Wednesday, September 24, 2008

I can't imagine why McCain is trying to cancel the VP debates

21 comments:

The McGuffin said...

I'm gonna puke.

"I'll try and find some examples and bring 'em to ya?"

This candidate is completely and wholeheartedly out of her realm. Katie Couric is 10x more qualified to be VP.

Once again. I'm gonna puke.

Anonymous said...

Couric for vice-president!! Sarah Palin does not know what she is talking about and I am more afraid than I have ever been that this stupid electorate will vote that pig in.
K

The McGuffin said...

Sharon Osbourne, in 2 1/2 short minutes, sums it all up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_fmvbDvN5Y

Anonymous said...

Not that it matters to anyone here but since I am the only conservative that reads this blog(which I enjoy).... If the VP debates do not happen.... I will not vote.
-Fasino

The McGuffin said...

This issue of Palin's total lack of understanding and experience isn't partisan. She could be an (R), a (D), a communist, a socialist or whatever and she'd still be dangerous to this country.

Fasino, please do vote. Vote for the party that wants to take us "forward into the future...not past to the back"...as Dan Quayle once said.

Anonymous said...

Mcguffin,

Can you honestly say Obama has the experience though? He is just better at covering it up. More polished as one would say.

It just sucks... they all blow.

I played golf with Dan Quayle in Fort Wayne back in the day.

Fasino

The McGuffin said...

I don't know if they all blow. Some might just suck.

We have three choices come November. Vote (R)...vote (D)...or stay home and watch Family Guy. One party will win, if you believe in the phrase "lesser of two evils" that's your right. Obama might not have the experience of some former past candidates, but he has the integrity, spirit and knowledge that is sorely needed right now.

In my eyes, casting a vote for McCain/Palin says that you have relished in the progress of the past eight years and we are on the right track. Time for a change and to take the blinders off. We have had our fill of incompetence for eight years from this current administration. We can't take four more.

How many Mulligans did DQ take?

Anonymous said...

"How many Mulligans did DQ take?"

One off the first tee

because and I quote,

" I didn't get a chance to hit any range balls"

I still use that excuse today when I play.

fasino

The McGuffin said...

Ha, that's rich! I bet you have a great story to tell behind those four hours of pasture pool with a former VP.

Eric said...

Jim,

I appreciate the fact that you are not a 100% Republican like so many ditto heads out there. I, too, pride myself on having voted in every election since 1988, and only voting for one Democrat the entire time (I'll admit, it was Dukakis--I was 18!!!!) In fact, I voted FOR McCain in the 2000 primary.

Would you not ever consider voting for a Democrat? It worries me that we have become so polarized that if the Republicans don't inspire you, you just won't vote. I know you have heard a number of negative things about the Democrats, but that's the effect of surrounding oneself with only right wing media like Fox News. I encourage you to find some centrist opinion out there, because I think there's much to like about Obama. He's not perfect, and I don't agree with Rob that he will be a beacon of freedom and change, but he is a smart guy with some great leadership qualities.

fasino said...

I would vote for a democrat. He or she would almost have to be socially conservative though. I couldn't vote for a pro choice guy. People vote for many different reason and that one always gets me fired up. I saw the rick warren interview. There are many pro life dems, I just don't know if they would ever get elected.

fasino said...

Maybe the wrong thread but I know eric you and I disagree on the free market. All I keep hearing is the free market failed and we need more government oversight. This is coming from both parties. Check out these things pushed by both bush and clinton. This in combination with pure greed is the reason for this.

From 2004

"President Bush's weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could
cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

From 1999

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer.

Fasino

Eric said...

I totally agree that the Democrats and the Republicans both answer to their wealthy donors, so I'm sure Clinton had as much to do with this as Bush.

But the fact is that independent (and I stress INDEPENDENT) regulation could have curbed this. That's what the SEC and the Fed are supposed to do. Free markets do not correct themselves. I don't see what other conclusion we can come to. More and better regulation would have stemmed this.

fasino said...

No such thing my friend! SEC and the Fed heads are all apointed by the president and confirmed by congress. They also have ties to wealthy people. FDA and drug companies come to mind as an example.

I would love to think there is true independent regulation available. When you are dealing with humans and sin and greed, I don't see how that is possible. The governement takes the power and abuses it and makes matters worse.

I am sure you disagree but it sure is fun talking about it.

Thanks.

Fasino

Eric said...

So, are you saying that, because we can't find a perfect regulator, that we should have none.

Again, I think you are using deductive reasoning. You are beginning from the premise that government is bad. I disagree. Government is as bad as the principles and laws it follows. We have had enlightened governments in the past, but with the legalized bribery we call lobbying, I agree with you that our CURRENT form of government is almost cripplingly corrupt. However, I would take corrupt government over greedy businessmen any day.

fasino said...

No I agree with you... Regulation is fine if it sticks to safety of the american public. Using regulation for other reasons is abuse of power and seems to happen way too often.

In this case both sides used mortage regulation to push agenda based policy.

Eric said...

That's why I believe the only hope for our democracy is true campaign finance reform, something McCain once worked very hard to make a reality, though now that he needs really big checks, it doesn't seem to be on his radar.

I don't know which is worse, though: being beholden to your donors, or holding fast to an ideology that doesn't work. Both of these cause politicians to make bad decisions for our country, and both of these problems are going on right now in our country.

Greed and zealotry both make you blind.

fasino said...

"holding fast to an ideology that doesn't work."

Do we truly know what works and doesn't work? I think if we are going to be fair it is all theory.

Theory that turns into spin.

I think there are pro and cons to each sides idealogy.

Eric said...

How do we know what doesn't work? I can't believe you would even ask that question.

With all the bailouts, I think we can safely say that letting the financial world regulate itself doesn't work. Would socialism work better? No.

What I mean by ideology is a belief that the world should adhere to a system because it works. You said yourself there are pros and cons to each ideology. I totally agree. Pure socialism doesn't work. A purely free market doesn't work. We have swung the pendulum toward less regulation and it doesn't work. Now we need to swing it back toward more regulation.

fasino said...

my point is how do we know it wasn't government regulation demanding the free markets lower mortgage standards so that lower income people could get houses. It is obvious sub prime mortagages are to blame. Mortage companies didn't start the sub prime spree. It was government demanding it.

Then greed made it worse.

I am ok with you making the assumption that the free markets failed but I don't think it is a slam dunk that it wasnt regulation that started the issue.

In fact the government told these companies they would back zero down loans in order to increase home ownership. Started with jimmy carter.

I have a tough time thinking these companies would lower standards to close more loans without the assurancse that their risks wouldn't be minimized. It just doesn't happen that way.

It is just amazing to me how we both see the same facts yet have totally different interpretations of them.

That is what is great about America and why you can never have one party in power.

Eric said...

You're right, it did start with subprime mortgages, but the currents troubles also stem from devices like credit default swaps. They are basically insurance against defaults on loans, yet they were not sold as insurance, nor were they sold by insurance companies, nor were they regulated at all.

We weathered the subprime crisis (which was and is still a major crisis) because at least the mortgages have assets behind them. With these credit default swaps, per my understanding (I'm no economist), as the government is looking at the bailout, they realize they have no way to price these things. They are so ethereal that they have no basis for value. The banks were selling unicorns.

So we have financial companies creating products like derivatives that create a mythical wealth. Why didn't some regulatory agency step in? Because of, as you said, greed. And the role of regulation is to make sure the government stems corporate greed, because a corporation has no conscience, nor should it. Its goal is to maximize profits. But if we let corporations do nothing but maximize profits for their corporation alone, and THEN if we promise to keep the profits private (by keeping taxes low on the wealthy) and to make the losses public (by bailing out these firms), we are creating a climate that is good for business but bad for America.