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

[ishkabibble]

Apparently, you believe that there is no such thing as mortgage fraud. You keep bringing up ARMs, which is not = mortgage fraud.

[audtatious]

Good post

I'll try and cover some of the points later today

[audtatious]

Apparently, you believe that there is no such thing as mortgage fraud. You keep bringing up ARMs, which is not = mortgage fraud.

I never stated there was no such thing as mortgage fraud. The reason mortgage fraud came up as a key point is primarily due to ARMs and people not being able to afford the monthly payments after they go up (and because it is a Presidential election year, thus wanting their votes). You can't tell me that the full contract the "home owner" signed did not have all the stipulations and information concerning the loan contract and terms in it. If the "broker" was trying to get you to sign a contract at a stipulated "set fixed low interest rate" by showing figures different than what the contract said, then they should go to jail for it, BUT you as the potential home owner should have read the contract first and caught it them. Their failure to validate the contract they signed is NOT Joe Publics fault and we should not be penalized for it. The home owner, lender and agent should be penalized. Screw bailouts.

[rn79870]

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.

Thanks Smocky. You can aleays be counted on to add every financial thread. Remember, I'm not an economist, so bear with me.

What you say may have happened to some extent, but that's not what caused the major problem. IMO

I bought a house in the height of the bubble. Fortunately, I sold one at the same time, so I really transferred equity from one to the other. ARMs were marketed as a means for me to move up beyond what I had selected another 100,000 or so and get a bigger, better home. (I didn't do it, I went with a fixed 6.125, with 50% down - which was the the best I could get at the time)

Here is what got the majority of people who bought at the same time in trouble. A. The realtor would have made another $1500 to $ 3000 for bumping me the extra 100k for the house. They showed me the ARM and said "Look your payment will actually be LESS." As I said, no dice. They were also very good at pointing out how fast property was rising in value, and how quickly it will sell if you don't jump on it. They also pointed out that I could resell in a year at profit and move again. (as it turns out, that would have been a big, huge mistake.)

B. The mortgage broker asks what I earn yearly. I had a document loan, IE, I had to produce previous tax forms, etc. (self employed are looked on as worthless scum when trying to get financed - they like paycheck stubs from real working people). Maybe some brokers allowed cheating, but the guys wanted everything I had for the past three years.

The mortgage broker gets paid points, that is, a percentage of the value of the loan he sells. Guess what he pushes, - low down, high loan to value ratios. The bigger the loan, the bigger his check. Hence, 125% loan to value ratios were pushed with promises of "extra money for all those things you really want." I didn't qualify for at least one loan because I didn't want to borrow enough money. If I didn't know any better, I'd have stepped up to the extra funds and thought it was a requirement for ANY loan.

The mortgage banker packages the "paper" and sells it. Then it is packaged with other loans and sold to who/what ever invests in that kind of stuff. They passed along paper that they knew would be bad in a very short time. Fraud? Misrepresentation? Criminal? You tell me. They could care less, they got their money.

Here is the problem faced by a buyer. What would have started out as a $1500 a month payment with the low rate, quickly went to $2000. It hurt the people, but they soldiered on, making their payments. Then to $2500, then to $3000. One situation that I know if it went from $1800 to over $2800 a month. They are losing their home, or so they say as they get to live in it rent free until it sells. It's been over 8 months since their last payment. Their home has decreased from $440.000 to $225,000 and it still isn't selling, in fact, 1 potential buyer has looked at it in those 8 months.

Now, enter the realtor again. He tries to sell a property in foreclosure. Guess what. He makes an offer to a bank. 3 weeks later he gets a reply "We have received your offer and will review it when we get a round to it."

Everybody made money off the uneducated / uninformed guy who just wanted to buy a home for his family. Sure, some lied thinking the bubble would continue and they would cash out on the other end, never thinking it would pop like it did. Some of the tards took their 125% loans and bought those new large SUVs only to find out that their home and their car are worthless and they can't afford to drive them either.

All this may not be technical fraud, but there was a lot of misinformation given designed to make a bigger commission for the person giving the misinformation throughout this scandal.

Should the government bail them out. No. Here is an example of a situation where Greg's Free Market Economy* might work to sort the problem out. Unfortunately, somebody is losing a very large amount of money as this sorts out.

