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

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Hopefully I will not be censured for presenting these facts:

I'll tell you what, Avenger. I WANT you to kee on posting here. As you can see, we don't all agree with each otehr. We can serve ourselves and our fellow citizens by continuing to have a civilized and honest conversation. Our debate is watched by many who never post here. That, by itslef, makes this a necessary conversation.

As many of you already know, THIS thread is one of the nost viewed on ATS. There's a reason for that. We're honest. We don't pull any punches, and we stay on our good behavior. We know that we can make our point without heckling or foul language. We can stay on task, and discuss the issues to their fullest.

I'm grateful to all the peop;le who have started to read and review my books, but I'm even more grateful to those who strike out on their own to have the conversations with their friends and family.

McCain definitely lost the debate... not based on what he said or didn't say however but based on his behavior... rude and petulant... condesending and arrogant as opposed to Obama's measured responses and courtesies like deferring to the older man when they agreed.

Obama came across as an intelligent gentleman... McCain did not.

Well, now. It looks like we have a new question on our hands. The bailout was voted down in the House. What can this mean for the Presidential race? Does this benefit one side more than the other?

reply to post by Justin Oldham


At this stage I would say neither of the two candidates gain much other then having a clearer idea of what awaits them on the economic front should they occupy the Oval Office . Really the bailout is more about Bush legacy then anything else he wants to be able to say that either the economy didn't sink on his watch or he could have prevented it from doing so .

reply to post by xpert11

At this stage I would say neither of the two candidates gain much other then having a clearer idea of what awaits them on the economic front should they occupy the Oval Office . Really the bailout is more about Bush legacy then anything else he wants to be able to say that either the economy didn't sink on his watch or he could have prevented it from doing so .

I think the American people are entitled to KNOW how we got here! Stop the Cover-up!

The Dems are not going to carry George's water. Only 74 of the 202 GOP House members were willing to vote for the bailout bill. The Dems want at least 120 GOP votes onboard if they are going to support the package. If George can't get the votes, then we'll just have to wait until January. With public sentiment running 10 to 1 AGAINST the Wall Street Relief Bill, it looks dead. R.I.P.

I never understood how a problem 30 years in the making - 1980 GOP Icon Ronald Reagan defined it - "government is the problem, not the solution" - had to be fixed in a week. PLUS, I don't understand why the 3 men most responsible for the CRASH, Bernanke, Paulson and Bush43, would be good choices to FIX it.

Well, you can add Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman along with Newt Gingrich to the list of responsible characters. Odd isn't it, when the going gets really tough, even the loudest ANTI government guys turn to Uncle Sam! And I could swear Friedman said “the MARKET WILL SELF CORRECT if left to its own devices.” So let us let it happen! We must get rid of those people who BROUGHT US HERE!

We survived the 1929 Crash until 1933, so I think we'll make it through this one too. I feel sorry for all those 97 million citizens who have been conned into putting their 401(k) plans into the hands of smooth talking financial advisers - also unregulated. But in the final analysis all that money WENT SOMEWHERE and I'd like to see the FBI track it down!

[edit on 9/30/2008 by donwhite]

Republicans and Democrats alike heard from the American people, loud and clear. According to some reports, the calls, andl etters were running 200 to 1 against the bailout. Some of my sources in D.c. said that they are getting so much mail and phone traffic that its "interfering with regular bsuiness."

We should remember that the entire House of Representatives is up for re-election. Anyone who voted for that bailout is at risk of losing their job.

I have posted quite a few threads on the bailout and have generally been against the whole idea but I am not a knee jerk anything... the more I learn about the situation the more I realize that whether or not it's this bailout plan or another the results of doing nothing could be disaster... now I am of a mind that no matter what we do, we are not going to stop the pending depression staring us in the eye BUT doing nothing to ameliorate it will make it far worse so the choice is how bad do we want it to be?

As for the election based on the ad's playing here in Va. the Republicans and McCain are running scared... the attack ads have been relentless and they stand in stark contrast to Obama's ad's. While there have been attack ads from the Obama camp they are nothing like the hysterics from McCain and the Republicans none of which even attempt to discuss the issues whereas Obama's ads have been.

That speaks volumes and given the fact that the most recent polls from Ohio, Penn. and Florida give Obama 9+ points above McCain (actually 15 point lead in Penn.) all I can say is it is looking increasingly bad for McCain....

.... As for tomorrow night I fully expect Biden to discuss the issues and Palin to mouth meaningless platitudes and generalities.

Its not going to be pretty.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by grover]

The Senate has voted in favor of the Bailout. It's now going to very "unpopular" to vote against this bill. We should expect the House to go along with it. It's ironic to me that the Vice Presidential debate is going to be held today. If Sarah does NOT do well, her failure could combine with the ramming through of this bill. I'm doubtful that the Republican dpin docs could work around...THAT.

Many of us have known tht the economy was going to tank. If you go back to the earliest days of this thread, yo ucan see the predictions. As the economy fails, so too will the republicans. I'm not happy about this, but I'm willing to call it as I see it.

I know that you are a Republican Justin but your continued insistance in being fair and even handed without resorting to partisian hysterics and broad knee jerk generalites has earned you my deepest respect... sadly you are the exception rather than the rule... on ATSNN anyway... You are the type of person with whom I can disagree with and still have a civil and intelligent conversation with... unfortunately for you and our nation the Republican party has been taken over by extremists and ideologues who have no interest in either reality or truth but insist in pushing their agenda regardless of the situation.

Our nation and your party need more of your even handedness... it has become sorely lacking, especially in political matters and we all suffer because of it....

A star for you for this excellent and intelligent thread.



Silly me... I went to give the star only to discover that Don White started it... and all along I thought Justin Oldman did... I gave the star anyway and what I said about Justin still stands and between him and Don this is easily the most serious and sober thread on ATSNN.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by grover]

It's nothing but the "Blame Bush for everything" mentality in overdrive.

I know this has been brought up a few times already yet some people conveniently refuse to accept it because it goes against everything they choose to believe, but it's worth repeating.

The fact is, the root of the financial crisis began during the Clinton era when certain lending institutions were being forced by The Democrats to loan money to people who were not able to afford it. Barney Frank is the most to blame. Senator Chris Dodd, Senator Barack Obama and Senator John Kerry received huge paybacks from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Here are the top recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 1989-2008:

1. Dodd, Christopher J D-CT $133,900

2. Kerry, John D-MA $111,000

3. Obama, Barack D-IL $105,849

source


Notice they are all Democrats?

Sure it happened under Bush's watch and sure he should and will get blamed for this, one, because it goes with the territory of being President and, two, because he should have been a lot more aggresive in getting his point across to Congress when he started pushing for regulation and warning us about the crisis that was looming. Chris Dodd kept saying "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis" and Bush just said OK.

Maybe that was part of the plan all along because I for one believe this crisis was intentionally and deliberately caused by the Democrats as a scare tactic. Since the situation in Iraq suddenly turned in our favor the Dems were no longer able to pin the war on Bush so instead they turned to the economy. A spiteful and shameful act of putting the the country's economy at risk for political and partisan gain.
What better way to agitate the public thus making it easier to accept and welcome Obama as our economic saviour.

A most perfect eample of "Problem, Reaction, Solution".

Will it work?
Yes, it probably will because that's the dirty game of politics at its best.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Alxandro]

thanks to Grover for the kind words. The trrible truth is that both Republicans and Democrats have lead us to this financial predicament. Both parties are culpable. Federal civil service has also done its part to create thechaos that now threatens to consume us.

Win, lose, or draw, we all benefit from conversations like this. Some times ,we change a few minds. Some times, we don't. Having your own opinion is easy. Presenting it in forums like this one...is hard. That goes for me, too. What we think and how we put it in to words are two different things. As a writer, I have come to appreciate this more and more.

We're now in a situation that bears close watching. Opposition to this bailout os no longer politically popular. Now that the Senate has passed a version of this bill, the House will be strong-armed in to doing the same. We do need to understand that no bill will ever be perfect. You can't please everybody with one piece of legislation.

The Republicans have gone too far, when it comes to de-regualtion. the Democrats will now go too far, when it comes to the extent of Federal authority. In the same way that Bush grew the size of government by creating the Department of Homeland Security, our next President will grow the Federal treasury. Taht President is most likely to be Barack Obama.

Smaller government doesn't mean no government. It does mean fidning the balance, and keeping it.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Thanks Grover for the kind words. The truth is both Republicans and Democrats have lead us to this financial predicament. What we think and how we put it in to words are two different things. As a writer, I have come to appreciate this more and more. We're now in a situation that bears close watching. Opposition to this bailout is no longer politically popular. Now that the Senate has passed a version of this bill, the House will be strong-armed in to doing the same.

I wouldn’t be too sure how the House will react to the Senate vote. Only 34 senators are up for election this year. I do not know how many of the 25 voting Nay are in that group. But you can see that for up to 66 of the 75 senators voting Aye it was a no-brainer. They are not at risk at the polls this November 4. As we all know all 435 - and the 5 non-voting delegates - are up for election. That is why the first effort would not wash in the House.

I don’t know what the tally of the voters calling in opposing the bailout is. I betcha any congressman in a 5% district - swing - is not going to vote Yea. Only those incumbents who are in a 10% district can vote their best judgment. I have no idea how many of either party are in such districts. But there is NO party discipline. For whatever that’s worth. That went out with the Supreme Court’s one man one vote ruling. I’d say it’s still a toss-up.

The Republicans have gone too far, when it comes to de-regulation. In the same way that Bush grew the size of government by creating the Department of Homeland Security, our next President will grow the Federal treasury. That President is most likely to be Barack Obama.

Actually, IMO post-Clinton Dems are not so much in favor of size for its own sake - appointee jobs - as they are likely to support the new idea of government assuring a level playing field. Money-wise. In the other areas, we must add staffing. Agriculture needs a man at every slaughter house, every day. And other processing plants.

We need inspectors at the Chinese toy plants and everything that our children will be in contact with. We need an inspector at every active ingredient for our medicines now made in 2,000 plants around the world. We need enough inspectors so that airplanes do not go 2 years past the proper dates. And bridges. Roads. And other infrastructure need inspections by qualified competent and reliable officials.

The actual numbers of newly expanded Federal agencies are secondary. We need to restore a safe country FIRST. No more private “self-inspecting” and privae “self-reporting.” That approach got us here.


[edit on 10/2/2008 by donwhite]

The House of Representitives has voted to pass the Emergency Economic Rescue Plan of 2008. Love it or hate it, we need to understand that the pressure on House members was immense. Intense. It's also worth noting that he Senate loaded the bill with an additiona lone hundred million dollars in pork. These two factors meant that the fix was in. Now that the American tax payer has been successfully robbed, we'll need to see what Washington manages to do with the money.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


Right! And I had watched Fox news a couple times in the past couple days just to see what they right had to say about this..

And when the bill was voted down, on fox and friends in the morning they said.. The bill didnt pass because it was not for enough money!

I couldnt belive it when I heard it.. Now more money was thrown into the pork!! And then it was passed!!! I just cant belive it right now..
I do know it happening.. But for some reason I am in a state of denial.

Not sure why I am feeling this way.. But I am having a hard time comming to terms with this issue.
And I really cant place why this is doing this too me.. I almost feel as if I have been personally hurt, and messed with.

I feel as if one of my best friends just put a knife in my back.. I feel as if someone I know did something very bad to me.. And most the time with this governmental stuff I can shrug it off.. And cope with it very well.

This bill has me stressed.. And makes me feel as if this has hit home..

reply to post by Alxandro



You are absolutely correct and have not been ignored by everyone here.
Bill Clinton has admitted that he and Democrats made the mess with way too liberal lending practices.

As far as Bush bashing, it really is ridiculous on this board and is the major reason I don't post more. If by some strange quirk of fate Obama should win this election, I assure you that people would soon wish that Bush was back.

reply to post by TheAvenger

Bill Clinton has admitted that he and Democrats made the mess with way too liberal lending practices. As far as Bush bashing, it really is ridiculous on this board and is the major reason I don't post more. If by some strange quirk of fate Obama should win this election, I assure you that people would soon wish that Bush was back.

I must live in a different world, Mr T/A. Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. He had a Democratic Congress. On absolute party lines, the Clinton Tax Bill was passed which ended in 2000 with a $135 b. surplus and a projected $1.6 t. surplus over the next 5 years.

In 1994 Newt Gingrich invented his Contract with America. It propelled him into the Speakership and the GOP into control of Congress.

In 2000, Bush43 won the presidency in the electoral college. The GOP kept control of Congress until a few months into 2001. Senator Jim Jeffords of VT changed to Independent in May and said he would vote with the Dems to organize the Senate. That put the Dems in “control” of the Senate, 50 to 49 plus 1 independent. The GOP regained control of the Senate in 2004, 55 to 45. They lost control back to the Dems in '06 and again the Dems have 49 to 49 with 2 independents voting Dem to organize. That's control about as thin as you can get. The Republicans retained control of the House until 2006.

To me, it is nothing less than disingenuous - or smoking peyote - to lay the blame for the mortgage meltdown and the following on collapse of the Republican "deck of cards" economy - actually Ronald Reagan started the process of gutting the regulatory agencies in 1981 which is the underlying cause - on Bill Clinton and the Democrats. Neither have I heard Bill Clinton or any Democrat take blame for that. This is the Neo Con Reagan Revolution in its fulfilment! Trickle down economics!
www.washingtonpost.com...


[edit on 10/3/2008 by donwhite]

Consider. Does anyone doubt for a microsecond that if "paid" sufficiently well Joe Lieberman would switch sides and vote with the GOP to organize the senate? That would make it 50 to 50 and put VP Cheney in the catbird seat. For some unstated reason Joe and the GOP have not pulled that rabbit out of the hat.

I suggest it is because the GOP leaders feel it is better for the Dems to be in control of Congress than to have control split. For example. The electorate installed the Dems in control of Congress in '06 on the issue of ENDING the Iraq War. When it turned out the Congress could not do that, the Dems took a lot of unfair heat.

On the current bailout of Wall Street banks - what I call the $700 b. donation to the R&Fs - Rich and Famous - it is a real possibility it would not passif the GOP had control of Congress. Too many GOP congressmen would not vote for such an unpopular law. So your enemy can do for you what your friend will not do. Life is funny like that.


[edit on 10/3/2008 by donwhite]

It's worth noting that the actual number on that bailout bill is eight hundred billion dollars. The rats in the Senate added anotehr one hundred billion dollars in pork to pay off any and all resistors. That's the version that hte House approved of so whole-heartedly.

The Republicans don't have the mojo to take over the Senate, Not any more. Conventional wisdom holds that the GOP will become a small minority in both the House and the Seante. This will happen in two phases. First, teh Presidential elections in November of this year. Secondly, the Congressional races of 2010 will seal their fate for the next decade.

The real problem to be faced...long ter...is Democratic supremacy on capitol. Hill. The GOP minority is expected to be small enough to present no real legislative threat to the Democrats. If the Dems want to play rough, it'll be very hard for the Republicans to do little more than gum up the works on procedural matters.

Let's be clear on one thing. The Republicans had it all their own way from 2000 to 2006. They held the House, Senate, and the Presidnecy. They even managed to appoint two (2) Supreme Court Justices. If they had been united, and on the ball, we would be talking about THEIR supremacy just now.

We suffer when the party in power does NOT have to make any compromises. That's an important thing. In the long run, we face some very real problems if one party or the otehr gains total supremacy. hate to say, but we could be at that point. The Democras are on the verge of having near total power for a very long time to come.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

It's worth noting that the actual number on that bailout bill is eight hundred billion dollars. The rats in the Senate added another one hundred billion dollars in pork to pay off any and all resistors. That's the version that hte House approved of so whole-heartedly.

The real problem to be faced . . long term . . is Democratic supremacy on Capitol Hill. The GOP minority is expected to be small enough to present no real legislative threat to the Democrats. If the Dems want to play rough, it'll be very hard for the Republicans to do little more than gum up the works on procedural matters.

Hello? It takes 60 votes in the Senate to do anything dramatic. To get more right wing ideologues approved as judges, GOP Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to use a parliamentary maneuver of dubious legality - he called it the dooms-day threat - to end the Senate’s unique super-majority requirement to shut off debate. Cloture. With VP Cheney in the chair making procedural rulings the Dems consented to a hefty number of such otherwise incompetent judges to go on the Federal bench.

Briefly (an oxymoron for me?) the Senate’s historic 2/3rds majority requirement was not adopted until the early 1820s. It stayed that way until 1964 when in the aftermath of grief over the JFK assassination, LBJ helped mightily by Hubert Humphrey got it lowered to the current 3/5ths vote to shut off debate - to end a filibuster. LBJ did that in order to OVERCOME the power of the Southern Democrats to BLOCK civil rights bills. In the 1980s those Boll Weevils - ultra conservative say reactionary Southern Dems - were invited into the Republican Party by Ronald Reagan and I’m happy to report, they went over in droves! They had found a NEW home and willing allies from which to wage their endless race war on America's blacks!

Let's be clear on one thing. The Republicans had it all their own way from 2000 to 2006. They held the House, Senate, and the Presidency. They even managed to appoint two (2) Supreme Court Justices. If they had been united, and on the ball, we would be talking about THEIR supremacy just now.

America is a very conservative say right wing country (and excessively religious). Liberals are only called upon when the Conservatives have mucked the system beyond repair. Then, after the fix, it's back to business as usual as soon as possible! Sweet Jesus! Bill Clinton lost the Congress in 1994 to Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. That the Contract was breached matters not a whit to the true believers. The GOP could work no mischief with the Federal judiciary because Clinton would not nominate any of their ilk. In 2000 the Senate turned up evenly divided. 50-50. VP Cheney predictably cast the deciding vote to organize with the GOP.

Then, in May, 2001, Sen. Jeffords of VT moved to Independent status and announced he would vote with the Dems to organize the Senate. That gave the Dems a 51-49 hold. Not exactly a "slam dunk" of George Tenant fame. The Dems lost control in the mid-term 2002 election and the GOP held a 55-45 majority going into the 2006 election. The Dems regained control of the Senate by 50-49 with 1 vote from the Independent now Sen. Sanders of VT, Sen. Jeffords having retired. Which brings us to 2008. Note: The other Senate Independent is Sen. Lieberman of CT but Joe still votes Dem to organize (he also keeps his Senate seniority standing). See my explanatory post above.

We suffer when the party in power does NOT have to make any compromises. That's an important thing. In the long run, we face some very real problems if one party or the other gains total supremacy. hate to say, but we could be at that point. The Democrats are on the verge of having near total power for a very long time to come.

Yesterday’s CBS 60 Minutes Steve Kroft interviewed some knowledgeable people who tried to explain why we are where we are. Money-wise. You can see it at CBS.com.

DERIVATIVES. A simple word meaning “it comes from something else.” Say you hold a 100 home mortgages and you want to sell them to me as a package. You prepare yet another instrument which includes those 100 mortgages by reference and you sell me that instrument, which is a derivative. One thing coming from another.

SWAP. The Hustle. To make the sale of bundled mortgages bring the maximum buck, all the sellers offered to SWAP any bad mortgages at for a good mortgage and naturally, charging a nominal fee. Kinda like insurance but NOT! For the seller it was pure unregulated profit. Michael Milken reborn! For the buyer, it turrned out to be a RIP-OFF that US taxpayers are now asked to PAY OFF! To the tune of $800 b. the first installment I fear.

Rehash. A “SWAP” means that for each bad mortgage I find in the 100 you sold me, you will replace (SWAP) it for a GOOD one or pay me in cash money. This - the SWAP - was a clever device to avoid the laws of insurance which require reporting, holding reserves and limit the amount of risk that can be taken and so on. The totally unregulated SWAPs were totally UNFUNDED. There were NO reserves. And it is those SWAPS that are estimated to be up to $45 t. or $55 t. Estimated because NO ONE IS LOOKING. We really don’t know who sold what to whom!

Then the over priced, oversold housings bubble burst! The Trojan horse ARMs begun to take their (predictable) toll and more and more home mortgagees went into bankruptcy. The buyers of the DERIVATIVES began to look to the guys who sold them the SWAPS for their promised cash.

As smart as they were, the SWAP sellers never anticipated this. In fact, the did not give a good ***-****! Reaganomics says let the buyer beware! They - like Wachovia Bank - had not enough cash on hand or available to see them through. And basically, that is where we are today.

Don’t worry. The R&Fs* will take care of themselves. Just watch Bush43 to see what I mean. He shamelessly grovels for the moneyed class! YES, the Dems did add $100 b. to the bailout bill but that was to help ORDINARY Joe’s save their homes. (*Rich and Famous - the top 20% of Americans. Your gated community types. No drive-by shootings there).

Without knowing, I’d guess the total of EARMARKS that loaded the bill would not exceed $5 b. In the America of 2008, that is a NOMINAL cost! Hey, we throw $2 b. a week away in Iraq! Ordinary citizens know they are helpless to ask why or on what. So don’t talk accountability to me.

For a real insight into the problem, see
www.youtube.com...

Or you can view the movie in full screen mode by clicking the bottom button that's second from the right. Mr. Schneider Goes to Washington. Make some popcorn and enjoy!
www.youtube.com...#


[edit on 10/6/2008 by donwhite]

I guess it's fair to say both the left and the right are to blame for this financial crisis, even though the roots belong to Jimmy Carter, aka Obama I, with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

Seems the only candidate that can't be blamed for this is Palin.