Interesting new item on CNBC this morning: There are currently 15 million unoccupied residences and the rental vacancy rate has set a new record. I really believe that, in the last year and a half or so, a very large percentage of homes were bought completely for speculation and were never meant to be occupied until they were sold. As soon as the housing market softened just a little, a lot of those speculators dumped their properties, thus launching the housing debacle. I don't think that real homeseekers were involved much in that. Obviously, it caused the banks to panic and that completed the picture.

An exception to my general opposition to the tax credit might be these very dwellings, which are apparently going to waste. I'd be in favor of liberalized loan terms and perhaps a rent-to-own scheme for anyone willing to take them on. But not an across the board tax credit for any and everyone to buy any home.

The town-home that I bought had been sitting empty for more than a year---nearly fifteen months---and the woman who owned it was becoming frantic, as she was paying two mortgages. It is a perfectly good town-home, so I suppose you could say it had been 'going to waste'.

Genedio: So while I generally supported Obama's stimulus programs where they were likely to increase future productivity, production of alternative fuels, repair fraying infrastructure, or train Americans in new technologies, I can't support governmental meddling to prop up over-priced consumption and to actually restore the very bubble which caused the financial crisis. This is criminal.

LeRoy: No disagreement here.

If you have no disagreement with my statement, I am wondering when you're going to come around to my POV re: the new administration; that it was all mostly a shuck and jive about the Change we could believe in, and we're really getting the third term of George W. Bush whether we like it or not? Had McCain been elected, I see little difference. The election of 2008 was truly a wasted effort. The system can't change; it can only break down. This has been my suspicion for years.

I will continue to believe that Obama sincerely wants the changes he was promoting. However, I think he is realistic enough to recognize that he is bucking two major parties and could end up as isolated as Carter. I don't think he has much choice. His only alternative was to not run and that would have meant he had no chance to spread the message.

is worth less than no message at all. And that's giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.

The only positive thing I see resulting from last year's election is that America showed she could elect a minority.

Of course I don't blame Obama in vacuo; the congressional Democrats are mostly just as bad. That's why congress continues to get such low ratings; they have been bought and sold by the corporations.

Don't you consider our messages here as pretty much "stillborn"?

While I am not sure if the process would play out to a better product I would like to see the move made for a new constitutional convention. It seems to me that the constitution is rather outdated, this is part of the reason courts are considered to be so activist, they are left to interepert areas of the law that politicians have neither the guts nor the support to engage. Abortion and gun rights both fall into this catagory.

While this may seem to be a pipe dream it would seem that the alternative is electing an ideologue, so it is worth a shot. It would be nice if people were at least given the chance to act like adults, instead of just being written off as sheep.

So if one does this how does one avoid simple splintering of the country in this very polarized age? Well the interested parties need to be directly engaged, instead of having policy shouted at them in a manner they find foriegn. And if that doesn't work some splintering may not be such a bad thing, given that the alternative is stagnant inertia serving no one but the powers that be.

I think that much of the problem could be unravelled with the creation of one new law. It would state, simply:

Corporations are not people and are not granted any protection by the Constitution.

The result of this clarification would be that corporations could no longer claim any right to free speech or privacy, and no protection against search or seizure. I have little fear of anybody being able to demonstrate that there is any likelyhood that corporations are human.

Stockholders (or at least the humans among them - think about that) would continue to have Constitional protection, but that is a far different thing. Employees would also have Constitutional protection.

I believe this change would greatly reduce the ability of corporations to influence elections or the actions of office-holders.

I am not sure that buying influence would be curtailed by not having free speech. A corporation would still represent a monied entity which would have something to gain from seeing certain policy implemented, and so there would still be a strong drive to try to buy influence even if it wasn't shielded by the guise of free speech. There may be other benefit in what you suggest but I doubt that it would free politics from meddling by corporations. I would love to see campaign reform, and some parts of that would need constitutional ammendment involving free speech but for me that mainly addresses shadow groups that serve as mouthpieces for the parties or special interests.

What I would also like to see is for the office of the comptroller, perhaps in tandem with the GAO, have real teeth in regards to fiscal discipline and spending abuses.

It's funny, in politics the influence of lobbyists or big money is talked about a lot. But one word which is rarely said is "corruption". We save that damning word for emerging economies. But if what happens in our system isn't corruption, then I don't know what is. If we want to say the buying of influence equals corruption then our system is full of it.

I'm trying to think of an example of an oligarchy which was replaced by a more just society without violence. I don't think India really qualifies. I think they just replaced a foreign oligarchy with a native one, and there was some violence involved in any case, even if it was mostly on the part of the English. That's not to say it couldn't happen, but I don't think it would be very likely.

Yes. I would like to think of when the articles of confederation were replaced by our current constitution. But there is no doubt that suggesting a new costitutional convention would meet with a lot of very vocal disagreement, even amongst those who would stand to gain from it.

Otherwise what has happened in Russia comes to mind, although that counts as replacing one oligarchy with another, and there were certainly Latin American coups that replaced oligarchies with right wing dictatorships, (do they count as oligarchies)?

In any rate Genedio's point that the system must fail is on the mark, timing may be questionable, but it's current state cannot go on. And the powers in place that benefit from the current abuses would probable rather see the whole thing burn down rather than lose what they have. Of course maybe they have already given up on us. The future is clearly elsewhere.

I think you missed my phrase "without violence".

The online references seem split on whether oligarchs are, of necessity, rich.

It is unfortunate that the only organizations in the US which are likely to be able to spearhead changes in the structure of the government and economic system are religions. I would hate to be ruled by superstition. I think the Taliban are an excellent example of what would happen.

I have to say: that idea gives me the willies!

A new constitutional convention would bring ALL the wing-nuts and moon-bats out of the woodwork. There would be attempts to have Christianity declared as the official state religion of the 'new' America. There would be even more strenuous attempts to have English declared as the official state language. There would be a push for a 'parental rights' amendment' which would give parents absolute authority over the upbringing of their children. [There was an attempt in Colorado a few years back to amend the state constitution with such an idea.]

I am far, far from being convinced that a new constitutional convention would, in the end, generate a 'product' that is superior to the constitution we now have.