DescentBB

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:40 pm**

This was the first presidential debate for me so maybe I have some learning to do. You may be right Snoopy but I'm only giving in on the technical aspect.

I still think Obama deserved a little more respect from McCain.

Bee

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:33 pm**

The economic section pretty much broke down how you'd expect it to right/left. McCain is for smaller government, lower taxes, and attracting business; Obama is for progressive taxes, regulating business, and expanding the benefits govenment offers people. That's pretty much the definition of the right/left breakdown on economic issues.

Obama was the clear winner for presentation on the economic section. I'm naturally aligned with McCain's ideas, but he presented them poorly, and didn't handle the questions well. He spent a lot of time repeating his talking points, and not answering the questions. \"What would you do about the current economic crisis?\" \"Well, I'd lower taxes and root out corruption.\" \"Okay, but how does that affect your priorities?\" \"Well, I'd lower taxes and root out corruption.\"

It kind of concerned me, really. I left the debate persuaded that he held conservative values, but not that he had a clear economic stance or any depth of understanding. That he couldn't articulate a position well in response to questions is a sign, to me, that he lacks one. He says small government, and I think he means it, but I heard more \"eliminate corruption\" than \"enact libertarian policies\". Hmm. Hope he gets a good advisor on that.

I thought Obama's presentation in the economic section was much better. I found his ideas wrongheaded (expanding government services, to relieve people of the burden of buying them, to give them more money? As an economic policy? Really?!), but they were presented in an appealing way.

I particularly disliked Obama's approach to taxes & the rich. The bottom 95% voting to milk the top 5% is exactly why pure democracy is not a good idea. Appealing to the base greed of the majority is a nasty approach to politics, and betrays an unflattering view of the public--basically, that we think in terms of class warfare, not \"anyone can grow up to do anything, and good for you if you succeed\". When Obama referred to the rich as folks who (going from memory here) \"don't need the money and didn't ask for a tax cut\", that sure rubbed me the wrong way. The money you earn is yours because you earned it, not because the government has decided you need it enough to keep it. That's, like, the essential foundation of capitalism, right? That sort of sentiment--that the rich don't deserve their money, and it's okay if the rest of us take it--is anathema to my outlook on the world. But hey, I'm conservative, what would you expect me to say?

Still, I'd expect Obama's message to be popular, and it was timely. The world's a nasty place for the poor normal people right now, he'll make sure the government's here for you.

McCain did much better in the foreign policy section, going to pains to remind us that he's \"been there and done that\". I found many of his immediate answers to be well-articulated and solid.

Of particular amusement to me was the section of the debate on Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, in which Obama appeared very ready to make threatening military gestures, while McCain was all, \"Oh, you can't just threaten and invade like that. Blah blah hearts and minds blah blah diplomacy blah blah economic sanctions, blah blah blah.\" Felt like I was in weirdo-crazy-land.

Also amusing to me was Obama's notion of getting Russia and China to participate in economic sanctions against Iran. I don't know, maybe he knows something I don't know . . . but my immediate thought was, sure, that's worth trying, but GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

McCain evidenced that he certainly wasn't above making cutting remarks or taking cheap shots. He couldn't stop talking about Obama's record, and how poorly he though Obama had performed his political duties to date. A lot of the debate degenerated into bickering about who said what when and what they meant by it, and while both candidates did some of it, it was pretty much instigated and sustained by McCain. That's not good. Presidents are supposed to take the high road, be above the fray, etc. You're supposed to save the nasty stuff for the veep debate. But I guess it goes along with McCain's reputation as an iconoclast.

Other random reactions . . .

I was delighted to see both candidates in favor of nuclear power. I haven't been paying attention to politics much over the last three or four years . . . and somehow while I wasn't looking, this become an acceptable thing to talk about? Like, so acceptable that both candidates are for it?? WOOT. I am endlessly frustrated with our national technophobia. Welcome to the twentieth century, at long last. McCain came out swinging hard for it, too. WOOT WOOT.

