Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;487322]What's the better solution? Allow Wall Street to totally implode and watch as we enter the Greatest Depression?[/quote]

Sorry, I don't personally believe that the government's role is to act as a mortgage lender. And... screw Wall Street. And Main Street. If you choose to *risk* your company's assets in shady, fundamentally poor investments and it comes back to bite you in the ass, that's on you. If you choose to *risk* your financial well being and purchase a home you cannot afford, that's on you. Everybody loves free/cheap money/assets but nobody wants to be responsible for their piss poor decision making. My own view is, let 'em fail, there will be a vacuum formed and new business will rush in to fill it. It may take time but I truly believe that would be the best in the long term. The way we're currently going, no one is going to learn ANYTHING from this mess. Everyone who screwed up and put us in this situation is going to get bailed out at the expense of everyone who was responsible. That's fucked up.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;487375]Sorry, I don't personally believe that the government's role is to act as a mortgage lender. And... screw Wall Street. And Main Street. If you choose to *risk* your company's assets in shady, fundamentally poor investments and it comes back to bite you in the ass, that's on you. If you choose to *risk* your financial well being and purchase a home you cannot afford, that's on you. Everybody loves free/cheap money/assets but nobody wants to be responsible for their piss poor decision making. My own view is, let 'em fail, there will be a vacuum formed and new business will rush in to fill it. It may take time but I truly believe that would be the best in the long term. The way we're currently going, no one is going to learn ANYTHING from this mess. Everyone who screwed up and put us in this situation is going to get bailed out at the expense of everyone who was responsible. That's fucked up.[/quote]

Just making a point that what used to be sound conservative investments are no longer that, like Fannie/Freddie & Mortgage Backed Securities.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=redsk1;487388]Just making a point that what used to be sound conservative investments are no longer that, like Fannie/Freddie & Mortgage Backed Securities.[/quote]

Agreed, and the reason they are no longer sound is because the principles involved decided to change their business practices in favor of short sightedness.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;487397]Agreed, and the reason they are no longer sound is because the principles involved decided to change their business practices in favor of short sightedness.[/quote]

And political correctness. Or more pointedly...they bought votes.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;487397]Agreed, and the reason they are no longer sound is because the principles involved decided to change their business practices in favor of short sightedness.[/quote]
Fred & Fan had to pick up this bad papper because congress got involved with how banks gave out loans which is the biggest part of this entire mess. If congress kept their nose out of lending and banks kept up their conservative approach knowing they where stuck with any bad papper then they would have done so. This just goes back to goverment screws up everything they touch but heck lets give them more power. Why not let them screw up health care even worse or keep screwing up the school system, SS, etc.. because they do such a fine job. Funny thing is the two guys running for office both had a hand in these poor decisions. Yes both McCain & Obama are as guilty as anyone in this mess. Now we get to vote for them to fix the mess that they helped create to start with and you know what we will get. More goverment and goverment programs that over spend and are poorly run.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=firstdown;487408]Fred & Fan had to pick up this bad papper [B]because congress got involved with how banks gave out loans which is the biggest part of this entire mess[/B]. If congress kept their nose out of lending and banks kept up their conservative approach knowing they where stuck with any bad papper then they would have done so. This just goes back to goverment screws up everything they touch but heck lets give them more power. Why not let them screw up health care even worse or keep screwing up the school system, SS, etc.. because they do such a fine job. Funny thing is the two guys running for office both had a hand in these poor decisions. Yes both McCain & Obama are as guilty as anyone in this mess. Now we get to vote for them to fix the mess that they helped create to start with and you know what we will get. More goverment and goverment programs that over spend and are poorly run.[/quote]
they had it right. until someone decided it was time to DE regulate. thats what started the free fall. if you let the rats run wild, soon there will be no more cheese

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=dmek25;487413]they had it right. until someone decided it was time to DE regulate. thats what started the free fall. if you let the rats run wild, soon there will be no more cheese[/quote]
Please tell me what was De regulated? Not just saying banks but give what was actually de regulated.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=firstdown;487416]Please tell me what was De regulated? Not just saying banks but give what was actually de regulated.[/quote]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996"]Telecommunications[/URL], [URL="http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/"]Media[/URL], and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Services_Modernization_Act"]Banks[/URL].

