Bailout Bill Fails; Dow Plummets 780 Points

[Bond]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/29/business/29chart.gif

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12326538&source=features_box_main

Cue the beginning of Obamanomics?

Ron Paul on the defeat of bailout bail:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YBVB1Uc0nko&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YBVB1Uc0nko&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Xantar]

Umm...what in the world does Obama have to do with this? Aside from one day when President Bush asked both candidates to come in for a meeting, Obama has been staying away from Washington. If the bailout bill passes and succeeds in stopping the bleeding, Obama won't deserve any of the credit, and he doesn't deserve any credit because it has failed either. Aren't you the guy who keeps telling us to stop being polarized?

Besides, a lot of people have said for the past two years that the DOW is inflated.

[Bond]

Downtrending markets = Election of Obama = Beginning of Obamanomics?

It's inquisitive commentary, not polarization.

[Jason1]

I'll take Obamanomics over whatevernomics they are currently using, because they obviously arent working.

Also, the bailout failed because the Republicans are ignorant.

PS: Ron paul is a retard

[thatmariolover]

Yeah, the inflammatory remarks are getting a little old.

Regardless, I didn't like the idea of a bailout bill myself. The suggestion that bailing out these corporations would somehow in turn benefit the middle class sounded far too much like trickle-down Reaganomics. Which, time and time again has proved ineffective. The bottom line is that there should have been more safeguards in place, and I don't see how it's the governments job to regulate that for private businesses.

Accountability is everything.

[Xantar]

Downtrending economy = some kind of connection to Obama's politics = a symptom of Bond's intelligence?

I'm not making an inflammatory remark. It's just inquisitive commentary!

[thatmariolover]

Downtrending economy = some kind of connection to Obama's politics = a symptom of Bond's intelligence?

I'm not making an inflammatory remark. It's just inquisitive commentary!

Sorry Xantar, that was not targeted at you. I more meant the ignorant republicans remark. I consider myself more liberal most of the time, but I think regardless of how you vote a little respect is due to all.

[Professor S]

Downtrending economy = some kind of connection to Obama's politics = a symptom of Bond's intelligence?

I'm not making an inflammatory remark. It's just inquisitive commentary!

Xantar, I think you're being more than unfair to Bond. His statement was that the downturn in the economy would lead us to elect Oabma who would then instate his economic plans with a democrat run house and senate. This economy will not be kind to those considered to be establishment, and McCain is part of the establishment while Obama is looked at as an outsider.

If you view the term Obamanomics as negative, thats your take on it, probably because its structured like reaganomics which I believe you disagree with.

Overall, this is a complete mess on all fronts and both parties are acting like petulant children. Pelosi's speech before the vote took place was possibly one of the single most self-centered, partisan and disgraceful things I've ever heard of happening while the nation is in crisis. The Republican's response to it was no better. Overall this was a sad day for the country.

[Xantar]

Right. This mess is not a bipartisan one. There's plenty of blame to go around, and if this thread is meant for us to discuss the problem intelligently, it would behoove us not to get into yet another political left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican, Obama vs. McCain shouting match. Unfortunately, Bond couldn't seem to refrain from injecting vaguely-worded, half-reasoned Presidential politics into the discussion (nor, for that matter, could Jason). Thus, I'm mocking him. If he really wants us to not be polarized, he ought to know better.

[Combine 017]

Xantar you ignorant fool. You cant mock Bond, he will eat your soul.

Also, Fascism is far superior in every possible way. There should be more Fascist dictators running.

[Xantar]

Xantar you ignorant fool. You cant mock Bond, he will eat your soul.

Also, Fascism is far superior in every possible way. There should be more Fascist dictators running.

Well, there goes any hope of an intelligent discussion...

Does somebody want to introduce me to this Combine 017 guy or should I just assume he's as silly as he looks and ignore him?

[Combine 017]

Well, there goes any hope of an intelligent discussion...

Does somebody want to introduce me to this Combine 017 guy or should I just assume he's as silly as he looks and ignore him?

Just assume hes as silly as he looks and ignore him.:)

Wait, how do you know what I look like, and what makes you assume im a guy.

[Professor S]

Right. This mess is not a bipartisan one.

