Things are pretty rough. I have Regions and National City Stock. Nat City has lost over 89% of it's value through last week. Regions dividends are down from 43 cents to 10 cents. Nat City went from 43 to 21 to 1 cent.

Through 9/15, I have been losing over $30,000 a day on the value of just those two stocks in 2008.

How is this mess affecting you?

Russ

Band work is slower than normal, and the Band-in-a-Box aftermarket business is slower than normal.

I guess I have to thank the Republicans for the economic crisis since they have held the reigns for the last 8 years. And what have they given us? High oil prices and a bank crisis that needs a bail-out.

Hmmmm

Remember the Reagan and Bush I years? What did we get? High gas prices and a bank (S&L) crisis that needed a bail out.

Seems like a pattern here.

And John McCain (who's campaign is being largely financed by Big Oil) says he is the candidate for change? Why don't I believe that?

(hit me once, shame on you, hit me twice, shame on me).

I am a registered independent, but the way the last couple of republican regimes have been handled, I now think twice before voting republican.

I didn't vote for Clinton, but the economy was better when he was at the helm.

I'm going Obama this fall. IMHO the lesser of the two evils.

I wonder if we would be in this mess if the people who signed the dotted line for their mortgages would actually.... PAY THEM! How about a little personal responsibility? I think there is plenty of blame to go around on this one....

Not trying to start anything. Just an observation.

I agree. I have a brother-in-law who bought a $500,000.00 home several years ago, and hasn't had a regular job in 10 years (he's an ARTIST, don't you know). He went to Countrywide and had an accountants statement prepared saying he had a Trust Fund of millions of dollars. I manage a family revocable trust, and he is entitled to an inheritance, but only when his father passes away. He kept asking for copies of the trust documents, and his brother-in-law is an accountant.

Now, he's calling monthly begging for loans out of the trust, and the trust, which is heavily invested in regional bank stocks, has loast several millions in value. That means that he won't get enough to pay off his mortgage, and he's over 60 yerars old. On top of that, the value of his house has gone down and he is "upside down" as are many of the sub-prime people.

I have three large financial institutions as clients, and what we are seeing is people who have good credit, but are just walking away from their mortgage...throwing the keys at the bank and sometimes destroying the home inside, because they owe more than the home is worth. One institution is paying a cash bonus to homeowners undergoing foreclosure or planning to "walk" if they don't do damage to the home.

You're right. Whatever happened to living within your budget and paying your bills?

But, the complaints against the institutions loaning money...in some cases, a total of 125% of the cost of the home to buyers like my brother-in-law are valid. These guys should be shot. Now, hundreds of thousands of retirees who were living on dividends from stock in financial institutions have seen their income stop and their entire life savings disappear. The paper loss to individuals is in the trillions.

And, the current bail-out proposal will mean that the executives in the financial sector and the polititians who facilitated their crooked dealings are going to get bailed out, and individuals are going to pay, either through the taxes needed to fund the bail-out, or through losses on financial stock holdings.


What a mess!


Russ



[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 10-02-2008).]

I bought a house I could afford and live within my means why should I now have to bail out the wall street fat cats. Ya know none of that bailout money is going to trickle down to the average guy.
It's not gonna stop one family from losing their homes but it will allow the execs to throw their million dollar parties and finance the golden parachutes of many more.
If I sell you a bad hamburger at McDonalds I get fired but if I drive the company into bankruptcy and put thousands out of work and thousands more lose their pensions I get a 125 million dollar bonus to leave before I do more damage.

[This message has been edited by mikeathome1 (edited 10-02-2008).]

As of yesterday, we have taken about a $280,000 hit, but are watching a slow recovery with cautious optimism. I hate the concept of a bailout but I also understand the consequences of the alternative. Oh, what the hell; I can't live THAT much longer.

chas

PS: start worrying about me if you see my Nord C1 up for sale .

Chas, here's hoping that we both live long enough to refine the art of harassing each other on a regular basis.

Now, THAT's something to look forward to...broke or not!


Be well,

Russ

The present situation is a result of the moral
decay in our societies.

Chickens come home to roust and unfortunately
the innocent suffer along with everyone else.

But hang on have faith things can only get better.

Cousin Ken

Still, I can't get over the fact that twice now, the Republicans have made it easy for the banks to give out bad loans and the result of which was you and I (the taxpayers) paying off those loans to the bank.

I can't get over the fact that twice now the Republicans have given us a gas crisis while the oil companies make record profits after record profits after record profits. (Funny, if my neighborhood baker has to pay more for flour, he makes less profit).

And I can't get over the fact that some people believe that the current Republican candidate (the one who has all 4 major oil companies financing his campaign) is the candidate who will make things better.

At least Clinton (who I didn't vote for) gave us a balanced budget and good economic times.

Personally, if McCain and his trailer-trash, gun toting, ecology hating, running mate get elected, the USA may not be able to recover.

Sorry to be on such a rant, but we have allowed the NeoCons and their "trickle down" economy to make the super-rich richer and the other 95% of us poorer twice now. I don't think we should give them the chance to do it again.

Notes you may be a tad off course.

"Still, I can't get over the fact that twice now, the Republicans have made it easy for the banks to give out bad loans and the result of which was you and I (the taxpayers) paying off those loans to the bank"

This is where it all started

September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the ** ***Clinton Administration *** to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Crooked real estate appriasers and the whole industry is to blame. I don't have the answers but a bail out program with a bunch of PORK in the middle will do no one any good, that is the problem with our government. Efficiency certainly isn't a hall mark either.

oops I Goofed the last paragraph was mine.

Yes I'm getting hit very hard by all this but my thoughts are for my kids & grandchildrens futures. I've had my shot win or lose. right now It's very tenous but were getting 3 squares a day for the time being.

Jerry

Never got this Hate the Rich mentality. Heck, I wanna be one of them. I don't wish they were one of me. Dishonest rich people? Sure. Dishonest poor people, hell yeah. Makes no difference. But to be down on those who are successful just never made sense to me.

Heck, I've never made over $40000 a year in my lifetime. That's why I rent, don't own. But one thing I can say is I have no debt. 0. Anything that gets put on my credit card gets paid off the next month in full. I have a few dollars in CD's, and a few dollars in Roth IRA. I don't even know how to think about losing $230,000 per day. Holy Moses!

But I am loving my life. Not getting rich here in Nashville, but keeping my head above water and playing some great music, and a little not so great I must add. So the economy hasn't really done anything to me one way or the other as far as I can tell, and that thrills me to no end. Lol. Sometimes the simple life ain't so bad.

But if I ever do make my fortune, I sure do
n't want everybody complaining about the fact that I'm one of the "rich
". Geez, all that does is smacks of envy. Raise taxes on people who make over 250k? That's rich? Damn. Why should I try to earn 300k per year if i actually get to keep more of my money by earning 249k?

I don't hate the rich just the dishonest.
But a poor guy can go to jail for stealing milk...when was the last time you heard of a CEO, that stole millions, was going to jail?

They say wall street has lost 93 trillion(?,) or was it billion dollars, who has it all?

Beside losing a hell of a lot on paper in our investments, both stock and real estate, I haven't felt it directly yet. However, on the horizon here's what I hear. First of all, at church, which accounts for close to half of my income, they are in the hole $60,000 so far for the year. If this trend continues, there will be cutbacks on staff. Also, I was listening to talk radio this morning and a lot of people who are depending on interest payments, ect for their assisted living payments aren't getting them right now. If this trend continues, those facilities could lose clients and then their budgets will be cut, and as we all know, music is usually the first thing to go.

Bottom line, this could bite us all in the ass real soon.

Joe

------------------
Songman55
Joe Ayala

I don't hate the rich either, I'd love to be one.

But during the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II regimes, the upper 2% (filthy rich) who financed the republican campaigns got much richer while the other 98% of the population got much poorer.

In other words, the richest people in the world are financing the republican party so that the republicans can pass laws that steal money from the general population and give it to the richest 2% of the people. That's thievery.

BTW, all the major oil companies and banks are the major contributors to McCain's Campaign.

And don't blame the Arabs for the oil prices.

Exxon and other oil companies are posting record profits after record profits.

If my local baker has a shortage of flour, he makes lower profits (same with other businesses)

And the republicans have watered down the Anti-Trust laws (the ones that split up Standard Oil many years ago) and allowed oil companies to merge.

Consider:
Exxon, Mobil, Esso (all standard oil)
Texaco, Chevron (standard oil), and Shell
BP, Amoco (American Oil Company also Standard in the Midwest). I knew a woman who worked for BP (after they ate up Gulf oil) and she got her paychecks from Standard Oil of Ohio. (British Petroleum???)

Now you know where the real oil cartel is. Standard Oil. And thanks to the republican nuking of the Anti-Trust laws, the banks are now merging too. Hmm, and we the people are bailing them out for the second time? Both under Republican Administrations? What could be better? Make bad loans and let the taxpayers pay off the loans.

Anybody who votes John McCain and his trailer trash running mate (who was quoted in our paper saying we should go to war with Russia) needs his/her head examined. You are asking for more economic disaster and more lost lives of our honorable servicemen and women.

See http://www.johnmccainrecord.com - admittedly it is a Democratic viewpoint, but all the claims are backed by reputable sources.

Note: I am not a democrat but independent and I definitely consider myself a moderate. But looking at the people financing the campaigns (and will be owed favors) and the voting records of the candidates, I will not be voting for very many republicans this term.

Notes

[This message has been edited by Notes_Norton (edited 10-10-2008).]

I'd say I'm in the bottom 98 percent for sure. But I haven't gotten poorer the past 8 years. I've got richer, though far from rich. Very far, but still.
If all the oil companies decided not to make any profits, if they were just like OK, we'll break even this year, how many free gallons of fuel would each person get who uses fuel? Would every American, European, Asian, whatever, get onefree tank, and then we'd be right back where we were? I mean, the numbers might sound huge regarding the profits, but think about the massive scale we're talking about here. Think about just how many gallons of fuel is used in a day. I don't have much problem with rewarding those who provide the life giving blood to the globe. Think of what they're providing. Oil runs everything. We don't need new guitars, but we need oil.

Rory, although we are far apart in our politics, I certainly admire and respect your music and musicianship. Not too many country players with your skill, and respect for other musical forms (ie.jazz). Also, one of the few (from what I've heard) real musicians on this board. But.......on your post above, given the downsides such as the effect(s) on the environment, the security implications (with our dependency on foreign nations), the finite supply (we own 3% of the worlds oil reserves but use 25%), etc., etc., shouldn't we be trying to lessen our dependence on oil and looking for alternate energy sources? Your thoughts?

chas

Well unfortunately, I'm right in the line of fire in this economic crisis. I work for Merrill Lynch in New York. My company was acquired by Bank of America as a preemptive move to protect it's solvency. My 401k has been decimated, my employee stock purchase plan has been decimated, and I face job termination when the two companies merge and decide who's redundant and who's not. My mortgage is more than my house is worth.

I ride the train everyday to NY city and each day I see less and less employees who were layed off from their jobs.

Do you think I have a keen interest in this years presidential and senatorial elections???

------------------
Al Giordano
Visit us at ARRANGER WORLD! http://www.arrangerworld.com

Korg Pa2xpro, Roland VK8-M, DW Collectors Series Drums, Roland TD-12 Vdrums, Roland SPD-S.

Chas,

Sure, let's explore alternate energy sources. I got no problem with that. But, we're a long way from going off oil. In fact, we may never go off oil.
Ethinol has proven not to be a very viable source, and I'm the son of a farmer and grew up in ag country for crying out loud.
People with windmills running the electricity in their homes, it's providing what? 30%? Plus they still need oil anyway for half or more. How many wind turbines would it take to power 30% of a department store? A school? And still, you'd need oil for 70% of your energy.

Did the government invent the steam engine, the combustion engine? If not, then why should it be the government's job to invent the next source, be it wind, solar, nuclear, etc. If some enterprising souls can invent something that actually works, then it will catch on and become integrated into our society. There are enough environmentally conscious people out there to make that happen. But for government to be responsible for subsidizing all these ventures that are failures, doesn't make much sense to me.

And, this unintelligent claim about us sending 700 billion per year to our enemies for oil. First off, I didn't know Canada and Britain were our enemies.
Second, it's not like we're just handing them money. "here, have a present!" We're getting something for that money; something called oil, which runs the world. If our middle eastern oil supply does run out, they cut us off or whatever, we better be able to get our own damn oil in a freakin hurry. We know that works. Better not be farting around with unproven alternate energy sources.

So yeah, let's work on alternate energy, no problem, but let's not kid ourselves that we can be oil free in 10 years and other such idiotic claims that fly around out there.

I don't disagree with you there. I think the technology may be there but whatever the solution, it's implementation, which would probably include a complete revamping of the infrastructure ie. delivery systems, etc., could not be implemented in ten years, probably not even 20. However, that window has to have a start point.

Where we (respectfully) disagree is that I don't have a problem with the government lending a hand (including a little R&D cash to universities and (I know, blasphemy) large corporations) to accelerate the process. This would include a major commitment to education to produce more scientists and engineers by making college more affordable. I DO believe that technology holds the key to lessening our dependence on oil, wherever the source. Neither drilling nor praying is going to cut it. Of course, as a national attitude, we could start right now with a little old-fashioned conservationism. Do we really need a 451hp C63 Mercedes to haul around (usually) 1 person to the store for a quart of milk? Only in America, baby. Even now, Ford has a small diesel on the market in Europe which gets 65mpg but it's not cost-effective to market it in America. What's wrong with this picture. I'm starting to think we don't WANT to help ourselves out of this energy crisis. Obviously, someone, somewhere is profiting from a situation which may not be in America's (or even the World's from an environmental point of view) best interest.

Rory, good thoughts. I enjoy these types of discussions and hearing other's points of view, even if I don't always agree with them.

chas

Conservation. Conservative. Hmm, interesting that they have the same root. I'm all for being conservative, and practicing sensible conservation. But if I don't want to ride around in a super light car made of recycled soda cans, then that's up to mee.
It's really difficult for me to be a republican, even though I'm conservative. Because I think the republicans have forgotten what conservatism is as well. Again, I go back to, did government pay for Edison's education, Belle's? And poor Obama, bless his heart, but the government did not invent the computer. We don't need more federal money in education. We need less. The colleges will just raise prices even more if they know that the infinite empty pockets of government is paying for it. Then, eventually, nobody will pay for their own college, the government will just pay for all of it. Great.

I have to use some assistive technology on my computer. I use a program called Jaws which turns the text on the screen into synthetic speech. A copy of jaws now costs more than a copy of Windows. Granted, it's pretty advanced technology and it has a small market compared to windows. But, what makes it so expensive is also the fact that it is government agencies that pay for the software for most blind people. All the various vocational rehab agencies and other state aid agencies are paying for this software for these people. And most blind people, who are not working, consider it a right. The irony is,
the word Jaws, stands for "Job Access with Speech".
"job" access. But most people using it don't have jobs. But it's too expensive for them to buy, so either they get the government to pay for it, or they hack it and download it from torrents.
I personally don't believe this program would cost as much if the developers knew the government wasn't writing the check. Lately, they've been spending all their time suing their competition for alleged patent violations.

I'm not against government programs like this entirely, I got quite a bit of aid from my Vocational Rehav agency. But for every person like me that it helped, it has also enabled a few others to accomplish nothing. My uncle was also given a lot of aid through VR and he's the biggest drunk in my home town, who accomplishes absolutely nothing.

My point is kind of meandering, but I guess it boils down to this. Whether or not I got VR aid, I'd have figured out a way to accomplish my goals. And whether or not my uncle gets VR aid, he isn't going to accomplish anything. So I don't think government investing more billions into the education system or any other system for that matter is going to make a huge difference. It has to do with the character of the people more than anything else.

Lots of stuff in there I agree with, especially the part about personal responsibility. America could certainly use a kick in the pants in that department. BUT, we have a serious problem in this country that is not going to fix itself. Each year we fall further and further behind the rest of the major economies of the world in academics, and especially in the fields of math and science. And although I share your sentiments about helping ourselves, I feel that the system has eroded past the point where it will right itself purely through the power of self-determination. I, for one, would rather see 10 billion a month go into our educational system than to an unwanted and unpopular war, even if a few slackers benefit who don't deserve it. Take care and keep making good music.

chas

I have nothing against the oil companies making profits either. But record profit after record profit, after record profit while
(1) the Republicans give them tax breaks,
(2)while the republicans let them re-assemble the price gouging Standard Oil by watering down the anti-trust laws and allowing them to merge,
(3)while the Bushies gave huge tax credits to gas-guzzling hummers and other SUVs, and
(4)while the consumer is paying up the you-know-what for oil.

And now, right before election time, the oil prices go down a bit. Hmmm, that happened exactly 4 years ago.

McCain and the other republicans are in bed with the oil companies.

They have given us nothing but a recession since Bush got in. Their philosophy isn't working, except to get a vast minority of people richer at the population's expense.

If you want 4 more years of the same, vote for McCain, if you want a chance at a reversal, vote for Obama.

I am a moderate and used to lean towards the republican party until I saw what was happening under Reagan. I don't see the democrats as the answer, but right now the lesser of the two evils.

The republicans want to nuke social-security saying they want to get big government off our back.

Yet they contract out former government services to private companies like Halliburton at top dollar, spending more than if it was a government service, and do it on credit so we end up paying more for everything (hidden "tax) and then say they are cutting taxes. This is putting more government on our backs, not less.

Then they go to war with Iraq bearing by false witness against them spending trillions of out tax dollars on it - more than enough to rescue social security for 100 years

*** remember the WMDs - and don't tell me they didn't know Iraq didn't have them. WMDs are only good as a deterrent. If we were rattling our sabers at Sadam's door and he had WMDs, he would have said, "Step across that border and I'll nuke you". He had nothing to lose at that point.

So any idiot by then knew he didn't have them. But going to war with Iraq proved very profitable to halliburton, blackwater and the other contractors while it wrecked our economy.

If you want more of that, vote for McCain - Obama was wise enough to see through it and vote against the war.

Answer this, are you better off financially than you were when Clinton held the reins? (and I didn't vote for him either, but I sure miss him).

And the trailer trash running mate who said in our newspaper that we should go to war with Russia would only be a heartbeat away from being able to pull the trigger on that mistake.

Is that what you want?

I'm afraid this country cannot bear 4 more republican years.

Pretty much every liberal minded person I've ever tried to debate simply won't stay on topic. Just throw in 1-liners on about 10 different subjects to make a little guise at being informed. This last post is a perfect example. I'm in a gypsy swing band with a liberal minded fellow, who calls himself independent. Anyway, I've had the exact same problem. HE started in on voter fraud, so I decided to take him on with that. Only problem, wouldn't stay on subject. Every opportunity to talk about Cheney this, Bush that, Iraq this, 911 that. Oh, he sounds amazingly informed until you try to keep him on task. Anyone can fight with 1-liners, but it's hard to win with them.

[This message has been edited by FAEbGBD (edited 10-12-2008).]

The financial situation is bad, but the level of polite, intellectual discourse makes some of the ranting and raving about this or that arranger from that past a little silly, don't you think?

Rory and Chas, you guys made extremely thoughtful contributions to my little charity project, so it's no surprise that you have participated in this volatile discussion with thoughtful yet different angles/opinions.

Wouldn't it be great if we all conducted our interpersonal affairs in this manner?

Thanks, guys,


Russ

Quote: Pretty much every liberal minded person I've ever tried to debate simply won't stay on topic End Quote

Pretty much what the NeoCons do when they want to divert the subject from the truth, throw in the word Liberal as if it was a bad word.

The US was founded as a Liberal country, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and many of the others used the word to describe the US. If it weren't for Liberals, women, African Americans, Chinese and other non-white males would NOT be able to vote.

So to be anti-liberal is to be anti-American.

Understanding who put us into the worst economic situation since the Great Depression is part of the way to use our voting power to make sure those people no longer run things.

Did you know that less than a week after the federal government committed $85 billion to bail out AIG, executives of the giant insurance company headed for a week-long retreat at a luxury resort and spa, the St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, California.

Rooms at this resort can cost over $1,000 a night. AIG documents obtained by a congressional investigation show the company paid more than $440,000 for the retreat, including nearly $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 in spa charges.

