Originally Posted By ecdc >>It's weird, and speaks much of how wary voters are this year. I am sure the Obama campaign has been trying to figure out how to get those numbers above 50. Certainly, neither campaign has had anything to crow about in the polls.<< I suspect this is due to undecideds going more to McCain. There's probably a variety of reasons for that, but that's my guess.
Originally Posted By DlandDug And off topic again... >>I mean does anyone on either side of the issue think that it [abortion rights] is going to change in the next four years?<< It's a bogeyman the left raises whenever it looks like a Republican is doing well. I seem to recall that Reagan (eight years in office) was absolutely going to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and that W (seven years and counting) was going to do the same. And we all know how that turned out...
Originally Posted By DyGDisney I think a lost of it is based on racism. We are still a very racist country, and it will be hard for Obama to win because of this.
Originally Posted By dshyates "We still have a war going on, our economy is in the tank, gas is lowering but it is still high, polution, mortgages,etc." These ARE the reasons I am voting for Obama. And not because he has expressed mind blowing great ideas. But that the GOP got us in these messes. Most particularly the banking meltdown and energy crisis are direct result of GOP deregulation, and the architect of these problems is McCain's main economic advisers. It seems insane to me that if you actually believe that we are having banking issues that you would vote for the GOP. The only 3 answers they have are, cut taxes, deregulate, and Drill baby Drill. PS: Everyone is aware that by taking over Fannie and Freddie yesterday, our $9 trillion deficit jumped to $14 trillion.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It's a bogeyman the left raises whenever it looks like a Republican is doing well. I seem to recall that Reagan (eight years in office) was absolutely going to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and that W (seven years and counting) was going to do the same. And we all know how that turned out..." So let's not forget to point out that reagan only got to appoint two justices and this current disaster in the White House only had two as well.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>Everyone is aware that by taking over Fannie and Freddie yesterday, our $9 trillion deficit jumped to $14 trillion.<< And it is exactly what the Democrats would do if they were in charge. And NOT a fan of the takeover, but I find it very funny that the Democrats/Liberals are bringing this up, because it is exactly the type of "Big Government" that the Liberals love....
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And we all know how that turned out...> It turned out that a). Bush I appointed a judge (Souter) who turned out to be pro-choice, (as well as one who isn't) and b). Clinton appointed 2, which kept the pro-choice majority. But it's down to 5-4 now, so this is not just a theoretical thing any more. Though there is a definite school of thought that says that the Republican leadership (as opposed to the average GOP voter) doesn't really WANT to overturn Roe v. Wade, because it gives them something to run on/against. The theory says that if it ever was overturned, all the energy on the issue would pass to the left. It does seem that (not just on this issue), the leadership pays lip service to social issues but keeps most of them "in flux" so that the wedges are "active" rather than resolved.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "And NOT a fan of the takeover, but I find it very funny that the Democrats/Liberals are bringing this up, because it is exactly the type of "Big Government" that the Liberals love....' Since this current admin did it, and "liberals" presumably would be for it, is it possible it's the prudent thing to do?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < because it is exactly the type of "Big Government" that the Liberals love....> Liberals don't usually "love" cleaning up the messes that Republican deregulation has wrought. But sometimes it's necessary. (I'm still making my mind up whether this one was a necessary evil or not.)
Originally Posted By dshyates "but I find it very funny that the Democrats/Liberals are bringing this up, because it is exactly the type of "Big Government" that the Liberals love...." What!?! Nothing about this even remotely looks Democratic. Deregulation until implosion is a GOP model.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "REGULATE THE SNOT OUT OF THEM" Who's going to sell the bumper stickers? mawnck?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer HUH??? It was a Democrat that designed a GOVERNMENT based mortgage system... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_National_Mortgage_Association" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...ociation</a> >>Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States. In 1968, to remove the activity of Fannie Mae from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget, it was converted into a private corporation.[5] Fannie Mae ceased to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages, and that responsibility was transferred to the new Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae).<< If I was in charge, I would never had allowed Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac to be placed into law, and left it to the PRIVATE market to regulate.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The problem was not Fannie Mae per se (which operated swimmingly for decades), but the deregulation of this decade which led to the housing crisis, which led to Fannie Mae holding billions in bad loans, some of which originated with FM, some of which didn't.
Originally Posted By gadzuux And of course, when FNMA and GMNA were generating tidy profits for the stockholders, there were no complaints. But just as in the S&L debacle, and more recently the bear/stearns buyout, it's the taxpayer holding the bag for the liabilities, thereby absolving the stockholders from any fiduciary responsibility. No - this one is GOP all the way. And we've seen it before.
Originally Posted By dshyates "HUH??? It was a Democrat that designed a GOVERNMENT based mortgage system..." They supplied liquidity for the private lenders. And as others pointed out after privatization they did fine until deregulated. Then all bets were off and it was a feeding frenzy on the American people. And what I hear the Dems wanting isn't bailing out the banks, but relief to the people they preyed upon. Some think that its a shame that the CEOs walk with obscene severance packages while their victims walk with all their possessions in a garbage bag. Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae is getting $9.3 million severance Richard Syron, CEO of Freddie Mac is to recieve $14.1 million severance.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Gosh, I sure hope that amount tides Mr. Mudd and Mr. Syron over until they find work again.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae is getting $9.3 million severance Richard Syron, CEO of Freddie Mac is to recieve $14.1 million severance.>> This just proves how topsey-turvey things have gotten in this country. Why aren't these people being held responsible for the failures of these companies? I have no problem with CEOs raking in the big bucks when their companies are making millions, but why are they being paid millions when the companies fail? Why are lower level employees held to such a high standerd, but the people at the top of the totem pole get to walk away with millions? And yet, somehow the American people keep voting people in who support this kind of crap. It's really unbelievable!!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Haven't they suffered enough? I mean, people down at the club ARE starting to talk.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>"REGULATE THE SNOT OUT OF THEM" Who's going to sell the bumper stickers? mawnck?<< Sure. But don't ask what I'm using as adhesive.
Originally Posted By Mr X <<Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae is getting $9.3 million severance Richard Syron, CEO of Freddie Mac is to recieve $14.1 million severance.>> And we wonder why the younger generation lacks morals.
