The Official American Election 2008 Thread

[Asaspades]

Gotta agree with it being a rollar coster ride, but lets not forget that it was Socialist Policies started in 95 that started all of this. Congress pushing for banks to give out loans to poor people in a effort to put more poor people in houses has absolutely back fired on us.

Could you be specific in which act you are talking about please?

I believe that McCain has said the economy is in trouble before this, but has maintained that the Fundamentals of our Economy is strong, which is true, the Fundamentals aka the strength of our workers, have remained strong.

How about a national unemployment rate of 6.1% and many states breaking 15 and 20 year records with their rates. I also disagree that the workers are the fundamental aspect of our economy, we are not agrarian or even industial anymore. Th foundation of our economy is now lending, which is why the collapse of Lehman has had such an affect.

Gotta agree there was no other choice, and both Cannidates seem to agree that it was a bad move but we had no other choice. But we cannot continue to bail out these companies. As for deregulation, having increasing regulation of these industries will just screw us more, we have to find a balance.

How could regulating the loan practices of banks make this any worse? please elaborate.

Lets also not forget that it is Obama who has these corrupt CEOs giving him advice, and it was McCain that foresaw these problems in 2005 and pushed for legislation to try to fix them.

Ha! An obama campaign staffer had one E-mail conversation with him! Barack obama has had no communication with him what so ever. Also, lets look at McCains campaign manager. http://mediamatters.org/items/200612130001
Thats who McCain is meeting with and getting advice from every day. on your second point, a question, what do you call an act by congress that somehow has the government act to restrain or control the practices of a company? regulation perhaps? But wait, regulation will only exagerate the problem correct?

In Lighter news, Biden continues to make a *** of himself, saying that more taxation is not only patriotic but religious as well! And then now he was caught saying how Ohio State is going to get it's *** kicked. In a state in which Obama only has a 1 point lead, I wouldn't think it would be good policy to insult their College Football team

I don't see how noting that a football team is getting beat is so scandelous, and I doubt it will have an effect on polls at all.

Also, I think we can agree taht the practices of certain finacial companies are unethical and fraudulant. Now going back to you comment about the socialist policies of 95', if you give the poor loans, thats one thing, but when you mainpulate people, and give loans to people with the intent of taking their money, and in some cases, houses, then maybe you are a bit out of the juristiction that that law provides.

 

[BigLutz]

Could you be specific in which act you are talking about please?

In 1995 Bill Clinton insisted on new regulations to the Community Reinvestment Act, which directed the Federal Financial Regulators' attention on lenders performance in making loans to minorities, this brought about a big increase in sub prime loans, to low income borrowers with poor credit history. Thus starting off the first sub prime loans in 1997, in a socialized effort to provide more housing for low income people. This started the ball rolling to where we are today. Now was this the only reason that the Housing and Banking market crashed? Hell No. And alot of the blame is laid at the feet of the banks for these Predatory and Sub Prime Loans. But the ground work for what was to come, started here with the socialist increases to the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Government's failure to make sure that the pressure bringing brought about by banks, was not resulting in the banks using predatory lending to fulfill their obligation.

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." - Barney Frank(D-MA) 2002

How about a national unemployment rate of 6.1% and many states breaking 15 and 20 year records with their rates. I also disagree that the workers are the fundamental aspect of our economy, we are not agrarian or even industial anymore. Th foundation of our economy is now lending, which is why the collapse of Lehman has had such an affect.

Part of our economy may be lending, but we do still have a major focus on industry, as well as agriculture. Especially in mid western states. And really 6.1% Unemployment is nothing compared to the Unemployment numbers of the Carter Depression or the Great Depression. What McCain was getting at is our strength has been and still is the American worker, we have recovered from depressions before and came out stronger and we will recover from this one.

How could regulating the loan practices of banks make this any worse? please elaborate.

Some regulation will work, but not alot. Too much legislation and Congress tends to screw it up.

Ha! An obama campaign staffer had one E-mail conversation with him! Barack obama has had no communication with him what so ever.

Well for one that isn't true, one of the CEOs is actually on the Obama Campaign Staff. Second you have no idea who on the Obama Political Campaign CALLED ( It was a Phone Call not a Email ) Franklin Raines. If it was some one calling the CEO for Economic Advice it wasn't just some lowly staffer, but one of the higher ups that has access to crafting the Economic Policy of Obama if not Obama himself. And the other CEO, Jim Johnson is still under Obama's employment.

Also, lets look at McCains campaign manager. http://mediamatters.org/items/200612130001
Thats who McCain is meeting with and getting advice from every day.

Actually no, McCain wouldn't be meeting with him everyday for advice, the man is a Campaign Manager meaning he would be running aspects of the Campaign and not policy advice. Second do you really want to get into the sleazy underhanded tactics David Axelrod uses (Obama's Campaign Manager)? Or the Sleazy Underhanded Tactics Obama has used in the past? Trust me, you don't want to go there.

