Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Des Moines IA
    Posts
    9,701
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nascar10294 View Post
    I doubt Hillary runs again. She already got embarrsed by OBama, for what was suppose to be an easy primary season for her, then it wasn't. She won't risk losing again.
    I don't know about that. She's a pretty determined woman, and (assuming Obama wins in November)she could run in 2016; she'll only be 68. McCain has made a pretty good run at 71. I think they virtually hand her the nomination in 2016, if she wants it.

    And, I wouldn't say she got embarrassed by Obama. She underestimated him and ran a completely horrible election strategy. But, she turned it on the last half of the primary -- it was just too little too late.
    Когда́ де́ньги говоря́т, тогда́ пра́вда молчи́т

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,568
    vCash
    1500
    Nah I think her credibility is shattered. I think the Left finally realized how greedy and blatantly power hungry the Clintons are, tossing integrity to the curb and whoring themselves out for public office. I really don't think she'd win an election, and she'd have to have a personality makeover to get the nomination hands down imo.
    "Compromise, hell! That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?"

    RIP Jesse Helms

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Des Moines IA
    Posts
    9,701
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by blenderboy5 View Post
    Nah I think her credibility is shattered. I think the Left finally realized how greedy and blatantly power hungry the Clintons are, tossing integrity to the curb and whoring themselves out for public office. I really don't think she'd win an election, and she'd have to have a personality makeover to get the nomination hands down imo.
    Eight years is a long time from now (politically speaking). And, you never count out a Clinton. If she wants it, they'll give her the nomination in '16. Guaranteed.
    Когда́ де́ньги говоря́т, тогда́ пра́вда молчи́т

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,957
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady's Man View Post
    I dont really get where your coming from here. What exactly are these bank policies that failed?

    From my understanding, it has to do most with poor judgement on behalf of borrowers... and lenders.... and a worsening economy.

    when the economy was in recession and interest rates was very low...all mortgage companies were giving loans to people with low income & bad credit. Low income people with poor credit were taking advantage of lower interest rates and didn't think much about long term of what will happen when interest rate will go up........
    So when the economy got worse and interest rates shot up and mortgage payments sky rocketed, people start defaulting on their loans. So this is why we now have a housing crisis. Poor judgement and planning on behalf of low income people and a bad ecomony dont usually mix well.
    the bank policies that failed are the ones that tell people to take these loans and that they will benefit them and they can refi down the road to avoid the rate hike. then they don't allow the refi's, home value's depreciate, more defaults, and the spiral gets out of control. IF the banks had just allowed loan modification and refi's, without the legislation that has been passed recently, the majority of this would have been avoided. there would still be foreclosures, but at this point we are getting into an area in which people with good credit, that can afford their homes are walking away to get away from the depreciated value. Furthermore, many americans who are staying in their depreciated home have negative investment value in their home and will have no equity for probably 10 years. that's not the home ownership philosophy that we want in this country is it? And much of what I just described is far beyond the people that couldn't afford it in the first place.

    In addition to those who couldn't afford it in the first place we have those that can now not afford it because of worsening economic conditions and unemployment. This is one heck of an economic platform for someone to mirror the status quo.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Infiltrating Hippie Southwestern Command Center
    Posts
    1,405
    vCash
    1500
    the fact is people got greedy. they saw low interest rates... they wanted a house when they knew they couldnt afford it.

    THEY DIDNT READ THE FINE PRINT... yet you want to blame the banks for people not understanding a contract they sign for the next 30 years of their life.

    they didnt check up on the contract, they didnt fix their credit score, they didnt get a lawyer to explain stuff to them... they didnt do SOMETHING... but yet they want a handout (typical liberal stuff) ...they want taxpayers to come bail out SUB-PRIME home loans...

    so punish the renters cause they were responsible and didn't try to buy a home when they couldn't afford it. punish renters by taking needed money out of schools and bridges and all of the other social programs that need it to erase a mistake made by greedy people with bad credit

    (oh yeah.. and its GWBs fault)
    Last edited by Doc Fluty; 08-27-2008 at 03:30 PM.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,957
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Fluty View Post
    the fact is people got greedy. they saw low interest rates... they wanted a house when they knew they couldnt afford it.

    THEY DIDNT READ THE FINE PRINT... yet you want to blame the banks for people not understanding a contract they sign for the next 30 years of their life.

    they didnt check up on the contract, they didnt fix their credit score, they didnt get a lawyer to explain stuff to them... they didnt do SOMETHING... but yet they want a handout (typical liberal stuff) ...they want taxpayers to come bail out SUB-PRIME home loans...

    so punish the renters cause they were responsible and didn't try to buy a home when they couldn't afford it. punish renters by taking needed money out of schools and bridges and all of the other social programs that need it to erase a mistake made by greedy people with bad credit

    (oh yeah.. and its GWBs fault)
    your still describing only a fraction of the problem and your wrong on much of it. the borrowers weren't looking for a bail out, just a fair deal. A refi at the current rate, but the banks won't do it. they'd rather let them foreclose and report the loss, in case you haven't noticed. and the banks are the ones being bailed out, not the homeowners. the banks are being told to go forward with refi's and loan mod's instead of turning the other way until the foreclosure happens and looking to the goverment for a corporate bail out. to date, no buyer has been bailed out, but at least three major banks have been. And it's all due to their stubborn, shortsighted policy.

    The banks are the ones who created the mess, they new what they were getting into, but they won't work with borrowers to prevent their own losses and stop the bleeding of this economic problem. that's why legislation is being forced, to prevent the banks from taking the losses and looking to the government. It's really quite sad that these banks have to be told to work with borrowers to prevent losses on both sides, just foolish.

    tax payers wouldn't have to bail out anyone if the banks would just go forward with modified loans that are still profitable. the losses would be reduced drastically, home values would not be hurt as much, and foreclosures would be way down.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Earfffff
    Posts
    33,613
    vCash
    1500
    what i'd like to know is: if obama's lack of experience is a detriment to his supposed ability to lead, what do you have to say for seasoned political vets, like much of the current admin, who have made one poor decision after another?

    what good has their abundant experience gotten us?

    edit: just to clarify... i'm not trying to pick on the GOP or the bush admin. i was just using them as an example (among many, many others throughout political history) to prove that experience doesn't always equate to productivity.
    Last edited by BroadwayJoe; 08-27-2008 at 04:09 PM.
    JETSMETSKNICKSPENS
    GATOR BAIT!
    UCONN!!!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •