2nd presidential debate

[crimzy]

I DVR'ed it so I am just starting to watch it.
McCain just said that he wanted to require the government to buy ALL of the houses that are near foreclosure and renegotiating the price to the homeowner to take into account the depreciation of real estate. In other words, the government would buy thousands, possibly millions of homes and reselling them to the homeowner at a financial loss. Is he serious? Is this a serious proposal or is it a lie to get votes? If he is serious, this would be many times more expensive than Obama's expansive health care program.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2785275
I DVR'ed it so I am just starting to watch it.
McCain just said that he wanted to require the government to buy ALL of the houses that are near foreclosure and renegotiating the price to the homeowner to take into account the depreciation of real estate. In other words, the government would buy thousands, possibly millions of homes and reselling them to the homeowner at a financial loss. Is he serious? Is this a serious proposal or is it a lie to get votes? If he is serious, this would be many times more expensive than Obama's expansive health care program.
It is supposedly a plan the economist published from a couple of "conservative economists". Don't sound very conservative to me.
I think this race is done.

 

[fallensynner]

lol me 2 i love dvr but im watching both cand. and they r both freakin fake man damn i wish i could see the future for both cand but yea

 

[fallensynner]

everytime a person asks one of them a Q they talk about the other guy wtf cmon be real man aswer the Qs i dislike both of them and they r who got us in this mess so idk i wish i could vote other

 

[usirchchris]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2785275
I DVR'ed it so I am just starting to watch it.
McCain just said that he wanted to require the government to buy ALL of the houses that are near foreclosure and renegotiating the price to the homeowner to take into account the depreciation of real estate. In other words, the government would buy thousands, possibly millions of homes and reselling them to the homeowner at a financial loss. Is he serious? Is this a serious proposal or is it a lie to get votes? If he is serious, this would be many times more expensive than Obama's expansive health care program.
I don't pretend to understand all of the ins and outs involved here, but isn't this the entire purpose of the bailout already. I did not understand why he was talking about this as if it were something new when the bill has been passed. Didn't the government step in because all of the financial institutions were failing because of these loans? The private sector clearly is unable to handle this, thus the government had no choice but to step in. I think this was inevitable, but the difference in candidates will be shown after the crisis is over...will the government hand it back to the private sector, or will they take control and drive it into the ground like everything else they touch.
and as a sidenote...it would be more expensive initially, but you would get some of it back. We will never get all of it back as the loans were given for amounts higher than the houses were worth to begin with. It stinks, but I think it is the best option...just my .02

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by usirchchris
http:///forum/post/2785312
I don't pretend to understand all of the ins and outs involved here, but isn't this the entire purpose of the bailout already. I did not understand why he was talking about this as if it were something new when the bill has been passed. Didn't the government step in because all of the financial institutions were failing because of these loans? The private sector clearly is unable to handle this, thus the government had no choice but to step in. I think this was inevitable, but the difference in candidates will be shown after the crisis is over...will the government hand it back to the private sector, or will they take control and drive it into the ground like everything else they touch.
and as a sidenote...it would be more expensive initially, but you would get some of it back. We will never get all of it back as the loans were given for amounts higher than the houses were worth to begin with. It stinks, but I think it is the best option...just my .02
I disagree that this is the purpose of the bailout. I may be mistaken but my understanding of the bailout was for the government to buy out the bank owned homes, ie. homes that had already been foreclosed. This would bailout the banks owning the homes and the government would own the homes and have to sell them on the open market. However this is very different from buying out ALL OF THE PRE-FORECLOSURE HOMES and reselling them to the homeowner at an immediate loss. The first option is an investment that could, potentially, take advantage of a depressed real estate market and potentially could be advantageous for those houses that sell after the market values go up again. However the second option is an immediate and certain loss. And these losses would not be $1,000 or so per instance but could be up to $50K for lower income homes (under $200K).... for many, many homes.
I must be missing something here... someone PLEASE correct me because this suggestion is too depressing to consider.

