PDA

View Full Version : TONIGHT'S DEBATE AS IT UNFOLDS ...



ABC in Georgia
10-03-2012, 07:28 PM
Am eagerly awaiting this one.

Usually I don't think the debates, have much influence on how the *vote* on election day actually turns out ...

But was listening to Rush today, and think it was he, who said, that this will be the first time that many (make that Obamanuts) will have a chance to hear Romney actually speak, apart from the short negative "sound-bites" to which they are normally subjected.

Should be interesting! Can't wait! One hour and a half to go!

See ya!

Rockntractor
10-03-2012, 08:01 PM
That woman is making a chocolate pie to celebrate after the knockout.

djones520
10-03-2012, 08:13 PM
I generally don't watch these things, but tonight I think I might. At least as long as I can stand listening to Obama. Politics not withstanding, something about his voice literally drives me nuts. I can only stand listening to him speak for so long before I just have to stop.

Hawkgirl
10-03-2012, 08:14 PM
Drinking word?

I'm at work, so I can't actually take a shot of liquor.


http://i48.tinypic.com/1231svb.jpg

ABC in Georgia
10-03-2012, 08:52 PM
Interesting sidenote, while waiting out the last 10 mins to debate starting.

From the Daily Caller (on Drudge page)

When Barack Obama and Mitt Romney face off for the first time at tonight’s presidential debate in Denver, they’ll also be taking a lie detector test.

A spokesman for the group Americans for Limited Government told The Daily Caller on Wednesday they have contracted with a company to use new truth detecting technology to determine whether either candidate is lying during the debate.

“For the first time, within a few hours of a political debate, the American people will know if the candidates are telling the truth, and better be able to judge what promises are real, and which ones are nothing more than political pandering,” Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government said.

No time to give link, sorry!

But interesting, huh?

patriot45
10-03-2012, 08:54 PM
Drinking word?

I'm at work, so I can't actually take a shot of liquor.


http://i48.tinypic.com/1231svb.jpg

Im drinking anyway!!:evil-grin:

ABC in Georgia
10-03-2012, 09:00 PM
Let the games begin ...

Grabbing for a drink, too, guys! Will have one for you Hawkgirl! (Mercy!)

Can't play drinking game, though, have to go out in morning!

djones520
10-03-2012, 09:12 PM
The moderator seems almost a little out of his league on this one. He keeps stumbling over his words.

Hawkgirl
10-03-2012, 09:16 PM
I like the aggressive stance Romney is exuding. He's hammering down on Obama's policies.

djones520
10-03-2012, 09:18 PM
He did not just compare Obama to a lying child...

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Hawkgirl
10-03-2012, 09:20 PM
He did not just compare Obama to a lying child...

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

That was a great line.

ABC in Georgia
10-03-2012, 09:22 PM
Romney smiling ... Obama looking uncomfortable, when speaking

Hawkgirl
10-03-2012, 09:24 PM
Obama is off his game. He's not his usual smiling narcissist.

djones520
10-03-2012, 09:24 PM
How many times is Obama going to bring up that 5 trillion thing that Romney has already said was false?

Novaheart
10-03-2012, 09:31 PM
I generally don't watch these things, but tonight I think I might. At least as long as I can stand listening to Obama. Politics not withstanding, something about his voice literally drives me nuts. I can only stand listening to him speak for so long before I just have to stop.

As much as I adore her, I can't stand to listen to Hillary Clinton.

Novaheart
10-03-2012, 09:34 PM
The moderator seems almost a little out of his league on this one. He keeps stumbling over his words.

He's old and probably drinks like a fish.

Hawkgirl
10-03-2012, 09:34 PM
I like how Romney keeps hammering on increasing jobs.

m00
10-03-2012, 09:35 PM
Romney is winning this bigtime. He just needs to keep staying specific.

djones520
10-03-2012, 09:37 PM
He's old and probably drinks like a fish.

Got his drinking game out of the way before hand? :biggrin-new:

I think Romney took a bit of a hit on this segment. The "revenue nuetral" thing just doesn't sound to good. Still think he's doing well, staying on top, but he stumbled here.

FlaGator
10-03-2012, 09:37 PM
No matter what Obama says about fixing the economy, he can't answer any rebuttal that deals with the last 4 years. He tried to lay it at Bush's feet but that was a fail. He's trying not to defend the status quo while being forced to defend it and extrapolate on it. Not an easy task even for a silver tongued devil like him.

djones520
10-03-2012, 09:38 PM
JUST KNOCKED IT OUT OF THE FUCKING PARK! Nailed it on the green energy.

ABC in Georgia
10-03-2012, 09:40 PM
Ooh! Baby!

Mitt is on his game tonight!!! Love it!

"Entitlements" coming up!

Hawkgirl
10-03-2012, 09:41 PM
Today's debate is really bringing Obama's lack of business world experience and lack of economics understanding to light.

Hawkgirl
10-03-2012, 09:43 PM
JUST KNOCKED IT OUT OF THE FUCKING PARK! Nailed it on the green energy.

Yes that was a Home Run. Obama gives billiions to his own pet projects.

NJCardFan
10-03-2012, 09:47 PM
Is it me or does it look like Lehrer is coaching Obama?

djones520
10-03-2012, 09:49 PM
I'm looking at it more like he's just trying to keep them both on specific points. He just did it to Romney as well when he slipped into a "political" answer.

ABC in Georgia
10-03-2012, 09:50 PM
Obama is "blinking" excessively ... means he *knows* when he is lying!

Read that somewhere. I ... think it's true, anyway! ... :smile-new:

djones520
10-03-2012, 09:52 PM
Romney can get a huge lead here if he can clear up the misconception about regulation.

Hawkgirl
10-03-2012, 09:53 PM
Romney needs to bring up the Community Reinvestment Act in this segment.

Novaheart
10-03-2012, 09:54 PM
What private company insures Ann Romney and what is the annual premium?

djones520
10-03-2012, 09:56 PM
What private company insures Ann Romney and what is the annual premium?

Not sure what this has to do with the debate?

Back on topic, the Health Care segment will be huge. Seal the deal here Romney, just wreck him.

FlaGator
10-03-2012, 09:58 PM
What private company insures Ann Romney and what is the annual premium?

Why do you ask?

Zathras
10-03-2012, 10:03 PM
What private company insures Ann Romney and what is the annual premium?

Don't know, don't care and has nothing to do with the debate.

Next question...and try to keep it on topic.

Hawkgirl
10-03-2012, 10:06 PM
Nova asked because Romney said he prefers private insurance to government and he believes in Americans having a Choice. I have private insurance myself and my employer is now scratching it and raising rates, thanks to Obamacare. I'll find out what my new deductible will be next month. It's all part of Obamacare's plan to go to a single payer system and death squads.

m00
10-03-2012, 10:06 PM
yeah I do kinda want to know what Romney will replace dodd-frank and obamacare with.

FlaGator
10-03-2012, 10:07 PM
In reply to Obama and premiums going up slightly... my have gone up only slightly but the coverage as gone down greatly. My current plan is practically useless as compared to what it was 4 year ago.

FlaGator
10-03-2012, 10:08 PM
Nova asked because Romney said he prefers private insurance to government and he believes in Americans having a Choice. I have private insurance myself and my employer is now scratching it and raising rates, thanks to Obamacare. I'll find out what my new deductible will be next month. It's all part of Obamacare's plan to go to a single payer system and death squads.

I suspect that Nova was getting at the cost she pays for her plan.

Odysseus
10-03-2012, 10:10 PM
God, but I hope that people are watching this.

Romney's comments are clear, concise and structured, while Obama's are all over the place. His body language is confident, while Obama comes off as tentative, and he's stammering. The comparison to his kids was superb. It reminded people that Obama is basically a kid who is in over his head. He's nailed him on the Medicare cuts and destroyed him on green energy. Best line was, "I've been in business for 25 years, and I don't know what you're talking about."

This is a slam dunk.

NJCardFan
10-03-2012, 10:10 PM
So far, as well as Romney is doing, he missed the boat on 2 things. First, when he made his "the middle class is getting crushed" comment, he should have zinged with "even your own veep confirmed that". The other was on the deficit. He brought up Obama adding more to the deficit than any president in history. He should have followed it with Obama's own promise that he would be a 1 term president only if he didn't cut the deficit in half.

djones520
10-03-2012, 10:13 PM
Great job on the 10th Amendment comment he just had there.

FlaGator
10-03-2012, 10:15 PM
So far, as well as Romney is doing, he missed the boat on 2 things. First, when he made his "the middle class is getting crushed" comment, he should have zinged with "even your own veep confirmed that". The other was on the deficit. He brought up Obama adding more to the deficit than any president in history. He should have followed it with Obama's own promise that he would be a 1 term president only if he didn't cut the deficit in half.

Agreed... Romney did point out that Obama promised to cut the deficit in half.

FlaGator
10-03-2012, 10:17 PM
OH man... Romney is nailing Obama to the wall on the role of government question!

Hawkgirl
10-03-2012, 10:20 PM
This is like the Professional vs Amateur hour with the sitting President as the latter.

djones520
10-03-2012, 10:21 PM
Obama has gotta stop shouting everyone down, and keep on talking well beyond his time. Just looks bad IMO.

Hawkgirl
10-03-2012, 10:23 PM
Romney's back on the 90 Billion dollards for Green Energy that could've hired 2 million teachers..LOL..he's exceeded my expectations tonight.

FlaGator
10-03-2012, 10:25 PM
I don't know where the whole Obama being a great public speaker meme came from. He has trouble articulating a coherent sentence without a teleprompter.

djones520
10-03-2012, 10:25 PM
Romney's back on the 90 Billion dollards for Green Energy that could've hired 2 million teachers..LOL..he's exceeded my expectations tonight.

That was a great last minute jab. His closure on bipartisanship should be solid, since he's got the background.

Hawkgirl
10-03-2012, 10:29 PM
That was a great last minute jab. His closure on bipartisanship should be solid, since he's got the background.


I though Romney's was great when he went back to his experience in MA. Obama kept mentioning "fight":biggrin-new:

FlaGator
10-03-2012, 10:29 PM
"Four years ago this country was going through a major crisis." Guess what we're still going through a major crisis and its gotten worse.

FlaGator
10-03-2012, 10:32 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what breaks companies gets from the government when they off shore/near shore (not outsource) jobs

NJCardFan
10-03-2012, 10:32 PM
Obama simply can't look Romney in the eye when Romney is speaking while Romney is looking directly at the president when he is speaking. Simply put, Obama's body language is showing he is getting whupped big time and he knows it.

Novaheart
10-03-2012, 10:38 PM
Nova asked because Romney said he prefers private insurance to government and he believes in Americans having a Choice. I have private insurance myself and my employer is now scratching it and raising rates, thanks to Obamacare. I'll find out what my new deductible will be next month. It's all part of Obamacare's plan to go to a single payer system and death squads.

Did you really say something that idiotic?

ABC in Georgia
10-03-2012, 10:39 PM
Ecellent closing remarks, Romney!!!

Love ya, even though, you were not my pick for the nominee! ... :love_heart:

Also ... my fav line you said re bringing repubs and dems together, as you did in Mass while gov ... (you met once a week with them ... I think,) you said was:

I've done it before ... I'll do it again."

Now ... going to MSNBC to watch them crow about how well Obama did tonight! (gigantic-sneering-smile!)

FlaGator
10-03-2012, 10:39 PM
For the record, I think that Jim Lehrer did a good job as moderator.

Rockntractor
10-03-2012, 10:44 PM
Did you really say something that idiotic?

You honestly have no idea how you come across on these boards do you?

NJCardFan
10-03-2012, 10:45 PM
You honestly have no idea how you come across on these boards do you?

Yeah he does. Like a total douche and he does it well.

ABC in Georgia
10-03-2012, 10:46 PM
For the record, I think that Jim Lehrer did a good job as moderator.

I agree, he did, surprisingly.

(Forgot to log out ... saw this and decided to reply before doing so,FG!)

Zathras
10-03-2012, 10:47 PM
Yeah he does. Like a total douche and he does it well.

And does it on purpose.

m00
10-03-2012, 10:50 PM
Now ... going to MSNBC to watch them crow about how well Obama did tonight! (giantic-snearing-smile!)

My prediction is they will say Romney won the "debate" and treat it as a meaningless feather in the cap. Instead of what they should be saying, which is Romney presented his ideas in a clear and concise fashion and was persuasive in his advocacy of them, while Obama could not adequately articulate why he should be re-elected.

