Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae takeover

[thekid]

Well the other shoe fell this weekend. Some reports are saying the Chinese who are holding alot of our debt flexed their muscle here and pressed the government to step in and shore up these two institutions. If true it is a troubling sign from a national security POV. There is no doubt we could not let these two institutions fail but if we did so as a result from pressure from a foreign government then we have truly lost our way.

[nightflier]

I didn't hear the part about the Chinese pressuring the US about it. Do you have a link?

[bobsticks]

I don't know that I'd circle the wagons just yet. At no point in their history could you compare Chinese-style communism with the Russian version, the former being utilitarian and the latter being totalitarian. Even the old guard had a healthy respect for profit and certainly the new business class does as well.

Point being, the Chinese are acting like any responsible investor would. I would imagine that T. Boone Pickens and Warren Buffet are on the phone too, you just don't hear about it.


BTW, the last I knew through whatever method they used to trace back the byzantine maze of shell corps both the British and the Canadians owned more US property free and clear than the Chinese. You just don't read about it 'cause they look like us and sound like us. It's not sexy.

It's not like Chaing Kai-Shek is gonna show up at yer door with an eviction notice. It's not in their best interest.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't know that I'd circle the wagons just yet. At no point in their history could you compare Chinese-style communism with the Russian version, the former being utilitarian and the latter being totalitarian. Even the old guard had a healthy respect for profit and certainly the new business class does as well.

Point being, the Chinese are acting like any responsible investor would. I would imagine that T. Boone Pickens and Warren Buffet are on the phone too, you just don't hear about it.


BTW, the last I knew through whatever method they used to trace back the byzantine maze of shell corps both the British and the Canadians owned more US property free and clear than the Chinese. You just don't read about it 'cause they look like us and sound like us. It's not sexy.

It's not like Chaing Kai-Shek is gonna show up at yer door with an eviction notice. It's not in their best interest.

My name is Sir T, and I agree with this post.

Keep in mind Sticks, the Brits and Canadians own more property than anyone else, but I think China is financing our debt based on trade imbalances we have with them. If they decided to call it in, we would be in a world of hurt, that is for sure. They are certainly waist deep in financing our mortagage debt as well. I heard this on CNN money the other day.

[bobsticks]

My name is Sir T, and I agree with this post.

Keep in mind Sticks, the Brits and Canadians own more property than anyone else, but I think China is financing our debt based on trade imbalances we have with them. If they decided to call it in, we would be in a world of hurt, that is for sure. They are certainly waist deep in financing our mortagage debt as well. I heard this on CNN money the other day.

Whattup T.,

Well, of course you're right and I didn't mean for it to sound like I was givin' Kid any heat. Earlier in the evening over at Nicky's I heard these three ja-brones talkin' like Mao was gonna show up at your door with a Kalashnikov...it's just foolish. Yes, housing is a commodity but they're not gonna repo your mailbox. They don't have 47 million Chinamen in the country to give houses to. Even if they did it's not worth their time, better to sit back and collect interest. I would also add that as the major importer of goods into this country it is certainly not in their interest to see our economy fail.

---sticks

[thekid]

No worries here Sticks. I have no fear of a Red Tide overwhelming our shores it just took me aback when I heard two business reports from different people on the radio mention in an almost offhand way that the Chinese might be involved with the governments decision to act on the two companies. As I have heard more analysis of the situation the Chinese connection may be more along the lines as a large investor than anything else.

Apparently in yet another screw up of this current adminstration when the Treasury Secretary got in front of Congress to "reassure" everyone and to seek approval for the bailout he was "sure we will never need" future investors took this as a sign that the government might at some point come in (as they now have ) and takeover the two companies. How this takeover would occur and what would happen to stockholders left it unclear to future investors if they should continue to invest in the two companies. So as the companies continued to bleed, new capital slowed to a trickle or dried up completely. Supposedly the government knew several weeks ago they were going to have to make this move but they did not want the takeover to occur while the two parties had their political conventions and they did not want to drop an "October Surprise" that could affect the outcome of the November elections. I will let the political conspiracists debate the timing of this decision........... :)

[Feanor]

Whattup T.,

Well, of course you're right and I didn't mean for it to sound like I was givin' Kid any heat. Earlier in the evening over at Nicky's I heard these three ja-brones talkin' like Mao was gonna show up at your door with a Kalashnikov...it's just foolish. Yes, housing is a commodity but they're not gonna repo your mailbox. They don't have 47 million Chinamen in the country to give houses to. Even if they did it's not worth their time, better to sit back and collect interest. I would also add that as the major importer of goods into this country it is certainly not in their interest to see our economy fail.

---sticks

Sticks, I'd say China's "Cultural Revolution" stage was anything but utilitarian -- but that is in the past.

It's in nobody's interest to see the U.S. economy fail, (though there are Islamists its in theirs). But it's ironic that the Iraq war was effectively financed by China. Despite thousands of deaths, the war itself isn't the biggest problem, rather the biggest failure of the Republican regime is gross government deficits. The deficit affects everything through interest rates which is a huge contributor to (for example) the sub-prime crisis, thus Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac. (It is incredibly naive of people to believe the Republicans are "more fiscally reponsible".)

What happens when big debt holders are under threat? They tend to turn up on the board of directors. Humm ...

The glory days of the American economy and Pax Americana are in the past. The ecomomies of China and India posed to take their inevidable and rightful places as world leaders. (It will be a while, though, before they face big illegal immigration problems.) In 30 years, unlike today, the situation of the US economy will be no big deal to the rest of the world.

As a Canadian I take no comfort from any of this since where the US economy goes ours will tag along. We here are having an federal election on October 14, and it looks like we're going to elect a Conservative Party majority government. The Conservative Party nowadays is just a cheap Republican Party knock-off.

[kexodusc]

We're long overdue for this. In a world where economic borders are crumbling and emerging economies are closing the gap at an unstoppable, accelerating place, it's about time the powers that be dropped the arrogant attitude of the past.

A bit of Government intervention into the markets could have prevented this from happening in the first place and saved a lot of pain. I don't get it. We'd expect a government to protect us from foreign attack, domestic violence, maybe even disease and famine, but protecting us from ourselves is crossing the line?

Some politico types don't quite get it that free market economy doesn't mean an anarchist economy.

[Auricauricle]

I am no expert in regard to things Chinese or financial, but if there is one thing that seems clear: the Chinese and similar cultures are far more interested in the long-term gains than immediate gratification. With a nod towards the rising nouveau economy, Chinese investiture in American and other interests would seem more interested in a symbiotic relationship that could sustain itself indefinitely. Simply put, these folks know how to wait, and rather than shooting themselves in the foot by pulling out early would rather work for the global good. In either case, the Old Dragon is awake and the sooner we deal with that the better....

[Rich-n-Texas]

Sticks, I'd say China's "Cultural Revolution" stage was anything but utilitarian -- but that is in the past.

It's in nobody's interest to see the U.S. economy fail, (though there Islamist who think so).
That's right. As the US economy goes, so goes the world economy.

But it's ironic that the Iraq war was effectively financed by China.
Gee, every once-in-a-while I do manage to learn something from you.

Despite thousands of deaths, the war itself isn't the biggest problem, rather the biggest failure of the Republican regime is gross government deficits. The deficit affects everything through interest rates which is a huge contributor to (for example) the sub-prime crisis, thus Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac. (It is incredibly naive of people to believe the Republicans are "more fiscally reponsible".).
Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Back to the same 'ol same 'ol. I'd say predatory lending by greedy banks is the biggest contributor to the sub-prime mess, not the govenment. OTOH, Democrats = more govenment = more taxes and still, no solution to the problem.

What happens when big debt holders are under threat? They tend to turn up on the board of directors. Humm ...

The glory days of the American economy and Pax Americana are in the past. The ecomomies of China and India posed to take their inevidable and rightful places as world leaders. (It will be a while, though, before they face big illegal immigration problems.)
Yeah, okay. China a world leader with their Human Rights record? Not likely. IMO neither country's economies would survive without the almighty US dollar propping them up.

In 30 years, unlike today, the situation of the US economy will be no big deal to the rest of the world.
Pretty bold prediction (and a safe one since you, I and the rest of the audience here will be long gone huh?).

As a Canadian I take no comfort from any of this since where the US economy goes ours will tag along. We here are having an federal election on October 14, and it looks like we're going to elect a Conservative Party majority government. The Conservative nowadays are simply a cheap Republican Party knock-off.Where the US anything goes, so goes Canada. War on terrorism et al. And by the first of the New Year Republicans will control the whole continent. Good times ahead!

[thekid]

Rich

Our economic strength does not depend on the "almighty US Dollar" which people were bailing from when the oil producers were not happy that the price of oil was tied to the dollar. Weak dollar = High prices. Our economic strength stems from that we have relatively speaking a stable political system that allows for transitions of power that do not cause economic upheaval. We have not been producing real wealth in this country for sometime as much as transferring it around which has resulted in producing an economy where there are "winners and losers". IMO this differs from our economy in years past where people could use hard work and ingenuity to become a "winner". The transfer of wealth to countries like China who are propping up our debt is an example of how we have lost control of our fate.

[E-Stat]

...rather the biggest failure of the Republican regime is gross government deficits.
And yet the Democratically controlled Congress controls spending.


The deficit affects everything through interest rates which is a huge contributor to (for example) the sub-prime crisis, thus Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac.
And yet, the prime rate is still far lower than it had been for twenty years. I financed my first house in 1985 at eleven percent. The one I got two years ago is six. The crisis is caused by financial irresponsibility on the part of many folks and admittedly the greed of many a financial organization.


(It is incredibly naive of people to believe the Republicans are "more fiscally reponsible".)
That has certainly been true in the past decade. They are learning how to spend from the guys across the aisle.

rw

[bobsticks]

And yet the Democratically controlled Congress controls spending.

Thank you.

Feanor, I completely respect your opinions in opposition to the Republican Party. Frankly, in many areas of social doctrine I agree with you. That said recognise that our Congress controls the passage of all bills and wields the power to override even a Presidential veto.


Have the Republicans exercised the sound fiscal judgement that they espouse? Absolutely not. But, given the American electorate's curious predilection for voting in an Executive of one party and a Congress of the other, placing exclusive blame is a little like faulting Ginger Rogers for tripping over Astaire's foot. It takes two to tango.

[Feanor]

A comment or two in context below ..


And yet the Democratically controlled Congress controls spending.
... only for the last couple of years. But I agree the Dems haven't do well in that interval

And yet, the prime rate is still far lower than it had been for twenty years. I financed my first house in 1985 at eleven percent. The one I got two years ago is six. The crisis is caused by financial irresponsibility on the part of many folks and admittedly the greed of many a financial organization.
... nevertheless interest rate rises precipitated the sub-prime collapse though, granted, not the only factor. Was it greed: sure, what isn't? But the bigger picture is the gross over-extension of consumer credit without which the US economy would have slumped much sooner: trouble is the piper has now to be paid.

That has certainly been true in the past decade. They are learning how to spend from the guys across the aisle.
... and before that too, e.g. the Reagan era. Like I said the other day, the only true policy of the Republicans is "bribe the rich".

rw

[bobsticks]

That has certainly been true in the past decade. They are learning how to spend from the guys across the aisle.

... and before that too, e.g. the Reagan era. Like I said the other day, the only true policy of the Republicans is "bribe the rich".

...and the Dems controlled the House during the Reagan years. 1952 was the last time that the GOP had control of all the big three. Again, to play it of as if the Dems have been helpless bystanders instead of causal contributors is fallacious.

[Feanor]

That has certainly been true in the past decade. They are learning how to spend from the guys across the aisle.

... and before that too, e.g. the Reagan era. Like I said the other day, the only true policy of the Republicans is "bribe the rich".

...and the Dems controlled the House during the Reagan years. 1952 was the last time that the GOP had control of all the big three. Again, to play it of as if the Dems have been helpless bystanders instead of causal contributors is fallacious.

I'm not justifying the Democrats, only saying the Republicans are worse. Under the American system it's convient to be able to say, "Our man was President, but the other guys controlled Congress", or the converse as the case maybe. Under the parliamentary system we can't make that excuse.

[Auricauricle]

Nuke 'em all!!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Yeah ya know what's funny in all of this Feanor? You've NEVER tried to justify anything the Democrats do. All you do is entise and incite people into thinking it's all the Republican's fault. How about giving us some examples of the good deeds the Dems have done in the past two years or so Feanor?

Edit:

Or is this just another cowardly throw a rock and run moment?

[E-Stat]

... nevertheless interest rate rises precipitated the sub-prime collapse though, granted, not the only factor.
I'll have to disagree. What rise? Prime is still very low. Especially if you compare it to the punitive Carter days where it was 15%. The issue was the *creative* loan packages like interest only loans, ARMs, and delayed balloon payment schemes that first timers and bad planners couldn't handle. Had only the basic 15 or 30 year fixed term been available (like I have and presumably, you), the problem would not have existed.


...... and before that too, e.g. the Reagan era.
I guess you wouldn't understand why it was necessary to break the iron curtain. Think about this for a moment: for thirty years, thousands of ICBMs were directly targeted at US cities. We reciprocated and had squadrons of B-52s aloft - continually via mid air refueling- for decades. That stopped in 1982.

Actually, the most fiscally responsible group in recent times was the Republican Congress during the last Clinton term. Actually, a lot got done with Clinton's support.


...the only true policy of the Republicans is "bribe the rich".
Bribe the rich to do exactly what? Not continue to foot the vast majority of the tax base? 70% of the burden comes from 10% of the populace. Nearly half pay nothing. Or get EIC, i.e. get "paid" each year. Negative tax. When one compares taxation vs. benefits, we see an income redistribution of about a trillion dollars per year downward.

rw

[thekid]

Actually, the most fiscally responsible group in recent times was the Republican Congress during the last Clinton term. Actually, a lot got done with Clinton's support.

I agree with that but I think you are giving the GOP too much credit there since if you recall Clinton's "support" came in the form that he called Congress' bluff and shut the government down rather than sign off on some legislation with which he did not agree. Once the GOP saw he was not afraid to go nuclear and he enjoyed the support of the public both the Dem and GOP in Congress realized they had no choice but to work together. However I will say that the GOP back then at least had an agenda. The current GOP talks like Republicans, divides people on social issues like Republicans but spends money worse than any Democratic administration since Johnson.

The GOP today has the same problem IMO as the Dems in that they don't stand for anything other than obtainining/maintaining political power. The few pieces of legislation that do get passed (in no particular order) are centered on continuing the "war" on terrorism, neccessary budget/government function spending bills, pork barrel spending and irrelevant social legislation designed to appease their respective bases. In this era of fierce partisanship split government might be our only hope in getting meaningful legislation done. Based on the number of retirements on the GOP side they are expecting to get wiped out in the House races and lose additional Senate seats. I would not mind having McCain balance out a Reid/Pelosi Congress but his VP choice was really not well thought out in terms of someone prepared to be president and was not the "maverick" move it is being made out to be. It was a blatant attempt to bring back the conservative base (which it did) that did not support McCain and bridge the women's gap that has been widening in the last few years. It is in my mind another example that the McCain of 08 is not the same McCain as in 2000.

[Feanor]

Yeah ya know what's funny in all of this Feanor? You've NEVER tried to justify anything the Democrats do. All you do is entise and incite people into thinking it's all the Republican's fault. How about giving us some examples of the good deeds the Dems have done in the past two years or so Feanor?

Edit:

Unfortunately voters in democratic counties have to hold their noses and vote for the lessor evil. No, I'm not going to justify the Democrat congress today or any Democrats in any interval.

And what Americans, Canadian, Brits, all those in democracies need to do is examine and vote on two things: (1) the issues, and (2) the underlying philosophies of the politial parties. But the choices are clouded by the promises polititians make. If a party comes to power, they will not keep all their promises. This where the underlying philosophies become important because it helps us decide which promises a party will keep and which it will not.

In the case of the Repulicans, especially Repulican presidents, the only truly basic philosophy is low taxes. Everything else is for show: fiscal responsibility, small government, social conservatism, religious sensibility are all dispensible in the cause of keeping taxes low, especially for the wealthiest classes. An aggressive foreign policy has been typically of recent, right-wing Republicans; wars cost big money. How do you fight wars but keep taxes low? By borrowing of course, so fiscal responsibility goes out the window.

Sarah Palin looks successful among Repubicans because she represents Smalltown, U.S.A. The middle class folks who love God & The American Way (-- and we could perhaps add white skins). But I warn these folks that their "values" are not high priority to the real Repulican agenda setters and they will be betrayed when the latter decide it's expedient.

[kexodusc]

I'm not justifying the Democrats, only saying the Republicans are worse. Under the American system it's convient to be able to say, "Our man was President, but the other guys controlled Congress", or the converse as the case maybe. Under the parliamentary system we can't make that excuse.
No but under the parliamentary system, a democratically elected leader of the plurality controls the executive authority of all the civil service (the real power), and can bully his way through a minority by threatening votes of non-confidence, only to call an early election (4th in 8 years) when it's convenient for him politically.
Heaven forbid a leader achieve a majority where there are neither checks, nor balances to offset the executive authority of the Prime Minister.

[kexodusc]

In the case of the Repulicans, especially Repulican presidents, the only truly basic philosophy is low taxes. Everything else is for show: fiscal responsibility, small government, social conservatism, religious sensibility are all dispensible in the cause of keeping taxes low, especially for the wealthiest classes. An aggressive foreign policy has been typically of recent, right-wing Republicans; wars cost big money. How do you fight wars but keep taxes low? By borrowing of course, so fiscal responsibility goes out the window.


I take exception to this as well. How many times did Bush Sr. raise taxes? Clinton reduced taxes in his 2nd term. You seem to be starting with a conclusion and drawing a map to get there.

[Feanor]

I take exception to this as well. How many times did Bush Sr. raise taxes? Clinton reduced taxes in his 2nd term. You seem to be starting with a conclusion and drawing a map to get there.

Kex,

OK, I'm talking about Reagan and Bush II. The First Gulp War was short and sharp, the kind of war everyone loves but which aren't typical. Reagan's war was ultimately "Star Wars" not the real thing but protracted and very costly; he borrowed to finance it. Now you have the Second Gulp War which is the longest in US history and costly.

I've heard the statistic that the GW2 costs a lower portion of the GNP than WWII or even the Korean War or Viet Nam, (a bargain war?). Fine, so much the more reason to pay for it out of current funds but that would require significant taxe increases. The agenda setters of the Republican Party won't allow that, so the US government borrows. The actual situation demostrates my thesis very well. My train of thought might be new to you but it doesn't mean I'm pulling conclusions out of the air.

[Rich-n-Texas]

...I would not mind having McCain balance out a Reid/Pelosi Congress but his VP choice was really not well thought out in terms of someone prepared to be president and was not the "maverick" move it is being made out to be. It was a blatant attempt to bring back the conservative base (which it did) that did not support McCain and bridge the women's gap that has been widening in the last few years. It is in my mind another example that the McCain of 08 is not the same McCain as in 2000.
Why do so many people here have McCain dead before he's even elected? Why are people not jumping for joy that the possibilty of there being a female in the second highest office in the land exists? What are Presidential Advisors used for?

See how easily people are influenced by the liberal media?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Unfortunately voters in democratic counties have to hold their noses and vote for the lessor evil. No, I'm not going to justify the Democrat congress today or any Democrats in any interval.
Right. Just throw rocks and run. That's why I have such a hard time taking you seriously.

Sarah Palin looks successful among Repubicans because she represents Smalltown, U.S.A. The middle class folks who love God & The American Way (-- and we could perhaps add white skins). But I warn these folks that their "values" are not high priority to the real Repulican agenda setters and they will be betrayed when the latter decide it's expedient.
And maybe because she could be the first female VP in history? There sure was a lot of press in the case of Obama's history changing possibility.

Everything else here is just personal opinion from an outsider.

[E-Stat]

... the cause of keeping taxes low, especially for the wealthiest classes.
It is axiomatic that tax reductions will only benefit those who pay taxes. Half our populace pays nothing or gets a "rebate" in the form of EIC. Depending upon where you choose to draw the line on "the wealthiest", they are responsible for the overwhelming majority of tax revenues. Top 10% of filers (which includes my working wife and me) contribute something over 70% of the tax revenue. Damn right I don't want the Dems to come back and reach into my pocket for more.

rw

[kexodusc]

Kex,

OK, I'm talking about Reagan and Bush II.
Yeah, me too...Reganomics saw Bush and co raise taxes a few times to offset rising deficits.
Contrary to your comment about Republican presidents dogmatically opposed to raising them. Your comment implies that Democratic presidents don't similarly try hard to lower taxes. In reality, both parties spin the same rhetoric depending on which crowd their preaching too.

The decision for governments to borrow vs raise taxes to finance anything is fundamental finance theory. It's more a question of cost of capital than politics and appetite for tax increases. Financing through debt, much like in the corporate world, is often cheaper, particularly where keeping tax money in the hands of consumers is determined to greate more economic value. The Republicans shouldn't be criticized for borrowing, maybe just spending so much....

Pierre Trudeau, a liberal icon, certainly had no problem increasing Canada's National Debt by 1200% while also raising taxes.

[Feanor]

It is axiomatic that tax reductions will only benefit those who pay taxes. Half our populace pays nothing or gets a "rebate" in the form of EIC. Depending upon where you choose to draw the line on "the wealthiest", they are responsible for the overwhelming majority of tax revenues. Top 10% of filers (which includes my working wife and me) contribute something over 70% of the tax revenue. Damn right I don't want the Dems to come back and reach into my pocket for more.

rw

At least you're forthright: you simply don't want to pay more taxes and, yes, I'll concede you'll likely do better with Republicans than Democrats in that regard.

In my case my non-working wife and I are a long way from the top 10% in our country: perhaps that gives me a different perspective. To me it seems quite reasonable that those who have benefited the most from the socioeconomic system should pay the most to support it: simple fairness. Beyond that is the issue of the consequences of ever growing income disparity on society and the economy: growing disparity presages the decline of both.

The upper-middle class in the US is very complacent. They don't seem understand that their elevate economic statis depends on the prosperity of the average people -- not on the super-rich elite. The impoverishment of the working classes presages the decline of the wealthier middle class. What can the latter do by way of enlightened self-interest in this regard?

[Feanor]

Right. Just throw rocks and run. That's why I have such a hard time taking you seriously.

And maybe because she could be the first female VP in history? There sure was a lot of press in the case of Obama's history changing possibility.

Everything else here is just personal opinion from an outsider.

Rich, the reason why I can't take you seriously is that you don't rebute my arguments. Some of the others here try to do that albeit with limited success. You, however, just huff and puff with indignation.

Sometimes you seem ingenuous or self-contradictory. Why justify Palin because she might be the first female VP when you could have supported Clinton who might have been the first female President?

[Feanor]

....

Pierre Trudeau, a liberal icon, certainly had no problem increasing Canada's National Debt by 1200% while also raising taxes.

Right on. Trudeau borrowed and it proved the wrong thing to do. It was a classic failure of Keynesian ecomomics. But it took a Conservative government under Brian Mulroney to make matters much worse, and Ironically, another Liberal government to begin to turn the situation around.

You will agree that borrowing is justified based on future positive cashflows. It isn't exactly clear what positive cashflows will flow from the Iraqi war. Given that much of the US debt is now finance abroad rather than domestically, the debt is exactly what it is accused of being: current expenditure today at the expense of future generations.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'm not justifying the Democrats, only saying the Republicans are worse...

Unfortunately voters in democratic counties have to hold their noses and vote for the lessor evil. No, I'm not going to justify the Democrat congress today or any Democrats in any interval.
This is what puts you on the same garbage barge as the rest of the Democrats you align with. B!tch about how the Republicans are ruining the country, but offer no solutions. I'm from the liberal Northeast so I had 39 years of experience and observation to draw my opinions from.

In the big picture though, there's no use arguing about Conservative philosophy vs. Liberal philosophy because the outcome will always be the same... no one's mind being changed.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Rich, the reason why I can't take you seriously is that you don't rebute my arguments. Some of the others here try to do that albeit with limited success. You, however, just huff and puff with indignation.
Quite the arrogant remark there Bill. I'd say with much success, but that's just me. My indignation is brought on by your outrageously left wing fallacies.

Sometimes you seem ingenuous or self-contradictory.
Ingenuous: Candid, Fair, Open, Frank. "A man is fair when he puts things on a just or equitable footing; he is candid when be looks impartially on both sides of a subject, doing justice especially to the motives and conduct of an opponent; he is open and frank when he declares his sentiments without reserve; he is ingenuous when he does this from a noble regard for truth."
A compliment and insult all in one sentence. So who's being contradictory?

Why justify Palin because she might be the first female VP when you could have supported Clinton who might have been the first female President?
How did I know you'd say that? Had you paid attention to Hillary's history, like back when she was a lawyer ( :rolleyes: ) you'd understand why I'd never throw my support behind her. Why justify Obama just because he could be the first black president?

[Feanor]

Quite ...

Ingenuous: Candid, Fair, Open, Frank. "A man is fair when he puts things on a just or equitable footing; he is candid when be looks impartially on both sides of a subject, doing justice especially to the motives and conduct of an opponent; he is open and frank when he declares his sentiments without reserve; he is ingenuous when he does this from a noble regard for truth."
A compliment and insult all in one sentence. So who's being contradictory?

...

The other definition ...

<CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</CITE> (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=ingenuous&ia=luna) - <CITE minmax_bound="true">Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ingenuous#sharethis)</CITE> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) -->
in·gen·u·ous http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png <SCRIPT type=text/javascript minmax_bound="true"> // <![CDATA[ var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "18", "http://forums.audioreview.com/ (http://forums.audioreview.com/)", "6"); interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high"); interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t"); interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionar y%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FI01%2FI0171600.mp3"); interfaceflash.write(); // ]]> </SCRIPT><OBJECT id=speaker codeBase=codebase= height=18 width=17 align=top classid=clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 minmax_bound="true" http: fpdownload.macromedia.com pub shockwave cabs flash swflash.cab#version='6,0,0,0"'>
























</OBJECT><NOSCRIPT minmax_bound="true">http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/I01/I0171600)</NOSCRIPT> Audio Help (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/audio.html) /ɪnˈdʒɛnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngyuhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəs/ Pronunciation Key (http://forums.audioreview.com/) - Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://forums.audioreview.com/)jen[/B]-yoo-[I]uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngs] Pronunciation Key (http://forums.audioreview.com/) - Show IPA Pronunciation (http://forums.audioreview.com/) –adjective <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">1.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">free from reserve, restraint, or dissimulation; candid; sincere. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">2.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">artless; innocent; naive. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">3.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">Obsolete. honorable or noble. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[kexodusc]

Right on. Trudeau borrowed and it proved the wrong thing to do. It was a classic failure of Keynesian ecomomics. But it took a Conservative government under Brian Mulroney to make matters much worse, and Ironically, another Liberal government to begin to turn the situation around.
Well let's not forget there's a delay between policy shifts and economic crisis. Mulroney didn't increase programs or social benefits much beyond what Trudeau started - they just cost more because of hyperinflation and already predictable deficits grew in absolute terms. His failure was not undoing enough of what Trudeau did. To Mulroney's credit, he did increase taxes substantially, and did start to addresst he deficit. But he didn't survive long enough to take credit for a turnaround.

Yes, Mr. Martin, through a clever scheme of hidden taxes and massive cutbacks did balance the budget. And he deserves credit for it. But the liberals should also be reviled for blatant overtaxing, then trying to take credit for "surplus". And likewise, the modern conservatives should be reviled for crying about that liberal scam, and following up by continuing to do the same damn thing. :crazy:

My point - in classical sense, modern liberal and conservative governments in the West are much, much closer in belief and behavior, at least economically, than the perpetuated myths they continue to feed the voting public. Socially...well, I won't tell you about the dinner I had with a Mr. Vic Toews. :crazy:


You will agree that borrowing is justified based on future positive cashflows. . Not exactly, borrowing is justified based on the perception the borrower can make future service payments on the debt. Internationally, that often means borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.


It isn't exactly clear what positive cashflows will flow from the Iraqi war. Given that much of the US debt is now finance abroad rather than domestically, the debt is exactly what it is accused of being: current expenditure today at the expense of future generations "Isn't exactly clear what positive cashflows will frow from the Iraqi war". What positive cash flows flow from welfare, healthcare, supporting the disabled etc? In many cases, it's economically more practical to cut bait. You can't think of these in isolation. Not all government investments, military or otherwise, are justified only by positive cashflow. Some are necessary, or just desirable for what ever reason. At any rate the lenders of the world see comparatively little risk in lending massive amounts of money to the USA.

But I digress....cost of capital and internal rate of return remain the reason why capital expenditures are being financed in part by debt rather than solely by taxation. Dems vs Pubs isn't the issue there. And do not for 1 minute think if the war never happened that the US would not still borrow money to finance government operations, whether in periods of deficit or surplus. The world no longer works on the pay as you go system...

[Rich-n-Texas]

Right on. Trudeau borrowed and it proved the wrong thing to do. It was a classic failure of Keynesian ecomomics. But it took a Conservative government under Brian Mulroney to make matters much worse, and Ironically, another Liberal government to begin to turn the situation around.

You will agree that borrowing is justified based on future positive cashflows. It isn't exactly clear what positive cashflows will flow from the Iraqi war. Given that much of the US debt is now finance abroad rather than domestically, the debt is exactly what it is accused of being: current expenditure today at the expense of future generations.
Interesting Bill how you seem to tone down and deflect away from your anti-conservative rhetoric when presented with facts that dispute your bombastic claims. In my opinion that is very disingenuous. ("Lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.")

[bobsticks]

Bribe the rich to do exactly what? Not continue to foot the vast majority of the tax base? 70% of the burden comes from 10% of the populace. Nearly half pay nothing. Or get EIC, i.e. get "paid" each year. Negative tax. When one compares taxation vs. benefits, we see an income redistribution of about a trillion dollars per year downward.

rw

Thank you yet again.

[bobsticks]

It is axiomatic that tax reductions will only benefit those who pay taxes. Half our populace pays nothing or gets a "rebate" in the form of EIC. Depending upon where you choose to draw the line on "the wealthiest", they are responsible for the overwhelming majority of tax revenues. Top 10% of filers (which includes my working wife and me) contribute something over 70% of the tax revenue. Damn right I don't want the Dems to come back and reach into my pocket for more.

rw

And one more time...

I could just sit here and let Stat make this argument, and do so with unlimited success, but there are other perspectives. As someone who pays 20 to 25 times the national average in taxes explain to me please how not wanting to pay more is unfair, not in the spirit of "simple fairness".

As a person in his thirties simple math tells me that I'll invest 350-400k in a Social Security system from which I will never reap a thing. Yeah, that's a good investment. And btw, your boy Obama's Social Security bail-out plan is projected to elongate the program by seven years. Whooppee. How is it not "simple fairness" to not want to contribute more to a system that I will ultimately draw less utility from than the rest of the populace?

Again, I can respect your disdain for Conservative politics, at least in a theoretical way, but when you apply it to circumstances in which you do not live in a country in which you do not live it becomes preachy.

[Feanor]

...
My point - in classical sense, modern liberal and conservative governments in the West are much, much closer in belief and behavior, at least economically, than the perpetuated myths they continue to feed the voting public. ...
...
You're absolutely right about that. :thumbsup:


...

"Isn't exactly clear what positive cashflows will frow from the Iraqi war". What positive cash flows flow from welfare, healthcare, supporting the disabled etc?
...
I'll bet the beneficiaries of these programs think their cashflows are improved. :22: Anyway, I'd argue that social programs and transfer payments out to paid from current funds, not from borrowing.


...

In many cases, it's economically more practical to cut bait. You can't think of these in isolation. Not all government investments, military or otherwise, are justified only by positive cashflow. Some are necessary, or just desirable for what ever reason. At any rate the lenders of the world see comparatively little risk in lending massive amounts of money to the USA.
...

The sub-prime lenders too saw little risk. They were wrong.

My school days were many years ago. Back then a distinction was made between a domestic borrowing, where interest payments and principal repaidments are made to residents, and foreign borrowing where payments are to foreigners. The former is a sort of zero-sum over time; the latter doesn't necesarily work out that way.

[Feanor]

And one more time...

I could just sit here and let Stat make this argument, and do so with unlimited success, but there are other perspectives. As someone who pays 20 to 25 times the national average in taxes explain to me please how not wanting to pay more is unfair, not in the spirit of "simple fairness".

As a person in his thirties simple math tells me that I'll invest 350-400k in a Social Security system from which I will never reap a thing. Yeah, that's a good investment. And btw, your boy Obama's Social Security bail-out plan is projected to elongate the program by seven years. Whooppee. How is it not "simple fairness" to not want to contribute more to a system that I will ultimately draw less utility from than the rest of the populace?

....

I respect that you, as individual, are likely to pay many time more into a programs than you are likely to collect. But there are a few of points to consider.

Consider the simplest point first. In my modest circumstance, I have paid unemployment insurance for over 40 years without collecting a cent, nor will I ever do so now. Yet I don't begrude this since the possibility long existed that I might benefit from UI if my circumstance changed only a little. That is, insurance is worth its cost.

The second point is what is it worth to you to live in a civil society? Do you want to spend all your money on fences for your gated community and bullet-proof cars, or would reducing poverty and improving opportunity for others actually be more cost effective?

Thirdly, you earn (let's say) several time the average income. Would you earn this living on a desert island? No: you earn it because you live in a sophisticated society. Perhaps you really do contribute in proportion to your income, yet without other people to work with, (help or exploit), you would live at a subsistance level. I think is "simple fairness" that you should be willing rebate some portion of your prosperity to others. You might not agree. (Aside: are you a member of the Christian Right?)

Perhaps there is even a fourth point. As a well-to-do individual, you might benefit less from "social programs" than the poor but much more from other government activities including, say, national defense. When you've got nothing, you've got nothing to loose. Got anything to loose?

It is quite clear to me that I a preaching to an unreceptive audience here, so this is my last comment on the subject. (Rich, consider it a win for your side.)

[Rich-n-Texas]

Again, I can respect your disdain for Conservative politics, at least in a theoretical way, but when you apply it to circumstances in which you do not live in a country in which you do not live it becomes preachy.
I am SOOOOOO glad someone finally sees what I saw a loooong time ago. (I apologize in advance sticks if it looks like I'm sucking you into my disagreements with Feanor... not my intention.) :thumbsup:

[Rich-n-Texas]

The sub-prime lenders too saw little risk. They were wrong.
Bill, now you've not only flip flopped on your sub-prime mess position, you're also coming across as a suck-up.

By the way Bill, I'm PROUD to be an American.

[Rich-n-Texas]

It is quite clear to me that I a preaching to an unreceptive audience here, so this is my last comment on the subject. (Rich, consider it a win for your side.)
So we're a bunch of dumbasses now are we Bill? Yes you are preaching, in the same vain as Jim Baker. Look where it got him?

[bobsticks]

I think is "simple fairness" that you should be willing rebate some portion of your prosperity to others. You might not agree. (Aside: are you a member of the Christian Right?)

Bill, this is a fairly charged issue so I'm gonna tone it down a bit. You've done a commendable job being civil and I respect that...and I can see where it would be difficult being a man on an island unto himself.

I agree with all four of your points to a greater or lesser degree, though I would point out the very different set of circumstances between our environments in relation to crime.

Yes, you have paid into unemployment insurance that you have never used. Commendable to be sure though, as you said, nice to know it was there just in case. I would also imagine that you have paid into a retirement fund, both private and public ( I'm unfamiliar with the Canadian Government's retirement scheme). I'm sure you're planning on using those funds at some point or another. Now what if they weren't available to you?

My point is a simple one. Look at what you wrote:

I think is "simple fairness" that you should be willing rebate some portion of your prosperity to others.

I don't have a problem paying "some" portion of my prosperity for the public good. I have a problem with paying any more of my hard-earned into a system that simply will not exist to take care of me in my elder years. I'm not talking about jet flying and limousine ridin' here Mistah Bailey, I'm raising the issue of the need for me to save prodigiously for my own retirement fund because a lot of folks are gonna be eatin' kibbles and it ain't gonna be me.

I find it interesting---and this isn't a cheap shot, I'm genuinely curious---as to how in one thread you can claim that equality has nothing to do with money and materialism but when it comes to taxation the equality of opportunity for the younger generations should be subservient to demands to turn over as much income as possible to a system that doen't serve their longterm interests. I find the two positions hard to reconcile.

[bobsticks]

..and as to the aside, "No", I am not part of the Christian Right. I don't think the governement, any government, has any right to insert itself into peoples' minds, souls, bedrooms, or music collections.

[nightflier]

Interesting thread. Getting back to the original topic of the bail out: if the Chinese really did pressure the US government to bail out Freddy and Sally, then isn't that just transferring their own risk (presuming they have large investments in Freddy & Sally) to the US government? They're just smart debt-holders, then, and certainly not bloodthirsty commies at the gates.

In regard to the discussion about politics, I haven't really been too impressed with either the RNC or the DNC (same drivel as previous elections for the most part). But I do have some serious reservations about our current elected officials that will likely sway my vote this time around:

- I am offended by our current VP. He regularly curses out fellow lawmakers, he refuses to obey congressional summons, he outed Valery Plame's name, and he shot a guy in the face while inebriated. I don't think any of these faults are in question, so this makes him a fairly despicable character, never mind his financial ties to Haliburton. That somehow he is above the law and above criticism stinks balls, in my book.

- The current administration has grown the size of government beyond any size it's ever been, it has accumulated the largest debt of any government in history, it has allowed christian religious bias to cloud sound policy, it did not respond adequately to Katrina, it influences the news and media (the proverbial 4th branch of government), it laid down its guard on 9/11 thus causing far more harm than necessary, and it does not take care of the people who return home after fighting for it. Hardly a Republican record, in my book, and it stinks like a congressional filibuster's underpants after 36 hours of yammering about nonsense.

- I don't give a rat's a$$ if Palin is a woman. What pisses me off is that for all the hawing and hooting about Obama being experienced, they dig up the least experienced person they can find and prop her up to be a heartbeat from the presidency. And why is she not allowed to speak on the talkshows? Is it because anything she says will likely be embarrassing? Michelle Obama doesn't seem to have that problem. That stinks like a bad Alaskan oil spill.

- McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time. That's not being very maverick. Look, I have tremendous respect for what he had to endure in Vietnam, his ongoing fight with a deadly cancer, and his moderate positions in earlier years. But lately he's been right alongside Bush. The way he rolled over on the statute against torture and allowed the religious right to force him to select Palin, is not at all the McCain I knew 10 years ago. That kind of catering and pandering stinks like a marine latrine at 4pm in the hot sun.

Then there are the obvious observations from the RNC and DNC:

- During the DNC, the seats were packed, not so much at the RNC.
- The DNC's message was waayyyyy more positive than the RNC's.
- Nary a black or Asian face at the RNC - just a bunch of old white folks.
- Just about every speech at the RNC was about character, almost nothing about policy.
- 500+ protestors arrested at the RNC, less than 150 at the DNC.

So I think it's high time for some justice and some change. Between McCain and Obama, it's just not even a fair fight. Obama, regardless of the faults of his party, has far more to offer than McCain. It's just that simple: more intelligent discourse, more inclusion, more respect from the rest of the world, more thoroughly researched proposals, and above all a more positive and believable message. Over 60% of the military is voting for him, that should be a clue. And even after the RNC, at the height of misguided Republican euphoria, the Democrats are still ahead in most polls.

One more thing about those polls: most of them are done by phone: that implies a landline and excludes much of the voting public, particularly the young people that are likely to vote for Obama. Speaking of young people: if they are likely to vote for Obama (apparently by a 4-1 margin), then what does that tell you about the future? And yes, I probably also belong to the upper 10% of American income earners, so I am sensitive to tax policy, but I also have faith that Obama's proposed plan will better address the very real economic issues that we face like the problem Feanor brought up of our shrinking middle class, that also pays a large portion of the tax burden, serves in our military, and votes. If I have to pay a little bit more in taxes for the betterment of our country, I can do that, and so can the rest of the upper 10%. By the way, if anyone is paying 70% of their income in taxes, then they need a better tax adviser (that is, if you live in the US - I know nothing about Canada's tax system).

P.S. #1 - Rich, your comment about Palin being a woman and then dismissing Hillary because of her record, smells pretty bad too. Why not talk about Palin's political record, and praise Hillary for being a woman candidate? Look I don't like the Clintons very much either, but I think Feanor had you dead rights about the double standard.

P.S. #2, the largest investors in the US are the British, the Dutch, the Canadians, in that order. I believe the Chinese are somewhere around 12 or 13 and the Kuwaitis are the largest Middle Eastern investors. I did some poking around the net and this is what I found:

- The UK: $252B
- Japan: $177B
- Panama: $11B
- Mexico $7.9B
- Venezuela: $5.5B
- China: $5B (est.)
- Israel: $4.1B
- Taiwan: $3.2B
- Hong Kong: $1.8B
- Kuwait $1.2B
- Brazil: $1.3B

So those big bad Chinese Commies invest even less than a country that is quickly entering the Axis-of-Evil fraternity, apparently. Even combined with Hong Kong and Taiwan, it still does not even equal Panama's investment. I think we should be more worried about the Queen of England coming back to claim her pound of flesh before we worry about those pesky Chinese. Hey, those friggin Brits tried it in 1812 after kicking Napoleon's empire in the teeth, so who's to say they won't be back in 2012? I don't think they've quite gotten over the loss of their Sun-Never-Sets overlordship and they're bound to be just a tad peeved about our cozy chumming up to the snooty French over the years. So let's point some nukes towards London, just to be safe, OK?

In any case, this also calls into question whether the Chinese actually did put pressure on the US congress to bail out Freddy and Sally. Unless the Chinese were foolish enough to invest all their whopping $5B in our mortgage quagmire (not likely), I think it was probably Gordon Brown who was on the proverbial phone to our lawmakers Sunday night, no?

[Feanor]

...

I find it interesting---and this isn't a cheap shot, I'm genuinely curious---as to how in one thread you can claim that equality has nothing to do with money and materialism but when it comes to taxation the equality of opportunity for the younger generations should be subservient to demands to turn over as much income as possible to a system that doen't serve their longterm interests. I find the two positions hard to reconcile.

I guarantee everybody that this is absoluely my last contribution to this thread.

I don't recall saying that equality had "nothing to do with money". I seem to recall that I said that exact financial equality wasn't necessary for the three equalities I enumerated: Opportunity, Protection, and Civic Responsibility.

After that, Sticks, you lost me completely. I certainly said nothing about the young "turning over as much money as possible"; much less did I say that they should do so to "a system that doesn't serve their longterm interests". It seems my eloquence has failed me again. What I indended to make clear was that it is in the self-interest of the wealthy to adequately support a society that has rewarded them so well (in order that it might continue to do so).

[thekid]

Why do so many people here have McCain dead before he's even elected? Why are people not jumping for joy that the possibilty of there being a female in the second highest office in the land exists? What are Presidential Advisors used for?

Rich
I am not saying McCain is dead-my point was that he is living off of a reputation garnered during the 2000 that his actions leading up to the 08 presidential campaign run don't support. That is why it is easy for Obama to attack him because McCain has voted with the Bush administration/GOP leadership so consistently. As to your other comment about a women VP candidate- alot of people would be exicited about the prospect of a female VP if it was a qualified women. The GOP must have a really shallow bench if Palin represents the best women candidate they have-I said it before and I will say it again if the Dems put a candidate up with Palin's political resume the GOP would be jumping for joy but not because she is a women but because they'd Swiftboat her so fast the lipstick would'nt have time to dry on the hockey playing pit bull....... :D


Getting back to the original topic of the bail out: if the Chinese really did pressure the US government to bail out Freddy and Sally, then isn't that just transferring their own risk (presuming they have large investments in Freddy & Sally) to the US government? They're just smart debt-holders, then, and certainly not bloodthirsty commies at the gates.

Night- It is not about the Chinese being communists it is about a foreign country using our debt to influence policy decisions. China opposes us quite often in the UN Security Council and other areas of foreign policy. If they saw that they were able to use their investor position to influence our domestic policy you can be d#@% sure they will use it to influence our foreign policy. IMO the arguement that they are acting in the own self-interest as an investor similar to Warren Buffet etal is naive. They have created a new type of financial MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) sure they would lose alot of $ if they started dumping our debt paper but in doing so they would destroy the US economy.

[E-Stat]

At least you're forthright: you simply don't want to pay more taxes and, yes, I'll concede you'll likely do better with Republicans than Democrats in that regard.
When you pander to those who pay little, there is only one successful mantra.


In my case my non-working wife and I are a long way from the top 10% in our country: perhaps that gives me a different perspective.
BTW, the top 10% (by numbers of taxpayers, not the amount earned) reaches pretty far down to folks who are not really *rich* in the sense of driving Rollers and having the vacation home at the beach or mountain.


Beyond that is the issue of the consequences of ever growing income disparity on society and the economy: growing disparity presages the decline of both.
That reminds me of the *wisdom* of the tax policy years ago that levied heavy taxes on "luxury items" like uber expensive cars, jets, and yachts. Soak the rich - they can afford it, right? If you recall the outcome was the wealthy simply purchased used - or stopped buying. Result? Lots of blue collar workers who made those goods were put out of jobs!



The impoverishment of the working classes presages the decline of the wealthier middle class.
When I was growing up in the 60s, Dad drove our one "loaded" car - which meant power steering and brakes, automatic, radio (AM only), air conditioning, wheel covers, and a V-8 engine. Only Cadillacs had electric windows and locks along with doodads like auto-on lights, AM/FM radios and power antennas. We had one 19" Zenith black and white TV on a rolling stand. Today, the "impoverished" drive better equipped vehicles and have multiple color TVs. The point of reference has drastically changed.



What can the latter do by way of enlightened self-interest in this regard?
Convince them that education works and that they need to teach their kids to seek and actively pursue a career - not just find or expect to get a "job".

rw

[kexodusc]

I'll bet the beneficiaries of these programs think their cashflows are improved. :22: Anyway, I'd argue that social programs and transfer payments out to paid from current funds, not from borrowing.

Semantics. If expenditures exceed revenue, borrowed funds are financing everything partially - how you rationalize what was paid for with cash in hand is just optics - I suspect the Republicans spin it one way, the Democrats the other. The bottom line is you didn't have enough money to pay for it all. Also note,both the US and Canada both have borrowed money in years where there were budget surpluses. In many conditions it remains a cheaper form of capital than raising taxes.



The sub-prime lenders too saw little risk. They were wrong.
Yes, but you'll find very few nations with credit analysis as loose as sub-prime lenders. In fact, you won't find many other nations with credit analysis as shoddy as that in the US mortgage business of recent history - that's the exception not the rule. I will wager, 30 years from now the USA will still be one helluva huge economic generating machine, capable of paying its debts back, particularly at the ultra-low finance rates nations are awarded.

Back then a distinction was made between a domestic borrowing, where interest payments and principal repaidments are made to residents, and foreign borrowing where payments are to foreigners. The former is a sort of zero-sum over time; the latter doesn't necesarily work out that way.
Not exactly, the sum of all international borrowing would be zero over time as well. You'd be amazed how much foreign influence the financial institutions in North America are subject too, directly (debt and ownership) and indirectly through other financial arrangements. I doubt domestic residential lending stays even 75% inside domestic borders these days.
The (USA) used to be a huge lender, now we're a net borrower. But that's ok if its managed well (its not).

[Feanor]

...
Not exactly, the sum of all international borrowing would be zero over time as well. You'd be amazed how much foreign influence the financial institutions in North America are subject too, directly (debt and ownership) and indirectly through other financial arrangements. I doubt domestic residential lending stays even 75% inside domestic borders these days.
The (USA) used to be a huge lender, now we're a net borrower. But that's ok if its managed well (its not).

In currency terms international borrowing is zero-sum over too. However the problem is that a nation's currency can drastically decline in terms of purchasing power as reflected in exchange rates. This was observable in the case of Canada's currency and today in the case of the U.S. currency.

[kexodusc]

In currency terms international borrowing is zero-sum over too. However the problem is that a nation's currency can drastically decline in terms of purchasing power as reflected in exchange rates. This was observable in the case of Canada's currency and today in the case of the U.S. currency.
You're absolutley correct, but that's all factored into the decision.

Currency hedging where necessary is done quite easily, accurately, and cheaply these days. To the extent currency risk hurts the lender or borrower, it's really their own fault.

Interest rates, currency exchange, and debt are all intimately related too - it's difficult to screw over your lender without simultaneously hurting yourself as well. (though I suspect not impossible).

[3-LockBox]

Yet another politically charged thread where the issues are reduced to Dems-v-GOP...pssst...they ain't the only choices.

And please don't let Feanor turn this into a Canada-v-USA thing, as he is in the minority - the vast number of Canadians I see driving an hour (or three) south with empty suitcases and driving back home with new clothes in those suit cases tells me that a lot of Canadians are tired of being overtaxed. Auto shops just south of the border are also booked solid by mostly Canadian customers. Same with dentists and doctors - a lot of Canadians who can afford to do so, choose to spend their money on American dentists and doctors, and they have national healthcare - why? When they can avoid paying taxes, Canadians are no different than Americans in their motives.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Interesting thread. Getting back to the original topic of the bail out: if the Chinese really did pressure the US government to bail out Freddy and Sally, then isn't that just transferring their own risk (presuming they have large investments in Freddy & Sally) to the US government? They're just smart debt-holders, then, and certainly not bloodthirsty commies at the gates.

In regard to the discussion about politics, I haven't really been too impressed with either the RNC or the DNC (same drivel as previous elections for the most part). But I do have some serious reservations about our current elected officials that will likely sway my vote this time around:

- I am offended by our current VP. He regularly curses out fellow lawmakers, he refuses to obey congressional summons, he outed Valery Plame's name, and he shot a guy in the face while inebriated. I don't think any of these faults are in question, so this makes him a fairly despicable character, never mind his financial ties to Haliburton. That somehow he is above the law and above criticism stinks balls, in my book.

- The current administration has grown the size of government beyond any size it's ever been, it has accumulated the largest debt of any government in history, it has allowed christian religious bias to cloud sound policy, it did not respond adequately to Katrina, it influences the news and media (the proverbial 4th branch of government), it laid down its guard on 9/11 thus causing far more harm than necessary, and it does not take care of the people who return home after fighting for it. Hardly a Republican record, in my book, and it stinks like a congressional filibuster's underpants after 36 hours of yammering about nonsense.

- I don't give a rat's a$$ if Palin is a woman. What pisses me off is that for all the hawing and hooting about Obama being experienced, they dig up the least experienced person they can find and prop her up to be a heartbeat from the presidency. And why is she not allowed to speak on the talkshows? Is it because anything she says will likely be embarrassing? Michelle Obama doesn't seem to have that problem. That stinks like a bad Alaskan oil spill.

- McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time. That's not being very maverick. Look, I have tremendous respect for what he had to endure in Vietnam, his ongoing fight with a deadly cancer, and his moderate positions in earlier years. But lately he's been right alongside Bush. The way he rolled over on the statute against torture and allowed the religious right to force him to select Palin, is not at all the McCain I knew 10 years ago. That kind of catering and pandering stinks like a marine latrine at 4pm in the hot sun.

Then there are the obvious observations from the RNC and DNC:

- During the DNC, the seats were packed, not so much at the RNC.
- The DNC's message was waayyyyy more positive than the RNC's.
- Nary a black or Asian face at the RNC - just a bunch of old white folks.
- Just about every speech at the RNC was about character, almost nothing about policy.
- 500+ protestors arrested at the RNC, less than 150 at the DNC.

So I think it's high time for some justice and some change. Between McCain and Obama, it's just not even a fair fight. Obama, regardless of the faults of his party, has far more to offer than McCain. It's just that simple: more intelligent discourse, more inclusion, more respect from the rest of the world, more thoroughly researched proposals, and above all a more positive and believable message. Over 60% of the military is voting for him, that should be a clue. And even after the RNC, at the height of misguided Republican euphoria, the Democrats are still ahead in most polls.

One more thing about those polls: most of them are done by phone: that implies a landline and excludes much of the voting public, particularly the young people that are likely to vote for Obama. Speaking of young people: if they are likely to vote for Obama (apparently by a 4-1 margin), then what does that tell you about the future? And yes, I probably also belong to the upper 10% of American income earners, so I am sensitive to tax policy, but I also have faith that Obama's proposed plan will better address the very real economic issues that we face like the problem Feanor brought up of our shrinking middle class, that also pays a large portion of the tax burden, serves in our military, and votes. If I have to pay a little bit more in taxes for the betterment of our country, I can do that, and so can the rest of the upper 10%. By the way, if anyone is paying 70% of their income in taxes, then they need a better tax adviser (that is, if you live in the US - I know nothing about Canada's tax system).

P.S. #1 - Rich, your comment about Palin being a woman and then dismissing Hillary because of her record, smells pretty bad too. Why not talk about Palin's political record, and praise Hillary for being a woman candidate? Look I don't like the Clintons very much either, but I think Feanor had you dead rights about the double standard.

P.S. #2, the largest investors in the US are the British, the Dutch, the Canadians, in that order. I believe the Chinese are somewhere around 12 or 13 and the Kuwaitis are the largest Middle Eastern investors. I did some poking around the net and this is what I found:

- The UK: $252B
- Japan: $177B
- Panama: $11B
- Mexico $7.9B
- Venezuela: $5.5B
- China: $5B (est.)
- Israel: $4.1B
- Taiwan: $3.2B
- Hong Kong: $1.8B
- Kuwait $1.2B
- Brazil: $1.3B

So those big bad Chinese Commies invest even less than a country that is quickly entering the Axis-of-Evil fraternity, apparently. Even combined with Hong Kong and Taiwan, it still does not even equal Panama's investment. I think we should be more worried about the Queen of England coming back to claim her pound of flesh before we worry about those pesky Chinese. Hey, those friggin Brits tried it in 1812 after kicking Napoleon's empire in the teeth, so who's to say they won't be back in 2012? I don't think they've quite gotten over the loss of their Sun-Never-Sets overlordship and they're bound to be just a tad peeved about our cozy chumming up to the snooty French over the years. So let's point some nukes towards London, just to be safe, OK?

In any case, this also calls into question whether the Chinese actually did put pressure on the US congress to bail out Freddy and Sally. Unless the Chinese were foolish enough to invest all their whopping $5B in our mortgage quagmire (not likely), I think it was probably Gordon Brown who was on the proverbial phone to our lawmakers Sunday night, no?
Thank you nightflier for illustrating to me which side of the aisle you throw your hat. That's about all I got out of this. And like I said before, no one's mind will be changed so effectively, you wasted your time.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Rich
I am not saying McCain is dead-my point was that he is living off of a reputation garnered during the 2000 that his actions leading up to the 08 presidential campaign run don't support. That is why it is easy for Obama to attack him because McCain has voted with the Bush administration/GOP leadership so consistently. As to your other comment about a women VP candidate- alot of people would be exicited about the prospect of a female VP if it was a qualified women. The GOP must have a really shallow bench if Palin represents the best women candidate they have-I said it before and I will say it again if the Dems put a candidate up with Palin's political resume the GOP would be jumping for joy but not because she is a women but because they'd Swiftboat her so fast the lipstick would'nt have time to dry on the hockey playing pit bull....... :D
Kudos to you thekid for keeping a level head and working with me despite my emotions. Nevertheless, you're still only showing me your liberal views. Let's not forget that Obama is a junior senator with 2 years experience as a Legislator.

[kexodusc]

Yet another politically charged thread where the issues are reduced to Dems-v-GOP...pssst...they ain't the only choices.

And please don't let Feanor turn this into a Canada-v-USA thing, as he is in the minority - the vast number of Canadians I see driving an hour (or three) south with empty suitcases and driving back home with new clothes in those suit cases tells me that a lot of Canadians are tired of being overtaxed. Auto shops just south of the border are also booked solid by mostly Canadian customers. Same with dentists and doctors - a lot of Canadians who can afford to do so, choose to spend their money on American dentists and doctors, and they have national healthcare - why? When they can avoid paying taxes, Canadians are no different than Americans in their motives.

Interesting. I pay less in total taxes in my part of Canada than I did in either Maine or Georgia. The "progressive" tax system here certainly isn't crippling, and is similar in magnitude. Most Canadians, just don't get it, they're not taxed much higher anymore, if at all. Just differently...I can't speak for the 1980's ro 90's. But the visible sales taxes certainly create that perception.

And yep, I hate paying taxes just as much as when I lived in the US. :)


Dentists aren't covered under healthcare. That's a new one for me. If Canadians didn't have an employee sponsored dental plan, maybe they can get a better price down south? I know dentist like to gouge the dental plans on either side of the border so prices are astronomical.

Most Canadians that do go to the US for healthcare do so to escape wait times. Health care isn't perfect here either. Nor is it nationalized. All citizens do have insurance and access though - it's fair, and mostly adequate, but in many circumstances for highly specialized, non-essential procedures, or bleeding edge experimental treatments, wait lists can be long - problem is, if you need a hip replacement - waiting 6 months sucks, and the patient might argue it is essential. I guess a wait time is no worse than waiting to save up enough money to pay though?

I do know drugs, prescription and non, and medical equipment (all not subsidized by government), are far, far cheaper in Canada. I think that's something that needs to be looked into. Or buy pharma-stocks and get your money back via dividends?

I suspect the cross border shopping trend of Canadians heading south has more to do with lower product costs and more favorable currency exchange than tax. The auto example is a good one - currency and taxes factored in, many models are considerably less expensive in the US. That's changing, but slowly. Price gouging I guess. A few years back it was the other way around - the northern states were raiding Canadian lots.

Somethings, clothing, cars, are just considerably cheaper back in the US - for many goods, distribution costs are lower and competition is more plentiful. Other things - food, computers, home hardware, seem cheaper in Canada, taxes inc. End of the day, it's all pretty similar.

Feanor, I suspect, only wants to pay his fair share of taxes - to support the government services he approves of. We may have different opinions on priorities from Feanor's, but yeah, fundamentaly that's not any different on either side of the border from what I can tell.

[Feanor]

...

Most Canadians that do go to the US for healthcare do so to escape wait times. Health care isn't perfect here either. Nor is it nationalized. All citizens do have insurance and access though - it's fair, and mostly adequate, but in many circumstances for highly specialized, non-essential procedures, or bleeding edge experimental treatments, wait lists can be long - problem is, if you need a hip replacement - waiting 6 months sucks, and the patient might argue it is essential. I guess a wait time is no worse than waiting to save up enough money to pay though?

I do know drugs, prescription and non, and medical equipment (all not subsidized by government), are far, far cheaper in Canada. I think that's something that needs to be looked into. Or buy pharma-stocks and get your money back via dividends?

...

Kex, I think your brief description of the health care situation here is Canada is fair and accurate. In the US people are peddled a lot of gross exageration, distortion, and out-right lies about the Canadian system.

Yep, I too agree that tax money is wasted. Everbody agrees that tax money is wasted; they just don't agree about where it's wasted.

[Rich-n-Texas]

No results found for Beddled
Your tone has certainly become conciliatory of late Feanor. Why would that be?

[Auricauricle]

Did I say, "Nuke 'em all!" yet?

[nightflier]

Thank you nightflier for illustrating to me which side of the aisle you throw your hat. That's about all I got out of this. And like I said before, no one's mind will be changed so effectively, you wasted your time.

I think you got me wrong. I'm independent, have always been, so that I'm not tied to either primary (a huge fallacy of the American electoral system, if you ask me). All I'm saying is that the Republican party of the past is not the Republican party I know now. The obsession with religiosity, the hypocrisy about taxes, the conduct of the war, the corruption and collusion with multinational corporations while leaving small business-owners in the dust, and the absolutely immoral politicians that this party has propped up in front of the American public, make the option of voting Republican absolutely anathema to common sense.

Yes, there's plenty of blame to be levied on Democratic politicians too, but c'mon, you're not going to tell me that there's some parity there, are you? The torture of prisoners, the lying to the public about WMDs, the complete debacle that followed Katrina, and the spying on you & me, are not exactly comparable to a spot on a dress and few stinky cigars, are they? Damn straight, I want the SOB impeached, and I am disgusted that Pelosi and her ilk aren't doing it, so I'm certainly not about to sit myself down on that "side of the isle," as you put it.

Answer me this one question: why did McCain vote with Bush over 90% of the time?

Look, I'd vote Republican if it made sense. But it just doesn't and I don't think anyone who cares about where this country is headed should either. Most people who are supporting McCain are doing so because of just one issue (abortion, guns, death penalty, whatever). The simple response to that is: look where that kind of voting decision has put us today. We're friggin screwed, by and large because of a small fanatical and elitist segment of the Republican party (definitely not representative of the whole party). Electing McCain would just compound the political-economic problems and perpetuate the human misery.

And that's why Republicans are voting for Obama in droves: just look at the registration figures of Republicans for Obama compared to the Democrats for McCain. They outnumber them 6-1. We'll see what Palin has to say tonight, but given that her staff was handed all the questions a week ago, I'm certainly not holding my breath and it's bound to be considerably toned down from the attack-dog nonsense she would blurt out in a live, unrehearsed setting. Maybe the debate with Biden will shed some light on her lack of experience, I don't know. But as it stands right now, I'm pretty confident about my vote this fall.

If you don't agree, then give me a reason to vote Republican. I'm open to a good discussion and I'd certainly like to hear something that would actually challenge the Democrats, but so far I haven't heard it. From all the indicators, this one's a slam dunk for Obama, anyhow. Maybe it ought to be closer, but damn, why don't the Republicans talk about the issues - I almost feel like they've given up.

And yes, I sincerely do hope you find your way out of the darkness and into the light. You'll be surprised how many Republicans you meet.

[bobsticks]

If you don't agree, then give me a reason to vote Republican. I'm open to a good discussion and I'd certainly like to hear something that would actually challenge the Democrats, but so far I haven't heard it.

My usual levity and sarcasm aside, one thing I'm very concerned with is hearing the Dems comprehensive plan for the agri-business community. Traditionally they've had a very poor record on subsidizing farmers, preferring to fund a variety of hippie-dippie social programs whose efficacy is dubious.

There can be no doubt that food acounts for a higher percentage of individual income than is generally recognized. In an unsure climate in which gas prices effect commercial shippping as much as private citizen's gas tanks I think we need to be aware of what even a percent increase in the cost of food would do to the economy. The ripple effect to secondary and terciary industries that rely on disposable income would be immense, especially if taxes are about to be raised again to pay for drool cups and nurses' aides for the "Greatest Generation".

[thekid]

Kudos to you thekid for keeping a level head and working with me despite my emotions. Nevertheless, you're still only showing me your liberal views. Let's not forget that Obama is a junior senator with 2 years experience as a Legislator.

Well I do consider myself an independent (first vote for President was John Anderson...) but it all likely hood would have voted for McCain in 2000. Obama's lack of experience is troubling and I would have like to have seen a more experienced candidate.
I have said it before in other threads the course of this country has lead me to believe we have about 2 generations or less to resolve some very real problems and we need a real leader to step up and govern or we will joining history's long list of failed world powers. The only upside I see to Obama is that he seems to be getting people involved in the political process in numbers we have not seen in sometime. I think that can only be a good thing because the more people are involved then the better chance a problem can be solved. If you think back to 2000 there was to some extent the same excitement about McCain but after being crushed by the far-right wing he went back and for the most part fell back in line so that he could eventually be his parties nominee.

My observations are not one of a liberal or conservative view but my perspective of what happened. I am trying to come at this w/o the type of emotions and knee-jerk company logic that is being tossed about on both sides of the arguement.

[nightflier]

My usual levity and sarcasm aside, one thing I'm very concerned with is hearing the Dems comprehensive plan for the agri-business community. Traditionally they've had a very poor record on subsidizing farmers, preferring to fund a variety of hippie-dippie social programs whose efficacy is dubious.

There can be no doubt that food acounts for a higher percentage of individual income than is generally recognized. In an unsure climate in which gas prices effect commercial shippping as much as private citizen's gas tanks I think we need to be aware of what even a percent increase in the cost of food would do to the economy. The ripple effect to secondary and terciary industries that rely on disposable income would be immense, especially if taxes are about to be raised again to pay for drool cups and nurses' aides for the "Greatest Generation".

Good point, but do the Republicans have a better plan in their back pocket? If so, I haven't seen it. More to the point, their other positions on war, oil, taxes, etc., are more likely to exacerbate this issue - actually, my guess is that's what's been happening for the past 8 years.

[bobsticks]

- I am offended by our current VP. He regularly curses out fellow lawmakers, he refuses to obey congressional summons, he outed Valery Plame's name, and he shot a guy in the face while inebriated. I don't think any of these faults are in question, so this makes him a fairly despicable character, never mind his financial ties to Haliburton. That somehow he is above the law and above criticism stinks balls, in my book.

Dude, that's wht I love Cheney. What a freakin' rawkstar. Ol' boy's got 'bout twenty seven ballons in his in chest and is livin' life to the fullest. Can you imagine how tight a reign Dana Perino has to keep on the press when Cheney even gets near a podium.

Perino~"We're going to confine the questions today to the 9/11 Rememberance held in the Rose Garden."

Cheney~ "aaaahhh...Good aftahnoon fellow citizens"

Brit Hume~"Mr. Vice-President, do you have any commment on what was obviously a touching ceremony held in the Rose Garden today in commemorance of such a tragic event in American History...and as a follow up, was this foliage similar to the groundcover in place when you shot your friend in the face?"

Cheney~"AAAAHHH...oh...AAhhhhhh(grasps chest)MY...snort/pop...CHEST....HEAAAAARRRRTTTT....AHHHHHHH!!!"

Perino~"Mr. Cheney is done answering questions now..."




... Is it because anything she says will likely be embarrassing? Michelle Obama doesn't seem to have that problem. That stinks like a bad Alaskan oil spill.

Well, that's not totally true.

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country,” she told a Milwaukee crowd today, “and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

What a bag of douche. F*** her for every veteran. F*** her for every Big Brother/Big Sister. F*** her for every Police Officer and Fireman that died bravely in the tragedy.F*** her for every Policeman and Fireman that puts their life on the line everyday. F*** her for every Habitat For Humanity volunteer. F*** her for every Foreign Missionary helping the poor and downtrodden in countries that do nothing but complain. F*** her for every PeaceKeeper in wartorn lands. F*** her for every Work Force Volunteer. F*** her for everyone that works in soupkitchens and shelters. F*** her for every Drug Rehabilitation Counselor.

Ol' girl is tryin' to play up the populist, "I'm part of the downtrodden-you" card. She graduated from Princeton and her husband graduated from Harvard for God's sake. A whole lot of people of all different races and religions moved mountains over a very few generations to move this country closer to equality. Not so long ago this campaign scenario isn't even a glimmer in a hopeful eye...and you're just now finding something about which to be proud!?

This country does alot of things wrong, but there's an amazing amount of things done right by an unrecognized army of folks merely looking to make the country and the world a better place.

-
McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time. That's not being very maverick. Look, I have tremendous respect for what he had to endure in Vietnam, his ongoing fight with a deadly cancer, and his moderate positions in earlier years. But lately he's been right alongside Bush. The way he rolled over on the statute against torture and allowed the religious right to force him to select Palin, is not at all the McCain I knew 10 years ago. That kind of catering and pandering stinks like a marine latrine at 4pm in the hot sun.

What a toad...and obviously the RNC is drinkin' outta the DNC's stupid jar-o. My sincere hope is that McCain wins it and slips into a coma the next day. I like Palin because she's done real things in a real life. I love the fact that she's not a Washington insider. Frankly, I'd just as soon have the first two random names drawn out of the Honalulu phonebook serve as any of these hacks.




Over 60% of the military is voting for him, that should be a clue. And even after the RNC, at the height of misguided Republican euphoria, the Democrats are still ahead in most polls.

Remember the good old days when war was good for the economy?


I probably also belong to the upper 10% of American income earners, so I am sensitive to tax policy, but I also have faith that Obama's proposed plan will better address the very real economic issues that we face like the problem Feanor brought up of our shrinking middle class, that also pays a large portion of the tax burden, serves in our military, and votes. If I have to pay a little bit more in taxes for the betterment of our country, I can do that, and so can the rest of the upper 10%.

Google "Social Security + Obama + Taxes" and look for the article from the CATO Institute. Unless your sixty right now don't plan on seeing the fruits of that "investment". Further, I fail to see how higher tax rates will stem the mass exodus of the means of production from these shores. Additional redistribution of the wealth is a false panacea simply masking the symptoms created by the lack of incentive given to American businesses to stay on American soil.



By the way, if anyone is paying 70% of their income in taxes, then they need a better tax adviser (that is, if you live in the US - I know nothing about Canada's tax system).

He was suggesting that the top 10% of the total number of tax payers pay 70% of the total taxes, not that they pay a 70% rate. Jees, if I paid 70% I'd pack up and head south and do something profitable...like being a bodyguard for Pablo Escobar's cousin. His name is Alejandro Escobar. I admitted to knowing him in another thread. He sends me Christmas cards.

Aim a few at England? Can't we just lauch a few at France? I always feel better when someone's attacking the French.


---sticks

[thekid]

Can't we just lauch a few at France? I always feel better when someone's attacking the French.

Do you actually have to attack the French????
I thought you just had to make reservations......... :D

[bobsticks]

.

Do you actually have to attack the French????
I thought you just had to make reservations......... :D

Well, yeah, they'll usually just surrender if you make reservations...and that's no fun.

[3-LockBox]

We're all foolin ourselves if we still think the White House runs this country.

[E-Stat]

He was suggesting that the top 10% of the total number of tax payers pay 70% of the total taxes, not that they pay a 70% rate.
Thank you. I really thought my statement was clear: Top 10% of filers contribute something over 70% of the tax revenue. Narrow the scope and the top 4% of filers (taxable income over $200k) pay slightly over 50%. The stats are available here (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html) on spreadsheets at irs.gov.

Having said that, if we become an Obamanation, he pledges to reinstate the upper bracket of 39.6%. Adding the FICA/Medicare rate of 7.62% times two (employer pays half of that), then we're at 55%. Add state and local income taxes, property taxes, ad valorem taxes and finally sales tax, then we're at 70% for those folks!

rw

[thekid]

We interupt this debate with a little musical interlude.....

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound

Please resume your politics......... :D

[Rich-n-Texas]

I think you got me wrong. I'm independent, have always been, so that I'm not tied to either primary (a huge fallacy of the American electoral system, if you ask me). All I'm saying is that the Republican party of the past is not the Republican party I know now. The obsession with religiosity, the hypocrisy about taxes, the conduct of the war, the corruption and collusion with multinational corporations while leaving small business-owners in the dust, and the absolutely immoral politicians that this party has propped up in front of the American public, make the option of voting Republican absolutely anathema to common sense.
You're right, I did get you wrong. Looks like I got thekid wrong too, but statements like this:

- The current administration has grown the size of government beyond any size it's ever been, it has accumulated the largest debt of any government in history, it has allowed christian religious bias to cloud sound policy, it did not respond adequately to Katrina, it influences the news and media (the proverbial 4th branch of government), it laid down its guard on 9/11 thus causing far more harm than necessary, and it does not take care of the people who return home after fighting for it. Hardly a Republican record, in my book, and it stinks like a congressional filibuster's underpants after 36 hours of yammering about nonsense.
and this:

- McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time. That's not being very maverick. Look, I have tremendous respect for what he had to endure in Vietnam, his ongoing fight with a deadly cancer, and his moderate positions in earlier years. But lately he's been right alongside Bush. The way he rolled over on the statute against torture and allowed the religious right to force him to select Palin, is not at all the McCain I knew 10 years ago. That kind of catering and pandering stinks like a marine latrine at 4pm in the hot sun.
...just sound too much like the same old Republican bashing I read every time Feanor (an outsider) seems to feel the need to change ANY conversation that even slightly touches on US social issues into something I guess he thinks will make him look good. I'm simply tired of it. For a while I thought he was just antagonizing until he started with the personal insults hurled in my direction.

Did anybody notice when I said this in the "DNC versus RNC" thread started by Ajani:

Had Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz not ruined the political careers of Colin Powell and Condaleza Rice, who knows... maybe we'd have an African-American man AND woman running for the highest offices in the land.
Didn't think so. This should've been your clue that shows where I stand with the current administration. The Three Stooges mentioned above should be investigated then tried for what they did. They had an agenda dating back to 1991 when Sadaam tried to have the first GB assasinated. They got George junior into office with the help of Carl Rove and a few dangling chads just because he's the son of their president, so getting Chaney on-board was pretty much a given. Cheney then influenced or maybe even coerced junior into appointing Rumsfeld to the Secretary of Defense position, who then picked Wolfowitz as his deputy. So reconstruction of the old, vindictive trio was now complete.

Now, let's recall, with as much detail as I can remember, the chain of events that occured after 9/11. GW made the call to send troops into Afganistan to route the Taliban out of power because they WERE in cohoots with Bin-Laden and his terrorists (they were harboring terrorists) . This was a DEFENSIVE counter, which he had every right to make. You attack us, we'll attack you. 2300 people died in New York on Sept. 11. DOES EVERYBODY REMEMBER THAT??? I dare anyone, foreigners included, to put themselves in the Commander-In-Chief's position on that day. How would you have reacted? And now everybody who wasn't around, or chooses not to remember that day calls the Administration a bunch of war mongers because the powers that be do whatever they can to protect MY country, including pre-emptive strikes against known terrorists, and in Hussein's case, supporters of terrorists. This is a job requirement of a president of the US.

Next, because of Hussein's known track record of tyrany and human rights violations (he gassed his own citizens, remember?) with the power to disrupt the entire world structure, he had to go. Agree? There's no question about it in my mind. The problem that occured, which brings us to where we are currently with the situation in Iraq was the underestimation of the ensuing looting and kaos. This is where Rumsfeld failed. Not only that, but it was Rumsfeld who told George Tenet to lie about WMD's existance in Iraq because Rumsfeld wanted Hussein dead, whatever the cost. Colin Powell unknowingly reported these lies to the UN Security Council, the Security Counsil unanimously rubber-stamped the actions that ensued, and now here we are.

I loath Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and little twit Wolfenstine (who IIRC was indicted and/or convicted of fraud or some such thing after he left his position in the Cabinet) for what they did to Colin Powell, who I believe would have been a great leader of this country. He was a brilliant military general, so it would have been the next logical step for him in a country that affords great opportunities for those who work hard for their own success.

Answer me this one question: why did McCain vote with Bush over 90% of the time?
Because he's a Republican voting along party lines? I'm failing to see why an Independant would care about this.

I've run out of breath now, and I do have to work, so I'll leave the rest for another time. But just to repeat, I'm proud that I live in a country where I've gone from earning wages pushing shopping carts in a department store parking lot to enjoying a comfortable living by continuing in my career with the worlds third largest chip maker. Maybe, just maybe, that's the kind of life people in other, depressed and oppressed parts of the world should also be able to enjoy.

I now heed the floor to the next patriotic citizen of this democracy called The United States of America. :thumbsup:

[Auricauricle]

I don’t think that the discussion is helped by the usual partisan banter. While I will side with the Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld nexus, I will not engage in the Democrat-Republican dialog that amounts to oversimplified stews….

The conflict in Iraq and elsewhere were long in the making, IMMHO, and it took people like the above and starry-eyed neocon warriors to peddle it to an American public that was hungry for blood and a scapegoat. Hussein--a perfect personification of evil if there ever was one--was a perfect patsy and Iraq a deceptively fragile target. We failed to note that Iraq was (and is) a bee-hive of swarming alliances and misalliances of competing tribes and gangs. These factions (to be crude) were held by the weakest strands of cohesion and the fear of instant reprisal should they assert their agendas. When we went in, we adopted a doctrine of war devised by Rumsfeld and others who took the word of Chalibi and others who envisioned the Americans being greeted with waves of flowers and a grateful populace. When we failed to address an exit strategy and the following waves of insurgents, the snake pit revealed itself in all its horrific glory.

Personally, I don’t anticipate that Obama or McCain will contribute much to stabilizing the situation abroad or making that much of a dent in correcting the sins of Bush Inc. These problems are rooted deep and will take a serious routing of many rats and application of a serious dose of justice as the critters and their deeds are brought to light. I just don’t see that happening. I think we’re going to close our eyes and forget it as we did with the Iran-Contra fiasco and other addle-headed schemes that leave scores of dead and wounded in their wake and no one accountable for anything….

No matter who is installed two things are true: We need to restore America’s credibility—if we ever had it—and economic stability—if we ever had it—if we can ever hope to put the US back on track. Partisan trashing and the like are like the usual fare issued from DC: smoke and mirrors. We need to and will make hard decisions that will disrupt many lives and livelihoods to make these changes. Foreign policies of the past are in large part irrelevant now. In spite of what folks think, the bombing of the Trade Center was a momentous event. In terms of loss and suffering, the consequences are tragic. In terms of symbolic and ramiform implications, the TC disaster marked the US’s entry into the world stage not as a leading player, but another member of a cast that must work in concert if their work is going to amount to anything worth telling their grandchildren and great grandchildren about.

[nightflier]

Bobsticks, are you saying you want Palin as president just because she'll actually do something because she's a nit-wit? What if that's then end of the story? What if she pushes the button because she believes she'll be bringing Armageddon, but it turns out nothing happens? That's the end of life on earth, my friend. Nihilistic, may be too kind of an adjective.

Are you sure you're not Ted Nugent?

Tex, I hear what you're saying about Colin Powell. I also have tremendous respect for the man and the fact that they handed him a pink slip as soon as he spoke up about screwing his fellow soldiers in the quagmire that is Iraq - pisses me off. That said, I also respect him for not getting back into politics. My guess is that he feels betrayed by the Republican party, and that's where I'm coming from in my objections to the McCain/Palin ticket.

This is supposed to be the party that stands up for smaller government, no foreign entanglements, fiscal responsibility, respecting the advice of generals, support for small business owners (that includes me), separation of church and state, freedom of speech, and upstanding public service. What I've witnessed the last 8 years is diametrically opposed to every one of these principles. Just pause and think for a minute about what Bush 2.0 has botched up and what he's turned this once venerable party into. What's particularly galling is that he campaigned on these very principles and his willingness to reach across the isle, then he did none of that. Not only did he not work with the political structure that was in place, much less the Democrats, he kicked every single adviser he inherited from his father to the curb so that he could follow his own religiously-paranoid agenda. He dismissed everything that was good in the Republican party and used the power to his own advantage.