 

[fallensynner]

if the bail out is for buying homes or bad debt lololololol i think there going to buy about 10,000 debts thats it how the flip are they going to fix all the credit and keep ppl in there homes with that. all the 700 bill doesnt go to one thing the bail out has divisions in it so how is this going to help if its divided.
i heard the bailout sucks and isnt worth sighning not a pro in politics so... yea

 

[usirchchris]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2785345
I disagree that this is the purpose of the bailout. I may be mistaken but my understanding of the bailout was for the government to buy out the bank owned homes, ie. homes that had already been foreclosed. This would bailout the banks owning the homes and the government would own the homes and have to sell them on the open market. However this is very different from buying out ALL OF THE PRE-FORECLOSURE HOMES and reselling them to the homeowner at an immediate loss. The first option is an investment that could, potentially, take advantage of a depressed real estate market and potentially could be advantageous for those houses that sell after the market values go up again. However the second option is an immediate and certain loss. And these losses would not be $1,000 or so per instance but could be up to $50K for lower income homes (under $200K).... for many, many homes.
I must be missing something here... someone PLEASE correct me because this suggestion is too depressing to consider.

I see what you're saying, but surely it will be less expensive to purchase the loans in order to renegotiate an interest rate or price than to put a home into foreclosure. Banks practically give these homes away to unload them, and does this not go back to the original problem...the banks are unable to sustain the loans in the first place. Any preforclosed home that could viably use this alternative given by McCain will ultimately fall back onto the banks that simply cannot sustain all of the bad loans. The owners can't afford them, this is why they are in the situation. I see his idea as a way to soften the inevitable blow.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2785345
I disagree that this is the purpose of the bailout. I may be mistaken but my understanding of the bailout was for the government to buy out the bank owned homes, ie. homes that had already been foreclosed. This would bailout the banks owning the homes and the government would own the homes and have to sell them on the open market. However this is very different from buying out ALL OF THE PRE-FORECLOSURE HOMES and reselling them to the homeowner at an immediate loss. The first option is an investment that could, potentially, take advantage of a depressed real estate market and potentially could be advantageous for those houses that sell after the market values go up again. However the second option is an immediate and certain loss. And these losses would not be $1,000 or so per instance but could be up to $50K for lower income homes (under $200K).... for many, many homes.
I must be missing something here... someone PLEASE correct me because this suggestion is too depressing to consider.
McCain didn't explain his plan as outlined on his website. On his website it basically advocated what they did last week. As a program they can implement under the new rules. But either way, do I vote with a socialist (obama) or a quazi-socialist (McCain). That is just ridiculous. I guess I'd rather vote for a vet, than the alternative. But this sucks, you libs should be happy either way you get your way. What was the libertarian candidates name Barr? McCain isn't going to lose texas.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by usirchchris
http:///forum/post/2785312
I don't pretend to understand all of the ins and outs involved here, but isn't this the entire purpose of the bailout already. I did not understand why he was talking about this as if it were something new when the bill has been passed. Didn't the government step in because all of the financial institutions were failing because of these loans? The private sector clearly is unable to handle this, thus the government had no choice but to step in. I think this was inevitable, but the difference in candidates will be shown after the crisis is over...will the government hand it back to the private sector, or will they take control and drive it into the ground like everything else they touch.
The idea McCain is talking about is dealing directly with the homeowner rather than the lenders to identify the loans to buy. I think it would get to the heart of the problem faster but this lowering priniciple so the homeowner can stay in their house is BS. I'll still vote for McCain but I am going to ask for my contribution back

 

[usirchchris]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2785361
The idea McCain is talking about is dealing directly with the homeowner rather than the lenders to identify the loans to buy. I think it would get to the heart of the problem faster but this lowering priniciple so the homeowner can stay in their house is BS. I'll still vote for McCain but I am going to ask for my contribution back

 

[rotarymagic]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2785359
McCain didn't explain his plan as outlined on his website. On his website it basically advocated what they did last week. As a program they can implement under the new rules. But either way, do I vote with a socialist (obama) or a quazi-socialist (McCain). That is just ridiculous. I guess I'd rather vote for a vet, than the alternative. But this sucks, you libs should be happy either way you get your way. What was the libertarian candidates name Barr? McCain isn't going to lose texas.
What about Ron Paul? LOL.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rotarymagic
http:///forum/post/2785389
What about Ron Paul? LOL.
I actually work with his grandson, ron paul is as nice a person you'll ever meet. To bad his politics are antiquated, and obsolete.