FlaGator
10-03-2012, 11:02 PM
My prediction is they will say Romney won the "debate" and treat it as a meaningless feather in the cap. Instead of what they should be saying, which is Romney presented his ideas in a clear and concise fashion and was persuasive in his advocacy of them, while Obama could not adequately articulate why he should be re-elected.

They don't seem too happy over at MSNBC.

Rockntractor
10-03-2012, 11:05 PM
They don't seem too happy over at MSNBC.

I was a bit surprised at their reaction too, they seem to be having trouble spinning this one.

SaintLouieWoman
10-03-2012, 11:06 PM
My prediction is they will say Romney won the "debate" and treat it as a meaningless feather in the cap. Instead of what they should be saying, which is Romney presented his ideas in a clear and concise fashion and was persuasive in his advocacy of them, while Obama could not adequately articulate why he should be re-elected.

How can he justify his reelection with his horrible record? Romney did an excellent job tonight holding the O's feet to the fire on his terrible job.

Hannity is on now really excited and happy. He called it the "Rocky Mountain Beat-down".

Adam Wood
10-03-2012, 11:14 PM
I don't know where the whole Obama being a great public speaker meme came from. He has trouble articulating a coherent sentence without a teleprompter.Bingo! I'm surprised you hadn't noticed sooner. Obama is a great public reader. He can't speak worth a damn because he doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

The simple fact is that Barack Obama just isn't that smart, certainly not as smart as he's made out to be.

Silverhair
10-03-2012, 11:14 PM
What private company insures Ann Romney and what is the annual premium?

Probably none. They are rich enough to self-insure.

Silverhair
10-03-2012, 11:17 PM
Check out the DUmp. There are bunches of thread there about how poorly Obama did. The place is in meltdown.

Retread
10-03-2012, 11:30 PM
What private company insures Ann Romney and what is the annual premium?

I doubt they carry any insurance of any kind other than maybe an umbrella liability policy to fight off the litigation maggots .................................... like you.

Rockntractor
10-03-2012, 11:35 PM
Check out the DUmp. There are bunches of thread there about how poorly Obama did. The place is in meltdown.

Romney was like an executive in a boardroom enthusiastically laying out his plans for a new project, Obama acted dejected and beat.
Instead of being mad at Romney because he won they should be looking at why he won, he won because he was on the right side of the issues and confidently displayed that.

ABC in Georgia
10-03-2012, 11:35 PM
Now ... going to MSNBC to watch them crow about how well Obama did tonight! (giantic-snearing-smile!)

Oops! Living proof should not drink while posting! Can't spell worth diddley!(Blush!)

You beast Moo, for quoting me before I came in and corrected it! ... :evil-grin:


My prediction is they will say Romney won the "debate" and treat it as a meaningless feather in the cap. Instead of what they should be saying, which is Romney presented his ideas in a clear and concise fashion and was persuasive in his advocacy of them, while Obama could not adequately articulate why he should be re-elected.

Well ... couldn't take watching MSNBC for very long. Turned it off after watching Guiliani (sp? :smile-new:) completely take apart that jerk Chris Hayes, or whatever his name is!

Night all!

Hawkgirl
10-04-2012, 12:34 AM
Did you really say something that idiotic?

Are you so ignorant that you believe Obamacare will not result in rationing?

Hawkgirl
10-04-2012, 12:40 AM
Thank YOU to the Obama administration, handlers and election committee. Thank YOU for coddling and protecting the President from tough questions by journalists. Thank YOU to the liberal MSM who have treated the President with kid gloves. Thanks to you, Obama was unable to perform tonight in a REAL debate with a REAL opponent.

Keep coddling him.

Starbuck
10-04-2012, 12:58 AM
Thank YOU to the Obama administration, handlers and election committee. Thank YOU for coddling and protecting the President from tough questions by journalists. Thank YOU to the liberal MSM who have treated the President with kid gloves. Thanks to you, Obama was unable to perform tonight in a REAL debate with a REAL opponent.

Keep coddling him.

Nice point. Good observation, I think.:smile-new:

Hawkgirl
10-04-2012, 01:04 AM
Nice point. Good observation, I think.:smile-new:

Thanks, the "law of unintended consequences" strikes again. :cool:

Starbuck
10-04-2012, 01:10 AM
What private company insures Ann Romney and what is the annual premium?

Like most people, I can't figure out where you are headed with this question.

For the record, legislators are not provided free health care; they have to buy it, and it is administered by a private company. I'm saying this because you seem to want to spit out the words "private company", as if it were a curse. Of course it would be a private company. At least until he takes office:smile-new:

......
Members of Congress participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program along with about 8 million federal workers, retirees and their dependents. They are subject to the same rules and receive the same coverage. Compared with health plans offered by private employers, the FEHBP offers more choices — in fact, "the widest selection of health plans in the country," according to the Office of Personnel Management.

Congress members are also eligible for Medicare, and pay the same 1.45 percent tax on their salary as do other workers.
http://www.aarp.org/work/employee-benefits/info-12-2010/benefits_what_does_congress_really_get.2.html

Apocalypse
10-04-2012, 01:49 AM
Any one check out CNN?

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/384278_511795388849708_2068317506_n.jpg

m00
10-04-2012, 02:17 AM
Romney was like an executive in a boardroom enthusiastically laying out his plans for a new project, Obama acted dejected and beat.
Instead of being mad at Romney because he won they should be looking at why he won, he won because he was on the right side of the issues and confidently displayed that.

Now the battle is going to be the "debates don't matter" narrative... expect the following:

"So what, Romney beat Obama in a debate. Debates have nothing to do with running the country"
"Romney didn't have his facts straight. Obama showed remarkable restraint not calling Romney out on the lies. While Romney 'won' the debate, he did so through deception."
"Romney may have technically won the debate, but Obama looked very presidential on the podium. Calm and collected. Romney was an attack dog, a loose canon... is that really who we want running our foreign policy?"
"Obama is just tired of answering the same false Republican logic over and over. We in the media all make a big deal out of debates, but the reality is we need to let Obama get back to being President"
"Obama's already won the election. The debates are just a distraction."

Zeus
10-04-2012, 03:36 AM
In all honesty though, at this point do you really think the debates are going to make a significant difference in who is going to vote for who ? perhaps a point or two but won't make a difference. I think the media and rigged polls ave been rather deceiving about this being a close race.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict Romney is going to win by 10 points or better.

Apocalypse
10-04-2012, 03:45 AM
In all honesty though, at this point do you really think the debates are going to make a significant difference in who is going to vote for who ? perhaps a point or two but won't make a difference. I think the media and rigged polls ave been rather deceiving about this being a close race.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict Romney is going to win by 10 points or better.

These debates do mater. Its easy for some of us to say they don't. Or they won't have an influence on "How I will Vote". But they do affect the elections.

For instance, if you were one of the few still on the fence about Romney, not being able to do the job of getting across that finish line, well seeing his performance tonight sure energized our base. Look at what every one is saying on the net. Mitt pulled off exactly what he needed.

And look at Obama's base. They are devastated. If they were on the fence about "Bothering to Vote", well Obama didn't help get them to the polls tonight.

Also Romney was right about the 47%. Sorta.

On average 47% will vote for Obama no mater what.
But in the same breath, 47% will vote for Romney no mater what.

The real fight is on average for 6% of the voters who are undecided. And yes, there are some out there who still have not decided as at this point, they have more important things in their life then politics.

Zeus
10-04-2012, 04:00 AM
http://bluebirdofbitterness.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/obama-scorecard.jpg?w=450

linda22003
10-04-2012, 08:18 AM
I haven't read this thread yet - I'll go back over it - but just wanted to say that all 90 minutes were thoroughly enjoyable. It was a calm discussion of issues, which was refreshing and probably won't last. I wish the whole campaign could be like last night was. I doubt Jim Lehrer would agree - he lost control early and never got it back.

Bailey
10-04-2012, 08:49 AM
I haven't read this thread yet - I'll go back over it - but just wanted to say that all 90 minutes were thoroughly enjoyable. It was a calm discussion of issues, which was refreshing and probably won't last. I wish the whole campaign could be like last night was. I doubt Jim Lehrer would agree - he lost control early and never got it back.

Well you are going to love the foreign policy debate. :D

Gina
10-04-2012, 09:25 AM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/561480_10151254746325090_1733018321_n.jpg

The MSM reports are funny this morning. :smile-new:

FlaGator
10-04-2012, 09:40 AM
Thank YOU to the Obama administration, handlers and election committee. Thank YOU for coddling and protecting the President from tough questions by journalists. Thank YOU to the liberal MSM who have treated the President with kid gloves. Thanks to you, Obama was unable to perform tonight in a REAL debate with a REAL opponent.

Keep coddling him.

I was listening to Rudi Giulani last night and he blamed part of Obama's problem on the fact that he no longer gives press conferences and fields random questions. He had absolutely no practice at answering off the cuff because, as you have pointed out, no one ever asks him questions he is not expecting. Even his town all meetings are being populated with supporters who have no interesting him asking him about his record as president or any of his policies.

This next debate is suppose to be a town hall format which his team and others claims he likes and thus will do better. Unless the audience had been loaded with Obama ringers I don't think this is true. If he gets questions asking him to defend his foreign policy in contrast with the current state of the middle east, he will stumble. Like the questions last night about the economy he doesn't have a positive record to fall back on and can only respond with hypotheticals relating to Romney's plans.

linda22003
10-04-2012, 09:49 AM
For the record, I think that Jim Lehrer did a good job as moderator.

If his job was to be as unnoticed as possible, yes. If his job was to direct and limit time on the topics, not so much. :friendly_wink:

Bailey
10-04-2012, 10:02 AM
Did the president look like he was setting Mitt up for a loss last night? the Dump monkeys think obama is just waiting in the weeds for the right time to attack.

Apocalypse
10-04-2012, 10:07 AM
Did the president look like he was setting Mitt up for a loss last night? the Dump monkeys think obama is just waiting in the weeds for the right time to attack.

If your candidate comes off looking like a total amateur buffoon, and you live in denial, then the only answer could be he's so smart and 10 steps ahead thus laying a super smart trap for Romney and we are all too simple minded to see it.

Rockntractor
10-04-2012, 10:07 AM
What will Obama's October surprise be, will he have one?

Molon Labe
10-04-2012, 10:15 AM
I watched maybe 1/2 hour of this debate last night. I have to say that within the realm of how politics is played today.... That was one of the biggest donkey stomps by a candidate over a sitting POTUS I have ever witnessed.

Bailey
10-04-2012, 10:15 AM
If your candidate comes off looking like a total amateur buffoon, and you live in denial, then the only answer could be he's so smart and 10 steps ahead thus laying a super smart trap for Romney and we are all too simple minded to see it.

I am over 40 and I haven't seen such a level of denial in all of my years. He plays 3d chess lol I pray to God he loses I will burn my alt over there just to rub it in their faces.

Hawkgirl
10-04-2012, 10:16 AM
My lib bro conceded that Romney won last night. This morning he said "if Romney wins, I am "f%$#@d." So I said "Consider yourself "f$#$%d.":evil-grin:

But the SPIN is in with the Obama clan this morning.. Most are claiming Romney won in style but not substance. Some are saying the debate doesn't matter. Some are saying Obama won. But they can't disguise the anger in their voice which exposes their real feelings.:cool:

Apocalypse
10-04-2012, 10:17 AM
Any one catch this this?


OBAMA: Jim, I — you may want to move onto another topic, but I — I would just say this to the American people. If you believe that we can cut taxes by $5 trillion and add $2 trillion in additional spending that the military is not asking for, $7 trillion — just to give you a sense, over 10 years, that’s more than our entire defense budget — and you think that by closing loopholes and deductions for the well-to-do, somehow you will not end up picking up the tab, then Governor Romney’s plan may work for you.

Obama talking about jobs. Asking Jim to move onto something else he can better defend and talk about.

Molon Labe
10-04-2012, 10:17 AM
I don't know where the whole Obama being a great public speaker meme came from. He has trouble articulating a coherent sentence without a teleprompter.

Yep. Bill Maher thinks so too.

Obama needs teleprompter (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81998.html)

Hawkgirl
10-04-2012, 10:19 AM
Did the president look like he was setting Mitt up for a loss last night? the Dump monkeys think obama is just waiting in the weeds for the right time to attack.
Their delusion is still strong. The President can't hide from his failed policies, unlike 4 years ago where there was no way of measuring Obama's success or failures since he voted Present on most bills. He now has a record, a record even he can't spin.

Apocalypse
10-04-2012, 10:22 AM
AARP is out with a statement from last night as well.


“While we respect the rights of each campaign to make its case to voters, AARP has never consented to the use of its name by any candidate or political campaign. AARP is a nonpartisan organization and we do not endorse political candidates nor coordinate with any candidate or political party.

