http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/237/popup/index.php?cl=3620401

OK, I'm biased on this one, I admit. I hold an MBA in Finance, so I've got a few major problems with Senator Hillary Clinton's view of reality here.

First, a bit about my background. I earned an MBA in Finance from North Texas in 2004. Yet I have very little actual finance industry experience. Now, the mortgage industry is as finance-heavy as it gets. Home mortgages, mortgage-backed securities, investors and the secondary mortgage markets--I mean, if you want finance, the mortgage industry is the place to start, and it just kind of goes from there.

The link above begins with Sen. Clinton discussing her earlier years when she remembers neighborhood people celebrating paying off their mortgage by burning the note--a memorable day in any homeowner's life, I'm quite sure.

And then she goes on to list her desire to install Socialist housing programs to provide for people who cannot pay their bills and to fight the "Big Bad Banks" who lurk around like sharks preying on borrowers like chum.

Now, believe me when I say that I understand the concept of banks, lenders, and specifically credit card companies that engage in predatory lending practices. The modern version of slavery goes something like this: Get a borrower in debt, keep them in debt, and collect their interest payments from now on.

But I can also point out that it is possible to sell a primary residence every two years and pocket the capital gains (selling price less buying price) tax-free and invest that money in the stock market at 13% per year. This is due to largely Democrats who, when the Bush tax cuts went into effect, were seeking to look out for property owners in areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco whose property values increase at a significantly higher rate than, say, Dallas or Des Moines. Simple fact--more people want to live in some places than others.

So it really boils down to, can I make more in gains than I pay in interest? Over time the answer is absolutely yes!

A home mortgage will cost you anywhere from 6-12%. The stock market has historically risen at approximately 13% per year over the last 90 years, approximately. Now, we have experienced times like the Great Depression and the Dot Com Bomb, but we have also experienced the late 1990's and, now, the mid-2000's. In a given period of time you may see decreases of 30% average for two years followed by three years of 20% gains, etc. But over time the rule is, the market goes up.

That is, unless you operate in a Socialist system where the government attempts to pay for, or at least control, everything.

This blog's purpose is to point out the problems with the Federal government taking power (aka responsibilities) from the States. This is another example of the same old same old principle of just that.

Sen. Clinton says, "They (the Bush Administration) believe in letting everyone fend for him or herself. They believe in what the president calls an ownership society, which is really you're on-your-own. It's the yo-yo economy; some go up and some go down and the strings are pulled by other people," Clinton said, repeating a familiar theme from her campaign speech. "I don't think that's how America works best."

I hate to sound like a broken record, but this is straight up a 10th Amendment issue, and nobody in the media will say so. Nobody in the Republican Party will say so.

So I will.

The States are responsible for this matter, each for itself. Not the Federal government. Plain and simple.

Just as it is not the place of the Feds to get involved, which they have already done, in education or in abortion, this is not their place either.

And in the same way, if a borrower chooses to borrow money to buy a home, and they qualify for a lender's sub-prime program, then great! Buy a house! Experience that tax-free capital gains effect that I mentioned earlier!

Now, are there companies using the system to make a buck then leave taxpayers holding the bill? Sure. Here's another one for you: Enron looks like your kid's piggie bank by comparison!

That's right! Enron wiped out billions of dollars of 401 (k) and other retirement and pension accounts, but those investors are largely recovered now over 5 years later and in the midst of a roaring economy and stock market. Yeah, all you media folks who have been whining about a crappy economy the last three years look pretty danged dumb now, don't you?

But the mortgage industry is robbing people of equity in their homes, shackling them down with houses that are too big for their budget, and in some cases, tying up investor dollars to consolidate debts into homes that people simply walk away from, leaving investors again holding the empty bag.

And while this is tragic in every single case, it is the responsibility of State governments, not the Federal government, to deal with banking, lending, mortgage, and borrowing issues within their own borders.

Texas for Texas. California for California. New York for New York. And the rest each for themselves.

Standardization is not a power, nor a provision of the Constitution. Neither in banking, nor in education, nor in labor and wage rates, etc. These are matters that the States never intended to give over to the national government, the Constitution does not cover, the States did not cede in separate legislation, but rather, that Socialists like Franklin Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton have taken upon themselves, and the Federal government, as their responsibility and their calling in life.

Perhaps, a good, old-fashioned re-reading of the Constitution on the part of the candidates for the Presidency is in order?

Perhaps, if "We the People" decided to hold our representatives' feet to the fire, the next thing we might be hearing from Hillary Clinton's mouth would be...

"Thank you for choosing Wells Fargo! What financial product can I assist you with today?"