so you obama people

[RA]

Right, cause republicans didn't control the congress for 12 years, and both the legislative and executive for 6. They had their chance and they failed miserably. I'm not sure what's worse, having republicans who campaign as libertarians and govern as dems or having dems who campaign as liberals and follow through on their word. Sure, republican rhetoric is terrific now, but they always sound better when they're not in power cause they have less to risk.



Best picture ever.


On major policies, Mccain was no different than Obama nor were his supporters.

They actually campaigned as "compasionate converservatives," which is simply a euphemism for neoconservative. Of course, it isn't nearly as pleasant sounding.



I'm pretty sure it was under Bushs watch that interest rates dropped to their lowest levels in history (prior to today) and every fire needs fuel. Although those horrible policies were enacted, the catalyst was the interest rates. Everything else was just symptoms. Republicans and democrats alike are to blame not solely because of the policies they enacted, but because there's not a damn difference between the two.

Like I said no rino Republicans. Someone like Bobby Jindal for example would be a good one. I think part of the problem was Bush wasnt a true conservative. He cut taxes but he wouldnt veto any spending bill...and the wimps in the legislature were too weak to stand up to him.

McCain is also liberal but far far less than Obama. Im not sure how you can draw a comparison between the two. Obama had the most liberal voting record in the senate...left of Hilary.

The Carter plan was to give money to people to buy homes. Like I said it didnt have much traction until Clinton forced banks to loan money to people who couldnt pay it back. Thats the backbone. Low interest rates didnt help but we wouldnt be in this mess if that legislation was never enacted.

Like I said several times Bush called for regulation and it was always blocked. Bawney Fwank is hugely responsible as well.

[SMCengineer]

Like I said no rino Republicans. Someone like Bobby Jindal for example would be a good one. I think part of the problem was Bush wasnt a true conservative. He cut taxes but he wouldnt veto any spending bill...and the wimps in the legislature were too weak to stand up to him.

Bobby Jindal is just like all the other so called republicans trying to take the mantle of conservatism. He's the same as Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Jim Deminth, Jon Huntsman, Mike Pence and all the other hacks. They're all horrible. I have no idea how the GOP doesn't learn from it's mistakes. Jindal's voting record is horrendous (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...?can_id=35481#). Take a look at all the Yes votes for appropriations and fiscal bills. That's fiscal conservatism? Not to mention he has no regard for the constitution. He voted Yes on the Patriot Act, Yes on a constitutional amendmet banning flag burning and Yes on the Real ID Act! All unconstitutional, socialistic, liberal and expansive to the executive.
Just because he vetoed some earmarks in the state budget and opposed the stimulus money that makes him a fiscal conservative? No, that makes him a political grandstander and inconsistent.
The only governor who has any credibility is Mark Sandford and after his interview on Fox where he agreed with Newt Gingrich that we should take preemptive action against North Korea, I'm rethinking that.

McCain is also liberal but far far less than Obama. Im not sure how you can draw a comparison between the two. Obama had the most liberal voting record in the senate...left of Hilary.

On major policies, they are identical. Foreign policy, Monetary Policy, War on Drugs, Federal Reserve, Bailouts, etc.

The Carter plan was to give money to people to buy homes. Like I said it didnt have much traction until Clinton forced banks to loan money to people who couldnt pay it back. Thats the backbone. Low interest rates didnt help but we wouldnt be in this mess if that legislation was never enacted.

Like I said several times Bush called for regulation and it was always blocked. Bawney Fwank is hugely responsible as well.

No, that's not the backbone. You have to understand the business cycle to understand how and when bubbles are formed. Bubbles (malinvestments) are always caused by expansion of the monetary supply. All the piss poor legislation in the world couldn't bring about the ridiculous investments that were made in the last 10 years without the existence of easy credit. Yes, the reduction of risk provided by the government greatly contributed to the mess, but without the fed and subsequently Bushs/Greenspans low interest rate policy the problem wouldn't be half as bad.