If you would read the information I forwarded you to yesterday (but I guess you thought you were above it duringyour lunch priod), you would see that this IS a bipartisan debacle going back to the 70's, helped along by Democrats and Republicans who voted to remove anti-trust protections, securities and mortgage separation, regulation that encouraged mortgage companies to offer alternative products to low-income recipients, and levied penalties to those that didn't (CRA, enacted in 1977 and expanded in 1993), etc. Add to that corporate greed and consumer ignorance and we have ourselves a mess from the top down created by and affecting both Democrats and Republicans.

Even the voting on the bill was bipartisan, with 95 of the 220+ votes against coming from Democrats, so I'm not sure how you can be so cavalier pointing the finger at any one party. If you want to go in the finger pointing direction, the fact is the ONLY current politican running for national office who saw this coming was John McCain, who talked about this in 2003 and faught for a bill the prevent it in 2005. This is not a partisan play, this is a statement of fact:

1/26/2005--Introduced.
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.

Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.

Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.
Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.

Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

If I really wanted to get partisan, I would mention who worked AGAINST this bill, but I don't. I just wanted to correct the record when it comes to the current mess we're in. That is the true issue, here, and Bond's post had more to do with finding solutions (ala his Ron Paul post, who I dislike immensely) than casting blame.

EDIT: Re-reading your post, I believe you meant to say Partisan and not Bipartisan. If that is the case, then ignore all my points above that contend tht you meant Bipartisan.

This is an overreaction on your part to say the least, and quite honestly I don't think you've taken the time to really look at this issue in any way but through the eyes of an Obama supporter. There was nothing in Bond's post that blamed one prty or another, but instead stated an opinion of what would fix it and what would make it worse. An attack on socialism is not an attack on the Democrat establishment, and if you view it as such, perhaps the Democrats are in worst shape idealistically than I had feared. Turn your contentious eye on yourself before accusing others of polarization, and maybe realize that every once in a while, even Xantar can be wrong.

Overall, I think you've moved over time from a even handed and logical political commentator to one that willfully ignores evidence of anything that disagrees with your world view, and worse yet to take a extremely condescending attitude towards any educated opinion that attempts to promote dioscourse or challenge that world view. Example: The last time you were here when you stated you wouldn't respond any rebuttal I made to your points and would not even read them. Thats not one-upmanship, thats intellectual cowardice. You may find me condecending at times, but at least I engage in discourse and do not ignore opposing opinion or dismiss it outright. To do so i arrogance on a Christopher Hitchens level, and at least he shows up to debates to insult the other party involved.

I'm not sure which professor at Swarthmore got to you, but you should recognize it as a character flaw and work to correct it.

[TheGame]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26952895/

Lol, soon they'll be running from the Palin debate.

[Xantar]

No, Strangler, I think you've gotten so used to arguing with me that you don't recognize when I'm agreeing with you. When I said this debate is bipartisan, I was not being sarcastic or ironic. I really meant it. That's why I objected to Bond injecting a gratuitous partisan political comment into the discussion when this problem is bigger than Obama or McCain or even the whole presidential race. And if you don't see why Bond's post might be seen as a partisan hit, then consider this: you read my post and you immediately thought I was making a knee-jerk defense of Obama. Apparently, a person's political history does give some context to their posts.

More's the pity, though. It looks like you spent a lot of time on that post.

[Professor S]

No, you said the issue as "not a bipartisan one" to quote you, and I think you either meant bipartisan or really didn't mean to put in the word "not".

Either way, I edited my comments to refect that confusion about your intention. I agree with you on the bipartsan nature of the problem, but my reaction was to what you wrote, not what you meant to write. I think the facts about McCains stance were very enlightening, though, and if most people knew that the olls would change greatly... but you won't see the press touch it.

I still think you have greatly overreacted the Bond's post, especially considering a lot of the other partisan bickering that has been going on around here. This place is the partisan hit parade, and to single out Bond's post as being specifically partisan, and it was to a point but not accusatory or inflammatory in any way unlike most partisan posts here, I think shows an issue you might have with Bond and not specifically what he posted. Honestly I was surprised by your reaction to it.

[Xantar]

No, you said the issue as "not a bipartisan one" to quote you, and I think you either meant bipartisan or really didn't mean to put in the word "not".

...

Damn. Now I feel like an idiot. Sorry about that. I blame it on my first experience with coffee.

But you will note, by the way, that I've been hitting Combine 017 in this thread just as hard if not harder. I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me who he/she/it is and whether I should just ignore him/her/it. But if you want to know why I was specifically targeting Bond (other than he just happened to make the first new political thread since I came back), it's because what I've been reading from him in this forum more than anything else is some variation of "Please stop being polarized." To see him engage in a polarizing commentary without even fully explaining himself is disappointing.

Edit: one other thing

Example: The last time you were here when you stated you wouldn't respond any rebuttal I made to your points and would not even read them. Thats not one-upmanship, thats intellectual cowardice. You may find me condecending at times, but at least I engage in discourse and do not ignore opposing opinion or dismiss it outright. To do so i arrogance on a Christopher Hitchens level, and at least he shows up to debates to insult the other party involved.

Come on now. I don't have very much time to post anywhere. And I stated last time that I was only coming in there to provide a little intellectual balance because I felt that the liberals in the thread were being incompetent. All I wanted to do was try to give some halfway decent arguments for you to play with. And then I acknowledged the reality that I wouldn't be reading your replies because most likely I would be disappearing for another few months before I had time to come back here again. I'm sure you had some pretty good rebuttals, but let's not kid ourselves. I've never said anything in here that you've not seen before elsewhere, and you've not said much that I haven't read in other places either. Neither of us is a totally original thinker, and it's not like GT is the only place where I engage in political discussion with people who disagree with me. I appreciate your willingness to engage in thoughtful debate, but I assure you that you're not the only source of alternate viewpoints for me.

It wasn't one-upmanship. It was just me being so exasperated with the incompetents on "my" side that I couldn't take it any more. It was never anything against you, so please don't take it personally.

[Jason1]

Its always exciting when Xantar comes back!

[manasecret]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria080930.jpg

(Quoted from this thread (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18996&page=2).)

I feel just like one of the people in the crowd of that cartoon. I was given this link to a good explanation of the crisis (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/diamond-and-kashyap-on-the-recent-financial-upheavals/), or at least what I can only assume is a good explanation. Reading all that economic mumbo jumbo makes my head spin.

I'll give it another whirl because I know I can eventually understand it, but damn the public is in desperate need of someone to very simply explain the causes of this crisis.


One more thing.

Come on now. I don't have very much time to post anywhere.

I feel like I should respond as well, because Prof. S's comment on Xantar could similarly be said about me. I gave up on two threads, the Georgia thread and the the New Orleans thread, because of how much of my time got sucked into those threads. Plus, any time I wasn't actually responding or reading responses, I was still thinking about the thread. I require concentration for my job, and I couldn't concentrate at all when I was in those discussions. While I appreciate Prof. S's time he takes to respond, I can't keep up with it.

[Combine 017]

But you will note, by the way, that I've been hitting Combine 017 in this thread just as hard if not harder. I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me who he/she/it is and whether I should just ignore him/her/it.

I am Combine, Unit 017 of City 17. A soldier in The Combine Overwatch.

And you cant ignore me, you may act like it but deep down I know that you've already read my post. You may "pretend" your ignoring me by saying irrelevant things to what I said last, but really the only thing your doing is lying to yourself.



The cake is a lie...
The cake is a lie...
The cake is a lie...

[Professor S]

I feel like I should respond as well, because Prof. S's comment on Xantar could similarly be said about me. I gave up on two threads, the Georgia thread and the the New Orleans thread, because of how much of my time got sucked into those threads. Plus, any time I wasn't actually responding or reading responses, I was still thinking about the thread. I require concentration for my job, and I couldn't concentrate at all when I was in those discussions. While I appreciate Prof. S's time he takes to respond, I can't keep up with it.

Mana, you've always taken the time to reply at least once to points and I've always assumed that you stop posting because you have said your piece. My issue was when Xantar posted some questionably sourced material, much of which was guilty of poor research or lies of omission, and then at the end stating that he would not read or respond to anything said. That is not discourse.

