In one week our stock market has experienced an 18% decline in value, or an equivalent amount of one half of our last year's GDP. So, here's the solution offered by Senator Obama: he'll raise your taxes so that with what little money you have left after the meltdown, you can give more to the congress that mandated by law that loans be made available to people who couldn't afford them (legislated entitlements through the free market system), which is what ultimately caused the crisis in the first place!
And, not one single mainstream media outlet has even ventured a query into this actual cause of the meltdown, as it pertains to legislation that required loans be made to people who could not qualify for them. A special prosecutor ought to be named immediately to investigate the Chairman of the House Finance Committee, Barney Frank, and the Senate Banking Committee Chairman, Chris Dodd. And, Senator Dodd's special mortgage deal and the terms of it, why he received a lower interest loan from Countrywide, should be fully investigated, and not blithely brushed under the rug as it has been by Senator Obama's surrogates, the mainstream media.
Julie
· 1 year ago
Thanks, Hal, for your objective commentary. Obama has shown absolutely no desire to raise taxes on anything but the very wealthy. Unless you think that only the very wealthy read this blog, you're sadly misinformed. What Obama plans to do is cut taxes for 95% of our population, and his tax cuts call for the greatest cut to be given to those that make the least money and then the more you make, the less % tax cut you will get up to $226k/year when you stop getting a tax cut. McCain will also cut taxes, but his tax cuts get proportionately larger, the more money you make. If you make $66k or less, you will have your taxes cut by 0.7% or less. If you make over $2 million a year, your taxes go down by 4%.
Thanks also for conveniently not talking about how Senator Gramm and his Republican buddies pushed through an 11th hour bill 9 years ago that basically removed huge regulatory barriers that had long prevented banks from operating as anything other than banks. These were laws that were in place since the Depression and for good reason. This "crisis" in housing that we are currently in has been going on for several years. We're seeing one of the end results of this right now. We need to put back into place the regulations that were there before. McCain will not do that. He is a champion of deregulation.
What truly caused the crisis was greed from unscrupulous mortgage lenders, the lack of the ordinary guy's fiscal discipline and knowledge, the lack of oversight over the past 5-6 years as more and more people were offered subprime loans and took them thinking that they could afford them, and the ultimate (and natural) bursting of the housing bubble. This problem started a major downturn in 2006/2007, BEFORE the democrats took control.
In any case...we can investigate all the little particulars into the cause of this idiocy later...right now, I want them focusing 100% on how we're gonna stop this downturn.
Alastor
· 1 year ago
Julie - explain to us mere mortals how The One can cut taxes for 95% of our population, when somewhere over 20% of the population pays no federal income tax ?
When The One raises taxes on businesses, the business increase their prices tp us,. their customers - so we pay more taxes indirectly in this case ...
Please try to get out of the echo-chamber more, and you will learn that, contrary to *your* dogma, Bush and Republicans have been trying to gert better oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years, and the Democrats (especialy Frank and Dodd) blocked the added oversight and ridiculed the attempts to add effective oversight as unneeded ... and we have learned that the oversight was and is needed ...
Alec
· 1 year ago
Her echo-chamber?
Sorry, that really made me laugh.
Alastor
· 1 year ago
Alec - show us where the GOP is on record in the last few years blocking oversight of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac ... show us where the Democrats are on record as trying to get better oversight of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac ...
I have provided the URLs to show that the Democrats scoffed at and blocked increased oversight of Freddie Mac and/or Fannie Mae using URLs outside either party's echo-chamber ...
Julie has provided boiler-plate text talking points from within her side's echo-chamber ...
So - which of us, again, do you believe is more the denizen of echo-chambers ?
Gardner
· 1 year ago
According to The One's website hew will "Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples."
How you ask? By "A $1,000 “Making Work Pay” Tax Credit. For 95 percent of workers and their families—150 million workers overall—the “Making Work Pay” credit will provide a refundable tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples. This credit will benefit over 15 million self employed workers and for 10 million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes.
So to be clear, his website says he'll give a tax cut to 95% of workers (presumably legal workers who file tax returns), not 95% of the population. If you don't pay enough in taxes, then presumably you will get this "credit" on you tax return, thus getting a refund on taxes you never paid. Seems like a income redistribution, not a tax cut.
