Campaign 2008

[panthermatt7 0]

The public is almost completely against such ideas. The only reason this was proposed and actually being used is because of the emergency factor here

And as for this part of your comment, uh, hello out there? The public was against the bailout, against money being given to AIG after their retreat soon after getting 85 billion, is against the Fed's move to pour upwards of 1.5 trillion into the market (by pour, I mean run the printing press)...what's going to stop the government from doing this too? Everything the government has done thus far, the public's been against it. The vaunted emergency factor has been the reason all along. What they think is best for the market is best for us too, and we should just give them opportunities to do as they please.

 

Are you saying that, due to this economic crisis, the American Government is going to go from "Market" to "Socialist" in a heartbeat? Again, I point to the New Deal, and the fact that we aren't socialists after that. Explain to me how this is any different.

 

I don't see the fear of a new "socialist" government. We've been through this before, and we didn't become the USSA.

 

Some of you people need to wake the fuck up. This government doesn't give a shit what we think. They will save the market at any cost, whether they should or shouldn't. Whatever it takes. And if it means our taxes are raised, well, that's just too bad for us. If the bailout doesn't work, that's too fucking bad as well.

 

Are you suggesting they just let the market fail? Don't you think that could have worse results?

 

The only problem I have with the bailout is: since the government's doing it, of course it's going to be way overdone. $85 billion plus for AIG wasn't necessary to salvage the company. Some help was needed, but not to the extent that they acted.

 

However, as an employee at a prominent retirement investments company, I can tell you that the fairytale philosophy of "let the market correct itself!" would be a TERRIBLE idea. All the right wing pundits are screaming for it, but it's really easy to be clairvoyant on the outside. But letting millions of people lose their jobs through sinking corporations wouldn't be an accurate, nor quick, solution.

[NoCalMike 0]

Fascism stuff

 

Mike, your opinions on this matter are wrong. You have no idea what a fascist government looks like. The United States is FAR from a fascist government, no matter how you look at it. That is all that needs to be said on this matter, and no more.

 

People generally want to view corporate America and the government as mutually exclusive beings. Thus, when people hear of the government stepping in to bail out (or run) corporations, you hear them deride it as 'socialism.' On the flip side, when corporate America is seen to be influencing specifics in the government -- i.e. Dick Cheney's entire vice presidency -- you hear cries of 'fascism.'

 

In reality, we're nowhere close to both. However, when an element of either is introduced, you'll hear it from both parties.

 

 

I thinK THAT is more what I was trying to say, but I got a little long-winded in my explanation, and I made a mistake by pasting what I did from the Wiki entry. If I came across to everyone as saying "OMG We're gonna be a FACSIST REGIME SOON" then I apologize for that idiotic-ness.

[Nightwing 0]

The government sticking their feet into the market and making attempts to take stakes in private banks is, in fact, a move towards even larger government...yes, socialism. What else would you call it? I'm not saying we will have a socialist government or anything of the sort, but nationalizing the market, you bet these moves over the last few weeks have been socialist courses of action.

 

Don't you think private investors are going to get out of the market rather than fight with the government for shares? Who do you think is going to buy shares at that point, when no private capital is being injected into the market? The United States of America. This country has nationalized portions of the banking system. It's insane.

And I don't think that this is going to chase private investment out of the market, either; I think this will stabilize things enough to give people confidence in investing private capital again. Do you think people are busting down the doors to invest money in the market right now? This measure is to give people confidence to put their money back in the market, since the government is going to have more stake and more control over the current economic crisis. By your scenario, we'll be seeing private capital evaporate into nothing with this plan, which is the opposite of what I think is intended and what is going to happen.

I got a little upset during my last post, so I'll apologize before I get to this.

 

I don't think private capital will evaporate after this, but I've got a big, giant problem with the government taking control in this situation. We've tried everything to give investors confidence thus far. Nothing has worked. In addition, the government is going to be taking control with taxpayer money, I don't want any part of that. This whole situation isn't the American people's fault. We're taking it from behind. We've gotta pay for this too. Higher taxes for everyone! Regardless of who's in office.

 

I also have a problem with an unchecked Capitol Hill after the election. I know it'll be Democrats in the majority, but we need government to be checked right now. It's already getting way out of hand. The Democrats have bent over for the Bush Administration, I'm really worried about what they'll do for Barack Obama, or rather, what bills they'll introduce for him to sign.

 

This world would be a better place if the Democratic Congress showed some balls and stepped up to Bush.

 

I understand the concern, as it does set a bad precedent: "You fail, we bail!" is not a message anyone wants to promote. What needs to happen is regulation to make sure the corporate practices that helped lead to this are not allowed anymore. Doing this once is bad enough, our concerns shouldn't be about how this wasn't our fault but rather getting out of it and then thinking up ways of making sure such shoddy business practices don't get us into this hole again.

 

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. I simply feel that, at this point, it doesn't behoove anyone to consider what we should have done, but rather what we need to do to get out of this mess and make sure it doesn't happen again.

[Guest]

Are you suggesting they just let the market fail? Don't you think that could have worse results?

Yes, I am suggesting they let the market fail, or rather, let the market crash and then do things to make sure this doesn't happen again. Their efforts to stop the crash are futile. It will still happen. Bailouts and handouts are encouraging financial institutions to carry on with their risky behavior once the market has some sort of correction. Let these companies be destroyed. They are not worthy to be given money out of my paycheck, nor are they worthy of the eventual inaction of a higher tax rate. To keep the market from failing it will cost trillions of dollars. Lehman Brothers will need about half of the bailout, so as you go through the list of failing banks, what do you think the bill would be for such a plan. Or, if the government is buying stakes in banks, how much do you think that's going to cost.

 

The Bush Adminstration and our Congress have built our country a very nice house of cards.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I dont know how to feel about "Palin abused her power but broke no laws regarding the firing scandal" when she had the right as Governor to fire them.

 

wouldnt abusing one's power be breaking the law?

 

[Nightwing 0]

Agree to disagree, then.

[Guest]

Okay!

[Nightwing 0]

I dont know how to feel about "Palin abused her power but broke no laws regarding the firing scandal" when she had the right as Governor to fire them.

 

And just as we were actually having an intelligent discussion, stupidity broke down the door with this random interjection.

 

While she may have been able to fire him, the possible conflict-of-interest involved was deemed a part of the firing, which made it unethical. Also, the fact that she allowed her husband to use her power to attempt to get that State Trooper fired, as shitty as he was, is a ridiculous abuse of power and (Due to their relationship) a huge conflict of interest (Again).

 

But I think those sorts of concepts fly over your head, since you can't put them into a simple one-sentence statement.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I dont know how to feel about "Palin abused her power but broke no laws regarding the firing scandal" when she had the right as Governor to fire them.

 

And just as we were actually having an intelligent discussion, stupidity broke down the door with this random interjection.

 

While she may have been able to fire him, the possible conflict-of-interest involved was deemed a part of the firing, which made it unethical. Also, the fact that she allowed her husband to use her power to attempt to get that State Trooper fired, as shitty as he was, is a ridiculous abuse of power and (Due to their relationship) a huge conflict of interest (Again).

 

But I think those sorts of concepts fly over your head, since you can't put them into a simple one-sentence statement.

 

BUT..if its abuse of power, then wouldn't she be guilty of breaking the law, or are there no laws against abuse of power in Alaska?

 

They said she abused her power but broke no laws. Thats what I dont understand.

[CubbyBr 0]

Anyone know what the deal is with this Acorn voter registration fraud? Is this group working for Obama?

[Brett Favre 0]

Delete this if it's been posted:

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810040004?f=h_top

 

On October 4, The New York Times published a 2,140-word front-page article about Sen. Barack Obama's association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers -- at least the 18th Times article this year mentioning that association. But the Times has yet to mention, let alone devote an entire article to, Sen. John McCain's relationship with radio host and convicted Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy. Indeed, in its October 4 article, the Times quoted Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman denouncing Obama's association with Ayers but did not note that Chapman has described Liddy as McCain's "own Bill Ayers" and has written that "f Obama needs to answer questions about Ayers, McCain has the same obligation regarding Liddy." The Times, moreover, quoted McCain criticizing Obama for his association with Ayers without noting that Chapman has faulted McCain for what Chapman described as McCain's "howling hypocrisy on the subject."

 

BTW, some socialist "maneuvers" or whatever would really help the country out right now.

[Nightwing 0]

BUT..if its abuse of power, then wouldn't she be guilty of breaking the law, or are there no laws against abuse of power in Alaska?

 

They said she abused her power but broke no laws. Thats what I dont understand.

 

Okay, I'll try and explain it to you.

 

There is a difference between having the power to do something, and ethically being able to use that power. What they are saying is that she abused the power she had; she had the power to fire the Public Safety Commissioner. The problem is that there was a conflict-of-interest in her reasoning; they said that his lack of movement on the "Fire the State Trooper" front influenced her decision, which stems from her personal life. Also consider the fact that she basically used her office as a vehicle for her husband to get that state trooper fired.

 

It's not whether or not she had the power; the problem is that when using the power, her reasoning must be in the best interests of the public and not herself. In this case, the Alaskan legislature thinks that part of the reasoning for the firing was her own interests. That's why it's an abuse of power; it's improperly using the power you have.

 

So she's broken the law not by using power she didn't have, but using power she had to her own benefit. Get it?

 

Anyone know what the deal is with this Acorn voter registration fraud? Is this group working for Obama?

 

A few pages back (277 or 278).

[Guest]

Anyone know what the deal is with this Acorn voter registration fraud? Is this group working for Obama?

They aren't working for Obama (well, they are, like as in trying to get him elected, but they don't work FOR HIM per say), but he donated money to one of their affiliates during his primary campaign.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Anyone know what the deal is with this Acorn voter registration fraud? Is this group working for Obama?

They aren't working for Obama (well, they are, like as in trying to get him elected, but they don't work FOR HIM per say), but he donated money to one of their affiliates during his primary campaign.

 

Marvin can show you some alternate takes on this. Of course most of those are scrawled on walls with shit...but still.

[CubbyBr 0]

And how true are these voter fraud stories?

[BUTT 0]

G. Gordon Liddy really gets a free pass considering what a remarkable piece of shit he is.

[Nightwing 0]

And how true are these voter fraud stories?

True and false, really.

 

They have turned in a great deal of false registrations, which is what people are complaining about. The thing is, they know they are doing this, they know that some of them are false, and are flagging them before they send them off. Electoral law says they have to send all registrations in, no matter what, so they can't legally take away any of the ones they know are bullshit.

 

It's a lose-lose situation for them; the electoral law is certainly correct, since if you had organizations throwing out what they deemed were "bad" registration, you could have massive amounts of voter suppression by parties going out, registering people in a place which is a stronghold for the opposition party, and simply throwing the applications away when they are done. People think they registered, but they aren't. The problem with the other way is that they know people are turning in bad registration forms (Mostly to get paid, because they have a required amount of registrations to do per hour), they flag them, but they'll still get blamed for them because the county and state officials are still going to have to search through the bullshit.

[CubbyBr 0]

So it's not like they're trying to get fake votes since the people voting will have to bring photo ID's on election day anyway right?

[Nightwing 0]

So it's not like they're trying to get fake votes since the people voting will have to bring photo ID's on election day anyway right?

 

Yeah. It's been stated by multiple officials that it's mostly people just trying to get paychecks, not a grand conspiracy. Republicans are trying to "smear" the organization because they work in low-income areas and fight for those sorts of causes (Which is why they are endorsing Obama).

[Gary Floyd 0]

BUT..if its abuse of power, then wouldn't she be guilty of breaking the law

I know who is guilty of that

[SuperJerk 0]

You're trying to pass off speculation as fact.

 

And something tells me that when the Government buys into the banks, they won't be cashing out anytime soon.

 

 

I rest my case.

 

 

did you read the link? The decision of the feds to buy into smaller banks is imminent. Its going happen, not a question of if but when.

Okay, yes, it is now public knowledge they're buying stakes in the banks, you were half right.

 

But you're still worried "they won't be cashing out soon" which is still unfounded speculation, in my opinion. Also, the government's stock purchases will be of nonvoting shares so it will not have power to run the companies.

[SuperJerk 0]

The "Troopergate" report came out, simultaneously declaring her guilty and not guilty...

 

The report says she knowingly “permitted Todd Palin to use the governor’s office and the resources of the governor’s office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired.”

 

Further, it says, she “knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda.”

 

...the document concludes that Ms. Palin both acted upon her public interest in seeking the firing of Trooper Wooten and created a conflict of interest by forcing subordinate employees to choose between doing her bidding and or not.

 

But the report concluded that “Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Walt Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.” It cites the Alaska Constitution, which says “the governor may discharge department heads without cause” and that department heads “serve at the pleasure of the governor.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/polit...trooper.html?em

[Guest]

But you're still worried "they won't be cashing out soon" which is still unfounded speculation, in my opinion. Also, the government's stock purchases will be of nonvoting shares so it will not have power to run the companies.

The government would not cash out for a long time. It would take some time for all of their shares to be sold, with things the way they are nowadays.