Now we have McCain who of late has exhibited the same political schizophrenia. I was disappointed in him when the whole Iseman affair popped up. But I dismissed it because I figured that was just all liberal media rhetoric. Right? Certainly this isn't the McCain we know and respect. Well, not so fast.

First of all there is his continual pandering to racist people and groups, never mind the reverends. I didn't like the fact that he keeps using the word "Gooks" to refer to Asians of all types. He's done this recently too. Let's remember that this word is like the "N" word to Asians. I also didn't like the way he dismissed the "tar baby" comment and I started to have real issues when he supported Bob Riley and George Wallace, Jr.'s campaigns. Then he appoints Terry Nelson to his ad campaign team (follow the links at: http://michigandemocrat.typepad.com/michigandemocratnet/2008/02/john-mccain-mak.html). If he's not a racist, then he's one dumb politician.

Then, having worked on Amnesty International's letter writing campaign for years (I had to give it up for my own sanity), the issue of torture is something I feel very strongly about. McCain was a poster boy for Amnesty for a long time but not anymore. Why? Because he flip-flopped on that very issue. Then there was his comment that the prisoners at Gitmo, even the kid who was brought there when he was 15, had no civil or human rights because they are "enemy combatants." WTF is that supposed to mean? Is he saying that there are people who don't have rights? Since when did he decided that our world is a two-class society? Of course, given his racist beliefs, maybe this is right up his alley. For someone who makes such a big deal about his experiences at the Hanoi Hilton, he sure doesn't seem to care about others who are now getting their fingernails pulled out, their teeth hammered out, their balls hooked up to car batteries, and have to endure Chinese water torture (what it was called before we started Waterboarding our prisoners).

The final straw for me came with Palin. This was his first presidential act, and he decided to bend over and let the extreme right shove Palin up his sphincter. Thank you sir, may the Republicans have another... Then at the RNC he says he's willing to reach across the isle, when just the night before she was blasting the Dems at every turn. Sorry, but I don't buy it. We saw that kind of two-faced lying with Bush 2.0 and the country is really reeling from it now.

Yes, there is always Bob Bar, Ron Paul, and I suppose I could vote for Mickey Mouse, too. Heck, why don't I write in Bobsticks, though I doubt he'd want the job, LOL. But let's be real, none of these candidates has a snowball's chance in hell. So then there's Obama.

Now I'm not saying that Obama has all the answers, but damn, he sure has better ones. Granted, there are problems with his tax plan, but at least he has one that isn't just a continuation of Bush's failed policies. And it's not just taxes, but he has the same well-though-out and researched proposals for all the other major issues from the war to domestic issues to the environment. Can I find holes in every one? Probably. But what's the alternative? The Republicans? They've got nothing but personal attacks and outdated rehash. I mean just look at the optimism and the respect for others that was displayed at the DNC - the RNC was a trip down misery lane in comparison.

And it's becoming pretty clear that the large number of undecided voters, from Independents to Greens to Republicans and all those who don't always vote their party lines agree with me on that, because I also don't see McCain/Palin getting elected - they are so far behind on electoral college votes, then it just ain't going to happen. Their campaign of negativity is only turning more and more people off. Did anyone catch Palin's interview last night? Friggin ridiculous - like a deer in the headlights. I didn't think there could be anybody more ambarassing than Bush 2.0, but I was wrong. Yeah, Iran isn't big enough of a fish, let's start a war with Russia instead when our military is already stretched to the limits in Iraq, Latin American, and Afghanistan. If anyone falls for that nonsense, or thinks that they should vote for her because she's pretty (OK, how desperate is that?), then they need to have their head examined. And I'm pretty sure all those Clinton voters she was supposed to bring over don't agree with her either.


Personally, I don’t anticipate that Obama or McCain will contribute much to stabilizing the situation abroad or making that much of a dent in correcting the sins of Bush Inc. These problems are rooted deep and will take a serious routing of many rats with serious justice applied as the critters and their deeds are brought to light. I just don’t see that happening.

Honestly, Auric, which candidate is more likely to improve our lot? I mean this should be a no-brainer. No, Obama isn't going to solve everything, but he sure as hell will do more than McCain. And if you don't trust the 350M American voters on seeing the forest for the trees, then see what the rest of the world thinks: http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/. 7 billion people can't all be wrong.

I believe that when Obama is elected, there will be rejoicing in the streets, partying like we haven't seen in our lifetime, and a surge of positivism, not just here in our country, but all over the world. Why? Because we will have averted disaster. It may not be to every one's liking, but consider that this surge alone could change global economies, end wars, and do more for everyone than any well thought-out theory ever could. Your pocket books will thank you (even if you are in that top percent and have to pay a bit more in taxes - these will be taxes on increased earnings - and this is new money you can then spend on new audio equipment, cars, BRs, or buying the wife those new earrings, whatever...).

[Auricauricle]

I am concerned that bringing in Obama will be amount to a short lived party and a knee-jerk responses to the previous administration. Such reparations tend to be distracting and then it's back to business as usual after the dust--and confetti--settles.

Again, I don't wanna play the partisan card, here. Mebbe it's from watching too many X-files episodes or seeing things through a Scanner Darkly (LOL), but as far as I reckon, both sides of the aisle are culpable for the current fiasco and will have to account when the poop hits the fan.

Think you were waxing a bit hyperbolic on that last paragraph, BTW.

As far as the world's opinion goes, I have a German wife and in-laws. With her reading Reuters, BBC and with a subscrption to Foreign Affairs Journal, we're fairly well-informed. It's why I turn to this page so often: it's stimulating, informative and very entertaining....

Even if the whole bunchaya are cretins and miscreants....(Thank Dog!)

[nightflier]

This you were waxing a bit hyperbolic on that last paragraph, BTW.

I must really be ticked off.

'Still think Obama will do more to change things though - I guess I don't see him as a traditional Democrat, either. 'Seems to be the sentiment with many independents too, and the reason they support him, I think.

Good points, though.

[Auricauricle]

Yeah. He's not a bad banana...

He certainly has appeal!

[Rich-n-Texas]

I have appeal too... Sex appeal.

Just haven't figured out how to get the message across to the women 'round these parts yet.

Okay, it's the weekend! No more political talk for me. :lol:

[Auricauricle]

Good plan...

And now (well innacouplaminnits), I will remove mahself and attend mah friends' vernissage an' birthday....(Peking Duck! Hot damn!)

[bobsticks]

Bobsticks, are you saying you want Palin as president just because she'll actually do something because she's a nit-wit? What if that's then end of the story? What if she pushes the button because she believes she'll be bringing Armageddon, but it turns out nothing happens? That's the end of life on earth, my friend. Nihilistic, may be too kind of an adjective.

Are you sure you're not Ted Nugent?...

LOL, well, just as you were "waxing a bit hyperbolic" on tat last paragraph--and I really hope you don't believe that an Obama presidency would help all Americans--I was a bit on the saucy side with that post.

For instance, I wouldn't really find it amusing to watch the White House Press Corps badger the Vice President into a coronary, nor do I have any plans to give it the ol' "Vive la mort, vive la guerre, vive le sacre mercenaire" with the Peruvian Marching Powder army...

...nor, for that matter, do I hope that McCain slips into a coma. My point, in earnest, was that what we truly need is an outsider, someone with no ties in or out of the beltway.

[nightflier]

Just haven't figured out how to get the message across to the women 'round these parts yet.

...hanging out at some Obama rallies. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but the Republican ones have been more for old-folks and recently married (read: not likely to let their eyes wander) neo-cons. All the hip people are hanging with Obama, it seems. Even Obama girl has a better bod than her McCain counterpart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1msrwpsSd8. Oh, and while I don't know what your preference is, if you like a little more color in your latte, so to speak, then the Obama camp is definitely the better place to hang. The Republican side is definitely a bit more white & pasty.

And who knows, you might hear some things you like.

Sticks, el lobo negro no tiene miedo de sus mercenarios franceses, incluso si tenían el valor de luchar, él podría todavía pagarlos apagado.

[nightflier]

OK, as much fun it is to trash Palin and throw Tex into the can for good measure, it's time to get back on point, I think. So maybe this has already been pointed out, but if it hasn't:

Isn't the buyout a concerted move towards socialism? After all, isn't this government ownership? Perhaps more to the point, isn't this a pretty blatant example of the failure of laisser-faire economics? In other words, instead of letting the market decide what to do with these failing banks, let's have the government bail them out. Yeah, ok, sparky.

Now why aren't the free-market liberal-economics neocons up in arms about this? Is it because they're all standing in line to get their piece of the hand-out from the tax-paying middle class? If you ask me this is the most pathetic hypocrisy I've ever heard coming the Republican party. Now how exactly is this even remotely Republican in it's ideals? And why are we still calling Shrub & McCain Republicans? They are shills for the elites, maybe, but Republicans? Pluuueeeeezze. Somewhere the Asian Tigers that we screwed over two decades ago, are laughing in glee at all this....

[bobsticks]

“causes of quarrel- maketh man invade for gain, the second for safety and the third for reputation”


Nobody ever said that laissez-faire economics was "fair". You're viewing this from the nationalist perspective. Indeed, rather than the death knoll it's a victory march for laissez-faire in terms of world economy. Just as, at a point in time, investing in Haliburton or Tokyo real estate was profitable from an investment perspective and probably bad for the locale.

And, no, it's not a step toward socialism but totalitarianism. You can't have socialism within a lawless, armed society. Read "De Cive" and "The Elements of Law" and especially "Leviathan"...and remember that the social contract described by Hobbes cannot truly exist in this world of inequality.

Recognize too that somewhere in that space that occupies between the earth and air and ether and void--the space of the soul--that the spirit of Hobbes is ruthlessly battering those of Albert Nock and his Remnant.

[kexodusc]

Isn't the buyout a concerted move towards socialism? After all, isn't this government ownership? Perhaps more to the point, isn't this a pretty blatant example of the failure of laisser-faire economics? In other words, instead of letting the market decide what to do with these failing banks, let's have the government bail them out. Yeah, ok, sparky.
Socialism? Hardly. I don't see government using this to seize control and corner the market on Wall Street. Not at all. It's that kind of brainwashing the government subjected us to as a result of the Cold War. I've said it a billion times before. Free market doesn't mean anarchistic market. Government regulation, and where necessary, intervention, is a fundamental necessity in a free market economy. Forget the rhetoric. At its most basic level, this is no different than state owned military. We wouldn't denounce a public funded military protecting us from invasion, a government plan rescuing us from disease or disaster, today we need government to save us from the private sector. You need someone to define the rules, enforce the rules, and intervene when it has failed to do either of the first two.
Old, arrogant, inflexible ideology is largely responsible for creating this mess. You won't find any other capitalist society with a debt market nearly as poorly regulated as we have. At the end of the day, the private sector got greedy with the weak free-market the government allowed, and the consumer (aka taxpayer) is on the hook for the mess. I just consider this damage control, rather than chaotic fallout.


Now why aren't the free-market liberal-economics neocons up in arms about this? Is it because they're all standing in line to get their piece of the hand-out from the tax-paying middle class? If you ask me this is the most pathetic hypocrisy I've ever heard coming the Republican party. Now how exactly is this even remotely Republican in it's ideals? And why are we still calling Shrub & McCain Republicans? They are shills for the elites, maybe, but Republicans? Pluuueeeeezze. Somewhere the Asian Tigers that we screwed over two decades ago, are laughing in glee at all this....
I like to think the Republicans and Democrats are recognizing the error of their ways and taking steps to correct it. The consequences of not interfering in this case far outweigh the cost of doing so, IMO, and apparently in the opinion of both political parties as nobody's really threatening to undo it, just posturing to blame the other party.

People's heads should roll for letting it get this bad, not for trying to minimize the damage.
Time will tell how effective the bailout is. I have a feeling the next President is being left with a poison pill though.

[Rich-n-Texas]

...You're viewing this from the nationalist perspective. Indeed, rather than the death knoll it's a victory march for laissez-faire in terms of world economy. Just as, at a point in time, investing in Haliburton or Tokyo real estate was profitable from an investment perspective and probably bad for the locale.
I think he's viewing this from an alarmist's perspective. "The sky is falling, the sky is falling..." The whole idea of mentioning the takeover of an insurance company and mixing in the word Socialism is just posturing. You're trying to prop up a well beaten horse 'flier...

[Feanor]

...

Isn't the buyout a concerted move towards socialism? After all, isn't this government ownership? Perhaps more to the point, isn't this a pretty blatant example of the failure of laisser-faire economics? In other words, instead of letting the market decide what to do with these failing banks, let's have the government bail them out. Yeah, ok, sparky.

Now why aren't the free-market liberal-economics neocons up in arms about this? Is it because they're all standing in line to get their piece of the hand-out from the tax-paying middle class? If you ask me this is the most pathetic hypocrisy I've ever heard coming the Republican party. Now how exactly is this even remotely Republican in it's ideals? And why are we still calling Shrub & McCain Republicans? They are shills for the elites, maybe, but Republicans? Pluuueeeeezze. Somewhere the Asian Tigers that we screwed over two decades ago, are laughing in glee at all this....

A step towards socialism? Not hardly: in fact maybe the opposite. Let's understand that the superrich spout free market and laisser-faire when it means, "Let us do whatever we want". But when they've done what they wanted and buggered things up they are the first in line for a welfare handout.

It's egregious that the bail-out proposes that taxpayers provide a blank check (aka. cheque) to Adminstration appointees to dole out the cash however they like. Do you trust these PsOS to do right by you?

[Feanor]

Socialism? Hardly. I don't see government using this to seize control and corner the market on Wall Street. Not at all. It's that kind of brainwashing the government subjected us to as a result of the Cold War. I've said it a billion times before. Free market doesn't mean anarchistic market. Government regulation, and where necessary, intervention, is a fundamental necessity in a free market economy. ...

Kex, you Godless Commie! :incazzato: Regulation? Intervention? All any of us need is a personal relationship with Jesus.

[nightflier]

...today we need government to save us from the private sector. You need someone to define the rules, enforce the rules, and intervene when it has failed to do either of the first two.

...what the Bolsheviks were screaming a little less than a century ago.

If a state that's buying up the banks doesn't smack of socialism, then I don't know what does. Maybe next they'll buy GM, an airline or two, and any other corporation that can't balance the books. You guys can spin it anyway you like, but our "Republican" government s moving in a much more non-Republican direction then it ever has (I didn't even think that was possible, but here we are):

1) They are taking over major banks and institutions
2) They are growing the size of government (the bank employees are now all state employees)
3) They are growing the national budget (read: debt), ironically, much like Nixon did with Social Security to try and make the Vietnam war seem less expensive (remember those cute little pie charts?)

Haven't we seen this before?

And the best part: Congress may balk at it. If it does, then the market could correct in a major way. And guess what else? This isn't necessarily bad for unscrupulous investors - if I remember right, the bail out is expected to cost 10-15% in interest - sounds like a sound investment to me! So my guess is that this Friday, right before the big debate (how ironic), Congress will not have a consensus and the bail-out will be in limbo. This will hinge the fact that the Republicans want a blank check (as if the people could trust them again), while the Democrats are trying to impose restrictions on how it should be spent (honorable, perhaps, politically-motivated? much more likely).

Look, there's no mystery about this: every time the economy tanks, oil and gold climb, and Obama's star rises. Obama was ahead by 5% points on average over the weekend, some polls had him up by 8%. Yesterday evening McCain smarted up a bit and decided to agree with Obama and ask for more controls on how the bail-out money should be spent, and guess what? He got a bump in the latest Rasmussen poll. So what does that say? Most people working themselves to the bone to make ends meet don't want this bail-out at all. What they want is financial relief for themselves. Yes, that's not a very macro-economic point of view, but it will most definitely sway this election. And that's where all the marbles are at, folks.

[Feanor]

...what the Bolsheviks were screaming a little less than a century ago.

If a state that's buying up the banks doesn't smack of socialism, then I don't know what does. Maybe next they'll buy GM, an airline or two, and any other corporation that can't balance the books. You guys can spin it anyway you like, but our "Republican" government s moving in a much more non-Republican direction then it ever has (I didn't even think that was possible, but here we are):

1) They are taking over major banks and institutions
2) They are growing the size of government (the bank employees are now all state employees)
3) They are growing the national budget (read: debt), ironically, much like Nixon did with Social Security to try and make the Vietnam war seem less expensive (remember those cute little pie charts?)
...

Only the last is true: for the first two all it's doing is handing out money. It's not nationalization; you have to look to, e.g., the British nationalization of the coal industry to understand what that is about. I'm not sure about Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, but its certainly case for neither AIG nor the $700B bail-out -- if fact you don't know what the hell their doing in the latter case.


...
Most people working themselves to the bone to make ends meet don't want this bail-out at all. What they want is financial relief for themselves. Yes, that's not a very macro-economic point of view, but it will most definitely sway this election. And that's where all the marbles are at, folks.

What all you workies need to understand is that if the US economy really tanks, you won't be paying any taxes because you won't have a job. Higher taxes are likely the lessor evil. But nobody said voters are smart: in fact most politicians are counting on them being stupid -- I'm sure you'll agree.

[thekid]

Well W is finally getting around to addressing the crisis now that President Pro Tem Paulson has run into some rocky ground up on the Hill.

I was somewhat encouraged by Buffet's comments on CNBC this A.M. and it will be a pity if some members of the GOP finally decide to take this moment to grow a backbone on spending. I am not sure this package is the perfect solution but I believe our options are limited. Let's have a serious debate and get ths thing done. Overseas investors who are propping up our debt are not going to wait on the side lines forever waiting for this thing to get done.

[nightflier]

Only the last is true: for the first two all it's doing is handing out money.

They are buying the banks. That means they own them. State ownership is just that and the employees of those banks are now state employees. Now if I had to list all the other things this government has done that are the polar opposite of Republican ideals, we'd be here for days, but I'll leave that to another thread. Why anybody still considers Shrub/McCain Republicans is beyond me. I guess we can agree on one thing: stupidity is a still a huge factor.... (maybe that's why the Republicans are always beating down free & public education?)


What all you workies need to understand is that if the US economy really tanks, you won't be paying any taxes because you won't have a job. Higher taxes are likely the lessor evil. But nobody said voters are smart: in fact most politicians are counting on them being stupid -- I'm sure you'll agree.

"Workies"? Why don't you call us "Pleebs" like Palin does? (Not only doesn't she know what that means, she doesn't even know how to say it - another point for stupidity.) And just to bring the point home, why don't you tell us to just eat cake, too? Look, the economy won't "tank," it's just too big for that and far too many other factors will come into play before it all goes to hell and a handbag. What will more likely happen is a larger correction, which is what typically happens in a free-market when corporations screw around and get caught. The point being that this was another bubble and every decade that something like this happens, nobody seems to learn from it. And I'm not the only one who questions the validity of this bail-out:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/ralph-nader-my-father-and-bank-bailout

or in more detail:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/25/as_bush_admin_pushes_700b_for

Funny how he mentions socialism too.... And apparently there's quite a few people who are angry enough about it too:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/economy/bailout_protests/?postversion=2008092512

[Auricauricle]

It's a bird, it's a plane...No, it's Stupor Man!

Yes, it's Stupor Man, strange visitor from another planet, with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men! Stupor Man, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands, and who, disguised as a president or a mild-mannered senator for a great nation, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way!

[bobsticks]

I'm not the only one who questions the validity of this bail-out:

Validity? Validity?!! There is no validity to this bail-out. Just so we're all on the same level of comprehension here...after the smoke and the Keynesian rabble-rousing clears, the end result is that the execs who offered and the dullards that accepted such egregiously irresponsible deals will still have their bonuses and houses...

