Obama changes the topic and just says we should leave and go nuke Pakistan (maybe).

Clinton is more cagey and doesn’t say much. This is an effective political tactic and perhaps even best for a president (to keep options open), but very disrespectful of the public who want and need to hear their LEADER tell them the goals, the plan and maybe even some detail.

I prefer Clinton’s approach to the other two. She has maneuvering room they don’t maintain.

I think Edwards has pretty much done the same as Clinton. He emphasizes getting out a little more than she does.

…
OKK, Bush’s Brain set up a system of payments to corporations, congregations and contractors. Billions of dollars are systematically being paid to people as we speak to keep the Republican party in play.

It’s a system of payoffs.

What kind of system is it most like?

Ponzi?
Mafia?
Partnership?
Divided Lottery payouts?
Old-fashioned political Boss?
Other?

…
In the past, under bankruptcy laws, you could file and get relief from the Credit Card and Consumer Debt.

That is no longer the case. … The credit card companies are getting their money at the expense of the mortgage companies. People will simply walk away from a big house payment – pay cheap rent somewhere and pay off their credit cards through the courts.

Fascinating point!

You certainly can’t squeeze blood from a turnip, just because you’ve changed the bankruptcy law.

Che’s Lounge @ 16

…
He voted for the repressive bankruptcy bill. He is more of the same.

I agree. I live in Iowa and have seen the ad a few times. …

I believe the Bankruptcy bill has directly caused the current mortgage industry woes. No one wants to talk about that though.

We all talk about everything. Just stick around and you’ll notice that. Oh, wait, you’re saying OTHER people like the MSM and so on. Well, of course they don’t talk about their failures, their greed, their ignorance. That’s why we’re here to yell it out loud for everybody to hear.

Now, about the bankruptcy bill CAUSING the current crisis…no, I don’t think it did. I think it exacerbates it for ordinary folk who are stuck with debt and can’t get their lives in order. For companies it probably smooths over some of their stupidity by keeping people paying them for nothing. It’s immoral, but economically it helps rather than harms companies.

What we need is more justice, more common sense; individuals need help with their income levels so they can pay their mortgages, they need to be allowed to actually go bankrupt if necessary and they might benefit from government supported mortgage loans which would help them get homes off the shelf; we also do need to keep liquidity in the market with these short-term Fed loans as that protects the larger market from collapsing unnecessarily.

Government IS part of the solution, it’s not the enemy.

In this case it realy drives the message home. Creates a favorable emotional response rather than the usual “weary of a political agenda” feel I get when I hear it.

burnspbesq @ 67

Why do you believe that? What is the chain of causation?

I am no fan of the new “bankruopcy law”, everyone knows that but the default on a homeowners loan is the house, the bank takes the risk here

the problem is the relaxation of requirements.

the only reason banks can even take the risk of homeowners loans in most cases is fanny may, this is a social program that mitigates some of the risk lenders take

however there are still risks, when a loan fails the bank still has to assume the reponsibility

here’s what happened

for the longest while, homes were improving in value…,this actually made a loan with terrible terms into a loan with not so bad terms, because a person would literally be banking on the improved value of that home, refinancing when the rates went up…this might work very nicely for a sophisticated buyer

but we cannot count on homes in constant progression of value, especially an inflated progression

the inflated progression happened becuase loans were so easy to get, everyone wanted a home and the prices went up

so it was the tail wagging the dog

then when the rates go up and the persons house value didn’t improve enought to comensate for a refinacne, that person would default

and here we are today

And without the expected refinance, credit card bills that were run up cannot be paid and bankruptcy protection is no longer a viable option for many middle class families.

The credit card companies have become secured creditors at the front of the line, people who file without going through the required credit counseling have no recourse because one of the requirements for even crossing the threshold and being heard at the bar is attending a certified counseling course and possession of a certificate that proves it.

So many, many Aemricans are forced to go through financial hell trying to dig themselves out of debt that in many cases, I agree not all, was incurred by paying for necessities like prescriptions or food or clothes for the kids for school.

The bottom line is that the Democrats caved on an issue that many people who are looking down the barrel of a gun, both literally, contemplating suicide, and figuratively by being hounded by phone calls and threatening letters from creditors, needed them to stand up for them on.

Sorry about the tortured syntax.

And how do we assure that grandkids don’t have to go back? Continue the occupation until the oil runs out.

Don’t be fooled by this guy (or Clinton or Obama or Edwards)

So who do you think would be better? I do not care for either of these but just curious as to why and who you consider better?