Mc. Cain VP choice. what do you think?

[Reef Goddess]

Hopefully they'll cover some real stuff when the debates start.

 

[Reef Goddess]

Guess we're going to be bailing everyone out soon. I wonder where on earth the money will come from? Does this mean no refunds for us next year or what? Why don't they make fat wallstreet execs give up their million dollar pensions to help foot the bill?


http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-21-voa9.cfm

 

[rdvab]

That is the sorriest part of all this the head guys keep their job and get millions in bonus??????

 

[coral diver]

That is the sorriest part of all this the head guys keep their job and get millions in bonus??????

and us the middle to low class citizen do not get a break we just got the message today no BONUS this year and the increase we get is not even enough to pay for gas TAXES will go up BENEFIT goes down and the politicians spending goes over the roof.


WHO IS THE BEST MAN

 

[Azurel]

I agree that they should lose the bonus but that is not for the government to say.....Nor is it to bail these folks out, should have just let them crumble and someone new will take there place......As far as tax cuts go Obama is a complete liar when he says that he will cut the 95% taxes......

Why may you ask? Because 40% of the population don't pay any taxes at all. What he is going to do is give people a $1000 tax refund or in street language Federal welfare program. You can't cut what isn't paid, so they can't have their taxes cut if they don't pay in to begin with......The tax cuts for everybody is fine but they have to cut spending as well, which we know they haven't done. That is one of the things I have disagreed with this administration on. Although some of it hasn't been the presidents fault and falls to the congress.

 

[Reef Goddess]

Well, I'd rather have ole slick dick back in office right now with a budget surplus of $559 billion. Instead of a $487+ billion dollar deficit under Bush, not counting what the $700+ billion bailout is going to add to it.


Another liberal news media source for you conservatives, we should start burning books soon too that way we won't have to pay attention to that annoying thing called the truth. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-04-budget-analysis_n.htm


Of course this administration already has the most "classified" documents out of any administration ever, so it wouldn't be a big step for them to go ahead and take full control of our media. They're just a bunch of liberals anyway. Then we can all baaa and be the true sheep we are.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2114963/fr/rss/
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney21-2008sep21,0,1913331.story
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/17/1409371.aspx
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article5085.html

 

[bluegrass]

Reef goddess are you excusing the democrat controlled congress of any wrong doing or is it a case of you just picking your poison? Anyone with an ounce of objectivity on any challenge facing the country would readily be able to assess blame on both sides rather equally. This is a pretty easy time to go *** for tat in whatever "link" you want to provide to support your positions. I just don't see how anyone could feel confident in either party's ability to present solutions that actually come to fruition.

 

[Reef Goddess]

Well the republican party sure hasn't done us any favors. I'm not saying both parties aren't to blame, but americans really aren't protesting or calling for change so why should the politicians care what we think?

I find a lot of republicans like to say "well there was a surplus before Clinton was president", but this isn't true.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton’s policy in order to revive Reagan’s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his “base” as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush’s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I’ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing. Do we have a deal? Republicans know return on investment. [/FONT]

If I'm not supposed to be partisan and not blame only the republican party for what's going on, then those of you that are a republican should stop turning a blind eye to the problems that republicans have caused. I keep hearing the excuse that "The president isn't to blame, its the democratic congress". Bush had a republican congress when he passed the tax cuts for the ultra rich, not a democratic one.

Right now it is democrats that are pushing for provisions in the $700 billion dollar bailout; that would limit pay packages for executives of companies helped by the rescue, let judges rewrite mortgages to lower bankrupt homeowners' monthly payments, an over sight panel for the bailout, etc. Whereas the Bush admistration wants to push this bailout through rush, rush and doesn't want to accept any provisions. Even a lot of republican senators are coming out against the administration saying we shouldn't give them a blank check. I know from personal experience when someone is trying to rush you on a deal its usually a con.

I was speaking with my business accountant today, he has a phd in finance, he doesn't even think the bailout will work. This is our tax money, not wall street's, are you comfortable with an administration that just wants to give that money away? We are going to pay for it, our children, and their children will have to pay for it. We will also have to pay the higher prices for things when inflation sets in while these bankers get away with financial murder. This administration is not looking out for the middle and lower classes, they don't even want to help us out. Soon there will be no middle class, there will just be the ultra rich and the poor.

This isn't a partisan problem, this is an American problem. To support a party that doesn't look out for your needs and interests, makes no sense. Whether I'm a democrat or a republican, I prefer an administration that has good fiscal responsibility and doesn't use tax payer money for whatever they like. If it was your company, you would fire someone that was that irresponsible, so why is this different? We the people have the right to hire and fire our lawmakers, but if we don't exercise that right nothing will change.

 

[revhtree]

So 9/11 didn't have anything to do with the debt?

 

[bluegrass]

Reef Goddess,
No, it's not really our money as "bumper sticker" empowering as it sounds to say "it's our tax money."--It's just not.