The percentage of workers who don't pay federal income tax is somewhere around 38 percent. I did a google search and that number was on the first two articles, so it mush be true.
David K.
· 1 year ago
Why do we care what Keanu Reves thinks about taxes Alasdair?
Mr Magoo
· 1 year ago
The number is actually closer to 50% of the population paying no taxes.
Alastor
· 1 year ago
Hal - while that is a definite contributor to the instability, and it merits at least as much investigation and indignation as henry Waxman's Witch-hunt Committee is giving AIG, it doesn't explain the depth of the plunge ...
My own supicions are starting to wonder about who would benefit from putting pressure on the stock market ...
And I started thinking back to who might have the liquidity to be able to do well in these circumstances ... perhaps someone who has a reputation for having put pressure on currencies in the past ...
And a name sprang to mind ... George Soros ... I wonder if he and his buddies might perhaps be encouraging the continuing downward plunge of the market ?
(Unsupported by hard facts, at the moment - I'm just starting to wonder)
And the quarter billion dollars of unitemized contributions of $200 or less donated thus far to the Obama campaign? How much of that do you suppose comes by way of George Soros? Sadly, we'll likely never know, especially once all the registered dead people ACORN has registered to vote manage to steal the election for Senator Obama. http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2008/10/dead-voter...
pthread
· 1 year ago
Lol, you guys crack me up blaming George Soros for everything.
B. Minich
· 1 year ago
In good news, NBC has made the much ballyhooed C-SPAN press conference skit available to the American public again. I hadn't seen it, and it is VERY funny. Its on Hulu now.
I think they took out the caption referring to the banker and his wife as people who should be shot, but don't seem to have taken their part out - they are still pretty unsympathetic. So yaaay for humor!
Nadine
· 1 year ago
I'm guessing that you're assuring all potential landlords that Hugh Manatee will stay dry and not giggle constantly...and those three cats, well they'll NEVER get wet...
Been listening to the Big Sea on You Tube. I like it. I may even buy some of their music on iTunes which will be a major first for me since I don't have/own ANY music.
Also, out here in the Bay Area (and literally my backyard) there's the Long's Drugs Challenge Golf Tournament at the Blackhawk Country Club. It's totally destroying any idea that I had that I was a reasonably decent golfer. Isn't Becky's mother an avid golfer?
pthread
· 1 year ago
If you are a long term investor, I can't see not gobbling up the great buys that are out there.
Sandy Underpants
· 1 year ago
The stocks that are out there right now aren't good buys, they're just deflating from their over-priced value in the first place, and they will continue to do so until no sooner than February 2009. No investors have confidence in President Obama, and they just won't buy until they gain at least a little confidence.
Jazz
· 1 year ago
As we head into an election soon, and people are tempted to vote their (considerably diminshed) pocketbooks, keep in mind the following:
a). The problem is not lack of regulation. No less a luminary than Ben Graham, surely the greatest mind ever to think about the markets, repeatedly warned that regulation was not the answer to problems ailing the markets. This is because people are motivated by the same destructive factors like greed, fear, stupidity, etc, both before and after the regulation is enacted. Irrespective of the regulation, people so motivated will undoubtedly find a way around them (Graham talking, not me).
b). The expansion of loans to marginally qualified individuals has been a goal of administrations/Congresses both Republican and Democrat since at least WWII, and probably back a lot further than that. It does no good to say things like "If only it weren't for Barney Frank, everything would have been fine". I have no use for Barney Frank. But the problem is way bigger than he or any other member of Congress.
Knowing that regulations are irrelevant, and that Congresscritters across the aisle are motivated to throw good mortgage loans at bad lending risks, its probably worthwhile to ask what was different about the last decade than years prior, when lending sanity more or less existed in the marketplace. I see two factors.
1) Unprecedentedly low interest rates the last several years. Many borrowers, such as my family and probably many of yours, locked in long-term, fixed low interest rate mortgages in the recent period of historically low rates. Good for us, bad for the banks. More accurately, okay for the banks, as long as inflation remains low and they aren't losing real value on those loans. As inflation returns, I am sure that my bank is losing (real) money on my family's mortgage, as they probably are on many of yours too. Since banks are publicly traded, this puts pressure on them to expand the pool of loans to achieve their profit goals.
2. A cultural imperative, partly racially focused but also somewhat economic equality focused, to spell out the long-standing intention to expand the pool of homeowners. This apparently became part of the GSE's mandate in recent years - it always had been the desire of the politicians, but only recently was it explicitly stated.
If you agree regarding the two causes above, and further agree that regulations are not the answer, and that either Democrats or Republicans cannot be trusted simply due to their party membership, you must ask yourself which candidates can solve the causal problems?
No one can solve the interest rate "problem" as long as the Fed acts independently. But this cultural problem...at least on a Presidential level...I think you can make a very strong case that an Obama Presidency gives the nation a much better chance of growing beyond such regulations than a McCain Presidency would.
Jazz
· 1 year ago
Correction: that last sentence should read "growing beyond such motivations", not "growing beyond such regulations".
Clarification: The reason why Obama is a more credible candidate in this regard than McCain is as follows:
Obama has said several times on the stump that black men as a group need to step up and take responsibility for their lives and families. (Prompting Jesse Jackson to threaten Obama's nuts, among other things).
To my knowledge, neither McCain nor any other Presidential candidate has talked about such things, or drawn such threats to his testicles from Jesse Jackson. (Maybe Dukakis during the heated '88 primary. Would have to go back and look).
When people lost faith in the the economy , the banks are no longer lending. Not to people or to each other. There fore there is no extra capital for spending on extra project and everything else suffers.
Jazz
· 1 year ago
This is a bit off-topic, but its an open question for those who cite Palin's preparedness for the Presidency based on her "executive experience" - particularly as it compares with Obama's alleged lack of the same.
Does it change your conclusion if her administration was "shockingly amateurish"?
Even if you strongly dislike Obama, surely you concede that Obama has enough talent immediately to run Alaska in a "shockingly amateurish" manner, right?
"Trooper Wooten gave his 10-year-old stepson a "test" firing from his state-issued Taser because the boy wanted to know what it was like. That was astoundingly bad judgment. Because the child "consented," and the test apparently produced no lasting harm, Wooten would have a good defense against any criminal charges. But it was a hopelessly inappropriate thing for a state trooper to do with state-issued equipment.
Trooper Wooten also shot a moose illegally, using his wife's permit. At the time the incident was investigated, he was a wildlife enforcement officer responsible for enforcing the very same hunting laws he broke. Questioned by troopers about the incident, he said he felt it was not inappropriate, according to the troopers' disciplinary report.
Trooper Wooten also said he would make his father-in-law "eat a f-ing? lead bullet" if he helped get a lawyer for his daughter. Apparently that didn't qualify as "assault" under the law because Wooten did not say it directly to his father-in-law. No crime, but another example that trooper Wooten lacked the judgment and temperament to remain a trooper.
Another disturbing incident from Wooten's record was the courtesy treatment he got from a fellow trooper during a DUI stop. A bartender had reported Wooten as a suspected drunken driver after Wooten caused a commotion in the bar and drove away. Wooten's fellow officer stopped him, let him leave his car behind and gave him a ride to his destination. An arrest and conviction for DUI would have ended Wooten's career as a trooper.
In another incident, Wooten was off duty and drove his patrol car with an open container of alcohol. Witnesses indicate he had been drinking before he got in the patrol car - a finding that trooper Col. Julia Grimes upheld in her review of Wooten's case.
Under normal circumstances, Alaskans and the country wouldn't know much about Wooten's record as a trooper. Typically, his infractions and disciplinary record would be confidential as a personnel matter. We'd all be left guessing what he had done that made the Palin family so upset.
Not to excuse the Palins' persistent queries about why Wooten was still a trooper, but they knew nothing of the disciplinary action that had been taken against him. They didn't know he had been suspended for five days. They just knew he was still on the force.
However, in one of the more bizarre twists in the case, Wooten himself released his personnel information, perhaps thinking it would vindicate him. On the contrary, most who view his record are left wondering, "If what he did doesn't get you fired from the troopers, what does it take?"
That's a good question for the Alaska Legislature to ask. "
Now, as Governor, if the Governor is aware of such things, what the $#@$@# should the Governor be doing about such a trooper ? Seems to me, the Governor should be asking her various folk why the ##@^$ said trooper is still an Alaskan State Trooper, no ?
Alastor
· 1 year ago
Jazz - contrast the Anchorage Daily News editorial with its good levels of journalism (quoted above), with the Time article which pretends to be journalism, yet is outright blatant editorialism by a mediocre editor, at that ...
We already know that Time is not a fan of Governor Palin - and its "journalists" don't even try to pretend to be even-handed ...
We, on the other hand, are supposed to be smart enough not to believe editorials when contradictory information is easily obtained ...
With that said, I do have to agree with you ... Obama has enough talent immediately to run Alaska in a "shockingly amateurish" manner ... as opposed to the current Governor who is currently under attack by the Democrats in Alaska's Legislative Council ...
I wonder when the inquiry into the abuse of power currently being shown by the Legislative Council members will be held ?
Youngblai
· 1 year ago
I think that Jazz, Hal, et al are correct: The problem was both the low interest rates and the motivations for expanding housing.
I will merely add that, in addition to the racial motivations, there are very good political / social reasons to increase homeownership. Crime statistics as well as the fact that, quite frankly, homeowners don't tend to revolt would all lend powerful incentives for the government to increase homeownership.
The problem with expecting a political imperative to solve our current situation is that our political class is almost utterly bereft of leadership. Voters, for the most part, have only themselves to blame for this one--after all, just how often do we apply the "Would I follow this person to a latrine?"-test to our Congressional votes? Nope, usually we vote based on the one or two single issues that, in reality, our robed overlords rather than Congress decide.
How to fix this? Hey, I have no idea. Part of the reason we have problems getting real leaders or people who have done things in their life to run for Congress is the toxicity of our political system and the press. Who wants to put their family and friends through what, say, Obama or Palin has gone through? To have each and every friendship you've ever had over the years ruthlessly scrutinized? Um, no thanks.
So enjoy the ride, as I don't think anything the politicians are going to do will drag us out of this.
Jazz
· 1 year ago
Youngblai - if in fact you are a "Young" blai, this situation might very well play out to your advantage. In fact, everyone that is in their twenties or early thirties (likely most of the readers of this blog) might very well benefit tremendously from the timing of this mess.
I mentioned below that Graham didn't believe regulation worked. More on this - Graham felt that the painful lessons of the past are forgotten by the next generation, while the negative emotions that created the problems are timeless. The upshot is that the world would tend to be careful about the wretched excesses that led to the current crisis; 30 years later a new generation is making decisions, with no memory of the pain we currently experience, but with the same motivations that got us in this mess, and history repeats.
Therefore, once we ride this out, we might have a couple decades of relative global order and prosperity, until the next generation of decision-makers is unfamiliar with this pain and things get screwed up again. If you're young, those couple decades of relative order are the ones in which you will be building your nest egg.
In summary, if you're young, your nest egg may well
a) start when the markets are down, and b) grow during years of economic rationality and order.
That's the way to do it.
Youngblai
· 1 year ago
While I'm "young" enough, my concern is that we're seeing a fundamental economic disaster and change to our way of life unfold right before our eyes. Great Depression II? Enh, maybe not--but then again do we _need_ things to get that bad for all hell to break loose?
Jazz
· 1 year ago
Back to the topic of why Presidential candidates are so lame - it must have something to do with both parties running for their person, and against the other, as if they were "transformational, inspired, etc". Stretching a Wizard of Oz analogy, the campaigns run their candidate as the "Good Wizard", the other candidate as the "Bad Wizard", and any smallness or weakness of the man or woman behind the curtain is completely tangential to the campaign narrative.
Consider Ayres and Obama serving on that Annenberg education board. A breathless voice in McCain ads accuses Obama of choosing to associate with a terrorist. If only. As a few commentators have noted, its Annenberg who "rehabilitated" Ayres by permitting him to serve on that board; Obama was just a small time opportunist sitting beside Ayres. If Obama were actually scheming to associate purposefully with Ayres - then his presence on that board might have meant something. The undoubtedly passive role of (the man behind the curtain) Obama in the Annenberg board surely negates any serious intention on Obama's part to do bad things with Ayres, but also perhaps negates Obama's hoped-for stature as a big time player in Chicago politics.
But Palin is no different, its sad to say. The fire-back from Ayres allegations is that the First Dude was a card-carrying member of an insurrectionist party, the Alaska Independence Party. Surely by now you have read the terrible things Joe Vogler has said (and sadly many commenters have quoted...including, er, me). Truth be told, many folks have a relative like Joe Vogler - Thanksgiving is coming up between the election and transition...who will hear similar rantings from an uncle like Joe Vogler? Many of you, I imagine.
Further, did you know that the AIP actually elected a governor of Alaska once? (ooh, serious insurrectionists!) Yup, he was even a famous Alaskan political figure (ooh, seriously well-connected insurrectionists!) He had even been governor before, as a Republican, 30 years earlier - a famous old Alaska political lion! His name is Wally Hickel - check him out on Wikipedia.
Sad thing about poor Wally Hickel is that his time with the AIP didn't go so well. Unfortunately, the AIP kicked him back to the Republicans before his term ended. Turns out - Wally Hickel was a big statehood guy. AIP, recall, is pro-independence. Wally Hickel was a long-time advocate of statehood. Sad, isn't it?
The AIP are "independence advocates" the way the Wilson brothers in the movie Bottle Rocket are "criminals". Check out the movie if that doesn't make sense to you.
In conclusion, and once more back to Obama, the other scandal you hear is Rezko and the various ways that Obama was connected to the evil Chicago political machine. To hear the McCain campaign talk, Obama was a prime mover in the Daley machine in Chicago, when he most certainly was a small-time Johnny Come Lately along for the ride.
Along those lines, consider the following: The Daley Chicago machine burst on to the scene on November 8, 1960, when Kennedy squeaked past Nixon, including squeaking past Nixon in (more Republican) Illinois. It is frequently alleged that the Daley machine found several thousand dead people to swell the rolls of Kennedy voters, ultimately throwing that election in Kennedy's direction.
Interesting because Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961. Subtract roughly nine months from Obama's birthdate and you get to about election day 1960. This means that, at the same time the Chicago political machine was bursting on the national scene, Obama was bursting from his father's loins as a parting gift to his mother.
Its an interesting image to put Obama's role in rotten Chicago politics in its proper perspective - as a late-to-the-party bit player behind the curtain. Now back to firing away at the Wizards of Ozzes!
All Comments
And, not one single mainstream media outlet has even ventured a query into this actual cause of the meltdown, as it pertains to legislation that required loans be made to people who could not qualify for them. A special prosecutor ought to be named immediately to investigate the Chairman of the House Finance Committee, Barney Frank, and the Senate Banking Committee Chairman, Chris Dodd. And, Senator Dodd's special mortgage deal and the terms of it, why he received a lower interest loan from Countrywide, should be fully investigated, and not blithely brushed under the rug as it has been by Senator Obama's surrogates, the mainstream media.
Thanks also for conveniently not talking about how Senator Gramm and his Republican buddies pushed through an 11th hour bill 9 years ago that basically removed huge regulatory barriers that had long prevented banks from operating as anything other than banks. These were laws that were in place since the Depression and for good reason. This "crisis" in housing that we are currently in has been going on for several years. We're seeing one of the end results of this right now. We need to put back into place the regulations that were there before. McCain will not do that. He is a champion of deregulation.
What truly caused the crisis was greed from unscrupulous mortgage lenders, the lack of the ordinary guy's fiscal discipline and knowledge, the lack of oversight over the past 5-6 years as more and more people were offered subprime loans and took them thinking that they could afford them, and the ultimate (and natural) bursting of the housing bubble. This problem started a major downturn in 2006/2007, BEFORE the democrats took control.
In any case...we can investigate all the little particulars into the cause of this idiocy later...right now, I want them focusing 100% on how we're gonna stop this downturn.
When The One raises taxes on businesses, the business increase their prices tp us,. their customers - so we pay more taxes indirectly in this case ...
Please try to get out of the echo-chamber more, and you will learn that, contrary to *your* dogma, Bush and Republicans have been trying to gert better oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years, and the Democrats (especialy Frank and Dodd) blocked the added oversight and ridiculed the attempts to add effective oversight as unneeded ... and we have learned that the oversight was and is needed ...
Sorry, that really made me laugh.
I have provided the URLs to show that the Democrats scoffed at and blocked increased oversight of Freddie Mac and/or Fannie Mae using URLs outside either party's echo-chamber ...
Julie has provided boiler-plate text talking points from within her side's echo-chamber ...
So - which of us, again, do you believe is more the denizen of echo-chambers ?
How you ask? By "A $1,000 “Making Work Pay” Tax Credit. For 95 percent of workers and their families—150 million workers overall—the “Making Work Pay” credit will provide a refundable tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples. This credit will benefit over 15 million self employed workers and for 10 million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes.
So to be clear, his website says he'll give a tax cut to 95% of workers (presumably legal workers who file tax returns), not 95% of the population. If you don't pay enough in taxes, then presumably you will get this "credit" on you tax return, thus getting a refund on taxes you never paid. Seems like a income redistribution, not a tax cut.
The percentage of workers who don't pay federal income tax is somewhere around 38 percent. I did a google search and that number was on the first two articles, so it mush be true.
My own supicions are starting to wonder about who would benefit from putting pressure on the stock market ...
And I started thinking back to who might have the liquidity to be able to do well in these circumstances ... perhaps someone who has a reputation for having put pressure on currencies in the past ...
And a name sprang to mind ... George Soros ... I wonder if he and his buddies might perhaps be encouraging the continuing downward plunge of the market ?
(Unsupported by hard facts, at the moment - I'm just starting to wonder)
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?i...
And the quarter billion dollars of unitemized contributions of $200 or less donated thus far to the Obama campaign? How much of that do you suppose comes by way of George Soros? Sadly, we'll likely never know, especially once all the registered dead people ACORN has registered to vote manage to steal the election for Senator Obama. http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2008/10/dead-voter...
I think they took out the caption referring to the banker and his wife as people who should be shot, but don't seem to have taken their part out - they are still pretty unsympathetic. So yaaay for humor!
Been listening to the Big Sea on You Tube. I like it. I may even buy some of their music on iTunes which will be a major first for me since I don't have/own ANY music.
Also, out here in the Bay Area (and literally my backyard) there's the Long's Drugs Challenge Golf Tournament at the Blackhawk Country Club. It's totally destroying any idea that I had that I was a reasonably decent golfer. Isn't Becky's mother an avid golfer?
a). The problem is not lack of regulation. No less a luminary than Ben Graham, surely the greatest mind ever to think about the markets, repeatedly warned that regulation was not the answer to problems ailing the markets. This is because people are motivated by the same destructive factors like greed, fear, stupidity, etc, both before and after the regulation is enacted. Irrespective of the regulation, people so motivated will undoubtedly find a way around them (Graham talking, not me).
b). The expansion of loans to marginally qualified individuals has been a goal of administrations/Congresses both Republican and Democrat since at least WWII, and probably back a lot further than that. It does no good to say things like "If only it weren't for Barney Frank, everything would have been fine". I have no use for Barney Frank. But the problem is way bigger than he or any other member of Congress.
Knowing that regulations are irrelevant, and that Congresscritters across the aisle are motivated to throw good mortgage loans at bad lending risks, its probably worthwhile to ask what was different about the last decade than years prior, when lending sanity more or less existed in the marketplace. I see two factors.
1) Unprecedentedly low interest rates the last several years. Many borrowers, such as my family and probably many of yours, locked in long-term, fixed low interest rate mortgages in the recent period of historically low rates. Good for us, bad for the banks. More accurately, okay for the banks, as long as inflation remains low and they aren't losing real value on those loans. As inflation returns, I am sure that my bank is losing (real) money on my family's mortgage, as they probably are on many of yours too. Since banks are publicly traded, this puts pressure on them to expand the pool of loans to achieve their profit goals.
2. A cultural imperative, partly racially focused but also somewhat economic equality focused, to spell out the long-standing intention to expand the pool of homeowners. This apparently became part of the GSE's mandate in recent years - it always had been the desire of the politicians, but only recently was it explicitly stated.
If you agree regarding the two causes above, and further agree that regulations are not the answer, and that either Democrats or Republicans cannot be trusted simply due to their party membership, you must ask yourself which candidates can solve the causal problems?
No one can solve the interest rate "problem" as long as the Fed acts independently. But this cultural problem...at least on a Presidential level...I think you can make a very strong case that an Obama Presidency gives the nation a much better chance of growing beyond such regulations than a McCain Presidency would.
Clarification: The reason why Obama is a more credible candidate in this regard than McCain is as follows:
Obama has said several times on the stump that black men as a group need to step up and take responsibility for their lives and families. (Prompting Jesse Jackson to threaten Obama's nuts, among other things).
To my knowledge, neither McCain nor any other Presidential candidate has talked about such things, or drawn such threats to his testicles from Jesse Jackson. (Maybe Dukakis during the heated '88 primary. Would have to go back and look).
Does it change your conclusion if her administration was "shockingly amateurish"?
Even if you strongly dislike Obama, surely you concede that Obama has enough talent immediately to run Alaska in a "shockingly amateurish" manner, right?
In fact...we all could, couldn't we?
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,184939...
Is anyone considering whether or not said Trooper *should* have been fired ... ???
From the Anchorage Daily News ...
"Trooper Wooten gave his 10-year-old stepson a "test" firing from his state-issued Taser because the boy wanted to know what it was like. That was astoundingly bad judgment. Because the child "consented," and the test apparently produced no lasting harm, Wooten would have a good defense against any criminal charges. But it was a hopelessly inappropriate thing for a state trooper to do with state-issued equipment.
Trooper Wooten also shot a moose illegally, using his wife's permit. At the time the incident was investigated, he was a wildlife enforcement officer responsible for enforcing the very same hunting laws he broke. Questioned by troopers about the incident, he said he felt it was not inappropriate, according to the troopers' disciplinary report.
Trooper Wooten also said he would make his father-in-law "eat a f-ing? lead bullet" if he helped get a lawyer for his daughter. Apparently that didn't qualify as "assault" under the law because Wooten did not say it directly to his father-in-law. No crime, but another example that trooper Wooten lacked the judgment and temperament to remain a trooper.
Another disturbing incident from Wooten's record was the courtesy treatment he got from a fellow trooper during a DUI stop. A bartender had reported Wooten as a suspected drunken driver after Wooten caused a commotion in the bar and drove away. Wooten's fellow officer stopped him, let him leave his car behind and gave him a ride to his destination. An arrest and conviction for DUI would have ended Wooten's career as a trooper.
In another incident, Wooten was off duty and drove his patrol car with an open container of alcohol. Witnesses indicate he had been drinking before he got in the patrol car - a finding that trooper Col. Julia Grimes upheld in her review of Wooten's case.
Under normal circumstances, Alaskans and the country wouldn't know much about Wooten's record as a trooper. Typically, his infractions and disciplinary record would be confidential as a personnel matter. We'd all be left guessing what he had done that made the Palin family so upset.
Not to excuse the Palins' persistent queries about why Wooten was still a trooper, but they knew nothing of the disciplinary action that had been taken against him. They didn't know he had been suspended for five days. They just knew he was still on the force.
However, in one of the more bizarre twists in the case, Wooten himself released his personnel information, perhaps thinking it would vindicate him. On the contrary, most who view his record are left wondering, "If what he did doesn't get you fired from the troopers, what does it take?"
That's a good question for the Alaska Legislature to ask. "
Now, as Governor, if the Governor is aware of such things, what the $#@$@# should the Governor be doing about such a trooper ? Seems to me, the Governor should be asking her various folk why the ##@^$ said trooper is still an Alaskan State Trooper, no ?
We already know that Time is not a fan of Governor Palin - and its "journalists" don't even try to pretend to be even-handed ...
We, on the other hand, are supposed to be smart enough not to believe editorials when contradictory information is easily obtained ...
With that said, I do have to agree with you ... Obama has enough talent immediately to run Alaska in a "shockingly amateurish" manner ... as opposed to the current Governor who is currently under attack by the Democrats in Alaska's Legislative Council ...
I wonder when the inquiry into the abuse of power currently being shown by the Legislative Council members will be held ?
I will merely add that, in addition to the racial motivations, there are very good political / social reasons to increase homeownership. Crime statistics as well as the fact that, quite frankly, homeowners don't tend to revolt would all lend powerful incentives for the government to increase homeownership.