Edit: Also just a reminder that Media Matters isnt really a valid source, it is funded and controlled by several Hyper Partisans. Its up there with Democrat Underground, Red State, Move On.org, and others in terms of providing a one sided angle.

on your second point, a question, what do you call an act by congress that somehow has the government act to restrain or control the practices of a company? regulation perhaps? But wait, regulation will only exagerate the problem correct?

I never said there does not need to be some regulation. Obviously there needed to be some in 2005 when the first signs of this crisis started. But we cannot over regulate.

I don't see how noting that a football team is getting beat is so scandelous, and I doubt it will have an effect on polls at all.

When your Campiagn is only ahead by 1 Point you try not to do any harm. Second insulting a College Football team, something that many of those in Ohio hold dear. Is not the smartest thing to do. ESPECIALLY when Ohio just got beat horribly last week, its pretty much adding salt into the wound of a football team that tens of thousands of people are devoted to.

Also, I think we can agree taht the practices of certain finacial companies are unethical and fraudulant. Now going back to you comment about the socialist policies of 95', if you give the poor loans, thats one thing, but when you mainpulate people, and give loans to people with the intent of taking their money, and in some cases, houses, then maybe you are a bit out of the juristiction that that law provides.

How about when you give a loan knowing that there is a good possibility they will not be able to pay it? Knowing that eventually they will default and you will have to come and take their house? How about the Government encouraging the increase of such loans? You want to start locking people up for knowingly giving out loans to poor people then lets start with those that crafted the Socialist revisions in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1995 and move on from there.

 

[Asaspades]

In 1995 Bill Clinton insisted on new regulations to the Community Reinvestment Act, which directed the Federal Financial Regulators' attention on lenders performance in making loans to minorities, this brought about a big increase in sub prime loans, to low income borrowers with poor credit history. Thus starting off the first sub prime loans in 1997, in a socialized effort to provide more housing for low income people. This started the ball rolling to where we are today. Now was this the only reason that the Housing and Banking market crashed? Hell No. And alot of the blame is laid at the feet of the banks for these Predatory and Sub Prime Loans. But the ground work for what was to come, started here with the socialist increases to the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Government's failure to make sure that the pressure bringing brought about by banks, was not resulting in the banks using predatory lending to fulfill their obligation.

You cannot credit Clinton and the congress at that time for this. Guns are legal. People commit criminal acts with guns, does that mean that we blame gun providers? this is another debate that i don't want to get into because it really isn't relevant, but the point remains the same, criminal acts were commited. Congress and clinton didn't do anything criminal, these people acted on their own to decieve the government and people they were lending to, and the government shouldn't have any responsibility in that.

Part of our economy may be lending, but we do still have a major focus on industry, as well as agriculture. Especially in mid western states. And really 6.1% Unemployment is nothing compared to the Unemployment numbers of the Carter Depression or the Great Depression. What McCain was getting at is our strength has been and still is the American worker, we have recovered from depressions before and came out stronger and we will recover from this one.

This is true, but that is not a true figure as to who is unemployed. it's just the number of people collecting unemployment. And while our economy is still influenced by agriculture and industry, we are now based on lending. The American worker still isn't strong, they are losing their houses and those that can afford them are seeing the value plummit, they are being layed off. So i really don't understand what he means when he say the workers are strong. i have no doubt we wil recover from this recession, but I would like to know what Mccain plans to do about it.

Some regulation will work, but not alot. Too much legislation and Congress tends to screw it up.

What specificly will work/not work

Well for one that isn't true, one of the CEOs is actually on the Obama Campaign Staff. Second you have no idea who on the Obama Political Campaign CALLED ( It was a Phone Call not a Email ) Franklin Raines. If it was some one calling the CEO for Economic Advice it wasn't just some lowly staffer, but one of the higher ups that has access to crafting the Economic Policy of Obama if not Obama himself. And the other CEO, Jim Johnson is still under Obama's employment.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/12/1134958.aspx

before you go touting that msnbc is biased, consider that the facts remain the same. He resigned almost 3 months ago.

Actually no, McCain wouldn't be meeting with him everyday for advice, the man is a Campaign Manager meaning he would be running aspects of the Campaign and not policy advice. Second do you really want to get into the sleazy underhanded tactics David Axelrod uses (Obama's Campaign Manager)? Or the Sleazy Underhanded Tactics Obama has used in the past? Trust me, you don't want to go there.

No i think i do. Let me just say that if this man is running McCains campaign, then who do you think is going to run his administration? not to mention this isn't the first time McCain has associated with people or even himself been a part of something unethical to this degree. Someone who is running a campaign is speaking to the canidate everyday, maybe not about policy, but updating them on the happenings. Also, someone who is running your campaign for public office is not someone who is likely to disagree with you to drasticly.

I never said there does not need to be some regulation. Obviously there needed to be some in 2005 when the first signs of this crisis started. But we cannot over regulate.

Well what do you suppose, or what does McCain suppose rather, that we do to regulate then?

When your Campiagn is only ahead by 1 Point you try not to do any harm. Second insulting a College Football team, something that many of those in Ohio hold dear. Is not the smartest thing to do.

I'm not saying it was smart, but i seriously doubt that people in ohio will care whether a running mate likes the local football team enough to impact thier vote.

How about when you give a loan knowing that there is a good possibility they will not be able to pay it? Knowing that eventually they will default and you will have to come and take their house? How about the Government encouraging the increase of such loans? You want to start locking people up for knowingly giving out loans to poor people then lets start with those that crafted the Socialist revisions in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1995 and move on from there.

How would the congressmen who passed that act benefit from that though? obviously it wasn't their intent to make people lose their homes, what would they stand to gain? What we have here, are banks and lenders bending those rules for selfish gain. Should their have been something in place to prevent this? Yes. But what has happend has happend, and regulation in the future will only help prevent this kind of crisis. And what about the socialist policies that have just been enacted? When the market opens October second and it plunges a good 500 points, then lets point some fingers, because all the growth that happend friday and will happen this next week is 100% artificial and i garuntee we will fall back to a worse position then when we started come 3 weeks from now.

 

[BigLutz]

You cannot credit Clinton and the congress at that time for this. Guns are legal. People commit criminal acts with guns, does that mean that we blame gun providers?

Horrible Horrible Comparison, becuase it was the Government that started pushing the Banks to commit these acts. If this were a shooting as you seem to believe, the Government would be considered a accessory for murder for pushing these companies to give out these predatory loans.

this is another debate that i don't want to get into because it really isn't relevant, but the point remains the same, criminal acts were commited. Congress and clinton didn't do anything criminal, these people acted on their own to decieve the government and people they were lending to, and the government shouldn't have any responsibility in that.

I never said Clinton or Congress comitted anything Criminal, again you are leaping to conclusions. But the Government implementing a horrible socialist policy DID start this whole thing off.

This is true, but that is not a true figure as to who is unemployed. it's just the number of people collecting unemployment. And while our economy is still influenced by agriculture and industry, we are now based on lending. The American worker still isn't strong, they are losing their houses and those that can afford them are seeing the value plummit, they are being layed off.

Yes and the unemployment numbers were even higher than shown during those two acts. Also no our economy is still largely based in manufacturing, from war materials to aircraft parts to computer circuit boards, that is the bread and butter of the industry. Also events in the housing market does not mean that the work ethic or strength of the American Worker has decreased in any way.

So i really don't understand what he means when he say the workers are strong. i have no doubt we wil recover from this recession, but I would like to know what Mccain plans to do about it.

It is obvious that you do not understand. As for McCain's plan, neither Obama nor McCain have released their plans as to how they will deal with this crisis.

What specificly will work/not work

Dammit Jim I am a Game Designer not a Financial Economist!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/12/1134958.aspx

I love McCain's come back to it.

"Pretty flimsy? As Dobbs goes on to say, that "pretty flimsy" source is his own paper, the Washington Post. The Post reported that Raines had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." It then recycled that information into two more pieces, one of which was an editorial. But we're willing to make a deal. If Dobbs admits his newspaper is not a credible source, we'll take down the ad."

The Washington Post has shown utter partisanship and stupidity in this whole ordeal. They printed the information about Obama not once but TWICE. And Obama did not raise one word about the story both times. It wasn't until McCain used the Washington Post's own information did not only Obama but the Washington Post come out and say it was wrong.

So what to believe... That a story was horribly written by the reporter on hand, went through a editor who approved it, was published, written again by another reporter, went through another editor who approved it, and was published. With out anyone asking for a fact check on that information? Or that the Washington Post is doing their best to cover their asses as to not offend Obama, who if elected could have the Washington Post reporters sitting on the outside looking in with very little to no access.

So either the Washington Post has worse fact checking than a High School Newspaper, or they are lying to keep in favor with Obama so that they are not shut out from his administration.

Gee I wonder which one that could be...[/sarcasm]

before you go touting that msnbc is biased, consider that the facts remain the same. He resigned almost 3 months ago.

Which absolutely does not mitigate the fact that Obama sought out his help.

No i think i do. Let me just say that if this man is running McCains campaign, then who do you think is going to run his administration?

That would be John McCain. Candidates don't run Political Campaigns, they do run Administrations. They are two utterly different animals.

Which is why it was so utterly laughable when Obama claimed that running the Campaign gave him executive experience.

not to mention this isn't the first time McCain has associated with people or even himself been a part of something unethical to this degree.

This is hilarious coming from a Obama supporter.

Someone who is running a campaign is speaking to the canidate everyday, maybe not about policy, but updating them on the happenings. Also, someone who is running your campaign for public office is not someone who is likely to disagree with you to drasticly.

So would this mean Obama agrees with David Axelrod's? Just a question becuase there is a little thing the Obama for Illinois Senate did back in 1996 I believe. In which he used a variety of underhanded and sleazy and really unethical tricks to get his opponents off the ballot so that he would run unopposed for the Democrat Nomination of his district. I mean seriously I just want to know if Obama agrees with this type of deception of depriving the people of a vote.