And we taxpayers paid for the bail-out.

And since the Republicans have had been running the government for the last 8 years, not only did they create the climate that allowed this to happen, they also engineered the bail-out that not only took our tax money to save their butts, but didn't even make them responsible for their own actions. We are paying for their cheating, not them.

If you want more of the same, simply vote another Republican majority. They've been doing the same thing since Reagan.

Don't listen to the ads, look at their past actions and use that in the voting booth.

A few weeks ago, in the Palm Beach Post it was notated that while we are having the housing crisis, mansions costing mega-million dollars and up are not affected, because the people that can afford them have been positively affected by the current economic situation.

So (ON TOPIC) how is the current economic crisis affecting me?

It has changed me from a political moderate who gave both sides of the aisle equal deliberation in any election to one who now feels that a Republican candidate has a liability on his/her shoulder that he/she must overcome by his/her actions and past voting record.

I see fewer people in the audiences of the clubs that I play, fewer people in the restaurants in which I visit, fewer people spending money on non-essentials, and that includes entertainment. My vote will be used to make sure the people responsible are not re-elected, and in my opinion, McCain is an extension of the policies that got us where we are today.


[This message has been edited by Notes_Norton (edited 10-13-2008).]

Can't I just be conservateive? Do I have to be neocon? OR does that trendy word enhance your argument some way? I don't remember saying anything about commie libs. Oh well, one thing it did was showed me I might as well save my fingers trying to discuss any of the points above.

Hmm.

I thought since I told you I was a moderate and you threw out the liberal word, it was only fair to throw out the neocon word.

The fact is, the Republicans have held the reins of the country for 8 years and we are in far worse shape than we were when they took over.

Voting them in again will only insure that we have at least 4 more years of the same.

That's the good thing about being moderate. I can swing either way when I think the course of the nation needs correcting. And IMO it definitely needs correcting.

Party Politics Aside,

this is how I see it:



'nuff said

Notes_Norton
Your forgetting one very important thing... It was Bill Clinton that started the mess of Fannie and Freddie!

He put the policy in place to have everyone own a house...WHETHER THEY COULD PAY FOR IT OR NOT....and the Congress has known about this problem for a long time and did nothing!


Get your wallet out, in 2010 the everyones tax's will go up!

In fact if he raises them in 2009..he will just lie and say that Busches tax breaks have just expired...actually that's not until 2010.

Lee

Folks.., bottom line is this. It doesn't matter WHO won the election. Obama or McCain.., it simply didn't matter in terms of taxes.

We just spent billions upon billions bailing out companies. This countries economic position is unreal at the moment. So it doesn't matter..., the ugly fact is that taxes WILL go up regardless of whomever took the white house. This economy is in too much of a mess for them not to go up.

The difference is Obama and McCain BOTH knew the reality. Obama at least was OPEN about it to the public.. McCain tried to act like the problem wasn't there and that this economic crisis isn't going to affect John and Jane Doe tax payer when in reality it was....

Obama is going to have his hands full. How historic this election is.., but man IMO I can't see why either of them wanted to take office and come in to the current mess we have now.

Yes indeed, McCain tried to pretend it wasn't there. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973 

It's absolutely AMAZING to me that so many Americans have been brainwashed by the liberal media ...
And of course Obama knew about the problem ... it was caused by the DEMOCRATS starting with Clinton!!!!!
t.

Notes_Norton ... you have also forgotten that BOTH Biden and Hillary Clinton said Obama wasn't ready to be President ...

And BTW ... since it was Bush's fault the gas prices went up, whose takes the credit for them going down ?!?!? ....... or hasn't anyone noticed ???
t.

[This message has been edited by tony mads usa (edited 11-05-2008).]

And Obama spent about $650MM to do it!!!

t.

Who gets credit for the lower gas prices? Standard Oil who wanted McCain in the white house as he wanted to increase their tax breaks (in other words, have you and I pay their taxes for them).

It's over now. I think we made the right choice. Let's hope we did.

Now lets forget our differences and get back to making music together.

Notes

------------------
Bob "Notes" Norton
Owner Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com
The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com