Hail to the Chief — James Sanderson
First, I would like to call everyone’s attention to a post over at the Great Loan Blog: The Great Housing Bubble Book.
Today we are featuring two properties: one right here in Irvine, and the other is a very desirable address in Washington DC.
Asking Price: $500,000
Income Requirement: $125,000
Downpayment Needed: $100,000
Monthly Equity Burn: $4,166
Purchase Price: $655,000
Purchase Date: 6/29/2005
Address: 14811 Groveview Ln, Irvine, CA 92604
| Beds: | 3 |
| Baths: | 2 |
| Sq. Ft.: | 1,112 |
| $/Sq. Ft.: | $450 |
| Lot Size: | 4,966
Sq. Ft. |
| Property Type: | Single Family Residence |
| Style: | Bungalow, Contemporary/Modern |
| Year Built: | 1971 |
| Stories: | 1 Level |
| Area: | El Camino Real |
| County: | Orange |
| MLS#: | S552866 |
| Source: | SoCalMLS |
| Status: | Active |
| On Redfin: | 2 days |
LOVELY SINGLE LEVEL FAMILY POOL HOME. NO MELLO ROOS, NO ASSOCIATION
DUES. WALK TO A DISTINGUISHED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BLUE RIBBON MIDDLE
SCHOOL, IRVINE HIGH SCHOOL AND NEARBY COMMUNITY PARK WITH BASKETBALL
COURT. THIS REMODELLED HOME SHOWS WELL. REMODELLED BEDROOMS, BATHROOMS
AND KITCHEN WITH NEWER CABINETS AND STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES.
PARQUET/PERGO FLOORING THRU-OUT. CENTRAL AIRCONDITIONING & HEATING.
FENCED FRONT & BACKYARD. LIGHT & BRIGHT HOME, A TURN KEY. FACES
SOUTH EAST.
ALL CAPS.
Can someone tell me what that is on the front of the stove?
THRU-OUT? Does it really take that many more letters to spell it correctly?
The owner of this property has a significant amount of his own money in the transaction. When the house was purchased on 6/29/2005, the owner used a $524,000 first mortgage and a $131,000 downpayment. He opened a HELOC on 4/21/2006 for $63,400, but it is unclear whether or not he took out the money. If he didn’t, he probably wishes he had. Since the current asking price is less than the outstanding amount of the first mortgage, this is a short sale. If this house sells for its asking price, the total loss will be $185,000 after a 6% commission. The owner’s downpayment is gone, and so is his credit. Bummer…
This house is marked at 23.6% off its purchase price in 2005.
.
We are not a political blog, and we have done a relatively good job
of staying out of the fray leading up to the election. If people want
to express opinions about who should be president, and if they want to
waste their time trying to convince others on the internet, there are
plenty of places to do that. Over the weekend, we had a discussion of the politics of housing. The next president is going to have to deal with this issue even if “dealing with it” means doing nothing at all.
Today is Election Day. To ignore this momentous occasion would be
irresponsible. I would like to hear people’s predictions, any
interesting stories about voting, and any commentary on what the next
Administration and Congress either should or should not do about
housing. This is our one day to have a free-ranging political
discussion. Go for it…
Asking Price: 270 electoral votes
Income Requirement: $400,000
Downpayment Needed: $1,552,000,000
Purchase Price: 286 electoral votes, 62,040,610 popular votes
Purchase Date: 11/2/2004
The White House–and Washington in general–is the ultimate HELOC abuse story, when will the people take back their country? Probably not anytime soon, were not pissed off enough yet.
I’m just looking forward to the “No on 8” crowd leaving Culver & Alton and getting back in school.
HELOC abuse is spending money with no ability or intention of paying it back. Washington’s version is to deficit spend with no intentions of taxing us to pay the interest, let alone pay off the borrowed principle.
Taking out a mortgage is pretty much the same thing. If people thought they would have to repay every penny on their mortgage note then the house prices would not be half what they are right now.
The basic assumption is that the mortgage is merely a formality. Sure you will make some payments, but when you are ready to move on, you will be entitled to find a buyer who is willing to spend more and effectively bail you out.
It’s the “social contract”.
Great observation – it has very much been an assumed social contract.
