If you voted for Bush or Obama twice do you regret it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government didn't insure mortgage securities , nobody would have ever given loans to deadbeats or illegals.

Government meddling leads to stupid investments.

Investor greed leads to stupid investments and the housing bubble.

Here's what leads to stupid investments: the banks figured out a way to bundle mortgages and sell them as investments. The mortgage market became monetized the way stock is monetized. Investors loved them. When they had bundled all of the good mortgages, they started making slightly riskier mortgages and sold those. Investors still loved them. They then started making even riskier mortgages and selling those and so and so on and so on. Eventually they were giving mortgages to people without requiring them to show proof of income. It created a housing bubble. Economists warned that it was a bubble for 4-5 years before it failed, but no one believed it.

You're right, except for the fact that not everyone disregarded the economists' warnings. A few of us listened and shorted the housing market, mwhahahah. Anyway, I voted for Obama twice and I'm not really sorry about it, although I maybe would have voted 3rd party the second time if Virginia weren't so close. Obama has since lost me with the NSA thing and the amnesty issue, but I don't think Romney would have been any better, that's for sure (although, I'm almost positive he also bet against the housing market and was too chickenshit to admit it).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Red states are poorer.

And this is reminding me of how very hard I have to bite my tongue around my BIL who rants about taking the country back while taking government assistance to feed his kids. Dumbass.

You're too good. I would at least withhold biting my tongue once, just to see the stupidity cross his face when the lightbulb goes on.

I have a really hard time not just looking at him and telling him straight to his face he's an effing moron.

Oh, and last new year's, my FIL and my husband me aunt were arguing with me about the responsibility issues with those in poverty. It took all my will power not to say "ok, case in point - your own idiot child who is 40 and lives at home with 2 kids he never should have had"

[Anonymous]

Ugh, husband's aunt. Wth, autocorrect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government didn't insure mortgage securities , nobody would have ever given loans to deadbeats or illegals.

Government meddling leads to stupid investments.

Investor greed leads to stupid investments and the housing bubble.

Here's what leads to stupid investments: the banks figured out a way to bundle mortgages and sell them as investments. The mortgage market became monetized the way stock is monetized. Investors loved them. When they had bundled all of the good mortgages, they started making slightly riskier mortgages and sold those. Investors still loved them. They then started making even riskier mortgages and selling those and so and so on and so on. Eventually they were giving mortgages to people without requiring them to show proof of income. It created a housing bubble. Economists warned that it was a bubble for 4-5 years before it failed, but no one believed it.

You're right, except for the fact that not everyone disregarded the economists' warnings. A few of us listened and shorted the housing market, mwhahahah. Anyway, I voted for Obama twice and I'm not really sorry about it, although I maybe would have voted 3rd party the second time if Virginia weren't so close. Obama has since lost me with the NSA thing and the amnesty issue, but I don't think Romney would have been any better, that's for sure (although, I'm almost positive he also bet against the housing market and was too chickenshit to admit it).

guess what. There is a housing and stock market bubble now too. The result of a fiat currency printing torrent and a desire of the government and wealthy to pump up the assets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Red states are poorer.

And this is reminding me of how very hard I have to bite my tongue around my BIL who rants about taking the country back while taking government assistance to feed his kids. Dumbass.

You're too good. I would at least withhold biting my tongue once, just to see the stupidity cross his face when the lightbulb goes on.

I have a really hard time not just looking at him and telling him straight to his face he's an effing moron.

Oh, and last new year's, my FIL and my husband me aunt were arguing with me about the responsibility issues with those in poverty. It took all my will power not to say "ok, case in point - your own idiot child who is 40 and lives at home with 2 kids he never should have had"

Family is taking responsibility in this man's case. his parents are stepping in to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government didn't insure mortgage securities , nobody would have ever given loans to deadbeats or illegals.

Government meddling leads to stupid investments.

Investor greed leads to stupid investments and the housing bubble.

Here's what leads to stupid investments: the banks figured out a way to bundle mortgages and sell them as investments. The mortgage market became monetized the way stock is monetized. Investors loved them. When they had bundled all of the good mortgages, they started making slightly riskier mortgages and sold those. Investors still loved them. They then started making even riskier mortgages and selling those and so and so on and so on. Eventually they were giving mortgages to people without requiring them to show proof of income. It created a housing bubble. Economists warned that it was a bubble for 4-5 years before it failed, but no one believed it.

You're right, except for the fact that not everyone disregarded the economists' warnings. A few of us listened and shorted the housing market, mwhahahah. Anyway, I voted for Obama twice and I'm not really sorry about it, although I maybe would have voted 3rd party the second time if Virginia weren't so close. Obama has since lost me with the NSA thing and the amnesty issue, but I don't think Romney would have been any better, that's for sure (although, I'm almost positive he also bet against the housing market and was too chickenshit to admit it).

guess what. There is a housing and stock market bubble now too. The result of a fiat currency printing torrent and a desire of the government and wealthy to pump up the assets.

PP here. I'm aware.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Red states are poorer.

And this is reminding me of how very hard I have to bite my tongue around my BIL who rants about taking the country back while taking government assistance to feed his kids. Dumbass.

You're too good. I would at least withhold biting my tongue once, just to see the stupidity cross his face when the lightbulb goes on.

I have a really hard time not just looking at him and telling him straight to his face he's an effing moron.

Oh, and last new year's, my FIL and my husband me aunt were arguing with me about the responsibility issues with those in poverty. It took all my will power not to say "ok, case in point - your own idiot child who is 40 and lives at home with 2 kids he never should have had"

Family is taking responsibility in this man's case. his parents are stepping in to help.

