NOV 6, 2012

Related White Papers

Part 3: Technological Considerations for Leading in the New Mortgage Marketplace
Read Part 2: Changing Lender Process in the name of Consumer Protection
Part 1: Leading in a Changing Mortgage Marketplace
What We're Hearing

In Early Voting, It Appears Romney is Ahead. Never Mind…

Print
Reprints
Email

Don’t believe anything you read on Facebook, Twitter, basic cable, Fox News, MSNBC and any other media outlets about the outcome of this election – until this election is actually over. The problem with today’s interconnected world is that there are too many ‘information outlets’ in existence today thanks to that wonderful invention called the Internet. Note:  very few represent professionals who know what they’re talking about. You can always rely on a print newspaper (remember them?) but the morning editions won’t be out until 4 a.m. Wednesday. So, what’s the message here? Only trust me? No, not at all. For mortgage professionals the future of their industry is in the balance – but not necessarily because of this election. Yes, a new (or existing) president can shape the details of mortgage finance, but in the end it will be industry trade groups and lobbyists who explain the important operating details to our elected leaders and regulators. Let’s hope they get it right.

Comments (10)
And the republicans aren't even off work yet. Looks bad from the Kenyan.
Posted by Tommy Trojan | Tuesday, November 06 2012 at 2:15PM ET
paul, you scared this appraiser and agent with that housing doomsday headline! killing the deduction and handing the gse's over to the hedge funds will seize housing faster than mitt can offshore another company... yes i am a republican but this guy is a total disaster
Posted by bret | Tuesday, November 06 2012 at 2:23PM ET
And you'll take another 4 years with more and more regulations over someone who at least has run a business and a State over current situation? If Obama was president of a company and lets say his sales dept and R&D depts couldn't work together and he couldn't bring them to work together, do you honestly think a Board of Director wouldn't have replaced him already?? Bigger situation, but same basic business principles. Congress is broken, no doubt about it, but someone has to be man enough and strong enough to get them to work together for the good of this Country!!
Posted by Traci Ramirez | Tuesday, November 06 2012 at 2:38PM ET
Unfortunately, they are both very extreme, though at opposite ends; and am still not sure which is the lesser of 2 evils
Posted by Felix Pressler | Tuesday, November 06 2012 at 2:59PM ET
Oh, we all know where Paul Muolo stands! He is Romney's guy! As to being man enough and strong enough to run this country, Obama has shown that he can. He took on a crashing economy, thanks to Bush, and staved off the total demise of Detroit-- the way Romney would have had it go. Whoever wins this election will take credit for what is already showing as an economic improvement, for those of us who do watch it on a daily basis. Will Romney take credit for it if he wins? You bet he will! Will he have been the cause for it? Heck, NO!
Posted by Tom R | Tuesday, November 06 2012 at 3:02PM ET
TOTALLY agree with Traci. I couldnt have said it better.
Posted by Sherene | Tuesday, November 06 2012 at 3:29PM ET
This is really funny. Some people make mistakes and just blame it on Bush. It's so convenient.......
Posted by Sherene | Tuesday, November 06 2012 at 3:36PM ET
Save our jobs vote Romney
Posted by ezra fleischmann | Tuesday, November 06 2012 at 3:46PM ET
When are the idiots of this country going to wake up and realize this two party system is a joke. It's like choosing arsenic over cyanide or Satan over Lucifer. The end result is the same whichever way you go.

I wouldn't vote for either of these losers but maybe best the party that actually rammed the USS Titanic into the iceberg is back at the helm when it finally sinks. And I'm not talking about the Libertarians.

Posted by Mike Miller | Tuesday, November 06 2012 at 4:17PM ET
Much has been made of Gov. Romney's experience in business. The reality is that being the CEO of a private company bears little relation to being the chief executive of a nation. A CEO of a company can dictate what actions will be taken in the company, with no one (like a recalcitrant and oppositional legislature) to stand in his (or her) way.

With respect to Mitt Romney's tenure as governor of Massachusetts: that state is arguably one of the more liberal in the nation, yet this "severely conservative" individual got elected. How did that happen? My hunch is that, apart from having a great sum of money behind him, he was willing to present whatever Mitt Romney he judged would be acceptable to the electorate. In practice, as legislation he did not approve of reached his desk and was vetoed, his veto was overriden over 700 times. At the time he left office, he had an approval rating of 34%--one of the most deeply unpopular governors in the state's history.

He did cut taxes for everyone--but that came with a sort of asterisk; to pay for his tax cuts, fees for virtually everything had to be increased--marriage licenses, business licenses, property taxes. The net result was a higher taxes on the middle- and lower-income residents of his state.

Posted by JOE PARSONS | Tuesday, November 06 2012 at 4:24PM ET
Add Your Comments:


Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.