Back to the bank on the courthouse steps!
I’m just looking forward to the “Yes on 8” crowd leaving Orange County and getting back home to Utah.
My commute home usually takes 5-10 mins up Jamboree. Last night? 30+ mins! There were dozens of “Yes on 8” peeps at Jamboree/Barranca slowing traffic.
Pleased to say, I only heard one horn honk.
One honk too many, NO on Prop 8 !!
(I promise….I’ll shut up after midnight) 😉
People who truly believe in god would not support gay marriage.
God created Adam & Eve, AND Adam & Steve.
Now let’s get back to housing talk.
there is only one god.
Look up it’s that bright ass thing that is the reason for life on this planet.
I think IHB has always placed too much blame on Bush/Republicans, when both parties deserved it.
……
I suspect Obama’s going to win, and that he’s not going to do anything productive for the economy (what would it take to improve the situation? a return to budget surpluses and the gold standard? Does that sound like the Democrats you know?).
……
I also tend to think that the Republicans knew their chance was shot this time around, which explains why they nominated the oldest candidate ever and a VP who can only fill the legal requirements.
—
Next up:
Anyone with ANY kind of 401/roth/foreign bank/other bank account types of retirement savings is going to get shafted down the road.
Maybe the next website can be “the Social Security Blog”, witnessing the chaos as the system falls to pieces.
But get the blame right this time: it won’t be “Obama’s fault”, and it won’t be “the Republicans’ fault”, it’ll be “the government’s fault”.
~
Perhaps some of the astute observers have given this impression, but I have always tried to remain objective and neutral toward placing blame for the housing crisis. Neither party had much to do with it. The system was rotten, and some of the bureaucrats responsible for overseeing it (Greenspan in particular,) failed to see the problems. Debt fueled real estate bubbles have now occurred under a Democratic Congress (S&L crisis,) and a Republican Congress (Housing Bubble). It isn’t the failure of politics as much as it is a failure of our bureaucrats and political appointees to regulate markets where there are deep systemic problems.
I think that Obama will be just as innefective on the economy as McCain would be. However, he will probably do a lot more in terms of pushing for health care reform and repairing the cowboy image of the US that the rest of the world negatively associates with us. Obama will be a better choice than McCain, but the better choice is Ron Paul.
Bush is a loser and would never have seen the light of day in politics if not steered into it by his powerful parents.
Bush also represents the failed Republican trickle down economics and shows what happens when you allow the greedy side of the free market to run itself into the ground unchecked.
So yes, the Republicans share a great portion of the blame. Sure, the Democrats are just as worthless, but you don’t tend to hear many of them preeching “the free market” this and “the free market” in order to hoard wealth.
Very Astute Observations AZDavidPhx.
My thoughts exactly.
I will also add that Obama is not so painful to listen to come speech time. The early Bush years were misery to my ears. Bush’s speaking skills have improved, but I still find him uninspiring.
Obama doesn’t have enough experience but he’s better than Bush.
Bush sucks.
I agree Obama’s limited experience concerns me. But how can he be worse then Bush? And Palin?
…a return to budget surpluses…
Kind-of sounds like Bill Clinton;-)
But remember, Bill Clinton was a president, not a congress.
No, it will be everybody’s fault because the sheeple believe the big lie that we need a government at all….
When the great depression comes i’m going to head out on a boat and drift/sail 13 miles offshore where i’m my own sovereign nation and can tell everyone to “piss off…”
Please vote NO on Proposition 8. If passed, it will deny me the right to marry the person I love. That’s not Californian.
Thank you,
Stacey
I second this. My sister is planning a wedding for next summer and if Prop 8 passes, she will be denied marrying the love of her life. This is wrong. My sister and her fiance are truly wonderful, kind, thoughtful, productive people and I would hate for them to be barred from expressing their love for each other in marriage. Please vote no on Prop 8.
I voted no. Stacey – I hope you have the chance to get married, and TurtleRockOwner – I wish your sister luck. I hope we can show how far we’ve come.
And, we need to entice more gays and lesbians to move to CA to help prop up the house prices!!! Obviously that’s why Boston hasn’t fallen as far as D.C. Duh! Why is no one talking about this??