No, read carefully dear heart. The poster said that her BIL was receiving government assistance. Perhaps, he is paying his parents with government food stamps and TANF for his room and board.

[Anonymous]

Re:BIL - yes, he has drained our family's resources to the point where they can no longer pay for his mess. He lives there rent free, but he gets food stamps and Medicaid because of the kids. The only reason they don't make him fend for himself are the grand kids, but frankly, he probably would be ok if he wasn't reproducing with idiot women who then abandon their kids.

Without the gov't, those kids would be SOL. So railing against it is completely hypocritical and dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re:BIL - yes, he has drained our family's resources to the point where they can no longer pay for his mess. He lives there rent free, but he gets food stamps and Medicaid because of the kids. The only reason they don't make him fend for himself are the grand kids, but frankly, he probably would be ok if he wasn't reproducing with idiot women who then abandon their kids.

Without the gov't, those kids would be SOL. So railing against it is completely hypocritical and dumb.

Seems to me that the problem is enabling family members - how very liberal of them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re:BIL - yes, he has drained our family's resources to the point where they can no longer pay for his mess. He lives there rent free, but he gets food stamps and Medicaid because of the kids. The only reason they don't make him fend for himself are the grand kids, but frankly, he probably would be ok if he wasn't reproducing with idiot women who then abandon their kids.

Without the gov't, those kids would be SOL. So railing against it is completely hypocritical and dumb.

Are the mothers paying child support?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re:BIL - yes, he has drained our family's resources to the point where they can no longer pay for his mess. He lives there rent free, but he gets food stamps and Medicaid because of the kids. The only reason they don't make him fend for himself are the grand kids, but frankly, he probably would be ok if he wasn't reproducing with idiot women who then abandon their kids.

Without the gov't, those kids would be SOL. So railing against it is completely hypocritical and dumb.

Seems to me that the problem is enabling family members - how very liberal of them

Yes, they have enabled his completely irresponsible behavior. But they are conservatives, so the whole thing just makes me laugh.

When my husband heard about the gov't assistance, he wanted to send money. Um, hell to the no. I'm a liberal, but I will not send our money to enable his bad behavior. They have let him be dead weight too long, and now he has reproduced which means they won't ever be rid of him.

It's a damn shitshow. But, they will go on and on about those "irresponsible poor people". Oh, you mean the jackass living under your roof?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are the mothers paying child support?

The 2 little ones are with the same way younger than him woman. And no, she doesn't send any money. She doesn't work. She is currently living 3 hours away with the second boyfriend who came after BIL. The first was her (I assume now ex) best friend's baby daddy.

She currently does have the second child, which of course sent the first into therapy. I'm surprised she hasn't given up her rights entirely-she left them for months, then showed up when convenient for her to spend a couple hours with them. When she moved is when she took one child but not the other, but tends to send the kid to dad for weeks at a time with little notice. She couldn't be bothered to get her kid to a doctor in time to start her in the free preschool they qualify for.

Seriously, talk about irresponsible. Yet...they don't see these things about themselves and happily rant about the gov't and waste, blah, blah, blah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re:BIL - yes, he has drained our family's resources to the point where they can no longer pay for his mess. He lives there rent free, but he gets food stamps and Medicaid because of the kids. The only reason they don't make him fend for himself are the grand kids, but frankly, he probably would be ok if he wasn't reproducing with idiot women who then abandon their kids.

Without the gov't, those kids would be SOL. So railing against it is completely hypocritical and dumb.

Seems to me that the problem is enabling family members - how very liberal of them

Yes, they have enabled his completely irresponsible behavior. But they are conservatives, so the whole thing just makes me laugh.

When my husband heard about the gov't assistance, he wanted to send money. Um, hell to the no. I'm a liberal, but I will not send our money to enable his bad behavior. They have let him be dead weight too long, and now he has reproduced which means they won't ever be rid of him.

It's a damn shitshow. But, they will go on and on about those "irresponsible poor people". Oh, you mean the jackass living under your roof?

As if conservative children are the problem . It's a funny red herring. A flood of illegals , open borders and a total welfare state equals destruction. The only thing that will fix it is if China , our new master, succeeds in replacing the dollar. Then the whole shitshow implodes on our collective money printing fantasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re:BIL - yes, he has drained our family's resources to the point where they can no longer pay for his mess. He lives there rent free, but he gets food stamps and Medicaid because of the kids. The only reason they don't make him fend for himself are the grand kids, but frankly, he probably would be ok if he wasn't reproducing with idiot women who then abandon their kids.

Without the gov't, those kids would be SOL. So railing against it is completely hypocritical and dumb.

Seems to me that the problem is enabling family members - how very liberal of them

Yes, they have enabled his completely irresponsible behavior. But they are conservatives, so the whole thing just makes me laugh.

When my husband heard about the gov't assistance, he wanted to send money. Um, hell to the no. I'm a liberal, but I will not send our money to enable his bad behavior. They have let him be dead weight too long, and now he has reproduced which means they won't ever be rid of him.

It's a damn shitshow. But, they will go on and on about those "irresponsible poor people". Oh, you mean the jackass living under your roof?

As if conservative children are the problem . It's a funny red herring. A flood of illegals , open borders and a total welfare state equals destruction. The only thing that will fix it is if China , our new master, succeeds in replacing the dollar. Then the whole shitshow implodes on our collective money printing fantasy.

China is in trouble. You need to read a paper once in a while.

[Anonymous]

^^^ the whole world is in trouble due to leftists centralized government control freaks.

The US used to be different.