A brief quiz on American History

[CalicoPenn]

OGE - what you know about the Obama house purchase and Rezko land deal are things picked up by the national media and not explained in any detail.

 

Here's what happened.

 

The owner of the house and land originally put the properties up for sale and stated a preference that they be sold together, rather than as separate transactions, based on homes in the neighborhood selling very quickly once they were put on the market. There had been some interest in that house but the deal killer was the separate parcel of land that the owner was refusing to sell separately. By the time the owner was convinced to sell the house separately, the market in that neighborhood had already started cooling.

 

When Barack and Michelle looked at the house, they made an offer on the house that was below the asking price, just like everyone else that makes offers on houses. The owner of the house, now getting worried that the house might not sell for a while, took an offer that was 15% below the asking price. To claim that the Obama's were given a "discount" is, frankly, offensive and a flat-out GOP lie, and a disservice to EVERY OTHER HOMEOWNER WHO MADE AN OFFER ON A HOUSE THAT WAS LESS THAN THE ASKING PRICE. You can be forgiven this because it was part of the BS that you heard from the media - but lets be very very clear here - what transpired with the offer and acceptance is both standard practice in real estate transactions, and happens hundreds of times every day. Anyone who has bought a house has done the exact same thing, and unless your real estate agent was a real schmuck, you likely got your home for less than the asking price.

 

Now we come to the land. Rezko's wife (Rezko, but through his wife), did not purchase the land on the same day that the Obama's bought their house (definition time - by purchased/bought, we need to be clear that this means "closed" - the purchase doesn't take place when an offer is made or accepted, it takes place on closing). On the day the Obama's closed on their home, Rezko, thinking he could do Barack a favor because he had heard that the owner of the house wanted to sell the land at the same time, made an offer on the land. Given the limitations of the media in reporting factual information, there are now people who think they closed on the deals on the same day. The fact is that Rezko was just a stupid fool who gained nothing from this deal. The land owner had already sold the house, and there was no indication that anyone would be making an offer on the land the day that the Obama's closed on their house. The Obama's closed on the house in the morning, Rezko made the offer in the afternoon.

 

The only part of this affair that Obama has any regrets about is then purchasing 1/6th of the land from Rezko in a later deal - one that did not come about as part of the house purchase (despite right wing talking head spin, (aka bald-faced lies)), but came out of the blue by Rezko. Let's be clear here too - though it has the whiff of special favor (which is why there is regret on Obama's part), the fact is that the land could be reparcelized to remove about 1/6th of the land and add it to a different parcel, and the Obama's paid Rezko exactly 1/6th the purchase price of the entire land plot purchase. The sale was too new for there to be any increase in land value, and there was never any quid pro quo for this deal - it was a simple land transaction between neighbors - one, a first time home buyer, and one a scheming schmuck.

 

Calico

[Beavah]

Or, the voters could decide to focus on the candidates' actual positions on the issues.

 

Yah, clearly crazy talk, NJ. We're stuck on houses.

 

For my part, I'm watching very carefully da candidates' approaches to the president's Bailoutus Maxo Maximus proposal (aka "The Resolution Authorizing the Use of Financial Force"). Policy statements might give a sense, but then George W.'s policy statements were "fiscal responsibility" and "absolutely no nation-building" and da like, eh?

 

Actions and votes speak louder than policy statements, I reckon. So far I've been reasonably happy with da Democratic congress's efforts to slow down and try to fix this latest piece of "railroaded legislation."

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Thank you Calico, lets seem Biden's plagerism was false and now so is Obama's house dealing.

 

What do people do who dont have Scouter.Com as a resource?

[Lisabob]

Hey since we're taking swings at the candidates here, I'm really curious. What do you guys make of McCain's request to shelve (I mean postpone) the first pres. debate, currently scheduled for this Friday night, because of the financial crisis? And Obama's apparent rejection of that proposal?

 

 

[Be_Prepared]

My take on the postponement request. Had it been agreed to in private, and announced as a joint agreement - it would have had validity. As it was - announced by one, and then a challenge issued to agree - the perception is a campaign opportunity "I'm putting my country first". If this was a true intent, the media would have been notified after the fact, not before.

[CalicoPenn]

My take?

 

Neither McCain or Obama are on the Senate committee charged with reviewing and recrafting, if needed, the legislation. Real leaders stay out of the way of the people who are charged with that task.

 

McCain, through his bluster, is showing his leadership style, or should I say, lack of real leadership. He is showboating for the ignorant masses who do not understand just how the Senate really works.

 

I think Obama said it pretty perfectly - Presidents need to be able to do more than one thing at a time.

 

Calico

[packsaddle]

Well, I guess I can honestly claim to have changed some of my political views. At one time I thought Biden was the best candidate for President. Didn't get that chance, though, so I dropped back and hoped he'd be picked for Secretary of State. OK, so now I'm sort of glad THAT didn't happen. Biden has a great mind but sometimes it's disengaged from his tongue.

I like him for VP. But, then, WOW! Tina Fey is really hot!

(Vicki, you out there somewhere?)

 

Edited part: Oh, all right...the debate. If they had made a joint statement I could have considered that to be politically neutral. No way - the separate statements, no matter how they were intended. It takes two to make a debate, though. If McCain doesn't want to debate, then there won't be one. If there is, I'll listen.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle]

Lisabob, sorry if asking questions of people I respect is taking swings. I shall refrain

[kraut-60]

Back to the American history part of this thread...Anyone here see the similarities between the state of our nation in the years leading to the Great Depression and now?

 

Can we expect the recession/depression soon? Probably...very likely accompanied by civil-unrest brought on by massive unemployment and homelessness as a result of the economic meltdown of Sept 2008...the newly elected president will have to resort to drastic measures to restore order...likely to include federalization of National Guard units. Troops would be posted to keep order at grocery stores and gas stations...restrictions on travel would follow to keep expenditures of fuel in line with Govt. efforts to conserve what will be a scarce commodity...gas rationing will be the law. Pop quiz...which WW2 US gas ration category were most Americans assigned? A,B or C?

 

The coming depression will get much worse before it gets better...Most US citizens will be reduced to a lower standard

of living, Hoovervilles will make a comeback as people who lost their homes will have no other option. Our enemies around the world will tout our troubles as the downfall of the American Empire...we will be struck again and repeatedly as we will be seen to be too preoccupied with internal troubles to have any resources for the areas we have recently been active in to date...The Dept.of Homeland Security will triple in size as a responce to the need for more police to keep civil order.

 

We may find our nation heading toward a second civil war as a result of massive dis-satisfaction with the Govt. This is what our present enemies are praying to whatever diety they seek direction from...America imploding from with-in.

 

We as Americans will likely survive the hard times we are entering, but it wont be easy at all...but we can take our cues from the past...FDRs brilliant leadership and social-economic measures put people back to work, and ultimately led to a work ethic that allowed us to sacrifice when such was needed to pull the US together and go to war and win.

 

Theres no magic solution for what we face...the Govt. will not fix this situation with 700 billion...it will only stave off the inevitable...total economic collapse followed by???

 

The future is not yet clear.. we face many challenges...I pray we can overcome our differences and find our similarites...and the solutions that will lead us to being better Americans and having a better country to live in.

 

 

[gwd-scouter]

What Calico said.

[vol_scouter]

FDR was an important leader in the sense that he gave the country hope and some confidence that things would get better. The programs that he enacted helped to provide that confidence. But as I earlier posted, his programs did not help the unemployment. Public television did a multi-night series on FDR that gushed with praise (as would be expected from public TV). The series ointed out that FDR's programs did not work. The unemployment rate was not substantially changed until WWII. FDR gets credit for programs that ended the great depression but it was WWII. FDR deserves credit for many things but his programs were not brilliant except in a public confidence sense and they did not end the great depression or get people back to work.

[Gold Winger]

However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the rich will come out of all of this even richer. China will have accomplished their goal of world supremecy thanks to the greed of the Americans of all classes.

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, I just found this: http://www.economist.com/vote2008/?sa_campaign=publisher/september/gec/

This thread looks as good as any to put it. So when I looked, the Republicans had 12 votes worldwide. The Economist can hardly be viewed as a liberal rag so this was interesting. I suggest that if the members of this forum logged in and voted, you could maybe double the Republican support. Tee hee.

[vol_scouter]

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks - they do not have to pay our taxes, it is our soldiers who serve our Armed Forces, etc. In fact, other countries would want whoever will do what is best for them not for us. That map is on of the best reasons why McCain should be elected rather than Obama who will pander to the interests of other countries rather than our own.

[packsaddle]

OK, I guess if we're going to go out to the rest of the world, hat in hand, to beg other countries to loan us money so we can bail out banks with bad loans, what the world thinks might matter. If we depend on imported energy and imported clothing, and imported...and...and...it might matter what the world thinks. Or we can be arrogant.

But the USA was also on that map. The USA was going 78% Obama to 22% McCain. Did you vote?