So McCain's an economic genius that will fix the country, eh?

Well, good luck with that.  I'm glad he responded so quickly...around a week since this became a problem.  Good reflexes...and conveniently interferes with the debate.

Wonder if there will be any other issues that coincide with debates...or we'll never get to see them duke it out.

~Zoo

When you say that what you mean is that he once, two years ago, in his decades as a senator, he warned about the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? That doesn't mean McCain gets to call himself a financial reformer. He's consistently voted for less regulation of the financial markets (per Katie Couric's interview with the Beauty Queen).

I saw reports on the new that seem to show that maybe if we hold back a bit on this "bailout" that the markets may actually correct themselves. A few examples are JP Morgan acquiring WaMu and Warren Buffet paying 5 billion for Goldman Sachs. I admit I know very little if anything about the stock market and these companies merging or buying each other out. But that sounds like a good thing to me in a way.

Actually, Obama is the one who thinks he can solve all of our problems and he can do it while multitasking a radio station and sending a text while driving. McCain simply has a plan to avoid using so much of the tax payers money. A plan, not a solution, a plan.

Well thank you. I hope it works out too.

Smart politics. Hmmm, McCain sounds better and better every time.

Come on now Zoo. Do you really wanna have Obama ridiculed on live TV? I mean, he does a good job all by himself as it is every time he does not have a teleprompter there to help.

Hussein continues to show his "LEADERSHIP" through his vote, his total now is "PRESENT 160 TIMES" BECAUSE THERE IS NO TELEPROMPTER IN FRONT of his face telling him how to vote and he gets confused very easy

Maybe you should look up the CRA.  That is the root of the problem.

ARMs are only part of the problem.  The problem is people getting loans they cannot afford.  And what did the CRA do?  Make home owenership "affordable" to those that could not before, and are defaulting now.  YOu keep trying to bob and weave around the truth.  The truth is that the CRA is just "Good intentions" in bad legislation.  The CRises was caused by democrat politicans wishing to protect their pork so protecting the rotten institutions until the rot showed through the exterior.  But then it was too late (you do no see the rot in a tree until it falls).

You brought up ARMs.  But that is just a dodge to deflect scrutiny of the core problem.  The whole reason that home ownership worked in the past is that  it does require discipline.  And that has to be learned while saving for a down payment.  WHen you give something to someone - the value is diminished since they did not earn it.  And so with diminished value, there is less incentive to protect it "They gave it to me, they will save it for me!"

It does not and cannot work that way.  Even in communist countries, people are not "given" a house to abuse.  They are "rented" one to take care of.  WHich they probably do not anyway, but then that is Comrade's problem.

Why don't you take a look yourself so you dont continue to keeping exposing how little you know about the situation.

CRA encourages financial institutions to reinvest in their own communities. It does not mandate loan rates, or qualifications. It encourages investment that includes both residential as well as business investment within the community as opposed to many other banks which take deposits and invest them elsewhere.

Is that why all the CRA banks in my area are solid? Im in a very rural area that is mostly small businesses. CRA serves this area a very republican area quite well. One of the reasons is because CRA home loans are for primary residences and it is the second and investment home markets that truly caused the blowout.

The "housing" market is a misnomer.  Housing is not a national market.  It is very regional.  You only point out where past practices have been the worst.  And yes, housing is not in a bubble.  But you are looking at symptoms, not the cause.  The symtoms will manifest themselves in the most vulnerable areas first, as they have.

Then why the bailout?  Why the nightly stories of Poor Laura Richardson (ok, that one proves your contention).

Why the nightly stories of how all will be homeless now?  No, they are part of the problem, and when it comes down to it not even a matter.  The fear that is driving this is the one home family losing it all.  And those rates are up more than the second home foreclosure rates.

You argue out of both sides of your mouth.  One for the bailout, but then that would just help the rich by your standards.  And then argue that it is all a big smoke screen that is all about the rich.  It is either needed for the adversly affected, or it is not and is for the rich.  If it is for the rich, why are we doing it?  And that may be why wall street loves it, but america does not.

If it is for the poor, then we go back to my contention, and your dodging is not germaine to the point.