Why I am voting for Romney

[ginwilly]

You are selecting Romney because he is not Obama and that is is only qualification, right?

I'm not Bush worked out pretty damn well.

 

[bedspirit]

I'm voting for whichever candidate's views and professed policy will be the closest to the absolute opposite of everything I hear and see from the current administration, AND has a actual shot in hell of winning. If that happens to be Romney this election, so be it. The thought of Obama getting another liberal scumbag on the SCOTUS is enough to turn my stomach.

It may not be answering by your guidelines, but I don't really give a shit about your guidelines.

The reality is he isn't Obama, Pelosi, Reid or Clinton, so he's the tits in my book. You could march Dan Quayle up to the podium as the Conservative candidate and I'd vote for him this year.

That sums up this election nicely. No one is voting for anyone. They are only voting against the other guy. Meanwhile, each candidate is in favor of perpetual war (both internationally and at home with the war on drugs), each one is in favor of escalating the american police state (tsa, wiretapping, erosion of civil rights), each one will auction off parts of the gov't to the highest bidder (Goldman Sachs and the SEC, Monsanto and the FDA).

Honestly, what do you think Obama will do that Romney won't? Unless you're voting third party, then you're voting for the continued decline of America.

 

[Dr Gruber]

Nope, you are not correct. Although that was his strategy, that's not what caused the mess we are in. This mess was caused by the Dem's unleashing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pushing them (and therefore mortgage lendors) to make home loans to people that should have not gotten them. Then, in turn, those bad mortgages, went bad and were lumped together as good mortgages and resold numerous times to unsuspecting banks and investors, etc.- who took the loss. It's simplistic but the truth.

Buck, you are such a simpleton. I can't wait for your response......

Try to find one single bank that was forced to give a loan like you said......you wont find it because it doesnt exist.

People read chain emails and think they are facts...try checking into it before you spread any more BS.

 

[ginwilly]

It was the poor, the government and the irresponsible then? Nothing having to do with lenders?

Still, personal responsibility is only a memory for our society, that's the true cause. The loan officer approving loans to people who couldn't afford it and people who couldn't afford it taking those loans share in the blame.

slow down brother

 

[bedspirit]

It wasn't just the poor, a lot of well off folks allowed themselves into being suckered into inflated home values and extremely low ARMs. Refis are as much to blame as new loans.

My loan manager told me herself that she had to hold good candidates approvals until they could find more sub-primes to keep the numbers in line because of political pressure. Threats were made with FDIC backing used as leverage. She says her bank had a 20% "unofficial" quota.

Still, personal responsibility is only a memory for our society, that's the true cause. The loan officer approving loans to people who couldn't afford it and people who couldn't afford it taking those loans share in the blame.

Really? That sounds bizarre. I've never heard that before. If that were actually true than it would imply that someone who can manipulate the FDIC actually wanted the economy to tank. I'm not sure that I buy it. I did hear that banks were trying to push the subprime loans on people who qualified for better loans, but the motivation was that the banks are greedy pricks and not that they were strong armed by some shady government stooge.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

That sums up this election nicely. No one is voting for anyone. They are only voting against the other guy. Meanwhile, each candidate is in favor of perpetual war (both internationally and at home with the war on drugs), each one is in favor of escalating the american police state (tsa, wiretapping, erosion of civil rights), each one will auction off parts of the gov't to the highest bidder (Goldman Sachs and the SEC, Monsanto and the FDA).

Honestly, what do you think Obama will do that Romney won't? Unless you're voting third party, then you're voting for the continued decline of America.

Yeah, I tried that third party protest vote with Perot. All it did was get Clinton in office. It's a wasted vote, you don't want to hear that any more than I did when I was doing it, but it's a fact. Sometimes you hold your nose and vote for the candidate whose policies and agenda make you vomit in your mouth a little less. Did the fairly large percentage of votes that Perot received change anything, other than putting a Democrat in office? Did it impact future elections and subvert the heinous two-party system you despise? Neither will a third party vote this year.

And yes, I believe a second Obama term will be fantastically more destructive than anything Romney can achieve.

 

[ginwilly]

Really? That sounds bizarre. I've never heard that before. If that were actually true than it would imply that someone who can manipulate the FDIC actually wanted the economy to tank. I'm not sure that I buy it. I did hear that banks were trying to push the subprime loans on people who qualified for better loans, but the motivation was that the banks are greedy pricks and not that they were strong armed by some shady government stooge.

She didn't blame the government. She blamed her higher ups who claim arm twisting from the government. The unofficial quota was totally from her higher ups, not the government. You should read some of what Andy Beal had to say about all of this. He was laughed at for pulling out instead of shooting his wad. Turns out he was pretty prophetic.

Surely you don't think the government is pure and innocent and would never resort to strong arm tactics? Look at our tax code. It's only hearsay for me with only her word to go by, but given our history I believed her.

 

[canndo]

slow down brother

You are talking about loan officers - not institutions that made just as many of those loans as they could, they bribed or extorted appraisers, they lied to borrowers, they advertised, they accepted stated incomes, they created all sorts of exotic and dangerous loans packages and arrangements and they skimmed off the points and fees even before they sold the loans. They knew the state the borrower was in, they saw the paperwork and in many cases helped the borrower fill in the blanks. I saw it first hand, I was pressured into bumping up values and if I didn't do it they would go to someone else who would. I saw appraised values soar as a result of appraisal inflation. We selected comps that we knew had just been sold for more than they were worth and then edged ours up just a tad bit more, then those sold as well. This was a scam in which the borrower in many cases really didn't know what he was in for - not that that was an excuse for not reading and comprehending what he was signing but this was a gold rush with reps pushing everyone to get another refi, go on vacation, your house is an ATM and we will facilitate that, forget the balloon, forget the 5 year adjustable, that's a long way off and you can just refi again in 4.

There were incentives, Cabo trips, merchandize, in one place they had a bell that they rang each time anyone "scored" and the one with the most rings at the end of the week got a bonus, the monthly folk got a bigger one. It all reminded me of Glen Gary Glen Ross. Few of those borrowers would have gone out on their own and opted to refi all by themselves.

 

[beenthere]

Here is Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in a video admitting they are forcing banks to take on sub-prime loans, justifying it by crying discrimination. This is blatant affirmative action and enforcement of the CRA.

http://www.popmodal.com/video/3152/EVIDENCE-FOUND-Clinton-administration-AFFIRMATIVE-ACTION-forced-banks-make-BAD-LOANS-and-Obama-ties

 

[canndo]

Here is Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in a video admitting they are forcing banks to take on sub-prime loans, justifying it by crying discrimination. This is blatant affirmative action and enforcement of the CRA.

http://www.popmodal.com/video/3152/EVIDENCE-FOUND-Clinton-administration-AFFIRMATIVE-ACTION-forced-banks-make-BAD-LOANS-and-Obama-ties

You figure that correcting proven discrimination and forcing the bank to make resitution for their discrimination is just plain extortion right? He says the loss rate will be higher but you seem to ignore the beginning of his statement. Look at the default rates for low income housing, not refis. You are still in the echo chamber dude.

Hannity? really?

 

[ginwilly]

You are talking about loan officers - not institutions that made just as many of those loans as they could

+obvious points

institutions can't fill out paperwork or buy advertising or offer incentives or lie. It really is people who do this, not the brick and mortar. Those people showed a lack of responsibility. I lumped them into loan officer instead of listing every other job title by name, it doesn't change the meaning.

 

[highway42O]

Fuck the parties and fuck obomney

 

[UncleBuck]

He had full employment, kinda useless to create new jobs when there is nobody to fill them.




Nothing is free, if people want a bunch of shit it has to be paid for. Free healthcare is actually very very costly. I hope you are criticizing present leadership for the same.



I want free shit too, gimmie gimmie. Difference is I don't actually believe in a free lunch and my morals won't allow me to take from someone else so I can have it. I've been stolen from and it really sucks. Those people had no right to just come and take what I had worked for. I despise a thief, don't you? For this reason if I feel strongly enough about a want I have, I'm willing to make the sacrifices to make that happen.

so you support increases on the fees yo have to pay to register your car, and other things like that?

 

[bedspirit]

Yeah, I tried that third party protest vote with Perot. All it did was get Clinton in office. It's a wasted vote, you don't want to hear that any more than I did when I was doing it, but it's a fact. Sometimes you hold your nose and vote for the candidate whose policies and agenda make you vomit in your mouth a little less. Did the fairly large percentage of votes that Perot received change anything, other than putting a Democrat in office? Did it impact future elections and subvert the heinous two-party system you despise? Neither will a third party vote this year.

And yes, I believe a second Obama term will be fantastically more destructive than anything Romney can achieve.

I can't possibly see how Obama will be more destructive than Romney. I'm having a hard time figuring out what issues they actually disagree on. Taxes for the wealthy? Unless that wealth is coming from a salary, they're not actually paying the official rate anyway. Obamacare? Good luck repealing it with the way the house and senate is set up, besides, after listening to Romney talk about health care, it seems to me he's more interested in renaming it than repealing it. Regulations? Most of the repressive regulations you hear about exist on the state and local levels, so I don't see either guy having much of an impact.

Yeah man. I simply don't get it. Point out one issue where they differ that will actually have an impact in the next four years. also, I'm not sure I can think of anything that Clinton did that Bush wouldn't have done, so I don't think you wasted your vote on Perot.

 

[highway42O]

Bahhhhhh is all I'm hearing.. nothing is anything, everything is everywhere, but honestly its all in your head.. Everything is free in a fiat system, the shits worthless beside they made all you believe it's not.. Intelligence makes a man unfit to be a slave.. I think we should bring back the roman "as" as the dollar so we can pay in "asses"

 

[ginwilly]

so you support increases on the fees yo have to pay to register your car, and other things like that?

not personally because I want my government to have as little affect (effect?) on my life as possible. If, on the other hand, I wanted some super duper societal goodies I'd be a hypocrite to not support increased fees. The people of Mass wanted the goodies.

If my country were invaded and we needed money to raise an army I would pay. If the bridge I cross to get to work needed repairs I would pay. Hell I gave money so our police dogs could have bullet proof jackets. If some politician wants to study the effects (affects?) of alcohol on Chinese hookers then no, I'm not in favor of raising my fees.

 

[bedspirit]

She didn't blame the government. She blamed her higher ups who claim arm twisting from the government. The unofficial quota was totally from her higher ups, not the government. You should read some of what Andy Beal had to say about all of this. He was laughed at for pulling out instead of shooting his wad. Turns out he was pretty prophetic.

Surely you don't think the government is pure and innocent and would never resort to strong arm tactics? Look at our tax code. It's only hearsay for me with only her word to go by, but given our history I believed her.

No I don't think the government is pure at all. I think the opposite actually, but there's usually an angle. I don't see the angle on that one. Subprime loans benefit the lenders. On paper, they look attractive especially if you can get a rating agency to give it a triple A rating, which is what they did. So I see all the benefits of pushing those loans going directly to the bank that makes them. I can't figure out what's in it for the government.

 

[highway42O]

what if those Chinese hookers would set a deal to over run china?.. Or the police dogs were sent to attack the citizens in those jackets you helped get? ex. Anaheim, California

 

[ginwilly]

what if those Chinese hookers would set a deal to over run china?.. Or the police dogs were sent to attack the citizens in those jackets you helped get? ex. Anaheim, California

I would rather Chinese hookers over run America, we need more AMPs imo.
Never thought of that with the dogs, but I still did it by choice. I really don't blame the dogs for the attacks though, they were bribed by snausages.

 

[ginwilly]

No I don't think the government is pure at all. I think the opposite actually, but there's usually an angle. I don't see the angle on that one. Subprime loans benefit the lenders. On paper, they look attractive especially if you can get a rating agency to give it a triple A rating, which is what they did. So I see all the benefits of pushing those loans going directly to the bank that makes them. I can't figure out what's in it for the government.

votes, money, warm fuzzy feelings etc