 

It isn't unfounded speculation. The only reason the thought is being discredited is because it's hard for people to grasp the situation for what it really is. If the economy is bad (and it will be, they are saving our banking system and not the economy), nobody's going to be buying for a while. As such, the government would not be cashing out soon. Just wouldn't happen.

[SuperJerk 0]

Okay...I guess we should all clarify how we interprete "for a while." I'm taking Marvin to mean decades or ever, since he's worried about socialism.

[SuperJerk 0]

And how true are these voter fraud stories?

 

Thousands of voter registration forms faked, officials say

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/aco...aims/index.html

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Anyone know what the deal is with this Acorn voter registration fraud? Is this group working for Obama?

They aren't working for Obama (well, they are, like as in trying to get him elected, but they don't work FOR HIM per say), but he donated money to one of their affiliates during his primary campaign.

 

Marvin can show you some alternate takes on this. Of course most of those are scrawled on walls with shit...but still.

 

Obama worked with ACORN as early as 1992 and was a leadership trainer for the members in Chicago on the advice of a Madeline Talbott (another really nice person Obama has ties to) which was part of his dubious "Community Organizer" role, ultimately gaining the endorsement of ACORN in every election he's run in since.

 

Obama served on the board for the Woods Fund of Chicago from 1993-2001 which doled out grant money to ACORN.

 

Obama was ACORN's attorney in the Civil Suit case of ACORN vs Edgar, the Republican Governor of Illionois at the time (1993), which forced Illinois to implement the federal Motor Voter legislation that makes it easier for the poor and minorities to register to vote.

 

He did donate $800,000 to an offshoot group of ACORN this year.

 

Seems to me, the question isn't "Is ACORN working for Obama?", its "Is Obama still working for ACORN?"

[Guest]

I would say it would take a decade for the government to get out, if they ever plan on getting out.

 

 

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Okay...I guess we should all clarify how we interprete "for a while." I'm taking Marvin to mean decades or ever, since he's worried about socialism.

Im leaning towards at least decades because who is to say that at some point in the future something wont happen to cause the Government to want to divest itself from the banks? But I have a hard time seeing the "this is only short term" viewpoint considering I dont even see the economic problems as being short term, and even then it doesn't mean that as soon as the economy shows signs of recovering that the Government will sell back what it bought.

 

Consider the fact that programs from the New Deal some 70 years ago durring the Great Depression such as the FDIC, The Federal Housing Authority, the Tennesee Valley Authority, Social Security and even Fannie Mae (how nice) are still around today and have continually had their powers increased over what they originally were when implemented during the Great Depression.

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

I think they'll get out as soon as possible once the crisis is over.

 

And, if they don't, it is the America people who ultimately decide who makes the decisions at the Treasury Department.

 

Anyone know what the deal is with this Acorn voter registration fraud? Is this group working for Obama?

They aren't working for Obama (well, they are, like as in trying to get him elected, but they don't work FOR HIM per say), but he donated money to one of their affiliates during his primary campaign.

 

Marvin can show you some alternate takes on this. Of course most of those are scrawled on walls with shit...but still.

 

Obama worked with ACORN as early as 1992 and was a leadership trainer for the members in Chicago on the advice of a Madeline Talbott (another really nice person Obama has ties to) which was part of his dubious "Community Organizer" role, ultimately gaining the endorsement of ACORN in every election he's run in since.

 

Obama served on the board for the Woods Fund of Chicago from 1993-2001 which doled out grant money to ACORN.

 

Obama was ACORN's attorney in the Civil Suit case of ACORN vs Edgar, the Republican Governor of Illionois at the time (1993), which forced Illinois to implement the federal Motor Voter legislation that makes it easier for the poor and minorities to register to vote.

 

He did donate $800,000 to an offshoot group of ACORN this year.

 

Seems to me, the question isn't "Is ACORN working for Obama?", its "Is Obama still working for ACORN?"

But shouldn't the fact that the people who were WRONGLY submitting fake voter registration forms are being caught imply that actual voter fraud (not just fraudulent registration) is less likely to happen?

 

 

I think what we're seeing here is the building-in of an excuse if McCain looses, and to keep the Republican base fired up with anti-Obama stuff.

[CubbyBr 0]

So basically a voter registration group allegedly had a bunch of fake registration forms that people turned in for money even though those registration forms will not be valid on election day and Obama represented them in a court case 15 years ago. Is this more examples of him "Palling around with terrorists?"