http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html
Do you ever want the conservative candidate to win...just to get the media to look like jackasses?
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
McCain Takes it to Frank and Dodd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5kv1GZFgj8
In addition...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfPMa3lONU
Just for fun lol. I am not quite sure why Frank takes credit for the regulation...it clearly was ineffective. Everyone dropped the ball in terms of regulating this mess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6VzwIn2Nsg
This link backs up my last post.
From way back in the past...totally irrelevant to any present day discussion...but both of these links give me chills...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiSwqaQ4VbA
Obama's best moment...about 3:20 in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFxNvBAaBuA&feature=related
In addition...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfPMa3lONU
Just for fun lol. I am not quite sure why Frank takes credit for the regulation...it clearly was ineffective. Everyone dropped the ball in terms of regulating this mess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6VzwIn2Nsg
This link backs up my last post.
From way back in the past...totally irrelevant to any present day discussion...but both of these links give me chills...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiSwqaQ4VbA
Obama's best moment...about 3:20 in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFxNvBAaBuA&feature=related
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Change I'm Not Believing In
Admittedly...I fell asleep during the debate last night. It could have been because because neither candidate really gave a straight answer to the questions...at least early on.
But today, I had somewhat of an epiphany at work. I am leaning McCain...and here is a brief run down of why.
The economic downturn has done two things in my opinion; it has made taxes/economy the central issue of this campaign; and it has HELPED, not hurt, McCain. Well...it should be helping McCain, but for some reason, the vast majority does not think my way. Here is why this issue now helps McCain.
Obama is proposing billions of dollars in additional government spending; health care and education are major initiatives he is running on. Now...lets avoid the argument of whether the government should be paying for this and just think through this rationally. Obama is proposing to pay for additional programs related to these two areas, along with his pithy energy plan (McCain's is just as pithy) and whatever else he has thrown in there that I am not yet aware of, by cutting tax loopholes to corporations, eliminating wasteful spending (even though he voted for the bailout package, as did McCain, which features numerous earmarks and bribes - see the details in a previous post!) and raising taxes on the those making $250,000 or more per year.
I think Obama is not telling us the truth. How can he possibly follow through on all his campaign promises without raising additional taxes on someone, somewhere; running the economy into further debt; or declaring current government programs that can be significantly cutback? It can not be done. I doubt he can even raise taxes on the middle class; no President since Hoover has done this during a recession. Obama simply is not being honest with us; he makes it sound like his economic plan is completely unaffected by the current financial crisis. That can not be true. And if it is, he has not made it clear to me.
Relating to McCain...McCain has also not proposed any significant cutbacks in government programs. McCain has proposed eliminating wasteful Washington spending (which means nothing, because just like Obama, McCain voted for the wasteful bailout package, loaded with the very earmarks he focused on vetoing during the first debate). But McCain is being realistic...he is not proposing an increase in taxes, but he is not promising to cut taxes for the middle class either (Obama is proposing to cut taxes for 95% of the American people). Although McCain has not pointed out any significant government programs that can be cut, he is not campaigning on adding new programs.
McCain, to me, is simply a far less risk to the current tax/economic system than Obama. McCain represents less of a risk of my taxes going up. He is talking far straighter to the American public than Obama is.
Just my thoughts...
To both candidates...tell me, honestly, what are you going to cut in terms of government spending? You either have to make major government spending cuts, or tax a part of the population way more than you say you are going to, in order to keep the country from falling further and further into debt. If you are not doing either...you better not be proposing an influx of additional government spending...or you are lying.
McCain is acting more straight with me...I think I have to vote for him. We will see if anything changes over the next few days!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
But today, I had somewhat of an epiphany at work. I am leaning McCain...and here is a brief run down of why.
The economic downturn has done two things in my opinion; it has made taxes/economy the central issue of this campaign; and it has HELPED, not hurt, McCain. Well...it should be helping McCain, but for some reason, the vast majority does not think my way. Here is why this issue now helps McCain.
Obama is proposing billions of dollars in additional government spending; health care and education are major initiatives he is running on. Now...lets avoid the argument of whether the government should be paying for this and just think through this rationally. Obama is proposing to pay for additional programs related to these two areas, along with his pithy energy plan (McCain's is just as pithy) and whatever else he has thrown in there that I am not yet aware of, by cutting tax loopholes to corporations, eliminating wasteful spending (even though he voted for the bailout package, as did McCain, which features numerous earmarks and bribes - see the details in a previous post!) and raising taxes on the those making $250,000 or more per year.