But to correct you, in a national campaign the person you hire to run it doesn't have to agree with you, and probably doesn't even talk to you. Their job is to get you elected, which means setting up Campaign Rallies, running the Electoral Math, and making sure the other members are communicating with you. They are hired for that job, not to craft policy, not to go five rounds of debate on Global Warming. They are there to help you win, and as I have pointed out with Obama's own campaign in 95/96, they will do it any way possible.

Well what do you suppose, or what does McCain suppose rather, that we do to regulate then?

We will find out when both McCain and Obama release their full strategies.

I'm not saying it was smart, but i seriously doubt that people in ohio will care whether a running mate likes the local football team enough to impact thier vote.

He didn't say that he didnt like them, he said that they would kick Ohio State's ***. And if you really think that the Tens of Thousands of Buckeye fans will not get ****** off at this. Then you really do not know Ohio State College Football. These people are absolute nuts.

How would the congressmen who passed that act benefit from that though? obviously it wasn't their intent to make people lose their homes, what would they stand to gain?

You mean other than a socialist agenda? You keep thinking these people are in all for themselves, when in reality many push their own political agenda while in office.

What we have here, are banks and lenders bending those rules for selfish gain. Should their have been something in place to prevent this? Yes. But what has happend has happend, and regulation in the future will only help prevent this kind of crisis.

Except of course too much regulation will kill industries. Government has a absolutely horrible record when running things. Which is why there has to be a balance. And you continue to forget that it was this act that started pushing these banks to make these loans.

And what about the socialist policies that have just been enacted? When the market opens October second and it plunges a good 500 points, then lets point some fingers, because all the growth that happend friday and will happen this next week is 100% artificial and i garuntee we will fall back to a worse position then when we started come 3 weeks from now.

And again this coming from your * checks your age profile * 14 years of experience in market trading?

 

[Asaspades]

I never said Clinton or Congress comitted anything Criminal, again you are leaping to conclusions. But the Government implementing a horrible socialist policy DID start this whole thing off.

The government did not push predatory lending companies such as coutrywide into existance in the form they are now.

Yes and the unemployment numbers were even higher than shown during those two acts. Also no our economy is still largely based in manufacturing, from war materials to aircraft parts to computer circuit boards, that is the bread and butter of the industry. Also events in the housing market does not mean that the work ethic or strength of the American Worker has decreased in any way.

Those workers are the people affected most by the housing bust! The whote collar workers sitting in an office making 100k a year are going to be fine because they have a good mortgage. These people needed to actually use these adjustable rate mortgages to putchase homes, and are now being foreclosed upon. Plus layoffs. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&scoring=r&edition=us&q=job+cuts+layoffs+location:usa

It is obvious that you do not understand. As for McCain's plan, neither Obama nor McCain have released their plans as to how they will deal with this crisis.

I think maybe you and Mccain both dont uinderstand that workers are the onyl ones being affected by this! Difficult to keep up morale when you may be layed off next week, and your losing your house because of a predatory lending company.

Dammit Jim I am a Game Designer not a Financial Economist!

Well you seem to be against regulation, but for some of it. Why is that, and what regulayion do you support. Have an opinion, you always do.

I love McCain's come back to it.

"Pretty flimsy? As Dobbs goes on to say, that "pretty flimsy" source is his own paper, the Washington Post. The Post reported that Raines had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." It then recycled that information into two more pieces, one of which was an editorial. But we're willing to make a deal. If Dobbs admits his newspaper is not a credible source, we'll take down the ad."

The Washington Post has shown utter partisanship and stupidity in this whole ordeal. They printed the information about Obama not once but TWICE. And Obama did not raise one word about the story both times. It wasn't until McCain used the Washington Post's own information did not only Obama but the Washington Post come out and say it was wrong.

So what to believe... That a story was horribly written by the reporter on hand, went through a editor who approved it, was published, written again by another reporter, went through another editor who approved it, and was published. With out anyone asking for a fact check on that information? Or that the Washington Post is doing their best to cover their asses as to not offend Obama, who if elected could have the Washington Post reporters sitting on the outside looking in with very little to no access.

So either the Washington Post has worse fact checking than a High School Newspaper, or they are lying to keep in favor with Obama so that they are not shut out from his administration.

Gee I wonder which one that could be...[/sarcasm]

You can't just dispute the entire article. There are FACTS there. You always say "biased!" Well you can't add bias to FACTS. Heres a fact for you; he retired from fannie mae 4 years ago, well before we even knew there was going to be a crisis. He himself has also insisted that he was not an advisor to the campaign. McCain's ad that tries to connect the two also claims that Frank Rains was a part of the fraud at fannie mae, when he stepped down four years ago.

Which absolutely does not mitigate the fact that Obama sought out his help.

He was hired on his veep canidate selection staff. And he stepped down months ago. So all he did was possiblyu give us Biden if they had even made any progress at that point.