They had absolutely no problem being associated and used by the left up till now. Wonder why the sudden change of heart.


MWHAHAHAHA

Rockntractor
10-04-2012, 10:24 AM
I watched maybe 1/2 hour of this debate last night. I have to say that within the realm of how politics is played today.... That was one of the biggest donkey stomps by a candidate over a sitting POTUS I have ever witnessed.

Poor Melon Lube, this is not what you had hoped for.:blue:

Bailey
10-04-2012, 10:27 AM
Poor Melon Lube, this is not what you had hoped for.:blue:

He might be forced to vote for him. :blue:

Molon Labe
10-04-2012, 10:30 AM
Poor Melon Lube, this is not what you had hoped for.:blue:

Nah...I just don't care.

Especially when someone says that "You can't have a free market without regulation". lol

FlaGator
10-04-2012, 10:39 AM
Nah...I just don't care.

Especially when someone says that "You can't have a free market without regulation". lol

So you think you can have a free market without regulation?

wasp69
10-04-2012, 10:45 AM
What will Obama's October surprise be, will he have one?

He did, but he shot it off prematurely.

http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/putting-the-47-percent-into-perspective_505a836045cb6.jpeg

Hawkgirl
10-04-2012, 10:47 AM
He might be forced to vote for him. :blue:


Obama might be forced to vote for him...


http://i49.tinypic.com/4ru6ig.jpg

Gina
10-04-2012, 10:51 AM
In re: to AARP.. doesn't supporting Obamacare mean you most likely lean left? The whole socialist thing..

Rockntractor
10-04-2012, 11:11 AM
He did, but he shot it off prematurely.


Of course that is possible but I don't think it was the main assault, besides that one excelled in lameness. It was surprising it yielded a 2 to three point gain like it did, it was also surprising that their birth control circle jerk that they called a convention didn't seal their coffin.

m00
10-04-2012, 11:21 AM
Nah...I just don't care.

Especially when someone says that "You can't have a free market without regulation". lol

Well... I think what he meant was "you can't have the current US definition of 'free market' with a fiat monetary system based on a dangerous relationship between private banks and the federal government, without regulation"

Rockntractor
10-04-2012, 11:31 AM
Well... I think what he meant was "you can't have the current US definition of 'free market' with a fiat monetary system based on a dangerous relationship between private banks and the federal government, without regulation"

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/reverse-1317386418_eric_girardi__sp.gif

txradioguy
10-04-2012, 11:32 AM
Did you really say something that idiotic?

The same could be said of you and your stupid question you asked originally.

txradioguy
10-04-2012, 11:50 AM
Appearing on MSNBC's Daily Rundown, Brokaw said, "I think that this morning we have a kick-start to this presidential campaign. If it had been Romney performing like the president last night, it would have been over" - Tom Brokaw

"i can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter": - Bill Maher via twitter

Shortly after the debate ended, a "stunned" Ed Schultz said, "I was disappointed in the President...I was absolutely stunned tonight"

An angry Chris Matthews sharply denounced President Obama's performance in the presidential debate tonight, implying his knowledge of the facts was "first grade." Matthews also urged Obama to tune in to MSNBC so he could learn a thing or two from the supposedly non-partisan hosts and guests on the channel.

"I don't know what he was doing out there," the normally effusively pro-Obama former Democratic operative raged. "I don't know how he let Romney get away with the crap he threw out tonight." Video and transcript below the fold.

Matthews went on at length castigating Obama for failing to viciously attack Romney the way that he and his fellow far-left hosts on MSNBC do every night. "We have our knives out," Matthews said. "Obama should watch MSNBC, my last point. He will learn something every night on this show and all these shows. This stuff we're watching, it's like first grade for most of us. We know all this stuff."

Michael Moore
@MMFlint

Obama please be Obama! You sound like a Democrat (wimpy).
3 Oct 12

@BuzzFeedBen: Wow Obama did a great job lowering expectations for the second debate


Good Lord I need a joint oh my god I want to go down the path to an answer!!

Whoopi Goldberg (@WhoopiGoldberg)

CNN surveyed 430 adult Americans who watched the debate and are registered to vote, 67 percent of them thought Romney won the debate, while 25 percent said Obama won. The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

wasp69
10-04-2012, 11:52 AM
Of course that is possible but I don't think it was the main assault, besides that one excelled in lameness. It was surprising it yielded a 2 to three point gain like it did, it was also surprising that their birth control circle jerk that they called a convention didn't seal their coffin.

If that's not it, it's going to be something as equally pathetic. He's got nothing, therefore he will bring nothing, and in the end receive nothing.

m00
10-04-2012, 11:56 AM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/reverse-1317386418_eric_girardi__sp.gif

You really didn't understand the words I typed, did you? Is this a .gif of your brain trying to make sense of my post? :love_heart:

namvet
10-04-2012, 12:03 PM
right up the ass

http://oi46.tinypic.com/f4l8yb.jpg

namvet
10-04-2012, 12:05 PM
if looks could kill...........

http://oi48.tinypic.com/dbmy2x.jpg

he's a dead mutherfucker

m00
10-04-2012, 12:09 PM
if looks could kill........... he's a dead mutherfucker

I bet he's sleeping on Couch 1 tonight.

txradioguy
10-04-2012, 12:12 PM
Californians Watch, Think Romney Won Clash With Obama In 1st Debate

October 3, 2012 11:59 PM

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5) — Californians watched closely Wednesday evening as President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney sparred aggressively in their first campaign debate over taxes, deficits and strong steps needed to create jobs in a sputtering national economy. “The status quo is not going to cut it,” declared the challenger.

Obama in turn accused his rival of seeking to “double down” on economic policies that actually led to the devastating national downturn four years ago – and of evasiveness on details for Romney proposals on tax changes, health care, Wall Street regulation and more.

Both men made frequent references to the weak economy and high national unemployment, by far the dominant issue in the race for the White House. But debate watchers in California split on who they trust more on the economy, a significant moral victory for Romney.

Even more importantly — particularly in what is considered a ‘Blue’ state, where not surprisingly significantly more Democrats watched the debate than Republicans — it was striking that 48% thought Romney was the clear winner.

That’s according to a KPIX-TV CBS 5 poll taken right after the debate, which found only 34% of Golden State debate watchers actually believed Obama won.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/10/03/californians-watch-as-obama-romney-clash-on-economy-in-1st-debate/

Rockntractor
10-04-2012, 12:19 PM
right up the ass

http://oi46.tinypic.com/f4l8yb.jpg

Outstanding!!

FlaGator
10-04-2012, 12:19 PM
if looks could kill...........

http://oi48.tinypic.com/dbmy2x.jpg

he's a dead mutherfucker

Was that actually from the debate?

linda22003
10-04-2012, 12:20 PM
That picture is hilarious! What's the source? There's a heated commentary on my Facebook page, with women saying Romney "bullied" Obama, which I totally didn't see - maybe because they are mommies and I am not. This picture is of Michelle being a protective mommy! I want to post it!

Molon Labe
10-04-2012, 12:22 PM
So you think you can have a free market without regulation?

Yes I do. That's what a free market is.

Rockntractor
10-04-2012, 12:25 PM
Yes I do. That's what a free market is.

Would it be a free market if the Mafia took it over?

Bailey
10-04-2012, 12:33 PM
I am shocked Romney wasn't charged with a hate crime for the beat down he administered on obama

Rockntractor
10-04-2012, 12:35 PM
I am shocked Romney wasn't charged with a hate crime for the beat down he administered on obama

I half expected MSNBC to call it a lynching.

FlaGator
10-04-2012, 12:38 PM
Yes I do. That's what a free market is.

So you don't have any issues with a company employing 10 year olds to work putting together circuit boards for .50 an hour?

Gina
10-04-2012, 12:41 PM
So you don't have any issues with a company employing 10 year olds to work putting together circuit boards for .50 an hour?

Hey if it keeps those little buggers out of trouble, what's the problem? :biggrin-new:

Rockntractor
10-04-2012, 12:52 PM
So you don't have any issues with a company employing 10 year olds to work putting together circuit boards for .50 an hour?

For some reasons he lacks the basic discernment to understand that regulations are laws put there to protect our individual freedom, that said there are good laws and regulations and bad ones, he needs to refine his protests to the specific laws he questions rather than his shotgun approach.

Generation Why?
10-04-2012, 12:56 PM
So you don't have any issues with a company employing 10 year olds to work putting together circuit boards for .50 an hour?

That is probably not going to happen in a free market. This is the same as saying that if guns are legal everyone's gonna start killing each other.

Novaheart
10-04-2012, 12:58 PM
Are you so ignorant that you believe Obamacare will not result in rationing?

Healthcare is already rationed, even if you have the good insurance through a major employer.

Novaheart
10-04-2012, 01:02 PM
The same could be said of you and your stupid question you asked originally.

The question I asked is relevant. Ann Romney is 63 years old and probably uninsurable. Will a Medicare or any kind of healthcare voucher enable a person such as her to get comprehensive health insurance? How fortunate she is that her husband is wealthy, how unfortunate for those in similar circumstances who didn't think far enough ahead to marry strategically.

Novaheart
10-04-2012, 01:11 PM
That is probably not going to happen in a free market. This is the same as saying that if guns are legal everyone's gonna start killing each other.

Show your work, please.

The free market of sending manufacturing jobs overseas where labor laws are quite different is the "free market" at work in the US to disemploy US workers. No tax break can compete with not having to pay a living wage to Americans while paying Indian children $2 a day to work in textile mills... which is actually a violation of Indian law which requires that you pay children $7 per day.

I don't think the world should be held to US standards, but I do think that American businesses and workers should be held to US standards.

wasp69
10-04-2012, 01:15 PM
Healthcare is already rationed, even if you have the good insurance through a major employer.

Oh, please do explain...


How fortunate she is that her husband is wealthy, how unfortunate for those in similar circumstances who didn't think far enough ahead to marry strategically.

How tragically stupid for those who didn't bother to prepare when they were young for the possibility that they may have medical issues when they get older. Good thing they have collectivist agitators who will try to make sure that they will somehow or another have their lack of personal responsibility subsidized at gunpoint, huh?

Generation Why?
10-04-2012, 01:17 PM
Show your work, please.

The free market of sending manufacturing jobs overseas where labor laws are quite different is the "free market" at work in the US to disemploy US workers. No tax break can compete with not having to pay a living wage to Americans while paying Indian children $2 a day to work in textile mills... which is actually a violation of Indian law which requires that you pay children $7 per day.

I don't think the world should be held to US standards, but I do think that American businesses and workers should be held to US standards.

We aren't India

noonwitch
10-04-2012, 01:18 PM
That is probably not going to happen in a free market. This is the same as saying that if guns are legal everyone's gonna start killing each other.

It happens now, in the clothing and footwear business. Nike has been caught using child labor in the SE Asian factories that produce their $150 tennis shoes.

Many clothing companies have their factories located in the Marianne Islands, where the workers are women from China who sign up at home, then find out once they get there that they are basically slaves. They are kept in locked factories and dorms, and guarded by men who sometimes rape them. If they become pregnant, they are forced to have abortions by their employers. The Avenue and The Limited use the factories there, and technically, the merchandise is "American Made" because the Marianne Islands are a US possession.

I guess it works out well for the bottom-line profits, and we all know that profits are more important than ethics in today's world.

Novaheart
10-04-2012, 01:20 PM
Yes I do. That's what a free market is.

You can have a free market- if you want to live under an aristocracy. Unbridled capitalism leads to monarchy. Monarchy leads to revolution. Lately, revolution takes the form of communism, theocratic dictatorship, or some sort of iron fist.

The US and Europe are headed for a new wave of National Socialism. Believe it. It will happen. And people will whine that "It's like the NAZI's" but it won't be like the NAZI's. It will be a galvanization of the Euro-Sphere (which includes far flung places like Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, US, Volkstaat, Israel, Kenya, and Canada) while eschewing the old fashioned definitions of race and nation. A master race defined by economics, culture, geographic strategy and utility rather than genealogy.

Rockntractor
10-04-2012, 01:24 PM
We aren't India

Children were employed in the textile industry in the US until we passed laws/regulations to stop it.

Novaheart
10-04-2012, 01:33 PM
Children were employed in the textile industry in the US until we passed laws/regulations to stop it.

Not to mention that the rural people of the US were the "India" for much of the 20th century. Particularly Southern rural people who worked in box and shirt factories and other textiles and apparel factories under less than modern conditions for piecework wages until the unions came along. Once the relatively well paid Northern factory workers started having to share the wealth the clothing industry started moving to other countries.

