Obama offers remedy for economic turmoil
Senator gives 6-point plan, including more oversight on banking
By Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News
Published September 16, 2008 at 12:55 p.m.
Photo by Matt McClain / The Rocky
Sen. Barack Obama greets a large crowd Tuesday in the student recreation center at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden. The shaky economy dominated much of his speech, in which he offered a six-point plan to turn things around.
Photo by Matt McClain / The Rocky
Bee Harris holds an Obama sign as the presidential candidate addresses the crowd in Golden on Tuesday.
Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.
Emily Larson Smith and Sara Hund showed up at the Obama event only to discover one of their tickets was counterfeit.
Video powered by Flickr
A Sarah Palin inpersonator with the name, of all things, McCain. It's Lauren McCain of Denver. (By Lynn Bartels)
Video powered by Flickr
Themia Sandven was thrilled to get her front page of the Rocky autographed by Sarah Palin. (By Lynn Bartels)
Video powered by Flickr
Barack Obama spent two days in Colorado under the cloud of a collapsing Wall Street but departed by offering a plan to cleanup a mess he accused his opponent of failing to comprehend.
"We are in the most serious financial crisis in generations. Yet, Sen. (John) McCain stood up yesterday and said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong," Obama said here Tuesday.
The Democratic presidential nominee described a six-point plan that would subject all financial institutions that can borrow from the government to more oversight and crack down on trading practices he said border on market manipulation. Such action is needed to repair America's faltering confidence in housing and financial institutions, Obama said.
On a half-dozen talk shows and in an campaign appearance Tuesday, McCain also called for reforms, saying there must be more effective regulation of investments and a commission to examine causes of the current troubles. But his campaign also criticized Obama for what it said was the Illinois senator's pessimism about the American economy.
The dueling messages were the culmination of a week in which Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch was sold and the government agreed to provide an $85 billion emergency loan to rescue the insurance giant AIG.
The economy suddenly is back at the forefront of the presidential campaign, as Obama showed by spending the bulk of his 41-minute speech at the Colorado School of Mines on the topic.
"America is a place where you can make it if you try. . . . But the American economy has worked in large part because we have guided that market with an invisible hand of principle that America prospers when all Americans prosper," Obama told the receptive crowd of 2,000 at the Lockridge Arena. "Too often over the last quarter century we have lost this sense of shared prosperity. . . . The American economy does not stand still, and neither should the rules of government."
Obama said he would push a $50 billion emergency economic plan, offer a 10 percent tax credit on mortgage costs to middle-class homeowners and change bankruptcy law to make it easier for people in financial trouble to stay in their homes.
New regulations must ensure that all financial institutions strengthen their amount of capital and that government investigates potential conflicts between ratings agencies and the institutions that they oversee, he added.
Obama attempted to draw sharp contrasts between himself and McCain, who has described himself as "fundamentally a deregulator." The Illinois senator argued that a reduction in regulation and oversight led to the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s and the recent problems that saw the collapse of three of the country's five largest investment banks.
"John McCain cannot be trusted to reestablish proper oversight of our financial markets for one simple reason: he has shown time and time again that he does not believe in it," Obama said.
McCain backed away somewhat Tuesday from his remarks that the economy is fundamentally strong, elaborating that he believes that the American workers who drive the economy continue to be strong. But his discussion of the economy took a different tone than Obama's.
The Arizona senator spoke of cutting taxes to fuel the economy and warned that government should not bail out flailing private companies like AIG for fear that this could encourage additional risk-taking. He promised to end the "reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed" that had caused both the financial crisis and the recent foreclosure crisis.
Both men agreed that regulatory agencies must be streamlined.
As the financial crisis has worsened, McCain has cut into Obama's significant lead in polls on which candidate would do a better job handling the economy.
William Galston, co-editor of the public-opinion journal The Democratic Strategist, sent an open letter Tuesday criticizing Obama for not offering a clear message on what has gone wrong with the economy or how to fix it.
Vicki Snider, an Obama precinct captain from Brighton, recalled a recent conversation with a Republican she said complained that Obama hasn't offered specifics to back up his campaign promises. Tuesday's speech included the kind of details that will capture voters' attention, Snider said.
Peter Lohaus, a retired business professor from Arvada, agreed that it was the specifics of the six-point plan that set the address apart from many of Obama's other speeches.
"I'm really glad that he basically addresses Mr. McCain's ideas and doesn't fall into a personality battle," Lohaus said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Notes from the campaign trail
Scenes from outside Lockridge Arena at the Colorado School of Mines during Barack Obama's visit Tuesday:
* Imagine getting up early, driving to Golden, standing in line for more than an hour, getting up to the door and then finding out your ticket is fake.
That's what happened to Sara Hund and Emily Larson Smith, who discovered one of their two tickets was counterfeit. They were at a loss to explain what happened: An Obama volunteer provided both of the tickets.
* For those of you who shelled out $25 for official DNC Obama T-shirts at Invesco Field, the price now is $18 online and $10 at events.
Shannon Clark with the Democratic National Committee said she sold more shirts in Pueblo on Monday than she did Tuesday in Golden.
One woman in sandals who was shivering asked Clark if she had any official Obama socks.
* A small crowd of protesters stood near the line of people snaking their way to get into the speech. They carried a variety of signs, including "NObama, I like money in my pocket" and "Choose life, choose Palin."
The two groups sometimes hurled insults at each other, but their exchanges were mostly peaceful.
School of Mines student Robert Carney of Arvada looked over at the protesters and laughed. Many were his classmates.
"Hey, who made those signs for you? You can't write," he good-naturedly hollered.
* "Are you in Ed Perlmutter's congressional district?" a guy in line was asked. "No," he answered, "I have the crazy guy from Littleton." Apparently he was referring to U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo.
* There's nothing like a Republican begging for extra tickets to get into an Obama event. Joby Weeks of Adams County, an alternate to the Republican National Convention, said he wanted to ask Obama questions. But the event was a rally, not one of John McCain's town hall meetings.
* Among those standing in the VIP line was former Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler. This time she was wearing blue. She wore Republican red to the Sarah Palin event Monday to provide counter-commentary.
Other VIPs included former state Sen. Penfield Tate, Denver City Councilman Michael Hancock and state Sen. Moe Keller.
* The sign that got the biggest laugh from Democrats was on the ground outside the arena. No one knew where it came from.
It read "You can put tap shoes on Republicans but they're still Republicans."
Lynn Bartels
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
September 16, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
yeah, and then jets off to a $31,000 fundraiser...what a joke!
September 16, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Let's elect this Panderer-in-Chief. The Bush Administration tried to reel in the financial industry 5 years ago but the Democrats blocked it. Who to blame, oh, who to blame?
September 16, 2008
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
fastnloose writes:
Obama can sound impressive,but his short record, does not back up what he says on the stump!
September 16, 2008
1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cawren writes:
I was thinking of voting for McCain because he showed a little backbone. But his appointment of Sarah Palin has demonstrated that the good ole boy NEOCONs are once again in the republican drivers seat.
Quit frankly the thought of Ms. Palin sitting across the table from the likes of a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad chills me to the bone. Given McCains health issues and age Ms. Palin could in deed become the President Of The United States. SCARY VERY SCARY
Palins credentials.
Palin attended 5 different small colleges before graduating. She was a beauty queen, local weather girl, 4 years on a small town city council and 6 years as the mayor of a small town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people.
Obamas credentials
inexperienced? You be the judge.
President of the Harvard Law Review, 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, 4 years in the United States Senate representing state of 3 million people and has served on the Foreign Affairs, Environment, Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees.
Allan Greenspan has stated the McCain economic policy would be disastrous.
September 16, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Obama-
*Voted "present" 180 times while in the State Senate
*143 days worked while as a U.S. Senate and has not sponsored any major legislation during that time.
*Supported the group ACORN, which is now under federal investigation for voter fraud
*Voted against sending money to re-build New Orleans
*Voted against sending money to re-build the I-35W bridge in MN, but favored that "Bridge to Nowhere"
*While in the State Senate, Obama voted against medical care to babies that survived abortions, even though the IL bill was the same bill that the Feds passed (Boxer, Clinton, Kennedy all supported it)
*A year after his wife received a $200,000 raise from the University of IL-Chicago, Obama sent them a $1 million earmark
*William Ayers?
*Tony Rezco?
September 16, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Boy you two missed the point that at least he came up with specifics on what to do. McCain & Barbie just mumble empty words. Blah Blah Blah. And oh_Wise_One how could the Democrats block anything with the republicans having control of congress 5 years ago. Republicans out there could you please send someone to this board that can talk above a third grade level. People like this idiot is making you all look like more of a bunch idiots that we know you already are.
September 16, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
McCain/Palin 08!!
September 16, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dick_Tater writes:
Cawren writes:
I was thinking of voting for McCain because he showed a little backbone. But his appointment of Sarah Palin has demonstrated that the good ole boy NEOCONs are once again in the republican drivers seat.
You can drop the "I am a Democrat/Republican who is going to vote differently because...", that BS is getting pretty old. And keep in mind you are comparing the Presidential candidate of one party against the Vice Presidential candidate of the other.
September 16, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Right or wrong the republicans hate it when someone comes up with a plan. I have heard no plan from McSame & Barbie on anything. Just attacks.
September 16, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Republican deregulation did this. And the greed of large unregulated companies.
If the Dems voted against regulation, show us the proof. What bill, who voted yes or no. Put up or shut up time.
September 16, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ahab337 writes:
It's a terrifying thought to think of Sarah Palin as President. Or John McCain, for that matter.