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=firstdown;487408]Fred & Fan had to pick up this bad papper because [B]congress got involved with how banks gave out loans which is the biggest part of this entire mess[/B]. If congress kept their nose out of lending and banks kept up their conservative approach knowing they where stuck with any bad papper then they would have done so. This just goes back to goverment screws up everything they touch but heck lets give them more power. Why not let them screw up health care even worse or keep screwing up the school system, SS, etc.. because they do such a fine job. Funny thing is the two guys running for office both had a hand in these poor decisions. Yes both McCain & Obama are as guilty as anyone in this mess. Now we get to vote for them to fix the mess that they helped create to start with and you know what we will get. More goverment and goverment programs that over spend and are poorly run.[/quote]

Agreed but, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think Fred and Fran were FORCED to take on all of these subprime loans, the GOV just gave them the option and they took advantage of it. But, looking at your entire post, I can see we mostly agree.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;487420]Agreed but, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think Fred and Fran were FORCED to take on all of these subprime loans, the GOV just gave them the option and they took advantage of it. But, looking at your entire post, I can see we mostly agree.[/quote]

Forced? No. At least not in a legal sense. I believe.

But yes "forced" in terms of manipulated so that their best way to make money was by buying junk loans.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=dmek25;487413]they had it right. until someone decided it was time to DE regulate. thats what started the free fall. if you let the rats run wild, soon there will be no more cheese[/quote]
President Clinton didn't think de-regulation was a bad idea. This bill was signed on his watch.

from wiki: "Others have defended the Act and for actually making the crisis less severe than it would have been otherwise. President Clinton himself stated:[INDENT]"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."
[/INDENT]

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=saden1;487419][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996"]Telecommunications[/URL], [URL="http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/"]Media[/URL], and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Services_Modernization_Act"]Banks[/URL].[/quote]Saden that was really a stupid question I asked and I pretty much know the answer. We tore away at all the consumer protections that where put in place back in the 1930's. This was done a little at a time starting in the 1980's and then into the 1990's. I'm not sure if all the dergulation was bad but the oversite might have been the peoblem.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=dmek25;487413]they had it right. until someone decided it was time to DE regulate. thats what started the free fall. if you let the rats run wild, soon there will be no more cheese[/quote]

I totally agree that regulation was missing. I am not sure that anything that was DEregulated was a problem though. I haven't seen any concrete evidence that specific derugulations led to this. I have seen financial assessments showing that housing prices trended parallel to inflation for decades until the government decided to create an "affordable" housing market. When they started playing with the housing markets prices magically trended exponentially up. When some wanted more regulations in the late 90's and early 2000's there was significant backlash from all sides of the aisles and nothing happened. I tend to think it was the lack of regulation in the first place more than any dergulation but I'd happily peruse anything that said otherwise. I'd really like to understand fundamentally what went wrong and the argument that regulation or lack of it CAUSED the problem rings pretty hallow when there are gads of evidence that gov't regulation quite regularly justs screws things up even more. My philosophy is more in line with "If it supposedly needs regulation so much then maybe something is fundamentally wrong with it in the first place".

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

This is a very good read. Sorry that was not such a good read. Edit

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=FRPLG;487407]And political correctness. Or more pointedly...they bought votes.[/quote]

Please explain how political correctness brought down our economy.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

Making shit up and passing opinions off as if they are facts is in style again eh? Weak!

I'd like to up the ante and blame the founders for this housing mess.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=saden1;487450]Making shit up and passing opinions off as if they are facts is in style again eh? Weak!

I'd like to up the ante and blame the founders for this housing mess.[/quote]

What are you talking about? How am I passing an opinion off as fact?

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;487444]Please explain how political correctness brought down our economy.[/quote]

Politicians rigged the system so broke ass people who couldn't afford houses were able to get loans that banks historically would have never given. They did this because it sounded pretty darn nice to say they were creating "affordable" housing. Smart people who understood economics were saying that rigging the system so that these people could get houses they couldn't afford was a long term bad idea and no one listened. Hell they were called racist, even though it had nothing to do with race. These types of arguments have been called "racially tinged" even today.

And don't bother asking about references saden. Why don't you make an argument refuting this? Why isn't ANYONE making an argument refuting this? I'd love to hear the argument because I'd really like to understand this but I still haven't heard one person anywhere say "No that wasn't the cause."

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;487375]Sorry, I don't personally believe that the government's role is to act as a mortgage lender. And... screw Wall Street. And Main Street. If you choose to *risk* your company's assets in shady, fundamentally poor investments and it comes back to bite you in the ass, that's on you. If you choose to *risk* your financial well being and purchase a home you cannot afford, that's on you. Everybody loves free/cheap money/assets but nobody wants to be responsible for their piss poor decision making. My own view is, let 'em fail, there will be a vacuum formed and new business will rush in to fill it. It may take time but I truly believe that would be the best in the long term. The way we're currently going, no one is going to learn ANYTHING from this mess. Everyone who screwed up and put us in this situation is going to get bailed out at the expense of everyone who was responsible. That's fucked up.[/quote]

We are facing perhaps the greatest financial crisis in the entire history of our country; a crisis that could entail the collapse of thousands of businesses, the firing of millions of Americans, the break up of families, people going hungry, etc. and you're foremost concerned about punishing a few CEOs? Your opinion of the bailout shouldn't be based on a desire to punish bad businessmen, it should be based on a desire to make sure that the rest of us don't get hurt by their poor decisions.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=FRPLG;487465]Politicians rigged the system so broke ass people who couldn't afford houses were able to get loans that banks historically would have never given. They did this because it sounded pretty darn nice to say they were creating "affordable" housing. Smart people who understood economics were saying that rigging the system so that these people could get houses they couldn't afford was a long term bad idea and no one listened. Hell they were called racist, even though it had nothing to do with race. These types of arguments have been called "racially tinged" even today.

And don't bother asking about references saden. Why don't you make an argument refuting this? Why isn't ANYONE making an argument refuting this? I'd love to hear the argument because I'd really like to understand this but I still haven't heard one person anywhere say "No that wasn't the cause."[/quote]


Trying to help low income individuals become home owners is "politically correct?" It might be stupid, but I don't think it's politically correct. Also, I don't know how race, including charges of racism, has any role in this debate.

As for the causes of the crisis, you yourself said there is a lot of blame to go around.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;487483]We are facing perhaps the greatest financial crisis in the entire history of our country; a crisis that could entail the collapse of thousands of businesses, the firing of millions of Americans, the break up of families, people going hungry, etc. and you're foremost concerned about punishing a few CEOs? Your opinion of the bailout shouldn't be based on a desire to punish bad businessmen, it should be based on a desire to make sure that the rest of us don't get hurt by their poor decisions.[/quote]I think I'm missing something here. If the government buys up all bad assets and mortgages and gives the financial sector a lift with taxpayer money, do the taxpayers just end up paying off the bad loans over time and this all goes away? Or are there still going to be long term ramifications of the government holding bad assets?

And whats the deal with the Global Economy? Are other markets having the same sort of issues as we are?

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;487548]Trying to help low income individuals become home owners is "politically correct?" It might be stupid, but I don't think it's politically correct. Also, I don't know how race, including charges of racism, has any role in this debate.

As for the causes of the crisis, you yourself said there is a lot of blame to go around.[/quote]

Are you saying that you don't believe that the notion of giving out loans to people who don't deserve them isn't politcaly correct? It was based on the idea that these people needed us to help them because they are so downtrodden and we have so much more than them. That is the epitome of political correctness. Instead of givng out crap loans to people who didn't have any business getting a loan why didn't we try to figure out how to get lower income people to make more money.

And I agree racism has nothing to do with this.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=saden1;487302]I guess you got what you wanted out of the debate, it's human nature. Unfortunately you're in the minority.

Obama has not introduced a single piece of legislation aimed at lowering taxes eh? What tax would like him to reduce?[/quote]
So you don't think taxes should be reduced?

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=firstdown;487655]So you don't think taxes should be reduced?[/quote]


No I don't think they should be reduced and I believe [URL="http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/Financial_Literacy/Dec07_taxes_poll_national_a1.asp?caret=81a"]Americans[/URL] are on [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84112,00.html"]my side[/URL].

