OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 3

[SPTO]

The article only counts bills after Obama took office.

Why would McCain listen to party operatives? The same ones that torpedoed him in 2000? The guy has probably the biggest ego of anyone in the Senate, for better or worse.

True, but you know how campaign promises and presidential policy are two totally different things. McCain could easily be manipulated especially at his advancing age. I mean look what happened in Reagan's 2nd term, then again he was just hitting the onset of alzheimers.

[JRod]

[quote="FatPitcher]
Are you suggesting that Bush is forcing congressional Democrats to put unremovable earmarks into bills in committee or to keep Rangel on as chairman of Ways and Means?

All the issues I brought up in that post are issues with Congress. So yes, the Democrats' (and like-minded independents) majority in both the House and Senate means that the Democrats are in charge of Congress.[/quote]

You pick out two things and that's the reason for the putting all the blame on Democrats.

You didn't say in charge of Congress. You made the implication of in charge of everything. That simply isn't true. While you might have not meant it, you didn't clarify.

Lastly, refer to WCO for a more complex view of what's really going on. It's more complicated than who's has the numbers. The balance of Power is tricky.

And for the record, I did say many many posts back (during the Primary Season) that Obama needed to do more than give a good speech and that wasn't the reason to vote for him.

[FatPitcher]

Congress doesn't have enforcement responsibilities. That's the executive branch.

Right now, it's Paulson at Treasury and Bernanke at the Fed who are deciding that Bear Stearns and Fannie and Freddie Mac get bailed out but Lehman does not.

They also probably played a part in the B of A takeover of Merrill Lynch. Oh and in calmer times, it would be the FTC and the Justice Dept. which would rule on that kind of buyout. But in these times, they're apparently going to take shortcuts.

Oil is under $100, despite OPEC announcements of cuts in supply. Hmm, oil running up to $150 must not have been about supply-and-demand, unless you're talking about the supply of Wall Street speculation in the oil markets, which the CFTC, under executive branch control, didn't think was happening.

Lets see, all kinds of distress on Wall Street and there's no money to pump up the oil futures markets and oil falls.

But people will be happier now that oil is now cheaper (but still at least 20-25% higher than a year ago), because we've been conditioned to higher prices, which made traders rich while the rest of the economy got weaker. Of course nobody is going to pursue the possibility of speculation now.

Hey you can't blame Bush. He was just twiddling his thumbs while Rome burned. He didn't light the fire! The buck doesn't stop there.

Only Democratic presidents like Carter and Clinton are to blame for anything that goes wrong, while GOP presidents don't have that much control over what goes on in the economy.

Oil is falling because people are speculating that the economic downturn will result in lower demand, not because people stopped speculating.

I assume your point is that there should be anti-speculation laws (for oil? or for commodities in general?). What about places where those laws wouldn't be binding? Like, the rest of the world?

[SPTO]

I assume your point is that there should be anti-speculation laws (for oil? or for commodities in general?). What about places where those laws wouldn't be binding? Like, the rest of the world?

I often wonder why Canada and the US don't nationalize their commodities oriented industries. A lot of latin countries and some European countries have done so successfully. In fact, there's a lot of talk about nationalizing Canadian oil companies because of the absurdly high gas prices. There's also talk of a cap and trade in regards to oil and other natural resources based businesses in Canada.

(though that 2nd point sounds like a 1980s Trudeau initiative and would probably be disastrous)

[JRod]

I assume your point is that there should be anti-speculation laws (for oil? or for commodities in general?). What about places where those laws wouldn't be binding? Like, the rest of the world?

I often wonder why Canada and the US don't nationalize their commodities oriented industries. A lot of latin countries and some European countries have done so successfully. In fact, there's a lot of talk about nationalizing Canadian oil companies because of the absurdly high gas prices. There's also talk of a cap and trade in regards to oil and other natural resources based businesses in Canada.

(though that 2nd point sounds like a 1980s Trudeau initiative and would probably be disastrous)

Oh crap, SPTO said 'nationalize'.

This is going to get ugly.

[FatPitcher]

You pick out two things and that's the reason for the putting all the blame on Democrats.

You didn't say in charge of Congress. You made the implication of in charge of everything. That simply isn't true. While you might have not meant it, you didn't clarify.

Lastly, refer to WCO for a more complex view of what's really going on. It's more complicated than who's has the numbers. The balance of Power is tricky.

And for the record, I did say many many posts back (during the Primary Season) that Obama needed to do more than give a good speech and that wasn't the reason to vote for him.

I brought up the issue of corruption in Congress. I gave two examples of corruption/enabling in Congress. I talked about the 2006 Congressional campaign. I talked about nothing in those posts beyond the realm of Congress. Why would you think that I was talking about anything other than Congress?

As far as the 49/49/2 thing goes: there are, for all practical purposes, 51 Democrats in the Senate. End of story.

Filibusters: name me one anti-corruption measure that has been shot down by a filibuster. End of story.

Finally, what connection do either of those two things have to do with the stuff I brought up? Does the Speaker of the House not have the authority to strip Rangel of his chairmanship because Jeffords and Lieberman are technically Independents? Will she be stopped cold in her tracks by a republican filibuster in the Senate? Are the Republicans or Dem-Indies threatening to shut down the Senate unless Sen. Levin sneaks in more unremovable earmarks?

Good God, man.

[wco81]

ICE and NYMEX are controlled by American companies.

Hell even Spencer Bachus is talking about better oversight by regulators.

McCain is saying today that he agrees with the decision not to bail out Lehman. But he was presumably in agreement with the Bear Stearns and Fannie/Freddie Mac bailouts?

Sounds a lot like he's pretty much going along with everything the Bush admin. is doing right now.

He has a new ad today, saying only he and Palin can "fix it" with "tougher rules" to protect your life savings. Is he talking about the FDIC or something else?

"No special interest giveaways, lower taxes to create new jobs." "Offshore oil drilling to reduce gas prices."

Phil Gramm is no longer McCain's main economic advisor. But does McCain still subscribe to Gramm's philosophy of eliminating as much regulation as possible?

It was an amendment which Gramm slipped in back in the late '90s which allowed Wall Street to engage in many of the practices which has led to the present situation.

[Teal]

Bear Sterns/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailouts were a mistake. What they're doing with Lehman is not.

You bail out one irresponsible corporation, and they'll all come knocking on the door. Let the markets handle it, and it will balance out in time. Let the government handle it, and they'll f*** every orifice in it.

[RobVarak]

never mind.

[FatPitcher]

never mind.

And here I was, all excited when I looked at the thread list and saw who had posted last in this one.

[XXXIV]

never mind.

And here I was, all excited when I looked at the thread list and saw who had posted last in this one.

No s***..talk about a let down.

[JackB1]

You just keep ignoring the flaws in your own side because you believe the other side is doing the same thing. Well done!

You keep taking swings at the [insert your party here] side that end up coming around and smacking you in the back of the head.

Round and round we go!

That was my point FP. Instead of addressing my charge against his party or candidate, Matt will just point out something similar that my side is doing. You can read his last 25 posts to me and he does the same thing over and over. It gets very tiring and does zero for the conversation, except making himself feel better.

It's like the little kid in school that would say "if that's what I am, then what are you?" over and over. Sound familiar Matt?

[RobVarak]

Newest projections

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

[JRod]

Newest projections

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/ ... -game.html

Some good analysis there... More information in that one post than 24 hours of cable news.

[JackB1]

Newest projections

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

That poll includes over 100 "toss up" votes.

I prefer to use this poll:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... in/?map=10

And don't forget these same polls predicted it would be Gulianni vs Hillary

[matthewk]

That was my point FP. Instead of addressing my charge against his party or candidate, Matt will just point out something similar that my side is doing. You can read his last 25 posts to me and he does the same thing over and over. It gets very tiring and does zero for the conversation, except making himself feel better.

It's like the little kid in school that would say "if that's what I am, then what are you?" over and over. Sound familiar Matt?

I addressed your arial wolf hunting garbage.

I addressed your latest Palin attacks by pointing out that her supporters believe in her because of what she has done for the people of Alaska.

Many times you come up with total biased BS. They are hilarious due the hypocrsy you wield. I am simply pointing out what a hypocrite you are being.

What's tiring is having to see you constantly regurgitate the same talking points over and over again. As for what you are.....you're an a$$hole. I'm sure you're getting tired of hearing that from people as well.

[MACTEPsporta]

I think that once the dust settles around this financial mess there will be more positives to take from it than some people think. Last few years have changed financial markets beyond recognition, companies surviving due to loopholes in bankrupcy laws, and reacquisitions is not good for economy. The big boys of finance stayed afloat because of governemnt intervention long before 2FM were bailed out. It may not have been as direct, but just as troubling for the economy.

The system is so disbalanced and overcomlicated now it's becoming detrimental to normal functioning of all financial institutions. It reminds me of faulty piping in the house, where instead of replacing it, we were adding pipes to go around the once that didn't work anymore. Now we have a labyrinth of pipes all over the place, and only God knows which ones, if any, are actually working. Sooner, rather than later you need to change all the pipes (big economic reform) or it will flood the whole house (depression). It's the best metaphor I could think of, okay?

The third outcome is the one I'd like to think will not happen, but given the latest financial gaffes of this administration it just might. Some investors in the Middle East, Russia and China are watching the situation closely, and are looking to jump in given the smallest chance. That would be bad, very bad.

[RobVarak]

I think that the fivethirtyeight models are significantly more sophisticated than the RCP stuff (which doesn't weigh the polls or do any regression analysis at all), but to each his own.

The commentary is pretty good. Silver and his pal are open Obama supporters, but they're slavish in their objectivity when it comes to the data. As I mentioned earlier Silver is one of the Baseball Prospectus crew, all of whom I respect quite a bit.

[Teal]

Newest projections

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/ ... -game.html

Some good analysis there... More information in that one post than 24 hours of cable news.

That is the damned truth...hey! Did we just agree?!? Oh, s***...

[matthewk]

And you keep using the same flawed defense. You point out that it's the same for the Dem. side.... which you disagree with. But when the Republican's do the very same thing...it's OK with you. That logic goes nowhere fast. It's like getting pulled over for speeding and telling the cop "well look at that guy over there...he's speeding too!".

You just keep ignoring the flaws in your own side because you believe the other side is doing the same thing. Well done!

Where am I am hammering on the Dems for something that I say is OK for the GOP side? All I'm doing is refuting your baised arguments.

You must have added this to your list of things to ignore. I'm still waiting for an answer.

[JackB1]

You must have added this to your list of things to ignore. I'm still waiting for an answer.

No, I added YOU to my list of things to ignore. I don't respond to personal attacks from people who don't even know me. You are so desperate for a response, you are now even quoting yourself. Get a life.

[wco81]

I think that once the dust settles around this financial mess there will be more positives to take from it than some people think. Last few years have changed financial markets beyond recognition, companies surviving due to loopholes in bankrupcy laws, and reacquisitions is not good for economy. The big boys of finance stayed afloat because of governemnt intervention long before 2FM were bailed out. It may not have been as direct, but just as troubling for the economy.

Heard someone say this morning that the banks had written off about $350 billion collectively but that they may eventually have to write off over a trillion.

Democrats are calling for more regulatory oversight. How far that goes, who knows.

But we've had comparable situations like the S&L crisis in the late '80s, early '90s. People said the purge back then was good too. Bad loan practices then.

Then some years after the crisis, there will be more calls for deregulation and then the cycle repeats again.

[MACTEPsporta]

I think that once the dust settles around this financial mess there will be more positives to take from it than some people think. Last few years have changed financial markets beyond recognition, companies surviving due to loopholes in bankrupcy laws, and reacquisitions is not good for economy. The big boys of finance stayed afloat because of governemnt intervention long before 2FM were bailed out. It may not have been as direct, but just as troubling for the economy.

Heard someone say this morning that the banks had written off about $350 billion collectively but that they may eventually have to write off over a trillion.

Democrats are calling for more regulatory oversight. How far that goes, who knows.

But we've had comparable situations like the S&L crisis in the late '80s, early '90s. People said the purge back then was good too. Bad loan practices then.

Then some years after the crisis, there will be more calls for deregulation and then the cycle repeats again.

Good point, but the reconciliations of the 80s and 90s are exactly what lead us to this, among other things, of course. I think we are at a point, or very close to it, where a complete break has to be made, and the entire system needs to be overhauled. That means that a new model of government involvement will be formed, hopefully a clear and constant one, which we can follow for a few decades.

[RobVarak]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _president

Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 71% say McCain is prepared for the Presidency while just 35% say the same about Obama.

That may be the foundation of some of his recent losses among independents.

[MACTEPsporta]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _president

Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 71% say McCain is prepared for the Presidency while just 35% say the same about Obama.

That may be the foundation of some of his recent losses among independents.

Yeah, but you don't suggest that McCain will carry independets 2:1, do you? According to most polls Obama is viewed as a better options to handle economy, and I think that about evens it out among independents.

I have to give it to you, however, you were dead on about McCain pickig Palin, and about the polls so far. Good call.