PDA

View Full Version : Elections The Election is Over: Obama will be the next President


Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 09:01 AM
I think, until this last week, McCain had a chance of defeating Obama in November; and the "Bradley Effect" may yet make it "close." However, Americans have always voted with their pocketbooks--their wallets, and their bank accounts. The economic developments of the past week, which have continued and compounded the trends of the last 6-12 months....make a McCain victory impossible IMHO.

Try as he may, McCain will not be able to sever his association and ties to Bush, the last 8 years, and Republican economic policies that will be blamed for these economic conditions. Right or wrong (and I think rightly,) those Republican policies of deregulation and lack of sufficient oversight.....are the danger of myopic "free market" idealism. Let us hope Obama will seek that elusive balance between free market policies and reasonable regulatory and oversight policies. I'm convinced, now, that he at least will get that chance.

Just as liberals are often blind to human nature (individual motivation, incentives, and the nature of man,) I think too many conservatives are also blinded to human nature (in this case, the excesses of capitalism and greed.)

Obama is going to get his chance. For the sake of the country, let's hope he will walk the walk that he talks, when he discusses bringing the country together.

The only thing that will stop it at this point, is latent and/or widespread racism that will not permit otherwise sophisticated and open-minded people to vote for a black man.

God, let's hope we are past that shit. :shake:

ChiTown
09-16-2008, 09:02 AM
link?

patteeu
09-16-2008, 09:06 AM
I thought Fred Thompson had this thing sewed up?

BigCatDaddy
09-16-2008, 09:07 AM
I agree. The 500 point plunge the market took should swing the election in Obama's favor, barring any last minute bombs.

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 09:09 AM
I thought Fred Thompson had this thing sewed up?

Even Fred couldn't save the Republicans at this point.... :shake:

link?

As I say in the threadstarter, IMHO. :shrug:

ChiTown
09-16-2008, 09:10 AM
I agree. The 500 point plunge the market took should swing the election in Obama's favor, barring any last minute bombs.

It's a Liberal conspiracy in order to take control of the White House............

RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 09:12 AM
I wouldn't say he's "won this thing" but I can tell you he IS finally doing what I said he should be doing since the conventions: namely, he's directing his attacks squarely at McCain and he's moving away from his "I'm different" line to a much more effective (with an assist from McCain) "he doesn't get it and I will" attack about the economy. It'll help him find a groove that differentiates himself and one that voters won't doubt (like issues of leadership in which he trails badly) when he tries to sell it. By focusing on the biggest issue of the day it also helps Obama make all the other issues (real or not) seem less important and the discussion of them trivial.

It's unfortunate that the economy has to do badly for Obama to find his footing but, politically, it's the smart move and he's making it. Good for him.

Friendo
09-16-2008, 09:15 AM
I wouldn't say he's "won this thing" but I can tell you he IS finally doing what I said he should be doing since the conventions: namely, he's directing his attacks squarely at McCain and he's moving away from his "I'm different" line to a much more effective (with an assist from McCain) "he doesn't get it and I will" attack about the economy. It'll help him find a groove that differentiates himself and one that voters won't doubt (like issues of leadership in which he trails badly) when he tries to sell it. By focusing on the biggest issue of the day it also helps Obama make all the other issues (real or not) seem less important and the discussion of them trivial.

It's unfortunate that the economy has to do badly for Obama to find his footing but, politically, it's the smart move and he's making it. Good for him.


Feingold should be put out on the trail at this point imo.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2008, 09:15 AM
Right or wrong (and I think rightly,) those Republican policies of deregulation and lack of sufficient oversight.....are the danger of myopic "free market" idealism.
That doesn't show a very good understanding of economics and what has happened. It was not a free-market that led to the current debacle. Particularly, since the true free-marketers, including Ron Paul had predicted such outcomes much earlier.

This is the result of the Greenspan/Bernanke era. That includes Clinton with his Republican congress as well as the continuation under Bush with a Democratic congress. To lay the blame at the feet of Republicans alone shows no understanding of how fed/govt actions distorts markets because of the socialist belief that everyone must own a home, despite their credit worthiness.

F/F is a product of the FDR era, a fascist economic mix for housing socialism.
The recent R party is not a party of free-markets but of the same corporate socialism/fascism. It is this type of economic ignorance that needs to be dead-agented.

But I agree, the masses will lay the blame on the Rs, and there is much to blame them for.

Chiefnj2
09-16-2008, 09:18 AM
I disagree. I think McCain and Palin won the election the last two weeks. They stole Obama's campaign mantra of change, lied repeatedly about everything under the sun and got away with lying because the media has completely forgotten how to do its job, and completely mesmerized middle America with Sarah Palin.

Obama and Biden reacted like little children who were woken up extra early by their parents. They sat around the breakfast table with glassy eyes, messed up hair all askew and mouths agape not really comprehending a single thing.

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 09:19 AM
I disagree. I think McCain and Palin won the election the last two weeks. They stole Obama's campaign mantra of change, lied repeatedly about everything under the sun and got away with lying because the media has completely forgotten how to do its job, and completely mesmerized middle America with Sarah Palin.

Obama and Biden reacted like little children who were woken up extra early by their parents. They sat around the breakfast table with glassy eyes, messed up hair all askew and mouths agape not really comprehending a single thing.


:spock:

Okay....

Donger
09-16-2008, 09:21 AM
I have a different take. Will people want to gamble on an inexperienced and unknown POTUS during uncertain times?

dirk digler
09-16-2008, 09:22 AM
I hope you are right Rob but until it does I am not holding my breath. There is still a long ways to go before Nov 5 and alot can happen.

I think the debates are absolutely crucial that Obama does well or he could lose.

Mr. Laz
09-16-2008, 09:23 AM
this election has always been slanted towards the democratic candidate because of the disaster that is the Bush administration.


it's far from over though imo


1. sometime big can still go wrong and swing the tide
2. 2/3 of the GOP will vote for McCain no matter what
3. the GOP PR machine is top notch


we will see

Mr. Laz
09-16-2008, 09:26 AM
LMAO

The polls say something else....

Giuliani Rulez!!!!

KILLER_CLOWN
09-16-2008, 09:27 AM
Time to pull Osama out of the woodwork, need october surprise.

dirk digler
09-16-2008, 09:28 AM
I have a different take. Will people want to gamble on an inexperienced and unknown POTUS during uncertain times?

Sure why not they already know what they will get with McCain = more suckage

Taco John
09-16-2008, 09:28 AM
That doesn't show a very good understanding of economics and what has happened. It was not a free-market that led to the current debacle. Particularly, since the true free-marketers, including Ron Paul had predicted such outcomes much earlier.

This is the result of the Greenspan/Bernanke era. That includes Clinton with his Republican congress as well as the continuation under Bush with a Democratic congress. To lay the blame at the feet of Republicans alone shows no understanding of how fed/govt actions distorts markets because of the socialist belief that everyone must own a home, despite their credit worthiness.

F/F is a product of the FDR era, a fascist economic mix for housing socialism.
The recent R party is not a party of free-markets but of the same corporate socialism/fascism. It is this type of economic ignorance that needs to be dead-agented.

But I agree, the masses will lay the blame on the Rs, and there is much to blame them for.


Kotter is clueless about economics.

Taco John
09-16-2008, 09:28 AM
I have a different take. Will people want to gamble on an inexperienced and unknown POTUS during uncertain times?

McCain is clueless about economics.

Donger
09-16-2008, 09:29 AM
Sure why not they already know what they will get with McCain = more suckage

Radical change isn't necessarily what people strive for when they are concerned about the economy.

ChiTown
09-16-2008, 09:31 AM
McCain is clueless about economics.

QFT.

However, I'm not even close to being convinced that what the Dem's have laid out is acceptable given our economic uncertainty.

RJ
09-16-2008, 09:32 AM
Radical change isn't necessarily what people strive for when they are concerned about the economy.


Why not?

ROYC75
09-16-2008, 09:32 AM
This race will be decided by the last debate .......unless one of them really blows it before.

Taco John
09-16-2008, 09:34 AM
QFT.

However, I'm not even close to being convinced that what the Dem's have laid out is acceptable given our economic uncertainty.

I saw this take on LewRockwell.com posted by Butler Schafer that I thought made a great analogy:

"As the economic structure continues to unravel, it is pathetic listening to the fungible gaggle of media babblers arguing over whether McCain or Obama would do a better job restoring order to the marketplace. It is like listening to a roomful of alcoholics who, upon being told they suffer from cirrhosis of the liver, busy themselves with finding a more suitable brand of Scotch!"


http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022884.html

Donger
09-16-2008, 09:34 AM
Why not?

When the pocket book gets tight, most people don't want to go on a spending orgy.

ChiTown
09-16-2008, 09:35 AM
I saw this take on LewRockwell.com posted by Butler Schafer that I thought made a great analogy:

"As the economic structure continues to unravel, it is pathetic listening to the fungible gaggle of media babblers arguing over whether McCain or Obama would do a better job restoring order to the marketplace. It is like listening to a roomful of alcoholics who, upon being told they suffer from cirrhosis of the liver, busy themselves with finding a more suitable brand of Scotch!"


http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022884.html

:clap:

lmfao - so true.

dirk digler
09-16-2008, 09:39 AM
Radical change isn't necessarily what people strive for when they are concerned about the economy.

It is either more suck or take a chance. Plus the last time there was a Dem President the economy was great and alot of people remember that

Donger
09-16-2008, 09:40 AM
It is either more suck or take a chance. Plus the last time there was a Dem President the economy was great and alot of people remember that

Remind me: wasn't there a Republican-controlled Congress during that time?

RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 09:41 AM
I disagree. I think McCain and Palin won the election the last two weeks. They stole Obama's campaign mantra of change, lied repeatedly about everything under the sun and got away with lying because the media has completely forgotten how to do its job, and completely mesmerized middle America with Sarah Palin.

Obama and Biden reacted like little children who were woken up extra early by their parents. They sat around the breakfast table with glassy eyes, messed up hair all askew and mouths agape not really comprehending a single thing.

Yeah, but it only takes one screw-up to throw gains away (see Gerald Ford, debate, references to Poland) and his comments about the economy, while certainly truncated for Obama's benefit (as they should be if you're Obama) and certainly coming from a place of optimism (instead of pessimism like Obama) aren't particularly smart for McCain.

RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 09:42 AM
I have a different take. Will people want to gamble on an inexperienced and unknown POTUS during uncertain times?

That's the come-back. Unfortunately, McCain isn't using it.

Mr. Laz
09-16-2008, 09:43 AM
That's the come-back. Unfortunately, McCain isn't using it.
hard to do with the VP selection he just made

dirk digler
09-16-2008, 09:43 AM
Remind me: wasn't there a Republican-controlled Congress during that time?

That is like asking who was the runner-up in a SB. no one cares.

RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 09:43 AM
This race will be decided by the last debate .......unless one of them really blows it before.

I predict the Veep debate. I think there's only one more presidential debate after that and the last debates never really move the bar much.

RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 09:44 AM
I saw this take on LewRockwell.com posted by Butler Schafer that I thought made a great analogy:

"As the economic structure continues to unravel, it is pathetic listening to the fungible gaggle of media babblers arguing over whether McCain or Obama would do a better job restoring order to the marketplace. It is like listening to a roomful of alcoholics who, upon being told they suffer from cirrhosis of the liver, busy themselves with finding a more suitable brand of Scotch!"


http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022884.html

Brilliant. :clap:

Sully
09-16-2008, 09:44 AM
I thought Hillary and the Republicans were hiding some secret tape showing Obama and his wife having homosexual sex with a racist preacher while calling Sarah Palin a pig and praying toward Mecca, all while changing their last name and supporting a genocidal cousin in Africa.

I mean, once that tape drops, things are gonna really go ape shit.

dirk digler
09-16-2008, 09:45 AM
I predict the Veep debate. I think there's only one more presidential debate after that and the last debates never really move the bar much.

I disagree because the last debate is about the economy

RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 09:47 AM
hard to do with the VP selection he just made

I tended to agree with this when he named the pick but now I don't think so. The McCain camp IS going to make a big push on the experience issue in the final weeks according to some people I talked to. And I think it will stick. I mean what's Obama's come-back? "Yeah, well I'm a little more experienced than your VP selection who we've spent the last two months telling everyone has no experience?" Don't think that will work.

RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 09:48 AM
I disagree because the last debate is about the economy

Ah. Good point. McCain will be the underdog in that one.

banyon
09-16-2008, 09:52 AM
That doesn't show a very good understanding of economics and what has happened. It was not a free-market that led to the current debacle. Particularly, since the true free-marketers, including Ron Paul had predicted such outcomes much earlier.

This is the result of the Greenspan/Bernanke era. That includes Clinton with his Republican congress as well as the continuation under Bush with a Democratic congress. To lay the blame at the feet of Republicans alone shows no understanding of how fed/govt actions distorts markets because of the socialist belief that everyone must own a home, despite their credit worthiness.

F/F is a product of the FDR era, a fascist economic mix for housing socialism.
The recent R party is not a party of free-markets but of the same corporate socialism/fascism. It is this type of economic ignorance that needs to be dead-agented.

But I agree, the masses will lay the blame on the Rs, and there is much to blame them for.

More broad brush lunacy from the reactionary crowd.

What point was it that caused this current crisis, was it when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac we privatized in 1968? or was it when GLB was passed in 1999 deregulating the ability of mortgage lenders, investment banks, financial services, and commercial banks to co-mingle their activities. In other words, at what point in removing the regulations did all of this alleged boogeyman socialism occur?

Programmer
09-16-2008, 09:53 AM
Remind me: wasn't there a Republican-controlled Congress during that time?

And a democrap was in office.

If it was such a bad thing then, why didn't Clinton Veto it? Not enough votes to push it by. Could have been stopped in it's tracks.

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 10:25 AM
That doesn't show a very good understanding of economics and what has happened. It was not a free-market that led to the current debacle. Particularly, since the true free-marketers, including Ron Paul had predicted such outcomes much earlier.

This is the result of the Greenspan/Bernanke era. That includes Clinton with his Republican congress as well as the continuation under Bush with a Democratic congress. To lay the blame at the feet of Republicans alone shows no understanding of how fed/govt actions distorts markets because of the socialist belief that everyone must own a home, despite their credit worthiness.

F/F is a product of the FDR era, a fascist economic mix for housing socialism.
The recent R party is not a party of free-markets but of the same corporate socialism/fascism. It is this type of economic ignorance that needs to be dead-agented.

But I agree, the masses will lay the blame on the Rs, and there is much to blame them for.

Libertarian economic theories are bunk, IMHO....because dogmatic idealism is insufficient for the complexities of the modern global economy.

FTR, I'm not saying, from a personal point of view I agree that entire blame rests with Republicans (it does not)....I'm contending, though, that's how most Americans will see it. And they will vote acccordingly.

Kotter is clueless about economics.

TacoJohn is clueless about just about everything he opens his mouth about.

So what's your point.... :shrug:

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:38 AM
I hope you are correct.

However, what I fear is that rather buy the "change" message, the economic crisis will trigger the "experience" message. I don't see Obama trumping McCain in that category - in the public's eye. As much as its a fact that they are essentially both equally qualified and experienced for the Presidency, the Public isn't going to see it that way. And that's why I fear McCain has a very real shot.

The recent polling as indicated on fivethirtyeight.com seems to indicate either the RNC has a HUGE boost compared to the DNC or these polls indicate a shift in the public eye. Granted, these polls won't indicate the feelings based on the recent economic Hindenburg-like collapse.

Needless to say, I am very scared that someone other than McCain and his nutjob sidekick Palin will be elected.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2008, 10:57 AM
Libertarian economic theories are bunk, IMHO....because dogmatic idealism is insufficient for the complexities of the modern global economy.
It's not dogmatic nor idealistic if you're literate on the topic. You can't argue it because you're not literate in the subject. Your being the ideologue or idealist here because these policies were based on idealism and utopia. That characterization belongs to F/F.

For one, if the global economy is so complex then a small number of men on the entire cannot possibly figure it all out from far away at a centralized level. It's impossible. Bureaucrats and govt cannot calculate accurately because economics is about individual choices essentially. Those choices can get distorted and lead people to make malinvestments. The malinvestments must be liquidated and that will end the crisis faster.

Further, it is not libertarian economic theory, it is what conservatives have always supported: market capitalism.Not cartel capitalism. It was also once what our own SC and govt once backed up that launched America into an economic juggernaught in the shortest amount of time.

You need to check your facts, and open your mind, instead of relying on pure personal opinion and democratic ideology like the word "bunk". The current debacle we're in IS the unintended consequences of what you support. Using correct theories would have led to the opposite results. There's no arguing around it. The market will ALWAYS have the last say. So you see, it has not brought idealism but the opposite.

None of this is the result of any free market which is a harsh punisher, but the same idealistic socialism that eventually did the Soviet Union in and as well as a similar crisis in Sweden and around the world. It's never worked. It never will.

FTR, I'm not saying, from a personal point of view I agree that entire blame rests with Republicans (it does not)....I'm contending, though, that's how most Americans will see it. And they will vote acccordingly.

I agree most Americans may see it that way. However, most Americans don't even know the policy views of the major candidates either. They simply know they don't like the results. I can't say I blame them, because I don't either.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2008, 11:01 AM
I saw this take on LewRockwell.com posted by Butler Schafer that I thought made a great analogy:

"As the economic structure continues to unravel, it is pathetic listening to the fungible gaggle of media babblers arguing over whether McCain or Obama would do a better job restoring order to the marketplace. It is like listening to a roomful of alcoholics who, upon being told they suffer from cirrhosis of the liver, busy themselves with finding a more suitable brand of Scotch!"


http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022884.html

Yeah! I saw that and it cracked me up. Some of them are in this thread too.

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 11:17 AM
It's not dogmatic nor idealistic if you're literate on the topic. You can't argue it because you're not literate in the subject. Your being the ideologue or idealist here because these policies were based on idealism and utopia. That characterization belongs to F/F....

Sorry BEP, I don't mean to be flippant.....but I simply don't have the time, energy, or desire to have this debate with you....on a topic, which....IMHO....you already, clearly, have your mind made up. I've perused your posting on the topic. Suffice it to say, your view (and the Libertarian view, generally) has been debunked in many other places before.....and I subscribe to that debunking. We'll just have to agree to disagree.....I'm much more literate on the topic than I'm willing to invest the time to "prove" to you. That's all. It's nothing personal; just not worth it to me.

Taco John
09-16-2008, 11:19 AM
He doesn't have the intelectual gonads to even begin to discuss this, Buc. He's not equipped with the knowledge to either defend a position, or attack one. Getting into any sort of intellectual discussion about this will reveal just how loose a grasp on this subject he has, and it's just not worth it to reveal that.

***SPRAYER
09-16-2008, 11:20 AM
Marxism is the solution for a bear market?

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 11:29 AM
He doesn't have the intelectual gonads to even begin to discuss this, Buc. He's not equipped with the knowledge to either defend a position, or attack one. Getting into any sort of intellectual discussion about this will reveal just how loose a grasp on this subject he has, and it's just not worth it to reveal that.

Hey, asswipe.....some of us have real lives. And don't spend our entire lives online like you seem to do....especially on the political forum of a rival team's football discussion board.

GFY, geek-boy. Better yet, spend some more time with that family you claim to place such a high priority on, and yet your investment of time, here and on your own crappy Orangmange Board.....clearly belie (to anyone who's bothered to notice.)

Have a nice day, PacojIZ.

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 11:31 AM
Marxism is the solution for a bear market?

Marxism is quite a stretch. :rolleyes:

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 11:36 AM
I hope you are right Rob but until it does I am not holding my breath. There is still a long ways to go before Nov 5 and alot can happen.

I think the debates are absolutely crucial that Obama does well or he could lose.

Dirk, if you were my dad, you'd drive me ****ing nuts. You worry way too much.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 11:39 AM
Remind me: wasn't there a Republican-controlled Congress during that time?

Not whenever he enacted the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that contained his tax policy, among other things.

Of course, since Reagan, Bush 41 and 43 did such an exemplary job controlling spending, I see your argument.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 11:41 AM
He doesn't have the intelectual gonads to even begin to discuss this, Buc. He's not equipped with the knowledge to either defend a position, or attack one. Getting into any sort of intellectual discussion about this will reveal just how loose a grasp on this subject he has, and it's just not worth it to reveal that.

Since when does intellectual testicular fortitude amount to aping your entire economic philosophy from a libertarian website?

Carlota69
09-16-2008, 11:53 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_1X3efvVTLA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_1X3efvVTLA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:58 AM
Since when does intellectual testicular fortitude amount to aping your entire economic philosophy from a libertarian website?

A good question as I was going to ask why virtually everything he posts here is from LewRockwell in some fashion.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 12:06 PM
A good question as I was going to ask why virtually everything he posts here is from LewRockwell in some fashion.

Because he's a political fanboi. He can't formulate his own opinion, so he latches on to the shoulders of someone else who can think for him. It's no better than someone whose entire philosophy comes from TownHall, LittleGreenFootballs or DemocraticUnderground.

It's intellectual laziness.

jettio
09-16-2008, 12:06 PM
Fact is, McCain's fellow GOP senators and congress people do not want him to win.

Do you think Kit Bond, who is pretty much a cipher who does not apply himself like someone with his intelligence should to be an effective legislator, wants McCain to win when the only thing that gets Bond re-elected is that he brings home the bacon to Missouri?

The GOP congress-people who best represent their constituents by getting their share of federal dollars for important projects don't want some azzhole who thinks earmarks are the greatest evil ever to be elected as President.

Imagine you are a GOP senator or rep with a Democratic majority and McCain as President, good luck trying to get a valuable project funded.

Palin is taking heat for her previous view of earmarks, but her previous view makes more sense than the McCain view.

The GOP is trying to keep the Presidency, but if you ask the GOP congress-people would they rather be continue as a weak minority with a lame duck GOP president, which MCain would be from the start, or would they rather be a vigorous minority to Obama, who is a practical politician, most would admit that the latter is a more attractive choice.

McCain has Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman cheering him on, but you won't see very many GOP legislators doing very much for McCain, because McCain is an antisocial prick who is holier than thou.

penchief
09-16-2008, 12:41 PM
That doesn't show a very good understanding of economics and what has happened. It was not a free-market that led to the current debacle. Particularly, since the true free-marketers, including Ron Paul had predicted such outcomes much earlier.

This is the result of the Greenspan/Bernanke era. That includes Clinton with his Republican congress as well as the continuation under Bush with a Democratic congress. To lay the blame at the feet of Republicans alone shows no understanding of how fed/govt actions distorts markets because of the socialist belief that everyone must own a home, despite their credit worthiness.

F/F is a product of the FDR era, a fascist economic mix for housing socialism.
The recent R party is not a party of free-markets but of the same corporate socialism/fascism. It is this type of economic ignorance that needs to be dead-agented.

But I agree, the masses will lay the blame on the Rs, and there is much to blame them for.

You show a good understanding of your own ideological extremism but not much in the way of pragmatic solutions. Economic Darwinism does not equate to free markets no matter how many times you insist that it does. History has never given a single example of your ideology not resulting in the consolidation of wealth and power.

The problem is not regulations that would prohibit abuses but the abuses themself. And those abuses would occur freely without government regulation. So your attempts to pretend that regulation is the problem instead of abuse flies in the face of the fact that deregulation has provided the vehicle by which these abuses have been facilitated. Do not confuse the corrupt political ideology that has led to this debacle with good pragmatic governance.

If you had your way it would not be much different than it is now. Those who control the wealth and power would be manipulating and consolidating at the expense of this country's resources and at the expense of our individual prosperity. After all, their goal (as well as yours) is to "starve the beast." And they are executing that goal from within. They are facilitating their own self-fullfilling propehcy.

What you can't recognize is that the business crooks and war profiteers destroying our country are giving you your wish but you aren't willing to acknowledge the destructive outcomes that render your economic ideology a fallacy.

jidar
09-16-2008, 12:45 PM
It's not dogmatic nor idealistic if you're literate on the topic. You can't argue it because you're not literate in the subject. Your being the ideologue or idealist here because these policies were based on idealism and utopia. That characterization belongs to F/F.

For one, if the global economy is so complex then a small number of men on the entire cannot possibly figure it all out from far away at a centralized level. It's impossible. Bureaucrats and govt cannot calculate accurately because economics is about individual choices essentially. Those choices can get distorted and lead people to make malinvestments. The malinvestments must be liquidated and that will end the crisis faster.

Further, it is not libertarian economic theory, it is what conservatives have always supported: market capitalism.Not cartel capitalism. It was also once what our own SC and govt once backed up that launched America into an economic juggernaught in the shortest amount of time.

You need to check your facts, and open your mind, instead of relying on pure personal opinion and democratic ideology like the word "bunk". The current debacle we're in IS the unintended consequences of what you support. Using correct theories would have led to the opposite results. There's no arguing around it. The market will ALWAYS have the last say. So you see, it has not brought idealism but the opposite.

None of this is the result of any free market which is a harsh punisher, but the same idealistic socialism that eventually did the Soviet Union in and as well as a similar crisis in Sweden and around the world. It's never worked. It never will.



I agree most Americans may see it that way. However, most Americans don't even know the policy views of the major candidates either. They simply know they don't like the results. I can't say I blame them, because I don't either.


I was once a proponent of complete free market principles, but be careful what you wish for.
What we are going through right now is DIRECTLY caused by the deregulation in 1999. Without that happening the risky investment that resulted in the sub-prime crisis was illegal.

The problem here is this, you can't be free market about everything. In a truly free market, failure is constant from all angles, and we cannot allow failure to occur in banking institutions that impact our entire market. That part has to be reliable so that the rest of the market can function as it wills.

It's amazing to me that we're even having this discussion right now while in the midst of an incredible example of deregulatory failure.

jAZ
09-16-2008, 12:51 PM
My 2 weeks thread was never a prediction like this was. I think you are crazy Kotter. This race is to the wire.

Bowser
09-16-2008, 12:53 PM
Methinks Kotter is doing his best Garcia Bronco impersonation....



;)

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 02:23 PM
Methinks Kotter is doing his best Garcia Bronco impersonation....



;)


Nope. Above all, I'm a realist. And reality is taking over. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 02:24 PM
My 2 weeks thread was never a prediction like this was. I think you are crazy Kotter. This race is to the wire.


Nope. Not with this economy.

memyselfI
09-16-2008, 02:36 PM
I disagree. I think this process will swing back and forth in the polls with neither candidate liked or disliked enough (outside of their base) to really pull ahead or fall behind. In the end people will be forced to decide if they want to proceed into a scary future with a seasoned veteran (literally) or a political novice.

My view is they will chose to go with the devil they know vs. the one they don't. I've felt that way from the beginning and nothing I've seen in the last few months has changed that.

In the end I think the once energized electorate will be weary and skeptical and could actually see a decline in actual voter participation vs. that which was originally anticipated and predicted. I think both candidates will be seen as a lose/lose proposition and the country will drag itself into election day with the feeling that 'thank God it's finally over' vs. actual hope for the future regardless of who wins.

banyon
09-16-2008, 02:39 PM
More broad brush lunacy from the reactionary crowd.

What point was it that caused this current crisis, was it when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac we privatized in 1968? or was it when GLB was passed in 1999 deregulating the ability of mortgage lenders, investment banks, financial services, and commercial banks to co-mingle their activities. In other words, at what point in removing the regulations did all of this alleged boogeyman socialism occur?

I see all of the radical free marketeers ran for the hills away from this question and decided to attack Kotter's personality instead. As much as you would like this (and in general) all economic phenomenon square pegs to fit into your ideological round holes, they just don't. Empirical data has always undercut the idealism of your positions.

Programmer
09-16-2008, 02:57 PM
I see all of the radical free marketeers ran for the hills away from this question and decided to attack Kotter's personality instead. As much as you would like this (and in general) all economic phenomenon square pegs to fit into your ideological round holes, they just don't. Empirical data has always undercut the idealism of your positions.

Boring day Hilda? Answering your own posts? Pathetic!ROFL

Garcia Bronco
09-16-2008, 03:55 PM
I am to the point now where I don't care. There really isn't a huge gap between the two politically based on their platforms. I just hope whomever is elected that we get behind him and have some freakin confidence. I am tired of all the bitching an moaning.

HC_Chief
09-16-2008, 03:58 PM
I am to the point now where I don't care. There really isn't a huge gap between the two politically based on their platforms. I just hope whomever is elected that we get behind him and have some freakin confidence. I am tired of all the bitching an moaning.

Yeah right. Not going to happen. Especially if McCain wins. Dems fly into massive tizzies when they lose. See: 2000, 2004. They never "lose", they're always "cheated". Victim mentality.

Garcia Bronco
09-16-2008, 03:59 PM
More broad brush lunacy from the reactionary crowd.

What point was it that caused this current crisis, was it when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac we privatized in 1968? or was it when GLB was passed in 1999 deregulating the ability of mortgage lenders, investment banks, financial services, and commercial banks to co-mingle their activities. In other words, at what point in removing the regulations did all of this alleged boogeyman socialism occur?


Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac aren't privitized if they are backing and buying bad loans for a government objective. The problem today is that government got involved in the first place and the GLB.

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 04:00 PM
Yeah right. Not going to happen. Especially if McCain wins. Dems fly into massive tizzies when they lose. See: 2000, 2004. They never "lose", they're always "cheated". Victim mentality.

No, we lost. Not to a better candidate, imo. But they ran a better campaign.

Garcia Bronco
09-16-2008, 04:00 PM
Yeah right. Not going to happen. Especially if McCain wins. Dems fly into massive tizzies when they lose. See: 2000, 2004. They never "lose", they're always "cheated". Victim mentality.

You are correct. They tried to steal the 00 election with a bunch phoney votes and got busted trying to change election law in the middle of an election. Crazy stuff.

BIG_DADDY
09-16-2008, 04:01 PM
Yeah right. Not going to happen. Especially if McCain wins. Dems fly into massive tizzies when they lose. See: 2000, 2004. They never "lose", they're always "cheated". Victim mentality..

HC_Chief
09-16-2008, 04:03 PM
You are correct. They tried to steal the 00 election with a bunch phoney votes and got busted trying to change election law in the middle of an election. Crazy stuff.

Best part was after all that they tried to say BUSH stole the election. Same shenanigans in 2004. Remember "Diebold"? Ohhhh, those eeevil Republicans.

Rove. Cheneyburton. Hubris. Oligarrchy. Gaaaahhhhkkkkkk!

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 04:04 PM
.

Is that an immunized baby?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 05:44 PM
I see all of the radical free marketeers ran for the hills away from this question and decided to attack Kotter's personality instead. As much as you would like this (and in general) all economic phenomenon square pegs to fit into your ideological round holes, they just don't. Empirical data has always undercut the idealism of your positions.

banyon knows nothing about the economy.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2008, 06:14 PM
I was once a proponent of complete free market principles, but be careful what you wish for.
What we are going through right now is DIRECTLY caused by the deregulation in 1999. Without that happening the risky investment that resulted in the sub-prime crisis was illegal.

The problem here is this, you can't be free market about everything. In a truly free market, failure is constant from all angles, and we cannot allow failure to occur in banking institutions that impact our entire market. That part has to be reliable so that the rest of the market can function as it wills.

It's amazing to me that we're even having this discussion right now while in the midst of an incredible example of deregulatory failure.

Go to my profile,click statistics, and check out several other recent post as to what I actually think about the de-reg claim and the paradigm it fits into, as opposed to a free-market paradigm. It's half-true but not really apples and oranges. I can't remember the exact thread it was in. I posted about that legislation uncoupling types of banking which I don't approve of but there's more to it than just that.

go bowe
09-16-2008, 06:33 PM
Libertarian economic theories are bunk, IMHO....because dogmatic idealism is insufficient for the complexities of the modern global economy.

FTR, I'm not saying, from a personal point of view I agree that entire blame rests with Republicans (it does not)....I'm contending, though, that's how most Americans will see it. And they will vote acccordingly.



TacoJohn is clueless about just about everything he opens his mouth about.

So what's your point.... :shrug:hey, there's a big difference between listening to tj and listening to candidate palin...

she's really clueless, it's hard to miss it...

at least tj starts some preposterous threads that generate traffic...

i ask you, when was the last time that what's-her-name started a thread on the planet?

go bowe
09-16-2008, 06:38 PM
Sorry BEP, I don't mean to be flippant.....but I simply don't have the time, energy, or desire to have this debate with you....on a topic, which....IMHO....you already, clearly, have your mind made up. I've perused your posting on the topic. Suffice it to say, your view (and the Libertarian view, generally) has been debunked in many other places before.....and I subscribe to that debunking. We'll just have to agree to disagree.....I'm much more literate on the topic than I'm willing to invest the time to "prove" to you. That's all. It's nothing personal; just not worth it to me.the ignore feature that comes with a firefox extension will totally remove all references to the ignored poster...

i've grown very fond of firefox...

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2008, 10:01 AM
One good bump, deserves another. ;)

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2008, 10:09 AM
Please note: this thread was came AFTER the other thread.

:D

Bowser
11-05-2008, 10:38 AM
LMAO

The polls say something else....

Orlysrsly?

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2008, 12:40 PM
Orlysrsly?

Yeah, that.

I still like the other thread better than this one.