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=saden1;487661]No I don't think they should be reduced and I believe [URL="http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/Financial_Literacy/Dec07_taxes_poll_national_a1.asp?caret=81a"]Americans[/URL] are on [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84112,00.html"]my side[/URL].[/quote]

You're missing my point in your earlier quote. I recognize that we will never pay for all of these expenditures without revenue (taxes). My point is that Obama is claiming that he will reduce taxes for 95% of the population, yet he has never introduced legislation to accomplish this since he's been in the senate. You don't have to be president to introduce legislation, you just have to do your job while you're in the senate. It seems to me he's treated his time in office as a good place to kill time until the election. That's my misgiving as it relates to Obama and it's probably the biggest reason I'm hesitant to give him my vote despite the myriad positive factors in his campaign.

To clarify, I love most of what Obama is promising to do, but based upon his lack of initiative as a senator, I have no reason to believe he will actually follow through.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;487553]I think I'm missing something here. If the government buys up all bad assets and mortgages and gives the financial sector a lift with taxpayer money, [B]do the taxpayers just end up paying off the bad loans over time and this all goes away[/B]? Or are there still going to be long term ramifications of the government holding bad assets?

And whats the deal with the Global Economy? Are other markets having the same sort of issues as we are?[/quote]


All this talk of tax payers getting their money back is hogwash. The debt ceiling has been increased [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/24004-bushs-tax-cuts-don-t-work-3.html#post459606"]again[/URL] to [URL="http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080920/financial_meltdown.html"]11.3 trillion[/URL] to pay for this bailout. Are we ever going to pay this shit off? Not unless we commit to paying more than the interest and I don't ever see that happening. Are these companies ever going to pay back the tax payer? I wouldn't hold my breath. They'll find a way to screw tax payers.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;487483]We are facing perhaps the greatest financial crisis in the entire history of our country; a crisis that could entail the collapse of thousands of businesses, the firing of millions of Americans, the break up of families, people going hungry, etc. and you're foremost concerned about punishing a few CEOs? Your opinion of the bailout shouldn't be based on a desire to punish bad businessmen, it should be based on a desire to make sure that the rest of us don't get hurt by their poor decisions.[/quote]

I think we are really blowing this out of proportion. No legitimate economist has said that we were headed for another depression if we didn't pass a bailout. (perhaps I'm wrong, but I haven't seen it.) Mass sectors of the populace were not making runs on banks and depleting them of their funds. Yes, there is economic hardship but from my way of thinking that requires a national "tightening of the belt" and frugality. This is just an ugly precedent that's been set and I truly worry for the future consequences of this "bailout." Look a little closer, AIG is now asking for BILLIONS (again, that's not just a word, it's a massive effing number) more. What happened with that? Simple, they realized they could get it, so why not ask? Do you really believe that this isn't going to continue? The cookie jar is open, my friend, and every greedy, unethical corporate type with the authority to do so is going to shove their slimy fist inside. It's human nature, you can't escape it.
This bailout was pushed through in EXACTLY the same spirit as the patriot act. Massive scare tactics and a sudden sense of urgency on the part of the government. I don't understand how no one can see the parallels.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;487667]You're missing my point in your earlier quote. I recognize that we will never pay for all of these expenditures without revenue (taxes). My point is that Obama is claiming that he will reduce taxes for 95% of the population, yet he has never introduced legislation to accomplish this since he's been in the senate. You don't have to be president to introduce legislation, you just have to do your job while you're in the senate. It seems to me he's treated his time in office as a good place to kill time until the election. That's my misgiving as it relates to Obama and it's probably the biggest reason I'm hesitant to give him my vote despite the myriad positive factors in his campaign.

To clarify, I love most of what Obama is promising to do, but based upon his lack of initiative as a senator, I have no reason to believe he will actually follow through.[/quote]

We all have priorities and preferences, like fighting nuclear proliferation. Your implication is that since he as never introduced a bill to reduce taxes he won't reduce taxes once elected. It's a fallacy and a jump.

You know, I love children but I don't have any. Does this mean I don't really like children or that I won't want any once I get married? This is silly stuff beneath discussion.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=saden1;487674]We all have priorities and preferences, like fighting nuclear proliferation. Your implication is that since he as never introduced a bill to reduce taxes he won't reduce taxes once elected. It's a fallacy and a jump.

