EPT2008 US Presidential Election - Page 117
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Enki
United States2548 Posts
| ||
|
evandi
United States266 Posts
On October 09 2008 05:42 Enki wrote: Evandi is back for his daily 8 hours of internet faggotry. Its becoming more and more apparent that most of you who post here have no clue whatsoever about politics. That is not to say that Obama supporters don't know anything about politics, but it is clear that most of you just don't know what you are talking about. Let me give you a hint: The democratic party is not a religion. | ||
|
NotJumperer
United States1371 Posts
| ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On October 09 2008 04:37 evandi wrote: Your asking me to pick on minor things that Palin said? I'm talking about outright lies. I've listed some of Biden's. Why don't you tell me which outright lies Palin has spoken about. I'll cut and paste from an earlier post in the thread: 1. "Obama raised taxes 94 times." --> by the same logic, McCain raised them 100s of times. 2. "Raised taxes for people earning as little as $42k" --> extremely misleading, if not an outright lie, and McCain voted for the SAME bill. 3. "He'd sit down with Iran, etc." --> misleading not to mention it's a stupid argument that's been shot down by almost every diplomatic heavyweight in the country 4. "Lipstick on a pig" --> please! 5. "Suspended the campaign" --> First of all, no he didn't suspend his campaign. Second of all, the negotiations pretty much fell through as soon as he arrived, there's no way he can argue his presence helped. Not to mention he waited a full day to return to Washington and did a bunch of campaign events in that time. Not to mention his ads still ran. Not to mention all his campaign offices were still open. 6. "Obama phoned it in" --> Attacking Obama for not showing up in person, when McCain did the same thing, calling congressional leaders on the phone rather than seeing them in person. 7. "Now is not the time for blame" --> 2 minutes later, blaming Obama and the Dems for the failure of the bailout bill. This is a pattern that's been repeated. 8. "millions of small businesses would be affected by the Obama tax plan" --> same bogus argument that Bush used, when no reasonable fact checking organization believes the number of businesses actually affected would be more than 1-2%. 9. Anything he argues about how he's for regulation. Listen, the Republicans are for deregulation... even now, most Republicans believe that wasn't what was at fault here. Okay, you can make that argument, but don't just lie about your former record blatantly. They were for deregulation 3 months ago, and they will be again in a year or two. They should just mention they goofed and they are "revising" their position. 10. "Thanks but no thanks on the Bridge to nowhere" --> bald-faced lie. 11. McCain slammed Obama in spanish-language radio ads on immigration reform, when they were both on the same side of the vote. 12. "When I said 'fundamentals of the economy, I meant workers'" --> total bullshit. AND, since you asked for lies specifically from Palin, in addition to the "Bridge to Nowhere" (surprising there are any, considering her total inability to provide specifics on almost anything): 1. She outright lied about divestment from Sudan (she OPPOSED the bill until it was basically a foregone conclusion). 2. She lied in saying Biden's supported McCain's Iraq strategy up until the campaign, which is a total lie. Biden and McCain were on opposite sides of the Levin Amendment and they also strongly disagreed throughout the Congressional debate in late 2006-early 2007. 3. She lied to Charlie Gibson about never having said that global warming wasn't man-made. There's plenty more misleading stuff, I'll let you start with this. | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On October 09 2008 05:46 evandi wrote: People aren't bashing you because you support McCain, they're bashing you because you don't seem to have any educated opinion regarding your support for him or your opposition against Obama. If you notice Savio is a fairly respected poster here (at least to me) despite the fact that most people here disagree with his support for McCain, however when he tries to make his arguments they're usually well thought out and researched to some degree. When you post you give the impression that you just got done watching Sean Hannity and are just regurgitating everything you heard.Its becoming more and more apparent that most of you who post here have no clue whatsoever about politics. That is not to say that Obama supporters don't know anything about politics, but it is clear that most of you just don't know what you are talking about. Let me give you a hint: The democratic party is not a religion. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 09 2008 05:46 evandi wrote: Its becoming more and more apparent that most of you who post here have no clue whatsoever about politics. That is not to say that Obama supporters don't know anything about politics, but it is clear that most of you just don't know what you are talking about. Let me give you a hint: The democratic party is not a religion. LOL | ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