And I had mixed feelings about McCain's mentioning getting rid of Cost-Plus-Perentage-Of-Cost defense contracts. I already knew he had ideas on how to reform defense spending that scare the industry. That's probably a good thing. Yeah, cost plus contracts are bad; they're illegal for a reason, as they provide a perverse incentive to contractors to raise the cost of the product, or at least don't provide much incentive to keep it down. But on the other hand, a fixed cost contract is really hard to manage for an engineering project of any scale. I mean, has any large engineering project ever gotten done on time, on cost? Like, ever? Commercial, defense, government, or otherwise? It's rare and lucky. Ah well. Guess that's our problem. I can appreciate the attempt at reform. It's probably a good idea. I just have some bad memories of the conversations between Australia and Boeing on one project I worked on . . . \"We can't pay you more because it's illegal. But, we really need that plane. You're still building it for us, in spite of the fact that you're losing money on it, right? Pretty please?\" Nasty situation.

I'd probably call it a win for Obama, all things considered. I liked McCain's content okay, and once I'd decoded what Obama was saying, I really disliked it. But that's just my natural alignment. I felt McCain made a lot of tactical errors in presentation, and that Obama was a lot more appealing.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:09 pm**

That was a good write-up, Drakona. Despite the fact that I couldn't disagree more on taxing the wealthy, I appreciate hearing the voice of a conservative who takes the time to seriously evaluate all sides of the issue.

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:19 am**

the one serious flaw with Obama's "Taxing the rich plan" will be its attack on small business. "most" of the taxing will fall on the shoulders of small business owners, they do not get taxed on a corporate level like large business's they get taxed just like you and I. they are going to get hammered with his plan and it will effect jobs.

JFK wrote:you cannot tax a nation into prosperity

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:49 am**

CUDA wrote:the one serious flaw with Obama's "Taxing the rich plan" will be its attack on small business. "most" of the taxing will fall on the shoulders of small business owners, they do not get taxed on a corporate level like large business's they get taxed just like you and I. they are going to get hammered with his plan and it will effect jobs.

JFK wrote:you cannot tax a nation into prosperity

Yea I noticed part of his plan he mentioned the other day at one of his campaign stops was his claim to help small business he would exempt them from capital gains tax...WTF?
I have a small business and never have I paid capital gains tax because as a small business I don't have thousands of dollars to take out of my account to invest in something that ends up creating a capital gain tax liability! Only big business has that kind of liquidity and they wont be exempt under his plan so basically he is not really offering anything with that part of his plan.

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:11 am**

On a smaller note, when a mother gave Obama a soldier's bracelet (with her sons name on it) she expressly ask for Obama not to use it in any political manner. Alas, Obama could not respect her request. Wonder what else he will not respect if he is elected.

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:50 am**

woodchip wrote:On a smaller note, when a mother gave Obama a soldier's bracelet (with her sons name on it) she expressly ask for Obama not to use it in any political manner. Alas, Obama could not respect her request. Wonder what else he will not respect if he is elected.

Let me get this straight... She gave the democratic nominee for president,...Of the United States of America, a bracelet to honor her son's death in war and asked him not to use it in a political manner? I don't think that is the claim Obama made. Obama's version of the exchange was that he not let any other mother go through what she is going through with the death of her son. She absolutely wanted it used in a political manner.

Get real.

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:02 pm**

What I read was the mother wanted Obama to have the bracelet to know her sons name and asked him to keep other mothers from losing their child. She didn't want him to use it as a prop but she didn't, at that time ask him to keep it as a private thing either...
He of course started using it on the campaign trail.

Later, after receiving a lot of negative feedback from other military families either directly or in local media because they said she was a traitor to her sons effort and other soldiers by giving it to a democrat to use that way she requested he not use it on the campaign trail because it was causing grief for herself and others.