You know, I love children but I don't have any. Does this mean I don't really like children or that I won't want any once I get married? This is silly stuff beneath discussion.[/quote]

Your specific job for the last 3 years hasn't been procreation. His has been legislation. It's only beneath discussion because it doesn't mesh with your view. You can't tell me with a straight face that you think someone that has had years of opportunity to do something, has not, but all of a sudden it will become a priority (enough of one to make campaign promises about) once in the oval office? Sorry, not buying it. It's bullshit and if that is, what else about this great campaign of hope is? That's what scares me. i couldn't honestly care less if he reduces taxes or not. I'm not starving.

Obama is absolutely fantastic when it comes to "I will" but there's not much there when it comes to "I did." The fact that every Obama supporter i've spoken with wants to sweep that under the rug bothers me.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;487677]Your specific job for the last 3 years hasn't been procreation. His has been legislation. It's only beneath discussion because it doesn't mesh with your view. You can't tell me with a straight face that you think someone that has had years of opportunity to do something, has not, but all of a sudden it will become a priority (enough of one to make campaign promises about) once in the oval office? Sorry, not buying it. It's bullshit and if that is, what else about this great campaign of hope is? That's what scares me. i couldn't honestly care less if he reduces taxes or not. I'm not starving.

Obama is absolutely fantastic when it comes to "I will" but there's not much there when it comes to "I did." The fact that every Obama supporter i've spoken with wants to sweep that under the rug bothers me.[/quote]

Fair enough, he should have introduced a bill that matches his tax proposal in the senate. I guess McCain falls in the same category? He did say the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea back in the day too.


You know there's so many things to do in the senate besides propose tax cut legislation, but hey, that's what seems important to you so run with it. Personally, If a candidate says "I will...." I take their word for it though I may not agree. At this point that's the only thing they can do.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=saden1;487661]No I don't think they should be reduced and I believe [URL="http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/Financial_Literacy/Dec07_taxes_poll_national_a1.asp?caret=81a"]Americans[/URL] are on [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84112,00.html"]my side[/URL].[/quote]
Well your man says he is going to reduce federal taxes for 95% of Americans. That number is also misleading because there are not 95% of Americans that even pay taxes.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=saden1;487690]Fair enough, he should have introduced a bill that matches his tax proposal in the senate. I guess McCain falls in the same category? He did say the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea back in the day too.


You know there's so many things to do in the senate besides propose tax cut legislation, but hey, that's what seems important to you so run with it. Personally, If a candidate says "I will...." I take their word for it though I may not agree. At this point that's the only thing they can do.[/quote]
Please find the quote of McCain saying that the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea. What bills have Obama introduced and had them passed?

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

I would also like to add that if we use "he didn't introduce X legislation" to make decision about candidates fitness and ability to follow through promises then you hamper a candidates ability to propose any new ideas and the potential for progress in general.

Now if you want to use his voting record to support your argument then I'm with you. He voted for taxes increases or he voted against reducing taxes are all valid arguments to base your decision on.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;487671]I think we are really blowing this out of proportion. No legitimate economist has said that we were headed for another depression if we didn't pass a bailout. (perhaps I'm wrong, but I haven't seen it.)[/quote]

I'm not sure what newspapers you read, but just about every respected economist, financial analyst, etc. I know of said there was a decent chance of entering another depression if Congress didn't approve the bailout (in one form or another). I don't pretend to know everything about this crisis, but when dozens of people like Warren Buffet are yelling fire, I listen. Before you attack Buffet's credibility, let me add that he's one of the brightest minds in America, lives a modest lifestyle despite a net worth in the billions, and isn't part of some conspiracy to defraud the taxpayers.

[quote=BleedBurgundy;487671]Mass sectors of the populace were not making runs on banks and depleting them of their funds. Yes, there is economic hardship but from my way of thinking that requires a national "tightening of the belt" and frugality.[/quote]

When AIG, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, WaMu collapse in short order and dozens of other bedrocks are on the brink of extinction, it's not just a "tightening of the belt." We haven't seen so many reputable financial institutions collapse since 1929 and your average businesses are feeling the crunch. The market for commercial paper totally collapsed. Well capitalized businesses can't get loans. I work in mergers and acquisitions and I've seen about 70% of the deals I was working on simply die because of lack of financing.