*GFME = a conservative, albeit idealistic belief that things will get better by themselves, if left alone by the government. A good example is $4.00 gas.

[HashiriyaS14]

The mortgage broker asks what I earn yearly. I had a document loan, IE, I had to produce previous tax forms, etc. (self employed are looked on as worthless scum when trying to get financed - they like paycheck stubs from real working people). Maybe some brokers allowed cheating, but the guys wanted everything I had for the past three years.

Yeah, here's where your experience was different from that of many other people.

A year or more ago, a "stated income" loan was very popular, i.e. a loan that allowed a borrower to avoid submitting any proof of income. The trade-off is that you pay a slightly higher rate.

Stated Income loans came to be known as "liar loans" as more and more people used them to blatantly defraud lenders and buy more house than they could afford.

[audtatious]

I bought a house in the height of the bubble. Fortunately, I sold one at the same time, so I really transferred equity from one to the other. ARMs were marketed as a means for me to move up beyond what I had selected another 100,000 or so and get a bigger, better home. (I didn't do it, I went with a fixed 6.125, with 50% down - which was the the best I could get at the time)

Why didn't you do it?

Here is what got the majority of people who bought at the same time in trouble. A. The realtor would have made another $1500 to $ 3000 for bumping me the extra 100k for the house. They showed me the ARM and said "Look your payment will actually be LESS." As I said, no dice. They were also very good at pointing out how fast property was rising in value, and how quickly it will sell if you don't jump on it. They also pointed out that I could resell in a year at profit and move again. (as it turns out, that would have been a big, huge mistake.)

Sounds like a car salesman? Sometimes you just say "no" like you did. Being in "sales" myself, you always want to sell the highest cost product but settle for what you can get. It's the same with the above as they are doing it to make a profit/commission on sales.

The mortgage broker gets paid points, that is, a percentage of the value of the loan he sells. Guess what he pushes, - low down, high loan to value ratios. The bigger the loan, the bigger his check. Hence, 125% loan to value ratios were pushed with promises of "extra money for all those things you really want." I didn't qualify for at least one loan because I didn't want to borrow enough money. If I didn't know any better, I'd have stepped up to the extra funds and thought it was a requirement for ANY loan.

Of course some will lead to get the biggest "bang for the buck". Nothing new

The mortgage banker packages the "paper" and sells it. Then it is packaged with other loans and sold to who/what ever invests in that kind of stuff. They passed along paper that they knew would be bad in a very short time. Fraud? Misrepresentation? Criminal? You tell me. They could care less, they got their money.

It should have been up to the company purchasing the loans to check them out, correct? If I'm going to invest in something I'm sure going to try and find out where I can "take a hit" financially. It's only criminal if they were hiding the contract terms from the companies that bought them. If the companies that bought them knew or didn't care then it's not a criminal issue.

Here is the problem faced by a buyer. What would have started out as a $1500 a month payment with the low rate, quickly went to $2000. It hurt the people, but they soldiered on, making their payments. Then to $2500, then to $3000. One situation that I know if it went from $1800 to over $2800 a month. They are losing their home, or so they say as they get to live in it rent free until it sells. It's been over 8 months since their last payment. Their home has decreased from $440.000 to $225,000 and it still isn't selling, in fact, 1 potential buyer has looked at it in those 8 months.

OK...Contract....Did the home owner read it? Did they understand the loan? Who's responsibility is it to read and understand the contract they are signing....The purchaser, Gov't or the tax payer?

Everybody made money off the uneducated / uninformed guy who just wanted to buy a home for his family.

Again, why should tax payers be held liable due to some guy wanting something he could not _potentially_ afford? If he did not understand he could have asked others or done research himself. It's not like the loan was going to be null and void if he waited a day or two to validate and understand the terms. When I buy something I validate everything before signing the paperwork. How am I responsible for others that don't and make bad decisions?

All this may not be technical fraud, but there was a lot of misinformation given designed to make a bigger commission for the person giving the misinformation throughout this scandal.

I'm sure contracts were fluffed over but it is still the purchasers responsibility to validate the contract.