Honestly, Xanny, if you don't have the time to discuss your points, don't bother spending so much time writing the opinions in the first place, especially when you cite things that have known contradictory evidence. I don't completely buy your explanation of your "I'll reply to this in paragraphs and ignore your response" posting, I'm sorry to say.

[Fox 6]

Woah this thread is all bonkers. :crazy:

Which of you think this is a sign to step back and evaluate the system? Is more gevernment involvement needed?

[Professor S]

Woah this thread is all bonkers. :crazy:

Which of you think this is a sign to step back and evaluate the system? Is more gevernment involvement needed?

Yes and no.

It depends on the government involvement and type of regulation. This problem was created by both deregulation and over regulation. The split between mortgages and securities should never have been deregulated. The regulation of the Community Reinvestment Act should never have been instated and created billions in bad loans.

The answer is not all or nothing. My opinion overall would be that regulation that separates and protects based on historical evidence is good, while regulation that dictates business in the hopes that a positive impact will result is bad, if that makes sense.

[Xantar]

Well, Strangler, all I can say is you need to chill out and stop taking things so seriously (not to mention personally). You say my post back then wasn't political discourse? I've got a news flash for you: about 95% of what's going on in these threads isn't political discourse. You and various others might as well not even bother replying to each other for all the good it does. Personally, I think it's sort of a minor miracle of a thread makes it through one page without somebody blowing up in a fit of righteous anger and somebody else publicly questioning the other's personal integrity.

This place is a playground. Every once in a while, something constructive and productive happens, but I never expect it from here and certainly not from you. To me, you're a very good intellectual sparring partner whom I otherwise will never interact with in any other way (although I guess at one point we were geographically pretty close). I could launch into a long complaint about all the times where I think you've used long discredited information and where you've had the last word because by the time I looked again, everybody had moved on and it was no longer worth my while to reply. I can assure you that any time I've stopped posting, I've always had more to say and I've always found some points you've made to be disingenuous. I've never stopped because I feel I've said my piece and there's nothing more to be said.

But you know what? Life is too short and the world is bigger than this. I'm not saying this to try to prove that I'm a better person or anything. I'm just explaining what my view of this forum is. We're just a couple of guys wasting time on a message board that doesn't exist beyond our computer screens. You can call me a coward or dishonest or arrogant or any number of other things you want. It won't make any difference to me, and I'm not going to waste any emotional energy getting worked up over it. Whatever reaction you decide to have is ok with me. Really.

And with that, I'm not going to reply to anything more you say to me or about me in this thread.

[Combine 017]

I could launch into a long complaint about all the times where I think you've used long discredited information and where you've had the last word because by the time I looked again, everybody had moved on and it was no longer worth my while to reply.

Well then it looks like you need to get on GT more often.

We're just a couple of guys wasting time on a message board that doesn't exist beyond our computer screens.

You see it as wasting time, I see it as the cup being half full.

And with that, I'm not going to reply to anything more you say to me or about me in this thread.

Are you going to reply to anything more I have to say to you or about you in this thread?

[BreakABone]

I would just like to add...

Well you are all adults, and my domain is the gaming side so nevermind.

[Bond]

That's why I objected to Bond injecting a gratuitous partisan political comment into the discussion when this problem is bigger than Obama or McCain or even the whole presidential race. And if you don't see why Bond's post might be seen as a partisan hit, then consider this: you read my post and you immediately thought I was making a knee-jerk defense of Obama. Apparently, a person's political history does give some context to their posts.

More's the pity, though. It looks like you spent a lot of time on that post.
This is the issue. You assumed a negative connotation with the phrase "Obamanomics." I don't, and didn't intend it to have one. If you would have questioned what I meant by the remark then I could have kindly explained it to you, but you jumped to your own conclusion, which led you to insult my intelligence and mock me.

Which is fine, but those are waters that I do not tread.

I do believe that the polarization of our country is one of the greatest domestic threats that we face today. I try my very best to practice what I preach, by not engaging in that polarization.

