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: 51
12
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Obama is a very intelligent and I believe will do the best that he can but like Carter the situation may very well overwhelm him.

McCain is too much part of the old boy network and too tied to the policies that have gotten us into this mess... his ideas are little more than rehashes of the same old same old...

... and at 72, I don't mean to sound ageist, but I don't think he is quick or smart enough to deal with the problems facing us.... I am not sure anyone is but Obama is obviously a quick study... and what he doesn't know Biden will be a good mentor for...

... as for Palin... I don't want that woman anywhere near the halls of power... she is more frightening than bush minor and that is pretty damned bad.




posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 



In order to avoid the imbalance of power, we must get rid of ALL incumbents. Replace them all with new people that can be easily watched and babysat. It's a shame that it's come to this but why should they be allowed to remain in office after they've sold us out?


Impossible. Although they surely do make us all angry from time to time. When their mail was running 300 to 1 against the Bail Out Bill, the House responded by voting NO. That’s democracy at its best!

If the 435 House members and the 34 senators up for election this year were all defeated, then the REAL government of the US would be in the hands of the White House and the 38,000 regular employees of Congress. Professional bureaucrats we call them with some disdain, but they are the ones that make it work!

Lesson: Be careful lest you shoot yourself in your foot.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 



Obama is a very intelligent and I believe will do the best that he can but like Carter the situation may very well overwhelm him.


The risk and danger is there. Neither Obama nor McCain can address the economy because every day is a new day fraught with new problems. And because NO ONE KNOWS what to do. Note that as of today, the foreigners are now pointing their finger at the US for bringing about this financial debacle that begun under Ronald Reagan - “government is the problem, not the solution.” So much for Milton Friedman and the Neo Con Agenda.



McCain is too much part of the old boy network ... his ideas are little more than rehashes of the old ... and at 72, I don't mean to sound ageist, but I don't think he is quick or smart enough to deal with the problems facing us ....
I am not sure anyone is but Obama is obviously a quick study ... and what he doesn't know Biden will be a good mentor for ...


I’m a bit older than McCain and I can verify that my body began to slow down around age 60. I know it is different for each person but I also know that most of us are TOO lazy to keep up with the times. We prefer to rely on what we learned during out “learning age” from say, 15 to 45. We (old people) tend to love the past TOO much.



... as for Palin ... I don't want that woman anywhere near the halls of power ... she is more frightening than bush minor and that is pretty damned bad.


McCain must HATE America? He cannot blame her on anyone but himself. In her appointment he was both cynical and pandering. He would jeopardize the future of Amerce for even a SLIM change at the GLORY of the White House. Worse than his scandalous role in the Keating Five (him #6) Palin is his greatest and potentially cruelest disservice to America. (If I was Nancy Pelosi I would have one of my top aides begin work now on an Impeachment Indictment against Mrs. Palin so we could greet her at her swearing in with the Good News! IE, don't bother to redecorate the White House. You won't be there long enough to finish).

I’ve heard that McCain made a Bargain In Hell with Phyllis Schaflay (Eagle Forum) and James Dobson (Focus on the Family) that they would get him the BORN AGAIN base voters if they could pick the VP. Sweet Jesus, you can see what they gave us. They all must think the Americans people a more stupid than even Karl Rove imagined.

[edit on 10/10/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I just want to take a brief moment to point out tha this thread now has one thousand posts. That's no small thing, on any web site. You should all be proud of your participation in this discussion. Now, let's get back to it...



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



I just want to take a brief moment to point out tha this thread now has one thousand posts. That's no small thing, on any web site.


Two talk shows last night - one the McLaughlin Group on PBS - have all but “given” the presidency to Barack Hussein Obama. I have a NYTimes map from October 8, 2008, which puts Barack with 189 “sure” and 71 “leaning.” Total 260. Needed to win, 270.

McCain is assigned 160 “sure” and 40 “leaning.” Total 200. The NYT says there are still 78 “undecided” electoral votes out there. You can see that Barack needs but 10 votes out of 78 to win, whereas McCain needs 70 out of the 78 to win. As I write this, there are 23 days remaining to November 4.

Good for Barack and bad for McCain, Barack’s 6% lead in the last nationwide Gallup Poll is more than the “margin of error” of 3%. And to put more fuel on the fire, Barack’s numbers have been on the rise over the past 30 days. That is to say, it looks like Barack is on a roll!

Whether true or not, it was mentioned that Barack had said just Thursday night, recalling the daily economic disaster reports, that rather than going to bed worrying that he would lose the presidency, he now worries that he will WIN it!

[edit on 10/11/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I just want to take a brief moment to point out tha this thread now has one thousand posts. That's no small thing, on any web site. You should all be proud of your participation in this discussion. Now, let's get back to it...


Uh huh.


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


My guess is Obama. What do I win?



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
This week, on Wednesday, we will see the third and final Presidnetial debate. If the evetns of the last week are any indicator, we should expect to see John McCain to stay on his message of character and judgement. This debate will come at a time when the Treasury starts to spend bail out money to buy partial ownership of various failing banks.

If McCain remains on his present course, Barack Obama won't have to change his game plan, eitehr. He won't have to be substantive. He may even be able to win this next debate...in the court of public opinion,...on style only. Here's my question. WHAT could McCain do that would force Obama in to being more specfic?



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Ya know I read the other day that only 6% of the mortgages in this nation are considered bad... if this is true it just does not make any sense... the American economy is into the many trillions large and the global is even more vast... now mind you I suck at math but it seems an awful small amount relatively speaking to wreck such havoc globally. There is something that they are not telling us and that something I suspect has to do with the nature of our credit society... its not just the housing bubble or sub prime mortgages... its the fact that we.... meaning all of us... have been living beyond our means for so long that it is the total accumulated debt that is constipating the markets and after all of this is said and done there will be more people without credit cards and buying with cash again than there are with cards which in many ways will be a good thing but pity the poor president who has to tell this to the American people.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



My humble congratulations for the thread reaching this milestone. There is amicable, intelligent and cogent discussion going on here. Many thanks.


Glenn


[edit on 10/13/2008 by TheAvenger]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 



I read that only 6% of the mortgages in this nation are considered bad . . if this is true it just does not make any sense . .


That may well be true Mr Grover. Figure the 30 years owner occupied fixed rate home mortgage was the standard. The overwhelming majority of home mortgages are of that type. Maybe 94% as you suggest? Today's primary concern a/k/a the mortgage meltdown - is caused by the ARMs written since 2002-2003. Adjustable Rate Mortgages are for people who do not qualify for a fixed rate loan. The sub-prime we hear much about.

ARMs were first used in the 1970s but did not catch on then. The current generation can see interest rates rise as high as 12%. If you started at 5 or 6% then got the 10-12% hit, you’d be dead. (Go to an amortization table website to get the bad news. See Example below).

Then came the BUNDLE.
Package 500-1000 owner occupied home mortgages - until now regarded as the safest non-governmental investment in the world - with bonds from GE and IBM etc. and maybe some municipal bonds and good stocks like Microsoft and you have 4-5 different “securities” in one package. You create a certificate to stand for those 1000-2000 individual securities. Now you can trade in $5 - $10 million “blocks.” Those “blocks” were rated AAA by Moody’s and the S&P quality raters.

Enter now the SWAPS
- and I don’t mean the horse! The seller of the “blocks” would offer a guarantee! To evade insurance regulations and laws it was offered to exchange or “swap” any bad mortgages (or other securities) for a good one. Or to pay money if no exchange was available. It is these totally unregulated and totally lacking in any backing or reserves, and which have expanded to the $40-$50 trillion level we hear about.

Now, banks cannot loan money beyond a certain level. This level of liquidity for loans is based on the value of US certificates, the AAA rated securities and cash on hand. Because no one can easily evaluate any particular “block” of securities, no one wants to loan money on their perceived value, nor can banks any longer use them for the required AAA reserve to make short term commercial loans.

Aside:
This scheme became possible because from 1933, the Roosevelt New Deal (that Republicans hate) invented the FHA - Federal Housing Administration - and from then until Ronald Reagan began to dismantled it in 1981, no insured (and 99% were) mortgage holder ever lost one penny!

Around the world everyone “knew” the American owner occupied home mortgage was next to GOD in dependability. Such reputable instruments were accepted without question. What they did not know was the Neo Con Reagan and his Milton Friedman followers had mucked it all up! Now they know. End.


Example.
$165,000 principal. Term 20 years. Beginning rate, 6%.
$1,182.11 per month. Raise the interest to 9% and the monthly payment goes to $1,484.55. At 10%, the monthly payment is $1,592.29. www.bankrate.com...


[edit on 10/13/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 



There is something that they are not telling us and that something I suspect has to do with the nature of our credit society . . its not just the housing bubble or sub prime mortgages . . it’s the fact that we . . meaning all of us . . have been living beyond our means for so long that it is the total accumulated debt that is constipating the markets and after all of this is said and done there will be more people without credit cards and buying with cash again than there are with cards which in many ways will be a good thing but pity the poor president who has to tell this to the American people.


This current MESS is entirely of George W. Bush’s making. He and his Neo Con True Believers beginning with Ronald Reagan. They HATE government. But they have shown they are INCOMPETENT. Now only the long suffering TAXPAYERS - not any Republicans because they do not believe in taxes - are called upon once again to BAIL THEM OUT.

Your grandchildren suffering to SAVE their grandchildren. Wow!

Since Bush43 took control as Commander in Chief for Life, we have run about $500 b. a year in trade deficits. Our original national worth of $50 trillion - the value of everything - has been diminished by about $4 t. under Bush43.

Our $500 b. annual Federal deficits have also diminished our national worth by another $4-$5 t. further reducing our national worth to the current value of about $40-$41 t. That is still such a large number it is hard to realize what is happening. But it is INEXORABLE. Enjoy NOW but you will pay LATER.

This Bush43 Neo Con tactic is also known as GENERATIONAL shifting of the tax burden!

[edit on 10/13/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



My humble congratulations for the thread reaching this milestone. There is amicable, intelligent and cogent discussion going on here. Many thanks.


Many thanks. glenn. You've had your own contributions to this effort. It's not an easy thing to put aside the partisan stuff. In this thread, we are arguing policy and ideology. These things often cross party lines.

As a conservative, I am likely to be an ardent critic of the Obama adminstration. That's probnably going to be true for a lot of us here. The most real of real conspiracies that I can point to has to do wit hteh expansion of Federal power, and the fiscal mismanagement that goes along with it.

It'll be interesting to ahve debates with Obama supporters, once he's in the White House. In the same way that i've been critical of the Republicans, I will be critical of the Dems when they go too far. today's voter is so fed up wit hteh republcians that many will cast their vote for Obama just to punish the GOP. Could the Dems be worthy of our trust?

Only time will tell.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Please not the US and the Free World has suffered for the last eight years in part because Bush has been so far out his depth . Another four years of a leader out of his depth would be to our great detriment.

reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


McCain problem is an interrogation in reserve. IMO McCain couldn't or cant ask specifics of Obama without incriminating himself or his party . For example the eight years of fiscal lunacy is bound to come up if Obama was asked about the costings of say his health policy's. That is far as my thinking takes me until I am feeling better .



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



I am likely to be an ardent critic of the Obama administration. That's probably going to be true for a lot of us here. The most real of real conspiracies that I can point to has to do wit the expansion of Federal power, and the fiscal mismanagement that goes along with it. In the same way that I’ve been critical of the Republicans, I will be critical of the Dems when they go too far. today's voter is so fed up wit the Republicans that many will cast their vote for Obama just to punish the GOP. Could the Dems be worthy of our trust?


Let’s not forget that this presidential race began as a critique of Bush43's handling of the War on Terror especially in Iraq. Aside: Iraq casualties through October 14, 2008. KIA, 4,182; Suicides, 160; All wounded, 30,634; Seriously wounded, 7,077. Thank you George. Between 1/06 and 10/08, the Iraqi Army and Police sustained an estimated 38,000 KIA. icasualties.org... See Foot Note.

The Surge?
Well, we know our KIA are much reduced. Whether that was because of the Surge we cannot know. There is a statisticians adage that says “Correlation is not Causation.” The first stated goal of the Surge was to give time - space - for the Iraqi to make those hard compromises they needed to make. I do not see that happening yet.

We do know the SURGE worked for Bush43! It got him PAST the critical time period between his public rebuke in the ‘06 election until the end of the fiscal year in ‘07, September 30. If Bush43 could keep the Iraq War going until them and avoid those sure to be embarrassing Congressional hearings, the Dems could not stop the War before '09. IT WOULD THEN THEIR WAR AS MUCH AS IT IS HIS WAR.

If the War is WON, Bushre43 can claim credit, if it is LOST, he can blame in on his successor. For Bush43, the Surge was a Win Win case. Bush43 can go to his grave saying, “I did not lose that war!” L-O-S-E being more dreaded to our RED State Americans than the 4,182 KIAs. Just ask John McCain! Just listen to his audience!

Although I believe you can trace a direct path from Bush43's early 2001 give-away of the Clinton budget surplus to the R&Fs, even Bush43 could not have known when it would fizzle. You know and I know that he KNEW it was an unsupported fiscal bubble looming out there just waiting to burst. IF Bush43 prays at night - I seriously doubt it - he must have prayed that GOD would forestall this economic calamity until January 20, 2009 when he could then BLAME is successor! Maybe GOD does love Dems more than HE loves GOP? HE did allow this debacle to happen on Bush43's watch! Where it belongs!

The Bush43 legacy?
He mucked up the Iraq War, is losing the Afghan War and has wrecked the economy! Wow! All that in just 8 years. The END of the REAGAN Era. Style does not triumph over substance after all.

I have seen here one Bush43 sycophant
who claimed the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act under Carter was the CAUSE! Give me a break! That was 31 years ago. (He heard that on Rush Limbaugh).

Another Bush43 sycophant
wants to blame this debacle on Bill Clinton. The same Bill who achieved a balanced budget and a budget surplus of over $130 billion in 2001 and it was projected a $1.6 trillion surplus over the next 5 years. ALL OF WHICH BUSH43 PROMPTLY GAVE AWAY.


Foot note:

The War in Afghanistan from October 7, ‘01 to October ‘08.
Coalition Forces:

920 killed:
US: 540, UK: 120, Canada: 97, Germany: 28, Other: 135

3,665 wounded
US: 2,514, UK: 900, Canada: 275, Germany: 87, Other: 80
en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)

[edit on 10/14/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 



[The] McCain problem is an interrogation in reserve. IMO McCain can’t ask specifics of Obama without incriminating himself or his party. For example the [last] eight years of fiscal lunacy is bound to come up if Obama was asked about the costing of his health policy.


Yes Mr X11, as I have pointed out elsewhere. In 2001, Bush43 inherited a $130 b. surplus. Recall we were then discussing whether to put the extra money to rebuilding our infrastructure or to paying down the national debt so we would to be in a better position when the 2010 Baby Boomers begin to retire and Social Security collections do not match the outgo.

Aside: Baby Boomers are those born following War 2, between 1945 and on to 1965. 20 years, what we call a generation. Adding the 65 years to retirement age brings us to 2010. Demographers say we will go back into the black around 2030-2040. The current tax is 6.2% on income up to $102,000. Employers match that amount or the self-employed pay it all, 12.4%. Formerly abbreviated as OASI. Old Age and Survivors Insurance. It is now collected as part of the FICA. Federal Insurance Contributions Act. End.

The Social Security system will never go bankrupt - that’s an oxymoron - it will just have a long period of “short-fall” in revenue compared to outgo. Even to this very day as I write in 2008, the SS collections still exceed outgo. Different forecasts give different dates but sometime between 2015 and 2025, we’ll cross the Rubicon! In all probability closer to the former than to the latter. The shortfall will be small at first, then grow gradually until some 15 years into this period, then collections will bottom out and again gradually rise and finally exceed the outgo. 2040-2050?

The OVER-COLLECTION of SS taxes since 1935 has created a POSITIVE balance in the SS Trust Fund of about $2.5 trillion. Yes, that money was spent as it came in. Yes, it - the SS surplus - is present only in the form of IOUs. Backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the United States of America. And a $14 t. economy. Which by the way the IOUs do pay interest.

It is conveniently deceptive to count SS as income. Without it that way our operating budget is further out of kilter than the gross numbers indicate. It thereby reduces the General Operating Budget deficits. Smoke and mirrors that is called. But it can be no other way. It is like borrowing from yourself. That in turn helps get a lower interest rate we pay to others to feed our incessant - incurable? - borrowing habit. It’s called High Finance!

You have just witnessed how casually Americans of all stripes treated a TOTALLY UNANTICIPATED claim - say demand - for money in the heretofore staggering amount of $700 Billion! How many Americans do not secretly worry that is the DOWN PAYMENT rather than the PAID IN FULL cost of this fiscal debacle? We are so accustomed to OVERSPENDING in the single digit trillions that there is nothing that will SCARE us into frugality. So, fear not, your social security payments will be on-time and in the correct amount!

HEY, DOES NOT OUR CURRENCY AND COINAGE SAY IT ALL?

IN GOD WE TRUST


[edit on 10/14/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Now avenger be nice and cite Shakespear and more specifically Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream as the source of your signature.


I've used it before myself... indeed I played puck in our high school production of it.

I was watching CNN last night and ya know those pundits have about as much idea as we do about what is going on... the big difference is the fools have managed to get themselves paid for it. The past few weeks have also highlighted the functional disconnect that the stock market has on the actual economy... if it did, stocks would have never hit 14,000 last year. October is not over and the month and the stock market have a bad history between them. We could still see a major crash before the month is out especially if the only thing reacting to these measures is stock prices while the rest of us are in the pits.

How does this effect the election? It means that the next three weeks are going to be all about the economy and the one who can talk about it the best will win. The more McCain smears the more he will lose.

I think that we may be looking at an Obama landslide.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
This means Social Security has not contributed ONE CENT to the $10 t. and rising national debt. Public and private. We are paying about $350 b. a year as interest on the national debt. This debt is largely attributable to the Department of Defense OVER SPENDING on exotic weapons of war. If you ever want to see the REAL cost of WAR, add the VA budget to the DoD budget and about 80% of the interest payable on the debt. That my friends, is about $1 t. now and RISING! A RED State paradise!

[edit on 10/14/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
We are just 24 hours away from the third and final Presidential debate for 2008. Barack Obama goes in to this thing with a ten point lead in the national polls. In spite of actions being taken by the Fed, our economy coninues to worsen. It seems that the only people who stand to do well from this crisis are the people who got us in to the mess. that's a difficult perceptual bias for Jhn McCain to voercome.

More and more conservatives are starting to take a closer look at Barack Obama. Many are starting to get past teh usual partisan stuff. The policies of a future Obama administration are now being talked about in many conservative forums.

My concern reamins focused on just one thing. republicans and democrats alike have each contributed to our present state of affairs. I realized some time ago (2004) that the republicans were on their way out. Now, today, as I write this, I'm heart-sick at the idea of an allegedly conservative President who is green-lighting the Treasury to buy a stake in nine major U.S. banks.

As I said, both sides are at fault. In spite of conservative opposition, the Democrats are likely to get theri way when it comes to national health insurance. American-style Socialsm is being brought to us by both parties.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



My concern remains focused on just one thing. Republicans and Democrats alike have each contributed to our present state of affairs.


You are right as far as you go J/O, but you are not complete. Both parties - Dem and GOP - have contributed, but NOT equally NOR in the same way. The Dems have been more ENABLERS than the GOP which INSTIGATED the changes in regulations and policy. That is the crux of what got us (and the world) here from where we started. Passive versus active.

Additionally, the Dems FIX will not resemble the Republicans FIX.



[A]s I write this, I'm heart-sick at the idea of an allegedly conservative President who is green-lighting the Treasury to buy a stake in nine major U.S. banks. As I said, both sides are at fault. In spite of conservative opposition, the Democrats are likely to get their way when it comes to national health insurance. American-style Socialism is being brought to us by both parties.


Modern industrial societies cannot exist or survive without a healthy dose of socialism. Count von Bismark began it all in 1871 when he created modern Germany. And social security. And health care. And wage and hour laws. He was a pragmatist, not a socialist. But like Roosevelt, he did what had to be done to make the capitalist system work.

FOR ALL GOD’S CHILL’UNS.


[edit on 10/14/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Modern industrial societies cannot exist or survive without a healthy dose of socialism. Count von Bismark began it all in 1871 when he created modern Germany. And social security. And health care. And wage and hour laws. He was a pragmatist, not a socialist. But like Roosevelt, he did what had to be done to make the capitalist system work.


We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. Liberalism enshrines socialism as the ultimate fix for a lot of things. Never mind that Socialism crushes creativity and destroys innovative commerce. These things become whatever the State says they are. If the States says that good citizenship is conformity and obedienc,e they that's all you're gonna have.

It's ironic to me that the GOP has done more to faclitate the rise of Socialism than the Democrats have done. Bush43 is about to hand off to Barack Obama everything that he and his handlers will need to chart their course for the next decade. The Patriot Act, Department, of Homeland Security, and bank ownership are all things I would have acribed to Democrats. The irony is almost too painful to describe.

From a historical standpoint, its possible that the Republican party hasn't been capable of resisting the trend towards centralizaiton since the 1960's. There are some who have already made the case that the GOP has never been capable of making good on its goals. 2010 will likely see the GOP reduced to a pitiful minority in both the House and the Senate.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join