(sorry, just connecting this to the real estate topic while being a tad sarcastic, in case anyone is unsure of my intention)
Stacey, my sincere hope that you won’t have to go through the 3 sets of ceremonies my sister and sister-in-law had. None of which did they arrange so us out-of-towners could attend, I guess because it was unclear which one was the “real” one. It’s nice no longer having to add “if laws were sane” after sister-in-law.
Correct ! We can gentrify like nobodies business ! Thx to all posters.
The Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible’s condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry.
Jews and Muslims believe in the same.
Prop 8 is
anti-god
anti-American
Yes on 8.
I can’t tell if you are being sincere, or if you are Kirk’s alter-ego trying to wind everyone up.
“The Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible’s condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry.”
If I recall correctly, murder, adultery, lying, and idolatry are actually banned in the Ten Commandments. The rest aren’t. Clearly God didn’t think they were as important.
The Bible also condemns the eating of seafood other than fish (Leviticus 11:9-12). I don’t recall hearing much outrage from Christans over the selling of prawns, scallops, squid, etc.
But don’t think I’m against Biblical values per se. On the contrary – we need to bring back slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46). Illegal immigrants are a poor substitute.
(You might notice I’m quoting quite a lot from Leviticus. That’s because Leviticus contains the bans on homosexuality.)
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your bible, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Awesome. 😉
Thank you Mel.
I agree— No on 8. What happened to seperation of Church and State? Leave people alone and let them live their lives— there are much more important things to worry about. In 20 years people will look back and wonder how this was even on the ballot
I also voted no, let’s hope enough will as well.
Thank you so much GM.
Thank you exTurtle.
I have been amazed at the display of support for this bill – people with signs, bumper stickers, sky writing etc. Don’t we have bigger problems than spending time opposing two people deciding to get married – we got violence all over the place – people starving both in other countries and here, etc. etc. – what a waste of energy and resources.
Very Astute moving around
The religious kooks are pushing a proposition in Arizona to amend the state constitution to define marriage as man/woman.
Can you imagine the HORROR to fall upon this nation if those homosexuals were allowed the same rights/benefits/recognition as the godly heteros who have honored the sacred institution of marriage with years of record breaking divorce and infidelity?
The country is falling apart and these fools are running around trying to push their homosexual bigotry on the rest of us.
I voted no on it. Hopefully it will get shot down. I think Arizona is a little behind California on this issue, but starting to close the gap.
You sound bitter and intollerant.
Only of views that claim that God created marriage in the Garden between a man and a woman.
It’s ridiculous and has no place in government policy.
LOL, then that makes being a bigot OK. I guess religious bigots should seek your advice for what is proper to be bigoted about!!
I guess the irony of your statement is lost in your intollerance to others perspective.
LMAO
OK camsavem, you started it. How do you feel about Prop 8?
(and Thx AZDavid !)
I didnt start this thread and how I feel is irrelevant to the discussion.
People should be free and able to express their viewpoints on any given subject matter without being subjected to name calling and derogitory statements about their beliefs and or lifestyles.
cam,
What is relevant to the discussion is correct spelling. Your arguments would be much more persuasive if you could spell correctly.
camsavem –
There is a slight difference that you are ignoring.
Flip the argument around.
Suppose that a group of intollerant jerks like me like me were trying to pass an amendment that says
“people who believe that god created marriage ought not be allowed to marry or enjoy the same government benefits as those who do not believe god created marriage”
You would surely find such a proposition to be unfair and bigoted.
That’s the difference. My point of view is not enforced on you via government policy and I think it should stay that way and not favor either side.
Isn’t that the fairest way to look at it?
This is a spelling bee? Gosh, thanks for letting me know.
If you can pass it then go ahead. I believe if you think it is important, get it on the ballot. I might agree I might disagree but I wont resort to name calling and saying your point of view is invalid nor ignorant.
That is not an acceptable answer. We are debating and I have presented you with an argument that you are supposed to refute.
You cannot take my argument and then appeal to absurdity with “go and try to pass that bill if you want” because it changes the subject and does not address the point being made.
Try again.
geez, David, you’ve been on this blog longer than he’s been and you haven’t recognized that camsavem is (a) an intentionally misspelled anagram for cave man, and (b) either trying to be funny or spoiling for a fight?
