanks for admitting that. Now we both know that they aren't the "cause" of the subprime mortgage mess. You're a little smarter. You're welcome.

Of course many Republicans disagree with Bush, but that wasn't brushing aside Republican responsibility like you're brushing aside Democrat responsibility. I've done that where exactly?

Because your quote involved only likely deficits and mentioned nothing of actual spending over the course of their first term. Where's the new spending? When non-partisan organizations are looking at the claim and finding it faulty, the fact that you cling to it says something about you.

I did, they don't rebut what's been said. If you don't think they rebut what's been said, then you didn't understand what you read.

You appear to be losing your temper. You're just making my words ring true. Not at all. I just refuse not to call bull@!$%# "bull@!$%#." The term has a meaning, and your words fit that meaning.

Your lack of respect for other users both violates the CofH and renders your argument weak. Again, showing the argument is weak is one thing, calling it weak is another. you do a lot of the latter and none of the former. That's your problem, not mine. Showing that you've not read something you're commenting on, and suggesting you educate yourself is not a "lack of respect" and certainly doesn't violate the CoH.

Call my argument weak all you like. Saying it and showing it will remain two different things.

If you let the facts speak for themselves and your argument was convincing, then you wouldn't need to resort to petty personal insults. But seeing as you are, well, that doesn't look good for you now, does it? Saying that you need to educate yourself before declaiming what an article says, especially in light of the fact that your claim was false, is no insult. You might want to look up the definition of the term.

I did, and it failed to debunk the claims made in the original seed.

Unfortunately iarnuocon they did. What you most likely aren't aware of is that while true they were not great in number the CRA's lower standards for these sub-prime loans came with the blessings of Fanny-M & Freddy-M the ability for the Loan Providers to Leverage these notes at ratios of up to... 100/1 The CRA itself states that lenders are to extend credit in ways that do not hurt the lender, in accord with sound business practices. I continue to hear about how the CRA forced banks to give out loans to bad credit risks, and when asked, the people making these claims continue not to provide the relevant data. Specifically, which section of the CRA forced lenders to offer zero-downpayment loans to people who were poor credit risks. Please cite the section.
Again, CRA loans represent a small portion of the subprime loans out there. CRA loans did not "cause" the subprime mess, especially inasmuch as CRA loans appear to have been much more secure, with a lower rate of default, than non-CRA loans.

And again, it was the Bush administration itself which directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in 2002, to offer zero downpayment mortgages and loans to poor credit risks, not the CRA. Sure, we can agree that greedy politicians of both stripes saw this as politically and financially expedient at the time. Shame on the Democrats who were complicit in this sleight of hand. But let's be honest about it, Republicans showed little political will to reign in the excesses that had been encouraged by their President, and which were benefiting their constituents, as well.

Danny can pretend this is not the truth, but it's counterfactual to do so.

They were a facilitator and a part of it. The cause? Not really. The whole problem, no. A part of the problem, certainly. I'll bite. CRA loans represented about 25% of the subprime loans. What percentage of CRA loans defaulted?

By the fact you're trying to pin near to all of this on Bush without mentioning the complicity of people like Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and John Kerry. ...Care to balance the equation up a little? See above. See also this comment from Tuesday (it doesn't excuse Democrats in Congress who knew there was a problem and did nothing about it.), or here (Do the Democrats bear some complicity? Obviously.), or here (The Democrats, of course, deserve their fair share of approbation, having done nothing, themselves, to address the problem, either.), or here (I'll be the first to admit that the problem could not exist without Democrat complicity.).

Where are you clear statements that any Republicans bear any responsibility for this mess?

Your link talked only about forecast deficits, it made no mention of actual spending figures. ...The fact you tried to pass off a "debunking" when your article (from CNN of all places) didn't actually mention what you were trying to debunk, well, that says something about you, does it not?

The statement: At a campaign stop Monday in Columbus, Ohio, Sen. John McCain said Sen. Barack Obama "has proposed more than $860 billion in new spending."

The Facts:

The McCain campaign is basing this figure on its own tally of how much money all of the new programs Obama has vowed to fund would ultimately cost. The total does not look at how much money Obama would save through cutbacks in other parts of his spending plan. It's important to note that McCain did not say "additional" spending.

...The most detailed analysis of McCain's and Obama's budget plans comes from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The group's president, Maya MacGuineas (pronounced "McGuiness"), called McCain's statement "a misleading figure taken out of context."

Didn't mention what was debunked? It's in the first sentence.

According to the CRFB-- McCain's proposed new spending = $524 billion and $563 billion in annual spending increases and tax cuts.
Obama's proposed new spending = $547 billion in annual spending increases and tax cuts
Their assessment of both plans after applying offsets from spending cuts and closing loopholes is that both would be proposing around $300 billion in "new spending."

But you're not doing that. Yes, I am. Either you didn't read the article when you claimed it absolved ACORN of any wrongdoing, or you were being disingenuous. those really are the only two options. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and decided you didn't read the article. Were you, instead, being disingenuous?

More than 2,000 fraudulent voter registration cards were submitted by the group during a voter registration drive. Gosh, if it's not their philosophy that babies and the dead should vote, it sure seems to be a non-explicit philosophy of deceit and lies and fraud. Nonsense. See, here's plenty of evidence that you didn't read the article.

Danforth and other ACORN critics note correctly that a significant number — typically around 30 percent — of those voter registration applications end up being rejected. About 3 percent to 5 percent of the applications collected are rejected because they're incomplete, and less than 1 percent are deemed illegible. About 25 percent of applications are rejected because they are duplicates.

But the rejection rate is not a sign of wrongdoing, say voting experts.

"We've got two sets of problems," says Mike Slater, executive director of Project Vote, which developed and administers the canvassing and quality control systems used by ACORN. "There are people who don't believe they're registered when in fact they are, or who think their registration is not up to date when they are. Then there are people who take pity on a canvasser and decide that they'll help them out by completing a registration form even though it's useless."

The bulk of the duplication problem, Slater says, is "people who decide that it won't hurt to complete a card, so they're just gonna go ahead and do it."

Now you can feel free to dismiss the conclusions of voting rights experts, that fraud on the part of ACORN is rare, but I don't think you have the credibility that they do. When the executive director of the nonprofit voting rights organization that was founded by Trevor Potter, who represents the McCain campaign in lawsuits over voter suppression, says that deliberately registering fictitious people or registering the same person in two different precincts is extremely rare, I'm going to give his word a bit more weight than your anti-ACORN website. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Because it seems the only you can support your case is by including duplicate registrations which are NOT fraud as "fraud." By the way, how many ACORN employees have been convicted of fraud, and what percentage does that number make out of all ACORN employees over the years? Any clue?

A local sheriff in Albequerque said it was widespread. And numerous voting rights experts say he's wrong. Hmmm... who to go with, here? A local sheriff or voting rights experts? I tell ya, I'm plum befuddled as to who would have a better grasp on the issue. Your thoughts?

If your argument was as water tight as you claim you'd let that do the talking rather than screaming BS all the time. If you didn't engage in bull@!$%# so often, I wouldn't have to point it out. And, for the record, we're dealing in a print medium, here. Kind of hard to "scream" in print, although I guess the convention of "all caps" might serve as an indication. Care to explain how you reach a conclusion that I've "screamed"?

The CRA started the ball rolling. ...there were also very questionable loans given within the scope of the CRA. Again, what percentage of CRA loans defaulted? Where in the CRA is the provision for lenders to lend to poor-credit-rating individuals or to individuals with zero downpayment. Go ahead, look up the provisions. I'll wait.

you may well have had a half-decent argument, despite it being patchy, but your over-use of jabs and intolerable language, as casteneda rightly says, cheapens your argument. Physician, heal thyself.

I would think someone who makes such claims about others requiring an education you could use a more eloquent word or phrase, if indeed the word or phrase was fitting. Your dislike of my word choices is duly noted and accorded all the respect it deserves. Perhaps you'd care to move onto the substantive points of our respective arguments?

I haven't. Do point out where, for my own interest.

• Mark Twain once said something along the lines of it is better for someone to think you are a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. You sir, would do well to take heed of his words.
• So you equate pointing out facts with whining. Personally, I equate intentionally misrepresenting someone else's words (a straw man fallacy) as "disrespectful." YMMV.
• I'm finding it amusing how desperately you're clutching at straws and getting yourself worked up I also find that misrepresenting the emotional or mental state of those you're discussing something with for the goal of rhetorical advantage is disrespectful. I'm fairly certain you can't see my desk from where you are, so your speculations about whether I'm angry, desperate, or what have you are really simply rebarbative.

All these little games, simply because I think you should educate yourself about an article you're passing judgment on. Tsk tsk. Certainly not respectful, by any stretch of the imagination.

You're looking through tinted glasses, sir. No, I'm identifying the deficiency of your argument.

Of course you can ask others to hold a certain standard, but you should follow that standard too. On standards of evidence, I'd ask you to live up to mine. I've presented plenty, you've presented none. Please rectify the situation.

You've been called on the quality of your evidence to which you reply BS. If that's how you understood the term "bull@!$%#" to be taken, you (again) need to educate yourself. As the link I provided to the word "bull@!$%#" shows, the term is meant to apply to an utterance made without regard to the truth or falsity of the utterance. Your assertions have been alternately unsourced, incorrect, or poorly reasoned-- hence, bull@!$%#. In order to "call me" on the quality of my evidence, you'd have to show something that actually impugns the quality of that evidence. In this regard you've been sorely remiss. Attend to it at your leisure.

RP You are forgiven, good post

Do you honestly believe the democrats and social engineering have no culpability in this mess?

The dems took over the house and senate for the past couple years.

This problem began way before that. You're really straining here. I can smell the wood burning.

Woodenboatguy

Can you answer the question?

Does it really matter that the dems have been in control of the Congress and Senate and have said nothing, no alarms no screaming no gnashing of teeth. We have had said by dems Franklin Raines is doing a great job. (Maxine Waters), we do not need any more oversight of fm/fm (Barney Frank).

I understand I would not want to answer either!

Where was Shelby for six years? And other repubs on the committee before the dems took over Chris Dodd was on the committee for all those years also. Still no warning!

Franklin Raines was never an Obama economic advisor. That is a lie. It has been refuted too many times to go into. If you cannot check facts, please refrain from posting.

Johnson was for a limited time on the VP search committee. He was removed from that post once the allegations started. Again, a fabrication.

I have no idea who Tim Howard is, but given your rather dubious credibility at this point I sure to find that he does not have a role in the Obama camp at all.

Raines did work for Obama, I made a mistake "works" should be "worked" , "is" should have been "was". I quoted an article. There is documented proof Raines had advised the Obama campaign.

woodenboatguy- how about links to your claims

George, Franklin Raines was an advisor to O do some homework and stop calling everyone a liar.

"How can Obama go out with a straight face and saw it was Republicans who made this mess, when it is his key advisers who ran the agencies that made the big mess what it is?" says a Democrat House member who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "It's his people who are responsible for what may well be the single largest government bailout in history. And every single one of them made millions off the collapse that are lining Obama's campaign coffers. If the McCain campaign let's this one go, they deserve to lose."

It isn't just Fannie Mae where Obama has a problem. Another close political adviser, in fact the one man responsible for rallying support for Obama early on among Congressional Democrats, is Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who served on the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac after leaving the Clinton White House. According to Freddie Mac insiders, Emanuel during his time on the board opposed every reform proposed by the Bush Administration that would have impacted Freddie and Fannie Mae.

Emanuel claimed to be neutral in the primary race between the wife of his old boss and his longtime Chicago acquaintance, Obama. But the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who would be first in line for the vacated Senate seat of Obama should he win the presidency, quickly dumped Clinton when it was clear Obama had a head of steam for the nomination.

Don't you just love the dems they are always looking out for, I mean eating there own!

Irunuocon, And that excuses the democratic congressional leaders? They knew by 2006 that things were going down hill but they did nothing to stop the bleeding. Apparently they were all members of congress at the time this bill was passed therefore, all a part of it. When the dem's took congress in 2006 they should have came up with some kind of legislation that would stop the failed policy, they did not. We could go on for days saying who we think is at fault, but what good would it do, they were all in on it.
A policy enacted does not mean it can't be revoked. Mr Frank should've been on it but failed us again.

