so you obama people

[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?

[SMCengineer]

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

Absolutely not, he can't for political reasons and won't for the same reasons. His words are doublespeak. He's pulling out "combat troops," but leaving 50,000 "support troops." That means nothing. Iraqis still see it as an occupation. They don't care if we change the name from "combat" to "support."

It's funny that Bush used the same rhetoric and was lambasted for it, but when Obama uses it he's praised.

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

No, of course not. And, no, the banks shouldn't have been forced to take on risky loans. And, yes, it contributed to the bubble, but it's not the cause of the bubble. It's merely a symptom. Bubbles only form from expansive monetary policy. No other way. That can be traced back to tulip mania in the early 1600's.

[BuffedGuy]

Absolutely not, he can't for political reasons and won't for the same reasons. His words are doublespeak. He's pulling out "combat troops," but leaving 50,000 "support troops." That means nothing. Iraqis still see it as an occupation. They don't care if we change the name from "combat" to "support."

It's funny that Bush used the same rhetoric and was lambasted for it, but when Obama uses it he's praised.

You are absolutely correct. It's just doublespeak, as you said. You can call them whatever you want, but the matter is still the same.