[selowitch]

I really dislike Sarah Palin, her far-right position on abortion, her sympathy for a secessionist movement, and her nasty, empty attacks on Barack Obama. However, regarding Troopergate I find that I actually have sympathy for her!

Here was a guy, Mike Wooten, who as part of a nasty divorce with Palin's sister, abused his power as a state trooper and at times appeared to be stalking the Palin family. I really don't blame her or Todd for trying to use their power to get rid of him. The report even says that the firing was done in a procedurally proper way, so in my mind, while it may have been a violation of Alaska's state ethics laws, I'm not sure she was ultimately in the wrong here. I'm not sure that, in her place, I would have done things much differently.

[goMac]

I think Troopergate isn't a huge deal. That said, her history of involving personal vendettas in politics does not stop there. She caused a lot of problems during her time as mayor. And more recently, her personal attacks on Obama are more of the same.

I don't think that's the kind of politics we need in the White House.

[amazing]

Thing is, there are ways to take care of the situation without abusing the power of the Gov's office.

Just imagine Palin's husband making similar calls from the Vice-President's office, that's really scary to think about. Which is on top of it being very, very scary if she ever gets voted into the VP's office. Which is itself on top of it being even more very, very scary if the white-haired dude gets elected and has incapacitating health problems or a heart-attack while in office.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I think Troopergate isn't a huge deal. That said, her history of involving personal vendettas in politics does not stop there. She caused a lot of problems during her time as mayor. And more recently, her personal attacks on Obama are more of the same.

I haven't heard about any abuses during her term as mayor. As for attacks on Obama, the traditional role of the VP candidate is to attack the opposing ticket.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I haven't heard about any abuses during her term as mayor.

Really? Perhaps she banned the publications that printed those abuses.

[selowitch]

Don't get me wrong, folks -- I can't stand Palin or her politics, and I will vote for Obama/Biden with pride. But Troopergate is not something I have big problems with. Sure, she could have handled it better. But had it been me, I'm just not sure I wouldn't have moved to protect my family even if it meant problems for me on the job.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Really? Perhaps she banned the publications that printed those abuses.

Yeah, maybe she took a cue from Obama and attempted to coerce people to keep quiet using the Feds, local police, and Truth Squads. Or maybe she a cue from Pelosi and Leftjobs and pushed a Fairness Doctrine on them.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

Don't get me wrong, folks -- I can't stand Palin or her politics, and I will vote for Obama/Biden with pride. But Troopergate is not something I have big problems with. Sure, she could have handled it better. But had it been me, I'm just not sure I wouldn't have moved to protect my family even if it meant problems for me on the job.

I didn't realize that someone could agree with me in such a comprehensive fashion on the Arab-Israeli conflict and still be an Obama supporter. Interesting. That's a rare occurrence, AFAIK.

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I didn't realize that someone could agree with me in such a comprehensive fashion on the Arab-Israeli conflict and still be an Obama supporter. Interesting.

Nevertheless, it's true. FWIW, I was a Hillary guy during the primaries and I'm a lifelong Democrat. My conclusion about Obama is that while I'm not convinced he's great on the Middle East, he can hardly do worse than Bush has. Perhaps American foreign policy could do with a little less bluster, belligerence, and bombast and try something new. I actually think Obama could forge a constructive relationship with incoming PM Tzipi Livni, whom I like a lot.

If i had to describe my political orientation, it would be fiscally conservative, socially liberal, but somewhat to the right regarding Israel.

Anybody who thinks there's going to be any real, substantial difference between Obama and McCain on Israel I think misunderstands the political realities of the situation. The strategic relationship between the U.S. and Israel is unlikely to change, not to mention the friends Israel has here among Republicans and Democrats alike. Americans are overwhelmingly pro-Israel on the whole.

[Big Mac]

Do you really think Obama would be fiscally conservative? You're comfortable with his views on taxation, spending and the proper role of the federal government?

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Do you really think Obama would be fiscally conservative? You're comfortable with his views on taxation, spending and the proper role of the federal government?

Not 100%, but I think he will be a better steward than McCain. Bush campaigned as a fiscal conservative. Under him, spending exploded and tax revenues declined. I believe Obama will do better. I find Obama's steely calm reassuring in these troubled times. McCain is dull-witted, brash, and cranky -- and his lack of sophistication on economics is troubling.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

Not 100%, but I think he will be a better steward than McCain. Bush campaigned as a fiscal conservative. Under him, spending exploded and tax revenues declined. I believe Obama will do better. I find Obama's steely calm reassuring in these troubled times. McCain is dull-witted, brash, and cranky -- and his lack of sophistication on economics is troubling.

I think tax revenues actually increased under Bush, but spending outstripped it. Obama's record of support for increasing every tax under the sun (income, capital gains, dividend, corporate, payroll) speaks to him being fiscally liberal and not at all conservative. His support for $840B-$1T in new spending over four years definitely speaks to him being fiscally liberal. His proposal to give hundreds of billions more in tax dollars to other countries in order to fight their poverty when there are people in America who are more deserving (assuming one supports wealth redistribution to that extent) speaks to him being fiscally liberal. His proposal to throw even more money at schools, when a lack of money is often not the problem, speaks to him being fiscally liberal. His desire to socialize health care (even though he tries to cover it up in his commercials) in a roundabout fashion speaks to him being fiscally liberal. The fact that his plan for saving Social(ist) (In)Security is not to really reform the broken pyramid scheme but rather to confiscate more wealth speaks to him being fiscally liberal.

The only places in which he wants to be conservative is in defense spending (which, as we learned under Clinton when he made severe cuts in military spending, isn't really a good idea) and by providing our enemies in Iraq a date specific for withdrawal. In terms of being smooth and glib during debates, he's pretty good, but in terms of economic policy his is one of the worst. Even Hillary would have been better, I think. I think it's also quite dangerous in terms of fiscal responsibility to have a Barack Obama administration coupled with a Pelosi-Dodd Congress. And I don't think McCain can be called dimwitted.

[selowitch]

I think the whole Republican economic philosophy (low taxes for the wealthy and corporations, leading to job-creation and economic growth for all) has fallen into extreme disrepute with the state of the economy and the financial system today. The country is very wary of the bailout policy of private gain subsidized by public losses (for which they blame Bush and suspect McCain would continue). They're looking for a new approach.

Personally, I've seen enough of Republican economics to know that they don't work very well. Confiscating wealth? How about $700 billion of taxpayer money for banks to send their executives off for expensive feasts and pedicures?

[Big Mac]

You mean the plan Obama also voted for? And you mean the plan necessitated by Democratic insistence on making loans to unqualified buyers? As for Republican economics, it worked well for Reagan, and it worked well for Clinton when Newt forced his hand. It would have worked well for Bush if he had stuck to it, but he's not really a conservative anyway. I think almost all of our major economic problems are caused by Democrats and not Republicans (most notably the Entitlement State created by FDR and greatly expanded by LBJ).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You mean the plan Obama also voted for? And you mean the plan necessitated by Democratic insistence on making loans to unqualified buyers?

Those horrible Democrats. They forced the banks, at gunpoint, to make highly profitable loans.

Poor, poor banks.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Those horrible Democrats. They forced the banks, at gunpoint, to make highly profitable loans.

They forced them at the point of penalties and a lot of rhetoric about banks being racist if they didn't comply. And those loans aren't so profitable anymore, are they?

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You mean the plan Obama also voted for?

I probably would have voted for it, too, in his shoes. But I blame Bush and the anything-goes philosophy of business deregulation for putting us in this mess to begin with.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

They forced them at the point of penalties and a lot of rhetoric about banks being racist if they didn't comply. And those loans aren't so profitable anymore, are they?

Comply? Are you aware of how profitable sub-prime mortgages were?

Yeah, I bet those poor banks had to be forced to issue those mortgages. They didn't want piles of cash. Really.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

I probably would have voted for it, too, in his shoes. But I blame Bush and the anything-goes philosophy of business deregulation for putting us in this mess to begin with.

But then you're being conned by Democratic propaganda. They want you to believe it was Republican-led deregulation that caused this crisis when it wasn't. It was due to both over-regulation and bad deregulation by Democrats, but it was also due to Democrats defending failing government institutions. The CRA was expanded under Clinton to punish banks that were not lending to minorities. That Act I blame principally for forcing banks to make bad loans. Additionally, the last remanants of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act were done away with under Clinton in 1999, and though Republicans led the effort it was repealed with bi-partisan support. Now I think the 1999 deregulation had much less to do with the crisis than the expansion of the CRA, but the left places most of the blame on it (since it was Republican sponsored) so it's important to note Clinton signed that into law, not Bush.

Most people are also coming to realize that it was Democrats in Congress like Frank, Dodd and Maxine Waters who rejected Republican attempts to reform the GSEs, reform called for by McCain and Bush. Freddie and Fannie, two Socialist institutions created by FDR (almost all of our modern economic problems can be traced back to him, just as almost all of our modern foreign policy problems can be traced back to Carter) were going broke while their chairmen, two Obama allies, were committing fraud and making millions. Watch what even the otherwise left-wing Alec Baldwin has to say on the subject. Sure, there is blame to go around on the Republican side as well, but this was chiefly a Democratically engineered crisis. It is my position that Obama would be a disaster for the economy (and potentially for decades into the future if his Entitlements agenda gets carried out) and that electing him to guard the economy would be akin to having the fox guard the hen house, given the fraud the Democratic party has perpetrated leading up to and during this crisis.

[Chongo]

hear the democrats in their own words http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Barack (as ACORN attorney) et al sued Citibank http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/detail.php?id=10112
Case Name Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary

Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the ... read more >

[Big Mac]

Thank you Chongo, I forgot about the ACORN suits against banks.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Thank you Chongo, I forgot about the ACORN suits against banks.

And it has been reported that Barack's presidential campaign has given >$800K to ACORN in last 18 or so months

[Big Mac]

But it's okay with Obama supporters that he's deeply involved with an organization whose members have been accused (and convicted) of voter fraud by the FBI and several states.

[goMac]

The ACORN suit in question has nothing to do with subprime loans or forcing the banks to make subprime loans...

[Big Mac]

The allegation of redlining against a bank can alter its lending practices.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The allegation of redlining against a bank can alter its lending practices.

Only if it's making subprime loans for whites and not for blacks.

If this is what they were found guilty of, then the banks were already making subprime loans, but they were using race as a criteria of handing them out.

In fact, even if a bank is found guilty of redlining, they are not required to start making subprime loans, or to make "quotas" racially. They simply must not use race as a consideration. They are perfectly welcome to not make loans below a certain income level.

There is no legal precedent to force a business to enter into business in a market segment where they don't want to. All this redlining lawsuit mess is just a bunch of bull to try to find a new scape goat.

[Big Mac]

There certainly is a legal precedent for forcing banks to enter market segments they don't want to enter. The amendments to the CRA signed into law by Clinton included provisions "encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race." Such complaints could cause the government to penalize the banks targeted in various ways.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

There certainly is a legal precedent for forcing banks to enter market segments they don't want to enter. The amendments to the CRA signed into law by Clinton included provisions "encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race." Such complaints could cause the government to penalize the banks targeted in various ways.

The CRA amendments stated that the only thing the banks should be allowed to discriminate on was the ability to pay back the loan. The idea was that the banks should not care how much money you make as long as the amount you make provides you with the ability to pay back the loan. It doesn't mean you have to offer loans that a lower class person can afford, but if you have a lower class person that can afford one of your loans, you can't discriminate against him because he is lower class.

Redlining is an entirely different topic. Again, the government cannot force a private institution to enter into a line of business. They can credit businesses for entering a line of business, which is what the CRA amendment did in some cases. Under no terms were the banks forced to enter into lines of business.

In fact, more related to this forum, Apple has recently used the lack of historical precedent of the government forcing businesses into new markets as a defense in the Psystar trial. They argue that the government is not allowed to force businesses to make services available, and as such, the government cannot compel them to make Mac OS X for generic PC's.

In the same terms, Microsoft did not get in trouble for not catering to certain markets, they got in trouble for how they dealt with the markets they catered to. In the Microsoft anti-trust trial, the government did not force Microsoft to enter into any new markets.

[Big Mac]

gomac, I don't have time to connect the dots for you, but it's a well known fact that groups like ACORN pushed for those toughened provisions of the CRA, and then they started suing and applying other kinds of pressure on banks to get them to fund more bad loans. If you honestly don't believe that, then pass the Obama cool-aid.

[hyteckit]

Did you guys not read about the $440 Billion in subprime loans President Bush have requested from Fannie Mae in 2002, to first-time low-income buyers? Are you surprise subprime loans shot up

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020618-1.html

"Finally, we want to make sure the Section 8 homeownership program is fully implemented. This is a program that provides vouchers for first-time home buyers which they can use for down payments and/or mortgage payments. "

"And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital."

[hyteckit]

In 2001, subprime loans made just 5.6% of mortgage loans in terms of dollars. Who was President in 2001? Who control congress in 2001?

Thanks to President Bush requesting $440 Billion in subprime loans in 2002, subprime loans made up over 20% in 2006. Overall, the subprime market was $600 billion in 2006.

Thanks President Bush and your subprime loan request from Fannie Mae in 2002.

[Big Mac]

Good for you. Bush was wrong too.

[hyteckit]

Wow, ACORN was responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in subprime loan.

President Bush was responsible for $440 billion in subprime loans and ACORN is responsible for hundreds of millions. DAMN you ACORN!

[hyteckit]

So ACORN is responsible for less than 1/10th of a percentage of all subprime loans, yet ACORN is responsible for the subprime crisis?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

President Bush was responsible for $440 billion in subprime loans

The excerpt you quoted said he called on banks to increase loans by $440B over time. What proof do you have that that was actually reached? Besides, this was a pronouncement by the president encouraging banks to do something, not a legislative mandate or appropriation of $440B. President Bush also declared his intention to take us to Mars by 2010 (I think). Do you think we're anywhere near reaching that goal?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The excerpt you quoted said he called on banks to increase loans by $440B over time. What proof do you have that that was actually reached? Besides, this was a pronouncement by the president encouraging banks to do something, not a legislative mandate or appropriation of $440B. President Bush also declared his intention to take us to Mars by 2010 (I think). Do you think we're anywhere near reaching that goal?

Subprime loans was 5.6% of all home mortgages in 2001. It's over 20% in 2006, with the subprime mortgage at $600 billion.

[hyteckit]

http://www.allbusiness.com/governmen...5944494-1.html

In his February State of the Union address President Bush called for "broader homeownership, especially among minorities." In June, President Bush challenged both the public and private sector to be a partner in his crusade to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade.

Fannie Mae responded by committing $700 billion in home financing to 4.6 million minority households through 2009. This increases by 66 percent the specific pledge Fannie Mae made in 2000 to minority families through it's American Dream Commitment plan to provide $420 billion for three million minority families.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

In 2001, subprime loans made just 5.6% of mortgage loans in terms of dollars. Who was President in 2001? Who control congress in 2001?

Thanks to President Bush requesting $440 Billion in subprime loans in 2002, subprime loans made up over 20% in 2006. Overall, the subprime market was $600 billion in 2006.

Thanks President Bush and your subprime loan request from Fannie Mae in 2002.

The correct question is: who was in charge of Fannie Mae in 2001? A: Democrats. Democrats have been, until the current receivership, continually running Fannie Mae since it's creation. Who blocked toughened oversight of F&F in 05, and 06? We've all seen the YouTube videos of Maxine Waters praising Raines, Frank saying F&F are fine, and Meeks berating the messenger.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

gomac, I don't have time to connect the dots for you, but it's a well known fact that groups like ACORN pushed for those toughened provisions of the CRA, and then they started suing and applying other kinds of pressure on banks to get them to fund more bad loans. If you honestly don't believe that, then pass the Obama cool-aid.

Again, I find it funny you suggest that ACORN had to pressure banks to make highly profitable loans. Does that make sense to you?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I didn't realize that someone could agree with me in such a comprehensive fashion on the Arab-Israeli conflict and still be an Obama supporter. Interesting. That's a rare occurrence, AFAIK.

I'm managing my risk.

Though not specifically with the Israel issue, in general, I'm choosing Obama's well detailed plan of how he's going to screw things up versus McCain's well detailed plan to say and do whatever he thinks will get him elected.

I also hold each of them to different standards. A badly functioning right-winger is worse than a properly functioning left-winger. At least, I believe this to be true with the tepid left-wing we have here in America. For example, the left-wing here pretty much support the Bill of Rights.

Well, as long as we're not talking about a right with 10 or a 2 in it.

[Big Mac]

I have to disagree, subego. I'm concerned that a Barack Obama presidency could very easily do lasting damage to the country and our allies, based on his policy pronouncements.

[subego]

I'm not saying he isn't. In fact, my previous post implied that you have a guarantee from me on that.

I just foresee the potential for McCain to do more damage.

A key component of this potential is his dizzying, Hillary-like pandering. I have absolutely no idea what he would do once he's in office. Honestly, it could be fantastic, but at this point, especially considering his VP choice, he's not giving me reasons to stick my neck out for him.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

We've all seen the YouTube videos of Maxine Waters praising Raines, Frank saying F&F are fine, and Meeks berating the messenger.

I heard that the fundamentals of our economy are doing great.

[Big Mac]

There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals of our economy. There is/was something wrong with sub-prime mortgages and mortgage backed derivatives, but the underlying economy itself is healthy, at least until Obama gets a chance to "change it and rearrange it." We were due for a correction in the stock market. That too is a healthy process. Don't demagogue, it's unseemly.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

But I blame Bush and the anything-goes philosophy of business deregulation for putting us in this mess to begin with.

There wasn't enough "deregulation".

How many of these bad loans do you think there would have been if there weren't government-backed entities ready to buy up TRILLIONS in questionable paper?

How many bad loans do you think there would have been if there wasn't what amounts to affirmative action for home ownership being pushed by our government?

How many bad loans would there have been if all of these institutions were left to give loans based upon the criteria they see fit (within the realm of anti-discrimination laws of course) and there was little or NO reason to believe the government would rescue them were they to paint themselves into a corner?

We would not be in this situation were the government to keep there idiotic ideas, programs and excessive regulations out of the private sector. The government should be there to handle discrimination, fraud and and things of that nature. They shouldn't be telling people who to give loans to and they DAMN sure shouldn't be using tax money to finance institutions like Fannie and Freddie.

People need to wake up, open their eyes and face the truth. This is not a problem of greed and the incompetent White House. This is a problem that has been created and perpetuated by the both parties, in the White House and the Congress going back for years and years. The more you look to government to resolve, re-regulate and prevent these things from happening via legislative control, the more we will see our economy destroyed, our personal wealth de-materialize, and a more centralized and more massive bureaucracy.

[Arkham_c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have to disagree, subego. I'm concerned that a Barack Obama presidency could very easily do lasting damage to the country and our allies, based on his policy pronouncements.

Would you not agree that Bush's policies have caused lasting damage to our countries and our allies? Not just the economic policies (which have obviously caused huge problems) but the foreign policy and the alternative fuels policy as well. I think that the increased subsidies on corn-based biofuel will someday be seen as one of the biggest mistakes of the Bush presidency, second to the Iraq fiasco. There are alternative fuel sources that make sense, but biofuel isn't one of them. It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol than is contained in that gallon. That doesn't even go into the infrastructure costs. Ask a pipeline engineer about what ethanol does the the seals, linings, and coatings of a pipeline tank farm and pipeline.

[Big Mac]

The types of lasting harm I'm talking about is Obama's agenda to greatly expand the Entitlement State (which could be an additional albatross on the back of Americans and the American economy for an indefinite period into the future unless opposed, just like Social(ist) (In)Security and Mediscam) along with his desire to do nothing to truly reform the pernicious Entitlements that currently threaten to completely break us as the Baby Boomers retire, and his weak, naive, appeasement-oriented foreign policy that could spell disaster for us long term. He wants to break the backs of the well-off and punish the efforts of people to get ahead in our economy rather than reward the industrious. He wants to give hundreds of billions of dollars more away to foreign countries while the American economy is ailing and Americans are suffering. He wants to further Socialize the country, and if he's elected Americans will be handing him the keys to do so. For the first time (at least since Carter, but perhaps ever) we'll have both a radically left-wing President and a radically left-wing Congress.

We're still paying for the foreign policy blunders of Jimmy Carter, and politically BHO is a mirror of the former so do the math. Additionally, his fervent desire to leave Iraq in a lurch regardless of what the generals on the ground tell him will not increase our prestige internationally. Our enemies on the world stage will look at this young, inexperienced and brash upstart who wants to "change and rearrange" the world order and build himself a youth-based cult of personality, and they will eat him alive politically.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The types of lasting harm I'm talking about...

Exactly.

Considering what you say above, that I would still pick Obama should give you some idea of the of damage potential I see in McCain.

We're in a sticky situation. One that requires finesse. That's not McCain's strong suit.

Given the option between sending out the wrong player, and turtling-up, I pick turtle.

Our enemies are patient. I'm more patient.


Edit: full disclosure.

1) I live in Illinois, so a vote from me for either Obama or McCain is meaningless.

2) If the Libertarians had nominated anyone other than Bob Barr, they would have gotten my vote. They could have nominated a coffee table.

[Big Mac]

That's surprising, and I don't really understand what you see as so bad about McCain, but I see you have a rationale of some sort.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Only if it's making subprime loans for whites and not for blacks.

If this is what they were found guilty of, then the banks were already making subprime loans, but they were using race as a criteria of handing them out.

In fact, even if a bank is found guilty of redlining, they are not required to start making subprime loans, or to make "quotas" racially. They simply must not use race as a consideration. They are perfectly welcome to not make loans below a certain income level.

There is no legal precedent to force a business to enter into business in a market segment where they don't want to. All this redlining lawsuit mess is just a bunch of bull to try to find a new scape goat.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=60 -- incorrect. Please look into the Greenlining institute.