[felix]

[quote=Kilohana]The bottom line is that the “Obama’s Shady Past” narrative was created out of the need to distract voters and candidates from discussing the real issues… Hillary tried it and failed – and now McCain has made it the centerpiece of his campaign.

In fact, McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis explained it all perfectly:

“John McCain tried to point out how people should be informed about Barack Obama’s background, including his relationships with domestic terrorists like William Ayers. People are going to form these judgments. It’s great fodder for us to debate every day. I think it’s fun,”

Fun!

I’m sure there will again be skeptics calling me on my lies so here’s a link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8G6dDVjW6c :54 seconds in.

Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I grew up very close to where BO calls home on Chicago’s south side. It is you who is being willfully ignorant of BO’s past and his corrupt cronys. Anybody who would consider a politician from Illinois, in general, or Chicago, in particular, a good candidate for change or reform must either have a screw loose or be a complete ninny. Illinois and Chicago are known as one of the cesspools of American politics.

Graft, corruption, shady dealings and suspect ties are par for the course. BO’s neighbor, friend and political helper Rezko has just been convicted of a felony and the prosecutors are working hard on him to turn on our Dem governor, who may be our 5 governor in the past 50 years to go to prison for corruption.

The blind hatred of W has made so many folks and the media turn a blind eye to BO’s past and even current ties to the cesspool of Chicago politics. This may be the worse legacy of the Bush presidency. Making folks so mad at him that they abandon common sense and not explore the past of a man running for the highest office in the land.

[felix]

[quote=Kilohana]The bottom line is that the “Obama’s Shady Past” narrative was created out of the need to distract voters and candidates from discussing the real issues… Hillary tried it and failed – and now McCain has made it the centerpiece of his campaign.

In fact, McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis explained it all perfectly:

“John McCain tried to point out how people should be informed about Barack Obama’s background, including his relationships with domestic terrorists like William Ayers. People are going to form these judgments. It’s great fodder for us to debate every day. I think it’s fun,”

Fun!

I’m sure there will again be skeptics calling me on my lies so here’s a link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8G6dDVjW6c :54 seconds in.

Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I grew up very close to where BO calls home on Chicago’s south side. It is you who is being willfully ignorant of BO’s past and his corrupt cronys. Anybody who would consider a politician from Illinois, in general, or Chicago, in particular, a good candidate for change or reform must either have a screw loose or be a complete ninny. Illinois and Chicago are known as one of the cesspools of American politics.

Graft, corruption, shady dealings and suspect ties are par for the course. BO’s neighbor, friend and political helper Rezko has just been convicted of a felony and the prosecutors are working hard on him to turn on our Dem governor, who may be our 5 governor in the past 50 years to go to prison for corruption.

The blind hatred of W has made so many folks and the media turn a blind eye to BO’s past and even current ties to the cesspool of Chicago politics. This may be the worse legacy of the Bush presidency. Making folks so mad at him that they abandon common sense and not explore the past of a man running for the highest office in the land.

[felix]

[quote=Kilohana]The bottom line is that the “Obama’s Shady Past” narrative was created out of the need to distract voters and candidates from discussing the real issues… Hillary tried it and failed – and now McCain has made it the centerpiece of his campaign.

In fact, McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis explained it all perfectly:

“John McCain tried to point out how people should be informed about Barack Obama’s background, including his relationships with domestic terrorists like William Ayers. People are going to form these judgments. It’s great fodder for us to debate every day. I think it’s fun,”

Fun!

I’m sure there will again be skeptics calling me on my lies so here’s a link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8G6dDVjW6c :54 seconds in.

Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I grew up very close to where BO calls home on Chicago’s south side. It is you who is being willfully ignorant of BO’s past and his corrupt cronys. Anybody who would consider a politician from Illinois, in general, or Chicago, in particular, a good candidate for change or reform must either have a screw loose or be a complete ninny. Illinois and Chicago are known as one of the cesspools of American politics.

Graft, corruption, shady dealings and suspect ties are par for the course. BO’s neighbor, friend and political helper Rezko has just been convicted of a felony and the prosecutors are working hard on him to turn on our Dem governor, who may be our 5 governor in the past 50 years to go to prison for corruption.

The blind hatred of W has made so many folks and the media turn a blind eye to BO’s past and even current ties to the cesspool of Chicago politics. This may be the worse legacy of the Bush presidency. Making folks so mad at him that they abandon common sense and not explore the past of a man running for the highest office in the land.

[felix]

[quote=Kilohana]The bottom line is that the “Obama’s Shady Past” narrative was created out of the need to distract voters and candidates from discussing the real issues… Hillary tried it and failed – and now McCain has made it the centerpiece of his campaign.

In fact, McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis explained it all perfectly:

“John McCain tried to point out how people should be informed about Barack Obama’s background, including his relationships with domestic terrorists like William Ayers. People are going to form these judgments. It’s great fodder for us to debate every day. I think it’s fun,”

Fun!

I’m sure there will again be skeptics calling me on my lies so here’s a link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8G6dDVjW6c :54 seconds in.

Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I grew up very close to where BO calls home on Chicago’s south side. It is you who is being willfully ignorant of BO’s past and his corrupt cronys. Anybody who would consider a politician from Illinois, in general, or Chicago, in particular, a good candidate for change or reform must either have a screw loose or be a complete ninny. Illinois and Chicago are known as one of the cesspools of American politics.

Graft, corruption, shady dealings and suspect ties are par for the course. BO’s neighbor, friend and political helper Rezko has just been convicted of a felony and the prosecutors are working hard on him to turn on our Dem governor, who may be our 5 governor in the past 50 years to go to prison for corruption.

The blind hatred of W has made so many folks and the media turn a blind eye to BO’s past and even current ties to the cesspool of Chicago politics. This may be the worse legacy of the Bush presidency. Making folks so mad at him that they abandon common sense and not explore the past of a man running for the highest office in the land.

[felix]

[quote=Kilohana]The bottom line is that the “Obama’s Shady Past” narrative was created out of the need to distract voters and candidates from discussing the real issues… Hillary tried it and failed – and now McCain has made it the centerpiece of his campaign.

In fact, McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis explained it all perfectly:

“John McCain tried to point out how people should be informed about Barack Obama’s background, including his relationships with domestic terrorists like William Ayers. People are going to form these judgments. It’s great fodder for us to debate every day. I think it’s fun,”

Fun!

I’m sure there will again be skeptics calling me on my lies so here’s a link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8G6dDVjW6c :54 seconds in.

Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I grew up very close to where BO calls home on Chicago’s south side. It is you who is being willfully ignorant of BO’s past and his corrupt cronys. Anybody who would consider a politician from Illinois, in general, or Chicago, in particular, a good candidate for change or reform must either have a screw loose or be a complete ninny. Illinois and Chicago are known as one of the cesspools of American politics.

Graft, corruption, shady dealings and suspect ties are par for the course. BO’s neighbor, friend and political helper Rezko has just been convicted of a felony and the prosecutors are working hard on him to turn on our Dem governor, who may be our 5 governor in the past 50 years to go to prison for corruption.

The blind hatred of W has made so many folks and the media turn a blind eye to BO’s past and even current ties to the cesspool of Chicago politics. This may be the worse legacy of the Bush presidency. Making folks so mad at him that they abandon common sense and not explore the past of a man running for the highest office in the land.

[felix]

If not for improper conduct getting evidence by the FBI, Ayers would be a felon. He would have done significant prison time, and rightly so, for the acts you seem to be trying to diminish in significance.

He is hardly a distinguished professor at UIC. If it weren’t for others in positions of power, seemingly sharing some of his and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn, beliefs, now being in high positions in academics neither would be where they are now and we are not better off because of folks like Ayers and Dohrn.

Add BO to the list of “quasi-academics” who have embraced these two, particularly, when it benefited him to do so.

If you believe it’s okay blow things up because you don’t care for how things are being done then Ayers is your man.

If you believe it’s okay to trespass and shout down speeches then the loony left is your domain.

If you believe falsely registering millions to vote because they are on your side then the Dem party is your party.

And if you believe the end justifies these means then BO is your man.

Lastly, on to the initial subject of this thread. I, like Powell, think every citizen who qualifies under the constitution should be able to aspire to the presidency regardless, of race, color or creed or sex.

I just don’t understand what his complaint about prejudice against Muslims has to do with McCain or the Republican party. In fact, it was Hillary who raised the entire question about BO and his possible Muslim heritage not McCain or the Reps. It was Bill, Ferraro and Biden who raised questions of reverse racial bias in favor of BO not McCain or the Rep party.

Of course, their will be narrow minded folks in both parties and some folks who are supporters of both will say things neither candidate agrees with.

The interesting thing is that the bias against Muslims that Powell seems to be fixated on and only as to Reps curiously could only be effective if that bias is found not just in Reps but in folks of both parties and in independents.

Thus Powell’s Muslim bias justification for supporting BO is neither logical nor based in reality.

[felix]

If not for improper conduct getting evidence by the FBI, Ayers would be a felon. He would have done significant prison time, and rightly so, for the acts you seem to be trying to diminish in significance.

He is hardly a distinguished professor at UIC. If it weren’t for others in positions of power, seemingly sharing some of his and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn, beliefs, now being in high positions in academics neither would be where they are now and we are not better off because of folks like Ayers and Dohrn.

Add BO to the list of “quasi-academics” who have embraced these two, particularly, when it benefited him to do so.

If you believe it’s okay blow things up because you don’t care for how things are being done then Ayers is your man.

If you believe it’s okay to trespass and shout down speeches then the loony left is your domain.

If you believe falsely registering millions to vote because they are on your side then the Dem party is your party.

And if you believe the end justifies these means then BO is your man.

Lastly, on to the initial subject of this thread. I, like Powell, think every citizen who qualifies under the constitution should be able to aspire to the presidency regardless, of race, color or creed or sex.

I just don’t understand what his complaint about prejudice against Muslims has to do with McCain or the Republican party. In fact, it was Hillary who raised the entire question about BO and his possible Muslim heritage not McCain or the Reps. It was Bill, Ferraro and Biden who raised questions of reverse racial bias in favor of BO not McCain or the Rep party.

Of course, their will be narrow minded folks in both parties and some folks who are supporters of both will say things neither candidate agrees with.

The interesting thing is that the bias against Muslims that Powell seems to be fixated on and only as to Reps curiously could only be effective if that bias is found not just in Reps but in folks of both parties and in independents.

Thus Powell’s Muslim bias justification for supporting BO is neither logical nor based in reality.

[felix]

If not for improper conduct getting evidence by the FBI, Ayers would be a felon. He would have done significant prison time, and rightly so, for the acts you seem to be trying to diminish in significance.

He is hardly a distinguished professor at UIC. If it weren’t for others in positions of power, seemingly sharing some of his and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn, beliefs, now being in high positions in academics neither would be where they are now and we are not better off because of folks like Ayers and Dohrn.

Add BO to the list of “quasi-academics” who have embraced these two, particularly, when it benefited him to do so.

If you believe it’s okay blow things up because you don’t care for how things are being done then Ayers is your man.

If you believe it’s okay to trespass and shout down speeches then the loony left is your domain.

If you believe falsely registering millions to vote because they are on your side then the Dem party is your party.

And if you believe the end justifies these means then BO is your man.

Lastly, on to the initial subject of this thread. I, like Powell, think every citizen who qualifies under the constitution should be able to aspire to the presidency regardless, of race, color or creed or sex.

I just don’t understand what his complaint about prejudice against Muslims has to do with McCain or the Republican party. In fact, it was Hillary who raised the entire question about BO and his possible Muslim heritage not McCain or the Reps. It was Bill, Ferraro and Biden who raised questions of reverse racial bias in favor of BO not McCain or the Rep party.

Of course, their will be narrow minded folks in both parties and some folks who are supporters of both will say things neither candidate agrees with.

The interesting thing is that the bias against Muslims that Powell seems to be fixated on and only as to Reps curiously could only be effective if that bias is found not just in Reps but in folks of both parties and in independents.

Thus Powell’s Muslim bias justification for supporting BO is neither logical nor based in reality.

[felix]

If not for improper conduct getting evidence by the FBI, Ayers would be a felon. He would have done significant prison time, and rightly so, for the acts you seem to be trying to diminish in significance.

He is hardly a distinguished professor at UIC. If it weren’t for others in positions of power, seemingly sharing some of his and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn, beliefs, now being in high positions in academics neither would be where they are now and we are not better off because of folks like Ayers and Dohrn.

Add BO to the list of “quasi-academics” who have embraced these two, particularly, when it benefited him to do so.

If you believe it’s okay blow things up because you don’t care for how things are being done then Ayers is your man.

If you believe it’s okay to trespass and shout down speeches then the loony left is your domain.

If you believe falsely registering millions to vote because they are on your side then the Dem party is your party.

And if you believe the end justifies these means then BO is your man.

Lastly, on to the initial subject of this thread. I, like Powell, think every citizen who qualifies under the constitution should be able to aspire to the presidency regardless, of race, color or creed or sex.

I just don’t understand what his complaint about prejudice against Muslims has to do with McCain or the Republican party. In fact, it was Hillary who raised the entire question about BO and his possible Muslim heritage not McCain or the Reps. It was Bill, Ferraro and Biden who raised questions of reverse racial bias in favor of BO not McCain or the Rep party.

Of course, their will be narrow minded folks in both parties and some folks who are supporters of both will say things neither candidate agrees with.

The interesting thing is that the bias against Muslims that Powell seems to be fixated on and only as to Reps curiously could only be effective if that bias is found not just in Reps but in folks of both parties and in independents.

Thus Powell’s Muslim bias justification for supporting BO is neither logical nor based in reality.

[felix]

If not for improper conduct getting evidence by the FBI, Ayers would be a felon. He would have done significant prison time, and rightly so, for the acts you seem to be trying to diminish in significance.

He is hardly a distinguished professor at UIC. If it weren’t for others in positions of power, seemingly sharing some of his and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn, beliefs, now being in high positions in academics neither would be where they are now and we are not better off because of folks like Ayers and Dohrn.

Add BO to the list of “quasi-academics” who have embraced these two, particularly, when it benefited him to do so.

If you believe it’s okay blow things up because you don’t care for how things are being done then Ayers is your man.

If you believe it’s okay to trespass and shout down speeches then the loony left is your domain.

If you believe falsely registering millions to vote because they are on your side then the Dem party is your party.

And if you believe the end justifies these means then BO is your man.

Lastly, on to the initial subject of this thread. I, like Powell, think every citizen who qualifies under the constitution should be able to aspire to the presidency regardless, of race, color or creed or sex.

I just don’t understand what his complaint about prejudice against Muslims has to do with McCain or the Republican party. In fact, it was Hillary who raised the entire question about BO and his possible Muslim heritage not McCain or the Reps. It was Bill, Ferraro and Biden who raised questions of reverse racial bias in favor of BO not McCain or the Rep party.

Of course, their will be narrow minded folks in both parties and some folks who are supporters of both will say things neither candidate agrees with.

The interesting thing is that the bias against Muslims that Powell seems to be fixated on and only as to Reps curiously could only be effective if that bias is found not just in Reps but in folks of both parties and in independents.

Thus Powell’s Muslim bias justification for supporting BO is neither logical nor based in reality.

[felix]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=felix]
We are all paying for those who don’t take personal responsibility for their lives.
[/quote]

I disagree. The main expenses are the massive bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War.

Unemployment and welfare makes up at most 11% of the national budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

The FY2008 budget is $2.9 trillion. That means that at most $319 billion per year is going to those folks who “don’t take personal responsibility for their lives”.

$319 billion pales in comparison to the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich. $11 trillion is 34 years of welfare spending.

Then there is the boondoggle of the Iraq War which could end up costing $3 trillion:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html

The Iraq War is costing us 10x as much as a year of welfare. Adding the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War brings the total to 44 years of welfare spending.

So what we are really paying for is a misguided war and a massive bailout for the super-rich. Welfare for poor people is teeny-tiny in comparison.

This is what annoys me about faux conservatives/capitalists like you. You constantly bemoan the cost of welfare when what is really dragging our economy down are the crooks on Wall Street and the Iraq War.

If you are truly concerned about welfare spending, then you should be 44 times as concerned about the bailout and the Iraq War. And yet, faux conservatives/capitalists like you never bring those expenses up. I find that to be incredibly hypocritical and will vote to raise your taxes at every chance I get.

[/quote]

You miss the issue.

The issue isn’t where we are spending the most money. I don’t disagree with you, we spend quite a bit on defense. Whether or not that is being spent wisely (I’m sure it all isn’t) is a matter of what policies you believe we should be pursuing.

The point stands, though, that all tax payers contribute to socialist programs in the US. Whether you pay $1 or $1 million dollars in taxes you are subsidizing socialism. The only items that take up more of our budget than defense are: Social Security and Health and Human Services.

As far as Iraq goes. it appears that we have already turned the corner there and it will soon be in our past. In fact, there is almost no talk of Iraq like there was even a year ago.

For all those who likened Iraq to VN, I would like them to consider what both candidates plan to do in Afghanistan. Both want to drastically escalate operations there. I expect that from McCain but BO talked of ending the war. It is very curious how one ends a war by pulling out and losing on one front while he is escalating involvement on another front.

Afghanistan is a place almost no one has been able to control. That is your quagmire. that is your new VN. Why continue to try to do something almost no one has been success doing.

Anyway back to the point.

What super rich are being bailed out?

Shareholders have been wiped out or close to it and if they are lucky their company will stay in business while they are only severely diluted.

The financial institutions are being stabilized for the good of the average citizen. The little guy who has saved his whole life doesn’t deserve to see the whole system collapse on him. The average person is paying their mortgage which they got honestly and saving their money or investing as they have been taught. Why would you want the financial system to collapse on them?

If the Fed let chaos rein those are the folks who would hurt the most. They are least likely to be able to withstand a severe shock or downturn. And letting confidence erode to the point of chaos still leaves the Fed or tax payers holding the bag so what is saved by not funding some kind of stabilization act?

You speak of the crooks on Wall Street. I am well aware of them. I had to deal daily with them for years. I know they exist and I have been hurt by them many times. I have no sympathy for them at all.

However, the real origin for this crisis arises not from the cesspool that is Wall Street but from the cesspool that is Congress and the policy of forcing large institutions to make loans to folks who normally wouldn’t have qualified for loans. It arises not from too little regulation but from to much regulation.

The Carter administration is the root of the problem. He administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. The Clinton administration did the worst damage though. Not only did he fan the flames of the dot.com boom he screwed things up by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. Clinton thus forced big institutions to give loans they didn’t want to give to suspect buyers. He also repealed restrictions on interstate banking, listed the CRA ratings received by the out-of-state bank as a consideration when determining whether to allow interstate branches.

If that wasn’t bad enough in 1999 Clinton signed into law an act that repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

Then in November 2000 Dem run and controlled Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families.”

These supposedly “smart” folks (Carter and Clinton) didn’t deregulate us into this problem they regulated us into this problem. They required big institutions to loan to folks that no one trusted would ever pay their mortgages in order to do business.

And now they and their cronys get off scott free.
Two of Bo’s crony’s most prominently Franklin Raines and Finance Chairman Barney Frank’s “boyfriend” are reeling in cash from their associations with Fannie. Dodd and BO are the two guys Fannie most targeted with donations. I learned long ago to follow the money and you’ll find the rat. The rats here are all Democrats.

Lastly, I’m concerned with what is best for this country. Giving handouts and creating dependencies isn’t helping anyone but the folks who profits off these dependencies. That would be the Dems. If they really wanted folks to prosper they would be advocating personal responsibility and not victimization.

[felix]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=felix]
We are all paying for those who don’t take personal responsibility for their lives.
[/quote]

I disagree. The main expenses are the massive bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War.

Unemployment and welfare makes up at most 11% of the national budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

The FY2008 budget is $2.9 trillion. That means that at most $319 billion per year is going to those folks who “don’t take personal responsibility for their lives”.

$319 billion pales in comparison to the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich. $11 trillion is 34 years of welfare spending.

Then there is the boondoggle of the Iraq War which could end up costing $3 trillion:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html

The Iraq War is costing us 10x as much as a year of welfare. Adding the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War brings the total to 44 years of welfare spending.

So what we are really paying for is a misguided war and a massive bailout for the super-rich. Welfare for poor people is teeny-tiny in comparison.

This is what annoys me about faux conservatives/capitalists like you. You constantly bemoan the cost of welfare when what is really dragging our economy down are the crooks on Wall Street and the Iraq War.

If you are truly concerned about welfare spending, then you should be 44 times as concerned about the bailout and the Iraq War. And yet, faux conservatives/capitalists like you never bring those expenses up. I find that to be incredibly hypocritical and will vote to raise your taxes at every chance I get.

[/quote]

You miss the issue.

The issue isn’t where we are spending the most money. I don’t disagree with you, we spend quite a bit on defense. Whether or not that is being spent wisely (I’m sure it all isn’t) is a matter of what policies you believe we should be pursuing.

The point stands, though, that all tax payers contribute to socialist programs in the US. Whether you pay $1 or $1 million dollars in taxes you are subsidizing socialism. The only items that take up more of our budget than defense are: Social Security and Health and Human Services.

As far as Iraq goes. it appears that we have already turned the corner there and it will soon be in our past. In fact, there is almost no talk of Iraq like there was even a year ago.

For all those who likened Iraq to VN, I would like them to consider what both candidates plan to do in Afghanistan. Both want to drastically escalate operations there. I expect that from McCain but BO talked of ending the war. It is very curious how one ends a war by pulling out and losing on one front while he is escalating involvement on another front.

Afghanistan is a place almost no one has been able to control. That is your quagmire. that is your new VN. Why continue to try to do something almost no one has been success doing.

Anyway back to the point.

What super rich are being bailed out?

Shareholders have been wiped out or close to it and if they are lucky their company will stay in business while they are only severely diluted.

The financial institutions are being stabilized for the good of the average citizen. The little guy who has saved his whole life doesn’t deserve to see the whole system collapse on him. The average person is paying their mortgage which they got honestly and saving their money or investing as they have been taught. Why would you want the financial system to collapse on them?

If the Fed let chaos rein those are the folks who would hurt the most. They are least likely to be able to withstand a severe shock or downturn. And letting confidence erode to the point of chaos still leaves the Fed or tax payers holding the bag so what is saved by not funding some kind of stabilization act?

You speak of the crooks on Wall Street. I am well aware of them. I had to deal daily with them for years. I know they exist and I have been hurt by them many times. I have no sympathy for them at all.

However, the real origin for this crisis arises not from the cesspool that is Wall Street but from the cesspool that is Congress and the policy of forcing large institutions to make loans to folks who normally wouldn’t have qualified for loans. It arises not from too little regulation but from to much regulation.

The Carter administration is the root of the problem. He administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. The Clinton administration did the worst damage though. Not only did he fan the flames of the dot.com boom he screwed things up by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. Clinton thus forced big institutions to give loans they didn’t want to give to suspect buyers. He also repealed restrictions on interstate banking, listed the CRA ratings received by the out-of-state bank as a consideration when determining whether to allow interstate branches.

If that wasn’t bad enough in 1999 Clinton signed into law an act that repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

Then in November 2000 Dem run and controlled Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families.”

These supposedly “smart” folks (Carter and Clinton) didn’t deregulate us into this problem they regulated us into this problem. They required big institutions to loan to folks that no one trusted would ever pay their mortgages in order to do business.

And now they and their cronys get off scott free.
Two of Bo’s crony’s most prominently Franklin Raines and Finance Chairman Barney Frank’s “boyfriend” are reeling in cash from their associations with Fannie. Dodd and BO are the two guys Fannie most targeted with donations. I learned long ago to follow the money and you’ll find the rat. The rats here are all Democrats.

Lastly, I’m concerned with what is best for this country. Giving handouts and creating dependencies isn’t helping anyone but the folks who profits off these dependencies. That would be the Dems. If they really wanted folks to prosper they would be advocating personal responsibility and not victimization.

[felix]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=felix]
We are all paying for those who don’t take personal responsibility for their lives.
[/quote]

I disagree. The main expenses are the massive bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War.

Unemployment and welfare makes up at most 11% of the national budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

The FY2008 budget is $2.9 trillion. That means that at most $319 billion per year is going to those folks who “don’t take personal responsibility for their lives”.

$319 billion pales in comparison to the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich. $11 trillion is 34 years of welfare spending.

Then there is the boondoggle of the Iraq War which could end up costing $3 trillion:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html

The Iraq War is costing us 10x as much as a year of welfare. Adding the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War brings the total to 44 years of welfare spending.

So what we are really paying for is a misguided war and a massive bailout for the super-rich. Welfare for poor people is teeny-tiny in comparison.

This is what annoys me about faux conservatives/capitalists like you. You constantly bemoan the cost of welfare when what is really dragging our economy down are the crooks on Wall Street and the Iraq War.

If you are truly concerned about welfare spending, then you should be 44 times as concerned about the bailout and the Iraq War. And yet, faux conservatives/capitalists like you never bring those expenses up. I find that to be incredibly hypocritical and will vote to raise your taxes at every chance I get.

[/quote]

You miss the issue.

The issue isn’t where we are spending the most money. I don’t disagree with you, we spend quite a bit on defense. Whether or not that is being spent wisely (I’m sure it all isn’t) is a matter of what policies you believe we should be pursuing.

The point stands, though, that all tax payers contribute to socialist programs in the US. Whether you pay $1 or $1 million dollars in taxes you are subsidizing socialism. The only items that take up more of our budget than defense are: Social Security and Health and Human Services.

As far as Iraq goes. it appears that we have already turned the corner there and it will soon be in our past. In fact, there is almost no talk of Iraq like there was even a year ago.

For all those who likened Iraq to VN, I would like them to consider what both candidates plan to do in Afghanistan. Both want to drastically escalate operations there. I expect that from McCain but BO talked of ending the war. It is very curious how one ends a war by pulling out and losing on one front while he is escalating involvement on another front.

Afghanistan is a place almost no one has been able to control. That is your quagmire. that is your new VN. Why continue to try to do something almost no one has been success doing.

Anyway back to the point.

What super rich are being bailed out?

Shareholders have been wiped out or close to it and if they are lucky their company will stay in business while they are only severely diluted.

The financial institutions are being stabilized for the good of the average citizen. The little guy who has saved his whole life doesn’t deserve to see the whole system collapse on him. The average person is paying their mortgage which they got honestly and saving their money or investing as they have been taught. Why would you want the financial system to collapse on them?

If the Fed let chaos rein those are the folks who would hurt the most. They are least likely to be able to withstand a severe shock or downturn. And letting confidence erode to the point of chaos still leaves the Fed or tax payers holding the bag so what is saved by not funding some kind of stabilization act?

You speak of the crooks on Wall Street. I am well aware of them. I had to deal daily with them for years. I know they exist and I have been hurt by them many times. I have no sympathy for them at all.

However, the real origin for this crisis arises not from the cesspool that is Wall Street but from the cesspool that is Congress and the policy of forcing large institutions to make loans to folks who normally wouldn’t have qualified for loans. It arises not from too little regulation but from to much regulation.

The Carter administration is the root of the problem. He administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. The Clinton administration did the worst damage though. Not only did he fan the flames of the dot.com boom he screwed things up by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. Clinton thus forced big institutions to give loans they didn’t want to give to suspect buyers. He also repealed restrictions on interstate banking, listed the CRA ratings received by the out-of-state bank as a consideration when determining whether to allow interstate branches.

If that wasn’t bad enough in 1999 Clinton signed into law an act that repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

Then in November 2000 Dem run and controlled Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families.”

These supposedly “smart” folks (Carter and Clinton) didn’t deregulate us into this problem they regulated us into this problem. They required big institutions to loan to folks that no one trusted would ever pay their mortgages in order to do business.