Jesus, we even import lumber these days. Will everyone be happy when there are no jobs but healthcare, Walmart, and AC repair?

http://www.fairlumbercoalition.org/

The U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports is an alliance of large and small independent sawmills from around the country, joined by hundreds of thousands of their employees, and tens of thousands of woodland owners. We are united in opposition to Canada’s unfair trade practice of virtually giving away its forestlands to companies that export lumber to the U.S., the world’s largest wood products market.

Canada’s lumber subsidies are destroying the U.S. lumber industry, threatening its workers with mounting unemployment, and denying many tree farmers a market for their timber crops. The impact of these subsidies is apparent everywhere. Despite a strong home building market, U.S. lumber prices are touching new lows, bankruptcies and mill shutdowns are high and climbing higher, while Canada’s share of the U.S. market approaches 35 percent, a near record high.

m00
10-04-2012, 01:34 PM
The question I asked is relevant. Ann Romney is 63 years old and probably uninsurable. Will a Medicare or any kind of healthcare voucher enable a person such as her to get comprehensive health insurance? How fortunate she is that her husband is wealthy, how unfortunate for those in similar circumstances who didn't think far enough ahead to marry strategically.

Well, I bet there is some Mormon group private insurance plan they're on.

wasp69
10-04-2012, 01:37 PM
Jesus, we even import lumber these days. Will everyone be happy when there are no jobs but healthcare, Walmart, and AC repair?


Hey, I'd love to see it changed. How about we go after the assholes who made it almost impossible to do business in the United States?

wasp69
10-04-2012, 01:42 PM
I guess it works out well for the bottom-line profits, and we all know that profits are more important than ethics in today's world.

:rolleyes:

Without profits, there are no businesses. Without businesses, there is no tax base. Without a tax base, you are out of a job. Flinging around platitudes without answers are what got obama his ass handed to him last night and has fucked our country up for years to come, a lesson that many should learn.

Rockntractor
10-04-2012, 01:49 PM
A completely unregulated market is a Libertarian myth that cannot and has not ever existed in any country, it would mean the absolute absence of any governing body and even in a state of anarchy this does not truly exist, having your products stolen by roving bands is not a free market either.

txradioguy
10-04-2012, 01:56 PM
The question I asked is relevant. Ann Romney is 63 years old and probably uninsurable. Will a Medicare or any kind of healthcare voucher enable a person such as her to get comprehensive health insurance? How fortunate she is that her husband is wealthy, how unfortunate for those in similar circumstances who didn't think far enough ahead to marry strategically.

Wow...you really are pissed off over your hero getting his ass handed to him last night aren't you?

And you conveniently leave out the fact that with the Ryan plan you are attempting to disparage...someone Ann Romney's age won't see one change in their current healthcare.

Anyone 54 and younger will have the chance to go out and find the best coverage tailored to what they want.

Can't say that under the death panels coming with Obama care.

But then you already knew that...you just wanted to toss in a flaming straw man to try and bust up our celebration of Romney's debate victory last night.

Sucks to be you.

txradioguy
10-04-2012, 01:58 PM
Well, I bet there is some Mormon group private insurance plan they're on.

Wow...your religious intolerance smells like Libtard.

FlaGator
10-04-2012, 02:10 PM
That is probably not going to happen in a free market. This is the same as saying that if guns are legal everyone's gonna start killing each other.

Why do you say that won't happen in a free society?

Why do you think that sweat shop laws where instituted at the turn of the century?

Because this type of behavior was going in in a free society (yes right here in the good ole U S of A). Minors were being used a source of cheap labor in factories at the start of the industrial era. The original labor laws were passed to regulate the mistreatment of the labor force and keep factory owners from profiting on the backs and sweat of a child labor force.

namvet
10-04-2012, 02:12 PM
Was that actually from the debate?

yes it was.

m00
10-04-2012, 02:15 PM
Wow...your religious intolerance smells like Libtard.

?

https://www.lds.org/church/employment/benefits-and-compensation?lang=eng


Basic Benefits: Medical (multiple options), dental, group term life insurance, disability insurance, occupational accidental death and dismemberment, annual and sick leave pay.

Supplemental Benefits: Supplemental group term life insurance, 24-hour accidental death and dismemberment, long-term care insurance, property casualty insurance (home and auto) options, EyeMed vision benefit.

Retirement Benefits: Master retirement pension plan (less than 20% of U.S. employees still have a defined benefit or pension plan available to them), 401(k), 401(a), Roth 401(k). Tax Savings Benefits: Medical flexible spending account (FSA), premium-only plan (POP, health insurance premiums are taken out before taxes).

Compensation: Church compensation systems are designed to reflect comparable pay levels in the relevant labor market, while acknowledging a measure of consecration.


Romney was a church... deacon? I don't recall. But he was working for the Church in an official capacity. The LDS actually owns a couple of insurance companies. So I would assume he's on that plan. I would be. Why are you turning this into some sort of attack?

txradioguy
10-04-2012, 02:19 PM
?

Romney was a church... deacon? I don't recall. But he was working for the Church in an official capacity. The LDS actually owns a couple of insurance companies. So I would assume he's on that plan. I would be. Why are you turning this into some sort of attack?

I'm not turning it into any kind of attack. You're the one sounding like a less smart JimRob taking pot shots at Romney because he's mormon.

Catholic institutions have their own health care organizations too. They are leading the charge against the mandatory birth control regulations in Obama Care.

Other than to try and ding Romney on his religion was there some kind of point you're trying to make?

namvet
10-04-2012, 02:19 PM
PMSNBC libtards: where was Obama??? Chris Matthews Blasts Obama for Debate Performance, Urges Him to Get Talking Points from MSNBC. he really snaps his cap. to funny

link (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/03/msnbc-hosts-stunned-lackluster-obama-debate-performance#ixzz28LFbpg2c)

txradioguy
10-04-2012, 02:28 PM
PMSNBC libtards: where was Obama??? Chris Matthews Blasts Obama for Debate Performance, Urges Him to Get Talking Points from MSNBC. he really snaps his cap. to funny

link (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/03/msnbc-hosts-stunned-lackluster-obama-debate-performance#ixzz28LFbpg2c)

Speaking of MSLSD:

With the folks at MSNBC, it always seems to come back to race. Network host Ed Schultz failed to disappoint this morning when he appeared on Thomas Roberts's 11 a.m. Eastern MSNBC Live and suggested that racism was partly to blame for President Obama's weak performance in the debate (video follows page break):

Look, I certainly am not going to bail out on the effort of the progressive movement in this country. This just makes it a little heavier lift than it is right now. It was just very frustrating to watch a guy lie to the American people and not be counter-punched because we're afraid he's going to be called an angry black man. When I see the president, I don't see a black man. I see a president who has inherited an untenable position and turned it around to a great positive to where we are right now. He has brought it down to 8 percent unemployment without any help from the Republicans.

The very next hour, on MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner, panelist Michael Eric Dyson similarly suggested that fear of being seen as an "angry black man" held Obama back from forcefully debating and possibly winning last night's contest.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/10/04/msnbcs-ed-schultz-pulls-race-card-explain-weak-obama-debate-performa-0

txradioguy
10-04-2012, 02:32 PM
Meanwhile...Obama looks in the mirror as he tells an audience in Denver that:

"Mitt Romney gained an edge by pretending to be someone he's not"

noonwitch
10-04-2012, 02:38 PM
You can have a free market- if you want to live under an aristocracy. Unbridled capitalism leads to monarchy. Monarchy leads to revolution. Lately, revolution takes the form of communism, theocratic dictatorship, or some sort of iron fist.

The US and Europe are headed for a new wave of National Socialism. Believe it. It will happen. And people will whine that "It's like the NAZI's" but it won't be like the NAZI's. It will be a galvanization of the Euro-Sphere (which includes far flung places like Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, US, Volkstaat, Israel, Kenya, and Canada) while eschewing the old fashioned definitions of race and nation. A master race defined by economics, culture, geographic strategy and utility rather than genealogy.


So what does the "master race defined by economics, culture, geographic strategy and utility" do with those who don't want to be part of that master race's Walden 2?

Molon Labe
10-04-2012, 02:49 PM
So you don't have any issues with a company employing 10 year olds to work putting together circuit boards for .50 an hour?

You of all people on this board are better than that to make a strawman argument like that. Me believing in a free market is not an acceptance of sweat houses, nor illegal practices of forced labor nor believing the mafia should take it over. This argument is no differetn than the one Novaheart has made in this thread that a free market somehow is a concept of the Aristocracy.

I can't sometimes believe I'm on a conservative board that thinks the government isn't overly involved in almost every aspect of the market today When Romney makes this statement, he is saying he is perfectly fine with the bailouts and Ben Bernake meddling in the economy. This is a far cry from "conservative" free market beliefs.

Molon Labe
10-04-2012, 02:54 PM
A completely unregulated market is a Libertarian myth that cannot and has not ever existed in any country, it would mean the absolute absence of any governing body and even in a state of anarchy this does not truly exist, having your products stolen by roving bands is not a free market either.


The law is used to protect life, liberty and property. If it does that in a "limited government capacity" then everything you are fearful of is mitigated. The free exchange of goods and services under the protection that theft, murder and loss of a person's liberty will not be tolerated. That's the basis of what an American free market should look like.

Who said anything about anarchy? You did.

Janice
10-04-2012, 03:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smWRYgGLngw

Bravo!

Molon Labe
10-04-2012, 03:03 PM
You can have a free market- if you want to live under an aristocracy.

I call bullshit.
Read my post above. If Laws protect these three things, then you cannot have aristocracy.

FlaGator
10-04-2012, 03:14 PM
You of all people on this board are better than that to make a strawman argument like that. Me believing in a free market is not an acceptance of sweat houses, nor illegal practices of forced labor nor believing the mafia should take it over. This argument is no differetn than the one Novaheart has made in this thread that a free market somehow is a concept of the Aristocracy.

I can't sometimes believe I'm on a conservative board that thinks the government isn't overly involved in almost every aspect of the market today When Romney makes this statement, he is saying he is perfectly fine with the bailouts and Ben Bernake meddling in the economy. This is a far cry from "conservative" free market beliefs.

Why is that a straw man argument. It is directly on topic. You know, I've learned that recently that people like to toss out that "your making a straw man argument" when they cannot refute the initial statement based on evidence at hand..

What you can't dispute is the fact that under a free market that revolved around the opening chapters of the industrial era when there were no regulations concerning child labor that the free market exploited children for financial gain. That is a fact and not a straw man.

Labor regulations came along forced industry against its will to operate more ethically when dealing with those people it employed.

Do I think that free market is over regulated. Yes I certainly do. I but by that same token I do not believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water. Some regulation is necessary to keep some people from taking advantage of others. Should industries be allowed to wantonly dump chemicals in rivers and pour pollutants into the air? With no regulation this would happen. How do I know this because companies get caught and fined every year for violating not only the unnecessary regulations but the necessary ones as well.

You seem not to understand that some people will do anything to make a profit no matter who gets hurt. This is not another straw man. This is another fact.

Molon Labe
10-04-2012, 03:28 PM
Why is that a straw man argument. It is directly on topic. You know, I've learned that recently that people like to toss out that "your making a straw man argument" when they cannot refute the initial statement based on evidence at hand..

What you can't dispute is the fact that under a free market that revolved around the opening chapters of the industrial era when there were no regulations concerning child labor that the free market exploited children for financial gain. That is a fact and not a straw man.

Labor regulations came along forced industry against its will to operate more ethically when dealing with those people it employed.

Do I think that free market is over regulated. Yes I certainly do. I but by that same token I do not believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water. Some regulation is necessary to keep some people from taking advantage of others. Should industries be allowed to wantonly dump chemicals in rivers and pour pollutants into the air? With no regulation this would happen. How do I know this because companies get caught and fined every year for violating not only the unnecessary regulations but the necessary ones as well.

You seem not to understand that some people will do anything to make a profit no matter who gets hurt. This is not another straw man. This is another fact.

I believe you try to misrepresent my position. Talk about returning to slave labor is indeed strawman tactics because it frames the argument into one where you suggest I'm advocating the return of "Slave Labor OK'. That my belief in an unregulated free market = enslavement. That if one engages in dishonest business practice for the sake of profit that is somehow a free market. That is not the case.

I do understand that profits can drive people to hurt others. The problem is in this country, those who engage in those practices get "bailouts" off the backs of you and me. The profits are all "privatized", but the risk is made "public". That is not a free market. It also doesn't detract from my position that the "Law" should protect people against things like theft, violence, and enslavement.

It's not likely I'm going to be convinced hat we are underegulated in this country. Hearing Romney not acknowledging the role regulation has played in this countries demise is very disheratening.

m00
10-04-2012, 03:31 PM
Other than to try and ding Romney on his religion was there some kind of point you're trying to make?

The only place Romney was getting dinged on his religion was in your mind. I was just answering a question about Romney's probable source of insurance.

Hawkgirl
10-04-2012, 03:32 PM
So you don't have any issues with a company employing 10 year olds to work putting together circuit boards for .50 an hour?

There are laws here in the US that would prevent that. Laws are put in place to keep companies ethical and they would be applied. A free market self-regulates if you want to call it a real free market. Regulation gave us the CRA which crumbled the housing market. Perhaps there should be some oversight to make sure companies are following the laws..but regulations hinder a free market.

namvet
10-04-2012, 03:32 PM
Speaking of MSLSD:

With the folks at MSNBC, it always seems to come back to race. Network host Ed Schultz failed to disappoint this morning when he appeared on Thomas Roberts's 11 a.m. Eastern MSNBC Live and suggested that racism was partly to blame for President Obama's weak performance in the debate (video follows page break):

Look, I certainly am not going to bail out on the effort of the progressive movement in this country. This just makes it a little heavier lift than it is right now. It was just very frustrating to watch a guy lie to the American people and not be counter-punched because we're afraid he's going to be called an angry black man. When I see the president, I don't see a black man. I see a president who has inherited an untenable position and turned it around to a great positive to where we are right now. He has brought it down to 8 percent unemployment without any help from the Republicans.

The very next hour, on MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner, panelist Michael Eric Dyson similarly suggested that fear of being seen as an "angry black man" held Obama back from forcefully debating and possibly winning last night's contest.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/10/04/msnbcs-ed-schultz-pulls-race-card-explain-weak-obama-debate-performa-0

Schultz is crazier than a shithouse rat. racism ??? Gore blames Denver and it high altitude. WTF else did it??? the food??? no nookie the night before???

Molon Labe
10-04-2012, 03:47 PM
There are laws here in the US that would prevent that. Laws are put in place to keep companies ethical and they would be applied. A free market self-regulates if you want to call it a real free market. Regulation gave us the CRA which crumbled the housing market. Perhaps there should be some oversight to make sure companies are following the laws..but regulations hinder a free market.

Exactly. A free market where the laws of ethical and moral standards were actually applied would not tolerate a company that filched it's clientele or employees. Any company that engaged in such practices wouldn't last very long.
It was only when the government legalized the practices of allowing private companies to make bad mortgages. Those companies knew fully well they could take the risk because if something bad happened the risk would fall on someone else.
Over regulation also gives you is great things like the current Health care deboggle.

Novaheart
10-04-2012, 04:12 PM
I call bullshit.
Read my post above.

You can jump up and down and dance to it if you like.

Hawkgirl
10-04-2012, 04:22 PM
You can jump up and down and dance to it if you like.


You are a great debater. Did you coach Obama?

FlaGator
10-04-2012, 04:47 PM
There are laws here in the US that would prevent that. Laws are put in place to keep companies ethical and they would be applied. A free market self-regulates if you want to call it a real free market. Regulation gave us the CRA which crumbled the housing market. Perhaps there should be some oversight to make sure companies are following the laws..but regulations hinder a free market.

Those laws are also regulations. Molon Labe stated that he is against regulations in a free market.

m00
10-04-2012, 04:56 PM
Those laws are also regulations. Molon Labe stated that he is against regulations in a free market.

Okay, definition question...

Can a law that makes murder illegal be said to "regulate murder"? Is this a regulation, or something different?

Rockntractor
10-04-2012, 05:15 PM
Okay, definition question...

Can a law that makes murder illegal be said to "regulate murder"? Is this a regulation, or something different?

It regulates the society by outlawing murder.

Zeus
10-04-2012, 05:52 PM
A completely unregulated market is a Libertarian myth that cannot and has not ever existed in any country, it would mean the absolute absence of any governing body and even in a state of anarchy this does not truly exist, having your products stolen by roving bands is not a free market either.

That is absolutely true. A mkt doesn't have to be regulated by a govt to be regulated. Certain entities with a common goal will join together to establish "Regulations" in achieving a goal. Be it by hook or crook it's still regulated. Even in a state of anarchy affinity groups are established to achieve desired goals.

Zeus
10-04-2012, 06:05 PM
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Novaheart http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=530150#post530150)
Jesus, we even import lumber these days. Will everyone be happy when there are no jobs but healthcare, Walmart, andAC repair?


The US & Canada have had an ongoing pissing contest over US imports of hard lumber and Canada's import of US grains for neigh on 50 yrs. NAFTA has diminished the arguments somewhat , not completely but somewhat.


Hey, I'd love to see it changed. How about we go after the assholes who made it almost impossible to do business in the United States?...

Yeppers The envioroweenies & Fed regs may have put US hardwoods off limits but Canada has plenty. Same for Canada's limitation on grain production but the US has plenty.

JB
10-04-2012, 06:05 PM
I bet he's sleeping on Couch 1 tonight.I think this slipped by in all the heated commentary here. Well done. :biggrin-new:

JB
10-04-2012, 06:17 PM
I do understand that profits can drive people to hurt others. The problem is in this country, those who engage in those practices get "bailouts" off the backs of you and me. The profits are all "privatized", but the risk is made "public". That is not a free market. It also doesn't detract from my position that the "Law" should protect people against things like theft, violence, and enslavement.We could have a long, convoluted discussion about regulation and the marketplace. Generally speaking, I am on board with a very unregulated market.

However, it cannot be applied to our current banking industry. If you understand how our banking system works, it needs regulation. More than others do incidentally. If Domino's goes out of business, people will adapt and go to Papa Johns, Pizza Hut, etc. The pizza industry will continue to thrive. But when a large bank goes out of business, it creates a panic. People will run to their banks to get their money but the money is not there, banks begin to crash, there's no credit, states fail, a country fails and suddenly the the entire planet is in a world of shit.

If a bank is "too big to fail" then it has to be prevented from becoming that big. If not, it will fail and wreak cascading havoc or we have to bail it out. Neither outcome is acceptable.

Zeus
10-04-2012, 06:19 PM
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by m00 http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=530152#post530152)
Well, I bet there is some Mormon group private insurance plan they're on.


Wow...your religious intolerance smells like Libtard.

I don't see mOO's statement as religious intolerance but as a statement of Fact. Most the major religions have have their church backed affinity financial products. Guidestone Financial services for the SBC , Lutheran Brotherhood for the Lutheran church, Catholic Mutual Group for the catholic Church , Deseret Management Corporation for the Church of LDS.

Zeus
10-04-2012, 06:35 PM
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by FlaGator http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=529952#post529952)
For the record, I think that Jim Lehrer did a good job as moderator.



If his job was to be as unnoticed as possible, yes. If his job was to direct and limit time on the topics, not so much. :friendly_wink:

Lehrer did toss Obama a couple lifelines in his follow up questions to either the One or mitt. Obumbler wasn't astute enough to catch the nuance and grab on. Mitt was though and beat Obama over the head with them.

Rockntractor
10-04-2012, 06:39 PM
I don't see mOO's statement as religious intolerance but as a statement of Fact. Most the major religions have have their church backed affinity financial products. Guidestone Financial services for the SBC , Lutheran Brotherhood for the Lutheran church, Catholic Mutual Group for the catholic Church , Deseret Management Corporation for the Church of LDS.

and we get Obama care from the Satanists.

Hawkgirl
10-04-2012, 06:43 PM
"The difference between laws and regulations are sometimes misunderstood. Congress, and only Congress, enacts laws. Federal executive departments and administrative agencies write regulations to implement the authority of laws. Regulations (as well as Executive Orders and Proclamations) are ancillary or subordinate to laws but both laws and regulations are enforceable. The U.S. Code is the official compilation of codified laws by subject, the U.S. Statutes-at-Large is the official chronologic compilation of all laws, and the Code of Federal Regulations is the official compilation of regulations."


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Difference_between_laws_and_regulations



I don't know if laws and regulations are synonymous...Don't mean to get into semantics but laws are passed by Congress and regulations are passed by the Executive branch, via agencies, to put the law into action AS THEY PERCEIVE THE LAW. A regulation can be challenged in court if two parties have two different definitions of that law. It is my understanding that Law trumps a regulation and a regulation is an agencies' interpretation of that law.

FlaGator
10-04-2012, 08:50 PM
Okay, definition question...

Can a law that makes murder illegal be said to "regulate murder"? Is this a regulation, or something different?

It can be said to regulate human behavior.

FlaGator
10-04-2012, 09:05 PM
"The difference between laws and regulations are sometimes misunderstood. Congress, and only Congress, enacts laws. Federal executive departments and administrative agencies write regulations to implement the authority of laws. Regulations (as well as Executive Orders and Proclamations) are ancillary or subordinate to laws but both laws and regulations are enforceable. The U.S. Code is the official compilation of codified laws by subject, the U.S. Statutes-at-Large is the official chronologic compilation of all laws, and the Code of Federal Regulations is the official compilation of regulations."


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Difference_between_laws_and_regulations



I don't know if laws and regulations are synonymous...Don't mean to get into semantics but laws are passed by Congress and regulations are passed by the Executive branch, via agencies, to put the law into action AS THEY PERCEIVE THE LAW. A regulation can be challenged in court if two parties have two different definitions of that law. It is my understanding that Law trumps a regulation and a regulation is an agencies' interpretation of that law.

Both place restrictions on behavior and both institute penalties for violating prescribed behaviors. The only difference really is that the government can put you in prison for violating a law and it can put a company out of business for violating a regulation.

Now lets really complicate the issue. What is the difference between laws, regulations and rules? In ice hockey I can violate a rule by smacking another player with a hockey stick. If I do this outside of a game then I go to jail for assault, but if I do this in a game I might get tossed in the penalty box for 5 minutes. I have technically violated a law but because I did what I did in the context of a sporting event the defenders of the law don't acknowledge my crime. Sports are generally considered self regulating so their enforcement of their regulations/rules are acknowledged by the legal system as being adequate punishment for some crimes that happen in the course of game play.

Zeus
10-05-2012, 02:33 AM
Both place restrictions on behavior and both institute penalties for violating prescribed behaviors. The only difference really is that the government can put you in prison for violating a law and it can put a company out of business for violating a regulation.

Now lets really complicate the issue. What is the difference between laws, regulations and rules? In ice hockey I can violate a rule by smacking another player with a hockey stick. If I do this outside of a game then I go to jail for assault, but if I do this in a game I might get tossed in the penalty box for 5 minutes. I have technically violated a law but because I did what I did in the context of a sporting event the defenders of the law don't acknowledge my crime. Sports are generally considered self regulating so their enforcement of their regulations/rules are acknowledged by the legal system as being adequate punishment for some crimes that happen in the course of game play.

In general society there is the expectation of an Individuals right to being secure in their being and if someone violates that security they are subject to prosecution and penalty. In a sporting event you are voluntarily putting yourself in a situation of high probability that someone is going to violate the rules in fact you can pretty much expect it to happen. Certainly you can't play football or hockey or enter a boxing match with an expectation of not getting hit.

Novaheart
10-05-2012, 10:47 AM
And you conveniently leave out the fact that with the Ryan plan you are attempting to disparage...someone Ann Romney's age won't see one change in their current healthcare.

Anyone 54 and younger will have the chance to go out and find the best coverage tailored to what they want.

Anyone 54 and younger who has Ann Romney's condition will not be able to find comprehensive health insurance with a private carrier. Why would the claim that Romney or any other near-65 gets to get standard Medicare be a defense of the damage done to the younger?

BTW, I am 54 years old. If I lose my insurance through a corporation, then I am fucked. I have kidney damage, but not kidney failure. If I were on dialysis, then I would be Medicare eligible automatically. There are a lot of people like me out there. Cut off our medical insurance, and we'll end up on dialysis. Trust me when I tell you that the cost of keeping me off dialysis is nothing compared to what the cost of keeping me on it would be.

You talk like a fool, or someone with guaranteed government healthcare. Which is it?

m00
10-05-2012, 10:53 AM
Anyone 54 and younger who has Ann Romney's condition will not be able to find comprehensive health insurance with a private carrier. Why would the claim that Romney or any other near-65 gets to get standard Medicare be a defense of the damage done to the younger?

Well, if I had MS my work's insurance would cover it. If my partner had MS, my work's insurance would cover it. I suppose if it got to the point where I couldn't work due to the MS, I would be on disability and then either disability would cover it, or I could do COBRA (which was passed by Reagan.)