 

[rotarymagic]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2785407
I actually work with his grandson, ron paul is as nice a person you'll ever meet. To bad his politics are antiquated, and obsolete.
I'm sure he's a nice guy, alot of people really wanted him to win. I didn't really get into his stances on anything, I just knew he had alot of coverage.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rotarymagic
http:///forum/post/2785413
I'm sure he's a nice guy, alot of people really wanted him to win. I didn't really get into his stances on anything, I just knew he had alot of coverage.
yeah in houston the ron paul supporters were EVERYWHERE. I like some of his views domestically, but isolationism is obsolete and not the way to go. And there is no way we could abolish the fed. IMO the reason he got so much coverage was his stance on the iraq war. And because it fit the media's agenda.

 

[bionicarm]

So what did McCain mean when he said he didn't want to continue handing $700 billion to "overseas countries that hate us" and "terrorist organizations"? Is this a hint we're going to stop sending money to Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan? He wants to eliminate defense spending earmarks? What's with the overhead projector? That like the $20,000 toilet seats the Defense used to buy?
He wants to use $300 billion to buy back mortgages on properties that were overvalued, then reduce the appraised value, so the people who bought these houses can get a smaller m0rtgage on the reduced value? What kind of idiotic logic is that? The reason half these people bought these expensive homes is hoping the appraised value would go up so they could sell them for a profit. So now he wants to reduce that value? That's great. So the value of my house goes down the tubes because some moron bought a house he couldn't afford?
McCain wants Meg Whitman, the CEO of ----, as Secretary of Treasury? Well Bush grabbed Paul O'Neill from Alcoa for his Secreatry of Treasury. We saw how good he worked out.
Sounds like Obama wants to drill offshore. You spoke, he listened.
The downside to Obama's economic logic is he makes it sound like it's bad to succeed in business. With his plan, if my business takes off and makes more than $250,000/year, I get penalized for it. That one I don't agree with.
Where does McCain plan to get the money to raise the dependent exemptions from $3500 to $7000? I've got two kids, so I'll be happy to take the money. But I don't want to give it back a couple years down the road because there no money left in the Treasury, and taxes have to be raised to fill it back up.
I sure hope whichever one of these idiots gets into office, they'll understand the concept of time management. 1 MINUTE PEOPLE!!! GREEN MEANS GO, RED MEANS STOP, SHUTUP, AND SIT DOWN!!!

 

[reefraff]

700 billion is an outdated number. When oil was in the 130's a barrel that is the rough amount we were paying for the oil we import from the Middle East

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2785550
700 billion is an outdated number. When oil was in the 130's a barrel that is the rough amount we were paying for the oil we import from the Middle East
Heck a lot of lefties quoted that number too, a couple months ago when pickens brought it up. The stupidity of the number is that we didn't just give the $$ away. We get oil. You know the stuff that we use every day in our car, for plastics, and stuff. IMO it is just a silly $ex appeal number that really means nothing. It would be like me running a delivery business, then saying I'm wasting $6,000 a month on gas bills. Come on that is just asinine.

 

[dragonzim]

Did anyone else feel that after watching them that McCain just looks OLD?!? They keep portraying him as this hale and hearty guy but he looked frail and somewhat decrepit during the debate last night.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2785537
Sounds like Obama wants to drill offshore. You spoke, he listened.
Where does McCain plan to get the money to raise the dependent exemptions from $3500 to $7000? I've got two kids, so I'll be happy to take the money. But I don't want to give it back a couple years down the road because there no money left in the Treasury, and taxes have to be raised to fill it back up.
I doubt it, any drilling is going to be tied up in lawsuits from leftist tree huggers for the forseable future. Besides, the dems think "they are saving the planet" when they stop drilling, the ban is going to get slipped into a bill somewhere, (like they've already tried once) and we'll never hear about it until after the fact. Obama will go along with the power in his party and be a team player like he always is.
Lowering taxes has historically been acompanied by higher tax revenue. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.