Obama/Biden '08
September 16, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
McCain has no blueprint to salvage U.S. economy nor did he know the old one.
Obama 08
September 16, 2008
1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
fastnloose writes:
If McCain had not picked Palin, the extreme leftist Obama would have had a chance.How can anyone say she was a poor choice? The left wishes she was at home in Alaska,she is tearing up the lower states.
September 16, 2008
1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
McCain, most Republicans, and yes, many Dems helped write the old blueprint for deregulation.
And that included defanging the SEC, the EPA, the FCC, and a host of other agencies that we pay for to represent us, not the financial markets, the pharmaecutical companies, the airlines, and so on.
We really need to make those true regulating agencies again. Yes, take away the redundancy and the countless little rules that don't do much, but start enforcing the fundamentals again.
September 16, 2008
1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
johnDEPENDSmccain writes:
for four more years of terrible policies (just masked by lipstick this time) vote mcpain 08. if you hate your country, vote mcpain.
September 16, 2008
1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
YIOTA_LIVES writes: "Apparently Mr Obama has never heard of SOX (Sarbane Oxley). This was put in place to rectify the finance and reporting issues that we saw with Enron. SOX has put a huge burden on companies to manage their finances in a much stricter manner."
Maybe it should be thrown out, and maybe it will be. I believe Obama is really going to look at what is working and what isn't.
I don't think Sarbanes-Oxley reigned in all the ethics problems it was supposed to, but it sure did create a cottage industry of consultants who make a comfortable living off teaching companies how to implement it! Just an objective observation.
September 16, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
fastnloose
Here let me help.
IT WAS A BAD CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 16, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
My God...well, here's the GOP plan to deal with the foreclosure crisis...scrub voters whose houses have been foreclosed!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics...
What in the hell is wrong with you people???
September 16, 2008
2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Oh and can somebody let me know when McCain spells out his blueprint on what to do? It will take awhile because I know he will have to get with George and get back to us.
September 16, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
The New York Times reported 9/11/03 that the Bush administration “recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago” and guess who blocked it…. the Democrats
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage...
“These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
“I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
And lets also take a look at who got campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 89-08
Dodd, Christopher $165,400
Obama, Barack $126,349
Kerry, John $111,000
Bennett, Robert $107,999
Bachus, Spencer $103,300
Blunt, Roy $96,950
Kanjorski, Paul $96,000
Bond, Chris $95,400
Shelby, Richard $80,000
Reed, Jack $78,250
Reid, Harry $77,000
Clinton, Hillary $76,050
(McCain is not on the list!)
So while I agree that Bush needs to shoulder some of the blame for the current state of the economy, I cannot fathom how the Democrats who wrote most of these policies into affect under the Clinton administration are getting away with this without so much as a ounce of wrong doing. For Obama to put this squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans is ridiculous and he needs to be called on this immediately.
Posted 5 hours ago
September 16, 2008
2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
wyhammertime writes:
Yea right goverment is going to help in this matter heck they can't even secure the border for us or shall we say the" PEOPLE" sorry not even voting on that one !!!
September 16, 2008
2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
As the Palin dog and pony show fades into the sunset... and the real world demands attention once more, all Mr MacSame can do is claim the economy is strong. While the conservatives get their panties all twisted over pigs with lipstick, their pals on Wall Street are checking out overpasses and cardboard boxes to live in. When a whole economic philosphy craters because it was based on ecomonic anarchy, only an idoit would hold on tight and go along for the ride to the bottom! The article about the Colorado RNC delegate that got a $30,000.00 watch ripped off kind of says it all, your all just easy pickens for a pretty face and don't know how to protect your own assets, let alone anyone elses.
Heck of a job Bushie!
It's like when a gun slinger shots himself in the foot, you feel his pain but can't keep from laughing.
September 16, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
"...And oh_Wise_One how could the Democrats block anything with the republicans having control of congress 5 years ago." - diligaf
Obviously our liberal friend is totally unaware of the 60 vote cloture rule. Unless the party with the majority can muster 60 votes in the Senate to stop any further deliberation on legislation, it has the same affect as a filibuster - which is what it is now referred to as when this happens.. The liberal Dems have shut down a lot of legislation (as has the GOP) even while being the minority party. Your assumption about having "control" of Congress is absurd - and stupid.
"...please send someone to this board that can talk above a third grade level." - diligaf (again)
Maybe this moron should take a civics class in the workings of the US Congress before spouting off on the educational level and ability of anyone to "talk" about any subject.
September 16, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
I dont understand. Can any of you on this blog honestly tell yourself your better off under this administration? Do you honestly want our kids to struggle under 8 more years?
Who is McCain going to reform if he has been in lock step with this administration? Please, think about this. If you like the direction of this country vote McCain, then you can thank those of us that will vote to move our country in the right direction.
September 16, 2008
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
does this mean that w was wrong to veto the bipartisan, widely popular bill to increase regulatory oversight in 2005?
republican chairman oxley sure thinks so...in fact he thinks it might have saved some of the failure we're seeing now.
but hey, regardless of whose policies failed...what we can't afford now is to continue down the same path that we...wait a minute...nevermind...i forgot we had mccain supporters here...
September 16, 2008
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
Save us, Obama! Save us! Help us regulate our way out of this mess! Oh please, save us from ourselves! You are THE ONE!!
This guy's so full of himself it's not even funny. "The economy" is so big, and so dynamic, there is no way the government can control or regulate it. The Soviet Union already tried it, and that's exactly where we're headed with the Obaminator; straight into socialism. Hell, we're halfway there already and it's getting worse. We need to pull out this nosedive, and he is not the guy we need at the stick. I think we need the mavericks . . . . ! Go Palin/McCain!
September 16, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
BigSky182
You are also showing your stupidity.
1. No one blocks a recommendation. If so how is it done? "I senator Dilligaf vote no on his recommendation" It has to be introduced in a bill bozo!!!!!!
2. If it was introduced it had to be rejected by congress. " Guess who had control of congress in 2003?" Hey give Johnny his prize it was the Republicans.
When will we start hearing from some Republicans that have made it through the 3rd grade.
September 16, 2008
2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
My kids aren't struggling. As a matter of fact, my 18 year old daughter just closed on her first property, is attending college at night, works a full time career in Real Esate, and is planning a trip to Ireland later this year.
If she can succeed on $14 per hour at 18 years old....
I have said it before and I'll say it again:
It is never about what you make... it's about what you spend.
September 16, 2008
2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
tromiano writes:
Yes, Mr. Obama. Just what we need: MORE regulation!! Are you hearing that from the two former CEO's of Freddie and Fannie that you have on your economic advisory committee? CEO's who walked away with tens of millions of dollars lining their own pockets? What about the government imposed rules in the 90's requiring that lenders slacken their criteria for mortgage loans, all in the name of "affordable housing"?
Four years of Obama, and the last couple of weeks will look like a cakewalk compared to his quasi-socialist ideals. One thing both parties can agree on: most politicians are a bunch of incompetent boobs. So, why not give them MORE power over our banks, our health care, our retirement, our incomes, etc. What a joke.
September 16, 2008
2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
denverbulldog writes:
What are the trading rules? How is he going to add transparency? Doesn't sound like details to me. Just because McCain give us nothing, don't be distracted by the smoke and mirrors
September 16, 2008
2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
BigSky182, that was hardly an overhaul. It was basically just a proposal to transfer oversight to the Treasury Department, and I bet because that would result in even looser regulation! Considering the execs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac approved of this measure, you know it just had to be another instance of Bush in cahoots with Wall Street.
From the article you posted: "The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws."
Wow. What a reform.
September 16, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
RonInWestminster writes:
Obama and the Dems in both '06 and '07 presented legislation to address the obviously pending general economic downturn as well as the potential collapse of the housing market.
McCain voted NO both times and Bush vetoed!!
McCain voted with Bush 90% in '06, 95% in '07 and so far in '08, 100% of the time, now there's a maverick who is trying to shake up Washington.....SURE!
September 16, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
dilligaf writes: "People like this idiot is making you all look like more of a bunch idiots that we know you already are."
Too funny! Dilligaf my friend, you may want to stop calling other people idiots, or at least proof read a little better when you do.
September 16, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
tromiano; very good points, well said!
September 16, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
mytwosense wrote:
"My God...well, here's the GOP plan to deal with the foreclosure crisis...scrub voters whose houses have been foreclosed!"
Did you actually read the article? Unless you have another source, this one simply mentions allegations made by Democrats that were widely refuted. Also, I don't see how this is a "GOP plan to deal with foreclosures", and frankly, neither probably do you.
September 16, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
windbourne writes:
>>Let's elect this Panderer-in-Chief. The Bush Administration tried to reel in the financial industry 5 years ago but the Democrats blocked it. Who to blame, oh, who to blame?
O_WISE_ONE;
LOL, rofl. You HAVE TO BE KIDDING. the dems tried to block regulating the financial industry. Is this the same dems who were MINORITY party in BOTH HOUSES 5 years ago? The party that had ZERO CONTROL to block ANY MAJORITY based legislation, blocked it? About the ONLY THING that dems could block was appointments of judges which required 2/3 vote.
September 16, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Did Hickenlooper or Obama mention the fact that the democrats have been in control of the House and Senate for the last two years?
September 16, 2008
2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
ron4obama; your point looks good at first, but it's never that simple with those freakin' 1000 page bills congress is so fond of. So many riders and attachments. They likely said no for a reason like that. Congress is convoluted and corrupt. We need transparency in the worst way. Palin only one to have actually done that on her record as governor.
September 16, 2008
2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
richardboyd: "We need transparency in the worst way. Palin only one to have actually done that on her record as governor."
You're talking about the governor who insisted sensitive correspondence be conducted through her personal email account?
September 16, 2008
2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"The economy" is so big, and so dynamic, there is no way the government can control or regulate it. The Soviet Union already tried it, and that's exactly where we're headed with the Obaminator; straight into socialism. "
we've debunked these socialism boogeyman myths so many times it's absolutely mindblowing that we still have folks sticking to them.
richard...you need to come to terms with The Track Record and understand that continuing the policies that have created the mess we're in isn't a valid solution to the problem.
September 16, 2008
2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
"'Obama also said he would push a $50 billion emergency economic plan to repair infrastructure and schools, offer a 10 percent tax credit on mortgage costs to middle-class homeowners and change bankruptcy laws to make it easier for people in financial trouble to stay in their homes."
Who's gonna frickin pay for THAT!!! (hides my wallet)
September 16, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Danchan writes:
Let's see....
A huge number of attacks on Senator Obama... a couple of forlorn cries against the great demon "socialism"... a few shouts that the Democrats are to blame for everything....
Does anyone support Senator McCain? I mean, instead of this constant diatribe about your fears (imagined or otherwise) concerning Senator Obama, is there anyone who really believes that Senator McCain has a policy that will help America? I haven't heard anything except platitudes so far in his speeches. Many people will disagree with them, but at least Senator Obama is verbalizing a plan.
Concerning Governer Palin being a target... if Senator McCain was a younger healthier person then it would be unnecessary to be talking about her. Like the way it's not necessary to talk too much about Senator Biden. But the situation being what it is, it is necessary to discuss her ability to step into the most powerful job in America.
It's obvious she can lie well. That will help her to move seamlessly into the position.
She can destroy the economy of a small city. That's a big job qualification.
She is capable of unquestioning belief in an idea. That's worked out really well for the last 8 years.
Oh well. Either vote for 4 more years of Bush or vote for Senator Obama. Your call.
September 16, 2008
2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
davies
Same old Republican response. If you can't defend your stupid claims you go after some one's grammar. You all talk out of your a-- then can't come up with a intelligent response. Now I will leave it up to you wise one. Tell me how the Democrats can block a recommendation? You always want to jump and blame the Democrats and then come up with stupid ways of doing it.
September 16, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Oh and davies while your at it can you fill me in on McSames blueprint to the economic mess we are in?
September 16, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
You have got to be kidding me! We are trillions deep in a war. Gas prices through the roof because in the most part reduced oversight on energy profits. We are in the middle of the biggest mortgage crisis since the early eighties. The DOW just fell over 500 points yesterday, leaving the carcasses to the 2% vultures. And we still have people arguing "stay the course"?
Not to mention Katrina, and the billion dollar bailouts. "How many times do you have to be hit over the head until you realize who's hitting you?" Wise words from Truman.
Have you McCain supporters lost your minds? This isnt about who's team you cheer for, its our country! Enough of the blind support, save it for your favorite college team. Tell me one good thing McCain will do. One reason he will turn us around.
September 16, 2008
3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Danchan
You are making to much sense. You have to understand you are dealing with third graders here.
September 16, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
Shaggy,
Sounds familiar. Just the same retoric we heard from the Bush 1 supporters when Clinton ran. Not all that prophetic.
September 16, 2008
3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Shaggy: OK can you give us McCain's plan? I asked a couple of your teammates and they can't give me an answer.
September 16, 2008
3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
dakar writes:
Obama is looking to have the Government be much more closely tied to the markets, much like they do in Europe. He appears to be following the failed european market system. High unemployment, double and triple what the US has. Poor market growth, not the 1.5% /qtr the US is having right now, but stagnation.
September 16, 2008
3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
80 to 90% approval rating as governor. She must have done something right, can you back off enough to concede a little bit?
September 16, 2008
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Coffee_Mug writes:
Some good words that Obama thinks people want to hear. Maybe, maybe not. After this latest visit by both parties, nothing new except a "six-point plan". What does Palin mean by "overhaul", do we just conclude our own specifics? 50 billion emergency plan, where is that money going to come from? It would seem that we are headed on that "bridge to nowhere". What a shame.
September 16, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
Shaggy, et. al. -
High time we had a "typical" liberal because the typical neocons have run this country into the dirt. Wall street greed at the expense of everyone else not good enough for you? How about going from a Federal budget surplus to an alltime high record deficit (which would have happened, by the way, even without the Iraq war). Competency? You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie. I mean, come on and face it - your team screwed up royal, and it's going to take the proud Liberal traditions to set it right.
September 16, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
He's not following the European markets. He's talking about the same regulation that built this country. And I wouldnt champion our current ecconomy. Unless, maybe you think our economy is "fundamentally strong." (not so wise words from Herbert Hoover and John McCain.)
September 16, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
tromiano writes:
As this was an article touting Obama's view of the current economic crisis, it is only practical to discuss what he has said in this thread. As for what McCain has proposed: the current corporate tax is 35%. This is the second highest in the world. McCain proposes to lower this to give less motivation for companies to move jobs overseas. McCain realizes that small business is the heart and soul of the U.S. economy; they provide more jobs than corporate America and the federal government combined. He proposes to help entrepreneurs with start-up costs, as well as keeping their business taxes low. McCain realizes that investment is a KEY ingredient to a growing economy; as such, he recognizes that raising taxes on the very mechanism that drives investment (capital gains taxes) will discourage such investment, thus stifling any hope of job growth and technological advances. McCain believes that a huge part of our economic crisis is energy costs: he has outlined a plan that would take advantage of ALL technologies currently available to us, including wind, solar, natural gas, oil and nuclear. Reducing energy costs will drive this economy further along than any tax cut, including Obama's proposed cut for 95% of Americans. McCain has promised (and conservatives will hold him to his word) that he will drastically cut pork barrel spending. Federal monies for state infrastructures is fine, but attaching frivolous projects to otherwise sound legislation is the very essence of corruption in government, and only gives fodder for both parties to attack one another during election campaigns.
Both candidates, unfortunately, have failed to recognize the "watering down" effect of quality jobs and wages for Americans by the influx of immigrant workers, most of whom are undocumented. We have enjoyed relatively low inflation on goods and services as a result of this influx - an indulgence that has begun to dramatically affect the American economy.
Regardless, while tax breaks for 95% of Americans sounds great, the bigger issue should be reducing energy costs, and McCain's energy plan is the only one that has a realistic hope of actually working.
September 16, 2008
3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
Keep in mind Richardboyd, that Alaskans, including your treasured Ms. Palin back in the day, smoke a lot of the herb. My guess is that your percentage (which is dubious without a link to support it) is skewed by the few residents who actually knew who she was.
September 16, 2008
3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
chris33 writes:
Rising unemployment, rising gas prices, record foreclosures, record trade deficit, the Big Three on the verge of bankrupcy, $700 billion dollars wasted on Iraq, a $500 billion dollar budget deficit, and a stock market crash.
Now old man McBush wants us to elect him so he can clean up the mess he created. No way. Go Obama!
September 16, 2008
3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
Fundamentally sound? uh ok?
a little blip? hmmmm
stiffling big business? wow
Im like speechless.
September 16, 2008
3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
ArvadaMiner writes:
From a historical perspective, government has not proven itself to be a good manager (Republicans, Democrats, Independents or whatever party you want to put in power). The problems with Lehman Brothers and others were due to bad decisions made by management. I have no faith in any government to oversee and manage bad decisions. Unfortunately when bad decisions are made, there are innocent people that end up facing consequences. Life is not fair, so get over it. The last thing we need is more regulation that will only hinder other businesses that do actually hold themselves accountable for their actions.
If Obama wins, I am at least confident that he does not have the ability to actually implement his plans, much like Clinton was unable to get much done in his first 2 years. Obama has proven himself to be big on talk and a non-factor when it comes to action.
September 16, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Danchan writes:
dakar writes: "...He appears to be following the failed european market system."
I'm thinking that he could be following the back of the cereal box market system and it would be an improvement over the current Republican mandated system.
September 16, 2008
3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
tromiano,
I respect the fact that you are actually presenting an argument based on issues. However, I strongly disagree. The driving force in the eccomomy has always been consumer spending, which is connected to employment and wages. Now I know all you trickle-downers believe that you have to give big busniess a free ride to keep them around. But, it was proven that busness and consumers thrive from incentive based taxes and rewards for job growth and investment.
trickle-down didnt work in the Hoover years, it didnt work in the Bush years, and it wont work for McCain.
September 16, 2008
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
dilligaf: Some "blueprint". After the federal government has been forced to bail out Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and who knows how many others, it doesn't take a frickin' genius to call for more regulation of the institutions being bailed out. The question is just how much regulation? Big deal.
Then we have a proposed $50 billion for education and infrastructure, to pander to the NEA and construction interests (like unions maybe?). And then let's add a 10% tax CREDIT for mortgagees, to pander to homeowners for their votes. Hmmm, that's gonna add up - and it would probably benefit me, by the way. This isn't an economic plan, it's an election strategy.
Question for you dilligaf: If Obama is elected, and Democrats have a majority in both houses, then do you expect all our economic troubles to go away? Because I gotta tell ya, businesses, corporations, that's what powers the economy. Not government.
And I still say you shouldn't call people idiots if you're going to write like one.
September 16, 2008
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
ArvadaMiner writes:
Let's look briefly at Fannie Mae. Started by FDR, a Democrat and mostly managed by Democrats such as Franklin Raines, Clinton's former budget director. Raines (CEO of Fannie Mae from 1999-2004) overstated earnings so he and other executives could get big bonuses. Raines' reign at Fannie Mae also coincides with the timeframe where so many sub-prime mortgages were granted. There's not a lot of risk when you know the government will just bail you out and this was the approach Fannie Mae took, as it was always known that there would be few consequences for the actions of his company.
So be careful about putting all the blame on Republicans about the economy. Democrats have just as much responsibility.
For those wanting references, I am not writing a dissertation here. Just Google "Franklin Raines" to start with and see who was actually managing some of these companies that made bad decisions and now want the government to bail them out.
September 16, 2008
4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
I've got an idea. To those of you that believe government is someone besides YOU, all of you who seem to think "government" is a bad word. (You can probably find some common fotter with the anarchists. Your argyle sweaters might clash with their red bandanas though.)
Anyway, how about all of you government detesters take this election off, since its not really about you anyway. And you know, government shouldnt interupt your first Tuesday in November. It's too intrusive already.
Those of us who really see government as an extention of the people, "by the people, for the people" we will participate and fix this mess.
No need to thank us, after we do. We understand.
September 16, 2008
4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
tro, you made a good stab at making a case for more of the same, but trickle down economics won't work the third time any better than it did the first two. adding 5 trillion to the nation's debt load in the name of corporate welfare sounds like more of the same...while obama's plan to cut middle class taxes while shifting some of the tax burden back to the upper class sounds like help for real americans.
furthermore, you can spout the myth about illegal immigration being responsible for stagnating real wages and a horrible job records...but let's go ahead and hold the folks truly responsible accountable for the decisions that devalued the dollar, increased the cost of consumer goods and shipped millions of jobs out of the country.
the real question remains...why would you believe that continuing the policies that put us in this mess is the best way to fix said mess?
September 16, 2008
4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
dakar writes:
You can blame the entire Congress as well as Bush here.
Here's the take from Larry Kudlow talking to Treasury Sec. Paulson (primarily on Lehman):
Paulson’s view — supported by Bernanke and former Clinton Treasury official Timothy Geithner (now the president of the New York Fed) — is that the private sector has to take responsibility, including a consortium of private bank funds to assist the beleaguered AIG insurance company. We are now in for some Schumpeterian gales of creative destruction. But this is how it must be.
“Moral hazard,” said Paulson, “is something I don’t take lightly.” He’s saying bad financial behavior must be penalized, not rewarded. That’s the essence of the issue. The risk of failure is essential to an efficient economic system, and that includes financial risk.
The alternative, of course, is that the U.S. goes down the old European path of government domination of markets and the economy. But the moment the U.S. becomes bailout nation, that is the moment our economy and country heads irrevocably down the road of decline. However, Paulson set down a marker and said, “No we won’t.” As difficult as the next days may be, the primacy of economic freedom has been given a boost while the economic future of the U.S. looks brighter. Paulson’s decision was both momentous and transformative.
Obama is on the campaign trail predictably charging that a lack of regulations during the Bush era is responsible for the current mess. But he’s misreading history. As George Mason economist Tyler Cowen wrote in the New York Times, one of the problems with the U.S. financial system is not a lack of regulation, but a lack of smart and effective regulation.
During the Bush years, financial regulations increased exponentially, beginning with the misbegotten Sarbanes-Oxley act. That put accountants and lawyers in the driver’s seat rather than entrepreneurs. And it turns out that neither the Fed, the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, nor the SEC properly supervised high-risk leveraged borrowings and the capital-adequacy ratios necessary to safeguard against losses. Accounting standards need reform, especially the notion of fair value. Economist David Malpass wants to throw out mark-to-market all together. He has a good point.
Then there’s Congress, led by Democrats in the last two years and Republicans before that, which mandated substandard lending to low-income groups. And as the high-risk loans mounted, this very same Congress — under the gun of political contributions — continued to promote the excesses of lenders, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
September 16, 2008
4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
"Palin, speaking in Jefferson County, said the regulatory system needs 'a complete overhaul.' But aside from saying executive bonuses should be limited and corporate abuses addressed, she offered no specifics.
She screams of socialism!!! Limiting executice bonuses? Corporate abuses addressed?
And you McCain supporters let that communist bile be spewed with no objection?
Are you free-marketers gonna take that from your number 2?
September 16, 2008
4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
iamwoman writes:
I can't believe that Americans are choosing their political leaders as if they're the home football team - they might not be playing so good, but we 'like' them!
Go to www.factcheck.org and www.votesmart.org for the true 'scoop' on all of the candidates. These are non-partisan websites.
Anyone who votes to continue the current GOP administration (insert McCain/Palin) is asking for even greater fiscal crisis, continued war, worsening educational opportunities and attacks to our environment. We cannot afford another C- President or worse!
Bush/McCain-they're the same! And Palin is now citing "Executive Privilege" to try and escape troopergate when she isn't even the VP! Enough- Enough - Enough!
Obama/Bidden- they have the brains to govern and the ethics to change Washington!
September 16, 2008
4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
davies: "Then we have a proposed $50 billion for education and infrastructure, to pander to the NEA and construction interests (like unions maybe?). And then let's add a 10% tax CREDIT for mortgagees, to pander to homeowners for their votes. Hmmm, that's gonna add up - and it would probably benefit me, by the way. This isn't an economic plan, it's an election strategy."
The construction industry is hurting right now. People are getting laid off left and right. Rebuilding our own infrastructure will give this industry a shot in the arm, not to mention, is it really such a bad thing to invest in our own country again? Instead of emptying our Treasury to blow up and then rebuild other countries?
As for the NEA, millions of teachers belong to that union. You know, the people tasked with educating and watching over our children all day while we chase after the American dream? In case you haven't noticed, they don't make that much money. You would deny them a raise? You really buy the anti-union propaganda that most teachers are bad?
Anyway, I'd rather vote for a president who panders to 95% of this country instead of corporations. Hell, government SHOULD pander to the people!
September 16, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"The alternative, of course, is that the U.S. goes down the old European path of government domination of markets and the economy"
actually this is what is called a false dilemma, dakar.
we can have the kind of responsible oversight that bush vetoed and not have "gov't domination of markets and the economy".
September 16, 2008
4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
KCharles -
It doesn't bother me that Palin offers no specifics becasue she's only on the ticket at the VP, and is otherwise an empty dress. McCain is the one who worries me, in that he isn't the guy for the national stage, and he certainly isn't the guy to run the economy. It's a funny thing I keep hearing from all the neocons - Obama doesn't have the experience. Well, ladies and gentlemen, remember it's a glass house from which you're making that argument. McCain has never had any real business experience, which is why he's got Carly Fiorini running around, trying to both explain the McCain position and dodge questions about why she got booted from HP.
September 16, 2008
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
freemarketworks writes:
Jay,
I believe that ‘trickle down’ is an emotional term for 'Supply Side Economics.' It has always been the case that when you decrease capital gains taxes, businesses grow and the actual tax base is increased. Taxes are almost always regressive; see the city of Detroit, MI. as clear evidence of what happens when you tax businesses out of business...
"Current policies that put us into this mess?" I would argue that our current policies are what are holding us above water. Further, I would say that it was under the Clinton watch that sub-prime lending and unregulated banking blossomed into our huge housing bubble.
To the article, Obama's plans are aimed directly at my income, capital gains and will directly decrease the number of jobs that I am able to offer. The message from Obama to me is “don’t strive to be a ‘ten percenter’, because I am going to take your money…” The ironic part of this message is that most ‘ten percenters’ that I know are fully prepared to relocate off-shore or sell their assets to foreign companies in order to survive.
September 16, 2008
4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
Good point, chickenlittle.
I cant believe I actually just wrote that. Not that I dont often agree with you, chickenlittle. I often do. Its just that your.... well... your chickenlittle.
September 16, 2008
4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
areader writes:
kcharles writes: "I dont understand. Can any of you on this blog honestly tell yourself your better off under this administration?"
Actually, yes... my income has almost doubled in the last 8 years because I worked hard and kept moving forward and didn't depend on an administration to tell me what to do or what assistance to wait for. You can do it too, as can everyone else.
September 16, 2008
4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
tromiano writes:
KCharles writes "The driving force in the eccomomy has always been consumer spending,..."
I agree. However, when so much of consumer resources are tied up in skyrocketing energy prices, consumers are less likely to spend money on other items. I do not know what numbers Obama is talking about in terms of actual tax breaks (i.e. how much per household); however, I do know that if a family of four typically buys 30 gallons of gas a week at $3.75 a gallon, they are spending around $5,850 on gas every year. If real-world energy initiatives are implemented and gas prices drop $0.50 to $1.00 a gallon, that family can save between $750 to $1,500 a year. In a household that earns $50k a year, that represents up to 3% of their annual income - a fairly sizable increase in income without redistributing incomes.
As far as 'trickle down' not working in the Bush years: quite the opposite. In O'Reilly's interview with Obama, Obama himself admitted that the economy grew by nearly 20% over the past 8 years - a remarkable thing considering Sep. 11 happened fairly close to the beginning of Bush's term. The government received close to 20% more revenue in the last 8 years than it did under the Clinton administration. The problem (and one of the biggest criticisms conservatives have of Bush) is that the government spent even more than it was taking in. Bush has only had 12 vetoes as president - significantly fewer than most. His authority as president to veto pork legislation was squandered - something McCain has specifically addressed, and something Barack has not.
September 16, 2008
4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
freemarket, you still haven't addressed the points i made. you might start by dropping the willful ignorance about trickle down economics being a failure twice now and about how the republicans aren't accountable for the situation we find ourselves in now....bbbbut clinton is no longer answering the call.
finally...if you're just now moving your assets away from the american dollar and stock market...i highly doubt that you are a ten percenter.
nice try.
