Oh, we knew you were kidding... O'Neill doesn't have that kind of money!

(more kidding.  Please don't ban me Mr O'Neill, sir...)

If Wright takes down Obama - as in, it is proven/agreed to be the thing that lost him the nomination - I am slapping this whole country in the face, alphabetically.

Wright couldnt' take down Obama.  Only Obama can take down Obama.  He has known what kind of a person Wright is for the last 20 years and stayed close to him.  He's had 20 years to distance himself so if he goes down over his association to Wright, it's not one's fault but his own.  He's a grown man.  He made his choices and has to live with them.

If he's not willing to live with the consequences of his choices and instead casts the blame on others, he should most definitely not be in office

I just like to see self-rightious people get their just desserts.  It's a character flaw of mine...

Mike, you do realize how self-rightious that sounds don't you :P

My feeling on the mortgage issue is if they lose their homes they'll learn from their mistakes.  The money they were spending on their mortgage will easily cover renting an apartment.  Not everyone has to be a home owner.  If they weren't willing to spend the $300-$500 is costs to have a real estate attorney check everything over prior to purchasing their home, they really do have to live with the consequences of their actions. 

My feeling on the mortgage issue is if they lose their homes they'll learn from their mistakes.  The money they were spending on their mortgage will easily cover renting an apartment.  Not everyone has to be a home owner.  If they weren't willing to spend the $300-$500 is costs to have a real estate attorney check everything over prior to purchasing their home, they really do have to live with the consequences of their actions. 

Wait... wait... it turns out we actually agree on this one! 

Buuuuut... let me clarify - a lot of what went wrong was people getting in over their heads, and that's kind of too bad.

However... I do think there should be some better regulation of the kind of slippery loans that were being given out.  And, I understand if someone would disagree and say something like "let the free market figure it out" or that sort of thing, but I suppose that's what makes me a Democrat.  I like laws and rules and regulations.  Just... not when they apply to gay people not getting married or women being forced to carry unwanted babies to term...

Boy!  Politics sure aren't black and white are they??

If he's not willing to live with the consequences of his choices and instead casts the blame on others, he should most definitely not be in office

Here's the one I don't agree with - and I think this is Kevin's point - Wright shouldn't bring Obama down because... get ready for it... it's not an issue!

I've asked this question a number of times, and haven't gotten an answer, but as long as Wright remains an issue, I'll ask it again:

If Rev Jeremiah Wright is such an (negative) influence on Barack Obama, will someone show me anywhere in his 11+ years of public service where his votes, his actions, his words, his projects, anything(!) has reflected this negative influence.

The point of the Wright issue is that, supposedly we don't know Obama, so therefore, we must judge him on the company he keeps, but...

We do know Obama.  Like it or not, he's been in office for over a decade.  His actions are all on the public record.  We do know him.  And having said that, we can say that Wright is no influence on his public policies and thus, this is not an issue.

Therefore, Kevin's point stands - if the electorate is swayed by this non-issue, they are more than deserving of having some common sense dealt to them by Kevin's mighty pimp-hand.

Kevin's hand is strong.

Ok, ok, I took it funny at the end, but I hope that doesn't ruin my point - Obama's record shows this isn't an issue.  It's a talking point created by Sean Hannity.

I don't know that it was loose requirements that caused the current situation - it was the baloon loans that were given out - you pay $X now and then something mutter grumble in the future... it turns out that it was $XXXXX - and these people couldn't make the payments.

Now - this is what I'm alluding to above - some will say - hey - too bad - free market - live and learn!   And while I'm not saying people should get something for nothing, or be allowed to keep something they didn't pay for, I think it's fair to suggest that the terms of these loans were just bad business, and I could sleep at night with regulations in place to prevent such loans from going through.

But I understand how some people feel otherwise..

Oh, yeah, Neil - I don't know this for sure, but I don't think anyone is interested in bailing out fools like that... I think it's about regulating the rates of the loans.

This is what I've understood to be the biggest problem - people could afford the payments till the loan rates shot up. 

But, look - this isn't an area that I'm an expert in, so if I'm wrong on the facts on this one, I'm willing to stand corrected.

Neil Lindholm:
"I think it was also that people who in the past would have never qualified for a mortgage were suddenly getting accepted. Also, instead of looking at how much house they could afford, they bought on the maximum they could afford each month."

It's more than that.  Not only did people get loans they could not afford, they didn't understand, or try to understand, the workings of an Adjustable Rate Mortgage.  They took out a subprime ARM at say 4%, but when the initial rate period ended, that interest may have gone up to 6% or even higher.  Depending on the amount of money borrowed, that could increase a monthly payment hundreds of dollars.  So, if the borrowers were already stretched making the initial payments, they were sunk when it came time for the interest rate to go up.

The really sad part is that all of this was spelled out in the loan contracts.  The lenders are partly at fault for lowering the standards for obtaining a loan, but the borrowers are more at fault for not understanding the contract.