Let it go, man, let it go. I don’t even remember what my fight with him was about months ago, but trust me, it will go on forever if you let it.
Si on prop 8
how about we leave everything the way it is. marriage=man+woman.
anyone else can move to MA 😆
You are missing the point. I am not debating the merits of the Proposition. I personally dont care one way or the other. I just think that people should not resort to name calling and be intollerant to others point of veiw.
That is what I have been saying all along.
Please vote YES on Proposition 8.
The problem is that the stupid and ignorant are allowed to vote and they tend to far outnumber the well-informed. It makes your vote meaningless when the majority of people are too dumb and wrapped up in the flag, to realize that our system of Democracy is an illusion.
The right candidate cannot be chosen when the media selects 2 Diet Coke / Diet Pepsi candidates and packages them up into a Super Bowl style event where the average ignoramus roots for one of the candidates like he would his preferred football team.
We need to do away with the stupid 1-vote-use-it-or-lose-it system and replace it with a ranking system that allows multiple candidates to be voted on.
As long as we continue to be dumb and participate in the two-party system, we are destined to repeat the same garbage every 4 years.
Can you believe that people were wasting hours of their time yesterday standing in line to vote early? It is the ultimate tragedy. People thinking that their vote is so special and participatory when the game is completely rigged against them. Sad, very sad.
There is one advantage of our system over a parliamentary system. Since we have a 2-party system, we are forced to form coalitions and select leaders before the election rather than after-the-fact. We know in advance who the party leaders are, and we know the policy positions of the coalition we are voting for. In many countries where these coalitions are formed later, you have no idea what kind of government policies will be accepted by the governing coalition.
The coalitions do not function, that’s the problem. They polarize people into accepting the false dilemma that there are “only 2 ways” of doing business.
The coalition leaders pay lip service to policies ahead of time and then work for their business partners after the election is over.
It’s dysfunctional.
Actually I think there are two advantages of a parliamentary system
First is ‘self preservation of the party in picking its leader’ – The Prime Minister can be removed by his own party. The members of the party have self interest to do this to avoid electoral catastrophe. So, in the US sense, I think this would have meant that Prime Minister Bill Clinton would have been removed from his office earlier than his 8 years and Prime Minister GW Bush also would have been removed as leader. Arguably, both of those early removals would have been positive vs how things turned out at the end of their respective administrations.
Second in parliamentary systems you have MP’s who are also the minister of a relevent ministry, such as State, Treasury, Defense. The opposition party will also typically have a shadow minister. So, if Barack Obama were to be Prime Minister, we’d know that his Treasury Minister would be Chris Dodd, Joe Biden etc etc. So you would vote knowing who the cast of charecters will be. That we don’t know who McCain or Obama will have as Treasury Secretary is something I think voters should have an interest in.
Finally one concern is that Parliaments have potentially significant unchecked powers (ie Gordon Brown in the UK probably has more power and control than Obama and Pelosi combined), so you may need a check-and-balance. For example Australia has an elected Senate which has limited powers but needs to sign off on legislation as a check on the ruling party.
You’re just bitter that you don’t live in a swing state.
Line was only an hour long at 6:15 AM in Fairfax County VA. It was much shorter by the time I left. And that’s despite a 75% voter turnout in 2004, and an expected 90% voter turnout this year. They had electronic voting booths, but were just giving everyone paper ballots. Infinitely faster, given there were only 3 races and 1 ballot initiative to vote on.
The system will remain 2-party for the foreseeable future. As you note, the voting system we have (local representation, winner-take-all) almost inevitably produces a 2 party system. (Canada is an interesting exception)
Since people aren’t going to give up their local representation, we’ve gonna have to learn to live with having 2 parties.
And, saying the “media selects” the candidates doesn’t capture the situation. Media coverage during the primaries matters, but they had written off McCain and he came back. They favored McCain (heavily) in 2000, yet Bush won. So, while media effects can be important, mostly their just reinforcing the already-existing leanings of people.
The media effectively selects the candidates by reinforcing the two-party system and conditioning people to think that they only have 2 choices.
Look at the “presidential debates” where nobody by Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi are allowed to participate.
The media manages to hold debates between many candidates during the primaries, but gradually widdles them down in an American-Idol/Survivor process of elmination.
The ignoramus public watches anxiously, drooling from the mouth, until the final showdown where they have been beaten into submission and made to believe that they can pick between 2 people when in fact they can pick from multiple people.
It’s the dumbing down of the public. Lowering the bar on intelligence and packaging it into an entertainment product to bring them in and shove viagra pills and Cadillac Escalades down their throats.
Think about it.
I have thought about it. Those debates you mention with many candidates featured such insightful and informative discussions as “raise your hand if you don’t believe in evolution” and Ron Paul getting jumped on by 9 other people all desperate to appear the MOST in favor of invading other countries. The more candidates you have, the greater the incentive for any individual candidate to stand out with a pithy little line, since they’re going to get a very limited amount of time.
For the general election debates, they don’t let in McKinney/Nader/Barr because none of them are polling at all well. Yes, that’s largely because they haven’t gotten any coverage, but why haven’t they gotten any coverage? Simple: they simply cannot win. It’s just not possible under our system of government.
It’s our winner-take-all elections, single member districts, electoral college, presidency system that makes us such a strong 2-party system. Look at the GOP: it essentially didn’t exist until the election of 1856 (you could say 1854, but that’s really charitable…the Whigs disappeared as a party, replaced by the “opposition”, which settled on “Republican” by 1856). In that election, there were 3 parties, but one of them was gone by 1860. Within a few years, we were back to having only two parties, with the Whigs having been replaced by the Republicans.
A claim that the media steer things puts the cart before the horse. The electoral system has incredibly powerful tendencies, and journalists would be stupid and, in a real sense, NOT acting in the public interest to ignore that.
A number of people are also going to complain that the media are biased in favor of Obama…after all, there were more negative stories about McCain this cycle. Of course, given that he’s going to lose badly, and the media love the horse-race much more than policy coverage, it’s another cart before the horse problem. The media coverage didn’t cause McCain to lose; McCain losing (mostly a product of an AWFUL economy and Bush’s low approval numbers) led to bad coverage of him.
I’m sorry — but I have to differ on the effect of the media on selection of candidates in the primaries. I happen to believe that we have the most choice during the primaries, yet most voters are totally oblivious to what is going on. Although the media may devote more space to the major candidates, they cover them all. And it really is up to voters to do the work of discovering what the individual candidates stand for. In the age of the internet, this has gotten far easier. All the candidates, even the most obscure ones, have websites that are rich in information.
Get out the vote.
http://www.crackthecode.us/images/WorldSeriesVictors.jpg
Stupid and ignorant?
Does that mean we have to eliminate bankers, mortgage brokers, home owners from 2003 and later, real estate agents, Alan Greenspan etc.?
Must be nice to sit on your perch and look down upon the peasants.
An alternate scenario is that since Bush actually was sworn in that the purchase date should be November 2000 with a re-fi in November 2004. T
Very true. Based on approval ratings, the refinancing was a toxic Option ARM.
Lenny and Dave, I am with you. What to people really ‘win’ when their ‘team’ wins the national election?
Stacey, everyone should have the right to marry, and also the right to endure 10 year root canals without anesthesia. I am looking for the Prop that bans marriage altogether – but since it does not exist, it looks out of fairness it has to be “No” on 8 when I got to the polls later.
Yay ! If I sway enough voters, I win a toaster ! 😉
Prop 8 has nothing to do with school children, who have already been educated by the constant flurry of lying television commercials. Put these small-minded liars in their place.
Local elementary schools are having children vote for their candidate today. I asked a teacher if the children are allowed to “write in” candidates other than McCain/Obama and she gave me the “oh come on” look.
We are indoctrinating another generation into the failed system.
Thank you LC.
I have to say that for such a hyped up supposedly historic election, it was business as usual at my polling location. I was in and out in 5 minutes. No lines or anything. No different than any other election I have seen.
It will be interesting to see if the turn-out is really that much more than usual.
Is anyone else seeing the same?
Just the opposite in Fullerton. Took a full hour. Never seen a line like it at a polling place before.
I use absentee ballots…much more convenient.