And now they and their cronys get off scott free.
Two of Bo’s crony’s most prominently Franklin Raines and Finance Chairman Barney Frank’s “boyfriend” are reeling in cash from their associations with Fannie. Dodd and BO are the two guys Fannie most targeted with donations. I learned long ago to follow the money and you’ll find the rat. The rats here are all Democrats.

Lastly, I’m concerned with what is best for this country. Giving handouts and creating dependencies isn’t helping anyone but the folks who profits off these dependencies. That would be the Dems. If they really wanted folks to prosper they would be advocating personal responsibility and not victimization.

[felix]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=felix]
We are all paying for those who don’t take personal responsibility for their lives.
[/quote]

I disagree. The main expenses are the massive bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War.

Unemployment and welfare makes up at most 11% of the national budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

The FY2008 budget is $2.9 trillion. That means that at most $319 billion per year is going to those folks who “don’t take personal responsibility for their lives”.

$319 billion pales in comparison to the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich. $11 trillion is 34 years of welfare spending.

Then there is the boondoggle of the Iraq War which could end up costing $3 trillion:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html

The Iraq War is costing us 10x as much as a year of welfare. Adding the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War brings the total to 44 years of welfare spending.

So what we are really paying for is a misguided war and a massive bailout for the super-rich. Welfare for poor people is teeny-tiny in comparison.

This is what annoys me about faux conservatives/capitalists like you. You constantly bemoan the cost of welfare when what is really dragging our economy down are the crooks on Wall Street and the Iraq War.

If you are truly concerned about welfare spending, then you should be 44 times as concerned about the bailout and the Iraq War. And yet, faux conservatives/capitalists like you never bring those expenses up. I find that to be incredibly hypocritical and will vote to raise your taxes at every chance I get.

[/quote]

You miss the issue.

The issue isn’t where we are spending the most money. I don’t disagree with you, we spend quite a bit on defense. Whether or not that is being spent wisely (I’m sure it all isn’t) is a matter of what policies you believe we should be pursuing.

The point stands, though, that all tax payers contribute to socialist programs in the US. Whether you pay $1 or $1 million dollars in taxes you are subsidizing socialism. The only items that take up more of our budget than defense are: Social Security and Health and Human Services.

As far as Iraq goes. it appears that we have already turned the corner there and it will soon be in our past. In fact, there is almost no talk of Iraq like there was even a year ago.

For all those who likened Iraq to VN, I would like them to consider what both candidates plan to do in Afghanistan. Both want to drastically escalate operations there. I expect that from McCain but BO talked of ending the war. It is very curious how one ends a war by pulling out and losing on one front while he is escalating involvement on another front.

Afghanistan is a place almost no one has been able to control. That is your quagmire. that is your new VN. Why continue to try to do something almost no one has been success doing.

Anyway back to the point.

What super rich are being bailed out?

Shareholders have been wiped out or close to it and if they are lucky their company will stay in business while they are only severely diluted.

The financial institutions are being stabilized for the good of the average citizen. The little guy who has saved his whole life doesn’t deserve to see the whole system collapse on him. The average person is paying their mortgage which they got honestly and saving their money or investing as they have been taught. Why would you want the financial system to collapse on them?

If the Fed let chaos rein those are the folks who would hurt the most. They are least likely to be able to withstand a severe shock or downturn. And letting confidence erode to the point of chaos still leaves the Fed or tax payers holding the bag so what is saved by not funding some kind of stabilization act?

You speak of the crooks on Wall Street. I am well aware of them. I had to deal daily with them for years. I know they exist and I have been hurt by them many times. I have no sympathy for them at all.

However, the real origin for this crisis arises not from the cesspool that is Wall Street but from the cesspool that is Congress and the policy of forcing large institutions to make loans to folks who normally wouldn’t have qualified for loans. It arises not from too little regulation but from to much regulation.

The Carter administration is the root of the problem. He administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. The Clinton administration did the worst damage though. Not only did he fan the flames of the dot.com boom he screwed things up by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. Clinton thus forced big institutions to give loans they didn’t want to give to suspect buyers. He also repealed restrictions on interstate banking, listed the CRA ratings received by the out-of-state bank as a consideration when determining whether to allow interstate branches.

If that wasn’t bad enough in 1999 Clinton signed into law an act that repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

Then in November 2000 Dem run and controlled Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families.”

These supposedly “smart” folks (Carter and Clinton) didn’t deregulate us into this problem they regulated us into this problem. They required big institutions to loan to folks that no one trusted would ever pay their mortgages in order to do business.

And now they and their cronys get off scott free.
Two of Bo’s crony’s most prominently Franklin Raines and Finance Chairman Barney Frank’s “boyfriend” are reeling in cash from their associations with Fannie. Dodd and BO are the two guys Fannie most targeted with donations. I learned long ago to follow the money and you’ll find the rat. The rats here are all Democrats.

Lastly, I’m concerned with what is best for this country. Giving handouts and creating dependencies isn’t helping anyone but the folks who profits off these dependencies. That would be the Dems. If they really wanted folks to prosper they would be advocating personal responsibility and not victimization.

[felix]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=felix]
We are all paying for those who don’t take personal responsibility for their lives.
[/quote]

I disagree. The main expenses are the massive bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War.

Unemployment and welfare makes up at most 11% of the national budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

The FY2008 budget is $2.9 trillion. That means that at most $319 billion per year is going to those folks who “don’t take personal responsibility for their lives”.

$319 billion pales in comparison to the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich. $11 trillion is 34 years of welfare spending.

Then there is the boondoggle of the Iraq War which could end up costing $3 trillion:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html

The Iraq War is costing us 10x as much as a year of welfare. Adding the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War brings the total to 44 years of welfare spending.

So what we are really paying for is a misguided war and a massive bailout for the super-rich. Welfare for poor people is teeny-tiny in comparison.

This is what annoys me about faux conservatives/capitalists like you. You constantly bemoan the cost of welfare when what is really dragging our economy down are the crooks on Wall Street and the Iraq War.

If you are truly concerned about welfare spending, then you should be 44 times as concerned about the bailout and the Iraq War. And yet, faux conservatives/capitalists like you never bring those expenses up. I find that to be incredibly hypocritical and will vote to raise your taxes at every chance I get.

[/quote]

You miss the issue.

The issue isn’t where we are spending the most money. I don’t disagree with you, we spend quite a bit on defense. Whether or not that is being spent wisely (I’m sure it all isn’t) is a matter of what policies you believe we should be pursuing.

The point stands, though, that all tax payers contribute to socialist programs in the US. Whether you pay $1 or $1 million dollars in taxes you are subsidizing socialism. The only items that take up more of our budget than defense are: Social Security and Health and Human Services.

As far as Iraq goes. it appears that we have already turned the corner there and it will soon be in our past. In fact, there is almost no talk of Iraq like there was even a year ago.

For all those who likened Iraq to VN, I would like them to consider what both candidates plan to do in Afghanistan. Both want to drastically escalate operations there. I expect that from McCain but BO talked of ending the war. It is very curious how one ends a war by pulling out and losing on one front while he is escalating involvement on another front.

Afghanistan is a place almost no one has been able to control. That is your quagmire. that is your new VN. Why continue to try to do something almost no one has been success doing.

Anyway back to the point.

What super rich are being bailed out?

Shareholders have been wiped out or close to it and if they are lucky their company will stay in business while they are only severely diluted.

The financial institutions are being stabilized for the good of the average citizen. The little guy who has saved his whole life doesn’t deserve to see the whole system collapse on him. The average person is paying their mortgage which they got honestly and saving their money or investing as they have been taught. Why would you want the financial system to collapse on them?

If the Fed let chaos rein those are the folks who would hurt the most. They are least likely to be able to withstand a severe shock or downturn. And letting confidence erode to the point of chaos still leaves the Fed or tax payers holding the bag so what is saved by not funding some kind of stabilization act?

You speak of the crooks on Wall Street. I am well aware of them. I had to deal daily with them for years. I know they exist and I have been hurt by them many times. I have no sympathy for them at all.

However, the real origin for this crisis arises not from the cesspool that is Wall Street but from the cesspool that is Congress and the policy of forcing large institutions to make loans to folks who normally wouldn’t have qualified for loans. It arises not from too little regulation but from to much regulation.

The Carter administration is the root of the problem. He administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. The Clinton administration did the worst damage though. Not only did he fan the flames of the dot.com boom he screwed things up by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. Clinton thus forced big institutions to give loans they didn’t want to give to suspect buyers. He also repealed restrictions on interstate banking, listed the CRA ratings received by the out-of-state bank as a consideration when determining whether to allow interstate branches.

If that wasn’t bad enough in 1999 Clinton signed into law an act that repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

Then in November 2000 Dem run and controlled Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families.”

These supposedly “smart” folks (Carter and Clinton) didn’t deregulate us into this problem they regulated us into this problem. They required big institutions to loan to folks that no one trusted would ever pay their mortgages in order to do business.

And now they and their cronys get off scott free.
Two of Bo’s crony’s most prominently Franklin Raines and Finance Chairman Barney Frank’s “boyfriend” are reeling in cash from their associations with Fannie. Dodd and BO are the two guys Fannie most targeted with donations. I learned long ago to follow the money and you’ll find the rat. The rats here are all Democrats.

Lastly, I’m concerned with what is best for this country. Giving handouts and creating dependencies isn’t helping anyone but the folks who profits off these dependencies. That would be the Dems. If they really wanted folks to prosper they would be advocating personal responsibility and not victimization.

[Author]

Posts