How Obama Got Elected

reply to post by Jenna


Right. I understand that. And there are difficult things about it to enforce. For instance, I just bought a car, and there is no WAY they would sell me anything unless I had insurance. They won't even sell me the car, if I paid cash - let alone if I took out a loan.

Now, we are talking about a few thousand, you know. Quite different from hundreds of thousands. How can these people get away with not having insurance? If they can't afford it due to inflation, then someone needs to find ways to give coupons or something.

The hard part is enforcing a law like that. What do you do? Confiscate the house? Then you just end up in the same place.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


It's been a few years since we bought a car, but I don't remember them asking about insurance before they would sell us the car. It is possible I just missed that part of the conversation though, and it has been a few years so it may just be faulty memory. And there are many people who will get insurance long enough to buy/tag the car or buy the house and then just not pay for it and let the insurance lapse. I've done it myself years ago. Not intentionally, just forgot to pay the car insurance and didn't realize it till a few months later when I realized I hadn't gotten a bill in awhile. That was on a car I had a loan for, but they didn't say a word about it. I realized on my own that I didn't have insurance and was driving around without it.

I do understand your point though. From what I have seen and read about New Orleans though it's not so much insurance that's the problem as much as it is the legal hoops that have to be jumped through to be able to rebuild your house.

The area I live in is a flood zone. Every time it rains roads in the area flood. My basement has flooded twice in the last two years. Flood insurance is not offered in my area though. I asked why and their reasoning is that we know we live in a flood plain and by buying a house here we chose to take responsibility for damages caused by flooding. Now if I set my kitchen on fire and have the firemen come put it out, then my insurance will pay for flooding. Or if I drive my car into the house and knock a water line loose, then they will pay for flooding. But if it's rain? I might as well forget it.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


Maybe it's the state you live in that requires auto insurance.

No such requirement here in NH, except if you secure a loan with the auto. Then that requirement comes from the lender.

I ca remember if I've been required to have homeowners insurance on the last six or so properties that I've purchased. I've always carried insurance anyway; it would be folly not to.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Sorry, I've proven what I've claimed.

Your problem is that you continue to make accusations that are false and LIES. Like the claim that I said all Obama supporters were uneducated. That is a lie and you know it.

And you want me to defend the LIES you are spouting. Won't happen.

You are merely reveling in the attention you are getting. You will spout lies to continue getting attention.

I've already called you out on your lies. You ignore it.

The best way to stop you is to stop feeding you.

Buh-bye!

I told lies? you are so silly. Asking you to back up your claims with a non biased and legit source isnt lying. Its just asking you to prove what you are claiming is true. Youve called me out on my lies? which lies are they? the one where I generalized your claims? That isnt a lie. That is a making a general statement to keep from posting every single specific thing youve said.Id love to hear what "lies" youve called me out on.

When I said that you said all obama supporters are uneducated. I said that in a very general way to keep from posting all the specific things you did say. I already explained that, and if you stil cant understand that, Then thats ok. You tried your best.

If you can finally understand, I will post your claims once again and ask you to provide proof from a no biased and legit source. its up to you.

Here are the specific claims you HAVE made. This is not a lie as anyone can check the thread and see that you HAVE posted these claims.

But I can understand why Obama supporters don't want to hear the real truth as to why he was elected

most Obama voters don't know the issues at all.

I never said all Obama voters were uneducated. But the percentage that won the election for him were, to a very large part.

The people that truly understand the issues voted against Obama. That's why they lost. There are too few people in the US who are truly "educated".

Yeah, sure, let's turn communist or socialist!

Yes he will. Socialism at it's worst.

He has extensive involvement with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers.

Show me an instance where I ever said Obama was a Muslim Extremist.

(see above where you try to indicate Obama is a terrorist.)

a large portion of blacks voted for Obama simply because of his race. I would extend this to include some non-blacks.

Others voted for him for some nebulous "Change" that they cannot explain

There ya go. That is what you have said. That is no lie. Are you really going to deny now that you ever said this stuff? I have plenty of screenshots to prove that you did if you want to deny it.

So that said, are you going to back up your claims with a non biased and legit source? I have asked you mutiple times and you havent done it yet.

May it be known, that from here on out, any response from jsobecky other the proof that backs up her claims is just more evidence that he/she does not know what they are talking about. It is just more evidence that there is no evidence to back up their claims. it is more evidence that they are WRONG.

Josbecky you can post a reply to this if you want. but you know what they sayl about trolls, ignore them. That is why you are going on ignore. I wont be able to see your reply if you do. The burden of proof is all on you now. you can prove to the rest of the thread your claims or you can not and look silly for not being able to do so.

The best way to stop feeding a troll is to ignore them and that is exactly what I have done. No matter what you claim you are unable to back up your claims and that is your own fault. Call me what you want, it is your own fault that you made claims that cant be backed up with evidence from a non biased and legit source. I wash my hands of your nonsense.

Have a nice life, I wish you the best, and happy thanksgiving!

[edit on 25-11-2008 by gimme_some_truth]

reply to post by Irish M1ck


I'm going to guess that the Katrina induced collapse in home and real estate values wasn't due just to a 64% rate of insured houses in LA.

To put the disaster into context, it was 4 times larger that any previous event including H. Andrew, Camille, the destruction of Galviston, the Chicago fire or the San Francisco earthquake. 300,000 homes were lost and property damage was estimated at $400 billion.

When their homes were destroyed, so many people walked away and defaulted mortgage payments irregardless of flood insurance that the banks and mortgage holders were overwhelmed. It took years to sort out the financial chaos. Home prices along the entire Gulf Coast were severely decreased because of all the foreclosed homes forced on the market and the sudden realization that noone with a home was safe with such monster storms rolling in every season, sometimes several a season as happened in 2005.

As real estate prices decreased this put anyone with a high mortage in an upside down position thus leading to more foreclosures. Snowball and homeowners all over the country were affected.

BTW we have 7 (or 8) houses and neither my wife or I are sure if any have flood insurance. Only 3 are on a flood plain. 5 have mortgages so they probably do.





[edit on 25/11/08 by plumranch]

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


That was in the past 5 hours right? You should see what's been said in the past year!

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by Irish M1ck

 

When their homes were destroyed, so many people walked away and defaulted mortgage payments irregardless of flood insurance that the banks and mortgage holders were overwhelmed. It took years to sort out the financial chaos. Home prices along the entire Gulf Coast were severely decreased because of all the foreclosed homes forced on the market and the sudden realization that noone with a home was safe with such monster storms rolling in every season, sometimes several a season as happened in 2005.



BTW we have 7 (or 8) houses and neither my wife or I are sure if any have flood insurance. Only 3 are on a flood plain. 5 have mortgages so they probably do.





[edit on 25/11/08 by plumranch]

irregardless isn't even a real word... And are you actually just John McCain??? Do we need to get back to your people to find out exactly how many homes you actually own? Another thing, I thought you said you were about 5,000 miles from NOLA... What type of experiences do you have regarding the situation they faced besides supposedly owning 7 or *cough* 8 homes? See, you keep going back to something that really doesn't have anything to do with what people face when they have a mortgage they can't pay on. If you have a mortgage, you have to have insurance, there is no way you can obtain a mortgage without insurance... how do you finance hundreds of thousands of dollars without getting it insured? That is truly absurd if you don't understand that... in fact some people try to make it easier for themselves when paying their taxes and insurance on the property by lumping them up into the monthly mortgage payments... P.I.T.I. but to say that the banks didn't screw up is just ignorant... I know your just being racist... Republicans started blaming it on minorities and people in sub prime as soon as this problem started to get worse... Michelle Bachmann started going off on this, and if you believe her, I believe you're crazy... You are just a racist trying to justify your greedy beliefs, party and president.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

That was in the past 5 hours right? You should see what's been said in the past year!

It really is mind boggling isnt it? People make outrageous claims, and when someone expects them to back up their own claims, they try to turn it around and blame everyone else.


It is no one's fault but there own for failing to provide evidence to back up their claims. You would think people would realize that on ATS we dont just take peoples word for it. Sadly some people expect us to. If we dont take their word for it they shout and scream and insult and troll and try to make the other look bad in an effort to distract the thread away from their own short comings.

Crap like that is the reason I usually stay away from the political threads. I enjoy politics but there is just so BS sometimes it makes me want to scream. If someone is going to make a claim they need to be able to back that claim up with evidence from a non biased and legit source. If they cant they need to not make such claims.

By the way,I hope you and jsobecky really do have that debate. Good luck to you if you do, although to be honest, if jsobecy uses the same claims they used in this thread then you wont need that luck. because their claims are ludacris and cant be supported with any evidence from a non biased or legit source.

Seriously though, if you do have that debate, good luck to both of you.Yes you too jsobecky! I know how you want my support. (sarcasm)

Peace and Happy Thanksgiving to all!

reply to post by VDOG.45


I read "Audacity of Hope". I don't understand the big deal about what people are saying about this book. Can you tell me which passages I should be alarmed about and the page number too, please? I must have missed something.

Comparing Hitler and Obama is weird. Hitler ran on the platform that Jews were the reason for all the world's ills. Other than "Change" can you give me other reasons to fear that Obama is like Hitler?

I'm anxiously awaiting your response.

reply to post by Drawing Distractions


The CRA act did not require banks to loan to people who could not afford loans.
The CRA act made it so that Banks were required to provide loans in underpriviledge areas. This meant that a poorer person could buy a home of lesser value (ie a house they could afford).
In fact, Congress has already "probed" to see if CRA-backed loans were the cause of the mortgage mess. Guess what? CRA-backed loans defaulted LESS than other loans. You can see the report HERE.
Those saying that a Carter administration law caused this mess are listening to right-wing media and heralding it as gospel.
They are doing exactly what this so called "Zogby Poll" is assuming of MOST Obama supporters.
Its easy to blame the poor for all the world's ills. But they don't hold the purse strings. Do they?

In fact, Congress has already "probed" to see if CRA-backed loans were the cause of the mortgage mess.

reply to post by its bologna


It's nice to see that over a year ago the Congress did comission this report. It was done in '07 and dated 1-08 so it is out of date as there has been an avalanch of foreclosures since back then.

I'm hoping they will do an in depth investigation, find any and all mistakes and make changes. But when you have a line up like Pelosi, Reid and Barack, permit me to doubt that anything in depth will be done.

The media did put a spin on the campaigns though, and made things much harder for McCain. The slip-ups of McCain and Palin towards the campaign were better documented better than those of Obama, for one reason for another. It's easy to brand other people 'ignorant' but sometimes they are paying attention, they are just being fed biased information.

Most of the idiots that voted Obanker dont even know what corporations hes tied to. Much less ask simple questions of that nature.

Also, they never ask why an honest person like Ron Paul wont ever get covered or aired on national television. They were only covering Mccain, Hellary & Obama. No body ever wonders why? Hmmmm, can anybody say fascist dictatorship? Or communisim?

In my opinion, Americans have to be some of the easiest people to brainwash in our solar system.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by topsecretombomb]

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


Just finished my other debate. Am going up to NYC for Thanksgiving, and then when I get back, jsobecky and I will have a ball in the debate forum.

It should be truly epic, and I think jsobecky will earn much more respect by talking about real issues. I think jsobecky probably knows much, but for some reason chooses to stay in the mudslinging arena.

Originally posted by plumranch

In fact, Congress has already "probed" to see if CRA-backed loans were the cause of the mortgage mess.

reply to post by its bologna

 

It's nice to see that over a year ago the Congress did comission this report. It was done in '07 and dated 1-08 so it is out of date as there has been an avalanch of foreclosures since back then.

The underlying reason for all the forcloures is the same..it hasn't changed since 2007. From the report:

The originate-to-distribute model seems to have contributed to the loosening of
underwriting standards in 2005 and 2006. When an originator sells a mortgage
and its servicing rights, depending on the terms of the sale, much or all of the
risks are passed on to the loan purchaser. Thus, originators who sell loans may
have less incentive to undertake careful underwriting than if they kept the loans.
Moreover, for some originators, fees tied to loan volume made loan sales a higher
priority than loan quality. This misalignment of incentives, together with strong
investor demand for securities with high yields, contributed to the weakening of
underwriting standards.1

My point was that it was not the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) that caused the mortgage meltdown. It was the originators of the loans. Franks defended the CRA act and rightly so. It was not the cause of this crisis..and a new investigation will only show the same reasons for the meltdown. Nothing changed between 2007 and now. Its the same situation.

Interesting that Obama won college-educated voters and voters making over $250,000 a year. It's time to get over it...Obama won handily. The guy that commissioned this poll and produced this video is a demonstrable ass.

reply to post by its bologna


Thank you so much for bringing in logic into this discussion!!! I'm serious, you really hit the nail on the head with your posts. Maybe some of these people who choose to be blind in this discussion forum can actually learn from the misconduct that has taken place under Bush's watch... but that's just wishful thinking!!

Nothing changed between 2007 and now.

reply to post by its bologna


Nothing changed? You can't tell me that a major number of those CRA loans didn't fail since that study a year ago.

The point is that maybe you have a point and not as many of the CRA vs other bank loans failed or maybe the CRA loans were the total culpret.

The problem is that Barney and Dodds and Pelosi are willing to let the whole thing slide and blame everyone else esp. Bush. And the liberals don't care even though they lost huge money in their retirement accounts. Go figure.

The poor are not to blame. They just took the loans, walked away and lost their credit ratings, etc. I don't see the big race issue. It's not a factor. It's more partisan politics and so far the Dems are winning. I think we should look beyond the politics and find out what really happened.

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
reply to post by avingard

 

Most of them just have no idea why they're voting for him.

This hasn't really been my experience, though. I know a lot of people who voted for Obama for many different reasons. Some better than others, mind you, but still: reasons. Perhaps this isn't the case with you, but I do sometimes wonder when I hear this whether that's code speak for "they are not voting for him for any reasons I agree with/empathize with/relate to." Which is a fair thing to say, but has quite a different meaning.

Ah, that's a good point. I should clarify. I know a lot of people who voted for him and have no reason why. I.E., when asked why, their standard response is that he seems like the best candidate, he seems like a better person, etc. etc. Which would be fine, but they can't explain why, or for what reasons, they think that he is the better person, or whatever. I suppose you could still say that they have reasons.

Another good deal of the people I know (this group being larger than the previous) are voting for him and will commonly site the propaganda tag lines. In other words, that he'll bring change, that he's young and fresh and new, that anything is better than Bush. Like the previous, these also can't back up their claims with anything close to convincing evidence. In other words, they don't know his voting records and don't know where he stands or what he wants to do.

And then there is a small (but still substantial) group that votes for him based entirely on race (and I know people of several races who fall into this category). This is entirely unjustifiable based on anything resembling a belief in equality between races. This is, simply, racism. I say this not to inflame, but simply because it's something I see. It's a real social issue that.

And of course I do know plenty of people who voted for Obama, knew his record, his plans, etc. and thought he was the better candidate. I have nothing but respect and tolerance for these people, as they aren't the majority (in society as a whole, not just in Obama supporters).

So I guess you could say that I just don't approve of some supporters reasons for voting for Obama, but at some point you have to decide for yourself what is a good reason and what is, essentially, empty propaganda.

Like I said before. From where I stand, Obama turned himself into a product, and I feel that in a lot of cases, people weren't electing a president, they were buying the newest, shinnest gadget (metaphorically speaking, of course).

reply to post by avingard


Good post! There were a number of reasons for voting for Obama, some informed, the rest sort of rediculous.

My goal for the future is that we should have a pre voter's varification test for potential voters. They should have to pass with like 50 or 60%. The test is: What are the issues and where do the 2 candidates stand on the issues. If the potential voter is below 50%, no vote for you!

I'm wondering why it is reasonable that totally uninformed voters should have the same vote as the totally astute?