I'm not saying a Great Depression was or is inevitable, but we were or are standing on the edge of the cliff. This is NOT the same as the recessions we faced in 2001, 1991, 1987, etc.

[quote=BleedBurgundy;487671]The cookie jar is open, my friend, and every greedy, unethical corporate type with the authority to do so is going to shove their slimy fist inside.[/quote]

That's a very populist message, one that Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs would be proud of, and probably resonates with the vast majority of Americans, but it doesn't really say anything. It doesn't address the nature of the crisis, our viable alternatives, etc.

I certainly don't want to give nearly a trillion dollars to companies that f'ed up. Why the hell would I? But many people have got the question we face all wrong. We shouldn't ask, "Do I want to give $700B to corporations that made bad business decisions?" We should ask, "What is the best response to the current crisis we face?"

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=saden1;487690]Fair enough, he should have introduced a bill that matches his tax proposal in the senate. I guess McCain falls in the same category? He did say the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea back in the day too.


You know there's so many things to do in the senate besides propose tax cut legislation, but hey, that's what seems important to you so run with it. Personally, If a candidate says "I will...." I take their word for it though I may not agree. At this point that's the only thing they can do.[/quote]

Let me put this clearly: I could give a shit about tax cuts. The point is, Obama hasn't exhibited leadership in the senate and yet so many want to hand him the keys to the nation. Say what you want about McCain (and there's plenty negative to say of late), but he has been on the record trying to push legislation of varying types through and an opponent of corruption.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=saden1;487698]I would also like to add that in if we use "he didn't introduce X legislation" to make decision about candidates fitness and ability to follow through promises then you hamper a candidates ability to propose any new ideas and the potential for progress in general.

Now if you want to use his voting record to support your argument then I'm with you. He voted for taxes increases or he voted against reducing taxes are all valid arguments to base your decision on.[/quote]

Your first paragraph makes no sense at all. Has he ever introduced a bill and had it passed?

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;487699]

That's a very populist message, one that Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs would be proud of, and probably resonates with the vast majority of Americans, but it doesn't really say anything. It doesn't address the nature of the crisis, our viable alternatives, etc. [/quote]

Doesn't say anything? Companies that never before thought they could take large risks because, well, it was risky, now have seen an alternate reality. To say that is not dangerous, well, you have more faith in human nature than I.

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;487699]
I certainly don't want to give nearly a trillion dollars to companies that f'ed up. Why the hell would I? But many people have got the question we face all wrong. We shouldn't ask, "Do I want to give $700B to corporations that made bad business decisions?" We should ask, "What is the best response to the current crisis we face?"[/quote]

It's not an "either or" proposition, both questions bare asking, but it doesn't seem like anyone really wanted to give any thought to not bailing these firms out when they saw their own portfolios suffer. My feeling is there had to be another option, besides Wall Street simply putting their hands out. The gov removed any and all accountability from this situation. That's not right. I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure you see my point.

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

and why is it everyone believes in Darwinism but not when it comes to the economy?

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=firstdown;487697]Please find the quote of McCain saying that the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea. What bills have Obama introduced and had them passed?[/quote]

I am dismayed that you aren't aware of the fact that McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts.

[yt]4K4I5jf9WmE[/yt]


Bills introduced by Obama and passed as law can be found [URL="http://thomas.loc.gov/"]here[/URL]. Here are some of the important ones:
[quote]
[LIST=1][*]S.J.RES.23 A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.[*][B]S.1084[/B] : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;[*]S.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States[*]S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.[*]S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes.[*]S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.[*]S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.[*][B]S.1977[/B] : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.[/LIST][/quote]

Re: The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)
 

[quote=saden1;487714]


Bills introduced by Obama and passed as law can be found [URL="http://thomas.loc.gov/"]here[/URL]. Here are some of the important ones:[/quote]

Very cool post, thanks.


On a side note, I had to chuckle when I read the following on the LOC website "In the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, legislative information from the Library of Congress" As a nation, we certainly are carrying on in his spirit. The mad died indebted up to his eyeballs.