The House of Representatives this week passed a bill, a big bailout bill -- or didn't pass it, I should say. The Senate decided to pass it, and the House is wrestling with it still tonight. As America watches these things happen on Capitol Hill, Sen. Biden, was this the worst of Washington or the best of Washington that we saw play out? PALIN: Thank you, Gwen. And I thank the commission, also. I appreciate this privilege of being able to be here and speak with Americans. You know, I think a good barometer here, as we try to figure out has this been a good time or a bad time in America's economy, is go to a kid's soccer game on Saturday, and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, "How are you feeling about the economy?" And I'll bet you, you're going to hear some fear in that parent's voice, fear regarding the few investments that some of us have in the stock market. Did we just take a major hit with those investments? Fear about, how are we going to afford to send our kids to college? A fear, as small-business owners, perhaps, how we're going to borrow any money to increase inventory or hire more people. The barometer there, I think, is going to be resounding that our economy is hurting and the federal government has not provided the sound oversight that we need and that we deserve, and we need reform to that end. Now, John McCain thankfully has been one representing reform. Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell. People in the Senate with him, his colleagues, didn't want to listen to him and wouldn't go towards that reform that was needed then. I think that the alarm has been heard, though, and there will be that greater oversight, again thanks to John McCain's bipartisan efforts that he was so instrumental in bringing folks together over this past week, even suspending his own campaign to make sure he was putting excessive politics aside and putting the country first. He did not sound the bell. McCain signed onto the bill a year and a half after it was introduced. And he reportedly didn't do too much for the bill beyond co-sponsoring it and issuing a statement. His "colleagues" in the Senate, did in fact, know something was going on. There have been VARIOUS claims by Senators and House members that the housing market was in trouble, starting in 2003 I believe. If you would like me to link the bills, I will go search them down. I don't have their names in front of me. John McCain did not suspend his campaign. At no point did he stop the creation of ads, close down his state offices, or give anyone any time off work. I believe he stopped running ads on THAT DAY for about 12 hours. Sen. Biden, how, as vice president, would you work to shrink this gap of polarization which has sprung up in Washington, which you both have spoken about here tonight? PALIN: John McCain, in referring to the fundamental of our economy being strong, he was talking to and he was talking about the American workforce. And the American workforce is the greatest in this world, with the ingenuity and the work ethic that is just entrenched in our workforce. That's a positive. That's encouragement. And that's what John McCain meant. Now, what I've done as a governor and as a mayor is (inaudible) I've had that track record of reform. And I've joined this team that is a team of mavericks with John McCain, also, with his track record of reform, where we're known for putting partisan politics aside to just get the job done. Now, Barack Obama, of course, he's pretty much only voted along his party lines. In fact, 96 percent of his votes have been solely along party line, not having that proof for the American people to know that his commitment, too, is, you know, put the partisanship, put the special interests aside, and get down to getting business done for the people of America. We're tired of the old politics as usual. And that's why, with all due respect, I do respect your years in the U.S. Senate, but I think Americans are craving something new and different and that new energy and that new commitment that's going to come with reform. I think that's why we need to send the maverick from the Senate and put him in the White House, and I'm happy to join him there. John McCain was not referring to the work force. Anyone with any sense about anything in the history of the world knows he was caught in a public policy nightmare. He had to "revise" his statement so that it would not appear so bad. It still appeared *really* bad. 96% is an erroneous number. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ is the website that published such a number. They also scored John Kerry as the most liberal senator in 2004. They are attempting to scare voters who fear the word "liberal" into voting for their party member. http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/lib_senator_ratings-2007.html is a real survey done. It rates Barack Obama at 80% "most liberal" and John McCain at 91% "most conservative". IFILL: Governor, Senator, neither of you really answered that last question about what you would do as vice president. I'm going to come back to that... ... throughout the evening to try to see if we can look forward, as well. Now, let's talk about -- the next question is to talk about the subprime lending meltdown. Who do you think was at fault? I start with you, Gov. Palin. Was it the greedy lenders? Was it the risky home-buyers who shouldn't have been buying a home in the first place? And what should you be doing about it? PALIN: Darn right it was the predator lenders, who tried to talk Americans into thinking that it was smart to buy a $300,000 house if we could only afford a $100,000 house. There was deception there, and there was greed and there is corruption on Wall Street. And we need to stop that. Again, John McCain and I, that commitment that we have made, and we're going to follow through on that, getting rid of that corruption. PALIN: One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day American people, Joe Six Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars. We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings and we need also to not get ourselves in debt. Let's do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card. Don't live outside of our means. We need to make sure that as individuals we're taking personal responsibility through all of this. It's not the American peoples fault that the economy is hurting like it is, but we have an opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of good lessons through this and say never again will we be taken advantage of. If you really want me to explain the economics of the situation to you I can, suffice it to say that predatory lending IS a part of what caused the crisis. Was it the main part? Debatable, but if you want to make your argument based on facts I wouldn't go that route. Actually, a large part of the blame can also be placed on Americans who are not at fault according to Palin. She has a decent message in this answer. Don't over spend, stay out of debt. Mrs. Palin, do you know how many Americans are in debt? Currently 1/6 of home owners are considered to be underwater. If you aren't familiar with that term, go hunt it down in an economic journal. IFILL: Governor, please if you want to respond to what he said about Sen. McCain's comments about health care? PALIN: I would like to respond about the tax increases. We can speak in agreement here that darn right we need tax relief for Americans so that jobs can be created here. Now, Barack Obama and Sen. Biden also voted for the largest tax increases in U.S. history. Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 94 times. Now, that's not what we need to create jobs and really bolster and heat up our economy. We do need the private sector to be able to keep more of what we earn and produce. Government is going to have to learn to be more efficient and live with less if that's what it takes to reign in the government growth that we've seen today. But we do need tax relief and Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year. That's a lot of middle income average American families to increase taxes on them. I think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy. Largest tax increases in U.S. history? PLEASE show me some facts about that. Hahaha, this is the worst part of her debate, to be honest. The 94 votes for tax increases is a STRAIGHT OUT LIE --> Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts. Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals. Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans’ health care. The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10. The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations. In other words, FALSE. $42,000 tax increase? You will pay less taxes under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan if you make less than $200,000 a year. FACT, unless Obama is lying to every American in a public venue. At which point you can call McCain a liar as well, so stfu if that is your argument. IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on? PALIN: I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also. As mayor, every year I was in office I did reduce taxes. I eliminated personal property taxes and eliminated small business inventory taxes and as governor we suspended our state fuel tax. We did all of those things knowing that that is how our economy would be heated up. Now, as for John McCain's adherence to rules and regulations and pushing for even harder and tougher regulations, that is another thing that he is known for though. Look at the tobacco industry. Look at campaign finance reform. May not answer the questions the moderator asks. Okay, thanks for playing?. The overall amount of taxes collected increased by 25 percent under Palin. According to a review of Wasilla's financial reports, the amount of revenue taken in during 1996 was $6,070,806 and rose to $8,710,166 in 2002. That’s a 43 percent increase (25 percent when adjusted for inflation). During that time, Wasilla’s property tax rate did inch down year after year, from 2 mills to 0.5 mills. IFILL: OK, our time is