Well, my favorite Lincoln speech is the Springfield Lyceum one he gave when he was 30, which sketched out generational theory. Other famous ones are the Cooper Union speech before he was President and the Gettysburg Address (November 1963.) So I couldn't quite go that far. The second inaugural is probably the most famous.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Same thing happened to us when we bought our house here in 2006. We were approved for twice the amount of the house we actually bought. I knew there was no way we could afford the mortgage on the loan amount we were approved for. At least we couldn't afford it if we wanted to be able to eat and pay our bills too. But we were older and understood these things. If we had been a young or first time buyers, we just might have believed that we could afford a mortgage that high...After all, the bank had said we could.

Yep, they did the same thing to me when I was looking to buy in 2001. And they were talking ARMS and crap. I just laughed at them. As a college teacher I knew my income was relatively fixed. Of course, I had no idea it would be as fixed as it is.

Originally Posted by annla899

Yep, they did the same thing to me when I was looking to buy in 2001. And they were talking ARMS and crap.

Echo and echo. I'm sure most homebuyers '98-'08 were given pie-in-the-sky options. It was during that time I was grateful for my parents' repeated (and repeated) mantra for how to roughly figure a mortgage payment: 10% of what you owe will be your monthly bill. It was a perpetual reality check.

I can't seem to find the post, but I do agree with the poster who surmised that, if nominations were held presently, Romney would take the nomination but likely lose the general election.

I think it's far too early and there are still too many variables in play--and yet to be in play--to guess. I don't have a long list of horrendous things to say about Romney, I just don't believe he possesses the broad appeal to win.

The dynamic on the Republican side so far seems to be that one right-wing candidate after another zooms to prominence and then self-destructs, while Mitt Romney putters along with modest but consistent approval. We've seen Michelle Bachmann, then Rick Perry, and now Herman Cain rise to challenge him. Both Bachmann and Perry now look as if they have no chance to win the nomination. Cain is carrying a lot of baggage with his absurd 9-9-9 tax plan, and is likely to suffer the same fate; there is too much time between now and the convention for him to take it at the crest of his rise, which is the only way he could win. Unless another right-wing candidate emerges from the ether at the last minute, it looks very much as of the GOP is going to end up nominating Romney -- which is of course the sensible choice. None of the right-wing candidates has a prayer of beating Obama.

On the Democratic side, there is no question who the nominee will be, but there is an interesting dynamic at play nonetheless involving the Occupy movement and Obama's relationship with it. Conservatives have a very poor understanding, in my observation, of the reasons for Obama's lowered approval rating since he took office, and the reason they do is because they tend to think of the current Democratic Party as the left book-end of political positions, so that anything to the left of the Democrats is dismissed as "far-left loonie" or some such. This is incorrect, as far as economic issues are concerned (it's actually pretty accurate on social issues, though). The national center, if we go by polls on issues, is somewhat to the left of the current Democratic Party on most economic questions. Polls show a majority favoring a single-payer system of national medical insurance, narrower income gaps and redistribution of wealth, and an end to the blanket free-trade policy with a concentration on creating jobs.

What this means is that Obama's dropping approval rating is almost all the result of criticism of him from the left, not the right. Not that he doesn't have criticism from the right, but that has been a constant throughout his presidency; what has increased is the criticism from the left. Which brings me back to the Occupy movement.

Obama has begun to rhetorically embrace the Occupy movement, but not sufficiently to convince; for one thing, there is no acknowledgement that he moved too much to the right in his governance and is perceived as having broken his campaign promises. So his bacon ain't saved yet, but the potential is there.

The single best thing that Obama could do in order to lock up next year's election is to replace Timothy Geitner with a progressive, and implement a set of policies and legislative targets in keeping with that. If he does, Wall Street will be royally pissed and the flow of campaign cash from that quarter will dry up but he has plenty of money to run his campaign already, and he will win the election in a landslide.

If he doesn't do that, then the Obama-Romney race will be between two candidates who are unexciting to their respective bases and is likely to be pretty low-turnout for a 4T election. Obama is still likely to win, especially because Romney's Mormon religion will be of concern to a key Republican constituency, but the race will be closer than if Obama moves to the left.

Originally Posted by BookishXer

Echo and echo. I'm sure most homebuyers '98-'08 were given pie-in-the-sky options. It was during that time I was grateful for my parents' repeated (and repeated) mantra for how to roughly figure a mortgage payment: 10% of what you owe will be your monthly bill. It was a perpetual reality check.

10% of the balance per month?

Do you mean 1% a month, or do you mean 10% yearly? No one pays $20,000 a month on a $200,000 mortgage. $2,000 a month or $20,000 a year would be closer, yes?

Re: ARMs(Adjustable Rate Mortgages).

From:Creditboards.com(There's some commentary concerning ARMs in general; I was just looking for data).

"The concept of the ARM dates back to 1959 when a former Wisconsin Assemblyman named William Double (Note: there is no irony like unintentional irony. "Will Double" couldn't be a more appropriate name)
devised a plan to allow mortgage rates to adjust periodically. The idea found some initial popularity in California, but remained largely unused until the Savings and Loan industry began offering them as a mainstream product."

This appears to be correct.

Prince

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The dynamic on the Republican side so far seems to be that one right-wing candidate after another zooms to prominence and then self-destructs, while Mitt Romney putters along with modest but consistent approval. We've seen Michelle Bachmann, then Rick Perry, and now Herman Cain rise to challenge him. Both Bachmann and Perry now look as if they have no chance to win the nomination. Cain is carrying a lot of baggage with his absurd 9-9-9 tax plan, and is likely to suffer the same fate; there is too much time between now and the convention for him to take it at the crest of his rise, which is the only way he could win. Unless another right-wing candidate emerges from the ether at the last minute, it looks very much as of the GOP is going to end up nominating Romney -- which is of course the sensible choice. None of the right-wing candidates has a prayer of beating Obama.

This has been my thinking as well. However, after hearing a rather smart analysis from some pollster on NPR, I'm now not so sure.


Essentially, his point was that those currently supporting any Romney-alternative (R-alt) will not likely throw their support behind Romney (R) as long as there is any R-alt. remaining. That means should Bachmann drop out, her supporters will go to just another R-alt; same with Perry, Cain. In most polls, the combined support of the R-alts exceeds those of R - so it is possible that, as they drop out, the remaining one actually becomes the viable candidate. What is more interesting is as this becomes recognized, there may be a panic by the Establishment GOP that would lead them to drop R as being just un-electable and shifting to a Gingrich or Huntsman. If that happens, my sense is that will come too little, too late.

I wouldn't have given it much of a snowball's chance in hell for a Perry, Cain or a Bachmann, but now I can at least see the possibility.

What I find truly amazing is the GOP heavyweight line-up in 2008 where they really had little chance compared to this line-up for 2012 of second stringers when it should have been a cakewalk against Obama. I think this reflects more than anything else the millstone of the t-baggers around the neck of the GOP. My hope is that this translates down the chain to the Senate and House races. We'll see.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

"The concept of the ARM dates back to 1959 when a former Wisconsin Assemblyman named William Double (Note: there is no irony like unintentional irony. "Will Double" couldn't be a more appropriate name)

Except that he died in 1996. It would have been more appropriate if Will Double died in 2007.

Here is a closer look at the presidential candidates, using my revised statistical system based on my extensive research concerning which presidents and losing candidates had which planetary aspects in their charts, and other factors. I have summarized this in my score, indicating positive advantages vs. detrimental liabilities. I have listed them in overall order of presidential fitness and fortune this year.

Barack Obama 8-2. He has a few good aspects, indicating endurance, energy, perspective, personal ease, adaptability and rhetorical skill, and few liabilities except occasional unpopularity. His low positive score shows that his skills have their limits.

Mitt Romney 11-5. His skills include personal ease and optimism that pleases the public (a strong Moon-Jupiter conjunction is always a good indication), as well as perserverance and adaptive perspective. He has some flair with words, but he has a tendency to be wavering and nervous at times. His tendency to make drastic changes is well-known.

Ron Paul 12-5. He has aspects that indicate good strategic skill, focused energy and rhetorical flair. His chart is typical of missionary types with cult followings and radical or dogmatic attitudes. He has the same Mars-Uranus opposition that was so much trouble for Howard Dean. He is 76 years old too.

Newt Gingrich 11-5. Like Perry (below) his strength is mainly in his conservative, perservering Saturn aspects, plus his aggressive Mars in Aries. His flair for ideas shows up in his Mercury-Uranus conjunction in Gemini. He has weak adaptability, and his personal ease and confidence is not great (weak Jupiter). His overall strong score, the same as Romney's, is already keeping him in the race longer than was expected. He may be his next challenger. He is now 68 years old, which is getting up there.