Irunuocon, And that excuses the democratic congressional leaders? It's "iarnuocon", and no, it doesn't excuse Democrats in Congress who knew there was a problem and did nothing about it. But I've had about enough of Republicans claiming that the blame lays at the feet of Democrats, and who point at the CRA as the root of the problem. The CRA is not at the root of the problem. Republican love of deregulation is the root of the problem. Some things bear watching, and when you put the invisible hand of the market in charge of the cookie jar, you should not be surprised if it tries to sneak out a few cookies on the way.

DrDanny would like this to be the fault of Obama, through proxies like ACORN. In truth, it's the fault of Phil Gramm and George Bush, who tried to prime the economy by securitizing mortgages and tying the economy to the housing boom in order to stave off a recession. But by eliminating the regulation that needed to go along with such a move, they only made the situation worse.

Could the Democrats, having gained control of Congress by the end of 2006, staved off the financial collapse? Maybe (doubtful, imo, but maybe). I tend to think there had been far too much trading of bad mortgage packages by then for a simple reversal of policy to have prevented this collapse. Once the market was closely tied to the housing boom, it was merely a matter of time before the correction of the housing market brought the economy down with it.

Iranuceon, See here's the problem it isn't the proxy of ACORN, its the fact that the dems thought they could slip Acorn and other Organizations in on the bailout legislation, they got ticked because the repubs didn't buy their sneaky attempt, because what they wanted was for 20% of the bailout money to go those Orgs. without having to be paid back to the taxpayers.

Blubberly A, here's the bill. Where's the provision for the bailout money to go to Acorn or other organizations without being paid back to the taxpayers? Look around for it. I'll wait.

Iar, thats as far as I'm going with your name sorry for the screw up, go to;
Financialservices.house.gov for the information on the bill, I wouldn't trust the Huffington post its a liberal site. the page I gave you is straight from the senate.

iarnuocon , not sure you should waste your time with a person that said the following about Obama :

and to watch this admitted Muslim come in like the pied piper and stick it to the American people is not what I served my country for.

Money would be funnelled through the Housing Trust Fund. Which doesn't mention ACORN specifically, and which would funnel money to state and local authorities for distribution? Bit of a stretch, don't you think?

The groups must qualify and compete for the money, which is typically doled out from the federal government to states and municipalities.

And far from a "slush fund," the money that goes to the Housing Trust Fund "is vital to helping Americans hit hardest by what some call the largest drop in home values since the Great Depression."

Imagine that, Democrats inserting a provision that helps to provide affordable housing for poor people into a bailout plan that has at its heart rescuing rich people who speculated on unsustainable mortgages extended to the same poor people.

Yeah, we should just let 'em live in cardboard boxes. That'd be better. Feh. You girls and your fake outrage. It gets old after a while. I have yet to see a one of you specifically acknowledge the pivotal role of the GLBA and Bush's push to increase the number of loans available for securitization. Go figure.

iar, Why should the government provide housing for anybody? And I personally don't think they should bail-out anyone either.
Its time to realize that people and corporations all need to be self reliant, they all have the same opportunities and if they screw up the chips will fall where they fall but not at the feet of the taxpayers.
There are private organizations like habitat for humanity and differerent church organization where people should go, but we the American taxpayer should not have to foot the bill for their inability to keep up with the jones.

iar, Why should the government provide housing for anybody? Why should the government provide any services for anyone? Why should the government allow incorporation, for instance, distancing decision makers from responsibility for bad business decisions?

The argument can certainly be made that the government only has one real responsibility-- defending the rights of the individual domestically and from foreign enemies. I would think that people who believe that would be voting wholesale for the libertarian candidates, not Republicans.

But since they're not, we're really arguing about which services the government provides. Therefore I don't think it should come as any great shock that while Congress is debating how much money to give to wealthy individuals to insulate them from the ramifications of their bad decisions, some Democrats would attempt to counterbalance that by providing relief to a small portion of the population who is directly affected by their bad decisions. If you don't agree with the one, you must of necessity not agree with the other, otherwise its simply an exercise in hypocrisy.