I’m unsure about this. I THINK you’re right, but the original decision that allowed gay marriage was a decision based on gender discrimination, which is specifically outlawed in the CALIFORNIA constitution, but not the US constitution. However, if you CHANGE the CA constitution….
The reason why I think you’re right is that the judges in CA would be the same type that read a protection for many different kinds of people under a combination of the 5th and 14th amendments to the US constitution. However, as that would be an explicitly federal question, it would move into that court system faster, and then we get different judges. I *think* the 9th Circuit would strike down prop 8, which would put us at the Supremes.
I’m not sure that prop 8 violates church/state separation, because I can get straight-married without religious sanction (by a judge, for example). So, while religion might be the reason why some people are for or against it, I don’t think a ban on gay marriage violates church/state. Rather, I think it violates a more fundamental principle of democracy: protection of minority rights (there are democracies that don’t have as bright a line as we do on church/state).
Oops….I meant to reply to EatitintheOC below….
On the stove: can it be a nerf basketball net (folded up)? Perhaps something to do while watching your turkey turn to toast? An idiotic place to put it, but then again the “owner” also thought it was worth paying $655k for this place.
That’s what I thought. Strange. And a towel under it. Maybe while he’s shooting hoops he needs to keep his hands dry for the best touch.
Maybe that’s how the owner makes major decisions in life…if I make the basket, I buy the house…
I just voted in Newport at Liberty Baptist. They have two separate voting areas there, for different neighborhoods. All of the high-density apartments go to one room and the lower density SFR neighborhoods go to another one. As you might imagine, one line is extremely long and the other is nonexistent. I got there before 7 so it was okay for me, but it did seem a bit strange to have the rooms set up this way.
Sounds like a case of `We are all equal, just some are more equal then others`.
Tell me about it….
If Prop. 8 gets defeated I’m gonna marry the White House
My husband and I in Irvine voted NO on prop 8.
It makes me sick that the Mormon Church in UT is so involved in our State on this.
Peace not war. Love not hate.
I really hope Barack Obama wins tonite!!
Thank you HK !
Would you be so sick if it were the Catholic church? The Jews? Or are you just sick at religion entirely?
For your information, there are many, many Mormons here in California who campaigned hard for Prop 8. Not so much from Utah. But that’s beside the point–the Mormons participated in a broad-based coalition from many organizations.
I thought this was a housing blog. Why all the comments about Prop 8. Government screwed me over during the tech bubble: Clinton Administration fault – “greatest economy the world has ever seen” – “tech stocks’ values will grow forever” Sounds just like the housing bubble that both DEMS and REPUBS are responsible for. Vote YES on 8.
Psss!
Housing bubble is related to government policies that people are voting on today.
See if you can get the word out.
AJ, IrvineRenter graciously opened up the main blog to comments on all politics today. Prop 8 is a ballot measure. That qualifies.
It’s obviously the most contentious issue here in CA… therefore, debatable.
And to the guy who wants to marry the White House. Well…. I just don’t know what to say about that.
If Prop 8 passes it won’t get past the courts. It’s still unconstitutional since you violate the separation of church and state. The fundamental meaning of marriage can’t be based on a religious belief for it to be constitutional. If same-sex couple are granted all the rights of married couples except to be actually called married then they are being treated as second class citizens. Again this unequal treatment under the law. Vote No on 8 and up hold the greatest tradition of our nation…that all people are created equal.
Also, does anyone else find it completely unbelievable that we are able to amend California’s constitution just as easily as we can pass a law? I would think it should take a lot more than a majority of voters to actually change the state constitution. It is certainly a higher bar at the federal level. It seems like this invites “tyranny of the majority,” which I hope we don’t see today.
You mean more like “Tyranny of a minority acting as if in the interests of the majority” California’s constitution was decided by the minority over interest of majority and this admendment will bring us back closer to definition of democracy.
Given the rules of our gracious host, normally when I post here I leave my politix at the door. That said, however, how much of a stretch is it to ask that those people appointed to head the various regulatory agencies actually regulate the industries their various agencies are charged to regulate? If there has been no other lesson learned from the disaster of the last eight years, please let it be this one – when a party whose basic philosophy is that “government is the problem” chooses the people appointed to positions of power, isn’t it bone-jarringly obvious that the people they have put in power will do their very best to prove that “yes, indeed, this government is the problem.
Far scarier than Reagan’s familiar quip are these words – “Hi, we’re from private industry and we’re here to save you money.”
One thing I have never understood is the argument that private industry is fully at fault here?
If the government had not become involved in this mess many companies would have failed, the very check and balances that a semi-free market uses to regulate itself. Instead the government props up these companies and we blame the private industries? This blame the companies solely by some people seems rather silly and a “moebius strip” type argument if you ask me.
I went at 11:15 (Sunny Hills). Only two people were in line in front of me. The polling workers said that the early morning was much different.
Say yes to equality, no to prejudice and bigotry. Vote NO on CA Prop 8!
As a mother of two young daughters- it kills me to drive down Culver and see the littering of signs for both Prop 8 and Prop 4. Especially the Prop 4 sign that says “stop child predators”. It freaks out my 7 year old who is just old enough to understand the word. She thinks there are “bad guys” in Irvine that will harm her. And the Yes on 8 commericials are equally confusing to them. They don’t get to watch much TV– but they play continously during “family hour” and are unavoidable. What are these supposed “moral majority” folks thinking when they back these ads? It’s WAY too much. The only good that can come from this is that there is a backlash within our community to stop this kind of advertising– regardless of what side you are on.
That said- I’m voting no on both Prop 4 and 8
Parents should have a right to know if an underage child is having an abortion. If my kid needs an aspirin the school nurse must call me before it can be administered, but a life changing operation that puts them at risk of death, no problem the parents do not need to know?
If you have read Proposition 4 you would know all possible situations have been covered, such as abuse by father/mother, etc. This is probably the best written proposition on the ballot this year addressing all past issues with this initiative and should be passed.
That may so but the notification will NOT stop the minor from obtaining an abortion. Read it carefully, all it states is that parent or a representative adult, chosen by the minor btw, be notified. This in no way entitles the parent to deny the minor access. So what are we trying to do with this law anyway? The law I’d like to see, how about requiring parents to actually raise their kids in a manner befitting a modern society like ours, instead of letting TV do it for them.
I’m with you furious sugar. No on both 4 and 8.
I’ve heard that alot of parents are upset that their children had to see and hear these ads from the other side. I’m so tired of all the fear they keep trying to push on people.
I’m also with you furious sugar. I think it is a parent’s job to establish a relationship with their child where that child would feel comfortable or at least feel an obligation to talk to the parent about being pregnant. For those girls with abusive or extremely right-wing parents, this proposition could jeopardize their safety. I don’t think the exceptions will play out in reality the way they are intended. A 16 year old girl should not be expected to navigate through this legislation to obtain an exception on their own. The analogy to other medical care is not applicable, because it is not arguable that asking a parent for permission to obtain prescription allergy medication, etc. might put a child at risk.
You assume that if a child is too scared to tell the parent’s about such a serious issue such as an abortion they have a bad relationship? This just sounds very close minded to me, sometimes children do not tell their parent’s everything such as the first time they have had sexual intercourse, regardless of how close a relationship the parent believes they have with their child.
“A 16 year old girl should not be expected to navigate through this legislation to obtain an exception on their own.” Yet this same girl who does not have the ability to navigate through legislation does have the ability to decide on a life threatening operation? And the doctor has no obligation to tell the parents so they can monitor this girl and make sure they do not have complications? This is the intent of proposition 4, this have nothing to do with right-wing parents controlling kids but nice characterization.
The analogy is perfect to other medical care because it does still put a child at risk, what if the child has an allergy and dies due to the nurse’s actions? We already have laws for children who do not want to be under the guidance of a parent, it is called emancipation of a minor.
CA is going down the tubes the way people are thinking, KIDS having abortions without parents, redefining marriage when it does not need defining. what’s next? 🙁
I’ll tell you what’s next.
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!
First, we already had a definition of marriage. It was overturned by the courts. The right of the people to repair a previous decision upended by the courts is why the initiative process is in place.