Gary Johnson 18-4. He has a lot of skills, especially in his adaptability and steadiness, and few liabilities as a politician. Popular with conservatives for his tax and budget policies as NM governor, which were very effective, he could be a powerful dark horse candidate, except for one thing: he is going through his Saturn return now. A current Saturn return, or one upcoming in the next 3 years, is usually the kiss of death, unless a president has one during an election; even then it's a bad indication for his term. Johnson's Saturn Return will last several more months, and by then the primaries may well be over. It seems to be successfully keeping him out of the limelight. Perhaps if he got better known, he might be more successful in 2016. The Saturn return is one reason I predicted Howard Dean would lose in 2004. His weak Moon leaves him with less ability to connect with popular feelings than some other candidates.

Rick Perry 9-5. He has some aspects that make him a popular hero with a rhetorical flair, but they are not powerful, so he can't count on these too much. Conservative Saturn is very powerful in his chart, which makes him liked by conservatives and capable of a Spartan-like endurance, but hard to elect nationally, and this Saturn emphasis may also indicate his sluggish, unadaptable and rigid personal approach that shows up in debates.

Jon Huntsman, 9-6. He has some Jupiter aspects that make him likeable and positive, which is good for American politicians. He has some minor liabilities including a weak Mars-Uranus opposition that could make for unsteady behavior. He has a good reliable character, but since his Uranus is weak he is not very charismatic as a leader.

Herman Cain 6-6. Inspirational, adaptable, but unsteady. He does not have a lot of aspects seen in presidential charts.

Rick Santorum 7-7. He has good planning skills and perspective, and is a smart communicator, but has little else going for him. He may even be subject to spells of strange behavior.

Buddy Roemer, 10-13. Charismatic with powerful leadership skills and energy, he has already shown the tendency indicated in his chart to make himself unpopular and fail to get things accomplished.

Michelle Bachman, 14-13. She has a lot going on in her chart; a lot of skills, and a lot of liabilities-- including the reckless, firebrand Mars-Uranus opposition. The clincher is the fact that her Saturn Return is due in 2015, which indicates she would not be elected this time out.

Another factor sometimes considered is close connections to the USA chart. George W. Bush's Sun exactly aligned with the US Sun helped keep him in favor. Barack Obama has the USA Moon degree as his rising sign. His Venus is close to the USA Venus. These give him a good popular connection. Herman Cain has Saturn over the US Mercury (his financial ideas have appeal for their conservatism), and Ron Paul has his Venus conjunct the USA Neptune (which is related to his appealing desire for peace).

I have looked at some indications before the election too. These are not always completely reliable, but in general they indicate that this time the incumbent will win. Another factor is where Saturn is currently in the candidates' charts. These indications, plus the scores and interpretations above and the Saturn return cycles mentioned, forecast that Barack Obama will defeat Mitt Romney in November.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Has anybody noted that the speeches Lincoln is famous for were all from his second term?

Huh? Lincoln served one full term and then a few weeks into his second term when he was assassinated. The Gettysburg Address was slightly more than 2 years into his firts term.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

10% of the balance per month?

Do you mean 1% a month, or do you mean 10% yearly? No one pays $20,000 a month on a $200,000 mortgage. $2,000 a month or $20,000 a year would be closer, yes?

Sorry. Yes. 1%.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

On the Democratic side, there is no question who the nominee will be, but there is an interesting dynamic at play nonetheless involving the Occupy movement and Obama's relationship with it. Conservatives have a very poor understanding, in my observation, of the reasons for Obama's lowered approval rating since he took office, and the reason they do is because they tend to think of the current Democratic Party as the left book-end of political positions, so that anything to the left of the Democrats is dismissed as "far-left loonie" or some such. This is incorrect, as far as economic issues are concerned (it's actually pretty accurate on social issues, though). The national center, if we go by polls on issues, is somewhat to the left of the current Democratic Party on most economic questions. Polls show a majority favoring a single-payer system of national medical insurance, narrower income gaps and redistribution of wealth, and an end to the blanket free-trade policy with a concentration on creating jobs.

What this means is that Obama's dropping approval rating is almost all the result of criticism of him from the left, not the right.

This is an interesting insight and one that I don't altogether disagree with. I believe, overall, that Obama's dipping ratings are because of the disappointment his supporters feel three years into his presidency. But because 'business as usual' is still running in Washington, the belief might be that, if a Democratic president is rated poorly then people must want a Republican (or vice versa).

I agree, though, that Obama's numbers are low because people, generally, are wanting more change, a greater shift in the way things are done, than the way Obama and Congress have provided. This would mean, then, that neither party is satisfying the changing perspective of voters.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

8. The housing bubble was largely a political creation. [Even more ridiculous.]

As a further followup on this topic, its interesting to see the role of Fannie and Freddie in the creation of the 30 year mortgage.

That’s just one reason why the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is a bad idea, and it’s not even the strongest one. The real reason this product should be abolished is that it simply doesn’t exist in any free-market system. In order to create it, you need to invent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — and just about everybody agrees that those two entities, which have cost the government hundreds of billions of dollars of late, and will probably cost even more going forwards, need to be radically downsized.

The simple truth is that without Frannie, you can’t have 30-year fixed-rate mortgages. Banks would never offer such creatures, and if they did, the interest rate on them would be so high, relative to adjustable-rate loans, that nobody would ever take them out.

here.

So first we offer the subsidy of the mortgage interest and property tax deduction, then we offer the subsidy of assuming the risk of all interest rate changes over a thirty year period. Then when the resulting credit bubble blows up, the left looks the other way and says its all the fault of the bankers. Its really more like the government left a pile of $100 bills sitting on the sidewalk and then wants to criticize the bankers who decided to pick them up. The denial of this is what is ridiculous.

James50

Originally Posted by BookishXer

This is an interesting insight and one that I don't altogether disagree with. I believe, overall, that Obama's dipping ratings are because of the disappointment his supporters feel three years into his presidency. But because 'business as usual' is still running in Washington, the belief might be that, if a Democratic president is rated poorly then people must want a Republican (or vice versa).

I agree, though, that Obama's numbers are low because people, generally, are wanting more change, a greater shift in the way things are done, than the way Obama and Congress have provided. This would mean, then, that neither party is satisfying the changing perspective of voters.

This is exactly what happened with health care reform. The polls show that the disapproval numbers are pretty high. Many people assume that those disapproval numbers are in agreement with the Republicans who didn't want any kind of national health care. However, in actuality, a lot of the people who are unhappy with the legislation are so because they don't feel the health care reform went far enough. The people who voted for Obama on this issue were looking for real universal health care.

Originally Posted by ASB65

This is exactly what happened with health care reform. The polls show that the disapproval numbers are pretty high. Many people assume that those disapproval numbers are in agreement with the Republicans who didn't want any kind of national health care. However, in actuality, a lot of the people who are unhappy with the legislation are so because they don't feel the health care reform went far enough. The people who voted for Obama on this issue were looking for real universal health care.

Quiet Amy. You can let the people know that!

Originally Posted by ASB65

This is exactly what happened with health care reform. The polls show that the disapproval numbers are pretty high. Many people assume that those disapproval numbers are in agreement with the Republicans who didn't want any kind of national health care. However, in actuality, a lot of the people who are unhappy with the legislation are so because they don't feel the health care reform went far enough. The people who voted for Obama on this issue were looking for real universal health care.

I've been saying this for a while. This is why the Independent = Centrist meme needs to die a horrible death.

Originally Posted by James50

So first we offer the subsidy of the mortgage interest and property tax deduction, then we offer the subsidy of assuming the risk of all interest rate changes over a thirty year period. Then when the resulting credit bubble blows up, the left looks the other way and says its all the fault of the bankers. Its really more like the government left a pile of $100 bills sitting on the sidewalk and then wants to criticize the bankers who decided to pick them up. The denial of this is what is ridiculous.

James50

I really want to understand both sides of this debate, and I admit that my knowledge is rather thin. Please bear with me while I try to briefly unpack this.

The 30-year-mortgage-loan was established during the Great Depression with the idea that a 30-year-loan is more manageable for working Americans---the idea being that a person would finish both their earning years and their loan payments at the same time and live in retirement without the burden of a mortgage.

However, in practice, banks couldn't afford to have their funds tied up for that long, so they sought investors to buy the mortgages, thus allowing the banks the money needed to provide more loans. Investors, however, required some kind of guarantee, which the government then began to do.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood the skeleton of how this all began.

Guaranteeing the mortgages, however, is what eventually got Freddie and Fannie into financial trouble.

Mentally sifting through this, it makes me wonder how a society can be both capitalist and socialist. (Please, no snarky "well, duh" replies. There is much well-thought dialogue about the ability for both to co-exist.)

I'm still led to think, though, that the size of the mortgages that Freddie and Fannie found themselves guaranteeing is more the culprit of the burst bubble than their role as guarantor.

?

Originally Posted by Odin

I've been saying this for a while. This is why the Independent = Centrist meme needs to die a horrible death.

That meme is basically a myth. Some of the most liberal and conservative people that I know are registered as Independents.

Originally Posted by BookishXer

I'm still led to think, though, that the size of the mortgages that Freddie and Fannie found themselves guaranteeing is more the culprit of the burst bubble than their role as guarantor.

With the pseudo private ownership of F&F, there was never an incentive to say "enough". The mortgages kept pouring in with the implicit federal guarantee. The politicians would or could not place any limits. Everyone danced until the music stopped. But it would never have gotten to the point it did without the political interference in the financial markets in the form of guarantees and purchasing of products that the markets would never have provided.

I am sure David Kaiser and others will want to talk about the sub-prime mortgages in which F&F played only a minor role. But these sub-primes were only the final and small step in a system set in motion many years ago that had only one logical outcome.

James50

The percentage of blame that Fannie and Freddie have for the 2008 bank meltdown is no mystery. It is 25%.

Anyoneselling a different number is literally selling the idea of taking accountibility off of the large commerical banks.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Well, my favorite Lincoln speech is the Springfield Lyceum one he gave when he was 30, which sketched out generational theory. Other famous ones are the Cooper Union speech before he was President and the Gettysburg Address (November 1963.) So I couldn't quite go that far. The second inaugural is probably the most famous.

Love this from the first inaugural:

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

Sadly, he couldn't have been anymore wrong.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The percentage of blame that Fannie and Freddie have for the 2008 bank meltdown is no mystery. It is 25%.

Anyoneselling a different number is literally selling the idea of taking accountibility off of the large commerical banks.

You are right about one thing. Its not a mystery. But 71% is the right number. Facts are pesky little things.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Facts are pesky little things.

http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/polit...-1671800.story

"Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.

Some 6 percent of Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored loans made during that span were 90 days late at some point in their history, according to Fannie and Freddie's regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. By contrast, the FHFA says, roughly 27 percent of loans that Wall Street folded into mortgage-backed investments were at least 90 days late at some point."The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd," said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. "Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth...They were opposite of subprime."

Fannie and Freddie, Cecala said in a telephone interview, didn't start making a big move into riskier mortgages until the mortgage boom was already under way, and they were fighting to reclaim market share they'd lost to more aggressive Wall Street players. Even then, they were more cautious than Lehman Brothers and other investment banks. For example, just over 15 percent of Fannie- and Freddie-backed loans made in 2007 have been seriously delinquent, compared to nearly 42 percent of mortgages bankrolled by Wall Street, according to the FHFA.

Originally Posted by James50

As a further followup on this topic, its interesting to see the role of Fannie and Freddie in the creation of the 30 year mortgage.


here.

So first we offer the subsidy of the mortgage interest and property tax deduction, then we offer the subsidy of assuming the risk of all interest rate changes over a thirty year period. Then when the resulting credit bubble blows up, the left looks the other way and says its all the fault of the bankers. Its really more like the government left a pile of $100 bills sitting on the sidewalk and then wants to criticize the bankers who decided to pick them up. The denial of this is what is ridiculous.

James50

James, we have had many disagreements but this is the first time I feel you are being willfully blind.

We had the 30-year mortgage and the interest deduction for many decades without any ill effect. We had the community re-investment act for, what, 15 years? without any ill effect. (It was very small potatoes.) Then suddenly, under Bush II, outfits like countrywide started begging people who couldn't afford mortgages to take them, and the whole thing exploded. They were to blame. The cause and effect is astonishingly simple.

As I just posted elsewhere, this is the essential Republican propaganda strategy now: get some New Deal protections weakened, create a catastrophe, and then blame the New Deal. And it's working.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

James, we have had many disagreements but this is the first time I feel you are being willfully blind.

We had the 30-year mortgage and the interest deduction for many decades without any ill effect. We had the community re-investment act for, what, 15 years? without any ill effect. (It was very small potatoes.) Then suddenly, under Bush II, outfits like countrywide started begging people who couldn't afford mortgages to take them, and the whole thing exploded. They were to blame. The cause and effect is astonishingly simple.

As I just posted elsewhere, this is the essential Republican propaganda strategy now: get some New Deal protections weakened, create a catastrophe, and then blame the New Deal. And it's working.

Banks are highly regulated and only do what the government let's them do. As you say, it is astonishingly simple. We did not all of a sudden get a new breed of bankers in 2002. It was bi-partisan government policy from start to finish.

James50