PRESIDENT OBAMA!

CavsFanLA said:

In a word thats BS , there is no way to connect the vast fluctuation in gas prices to supply and demand . It was function of speculative trading on Wall Street and its effect on the economy as well as the average cost was significant.




If you think its that cut and dry you are beyond naive.

there needs to be regulation in place to save people from themselves.

when you see the effect of the lack of this regulation has had on the economy , yet still quote the "free trade" mantra . It beyond disturbing

worse there has been no accountability for what we have seen.




Yeah right you commute 60 miles to work and then have someone tell you about freedom of choice to bike after the oil companies double the price of gas . Get real

There are certain things that are necessities

I'll just wait when you are on the operating table and if the doctor asks you how much you are willing to pay for that life saving procedure

Luckily we are not to that point yet in our society, but the point is vaild.

also Google a cool movie calleed "repossesion mamba" that about that





As much as conservatives has made of any real or imagined of Obama's socialist rhetoric, the issiue is this. Some in the positions of power have neither shown the judgement nor the restraint to police themselves . The result of this lack of self-policing reportedly was nearly an economic crisis on the level of the great depression.

I for one would like to have a president that is more proactive and savvy to save our economy from economic collapse by having the safeguards in place so we won't have to rely on historic bailouts to avoid economic collapse

Click to expand...

I do commute 60 miles to work, one way. That is my choice. I could choose to try to get employment closer to where I live. Instead, I enjoy what I do and drive a fuel efficient vehicle. By my choice.

You fail to notice that I go after both sides equally here. Instead, you choose to attack as I'm a Republican or conservative defending poor policies. I am not. Far from it, actually. Both sides are at fault, as the Democratic controlled legislature had as much to do with everything that was considered poor decisions by the Republican President. The President is not a dictator. It requires cooperation from the other entities to get things done, especially the legislative body. The President's policies don't pass themselves, and cannot be enforced without the help of Congress.

I support that this country was founded on capitalism and free enterprise and the freedom to make my own choices. If I want to be pay $6 for a crappy fast food lunch when an equally as crappy $3 lunch exists, that's my choice. I don't want someone telling me I must to purchase the $3 one because I the other is too expensive. It doesn't matter why I want the other one, or even if it's a good choice. If I do the proper research and learn that it's exactly the same, then it's my stupidity to overpay...well, that's my choice.

As far as accountability...sure there is accountability. These businesses screwed up and failed. They should even go under. The fact that the government bailed them out relieves the companies and their management of accountability. The CEOs should have been fired. No compensation. The government shouldn't be bailing these guys out, they should be flailing, treading water, hoping that the sharks below don't gobble them up. They've learned nothing. Government regulation doesn't fix this. It only upholds the current track and allows them the opportunity for the government to bail them out every time. Regulation elsewhere in the world hasn't helped any of those countries avoid economic backlash. It's global, not just domestic.

The only country avoiding the economic downturn is China. The reason being? They are a socialist/communist country with a high economic upside. They are becoming the new economic world power. They also achieved this through slave labor, using inferior (and even deadly) raw materials, and an iron fist in negotiations. They have the worst human rights record of any country, let alone world powers. Their people are poor, while the country is rich. Everyone works for the government, and the government "takes care of" them.

The reason we pay so much for the lifesaving procedure has little to do with the procedure, itself. It has more to do with the legal system that needs overhauled. That procedure costs so much because there exists too many people in this country trying to make money without working for it. Frivilous lawsuits shoot insurance costs through the roof. Are some lawsuits warranted? Of course. 90% of them aren't. Healthcare would be much more affordable for everyone if lawyers stayed out of the operating room. If you want to regulate something, go after the judicial system.

I think Obama will make good choices, and I respect him. I respect McCain, as well. I just hope that he sees that more government control will not fix everything. Instead, it usually leads to more problems than answers. Was Obama the right choice? We'll see. I will support him as President, just as I would anyone else who achieves that mantle. He just needs to realize that he has a responsibility to uphold what the founding fathers fought for: a free society who has the right to make it's own choices...in all aspects of life.

None of this is simple, but government regulation isn't going to fix it. Instead, it is going to hinder the very aspect of having the right to choose.

[youtube]AjMgsXaeRcU[/youtube]

Typhoon said:

[youtube]AjMgsXaeRcU[/youtube]

Click to expand...

Nice Typhoon. And needed.

I have definitely heard.:chuckles:

To think that the credit crisis and mortgage crisis came about within the last 5-7 years is not true - you're not looking at the realm of the financial structure.

To blame Bush and this administration for a recession is crazy. The economy runs in cycles...you cannot expect the economy to always be on the incline. That's not reality. Economic cycles run every 5-7 years or so - depending on who you talk to. From 03 to 07 we had 5 positive years of economic growth.

Regarding specifically the credit and mortage crisis - let's start with the mortgage. The mortgage mess pretty much started 10 - 15 years ago. Banks lending out money and the administration at that time wanted to make it easier for everyone to be able to purchase and live in a home....a nice thought. The economy was growing, etc....

Banks make money on 'spreads' - which means the difference in amount in money (interest rate) they are lending out (home loans, bus loans, other loans, etc.) to the interest rate that is given on savings, etc. The spread could be pretty large.

Sometime in the '90s the banks and mortgage brokers started creating mortgage backed securities (MBS) ....basically the packaging a bunch of loans together and then trading them like securities. And others bought these with the thought in mind of the chances of these securities foreclosing is not high (say out of 100 loans packaged together, maybe 3-5 may foreclose). Real estate became a huge sector to 'play' in. Banks and brokers would lend out more money and they didn't care then if the loans would get paid because after a very short timeframe, the would be packaged and sold. Loans were easy to get.

Then in '99 to roughly '02, the markets went south.......

The feds lowered interested rates (Greenspan) and the governement pumped liquidity into the markets to spring out of a 2 year recession (which should have been more like 3-4 years). Also during this time, the government also allowed loans/money to be made more readily with the lower interest rates. Banks and brokers took advantage of this and they were lending out money like candy......allowing people to be obtain loans with no money down, no proof of work, no proof of income, etc......Adjustable rate mortages became big......3, 5, 7 year arm loans...people taking loans and having payments of like $600 and then when the rates adjusted to being more like $1000 or $1,200.

So who was to blame for the mortage mess - previous admin for starting to allow loans to become more readily accessible?, Alan Greenspan for leaving rates too low too long?, Congress and the Pres for lowering the bank regulations?, the mortgage and bank lenders for allowing loans that shouldn't have been?, or even the people themselves for knowingly taking on loans that they couldn't afford?.........how about it's all of the above - and to be honest, people need to start looking in the mirror and taking some of the blame and not running and blaming the government every time something bad happens to them.......

Now let's look at the Credit Crisis. Because of these foreclosures starting to happen in late 2007 and then making it's big headway into 2008, banks and brokers were getting nailed. The MBS (mortgage backed securites) had the default ratio rise and thus banks and brokers started having trouble selling their MBS and they couldn't get out of their 'bad' loans. Pretty much no one wanted to purchase these things as the 'poison' (bad loans) overwhelmed the other good loans. Banks need to have so much cash on hand, as some banks ratings were downgraded, etc. With banks needing cash and having little of it - they didn't want to lend out money any longer - so the rates were raised.

The feds have been lowering rates to throw liquidity in the market - but the banks wouldn't lower their rates and thus the spread was too high and then they started to make obtaining loans (raising the regulations) higher. Banks would sit on cash and no one could really obtain loans - either rates too high and/or they just didn't have the credit or couldn't meet the loan requirements.

So companies who need to borrow money (commercial paper) to do business couldn't obtain loans, companies that did business with that company wasn't producing anything so they were getting hurt and then companies started laying off workers because there was no work. Credit issues with banks and companies.

It's like a train that's been moving slowly for over a decade and picking up a lot of trash as it goes and then just crashes.

Point is.....there's way more to blame for this economic mess than one president, one congress, one bank, etc. There's enough blame to go around for everyone. And people who do support Obama, saying that Change is coming - he was in the Senate for two years and didn't support or draft anything to help the situation. Not many people did.

Also - this is a global crisis, not just an American crisis. So for anyone that thinks that we have the only 'country' that screwed up ---- just look around. The economy was an easy stage to step up on and get elected because most Americans do not educate themselves on party platforms and just see a Rep president in charge of a crappy economic country and want change.

_amon _ones said:

I do commute 60 miles to work, one way. That is my choice. I could choose to try to get employment closer to where I live. Instead, I enjoy what I do and drive a fuel efficient vehicle. By my choice.

You fail to notice that I go after both sides equally here. Instead, you choose to attack as I'm a Republican or conservative defending poor policies. I am not. Far from it, actually. Both sides are at fault, as the Democratic controlled legislature had as much to do with everything that was considered poor decisions by the Republican President. The President is not a dictator. It requires cooperation from the other entities to get things done, especially the legislative body. The President's policies don't pass themselves, and cannot be enforced without the help of Congress.

I support that this country was founded on capitalism and free enterprise and the freedom to make my own choices. If I want to be pay $6 for a crappy fast food lunch when an equally as crappy $3 lunch exists, that's my choice. I don't want someone telling me I must to purchase the $3 one because I the other is too expensive. It doesn't matter why I want the other one, or even if it's a good choice. If I do the proper research and learn that it's exactly the same, then it's my stupidity to overpay...well, that's my choice.

As far as accountability...sure there is accountability. These businesses screwed up and failed. They should even go under. The fact that the government bailed them out relieves the companies and their management of accountability. The CEOs should have been fired. No compensation. The government shouldn't be bailing these guys out, they should be flailing, treading water, hoping that the sharks below don't gobble them up. They've learned nothing. Government regulation doesn't fix this. It only upholds the current track and allows them the opportunity for the government to bail them out every time. Regulation elsewhere in the world hasn't helped any of those countries avoid economic backlash. It's global, not just domestic.

The only country avoiding the economic downturn is China. The reason being? They are a socialist/communist country with a high economic upside. They are becoming the new economic world power. They also achieved this through slave labor, using inferior (and even deadly) raw materials, and an iron fist in negotiations. They have the worst human rights record of any country, let alone world powers. Their people are poor, while the country is rich. Everyone works for the government, and the government "takes care of" them.

The reason we pay so much for the lifesaving procedure has little to do with the procedure, itself. It has more to do with the legal system that needs overhauled. That procedure costs so much because there exists too many people in this country trying to make money without working for it. Frivilous lawsuits shoot insurance costs through the roof. Are some lawsuits warranted? Of course. 90% of them aren't. Healthcare would be much more affordable for everyone if lawyers stayed out of the operating room. If you want to regulate something, go after the judicial system.

I think Obama will make good choices, and I respect him. I respect McCain, as well. I just hope that he sees that more government control will not fix everything. Instead, it usually leads to more problems than answers. Was Obama the right choice? We'll see. I will support him as President, just as I would anyone else who achieves that mantle. He just needs to realize that he has a responsibility to uphold what the founding fathers fought for: a free society who has the right to make it's own choices...in all aspects of life.

None of this is simple, but government regulation isn't going to fix it. Instead, it is going to hinder the very aspect of having the right to choose.

Click to expand...

I take it you were a Ron Paul supporter? Sounds like a liberterian argument.

I too see myself liberterian in some regards; however, I think the world is a little more complicated than just the general belief that the individual should be left to make his or her own choices. Liberterianism in itself is a nice philosophical ideal, I just personally don't see it as being completely practical because I cannot get myself to philosophically reconcile social inequity as a result of free markets. Government regulations exist for a reason (though I agree, often times they exist for no particular reason), and that is generally to level the playing field when the free market cannot do that on its own---or in theory this is how I believe government intervention should be shaped. For instance, while in theory it is best to let the markets run their course, what would you do in a situation like our recent market crisis? Just let all the banks fail? Sound in theory, but the backlash is crazy. Without a doubt I acknowledge that we create huge moral hazard in bailing out banks that got into a mess on their own, but if we didn't people like you and me would just suffer with lost investments and lost jobs. How do we reconcile the moral reasoning with the practical realities? Maybe we should have just given the money directly to the people and companies that would have been affected by the backlash--while the banks just rot? I could see that.

I think the republican party would benefit from adopting (well maybe not "adopting" but making this the center of their argument) more small government liberterian principles. I do think it would make their argument more cohesive and rational.

Nice post.

Haggstown said:

To think that the credit crisis and mortgage crisis came about within the last 5-7 years is not true - you're not looking at the realm of the financial structure.

To blame Bush and this administration for a recession is crazy. The economy runs in cycles...you cannot expect the economy to always be on the incline. That's not reality. Economic cycles run every 5-7 years or so - depending on who you talk to. From 03 to 07 we had 5 positive years of economic growth.

Click to expand...

I can't really argue with you because I agree with a lot of what you said. Where we disagree is a matter of philosophy. Economic growth does not always trickle down. I think we've beaten this convo to death.

You are totally right in pointing out that a Bush administration cannot be singled out for "causing" an economic catastrophe. All parties screwed up. I think people just like using the Bush administration to take out their anger towards the economy.

Though I can off-the-bat name different areas where the Bush administration legitimately did screw up, and for that I am pissed. Medicare Part D, Iraq, Guantanomo, No Child Left Behind, Vetoing S-CHIP, Patriot Act...etc.

And for those reasons, I blame Bush (or maybe his mastermind Cheney). Failure of an administration in my eyes--for legitimate reasons based on my beliefs.

I think Bush did some good things though. He lowered capital gains taxes, which was very important in my mind. He sent 47 billion to Africa for AIDS intervention--a very noble thing to do. I do credit him for keeping me safe on American soil--though I strongly disagree with the means in which he used to do so.

For the most part though---he sucked. 75% of Americans will back me up on this. His reaction to 9/11 was insane. The Patriot Act was extreme. Going to Iraq was the stupidest thing ever. It's like your crazy irrationally angry neighbor set your house on fire (akin to 911), but you go after your other neighbor not because he didn't do anything to you, but because he is just a genuine asshole (ehhem..Iraq). Not just that, but in doing so we let your other crazy neighbor (you know, the one who set your house on fire in the first place), to just run around the block and blow other $hit up (the rest of the world). To add insult to injury, he had to borrow a crap ton of money to pay for this. Great, not only have we not caught Osama, but we owe some shady oil barrons a ton of money. Sounds like a winner. Oh wait---I'm alive, all hail Bush.


Anyway, that tirade is beside the point. The economic crisis is complex and Bush cannot be the sole person to blame here. Our government in general for the last 15ish years dropped the ball. However, as a president you need to be in tune to how your countrymen are doing in times of both prosperity and distress. Just because some guys are kicking it, doesn't mean everyone's doing great. Wages have gone down and jobs have been cut, while the fat cats on top are running away with 20 million dollar severance packages. Something doesn't seem right with that picture.

Haggstown said:

Banks make money on 'spreads' - which means the difference in amount in money (interest rate) they are lending out (home loans, bus loans, other loans, etc.) to the interest rate that is given on savings, etc. The spread could be pretty large.

Click to expand...

True, they also make money off confidence and right now the people may or might not have it. We've already seen a bank close due to a bank run in Hong Kong before. I hope that doesn't repeat, but if people become unconfident in the banking system it will fumble. The FDIC helps this, so does the increase. However, I'm not so sure people with over 250,000 are keeping their money in that same bank.

Point is.....there's way more to blame for this economic mess than one president, one congress, one bank, etc. There's enough blame to go around for everyone. And people who do support Obama, saying that Change is coming - he was in the Senate for two years and didn't support or draft anything to help the situation. Not many people did.

Click to expand...

The American public is very myopic (short sited), they see things in the short run. Why do you think social security wasn't even a topic in this election? Cause they don't care right now. No politician will fix it because they're too afraid to do it and know it might not get them reelected.

Also - this is a global crisis, not just an American crisis. So for anyone that thinks that we have the only 'country' that screwed up ---- just look around. The economy was an easy stage to step up on and get elected because most Americans do not educate themselves on party platforms and just see a Rep president in charge of a crappy economic country and want change.

Click to expand...

However, if you look at the two economic plans Obama is better for the job. Economists agree upon it. You elect the guy, who you feel can help you most. Obama was that man. McCain's plan was dumb, which included drill more!

PS: one problem we had with banking was the fact investment and commercial banking were split up.

Alright heres my two cents:

1 congratualtions to everyone. this is a good day for our country.
2 To McCain supporters... McCain delivered an excellent concession speech. it was the first time ive seen him act like himself in like 3 or 4 years.
3 so many bush policies, actions and associations were criminal, immoral or unconstitutional he had "W orst president ever" in the bag, regardless of his contribution to the economic meltdown.
4 prepare yourselves for the revolution of incremental progressivism
5 to obama supporters... youll look back with pride on this day when the history books reflect on how America made its come back in its darkest day, when people quit being petty and fear mongering was conquered by people brave enough to take a chance on a young brilliant mind.

^lol found this

If anyone missed Obama's acceptance speech:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jll5baCAaQU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jll5baCAaQU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

ive been getting ahead of myself and trying to figure out where the republicans go from here (2008). my theory was that neocon hardline republicanism has to die and that the republicans being so well organized would probably accomplish this by serving up Palin as the challenger to a popular and successful incumbent president obama. he would defeat her soundly and that would be the symbolic death of neocon domination in the party.

unless significant economic progress is made soon im not so sure what the republicans are supposed to do. nothing good seems to be on the horizon as the result of 8 years of a republican executive, 6 years of a republican congress and a judicial system that was in a right wing headlock for quite a while. so if appealing to the base is going to fail and the republicans cant run on performance, economics or foreign policy, what are hey left with? not much is the answer.

i think bush may have effectively sunk his party. at least until the democrats screw up real bad. i just dont see the dems losing their appeal to americans as long as obama is the face of the party. so im really hoping obamas administration is as centrist as his campaign was. if thats the case maybe the republicans can work with him and some republican stars will emerge that have centrist appeal. i was listening to NPR the other day and the guest on the diane rheam show seemed to think obama would have more trouble with his own party than republicans. i would be very interested to see if thats the case. it seems like it would be wise for all parties involved if the republicans in congress got behind obama. i find it likely that he will make it easy for them to do so. so basically this whole post comes down to one idea... neocon republicanism is dead and the country may very well see a serious decline in partisan gridlock. i think good days are ahead for all.

BlueFalcon189 said:

ive been getting ahead of myself and trying to figure out where the republicans go from here (2008). my theory was that neocon hardline republicanism has to die and that the republicans being so well organized would probably accomplish this by serving up Palin as the challenger to a popular and successful incumbent president obama. he would defeat her soundly and that would be the symbolic death of neocon domination in the party.

unless significant economic progress is made soon im not so sure what the republicans are supposed to do. nothing good seems to be on the horizon as the result of 8 years of a republican executive, 6 years of a republican congress and a judicial system that was in a right wing headlock for quite a while. so if appealing to the base is going to fail and the republicans cant run on performance, economics or foreign policy, what are hey left with? not much is the answer.

i think bush may have effectively sunk his party. at least until the democrats screw up real bad. i just dont see the dems losing their appeal to americans as long as obama is the face of the party. so im really hoping obamas administration is as centrist as his campaign was. if thats the case maybe the republicans can work with him and some republican stars will emerge that have centrist appeal. i was listening to NPR the other day and the guest on the diane rheam show seemed to think obama would have more trouble with his own party than republicans. i would be very interested to see if thats the case. it seems like it would be wise for all parties involved if the republicans in congress got behind obama. i find it likely that he will make it easy for them to do so. so basically this whole post comes down to one idea... neocon republicanism is dead and the country may very well see a serious decline in partisan gridlock. i think good days are ahead for all.

Click to expand...

The Republicans will be fine. As horrific as people paint the last 8 years and blame Bush and the Republicans, Obama only won 52-46%. With the economic tsunami, the war, the housing crisis, and Obama's kajillions of $$$ shouldn't this have been far more lopsided? The Dems had everything going for them and it was still fairly close. So the Republican party is far from sunk in my opinion.

Look, Obama has made some very very lofty promises. In 2012 the Republicans will have a lot of soundbites to choose from should he fail to deliver on them. He's promised no one making under 250K will have their taxes raised, he's also promised a trillion dollars in new spending....it will be very interesting to see how he makes the math work. The Dems have total control so it will be tough for them to give excuses if it doesn't.
Expectations have been set extremely high for Obama, now he has to deliver.

TripleAStacked said:

<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf' id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='undefined' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='275' width='305' flashvars='playerId=videolandingpage&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=&referralObject=3178951&referralPlaylistId=playlist' />

Click to expand...

Jesus, could O'Reilly be any less critical of Palin? How is it being 'too tough on her' to expect her to know basic geography??? Palin is a complete joke and one of the many reasons that McCain had no shot at winning. An embarrassment and an insult to the American public that she was thrown out there as a viable VP selection.

LBJ on the new president:

http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_tv/2008/11/06/nba_james_obama_sot.mov.nba/index.html?player=whatsnew