Do tell how electing a man with a few $trillion of new entitlement and spending ideas, as promised in his acceptance speech and on the stump, working with a rubber stamp, totally Democrat congress, will improve either the fiscal or economic challenges we already know are ahead.
We can't even address the long-term shortfalls of social security and medicare/medicaid yet and they've been out there, known as problems needing solutions, for generations.
And you want to give full power to a regime we can count on to pile on more government obligations as a solution?
It seems the fingers pointing at the origins of the current economic woes are increasingly zeroing in on Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, though there is plenty of blame to go around. I'd give up trying to pin it on McCain, it'll turn into another global warming type embarrassment for you.
By the way, where has Al Gore, Nobel laureate, Oscar winner, Palme D'Or recipient, been during the campaign? There's a guy with plans for untold $trillions to piss away!
Last edited by BenThere : 24th September 2008 at 09:06.
galaxy flyer, unless somebody PM'd you I don't think you got the answer you wanted about posting a link. I posted the same question recently and if you go to Post #34 on this page it may or may not become clear.
This election is not about the issues. it is pure hate. We Democrats are so disgusted over the complete mess the 'small government' Republicans have left us with, we would literally elect a Hockey Mom as president.. oops... thats the other side...
Civil Rights: I believe it was Republicans who fought the Civil War and defied Democrats on the Civil Rights Act of 64.
Education: Why are Dems so opposed to School Vouchers. They are very popular in failing school districts, many inner city people would love to have school choices instead of being forced into poor schools. "White flight" is largely a school issue, in fact, much of the silliness in housing is about getting one's kids into good schools. Does the NEA and its major contributions to the Dems ring a bell?
Environment: How about the several trillion dollars Mr Gore would have us spend on "global warming". Don't hold your breath on that one. Yes, Mr Nixon signed all kinds of silly, liberal agencies into action-only one reason I hate him as a Republican.
The article seems to me about how far the present Republican party has split with Reaganism and how it has gotten lost. If they had stayed on track with classic libertarian, Western ideals (think: the real deal, Mr Goldwater) they would be in much better shape. If anything the current buzz about Palin is that she is Reagan-like. A real life, small college, real principles based on her life's experiences, and, lastly a sunny disposition.
With respect to the current crisis: it is nowhere near 1929. The markets have not lost 50% or more of their value, unemployment is at 5.8%, not 25% where it stayed +/- for a decade of FDR's haphazard, mismanagement of the economy. This credit crisis was actively caused by Congress and the government housing enterprises pushing bad mortgages and packaging them into MBSs. If we are headed to a Depression, the cause will be politician's seeking revenge and finding enemies in the free markets. Short sellers, economics "royalists", counterproductive bureaucracies that still haunt the markets, etc. FDR took Hoover's lead and turned a market crash and turned into a Great Depression. Their failure was the same one now, trying to prop up asset values when they need to fall. A painful correction, to be sure.
BTW, if a rising tide lifts all boats, as JFK said, a falling tide lowers them all. Torpedoing the "rich" in their boats won't help those already underwater.
John McCain has just announced that he will suspend his campaign effective tomorrow so he can return to Washington to work on the economic.
He has called on Obama to do the same. As of this time there has been no response from Obama. A staff member on Obama's campaign released a statement that Obama will reply shortly.
McCain also requested that the first debate, scheduled for this Friday, be delayed.
That, to me as an outsider, seems just a pure PR/tactical stunt dressed up as gravitas.
As far as I'm aware there are two wannabee US presidents whose current job-specs are to 'campaign' to the US electorate on their viability and competence to 'take-over' the post sometime soon. There are existing roles being fulfilled by the incumbent US Government that have as their particular job-spec 'working on the economic'.
The global credit-crunch/US sub-prime uncertainty has existed since at least October 2007. So why is there suddenly an apparent need to 'return to Washington to work on the economic'? Whatever T flying F that means in practical terms.
I'd have assumed that wannabee pres's would by now have a clear idea on their 'message' to the electorate as they would surely already have a clear strategy to address the concerns of said electorate or at least an understanding of why they are where they are.
Asking for time-out and requesting cooperation from the opposition doesn't sound to me like leadership but more of 'don't know, please give me more time' and also 'if you have rhetoric ready please give me a chance to think something up'.
Basically he said, "Uh, I uh, uh believe, that uh we should uh continue on uh and uh, uh do both," then he went on and delivered a scripted campaign speech.
In other words, he turned down McCain's request to suspend the campaign.
he turned down McCain's request to suspend the campaign
And tactically, why would he not? In his shoes would Republicans not turn down the same request? Maybe it's just a counter bluff. To me it seems like a no-brainer. It seems to give the opposition the opportunity to say anything (and I mean anything) yet dress it up as 'we at least have thought about the problem and have an answer already'. Bollocks If they do, I know, but it's a marketing game isn't it?
Except (unless my hearing is worse than I think) the BBC said it was a request from Obama to McCain and not t'other way round.
I don't know what the BBC said, I don't get the BBC News until 21:00 local here. However, this morning Obama did call McCain first and proposed that both of them issue a join statement on the bailout bill, not to suspend the campaigns and postpone the debate.
McCain agreed with the idea of a join statement, but then went on to propose suspending both campaigns until the bill is passed and postponing the Friday debate.
More proof that this housing crisis was really caused by government and the GSEs, not deregulation. If yo-yos like Frank had kept there paws out of Fannie and Freddie by demanding "affordable" housing, putting people into houses they could not afford, this wouldn't have happened. And BHO is running around with stupid statements on website about predatory mortgage originators. What an idiot.
Found this illuminating little nugget on PowerLine.com today.
Quote:
Ancient History, Apparently
2003, that is, when the New York Times ran this article on proposed reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac:
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. ...
The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session. ...
''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies. ...
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Maybe it's too much to expect anyone to remember the distant past--2003--but still, it seems remarkable that Barney Frank can make the rounds of the television talk shows, pontificating on the current crisis, without being reminded of his own role.
"The Bush administration sought regulatory reform", hear that GTF.
Despite these reports from the past, folks still insist the housing crisis and the credit crisis were caused by "greedy banks, fraudulent lenders, deregulation". Strawmen all-it was the Congressional power brokers who made political hay with community organizers by lending money for affordable housing. Now all the chickens are returning to roost on Barney Frank's and Chris Dodd's heads. Both should be jailed for incompetence and theft. We should have known Frank was oblivious to bad behavior, his lover once ran a male prostitution ring out of his apartment.
Barack Obama: “argue with them and get in their face.”...and lie
Barack Fauxbama
By Dustin Hawkins Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Last week, Barack Obama challenged a crowd of supporters to approach Republicans and Independents and to “argue with them and get in their face.” And then do what? Lie? He immediately asked his supporters to talk about what a gun-toting, anti-tax nut he is. Let’s take a moment to note the irony of having the biggest liberal in the Senate tell a liberal crowd to argue non-liberal positions on his behalf.
Obama asked that when his supporters get in their friends faces and argue to tell them that he just loves the 2nd Amendment. The NRA, which I hear knows a thing or two about gun rights, gave Obama a grade of F in 1998, 2002, and 2004. Gun Owners of America followed this up with F’s in 2005 and 2007. And though Obama’s mate Joe Biden recently said he would fist-fight Barack if he tried to touch his guns, Biden too is mysteriously wrapped up in F’s from the NRA and GOA, but gets A’s from anti-gun groups the Brady Campaign and Handgun Control, Inc. So yes, get in their faces… and lie.
While running for the State Senate in 1998 (a part-time job at least as important as small town mayor’s) Obama filled out the Political Courage Test. Not surprisingly, he supported an increased restriction on the sale and possession of guns and opposed easing restrictions on the possession of firearms and opposed concealed weapons permits. On the survey, he favored every gun restriction position and opposed every gun rights position. So, obviously, he is a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment."Supporters, go forth and argue my point!”
The tax question produces much of the same. On that Political Courage Test, Obama supported maintaining or increasing taxes in 7 of 9 categories, and supported maintaining or increasing the budget of tax-funded institutions 8 of 8 times. Americans for Tax Reform gave Obama scores of 0% in 2005, 15% in 2006, and 5% in 2007. The National Taxpayers Union gave him an F in all three years he has been in the Senate. Meanwhile the pro-taxation, quasi-socialist Citizens for Tax Justice offered up a perfect 100% in 2005-2006. So yes, get in their faces once more… and lie.
Faking support of issues common people support (currently known as a Fauxbama) is nothing new for Democrats running for President. John Kerry tried the whole “no really, I love guns too” routine and failed. Take a look at nutty Al Gore now versus the semi-sane Al Gore of 2000. The Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis whippings officially ended the era of liberal Democrats acting like liberal Democrats while running for President. Bill Clinton ushered in the era of liberal Democrats acting like conservative Democrats while running for President.
Acting as though the Internet has yet to be invented, Obama thinks he can claim anything at anytime and people will believe him, and that we are unable to research his past votes and statements. Another Fauxbama occurs when he attempts to not be a crazed pro-abort fanatic. At the Saddleback Forum, he famously (and stupidly) answered the “when does life begin” question with a “beyond my pay grade” response. Yet it was not “beyond his pay grade” each time he voted for the next pro-abort funding or rights expansion bill or law. Nor was it beyond his pay grade when he implied that his daughters should be able to have an abortion if they make a mistake in a few years. Again, it was not above his pay grade to oppose the born alive bill in the Illinois State Senate (and I can assure you, the pay grade decision-level of an Illinois State Senator isn’t quite that of the President’s).
It goes on. In a recent interview, Fauxbama pretended to have strongly considered joining the military. If, of course, we had been in a war. But since we were not in a war in 1980, he decided not to go that route. (Were that nobody joined the military in peace time, then we would have no military). So, are we to believe that Obama would have joined the military if we were in an actual conflict? If that is the case, how strongly did he consider joining during the 1990-1991 Gulf War? He would have only been 29 at the time, a perfectly fine age for joining the military. Oh wait, he was probably just starting his second personal biography at 29.
Obama claims he is the one who can bring about change and fight special interests. Yet at a time when his Vice-Presidential rival Sarah Palin was taking on special interests and taking down corrupt members of her own party, Obama was becoming entrenched in and becoming a product of the corrupt political machine in Chicago. Yet “Change” is Obama’s slogan. Rather than fight the corrupt Chicago machine, he became an integral part of it. As Newt Gingrich said: Palin took on her party, Obama has never shown the courage to do that. Barack Obama is John Kerry. John Kerry was Al Gore, who was Dukakis and Mondale after learning that running for President as a liberal does not work.
The Fauxbama Doctrine is simple: Tell the “average people” what they want to hear and hope they are stupid enough to fall for it. Barack is for gun rights! And tax cuts! And is “personally” pro-life! And wanted to join the military! And is post-racial! And had trouble paying student loans too! And wants to increase energy supplies! And wants to win the war! In 2004, liberals were counting on normal Americans to fall for the bait-and-switch. They were hoping that they could trick the “dumb people” into voting for their liberal-no-wait-conservative candidate. And this year, they are hoping they can pull it off for once.
Linear Mode
