The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Hi Marianne,

My comment about SNL and "hope the media got the msg" was meant to show the media is biased in their reporting on BOTH sides of the campaign. 

Having watched SNL since it began, I just got a kick out of Tina Fey. 

Neither Obama's or McCain's tax plan will reduce the national debt.  I would be more in favor of Obama's if he would raise is proposed middle class tax breaks, including capital gains, to a ceiling of $500K.  Most middleclass families with two-wage earners aren't surviving on $250K and less a year. 

I am disappointed that McCain's campaign is suing to have the investigation into the firing of the "top cop" in AK suspended until after the election. 

Looking forward to the debates so we can focus on McCain and Obama.

Bin - I heard that the reason they will no longer cooperate up in Alaska is because after the Palin pick, the DNC sent people up there who are trying to influence the outcome with the Dems in the legislature there.

Marianne - they mock everyone on SNL - maybe that is the real reason that Obama did not show up (he claims it was because of the hurricane). After all, he did not cancel the $28,500 plate dinner fund raiser in Hollywood with Barbra Streisand last night. Then to see her you had to chip in another $2500. This on a day when the financial markets were taking a beating and there are still thousands of people in Texas and Louisiana without power, food, ice, so many homes and businesses destroyed. If McCain had done something like that - you would hear all about how insensitive he was.

Examples of the MSM sink-Sarah phenomenon :

• The totally-in-the-tank for Obama Us Magazine, ran a poll today asking whether Palin should step down.  According to a poster at Free Republic, the mag [owned by big Obama donor Jann Wenner] took the poll down after the results were overwhelmingly against Palin's withdrawal.
• This afternoon on CNN, Jack Cafferty made his Cafferty File question whether McCain "should consider replacing Palin."

I'm so discouraged about all these politicians, Dem or Repub.  The economy is going to hell in a handbasket and both parties are to blame for being asleep at the switch. 

You work all your life and be fiscally responsible and save for retirement and then the bastards take it all away with their evil, greedy games.  Right now I cannot see anyone on either side making things right. 

Enough of political games.  This is not football, this is real life with real lives hanging in the balance.  Just ranting.

Welcome Marianne2 !

Good article by Dean Barnett over at the Weekly Standard today regarding AIG

---------------------------------

Barack Obama - still voting present after all these years.

In dilating endlessly on the AIG bailout, Barack Obama declined to say whether or not he supported it. He did, however, condemn the bailout as sadly reflective on John McCain. But again, he didn’t deign to say whether or not he thought the bailout was a good thing. How depressing! If ever we needed someone with magnificent judgment, it’s now.

“The fact that we have reached a point where the Federal Reserve felt it had to take this unprecedented step with the American Insurance Group is the final verdict on the failed economic philosophy of the last eight years," Obama said. "While we do not know all the details of this arrangement, the Fed must ensure that the plan protects the families that count on insurance. It should bolster our economy's ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills and save their money. It must not bail out the shareholders or management of AIG.

“This crisis serves as a stark reminder of the failures of crony capitalism and an economic philosophy that sees any regulation at all as unwise and unnecessary," Obama continued. "It’s a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people; a philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to the rest. Instead, the pain has trickled up – from the struggles of Main Street all the way up to the crises on Wall Street.

“Despite his eleventh hour conversion to the language of reform, Senator McCain has subscribed to this philosophy for twenty-six years in Washington and the events of this week have rendered it a colossal failure," Obama continued. "It is time for a new economic strategy, guided by the principle that America prospers when all Americans prosper, where common-sense rules of the road ensure that competition is fair, open, and honest. That is the strategy I will pursue as President, and I will bring the change we need to restore confidence in our financial markets and strength to our economy,” said Barack Obama."

You'll notice that Obama doesn't really assert anywhere in here that he supports -- or opposes -- this bailout.

There’s a staggering amount of Obamian economic ignorance on display here. Let’s start with the “crony capitalism” charge. Who, pray tell, were AIG’s cronies the past two years? I don’t recall the Democratic congress rushing through a rash of oversight or regulatory measures. Of course, Obama is using the cliché of “crony capitalism” in the same manner he often uses his rhetoric – as an impressive way of saying nothing while seeming to be uttering some remarkable profundity.

Here’s some more bad news for Obama – in spite of his pathetic class warrior Schadenfreude over Main Street’s difficulties trickling up to Wall Street, that’s not what happened here at all. Wall Street made its own mess, creating the subprime crisis by issuing million of mortgages that defied economic sense. What will happen is that as Wall Street struggles with this mess, the pain will in fact trickle down to Main Street. Getting a mortgage will be much more difficult than it was. Homeownership will drift out of reach for many Americans. Unless Wall Street can pull itself together fast. To put it simply, Senator Obama seems to have no understanding of the symbiotic relationship between Wall Street and Main Street. He seems to believe that Wall Street is a nattily dressed predator that preys on ordinary folks like his humble next door neighbors the Rezkos. That’s what Saul Alinsky probably thought.

Obama also seems to have no grasp of why the AIG bailout was necessary. It wasn’t because a lot of consumers would have lost their homeowners’ policies or life insurance. If AIG had gone under, those profitable parts of AG’s business portfolio would have been scarfed up by eager third parties before sundown. To give you (not to mention Senator Obama) the Reader’s Digest version of things, the parts of AIG that write consumer policies are essentially a separate company from the part that’s in trouble. The reasons for this are too boring to get into, but it has a lot to do with state regulatory guidelines that cover consumer insurance policies.

So what’s the part that’s in trouble? If you’ve sensed a pattern this week and already guessed it has something to with the subprime mortgage mess, give yourself a gold star. And maybe you should consider seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2012. AIG also wrote de facto insurance policies for subprime mortgages and mortgage-backed securities for the banking community. What were they insuring? They were offering insurance against the possibility that the holders of those mortgages would default. Which as you know by now, they have. Selling such policies turned out be a very poor business decision.

Here’s where things got potentially sticky – the American financial community has been planning on AIG making good on its insurance policies, sort of the way you expect Allstate to make good on your homeowner’s policy when your house burns down. If AIG failed to meet these obligations, it would have been a devastating blow to the American financial community. “Devastating” in this context could have meant something like that bank run in “It’s a Wonderful Life” on mega-steroids but without that annoying Uncle whose carelessness almost got George thrown in jail. The terms “illiquid,” “insolvent,” and “panic” would have received frequent use.

Contra Senator Obama, the government didn’t bail out AIG because the guys at the Fed and Treasury wanted to do a solid for their pals at AIG. AIG got bailed out because its failure would have been catastrophic. Furthermore, the Fed’s terms for the bailout were Draconian. AIG stockholders and executives aren’t laughing all the way to the bank this morning. The company’s CEO is gone, his departure a condition of the bailout.

I’ve written many times here that I believe Senator Obama is a fundamentally good man. This is an opportunity for him to show his qualities as a leader. It would be helpful if he would try to calm the markets rather than further agitate them. I wouldn’t dare hope for him to express his confidence in the markets or the economy – since he obviously understands neither, such a declaration would ring hollow anyway. But since he doesn’t understand the issues to such an extent that he’s unwilling to take a position on whether or not the AIG bailout is a good thing, is it too much to ask for him to refrain from playing the arsonist?

Thanks Pansym I plan to!    I'm an Independent, feel I need to educate myself a bit more.

BinVa,

Thanks for clarifying things.  Not seeing the skit I had no idea what you meant.  Duh!

I too am looking very forward to the debates. 

Marianne

Saluki, Senator Obama is a fundamentaly good man I believe, just as is John McCain. 

Summer
Dx 10/12/2001, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/8 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-

Linda:  OMG--I'm speechless.  And then the audacity to end it with a statement like "...the thoughtful demographic that I'm trying to reach here?"  HUH? 

I know there are haters on the right, too, but I don't think there is anything that even comes close to this kind of toxic waste emanating from the left.  

One needs to ask, why do the Democrats and Democratic supporters hate Sarah Palin so much that they will stoop to immoral lengths to smear her. 