[RA]

Bobby Jindal is just like all the other so called republicans trying to take the mantle of conservatism. He's the same as Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Jim Deminth, Jon Huntsman, Mike Pence and all the other hacks. They're all horrible. I have no idea how the GOP doesn't learn from it's mistakes. Jindal's voting record is horrendous (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...?can_id=35481#). Take a look at all the Yes votes for appropriations and fiscal bills. That's fiscal conservatism? Not to mention he has no regard for the constitution. He voted Yes on the Patriot Act, Yes on a constitutional amendmet banning flag burning and Yes on the Real ID Act! All unconstitutional, socialistic, liberal and expansive to the executive.
Just because he vetoed some earmarks in the state budget and opposed the stimulus money that makes him a fiscal conservative? No, that makes him a political grandstander and inconsistent.
The only governor who has any credibility is Mark Sandford and after his interview on Fox where he agreed with Newt Gingrich that we should take preemptive action against North Korea, I'm rethinking that.


On major policies, they are identical. Foreign policy, Monetary Policy, War on Drugs, Federal Reserve, Bailouts, etc.



No, that's not the backbone. You have to understand the business cycle to understand how and when bubbles are formed. Bubbles (malinvestments) are always caused by expansion of the monetary supply. All the piss poor legislation in the world couldn't bring about the ridiculous investments that were made in the last 10 years without the existence of easy credit. Yes, the reduction of risk provided by the government greatly contributed to the mess, but without the fed and subsequently Bushs/Greenspans low interest rate policy the problem wouldn't be half as bad.

You mentioned some good Republicans in there. Maybe not as conservative as I would like but light years ahead of whats currently in there. Im not sure what exactly you expect??

McCain is not in agreement with Obama on bailouts, foreign policy, and the fed..maybe war on drugs but they arent that similar.

Of course it was the backbone. The banks were forced( by the govt ) to give millions of loans to people who shouldnt have them. Im not sure where your missing the boat on that one.

[SMCengineer]

You mentioned some good Republicans in there. Maybe not as conservative as I would like but light years ahead of whats currently in there. Im not sure what exactly you expect??

Principled conservatives. None of which I mentioned. Particularly Mitt Romney who literally tried to out liberal Ted Kennedy in 1994: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI.

McCain is not in agreement with Obama on bailouts, foreign policy, and the fed..maybe war on drugs but they arent that similar.

Check their voting records. They're identical. On bailouts they're different? That's odd cause I could've sworn Mccain voted for the Tarp and every other bailout pre-Obama. There's a slight, and I mean slight difference, on foreign policy, but the only difference is that Obama wants to draw down the troops from Iraq and place them in Afghanistan. By draw down, that means leave several tousand troops in Iraq and claim that he ended the war, which he won't. However, the basis is an interventionist foreign policy, which doesn't change from one administration to the next. Where do they differ on the Fed? When do they even talk about the Fed?

Of course it was the backbone. The banks were forced( by the govt ) to give millions of loans to people who shouldnt have them. Im not sure where your missing the boat on that one.

Missing the boat? How can loans be made without credit?

[RA]

Principled conservatives. None of which I mentioned. Particularly Mitt Romney who literally tried to out liberal Ted Kennedy in 1994: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI.


Check their voting records. They're identical. On bailouts they're different? That's odd cause I could've sworn Mccain voted for the Tarp and every other bailout pre-Obama. There's a slight, and I mean slight difference, on foreign policy, but the only difference is that Obama wants to draw down the troops from Iraq and place them in Afghanistan. By draw down, that means leave several tousand troops in Iraq and claim that he ended the war, which he won't. However, the basis is an interventionist foreign policy, which doesn't change from one administration to the next. Where do they differ on the Fed? When do they even talk about the Fed?


Missing the boat? How can loans be made without credit?

I totally agree. I would like principled conservative leaders. Do you hold the liberal leaders in Washington to the same standard? Because every single one would fail if thats the case.

McCain would not be going after Wall Street like obama has...McCain would not be talking universal health care..McCain would stay as long as we needed to in Iraq and not set some arbitrary deadline. McCain would not be going around the world apologizing to everyone and calling us arrogant. McCain would not be trying to take over all the banks and wanting to set the salaries of ceos that didnt even take tarp money...huge differences

Interest rates are an issue but if your loaning the money to people who can pay it back then there isnt a problem.

[SMCengineer]

I totally agree. I would like principled conservative leaders. Do you hold the liberal leaders in Washington to the same standard? Because every single one would fail if thats the case.

Principled liberals? Pointless to even consider it.

McCain would not be going after Wall Street like obama has...McCain would not be talking universal health care..McCain would stay as long as we needed to in Iraq and not set some arbitrary deadline. McCain would not be going around the world apologizing to everyone and calling us arrogant. McCain would not be trying to take over all the banks and wanting to set the salaries of ceos that didnt even take tarp money...huge differences

Mccains healthcare platform presented no plan to get the goverment out of the insurance business. He presented no plan of rescinding the HMO act and Erisa Act. His plan was only superficially different than Obama's. Obama has no arbitrary deadline of leaving Iraq. In fact, he's not leaving Iraq. The occupation will not end. It's all political rhetoric.

Both of them voted for the TARP funds. We wouldn't even be in a position of owning banks if it weren't for that. Maybe he wouldn't be capping salaries like you say, but he sure would be buying up toxic mortgages: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/1...surgence-plan/. Which leads me to believe that he would be doing a lot more intervining in the economy and a lot less cutting of any large departments of government to slash spending, again the same. Not to mention his stimulus plans were essentially the same as Obamas. Open your eyes. It's not two seperate teams. It's coke and pepsi. They're the same! I won't even touch on the apologizing thing cause it's a ridiculous and jingoistic arguement.

By the way, I said major issues, Monetary Policy, Federal Reserve, Interventionism vs Non-interventionism, Immigration, war on drugs, welfare state, etc. They don't differ on these and therefore we'd be in the same position.

Interest rates are an issue but if your loaning the money to people who can pay it back then there isnt a problem.

So are you blaming greed? That would be equivilant to putting the cart before the horse or blaming a plane crash on gravity.

All factors combined, Fannie and Freddie, CRA, political manipulation, deregulation (an absolutely ridiculous notion), wall street greed, would never have enough liquidity to cause a housing bubble. There had to be an institution that operated outside of free market forces that enabled credit expansion on such an unprecedented level. Simply, if it weren't for the fed manipulating interest rates, business cycles would be very seldom. Loose monetary policy and low interest rates always induce booms. It can never be brought about by any other means.

This is what I mean by having a difference in Monetary Policy.

[RA]

Principled liberals? Pointless to even consider it.



Mccains healthcare platform presented no plan to get the goverment out of the insurance business. He presented no plan of rescinding the HMO act and Erisa Act. His plan was only superficially different than Obama's. Obama has no arbitrary deadline of leaving Iraq. In fact, he's not leaving Iraq. The occupation will not end. It's all political rhetoric.

Both of them voted for the TARP funds. We wouldn't even be in a position of owning banks if it weren't for that. Maybe he wouldn't be capping salaries like you say, but he sure would be buying up toxic mortgages: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/1...surgence-plan/. Which leads me to believe that he would be doing a lot more intervining in the economy and a lot less cutting of any large departments of government to slash spending, again the same. Not to mention his stimulus plans were essentially the same as Obamas. Open your eyes. It's not two seperate teams. It's coke and pepsi. They're the same! I won't even touch on the apologizing thing cause it's a ridiculous and jingoistic arguement.

By the way, I said major issues, Monetary Policy, Federal Reserve, Interventionism vs Non-interventionism, Immigration, war on drugs, welfare state, etc. They don't differ on these and therefore we'd be in the same position.



So are you blaming greed? That would be equivilant to putting the cart before the horse or blaming a plane crash on gravity.

All factors combined, Fannie and Freddie, CRA, political manipulation, deregulation (an absolutely ridiculous notion), wall street greed, would never have enough liquidity to cause a housing bubble. There had to be an institution that operated outside of free market forces that enabled credit expansion on such an unprecedented level. Simply, if it weren't for the fed manipulating interest rates, business cycles would be very seldom. Loose monetary policy and low interest rates always induce booms. It can never be brought about by any other means.

This is what I mean by having a difference in Monetary Policy.

LMAO on the principled libs...

So you dont think were pulling out in 18 months like he said?

I do agree that they are similar. I was never a big McCain fan. Far too lib for me. I just think obamas main goal is socialism and being more part of the "one world community" than keeping us intact as a country than McCain.

So you think loaning money to people who have shitty credit is a good idea and didnt have any effect on the housing bubble?