up here. We've got to move to the next question. Sen. Biden, we want to talk about taxes, let's talk about taxes. You proposed raising taxes on people who earn over $250,000 a year. The question for you is, why is that not class warfare and the same question for you, Gov. Palin, is you have proposed a tax employer health benefits which some studies say would actually throw five million more people onto the roles of the uninsured. I want to know why that isn't taking things out on the poor, starting with you, Sen. Biden. PALIN: I do take issue with some of the principle there with that redistribution of wealth principle that seems to be espoused by you. But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity. Now you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper. An increased tax formula that Barack Obama is proposing in addition to nearly a trillion dollars in new spending that he's proposing is the backwards way of trying to grow our economy. Redistribution of wealth is a class warfare principal that I'm going to go into.. but lets just move on. The vast majority of small businesses barely break even and do not pay the top tax brackets. To get that figure, Republicans count affluent taxpayers who claim some income from some small business income as "small businessmen." Even then by millions they mean 1 million and change. There are literally a few thousand small businesses that are included in the upper tax bracket that would be taxed more if they made more than $250,000. Transcript: Let's go to the transcript. Kate Snow, the ABC reporter conducting the interview with Biden, starts out discussing Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, effectively raising taxes on families making more than $250,000. Snow begins: "Anyone making over $250,000…" Biden finishes her thought: "… is going to pay more. It's time to be patriotic, time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut." Biden made the same point at a Sept. 3 town hall in Sarasota, Fla. One woman wondered what to tell friends who worry that an Obama-Biden victory will mean higher taxes. "It's time to be patriotic. That's what you say to them," Biden answered. It's a debatable argument Biden makes, but clearly he is not praising Obama's patriotism for planning to raise taxes. Rather he's invoking the patriotism of those wealthy taxpayers footing the bill. For those fact checkers: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf Actual impact of the tax plans of either candidate ----------------------------------------- ********************************* I can't do any more right now, I've got to run for a while.. If I come back and you still want me to voraciously eviscerate your candidate.. I'll get to the fun part. Foreign policy. ********************************* ------------------------------------------ | ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
| ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
On October 09 2008 05:46 evandi wrote: Its becoming more and more apparent that most of you who post here have no clue whatsoever about politics. That is not to say that Obama supporters don't know anything about politics, but it is clear that most of you just don't know what you are talking about. Let me give you a hint: The democratic party is not a religion. PLEASE INFORM ME ABOUT POLITIX U R SO SMAT!! | ||
|
evandi
United States266 Posts
On October 09 2008 06:09 Clutch3 wrote: I'll cut and paste from an earlier post in the thread: 1. "Obama raised taxes 94 times." --> by the same logic, McCain raised them 100s of times. 2. "Raised taxes for people earning as little as $42k" --> extremely misleading, if not an outright lie, and McCain voted for the SAME bill. 3. "He'd sit down with Iran, etc." --> misleading not to mention it's a stupid argument that's been shot down by almost every diplomatic heavyweight in the country 4. "Lipstick on a pig" --> please! 5. "Suspended the campaign" --> First of all, no he didn't suspend his campaign. Second of all, the negotiations pretty much fell through as soon as he arrived, there's no way he can argue his presence helped. Not to mention he waited a full day to return to Washington and did a bunch of campaign events in that time. Not to mention his ads still ran. Not to mention all his campaign offices were still open. 6. "Obama phoned it in" --> Attacking Obama for not showing up in person, when McCain did the same thing, calling congressional leaders on the phone rather than seeing them in person. 7. "Now is not the time for blame" --> 2 minutes later, blaming Obama and the Dems for the failure of the bailout bill. This is a pattern that's been repeated. 8. "millions of small businesses would be affected by the Obama tax plan" --> same bogus argument that Bush used, when no reasonable fact checking organization believes the number of businesses actually affected would be more than 1-2%. 9. Anything he argues about how he's for regulation. Listen, the Republicans are for deregulation... even now, most Republicans believe that wasn't what was at fault here. Okay, you can make that argument, but don't just lie about your former record blatantly. They were for deregulation 3 months ago, and they will be again in a year or two. They should just mention they goofed and they are "revising" their position. 10. "Thanks but no thanks on the Bridge to nowhere" --> bald-faced lie. 11. McCain slammed Obama in spanish-language radio ads on immigration reform, when they were both on the same side of the vote. 12. "When I said 'fundamentals of the economy, I meant workers'" --> total bullshit. AND, since you asked for lies specifically from Palin, in addition to the "Bridge to Nowhere" (surprising there are any, considering her total inability to provide specifics on almost anything): 1. She outright lied about divestment from Sudan (she OPPOSED the bill until it was basically a foregone conclusion). 2. She lied in saying Biden's supported McCain's Iraq strategy up until the campaign, which is a total lie. Biden and McCain were on opposite sides of the Levin Amendment and they also strongly disagreed throughout the Congressional debate in late 2006-early 2007. 3. She lied to Charlie Gibson about never having said that global warming wasn't man-made. There's plenty more misleading stuff, I'll let you start with this. I'm back... I was limiting this to stuff about the debate. But I'll respond nonetheless. "1. "Obama raised taxes 94 times." --> by the same logic, McCain raised them 100s of times". Well, in no way has he voted for higher taxes as many times as Obama for the amount of time spent in the Senate. Ya, McCain may have voted for higher taxes, but he is in general against taxes while democrats and Obama are generally in favor of higher taxes. Obama has only been in the senate for four years. "2. "Raised taxes for people earning as little as $42k" --> extremely misleading, if not an outright lie, and McCain voted for the SAME bill." Which bill is it? Factcheck doesn't have anything to say on whether or not McCain voted on it. "3. "He'd sit down with Iran, etc." --> misleading not to mention it's a stupid argument that's been shot down by almost every diplomatic heavyweight in the country" http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/ "QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries? COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight. Senator Obama? OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous." "4. "Lipstick on a pig" --> please!" ...ya what a coincidence. For the record I think that when McCain said it about something else, I forget what it was, I think he might have been referring to Hillary. Ya, I wonder why the audience was laughing when Obama said that. Hmm... just a coincidence... "5. "Suspended the campaign" " Yes, that was pretty ridiculous. Note: I am not thrilled about McCain. File what he did with "Hope" and "Change": meaningless "6. "Obama phoned it in"" Sure... I agree that there are some retarded attacks from McCain, but there are many that are true. Once again, I'm not a bot for McCain. "7. "Now is not the time for blame" " Yep, that was bad too, but it turns out that it is mostly a democrat issue. So democrats are for blame, but that is hypocrisy from McCain. I caught that. "8. "millions of small businesses would be affected by the Obama tax plan" " Thats not agreed upon. I think Obama is perhaps defining small businesses as "those businesses who make less than 300,000 or something" "9. Anything he argues about how he's for regulation. Listen, the Republicans are for deregulation... even now, most Republicans believe that wasn't what was at fault here. Okay, you can make that argument, but don't just lie about your former record blatantly. They were for deregulation 3 months ago, and they will be again in a year or two. They should just mention they goofed and they are "revising" their position." Deregulation of Fannie and Freddie was bad because they were special creations of government. McCain and republicans tried to get them regulated but it was blocked by democrats. Some democrats called them racists for it. It was the regulating of interest rates by the federal reserve that helped create the bubble we're experiencing. They set rates too low. "10. "Thanks but no thanks on the Bridge to nowhere" --> bald-faced lie" It was a stretch, but she did oppose it eventually. I haven't really looked into it that much. But I'll put this out there: Obama really did support sex ed for kindergarteners. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&SessionID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=0099&print=true Which is worse to you? "11. McCain slammed Obama in spanish-language radio ads on immigration reform, when they were both on the same side of the vote." Obama put out another one that was full of lies on this same subject. "12. "When I said 'fundamentals of the economy, I meant workers'" --> total bullshit." He probably did mean that. Its an empty phrase anyway. "1. She outright lied about divestment from Sudan (she OPPOSED the bill until it was basically a foregone conclusion)." She wasn't incredibly vocal about it, but she supported it before she was picked for VP. "2. She lied in saying Biden's supported McCain's Iraq strategy up until the campaign, which is a total lie. Biden and McCain were on opposite sides of the Levin Amendment and they also strongly disagreed throughout the Congressional debate in late 2006-early 2007. " But he was misleading also since he voted for the war in the first place. "3. She lied to Charlie Gibson about never having said that global warming wasn't man-made." Well, she was very political about how she said it. I don't think she ever claimed to know for sure. She was skeptical though. There is a difference. "There's plenty more misleading stuff, I'll let you start with this" Well, I wanted to START with just the debate itself. I have a lot more to say about Biden than just what he said in the debate. | ||
|
evandi
United States266 Posts
On October 09 2008 06:09 Falcynn wrote: People aren't bashing you because you support McCain, they're bashing you because you don't seem to have any educated opinion regarding your support for him or your opposition against Obama. If you notice Savio is a fairly respected poster here (at least to me) despite the fact that most people here disagree with his support for McCain, however when he tries to make his arguments they're usually well thought out and researched to some degree. When you post you give the impression that you just got done watching Sean Hannity and are just regurgitating everything you heard. Thats funny. Most of whats posted here attacking McCain is just regurgitated. Most of the people here can only show their love for Obama by insulting me. I doubt that Hannity has ever called Obama's National Service plan slavery. And of course, we have to bring up points that were brought up before cause like millions of people are arguing about the same material. | ||
|
shmay
United States1091 Posts
In my more cynical moments, I think that we Americans deserve what we get from our politicians, many of whom can be generally described as nothing less than loathsome. You say, "Williams, that's a pretty heavy putdown." My question to you is how else would you describe these congressmen who are now blaming the financial mess on the failure of the free market? Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that was given more teeth during the Clinton administration, Congress started intimidating banks and other financial institutions into making loans, so-called subprime loans, to high-risk homebuyers and businesses. The carrot offered was that these high-risk loans would be purchased by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have known that this was a prescription for disaster but there was a congressional chorus of denial. Five years ago, Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said, "I do not see any possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury." In 2004 congressional hearings, where the Bush administration sought greater oversight over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said, "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae," adding that "the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals." Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said, "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." In these hearings Barney Frank said that he doesn't see "anything in the reports that raises safety and soundness problems." Earlier this year, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" to help people get home mortgage loans, adding that they "need to do more" to help high-risk borrowers get better loans. The financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a failure of the free market because lending institutions in a free market would not have taken on the high-risk loans. They were forced to by the heavy hand of government. The solution is not a taxpayer-financed bailout. The solution is to let them fail and allow the people who invested in them, as well as the people who purchased homes they couldn't afford, suffer the losses. Of course that takes a level of political courage that is in short supply. There are other measures that should be taken as part of a second-best solution. In 2002, when the Enron and WorldCom scandal broke, the Congress held hearings and some chief executives were jailed. Who did what was the big story in the major news media almost every night. Congress rushed to enact the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002. The act placed unnecessary, onerous and costly accounting standards on American businesses. The Enron and WorldCom debacle is a drop in the bucket compared to the financial mess that Congress has created through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in the name of "affordable" housing. Have you heard Congress calling for hearings? They haven't called for hearings because many of them, both Democrats and Republicans, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars, were in cahoots with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If Americans are going to be on the hook to bail out these government-sponsored enterprises, at the minimum congressional hearings ought to be held to find out who did what and when. Corporations employ accounting practices promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that established Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and government agencies have accounting practices that don't come close to, and never did, the honesty of private accounting practices. Accounting fraud and deception are the dominant features of government agencies. If a private business kept and cooked the books, like government agencies do, the top executives would go to jail. Shouldn't the accounting standards businesses have to meet be applied to Washington? My answer is yes and if a congressman says no, I'd like for him to tell us why. Russ Roberts: | ||
aRod
United States758 Posts
Evandi is a douche for various reasons. The most obvious is he his a troll and well all know all trolls are douches. For starters, his arguementative style consists of statements like, "I'M RIGHT! you can't show me where I'm wrong... Durhkadur!!!!" "You're a blind stupid dipshit supporter of Obama who knows nothing of American politics," or basic illocal jumps followed by accusations of partisanship. I'll put a few examples of this following point. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 09 2008 03:50 Jibba wrote: Because I don't like you and I don't want to assist you in any way. Anyone can find it on the Washington Post in seconds. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- evandi: Except for me. And the real reason you are not linking to it is because it doesn't exist. oneofthem: just stop evandi: Just stop being a blind partisan. The most Anti-Obama stuff most of you guys on here will tolerate is the phrase "I kinda like McCain". On October 09 2008 04:07 Flaccid wrote: Am I the only one who stopped posting in this thread once evandi showed up? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- evandi: Right, why don't you just get the name of the thread changed to "Go Obama!". I'll definitely stop posting then. I could go on, I say we take evandi at his word. Lets rename this thread "Go Obama!" just to get rid of him. Evandi, trust me, I don't hate you because you like McCain, I myself am registered republican if you'll take that as evidence. I hate you because you are a trolling, souless, manipulating douche who aims his comments at provoking and insulting people. Poll: Get Rid of evandi by renaming thread "Go Obama!" (Vote): Get Rid of evandi (Vote): Keep evandi (Vote): | ||
|
evandi
United States266 Posts
S. 190 In this you'll see a clip of McCain warning about Fannie and Freddie in 2005 whilst democrats were opposing it. " John McCain was not referring to the work force. Anyone with any sense about anything in the history of the world knows he was caught in a public policy nightmare. He had to "revise" his statement so that it would not appear so bad. It still appeared *really* bad. 96% is an erroneous number. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ is the website that published such a number. They also scored John Kerry as the most liberal senator in 2004. They are attempting to scare voters who fear the word "liberal" into voting for their party member. http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/lib_senator_ratings-2007.html is a real survey done. It rates Barack Obama at 80% "most liberal" and John McCain at 91% "most conservative". " Well, thats just an opinion, not a fact. McCain was warning about Fannie and Freddie a long time ago, so its pointless to say he wasn't talking about the workforce. He had already warned about the economy and Fannie and Freddie. " If you really want me to explain the economics of the situation to you I can, suffice it to say that predatory lending IS a part of what caused the crisis. Was it the main part? Debatable, but if you want to make your argument based on facts I wouldn't go that route. Actually, a large part of the blame can also be placed on Americans who are not at fault according to Palin. She has a decent message in this answer. Don't over spend, stay out of debt. Mrs. Palin, do you know how many Americans are in debt? Currently 1/6 of home owners are considered to be underwater. If you aren't familiar with that term, go hunt it down in an economic journal." Ok, yes, she's right, debt is bad. But Fannie and Freddie were related to it and so was the CRA. A lot of people were accusing banks of racism for not loaning to certain people. Why wouldn't they choose to loan out due to greed if they are so greedy? Anyway, people should think about the contracts they enter into. " Largest tax increases in U.S. history? PLEASE show me some facts about that. Hahaha, this is the worst part of her debate, to be honest. The 94 votes for tax increases is a STRAIGHT OUT LIE --> Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts. Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals. Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans’ health care. The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10. The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations. In other words, FALSE. $42,000 tax increase? You will pay less taxes under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan if you make less than $200,000 a year. FACT, unless Obama is lying to every American in a public venue. At which point you can call McCain a liar as well, so stfu if that is your argument." She was right that it would be the largest, but not percentagewise. According to factcheck right after your regurgitation: "It's true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he's voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That's consistent with what he's said he'd do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a yea". "May not answer the questions the moderator asks. Okay, thanks for playing?. The overall amount of taxes collected increased by 25 percent under Palin. According to a review of Wasilla's financial reports, the amount of revenue taken in during 1996 was $6,070,806 and rose to $8,710,166 in 2002. That’s a 43 percent increase (25 percent when adjusted for inflation). During that time, Wasilla’s property tax rate did inch down year after year, from 2 mills to 0.5 mills." They lowered property taxes but raised sales taxes only 0.5% according to http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-factcheck3-2008oct03,0,5209652.story?page=2 "[b]Redistribution of wealth is a class warfare principal that I'm going to go into.. but lets just move on. The vast majority of small businesses barely break even and do not pay the top tax brackets. To get that figure, Republicans count affluent taxpayers who claim some income from some small business income as "small businessmen." Even then by millions they mean 1 million and change. There are literally a few thousand small businesses that are included in the upper tax bracket that would be taxed more if they made more than $250,000." Small Business in the US is defined as less than 100 employees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_business 99 employees making 20,000 dollars per year= apprximately 2 million dollars So Obama's plan will punish businesses when they try to expand and hire new people, if I have this correctly. | ||
|
evandi
United States266 Posts
On October 09 2008 08:26 aRod wrote: A summary of why evandi is a douche: Evandi is a douche for various reasons. The most obvious is he his a troll and well all know all trolls are douches. For starters, his arguementative style consists of statements like, "I'M RIGHT! you can't show me where I'm wrong... Durhkadur!!!!" "You're a blind stupid dipshit supporter of Obama who knows nothing of American politics," or basic illocal jumps followed by accusations of partisanship. I'll put a few examples of this following point. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 09 2008 03:50 Jibba wrote: Because I don't like you and I don't want to assist you in any way. Anyone can find it on the Washington Post in seconds. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- evandi: Except for me. And the real reason you are not linking to it is because it doesn't exist. oneofthem: just stop evandi: Just stop being a blind partisan. The most Anti-Obama stuff most of you guys on here will tolerate is the phrase "I kinda like McCain". On October 09 2008 04:07 Flaccid wrote: Am I the only one who stopped posting in this thread once evandi showed up? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- evandi: Right, why don't you just get the name of the thread changed to "Go Obama!". I'll definitely stop posting then. I could go on, I say we take evandi at his word. Lets rename this thread "Go Obama!" just to get rid of him. Evandi, trust me, I don't hate you because you like McCain, I myself am registered republican if you'll take that as evidence. I hate you because you are a trolling, souless, manipulating douche who aims his comments at provoking and insulting people. Poll: Get Rid of evandi by renaming thread "Go Obama!" (Vote): Get Rid of evandi (Vote): Keep evandi (Vote): Riiiggghht.... I think you might find that I've insulted far fewer times than I've been insulted on this thread. My most grave insult I think was saying that most people on here don't have a clue about politics. Perhaps you might compare that with what I've been called. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
NY TIMES ARTICLE FACTCHECK "The proposal was supported by a coalition of education and public health organizations, including the Illinois Parent Teacher Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Illinois Public Health Association and the Illinois Education Association." | ||
|
evandi
United States266 Posts
On October 09 2008 08:47 aRod wrote: evandi, th poll isn't looking good for you. The keep evandi bar is still at 0, why haven't you voted yet? Because I would be happy for this thread to be labeled appropriately. I wouldn't want people to think that this is balanced commentary. | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
| ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
On October 09 2008 08:50 evandi wrote: Because I would be happy for this thread to be labeled appropriately. I wouldn't want people to think that this is balanced commentary. That's not the real reason evandi, don't kid yourself... again. | ||
| ||
