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.
__________________ My blog - videogames, movies, TV shows and the law.
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.
Last edited by thatmariolover : 09-29-2008 at 09:13 PM.
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.
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.
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.
__________________ My blog - videogames, movies, TV shows and the law.
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:
Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 09-30-2008 at 09:20 AM.
Lol, soon they'll be running from the Palin debate.
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
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.
__________________ My blog - videogames, movies, TV shows and the law.
Bailout Bill Fails; Dow Plummets 780 Points
Linear Mode
