Which candidate would most likely lead the US into a depression?

You know better than that. Watch the video at the bottom.

This problem was has been building for a long time, and ultimately stems from the Democrat Creation of Fannie and Freddie, the sell off of Fannie and Freddie by the democrats where we lost a lot of oversite.

Then Clinton started a program to put people in homes that they could not afford, and created the Communtiy Reinvestment act to force banks to make the loans or be punished. The highest rate of Sub Prime mortgages also occoured under Bill clinton. Clinton also deregulated the banks.

The republicans are not innocent in this, but the democrats are mostly to blame. Don't just talk our of your ass. Actually research it before you run your mouth.


White House warned 17 times about problems with Fannie and Freddie
September 22, 2008 - 11:07 ET

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

(White House Press Release)




Everyone should watch this video.

http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21012738/mortgage_meltdown_timeline.htm?pageid=27066

You've got to go further back than the creation of Frannie and Freddie.

No party Dem or Rep, or any branch of our Federal government would have been able to make any of this happen.. like creating Fannie and Freddie, lowering interest rates, or destroying 90% of our dollars worth, if they didn't have an instrument like the FED to create money out of thin air.. there simply would not have been the means to do so. We need to stop blaming tools of the system and start looking at the failings of a dishonest system like the FED itself.

The FED literally bank rolls big government, corruption and distortions of our free market. We must go back to an honest economic system, as the one described in our Constitution. We must go back to the Constitutional system controlled by the people and the market itself that's is grounded by something as solid as gold instead of something as easily manipulated as fiat currency.

You think so but you haven't seen anything yet.
Higher taxes during this economy is the worst thing that you can do. I doubt Obama would be able to do that as he would definitely be advised to not do so. That is going to cut his down his programs that he will be able to push through since he won't have money to spend on them.
He will be an ineffective president.

OK, so McCain mentioned there was a problem and something had to be done about it, but he completely missed what the problem actually was and his plan basically amounts to a band aid on a lost limb. No mention of the FED's place in it, no mention of the government provided subsidies to these companies or the promise made to them of a bailout should they fail. All his plan does is reform the regulations of GSE's... Below is Ron Paul's introduction of his bill concerning GSE's from almost 3 years before McCain's proposal.

His plan, would have removed any government subsidies to GSE's and would repeal the authority of the FED to buy their bad debts.. putting the risk of failure back on the companies themselves and off of the taxpayers.

McCain's plan wouldn't have stopped anything from happening as it does nothing to remedy the core of the problem.. the fact that GSE's were being propped up by our FED and Treasury. On the other hand, Ron Paul's plan would have cut these companies off completely, leaving them to fend for themselves.

Ron Paul in the House Financial Services Committee, September 10, 2003

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Treasury Department’s views regarding government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for taking time out of their busy schedules to appear before the committee.

I hope this committee spends some time examining the special privileges provided to GSEs by the federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone. Today, I will introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act, which removes government subsidies from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board.

One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase GSE debt. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the Financial Services Committee for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for their presence here today. I hope today’s hearing sheds light on how special privileges granted to GSEs distort the housing market and endanger American taxpayers. Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers and investors by acting on my Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

Ii simply wanted to point out that McCain did try to stop it.

I am a fiscal conservative, and I would even go as far as to say a left wing Libritarian. I believe in things like temporart assistance to help people out on hard times, and common sense regualtions on businesses. I also believe that the government should also provide infristructure. I do believe that it should be done at the state level, but I do believe it is a necessity.

I also believe that some foreign intervention is necissary, even though I was against the war in the beginning, and believe that other countries need to take care of protecting themselves, and that they can't benefit from not having to spend on their military because they can count on our military and we foot the bill for protecting the whole world, which is what is happening.

I am against the bail out and believe that if they are to big to fail, then we help them to break apart the banks and the parts that are doing well can, and the parts that are failing will fail. We can sell it off in pieces and give them to their debtors if that is the only thing we cann do. Either way, the US tax payers are not should not be held responsible for it.

I definately believe in very small government and more personal freedoms.

Freedom:

Great information, the documentation you found is very important.

yea, its great, it points out how little McCain understands the situation :P

McCain does have a good understanding of it. Look at Obama, he is lost. He does not have a clue. Obama is nothing more than a puppet.

We are talking about the same John McCain, right? The one who has admitted time and time again that he does not have that great of an understanding of economics and would rely on his advisers?

If not, than ask yourself, if he has such a good understanding than why has he yet to mention the problem? Again, he has yet to mention the Federal Reserve. He has yet to mention our fiat currency system where money can simply be printed out of thin air. He has yet to mention the free market system that was guaranteed us by the Constitution that we haven't had since 1913.

All he talks about is cutting earmarks and pork spending. You know how much that actually accounts for in the budget? Something like .0025%.

McCain doesn't have a clue.. Obama doesn't have a clue.

The fact that they aren't mentioning these things says either 1)they don't understand the system or the Constitution well enough to see whats wrong with it, or 2) they have been corrupted by that system, keeping them from standing up against it... I think it's a combination of the two.

I don't see how you can say someone has a good understanding of something that you don't understand yourself. How could you tell? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but do you have any sound knowledge of anything I mentioned above? Do you know what the FED is and what they do? Do you know how it came about? Do you understand what fractional reserve banking is? Do you understand how the FED artificially sets interest rates? Do you know what a fiat currency is and what the history of fiat money is? Have you ever studied the Austrian school of economics? Or any school of economics, for that matter?

Because if not, these candidates can basically say anything that sounds halfway intelligent and you're going to accept it as the truth.

I'd still like to see where McCain predicted this happening.. is there a video or transcript someone can show me? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I would just like to see it. Here's a video of John McCain admitting to have NOT seen this coming.. he even goes as far as to say most of his economic advisers didn't predict it either (go figure).

Funny.. his colleague in the House, Rep. Dr. Paul was warning Congress of Franny and Freddy 5 years ago.. and even earlier than that elsewhere. (here's that transcript.. http://blog.freeny.org/?p=3548)

So, even if McCain did foresee the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, it sure as heck wasn't before anyone else.

And.. there are a lot of things that both McCain and Obama are proposing that will not help the economy, Obama's tax increases are about the least of the lot. Not once has either of them mentioned the Federal Reserve.

In fact, if you search "McCain (or) Obama on the Federal Reserve" on you tube, you get all videos of Ron Paul.. and if you search the same thing on any search engine you get articles about Obama calling for the FED to print MORE money, and McCain PRAISING the FED for its actions. Talk about Economics 101, these guys don't even understand the devastating effects of the Federal Reserve System's monopoly over our financial markets!

Look up

Mr MCain was one of the most fervent supporters of De-regulation which helped get us into the fine mess we find ourselves in now.
One must not follow blindly unless one trusts the person who is leading.
In this case you are being led down the wrong path my dear

Like what de-regulation?

Like the housing bill passed during the Clinton administration that forced mortgage companies to take on more risky loans in an attempt at getting more Americans in homes? No, that would be REGULATION.

Or like the Federal Reserve's setting of artificially low interest rates that promoted the irresponsible lending of the "easy money" by the banks? No, that would be REGULATION too.

Or how about the billions in subsidies granted to Fannie and Freddie by our Treasury every year that buffeted the companies from investor' demands to follow more acceptable management and accounting practices? That's REGULATION as well..

Well, what about the legislation that gave the FED the authority to buy bad debt from government sponsored enterprises (GSE's) in case of economic difficulty that even further promoted irresponsible lending by taking away the fear of failure? REGULATION

The very Federal Reserve itself, which has the unConstitutional authority to create inflation and adjust interest rates which creates these bubbles to begin with, is REGULATION.

So, I wonder, besides in the mainstream media, where did you get the idea that de-regulation has anything to do with the situation we're in?

Here's Ron Paul warning Congress of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac 5 years ago. Not that he wasn't talking about it before then, this is just the first time it was put on record besides in his several books on economics.

http://blog.freeny.org/?p=3548

That same address helps explain the reason to place blame on the Federal Reserve System for the economic situation we're in today before the lenders, or borrowers, or speculators, or de-regulators or Clinton, or Bush(Jr or Sr), Reagan, etc, etc

I agree Congress can be blamed, they're the ones who gave up their Constitutional responsibility over monetary policy to a private banking institution (the FED) ... but that happened in 1913, the Congresses since are only guilty in not addressing a system that was doomed from the start... something Rep. Dr. Paul has been talking about in Washington for almost 30 years.

Now for the thumbs down!...
Neither McCain nor Obama hold a dim candle to Ron Paul's knowledge of economics.

I like Ron Paul, the only problem is that it will be impossible for him to win, so it would be a wasted vote.

So.. you didn't think he would get enough votes, so you didn't cast a vote for him? You realize how ridiculous that sounds, right?

What made you think he wouldn't get enough votes in the first place? Paul had more votes than Giuliani and Thompson combined at the beginning of the primaries and they were being considered "front-runners". He was breaking fund raising records, in fact he had out raised all other candidates but Clinton by the 4th quarter. He raised more in donations from our troops than all other candidates combined. His record is impeccable, no lobbyist even knocks on his door, and he's recognized internationally as an expert on economics.. which would probably come in handy right about now. So what's the real reason people didn't vote for him? I think, and some have admitted to me, people simply didn't see him enough on TV, so they figured he didn't have a chance. That's just sad.

No vote for your conscience is a wasted vote. If the candidate's message and plan is the right one for America than no matter what party he or she is from and no matter how little the media talks about them or how much they're misrepresented in media, they deserve our vote over anyone the political machine throws at us. Besides, the fact that we didn't see Ron Paul as much on TV should have told us something.. he's not with the political machine, he's for us.. you and I, The People.

This whole idea of a wasted vote is one of the most destructive mindsets to have beset Americans. This is what leaves us every year with the choice between one horrible candidate or the other and this is how the Democrats and Republicans are kept in power for another term year after year after year to erode our country a little bit more each time.

We were given the chance to elect someone who saw our current economic situation coming two decades ago. One of our only Congressmen who, for over 20 years, has steered completely away from the lobbyists, the party bosses, has not been a part of any scandals, NEVER voted for a tax increase, NEVER voted for an increase in Executive power, NEVER voted for an increase in Congressional pay (his own pay), voted against the Patriot act, voted against the Iraq resolution while voting FOR going after Bin Laden , and respects our Constitution by weighing every single piece of legislation with it instead treating it like the elephant in the room like the rest of the people running this country.. for Christ's sakes, the guy even returns a portion of his pay every year right back to the Treasury! Even McCain referred to him as, "one of the most honest men in Washington"... of course that was before he ran against him.

We had our chance, but America bought what the machine was selling instead of doing their own research and understanding the man's message for themselves.. funny how he's been all over the news lately.. now that everyone is realizing that he was right the whole time.

Republic, Democracy, either system, the people get the government they deserve.. this two party oligarchy is exactly what an apathetic people end up with. Damn shame.. our country and Constitution deserve better.

We can still do something about it though..
www.CampaignForLiberty.com

I admire you passion for your candidate, personally, I just really did not know anything about him (no Exposure) during the primaries. Sometimes media attention is a good thing, especially when you work everyday of the week 10 hours a day. I seen and learned more about him after the primaries, and I think he is a good candidate: however, he is only holding I think 3% of the vote. I started to learn about him when I was at a symposium in Long Beach and one of our companies customers just raved about him.

But I think at this point, with that low of a percentage of voters, it would not be feasable to cast the ballot in November for him at this point.

You mean was a good candidate ;D The primaries are long over. Our chance to vote for Ron Paul was 6 months ago now. And he actually carried over 20% in a couple states.. beating McCain on a few occasions. Even pulled 16% in a state as late in the game as Pennsylvania.

Of course media attention is a good thing when it comes to popularity. The problem is that a candidate getting exposure in today's mainstream media, more often than not, means that he/she is on the side of the political establishment. Ron Paul posed a threat to that establishment and so he was purposefully ignored at the time, which meant a lot to us who distrust the media propagandists. Of course, Dr. Paul is showing up a lot more now that the primaries are over and people are finding out that he was right.

Ron Paul has suspended his Presidential campaign, however, he continues the fight to restore our Constitution, free market, sound money and non-interventionist foreign policy with his Campaign For Liberty(.com).

And by the way, we still have the chance to vote for a candidate in November who respects our Constitution.. Chuck Baldwin, from the Constitution Party. Check him out! If we want to save our country, a great place to start is booting the Demublicans!

Dear DRFDEF.

Ok, you have convinnced me, what do we do at this point.

Dear DRFCLEF:

I just spoke to my husband and he says that he likes Ron Paul too, I read your E-mail to him and he thinks that everything you said is correct about Ron Paul, he admires hime too and did not vote for him for the same reason I did.

He says good luck in 2008...

Well, like I said, the hope for a Paul presidency has passed, but we can continue to educate ourselves and the people around us on these issues. (I actually just wrote about this on another poll.. I'll bring that over here..)

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."
- Thomas Jefferson

Education is key. We must educate ourselves and others in any way possible. It doesn't take much time to understand the basics of things. Even if it takes one person a year to read a book about the Federal Reserve, that's better than a lifetime of ignorance to something that effects them every single day. But there is so much that can be done. Editorials, conversations, fliers, seminars, youtube videos, pamphlets, debates, blogs, political action groups, articles, we can hand out mini Constitutions (it works for Christianity, right?).. however we do it, America has got to educate itself. Our system of government was set up in such a way that it only works if the people are informed and engaged in the process. It is absolutely necessary to the survival of our Republic, our Constitution and our country that we do what we must to lose our apathy and help those around us lose theirs.

www.campaignforliberty.com
- great information, updated daily
www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/bailout.pdf
- educate people on our current situation and let them know what they can do about it (by printing a bunch of these and putting them everywhere, like I'll be doing with my day tomorrow :P)

I admire your passion for your candidate, personally, I just really did not know anything about him (no Exposure) during the primaries. Sometimes media attention is a good thing, especially when you work everyday of the week 10 hours a day. I seen and learned more about him after the primaries, and I think he is a good candidate: however, he is only holding I think 3% of the vote. I started to learn about him when I was at a symposium in Long Beach and one of our companies customers just raved about him.

But I think at this point, with that low of a percentage of voters, it would not be feasable to cast the ballot in November for him at this point.

0 up, 4 down...

did I mention how partisan this site is? :P

I am sorry you got all those thumbs down. I read your comment yesterday and agree with it.

haha, yea, no worries man.

If people don't want to understand things like the Federal Reserve System, fiat currency, fractional reserve banking and monetary policy, but instead just accept whatever the Republocratic propaganda machine, their speech writers and their advisers are feeding us, that's their problem.. I will be vindicated with time.

I think the percentages above speak for themselves on the partisanship of the visitors to this page.

Well, I can be guilty of it too. Because I have a conservative mind set I am more willing to forgive crazies on the right than crazies on the left, so I will be more likely to jump to their side on a stupid cause out of subconscious spite.

Although in this case, I actually do think that if Obama and Pelosi team up it could spell disaster for an already weakening economy.

come on, texasmom, you come across as a brainwashed Bush Republican. surely you don't believe that old hat BS. You sound like a lady that told me after a failed unionizing vote that the owner of the business could not possibly give anyone a raise ( hadn't had a raise in 12 years ) because he had just bought that mansion at Hilton Head, SC.

hillbilly, not brainwashed at all just stating the facts. I have witnessed first hand and also no several small business owners who fall into Obama's 250K tax bracket that would suffer greatly and have stated they would be forced to lay people off and cut salaries in order to make it and be able to pay their bills. Do a little research on recovering economies and tax breaks/increases.

ok, texasmom, i can agree with u on a few points. 1) no one wants to pay more taxes
2) everyone thinks they're paying too much taxes , we can debate the rest. we're all gonna be paying out the wazoo what with the 1 trillion bucks bailout. we're on the verge of a depression now, refresh my memory, but what party has been in charge for the last 8 years? and u want me to vote for 4 more years of that? jump in there, freedom4

Democrats have been in control of the legislation for the last two years. They took power just before the economic down turn. Using your logic...

The Democrats have held the house, congress has more push than the presidency Hilbilly and their decision are reflective of more to come if their is not a bipartisan president like Senator McCain.

In congress, it will just be more of the same. The Democrats are top heavy and have been for quite some time now.

Ok believeme & freedom4, let me see if I understand what you're saying. F4, U believe that the entitlement programs gonna put us over the brink, ( no doubt u have an encyclopedic response all ready) and Obama is the cause. Bme, you think that because the dems been in control 2 yr, that's gonna put us over the brink. Ok ? Both y'all remind me of the guy what drove his car into the water ditch at 3:AM, and when the law asked him what happened, he said " the sun got in his eyes." What's gonna put us over the brink are all the rich republicans in the Bush admin and Wall Street power houses that have stole everything that they could steal and skipped off to some island somewhere that they have paid cash money for and left the poor masses to pay for.
Y'all correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama hasn't asked for anywhere near 1 Trillion Dollars, but that's what Bush & cronies are asking for.

You can blame this on Bush, and yes he does deserve some blame, but this has been going on for a long time, and there iss plenty of blame to go around. Fannie and freddie disrupted the free market and took the risk out of the hands where it should have been. That is a HUGE portion of this mess. That was started by the Dems. The Community Reinvestment Act, and other acts started by the Democrats forced banks to give loans to people that were not qualified. Then you have the people that bought more home than they could afford, and then some of them kept going racking up their credit cards and buying cars that they could not afford. Clinton pressured the banks to give more loans to help minorities buy homes that they would not normally get qualified for, and the percentage of sub prime loans JUMPED under clinton. Bush also continued this practice.

McCain actually sponsored a bill The Housing Reform Act of 2005 to try to stop the bad practices that were going on and the Democrats including Obama squashed it.

It is a fact that SocialSecurity will make us broke, and adding more entitlement programs will as well. The current entitlement programs alone will cost the average household over $500,000 in the average lifetime according to a USA Today Article. If that money were invested throughout the lifetime of the people in that household at ann average return of 8% then that would be over $6,000,000. Imagine what every household could have an extra $6MM to retire.

We ned to shrink the size of the government, greatly reduce government spending, and end government corruption. Obama not only says he will do the opposite of those, he has proven over his time in politics that he will do the opposite.

freedom4, I enjoy your discourse. You have a fine mind, a keen mind, Perhaps when you have achieved your doctorate degree you will agree with me that what has happened to our country is not the result of any one political party, nor any two, nor any three. Where there is money to be made, if someone is smart enough, shrewd enough, ruthless enough, they can rip off their chunk of the American Dream. It makes no differance the political affilation of these scoundrels, money is money, it all spends well enough. The key to it all is getting away clean, and leaving someone else to pick up the pieces, and pay for the clean up. That's where we are now, with the 1 Trillion dollar bailout that the taxpayers will pay for. F4, I say this, and I look forward to your reply and comments. This current collapse was engineered by Wall Street and the White House, it just happened 3 months too early. It was probably supposed to take place after the Dem took office, and then the whole thing could be blamed on the Dem's. The strain of the Iraq War and the collapse of what remains of the middle class happened too early, and it happened on Bush's watch instead of Obamas.

There were many causes of the great depression, and Herbert Hoover was unpopular because he was President while it happened. Remember the other statement by the so called hero who took us out of the Great Depression? "The only thing to fear is fear itself."

Because the biggest thing that caused the GD was fear and lack of confidence.

FDR's many policies did little to stop the GD, all they did was ease sympomatic suffering. WWII is what finally brought us out of the Depression.

Scott, in a lot of ways, you are exactly right. If we go into a depression now, it will be just as confusing to figure out as it was for those that tried to figure out the other Great Depression. It won't matter a hill of beans, for anyone. Those that got cash money will call the tune, and everybody else will just be S.O.L. Hillbilly

You must be one of the 5% who earn millions every year for that is who Obama will raise taxes for - not the other 95%. Please don't expect people to falll for typical republican fearmongering.

psst! Your uniformed bias is showing!

scott_eames, i just love doing this : ) You meant to say " un-informed" you actually wrote "uniformed" look it up in a dictionary, i believe you'll find that it is spelled differently.
HERE'S YOUR SIGN : )

You caught me!

I tip my Obama hat to a man big enough not to get mad over a typo. Salute to you, scott_eames.

get it trough your head, if the taxes are raised the rich will cut their services and send jobs over seas, and charity donations will stop. Anybosy that runs a small business or has a little common sense knows this.

I'm curious how BO will give a tax break to 95% of Americans, when only 70% pay taxes to start out with. New Math?

Another sorry poll. Obama would be a disaster, but I don't think even he could lead us into a depression. Though with Pelosi to help him?

Obama wants us to believe that McCain would be 4 more years of Bush. Beats the heck out of 4 years of Jimmy Carter.

Folks just don't get it. The economy was a mess at the end of the Clinton years, but memorys are short, and too many citizens are swayed by emotion rather than reason.

Totally and completely wrong. The economy grew throughout the Clinton years. Clinton won election in '92 because Dubya's daddy didn't get the economy any more than McSame does now. Stop spreading lies and bullshit. The only foks not getting it here are you and backers of anti-regulations types like Bush and McCain.

Clinton won in 92 because of Pat Buchanan's candidacy spliting the conservative base.

The economy grew under Clinton? yes it did then it left Bush with the .com mess

Not spreading lies, pointing out the very short memory of some (you among them). The economy did quite well thru the Bush years until very recently. And it WAS in the tank at the end of the Clinton years (dot-com bust).

ednac, what u smokin? surely you aren't suggesting that the 8 years of Clinton left the USA worse off that the last 8 years of young George, the worst President we've even had.

Bush is not the worst president we have ever had. Carter was the worst president we ever had. Remember stagflation? Yikes. What was it? 14% Inflation with 10% unemployment? Both climbing.

And I forgot, he is directly responsible for Iran being the way it is today. Good job Jimbo!

Do you remember or have you heard of the gas rationing under Carter? I do, I was a kid about 7, I remember there was system set up that each person could only get gasoline on odd or even days.

It was awful on my father because he was a traveling salesmen during those times and the gas rationing hurt his sales, we had some rough times becuase of it.

Carter was nuts, he gave a presidential speech with a large sweater on abd urged people to conserve energy and put warm clothes on instead of using their heaters.

I suspect the same would happen under an Obama administration since he has already made statements that mirror Carter's advice.

If I wanted to live in a third world country, I would vote for Obama.

I'm pointing out that the economy goes thru cycles, and that the guy in the White House might have some influence, but to a large extent is just along for the ride. Remember that there are three branches of government and that the Legislature is a big part of what happens. What is VERY scary about Obama is that Liberals also control a lot of congress. Obama combined with Pelosi would be a train wreck.

As far as the Clinton years, I'm not sure what you're measuring; Perhaps you've been drinking Obama's kool-aid, perhaps you just don't remember. But comparing Clinton years to Bush years is an apples to oranges comparison.

Clinton inherited an economy on the upswing. (The media insisted otherwise during the presidential campaign.) He had opportunities to take Bin Laden out but passed on them. He weakened our military. What did he do that was great?

Bush inherited an economy on the downswing (but I don't blame Clinton) as well as September 11th and the wars that followed. This is stuff that people forget. I also remember that Congress supported the Iraq war. Hillary, Harry Reid etc., gave nice speeches in support of the war. Obama claims he was against it, but he wasn't in Congress at the time.

Clinton left Bush and this country in a true recession! We are not and have not been in a recession for 8 years.