[Xantar]

This is the issue. You assumed a negative connotation with the phrase "Obamanomics." I don't, and didn't intend it to have one. If you would have questioned what I meant by the remark then I could have kindly explained it to you

No, actually I assumed no such thing. And I did in fact ask what you meant by the remark. My first post in here was to ask you what Obama has to do with the bailout. When your response was still vague, I proceeded to mock your vague reasoning. And I would have done the same if you had used the word "McCainanomics." Despite the rhetoric flying back and forth between the two presidential campaigns, this bailout has nothing to do with either of them and it wasn't really defeated because of either of them either.

This issue is bigger and older than either of their candidacies. Making reference to either Obama or McCain is a polarizing comment by its very nature, especially in this forum where political rhetoric flies free and fast. And I guess that's fine if you want to turn the issue into yet another partisan debate. But for someone who claims to not engage in polarization, it seems to me that you ought to know better than to make a gratuitous reference to presidential politics when the subject has nothing to do with it. Kind of like how your intelligence otherwise has nothing to do with it either.

[Bond]

No, actually I assumed no such thing. And I did in fact ask what you meant by the remark. My first post in here was to ask you what Obama has to do with the bailout. When your response was still vague, I proceeded to mock your vague reasoning. And I would have done the same if you had used the word "McCainanomics." Despite the rhetoric flying back and forth between the two presidential campaigns, this bailout has nothing to do with either of them and it wasn't really defeated because of either of them either.

This issue is bigger and older than either of their candidacies. Making reference to either Obama or McCain is a polarizing comment by its very nature, especially in this forum where political rhetoric flies free and fast. And I guess that's fine if you want to turn the issue into yet another partisan debate. But for someone who claims to not engage in polarization, it seems to me that you ought to know better than to make a gratuitous reference to presidential politics when the subject has nothing to do with it.
I'll give this the proper reply it is due after my midterms on Thursday. But I'm not so sure if countering your statements would be beneficial... this seems like a vicious cycle. I will have to reflect on it while I'm studying at the law library.

[Xantar]

Ok, well then let me make one other thing clear: it's not like I'm offended or something. I never expected any kind of a reply one way or another. I just had one purpose which was to make fun of you for what I thought was a silly remark. And yeah, I was being deliberately provocative, too. That's kind of the point.

[Professor S]

Well, Strangler, all I can say is you need to chill out and stop taking things so seriously (not to mention personally). You say my post back then wasn't political discourse? I've got a news flash for you: about 95% of what's going on in these threads isn't political discourse. You and various others might as well not even bother replying to each other for all the good it does. Personally, I think it's sort of a minor miracle of a thread makes it through one page without somebody blowing up in a fit of righteous anger and somebody else publicly questioning the other's personal integrity.

This place is a playground. Every once in a while, something constructive and productive happens, but I never expect it from here and certainly not from you. To me, you're a very good intellectual sparring partner whom I otherwise will never interact with in any other way (although I guess at one point we were geographically pretty close). I could launch into a long complaint about all the times where I think you've used long discredited information and where you've had the last word because by the time I looked again, everybody had moved on and it was no longer worth my while to reply. I can assure you that any time I've stopped posting, I've always had more to say and I've always found some points you've made to be disingenuous. I've never stopped because I feel I've said my piece and there's nothing more to be said.

But you know what? Life is too short and the world is bigger than this. I'm not saying this to try to prove that I'm a better person or anything. I'm just explaining what my view of this forum is. We're just a couple of guys wasting time on a message board that doesn't exist beyond our computer screens. You can call me a coward or dishonest or arrogant or any number of other things you want. It won't make any difference to me, and I'm not going to waste any emotional energy getting worked up over it. Whatever reaction you decide to have is ok with me. Really.

And with that, I'm not going to reply to anything more you say to me or about me in this thread.

Wow, you love to have it both ways. First you overreact to Bond's post, "wasting emotional energy", and then you accuse others of getting worked up and emotional when they call you out on it. Exactly which side of your face are you speaking out of in this thread?

And for the record, there have been several instances where I have made political point concessions and even changed my mind in the middle of a discussion (rarely, true, but still happens on occassion). I have never really seen you do that, not even to admit you overreacted to Bond's comparitively benign post!

And with THAT, I will not reply to anything else you say in this thread because I'm rubber and you're glue and I don't shut up, I grow up and when I look at you I throw up. Nanny nanny boo boo. [/sarcasm]

See? I can be all growed up too. :unsure: