El Guapo 8 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 H. Ross Perot tried this.Yes, but unfortunately it was Ross Perot talking. Link to post Share on other sites
gobears 0 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 And as Ive been saying for at least 6 weeks, the only game changer left (since he apparently doesnt want to get down in the gutter with Obama) is to name the top of his cabinet...Giuliani Attorney General, Romney Treasury, Petraeus Defense.Didn't McCain bring up Buffett and Meg Whitman as names in the debate? Not sure why he didn't mention Romney.As for the debate, a snooze fest as many of the answers were the same as from Debate #1. Same talking points and rhetoric. By holding serve, Obama won.McCain coming out on the first question and basically saying that he would reduce the principal amount owned by homeowners in trouble surprised me - just seems to be rewarding people who bought homes that they couldn't afford in the first place.Just received my absentee ballot in the mail a couple of days ago so the end is in sight for this election cycle. Link to post Share on other sites
neretva 0 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 So schools for the rich and screw the poor hey? Sounds like the last 8 years to me only you screw yourself too because then there won't be a work force here in America unless you like going back to an agricultural based society.The "poor" should not be having kids. Nobody should have kids until they can pay for them. And that means paying for their education from start to finish.Personal responsibility would be mandatory if we hadn't created this system of entitlements where everything has become a "right". The "right to a job". The "right" to an education. By socializing everything, we have created nothing but mediocre citizens who see the world as a place where they are "owed" everything for merely having been born. Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Didn't McCain bring up Buffett and Meg Whitman as names in the debate? Not sure why he didn't mention Romney.As for the debate, a snooze fest as many of the answers were the same as from Debate #1. Same talking points and rhetoric. By holding serve, Obama won.McCain coming out on the first question and basically saying that he would reduce the principal amount owned by homeowners in trouble surprised me - just seems to be rewarding people who bought homes that they couldn't afford in the first place.Just received my absentee ballot in the mail a couple of days ago so the end is in sight for this election cycle.He brought up Buffet in the context of him being Obamas advisor. After Buffett saying something to the effect of cut the corporate tax rate and then tax the hell out of them later theres no way JSM would consider him.Re cutting principal see my earlier post. Would you rather have a non-performing asset at 100% of principal or a performing asset at 80%? You dont want a ton of foreclosure sales because they lower the value of everything around them, creating a downward spiral. Its just a trade off between getting full or close to full market interest rates on lower principal, or well below market interest rates on full principal.Also it was clarified this morning that he was talking about it as a way of administering the current 700 billion bail out, not in addtion to. Link to post Share on other sites
gobears 0 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 He brought up Buffet in the context of him being Obamas advisor. After Buffett saying something to the effect of cut the corporate tax rate and then tax the hell out of them later theres no way JSM would consider him.Re cutting principal see my earlier post. Would you rather have a non-performing asset at 100% of principal or a performing asset at 80%? You dont want a ton of foreclosure sales because they lower the value of everything around them, creating a downward spiral. Its just a trade off between getting full or close to full market interest rates on lower principal, or well below market interest rates on full principal.Also it was clarified this morning that he was talking about it as a way of administering the current 700 billion bail out, not in addtion to.I just read it and pasted a section below and it looks like McCain would mandate that $300m of the rescue plan be used for buying mortgages. I don't like it as it looks like under the current plan, Paulson has the option of doing this, McCain's plan would make it mandatory. Why tie Paulson's hands? Aren't Paulson and his crew the experts? To be frank, although Obama hasn't given any details on his plan, this sounds more like something Obama would come up with than a McCain plan.As conceived by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and as passed by Congress, the rescue package would be used primarily to purchase mortgage-backed securities. It would allow, but not require direct purchase of mortgages. Under McCain's plan, the Treasury would be required to rework mortgages directly with homeowners whose houses were losing value. Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 I just read it and pasted a section below and it looks like McCain would mandate that $300m of the rescue plan be used for buying mortgages. I don't like it as it looks like under the current plan, Paulson has the option of doing this, McCain's plan would make it mandatory. Why tie Paulson's hands? Aren't Paulson and his crew the experts? To be frank, although Obama hasn't given any details on his plan, this sounds more like something Obama would come up with than a McCain plan.As conceived by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and as passed by Congress, the rescue package would be used primarily to purchase mortgage-backed securities. It would allow, but not require direct purchase of mortgages. Under McCain's plan, the Treasury would be required to rework mortgages directly with homeowners whose houses were losing value. I dont think there are enough details to say what would be required or not. Link to post Share on other sites
gobears 0 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 I dont think there are enough details to say what would be required or not.Maybe Paulson burns thru all $700B before the new President steps into office so it's a moot point.... Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Maybe Paulson burns thru all $700B before the new President steps into office so it's a moot point....Doesnt he need authorization from Congress to go beyond $X? They dont reconvene until after the elections, and they may have a trouble getting the next tranche authorized before inauguration. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 This is classic statism. You will do brilliantly under Obama, filling out forms and standing in lines for your cut of someone else's efforts. Can you please get off your ass and take care of yourself? Please?Huh? Yeah you pegged me, I'm on welfare. Or something. I don't even know what you mean. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Public schools should be eliminated. All schools should be in the private sector and should be paid for in full by parents. That would solve a huge part of this government induced economic mess while at the same time improving the educational system.As for the military, we need that. I like paying for that, it protects my country.Public schools should be eliminated. All schools should be in the private sector and should be paid for in full by parents. That would solve a huge part of this problem of poor people getting an education, while at the same time ensuring that many millions of children across the country would be unable to attend school for lack of funds. Yes, we agree!!! Poor people suck! Link to post Share on other sites
gobears 0 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Doesnt he need authorization from Congress to go beyond $X? They dont reconvene until after the elections, and they may have a trouble getting the next tranche authorized before inauguration.I was being facetious about burning thru the $700b that quickly...That being said, a quick google search didn't really lead me to exactly what powers the two oversight boards have...The legislation sets up two oversight boards to review transactions and requires the government, as the new owner of mortgage-backed securities, to take steps to prevent foreclosures. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 History tell us less taxes more revenue for the Government.History tells us WHAT about that?(??!?!!?)Yeah though, Reaganomics worked beautifullyif you were wealthy.Recession in the 80s? Bah, liberal hogwash! Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?.......And we will never take military options off the table. And it is important that we don't provide veto power to the United Nations or anyone else in acting in our interests. Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 would any strong repub actually want to attach themselves to a proposed cabinet?Cop - are you actually BOR in disguise??BOR actually laid out your exact plan tonite... Rudy - AG, ROMENY TREASURY Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Cop - are you actually BOR in disguise??BOR actually laid out your exact plan tonite... Rudy - AG, ROMENY TREASURYno Petraeus? He's slipping. Seriously, Im surprised none of the pundits brought it up before now. It seems like an obvious move, even more now than when I first raised it. Maybe more people watch him than read this forum and it will get to JSM! Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 no Petraeus? He's slipping. Seriously, Im surprised none of the pundits brought it up before now. It seems like an obvious move, even more now than when I first raised it. Maybe more people watch him than read this forum and it will get to JSM!he did say patreaus..my bad Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 very nuanced..per usual... I dont get a yes, screw the UN we will do it ourselves out of that Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 he did say patreaus..my badTV or radio? I dvrd the tv show. Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 TV..your in luck Link to post Share on other sites
Nimue1995 1 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 The "poor" should not be having kids. Nobody should have kids until they can pay for them. And that means paying for their education from start to finish.Personal responsibility would be mandatory if we hadn't created this system of entitlements where everything has become a "right". The "right to a job". The "right" to an education. By socializing everything, we have created nothing but mediocre citizens who see the world as a place where they are "owed" everything for merely having been born.I don't think even H is THAT Libertarian. Wonder where you'd appear on the political graph? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now