I suppose you'd only be screwed if you got your MS diagnosis while you didn't have health insurance. But I'm positive there are options here.


BTW, I am 54 years old. If I lose my insurance through a corporation, then I am fucked.

COBRA

FlaGator
10-05-2012, 11:01 AM
In general society there is the expectation of an Individuals right to being secure in their being and if someone violates that security they are subject to prosecution and penalty. In a sporting event you are voluntarily putting yourself in a situation of high probability that someone is going to violate the rules in fact you can pretty much expect it to happen. Certainly you can't play football or hockey or enter a boxing match with an expectation of not getting hit.

I mentioned hockey specifically because a player who hit another player in the head with his stick and charges were considered. I don't recall if the player was charged. I suspect that getting whacked in the head with a stick is not a aspect aspect of the sport.

Novaheart
10-05-2012, 11:02 AM
Well, if I had MS my work's insurance would cover it. If my partner had MS, my work's insurance would cover it. I suppose if it got to the point where I couldn't work due to the MS, I would be on disability and then either disability would cover it, or I could do COBRA (which was passed by Reagan.)

I suppose you'd only be screwed if you got your MS diagnosis while you didn't have health insurance. But I'm positive there are options here.



COBRA

COBRA


How long must COBRA continuation coverage be available to a qualified beneficiary?

Up to 18 months for covered employees, as well as their spouses and their dependents, when workers otherwise would lose coverage because of a termination or reduction of hours.
Up to 29 months is available to employees who are determined to have been disabled at any time during the first 60 days of COBRA coverage and applies as well to the disabled employee's nondisabled qualified beneficiaries.
Up to 36 months for spouses and dependents facing a loss of employer-provided coverage due to an employee's death, a divorce or legal separation, or certain other "qualifying events".

Not to mention the cost.

m00
10-05-2012, 11:03 AM
COBRA


How long must COBRA continuation coverage be available to a qualified beneficiary?

Up to 18 months for covered employees, as well as their spouses and their dependents, when workers otherwise would lose coverage because of a termination or reduction of hours.
Up to 29 months is available to employees who are determined to have been disabled at any time during the first 60 days of COBRA coverage and applies as well to the disabled employee's nondisabled qualified beneficiaries.
Up to 36 months for spouses and dependents facing a loss of employer-provided coverage due to an employee's death, a divorce or legal separation, or certain other "qualifying events".

Not to mention the cost.

Why not just buy a new iPad, and go to china and trade it to some kid for one of his kidneys? :friendly_wink:

Molon Labe
10-05-2012, 11:10 AM
Those laws are also regulations. Molon Labe stated that he is against regulations in a free market.


Then we clearly have two different definitions of what we mean by regulation. Laws preventing theft, murder, and loss of liberty are not the same as private business and private persons operating their private property as they see fit.

Clearly, if you truly believe that what I mean by a business being unregulated meaning I wish for the absence of law, then I don't know how to discuss this.

I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that.

Rockntractor
10-05-2012, 11:14 AM
Why not just buy a new iPad, and go to china and trade it to some kid for one of his kidneys? :friendly_wink:

Chinese kidneys are only effective for a short period each day and leave you feeling unsatisfied soon after you wake up.

Molon Labe
10-05-2012, 11:17 AM
We could have a long, convoluted discussion about regulation and the marketplace. Generally speaking, I am on board with a very unregulated market.

However, it cannot be applied to our current banking industry. If you understand how our banking system works, it needs regulation. More than others do incidentally.

I disagree. If our banking system was less regulated, there would have been no safety net in place to have protected BOA and others from making poor investment choices on the back of the public, which led to their bad business practices. They knew fully well they could be reckless and be bailed out.

Had Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac not been backed by government protection, then they all would have gone the way of the Do Do bird. Someone made it possible for the bad loans to go somewhere. It was the Government. The government created these institutons under the guise of "regulation" in order to control things and made it much worse.

When people actually have to take great risk that could lead to thier demise they are usually much more careful. These regs did just the opposite.

FlaGator
10-05-2012, 11:26 AM
Then we clearly have two different definitions of what we mean by regulation. Laws preventing theft, murder, and loss of liberty are not the same as private business and private persons operating their private property as they see fit.

Clearly, if you truly believe that what I mean by a business being unregulated meaning I wish for the absence of law, then I don't know how to discuss this.

I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that.

Private persons who hire others must be held to certain standards on how they treat those people. I'm not going so far as to support the current incarnation of labor unions but the initial purpose of labor unions was to facilitate proper treatment of those it hired.

Also there are potential issues where new technology creates new opportunities for illicit behavior. Shouldn't those who oversee these industries put regulations in to place to govern or restrict these behavior or should be just let them go on until the government passes a law to make them illegal?

Don't get me wrong, I totally accept the fact that businesses are over regulated. However, without some regulation you open a door to industrial anarchy.

m00
10-05-2012, 11:31 AM
Clearly, if you truly believe that what I mean by a business being unregulated meaning I wish for the absence of law, then I don't know how to discuss this.

What about environmental regulations? For example, dumping toxic chemicals into public water. Now if we had stronger property rights, the citizens of the town or whatever could bring a lawsuit. But then the damage is already done. What's your opinion on this.

Molon Labe
10-05-2012, 12:24 PM
Private persons who hire others must be held to certain standards on how they treat those people. I'm not going so far as to support the current incarnation of labor unions but the initial purpose of labor unions was to facilitate proper treatment of those it hired.

Also there are potential issues where new technology creates new opportunities for illicit behavior. Shouldn't those who oversee these industries put regulations in to place to govern or restrict these behavior or should be just let them go on until the government passes a law to make them illegal?

Don't get me wrong, I totally accept the fact that businesses are over regulated. However, without some regulation you open a door to industrial anarchy.


I think what Moo is saying answers this. If you pollute the water, then you are clearly damaging property of others and doing "harm" to others. That falls under the laws protecting life and property. It ALL go's back to this.

I think that the in a truly free market you would have more choices. Most businesses and consumers wouldn't tolerate another business that practices illicit behavior and people could go elsewhere and or else seek damages. I believe that self regulation must be the first option rather than our current default option of allowing the government to step in at every snivel.

A great example is Chicken products. We currently have two monopolies over this. Tyson and Perdue. Government goodies and regulations have allowed them to corner markets and become national industries where the local guys don't do as well. little guys can't compete because they can't handle the expenses of the regulations. If they could compete on an even field, you would have a dozens, maybe more. Your food would be alot healthier too.

Of course I'm not so blind to believe that some industries wouldn't try to take advantage of others, but with multiple options people usually are better able to make better decisions. I think most people want the best product or service at the best price. I think most people with better employment choices would also demand better working conditions. The regulations that were put in place to protect employees in the 19th and early 20th century are a far cry as to what's occurring today.

This industry couldn't continue those practices for long...(and the final caveat)......IF the legal system we had were both moral and ethical. As you and I both know we are a long way from being anything resembling a good Christian society anymore.

We are closer than we think on this.

djones520
10-05-2012, 12:38 PM
I think what Moo is saying answers this. If you pollute the water, then you are clearly damaging property of others and doing "harm" to others. That falls under the laws protecting life and property. It ALL go's back to this.

I think that the in a truly free market you would have more choices. Most businesses and consumers wouldn't tolerate another business that practices illicit behavior and people could go elsewhere and or else seek damages. I believe that self regulation must be the first option rather than our current default option of allowing the government to step in at every snivel.

A great example is Chicken products. We currently have two monopolies over this. Tyson and Perdue. Government goodies and regulations have allowed them to corner markets and become national industries where the local guys don't do as well. little guys can't compete because they can't handle the expenses of the regulations. If they could compete on an even field, you would have a dozens, maybe more. Your food would be alot healthier too.

Of course I'm not so blind to believe that some industries wouldn't try to take advantage of others, but with multiple options people usually are better able to make better decisions. I think most people want the best product or service at the best price. I think most people with better employment choices would also demand better working conditions. The regulations that were put in place to protect employees in the 19th and early 20th century are a far cry as to what's occurring today.

This industry couldn't continue those practices for long...(and the final caveat)......IF the legal system we had were both moral and ethical. As you and I both know we are a long way from being anything resembling a good Christian society anymore.

We are closer than we think on this.

This is where smarter regulations need to be in place. Cut out the ones that choke competition, but keep in the ones that protect the consumer. Obviously it'll be a complex process to do, but that's why we supposedly elect the best and brightest to do it.

FlaGator
10-05-2012, 12:59 PM
I think what Moo is saying answers this. If you pollute the water, then you are clearly damaging property of others and doing "harm" to others. That falls under the laws protecting life and property. It ALL go's back to this.

I think that the in a truly free market you would have more choices. Most businesses and consumers wouldn't tolerate another business that practices illicit behavior and people could go elsewhere and or else seek damages. I believe that self regulation must be the first option rather than our current default option of allowing the government to step in at every snivel.

A great example is Chicken products. We currently have two monopolies over this. Tyson and Perdue. Government goodies and regulations have allowed them to corner markets and become national industries where the local guys don't do as well. little guys can't compete because they can't handle the expenses of the regulations. If they could compete on an even field, you would have a dozens, maybe more. Your food would be alot healthier too.

Of course I'm not so blind to believe that some industries wouldn't try to take advantage of others, but with multiple options people usually are better able to make better decisions. I think most people want the best product or service at the best price. I think most people with better employment choices would also demand better working conditions. The regulations that were put in place to protect employees in the 19th and early 20th century are a far cry as to what's occurring today.

This industry couldn't continue those practices for long...(and the final caveat)......IF the legal system we had were both moral and ethical. As you and I both know we are a long way from being anything resembling a good Christian society anymore.

We are closer than we think on this.

I believe were are close on this, however, I do see the need for some regulations. Let's take a look at the payday loan industry here in Florida. At one point there were little to no regulations and these business loaned money out people who really needed some immediate cash at extremely high interest rates. If you were late on paying and your loan repayment could nearly double. Many turned to these services because they had no other choice.

It was the same with loans for car titles. Many people lost their cars over relatively minor delays in repayment. I know that these people chose to take these loans and they agreed to the terms but should a person lose his car because he needed money to pay for medicine for his family?

These companies preyed upon those who really needed a few extra dollars for some emergency but 50 and 70 percent interest rates are just over the top for people who were already not in the best of financial shape. The state stepped in had banking oversight groups adopt regulations that put caps on the amount of interest that could be charged by these types of financial institutions. The rates can still be high 21 to 25 percent but less people fell behind and lost property or money. Many of these businesses closed, not because they weren't making money, they just weren't making enough to keep them happy.

It can be deduced that some got in to this business for the sole purpose of fleecing people for as much money as they could and moved on to more lucrative scams created by loop holes in financial regulations. Loan sharking is illegal but these companies thwarted the intentions of the law by exploiting the lack of regulations in the financial industry. Trust me on this. I work for a very big bank and I can tell you they and most all banks do things that are not illegal but in my opinion are unethical in order to increase profits. Laws aren't needed to eliminate the unethical practices, just well thought out industry regulations.

txradioguy
10-05-2012, 01:08 PM
http://i50.tinypic.com/2qcgi1g.jpg

Molon Labe
10-05-2012, 03:43 PM
I believe were are close on this, however, I do see the need for some regulations. Let's take a look at the payday loan industry here in Florida. At one point there were little to no regulations and these business loaned money out people who really needed some immediate cash at extremely high interest rates. If you were late on paying and your loan repayment could nearly double. Many turned to these services because they had no other choice.

It was the same with loans for car titles. Many people lost their cars over relatively minor delays in repayment. I know that these people chose to take these loans and they agreed to the terms but should a person lose his car because he needed money to pay for medicine for his family?

These companies preyed upon those who really needed a few extra dollars for some emergency but 50 and 70 percent interest rates are just over the top for people who were already not in the best of financial shape. The state stepped in had banking oversight groups adopt regulations that put caps on the amount of interest that could be charged by these types of financial institutions. The rates can still be high 21 to 25 percent but less people fell behind and lost property or money. Many of these businesses closed, not because they weren't making money, they just weren't making enough to keep them happy.

It can be deduced that some got in to this business for the sole purpose of fleecing people for as much money as they could and moved on to more lucrative scams created by loop holes in financial regulations. Loan sharking is illegal but these companies thwarted the intentions of the law by exploiting the lack of regulations in the financial industry. Trust me on this. I work for a very big bank and I can tell you they and most all banks do things that are not illegal but in my opinion are unethical in order to increase profits. Laws aren't needed to eliminate the unethical practices, just well thought out industry regulations.


I think alot of this can be solved by more competiton and fiscal policy. This would lower costs on things like automobiles and homes and high dollar items. By not destroying the value of the dollar so that people have more purchasing power, this might negate the need for people to make imprudent credit purchases.

Easy access to loans because interest rates are so low put people in positions where they buy into the lie they can handle multiple credit lines and start maxing them out. Yes, people have personal responsibility, but so do the lenders. So we agree.

When I was a kid, I remember it was much harder to get a bank to loan you money for expensive cars and especially a home. Now people expect it.

I do trust you on the banking question. Large banks are some of the worst at practicing what I call "mafia" type practices. But what is one to do when you have the power of Uncle Sam who's "got your back"? That's the type of regulation I'm talking about. BOA should have been dead on arrival 6 years ago. Instead it thrives. Do you think some of those "unethical" practices to increase profits might have been negated if the people playing with the money thought they had alot to lose?

In my idea of a free market, yes, scamming would be seen as "theft" and it would be illegal. If a company could be found guilty of that, they would owe restitution. That's the way it should work. I understand it currently doesn't.

Hawkgirl
10-05-2012, 05:04 PM
FlaGator, Back in the day, if you didn't have the cash, you didn't buy the new car. Now people will pay outrageous interest rates to get that new car, house, phone (etc) to keep up with their neighbors. If a person signed a CONTRACT with high interest rates it was their fault, not the loaners. If I am late on my mortgage I get a credit mark. There are repercussions to actions. Bailing everyone out due to stupidity or mistakes led us to the mess we are in now. Regulations didn't stop people from buying $500,000 houses with 0% down when all they really could afford was a $200K house.

Bailey
10-05-2012, 05:14 PM
FlaGator, Back in the day, if you didn't have the cash, you didn't buy the new car. Now people will pay outrageous interest rates to get that new car, house, phone (etc) to keep up with their neighbors. If a person signed a CONTRACT with high interest rates it was their fault, not the loaners. If I am late on my mortgage I get a credit mark. There are repercussions to actions. Bailing everyone out due to stupidity or mistakes led us to the mess we are in now. Regulations didn't stop people from buying $500,000 houses with 0% down when all they really could afford was a $200K house.

While I mostly agree with you Hawk, these banks knew they were heading into risky loans, if i loan money to a person who I am pretty sure prolly wont pay me back who's at fault? me or the lendee? They got greedy and decided to make risky loans.

Hawkgirl
10-05-2012, 05:23 PM
While I mostly agree with you Hawk, these banks knew they were heading into risky loans, if i loan money to a person who I am pretty sure prolly wont pay me back who's at fault? me or the lendee? They got greedy and decided to make risky loans.

Yes, and they were forced to give these risky loans...BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION....aka Community Reinvestment Act.

"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), enacted by Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e, is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate. In this section of the web site, you can find out more about the regulation and its interpretation and information on CRA examinations. "

Encourage=Strong Armed.

Bailey
10-05-2012, 05:33 PM
Yes, and they were forced to give these risky loans...BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION....aka Community Reinvestment Act.

"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), enacted by Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e, is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate. In this section of the web site, you can find out more about the regulation and its interpretation and information on CRA examinations. "

Encourage=Strong Armed.

but didn't they bundle these bad loans and sold them to other banks? Sounds like they tried to make a buck off a bad investment.

Hawkgirl
10-05-2012, 05:34 PM
An example of Government imposed Regulation:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/03/community-reinvestment-act-mortgages-housing-opinions-contributors-peter-schweizer.html

An example of Government imposed Regulation:

The White House and Congress want to expand a 30-year-old law--the Community Reinvestment Act--that helped to fuel the mortgage meltdown. What the CRA does, in effect, is compel banks to seek the permission of community activists to get regulatory approval for bank expansions and mergers. Often this means striking a deal with activist groups such as ACORN or unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and agreeing to allocate credit to poor and minority areas that are underserved.

In short, the CRA encourages banks to make loans they would not ordinarily make. What's more, these agreements often require that banks offer no-money-down mortgages and remove caps on how much debt a borrower can take on. All of this is done in the name of "financial democracy."


According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, in the first 20 years of the act, up to 1997, commitments totaled approximately $200 billion. But from 1997 to 2007, commitments exploded to more than $4.2 trillion. (Keep in mind this is more than four times the size of the current health bill being debated in Congress.) The burdens on individual banks can be enormous

For all the talk of unsold condos in Miami and foreclosed McMansions in California, the epicenters of the mortgage crisis are inner-city urban areas--precisely those areas where the CRA was most applicable. As the Boston Federal Reserve put it in a massive 2008 study, "In the current housing crisis foreclosures are highly concentrated in [urban] minority neighborhoods." The study found that borrowers in these areas were seven times more likely to be foreclosed on than the general population. Analysis by the Pew Research Center and another by The New York Times found that mortgage holders in these areas had foreclosure rates four times higher than the national average.

In short, the CRA is compelling banks to make trillions in loans to individuals who have poor credit and who often can't or won't make their payments.

Zeus
10-05-2012, 05:59 PM
but didn't they bundle these bad loans and sold them to other banks? Sounds like they tried to make a buck off a bad investment.

Loan Bundling or group discounting for sale to larger organizations has been a banking practice almost since the establishment of banks. The primary reason being the smaller banks don't have the cash on hand to be able to maintain those loans or the manpower available to service all loans made.

The Bundling of discounted loans provides for a continuing cash flow enabling a bank to continue to issue more loans.

Molon Labe
10-05-2012, 07:35 PM
FlaGator, Back in the day, if you didn't have the cash, you didn't buy the new car. Now people will pay outrageous interest rates to get that new car, house, phone (etc) to keep up with their neighbors. If a person signed a CONTRACT with high interest rates it was their fault, not the loaners. If I am late on my mortgage I get a credit mark. There are repercussions to actions. Bailing everyone out due to stupidity or mistakes led us to the mess we are in now. Regulations didn't stop people from buying $500,000 houses with 0% down when all they really could afford was a $200K house.

Not to mention that 500K house was inflated within the illusion of the housing bubble (created by government intervention in the market) when it was really only worth about 350K.

FlaGator
10-05-2012, 07:58 PM
FlaGator, Back in the day, if you didn't have the cash, you didn't buy the new car. Now people will pay outrageous interest rates to get that new car, house, phone (etc) to keep up with their neighbors. If a person signed a CONTRACT with high interest rates it was their fault, not the loaners. If I am late on my mortgage I get a credit mark. There are repercussions to actions. Bailing everyone out due to stupidity or mistakes led us to the mess we are in now. Regulations didn't stop people from buying $500,000 houses with 0% down when all they really could afford was a $200K house.

That's an awful broad brush you're painting with. First of all, I believe firmly in people taking responsibility for their actions. I'm not a bleeding heart by any stretch of the imagination, however, the Lord blessed me with compassion for people who really need help and I hate seeing people take advantange of them. Dispite what Neal Boortz would have you believe, not everybody who is poor got that way by being stupid with their money. Sometimes events just happen and the next thing you know you're in trouble.

Were not talking about buy cars or getting things they couldn't otherwise afford. We're talking about people who put their car titles up as collateral in order to make a mortgage payment of buy medicine for a sick family member. I'm not saying that everyone who should up was in need. I figure a lot just wanted some case to buy drugs or gamble or doing something relativily stupid with the case. However a lot off people really need the funds to bail them out of an emergency.

At any rate the state saw it the same as I did and regulations were created to stop preditory lending.

Novaheart
10-05-2012, 08:21 PM
FlaGator, Back in the day, if you didn't have the cash, you didn't buy the new car. Now people will pay outrageous interest rates to get that new car, house, phone (etc) to keep up with their neighbors. If a person signed a CONTRACT with high interest rates it was their fault, not the loaners. If I am late on my mortgage I get a credit mark. There are repercussions to actions. Bailing everyone out due to stupidity or mistakes led us to the mess we are in now. Regulations didn't stop people from buying $500,000 houses with 0% down when all they really could afford was a $200K house.

If it make you feel better about yourself to think that all of these people were just plain stupid, then fine. However, if you want the whole picture it has to be on a broader scope and more personal level.

Yes, a lot of people paid too much for houses. The price of houses is driven by a number of factors including demand and the ease with which people can get loans. But the price of housing wasn't simply rising due to bad loans in bad neighborhoods. People were indeed stretching, frather perhaps than previous generations, because with prices rising, one simply could not save up for a house. People bought houses with little or no down, because they thought that they would be shut out of the market.

People buy cars on time. Rightly or wrongly, if it weren't for financing, cars wouldn't sell. Financing might make an individual car more expensive for an individual buyer, but by and large the fact that there is a lot of money available to borrow in a variety of formats such that just about anyone can drive, doesn't drive up the cost of cars. I agree with you that people spend stupid money on cars. I would have loved a $30,000 truck but I didn't want another car loan. Had one, and that was enough. I'd like to thank Jim Burney Dodge of Redwood City California for forever shaping my opinion of car dealers- fucking sleaze balls. After I paid off that loan, I swore I would never have another. But I probably will, I'll just be smarter and more demanding. I'd say that if you are leasing or buying on time a $50,000 -$100,000 car then you need to examine your priorities.

Hawkgirl
10-05-2012, 08:42 PM
The real issue with the housing market rise and resulting fall is that investors took advantage of the CRA regulation imposed by the government. Investors, who had no intention of living in the homes they bought, (end users), bought up a lot of inventory and then flipped them Builders couldn't keep up with the demand to build more. The prices skyrocketed and once investors unloaded their inventory, it crashed. There are people that still will profit, even with government involvement/regulations. The Miami condo fiasco is a good example of the damage government can do. Downtown Miami is an example, it's a sad place of tall, beautiful modern highrises that sit completely empty.

Hawkgirl
10-05-2012, 08:45 PM
That's an awful broad brush you're painting with. First of all, I believe firmly in people taking responsibility for their actions. I'm not a bleeding heart by any stretch of the imagination, however, the Lord blessed me with compassion for people who really need help and I hate seeing people take advantange of them. Dispite what Neal Boortz would have you believe, not everybody who is poor got that way by being stupid with their money. Sometimes events just happen and the next thing you know you're in trouble.

Were not talking about buy cars or getting things they couldn't otherwise afford. We're talking about people who put their car titles up as collateral in order to make a mortgage payment of buy medicine for a sick family member. I'm not saying that everyone who should up was in need. I figure a lot just wanted some case to buy drugs or gamble or doing something relativily stupid with the case. However a lot off people really need the funds to bail them out of an emergency.

At any rate the state saw it the same as I did and regulations were created to stop preditory lending.

I can appreciate your compassion, but ALL of the people I know that took out second mortgages didn't do it for a sick relative, and I know lots of them. Not One was for the noble example you gave.

JB
10-05-2012, 09:04 PM
When people actually have to take great risk that could lead to thier demise they are usually much more careful. These regs did just the opposite.It's more complicated than that in the banking system. The system is built on faith. That's the problem but it's also the reason we can all pay our houses off over 30 years. If a bank gets too big, makes a bad bet or two and loses, the whole thing could collapse. Not just that one bank. If it was just that one bank it wouldn't be an issue.

I tried to explain it with the pizza example.

I'm not saying I have the solution. I'm saying that unregulated, too big too fail banks could cause us an incredible amount of pain.

Zeus
10-05-2012, 09:16 PM
The real issue with the housing market rise and resulting fall is that investors took advantage of the CRA regulation imposed by the government. Investors, who had no intention of living in the homes they bought, (end users), bought up a lot of inventory and then flipped them Builders couldn't keep up with the demand to build more. The prices skyrocketed and once investors unloaded their inventory, it crashed. There are people that still will profit, even with government involvement/regulations. The Miami condo fiasco is a good example of the damage government can do. Downtown Miami is an example, it's a sad place of tall, beautiful modern highrises that sit completely empty.

Investors weren't enticed by govt regulations but rather they saw an opportunity where there were more buyers than product available on the market. Whether they intended to live in them or not is immaterial other than the delineation between Investor and homeowner and very few Investors are Involved in the financing aspect of the buyers. Sure they were aware of loosening of credit requirements of potential buyers but that wasn't their doing.The shortage of available product is what drove prices up. The increase in foreclosures is what dried up the money pipeline and caused the Housing bubble to burst. Now commercial ventures are a completely different animal with far more in play than Residential real estate.

Hawkgirl
10-05-2012, 10:23 PM
Investors weren't enticed by govt regulations but rather they saw an opportunity
Sure they were aware of loosening of credit requirements of potential buyers but that wasn't their doing.

That's my point. It wasn't their doing, but the government's doing.