...and I could give a damn whether this brings about a mild recession or a cataclysmic depression...or even a hiccup for that matter. This is not laissez-faire economics to be sure. The bottom line is the market should be allowed to correct itself; there should be mass firings and the missions should be full. Make no mistake about it, this is about greed and stupidity and hubris.

More and more I'm prone to adopt 3-LB's approach of voting out every, single incumbent...and after the voting, start the caning.

[Feanor]

...
"Workies"?
...
By that I mean anyone who works for a living. Yahoo! I'm retiring in a year and a half.


...
... Look, the economy won't "tank," it's just too big for that and far too many other factors will come into play before it all goes to hell and a handbag
....
The prob is that so many "other factors" have already come into play. Sub-prime is only one symptom of general malaise.


...
What will more likely happen is a larger correction, which is what typically happens in a free-market when corporations screw around and get caught. The point being that this was another bubble and every decade that something like this happens, nobody seems to learn from it.
...
I hope you're right. But it might be a mistake to see this as just "another bubble".

OK, then again I'm reminded that the Savings & Loan bailout in the early '90s cost $250 billion, so maybe the current crisis isn't really so bad: not even 3X the S&L amount.

[thekid]

When your house is on fire it seems kind of irresponsible to debate whether you should leave the house through the front door or through the back door. GM no longer has a line of credit and several other large corporations have seen their source of funding/liquidity dry up. Unless a deal is cut by tomorrow the markets will open up to dramatic losses that will reduce the value of our 401k's. Lenin and Marx are not roaming the halls of Congress so let's please stop playing politics and get this done.

[Auricauricle]

I still like the idea of pouring honey on their eyeballs and testicles and letting out the fire ants and killer bees...

I am an ethical man, mais non?

[nightflier]

More and more I'm prone to adopt 3-LB's approach of voting out every, single incumbent...and after the voting, start the caning.

Sticks, I didn't think you harbored such violent tendencies. Then again:


I still like the idea of pouring honey on their eyeballs and testicles and letting out the fire ants and killer bees...

There's always someone more violent than the last guy. I bet even in their graves Ivan and Vlad are taking notes....


When your house is on fire it seems kind of irresponsible to debate whether you should leave the house through the front door or through the back door.

The way the middle class is getting screwed these days... oh never mind.


GM no longer has a line of credit

Considering how badly they squandered every opportunity for the last 20 years, maybe it's about time. We can only hope that that $25B they're going to get (this is largely going unreported because bigger numbers seem to grab the headlines these days), will actually make them take the whole Green thing more seriously. Of course, this recession doesn't seem to be affecting folks here behind the Orange Curtain: stores were packed this weekend, SUVs were everywhere and a real-estate colleague of mine just sold two houses last week, one of which was $1.4M. Somehow I think people here are a little slow on the uptake, or they have way too much money stashed inside their mattresses.


Unless a deal is cut by tomorrow the markets will open up to dramatic losses

Let's remember that for the most part it's the ultra-nutty right wingers that are holding this one up. Apparently they don't want to be called socialists for lining up behind Shrub. Then again, looking at the market activity today, there was plenty of buying going on towards the end of the day. As long as people are still speculating, there's no catastrophe.


that will reduce the value of our 401k's.

People always think that when they get near retirement they are also getting to the end of the investment roller coaster. Actually many people will still have 20-30 years of life and investing left in them and that is plenty of time to let things recover. My mother in law is retiring this year. Is she worried? No because she's now buying assets at huge bargains within her 401K. In the words of Roosevelt: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. If we don't all loose our heads, things will recover. This doom & gloom thinking is doing far more damage to the economy than it needs to. Those dill-weeds in Washington need to get fired, and maybe this is the wake-up call that will make that happen.

Actually what may be mildly satisfying for the millions who have very little is that this is finally hitting the upper classes as their stock portfolios are feeling the crunch of their own greed. Moreover it allows common folks who've been smart enough to hold onto some cash to buy what they previously couldn't. For those who have no scruples, a couple of good buys for tomorrow in my humble opinion:

- eBay (EBAY) @ $20
- Cisco (CSCO) @ $20
- Intel (INTC) @ $16
- ON Semiconductor (ONNN) @ $6
- Human Genome Sciences (HGSI) @ $6
- Visa (V) @ $55

I'm partial to high-tech so that's mostly what I follow, but after the news today that they still don't have a bail-out deal, there's going to be some golden opportunities tomorrow in just about every sector. Now please, don't let anybody think this is an endorsement or try and sue me if things go bad. And I certainly would not recommend buying in such a vertical market sector - we're just pontificating what would happen if we followed the old adage: "the time to buy is when there's blood in the streets."

OK, there's no blood (although it sounds like for some of you there ought to be, I know), but just for fantasy's sake, let's presume these stocks are available at these prices sometime tomorrow. To come up with the money we pawn off our beloved Krell/Mac/Pass amp for a respectable $6K. Now we take that $6K and buy $1000 in each of these companies sometime during the day tomorrow. My guess is that if things go down just a tad more we could buy these as follows:

- 50 shares of eBay @ $20 = $1000
- 50 shares of Cisco @ $20 = $1000
- 62 shares of Intel @ $16 = $992
- 166 shares of ON Semiconductor @ $6 = $996
- 166 shares of Human Genome Sciences @ $6 = $996
- 18 shares of Visa @ $55 = $990

Total tab = $5974 (fantasy dollars). Now let's come back at the end of the week, and then at the end of the month and see what we can buy to replace our missing amp. In the mean-time, just use your Bose Lifestyle radio and learn to newly appreciate what a good amp can really do :p .

[jeskibuff]

Apparently in yet another screw up of this current adminstration when the Treasury Secretary got in front of Congress to "reassure" everyone and to seek approval for the bailout he was "sure we will never need" future investors...Supposedly the government knew several weeks ago they were going to have to make this move but they did not want the takeover to occur while the two parties had their political conventions and they did not want to drop an "October Surprise" that could affect the outcome of the November elections. I will let the political conspiracists debate the timing of this decision.


the biggest failure of the Republican regime is gross government deficits. The deficit affects everything through interest rates which is a huge contributor to (for example) the sub-prime crisis, thus Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac. (It is incredibly naive of people to believe the Republicans are "more fiscally reponsible".


We're long overdue for this....A bit of Government intervention into the markets could have prevented this from happening in the first place and saved a lot of pain. I don't get it. We'd expect a government to protect us from foreign attack, domestic violence, maybe even disease and famine, but protecting us from ourselves is crossing the line?


I'm not justifying the Democrats, only saying the Republicans are worse


In any case, this also calls into question whether the Chinese actually did put pressure on the US congress to bail out Freddy and Sally.


Look, I'd vote Republican if it made sense. But it just doesn't and I don't think anyone who cares about where this country is headed should either. Most people who are supporting McCain are doing so because of just one issue (abortion, guns, death penalty, whatever). The simple response to that is: look where that kind of voting decision has put us today. We're friggin screwed, by and large because of a small fanatical and elitist segment of the Republican party (definitely not representative of the whole party). Electing McCain would just compound the political-economic problems and perpetuate the human misery....
If you don't agree, then give me a reason to vote Republican. I'm open to a good discussion and I'd certainly like to hear something that would actually challenge the Democrats, but so far I haven't heard it...And yes, I sincerely do hope you find your way out of the darkness and into the light. You'll be surprised how many Republicans you meet.


Personally, I don’t anticipate that Obama or McCain will contribute much to stabilizing the situation abroad or making that much of a dent in correcting the sins of Bush Inc. These problems are rooted deep and will take a serious routing of many rats and application of a serious dose of justice as the critters and their deeds are brought to light. I just don’t see that happening.


...he feels betrayed by the Republican party, and that's where I'm coming from in my objections to the McCain/Palin ticket.

This is supposed to be the party that stands up for smaller government, no foreign entanglements, fiscal responsibility, respecting the advice of generals, support for small business owners (that includes me), separation of church and state, freedom of speech, and upstanding public service. What I've witnessed the last 8 years is diametrically opposed to every one of these principles.


I like to think the Republicans and Democrats are recognizing the error of their ways and taking steps to correct it...People's heads should roll for letting it get this bad, not for trying to minimize the damage.


This will hinge the fact that the Republicans want a blank check (as if the people could trust them again), while the Democrats are trying to impose restrictions on how it should be spent (honorable, perhaps, politically-motivated? much more likely).


it will be a pity if some members of the GOP finally decide to take this moment to grow a backbone on spending.


Yeah ya know what's funny in all of this Feanor? You've NEVER tried to justify anything the Democrats do. All you do is entise and incite people into thinking it's all the Republican's fault. How about giving us some examples of the good deeds the Dems have done in the past two years or so Feanor?:

Feanor has to go back a little more than 2 years, R-n-T! But the following video was taken about 4 years ago, demonstrating that this Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac crisis has been brewing for some time. So much of what I quoted above blaming the Republicans for the malaise would be put into true light were those who threw the stones brave enough to view this entire 8-minute video. See which side was calling for more regulation. See which side was anticipating problems down the road. See which side was bringing up ridiculous and undeserved bonuses being paid out. See which side wanted things to be left alone!

If you're courageous enough to view the whole thing, ask yourself how Obama has the nerve to run some of the ads he's running now.

I dare ya:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

[nightflier]

Jes, you'll have to do better than a biased cut & pasted video you happened to find on YouTube. Anybody can slice & dice a video to make someone look guilty as sin or innocent as an baby - it just doesn't convince anybody anymore.

[jeskibuff]

Jes, you'll have to do better than a biased cut & pasted video you happened to find on YouTube. Anybody can slice & dice a video to make someone look guilty as sin or innocent as an baby - it just doesn't convince anybody anymore.Yeah, I figured you'd try to find some convenient way to weasel out of admitting the obvious. The truth is, there's no possible way you don't have a good sense of who was defending Raines and FNMA/Freddie Mac and who saw something was bad and was trying to fix it. There's no possible way that anyone can't see that....even YOU!

This was no Mikey Mooron slice & dice. Tell me if you saw someone's tie change color in the middle of the speech. But do your homework. We conservatives do ours when it comes to Mooron films. Find the full C-Span clips and expose how it was all taken out of context. Again, I dare ya!

I am sure you will just be content with living your life in denial. We expect that from liberals.

Smart people with common sense will see through your little charade, leaving you with even less credibility than you had before, if that's possible.

[Feanor]

Feanor has to go back a little more than 2 years, R-n-T! But the following video was taken about 4 years ago, demonstrating that this Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac crisis has been brewing for some time. So much of what I quoted above blaming the Republicans for the malaise would be put into true light were those who threw the stones brave enough to view this entire 8-minute video. See which side was calling for more regulation. See which side was anticipating problems down the road. See which side was bringing up ridiculous and undeserved bonuses being paid out. See which side wanted things to be left alone!

If you're courageous enough to view the whole thing, ask yourself how Obama has the nerve to run some of the ads he's running now.

I dare ya:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Perhaps its my foreign perspective, but I don't feel compelled to respond to the minutae of partisan bickering. More importantly, I'm not enslaved, as so many Americans seem to be, to a two-party perspective would force me to defend Democrats if I choose to attack Republicans.

It's not good that Raines was a crook and it's not good that some Democrats defended him. But the real problem isn't and wasn't that Raines was a crook. The big problem is the huge and multi-fold expansion of personal debt in the U.S., most particularly mortgates, that has occured since 2000. It is this that caused the failure of Freddie Mac and many other financial institutions.

Overall one simply can't deny the relative propensity of Republicans versus Democrats the remove or ineffectuate regulation. But again I wonder how much difference regulation would really have made. The trend to massive indenturing of Americans, individuals and the nation itself, has been so monumental that the best regulations would merely have smoothed and slightly slowed the destructive trend. The current administration has the main responsibility for fostering the debt bubble aided and abetted by the Fed under Greenspan. It was seen as a way to boost consumer spending at a time when real wages were trending rapidly down in the face of globalization while the price of commodities such as oil were trending up. Unfortunately this is an appoach can used forever to stave off the effects of world-wide changes that even America can't control.

And on the national side relentless tax cutting and prosecution of unnecessary, counter-productive wars has forced the government too to become a huge debtor relying on foreign sources of funding. These are critical errors that can be attributed disproportionately to the Republic congress and the Republican administration.

[thekid]

Well since I have been quoted a few times here.......


Considering how badly they squandered every opportunity for the last 20 years, maybe it's about time. We can only hope that that $25B they're going to get (this is largely going unreported because bigger numbers seem to grab the headlines these days), will actually make them take the whole Green thing more seriously. Of course, this recession doesn't seem to be affecting folks here behind the Orange Curtain: stores were packed this weekend, SUVs were everywhere and a real-estate colleague of mine just sold two houses last week, one of which was $1.4M. Somehow I think people here are a little slow on the uptake, or they have way too much money stashed inside their mattresses.

I am not defending GM but having them shut down because they can't get credit to operate is not the same thing as having them continue their downward uncompetitive death spiral. The possibility of business closings because they do not having access to operating capital will start a series of events that can quickly start a panic.


People always think that when they get near retirement they are also getting to the end of the investment roller coaster. Actually many people will still have 20-30 years of life and investing left in them and that is plenty of time to let things recover. My mother in law is retiring this year. Is she worried? No because she's now buying assets at huge bargains within her 401K. In the words of Roosevelt: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. If we don't all loose our heads, things will recover. This doom & gloom thinking is doing far more damage to the economy than it needs to. Those dill-weeds in Washington need to get fired, and maybe this is the wake-up call that will make that happen.

I am well aware of the investment arc as you get older but losses to investments based on emotional responses or the political landscape is a slippery slope and again can be the basis of a panic. As I watched several members of Congress defending their no votes there was a lot of talk that the markets are not really an economic indicator and that the markets will rebound when they get around to voting on a package. This seems to be an academic arguement that ignores how people tend to react. It was not in people's best interest to make runs on banks back during the Depression but they did it anyway. When people see the Dow drop 777 points and probably another 100 or so tomorrow there is real possibility that there could be a run on 401's since these are the bank accounts of the new economy.

There is enough blame to go around here on all sides of the political landscape. It just galls me that "conservative" House Republicans who are facing a difficult re-election in 5 weeks all of sudden start talking about fiscal responsibility. Their "small government" principals have been completely absent for the last 7.5 years when money flowed from Washington like wine.

It was evident by the way that both candidates side stepped the spending cut question during the debate that both sides of the aisle are addicted to spending. I hope this is a short relatively painless wake-up call to Washington and Main St that we can not continue spending like drunken sailors.

[jeskibuff]

Perhaps its my foreign perspective, but I don't feel compelled to respond to the minutae of partisan bickering.Translation: "I can dish it out when it's convenient, but don't throw it back in my face"


More importantly, I'm not enslaved as so many Americans to be, to a two-party perspective would force me to defend Democrats if I am to attack Republicans.I see it more as using logic and common sense to expose fools and idiots who seize upon any opportunity to push their selfish agendas forward. I could care less about defending the Republican party. I do feel the need to point out the idiocy that seems to be ingrained in most every liberal on the planet.


It's not good that Raines was a crook and it's not good that some Democrats defended him.Oh, that's pretty mild, seeing's how he and his Democrat defenders are probably the root cause of this whole $700B mess. Pretty funny in comparison how Democrats tried to give a 30-year prison sentence to Scooter Libby.


But the real problem isn't and wasn't that Raines was a crook. The big problem is the huge and multi-fold expansion of personal debt in the U.S., most particularly mortgates, that has occured since 2000. It is this that caused the failure of Freddie Mac and many other financial institutions.Nope. Sorry. Wrong again. Listen closely to the words of Maxine Waters, Bill Clinton and Raines himself. Their goal was to get anyone into a house, whether they could afford one or not. This plan goes ALL the way back to 1992! Listen to Maxine as she beams about people getting into a home with NO DOWN PAYMENT! This was a solution engineered by stupid liberals, plain and simple. Like all liberal plans, it took a while but failed miserably. The fact that Meeks, Waters, Frank and the others so vehemently defended Raines against the "evil white regulator" suggests that they were getting kickbacks or some kind of favors from Raines. It makes you wonder...just who is in the pocket of big business?


Overall one simply can't deny the relative propensity of Republicans versus Democrats the remove or ineffectuate regulation.True, Democrats generally love to OVERregulate, usually causing businesses to flee to better ground. Most recently Toyota decided to move out of California and into Mississippi because of liberal California's love of overregulation and high taxation. Duh. Way to lose a nice chunk of your tax base as well as hundreds of jobs! But in this instance, Republicans like Shays identified a problem in the making and requested regulation to put it in check. Obviously he failed, the Democrats won and the American Taxpayer LOST!


But again I wonder how much difference regulation would really have made.Well, at least you no longer have to wonder about the troop surge in Iraq. Democrats wanted to pull out at a crucial moment. Bush insisted on the surge. Bush won. Democrats lost. Now since he can no longer complain about a civil war out of control, Obama has to complain about Iraqis building a Ferris wheel, as if they're not allowed to have fun after escaping 3 decades of brutal tyrannical rule. Anyway, it appears this problem was accurately identified some 4 years ago and Raines was allowed to continue on his merry way. I'm pretty certain that proper regulation would have made a HUGE difference.


The trend to massive indenturing of Americans, individuals and the nation itself, has been so monumental that the best regulations would merely have smoothed and slightly slowed the destructive trend.Something inspired millions of people to go into debt WAY over their heads. It was the enticement of getting into the home of their dreams with the full encouragement of a government, generously willing to back these flimsy loans. Very few people turn down the opportunity for easy money, especially when the government is handing it to them on a silver platter!


The current administration has the main responsibility for fostering the debt bubble aided and abetted by the Fed under Greenspan. It was seen as a way to boost consumer spending at a time when real wages were trending rapidly down in the face of globalization while the price of commodities such as oil were trending up. Unfortunately this is an appoach can used forever to stave off the effects of these world-wide changes that even America can't control.This appears to be an effort by you to divert attention away from the obvious: this whole housing failure is caused by Democrats and their belief that the government owes everyone a free ride. Low interest rates may have helped the encouragement, but giving 100% home loans to people on welfare or with spotty credit is downright stupidity. We're paying for that stupidity right now.


And on the national side relentless tax cutting and prosecution of wars has forced the government too to become a huge debtor relying on foreign sources of funding. These are critical errors that can be attributed disproportionately to the Republics and the Republican administration.NOT fighting a war against terrorism would result in economic disaster with each new 9/11 that comes along. It is better to fight cancer when it's first detected than after it has allowed to spread. And "relentless tax cutting" has proven over and over again to actually improve tax revenues, as businesses flourish in such an environment. Relentless tax raising only kills economies. Again, just ask California why Toyota is moving to Tupelo.

[thekid]

NOT fighting a war against terrorism would result in economic disaster with each new 9/11 that comes along. It is better to fight cancer when it's first detected than after it has allowed to spread. And "relentless tax cutting" has proven over and over again to actually improve tax revenues, as businesses flourish in such an environment. Relentless tax raising only kills economies. Again, just ask California why Toyota is moving to Tupelo.

Jes

Since you mentioned idiocy......

What economic genius says its sound policy to lower taxes while fighting a war? If you are going to fight a war have the guts to pay for it. I am tired of the GOP line that says low taxes = roaring economy. It is not that simple and is a cynical an dangerous way to appeal to people's self interest in order to get elected. If you want low taxes then reduce spending!

Whenever I hear people say I am going to lower your taxes the next sentence I want to hear is exactly what spending they are going to eliminate and yet we never do because politicians have conditioned people that they can have their cake and eat it too. Dems and Republicans created this mess by not conducting any oversight while business and political policy made cheap money available. This was at the heart of the comment a few years back when Greenspan talked about an overly exhuberant housing and stock market and for which members on both sides of the aisle criticized him for making.

As for your surge/ we are winning regurgiatation......
Please define winning?????

Are we still in Iraq after 6 years -yes (please do not bring up post war Germany or Japan Baghdad is not Tokyo or Berlin circa 1946)

Are we being reimbursed by anyone for the 10 billion dollar a month cost-no

Have we allowed the people who were actually involved in the planning and training of the 9/11 attack to reconstitute their power in Afghanistan and Pakistan-yes

All our "winning" in Iraq has done is stopped the huge amounts of sectarian killing that was occuring while we tried to do fight a war on the cheap. When people talk about "winning" they are really talking about returning Iraq to the status quo amount of violence it had prior to our taking out Saddam. If we are "winning" so much why can't we leave????????

[Feanor]

...
Oh, that's pretty mild, seeing's how he and his Democrat defenders are probably the root cause of this whole $700B mess. Pretty funny in comparison how Democrats tried to give a 30-year prison sentence to Scooter Libby.
...
Well, at least you no longer have to wonder about the troop surge in Iraq. Democrats wanted to pull out at a crucial moment. Bush insisted on the surge. Bush won. Democrats lost. Now since he can no longer complain about a civil war out of control, Obama has to complain about Iraqis building a Ferris wheel, as if they're not allowed to have fun after escaping 3 decades of brutal tyrannical rule. Anyway, it appears this problem was accurately identified some 4 years ago and Raines was allowed to continue on his merry way. I'm pretty certain that proper regulation would have made a HUGE difference.
...
This appears to be an effort by you to divert attention away from the obvious: this whole housing failure is caused by Democrats and their belief that the government owes everyone a free ride. Low interest rates may have helped the encouragement, but giving 100% home loans to people on welfare or with spotty credit is downright stupidity. We're paying for that stupidity right now.

...

'Cause if you're not rich, you necessarily belong to that other Republican constituency. ;)

[Worf101]

Is why I almost never, never, EVER discuss politics online. Sigh...

Da Worfster

[Rich-n-Texas]

MAN!!! I gotta stop sleeping at night! Look what I missed?

Translation: "I can dish it out when it's convenient, but don't throw it back in my face"
You know how many times he's done that to me? This is the type of arrogance that is so typical of a liberal. B!tch b!tch b!tch, but don't expect any answers. :nonod:

Welcome back(?) to the forums jeskibuff. :thumbsup:

Mods, how do I give a member five greenies all at once?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Is why I almost never, never, EVER discuss politics online. Sigh...

Da Worfster
If there was ever a thread that needed a Sarg-At-Arms present, it would be this one. :yesnod:

[thekid]

If there was ever a thread that needed a Sarg-At-Arms present, it would be this one. :yesnod:

Agreed and I am starting to regret I started it. Economics and politics are too intertwined.
In a community devoted to Audio/Video etc it probably divides more than unites.

You gotta admit though it livened the place up a bit............

[nightflier]

Jes, there is just too much to say to contradict every one of your points. I mean if you really believe all that, then perhaps there's no point in debating. Like my college philosophy teacher used to say: there is no argument to be made against lunacy.

But on the point of being a liberal, that's a loaded and un-informed statement. I've been an Independent ever since Anderson offered us a reasonable alternative (probably before you were even mature enough to vote). Anyhow, would I be telling people to buy stocks on Monday night if I was a liberal? Pluuueeze. Go tell it to someone who will bite. I've always voted for whatever candidate (Rep./Dem./Indep./Lib./Lib.) that made the most sense to me, and the same goes for state propositions and everything else.

Come to think of it, you sure are down on Maxine Waters. What's your big beef with her? A bit of bigotry, maybe? And what's with all the name-calling? You sure are one angry Conservative. What's all the fiery language for? Why don't you come out of that closet, and lay some of your cards on the table? I'd love to hear some more of your 'wisdom.'

[Rich-n-Texas]

Why do I feel like I just read a post by Sir T?

[nightflier]

Why do I feel like I just read a post by Sir T?

I know we've had our differences, but at least he has his politics in a better place.

Somehow, if that first post about BR vs. HD-DVD hadn't devolved into an all out slug-fest, I'm sure he and I would probably find a lot in common.

Wow, I can't believe I just said that. I must be getting soft in my old age....

[Rich-n-Texas]

I know we've had our differences, but at least he has his politics in a better place.

Somehow, if that first post about BR vs. HD-DVD hadn't devolved into an all out slug-fest, I'm sure he and I would probably find a lot in common.
My remark was probably uncalled for.

Wow, I can't believe I just said that. I must be getting soft in my old age....
"It's all part of the plan."

:ihih:

[jeskibuff]

Oops...a few posts while I wasn't paying attention...this addresses the first of them...



Since you mentioned idiocy......

What economic genius says its sound policy to lower taxes while fighting a war?The idiocy you refer to apparently refers to your own question. There's abundant evidence that lower taxes stimulate an economy and generates MORE tax revenue. There's also ample evidence that raising taxes chases businesses away and actually REDUCES revenues (and job opportunities). I gave a recent example of the latter with the Toyota move to Mississippi. Apparently you were stoned at the time you were trying to read it. As for lowering taxes and fighting a war at the same time, intelligent people can do BOTH. It's a little like patting your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time. Some people have no trouble with it, but others just can't understand how it's done.


If you are going to fight a war have the guts to pay for it. I am tired of the GOP line that says low taxes = roaring economy.It doesn't matter how weary you are of the words...they still ring true. Not surprisingly, you choose to ignore the evidence.


It is not that simple and is a cynical an dangerous way to appeal to people's self interest in order to get elected. If you want low taxes then reduce spending!That's simple-minded logic that Democrats can't seem to escape from. I'll agree with the "reduce spending" clause, because there's a lot of waste that can be eliminated. I'll also agree about the "appealing to self-interest". Both campaigns are pushing that carrot, but Obama's uber-liberal record indicates that there's no tax he won't raise. There's also plenty of evidence that he'll break every campaign promise he makes. He certainly didn't keep his public financing promise, did he?


Dems and Republicans created this mess by not conducting any oversight while business and political policy made cheap money available.Watch that video again, but this time PAY ATTENTION! It's pretty evident how this whole fiasco came about. With crooks like Raines at the helm of FNMA and idiots like Waters and Meeks practically screaming "RACISM" at any attempt to check Raines' bad business policies, it's pretty hard to ignore the OVERWHELMING contribution that Dimocrats had in this train wreck. Republicans like Shays were trying to prevent it from happening. They lost and now taxpayers get to clean up the aftermath of yet another liberal folly.


As for your surge/ we are winning regurgiatation......
Please define winning?????Simple. Making progress. Killing and capturing Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists.


Are we still in Iraq after 6 years -yes (please do not bring up post war Germany or Japan Baghdad is not Tokyo or Berlin circa 1946)Only liberals demand instant results. I understand that you don't want to learn from history, so I won't bother reminding you how long other wars took to win.


Are we being reimbursed by anyone for the 10 billion dollar a month cost-noSo I guess you're saying unless you get paid for your efforts, it's just not worth fighting to preserve freedom, right? Again, I won't mention something "silly" like the history of the American Revolution where there was no guarantee of repayment of the costs necessary to fight the Redcoats.


Have we allowed the people who were actually involved in the planning and training of the 9/11 attack to reconstitute their power in Afghanistan and Pakistan-yesThere's your narrow-minded, tunnel-vision focus at work again! You liberals like to focus on bin Laden and the Taliban as the only enemies we have. The danger is with radical Islam, and bin Laden and the Taliban is just a small part of that big picture. This is why you're unable to understand the Iraq/911 connection. You think that the perpetrators of 911 are the only ones we need to be concerned with. How wrong you are!


All our "winning" in Iraq has done is stopped the huge amounts of sectarian killing that was occuring while we tried to do fight a war on the cheap. When people talk about "winning" they are really talking about returning Iraq to the status quo amount of violence it had prior to our taking out Saddam. If we are "winning" so much why can't we leave????????Sorry, wrong again, as you were about it being an "unwinnable civil war". Barry O's own complaint about the Iraqis building a Ferris wheel should tell you SOMETHING that things are better than just "returning to pre-war status quo". You apparently have no concept how brutal Saddam's regime was. Of course, you liberals never met a dictator you didn't love, did you? As for your "if we're winning, why can't we leave?", comment, that's just too stupid to address, but if you're if you really don't understand and WANT to know, try looking into some of that history that you don't like hearing about.

[kexodusc]

There's abundant evidence that lower taxes stimulate an economy and generates MORE tax revenue. There's also ample evidence that raising taxes chases businesses away and actually REDUCES revenues (and job opportunities).
We should keep lowering taxes until they're zero, that shoud increase tax revenue to infinity :D

[Feanor]

... There's abundant evidence that lower taxes stimulate an economy and generates MORE tax revenue.
...
We should keep lowering taxes until they're zero, that shoud increase tax revenue to infinity :D

Yes, lower taxes does stimulate the economy and but might or might not increase tax revenues more than the initial reduction. However experience tends to the "might not" result; it depends on the "multiplier" effect.

Greater multipliers are obtained, generally, giving tax reductions to the least wealthy tax payers. Poorer people tend to go straight out and spend their tax savings providing immediate stimulous. Richer people on the other hand are more likely to save the money, in effect largely taking the money out of circulation. The richest people and corporations might very well invest the money off shore, doing basically nothing for the domesting economy, perhaps even harming it. Very arguably the Republican strategy of giving the tax breaks to the richest sectors is not about stimulating the economy at all, but merely pandering to the selfish greed of the party's "base".

That said, I'm against loading taxes onto corporations and businesses. To a large extent if businesses reinvest their profits in the domestic economy, they should receive taxe credits. But "reinvestment" part is critical: lower taxes should not given where profits go into portfolio investments, nor, of course, if it goes to off-shore investment or into foreign-source inventory.

[thekid]

I will keep to my original promise of no longer discussing politics here.
As evident by Jeskibuff tone and twisted logic there is no point in responding.
I'd say Kex and Feanor it is just best to move on.....

[jeskibuff]

jes, you must be rich 'Cause if you're not rich, you necessarily belong to that other Republican constituency. ;)I make an above-average wage, but that's still less than 6 figures. I wouldn't call that "rich" at all. It's typical for liberals to use this fictitious class warfare to separate the "poor downtrodden Democrats" from those "rich, greedy Republicans". Lately, I've noted some pretty crappy cars on the road with McCain/Palin bumper stickers on them. An 80s-ish Toadsmobile 88, a Chevy Astro with paint that lost it's shine decades ago, etc. If those drivers are rich, they must be hiding their money under a mattress. Look at GWB who wears a $50 Timex watch. Yes, he IS pretty wealthy, but he doesn't flaunt it like so many wealthy Democrats do: John Kerry, the Clintons, the Kennedys, etc. I just heard today how the Palins' tax return showed them giving more to charity in the last 2 years than Joe Biden has in 10 years. I like this quote from http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/09/biden-releases.html: "It is jarring that a couple earning over $200,000 per year would give as little as $2 per week to charity. This giving compares very unfavorably to John McCain, whose tax returns show that he gave 27.3% - 28.6% of his income to charity in 2006-2007. During the same period, the Obamas' tax returns show that they gave 5.8% - 6.1% of their income to charity.

Perhaps the Obama-Biden campaign needs a new slogan: "Change You Can Believe In (As Long As Someone Else Pays For It)"


This is the type of arrogance that is so typical of a liberal. B!tch b!tch b!tch, but don't expect any answers.Exactly. They get away with mouthing off so frequently and so arrogantly that they really need to be b!tched-slapped. It appears that "TheKid" has been put in his place. A little peace-and-quiet reprieve from liberal insanity is a GOOD thing, is it not? Oh, I hope you're familiar with the Newsbusters.org videos. If not, check them out! They come out about twice a week and are usually hilarious. We need a lot more of this stuff to throw liberal idiocy back in their faces!


Agreed and I am starting to regret I started it. Economics and politics are too intertwined.
In a community devoted to Audio/Video etc it probably divides more than unites.

You gotta admit though it livened the place up a bit............Politics can be debated nicely and civilly. If you insist on throwing out ridiculous crap and then hide in a corner when someone calls you on it, don't get so upset. It's bound to happen.


Jes, there is just too much to say to contradict every one of your points.Translation: "I really am out of ammunition and can't come back with anything that could come anywhere close to rebutting your points"


I mean if you really believe all that, then perhaps there's no point in debating.Translation: "I mean, what you say goes COMPLETELY what I've been told to believe by all the major networks. Because you're saying something different than them, YOU must be wrong!"


Like my college philosophy teacher used to say: there is no argument to be made against lunacy.Translation: "If it's different from what I believe, it must be crazy. Ward Churchill taught me that and everything else I know!"


But on the point of being a liberal, that's a loaded and un-informed statement. I've been an Independent ever since Anderson offered us a reasonable alternative (probably before you were even mature enough to vote).There's that old saying: "If it quacks like a duck...". Nightflier, you DO quack like a duck, if you get my drift!


Anyhow, would I be telling people to buy stocks on Monday night if I was a liberal?That qualifies as bad advice with the 369+ point drop in the Dow today. Bad advice is a liberal hallmark, so that's a good indication that you have liberal tendencies! :D


I've always voted for whatever candidate (Rep./Dem./Indep./Lib./Lib.) that made the most sense to me, and the same goes for state propositions and everything else.That would be a good thing if you had common sense. I bet you're voting for Obama, eh? What a lack of common sense to vote for that empty head!


Come to think of it, you sure are down on Maxine Waters.True, I have no respect for anyone who is an idiot, especially one chooses to ignore the obvious so that they can pursue their selfish agendas. But that video I posted was INCREDIBLE, wasn't it? I mean sure, it was ALL fake as you allege, but I never knew they could do such lifelike imitations with Claymation. I mean, that lump of clay REALLY looked like a living, breathing human being! It looked just like Maxine! Her facial expressions were PRECISELY replicated and the voice was spot-on! Most of all, that clay figure's lips were in PERFECT synch when it rattled of typical liberal defensive nonsense like this sentence: "...through nearly a dozen hearings where frankly, we were trying to fix something that WASN'T BROKE. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and in particular at Fannie Mae under the OUTSTANDING leadership of Mr. Frank Raines."


What's your big beef with her?She's an idiot, as are most liberals.


A bit of bigotry, maybe?None at all. I have no problems with blacks who are smart. I have the greatest respect for people like Thomas Sowell, Condi Rice, etc. but great contempt for people like Jesse "I want to cut his nuts off" Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney and other such idiots. Why don't you call me a bigot when I frequently call Mikey Mooron an idiot? He's the same kind of idiot as his black counterparts and deserves the same contempt and ridicule that they deserve. Do you really HAVE to resort to such lame accusations? Sorry, rhetorical question there!


And what's with all the name-calling?It does a disservice to call an idiot a genius when they're really an idiot. Pretending that they're NOT idiots only encourages them to continue to spout their moronic beliefs.


You sure are one angry Conservative. What's all the fiery language for?Let's just call it a "Crusade against Stupidity". And angry? Let's just say I'm thoroughly disgusted with people who are deliberately ignorant of facts staring them in the face and choose to bury the inconvenient truths about their exulted candidate. I call things the way I see them and the plain simple fact is that liberals are selfish, ignorant liars. The evidence is out there in abundance, but of course liberals choose to ignore it all.


Why don't you come out of that closet, and lay some of your cards on the table? I'd love to hear some more of your 'wisdom.'Would you make up your mind? One minute you accuse me of being too blunt. The next you're accusing me of hiding in a closet. And the truth of the matter is that you're only interested in hearing the kind of wisdom that agrees with your viewpoint. That's quite obvious.


We should keep lowering taxes until they're zero, that shoud increase tax revenue to infinity :DI suppose you're taking things to an extreme to sarcastically accuse me of being extremist. How wrong you are. I believe taxes should work pretty much like the free market. For example, if a car manufacturer wants to build a Ferrari-fighter, they shouldn't expect to sell it for $20K. If they build an incompetent Chevette and expect to sell it for $60K, they should expect to see those toads just sit on dealership lots. People will go to a better product for their $60K. If a manufacturer can be more competitive in the marketplace by lowering their tax burden, they'll move out of California to Mississippi. If ALL states had just as bad a tax/regulatory environment that California has, they'll probably look to other countries for a greener business climate. If a state is competing for businesses, they may choose to lower their taxes, but can't survive if they cut ALL revenue sources to the bone. Obviously, if your attempt was to label me a simpleton, it was lame. If it was meant to be a joke, I'll give you a pass. I think it was intended to be a little of both.


Yes, lower taxes does stimulate the economy and but might or might not increase tax revenues more than the initial reduction. However experience tends to the "might not" result; it depends on the "multiplier" effect.

Greater multipliers are obtained, generally, giving tax reductions to the least wealthy tax payers. Poorer people tend to go straight out and spend their tax savings providing immediate stimulous. Richer people on the other hand are more likely to save the money, in effect largely taking the money out of circulation.The effect that the "luxury tax" (mentioned before in this thread) had on the economy kind of shoots down that argument, doesn't it? Just call it an "inverse tax reduction" and it's easy to see that it had a negative effect on our economy. It was Ted Kennedy's idea, and somewhat ironic that his nephew Patrick essentially called uncle Teddy's tax hike the folly that it was and pushed to eliminate it.



The richest people and corporations might very well invest the money off shore, doing basically nothing for the domesting economy, perhaps even harming it.There's only ONE reason that they'd do that: it's more ECONOMICAL for them to do so. Obama's ads are bragging about how he'll "make the large corporations" pay more taxes. While this sounds good to Joe Q Public, it will turn out to be a disaster. Rather than staying in this country, those companies will make an exodus OUT of our country, leaving poor Joe Q. without a job. This has happened OVER and OVER and OVER again, but liberals want to blame the businesses for going to where the grass was greener, not the liberal tax-em-to-death policies which ran them out of town!


Very arguably the Republican strategy of giving the tax breaks to the richest sectors is not about stimulating the economy at all, but merely pandering to the selfish greed of the party's "base".Just more wishful thinking on your part, typical of the faulty liberal philosophy. It has no basis in reality. Again, all you have to look at is the differences in politicians. Bush: $50 Timex Indiglo. Kerry: $6,000 bicycle Gore: 20 times the energy use as the average household Kennedys: need we say more? Look at the charitable giving in that link above. McCain: 27%. Obama: 6%. Biden: laughable. There's plenty of evidence that Democrats are FAR more greedier than Republicans!


That said, I'm against loading taxes onto corporations and businesses. To a large extent if businesses reinvest their profits in the domestic economy, they should receive taxe credits. But "reinvestment" part is critical: lower taxes should not given where profits go into portfolio investments, nor, of course, if it goes to off-shore investment or into foreign-source inventory.Good. Why not tax corporations next to NOTHING?? They locate their business in your neighborhood, providing jobs that pay INCOME tax and increase the prosperity of your town! Income made by that corporation either goes into employees pockets (including CEOs), shareholders or gets reinvested. Municipalities should tax the entity only once at the most, not at every level they think they can get away with! Don't chase them into someone else's neighborhood like Obama is planning to do!


I will keep to my original promise of no longer discussing politics here.Mission accomplished! Hopefully that's one less liberal voice spewing ridiculous talking points! Now, keep to your promise, Kid!


As evident by Jeskibuff tone and twisted logic there is no point in responding.Translation: "I'm out of ammunition. There's not much I can say against such stark common sense. I wish my brain wasn't so twisted by the liberal media that common sense goes in and turns into all this mush that I just can't understand. But I'll pretend it's HIS logic that's all convoluted and maybe that'll help me save face!"


I'd say Kex and Feanor it is just best to move on.....Translation: "Let's just shut up and hope he goes away".

[thekid]

Originally Posted by thekid
As evident by Jeskibuff tone and twisted logic there is no point in responding.

Translation: "I'm out of ammunition. There's not much I can say against such stark common sense. I wish my brain wasn't so twisted by the liberal media that common sense goes in and turns into all this mush that I just can't understand. But I'll pretend it's HIS logic that's all convoluted and maybe that'll help me save face!"



If you repeat it often enough it will be true......
Enjoy the Kool-Aid as you head over the cliff with the other lemmings....

[jeskibuff]

If you repeat it often enough it will be true......
Enjoy the Kool-Aid as you head over the cliff with the other lemmings....Oh...thanks for reminding me....

yet another trait of liberals is the frequency of which they project their faults onto others. One of the best examples was when John Kerry was "supposedly" caught "off-mic" saying how the Republicans ran a dirty campaign. Sleazebag Kerry was the epitome of dirty.

Also, the whole accusation that Republicans were trying to steal the Bush/Gore election when it was the Gore team that was trying to selectively recount districts that they thought would be favorable to them.

The list goes on...but here we have "thekid" who is unable to stray from liberal talking points that have been drilled into his head, now accusing me of being a lemming but he doesn't have the mental acuity to intelligently counter even one of my points. But give it your best shot, PLEASE "kid"! I just love rubbing a lib's face in his own excrement!

Projection...not just a method to watch a movie, is it?

[jeskibuff]

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/080904/bagley.jpg

[nightflier]

Jeskibuf,

Apparently you've turned off just about everyone still reading this. That's typical of your kind. The image that Kid posted is exactly the kind of "butcher knife" cutting that makes you Palinists so mind-numbingly impossible to discuss anything with. (Palinist, is a Shawn Hannity coined word by the way, before you go off on that too.) Anyhow, doesn't it follow that your continued insults and ridiculously extreme points of view turn off everyone here? I mean really, did you think this was a boxing match and you were the only one allowed to bring a chain-saw? Jeez, grow up already and realize that if you can't get along with anyone, then maybe you're the one with the wrong point of view.

I mean you've even managed to turn Tex off, and that's the first time I've ever seen anyone come off so far to the right of him that he'd rather go post elsewhere. And while many of us don't always agree with Tex, he at least is a pleasure to discuss issues with - he takes it in stride, ads some valuable insights, adds a little humor, and in the end everybody goes home instead of the ICU. If you don't want to discuss topics rationally, then why are you here? Just in case you're wondering, you certainly haven't succeeded in convincing anyone that your point of view is more valid.

So let's see if we can reboot this topic as it could very well be the watershed issue of our time. Why don't we start with this one: Jeskibuf, do you still think the bail-out was a good idea?

[Worf101]

I'm a vet, a registered Independent and I worked for the Mcain campaign in 2000 but these sublte nuances are lost in most online political discussions. You're either a conservative "red blooded" "Murican or you're liberal "pond scum" responsible for every ailment that besets the country and the world.

People rant about "liberals" as if they're out there killing babies with pitch forks. They hate them worse than they hate Al Quaida. Liberals aren't "perfect" but neither are conservatives. I know some things though that if it weren't for "liberals".

1. We'd still have Slavery.
2.. Women wouldn't have the right to vote.
3 There would've been no "New Deal".
4. We never would've helped Britain or Russia prior to Pearl Harbor.
5. There'd have been no Civil Rights movement.
6. I'd have stayed in my segregated school.
7. We'd still be supporting Non-raping, priest killing and other hienous acts with our tax money.
8. We'd still be supporting every tin-pot right wing junta and despot everywhere in the world much to our detriment and shame.
9. McCarthy and other's of his ilk would've destroyed the Constitution even before Cheney got to it.
10, Nixon would've served out both terms.

I could go on and on and I'm sure some here might believe that one or all of these points above was not "progress" but a set back. But that's the beauty of "free speech", we ALL get to express outselves.

Now what I'd like to know is, if by some chance, Obama is elected President on Nov. 4th what do you think's gonna happen Nov. 5th? Will the world cease to rotate on its axis? Will he suddenly reveal himself as the "antichrist" (as some have actually suggested)? Will muslim death squads be detached to round you and other red stater's up for treason trials? Will your assassination daydreams suddenly become a more concrete desire?

I predict that none of the above will occur, cept mebbe the last part. I also predict that the world will more or less carry on much as it did on Nov. 3rd except we'll know who'll be responsible for cleaning up George's mess finally. If Obama wins I'm sure that he will love, and cherish this nation and do the very best he can to be the BEST President he can.

Why will Obama do the very best he can? Cause if he screws it up he knows that he's just made it harder for next Black person, Red person, Yellow person, Brown person, woman, gay person and any other kinda person but a White Christian male to run and win the Presidency of this great lands. He knows, as I did, that being the "first" at anything brings little joy and much responsiblily. You carry the hopes and dreams of millions on your shoulders. He may be more of a failure than a success in the end, but he'll go down trying to be the best he can, because he HAS to.

And I also know that if Obama wins that some of you along with Hannity, Rush, Michael Savage and all the other's will spend the next 4 to 8 years blaming Obana for every ill just like you did the Clintons before him. And that the cottage industry of anti-liberal hate speak will go on and on and on.

Da Worfster

PS and before you start "painting" me as a "liberal" I'm more of a "Libetarian" Small "s" socialist if you MUST have a label.

[nightflier]

Well there's no disagreement from me here, but something you wrote gave me pause:


Now what I'd like to know is, if by some chance, Obama is elected President on Nov. 4th what do you think's gonna happen Nov. 5th? Will the world cease to rotate on its axis? Will he suddenly reveal himself as the "antichrist" (as some have actually suggested)? Will muslim death squads be detached to round you and other red stater's up for treason trials? Will your assassination daydreams suddenly become a more concrete desire?

What if McCain wins and dies? Could we then re-write that paragraph like this:


Now what I'd like to know is, if by some chance, McCain wins and dies during his term (or even before it starts), and Palin is selected President, what do you think's gonna happen? Will the world cease to rotate on its axis? Will she suddenly reveal herself as the "Sword of Christ" (as some have actually suggested)? Will Christian death squads be detached to round you and other Blue staters up for treason trials?...

Mmmmmmm, maybe.

Like many people, it isn't so much McCain that's scaring the middle-of-the-road Republican voters, the Independents, the Libertarians, and the undicideds, but Palin. First of all, was McCain's hand forced, when he could have fared much better with a Lieberman or Ridge selection? Many Republicans were seriously disappointed at the Palin selection and will see this as the reason McCain lost the race, if Obama wins. Palin is seen as the Achilles heel for this campaign.

I mean we're talking about someone who actually believes (but cannot explain) that dinosaurs were around when people were, someone who believes that Alaska is some kind of last stand for Christians in the coming Armageddon, which she actually believes she will have a hand in bringing about. I'm not making this stuff up - she makes Bush look like a liberal. Never mind the inexperience, the autocratic governance style, and all the other baggage, but do we really want her to sit across the table from Putin or Chavez while her hand is on the red button?

I don't care what people think of Obama and the Democrats, but the alternative is just too great of a risk. Personally, I see it like the millions of Republicans who are going to vote for Obama, this race was over when Palin was added to the ticket. If there's any doubt about that, just look at the electoral college distribution, the battleground sates are all leaning towards Obama, and even without them Obama has enough votes to win it outright. It would take so much election fraud to reverse these numbers that it could literally start a civil war if it went any other way.

Personally, I'd like a little more time to be around, raise my kids, build a little nest egg for my family, and enjoy listening to my audio gear....

[Feanor]

...

I don't care what people think of Obama and the Democrats, but the alternative is just too great of a risk. Personally, I see it like the millions of Republicans who are going to vote for Obama, this race was over when Palin was added to the ticket. If there's any doubt about that, just look at the electoral college distribution, the battleground sates are all leaning towards Obama, and even without them Obama has enough votes to win it outright. It would take so much election fraud to reverse these numbers that it could literally start a civil war if it went any other way.

Personally, I'd like a little more time to be around, raise my kids, build a little nest egg for my family, and enjoy listening to my audio gear....

What is obvious is that McCain's advisors chose Sarah Palin to "complement" McCain himself. She was to appeal to conservative white Christians patriots. Why not? These people are tending more and more each election to vote Republican. But could it be that the real Republican power brokers have miscalculated? Are people not a stupid as they suppose? The scary part is that is really difficult to under estimate human common sense.

[Rich-n-Texas]

This post is made in memory of the greatest Republican leader to ever come from the great state of uuuuhhh... California: President Ronald Reagan.

"The King is dead! Long live the King!"

[Auricauricle]

WHO?

That's what I love about this country: a short attention span....A modern day Piltdown Man gets elected, nearly bankrupts the nation and gets involved in a whole buncha inappropriate and disgraceful activities and disappears from view only to show up when a library is erected in his honor and revisionists convince the public "what a great man he was".

In ten years, the History Channel will make the current chimp look like Albert Schweitzer!

You so sick, Richie...

[Rich-n-Texas]

He didn't bankrupt Cali when he was Governor, so it must've been Congresses fault.

Oh, look at that! It's Friday! Politics talk ends in about 8 hours. Yippee!

[Auricauricle]

No chit!!

I'm gettin' some beer and wurst....Any preferences. ol' buddy, ol' pal?

[Rich-n-Texas]

I had beer brats last night for dinner. That's Bratwurst made with beer. The question I'm sure that's on everyones mind... what KIND of beer? I can't tell, myself.

[Auricauricle]

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought they were what we're calling the obnoxious teenagers living behind us.

If you can't remember the name of the beer you drank, that's a sure sign that you had a really good time!

[Rich-n-Texas]

A really really good time is not remembeing how you got home.

A really really REALLY good time is not remembering the name of the girl whose bed you just woke up in.

I think sticks would concur.

[nightflier]

"A really really good time is not remembering how you got elected.

A really really REALLY good time is not remembering the people you screwed for the past eight years.

I think my good friend Charles Keating would concur."


Doesn't it seem like this was just one grand old party (pun intended) to Shrub & Co.? And now that's it's time to clean up the trash, the puke, the turd on the rim, and the piss in the corners, he's gone home to "sleep it off."

And if you ask me, this whole bail out nonsense is the poisoned pill that the Dems will have to swallow for actually winning this election. I sure hope their first order of business is to fire Bernanke and Paulson.

[Auricauricle]

A really good time is...is...a really...um...

Yeah, I wonder. I wonder what God is telling Bushbaby and Crew, now. Maybe the bull market has been turned into a Golden Calf that had to be demolished to get things back in order (hmmm...).

Let's see who ducks and runs when the time comes!

[bobsticks]

A really really good time is not remembeing how you got home.

A really really REALLY good time is not remembering the name of the girl whose bed you just woke up in.

I think sticks would concur.

...unless you're waking up not remembering the name and getting kicked in the head by drunken, redneck, baby-daddy.

You know it's been a really, really good night when there are pictures circulating of the bellhop pushing your ass around on the cart.

Conversely, getting hi-lowed next to the jet fuel tanks in the pits of the Thunderfest boatraces for inadvertently lighting a cigerette is really bad.

While going in the VIP Lounge can be good, owning the bar that surrounds the VIP Lounge is really, really good. Afterhours is even better. Afterhours with dirty cops is REALLY, REALLY good.

The shock troops busting through the door to serve a warrant and laying down a king-hell beating is a really, really, REALLY bad time I can assure you. The resultant lawsuit because it was the wrong address is a really good time.

However,I can't lay claim to the best. A buddy who had gotten a hefty signing bonus from one of Rich's teams awoke from an extended bender to realize he'd bought a house in Toronto three months earlier and had yet to see it. Now that's a REALLY, REALLY, REALLY good time.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Point taken sir.

[Auricauricle]

Um....how come it's started looking like a confession booth around here....?

[nightflier]

Um....how come it's started looking like a confession booth around here....?

...some people have a lot to fess up to?

[bobsticks]

Maybe because.... ...some people have a lot to fess up to?

I know you two ain't talkin to me.

I always find it curious that most who have lived within the confines of conventional morality their entire lives tend to be rather dead inside and, as a result, tend to sit in judgement of others pretty quickly. Those who have seen both sides of the track can often separate a person's behaviour from their worth.

Confession implies guilt and while I occasionally experience regret I can assure you I feel not an ounce of guilt, at least not about anyting mentioned here.

Just some food for thought...

Peace amigos

---sticks

[Auricauricle]

Okay.

Now do twenty Hail Marys and have a drink like a good lad....

[GMichael]

All I know is that for once, no one can blame me for this thread getting off topic.
I'm voting for none of the above. Let the T-man take over.

[Auricauricle]

(Cough!)

[nightflier]

...a fly on the wall of a confession booth.

Sticks, I was referring more to politicians and public figures, especially the ones who appear to have their bow-ties on a little too tight (the likes of Folley, Palin, Gingrich, Thomas, and Shrub) who seem to forget their own glass houses when they start casting stones. But in the case of this forum, the same could be suggested for Jeskibuff and a few others. They just seem wound up a little tight, no?

[Auricauricle]

Is that what you call a saloon keeper who can't help returning to his watering hole: a re-publican?!

No wonder they're such a mess....:)

[nightflier]

Is that what you call a saloon keeper who can't help returning to his watering hole: a re-publican?! No wonder they're such a mess....:)

...Alcohol (Cheney), arrogance (Rumsfeld), pain killers (Limbaugh), petrodollars (Stevens), cocaine (Shrub), young boys in bathrooms (Craig), double-bag ugliness (Rice), unbridled greed (Paulson), morbid negativity (Bernanke), mind-numbing sheer stupidity (Palin), etc. is what keeps them going in the face of absolute and total failure.

And it provides convenient & plausible deniability should the crap that hit the fan actually splatter them in the back of the head as they run for cover!

[Auricauricle]

Yeah...Sorta reminds me of the cockroaches and snakes that keep movin' even when they have no head.....It's just spooky, man!

[nightflier]

Speaking of cockroaches and snakes, doesn't it seem like they keep asking for more every day? Today they wanted another $40B for covering the losses of banks so that they would refinance bad loans. How about making the banks do this w/o covering their losses. Maybe these banks could garnish the wages of their CEOs instead. Jeez.

[thekid]

Everybody just keeps covering their collective butts with the government credit card.

It is going to be another ugly day in the market with the Dow mostly likely going below 8,000.You can expect another bailout of some type being announced in yet another effort to stem the tide. I think at some point they need to realize we can not bailout everyone.

[thekid]

Oh...thanks for reminding me....

yet another trait of liberals is the frequency of which they project their faults onto others. One of the best examples was when John Kerry was "supposedly" caught "off-mic" saying how the Republicans ran a dirty campaign. Sleazebag Kerry was the epitome of dirty.

Also, the whole accusation that Republicans were trying to steal the Bush/Gore election when it was the Gore team that was trying to selectively recount districts that they thought would be favorable to them.

The list goes on...but here we have "thekid" who is unable to stray from liberal talking points that have been drilled into his head, now accusing me of being a lemming but he doesn't have the mental acuity to intelligently counter even one of my points. But give it your best shot, PLEASE "kid"! I just love rubbing a lib's face in his own excrement!

Projection...not just a method to watch a movie, is it?

Its now November 5th and since I lack the mental acuity to come up with anything else I will just quote the Bard "Revenge is a dish best served cold.........."

Jes-Have a nice day reading today's headlines and thinking about the concilatory words of your candidate as he gave one of the best concession speeches of all time. Hopefully the unity message of both candidates will be heeded by their supporters and we can begin to solve the problems that inspired this thread in the first place.

[nightflier]

Today I heard that AIG is getting another $60B or so. Was that last spa-resort trip for their CEOs not good enough? Where will they be going next, Tahiti?

[Auricauricle]

....More fingers for the dike.

[Feanor]

Today I heard that AIG is getting another $60B or so. Was that last spa-resort trip for their CEOs not good enough? Where will they be going next, Tahiti?

Didn't I hear Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs talking about that the Federal Reserve wasn't going to release the names and amounts given to corporations under the trillion dollar bail-out plan? On what planet do those guys live? Isn't this what Henry Paulson originally insisted on? That is, complete lack of accountability even after the fact?

That request insistance was positively byzantine. In a simpler time these guys wouln't just be impeached, they'd be impaled.

[Auricauricle]

Circle the wagons!!! The injuns are comin'!!!!

Who says that humans don't have a herd instinct?

[thekid]

A cynic might say the our the current administration may be trying to dole out a few more "no-bid goodies" to their cronies under the guise of a bailout. However I have heard there has been a few Freedom of Information filings demanding some transparency. I can't see the current Fed Chair and the Treasury Secretary trying to do anything other than what they said they were going to do in this process. Some lower level political appointees might be a different story......

[nightflier]

A cynic might say the our the current administration may be trying to dole out a few more "no-bid goodies" to their cronies under the guise of a bailout. However I have heard there has been a few Freedom of Information filings demanding some transparency. I can't see the current Fed Chair and the Treasury Secretary trying to do anything other than what they said they were going to do in this process. Some lower level political appointees might be a different story......

...As soon as the Obama team gets a hold of the reigns, the party will be over? Or maybe the lame ducks are trying to sink the ship before the rescue boat can arrive? Maybe those spineless Pelosi-Dems can actually do something useful this fall and keep the Titanic from sinking completely?

Feanor, impaling doesn't bring the message home to the four corners of the empire. How about some good old drawing & quartering and then displaying the four rotting pieces in the town squares of Washington, Chicago, Dallas, and LA, William-Wallace style? That ought to keep the rest of the bankers, career politicians, and their lawyers in line! But I guess that's not PC anymore... Well I'll settle for some tar & feathers, then. But it's got to be public.

:devil:

[bobsticks]

That request insistance was positively byzantine. In a simpler time these guys wouln't just be impeached, they'd be impaled.

Feanor, sometimes I find your brand of liberalism, ahem, mystifying. I mean, big government is doing it for big business. I'd have thought a union guy would be all for it. In any case, I find myself in agreement...as improbable as that sounds.

As someone who has become an unwilling investor in some of the biggest, most horribly mismanaged companies in the country I have to wonder what type of ROI I'll be getting when this cycle comes full circle and it's business as usual.

[nightflier]

Not to add to the impaling/drawing-quartering/tar-feathering sentiment, but it seems our friends at AIG are again showing us tax-payers how they're spending our money. You'd think after getting caught the first time getting $800 mani-pedis that they'd stop the shenanigans, but not really. This time, they actually went to some length to hide the fact that they were pissing away my tax dollars, and in McCain's home state, too.

AIG Execs Hold Another Luxury Retreat
from http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/12/headlines#10

Executives at the government-rescued insurance giant AIG have been caught holding another secretive gathering at a luxury resort. Using hidden cameras, local ABC News reporters filmed AIG execs poolside at the Pointe Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix, Arizona. AIG has admitted to asking the hotel to ensure there were no AIG signs and to instruct staff not to mention its presence. It’s at least the second known resort getaway for AIG brass since their government rescue. In September, company executives held a week-long, nearly half-a-million-dollar retreat at a luxury resort just days after receiving an initial $85 billion in taxpayer money. On Monday, the Bush administration said it would give AIG an additional $40 billion, bringing its taxpayer tab to $150 billion so far.


OK, if we're not going to tar and feather anyone, can somebody please explain to me why we don't just take the money back? I mean at this point I'd sure as hell rather give it to the automakers who are at least agreeing to some spending restrictions to goalong with their check. Hell, why not just give that money to public schools, as a Christmas present? It sure as hell would go a lot farther than spending it on luxury vacations.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Hey flyboy, check out this thread: http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=28607 It's just BEGGING for your participation. :yesnod:

[nightflier]

Hey flyboy, check out this thread: http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=28607 It's just BEGGING for your participation. :yesnod:

Yes, that was fun. Now watch the sparks fly.

:biggrin5: