repealing Glass-Steagall were Republican initiatives
The repeal of Glass-Steagall enjoyed huge bipartisan support. To call a bill that was passed nearly unanimously and signed into law by President Bill Clinton a "Republican initiative" is misleading. It pretty much just brought us into line with how the rest of the world operates.
Saying that the CRA is responsible for it is a major oversimplification though, as is pointing the finger at any one specific law.
A simplification, yes. We could talk all week about all of the hemorrhaging going on in the financial industry. We could talk about overleveraging. We could talk about shortsighted compensation models. We could talk about conflicts of interest. We could talk about stupid assumptions (real estate prices only go up!).
But the bottom line here is that risky, undercollateralized loans were made that should never have been made to borrowers who were never going to be able to repay them. We'll never correct the mortgage market until that fundamental problem is addressed. It doesn't matter what percentage of subprime loans were issued under CRA, because every loan origination in the US is covered by the Federal Fair Housing Act, which provides a huge disincentive for mortgage brokers to tell unqualified borrowers what they don't want to hear: that they can't afford to buy a house. After all, if a protected class member fills out a loan app, and that protected class member qualifies for a loan product, any loan product, it would be illegal for a broker to deny the applicant. It's hard to blame the brokers for following the fair housing act.
The banks and mortgage companies were doing some very shady stuff in pushing subprime loans on people who could qualify for regular loans
The rating agencies were giving AAA ratings to these securities composed of high risk loans.
Those mortgage pools were divided into 3 tranches in increasing level of risk. The senior tranches with the safest loans it them were insured against loss. How would you, wise fellow, rate the safest loans in the pool that were insured against loss? Once it became clear that the senior tranches were seeing high levels of default, to the point that the insurers were too undercapitalized to actually compensate the investors in these "low-risk" securities, their ratings were slashed.
investors who thought they were getting a safe investment were actually getting a very risky one
Yup. Sure turned out that way. By the way, there is nothing wrong with risky investments, as long as they are priced correctly. These investments were mispriced, it turned out, and no one really knew how to price them (we still aren't very sure... that's why they are "illiquid"). But investors completely halted investing in securities they didn't know how to price (wouldn't you?), hence the liquidity crunch started.
I assume this makes the banks more money, but the high-risk nature seems like it could lead directly to the situation we're in now.
The banks made their money by buying into the riskiest tranches and paying themselves a high rate of return (which resulted in huge bonuses for executives). But there's no risk in that, right? I mean, real estate always appreciates, right?
For some reason, we still seem to let these companies grow so big that they become "too big too fail",
The rule isn't necessarily "too big to fail". It's more "too interconnected to fail". If the failure of one institution (such as AIG) would cause the entire world's financial system to come undone, then yeah, the government is going to step in.
The problem is huge and complex. To say "The Republicans mismanaged the economy" is the type of absurdity only fo
Have you been paying attention? We're in the situation we're in now thanks to Republican policies.
Care to be specific, or is this just a campaign ad for Sen. Obama? I'd like to hear which specific Republican policies got us into this mess, however you wish to define "mess". Let me give you an example: In 1995, President Clinton strengthened the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act as well as enforcement. Banks were not allowed to expand unless they made a sufficient number of loans to unqualified borrowers. That, along with increases in efficiency in the securitization of mortgages, caused subprime lending to spike, as you can see here.
In 2003, the Bush administration realized that this could cause a huge meltdown in the housing market, and proposed that Fannie and Freddy's oversight be moved under Treasury where they could be regulated more closely to make sure they were not making unsound lending decisions. Both Freddie and Fannie supported this at the time, by the way. It was, guess who?, Democrats in congress who opposed the move because they were concerned that the Bush administration might reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing (read: make sure FRE and FNM stopped buying/securitizing risky loans). Ultimately, it was congressional Democrats who killed the measure, and...well.. you see where we are today. Here are some choice quotes:
"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Rep Barney Frank (D-MA) (ranking Dem on Financial Services Committee), Sept 2003.
"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC), Sept 2003.
But that, of course, does not stop the Democrats from blaming the subprime mess on President Bush, who actually tried to fix the problem way back in 2003.
On a different note, now that you meantion it, I don't remember any sort of birth control meantioned in school at all.
I don't know where you went to school, but I learned about condoms and the pill (and possibly others... it was a long time ago) in 7th grade, and learned about every single mainstream birth control method in 10th. Must have sunk in to some degree or another, because I did not become a father for the first time until age 29.
Not teaching kids about birth control is total insanity.
If it's impossible to pass the year because of what a student scored the first quarter, they'll give up for the rest of the year.God forbid they just want to learn the material.
The problem with the Pittsburgh policy is that it applies to every assignment, not the entire quarter. My high school took your 1st and 2nd quarter grades and averaged them, which had the same result (if you got a 0% in Q1 and 100% in Q2, your semester (transcript) grade was a C). But the Pittsburgh policy lets a student say, "Homework? What for? You can't give me lower than 50% on it, anyway."
If you can slide by with a 50% for doing nothing, people will do exactly that.
Actually, probably the biggest "externality" will be that high-achieving students will really, truly blow off the last quarter of their senior years. What you're basically telling them is: "You can work your tail off for the quarter and your transcript will reflect an A, or you can just not show up at all and your transcript will show a B."
You're already accepted to college at that point. Well, duh, what would you do?
The valedictorian at my highschool went off to Yale, and returned less than a year later because she got knocked up by the first guy who looked at her.
I guess that A she got in health class didn't result in a whole lot of practical knowledge of birth control.
If it makes you feel any better, the valedictorian at my wife's high school dated football players, got straight As in college in its highly-selective honors program, got a job in banking, and then married a total slacking loser. I really have no idea what the fuck she was thinking when she married me.
My wife and I don't make anywhere near a combined $250K, so Obama's plan won't raise my taxes, despite McCain's ads to the contrary.
Cute link, but Obama proposes raising taxes on everyone--even the poorest Americans. The impoverished may not pay directly, but by raising corporate income taxes and especially taxes on oil companies (that is a huge part of his campaign), that will raise the cost of all goods and services for everybody. You don't actually believe that corporations pay taxes, do you?
I suppose you'll snap back about direct vs. indirect taxation, and that's your right. But I'll then have a hard time understanding the distinction between writing a check to the Dept. of the Treasury and paying more at your local Exxon station so that ExxonMobil can write a check to the Dept. of the Treasury on your behalf.
And you still have no answer to my assertion that raising taxes during an economic downturn will make the downturn worse. I don't blame you, because that is one of Obama's biggest Achilles' heels, and McCain will be wise to really hammer him on that one in the debates. No credible economist believes raising taxes will help get us out of this downturn.
Like I said, I'm voting for the one I think will do the least damage, and it's not a pleasant thing for me to do.
That's an easy one. Obama wants to raise your taxes during an economic downturn. Most economists agree that raising taxes during an economic downturn will make the downturn worse.;)
This is not very difficult to understand... The greatest power your boss has over you is firing you; the harder it is to you, the more obedient you are.
This is ridiculous. I own three companies, and I'll tell you that unemployment claims make my insurance rates go up. That being said, they don't go up by enough to try to "restructure" a layoff as termination for cause. The disputes, hearings, etc. just aren't worth the aggravation. Unemployment insurance is cheap.
I certainly don't hold the level of contempt for my employees what you some to hold for your employers.
You offer one example of that, and it only applies if you don't accept his explanation that he meant it wouldn't be physically divided as it was until 1967.
You must have me confused with you. I gave a lot of examples, whereas you only gave one. And frankly, I'm a little sick of all of Obama's "clarifications" (which amount to outright reversals). Isn't his biggest asset that he's a good communicator?
Here's a McCain overnight reversal for you,
You're comparing his reaction to the ruling a few hours after it happened with his reaction after he had a chance to actually read the ruling. It's a stretch to call that a "reversal". Obama, on the other hand, was commenting on a situation that has been developing since before he was born. Obama's overnight reversal is a lot more shocking, no?
Being against a provision of a bill and voting for a bill are not necessarily contradictory.
I agree with your theory, but not in this particular instance. Obama specifically promised to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.". He then reversed course 180 degrees and voted for telecom immunity. This would have been the perfect opportunity for him to show leadership and stand up for what's right over what's popular. Instead, he failed the American people. I would love to hear Obama's "clarification" on that one.
Anytime, anywhere doesn't mean that McCain should get to pick the rules.
Sure sounds like an offer for McCain to pick the venue to me. But I'm not a great communicator like Sen. Obama.
It's not a virtue in itself, but it is a virtue to truly discuss the nuances of the issues rather than spout the bumper-sticker version for the masses that have no clue about the complexities of foreign policy and international relations.
A great example of this was here. McCain gave a straightforward answer that conveyed all of the information that needed conveying. I happen to disagree with his answer, but at least I know where he stands. Contrast that with Obama, the great communicator, who stuttered, stammered, and finally settled upon avoiding the question entirely. Nuance, indeed.
Yeah, I can play that game too. Here's a list of McCain flip-flops. They've both done it.
No, not flip flops. I'm talking about saying one thing and then doing another. A politician with decades of experience is going to change his mind on issues. That's why it was ridiculous when Bush painted Kerry as a flip-flopper, and it's ridiculous to do that with McCain. The world changes over the years. People change over the years. Those that fail to change with the times are not "resolute", they are dinosaurs!
I'm talking about saying one thing and doing another. And over a period of days, not decades. It's saying one thing in Scranton, and the exact opposite in San Francisco when he thinks nobody's listening. It's saying he voted one way because that's what you want to hear, but it turns out he did not vote that way. It's saying one thing at APIAC, and then the exact opposite thing on CNN, just one day later. This isn't flip-flopping, because he couldn't have done a 180 degree reversal of his foreign policy in under 24 hours. It was telling one group what they wanted to hear, and another group what they wanted to hear.
Someone like Obama, who is a very good speaker, but also very precise and thoughtful in his speech is at a disadvantage to someone like McCain who likes to go with the "straight talk" and catchy sound-bites intended to mask the complexity of the issues and oversimplify the answers to a point that it should become obvious that what he's saying is meaningless.
Obama said he'd debate McCain "anytime, anywhere", but it turns out he will not. I don't really care what his excuse is. If he did not intend to debate Senator McCain "anytime, anywhere", then he had no business blustering about it.
And since when is verbosity a virtue? Any average 8th grader can write a 3 page paper in 5 pages. What takes skill is to write that 3 page paper in 1.
The whole "plain talk" thing and voting for the guy you'd like to have a beer with has lead us to disaster.
I'd rather have a beer with Obama. Maybe if he were drunk he'd tell me the truth for once.
I'm glad you enjoyed his speech, but talk is cheap. Especially from Senator Obama. Look at what he says vs. what he does. Obama:
Said he would take public financing, but later refused it
Rails against Bush's energy bill. Perhaps he forgot that he voted for it
Said he was against Telecom Immunity, but then voted for it
Said Jerusalem should be undivided capital of Israel to an Israel lobbying group, but said the exact opposite on CNN just 1 day later (can you say "pandering")?
Said he would debate John McCain "Anywhere, Anytime." Somehow, McCain is having difficulty getting on Obama's schedule, however.
Said he voted for protecting infants who survive abortion, but the Illinois State Senate records prove otherwise
Said he could not disown Pastor Wright... right before disowning him, along with the church he attended for decades.
I could go on and on, but what's the point?
It's so funny how easy it is to be seduced by Obama's words. I actually voted for him in the primaries, but I had only been paying attention to him for a week or so at that point. But in the months that followed, it was clear that Obama's words and his deeds were at odds with each other. I don't like being told what I want to hear, even if it sounds nice. I want the truth.
John McCain is the real deal. I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but at least I know his positions. I have never voted for a Republican before, but I will in November.
I agree that there was no compelling declassified intelligence that justified going to war with Iraq in 2003. This is the main reason why I (and it sounds like you as well) did not support the attack and occupation of Iraq at the time. But if attacking Iraq was such obvious poor judgment at the time, why did Senate Democrats vote 29-21 in favor of the war?
This is why I'm saying that while it's easy for you, or me, or even an Illinois State Senator to question the judgment of those who voted for the war, how do you explain the Democrats' support for the war?
Here's one to make your head spin: Barack Obama voted with is party 96.0% of the time. His party voted for the war. His running mate voted for the war. His opponent in the primaries voted for the war. Had Barack Obama been a member of the 107th Congress, I believe he would have voted for the war as well. That's just my opinion, but I think it's a reasonably well-grounded one.
I'm saying that there is a lot more to leadership than just doing something. It's showing good judgment in what you do.
Is good judgment really a prerequisite to leading? Napoleon was one of the greatest leaders in the last few centuries, but his decision to invade Russia in the dead of winter wound up sowing the seeds of his undoing.
And who is to say that Obama has good judgment at all? He's voted the Democrat party line more than any other Senator. That shows all the judgment of a sheep. Baaaaaaaa.
And it's not like it was such a huge leadership stand he took, opposing the war from the comfort of Springfield, Illinois. I was against the war too, but it isn't my responsibility to prevent despotic rulers from acquiring nuclear weapons and selling them to terrorists. I also wasn't privy to the intelligence of the day (and neither were you). Had I been a senator at the time, I couldn't tell you if I would or would not have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
I'm having difficulty coming up with a time when Obama showed leadership or good judgment, in a time that it actually mattered.
Quick, go dig up the "Mission Accomplished" banner again! While the surge may have helped increase security, it hasn't been proved out as a successful strategy for creating a stable country. Petraeus himself has described the situation as tenuous, fragile and reversible. The political situation there is still very shaky. So before McCain goes off about how he backed a winning strategy, maybe we should figure out if anything will actually be won. Seems like the best strategy would have been not dragging us into a pointless war. Wonder which candidate supported that strategy?
I feel as though you may have changed the subject on me.
The subject was John McCain's leadership, contrasted with Barack Obama's lack of leadership. Can I interpret your response to be anything other than an attempt to distract me from Barack Obama's lack of leadership? Or are we still in agreement that Barack Obama has shown zero leadership in his life as a politician, and you just want to nitpick?
I'm just trying to figure out where your response came from, if not from left field.
Why do I have to read Obama's books to find a time when Obama showed any inkling toward leadership?
Off the top of my head, I can think of a half dozen times John McCain has demonstrated leadership:
McCain-Feingold Act (ultimately successful)
Normalizing relations with Vietnam (ultimately successful)
Gang of 14
Climate Stewardship Act (cosponsored with Sen. Lieberman)
Created the 9/11 Commission with Sen. Lieberman
Called out Secretary Rumsfeld for being a moron and supporting what history has revealed to be the successful troop surge in Iraq
Immigration Reform (ultimately failed)
So, OK. Let's hear what, exactly, Obama has accomplished as a community organizer. Let's hear how he reformed corrupt Chicago politics. Surely if he intends to reform Washington, he must have done a great job back in Chicago. </sarcasm> Let's hear how he showed some leadership. Anywhere. At any point in his life.
And you probably never drive even 1 mile per hour over the speed limit, either.
Go ahead and pay your use tax. I wouldn't be surprised if that increased your audit chances since your state dept. of revenue will want to know what the hell is going on with your return that you are paying use tax.
This is ridiculous. On what do you base your claim that Scott Adams did not work hard for his money, and does not continue to do so? Have you ever written a saleable book or started a company?
No, so you have no idea. If Adams didn't work hard for his money, he wouldn't care about keeping the fruits of his labor.
Sorry, I haven't written a whole book. I've only written a few chapters of one.
What would you pay for a few chapters of a book?
Anyhow, I was raising those examples merely to demonstrate that Scott Adams has produced a lot of value and deserves to be compensated for it. You should obviously follow your own path in life.
I do work hard when the jobs are available. I don't wish for the money; I wish for the jobs so I can work hard.
Do you think that is the path to the top income tax bracket?
People in higher tax brackets are still getting more money even if they pay more taxes.
Earning. Not getting. Earning.
Most of these people in higher tax brackets are the ones who decide to pay their employees an amount that, if everyone were flat taxed, would leave them not enough for basic food and shelter.
This is silly. Employee and employer are both subject to the labor market. The employer doesn't set salaries--the market does.
Slashdot Mirror
repealing Glass-Steagall were Republican initiatives
The repeal of Glass-Steagall enjoyed huge bipartisan support. To call a bill that was passed nearly unanimously and signed into law by President Bill Clinton a "Republican initiative" is misleading. It pretty much just brought us into line with how the rest of the world operates.
Saying that the CRA is responsible for it is a major oversimplification though, as is pointing the finger at any one specific law.
A simplification, yes. We could talk all week about all of the hemorrhaging going on in the financial industry. We could talk about overleveraging. We could talk about shortsighted compensation models. We could talk about conflicts of interest. We could talk about stupid assumptions (real estate prices only go up!).
But the bottom line here is that risky, undercollateralized loans were made that should never have been made to borrowers who were never going to be able to repay them. We'll never correct the mortgage market until that fundamental problem is addressed. It doesn't matter what percentage of subprime loans were issued under CRA, because every loan origination in the US is covered by the Federal Fair Housing Act, which provides a huge disincentive for mortgage brokers to tell unqualified borrowers what they don't want to hear: that they can't afford to buy a house. After all, if a protected class member fills out a loan app, and that protected class member qualifies for a loan product, any loan product, it would be illegal for a broker to deny the applicant. It's hard to blame the brokers for following the fair housing act.
The banks and mortgage companies were doing some very shady stuff in pushing subprime loans on people who could qualify for regular loans
Financial incentives.
The rating agencies were giving AAA ratings to these securities composed of high risk loans.
Those mortgage pools were divided into 3 tranches in increasing level of risk. The senior tranches with the safest loans it them were insured against loss. How would you, wise fellow, rate the safest loans in the pool that were insured against loss? Once it became clear that the senior tranches were seeing high levels of default, to the point that the insurers were too undercapitalized to actually compensate the investors in these "low-risk" securities, their ratings were slashed.
investors who thought they were getting a safe investment were actually getting a very risky one
Yup. Sure turned out that way. By the way, there is nothing wrong with risky investments, as long as they are priced correctly. These investments were mispriced, it turned out, and no one really knew how to price them (we still aren't very sure... that's why they are "illiquid"). But investors completely halted investing in securities they didn't know how to price (wouldn't you?), hence the liquidity crunch started.
I assume this makes the banks more money, but the high-risk nature seems like it could lead directly to the situation we're in now.
The banks made their money by buying into the riskiest tranches and paying themselves a high rate of return (which resulted in huge bonuses for executives). But there's no risk in that, right? I mean, real estate always appreciates, right?
For some reason, we still seem to let these companies grow so big that they become "too big too fail",
The rule isn't necessarily "too big to fail". It's more "too interconnected to fail". If the failure of one institution (such as AIG) would cause the entire world's financial system to come undone, then yeah, the government is going to step in.
The problem is huge and complex. To say "The Republicans mismanaged the economy" is the type of absurdity only fo
Have you been paying attention? We're in the situation we're in now thanks to Republican policies.
Care to be specific, or is this just a campaign ad for Sen. Obama? I'd like to hear which specific Republican policies got us into this mess, however you wish to define "mess". Let me give you an example:
In 1995, President Clinton strengthened the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act as well as enforcement. Banks were not allowed to expand unless they made a sufficient number of loans to unqualified borrowers. That, along with increases in efficiency in the securitization of mortgages, caused subprime lending to spike, as you can see here.
In 2003, the Bush administration realized that this could cause a huge meltdown in the housing market, and proposed that Fannie and Freddy's oversight be moved under Treasury where they could be regulated more closely to make sure they were not making unsound lending decisions. Both Freddie and Fannie supported this at the time, by the way. It was, guess who?, Democrats in congress who opposed the move because they were concerned that the Bush administration might reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing (read: make sure FRE and FNM stopped buying/securitizing risky loans). Ultimately, it was congressional Democrats who killed the measure, and.. .well.. you see where we are today. Here are some choice quotes:
"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Rep Barney Frank (D-MA) (ranking Dem on Financial Services Committee), Sept 2003.
"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC), Sept 2003.
But that, of course, does not stop the Democrats from blaming the subprime mess on President Bush, who actually tried to fix the problem way back in 2003.
Welcome to politics economics, son.
Disclosure: IAAE
On a different note, now that you meantion it, I don't remember any sort of birth control meantioned in school at all.
I don't know where you went to school, but I learned about condoms and the pill (and possibly others... it was a long time ago) in 7th grade, and learned about every single mainstream birth control method in 10th. Must have sunk in to some degree or another, because I did not become a father for the first time until age 29.
Not teaching kids about birth control is total insanity.
If it's impossible to pass the year because of what a student scored the first quarter, they'll give up for the rest of the year.God forbid they just want to learn the material.
The problem with the Pittsburgh policy is that it applies to every assignment, not the entire quarter. My high school took your 1st and 2nd quarter grades and averaged them, which had the same result (if you got a 0% in Q1 and 100% in Q2, your semester (transcript) grade was a C). But the Pittsburgh policy lets a student say, "Homework? What for? You can't give me lower than 50% on it, anyway."
If you can slide by with a 50% for doing nothing, people will do exactly that.
Actually, probably the biggest "externality" will be that high-achieving students will really, truly blow off the last quarter of their senior years. What you're basically telling them is: "You can work your tail off for the quarter and your transcript will reflect an A, or you can just not show up at all and your transcript will show a B."
You're already accepted to college at that point. Well, duh, what would you do?
The valedictorian at my highschool went off to Yale, and returned less than a year later because she got knocked up by the first guy who looked at her.
I guess that A she got in health class didn't result in a whole lot of practical knowledge of birth control.
If it makes you feel any better, the valedictorian at my wife's high school dated football players, got straight As in college in its highly-selective honors program, got a job in banking, and then married a total slacking loser. I really have no idea what the fuck she was thinking when she married me.
My wife and I don't make anywhere near a combined $250K, so Obama's plan won't raise my taxes, despite McCain's ads to the contrary.
Cute link, but Obama proposes raising taxes on everyone--even the poorest Americans. The impoverished may not pay directly, but by raising corporate income taxes and especially taxes on oil companies (that is a huge part of his campaign), that will raise the cost of all goods and services for everybody. You don't actually believe that corporations pay taxes, do you?
I suppose you'll snap back about direct vs. indirect taxation, and that's your right. But I'll then have a hard time understanding the distinction between writing a check to the Dept. of the Treasury and paying more at your local Exxon station so that ExxonMobil can write a check to the Dept. of the Treasury on your behalf.
And you still have no answer to my assertion that raising taxes during an economic downturn will make the downturn worse. I don't blame you, because that is one of Obama's biggest Achilles' heels, and McCain will be wise to really hammer him on that one in the debates. No credible economist believes raising taxes will help get us out of this downturn.
Like I said, I'm voting for the one I think will do the least damage, and it's not a pleasant thing for me to do.
That's an easy one. Obama wants to raise your taxes during an economic downturn. Most economists agree that raising taxes during an economic downturn will make the downturn worse. ;)
How do you get fired for shorting out a fucking power strip? During an emergency?
It's called hearing only one side of the story.
This is not very difficult to understand... The greatest power your boss has over you is firing you; the harder it is to you, the more obedient you are.
This is ridiculous. I own three companies, and I'll tell you that unemployment claims make my insurance rates go up. That being said, they don't go up by enough to try to "restructure" a layoff as termination for cause. The disputes, hearings, etc. just aren't worth the aggravation. Unemployment insurance is cheap.
I certainly don't hold the level of contempt for my employees what you some to hold for your employers.
The iPhone was originally AT&T only, but it's available from several providers now.
Which other providers? Apparently I did not get the memo here.
You offer one example of that, and it only applies if you don't accept his explanation that he meant it wouldn't be physically divided as it was until 1967.
You must have me confused with you. I gave a lot of examples, whereas you only gave one. And frankly, I'm a little sick of all of Obama's "clarifications" (which amount to outright reversals). Isn't his biggest asset that he's a good communicator?
Here's a McCain overnight reversal for you,
You're comparing his reaction to the ruling a few hours after it happened with his reaction after he had a chance to actually read the ruling. It's a stretch to call that a "reversal". Obama, on the other hand, was commenting on a situation that has been developing since before he was born. Obama's overnight reversal is a lot more shocking, no?
Being against a provision of a bill and voting for a bill are not necessarily contradictory.
I agree with your theory, but not in this particular instance. Obama specifically promised to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.". He then reversed course 180 degrees and voted for telecom immunity. This would have been the perfect opportunity for him to show leadership and stand up for what's right over what's popular. Instead, he failed the American people. I would love to hear Obama's "clarification" on that one.
Anytime, anywhere doesn't mean that McCain should get to pick the rules.
Sure sounds like an offer for McCain to pick the venue to me. But I'm not a great communicator like Sen. Obama.
It's not a virtue in itself, but it is a virtue to truly discuss the nuances of the issues rather than spout the bumper-sticker version for the masses that have no clue about the complexities of foreign policy and international relations.
A great example of this was here. McCain gave a straightforward answer that conveyed all of the information that needed conveying. I happen to disagree with his answer, but at least I know where he stands. Contrast that with Obama, the great communicator, who stuttered, stammered, and finally settled upon avoiding the question entirely. Nuance, indeed.
Yeah, I can play that game too. Here's a list of McCain flip-flops. They've both done it.
No, not flip flops. I'm talking about saying one thing and then doing another. A politician with decades of experience is going to change his mind on issues. That's why it was ridiculous when Bush painted Kerry as a flip-flopper, and it's ridiculous to do that with McCain. The world changes over the years. People change over the years. Those that fail to change with the times are not "resolute", they are dinosaurs!
I'm talking about saying one thing and doing another. And over a period of days, not decades. It's saying one thing in Scranton, and the exact opposite in San Francisco when he thinks nobody's listening. It's saying he voted one way because that's what you want to hear, but it turns out he did not vote that way. It's saying one thing at APIAC, and then the exact opposite thing on CNN, just one day later. This isn't flip-flopping, because he couldn't have done a 180 degree reversal of his foreign policy in under 24 hours. It was telling one group what they wanted to hear, and another group what they wanted to hear.
Someone like Obama, who is a very good speaker, but also very precise and thoughtful in his speech is at a disadvantage to someone like McCain who likes to go with the "straight talk" and catchy sound-bites intended to mask the complexity of the issues and oversimplify the answers to a point that it should become obvious that what he's saying is meaningless.
Obama said he'd debate McCain "anytime, anywhere", but it turns out he will not. I don't really care what his excuse is. If he did not intend to debate Senator McCain "anytime, anywhere", then he had no business blustering about it.
And since when is verbosity a virtue? Any average 8th grader can write a 3 page paper in 5 pages. What takes skill is to write that 3 page paper in 1.
The whole "plain talk" thing and voting for the guy you'd like to have a beer with has lead us to disaster.
I'd rather have a beer with Obama. Maybe if he were drunk he'd tell me the truth for once.
I'm glad you enjoyed his speech, but talk is cheap. Especially from Senator Obama. Look at what he says vs. what he does. Obama:
I could go on and on, but what's the point?
It's so funny how easy it is to be seduced by Obama's words. I actually voted for him in the primaries, but I had only been paying attention to him for a week or so at that point. But in the months that followed, it was clear that Obama's words and his deeds were at odds with each other. I don't like being told what I want to hear, even if it sounds nice. I want the truth.
John McCain is the real deal. I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but at least I know his positions. I have never voted for a Republican before, but I will in November.
I agree that there was no compelling declassified intelligence that justified going to war with Iraq in 2003. This is the main reason why I (and it sounds like you as well) did not support the attack and occupation of Iraq at the time. But if attacking Iraq was such obvious poor judgment at the time, why did Senate Democrats vote 29-21 in favor of the war?
This is why I'm saying that while it's easy for you, or me, or even an Illinois State Senator to question the judgment of those who voted for the war, how do you explain the Democrats' support for the war?
Here's one to make your head spin: Barack Obama voted with is party 96.0% of the time. His party voted for the war. His running mate voted for the war. His opponent in the primaries voted for the war. Had Barack Obama been a member of the 107th Congress, I believe he would have voted for the war as well. That's just my opinion, but I think it's a reasonably well-grounded one.
I'm saying that there is a lot more to leadership than just doing something. It's showing good judgment in what you do.
Is good judgment really a prerequisite to leading? Napoleon was one of the greatest leaders in the last few centuries, but his decision to invade Russia in the dead of winter wound up sowing the seeds of his undoing.
And who is to say that Obama has good judgment at all? He's voted the Democrat party line more than any other Senator. That shows all the judgment of a sheep. Baaaaaaaa.
And it's not like it was such a huge leadership stand he took, opposing the war from the comfort of Springfield, Illinois. I was against the war too, but it isn't my responsibility to prevent despotic rulers from acquiring nuclear weapons and selling them to terrorists. I also wasn't privy to the intelligence of the day (and neither were you). Had I been a senator at the time, I couldn't tell you if I would or would not have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
I'm having difficulty coming up with a time when Obama showed leadership or good judgment, in a time that it actually mattered.
Quick, go dig up the "Mission Accomplished" banner again! While the surge may have helped increase security, it hasn't been proved out as a successful strategy for creating a stable country. Petraeus himself has described the situation as tenuous, fragile and reversible. The political situation there is still very shaky. So before McCain goes off about how he backed a winning strategy, maybe we should figure out if anything will actually be won. Seems like the best strategy would have been not dragging us into a pointless war. Wonder which candidate supported that strategy?
I feel as though you may have changed the subject on me.
The subject was John McCain's leadership, contrasted with Barack Obama's lack of leadership. Can I interpret your response to be anything other than an attempt to distract me from Barack Obama's lack of leadership? Or are we still in agreement that Barack Obama has shown zero leadership in his life as a politician, and you just want to nitpick?
I'm just trying to figure out where your response came from, if not from left field.
Why do I have to read Obama's books to find a time when Obama showed any inkling toward leadership?
Off the top of my head, I can think of a half dozen times John McCain has demonstrated leadership:
So, OK. Let's hear what, exactly, Obama has accomplished as a community organizer. Let's hear how he reformed corrupt Chicago politics. Surely if he intends to reform Washington, he must have done a great job back in Chicago. </sarcasm> Let's hear how he showed some leadership. Anywhere. At any point in his life.
Because he is wealthy he must work hard? Fucking moron.
No. Because he has produced a lot, he must work hard.
I bet he can even read, too. Are you familiar with reading?
And you probably never drive even 1 mile per hour over the speed limit, either.
Go ahead and pay your use tax. I wouldn't be surprised if that increased your audit chances since your state dept. of revenue will want to know what the hell is going on with your return that you are paying use tax.
This is ridiculous. On what do you base your claim that Scott Adams did not work hard for his money, and does not continue to do so? Have you ever written a saleable book or started a company?
No, so you have no idea. If Adams didn't work hard for his money, he wouldn't care about keeping the fruits of his labor.
Ah, the poor man. He had to write a few books to get the capital to start his own business.
??
You could do the same. Quit'cher bitchin'.
I think I know what I meant.
I have to admit, I had no idea. Does it have to run on unstable, or can I run it on stable?
Sorry, I haven't written a whole book. I've only written a few chapters of one.
What would you pay for a few chapters of a book?
Anyhow, I was raising those examples merely to demonstrate that Scott Adams has produced a lot of value and deserves to be compensated for it. You should obviously follow your own path in life.
I do work hard when the jobs are available. I don't wish for the money; I wish for the jobs so I can work hard.
Do you think that is the path to the top income tax bracket?
People in higher tax brackets are still getting more money even if they pay more taxes.
Earning. Not getting. Earning.
Most of these people in higher tax brackets are the ones who decide to pay their employees an amount that, if everyone were flat taxed, would leave them not enough for basic food and shelter.
This is silly. Employee and employer are both subject to the labor market. The employer doesn't set salaries--the market does.