Campaign 2008

[snuffbox 0]

Credit cards?

[SuperJerk 0]

I have an idea that might save us both headaches and hours of our lives.

 

We need some kind of code for "I still don't agree with you, but in the interest of expediting the conversation and not repeating ourselves much longer, I propose we table this aspect of the discussion and move back to more relevant matters."

 

Yeah, I know this sounds weird coming from me, but there's that old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."

[NoCalMike 0]

The problem with credit cards, or actually more specifically credit card companies, is that a lot of times they specifically target people they know cannot pay off their bills, thus they will, in the process, lock them up with a life time of debt.

 

If people were able to afford what they use credit cards for, they would either not have a credit card in the first place, or they would always pay their bill off before any interest accrued, thus not giving the credit companies any profit.

 

I am tired of the economy being touted, when a lot of the money swimming around being spent is based on credit cards, which is really a dirty nasty code word for DEBT. Just like our government, people are now getting more comfortable with "defeceit spending" because either they HAVE TO DO IT to get by with their bills, or they just figure the whole system is a scam anyway so they will try and scam the system right back.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Jerk, the bankruptcy bill was an absolute abortion. Also, I can cite tons of abuses and unethical practices by credit card companies. You should find a better group to go to bat for.

 

I didn't say that the credit card industry bribed Bayh illegally. It is perfectly legal to accept contributions from corporations and corporate PACs. I just suggested that the approximately $300K he has received from the industry (according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics) influenced his vote for it.

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/ind...&cycle=2006

 

If you want to know more about how the bill sucked, I can provide more information. It is one of the worst pieces of legislation passed in recent history, in my opinion.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I shouldn't have to argue why it's a bad idea to give people a card that lets them spend money that doesn't exist.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Money that is borrowed doesn't exist?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Loans aren't credit cards.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Loans aren't credit cards.

I didn't say they were, but it is still borrowed money. I can use a credit card to purchase items, and the money goes from the credit card company to the place I'm purchasing from. I never see the money I spent, but the place I bought from does. In that sense, the money most certainly does exist.I then pay the money back to the credit card company. It is a win-win-win scenario. I win because I get to use the item I wanted or needed to buy, the credit card company wins because they collect a fee for financing the purchase for me (remember, they are taking a risk by financing a purchase I'm not guaranteed to pay back), and the place I bought from wins because they made a sale they might not have made if I had to save up to make the purchase.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Is there no stock anymore in people living within their means? Bankruptcy declarations being as high as they are these days and people defaulting on their debts is also an extremely negative sign for long-term economic health. I won't even get into kids who are raised seeing their parents use nothing but plastic.

[SuperJerk 0]

Jerk, the bankruptcy bill was an absolute abortion. Also, I can cite tons of abuses and unethical practices by credit card companies. You should find a better group to go to bat for.

 

I didn't say that the credit card industry bribed Bayh illegally. It is perfectly legal to accept contributions from corporations and corporate PACs. I just suggested that the approximately $300K he has received from the industry (according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics) influenced his vote for it.

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/ind...&cycle=2006

 

If you want to know more about how the bill sucked, I can provide more information. It is one of the worst pieces of legislation passed in recent history, in my opinion.

All of this might be true, and you obvously know more about the bill than I do, but I don't think it will have much of an impact on the 2008 campaign.

[snuffbox 0]

Having voted for the Iraq war, what does Sen Bayh think about the neocon notion of bombing Iran that is being bandied about?

[SuperJerk 0]

I'll ignore your loaded question and try to address the real point you're trying to make.

 

Like most Americans, Bayh changed his position on Iraq when he learned the truth. So long as he takes a clear position, he should be able to avoid looking the way Kerry did on this issue.

 

Since there's a shortage of members of Congress who voted against the war running for president, I don't see anyone gaining an advantage by bringing this up.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I like Wesley Clark.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

All of this might be true, and you obvously know more about the bill than I do, but I don't think it will have much of an impact on the 2008 campaign.

 

With the "netroots" playing a bigger role in elections (we would not have a Senator Webb or a Senator Tester without them) I think actual positions on issues and votes like this one will play a bigger role in the nominating process. I could be wrong.

[SuperJerk 0]

I disagree because I think while with a senate campaign specific legislation is looked at, with a presidential campaign, "big ideas" are looked at. Most people are more interested in what you're going to do as the president than how you voted as 1 of 100 senators.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm liking Gen. Clark & Gov. Richardson.

 

That's probably the best ticket either party could feasibly put together. No Senate record to chew on, Executive experience for the Guv, national security cred for both, quite the military record for Clark.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I would be happy with Clark, Edwards, Gore, or maybe Obama right now.

