Separating out the "good" homeowners from the "bad" is not that hard. First, owner-occupants only. Second, the assistance is in the form of a loan, a "silent second" backed by a lien on the property. Third, interest accrues throughout the life of the loan, but with no prepayment penalty. The interest rate should be enough to discourage borrowers who don't really need it.
I could go on...it's just an application process with a set of criteria. The government does way more complex things all of the time by the millions. Look at the immigration process.
I saw the show and I agree with you. I f*ckin' hate Nader, actually, for running for President. It's all ego, with no thought about the actual affect of what he's doing. But you are so right about the quality of his rhetoric and the fact that the Dems seem to be doing everything they possibly can to prove him right in saying that there's no difference between them and the Republicans. This f*ckin' bailout is the ultimate example of this. Any Democrat worth their salt should have categorically rejected the Bush plan, and come forward with a plan to directly help homeowners who are in danger of defaulting on their mortgages. That is what progressives are supposed to do, bottom-up solutions, not top-down. It could even be in the form of a loan backed by a lien on the property in order to prevent it from being seen as a handout to people who stupidly got in over their heads.
But no, the obsequiousness of our Dem leaders to their Wall Street paymasters and to Mr. 19% approval rating is just stunning and totally disgusting. Paulson and Bernanke have been 100% wrong about everything up until now and they have blatant conflicts of interest: why are we listening to anything that comes out of their mouths?
It looks even more insidious than that. The guy was not just an advisor; he was national finance co-chair. McCain probably doesn't have any place to go for money other than though these guys, so he had to keep them on.
I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm lukewarm in favor of that option right now.
1. Obviously, it would go a long ways toward uniting the Party.
2. It's interesting that Obama and Clinton do much better in different states against McCain. If Hillary can deliver her strong demographics as part of a joint ticket without cutting into Obama's strength, this election would be over. That would be Virginia, Colorado, the Pacific Northwest and the Upper Midwest (Obama), along with West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada (Clinton). That's on top of the Kerry states. Wow!
3. Even more historic than just the first AA Prez, but also the first woman VP.
4. The Clinton Machine in full gear behind the ticket can not be discounted.
1. Dilution of Obama's message about new politics, new faces, and the Iraq War.
2. Hillary may seem like a hypocrite after some of the stuff that she's said.
If there was an obvious better choice, I'd be in favor of that. But I don't know of one, personally. All of the other people mentioned so far have major downsides. What about Xavier Beccerra for a "left field" option?
There ain't no qualifications to be President other than getting more votes than anyone else. Obama's good at getting votes, better than anyone else in the Democratic Party right now, so he'll be our nominee. Hillary hasn't won anybody over. She's got the same people now that she started with 17 months ago. So she won't be our nominee.
As far as whether his lack of qualifications means that he won't make a good President, there's not generally been much correlation there. Nixon was very qualified. So was Bush I. Neither did a very good job. Obama's obviously smart enough, and he knows how to run a good political organization. Hillary's supporters seem to think she's interviewing for a job as a first-year associate, that she'll put in more hours to master the details. That won't help her, there's thousands of people who are good at that. It's leadership that's needed.
Yes, to an extent Obama benefits from being able to be who we want him to be, i.e. an intelligent, inspiring, African-American who speaks the language of a liberal/progressive Democrat. But so what, that's politics. He's a figurehead for a movement and a sentiment, and he's a damn good one at that. But his biography and his record tells you that there's a "there there" that goes a lot deeper than that.
Yes, if you are not a Zionist, you are branded a self-hating Jew. Interesting how we just saw Barack Obama publicly disassociate himself with a relatively mild version of black nationalism (i.e. not one person has ever been killed or injured or otherwise negatively impacted Jeremiah Wright's sermons), and nobody accused him of being a self-hating black person...
Just because he hasn't "done anything" to reach out to Latinos (other than the surrogate campaign that you've cited) shouldn't mean that he has a "problem" with them. What has he done for Asians, or Native Americans, or even African-Americans for that matter? From what I understand he has solid support from Latinos in Illinois, which is where he actually had the ability to "do" anything, other than appeal for their votes.
And what exactly is Hillary's "record" of dealing with Latinos, outside of her husband's administration? I can't think of any particular Latino initiative that she's engaged in?
Yeah, I think a lot of people tend to forget that the superdelegates are free to change their allegiance any time before the Convention. The nomination could only be "locked up" per se, if someone got enough pledged delegates to do it.
This nomination process is a slow-motion train wreck however. If Hillary succeeds in getting the Ruled Committee to reverse the decision no FL/MI this month, we're in for a hell of ride all the way through August as far as I can tell. They will end up almost deadlocked on both pledged and super delegates, with no easy resolution in sight: alienate voters from two huge swing states by unseating FL/MI (not too mention Hillary's demographics) or "steal" the nomination from the first legitimate contender from the Party's most loyal voting bloc (AA's).