September 16, 2008
4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:
"Several people who had seen Obama speak elsewhere said they noted an increased urgency in both his message and in the words of the local Democratic leaders who introduced him."
Translation? Obama is increasingly desperate as he slips further and further in Florida, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Montana, North Dakota ... and polls show New Jersey, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and even New York coming into play.
September 16, 2008
4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
areader,
You may make twice as much, but the cost of living has doubled as well. real earnings have fallen. And if you are one of the lucky few, God bless you. But, I hope you're not really trying to pass this wack job called an economy off on hard working families. I know that your argument isnt really that people just arent trying hard enough.
September 16, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
dakar: Thank you. Very informative.
my2sense: Teachers are people. There's good ones and not so good ones. Do they deserve a raise? Not necessarily. They have a bachelor's degree, do they not? If they want a better paying job, who's to stop them?
I'll support higher pay for teachers, en masse, when we get our priorities straight in this country and go to year-round school. There is no need for summer vacation and then spending the first month of every school year reviewing last year, and trying to re-establish habits, policies and discipline.
"Hell, government SHOULD pander to the people!" Obviously, you stand on the economic gain side of that statement.
I didn't know you could say 'hell' on here...
And that's all I have to say about that.
September 16, 2008
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
I am indeed chickenlittle, though to paraphrase Bob Dylan, you don't need me now to know which way the wind is blowing.
September 16, 2008
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
KCharles writes:
i digress. And with this I will leave. I have to get out of here and go try harder. And God willing all of those Americans that have lost their jobs due to offshoring tax breaks, and you all in New Orleans, and those poor saps that lost their retirements, and especially those poor souls at AIG and Lehman Bros. Just pull yourselves up by your own boot straps. All of you finacial institutions and wall street drunkards dont wait for your bailout. areader can do it, so can you. So can I. Prosperity awaits, this is just a "blip" no need to fret, chickenlittle. This whole thing has been our imagination. No need to whine any longer. The fundamentals of our economy are sound.
and I will make my fortune building bridges to nowhere... or I will then I wont.
September 16, 2008
5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
tromiano -
Sure, the economy grew 20%, based on an unprecedented run up in asset prices - real estate, in particular. Take a look through the Fed's Flow of Funds - household net worth skyrocketed with home values, which were propped up by overly aggressive lending. The 20% was largely a bubble that is now unwinding. And the unwinding - already nasty - will continue and will likely be more painful. We've only seen residential values fall. Next are commercial values. You thought a 20% decline in real home prices was bad, just wait until you see 50-75% writedowns on office buildings, warehouses, etc. etc. The good news - at least for businesses - is that rents will come down, too. And for all of you tax hawks out there, you should know from running your own businesses that the costs of labor and rent are the biggest chunk of a business's expenses.
September 16, 2008
7:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
the bubbles and bursts are almost entirely caused by the expansion and retraction of credit and the Mandrake system which rules our banking. Our money is not backed by gold, only debt..which is why we have the hidden tax called inflation, the more congress spends, the more bonds the fed reserve buys with printed money...not silver, not gold....ink, and that's just the start of it. They handed off 145 bn dollars today that don't really exist, 100bn reported last August and since the DEMOCRAT congress made it the law that the Fed Reserve no longer has to disclose how much currency in circulation, who knows what else they've don. I can't find the big o's blueprint anywhere, if he has on there repealing the Federal Reserve Act...then perhaps he might have something.
September 16, 2008
7:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
gr8fun4me writes:
I'm tired of seeing the Republican's ruin the economy and then blame it on the Democrats. You guys need to do your research and you'll find out that the three biggest financial scandals have occurred during Republican administrations.
Enron and Mortgage Crisis during the Bush years
Savings and Loan scandal during Reagans administration.
The problem is that the Republican mantra doesn't work. Less regulation leads to greedy SOB's figuring out a way to steal from everyone. The mortgage crisis may sink this country financially but the same group of people are going to blame it on the Democrats. The Republicans had control of Congress for 6 straight years and did nothing. The 2005 congress only worked 181 days of the year and was nicknamed the "Do nothing" congress. That is why they lost congress in 2006 because of their laziness. If you believe that the Democrats did this you need to pull your head out of your you know what so you can see the light!
September 16, 2008
7:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
ManginoTorreta writes:
Obama offers a "blueprint" to salvage the economy, yet his campaign is leaking money like a sieve and can't get donations fast enough to make up for all the spending.
The ONE time he was put in any sort of executive authority during the Annenberg challenge, his actions resulted in a bill of over $100 million and no tangible results.
Michelle Obama admitted that she and Obama could barely make ends meet until he received his book advances, and even then were practically living paycheck to paycheck.
Yet the left is claiming that this man whose campaign can't intelligently control its own spending habits, who burned away NINE figures for nothing the one time he was given control over other people's money, and can barely keep his personal expenses in check is going to be the savior of the economy. If congress wasn't controlled by Democrats, I'd be counting on sweet, sweet gridlock to keep his impulses in check, but if he gets elected, it's going to be like giving a blowtorch to a pyromaniac if his past and current behavior is any indication of future actions.
September 16, 2008
7:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
ConcernedConsumers writes:
Wake up America!!!! You, the hard working Joe & Jill citizens, are footing the bill for Corporations that screwed you over in the first place. America, your worst nightmare has come true; we are in DEBT to the tune of $400 million dollars and just gave a mismanaged company $85 billion of our money for an 80% stake in a company that is about to go bankrupt??? Does that make sense? This is just another method for wealthy Republicans and Democrats to bailout their wealthy friends.
If the government bails these businesses out, the government should get ALL assets, not just 80%. Furthermore, the management of these businesses should not get the multi-million dollar parachutes they have pre-arranged for themselves; in fact, they should not get severance pay. If it turns out those that those responsible for creating these problems have been less than honest in their dealings, they should lose all their family’s assets, go to prison and be banned from financial-sector employment for life.
These same types of businesses which we are bailing-out are the same types of big businesses that have done their best to ensure personal bankruptcy is all but impossible; these same types of businesses have refused to lift a finger for those losing their homes but are quick to tarnish your credit history for life if you are late with a payment; these same types of businesses scream, "Free market! Free market!" whenever they smell the slightest whiff of regulation. Yet, these same types of businesses are running to Joe and Jill tax payer to bail them out. These businesses are driven by greed, short-term profits and cooked books or balance sheets.
We, the people, can't pay for our gas, we can't pay for our groceries, we can't pay our mortgages and have become like pawns in the financial chess game played by those in Washington. We, the people, just bankrolled businesses that are loyal to the politicians that gave them our tax money. Good job to all you politicians in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats, for allowing this to happen.
September 16, 2008
7:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
scrolltroll writes:
the difference between bush's economic plan and mcpalin's? lipsitck.
September 16, 2008
8:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
danirobi writes: "yeah, and then jets off to a $31,000 fundraiser...what a joke!"
I'm sorry, you lost me here...
What exactly is a "joke" about raising money for a presidential campaign? You are inferring there is something wrong with this when in fact fundraising is essential to the process.
Do you "think" it is illegitimate for candidates to hold fundraisers? I don't think you can even tread water with *that* line of reasoning.
September 16, 2008
8:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
Everyone should do some digging, and you'll have to, to find out the inner workings of the Federal Reserve Act and the theft from the American public. The longer they are allowed to control our economy and yes our government, the further away our freedoms go and the gap between what we earn and what it costs to live widens...forcing us to drink of the fountain of credit which the beast needs to survive. It is everyone's duty to learn the truth behind the biggest crime ever inflicted on the American people...then put a stop to it, period and get our OWN currency, backed by Gold, Silver or anything of value. You'll also be quite surprised if you actually do the work to find out how many of the same players are behind big Al's hoax.
September 16, 2008
8:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jonjonmon writes:
the sad thing is, both Obama and McCain voted to rescue Fannie Mae and might do the same for Detroits Big Three (GM,Ford,Chrysler). Who pays for these bail outs? We do. If both McCain and Obama were seroius about "shaking up Washington", the would have voted no on the bail outs. Let the banks suffer, but don't let taxpayers pay for other's mistakes.
September 16, 2008
8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I wonder what would really happen if we just let these companies go bankrupt instead of bailing them out. Anyone have some thoughts on what the fallout would be?
September 16, 2008
9:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Homer_J writes:
www.powerlineblog.com addresses this.
Good conservative source that cuts through the clutter if you are interested
September 16, 2008
10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
freemarketworks writes:
One effect of these recent banking industry bail-outs is that inflation will grow fast and the U.S. dollar will continue in a free-fall. There are no magic bullets to fix this economy. The only remedies are to increase the tax base and decrease spending as much as possible.
In our current credit crunch, businesses face negative growth and lay-offs; which doesn't do much to increase the tax base. With a little research, it looks like our current debt is approx. $400k per person. The next President will need to make some tough decisions if we’re going to survive the down-turn and also accommodate retiring boomers. Frankly, both candidates are talking up big spending programs with little thought for funding them with an eye on the future.
And, FRNFU, I agree that both parties have sold-out and are at the whim of the Federal Reserve. We’ve become an ‘entitlement society’ and we’re going to pay if we don’t do anything right now. Personally, I think that the Republicans are more likely to make the tough decisions; however, we haven’t seen that from the Bush Administration.
September 16, 2008
10:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Charles B, sorry you got banned. Yeah, you could be pretty caustic and occasionally too much so...but I've seen far, far worse from posters that are still here. Mostly, I thought you were one of the wittiest and brightest posters on this forum. Removing you kind of dumbs down the place even more than it already is.