*GFME = a conservative, albeit idealistic belief that things will get better by themselves, if left alone by the government. A good example is $4.00 gas.

Not necessarily. Gov should not have done any bailouts tho. I have no issue with some regulation of products that we simply have to have in the country. Utilities, gas, food, etc. When it comes to the housing issue either the companies that own the paper can lose money while the homeowners lose their home or they could have reached out to those unable to pay the higher prices and renegotiated the contracts to suit each of their needs.

[rn79870]

I think I'm defending many, if not the majority of people who got caught in the sub prime mortgage crunch.

I'm not saying the government should bail out anyone. I am saying the blame for the problem needs to fall on more than just the person who over extended for a home.

I remember being told about all this money that was available, and how silly it was not to take advantage of it, and either move up a level or over borrow and have some "free cash." They made it sound enticing. And at the time, it appeared almost the reasonable thing to do. I didn't partake because I didn't want to leave my wife with any larger of a debt than necessary if I croaked.

My feeling is blame the ones who had a financial interest in creating the problem. Sure buyers should read contracts, but realistically, there are so many pages and they are flashed so fast before you that reading them is all but impossible. For a person who is even less sophisticated, the problem is compounded. Blame the people who profited from their misdeeds.

[audtatious]

I've done stupid crap before. My X wife _had_ to have this house. We did 100% financing and had to get a 2nd mortgage at twice prime rate to get it. Since she spent every penny we had and it was difficult to pay bills. Who was responsible for letting that happen? I was because I allowed it. I take full responsibility for signing and agreeing to the contract even though the bank probably should not have done it. I made the choice to go ahead and get it just like those you are defending agreed to the loans.

Sorry, bit I simply do not see a whole lotta shades of gray in these matters.

[smockers83]

Thanks Smocky. You can aleays be counted on to add every financial thread. Remember, I'm not an economist, so bear with me.

I try to do what I can, but I'm sure you know more about this than I do. You've actually been there, I haven't. I just know general things and understand some details. But eventually I will understand all of this.

But to blame it all on one person or group of people is incorrect, like you said. People who overextended themselves are to blame and the bankers are to blame. Everyone saw low interest rates and said "Oooo, time to buy." Decreasing interest rates jacked up home prices (think about it like bonds) along with this increased demand. And these same people saw low interest rates, which created a lot of available cash for cheap. At the same time, banks had to make money with low interest rates so I'm sure they were pushing their bankers to make sale upon sale. That's my theory on that.

Another thing that's been left out in terms of economics is a plan for oil. Everyone blames the Bush admin and the GOP while its these f'in Dems who are blocking everything to increase supply. The Dems also want to penalize the only people who can bring oil to market because somehow its their fault. Oil CEOs are the ones making sure there's gas at all the pumps. And they aren't making windfall profits by definition, that's what the government makes through taxes. But I have been saying before that speculation is part of the increase in crude, but I have since learned it isn't. Speculation in crude doesn't affect the consumer price. And in fact speculation is good for the market apparently. The speculators take risk out of the market. Since speculation goes into the futures market, companies buy these futures contracts to keep prices stable. If a company buys July contracts for $130 or whatever it is now, if oil actually does go above $130 in July, companies can use these contracts instead of paying the full market price. This is something I didn't understand before. But according to economists 20 years older than me, speculators are good for this market. Now to Obama. He is Dem, so he's not going to want to increase supply, but try and tax these businesses. Why? Because they make billions of dollars? Well, they're just making an honest profit in the area of 10-15%, just like every other successful business. Taxation on these companies will further up the price of oil. Its just stupid, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE AT ALL. I really do want to yell that. McCain is for cap-and-trade on CO2, which won't work and will add to oil and its volatility. But I think he's for increasing supply? Maybe? Can someone divvy up McCain's plans?

[ishkabibble]

I never stated there was no such thing as mortgage fraud. The reason mortgage fraud came up as a key point is primarily due to ARMs

You brought up ARMs. I don't see ARMs anywhere in the original content.

Their failure to validate the contract they signed is NOT Joe Publics fault and we should not be penalized for it. The home owner, lender and agent should be penalized. Screw bailouts.

Agreed. Glad to see you back on topic.

[audtatious]

You brought up ARMs. I don't see ARMs anywhere in the original content.

I bring up ARMs because the MSM and others consitantly bring subprime ARM loans up as a predatory lending practice that caused people to lose their homes. Low percentage rate for a set term (or until 110% of loan value is exceeded) which resets to prime or higher afterward. I use ARM as a "catch all" as the subprime issue is what is driving the whole Obama mortgage fraud crap.

Agreed. Glad to see you back on topic.

If they did a stupid, why should the rest of us pay for it?

[smockers83]

I was talking to a real estate agent in line at the post office the other day and we started talking about the sub prime crisis. She said 60%, let me say that again, 60 percent, was mortgage fraud.

Anyone want to lay out McCain's ideas?

[96Qowner]

I talked to a real estate agent 2 days ago, and he said mortgage companies had been encouraging people to take no-qualification loans - preferred them, in fact, because there was no paperwork.

No qualifications, no income verification, no asset verification, no nuthin.

Duh? Could that be a problem? Are qualifications necessary?

[smockers83]

Alright, I found a list of how McCain stands on certain issues of economic interest.

Budget * We should spend more money on: defense, education, homeland security, medical research, national parks * We should spend less money on: arts, space exploration programs * We are spending about the right amount on: environment, international aid, law enforcement, public health services, scientific research, transportation and highways, welfare

Taxes * The following should be taxed much less: Family income less than $150,000, capital gains, inheritance taxes. * The following should be taxed somewhat less: corporate taxes, gasoline taxes * The following tax deductions/credit should be increased: child tax credit, earned income tax credit, medical expense deduction * A married couple filing jointly should pay the same taxes as if they were an unmarried couple filing separately. * Does not support permanent repeal of the federal estate tax, or eliminating taxes on dividends paid to individual investors.

Education * Supports the use of vouchers (equal opportunity scholarships) to send children to any public, private, or religious school. * Supports funding to establish charter schools. * Supports an increase in funding for block grants to states to aid in the hiring of additional teachers. * Supports teacher testing and reward teachers with merit pay. * Supports increases in funding for school capital improvements (e.g. buildings, infrastructure, technology). * Supports increased funding of programs such as Pell grants and Stafford loans to help students pay for college. * Supports federal tax incentives to help families save for college.

Employment * Supports increased funding for national job-training programs that re-train displaced workers. * Supports a reduction of government regulation of the private sector in order to encourage investment and economic expansion. * Supports tax credits or grants to businesses that offer child care services to employees. * Encourages employers to offer flex-time scheduling, comp-time, and unpaid leave for family emergencies.

Environment and Energy * Believes that we should strengthen the regulation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. * States should compensate citizens when environmental regulations limit uses of privately-owned land. * Believes that we should strengthen emission controls and fuel efficiency standards on all gasoline and diesel-powered engines, including cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles. Encourages further development and use of alternative fuels to reduce pollution. * Supports the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel. * Supports the U.S. re-entering the Kyoto treaty process to limit global warming. * Supports Healthy Forests legislation encouraging thinning in areas where communities exist near forests.

Health * Supports a Patient's Bill of Rights, including appeal mechanisms when claims are denied, and the right to sue when claims are denied. * Supports expanded eligibility for tax-free medical savings accounts. * In favor of limits on the amount of punitive damages awarded in medical malpractice lawsuits. * Supports expanded prescription drug coverage under Medicare. * Supports tax credits to individuals and small businesses to offset the cost of insurance coverage.

Immigration * Supports an increase in the number of visas issued for agricultural workers. * Would relax restrictions barring legal immigrants from using social programs (e.g. public housing, food stamps). * Supports immigration reform allowing willing employers & employees to connect, while protecting American jobs & securing our borders.

International Aid * Believes that aid should be granted to countries when extraordinary circumstances cause disaster and threaten civilian lives, and/or when it is in the security interests of the United States. * The United States should not withdraw its troops from Iraq. The funds that have already been authorized and appropriated should be dispensed. We must financially support the reconstruction effort. We need to be prepared to spend what it takes to assure success. * The United States should increase its financial support to Colombia to combat "the war on drugs." * Supports the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). * Supports the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). * Supports U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). * Does not agree that a nation's human rights record should affect its normal trade relations (most favored nation) status with the United States. * Supports the trade embargo against Cuba. * Trade agreements should not include provisions to address environmental concerns and to protect workers' rights.

National Security * The federal government should increase funding to states and cities for homeland security. * Supports a policy of pre-emptive strikes against countries deemed to be a threat to national security, evaluated on a case by case basis depending on the severity of the threat.

Social Security * Workers should be allowed to invest a portion of their payroll tax in private accounts which they manage themselves.

Technology and Communication * Supports the moratorium on Internet taxation.

Welfare and Poverty * Welfare recipients should be required to spend at least 40 hours a week in a combination of work and training programs. * Supports increased funding for child care programs. * Supports housing assistance for low-income families.

[smockers83]

Start: 8:46PM. Estimate: Long night, Tylenol for headaches, Midol for cramps.

BudgetA lot of what he wants to increase are big-ticket items like defense, education, security, and med research. What he wants to decrease are minimal items on the budget except for NASA (which I disagree that both of those should be decreased). He keeps everything else the same. So. Defense is a huge *** budget and isn't included in budget figures unless otherwise noted. But increasing something already large and probably big enough for now is going to further increase are debt to future Americans. Bad. We need more spending on our infrastructure, at least here in MI, as it helps spur economic growth. Government deficit is a strange area in economics, to me at least. Some say its essential, some want no debt like most states are required to do. Personally I think some public debt is good, but we need to get our current debt reduced with knocking one or two zeros off at the end.

TaxesYes, families under $150,000 should be taxed much less. The middle class is being pinched and needs to be brought back. This will help the economy in terms of consumption, but it will also increase many people's payroll (and decrease it for some near that $150,000 mark). If McCain is looking to be the winner, look for the stock market to start rising again or more in the future as assurances to taxes on capital gains and dividends to be reduced and not repealed look promising. This will spur the market and future investments. Married couples. This one surprises me. Removing the tax incentive to marry could have interesting effects. In terms of economics, it obviously creates more revenue, which I'm guessing could be handed back with the higher credits he plans for. The question that came to my mind when I saw this is, if the incentive is removed, will people think twice about marriage, will average ages of newlyweds change, and will we see a decrease in the divorce rate in this country? All in all, looks like he's for decreasing taxes.

Education and EmploymentAny investment into the public reaps the biggest benefits to a country in terms of the economy. A more skilled and educated workforce does wonders. Much better than Obama wanting to fund college through taxes.

Environment & EnergyNot exactly sure on the two acts, but I know he's in favor of a CO2 cap-and-trade system, which just won't work with today's technology and will be a much bigger and more complex system than the sulfur and nitrous programs already in place. I know he also supports lifting the oil drilling ban as well, and I think that's a good one. Increasing efficiency in the automotive industry is good, too. People say this is the quickest way to do it rather than drilling, but lets think about it. Although these cars can be bought right away in the next few years, how long would it take to replace the market with these types of vehicles. You're looking at 20+ years. And what then? We come back to what we have today. So oil drilling is a plus in my book. As far as I know he's also opposed to taxing oil companies more, another plus. Ethanol isn't the answer. If we switched to an all-ethanol industry, we're seeing right now what could happen to our gas supply along the Mississippi River. Yeah, not good there. And it does more harm than good overall.

HealthPatient's Bill of Rights might be a good idea, however an appeal process for denied claims isn't. It jams up the court system, makes health care more expensive because of legal costs, etc. The threat of being sued will increase costs instead of compliance. Not a good example, but look to lemon laws. If instead sellers were faced with the threat of being sued, they could all charge the highest price and not care as the gains from trade would be smaller and less beneficial (if you do the analysis, it is). Plus, if a patient gets denied a doctor knows he's going to get sued, so why have this extra cost? Tax-free medical savings accounts may be a good idea to provide an incentive to create an emergency fund, which all people should have. Expansion of Medicare is the last thing that program needs. We just need to revamp it first so that its fixed and not borrowing money, then we can expand it.

ImmigrationI've always been in favor of this along with tighter border security. This allows the lower-wage jobs to be filled at their market price. Not allowing these immigrants in and forcing businesses to hire Americans causes wage prices to go up for them, causing rising prices, so on and so forth.

International AidI support all of it except the War on Drugs, and everything dealing with human rights and environmental issues. These issues should be important aspects when making trade agreements, however, it shouldn't cause favored trade agreements. War on Drugs = fail, so why more?

National SecurityHomeland security, as I stated before, I feel doesn't need to be increased. A way to deal with our terrorlst threats abroad while decreasing your defense budget is a policy of containment, similar to the Cold War. This provides minimal military resources to do the job and provides better results than Iraq. However, we cannot allow us to bankrupt a country like what happened to Russia. Pre-emptive strikes should not be used, violates a containment policy. Strike only imminent threats, all while reducing the defense budget.

Social SecurityAmen to that. No individual government accounts. SS was not intended for the way its used nowadays and really isn't the program that needs fixing like they claim. Let us do our own retirement like it should be done.

TechnologyDon't know anything on this taxation thing.

Welfare and PovertySame as education. Increased investment into your population provides the biggest returns.

End: Only a little after 10, not as bad as I thought. I don't like this as much as my Obama one though.

[audtatious]

BudgetA lot of what he wants to increase are big-ticket items like defense, education, security, and med research. What he wants to decrease are minimal items on the budget except for NASA (which I disagree that both of those should be decreased). He keeps everything else the same. So. Defense is a huge *** budget and isn't included in budget figures unless otherwise noted. But increasing something already large and probably big enough for now is going to further increase are debt to future Americans. Bad. We need more spending on our infrastructure, at least here in MI, as it helps spur economic growth. Government deficit is a strange area in economics, to me at least. Some say its essential, some want no debt like most states are required to do. Personally I think some public debt is good, but we need to get our current debt reduced with knocking one or two zeros off at the end.

Both Mac and 'bama will have to get a grip on Gov spending (which won't happen unfortunately). Mac shows increases in some areas whereas 'bama seems to press forth more socialized agendas. Honestly, if the money was going to be spent, I would prefer it being done the Mac way instead of the 'bama way at this point.

TaxesYes, families under $150,000 should be taxed much less. The middle class is being pinched and needs to be brought back. This will help the economy in terms of consumption, but it will also increase many people's payroll (and decrease it for some near that $150,000 mark). If McCain is looking to be the winner, look for the stock market to start rising again or more in the future as assurances to taxes on capital gains and dividends to be reduced and not repealed look promising. This will spur the market and future investments. Married couples. This one surprises me. Removing the tax incentive to marry could have interesting effects. In terms of economics, it obviously creates more revenue, which I'm guessing could be handed back with the higher credits he plans for. The question that came to my mind when I saw this is, if the incentive is removed, will people think twice about marriage, will average ages of newlyweds change, and will we see a decrease in the divorce rate in this country? All in all, looks like he's for decreasing taxes.

Is the 150k mark for individuals or family? As far as marriage credits, I understand both ways but feel the Gov should not penalize people for being married.

Education and EmploymentAny investment into the public reaps the biggest benefits to a country in terms of the economy. A more skilled and educated workforce does wonders. Much better than Obama wanting to fund college through taxes.

I agree. The problem we are seeing with manufacturers moving overseas is with our non-tech labor force. Giving corp tax cuts for companies offering competative training courses would be another avenue to look into. I have always been for giving people a hand-up in life but despise the hand-out approach that we see so much of today.

Environment & EnergyNot exactly sure on the two acts, but I know he's in favor of a CO2 cap-and-trade system, which just won't work with today's technology and will be a much bigger and more complex system than the sulfur and nitrous programs already in place. I know he also supports lifting the oil drilling ban as well, and I think that's a good one. Increasing efficiency in the automotive industry is good, too. People say this is the quickest way to do it rather than drilling, but lets think about it. Although these cars can be bought right away in the next few years, how long would it take to replace the market with these types of vehicles. You're looking at 20+ years. And what then? We come back to what we have today. So oil drilling is a plus in my book. As far as I know he's also opposed to taxing oil companies more, another plus. Ethanol isn't the answer. If we switched to an all-ethanol industry, we're seeing right now what could happen to our gas supply along the Mississippi River. Yeah, not good there. And it does more harm than good overall.

A Cap-n-Trade system will simply make others rich at our expense and the current result of these systems in other countries are pretty much failures from what I read. I think Mac has missed the train here. 10 years ago (or so) the same "drill or not drill" issue was on the table and the concensus was that it was a waste of time to allow more drilling as it would take 10 years to see any results. Now, 10 years later, things are worse and we are still hearing the "no, we need to push forth alternatives because it will take 10 years to reap any benefits from additional drilling". Gee, maybe they should buy a clue? Windfall taxation of oil companies is the most idiotic thing I have seen. Why not simply windfall tax every corporation that made >9% profit margins? Pretty damn stupid game that the Democrats are playing here.

HealthPatient's Bill of Rights might be a good idea, however an appeal process for denied claims isn't. It jams up the court system, makes health care more expensive because of legal costs, etc. The threat of being sued will increase costs instead of compliance. Not a good example, but look to lemon laws. If instead sellers were faced with the threat of being sued, they could all charge the highest price and not care as the gains from trade would be smaller and less beneficial (if you do the analysis, it is). Plus, if a patient gets denied a doctor knows he's going to get sued, so why have this extra cost? Tax-free medical savings accounts may be a good idea to provide an incentive to create an emergency fund, which all people should have. Expansion of Medicare is the last thing that program needs. We just need to revamp it first so that its fixed and not borrowing money, then we can expand it.

Medical is just part of this issue. The court system is being taxed with lawsuits for everything as a means for some to make quick money. This could work if there was a non-partisan board of review that people could turn to in order to keep this out of the legal system. At least it would keep a percentage of these cases from going through the real court system.

ImmigrationI've always been in favor of this along with tighter border security. This allows the lower-wage jobs to be filled at their market price. Not allowing these immigrants in and forcing businesses to hire Americans causes wage prices to go up for them, causing rising prices, so on and so forth.

It kinda depends. If we require "* Welfare recipients should be required to spend at least 40 hours a week in a combination of work and training programs." then it is a possibility that the jobs being done by illegals would be needed to support welfare programs. Of course, from a agricultural perspective I would tend to agree that a properly legal means should be put in place for farmers to get labor when needed (in areas the welfare system would not be viable). You mention "Not allowing these immigrants in and forcing businesses to hire Americans causes wage prices to go up for them, causing rising prices, so on and so forth." is a moot point when there are a lot of people, politicians and groups wanting amnesty for all illegals. If granted, these people would no longer be working for those wages anyway as they would be bound to be paid minimum wage. It's a catch-22 that is pretty much ignored.

International AidI support all of it except the War on Drugs, and everything dealing with human rights and environmental issues. These issues should be important aspects when making trade agreements, however, it shouldn't cause favored trade agreements. War on Drugs = fail, so why more?

Then what do we do about illegal drugs? They are illegal for reasons beyond taxation methods.

National SecurityHomeland security, as I stated before, I feel doesn't need to be increased. A way to deal with our terrorlst threats abroad while decreasing your defense budget is a policy of containment, similar to the Cold War. This provides minimal military resources to do the job and provides better results than Iraq. However, we cannot allow us to bankrupt a country like what happened to Russia. Pre-emptive strikes should not be used, violates a containment policy. Strike only imminent threats, all while reducing the defense budget.

For the most part I believe they are doing a relatively decent job of avoiding attacks here (thus far). I am also not against pre-emptive strikes of terrorlst training camps and such. Saddam is gone, Syria has backed away from some of their WMD and other agendas and even N. Korea is making strides (maybe) to comply to pressure. I would actually like to see more money invested in our missle defense system.

Social SecurityAmen to that. No individual government accounts. SS was not intended for the way its used nowadays and really isn't the program that needs fixing like they claim. Let us do our own retirement like it should be done.

I agree as long as there are mandatory regulations and limitations to ensure that the private savings accounts are protected in a way to keep people from spending the money. Once invested, it should stay invested and NOT be like a 401k where people can simply pull money out on a whim. The Gov't needs to keep their hands off this money by all means.

Welfare and PovertySame as education. Increased investment into your population provides the biggest returns.

Education is only good if the people being taught are willing to learn. What do we do about the rising dropout rates?