The problem with expecting a political imperative to solve our current situation is that our political class is almost utterly bereft of leadership. Voters, for the most part, have only themselves to blame for this one--after all, just how often do we apply the "Would I follow this person to a latrine?"-test to our Congressional votes? Nope, usually we vote based on the one or two single issues that, in reality, our robed overlords rather than Congress decide.
How to fix this? Hey, I have no idea. Part of the reason we have problems getting real leaders or people who have done things in their life to run for Congress is the toxicity of our political system and the press. Who wants to put their family and friends through what, say, Obama or Palin has gone through? To have each and every friendship you've ever had over the years ruthlessly scrutinized? Um, no thanks.
So enjoy the ride, as I don't think anything the politicians are going to do will drag us out of this.
I mentioned below that Graham didn't believe regulation worked. More on this - Graham felt that the painful lessons of the past are forgotten by the next generation, while the negative emotions that created the problems are timeless. The upshot is that the world would tend to be careful about the wretched excesses that led to the current crisis; 30 years later a new generation is making decisions, with no memory of the pain we currently experience, but with the same motivations that got us in this mess, and history repeats.
Therefore, once we ride this out, we might have a couple decades of relative global order and prosperity, until the next generation of decision-makers is unfamiliar with this pain and things get screwed up again. If you're young, those couple decades of relative order are the ones in which you will be building your nest egg.
In summary, if you're young, your nest egg may well
a) start when the markets are down, and
b) grow during years of economic rationality and order.
That's the way to do it.
Consider Ayres and Obama serving on that Annenberg education board. A breathless voice in McCain ads accuses Obama of choosing to associate with a terrorist. If only. As a few commentators have noted, its Annenberg who "rehabilitated" Ayres by permitting him to serve on that board; Obama was just a small time opportunist sitting beside Ayres. If Obama were actually scheming to associate purposefully with Ayres - then his presence on that board might have meant something. The undoubtedly passive role of (the man behind the curtain) Obama in the Annenberg board surely negates any serious intention on Obama's part to do bad things with Ayres, but also perhaps negates Obama's hoped-for stature as a big time player in Chicago politics.
But Palin is no different, its sad to say. The fire-back from Ayres allegations is that the First Dude was a card-carrying member of an insurrectionist party, the Alaska Independence Party. Surely by now you have read the terrible things Joe Vogler has said (and sadly many commenters have quoted...including, er, me). Truth be told, many folks have a relative like Joe Vogler - Thanksgiving is coming up between the election and transition...who will hear similar rantings from an uncle like Joe Vogler? Many of you, I imagine.
Further, did you know that the AIP actually elected a governor of Alaska once? (ooh, serious insurrectionists!) Yup, he was even a famous Alaskan political figure (ooh, seriously well-connected insurrectionists!) He had even been governor before, as a Republican, 30 years earlier - a famous old Alaska political lion! His name is Wally Hickel - check him out on Wikipedia.
Sad thing about poor Wally Hickel is that his time with the AIP didn't go so well. Unfortunately, the AIP kicked him back to the Republicans before his term ended. Turns out - Wally Hickel was a big statehood guy. AIP, recall, is pro-independence. Wally Hickel was a long-time advocate of statehood. Sad, isn't it?
The AIP are "independence advocates" the way the Wilson brothers in the movie Bottle Rocket are "criminals". Check out the movie if that doesn't make sense to you.
In conclusion, and once more back to Obama, the other scandal you hear is Rezko and the various ways that Obama was connected to the evil Chicago political machine. To hear the McCain campaign talk, Obama was a prime mover in the Daley machine in Chicago, when he most certainly was a small-time Johnny Come Lately along for the ride.
Along those lines, consider the following: The Daley Chicago machine burst on to the scene on November 8, 1960, when Kennedy squeaked past Nixon, including squeaking past Nixon in (more Republican) Illinois. It is frequently alleged that the Daley machine found several thousand dead people to swell the rolls of Kennedy voters, ultimately throwing that election in Kennedy's direction.
Interesting because Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961. Subtract roughly nine months from Obama's birthdate and you get to about election day 1960. This means that, at the same time the Chicago political machine was bursting on the national scene, Obama was bursting from his father's loins as a parting gift to his mother.
Its an interesting image to put Obama's role in rotten Chicago politics in its proper perspective - as a late-to-the-party bit player behind the curtain. Now back to firing away at the Wizards of Ozzes!