I hope the RMN editors lift the ban at some point and let you come back.
September 17, 2008
2:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
bottomofclass writes:
Do you make over $250,000 a year, than vote for McCain. If you don't, vote for four more years of what we have been through. Enough. We have to change this country even if it is hard to swallow.
September 17, 2008
2:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnDoeNumber2 writes:
It's the GAS PRICES Stupid!!!
The ONLY way jobs & the economy will pick up again - is if we get back $2 a GALLON GAS & DIESEL to RESCUE the U.S. ECONOMY!
While many cherish a 'free-marketplace' with all these Govt. bailouts or 'Welfare for Wall Street' - why not 'fix' a marketplace that's at the center of this mess & doesn't have an ounce of competitive pricing, where 'free marketplace' conditions don't exist - the price at the pumps!
McCain & Obama have BOTH missed the fact that $2 a gallon gas is the ONLY WAY to begin our economic recovery - as no one's paycheck or revenues have doubled in the last year or so to meet the doubling of gas prices - that is NOW depleting revenues & disposable incomes - despite oil going below $100 a barrel.
In the short term - until a Citizens Oil Coop of Refineries/pumping Stations can start up - we may need 1971-era 'Nixonian' price-controlled gas & diesel prices of $2 a gallon as a starting solution for renewing disposable income & business revenues (except the Greedy Oil Companies) - as vital commodities like gasoline will need to be 'protected' from the greed of the biblical 'money-changers' (speculators & OPEC) - as we 'revitalize' our economy - by attacking what was one of the main culprits beside the sub-prime mess - RIP OFF Gas & Diesel prices at the pump!
Neither McCain or Obama seem to realize that $2 a gallon GAS PRICES are the beginning fix to problems the economy SOON will face unless a 'Citizens Oil Coop' drills for, refines, and markets $2 a gallon gas at Citizen Oil Coop gas stations as an alternative to the oligopoly that played such a large part in this economic mess we now have!
If something like a Citizens Oil Coop idea isn't created SOON to head off what's happening - the U.S. economy is headed for depths MUCH worse than the Great Depression if we don't have $2 a gallon gas (or lower) NOW - as MORE & MORE 'bail-outs' will pop up - that the Govt. will FAIL to cover at some point SOON!
In the meantime - CNBC is quoting investor Wilbur Ross - who says 1000 banks will FAIL in the next few months!!!
September 17, 2008
2:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnDoeNumber2 writes:
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
Pay 'SPECIAL ATTENTION' to the fact that in less than 2 years in the Senate - Barack 'The Economic Reformer' Obama has in less than 2 years
- found a way to accept MORE THAN 5 TIMES the amount of 'donations from 'Lobbyists' (that he accuses McCain of being in bed with...) representing Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae to become #2 in accepted $$$ from the Sub-Prime bad mortgages main 'players' - Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae - almost 'TOPPING' the list of Senators & Reps than John McCain could do in 10 years!
Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349
Kerry, John S MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,000
Bennett, Robert F S UT R $107,999 $71,499 $36,500
Bachus, Spencer H AL R $103,300 $70,500 $32,800
Blunt, Roy H MO R $96,950 $78,500 $18,450
Kanjorski, Paul E H PA D $96,000 $57,500 $38,500
Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' S MO R $95,400 $64,000 $31,400
Shelby, Richard C S AL R $80,000 $23,000 $57,000
Reed, Jack S RI D $78,250 $43,500 $34,750
Reid, Harry S NV D $77,000 $60,500 $16,500
Clinton, Hillary S NY D $76,050 $8,000 $68,050
Davis, Tom H VA R $75,499 $13,999 $61,500
Boehner, John H OH R $67,750 $60,500 $7,250
Conrad, Kent S ND D $64,491 $22,000 $42,491
Reynolds, Tom H NY R $62,200 $53,000 $9,200
Johnson, Tim S SD D $61,000 $20,000 $41,000
Pelosi, Nancy H CA D $56,250 $47,000 $9,250
Carper, Tom S DE D $55,889 $31,350 $24,539
Hoyer, Steny H H MD D $55,500 $51,500 $4,000
Rangel, Charles B H NY D $38,000 $14,750 $23,250
Smith, Gordon H S OR R $22,000 $20,000$2,000
Mikulski, Barbara A S MD D $21,750 $16,500 $5,250
McCain, John S AZ R $21,550 $0 $21,550
September 17, 2008
2:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnDoeNumber2 writes:
As Barack Obama fails to mention the crux of the 'Sub-Prime problem' was caused by members of his party Democratic Party - not the GOP!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-St...
Obama & the Dems wrongly say the SUB-PRIME MESS & ECONOMIC PROBLEMS were caused by McCain & the GOP?
In addition, Barack Obama falsely blames subprime-related bankruptcies on the 'free-market' system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he also tries to link John McCain with for wanting to extend.
If Barack Obama and Democrats want to target the GOP for the financial turmoil on Wall Street - a closer look shows that the Democrats - during the Clinton years - are THE prime reason for the SUB-PRIME MESS:
The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA) - a DEMOCRAT sponsored act that Bill Clinton pushed through & signed into law (the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994) was enacted as an amendment to Public Law 103-325, 108 Statute 2160 (60 FR 15463) IMPOSED substantive limitations and additional disclosure requirements on certain closed-end home mortgage loans to minority home buyers who might otherwise be deemed NOT credit 'worthy' = more foreclosures by 'Sub-Prime' borrowers!
September 17, 2008
4:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Unicorn writes:
Check out this site, http://votesmart.org/ and research the candidates. This site also lists all of the candidates running for the presidency this year. Check out the voting records for McCain, Obama, Biden or any candidate and find out for yourselves who is the right choice for President. I personally found that McCain is not the right candidate for me because his voting record clearly indicates that he is for big business and despite his claims he is not about change. Sarah Palin scares me because she is nothing but a typical Republican and is herself an elitist even though she claims that she is not. This woman is no friend of the woman voter and I am appalled that women emulate her and dress like her. All I can say is I hope that women are not voting for her because she is a woman. This is the wrong reason to support her and she does not represent the typical wife and mother in America despite her claims. Just check out Votesmart.org, research and vote with the confidence that all voters should have when they enter the booth. The polarization between the parties is a direct result of pointless arguments like those found on this forum. Don't argue, research and then vote knowing that the decision is an educated one. The parties should be working together to represent the voters of America, not fighting with each other and throwing around accusations. As voters, it is our responsibility and duty to make sure all elected candidates represent America, not big business or special interest groups and as voters we can hold them accountable. If they don't do the job, vote them out of office and vote the next candidate in. If the new candidate does not do the job, vote that candidate out and start over again. Records show that the incumbant wins in most cases because voters fear change and will vote for the familiar name without researching that candidates or candidates involved.
September 17, 2008
7:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Unicorn, post the definition of a typical wife and mother will ya?
September 17, 2008
8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
JohnDoe2: Very interesting numbers, but I note that there are three dollar amounts after each name, a total, and then two lesser amounts that equal the total. So maybe your chart only covers the last two years of contributions? Even if so, it is very enlightening.
Whatever the case, here's a great place to start with "reform": If the entity is federally insured or enjoys other federal financial support, the entity is prohibited from making campaign contributions. We taxpayers are now financing those contributions!
Also JD2, you should state your source, so people know it's credible. Thanks.
September 17, 2008
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
Obama offers remedy for economic turmoil: "I have a plan........I will get rich.......you will pay for my plan......Thank you very much.....I am the MESSIAH!! and I am a Muslim............I mean...I mean.....I am a Christian......"
NOBAMA 08
September 17, 2008
8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Politicians should not be allowed to received campaign contributions, trips, or gifts, period, from corporate entities. Not in any way shape or form.
As we can see now, this money buys their silence or their support, both Repubs and Dems, at the cost of billions to taxpayers.
September 17, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
EnlightenedOne writes:
Cawren writes:
"Palins credentials.
Palin attended 5 different small colleges before graduating. She was a beauty queen, local weather girl, 4 years on a small town city council and 6 years as the mayor of a small town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people.
Obamas credentials
inexperienced? You be the judge.
President of the Harvard Law Review, 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, 4 years in the United States Senate representing state of 3 million people and has served on the Foreign Affairs, Environment, Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees."
Thanks for this comparison, Cawren. You've got me convinced. Obama would make a fine Vice Presidential running mate.
September 17, 2008
8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
RonInWestminster writes:
Will McCain fix the economy?
Let's look at the guy who was McCain's top economic adviser (until he was recently fired for saying we're a nation of whiners and that the country was only in a mental recession) that would be former Senator Phil Graham. Graham wrote much of the savings and loan deregulation legislation that led to the collapse of many banks throughout the country in the 80s under the watchful eye of Ronald Reagan. He also created the 'Enron Loophole' laws that facilitated the collapse of Enron. Before leaving office Graham helped write and pass the laws deregulating the mortgage and loan industries which have helped to create the current economic challenges we face.
So why in the world would any candidate who was serious about addressing the nation's economic woes have someone like Phil Graham as his top economic adviser??
John McCain by his own words 'I don't know as much about the economy as I should' sits as a senior member of the Senate Committee on Commerce shouldn't he be a little bit better versed on economic matters?
Yet McCain is highly touted for his vast experience, but what sort of judgment was he exercising when he choice Phil Graham as his economic advisor. Isn't all of that experience supposed to help create better judgment?
McCain, right up until yesterday has been totally on board with Bush's economic policies and that is reflected in his Senate record.
I want a leader who has the judgment to see problems before they arise, Obama and the Democrats attempted in 2006 and again in 2007 to pass legislation aimed at avoiding our current situation but the Republicans shut it down.
Experience should help create leadership to avoid problems, obviously not the case with McCain.
I'll take good judgment as embodied by Obama over McCain's experience and lack of judgment any day.
September 17, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
chris33 writes:
John McCain's advisor Phil Gramm is the one who wrote the deregulation legislation which led to the collapse of the financial markets. Now McCain wants us to elect him so he can clean up the mess he created. No way!
September 17, 2008
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bob299 writes:
Everyone should read this
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/public...
September 17, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
mccain economic advisor phil gramm would be really surprised that you're trying to give other folks credit for his work, johndoe2.
that's what happens when you don't know your history.
September 17, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
Obama offers remedy for economic turmoil: "I have a plan........I will get rich.....You will pay for my plan.......Thanks you..."
Oh and
The extremely Democratic Corrupt Labor Unions that are in my pocket, will donate millions to try and get me elected......Thank you very much...
NOBAMA 08
September 17, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
cassidy22 writes:
JohnDoeNumber2, sorry to burst your bubble... but we will never have $2 gas again.
Which is why no candidate is discussing this as a viable way to revive our economy.
I suggest you do some research on Peak Oil, and understand that our supply is dwindling, and the ability to extract oil from the ground is getting more costly and difficult.
So don't bet your hopes on cheap gas. We took advantage of it long enough, squandered a non-renewable resource, and it'll be gone in my lifetime.
September 17, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Maurie writes:
FACT: If you earn less than $250,000 a year, Obama will ***LOWER*** your federal income tax - not increase it.
FACT: Your Obama tax cut will be larger than your McCain tax cut.
FACT: McCain gives a multi-millionaire a tax cut that is ***8 times bigger*** than a low income earner's tax cut.
See for yourself. Here is proof!!!!!!
Here is a link to a calculator you can use to see how much of a tax break you will get with Obama's plan. (I haven't been able to find one yet for the McCain plan. Why is that????.)
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
Here is a link to a very clear tax cut comparison chart. This chart is referenced in many newspapers and magazine articles.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Here is the link to get the full 56-page comparison of the two tax plans published by the independent Tax Policy Center.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/public...
September 17, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
wyhammertime writes:
I find it funny that Oblama has the anwser for this when fannie may went down wouldn't the ceo's have a part in that ??? Then why are two of them working as economic advisors for the Oblama campain ?? They should be in jail just like the Enron dudes donca think ??? Oh that's right dem's !!! Yes yes typical politics lie lie lie
September 17, 2008
11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
mrcrush, it sounds as if you may be very uninformed in regards to obama's plans for the economy.
i urge you to educate yourself on the details of each candidate's platform before november.
in a pinch, try to remember that mccain's policy stances most closely represents a third bush term while obama's policy stances most closely represent a third clinton term.
when look at the track record of those administrations, it is very, very difficult to make the case that mccain's policies have been more successful...just ask eli.
try not to focus on the rushian talking points about "experience" and instead try to base your vote on the strength of the candidates' policy stances.
September 17, 2008
12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
I love how McCain criticizes Obama for being pessimistic about the economy. Maybe McCain should stroll over to Wall Street and see if he can find a single trader, any trader, that is optimistic about the economy right now. Only a fool, a complete fool, would not be worried about the economy right now.
Housing construction is at a 17 year low, AIG would have gone bankrupt if it had not been bailed out by the government (one of the largest insurers in the world), there was a 500 point drop in the stock market Monday and another 350 point drop so far today (to put that in perspective, after 9/11 the stock market went down 1370 points--we are at 850 so far and it's only Wednesday). This is in addition to the already unprecedented actions by the feds to save Fran and Freddie, the sell of Merill Lynch and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers (who had been in business for 158 years, meaning that they even survived the turbulent late 19th century and the crash of '29 -- Black Tuesday -- and the Great Depression that followed). And it's not even October yet (when most great market downturns in the past have occurred, including Black Tuesday).
McCain is either clueless or being very disingenuous when he criticizes Obama for being pessimistic about the economy.
September 17, 2008
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
JCRiggle writes:
Wall St Journal has a interesting article stating that the the stock market performs best when there is a divided government. Why do you think this is? Maybe because when the there is a divided government nothing that isn't in the best interest of both parties will not get passed. No silly regulations get passed; anything substantial that isn't necessary will not get passed. Silly regulations will only hamper our economy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12211...
And the reason our economy is seemingly not so strong right now is that all these failing companies made bad decisions in the past that are coming back to bite them, not deregulation. The economy goes up and down. Downturns are needed to rid the markets of excess waste and root out the bad practices so that the economy can grow stronger. Survival of the fittest.
But now since the government has gotten into the practice of bailing out these companies, it is only reinforcing the bad practices that got them there in the first place.
September 17, 2008
12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
JCRiggle: That was a pretty weak article. The author claims if you treat Nixon as a Democrat rather than a Republican then growth was better under Republicans since 1948, otherwise it's been better under Democrats. Well guess what? You can't just revise history to suit your purposes. Nixon WAS a Republican no matter how much you wish he wasn't.
He then goes on to say how it's only been in the past two years that the stock market has done poorly and was actually doing well during the first 6 years of Bush when Republicans controlled both Congress and the Executive. That completely ignores the reasons why these institutions are failing now, which is they are paying the piper for bad investments they made during those first 6 years under Bush. The author leaves it to the reader to figure out how the heck Congress has caused the sudden catastrophe in the stock market. What a crock, a monkey could have written a better article than that.
And then, to top it off, you act as if that article supports your assertion about regulations hurting the economy despite the fact that the article doesn't even talk about regulations. Your only source of support in the article is:
"When Republicans have controlled the whole government, it blows away anything Democrats can do. Stocks have averaged 17.5% and real GDP growth 3.3%."
So how many years since 1948 have both Congress and the Executive been run by Republicans? How many of those years have been run by Democrats? He doesn't say (it does matter from a statistics point of view). Also, how many of those years of growth turned into being bubbles? (like the first years of Bush?) That also he does not answer.
For a much, much better article try reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bus...
September 17, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Citizen21 writes:
The economy is cyclical, it has ups and downs. Are we so shortsighted that we can't see if the election was held a year ago, the Bush administration would be heralded for the robust economy? After record high employment, low unemployment and the DOW hitting a record high in 2007, the economy is now slowing. It happens – it can’t continue to grow forever. It will go back up, provided we are not over taxed to bailout individuals and companies who made poor decisions.
-- Just last October (2007), the Dow hit a record high 14280 points
-- March 2007: 4.4 unemployment rate "There's now very strong growth in the labor force, as strong as it's been since the turn of the decade," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "Wages are rising and people are starting to recognize that this is the best time to be looking for a job since 2000."
-- September 2007: Unemployment Rate Remains Low At 4.6 Percent -- The Bureau Of Labor Statistics Released New Jobs Figures. Nonfarm payroll employment edged down in August by 4,000 jobs, meaning our economy created 1.6 million jobs in prior 12 months, and 8.22 million since August 2003 when the labor market began its turnaround. Private employment increased by 24,000 jobs in August 2007, marking the 48th consecutive month of private job growth. The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 4.6 percent, below the average of each of the past four decades.
--Foreclosures – if you bought a house you could not afford, or if you pulled out an equity loan worth more than your house, or if you put ZERO (0) down with an ARM and now can’t make payments – THAT is on you. You signed the papers. Take accountability. As far as housing values falling, they need to. Many areas went up a ridiculous 10% or more in less than a year. This out priced many lower to middle income persons.
Regulation -- Thank you BigSky182 for highlighting the truth.
The New York Times reported 9/11/03 that the Bush administration “recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago” and guess who blocked it…. the Democrats.
September 17, 2008
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
GabeMc writes:
Wasn't Nobama in the senate for the past 8 years?
Didn't he play an equal role in this mess?
Now, 47 days before the election, he has a plan...
September 17, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Just last October (2007), the Dow hit a record high 14280 points"
not when adjusted for inflation. we still need to get back to 14500 to get to the places we enjoyed under clinton.
"March 2007: 4.4 unemployment rate"
again, this is incorrect when you do the proper math and include those who are unemployed longer than the bush administration will keep them on the rolls.
"Regulation "
phil gramm.
enough said...although you may want to remember that w vetoed bipartisan legislation that could have helped avoid this mess.
"As a taxpayer, it's very clear to me that it will cost me much more each day, week, month and year to live in this country under an Obama presidency"
as i said before, it seems as if you're very uninformed in regards to obama's actual plans, mcrush.
i hope you get some sorely needed education on the actual details before november.
September 17, 2008
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"The fundamental business of the country, that is the production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis"
--Hoover, day after Black Thursday.
sound familiar?
September 17, 2008
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
John McCain from the Senate floor May 26 2006 sponsoring a reform bill:
"Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 1 90, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."
Obama...took the lobby cash (#2 Fannie cash recepient) and helped prevent it.
Who's really for change?
September 17, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
temurlan: That bill never made it out of committee. The Republicans were in charge of that committee. So please, tell me, how did Obama block it? Obama wasn't even in that committee (Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs).
September 17, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Also, McCain made that speech after the bill was already dead (bill died July 28, 2005). McCain made the speech May 25, 2006 and did not cosponsor the next incarnation of the bill, S. 1100 (Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2007). Why? I have no idea, both to why he made the speech about it almost a year after it died and why he didn't cosponsor the next bill created by the same people that made the 2005 bill.
September 17, 2008
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Here's my economic plan:
Stay IN school; stay OFF dope; obey the law; stay married to the same person; keep a job and you and your family will be fine. Period.
Make good CHOICES to begin with and you won't have to be pandered to by politicians (of either party) offering to "make it all better" without you having to do a thing.
September 17, 2008
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Citizen21 writes:
Jay:
Clinton inherited a growing economy from the Regan/Bush administrations. He slowed it considerablywith his tax increases. And, what about the dot com/high tech bust in 2000 during his second term? He also benefited greatly from the first Republican congress in 40 years. For six of eight years, Bill Clinton governed with Republican majorities in Congress. It is more than just a coincidence that the bullish market started under the Republican congress.
During Clinton’s eight years in office, the U.S. current account deficit increased from $84 billion to $415 billion. The trade deficit increased most dramatically at the end of the Clinton years. In 1999, the trade deficit surpassed $338 billion, a 53 percent increase from $220 billion in 1998. Under Clinton real wages stagnated while manufacturing and service jobs moved overseas in large numbers.
September 17, 2008
3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
MrCrush writes: ..."A multi-racial man with a hidden agenda and ZERO experience and his black wife in the White House running the biggest and best country in the history of the world? C'mon I don't think so! ...All I'm saying is that thousands and thousands of voters will not vote for Obama because of his race..."
Yeah, and there are many others who WILL vote for Obama, at least in part because of his race, and because we would like people like you (and Revs. Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, et.al.) to be marginalized even further.
And this fairly conservative, middle aged, white George Bush supporter just may be one of those voters.
September 17, 2008
3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
joggle writes:
"Also, McCain made that speech after the bill was already dead (bill died July 28, 2005). Why? I have no idea, both to why he made the speech about it almost a year after it died..."
C'mon, joggle, do you expect us to believe that a speech that concludes with: "I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation", is a speech about a bill that died a year before?
C'mon joggle.
September 17, 2008
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Citizen21: Funny that you attack Clinton for his more conservative issues. Many factory jobs went overseas due to free trade agreements, issues that most Republicans were (and probably still are) in favor of.
The US had the largest increase in worker productivity in the 90s in the history of this country. As for income growth, the study sited in this article seems to disagree with you: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bus... (all figures are adjusted for inflation)
The economy did not slow under his administration. The dot com bust was a result of idiot investors ignoring basic economic knowledge, namely ignoring P/E ratios of companies. It was pretty obvious to any economist that the stocks were overpriced, especially the tech stocks (which is why I never invested in those stocks back then). There was much Clinton could do to get people to not invest in overpriced stocks and if you think there was I'm curious what you think he could have done.
"It is more than just a coincidence that the bullish market started under the Republican congress."
PROVE IT!
September 17, 2008
4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
davies: "C'mon, joggle, do you expect us to believe that a speech that concludes with: "I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation", is a speech about a bill that died a year before?"
Yes, because it's the truth. See: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill....
September 17, 2008
4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
Question to anyone who wishes to answer it, but it's really addressed to Obama supporters:
Is operating the government with a budget deficit and increasing the national debt acceptable?
September 17, 2008
4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
"Is operating the government with a budget deficit and increasing the national debt acceptable?"
This is a question to Obama supporters? OK, then I will answer. No, it is not acceptable, at least not in the long term. Unfortunately the budget deficit is so large now that it will take years before a balanced budget will be possible and neither candidate is promising otherwise.
Not sure why you're addressing this to Obama supporters. The only president in recent history who has been able to get any semblance of a balanced budget through Congress was Bill Clinton: http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/...
September 17, 2008
4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Clinton inherited a growing economy from the Regan/Bush administrations"
actually no, he inherited a recession from bush the smarter.
"He slowed it considerablywith his tax increases. "
first of all...he and bush the smarter had to raise taxes to pay for reagan's spending...just like the next president will have to do to pay for the republican spending of the last 8 years.
secondly, he presided over the greatest fiscal expansion in the history of the country.
"During Clinton’s eight years in office, the U.S. current account deficit increased from $84 billion to $415 billion."
clinton reduced debt as a percentage of GDP...unlike every republican president since ike.
here's the data about the deficit under modern US presidents (fstng, you should take a look as well apparently):
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
"Under Clinton real wages stagnated "
wrong again...while real wages stagnated under w, they actively decreased 4.3% under reagan, but increase 6% under clinton.
this stuff isn't exactly breaking news, citizen. judging by the inaccuracies in your two posts i've read today, you may need to do some more research before contributing in the future.
September 17, 2008
5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
joggle,
The primary reason I am addressing Obama supporters is because I hear a lot of complaints coming from Obama supporters about how horrible it is that the government is currently operating with a deficit and the the growing debt under president Bush is somewhat of a defining platform for why we should vote against current policies. Yet, as you and countless economists have stated, Obama has no plans (ever in his stated policy) for a balanced budget or a decreased national debt.
It really sounds like deficit spending and a growing national debt aren't really as big of a deal as many Obama supporters make it out to be.
It was more of a rhetorical question because I expected everyone to respond that deficit spending and a growing national debt are unacceptable; however, I fail to see the logic in stating that spending going "through the roof" with the current administration is a bad thing while supporting Obama who plans to continue the trend.
September 17, 2008
6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
there you go calling me names again, jay ... childish, really.
Since you appear to have read my question, jay, why not answer it?
September 17, 2008
7:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
please stop lying fnstmnt...you've called me idiot, simpleton, etc and i've never once reciprocated.
as i've said before, lying and pouting isn't going to cover the fact that you can't support your extremist rhetoric with factual data.
like the factual data i just posted about the increases of national debt under republican administrations over the last 50 years.
see how that works?
it's kind of funny that a lot of the folks who have supported the republicans for all this time are now trying to take off their uniforms and leave the field of battle....much like saddam's army did after conservatives katrinarized iraq...much like they've katrinarized the economy.
come to think if it...while we're suffering the worst losses since 9/11...i haven't seen bush. wow...come to think of it...mccain didn't mention the word republican or bush during the entire convention.
guess they took their jerseys off too.
just like you.
did you think you were going to be able to bat .125 and still play in the bigs just by changing your name?
not so much.
September 17, 2008
7:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
jay writes:
please stop lying fnstmnt...you've called me idiot, simpleton, etc and i've never once reciprocated.
Have you EVER referred to me by my login name? Not some childish attempt at slurring my name toward your homophobic tendencies or an intentional translation because you know that I am offended by it? You know full well, that your intentional, and sophomoric, mistyping of my login name is offensive to me, yet you still do it.
I attempt to address you by the name you use on these boards out of courtesy and respect, you have never afforded the same.
Yep, jay, I have referred to you as idiot, simpleton, 3rd grader, the RMN village idiot, coward, coward behind a keyboard, and stupid (I might have missed a few). But I have never tried to play possum and run from it either. No lies, no rhetoric, just the facts, jay. One of us (that would be me, jay) is honorable enough to "own up" to his actions, the other "lies", as you like to put it, about what he really is saying.
You still have not answered the question, jay. In your opinion, is operating the government with a budget deficit and increasing the national debt acceptable? What are you afraid of? It's an easy question to answer, really.
September 17, 2008
9:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
sorry buddy...your conspiracy theories don't work either, fst.
i've never insulted you by calling you "idiot, simpleton, 3rd grader, the RMN village idiot, coward, coward behind a keyboard, and stupid". if you oppose me shortening or abbreviating folks names here, you need to pack it up and go home to mommy.
stop lying.
stop pouting...or the beatings will continue until you have to change your jersey yet again.
clear enough?
as far as the debt....see the graph above. should give you a clear indication of how i feel...considering i vote dem most of the time.
and considering that obama's platform loads the country with less debt than mccain's while we fix the mess we're in because of conservative policies...i'll be voting dem again.
and in case you're wondering...yes...we're going to have to raise taxes and debt in the short term to fix that republican caused mess...particularly the cluster in iraq.
any questions about any of that?
i would have thought you were a smart enough person to figure this stuff out on your own....but i'm always glad to give a tutoring hand...but as you well know...i have very little patience with willful ignorance.
September 17, 2008
9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
So you've never called me fistingmen and many different versions of it?
The graph you keep pointing to does not answer the question ... it simply shows what has happened historically ... you have not stated your position, only tried to show that deficit spending has increased during republican presidencies ... big deal, so you can do a little bit of googl'ing to find some work that someone else put together that shows what has actually happened. I'm asking you, what you think is the right thing to do in the future ... there are no factual graphs of the future, so go out on a limb, jay.
Take a personal stand and tell us your position, not someone else's, but yours ... how do you feel about deficit spending and the national debt for the future? I can read the chart too, jay. Deficit spending has been high during the last 30 years, with the exception of Clinton's 2nd term.
Taking a "lesser of two evils" stance is a cop-out for stating your own position ... what is your position regarding deficit spending and increasing the national debt? Are both of them good for the country?
I believe that deficit spending and a growing national debt is bad for the country. What say you?
If calling someone, fistingmen, is not an intentional insult in your book, jay, you really are the village idiot.
Yes, I admit, I think you are a worthless coward behind a keyboard who avoids answering questions. You are coy and evasive. You are a yellow coward. I'm not surprised that you are a marxist/socialist. You are obviously incapable of producing anything original or of value and need hand-outs from the government. Go pick up your welfare check, jay, and pay for another month of internet access so you can plague us with your mindless drivel.
September 17, 2008
9:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
jay, I missed your "change your jersey yet again" comment ... are you implying that I've changed my login name on the boards?
Whom are you insinuating that I once was?
I can't wait to read your latest delusion.