She did say that she was honored that he used it in the debate the way he did because she was happy that he could present the other side of the issue from a mother who wants the war to end. She was thrilled that he remembered her sons name.

My take on it is Obama didn't do anything wrong in the debate by mentioning it, he obviously understood the context in which she asked him to stop using it and understood that in that particular case she wouldn't mind him offering her view on the subject.

I think they both ought to stop trying to attach themselves to individual soldiers by name and simply say \"I have heard from families/soldiers/etc. and they tell me....\"
because it is exploitation and self aggrandizement that results in the attempt to make themselves part of the family.

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:33 pm**

No matter what was said though Will, she intended it to be used in a political manner, either to serve her interest in ending the war, or helping Obama win the election (or both). No sane person would think she was trying to have a private exchange with a presidential candidate!

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:46 pm**

Drakona wrote:And I had mixed feelings about McCain's mentioning getting rid of Cost-Plus-Perentage-Of-Cost defense contracts. I already knew he had ideas on how to reform defense spending that scare the industry. That's probably a good thing. Yeah, cost plus contracts are bad; they're illegal for a reason, as they provide a perverse incentive to contractors to raise the cost of the product, or at least don't provide much incentive to keep it down. But on the other hand, a fixed cost contract is really hard to manage for an engineering project of any scale. I mean, has any large engineering project ever gotten done on time, on cost? Like, ever? Commercial, defense, government, or otherwise? It's rare and lucky. Ah well. Guess that's our problem.

I work for a sub-contractor of the big giants that get all of these government contracts. Most of the time, they turn around an get firm-fixed contracts with their subs, so I'm not loosing too much sleep over it. It'll make them be more careful in the bidding process. The way it works for us is that the job ends up "over budget" and "late but not really" in the form of contract mods to add this and that that wasn't covered in the original contract.... "Oh, you mean you wanted a mouse with your computer??? That's gonna cost you." (My company isn't that blatant about it, but you get the point.)

The idea of small business owners getting taxed more bothers me. Is the democratic party supposed to be anti-big-corporation? It seems like increasing taxes on small business owners just plays into big corps hands.... unless you increase taxes on all businesses, which will just drive more jobs overseas.

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:04 pm**

Hostile wrote:No matter what was said though Will, she intended it to be used in a political manner, either to serve her interest in ending the war, or helping Obama win the election (or both). No sane person would think she was trying to have a private exchange with a presidential candidate!

Yea, that's pretty much it, she obviously wanted to promote her end the war message and she didn't ask for him to stop because he used it, but rather because his using it caused a problem for her.

I just don't think Obama did anything wrong relative to their arrangement/conversation...sure he's exploiting the soldiers death but no different than McCain really.

I don't know for sure, I've never been a soldier and especially one who had fellow soldier die in war but I think if I had I would be turned off at either side using my buddies name that way. It's not too much different than conveniently having your press conference shot with a burial at Arlington going on in the background.
Maybe if they knew the soldier before he died and had talked to him knowing how he felt about the politics of the war then I think it would be OK but using a grieving parents 'permission' to exploit the death of a soldier you never even heard of before he died is too gratuitous and blatant for my taste. Wear the bracelet, sure, but show some respect for all soldiers by not presuming to know he'd like you to cross that line and make his memory a prop for the campaign trail.

Flash the bracelet to the camera and say "This was given to me by a mother of a fallen soldier who said..." is good enough to make your point.

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:16 pm**

snoopy wrote: The way it works for us is that the job ends up "over budget" and "late but not really" in the form of contract mods to add this and that that wasn't covered in the original contract.... "Oh, you mean you wanted a mouse with your computer??? That's gonna cost you." (My company isn't that blatant about it, but you get the point.)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that sort of thing is what he was talking about, since cost plus is already illegal (um, I think. IANAL. I do know that nobody does it that way anymore). You start with a fixed price contract. And then the construction costs way, way more than anyone ever thought it would, because--let's face it--that's the nature of engineering projects in general. The company doesn't want to build it at that price because they'd lose money, and the government (heh, or prime in your case) says, "Well . . . it would still be worth it to us at a slightly higher price. We really need that thing, and certainly aren't willing to just scrap the project over a slight cost increase." Both parties still want to do it, so they find a way to renegotiate the contract over some obscure thing. Iterate a few times, and what you really have is a de facto cost plus contract.

