Insomnia (insomnia) wrote,

More tasty neoconservative meltdown...

More humorous reactionary reactions from those funster neocons at the National Review, from tonight's debate... 

"McCain lacked the killer instinct.. . .And that . . .explains those insta-polls. McCain has no one to blame but himself."

"A couple folks here have been saying that McCain is doing better than in the previous two debates. I wish it were true, but I just don't see it. I think a few times McCain has come across as spluttering."

"A minute
they spend on who's being meaner or more dishonest in this campaign is a minute that helps Obama."

"To be honest, I don't think Mac works hard enough to master the economic issues, especially tax cuts and growth. He has supply-side policies, but he is not a supply-sider. It shows when he talks about that stuff."

if the dissatisfactions with McCain expressed to me at the Palin rally in Laconia, NH today are anything to go by, there's a 60-40 probability that any cries of "Kill him!" at a GOP event are directed at our guy."

Frankly, I liked it best when McCain credited Hillary Clinton with his plan for buying people's houses for them... with no exception for the speculators who were scooping up multiple houses and flipping them, either.

It was a stupid idea when Hillary suggested it... and I criticized it then, as a gimme for the crappy subprime lenders and speculators.  It's even more stupid now. Obama's plan of negotiating fixed-rate mortgages for people's primary residences makes a lot more sense... and puts the burden where it belongs!

People don't need to own a home.  They need somewhere to live, that they can afford... and these particular people have zero-to-negative equity in their property... so, if they can't afford a mortgage rate similar to that which they originally got on the house, perhaps they could be offered some kind of longterm lease contract, negotiated by a judge... but if they can't pay for any of the above, they shouldn't be given a home, any more than I should be given a yacht.

Ultimately, the real estate market needs a chance to correct itself, even as people need to have a place to live. Fortunately, there's an oversupply of housing in the U.S., so both are possible at once. If we start bailing out people with no equity in their houses that they've only owned for a few years now... what will we do when many, many others lose their jobs -- and they will, because this recession will last years -- and need a similar bailout of their fixed-rate mortgages?

Who should be bailed out first... those with the least means to pay for a house, who selected the worst mortgages, and who own the least equity in their houses... or those with the greatest means, who had good jobs, dependable mortgages, years of savings, and years of dependable home equity... only to run afoul of the economy in the months ahead?

Should *ANY* of them get their house for free.... or do they all just need somewhere to live, while the economy recovers? How do you truely recover the economy when demand for new housing crashes, due to the government preventing a market correction that would make housing as plentiful and affordable as it should actually be?

Really, the idea of buying people houses is as flawed as Hillarycare, Mk. I, only with even more gimmes for the people who got us in to this mess. This is *precisely* why Hillary's close connections with lobbyists and their money were so damning when she was running against Obama... and it also helps explain why McCain is acting like McClinton.

Given that John McCain isn't a Democrat, the only other excuse I can think of for adopting such a policy is that he's running on the National Socialist ticket this year.


  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.