Neither party is addressing the economy — Page 2

Fanny and Freddie don't drive the economy. Jobs do. All of yesterday's convention talk about going green was about creating jobs. Did you miss the attacks on Big Oil? Universal health care is about leveling the playing field for US companies in the global market as well as protecting people. Taxing the rich instead of the middle class is about the economy. Union strength is about the economy. Even immigration policies are about the economy.

And ultimately getting out of Iraq is also about the economy, too.

Oh John Boy, TALKING POINTS! Ah! Of Course! That's what's wrong with them now, they are "TALKING POINTS!" That's how Newt Gingrich said to dismiss it when your opponent has done their homework and has a plan to deal with the issue you want to attack them on. First, Obama had no plan, now the plan is just "TALKING POINTS." Next, you should call me "A destructive, shallow, permissive liberal" and refuse to argue any longer.

Meanwhile, I dunno where we can get the money. How much are we spending in Iraq? I bet we could cut some of that. We've got to be spending a couple million a day there, right?

"Fanny and Freddie don't drive the economy."

But they do. The entire foundation of our economy is investment and return. When these major institutions fail then the investors get nervous and that begins the entire downward spiral.

The Sarbanes/Oxley act after the S&L scandal was a good idea. I just wonder why we aren't being more pro-active to ward off another meltdown.

The signs are all there. No one's bothering to pay attention.

---

Updated On: 8/27/08 at 03:41 PM

"Ok, yes. please detail the plan for me in bullet point format so I can see what exactly you're talking about.
B/c I don't see any mention of protecting investor's money or helping us reinvigorate the insurers. "


I don't have time to sort through his plan this very second but I can later if you want. It does break down into sound bites if you want that, and those are rollback tax cuts for the rich, people making over $500,000 per year. That means taxes will go up for them. I believe he can do that in January (don't quote me, but they expire soon). That's where immediate cash will flow in from. The rest of his plans are built on gradual and significant changes to what has transpired since Clinton.

No it's not going to happen over night. No it's not going to be cut and dry. No it's not going to be easy. He is not saying that, he is offering a plan. Just how Bush offered a plan to privatize and then socialize.

The Freddie/Fannie issue is specific enough though, that I can speak to that right now. Basically he offers an emergency "fix" with a long-term commitment to fix the system. John McCain offers no fix, he offers a bailout and well more bailouts. (See Enron Loophole.)

Here's what Obama has said as early as Monday (8/25), sorry it's not in the new cycle this second:

`Long term, what we have to do is go ahead and make a decision,' Obama said at a campaign appearance in Davenport, Iowa. ``If these are public entities, then they have to get out of the profit-making business, and if they are private entities, then we don't bail them out.'

The Illinois senator said he supported the move by Congress to give the Bush administration the authority to inject capital into the two government-sponsored mortgage- finance companies.

If the companies collapsed, ``then probably the financial system would receive such a body blow that it could be disastrous,' Obama said. ``You probably couldn't get a mortgage out there because a lot of people package these mortgages that get bought up in the secondary market.'

Obama also said he had ``no sympathy' for the chief executive officers of the companies and said they ``shouldn't be taking out bonuses.' He also said ``investors who have made a killing shouldn't be protected.' He didn't differentiate between common and preferred shareholders.

"that quote illustrates his total lack of fiduciary awareness and consequences. "

If you feel that way don't vote for him.

I think you ended it tazber. You offered your opinion and I don't agree nor do I want to go around and around about it. I do not agree and I don't have to go into why I think privatizing the federal government is wrong.

I'm not sure what to think of "intelligent" people that put these charlatans on such high pedestals and then try to suggest their analyses or scrutiny of said candidate means anything at all. You can read into them and their plans all you want but they stay on the same path in Obama’s case it’s the Democratic agenda. Democrats and Republicans are very predictable. Obama has the same voting record as every other Democrat. He is not running on some new ticket, he is running as a Democrat.

We are given FIGURE HEADS to vote for in a popularity contest for a FIGURE HEAD. I am voting for the guy that is on the side of this pathetic "democracy" that will do the most for people in general. It's like what Hillary said last night, we are not voting for her, we voting for us. It's what Obama has been saying since he began his campaign. I’m voting to get our troops home.

George Bush is the only recent president since FDR that I understand had actual real power. We won’t know about Obama until 4 years from now. Frankly, I don’t want a president that powerful, it’s unconstitutional.

Americans just don't care enough to demand true intelligence, honesty and courage from candidates. We have a nation that’s complicit with a media that questions FACTS based on evidence based on proof. That’s what we live with, short attention spans. We let large corporations buy and sell our fate. I guess it's easier that way.

Updated On: 8/27/08 at 05:15 PM

"So again you have not even spoken to the issue at hand."

I did speak to it, I told you what Obama plans to do. Give them capital now if they need it and then figure out if they are private or public.


You said: "that quote illustrates his total lack of fiduciary awareness and consequences. "

I said I agree with him therefore I do not agree with you. I don't need to say anything else. You can't say Obama hasn't addressed this nor the economy! You may not like or agree with solutions but he did say something and he has a plan. How am I supposed to hold a debate if you can't at least meet me at "Obama has addressed the economy". He has.

"You've turned it into yet another reason to pretend that everyone is attacking Obama. "

I have not, I addressed the issue and you didn't like the answer. Now I'm trying to figure out why you insist on putting lipstick on a pig?

Johny, I stated earlier. The money will be coming immediately from tax-cut rollbacks for the rich.

Oh and then build from that with investments.

Updated On: 8/27/08 at 06:03 PM

"The entire foundation of our economy is investment and return."

That's too broad and that's why our economy is so ****ed up.
The foundation of a healthy economy is TRADE and that's what the basis of ours SHOULD BE, but it's not, as evidenced by our thoroughly jacked trade deficit and non-existent trade policy.

Over the last 25-30 years Wall Street and the financial sector, in their greed for short term profits, has done more to damage to trade, especially manufacturing, and the long term health of our major corporations (read: employers) than at any other time in our history. The Freddie/Fannie/housing/credit crisis is all just the tail end of the fallout.

Think about it - GE abandoning a market sector they used to dominate, domestic automakers doing great overseas but not at home - it's all about TRADE, not the ****ing finance fatboys.

Oh and something else, when Democrats control the government we actually have oversight. Probably the single most important thing we can expect from our government. Protection FROM the government. Under Bush anything goes, and it did.