And yet I see people in this thread attempting to ignore that conundrum while lambasting Democrats for doing something they're otherwise applauding.

But since they're not, we're really arguing about which services the government provides. Therefore I don't think it should come as any great shock that while Congress is debating how much money to give to wealthy individuals to insulate them from the ramifications of their bad decisions, some Democrats would attempt to counterbalance that by providing relief to a small portion of the population who is directly affected by their bad decisions.

Fair analysis. Thank you.

thank you

anolog, What do you mean Obama has no links? Who is Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, what is Acorn and how does Obama fit into the equasion? Of course he can be linked.
Just because the bills original enactment was in 1977, doesn't nessecarily means he has no connections to what is happening today.

He worked for ACORN, he didnt draft the legislation, he didnt vote on the Bill, so my point is that the conservatives are essentially saying that this would apply to someone that say worked for VISTA or the WPA. Lets go back on the record and see who voted for that bill and put the slam on them. Plus this article doesnt not make any of the purported links that you just made. In addition CRA has been heavily modified during its existance and approved by GOP Presidents, as per the links by JB in #1.7.

Obama buses are taking college students to vote early in Ohio. They started rolling today. They can now register and vote on the same day,probably because of ACORN backed legislation. Sorry, Susan. The 5 day window in which people can register and vote on the same day is a direct result of Republican legislation.

He will also have a strong Democratic majority in Congress and God only knows who he will appoint to the Supreme Court. You mean what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander? Go figure.

So, do we really want him or his Secretary of State to have this $700+ bil. to dole out? Put Warren Buffett in charge of the bailout. He's an Obama supporter, he predicted this mess as early as 2002, and he obviously knows how to turn a profit. Put that knowledge to work for the American people.

Just because the Republicans backed a bill does NOT mean that ACORN had nothing to do with it. And try googling ACORN Ohio. They have been very busy and are under investigation for fraudulent registrations from late August.

Personally, I think that Acorn should be under FBI investigation.

Just because the Republicans backed a bill does NOT mean that ACORN had nothing to do with it. The Republicans wrote the bill. What I've seen here are lots of conservatives claiming that the Democrats and ACORN are essentially indistinguishable, and that one does the bidding of the other. If you're saying that Republicans are somehow in bed with ACORN, as well, fine. Does that mean all the approbation currently directed at Obama should also be directed at the Republicans? I doubt you'd agree.

Claims of voter misconduct in these elections is a misnomer, look up the actual stats though the DOJ. In fact verifiable voter fraud has been siginificantly down in the last two decades. Last cycle there were only 200 incidences compared to thousands in the 80's etc. Look it up! One can challenge ballots and claim that as incidence, but incidence requires proof and verification not simply calling out "fire," when there is none.

That last paragraph, LOL! Down with the Old Oak, Seeds and all!! hahaha

Terrance, thanks for pointing that out. Either way you decide to vote, it would be nice to hear their independent plans for the economy and go from there. They could surprise everyone and turn out to be very similar. They each may have some good and original insights that haven't been brought to light yet. I, personally, would rather see that than to have them spend 2 hours ripping apart the intricacies of each other's plans. We need big ideas that will move us forward, not a petty argument about minute details over what we have already heard.

And one myth I want to dispel is the one that Obama has no plan for the economy because he didn't outline itduring the Foreign Policy Debate .

I didn't know this was a myth going around. Neither party outlined one during the debate, so it would be silly to insinuate such.

I have studied both candidates plans via their website. I am curious as to how much Obama thinks he is going to be able to raise with his tax increases. Everything he is proposing is tied into these taxes. How many ways is he going to cut it? Are we just going to end up with a bunch of half-way funded programs that benefit few?

I didn't know this was a myth going around. Neither party outlined one during the debate, so it would be silly to insinuate such.

Gonna go out on a limb and say that you have not been watching any of the post debate shows. Almost all of the pundits have expressed concern that Obama did not lay out a specific plan, and the GOP pundits have gone so fa as say McCain at least had a plan. His famous spending freeze statement.

Not to argue or anything but either I can call it a myth or just more smoke and mirrors.