Official Political (Republican/Democrat) Debate Thread

[RaysFTW]

I don't see why everybody sees Obama as a national threat. He's not going to terrorize the country or make our country into a communist or socialist society. I just think everybody has something on him since his whole scandal with his pastor or whatever the guy was from his church.

[Sean O]

I like HCL's one liners, keep em' coming!! Obama and his friends scare the hell outta' me. I'm sick of hearing about "hope" and "change" from Obama's camp. McCain will own him on real issues....

Really? Because McCain hasn't bothered to put anything specific on his website, especially on the economy (where he fails to mention anything on the mortgage crisis). Meanwhile, Obama has a 40 page pdf document outlining every specific plan he has for the country, including exact dollar amounts and policy initiatives.

[meteamo]

How about Ear Marks? McCain has taken no ear marks .... while Obama on the other hand ....

I think that will be one of the issues they might be debating about. The war of course will be a much bigger issue. Then you got immigration (and/or the borders), along with the economy, etc.

How does Bob Bar stack up against Obama and McCain? LOL

[duckdodger215]

if you own stocks, bonds, funds, real estate, or any of these types of assets you had better pray that obama is not elected. he essentially wants to DOUBLE the capital gains tax. why do you think the stock market dropped 100+ points IMMEDIATELY after the AP announced he had enough delegates to win the dem race? neither candidate is good for this country, but i'm still waiting for videos of sermons he's attended where his reverend has the congregation reciting "Kill Whitey!".

America's only hope lies with whomever McCain chooses as VP, and that McCain will be forced to resign due to health issues or some other event.

[duckdodger215]

Really? Because McCain hasn't bothered to put anything specific on his website, especially on the economy (where he fails to mention anything on the mortgage crisis). Meanwhile, Obama has a 40 page pdf document outlining every specific plan he has for the country, including exact dollar amounts and policy initiatives.

The mortgage crisis? You mean the mortgage crisis caused by all of the banks dishing out loans to anyone who walked in their office? And everyone buying homes the knew they couldnt afford? Sure, blame it on the govt for allowing everyone to spend beyond their means.

What good will a 40 page pdf do? Since it's a pdf does that make him hella cool and hip? It's easy for anyone to make a document and propose dollar amounts tied to what they WANT. How many times do these issues get approved and for the dollar amounts requested? RARELY. He has no experience to be able to lead hundreds of millions of people. That's like having me be VP of our nuclear reactor startup project after having only been here for half a year.

Obama is just a fad, and hopefully it will end as quickly as the macarena did.

[Sean O]

The mortgage crisis? You mean the mortgage crisis caused by all of the banks dishing out loans to anyone who walked in their office? And everyone buying homes the knew they couldnt afford? Sure, blame it on the govt for allowing everyone to spend beyond their means.

No, I mean the mortgage crisis caused by the very deregulation that McCain supports.

What good will a 40 page pdf do? Since it's a pdf does that make him hella cool and hip? It's easy for anyone to make a document and propose dollar amounts tied to what they WANT. How many times do these issues get approved and for the dollar amounts requested? RARELY. He has no experience to be able to lead hundreds of millions of people. That's like having me be VP of our nuclear reactor startup project after having only been here for half a year.

Uh, so first you complain that Obama has no plan, then when you see irrefutable proof that he has indepth plans for every aspect of governance, now you say he's inexperienced? Why not start off with that?

Also, I like how you brush over how McCain has no plan for anything, especially the economy, which he is the first to admit he simply doesn't understand.

Obama is just a fad, and hopefully it will end as quickly as the macarena did.

Yup, a highly intelligent former constitutional scholar and community activist is just a fad.

[Kayxero]

What does everyone think of this supposed racist tape of Michelle Obama?

Supposedly she either says "whitey" did this or that, or she could be saying "whyd he". It is said to be a bombshell tape from what I read but Im not buying it. Im still reading up on this but the sources are not from credible politicians, not that any exist.

[RaptorQuiz]

No, I mean the mortgage crisis caused by the very deregulation that McCain supports.

The trend of irresponsible lending was not caused by any kind of deregulation - it was caused by a TREND started by some particularly unscrupulous institutions that decided they'd prefer to try to squeeze blood from stones in order to make a little extra money. Unfortunately, they were successful at first, and then MAJOR firms started following suit.

It was pure insanity and money-grubbing they dressed up as magnanimous. They presented it as follows:

"In stead of finding any reason we can to NOT give people loans, let's try to find any reason we can to GIVE people loans. Let's stop denying people the American Dream. Let's give everyone a shot at home ownership." That was how they covered up the fact that all they were doing was lending money to people that common sense AND their own computer systems were telling them would never be able to pay that money back.

This is not a government problem. It's a human nature problem. These firms must regulate themselves, in order to preserve the concept of capitalism and open markets. If you honestly feel the government should regulate the lending policies of private banks and mortgage firms, to avoid this type of thing - that's just crazy. It's socialism. Could this have been prevented? Sure. They never have this problem in Socialist countries.

Geez.

[Sean O]

This is not a government problem. It's a human nature problem. These firms must regulate themselves, in order to preserve the concept of capitalism and open markets. If you honestly feel the government should regulate the lending policies of private banks and mortgage firms, to avoid this type of thing - that's just crazy. It's socialism. Could this have been prevented? Sure. They never have this problem in Socialist countries.

Geez.

There is a gigantic difference between socialism and regulation of, as you term them, irresponsible lenders. I don't understand how you can see mortgage companies doing literally anything for money, and then say they should be allowed to regulate themselves.

When someone robs another person, you don't say "we should let him regulate himself so he doesn't do that again," you toss him in jail. Unfettered Corporate Capitalism means that companies are beholden only to their stockholders, not to the nation's citizens or anyone else's good.

So, when the fundamental point of companies is to get as much money regardless of laws or the suffering of people, and they will unscrupulously engage in tactics like this. I fail to see, in the remotest sense, how letting companies do whatever they want will end up with them acting beneficially for citizens.

We need a government that will stop white-collar criminals like this, worldcom, enron, etc. There is absolutely no way that a CEO will stop at anything to make an extra buck. You cannot change human nature, but you can most assuredly provide a punishment.

[RaptorQuiz]

Uh... the actions of the irresponsible lenders were not criminal. They were certainly unscrupulous, and amoral, and a list of other things... but a crime was not committed.

The fact that these companies are paying the price now - loss of profits, and numerous folding up and going out of business - that IS the punishment. That is how this economy works.

You suggest that the economy needs to work for the greater good of the population as a whole - but that concept IS SOCIALISM, NOT CAPITALISM. This is a capitalist country. If you don't like capitalism, then just come out and say it: plenty of folks world-wide just love socialism.

Obama and his reintroduction of the concept of "patriot companies" just screams socialism - so it's no wonder you love him so.

[RaptorQuiz]

By the way - in case it's not clear - I'm not using the term "socialist" as an insult. I'm not trying to be insulting or personal in any way. I'm simply saying the concepts being bandied about right now are at LEAST vaguely in line with a socialist program in nature.

[LupeFiasco]

RON PAUL!!!!

[Sean O]

Uh... the actions of the irresponsible lenders were not criminal. They were certainly unscrupulous, and amoral, and a list of other things... but a crime was not committed.

And that's part of the problem right there.

The fact that these companies are paying the price now - loss of profits, and numerous folding up and going out of business - that IS the punishment. That is how this economy works.

High level employees finding other high paying jobs at similar institutions is not a sacrifice. All the people who never should've gotten questionable ARMs in the first place are the victims.

You suggest that the economy needs to work for the greater good of the population as a whole - but that concept IS SOCIALISM, NOT CAPITALISM. This is a capitalist country. If you don't like capitalism, then just come out and say it: plenty of folks world-wide just love socialism.

You really seem to think that socialism is the only other option to laissez-faire capitalism, which is completely ridiculous. I would expect more from you. The US is a republican democracy first, and capitalist second. Fundamentally, it is in charge of its' citizens wellbeing. Each corporation is individually in charge of maximizing profits, however the government must act as an opposing force to prevent blatantly illegal moves (abrogating employment and environmental laws, for example) and insider trading/monopolies/etc.

Corporations at this point operate under a total moral hazard because of stupid governmental intervention (the S&L moral hazard was laughable) and no true regulatory force.

Governmental regulation is the only way to protect its citizens from corporations that will stomp over its workers and its patrons. This is why I fully believe in revoking corporate charters for companies that routinely stomp all over employment laws (Wal Mart, for example, and the countless power companies around the country who act without any regulation).

Obama and his reintroduction of the concept of "patriot companies" just screams socialism - so it's no wonder you love him so.

No, it's partly partly because he's not completely under the control of lobbyists and PACs. He should institute regulation to prevent predatory corporations from doing these very types of actions.

I just don't see how people can so gleefully believe in an unregulated market as people get stomped over. Protecting citizens from external and internal threats is the basis of a free society.

[Hory]

By the way - in case it's not clear - I'm not using the term "socialist" as an insult. I'm not trying to be insulting or personal in any way. I'm simply saying the concepts being bandied about right now are at LEAST vaguely in line with a socialist program in nature.

You obviously have no idea what socialism actually is.

Socialism is not any public policy to the left of Dick Cheney.

[RaptorQuiz]

Well, you aren't mentioning one thing:

These publicly held companies that are "stomping all over people" to make money, are doing so at the behest and requirement of their stock holders: THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

Also, stock holders are often employees (stock-sharing programs), former employees (retirees, expatriates, etc), other institutions, and then the general public.

I understand the frustration - but I get truly frustrated with people that think the CEO's etc are the only ones who benefit when a company makes money.

I may just have a VASTLY different take on this entire situation, since I am a licsenced securities trader and investment advisor. lol.

[RaptorQuiz]

You obviously have no idea what socialism actually is.

Socialism is not any public policy to the left of **** Cheney.

Honestly, you make me laugh every time you post. You insult people when they disagree with you, acting like they must not know simple concepts because you don't like what they are saying. What a joke.

I am no particular fan of Cheney, but I am certainly not a fan of Obama and the Democratic Party. I don't call anything "socialism" simply because it's "left of Cheney."

Let's just simpify this and get all Wiki with it: "Socialism is a socio-economic system in which essential industries, social services, property and the distribution of wealth are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all."

Democratic control of industry = socialism = opposite of capitalism.

The argument here is that I believe in open capitalism, and clearly you don't.

That's fine.

Don't tell me I don't know what things are just because you disagree with me.

[Sean O]

Well, you aren't mentioning one thing:

These publicly held companies that are "stomping all over people" to make money, are doing so at the behest and requirement of their stock holders: THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

Ok, two problems here. The person working 40 hours a week (or more, without overtime, if Wal Mart so desires) is the one who is struggling the most, and the chances that she owns a sizable amount of stock are tremendously slim.

Second, many corrupt corporations are responsible to their board of directors/stock holders, that is true. However, in countless cases the individual actors in the decisionmaking process answer to absolutely no one when something disastrous happens. Another Moral Hazard.

I understand the frustration - but I get truly frustrated with people that think the CEO's etc are the only ones who benefit when a company makes money.

And what I'm saying is, the CEOs and the stockholders take precedence over the law or what is fundamentally right.

There is a huge difference between socialism, where everything is explicitly for the public good (side note, since ironically the first Western corporations were only allowed to incorporate for specific projects for the public good, but that's neither here nor there), and a situation where the government limits the actions of privately held corporations. Nobody is saying we need the government to control everything (except health care, A+ job HMOs!), but there is a serious need to impose criminal repercussions to those who would willingly break the law for profit.

[Sean O]

Hory, let's tone down the rhetoric a bit, ok? There's a big difference between explaining your positions and telling someone they don't know what they're talking about.

[RaptorQuiz]

Obviously, I would certainly agree that that "there is a serious need to impose criminal repercussions to those who would willingly break the law for profit," as you said. I guess we just haven't reached a common ground on what needs to be defined as laws that apply to these situations.

And by the way - I certainly never said I LIKE the way things went with these companies (the laundry list of garbage like enron, worldcom, tyco, then followed by the financial boys like bear stearn, etc)... I just disagree with the methods of handling it, obviously.

Clearly, people can't discuss these things on-line without being condescending and insulting - so there's a problem. I sit through enough meetings every week where these exact things are discussed around a table (and tele-conf) and things go MUCH better than on here.

The hazards of being able to act a certain way when you have no concrete identity at risk online, I suppose.

[Sean O]

Clearly, people can't discuss these things on-line without being condescending and insulting - so there's a problem. I sit through enough meetings every week where these exact things are discussed around a table (and tele-conf) and things go MUCH better than on here.

Also because I have to assume most people in corporations aren't, themselves, completely opposed to the current handling of corporations.

I'm saying that the "market adjustment" that results from a disastrous case like S&L and the subprime situation will never come close to preventing a future company from taking insane measures to achieve a profit. Also, that those intimately involved in the actions of the corporation will never suffer to the extent that the involved, but not acting, people do.

And, on top of that, so many of these deregulatory measures are passed due to people who are receiving tremendous amounts of money from those corporations. Passing something because you believe in it is completely different from doing so for money. This is why I am so against lobbyists involved in any type of decisionmaking, and the Gramm situation just hammers that home.

[RaptorQuiz]

I'm glad that the firm I work for is the last remaining major firm on Wall Street organized as a partnership... not a corporation. :wink:

[Hory]

Honestly, you make me laugh every time you post. You insult people when they disagree with you, acting like they must not know simple concepts because you don't like what they are saying. What a joke.

I am no particular fan of Cheney, but I am certainly not a fan of Obama and the Democratic Party. I don't call anything "socialism" simply because it's "left of Cheney."

Let's just simpify this and get all Wiki with it: "Socialism is a socio-economic system in which essential industries, social services, property and the distribution of wealth are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all."

Democratic control of industry = socialism = opposite of capitalism.

The argument here is that I believe in open capitalism, and clearly you don't.

That's fine.

Don't tell me I don't know what things are just because you disagree with me.

The fact you have to resort to wikipedia to define socialism proves my point that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Obama does not have policies of re-nationalizing essential industries or providing a generous cradle to grave welfare system so how can you possibly call him socialist?

The only credible American politician I can think of that would be appropriate to call 'socialist' is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and he's not even a member of the Democratic party.

[krawhitham]

[DJEagles]

I give this thread one more page before all hell breaks loose. I wait with anticipation.

[Trues]