Apocalypse
10-05-2012, 10:40 PM
Any one notice the liberal rag, "The New Yorker" Cover this month?

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/presidentemptypodium.jpg

HEHE

Zeus
10-05-2012, 10:52 PM
http://i50.tinypic.com/evaujs.jpg

:pirate: Stolen from Kyle Ricky aka LukeEDay

Gina
10-05-2012, 11:40 PM
When you go to facebook, before you sign in, this is on the page:

https://fbcdn-dragon-a.akamaihd.net/cfs-ak-ash4/84979/779/427933800596648_142098699.jpg

Novaheart
10-06-2012, 12:55 AM
I can appreciate your compassion, but ALL of the people I know that took out second mortgages didn't do it for a sick relative, and I know lots of them. Not One was for the noble example you gave.

I know a number of people who took out second mortgages or lines of credit on primary residences, but most often it was for improvements to their primary investment with an eye on selling it fairly soon. Others bought a rental or speculation property. A lot of people got caught with bad timing.

When the bottom fell out here, the first ones to go down were actually investors who were carrying a handful to dozens of properties. I was in an auction circuit, where one investor from Kentucky had something like thirty properties from expensive condos to shabby fourplexes. Another investor with an Indian or Paki name, had some fifteen high end properties. These were people who had previously been considered real estate machines, who paid for a lot of handymen and installers and yard services etc...

The truth is that a lot of your primary residence foreclosures are still in the shadow inventory.

But J.T. Smith, chief investment officer of the boutique firm Aristar Funding Group in Florida, said the fundamentals are still off. The indices he said are not capturing a true and accurate picture of the estimated 4 million foreclosed homes being held off the market. At a clip of 500,000 REOs sold per year, he estimates a national housing bottom in the second half of 2014 and for Florida to lag roughly 12 months after that.

The Federal Housing Administration delinquencies are going back up, and he pointed out the 11.4 million homeowners estimated to owe more on their loan than their home is worth is barely budging.

"If pricing was bottoming we would see this number begin to move and it hasn't, the only movement has been through modifications, short sales, and foreclosures," Smith said.

http://www.housingwire.com/news/shadown-inventory-keeps-florida-housing-rebound-still-years-out

Zeus
10-06-2012, 02:03 AM
But J.T. Smith, chief investment officer of the boutique firm Aristar Funding Group in Florida, said the fundamentals are still off. The indices he said are not capturing a true and accurate picture of the estimated 4 million foreclosed homes being held off the market. At a clip of 500,000 REOs sold per year, he estimates a national housing bottom in the second half of 2014 and for Florida to lag roughly 12 months after that.

The Federal Housing Administration delinquencies are going back up, and he pointed out the 11.4 million homeowners estimated to owe more on their loan than their home is worth is barely budging.

"If pricing was bottoming we would see this number begin to move and it hasn't, the only movement has been through modifications, short sales, and foreclosures," Smith said.

http://www.housingwire.com/news/shadown-inventory-keeps-florida-housing-rebound-still-years-out

Nova the statement in red should show to anyone with limited knowledge of the real estate mkt & how it works that J.T. Smith is talking out his backside for reasons known only to him. The market value of homes not currently for sale do not fluctuate willy nilly to market trends. Those homes change in value due to appraisals required for refinancing to cash out or make/already made appreciable improvements

Also who holds a foreclosed property off the mkt ? Banks & mortgage companies sure as hell don't because to them and govt authorities those properties are a liability not an asset,undervalued or otherwise. People making a claim of foreclosed Properties being purposely "held off the market" don't know what the hell they are talking about.

The ominous "shadow Inventory" is nothing more than foreclosed properties currently on the mkt but as of yet unsold. No nefarious activity involved.

Novaheart
10-07-2012, 12:51 PM
Nova the statement in red should show to anyone with limited knowledge of the real estate mkt & how it works that J.T. Smith is talking out his backside for reasons known only to him. The market value of homes not currently for sale do not fluctuate willy nilly to market trends. Those homes change in value due to appraisals required for refinancing to cash out or make/already made appreciable improvements

Also who holds a foreclosed property off the mkt ? Banks & mortgage companies sure as hell don't because to them and govt authorities those properties are a liability not an asset,undervalued or otherwise. People making a claim of foreclosed Properties being purposely "held off the market" don't know what the hell they are talking about.

The ominous "shadow Inventory" is nothing more than foreclosed properties currently on the mkt but as of yet unsold. No nefarious activity involved.

I don't know that anyone is suggesting that the practice is nefarious. Lenders are waiting long periods of time between default and foreclosure. In some cases they appear to think it's advantageous to have an owner occupant living in the house and maintaining it rather than another deteriorating property with a For Sale sign out front. My mother's neighbor hasn't made a mortgage payment in three years, and she's not using a cracker jack lawyer to fight foreclosure, the lender simply doesn't seem interested in taking the house at this time. Another neighbor cuts the grass so the neighborhood won't suffer.

There are a wide range of estimates of shadow inventory. A common measure are loans that are either in the foreclosure process or that are three months or more delinquent. These are mortgages that are among the most likely to ultimately become bank-owned properties.

Barclays Capital estimates that at the end of May there were around 1.8 million mortgages in the foreclosure process and another 1.45 million where borrowers have missed at least three payments. That puts the total number of properties that could be repossessed and resold by banks at around 3.25 million mortgages.

If those homes hit the market all at once, housing would be in deep trouble. Last year, for example, there were 4.4 million sales of previously owned homes. The figure is still higher than any time before June 2009.

But it is down from a peak of 4.25 million in February 2010. And unless mortgage delinquencies begin to accelerate sharply, the shadow inventory won’t be growing. Barclays estimates that at the current rate, this figure could fall to around 2.4 million loans.

Perhaps you have been listening to this guy:

“The concept of a huge shadow inventory is preposterous,” says Christopher Thornberg, a housing economist with Beacon Economics in Los Angeles. “The number of mortgages in distress is way down from one year ago. It’s clear there are fewer distressed properties out there.”

Housing analyst Ivy Zelman has a slightly larger estimate of shadow inventory—around 6.3 million homes at the end of last year—that includes more newly delinquent mortgages and potential re-defaults. She says that in a normal market, there’s a comparable shadow inventory of 2.9 million homes. So the key figure—the excess level above the historical trend—is around 3.4 million homes.


http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2012/08/14/shadow-inventory-its-not-as-scary-as-it-looks/

Trust Forbes?

What Housing Recovery? Distressed Sales Still High, Shadow Inventory Massive


http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/08/28/what-housing-recovery-distressed-sales-still-high-shadow-inventory-massive/

Housing markets seemed to have turned a corner, with Tuesday’s Case-Shiller data adding to the optimism. Home prices have risen for a second consecutive month for the first time since the summer of 2010, but much of this is a consequence of the falling percentage of distressed sales, while prices are still more than 31% of their peaks and may take years to recover. With 11.4 million, or 23.7%, of all residential properties with a mortgage under water, and a shadow inventory worth $246 billion, according to CoreLogic, a true housing recovery is far away.

As mentioned previously, the most recent data on underwater mortgages shows that nearly a fourth of all residential properties with a mortgage are underwater. That’s 11.4 million as of the end of the first quarter. At the same time, financial institutions including big banks with exposure to the mortgage business like Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup are sitting on a shadow inventory of 1.5 million units, or four months supply. Worth $246 billion, the shadow inventory will certainly weigh on lending and economic conditions going forward.

Gina
10-07-2012, 02:02 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/60724_10151158726387906_1037420840_n.jpg

Elspeth
10-07-2012, 02:11 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/60724_10151158726387906_1037420840_n.jpg

EXCELLENT!!!

Empty chair, empty suit...

He's just empty and has always been.

:biggrin-new:

FlaGator
10-07-2012, 02:19 PM
I can appreciate your compassion, but ALL of the people I know that took out second mortgages didn't do it for a sick relative, and I know lots of them. Not One was for the noble example you gave.

I don't recall saying anything about people taking out second mortgages to help people. I did reference people taking out payday loans and car title loans to get them through some emergency. Where did I say something about people taking second mortgages

Gina
10-07-2012, 02:29 PM
Too funny: When You've Lost SNL (http://twitchy.com/2012/10/07/when-youve-lost-snl-snl-hilariously-mocks-obamas-debate-performance-msnbc-stompy-foot-tantrum/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter)

Zeus
10-07-2012, 03:38 PM
I don't know that anyone is suggesting that the practice is nefarious. Lenders are waiting long periods of time between default and foreclosure. In some cases they appear to think it's advantageous to have an owner occupant living in the house and maintaining it rather than another deteriorating property with a For Sale sign out front. My mother's neighbor hasn't made a mortgage payment in three years, and she's not using a cracker jack lawyer to fight foreclosure, the lender simply doesn't seem interested in taking the house at this time. Another neighbor cuts the grass so the neighborhood won't suffer.

There are a wide range of estimates of shadow inventory. A common measure are loans that are either in the foreclosure process or that are three months or more delinquent. These are mortgages that are among the most likely to ultimately become bank-owned properties.

Barclays Capital estimates that at the end of May there were around 1.8 million mortgages in the foreclosure process and another 1.45 million where borrowers have missed at least three payments. That puts the total number of properties that could be repossessed and resold by banks at around 3.25 million mortgages.

If those homes hit the market all at once, housing would be in deep trouble. Last year, for example, there were 4.4 million sales of previously owned homes. The figure is still higher than any time before June 2009.

But it is down from a peak of 4.25 million in February 2010. And unless mortgage delinquencies begin to accelerate sharply, the shadow inventory won’t be growing. Barclays estimates that at the current rate, this figure could fall to around 2.4 million loans.

Perhaps you have been listening to this guy:

“The concept of a huge shadow inventory is preposterous,” says Christopher Thornberg, a housing economist with Beacon Economics in Los Angeles. “The number of mortgages in distress is way down from one year ago. It’s clear there are fewer distressed properties out there.”

Housing analyst Ivy Zelman has a slightly larger estimate of shadow inventory—around 6.3 million homes at the end of last year—that includes more newly delinquent mortgages and potential re-defaults. She says that in a normal market, there’s a comparable shadow inventory of 2.9 million homes. So the key figure—the excess level above the historical trend—is around 3.4 million homes.


http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2012/08/14/shadow-inventory-its-not-as-scary-as-it-looks/

Trust Forbes?

What Housing Recovery? Distressed Sales Still High, Shadow Inventory Massive


http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/08/28/what-housing-recovery-distressed-sales-still-high-shadow-inventory-massive/

Housing markets seemed to have turned a corner, with Tuesday’s Case-Shiller data adding to the optimism. Home prices have risen for a second consecutive month for the first time since the summer of 2010, but much of this is a consequence of the falling percentage of distressed sales, while prices are still more than 31% of their peaks and may take years to recover. With 11.4 million, or 23.7%, of all residential properties with a mortgage under water, and a shadow inventory worth $246 billion, according to CoreLogic, a true housing recovery is far away.

As mentioned previously, the most recent data on underwater mortgages shows that nearly a fourth of all residential properties with a mortgage are underwater. That’s 11.4 million as of the end of the first quarter. At the same time, financial institutions including big banks with exposure to the mortgage business like Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup are sitting on a shadow inventory of 1.5 million units, or four months supply. Worth $246 billion, the shadow inventory will certainly weigh on lending and economic conditions going forward.




I'm of the opinion a lot of these so called Real Estate market experts are using half truths , improper comparisons and faulty analysis in making their arguments. Now historical data analysis is a valuable tool in determining mkt appreciation, contraction or stagnation except in current conditions. Looking to recent histories "Peak" market conditions to form critique and draw comparisons is Inane in that recent "peak" conditions are now known to have been extremely inflated due to a handful of reasons , governmental dictate & interference chief among them and contributed greatly to the collapse.. Sometimes one has to step outside the Academic bleating of the so called experts who have never spent a day actively involved in the market they are talking about. Is new construction picking up , are sales of existing properties increasing ? yes on both accounts, anemically but still coming back. Now given recent history do you not suppose contractors would approach speculation with a considerable dose of skepticism , They must be seeing something the super Geniuses aren't. The rebound will continue at a snails pace as long as the overall economy is on the skids. Once the economy picks up you will see the housing market gather momentum and rebound further . Naturally the return to having to only approve mortgages for those deemed credit worthy of , financially capable of and Intending to pay off a mortgage will slow a recovery to a certain extent.

If you aren't attempting to sell your home it doesn't matter if the mortgage is 1000% of current market value. In an appreciating mkt a 4 month supply of inventory aint squat unless of course they are overpriced , in need of considerable repair/upkeep or both.