This is a nice read that is a different take on your "blame Republicans first" mentality with this financial meltdown..
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

The truth? Usually somewhere in the middle (left of right and right of left).
Perception is reality. If your perception is "Blame Bush for the hurricanes" then have at it
There are so many moving parts in this fiasco. Kinda timely (err, political) for this story to be making headlines today:
http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080923/ap_on_go_co/offshore_drilling

 

[revhtree]

Biden Slips....

This is funny!

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/biden-slips-suggests-fdr-was-president-when-market-crashed/

 

[Reef Goddess]

re

The first link is not bipartisan, Kevin Hassert is an advisor to the McCain campaign.

A number of things don't pass the logic test.

1) The assertion that Fannie/Freddie are the reason for the financial crises is incorrect. The well publicized failures of companies like Bear Stearns, AIG, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers did not arise from Fannie/Freddie but the investment of these firms in subprime mortgages -- mortgages that did not meet Fannie/Freddie guidelines and were riskier. Fannie/Freddie loans were more conservative, but the huge drop in real estate prices coupled with hundreds of thousands of foreclosures have reached their loans as well and put the equity of these firms at risk, prompting the Govt to take them over. So to say this situation was caused by Fannie/Freddie IMO is a bit of a stretch.


If you want more information on the cause of the current crises there is a pretty good article in Wiki at Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) The argument that Democrats prevented this bill is a stretch also. Republicans controlled the Senate and House in 2005, and the chairmanships of the committees, and could pretty much control what bills were sent to vote or not. Democrats had no real power to stop it when they didn't control the chair of a committee.

3) Until the last week or two, McCain has always claimed to be in favor of de-regulation, so one might be surprised to hear that he was in favor of a bill that increased regulation back in 2005, inconsistent with his position.

As far as John McCain's role in the 2005 proposed legislation and the procedural aspects of the bill, a different take on what happened is presented here: Daily Kos: McCain's claim of Fannie Mae reform. Daily Kos is a left leaning website, but no more biased than John McCain's advisor.

Interestingly, the writer of the article, Kevin Hasset, it the director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. That same organization slammed the House equivalent of the Senate bill that McCain (apparently belatedly) co-sponsored as, contrary to its proponents' claims, actually accomplished the opposite:

HR 1461--a bill that was supposed to create a “world class regulatorâ€--is in fact a world class failure. Not only does it fail to improve significantly upon the regulatory authority of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), but it actually increases the opportunities for Fannie and Freddie to exploit their subsidies in order to expand into other areas of residential finance.

AEI - Short Publications - H.R. 1461: A GSE "Reform" That Is Worse than Current Law

Thus, according to Mr. Hasset's organization, the bill would have effectively de-regulated Fannie/Freddie more than any effective regulation that would have been achieved. That being the case, it makes more sense that McCain, a dedicated de-regulator, would have supported it.

Mr. Hasset apparently thought that the fact his own organization slammed the House version of the same bill he now claims would have saved the day was not a fact worth mentioning in his article.

Do you even read these links you post? I doubt you read the ones I post. If you read the link you posted you would realize that Dems just lifted it until a new president is elected, it has not been passed yet.

"The White House has made it clear they will not accept anything with a drilling moratorium, and Democrats know we cannot afford to shut down the government over this," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "We look forward to working with the next president to hammer out a final resolution of this issue."

Just last week, the House passed legislation to open waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and gas drilling but only 50 or more miles out to sea and only if a state agrees to energy development off its shore. It quickly became clear that measure would not get the 60 votes needed in the Senate.

The congressional battle over offshore drilling is far from over. Democrats are expected to press for broader energy legislation, probably next year, that would put limits on any drilling off most of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Republicans, meanwhile, are likely to fight any resumption of the drilling bans that have been in place since 1981.

 

[Reef Goddess]

Since we're pointing fingers and trying to meet in the middle:

Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html

 

[revhtree]

I could seriously pull links like you do all week! LOL! I haven't read a single one.

I'll stop and be done with this thread for real this time........

 

[revhtree]

I should say I haven't read a single link for either repubs or dems except the one I saw on the news about Biden.

That didn't come out right.

 

[Reef Goddess]

Well I actually read the links bluegrass and other people post and give them fair consideration before I respond. Thank you for valuing my post. Like I said before I'm not trying to bend concrete, I'm focusing on other more malleable entities.

 

[revhtree]

Seriously RG, I don't really believe anything I read from the biased media anyway for either side. I will vote based upon the key issues that effect me and my country morally more than anything.

 

[coral diver]

Seriously RG, I don't really believe anything I read from the biased media anyway for either side. I will vote based upon the key issues that effect me and my country morally more than anything.

LOL :nerd: AMEN to that REV i too do not listen to one sided media, actor/actress and people who are being kind the like mesmerized by the politicians promisses and mudslinging, I look on what the candidate can offer to help this country out of this s**t hole we are in, specialy a person like me who do not make much money to give my Family a little vacation.

 

[Saltysteele]

did anyone hear me say palin is hot? cause she is

 

[Reef Goddess]

Hehe Do you have a picture of her in a bikini?