Denyse O'Leary
US Election 2008: Barack Obama vs. Trig Palin?

2008-09-08 at 3:42 pm · Filed under Vox Populi

 Comments »

1. Denis said,

   Establishment Feminism in America today is Blue State Feminism and has such individuals as Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer as it's represntatives. This is today's radical feminism and it is part of today's Establishment Liberalism as represented by the Democratic Party.
   Establishment Blue State Feminism must not conflict with the wider agenda of Establishment Liberalism.

   Palin, to the Blue State Feminists, represents Red State Feminism. She loves her husband, she loves her children and family, she opposes abortion, she loves her country, and does not see herself as being oppressed by men and the patriarchy.

   Palin is a punch in the face to Establishment Blue State Feminism.

   Establishment Blue State Feminism does not truly care about women, otherwise they would be celebrating Palin. But Palin runs counter to the agenda of Blue State Feminism and Establishment Liberalism.

   Now I would just as soon get rid of the word feminism,unless of course this country mainstreamed it's male counterpart: masculinism, men's rights, or whatever name men wish to come up with. But the political class and the MSM is going to frame every discussion of Palin through a feminist lense.

   Now I don't know if Palin will use her influence to damage men, but from what I see, she loves her husband, children, family, God, and country-and these give hope that Palin can perhaps redefine the national discourse about women and men away from the damaging and dominant influence of Establishment Blue State Feminism. That alone may be reason enough for Blue State Feminists to want to destroy Palin.

'Politics of hope' drowning in swamp of indebtedness JOHN OVERMYER/NEWSART There is mounting evidence that America's current standard of living is not sustainable, writes Michael Warren. Email story Print Choose text size Report typo or correction U.S. economic crisis makes a mockery of election promises
Sep 16, 2008 04:30 AM Comments on this story (4) Michael Warren

While Canadians may envy America's "politics of hope" it has a dark underbelly.

There is an issue so big, complex and daunting that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama wants to touch it. It is more serious than most Americans imagine. And it has the potential to eclipse and ultimately undermine the election promises and policies of who ever wins the White House in November.

It has been called the "dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows." There is even a documentary film entitled I.O.U.S.A that spells it out in convincing detail. But like other inconvenient truths this one is not politically sexy. Solving it requires sacrifice.

Simply stated, the United States is living beyond its means. When the income, liabilities and future obligations of its governments are added up there is mounting evidence that America's current standard of living is not sustainable.

The signs are everywhere. The U.S. national debt is now well over $9.6 trillion and climbing at a rate of nearly $2 billion a day. More to the point this debt as a percentage of their GNP (all the goods and services they produce) is the highest in fifty years. It is being financed by exponential credit expansion.

The financial system is in crisis with venerable firms, staggering under the weight of bad debts: first Bear Stearns last March and now in rapid succession Lehman Brothers, AIG insurance and Merrill Lynch.

Obama and McCain are both aware of the problem. They know what has to be done. The U.S. has to reduce overall debt levels and increase productivity. It also has to avoid building up new debt in excess of GDP growth and get individuals saving again. In other words, no new spending promises: Americans have to work harder, smarter and save more. And some of the most popular and expensive federal programs will have to be scaled back.

So far, neither candidate has shown any willingness to level with voters about these troubling truths. And it is doubtful whether the forthcoming debates will find either of them acknowledging the severity of the problem or outlining how to tackle this tsunami of spending. There seems to be an unspoken agreement to keep it off the table. It's too scary and difficult to explain, let alone resolve.

During his terms in office President George W. Bush has increased the national debt by more than 15 per cent. Despite this dubious legacy, Republican candidate McCain is talking about doing more of the same. He's promising to take the U.S. "back to the future" by cutting taxes even further and continuing the costly war in Iraq.

Obama isn't facing up to the problem either. He wants to increase spending on education and other programs and finance it all by "plugging holes in corporate income taxes and reviewing the budget line by line." This like trying to dousing a fire with gasoline.

Americans continue to import much more than they export. Last year their trade deficit topped $700 billion - one of the largest in U.S. history. Both Japan and more recently China have been lending the U.S. huge sums to help finance the sale of their products to American consumers.

