It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

page: 48
12
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Your post made me think about how the US political system could adapted elements of the parliamentary system without fundamental changes being made but that is for another topic . I would expect the dems to support bailouts and the Republicans naturally to oppose them . However this isnt the case because the Republicans would support any measures that they think will stall the economy from sinking further until after the election .


I myself have been suggesting that the Bush administration is trying to keep things togehter just long enough to avoid the melt down on hteir watch. Many ATS members have pointed out in this thread, and in others, that the fixes we need are long term. Now, it appears that the meltdown is happening faster than any of us predicted.




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
This ever growing economic mess does not bode well for either McCain or the Republicans because after 8 years in power and decades of scamming us into believing that less regulation of banking in good regulation (didn't they (and us) learn anything from the savings and loans mess? apparently not) they have no one else to blame... they will of course try and obscure the issues and of course blame the Democrats but it is going to be a losing ploy this time around.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I hear you, Grover. In the late 80's, the amount of debt tha the Fed stepped in to clean up was minor. compaared to the toxic spill the tax payers are being called on to eat today. Even so, your point is well made. Politicians on both sides of he aisle have not learned anything since the last bail out. Republicans, in particular, have lost their way. They no longer advocate for the fiscal conversancy that they were once known for.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
As far as I can piece together this is only a band aid and a fail safe measure...the resulting inflation and drop in the value of the dollar is going to continue driving homeowners into foreclosure... this time it won't be the marginal and bad loans though that fall.

That both candidates are still making noise about lowering taxes is just plain wrong... the American people need to be told the truth... but of course that won't happen.

If anything though this probably will spell the end of the Iraq misadventure and probably much foreign aid... I hope so anyway.

I never thought I would find myself agreeing with some on the hard right but these banks and investment houses should be allowed to fail... continuing to bail them out sends the totally wrong message.

Still... no bank, no institution, no investment house, no insurance house, no corporation should be allowed to grow so large that its fall would so adversely affect the national economy.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I never thought I would find myself agreeing with some on the hard right but these banks and investment houses should be allowed to fail... continuing to bail them out sends the totally wrong message.


A lot of people are coming to these conclusions. It's looking more and more like the proposed 700 billion dollar bail out is just a temporary fix. I note with some interest that nobody is talkingabout increased enforcement of existing laws, or improved regulations. "Give us the money."

Now that the threat of real recession is on us, we're seeing the big money guys and he politicians go in to survivla mode. It would hurt real bad for us to go through the "withdrawl" of an investment bank collapse. It might even be our generation's equivelant of the 1930's depression. Sad to say, but I think that's what it will take to acheive real banking reforms.

It's worth noting that earlier today, Goldman-Sachs and Morgan-Stanley each gave up their investment bank status. Taht means the era of exclusive investment banks may be at an end...for now. I need to look in to this some more before I make any judgements.

Last point. You will note that BOTH Presidential candidates have not sayd anything of substance on this matter. Nobody wants to bite the hand that feeds them.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Here you go Justin! I posted this in your other discussion on the economy also.

problem explained:
www.youtube.com...

solution:
www.youtube.com...

This solution fixes the problems with false assets and makes the issues more open and visible. I think it is exactly what is needed!

Karl is a great economic commentator and I think he's on the ball in this stage of the game when it comes to caring for the American people and what this country stands for.

Oh, and his paper that he sent to all representatives:
www.denninger.net...

I think these things need to go viral so e-mail them and post them wherever you think you would see success.

I think we can see here how little our candidates understand the economy, how little congress understands the economy, and how little we all understand the economy. We won't see any ground breaking statements from our candidates because they are scared and don't understand this thing.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by Bugman82]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
The links you've provided serve to underscore one central point. As we watch the situation unfold this week, we won't actually see a solution being put forward. The Republicans, in particular, can't seem to get off the de-regulation band wagon. In this case, we're in trouble because of too much de-regulation. SOME de-regulation is always necessary.

On a side note, I see that the polls are still virtually tied. McCain and Obama can't seem to break fifty percent. Neither one of them has that much support. As much as it kills me to see my preferred political party going down the tubes, I ahve to admit that it IS happening. We should see McCain's numbers fall all by the first of October.

One last thing. The first Presidential debate will be held this Friday. I'm looking forward to it.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



One last thing. The first Presidential debate will be held this Friday. I'm looking forward to it.


Maybe, maybe not.

John McCain wants to SUSPEND the campaign through the planned debate on September 27. In other words, he does not want to be seen on the same platform as Obama.

He offers that he wants to go back to W-DC to STUDY the current financial crisis. He invites Obama to “join” him. What kind of malarkey is this? The winner will not take office until January 20, 2009. Barack and Big John are but TWO votes out of 100 in the Senate. NEITHER has any time to participate in subcommittee hearings.

Does Big John think he is the INDISPENSABLE man and that his input is NEEDED to make the urgent decisions how and what to do to SAVE the world’s economy?

I ask, IS Big John is CRACKING?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
The Republicans gained some very good PR when thy put their nominating convention in to low gear during hurricane Gustav. I'm thinking that McCain's handlers want to try and cash in on that good will, again. He'd get more mileage out of it if he had a better series of solutions to put forward.

McCain damaged himself badly when he kept on insisting (for three ful days) that he was the ultimate de-regulator. I'm all for a leaner and more efficient government, but even I know that there is such a thing as too much de-regulation. The Republicans should reach out and grab this to OWN it, but they can't. Not without taking a hack saw to Bush43's legacy, such as it is.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Well in my mind there are two ways you can view this matter . The first is that McCain was scared to debate and was looking for an out . McCain and his team could have thought that a rerun of a Carter vs Reagan in reserve was on offer . The second is that McCain is looking to portray himself as an elder statements(SP?) who can rise above partisan politics to tackle the vital issues at hand . Given what seasoned hand McCain is I regard the second possibility as being far more likely .

reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Your right on the money there . What you said reinforces what I have been saying for a while that is that that the Republican Party core supporter base as well as a lot of its elected members including Bush have become purely idealogical driven . That is about as much as I can say without going off topic .



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 



The first is that McCain was scared to debate and was looking for an out. The second is that McCain is looking to portray himself as an elder statements who can rise above partisan politics to tackle the vital issues at hand. Given what seasoned hand McCain is I regard the second possibility as being far more likely.


It looks as if the job has been finished without McCain's presence in W-DC. In his speech Bush43 said one thing that makes it look as if he, Bush43, will try to co-opt Obama by holding a three-way summit. Of course, Obama and the Dems cannot allow that.

I offer a THIRD explanation for the SUSPENSION of the Campaign by Big John. This sets it up for Sarah Palin to SKIP her debate with Joe Biden. After she FLUNKED her interview with Katie Couric yesterday it must be obvious that putting Sarah on a stage for 90 minutes would be a GOP disaster.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
In large part I agree with Don on this. Palin really is a member of the not ready for prime time players. and there is no way she can come out of a debate with Biden and not look bad... her only chance for success would be a ploy where they suggest that Biden (a man) was beating up on Palin (a woman) and make it a sexist issue when it is an ignorance and lack of experience issue. Of course that ploy can go only so far... as it is many women are seriously offended by McCain's choice of Palin and to try that tack will only alienate more.

As for McCain suspending his campaign and trying to wiggle out of the debate its a shallow attempt to make him look more presidential by stepping back from the campaign and Obama look bad because when it comes to this whole economic mess the Republicans and McCain look horrible, as they should.

As for bush minor he gave the most articulate speech I have heard from him in a long time... they must have upped his meds.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by grover]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I understand why McCain suspended his campaign, but he hasn't followed up that move with anyting that I would call newsworthy. In short, he's failed to capitolize on what should have been a bold move. As the work day comes to an end, we see that Congress has not yet worked out a package that hey can take to the President.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 



As for McCain suspending his campaign and trying to wiggle out of the debate its a shallow attempt to make him look more presidential by stepping back from the campaign and Obama look bad because when it comes to this whole economic mess the Republicans and McCain look horrible, as they should.


Sadly I must acknowledge the Republicans have done it to us again! They hate government. They hate the poor. We have no assurances that this $700 b. will end this crisis the Reaganites have brought upon us.

Just as we were lied to gen into the Iraq War - Iraqi oil revenues would pay the costs - we have crossed the direct cost of $550 b. so far and I said DIRECT COSTS. Indirect costs like VA benefits for survivors of nearly 4,500 KIA and 30,000 injured veterans for their rest of their lives, interest on debt caused by TAX CUTS for the Rich and Famous running 30 years our children will pay and so on!

Who is to say this will not be just the FIRST installment?

Here are three Republican Days of Infamy!

October 28, 1929
, Black Tuesday. Same cause as today's NADIR of Republicanism, "leveraged" trading in the markets. LEVERAGE means "on the cuff" or on borrowed money! Wall Street is NOT Vegas. You cannot run a stock market ON THE IF COME as if at a craps table.

August 24, 1974.
Resignation of Richard Nixon to avoid trial for criminal conspiracy.

Friday, September 26, 2008
, the LARGEST ONE DAY MONEY GRAB in the History of the World by the Rich and Famous whose "bets" went sour. So much for your children's college education. For health care. For rebuilding our infrastructure.

WE POOR FOLKS ARE THE BIGGEST SUCKERS IN THE WHOLE WORLD.

[edit on 9/25/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
In general terms, i agree with Don. This bailout is in my opinion a bad idea. If the Democrats get their way, and the government gains partial ownership of the companiesthat accept this taxpayer funded bailout, we will be taking more han one dangerous step towards socialism.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Socialism per say is really a nuteral system... many strongly capitalist nations in Europe also have equally strong socialist aspects... indeed it could easily be argued that there are more legitimately socialist democracies in the world than there are authoritian socialist regimes.

There are things that I believe should be owned and operated by the government... natural resources like oil and gas... stratigic minerals are another.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



we will be taking more han one dangerous step towards socialism.


Big John Is BACK! He fixed the Financial Meltdown! The debate goes forward.

[edit on 9/26/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Nowthat we've all seen the first Presidential debate for 2008...what did you think? I was pleasantly surprised at how specfic McCain was on several occasions, but he missed his chance to hit the ball out of the parrk. If he had remained specfic, he would have sufficiently undermined Obama to achieve a convincing win.

For all intents and purposes, Barack Obama won the debate on style. I thought it was funny that neitehr one of them could tell a joke properly, but in the end, i was disappointed in McCain. His inability to form new sentences time and time again made him look old and crotchety. Inflexible. His inarticulate presentation failed to make him look and sound like an elder Statesman.

McCain's failure to splash and dazzle wasn't all his fault. It's true that he's unwilling to distnace himself from the bush agenda, but he never once said anything that you could call a memorable sound bite. For his part, I think the Senator was hard pressed to keep his temper in check. It just wasn't his night.

Barack Obama never once pushed his advantage, when he had it. As I observed his eyes and body language, I got the impression that he was contemptuous of the older Senator, who clearly had no background in collegiate debate. Pleae remember that contempt is not arrogance. Obama had his game face on. I think he was aware that he could lose position at any moment. I also think he knew that he was using style over substance.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I will violate my vow of silence long enough to note these poll results on the first presidential debate found on AOL. Over 500,000 respondents have McCain winning in every category. Other AOL Polls have Over 200,000 saying that McCain wins the election by 52/42/5, close to my earlier prediction.

Why are these polls important? They have a very large sample size. It's taken on a neutral medium (ie not CNN or Fox News website). The votes are spread out all over the US, as opposed to a local area (like San Francisco) that might be, say, biased.

Hopefully I will not be censured for presenting these facts:

Half a million respondents....who won the debate?
McCain 45%, Obama 42%

Who appeared more Presidential?
McCain 52%, Obama 48%

Who do you trust more to handle the economy?
McCain 53%, Obama 47%

Who do you trust more to handle the Iraq War?
McCain 56%, Obama 44%


The big one.....over 200,000 people polled:

Which is the most important issue of the election:
Economy 75%, National Security 16%, Iraq War 6%
Other 4%

Have you decided who you are voting for?
Yes, McCain 52%, Yes, Obama 42%, Not Yet 5%



AOL News





[edit on 9/28/2008 by TheAvenger]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAvenger
 



I will violate my vow of silence long enough to note these poll results on the first presidential debate found on AOL. Over 500,000 respondents have McCain winning in every category. Over 150,000 have McCain winning the election by 52/42/5, close to my earlier prediction.


Well, now that it's all over but the shouting (and counting) I guess Barack will be canceling his order for 50,000 pounds of chicken wings and 10 barrels of hot sauce for the GRAND celebration on the Mall just after the Inauguration?



[edit on 9/28/2008 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join