That would be John McCain. Candidates don't run Political Campaigns, they do run Administrations. They are two utterly different animals.

As we can see from regan and bush, canidates dont always run their administrations. And even those that do get all their facts and advice from their cabinate. If his campaign is managed by lobbyists, whose going to be in his cabinet?

Which is why it was so utterly laughable when Obama claimed that running the Campaign gave him executive experience.

You think that he isn't doing anything at all for the campaign? I have no doubt john Mccain is doing things for his campaign.

This is hilarious coming from a Obama supporter.

I find it halarious coming from a conservative.

So would this mean Obama agrees with David Axelrod's? Just a question becuase there is a little thing the Obama for Illinois Senate did back in 1996 I believe. In which he used a variety of underhanded and sleazy and really unethical tricks to get his opponents off the ballot so that he would run unopposed for the Democrat Nomination of his district. I mean seriously I just want to know if Obama agrees with this type of deception of depriving the people of a vote.

What he did was perfectly legal. I really see no reason this is an issue, They did what they could do. They didnt run attacks ads with little to no fact at all in them, they used chicago legal proceedings. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html

But to correct you, in a national campaign the person you hire to run it doesn't have to agree with you, and probably doesn't even talk to you. Their job is to get you elected, which means setting up Campaign Rallies, running the Electoral Math, and making sure the other members are communicating with you. They are hired for that job, not to craft policy, not to go five rounds of debate on Global Warming. They are there to help you win, and as I have pointed out with Obama's own campaign in 95/96, they will do it any way possible.

Well if you can't connect lobbyists to McCain, then you can't connect axelrod to obama can you? McCain has been running attacks ads that have little to no fact in them, but thats his campaign, so it clearly doesn;t reflect what mccain believe s at all.

We will find out when both McCain and Obama release their full strategies.

*holds breath*

He didn't say that he didnt like them, he said that they would kick Ohio State's ***. And if you really think that the Tens of Thousands of Buckeye fans will not get ****** off at this. Then you really do not know Ohio State College Football. These people are absolute nuts.

i think you are a bit out of touch. its not going to make a difference. People arn't that crazy.

You mean other than a socialist agenda? You keep thinking these people are in all for themselves, when in reality many push their own political agenda while in office.

yes, but they disnt with the intent of giving rise to predatory lenders.

Except of course too much regulation will kill industries. Government has a absolutely horrible record when running things. Which is why there has to be a balance. And you continue to forget that it was this act that started pushing these banks to make these loans.

Social Security? Military? Infastructure? Also, if you look at history, the great depression was caused by deregulation.

And again this coming from your * checks your age profile * 14 years of experience in market trading?

you have no idea what investment expirience i have. my parents may both be brokers for all you know. ill have you know, ive been playing a stock market simulation for school, and have had a 50% return in the last week as the market tanks, so dont think that i dont know how the market works. Besides, all anyone can do is buy right now, theyre picking the banks up on the flip side, and once they can short sell again, then they will, and theyll sell their longs and go short. Just you watch.

 

[BigLutz]

The government did not push predatory lending companies such as coutrywide into existance in the form they are now.

No they pushed for them to make a certain number of these sub prime loans. Which helped start a lot of this predatory lending.

Those workers are the people affected most by the housing bust!

Actually no low income workers who bought these sub prime loans are the most affected by the housing bust. The Middle Class workers are more affected by the higher price of things, brought on by both Gas and the Housing Problems.

I think maybe you and Mccain both dont uinderstand that workers are the onyl ones being affected by this! Difficult to keep up morale when you may be layed off next week, and your losing your house because of a predatory lending company.

Again most Middle Class workers are not worried about losing their house to predatory loans, it's the lower class that was effected most by this. Yes morale is low for the nation becuase of this, but that does not mean that our strength isnt with our workers.

And to further prove this, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson echoed this today.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, trying to remedy the biggest U.S. financial crisis in decades, said on Sunday, "I wouldn't bet against the long-term fundamentals of this country."

"But this is a humbling experience to see so much fragility in our capital markets, and ask how did we ever get here," Paulson told NBC's "Meet the Press" as he sought to sell the U.S. Congress and the American people on his multi-billion-dollar rescue plan.

"I'm confident Congress will move and move quickly," Paulson said.

Asked about the fundamentals of the U.S. economy, Paulson said, "I won't bet against the American people ... We will work through this."

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2148464520080921

Well you seem to be against regulation, but for some of it. Why is that, and what regulayion do you support. Have an opinion, you always do.

Well first we need to repeal the socialist stupidity of the Government forcing companies to lend out a certain number of Sub Prime Mortgages. Second we need to put in oversight either by the Government or a Independent Organization to make sure that these Companies cannot cook the books and create billions of dollars of nonexistent growth. We do not how ever need to have the Government looking over these organizations every step.

You can't just dispute the entire article. There are FACTS there. You always say "biased!" Well you can't add bias to FACTS.

Yeah I can, the thing with the article is that if the Washington Post had the FACTS as you so aptly put it. Then they should never have posted the lines in the article in the first place. Contrary to popular belief the McCain Campaign are not mind readers, the information they had is what the Washington Post had posted. And what they posted was that the Obama Campaign had taken phone calls from him.

Heres a fact for you; he retired from fannie mae 4 years ago, well before we even knew there was going to be a crisis.

Do you honestly think Fannae Mae didn't know this was coming? Also lets look at what happened to make him leave.

* March 2005: Perverse executive pay forced Raines out of his job
.
* May 2006: Extensive fraud at Fannie Mae under Raines’ direction, generating over $50 million in bonuses for nonexistent growth.

* April 2008: Raines gives up $24 million in future payouts to avoid criminal charges in Fannie Mae fraud, although most of that was in worthless options; he pays $2 million in cash.

To say that he didn't have a hand in this crisis by using his executive powers to cook the books is absolutely IGNORANT of the situation.

He himself has also insisted that he was not an advisor to the campaign. McCain's ad that tries to connect the two also claims that Frank Rains was a part of the fraud at fannie mae, when he stepped down four years ago.

He claimed that AFTER the McCain Ad came out. And yes he was part of the fraud that happened in Fannie Mae. The Fraud didn't start in 2005 or 2006, it took a long time to build to this.

Lets look at the two articles that the McCain was working from, again from the Washington Post.

7/16/08: more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”

8/28/08: Two members of Mr. Obama’s political circle, James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, are former chief executives of Fannie Mae.“

Now I ask you, WHY the HELL didnt Obama and Raines object to these articles WHEN they came out?

He was hired on his veep canidate selection staff. And he stepped down months ago. So all he did was possiblyu give us Biden if they had even made any progress at that point.

He also helped bundle hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Obama Campaign. Again no matter if he was there for a day, they hired a man who helped bring about this crisis. That just shows horrible judgement.

As we can see from regan and bush, canidates dont always run their administrations. And even those that do get all their facts and advice from their cabinate. If his campaign is managed by lobbyists, whose going to be in his cabinet?

Why don't you ask McCain? And unless you were in the Reagan or Bush White House, then you have no idea who ran their administrations. The thing is though, at the end of the day the decision comes down to the President. The same is not said when it comes to Presidential Campaigns.

You think that he isn't doing anything at all for the campaign? I have no doubt john Mccain is doing things for his campaign.

Yes he is making speeches, kissing babies, and sitting down with speech writers. He doesn't have time to micromanage his campaign, nor does Obama.

What he did was perfectly legal. I really see no reason this is an issue, They did what they could do. They didnt run attacks ads with little to no fact at all in them, they used chicago legal proceedings. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html

Just becuase it was legal does not mean it was right. I mean seriously what Obama did was no better what many dictators have done. Kicked the others off the ballot so that they have absolutely no choice. Now did I say that was illegal? No. But it was sleazy, underhanded, disgusting, and absolutely pathetic.

Well if you can't connect lobbyists to McCain, then you can't connect axelrod to obama can you? McCain has been running attacks ads that have little to no fact in them, but thats his campaign, so it clearly doesn;t reflect what mccain believe s at all.

Newsflash, both Campiagns run attack Ads that play fast and loose with the facts. To think Obama is some white horse that has not ran attack ads filled with lies, is absolute stupidity.

i think you are a bit out of touch. its not going to make a difference. People arn't that crazy.

Yeah they are, especially these College Football fans. And in a election that could come down to Ohio again, Obama could have just lost the election by having tens of thousands of youths switch their votes.

yes, but they disnt with the intent of giving rise to predatory lenders.

No, but that does not mean they are not guilty in some part for giving rise to predatory lenders. Especially with forcing these companies to make a certain number of these sub prime loans.

Social Security? Military? Infastructure? Also, if you look at history, the great depression was caused by deregulation.

News Flash: Social Security is being driven into the ground, our generation wont even get Social Security it has been so badly mismanaged.

News Flash: The Infrastructure ran by the Government of much of this country is failing, schools are falling apart, other companies are doing the job of the Post Office Better, and areas that need repair, such as Bridges or Levies, are having their money transferred to Football Stadiums.

The only thing that is ran well is the Military, and really that is becuase we have Generals and experienced Professionals that command the Military, and the Government takes a pretty hands off approach when dictating strategy.

you have no idea what investment expirience i have. my parents may both be brokers for all you know.

And my Father is a house designer that does not mean I know everything about the housing crisis. Just becuase your parents are brokers does not automatically give you Investment Experience, nor is it a valid debate.

ill have you know, ive been playing a stock market simulation for school, and have had a 50% return in the last week as the market tanks,

Good for you, and playing simulations is not comparable to real experience.

so dont think that i dont know how the market works.

So far you have shown you don't.

Besides, all anyone can do is buy right now, theyre picking the banks up on the flip side, and once they can short sell again, then they will, and theyll sell their longs and go short. Just you watch.

Well for one right now alot of people are doing right now is panicking and selling. Second saying you know exactly where the market is going to go at a specific time is insane. There are too many forces at work, too many variables to predict exactly what is going to happen a week, a month, a year down the line.

 

[Asaspades]

Ill post again later in response as i dont have time right now, but this really got me

And my Father is a house designer that does not mean I know everything about the housing crisis. Just becuase your parents are brokers does not automatically give you Investment Experience, nor is it a valid debate.

My parents arn't actually brokers, i was saying hypothetically, you dont know the expirience i may have. i also may be lying about my age, i may be 45 and a broker myself, you just dont know.

G

ood for you, and playing simulations is not comparable to real experience.

Actually, you are investing in real companies and getting the real world results. The only difference is that the money is hypothetical. if i did have 100,000 to invest, then i would actually have made about $50,000, so yah, it is pretty comparable.

So far you have shown you don't.

That is a matter of opinion.

Well for one right now alot of people are doing right now is panicking and selling. Second saying you know exactly where the market is going to go at a specific time is insane. There are too many forces at work, too many variables to predict exactly what is going to happen a week, a month, a year down the line.

Thats not true at all. As of friday, the dow was up 400 points and major lending companies were up about 20%. that is driven by BUYING not selling.

 

[BigLutz]

My parents arn't actually brokers, i was saying hypothetically, you dont know the expirience i may have. i also may be lying about my age, i may be 45 and a broker myself, you just dont know.

That is true, but your grammar and spelling skills tends to lean me more toward you being 14, but then again that is just a observation.

Actually, you are investing in real companies and getting the real world results. The only difference is that the money is hypothetical. if i did have 100,000 to invest, then i would actually have made about $50,000, so yah, it is pretty comparable.

No becuase there is no risk, I did the exact same thing when I was in High School Economics, but there is no risk, it isn't truly your money, there is no high risk for your choice so you just choose what you want and play.

Thats not true at all. As of friday, the dow was up 400 points and major lending companies were up about 20%. that is driven by BUYING not selling.

It did rebound but that is more becuase of the bail out than anything else, nor does one day negate the fact that for a while the market has been Selling instead of buying.

 

[Asaspades]

That is true, but your grammar and spelling skills tends to lean me more toward you being 14, but then again that is just a observation.

Well thats just because im too lazy to care about grammar online.

No becuase there is no risk, I did the exact same thing when I was in High School Economics, but there is no risk, it isn't truly your money, there is no high risk for your choice so you just choose what you want and play.

That may be true, but the results are the same. So it is a pretty comparable expirience. When i lose money, its not the end of the world for me, but the point of the expirience, which is to learn abotu the market by actually playing it, is effective.

It did rebound but that is more becuase of the bail out than anything else, nor does one day negate the fact that for a while the market has been Selling instead of buying.

The market doesnt rebound because of an announcment. the market rebounds because people act on that announcment. They bought stock on friday, which is why the market surged.

 

[BigLutz]

Well thats just because im too lazy to care about grammar online.

Anddd this debate is going absolutely no where. You've pretty much proven your age, both by referencing school classes, and with poor grammar and spelling, not to mention this has nothing to do with the topic of the Official American Election of 2008. Next.

That may be true, but the results are the same. So it is a pretty comparable expirience. When i lose money, its not the end of the world for me, but the point of the expirience, which is to learn abotu the market by actually playing it, is effective.

It's a learning experience in the basics of the market but that is it, nothing more. As I have already said there is no risk, you are playing with Monopoly Money. When you are risking 100,000 dollars of your own money you cannot be so carefree. To compare a experience with play money to real life is absurd. Again, Next.

The market doesnt rebound because of an announcment. the market rebounds because people act on that announcment. They bought stock on friday, which is why the market surged.

They did, but as I said, that does not negate the general trend of the market for the last month or so in which people have been selling selling selling. Just becuase of one day of buying does not prove a point.

Also it should be pointed out that both Candidates now have to change their policy. With such a huge buyout going on our debt,

Obama nor McCain can afford the tax cuts.

Neither can Obama raise taxes on the rich when we need them to continue to invest in the market.

Nor can Obama try to play protectionist, implementing laws to rigidly protect jobs while at the same time asking the rest of the world to buy from our nation while we are going through this.

Nor can we afford to try out a Universal Health Care system right now.

And most of all we need to cut out the ear marks as McCain has touted, and demand that Iraq start to pay more and more for reconstruction as Obama has touted. Wednesday sent both campaigns back to the drawing board and neither can come back out advocating the same thing.

 

[heirokee]

I'd just like to bring up that the rich tend to invest more money in things like international currency and gold than the poor do, which means that typically, in modern times, the poor ultimately contribute more to the economy as long as they have the money to do so, since they almost always support domestic businesses.

But anyways, I don't suppose any of you would agree with me when I say that neither party chose a very good candidate... that's probably too much to ask.

 

[randomspot555]

And most of all we need to cut out the ear marks as McCain has touted, and demand that Iraq start to pay more and more for reconstruction as Obama has touted. Wednesday sent both campaigns back to the drawing board and neither can come back out advocating the same thing.

Both candidates are using the ear marks (more often referred to as Pork Barrel Spending), but in reality, it makes up a very, very small fraction of the Federal budget. Yes, it's a waste of money. But if we really want to get on the course of fiscal responsibility, much, much deeper cuts would have to be made.

The only way I think ear marks would be banished is if the President had line item veto, which has been ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

So, accepting reality, if giving some Ways and Means Committee member their pet project will help the overall goal of major fiscal responsibility, I'd accept that.

Unfortunately, in life, you sometimes have to play the game.

 

[BigLutz]

But anyways, I don't suppose any of you would agree with me when I say that neither party chose a very good candidate... that's probably too much to ask.

Right now it would be better to have a Economist on either side of the ticket since both have no idea about the economy. Romney would have been the best for the Republican ticket, and if this had happened about half a year ago he would have been on the ticket.

Both candidates are using the ear marks (more often referred to as Pork Barrel Spending), but in reality, it makes up a very, very small fraction of the Federal budget. Yes, it's a waste of money. But if we really want to get on the course of fiscal responsibility, much, much deeper cuts would have to be made.

True but those small ear marks tend to add up after a while, for example in the 3 and a half years in the Senate, Obama has had nearly a billion dollars in ear marks. And he hasn't even been in there for most of the time. If even half the Senators spent like that, thats nearly 50 Billion in 4 years. 100 Billion in Ten years, and so on.

Not to mention we need to just tackle wasting Government programs that we continue to throw money into and never get results.

The only way I think ear marks would be banished is if the President had line item veto, which has been ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Or you just start vetoing every bill that has been Christmas treed up. Eventually Congress will either come to a compromise, or risk a Government shut down.

Also Obama finally broke his silence today, calling the 700 Billion Dollar fix a "staggering price tag"

A lot of pundits were quick to jump onto this, seeing how Sen.Wayne Allard, introduced Amendment 4246 into the Senate budget debate in March. This amendment was also called the "The Obama Spend-o-Rama". Which contained 111 out of 188 proposals put forth by the Obama camp for his Presidency. And even with 77 Programs missing from the bill, the overall total was expected to cost.

$1.4 TRILLION DOLLARS

Of that, Obama's tax increase on the rich would bring about 225 Billion in the same time span. Here is what the Senator said on the floor of the Senate on the day he introduced the amendment.

http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/allard_obama_spendorama.pdf

So a 700 Billion dollar bail out is a "staggering price tag" according to Obama.

What the hell is a 1.4 Trillion dollar spending plan?

Edit: Also the new Democrat Attack line seems to be "McCain has 13 Cars!!!1111" Expect this to hit tomorrow and be touted for a few days unless it goes absolutely horribly. Or if anything Obama could run it into the ground just like he did with the house stupidity.

Now I mentioned it could go horribly, and this attack line is a very big risk. In a time where the Government just passed the biggest bail out in history, and the world is collectively holding their breath that this solves the problem and that Congress doesn't find a way to screw it up. There is a good chance people are going to look at this attack and really think Obama is very out of touch. That he can't put out a comprehensive set of ideas to help us out of this mess, but he has time to attack McCain on how many cars he owns.

Then again the housing thing seemed to give Obama a bit of traction, but that was nearly two months ago, and people are more likely to focus on the news at hand, aka the bail out, than stupid nit picks of the candidate's personal finances.

 

[GhostAnime]

okay i have just one question about palin.

what is her stance about creationism and intelligent design? is she serious about teaching it along side evolution?

i dont mind there being a class about it.. but along side is where i put down my hand.

 

[BigLutz]

okay i have just one question about palin.

what is her stance about creationism and intelligent design? is she serious about teaching it along side evolution?

i dont mind there being a class about it.. but along side is where i put down my hand.

No and this is one of the biggest lies out there, she has said over and over again she doesn't want Creationism taught in the classroom. The only thing that comes close to it, is that she has said that if a student were to bring it up in the class room she wanted the Teacher to hold a healthy discussion, not to just tell the Student to "Shut up and read".

 

[GhostAnime]

are there any direct quotes about her?

 

[BigLutz]

Daily News: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said.

"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion."

And then from another Interview.

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.

 

[GhostAnime]

so.

mccain postpones debate?

god dammit.

 

[BigLutz]

Well Obama can show up and just talk to himself for a hour. McCain will be working on fixing this financial crisis and working with Congress to pass a bill by Friday. Preparing for debate takes a lot of time, each side holds a 3 day debate camp in running up to the debate. McCain has asked to postpone it so that he can focus fully on this crisis, Obama thinks he can focus half on the crisis and half on preparing for the debate.

That really shows where they put their priorities, and who puts Country First over Politics.

 

[GhostAnime]

he could have at least had the debate first if you ask me. it's not like something will happen in the span of two days.