Second. Are there no more standards anymore? If “Marriage” is now the union of two people who love each other, there are cogent people out there who want to assign rights to animals. Therefore, since this path is before us, there is no reason whatsoever to approve of a marriage between a horse and it’s owner.
Before you get too steamed about the comparison, take any argument Pro 8 supporters have and apply it to the horse and it’s wedding rights. Since they are equal, therefore there isn’t a definition of marriage. It’s fluid and changes with society at that time.
The problem with this is that you have to have standards. Just because you don’t agree with the number of red lights you hit on Culver does not mean you get to speed through them.
If we can mutually agree that standards have to be made, the standard that worked for thousands of years is the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. You can re-define it a thousand ways, it simply means you have no standards of permanence.
If believe everything is possible, you will fall for anything.
Well put, JWMTG.
So where does the horse sign on the marriage liscense? Nice try with the “I’m going to marry my toaster” or other such non-sense argument. The permanence is not in the word “marriage” it is in the commitment to your significant other and their commitment to you. That is what “should” be enduring and lasting which begs the question: With divorce rates a 50%, should we be atleast making it harder to get married in the first place to protect the sanctity of marriage? Make couples prove they can have a lasting relationship before the sully the good name of “marriage”.
how about marrying more than one person, all consenting adults? which is common in other cultures and in the USA (mistress)? 😆
You know, there really has to be a new “Godwin’s Law” type thing founded for this argument.
Because the more we talk about gay marriage, the more kooks come out of the woodwork and start talking about marrying animals….
I am one human being….who wants to marry one human being. It’s as simple as that.
I voted NO on all the CA propositions. Each year, it seems they’re getting more convoluted and expensive at a time when the state can least afford it. Most of these are backed by special interests that are trying to enrich themselves or push their own agenda.
Same here, no to all of them.
Forget prop 8 who cares are you not all forgeting about the Chickens!!
SAVE THE CHICKENS!
yes on Prop 2.
I want my eggs free range or at least free to flap the wings range.
It’s all about the chickens.
LOL
That is too funny…I was just thinking of that one…I was giving my dad a hard time about voting yes on 2…he’s getting more emotional in his old age plus I think he just goes along with what my mom thinks (smart man!)…
Those commercials are great. They show these happy chickens living their lives on the free range…
It is all about the chickens!
Hell with it!
YES on 2!
all week and last week end when ever I saw pro or agaist prop 8 people out on the street I would open my car window and scream save the Chickens!!
Save the Chickens!!!
LOL LOL what fun that was.
I did encounter some very agressive and abnoxious No on Prop 8 folks yesterday. They were acting like Oakland raider fans. almost made me want to vote the opposite.
Well, if I was out there I would have laughed…
Don’t take it personally…most of those folks supporting their cause take it very personally and probably don’t think saving chickens is that important.
But we know better.
LOL
Trooper – A bit late but I hope you have a wonderful wedding! I am glad I voted against discrimination. However, with the number of divorced pals I have I’d review Woodbury Renter’s post,,, may you have a blissful forever after!!
Thanks pattie ! Should know in a few more hours…..
Folks, let’s take a look at the numbers. There are over 36 million Californians alive today. Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
Using standard statistics, that means there are approximately 3.6 million Californians that could be affected by Proposition 8 passing. Conservatively assuming that they all decide to marry another Californian, that is about 1.8 million marriages that will, if proposition 8 sticks, go outside of California. Not including the honeymoon, but presuming a modest ceremony and party total cost for a low-guest-count marriage of about $10,000 that comes to:
$18 Billion dollars leaving California.
All in one shot this generation, also not including second marriages. Although this might seem like a low number to some of you mathematicians in the audience, whichever way you slice it, it is still a significant amount of economic revenue the California could lose to Massachusetts, Canada, most of Europe, Asia, etc.
In the interest of full disclosure, and for the sake of the Californian economy, I voted no on 8.
–And Yes on 1A.
What some of you folks don’t know about raising children is a lot.
A WHOLE lot.
Prop 4 is simply about avoiding any restrictions on abortion whatsoever.
And with your man in the White House y’all will be able to enable unlimited partial-birth abortions all you want. He said that was his plan- and you voted for him-
ah well reap the whirlwind-
The man with 5 teenage daughters
*bettah recognize, homie!!!*