[SuperJerk 0]

I would be happy with Clark, Edwards, Gore, or maybe Obama right now.

 

Oh, please, God, no...

[snuffbox 0]

How is he that much worse than Evan Bayh?

[SuperJerk 0]

How is he that much worse than Evan Bayh?

Evan Bayh is actually qualified to be president. He has both governed a large state and gotten bills passed through the Congress.

 

John Edwards just kind of waundered into the Senate one day, made some pretty speeches, and started running for president.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

How is he that much worse than Evan Bayh?

John Edwards just kind of waundered into the Senate one day, made some pretty speeches, and started running for president.

 

I have been (kinda like Al Gore) more impressed with him since his loss.

 

During the summer and fall of 2005, he toured the country, promoting various progressive causes. He visited homeless shelters and job training centers and spoke at events organized by such groups as ACORN, the NAACP, and the SEIU. He spoke out in favor of an expansion of the earned income tax credit, a crackdown on predatory lending, a raise in the capital gains tax, housing vouchers for minorities to integrate upper-income neighborhoods, and a program modeled on the Works Progress Administration to rehabilitate the Gulf Coast following the effects of Hurricane Katrina. In low-income Greene County, North Carolina, he unveiled the pilot program for College for Everyone, an educational measure he promised during his presidential campaign, in which prospective college students will receive a scholarship for their first year, in exchange for ten hours of work a week.

 

On November 14, 2005, he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, saying he regretted his vote supporting the Iraq War in 2002 and addressed three solutions for success in the conflict. [13]

 

Edwards is co-chairman of a Council on Foreign Relations task force on United States-Russia relations, alongside Republican Jack Kemp, a former congressman, Cabinet official, and vice presidential nominee.

 

from his wikipedia entry

[snuffbox 0]

Edwards seems to me to be in the position that JFK would have been in had he won the VP nomination in 1956 instead of Estes Kefauver. Along for the ride with Adlai (who shouldnt be compared to John Kerry), Kennedy would have lost and found himself in a pretty tough politcal spot for awhile. Now, Edwards has to try to make up the ground he lost. He has been keeping very busy with his personal work and with Kemp as well as keeping visible in the public eye. He certainly has Evan Bayh eclipsed in terms of charisma. He has distanced himself, and apologized, for his Iraq vote...and, unlike Sen Bayh, doesnt appear to be bending his ear for the bomb-Iran idea floating from the Cheney office.

[SuperJerk 0]

Edwards seems to me to be in the position that JFK would have been in had he won the VP nomination in 1956 instead of Estes Kefauver. Along for the ride with Adlai (who shouldnt be compared to John Kerry), Kennedy would have lost and found himself in a pretty tough politcal spot for awhile. Now, Edwards has to try to make up the ground he lost. He has been keeping very busy with his personal work and with Kemp as well as keeping visible in the public eye. He certainly has Evan Bayh eclipsed in terms of charisma. He has distanced himself, and apologized, for his Iraq vote...and, unlike Sen Bayh, doesnt appear to be bending his ear for the bomb-Iran idea floating from the Cheney office.

[gWIL 0]

Sen Bayh, doesnt appear to be bending his ear for the bomb-Iran idea floating from the Cheney office.

 

You get this from where?

[snuffbox 0]

He has made it clear that he wants to take a tough stance against Iran...and, though he has thus far said he doesnt support military action, he has hinted on occasion that it may be necessay on televised (CSPAN) interviews/speeches. There is currently alot of talk of the neocon sect taking another big swing despite the Iraq failure. Bayh's stance, and past history of being gullible to the Cheney crew, would suggest that he could be the one of the first Dems to wave the flag for attacking Iran.

[SuperJerk 0]

He has made it clear that he wants to take a tough stance against Iran...and, though he has thus far said he doesnt support military action, he has hinted on occasion that it may be necessay on televised (CSPAN) interviews/speeches. There is currently alot of talk of the neocon sect taking another big swing despite the Iraq failure. Bayh's stance, and past history of being gullible to the Cheney crew, would suggest that he could be the one of the first Dems to wave the flag for attacking Iran.

So you've got nothing.

 

 

Got it.

[snuffbox 0]

I guess you musta just missed the very next sentence. He has said, more than once, that he feels it could end up being a military venture, and he will support that. Hes taken the pussyhawks side before, his leg to stand on is limp.

 

But thats cool, you have a fetish for vanilladudes that dont mind a few wars here/there/everywhere.

[Guest Felonies!]

a few wars here/there/everywhere.

Are they fought with revolvers?

[snuffbox 0]

What?

 

Is this part of the 'trying too hard' problem you've been experiencing post-election, Czech?

[Gary Floyd 0]

Once again: What have I created?