I don't see any terribly easy solutions to the situation. On the one hand, I think it'd be healthy for defense contractors to feel more competitive pressure. Sure, they compete with each other during bidding and so forth, and that's good as far as it goes. I think DARPA works well, and the proposal process works well. Those definitely improve competitiveness and reduce risk and cost. But once someone's won a project, it's a degenerate economic case: they're the only ones that can sell that thing to the government, and the government can only buy it from them. Yeah, it's not totally that simple, but that's a fair characterization. If you try to switch contractors, transitional costs are high. There are ways to mitigate some of that, but you can only do so much. By and large, you're just stuck with each other.

It'd be unfair to say it's a case of contractors gouging the government. There's certainly truth to saying they're not as efficient as they would be if properly motivated by the realistic chance of failure. But there's just as much truth to saying that estimating engineering costs is just plain hard. Heck, estimating much simpler costs is hard. Computer repair people and car mechanics give estimates for how much they think a job will cost, and they're usually close. But sometimes they're really, really not. It's not that they;re trying to cheat their customers, it's that they just can't anticipate everything. If they had to fold all that risk into an up-front cost they couldn't later change, it'd be a lot higher. Engineering projects are that way times a billion. I mean, what do they always say about building software? It takes twice long as you think it will, even when you account for the fact that it'll take twice as long as you think it will.

I'm not really sure what to do about it. Perhaps a scorched earth no-kidding fixed price only policy would get some discipline in the industry. Maybe we could be a lot better at estimating. Maybe we could do more engineering during proposals and get paid for it--that'd reduce risk. It's worth trying. Part of me is glad to see an effort, but part of me suspects it'd result in a lot of projects getting cancelled. Question is, when things overrun, is the military really willing to cancel the whole thing? They'd have to, a time or two, on things that they really need and that they really think *are* worth the higher price. Otherwise you'd be missing the threat of failure that you need to introduce the kind of discipline you're looking for.

To get back on topic, though, it *is* the right issue to mention. Bringing it up shows an awareness of the field, and I'm glad to see that.

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:45 am**

Drakona, I agree with your first post despite being aligned differently from you.

I think part of the economic problem is the huge unbalance between the ultra rich and everyone else. I'm talking about billionaires and multi-hundred millionaires. The tax codes are written so that normal people can start up businesses and invest (real estate holds most benefits IMO) while moving up the ladder to wealth. That's great, as a small business owner I'm definitely in favor. On the other hand, handing over billion dollar breaks to some of the biggest, most powerful companies in the world screams corruption to me. I don't think Obama wants to redistribute the wealth, he just wants to stop the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and all the other lobbyists the Republicans have had on their side for too long.

I like Obama's policy because it tackles the problem at the roots, and I think that's the only way we're going to overcome the hurdles of the future. I believe him cause he hasn't taken lobbyist dollars. I'm also positive that he has the best interest of this country in mind. McCain, on the other hand, seems like he may be in it for the power and glory of being president of the United States. Only the future will tell.

On Thursday we'll get to see how a clueless candidate debates a shark.

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:54 am**

do you people really think that even if they raise taxes to a 100% rate on the \"rich\" that they will not find a way to use loopholes in the laws or juggle the money at their business to not pay taxes? the rich can afford ways around paying taxes. this will hurt the small business owner more than anyone. he will make just enough to get hammered by this tax increase and he cannot afford a way around it.

