If we all could vote...

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:32 pm

Well, since the GOP didn't actually label the divisions of their platforms as either articles or sections, I'd say either word is fair game.

And, though there's nothing in there that says "subprime mortgages for the win," there is language about generally loosening regulatory standards for home loans. Basically, looking the other way while the investment banks went crazy *was* an explicit part of the GOP platform. You know, since there's "no role for any federal regulation of homebuilding." At least until they took over Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac over the weekend.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:21 pm

It's not just those funny named Aunty/Uncle ones. There was some other funny named one with Bear in the name and now AIG.

I'm not too up on who AIG are, but I've heard terms like "biggest debt insurer in the world" and apparently the US government has thrown around 85 Billion dollars into now owning a bit more than 79% of it.

Several other big players are also making the early sounds of total implosion in the hope of being bought out so don't expect AIG to be the last.

These guys are seriously trying to nationalise the entire credit crisis. A plan which is neither wise, likely to work or even truly free market capitalist in any way shape or form.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:56 pm

Holy Double-Speak Batman

Sadly, the market is not buying it

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:59 am

Absentminded_Wizard wrote:Well, since the GOP didn't actually label the divisions of their platforms as either articles or sections, I'd say either word is fair game.

Correct, its semantics. I sincerely hope Tzor was joking, if that was intended as anything resembling a valid point its just sad.

Software spots the spin in political speeches

This might interest the assembled.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:22 pm

Since his conclusion is that John McCain was giving it to people straight and factcheck.org found actual lies, I have to say that his definition of Spin is different from mine. He is just counting arbitrary words that seem to go with effective speeches and calling that "spin." Since last I checked the word "spin" had been invented by Republican staffers during the Reagan administration as a code word for "lying," Skillicorn's system is apparently useless.

Using good rhetorical techniques =/= Spin.

Spin is when you say things that are unclear or aren't true in order to deceive people. McCain has been doing a lot of that recently. People who think he is "straight talking" because he's attaching personal pronouns to things are insane.

-Username17

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:28 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: Spin is when you say things that are unclear or aren't true in order to deceive people. McCain has been doing a lot of that recently. People who think he is "straight talking" because he's attaching personal pronouns to things are insane.

That's pretty much the entirety of our political system. People can just say random shit that isn't backed up by any facts, and nobody really knows the difference. All but a small inconsequential fraction of people are going to see a political speech or TV ad and just believe whatever it is that's said about a candidate. Few people even bother to check if those facts are straight.

It's really pretty sad what our government has become.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:49 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:It's not just those funny named Aunty/Uncle ones. There was some other funny named one with Bear in the name and now AIG.

I'm not too up on who AIG are, but I've heard terms like "biggest debt insurer in the world" and apparently the US government has thrown around 85 Billion dollars into now owning a bit more than 79% of it.

Several other big players are also making the early sounds of total implosion in the hope of being bought out so don't expect AIG to be the last.

These guys are seriously trying to nationalise the entire credit crisis. A plan which is neither wise, likely to work or even truly free market capitalist in any way shape or form.

Yeah, I just got up to speed on the AIG merger when I saw the news at my Mom's yesterday. The power's out where I live, and my only net access is at school, so I haven't kept up much with news outside the local aftermath of the storm.

So it appears that the Republican philosophy of deregulation bombed so badly that the alleged party of free markets has to slowly nationalize the financial services industry to keep it from collapsing. Sadly, it doesn't seem like a lot of people get how major this actually is. I mean, Fanny and Freddy were sort of quasi-government entities anyway, but now we're talking about the U.S. government having an 80% stake in a private company. And this done, again, by a Republican administration in a real desperation move.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:14 am

FrankTrollman wrote:Since his conclusion is that John McCain was giving it to people straight and factcheck.org found actual lies, I have to say that his definition of Spin is different from mine.

I find the voice analysis section more relevant. McCain really does seem to deliver speeches poorly. Obama is definitely quite a speaker. McCain's non-verbal queues don't indicate hes being truthful, its like hes straining to cover something up. Like a great big lie, or statements that he knows are irrelevant to a question. Which is pretty accurate really.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:20 pm

Well. Apparently Bush is going to buy out THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL MARKET. In a good totally free market capitalist way, not in a totally commie printing money nationalising third world nation about to be stomped by Washington and the IMF way.

Oddly the financial market likes this and along with other irresponsible measures the bubble returns! (well, maybe, that's the thing with bubbles after all, uncertainty and all)

It's a perfect strategy (if it works), delay the crash, hand it off to the next guy, make it worse, prevent any and all repercussions to the rich morons who created the crisis and make things even worse for everyone else!

And it even creates even more massive government debt to prevent things like improved medical coverage!

A GENIUS move!

Unlike Frank who seemed to pull the old fella out for a spin I've not used the "First Against The Wall" line in ages. But it's amazing the American public is about to eat this, so yeah, "Come The Revolution", screw first against the wall, Bush and his cabinet will instantaneously implode under their own power.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:12 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote: Software spots the spin in political speeches

This might interest the assembled.

It's interesting how the article assumes total trust of the expert system without providing any evidence that it works as advertised.

the_unthinkable · Post by **the_unthinkable** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:58 am

What it seems to boil down to is that everyone here is a middle-class working man/woman. We want what's best for us, because the lives we have right now can definitly be better. So instead of who sucks worse, can someone say who is better fit and why.
Me personally, I'm most likely not going to vote for Obama because of the Social Health Care system he plans to implement because I've personally seen how it can really screw someone bad.
I'm not the smartest on politics. Hell, I probably know nothing about them other than who's running and who their running mates are. So take into consideration that I'm probably politically ignorant and help me out here.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 2:24 am

Me personally, I'm most likely not going to vote for Obama because of the Social Health Care system he plans to implement because I've personally seen how it can really screw someone bad.

That's a reasonable enough point.

However, while there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence on both sides of the health care debate (hey, my brother is being screwed by the current system) - I urge you to look at some statistics comparing the US healthcare costs and results to that of other nations with different types of systems. (I'm sure someone here has a few handy that they'll post soon)

You may also want to consider whether McCain Tax employer contributions to health care as income would screw people more or less.

Here's one pundit who objects to that

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:21 am

Hehe. 'Because social health care might be bad' - except he doesn't plan to implement anything like that.

Of course, the fact that on average, it's just worse to have our system.

Still, I'd rather real reasons like that than ones based upon, well, 'I wanna drink with him!'

-Crissa

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:47 am

the_unthinkable wrote:So instead of who sucks worse, can someone say who is better fit and why.

Obama picked a sane person for his VP. McCain picked someone who is a member of an insane fringe for his. Hence Obama is much better at picking reasonable people to be a part of his government.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:07 am

Draco_Argentum wrote:
the_unthinkable wrote:So instead of who sucks worse, can someone say who is better fit and why.
Obama picked a sane person for his VP. McCain picked someone who is a member of an insane fringe for his. Hence Obama is much better at picking reasonable people to be a part of his government.

Ooh! Ooh! I can do this too!

Obama is from all accounts amazingly even-tempered under any and all circumstances, not matter how stressed or tired. McCain has an incredibly short temper, as has been noted by countless people over the years. Which one I want making critical decisions should be obvious.

Basically the choice in this election is between someone who carefully considers the information he has, then makes what he thinks is the best decision and someone who no one can possibly predict when and why he will explode. Simply, Obama is not just a better choice for POTUS than McCain, he's easily the best suited for the job in the lifetime of anyone who reads this board.

angelfromanotherpin · Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:29 pm

Only one of the two candidates has released an economic plan that contains numbers. I'm voting for that guy.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 4:56 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote:Correct, its semantics. I sincerely hope Tzor was joking, if that was intended as anything resembling a valid point its just sad.

I don't know if I was joking or not. Sometimes I get into the looking for the trees in the forest. To me a numbered article seems like an organized and numbered list and that platform wasn't an organized list.

(In fact it's a rambling pile of horse manure ... did I just write that? I must be joking right?)

In any event, the notion of wanting affordable loans and avoiding preditory lending practices is a general concept that I cannot square in my mind with what has been happening in the past few years. I'm certanly not confortable with no down payment loans, but if those loans were indeed reasonable and the payments were based on conservative estimates of future job income then this would have never led to the shit mess we have now.

There is nothing in this document which says that every starting home owner had a right to a 500K McMansion that were all the rage where I live. A young couple could have easily afforded a 150K - 200 K home with three bedrooms and two baths, but not a 500K two story home with four bedrooms, five baths, and a ton of extra rooms as well. By using "interest only" or "adjustable rate" mortgages which were known as proven ways of FAIL! There is then nothing in this document that encouraged people to hide thse risky loans in "insured" derivatives in order to get gross profits to the holders until the bubble burst and they lost everything.

In short this platform (and all platforms are pie in the sky dead on arrival documents) is not responsible for the mess we are in and it is bullshit to think so.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:13 pm

Sure, we want people to be able to buy houses, choose from some tiers of medical care, and take part in the American Dream.

On the other hand, the choices the Republicans have made to get there have made the American Dream into a trap for 90% of the country. They get to 'choose' between several bad options, all without backup or security, with the promise of comfort - which works for some people, but now is showing what happens in the case of badness.

Think what would have happened the last six years if people were invested in the stock market, instead of Social Security, like the Republicans had wanted.

Wanting good things and having plans to get there are completely different things. And the Republicans say they want good things, they're just not willing to take a path that will get there. In fact, they choose paths generally guaranteed not to get there.

-Crissa

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:11 pm

I am at a loss tzor. Are you really saying that you don't see the connection between deregulation and economic collapse? It happens Every Single Time.

Here's how it works: decisions made for corporations are not made by corporations. Corporations are a legal entity, but they don't actually exist. Corporations are made up of individuals who have no real reason to have any loyalty to the corporation as a whole. And every dollar that the corporation makes in profit is a dollar that didn't go into the pocket of one of the workers. And while we can certainly unionize the workers on the bottom to try to extort money out of the corp (and I encourage people to do this), let us not forget that management is also composed of workers who are faced with exactly the same equation - and it ultimately falls to them to decide where the money goes.

So in the absence of controls on corporate behavior, people who are n the position to do so will simply decide to put all the money into a santa sack and carry it away rather than leave any money for corporate profits at all. Corporations, in short, cannot even be trusted to make money. Left to their own devices major financial institutions will spiral into bankruptcy while the individual humans responsible for guiding the ship take second and third incomes from ice bergs. This has happened repeatedly. It will continue to happen in the future. It's predictable and consistent.

So yes, when your party says that they want to remove all federal regulation from the mortgage system, they are saying that they want an economic collapse of that same mortgage system followed by presumably a required federal bailout. That is what your party stands for. Explicitly. Repeatedly.

---

On a lighter subject:

Me personally, I'm most likely not going to vote for Obama because of the Social Health Care system he plans to implement because I've personally seen how it can really screw someone bad.

I wish!

Statistically speaking, socialized healthcare provides better service at lower cost to more people. Predictably. Repeatedly. All over the world.

Heck, despite its many problems, Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States. If anyone actually gave a fuck about dead babies, we'd turn into a socialist healthcare provider yesterday. But the biggest bottom line fact is that the best Healthcare system on the planet (as measured by the approval rating of users and doctors combined with actual life measurements) is in France. Ask just about any healthcare expert and they will tell you that France has a better system than we do. Or than anyone does, because by every measure that we place against a nation's healthcare system, that is the case.

-Username17

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:18 pm

The housing crisis was caused by a number of thing, the foremost two being the ability for banks to resell loans on the secondary market, which eliminated their incentive to deal honestly with borrowers, and rampant fraud in the selling of home loans.

Both of these things are the fault of deregulation and a lack of effective oversight by regulatory agencies. The lack of effective oversight is 100% the fault of the executive failing in it's role. The deregulation is the fault of the legislature. Both of these branches were controlled by the GOP during the times when their respective fuck ups happened.

So, I suggest that blaming this on the GOP's idiotic policies isn't too unfair.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:08 pm

What about the common Libertarian argument that America has the best quality of healthcare, and people from Canada and Europe run to America for healthcare whenever they can afford it? I'm not sure if there's any truth in that, but they say it all the time.

Remember that these are people who do not believe that you deserve healthcare unless you can afford it, and therefore the only thing that will convince them is if socialized medicine actually leads to higher quality of healthcare.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:19 pm

Crissa wrote: Think what would have happened the last six years if people were invested in the stock market, instead of Social Security, like the Republicans had wanted.

Wanting good things and having plans to get there are completely different things. And the Republicans say they want good things, they're just not willing to take a path that will get there. In fact, they choose paths generally guaranteed not to get there.

They say they want good things, but they really don't. What they want to do is delude fools into voting for them so they can do another 4 years of perks and kickbacks for their rich buddies. They're one giant propaganda engine that tries to say things to fool people.

And some people, like tzor, buy into the propaganda.

Cielingcat wrote: What about the common Libertarian argument that America has the best quality of healthcare, and people from Canada and Europe run to America for healthcare whenever they can afford it? I'm not sure if there's any truth in that, but they say it all the time.

Well America has great health care for the rich. It's not equal, but if you've got the cash to shell out, you get all manner of stuff that a socialized medicine country might not do for you, so long as you're willing to pay.

Absentminded_Wizard · Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:00 pm

In short this platform (and all platforms are pie in the sky dead on arrival documents) is not responsible for the mess we are in and it is bullshit to think so.

Well, you're right that putting that language in the platform didn't cause the collapse of the housing and financial markets. The fact that this was one they actually acted on did. The Bush administration abdicated even the minimum level of regulation that laissez faire advocates acknowledge. I mean, even hardcore free marketeers realize that the government has a role in ensuring that information is accurate and transparent so that people can make informed decisions. Instead, this administration has allowed mortgage companies to spread simplistic, misleading explanations of complex financial transactions to people without the background to understand it.

And make no mistake, by and large people weren't knocking down the doors of mortgage companies to make these deals. If you've watched TV at all the past few years, there have been all kinds of advertisements to lure people into these kinds of bad deals. There were a few speculators among the consumers, but a lot of the problem was with companies actively drumming up this kind of shady business while the feds looked the other way.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:04 pm

Cielingcat wrote:What about the common Libertarian argument that America has the best quality of healthcare, and people from Canada and Europe run to America for healthcare whenever they can afford it? I'm not sure if there's any truth in that, but they say it all the time.

Remember that these are people who do not believe that you deserve healthcare unless you can afford it, and therefore the only thing that will convince them is if socialized medicine actually leads to higher quality of healthcare.

Disease spreads from one person to another. The best treatment for anyone is to give the best treatment to everyone. Smallpox, for example. The absolute best way to keep rich people from getting smallpox is to eliminate the reserve population of smallpox amongst the poor.

If we hadn't provided smallpox treatment to every single person, then there would still be people getting smallpox. And then rich people would occasionally catch it as well. The quality of the medical system for the individual is not measured in the difference in care he gets versus another person, but in the total number of threats to his health that are contained by the system as a whole. And that means treating poor people as well as rich people, lest their illnesses spread to the rich people.

Whether you believe that we have a moral imperative to treat the sickness of the poor or not, every one of us needs to understand that the Germ Theory of Disease is pretty well established. There is a purely selfish call for universal healthcare, and it trumps any counter argument that a libertarian could make.

-Username17

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:43 am

Got a real price check from a local grocery store today for anyone interested.

Bananas, $1 for 3 bunches. Weight varies and I don't know how many make a pound but 1 bunch is about 5-8 bruised and fruit-flied bananas.

Tomatoes, $2.50 per pound for imported (looks OK) and $1.50 per pound for fruit fly infested local ones.

Done. Carry on with your political wankery.