Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:38:03 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 05:47:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:


So, what is the difference between a slump and a logical correction?
Does it depend on who is in the Whitehouse??

Perhaps, if Republicans hadn't gutted the Glass-Steagall Act we wouldn't
have had this sub-prime fiasco. But you are right, Clinton did sign the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

A classic example of public policy gone wrong.

Competition is a great and wonderous thing - it will build bigger,
better and stronger economies. In this case, it produced CDOs and
DIVs which produced the real culprit in the real estate problem which
is the CDO-Squared or CDO-N which is CDO-Cubed, Quad, etc., based on
sub-prime risk which encouraged complex SIVs - yada, yada, yada.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:48:47 -0500, DownTime
wrote:

wrote:
On Jan 2, 8:41 am, DownTime wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.
Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.
I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.
Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.
Now I need to call my bookie. :)
Your bookie is taking action on the primaries? That is sad. I'm assuming
even the bookies are also it hard by the current real estate slump.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, what is the difference between a slump and a logical correction?
Does it depend on who is in the Whitehouse??

I guess it depends on one's perspective. I see it as more a logical
correction, as the prices, especially here in SW Florida were just plain
ridiculous. Slump could be used to describe it by anyone who maybe has
suffered financially, which thankfully does not include me directly.

Not sure I am smart enough to know exactly who may be at fault, besides
I doubt everyone else but me cares about my opinion.

Blame (fault) is a tricky subject in this instance. There is a point
where growth eventually rises to a point where it is unsustainable -
it's not directly anybody's fault in one sense and it's exactly
everybody's fault in another.

The positive thing in this whole deal is that over the next two/three
years, real estate in the US will be viewed as an emerging market and
prices will rebound quickly.

It will be interesting to watch.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Who are you hoping to vote for? Mike Huckleberry?



Hey, he plays a mean bass.

Eisboch

Well, gee, what else does the guy need?
As I have stated, I think he's an ok guy, but not for president. We're in
the last full year of President Numnutz, and I have seen nothing to
indicate Huck is any brighter about the world than Bush was and is. And
then there is Huck's "connection" to evangelicals. *That* is an automatic
disqualifier for me. No Jesus Freaks in the White House, please.



Being exceptionally "smart" doesn't do it for me. Many cunning criminals
are very "smart".

I want someone smart *enough* to surround himself/herself with decent,
knowledgeable and experienced staff members for counsel and advice, one who
isn't afraid to admit he/she is human and prone to mistakes, and above all
has the moral courage to use common sense based on sincere consideration
when making a tough decision.

I am *not* looking for a POTUS that promises cures for all the domestic and
international problems, both social and political, just to get votes.
Nobody can realistically do that and she's being intellectually dishonest in
her quest.

Quess you know who I've crossed off my list.

Eisboch

Handicapping Iowa...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:46:32 +0000, Canuck57 wrote:


Why McCain? I view him as having too many back room allegiances and
special interests to be any good. But then again, I can't vote -- just
curious on US politics. Kind of like Ron Paul myself.

True, McCain was one of the Keating Five. He admits to "poor judgement",
which it was, but it also seemed to be a wake-up call. Since that time,
he has been a lead voice in campaign finance reform, and from my vantage
point, a straight shooter. While I don't agree with many of his stands,
I think he is one of the few honorable men in Washington.

A refresher in McCain's involvement in the Keating scandal:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/


His military service is also valuable, but not in a way that's obvious.
Success in politics (and other areas of life in general) often depends on
getting certain people to shut the **** up already and stop making noise, so
actual messages can be heard. There's a contingent of voters (unfortunately)
who believe that you cannot formulate foreign policy unless you've served in
the military. McCain's history silences those idiots, at least on THAT
subject.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:56:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.

Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.

Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.

Now I need to call my bookie. :)

Meanwhile, McCain's the only Republican candidate with a spine.

As a person, I like McCain - as a President I could find him
acceptable - Keating Five beside the point. I'm not exaclty sure how
involved he was in it other than doing what he was supposed to do with
a constituent who contributed to his political organization.

Considering that he was the only Republican involved, it does leave
one to wonder.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:46:32 +0000, Canuck57 wrote:


Why McCain? I view him as having too many back room allegiances and
special interests to be any good. But then again, I can't vote -- just
curious on US politics. Kind of like Ron Paul myself.

True, McCain was one of the Keating Five. He admits to "poor judgement",
which it was, but it also seemed to be a wake-up call. Since that time,
he has been a lead voice in campaign finance reform, and from my vantage
point, a straight shooter. While I don't agree with many of his stands,
I think he is one of the few honorable men in Washington.

A refresher in McCain's involvement in the Keating scandal:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/


Find me a clean major league politician and I'll show you a guy with a
wide stance in the men's room.


--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:48:47 -0500, DownTime
wrote:

I guess it depends on one's perspective. I see it as more a logical
correction, as the prices, especially here in SW Florida were just plain
ridiculous. Slump could be used to describe it by anyone who maybe has
suffered financially, which thankfully does not include me directly.

Not sure I am smart enough to know exactly who may be at fault, besides
I doubt everyone else but me cares about my opinion.

You are overlooking the root cause of inflated SWFL prices in the
first place: Easy lending standards which encouraged/fueled rampant
speculation. That started in the mid to late 90s and continued until
this year. The bubble began to burst 2 years ago after hurricane
Wilma convinced a lot of people to sell, and dried up the buyer pool.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:39:53 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


His military service is also valuable, but not in a way that's obvious.
Success in politics (and other areas of life in general) often depends
on getting certain people to shut the **** up already and stop making
noise, so actual messages can be heard. There's a contingent of voters
(unfortunately) who believe that you cannot formulate foreign policy
unless you've served in the military. McCain's history silences those
idiots, at least on THAT subject.

And interesting factoid you may already know. McCain was inadvertently
involved with the fire that almost sunk the Forrestal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal

Handicapping Iowa...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:39:53 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


His military service is also valuable, but not in a way that's obvious.
Success in politics (and other areas of life in general) often depends
on getting certain people to shut the **** up already and stop making
noise, so actual messages can be heard. There's a contingent of voters
(unfortunately) who believe that you cannot formulate foreign policy
unless you've served in the military. McCain's history silences those
idiots, at least on THAT subject.

And interesting factoid you may already know. McCain was inadvertently
involved with the fire that almost sunk the Forrestal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal


That looks like it was a Very Bad Day for all involved. And I'm the king of
understatement today. :)

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:40:16 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


As a person, I like McCain - as a President I could find him acceptable
- Keating Five beside the point. I'm not exaclty sure how involved he
was in it other than doing what he was supposed to do with a constituent
who contributed to his political organization.

Considering that he was the only Republican involved, it does leave one
to wonder.

The Senate Ethics Committee Special Counsel recommended McCain and Glenn
be dropped from the investigation, but there is speculation that didn't
happen because he was the lone Republican.