I think Obama is not telling us the truth. How can he possibly follow through on all his campaign promises without raising additional taxes on someone, somewhere; running the economy into further debt; or declaring current government programs that can be significantly cutback? It can not be done. I doubt he can even raise taxes on the middle class; no President since Hoover has done this during a recession. Obama simply is not being honest with us; he makes it sound like his economic plan is completely unaffected by the current financial crisis. That can not be true. And if it is, he has not made it clear to me.
Relating to McCain...McCain has also not proposed any significant cutbacks in government programs. McCain has proposed eliminating wasteful Washington spending (which means nothing, because just like Obama, McCain voted for the wasteful bailout package, loaded with the very earmarks he focused on vetoing during the first debate). But McCain is being realistic...he is not proposing an increase in taxes, but he is not promising to cut taxes for the middle class either (Obama is proposing to cut taxes for 95% of the American people). Although McCain has not pointed out any significant government programs that can be cut, he is not campaigning on adding new programs.
McCain, to me, is simply a far less risk to the current tax/economic system than Obama. McCain represents less of a risk of my taxes going up. He is talking far straighter to the American public than Obama is.
Just my thoughts...
To both candidates...tell me, honestly, what are you going to cut in terms of government spending? You either have to make major government spending cuts, or tax a part of the population way more than you say you are going to, in order to keep the country from falling further and further into debt. If you are not doing either...you better not be proposing an influx of additional government spending...or you are lying.
McCain is acting more straight with me...I think I have to vote for him. We will see if anything changes over the next few days!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Mail Goggles?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27071685/
The audacity of Gmail! How dare they assume for even an instant there are times when people send e-mail messages they probably should not send!
I don't know about you...but I love the drunken phone call. And I would love even more the drunken e-mail (why don't more people take this route?). The drunken e-mail would provide so many benefits:
a) record of idiocy
b) time to formulate a congruent argument after doubling over in laughter
c) ability to forward, involving more people and enlarging the embarrassment level of the drunkard
These Mail Goggles being offered by Gmail are further limiting the chances I will get a drunken e-mail. Please send me one before it is too late! I promise to either mark it as unread in my Inbox so I can glance over your words and have humor at your expense well into the future!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
The audacity of Gmail! How dare they assume for even an instant there are times when people send e-mail messages they probably should not send!
I don't know about you...but I love the drunken phone call. And I would love even more the drunken e-mail (why don't more people take this route?). The drunken e-mail would provide so many benefits:
a) record of idiocy
b) time to formulate a congruent argument after doubling over in laughter
c) ability to forward, involving more people and enlarging the embarrassment level of the drunkard
These Mail Goggles being offered by Gmail are further limiting the chances I will get a drunken e-mail. Please send me one before it is too late! I promise to either mark it as unread in my Inbox so I can glance over your words and have humor at your expense well into the future!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Why We Needed the Bailout
Upon request, I am going to attempt to explain why we needed an economic bailout, in the most simple terms possible. Keep in mind, by all accounts, neither McCain or Obama were able to answer this question in their debate.
For whatever reasons, mortgage firms and banks (led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) have been giving loans to those they should not have been giving loans to. Republicans will blame the Democrats for forcing these institutions to give "politically correct" loans to those in the lower classes who could not afford them. Democrats will blame Republicans for promoting an environment of deregulation that led that led to these two major institutions and started the major part of the trickle effect we have seen this year...covering banks, insurance agencies, brokerage houses, private business, and even government entities (California asked the government for about $7 billion yesterday).
The fact that people were not able to pay the mortgages given to them by their banks started this trend that has crippled many portions of our economy (along with the housing bubble burst itself, similar to the technology bubble burst toward the end of the Clinton presidency). Without people paying their mortgages, they are losing their homes. The banks and government entities they received their mortgages from suffer because they are not getting paid back. Government suffers because all of this equals a lack of tax revenue. Businesses suffer because if people can not afford to live, how can they afford to buy anything? Most importantly...this economic crisis involves credit. Most small businesses operate on a line of credit that is quickly being taken away from them. A very high majority of American citizens also operate on a line of credit, which is quickly being taken away from them. In short...all the makings for a depression. As can be seen on Wall Street, many are pulling their money out of the private entities that make up our economy; they are afraid of how far the credit crisis will go and how many Americans it will affect. The money being given out in this bill will be used to buy back bad debts, hopefully to sell them in the future when the value of these debts returns to normal. The theory is that, by stabilizing the credit markets, we can avoid a depression.
Whether you like the bailout bill or not (I would have agreed with it if it took steps to avoid this problem from happening again - politicians have cleverly pushed the obviously needed regulation to after the election season) an influx of money is needed in the economy to help beat off an oncoming depression. The only entity that can possibly put money into the economic system and work to avoid a depression is the government. I am extremely conservative on government spending, but this is a situation in which I think it is OK to rely on the government, so long as steps are taken to avoid this situation from happening again in the future.
I have not looked at the exact provisions of the bill yet...I know some money is going to be used now, some later. I know it puts certain limits on executive compensation for the companies that take money from this bailout (I don't know the limits). I know it does NOTHING to punish those in current regulatory positions over this crisis (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Christopher Cox, Ben Bernake). It does not take McCain's suggestion to form a separate entity that would monitor the loans being given to citizens by these institutions, or for that matter, any add any reform or accountability to our regulatory system.
Most important of all, this bill COMPLETELY takes credibility away from McCain (Obama as well). Throughout the first debate, McCain brought point and point back to the fact he would not sign a bill with earmarks and that he would "veto the bill and make those famous" who put the earmarks in. Well, he just voted for a bill with earmarks. Read and view them all here!
(http://themountainsage.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/the-new-senate-bailout-bill451-pages-with-earmarks-and-tax-extenders/)
(http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/10/03/gb.senate.bailout.pork.cnn)
Ridiculous. Plain and simple. Some of these provisions might be useful....but they should not be tacked on the end of a bill simply to bribe someone into voting. They should be dealt with separately, as part of a bill focusing on these issues, so these provisions can be given the attention and debate they deserve.
Hope this works Chris!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
For whatever reasons, mortgage firms and banks (led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) have been giving loans to those they should not have been giving loans to. Republicans will blame the Democrats for forcing these institutions to give "politically correct" loans to those in the lower classes who could not afford them. Democrats will blame Republicans for promoting an environment of deregulation that led that led to these two major institutions and started the major part of the trickle effect we have seen this year...covering banks, insurance agencies, brokerage houses, private business, and even government entities (California asked the government for about $7 billion yesterday).
The fact that people were not able to pay the mortgages given to them by their banks started this trend that has crippled many portions of our economy (along with the housing bubble burst itself, similar to the technology bubble burst toward the end of the Clinton presidency). Without people paying their mortgages, they are losing their homes. The banks and government entities they received their mortgages from suffer because they are not getting paid back. Government suffers because all of this equals a lack of tax revenue. Businesses suffer because if people can not afford to live, how can they afford to buy anything? Most importantly...this economic crisis involves credit. Most small businesses operate on a line of credit that is quickly being taken away from them. A very high majority of American citizens also operate on a line of credit, which is quickly being taken away from them. In short...all the makings for a depression. As can be seen on Wall Street, many are pulling their money out of the private entities that make up our economy; they are afraid of how far the credit crisis will go and how many Americans it will affect. The money being given out in this bill will be used to buy back bad debts, hopefully to sell them in the future when the value of these debts returns to normal. The theory is that, by stabilizing the credit markets, we can avoid a depression.
Whether you like the bailout bill or not (I would have agreed with it if it took steps to avoid this problem from happening again - politicians have cleverly pushed the obviously needed regulation to after the election season) an influx of money is needed in the economy to help beat off an oncoming depression. The only entity that can possibly put money into the economic system and work to avoid a depression is the government. I am extremely conservative on government spending, but this is a situation in which I think it is OK to rely on the government, so long as steps are taken to avoid this situation from happening again in the future.
I have not looked at the exact provisions of the bill yet...I know some money is going to be used now, some later. I know it puts certain limits on executive compensation for the companies that take money from this bailout (I don't know the limits). I know it does NOTHING to punish those in current regulatory positions over this crisis (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Christopher Cox, Ben Bernake). It does not take McCain's suggestion to form a separate entity that would monitor the loans being given to citizens by these institutions, or for that matter, any add any reform or accountability to our regulatory system.
Most important of all, this bill COMPLETELY takes credibility away from McCain (Obama as well). Throughout the first debate, McCain brought point and point back to the fact he would not sign a bill with earmarks and that he would "veto the bill and make those famous" who put the earmarks in. Well, he just voted for a bill with earmarks. Read and view them all here!
(http://themountainsage.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/the-new-senate-bailout-bill451-pages-with-earmarks-and-tax-extenders/)
(http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/10/03/gb.senate.bailout.pork.cnn)
Ridiculous. Plain and simple. Some of these provisions might be useful....but they should not be tacked on the end of a bill simply to bribe someone into voting. They should be dealt with separately, as part of a bill focusing on these issues, so these provisions can be given the attention and debate they deserve.
Hope this works Chris!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)