Flat tax it. no exceptions, no loopholes everyone pays 10% regardless if you make 10k a year or 10 mill a year

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:36 am**

CUDA wrote:Flat tax it. no exceptions, no loopholes everyone pays 10% regardless if you make 10k a year or 10 mill a year

Income tax is the root of all evil, and income tax witholding is evil's bastard child. We have a consumption economy. We should have a consumption tax system. One idea for that is the Fairtax.

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:10 pm**

Hostile wrote:
CUDA wrote:Flat tax it. no exceptions, no loopholes everyone pays 10% regardless if you make 10k a year or 10 mill a year
Income tax is the root of all evil, and income tax witholding is evil's bastard child. We have a consumption economy. We should have a consumption tax system. One idea for that is the Fairtax.

FairTax is damn good because it takes away so many avenues for congressional corruption. It's like a better tax system with a built in ethics reform!

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:56 pm**

Here's the problem with raising the tax on the \"Rich\".
First off define rich. Over 250,000.00 a year? I digress.
The problem is much like the scheme back in the 90's where luxury items were decided by the powers that be, as a good way to increase the federal govt's. tax coffers. Sounded good to the masses too. So what if the rich bastages had to pay a huge tax on things like yachts and expensive condo's. Things didn't quite work out like planned though. The well to do simply stopped buying luxury items. It was when the news storys of how manufacturers like Chris Craft had to lay off workers because they weren't selling enough yachts that all of a sudden light bulbs started popping over peoples head that this grand plan, tax the luxury making man was perchance not a good idea.
So you will find that by taxing the \"Rich\", the Rich may stop buying a lot of frivolous items. Items made by American workers and yes even \"gasp\" union workers. Maybe instead of buying a new Caddy every year, now the rich will hold on to it another year. Or a well to do couple that might of been looking to buy a nice new motorhome to go traveling in, might not do so as the extra tax dollars taken out of their income puts the motor home out of reach.
I suggest one starts looking at the results of a legislative action instead of joining in the class warfare scheme the Dems. want to stir up and getting all frenzy'd up in the emotional elements.

Posted: **Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:26 pm**

Post debate polls are in....

Code: Select all

RCP National Average	48.9	43.6	     Obama +5.3
Favorable Ratings	+19.4	+11.6	     Obama +7.8
Intrade Market Odds	64.2	35.4	-

Electoral College	Obama	McCain     	Spread
RCP Electoral Count	259	163	         Obama +96
No Toss Up States	353	185	           Obama +168

Battleground States	Obama	McCain	Spread
Colorado	        50.0	45.0	                Obama +5.0
Ohio	                48.0	46.0	              Obama +2.0
Florida	                48.6	45.6	           Obama +3.0
Pennsylvania	        49.6	42.0             Obama +7.6
Missouri	        46.8	48.5	                 McCain +1.7
Virginia	        48.8	46.3	                  Obama +2.5

www.realclearpolitics.com

OUCH!

Yeah, it probably has more to do with the financial thing being pinned on the republicans. But I think McCain suspending his campaign, and saying he wouldn't debate on Friday if its not passed, then debating anyway, then having it still not pass come monday....sure in hell didn't help. People want a president who can multitask.

Still a long road for McCain to work with, but he has to put the breaks on this somehow.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:45 am**

Lately I've seen stuff bashing on Obama's sponsorship and support, and more on how he hasn't done anything. Then again, I was watching something by this Jewish guy Mason on youtube... not sure if I should pay him much attention.

15 hours and 6 mins left till the VP Debate!!! haha can't wait to see how this shapes up.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:44 am**

It's tightening up. If Palin gives McCain another bounce he'll end up a few points ahead...

Gallup Poll

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:51 am**

I could also foresee record lows on the Republican side for the next week or so. I know some Republicans that feel angry and frustrated right now.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:19 am**

They have a right to be. Almost half of our country thinks that socialism is the \"change that America needs.\"

I'm beginning to think that the brain-washing of the Left has been having a subtle influence on open-minded conservatives.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:26 am**

ST wrote:I'm beginning to think that the brain-washing of the Left has been having a subtle influence on open-minded conservatives

W00T!