Then there is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They sound like an old vaudeville team. But in reality they are agencies set up by the federal government to create a secondary market for mortgage-backed securities. They now own or guarantee over $12 trillion, or 50 per cent, of all U.S. mortgages. After investing deeply in risky subprime mortgages they faced insolvency. So the federal government has been forced to take them over, adding further to the debt burden.

However, all this pales in comparison to the fiscal strain that entitlement programs like social security and medicare will place on the U.S. government in future years.

Fortunately, not everybody is keeping this secret buried in Washington. The U.S. comptroller general, David Walker, who is the counterpart to our auditor general, is touring the country trying to inject the issue into the presidential race. "I would argue," says Walker, "that the most serious threat to the United States is not some one hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility."

He details for anyone who will listen how Americans are spending more than they make. He says that they are charging it to a credit card and expecting their grandchildren to pay for I, something Walker feels is, in part "an issue of immorality."

He maintains the U.S. is suffering from a fiscal cancer that is rooted in the massive entitlement programs that America can no longer afford. And this will be made worse by the millions of baby boomers who are beginning to queue up for their medicare and social security benefits.

Walker is not without support. Senator Kent Conrad, chair of the Senate budget committee, acknowledged recently that most people in Washington know how bad the situation is. When asked if taxes need to be raised, he said: "I believe first of all, we need more revenue. We need to be tough on spending. And we need to reform the entitlement programs ... we need to do all of it." Asked why this isn't happening, he added: "Because it's always easier to defer ... you get into trouble in politics when you make choices."

Whether or not the next president makes these tough choices will have real consequences for all Canadians. The United States buys nearly 80 per cent of our exports. Without reform, the U.S. economy is likely headed for recurring recessions and a much weaker dollar. This in turn would threaten major sectors of our economy and our own standard of living.

Let's hope that the American people elect a president who stops kicking this can down the road and steps up to the challenge of fixing the U.S. fiscal crisis.

Michael Warren is a corporate director and chair of The Warren Group. He is a former Ontario deputy minister, chief general manager of the TTC, and president and CEO of Canada Post.

I don't have time to participate right now.  Linda, I read the Mallick article earlier this morning.  When she says "white trash,", I visualize that word as the "N" word.  Just who IS white trash?  Who is she referring to.  And what she said about Palin's dd and her dd's bf is horrible!  And "trailor trash."  Who the hell does she think she is!!??  Why hasn't this "opinion piece" been pulled.  It reminds me of something on the Huffington's site.

With all these financial institutions falling we better be more concerned about who will be the best candidate to solve these problem.  At least McCain tried to warn congress through the bill he co-sponsored in 2005 of what will happen if they didn't regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  And, damned, if it's not happening.  Excuse the "d" word.  I'm not too happy this morning. I hear that Morgan Stanley may be next.

BTW, I thought the SNL skit was funny.  I don't think they were only picking on Palin.  Poor Hillary didn't look so good either. 

Oh, one more trivial thing.  I hope Palin refuses a makeover.  I remember when poor Hillary was having all these makeovers (remember the hairban?) and some of them made her look horrible.  I, personally, want the authenic Palin IF she should become VP.  Forget about Mallick's description of Palin. LOL

Shirley

Thanks for posting that lind, Beesie.

BinVa, I don't know exactly what you want to read.  I posted this on page 63.  It's a bill that McCain co-authored warning what would happen if this was not passed...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It's happened.  You can read, if you haven't already done so, what some of McCain's comments were BACK IN  2005.

Here's the bill.http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190&tab=speeches   S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

 A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.  

And you can look to your left and click on:  Overview, Summary (CRS), Full Text, Floor Speeches (I want to read that link),  Related Bills, and Analysis.

And here is something I find surprising.  The campaign contributions of both candidates from 1989 - 2008 from Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac...Obama was second in line with his short term in the senate.  Obama's contribution from Fanny and Freddie was $120,349 and McCain's was (remember for 9 YEARS!) $21,500.

The link:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html