So, we have two. Let's discuss economic impacts

[audtatious]

So, down to two candidates. Obamalamadingdong and McWalkingCane. What are their stances for the economy? Seems to me:

Obama and Mac are both pro-global warming. Both pro-illegal. Both anti-drilling. Both pro-universal healthcare.

Obama is anti-military while Mac is pro-military (thus Obama would plan on using military funds for his initiatives that Mac would still use for military)

From an economic standpoint, both are for GW initiatives and against drilling for our own resources. The impact here is that we are going to continually be at the mercy of other countries for oil and we are going to be taxed further for what we use. Pressing for GW initiatives with our economy like it is is absolutely retarded. Pro-illegal is going to continue bankrupting our social services and fill our jails. UH has fail written all over it.

So, what are their differences and do either of them have any economic plan that has a chance in hell of working?

[HashiriyaS14]

All this pro-and-anti drilling stuff is getting out of hand.

We can be pro-drilling all we want, it doesn't change the fact that we don't have enough domestic oil to be truly independent. The only way we will ever be truly independent is to just use less oil.

Thus, I DO agree with J-mac on the need for additional nuclear, I wish Barack would get on that boat too. I think anyone in the Oval Office will with time, it's an inevitability.

[rn79870]

Obama's plan.

Protecting Homeowners: Obama has proposed a fund to offer direct relief to victims of mortgage fraud and would ease the burden on struggling homeowners by offering a tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year.

Combating Fraud: Obama would institute tough new penalties for those who commit mortgage fraud, and create a uniform HOME SCORE that would allow consumers to compare various mortgage products so that they can determine which mortgage best fits their needs and financial situation.

Middle-Class Tax Cut – Obama is the only candidate to propose a middle-class tax cut that will provide relief to 95% of working Americans -- $1,000 per working family. He’ll also eliminate income taxes for any senior making less than $50,000.

Affordable Health Care – Obama’s universal health care plan cuts costs more than any other plan in this race – it will save the typical family up to $2500 on their premiums.

Making College Affordable – Obama will provide the middle class a fully refundable tax credit worth $4,000 for tuition and fees every year, which would cover two-thirds of the tuition at the average public college or university.

Easing the Burden on Working Families – For mothers and fathers who are juggling work and parenting, Obama will expand the child care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 a year, and he’ll double spending on quality afterschool programs. He will also expand the Family Medical Leave Act to include more businesses and millions more workers; and change a system that’s stacked against working parents by requiring every employer to provide seven paid sick days a year, so that they can be home with their child if they are sick.

A Secure Retirement – Obama will require employers to enroll every worker in a direct deposit retirement account that places a small percentage of each paycheck into savings. Workers would be able to retain this account even if they change jobs, and the federal government will match the savings for working families.

A Credit Card Bill of Rights – Obama will institute a five-star rating system to inform consumers about the level of risk involved in every credit card and establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to a credit card agreement; ban rate changes to debt that’s already incurred; and ban interest on fees.

Reforming Bankruptcy Laws – Obama will reform bankruptcy laws to make sure that those who can demonstrate they went bankrupt because of medical expenses can relieve their debt and get back on their feet.

Rebuilding our Infrastructure – Obama would create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment generate nearly two million new jobs – many of them in the construction industry that’s been hard hit by this housing crisis.

Trade that Works for Workers – Obama will end tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas and give breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages here in America.

Millions of New Green Jobs -- Obama’s energy plan will invest $150 billion over ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create millions of new jobs over the next two decades – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. He will also provide funding to help manufacturers convert to green technology and help workers learn the skills they need for these jobs.

[96Qowner]

Arg, McCain is NOT pro-universal healthcare. He wants exactly the opposite - tax credits for private insurance of your choice.

And his stance on illegal aliens is quite a bit different than Obama's

http://www.betterimmigration.c....html

[96Qowner]

Sure, and how much will all this Combatting, Securing, Reforming and Rebuilding cost every American? Just a per-worker/yr figure will do. Is that number on his website, too?

[brizanden]

^well like you said obama would presumably use military funds for other things which could be good. while mckaine will pull money from no where ?like normal. idk i think its a choice between which is gonna be the better of two evils per say.

[audtatious]

All this pro-and-anti drilling stuff is getting out of hand.

We can be pro-drilling all we want, it doesn't change the fact that we don't have enough domestic oil to be truly independent. The only way we will ever be truly independent is to just use less oil.

No, but even if we could pump 40% of our own oil it would help. Each bill gets killed in Congress and those killing them keep stating we need to invest more into alternatives. Sorry, but viable alternatives for the masses are nowhere close. Pulling our own oil would help fill the gap between now and when we can get better alternatives.

Thus, I DO agree with J-mac on the need for additional nuclear, I wish Barack would get on that boat too. I think anyone in the Oval Office will with time, it's an inevitability.

Well, 'Bama does state that Nuclear energy should be explored as an energy option. Of course, that sounds fishy considering it HAS been an option for 40 years now and simply blocked by the enviro's.....

[audtatious]

Arg, McCain is NOT pro-universal healthcare. He wants exactly the opposite - tax credits for private insurance of your choice.

And his stance on illegal aliens is quite a bit difference than Obama's

http://www.betterimmigration.c....html

Take a chill pill. I put it in wrong....

[rn79870]

Sure, and how much will all this Combatting, Securing, Reforming and Rebuilding cost every American? Just a per-worker/yr figure will do. Is that number on his website, too?

We're going to find out all too soon, probably starting in early January.

[audtatious]

Obama's plan.

Cool, thanks for posting. I'll comment on the first two for now....

Protecting Homeowners: Obama has proposed a fund to offer direct relief to victims of mortgage fraud and would ease the burden on struggling homeowners by offering a tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year.

Combating Fraud: Obama would institute tough new penalties for those who commit mortgage fraud, and create a uniform HOME SCORE that would allow consumers to compare various mortgage products so that they can determine which mortgage best fits their needs and financial situation.

So, people knowingly signed ARM loans, which were perfectly legal, and it's not their fault that they can't afford the payments? Fraud is a "feel good" term here to further keep people from being responsible for their decisions. Now, where is Obama going to get the fund money from?

[rn79870]

C'mon Matt. It was a fraud by omission from the get go. The people were promised home loans they could afford. (at the time). They trusted their realtor and the mortgage banker. They wanted a home and were willing to pay for it - little did they know their ARMs would go through the ceiling. Any lender could/should have seen that possibility and looked at the possibility of the buyer repaying higher payments. But the banks didn't give a crap, they sold the paper (loan) as soon as they got it. Now, three entities have profited, the realtor, the mortgage banker and the original mortgagor.

Everyone shared in obscene profits on sub prime loans. They (the commissioned participants) padded their pockets by being less than honest about all the potential pitfalls.

Every salesman knows that once the customer says "yes" you stop talking. That's exactly what happened with the sub prime mess. The homeowner said "yes" and nothing else was said, especially nothing relating to the possibilities of unaffordable housing in the future.

Not everybody is sophisticated enough to understand real estate purchases, let alone financing. Sure, some buyers were greedy, others just wanted a home for their families and jumped at the opportunity to get it - fully intending to repay the loans. Put the blame where it should be, on the greedy scumbags that profited from the "fraud."

[audtatious]

So, my tax money should be used to help these people who chose to sign without looking into the contract or possibilities? WHAT?

Where were these free handouts for stupidity when I was young?

[brizanden]

^its not the younger generation that needs help from what i see. i think those propssed things would help the mid 30s people who screwed up by leaving far outside their means like most of the us population as of now. I see all this happening and i know what i should def not do. i dont even have a credit card still. just debit and if i would get a credit card i would def pay back what i spent with it whitin a month or two. Now i know this will change when i start a family and buy a house and what not, but i would hope i would be into good financial habits by then.

[audtatious]

You are correct. It is primarily people who are living above their means. Regardless, they are still stupid as they know their income and still chose to sign the contract or they did not look into financial aspects of their loans.

What's next, someone working at McDonalds buys a new car and expects us to help him pay for it because he did not understand that he would have monthly payments that exceeded his pay? What about people who use credit cards but miss a payment (or more) and their percentage rate goes up; should we be responsible for that as well?

[HashiriyaS14]

So, my tax money should be used to help these people who chose to sign without looking into the contract or possibilities? WHAT?

Where were these free handouts for stupidity when I was young?

You know, as much as I hate to agree with Matt about anything (joke), I have to say that I'm with him on this one.

I DO think that "caveat emptor" should apply to people in regards to these loans. No one should ever buy anything they don't understand.

They should either research the subject and gain an understanding or they should keep renting.

[audtatious]

Damn, you _had_ to agree with me

I'm not that bad. Just wish I could debate better because I suck at getting my points across most of the time.