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:19 pm**

That’s the problem with the religion of the left (socialism) they think because they like it and it gives them comfort, that everyone else shoud embrace it as well. (sorta like other religions)

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:24 pm**

I'll be making a thread (or two) in the near future to discuss this \"socialism\" that all the right wing Republicans are talking about. I was also thinking of going on a rant about \"experience\". Stay tuned.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:28 pm**

As opposed to the Left-wing Republicans that are also voting for Obama? ;P

By the way, I'm more of a conservative than a Republican. I have no loyalty to Republicans, but I will support their conservative stances.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:29 pm**

Same here.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:17 pm**

Political tests place me in the center of the Libertarian group. However, I registered Republican two years ago. I do plan to change my registered party.

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:01 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:It's tightening up. If Palin gives McCain another bounce he'll end up a few points ahead...

Gallup Poll

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:21 pm**

Who are these nuts that participate in polls on a daily basis? ;P

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:20 pm**

Gooberman wrote:
ST wrote:I'm beginning to think that the brain-washing of the Left has been having a subtle influence on open-minded conservatives
W00T!

Woot my ass. Take a close hard look at the DJ. It is in freefall. If you think for a moment the socialist left is going to save you, think again. The left has control of the banking regulations for 2 years and when McCain brought up legislation to add regulations Barney Frank just poohed poohed the idea. Perhaps because his gay lover was working for Fanny Mae, Frank didn't want him hurt. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid knew perfectly well what was looming and did zilch to prevent it. Bush was just a tool to deflect criticism from the inept way the congressional and senate leadership was handling the economy.
The Democratic leadership loves the economic freefall because it will generate more socialist and voters that will turn to the govt. for help and thus vote more socialists in.
So yeah "woot" Goob. See if you are saying that a short time from now when we enter another world wide depression. Hope you have some money set aside.

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:27 pm**

As to polling, this from Zogby:

Three Day Tracking Poll

...........Obama......McCain......Others/Not sure
10-8.....47.8......44.2........8.0

10-7.....47.1%......45.2%......7.7%

10-6....47.7%......45.3%......7.0%

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:43 pm**

here's a link to realclearpolitics poll site, giving you a nice sample of the numbers from prominent polls.Obama's advantage seems to be much clearer on the Electoral Map.

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:59 pm**

Woodchip,

I will be voting for Obama, and the rest of my ballot will consist of voting all the incumbents that I can out! I think all of them need to be flushed just to send a warning to the next generation. We have to many \"popular\"/\"Joe six-pack\" people in congress and not enough smart ones!

But, do you honestly think Barney Frank could of called all the networks and received an hour of prime time to warn the American people? And if he was able, do you think they would of even paid attention? 99% of Americans couldn't of even told you who the hell he was 3 months ago.

But Bush could have. He is our president. He is my president, he is your president. If we are heading towards a crisis he is the one with the power to let us know so it doesn't get this bad! People call this the economic 9/11, but that is a horrible analogy. We didn't just wake up one morning and have this mess happen. It's been happening!

I couldn't care less what happens to Barney Frank, thrown out of office, jailed, hung, I just don't care ---- but he doesn't have 1/100,000th of the power as the President of the United States.

Listen to one of your own:

Bill O'reilly

(I think that is the right link, on a 64-bit Ubuntu w/o flash)

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:49 pm**

Gooberman wrote:....If we are heading towards a crisis he is the one with the power to let us know so it doesn't get this bad! People call this the economic 9/11, but that is a horrible analogy. We didn't just wake up one morning and have this mess happen. It's been happening!....

Yea it's been happening for a long time and Bush and his treasury secratary and other republican congressmen tried something like 20 different times and ways to get the democrats to vote for fixing it and they shot it down every time in favor of protecting their personal profit and campaign donations instead of protecting us!!
And you respond to that by saying Bush is at fault for not magically implanting integrity in the democrats! You have to be kidding Gooberman! That is the biggest bunch of partisan rationalization I've seen since the National Organization of Women excused Clinton's workplace sexual harassment as merely consensual sex and none of anyone's business!!!

I can see it now two years ago Bush calls a press confrence and says Frank and Pelosi et al are blocking the fix for impending financial crisis and you are going to do what?!? Write your representative and demand he vote with Bush?!? You wouldn't have done that and you know it!! You'd be ridiculing him for trying to make political points or for trying to kick black people out of houses they have a right to own!!
Go wipe the Kool-Aid off your chin!

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:57 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:Yea it's been happening for a long time and Bush and his treasury secratary and other republican congressmen tried something like 20 different times and ways to get the democrats to vote for fixing it and they shot it down every time in favor of protecting their personal profit and campaign donations instead of protecting us!!

Would love to read up on this, do you have a good link?

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:11 pm**

Read the whole damn post Will instead of looking for segments you can copy/paste and rant on.

I thought saying that all of them need to get voted out and I wouldn't care if one of them was executed was pretty strong language to show my discontent with my parties involvement, but amazingly you missed that point. So please provide me feedback on the language I can use to better get my points into your head.

And if you don't concede that Bush is more powerful then any of them to stop a national crisis of this magnitude, then you are off the deep end.

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:14 pm**

Pandora wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Yea it's been happening for a long time and Bush and his treasury secratary and other republican congressmen tried something like 20 different times and ways to get the democrats to vote for fixing it and they shot it down every time in favor of protecting their personal profit and campaign donations instead of protecting us!!
Would love to read up on this, do you have a good link?

Here's a video collection of a hearing in congress where the democrats try to bully a regulator who is there to call attention to the problem. They call him a racist and a partisan etc. They lie and tell us everything is fine etc.
Click here to see the democrats stopping the regulation process cold in it's tracks! You tell me does it look like republican or democrats killing the regulation and stifling the warnings about Freddie and Fannie?!?

And here is an article from 2003 about one of Bush's many attempts to do something about it. I believe even President Clinton is on record saying that he and the republicans tried to stop it but the democrats killed it!!
So tell me folks, where the hell is our free press?!? Oh, that's right! They took the year off to go work on Obama's campaign!! I guess we'll have to hope they go back to doing their job after Obama is done being their guy in the Whitehouse!!
If you really want more proof Bush tried and that McCain tried you can find it....

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:23 pm**

Gooberman wrote:Read the whole damn post Will instead of looking for segments you can copy/paste and rant on.

I thought saying that all of them need to get voted out and I wouldn't care if one of them was executed was pretty strong language to show my discontent with my parties involvement, but amazingly you missed that point. So please provide me feedback on the language I can use to better get my points into your head.

And if you don't concede that Bush is more powerful then any of them to stop a national crisis of this magnitude, then you are off the deep end.

You don't plan on voting Obama out though do you? He was in on that mess too! He took more in 3 years from Fannie Mae than McCain or any other republican in all their years! He had the top two thieving executives from Fannie working with him in his campaign! He said the subprime set up was a good thing.
As for Bush being able to get democrats to cause their representatives to change their ways...I stand by my conclusion. He is a hated lame duck President and you know damn well you wouldn't have done anything to help him fight against the democrats and neither would any other democrat voters! And that is the only "power" he could have to get it done without them going along! What else could he do? He doesn't have any authority to make them vote differently.

As to your saying vote the rest out, well that's good but it's selective outrage because as I said because Obama benefited from his Fannie Mae connections and refused to do anything just like the incumbents who you say should be voted out....

Posted: **Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:23 pm**

Kinda reminds me of all the outrage in the last election over voting out all the war mongers that voted for the war, only problem is they missed all the Democrats that voted for it as well, such as Hillary.

Funny huh…

DescentBB

First Debate - Who Won?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: