In case anyone thought racism in America was dead . . .

[statsman]

So .... who really is to blame? Bush evidently carried forward a policy set by the Democrats. Way to go and get the black eye for their failed policy for both parties, but look who everyone is blaming.

-dK

Is it Clinton's fault for being wrong or Bush's fault for continuing the faulty policy.
Bush is a Republican President. He had a Republican Congress for his first term. He probably could have got anything he wanted passed back then.

After 9/11 he could have said mortgage companies were "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (remember them)?

 

[statsman]

Interesting. The right has always had a problem with McCain. The conservative talking heads have been attacking him for years. I personally had to reach very deep before I was willing to pledge my support to him.

Though I'm not sure why McCain not liking the guy who was unable or unwilling to correct the financial crisis is a problem. I'd guess you could find billions of people in the US on both sides who don't like that guy right now.

McCain's sole chance of being elected is to put as much space as possible between himself and the President.
George W. Bush is essentially a lame duck for the next four months. McCain should blame everything on him (deserved or not) and specify how he will do a much better job.

 

[dkinley]

He probably could have got anything he wanted passed back then.

After 9/11 he could have said mortgage companies were "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (remember them)?

Haha! .. I never heard that .. funny. You are right, he probably could of. I would guess he didn't do anything for political expediency to keep the votes in favor of the Repubs for shelling out loans. I believe both are to blame.

Here is my thought on regulation. The government (Dem & Repub) made policy on Fannie and Freddie to hand give out mortgage backed securities. They were regulated in 'You will do this.'

So the invisible hand of free market said to all of the banks "You're covered, do the sub prime bit because Fannie and Freddie (the govt) will buy these up." So the banks went against the normal grain because there was no risk.

Now, take away the regulation and the invisible hand would have done it's job. The banks would have been fine because they would have weighed the risk and said, "You know, this person making $25k/yr cannot afford a $125k house. We aren't gonna gamble on them making a payment," and they would have been denied a loan.

But the Dem's pretty much want a socialized system so implemented the policy. The Repub's didn't repeal it because the citizens would have cried out because the program had been instilled for 8 years and it "it felt like a right" to own a house no matter if you could afford it or not.

It is a right to own property, but it is not a right to get it for nothing. So now the omega variable has vibrated the overall equation beyond control and it needs to be balanced. Thing is we are counting on the same people (the govt in general) who got us into this mess to get us out .. so yeah, I am against regulation.

Just my .02.
-dK

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Is it Clinton's fault for being wrong or Bush's fault for continuing the faulty policy.
Bush is a Republican President. He had a Republican Congress for his first term. He probably could have got anything he wanted passed back then.

There's no telling how many hair-brained socialist programs Clinton implemented. Just finding them all will take several administrations.

The continuation part is Congress' fault, not Bush's. Bush raised the alarm to Congress as early as 2002, best I can tell. The Democrats in the Senate blocked action on just about everything Bush tried in his early days (it's called a filibuster), including Fannie/Freddie reform. Bush couldn't get anything done because of filibustering Democrats. Even though there was a majority of Republicans in the Senate, they did not have the requisite 2/3 majority to stop the filibuster.

This is why so many conservatives dislike McCain (because of his efforts to come to a compromise with filibustering Democrats who were blocking Bush's every move).

And once a give-away is implemented, it is nearly impossible to take away.

We're still living under the "New Deal" (some call it the Raw Deal) from the early 1900's, if that's any example of how long it takes to remove socialism once it infiltrates your lifestyle.

 

[dapfeifer]

Just to throw this in: looks like McCain will be debating tonight.

 

[ASherbuck]

McCain failed to knock the debate out of the park. Sad that all that experience wasn't able to trump a community organizers judgement.

How is the republican party going to oppose the republican party ? That is what McCain is running on now right? Why didn't his wisdom and experience bring him to this idea before Obama ? He's just a constitutional lawyer.

Why isn't McCain up in the swing states ? He is entitled to the presidency, he was a POW. As a matter of fact all POWs are automatically entitled to all stations in government. It's an automatic qualifier.

Why does Sarah Palin have McCain's favorite author (Scholzenitzen (sp)) on her list of books to ban ? If you don't know the author you know the stories, McCain sure does. The cross drawn in the dirt story was straight from this guys book.

Why do we say Liberals want to cut and run and fail in Iraq ? Republicans are the only ones claiming we are going to fail. They are the only ones saying we die in vain in Iraq. Why do they reserve the right/ability to declare when we succeed and when we fail ? How about they share the benchmarks with the "other side of the aisle" ?

Weapons of Mass Destruction: negative
Greeted as Liberators: negative
The rebuilding will pay for itself: negative
the last throes of the insurgency: negative
Osama Not Captured: Affirmitive
Scooter Libby: Affirmitive
Alberto "I don't recall anything but I am good at my job" Gonzalez: affirmitive
Color coded warnings that magically disappeared after elections: affirmitive
Walter Reed Black Mold: Affirimitive
Gitmo: Affirmitive
Record Debt: Affirimitive
Mission Accomplished: Affirmitive

Why the hell would you trust this party. What is wrong with you. If you work for a living when has a republican ever benefitted you and not turned around and taken twice as much away ?

 

[georgedwilkinson]

McCain failed to knock the debate out of the park. Sad that all that experience wasn't able to trump a community organizers judgement.

Oh, I heard it went the other way. I had also heard Obama say that McCain was right no less than 4 times during the debate.

How is the republican party going to oppose the republican party ? That is what McCain is running on now right? Why didn't his wisdom and experience bring him to this idea before Obama ? He's just a constitutional lawyer.

Is this a real point? What do you think the issue is? Who cares?

Why isn't McCain up in the swing states ? He is entitled to the presidency, he was a POW. As a matter of fact all POWs are automatically entitled to all stations in government. It's an automatic qualifier.

Again, I heard it worked a different way. I thought it was all blacks are automatically entitled.

Why do we say Liberals want to cut and run and fail in Iraq ?

Yes, why do you guys say that? Those of you who call yourselves "we" must have some agenda, what is it?

Republicans are the only ones claiming we are going to fail. They are the only ones saying we die in vain in Iraq.

I didn't hear that one. Funny because I live right in the midst of them, am one, etc. Just not sure how you made that leap.

Why do they reserve the right/ability to declare when we succeed and when we fail ? How about they share the benchmarks with the "other side of the aisle" ?

I think your candidate knows. You can call him and ask him if you need him (make sure he has his teleprompter ready for your answer).

Fact is, many people believe that Obama will do nothing different regarding Iraq than McCain or anyone else. It's amazing how your attitudes on things change when you actually get the information you need to make a decision. And since Nobama knows squat about foreign policy and Iraq, he'll have a lot of catching up to do if he (heaven's forbid) gets into the White House.

Why the hell would you trust this party. What is wrong with you.

I don't trust your party (I assume that's what you meant by "this"). That is why I am voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin and Republican in general. And it's wise of you to question your belief in them like you're seemingly doing now.

Thanks for sharing your well balanced arguments.

 

[Banana]

Regarding the debate, I think I should note:

1) They both are for bailing out the Wall Street.
2) They both are for naming names of country to invade.
3) They both are for spending more money.
4) They both are for more intervention aboard.
5) They both are for more regulations in general.

The difference? Emphasis on different points. (e.g. McCain want to spend more money in war and occupation while Obama want to spend money in social programs. Both are wrong answer because we don't have the money to begin with.)

Kind like someone asking you if you would like your coffee with sugar or cream when you've asked for tea.

 

[dkinley]

Kind like someone asking you if you would like your coffee with sugar or cream when you've asked for tea.

lol. So true.

Too bad we are a two party system and they wouldn't let the other parties participate in the debate.

-dK

 

[georgedwilkinson]

That is unfortunate. Most 3rd party candidates are just kooks but I really would have like to have heard from them last night (there seems to be a viable alternative for a change). But I think Ross Perot may have soured me on the whole idea of a 3rd candidate.

 

[Banana]

The thing I'm most concerned is that people who aren't happy with either will just resign to vote for either or not vote at all. If they voted for a 3rd party (e.g. voted their conscience), it would send a clear and unmistaken message that neither are acceptable and thus force them to be more conservative in pursuing their policy in absence of "mandate". (Staying at home can't be interpreted as such, since it could just mean "Either are fine with me.", and thus has no effect on their behavior once elected)

 

[dkinley]

But I think Ross Perot may have soured me on the whole idea of a 3rd candidate.

Ross is Boss! I think he had the right idea; government is a business - it's just a "cost recovery" business, but it should be ran like one.

Not knowing why you soured on him, just my take on my immediate circle at the time, but most I knew couldn't sit and listen. In my opinion, he wanted a more educated voter and around me, people wanted their opinions to be formed by quick sound bytes, not hour-long lectures in micro/macro economics. For me, he wasn't exciting enough, but I liked his angle so threw one at him.

I will go and say the 3rd candidate is often a vote of no confidence in one of the other candidates, but it sometimes steals the needed votes for a clear win.

-dK

 

[georgedwilkinson]

The only problem with that is that the candidates don't always get the message they should. I again cite Ross Perot, a wannabe with absolutely no clue what was going on. Clinton actually thought the American people wanted what Perot so poorly presented.

There's a reason we have elected representative (a Republic) instead of individual voting on every issue (a Democracy). That is because people have no clue, especially when faced with issues they can not possibly have enough information on (the economy, war, defense, etc.). So the objective is to hire people who do have a clue and can manage the large amount of information that leads to sound decisions for the people. Unfortunately, many of those people we hire have their own agenda that isn't necessarily good for the country/people, though they lie (or have no clue, like Obama) and tell you they are.

 

[Banana]

Which goes to underscore the overrated importance of presidential election. It should be just an afterthought, a boring election of an administrator, with the action being at the state legislative and Congress.

But people prefer having a strong King than a rabble of a House. Sometime I think Brits were smart to keep on the Queen just to appease the people and get that cleared out from electing PM (actually the party then the PM leading the party... right? ) Ah, well. Such is politics.

 

[dkinley]

True. Still, history shows that a Republic is still the most enduring method of governing. I am not a political science person but I am pretty sure it was this method that made the Romans so great for so long but it was the self-serving that eventually brought it down.

This past century, we proved that it is better than communism and the socialists didn't last nearly that long. But in this microwave society (you know, when people stand in front of the microwave screaming HURRY UP!) of self-serving it seems we are fast-tracking the Roman era down to a tiny miniscule time-frame.

-dK

 

[Banana]

Well, my viewpoint is that people simply can't be bought to care about anything beyond their backyard; it's too big for them to comprehend. We see it all time where people have no idea about the debates over REAL ID, stem cell research, funding for highways and that kind of thing, yet they will be very passionate about the developers roaching on their backyard or nearby factory dumping toxic waste in their waste.

For that reason, I've decided the best government is the one that goes with human nature; and this mean keeping it small & local. Most important issues ought to be decided at local level, and few topics may bubble upward to state, and even fewer topics to federal. But for issues such as education, healthcare, transportation, environment... that sort of things, simply is not Federal Government's domain and never should be. This should be decided in their respective backyard, and what succeed, will be copied and improved on and what failed, regulated to history textbook.

Once the government start to get big and the scope move beyond the backyard, it's very easy for corruption, manipulation, and consequently apathy, to rear their ugly head and we're no better off.

 

[Rich]

True. Still, history shows that a Republic is still the most enduring method of governing. -dK

Except in the US

and the socialists didn't last nearly that long.

Socialism fortunately for us is still very much alive in Europe, we'll never return to the US philosophy

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Except in the US

Huh? The Republic in the US has endured for over 200 years.

Socialism fortunately for us is still very much alive in Europe, we'll never return to the US philosophy

Good for you! I'm glad it's working out for you.

But I was under the impression that Socialism in Europe was a relatively new phenomenon, certainly not 200 years old. Where is your experience that this has worked out and will continue to? How do you know the monarchy won't decide they've had enough of pandering to the populace and just use their incredible financial clout to re-establish the Monarchy?

I was also under the understanding that the UK has a representative form of government not dissimilar to that in the US. Am I wrong?

I wish Socialism was a viable form of government, unfortunately, my eyes (and before that, my foresight) have told me exactly the opposite.

Oh, and straying slightly back toward the topic of this thread (not too far): McCain/Palin r0XX0rz!

 

[dkinley]

Most important issues ought to be decided at local level, and few topics may bubble upward to state, and even fewer topics to federal. But for issues such as education, healthcare, transportation, environment... that sort of things, simply is not Federal Government's domain and never should be. This should be decided in their respective backyard, and what succeed, will be copied and improved on and what failed, regulated to history textbook.

Most agreed. Ironically, most people believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Only by extension - it was fought over states' rights. Emancipation was just one outcome, the States lost many rights as the other outcomes. Every now and then you still hear States rumbling about seceding. Some reasons I agree with and others not. In agreement with your post, I think the federal government has too much power and some of that should be returned back to the States so those decisions are made locally. We aren't the same from backyard to backyard and thus each situation or circumstance should be treated differently.

-dK

 

[Rich]

Huh? The Republic in the US has endured for over 200 years.

And the monarchy in the UK has endured for how long............

Good for you! I'm glad it's working out for you.

Well your system's not exactly doing well at the the minute is it