[brizanden]

What's next, someone working at McDonalds buys a new car and expects us to help him pay for it because he did not understand that he would have monthly payments that exceeded his pay? What about people who use credit cards but miss a payment (or more) and their percentage rate goes up; should we be responsible for that as well?

no i dont think that at all, but that same person is just gonna file for bankrupcy and do it all over again anyway.

[audtatious]

So the solution is to give up and let the Gov handle it all?

Since most of us tend to agree that the Gov could not stuff 2 lbs of crap in a 10lb bag, that is not a viable solution. Let them live in their cars for a while until they can get an apartment (I did). There are plenty of isolated woods where they can pitch a tent as well (or some grocery bags made into a tent shape)

[brizanden]

^eh we shelter to many idiots lol. idk if we can change that at this point. It seems like this to me America the country the common do gooder gets screwed lol, but dont get me wrong i love it here.

[HashiriyaS14]

Just wish I could debate better because I suck at getting my points across most of the time.

Na, you're better than you give yourself credit for being. I wouldn't argue with you all the time if it were poor sport, lol.

[ishkabibble]

So, people knowingly signed ARM loans, which were perfectly legal, and it's not their fault that they can't afford the payments? Fraud is a "feel good" term here to further keep people from being responsible for their decisions. Now, where is Obama going to get the fund money from?

Nice try at spinning this. There is a huge difference between mortgage fraud and an ARM. There were a ton of questionable things going on in the mortgage industry during the "bubble". Everyone wanted a piece of the action.

Edit: Just FYI, I do not support bailing out people who did not do their research or went beyond their means.

[audtatious]

Are you saying the contracts they signed were breached by the creditors or that they are not responsible for their agreeing to the contracts because the did not know enough to read the fine print?

I have seen no charges being brought up against the creditors for fraud, have you? If so, where?

[ishkabibble]

Are you saying there is no such thing as mortgage fraud?

[ishkabibble]

http://news.google.com/news?q=mortgage%20fraud

[rn79870]

Are you saying the contracts they signed were breached by the creditors or that they are not responsible for their agreeing to the contracts because the did not know enough to read the fine print?

I have seen no charges being brought up against the creditors for fraud, have you? If so, where?

Not the point. What happened was that over zealous loan officers/Realtors arranged for financing that was marginally affordable. The buyers that were involved listened to the "professionals" and believed what they were told, that is, that the market would continue in bull mode. They were never made fully aware of how dangerous their predicament was. What reputable lender would offer a low rate ARM to a buyer knowing full well that probable increases would force the buyer into default? Then to top it off, the mortgage packager put all this together and hid the sub prime losers in batches of other notes and sold them, knowing that they were headed for default.

There was major deceit, if not direct fraud by almost everyone involved in the process.

[ishkabibble]

Motrgage fraud is stuff like:

-Faking comps-Faking appraisals-Switching out the terms of the contract-Forgery

etc.

[rn79870]

What about certifying a loan for people they knew, or should have known, wouldn't be able to perform on the contract. It's like selling a 18 year old minimum wage earner a new AMG C63. Ain't no way he's going to be able to make the payment and the salesman should know that.

[ishkabibble]

I dunno, isn't criteria for qualification up to the lender? The standards got loose there for awhile, but as far as I know, it wasn't fraud unless the broker was playing games with the numbers.

[audtatious]

What's the bottom line? Were loans offered that did or did not state the rates throughout the life of the loan? Were payments for the life of the loan spelled out in the loan papers? Were people forced to sign paperwork?

It all comes down to the person taking out the loan. They can either afford it or not. Only they can determine if they can afford the payments as they are the ones paying their bills and the ones in charge of their own money.

So, couple "A" rents an apartment. They clear 30k/yr. They pay out 28k/yr in normal expenses. They know what they have left over monthly and should have a clue about "unexpected expenses" as well. They want to buy a house and are shown payments that are only slightly more than what they pay for the apartment. It's an ARM. They look at the bottom dollar but do not read the contract to see what it really means. They sign it because they want the house. Then they can't afford it. While I agree the bank probably should have been smart enough to NOT loan them the money for the house, the final decision to sign is theirs and theirs alone.

[smockers83]

This could go on forever if we're still only on the mortgage crisis. Here's the deal, standards by bankers were not met trying to make sales. The real fraud in this market occurred on the home buyers themselves, not all but some. How many people lied about their incomes in order to be approved? I've heard quite a few stories on that....that's fraud. However, these people shouldn't have been approved had the banker looked into incomes like he/she should have. We should not bail these people out. This should be a lesson to every person in this country--just because you can doesn't mean you should. The way this country operates now is a buy now, pay later scheme which makes things seem easier to pay off and more affordable (somehow?). We need to get away from that now because it has caused this nation to live outside of its means and have a negative savings rate.

Now its late and I'm pretty tired, but on the college funding--a fully refundable tax credit? Am I reading this correctly? You're going to give me a refund on something you've already given me a credit on? Or are you expecting me to refund my credit to the gov when my future kid graduates? I'm confused. But if this is a route Obama plans on, it could be very bad in the long run because college education can't be funded through taxes forever, and if it is, other forms of college funding need to be cut. I feel a system like this will put us further in debt. Plus, those schools that it would cover 2/3...those are some poor universities and would only be in-state tuition.

Working families. Families who have the mother working and are having trouble making ends meet because of daycare costs...the mother might as well just stop working (or father). The costs of daycare have risen to meet "wage" stay-at-home moms would receive for their services around the house and taking care of the kids. So this has either made it unaffordable or break-even for many families with both parents working two jobs trying to improve themselves.

Secure retirement. Creating individual accounts for SS is not the answer. In fact, SS is not the system we should be worried about. Its Medicare/Medicade. SS can be fixed by controlling what goes out and how it goes out. I should have more info to share on this tomorrow (well later today). The best way to have a secure retirement is SAVE! Just do it, and not when you're 30 or 40 or 50. Start soon, start early. The difference in starting at 21 compared to 30 is millions in just compounded interest! Wall Street wants the gov to create this investment accounts and what not because it means more money for them. So just do it yourself and you don't have to rely on the government. SS also wasn't intended to fund retirement, only to help minimally. Plus age expectancies are much higher.

Credit cards. I am all for for regulation in this industry. It reduces profits for businesses and it makes it more expensive for consumers to buy things. The industry needs regulation and its current use by consumers needs to change. In a thread before, or maybe I read this somewhere, but someone said that eliminating the process of counting change and what not takes a certain amount of time, costing some amount of money. I would have to imagine credit cards are costing commerce more.

Trade that works for workers. IIRC, Obama and Hillary were both saying get rid of NAFTA. That would be a huge, huge mistake. If he still thinks that or wants to further protect our economy from trade, that automatically DQs him as president for me. Protecting our economy like that will only hurt jobs. Free trade, to a certain point, actually creates jobs. Its just that people complain and see an industry disappear. Some protection is good, but only to a certain point for certain things. If we take advantage of comparative advantage where we specialize in things we do well compared to others, that benefits us and others. Jobs have been outsourced before, I don't understand what the big deal is. Where is the thriving textile industry that used to be? Oh yeah, all of those jobs are overseas now and have been for a very long time. I don't see people complaining about that, although I'm sure they were back then. Some people just need to learn to think sometimes.

Green industry. I'm not sure exactly what this entails. Are we talking about ethanol? CO2 reduction strategies? What? CO2 can only be reduced today by reducing the use of carbon. That's the only way. Sequestering it won't work as it will just leak out. There is no technology for removing CO2 from the factories like sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides. Ethanol is not the answer to oil, nowhere near. The only green technology we really have is switching to cleaner fuels (nuclear, wind, H2O, etc) and cutting back. Oh, and this cap-and-trade system needs to killed immediately. McCain is in favor, this also makes me not want to vote for him.

The middle-class tax cut. I'm sorry, but excluding seniors who make under $50,000 is ridiculous. Am I being harsh? You make think so, but what happens when baby boomers take this area of the population by storm? Not a good idea. Countries across Europe tax on taxes. They'll tax you on social transfers, which bids up the tax percentage. Someone could theoretically pay over 100% in taxes. What about teenagers who are working part time? What about families who can barely afford to live. Please, cutting seniors' taxes is dumb. Just a ploy to get the older people to vote for him since it seems much of his following are younger people.

In fact, I think a lot of Obama's plans are ploys to appeal to certain people at certain times. Also, I have a question to ask all of you. How good are these candidates? How good are they really? You have Obama who has the "first black candidate of a major party" and McCain as a "war hero" and whatever else. Take those away from them, what do you really have? My following of this election reflects my belief that both of these guys suck and the fact that my potential vote here in MI wouldn't count. Thanks guys, I didn't vote in the primary. Who the F cares who votes before who...the numbers are still the same.