• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Thread of First Debate Election 2008 - GAF doesn't know shit

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MrHicks

Banned
Hootie said:
14ju3oo.jpg

:lol
Click to expand...
 
K

Krowley

Member
This came from the economy thread. It's an article from an economist who is against the bailout plan.

I thought it was pretty excellent and bolded the most interesting parts.

Gaylord Sweetwood said:
I thought I'd share the latest commentary from my favorite Economist - Peter Schiff.




"Making a Deal with the Devil


Just yesterday, Henry Paulson’s “bailout” bill, with only a few anti-Wall Street, pro-Main Street fig leaves slapped on by Democrats, appeared ready to sail through Congress on a bi-partisan tide. But something funny happened on the way to the printing press. It appears as if some conservative House Republicans are reluctant to sell their souls and ditch any remaining pretense towards American-style capitalism.

What’s left of the Barry Goldwater wing of the Republican Party, which maintains its natural tendency to trust the markets and not government, has dug in its heels. But, Bush, Paulson and the Democrats have argued that our problems are so dire that free enterprise principles must go out the window. The struggle is historic, but the Congressmen are fighting a losing battle. Sadly, Americans now appear willing to abandon their economic heritage at the first sting of financial pain.

Although passage does seem inevitable, it is nevertheless the wrong thing to do. Central government planning did not work in the Soviet Union and it will not work here. Only free market forces are capable of sorting through the mess. Political meddling will make the problems worse.

In selling the bill to Americans, many are pointing to the Resolution Trust Corporation as an example of similar intervention that worked in the past. However, there is no proof that RTC actually helped as we have no way of knowing what might have happened had the government stayed out.

Missing in this discussion is that the Savings & Loan crisis of the 1980’s, much like the current crisis, was a byproduct of government interference in the free market. By insuring bank deposits through the FDIC, the government created a moral hazard that resulted in extreme risk taking among member banks, whose depositors sought only high yields, without any regard for the risks that the banks were incurring. Banks that refused to take big risks lost deposits to those banks that did. Absent FDIC insurance, depositors would have considered risks as well as rewards, and the S & L crisis never would have happened in the first place!

The urgency for passing this bailout bill is based on the claim that the American economy will collapse if nothing is done. If the government were to stay out, and allow the market to function, there will certainly be a great deal of economic pain. Companies will go bankrupt, banks will fail, real estate and stock prices will keep falling, and many people will lose their jobs. However, government action will not prevent any of this. At best, it will merely delay the inevitable, but only at the cost of increasing the severity of the underlying problems, thus making their ultimate resolution that much more painful to endure.

The bottom line is that there is no way to resolve our economic problems without a severe recession, and our politicians need to level with the public. As a nation, we gambled on the alluring riches of real estate and we lost. The price must be paid. Contrary to the Bush Administration rhetoric, the fundamentals of our economy are not sound. If they were, we would not be in this mess. Recessions are meant to restore balance, purge excess, and liquidate mal-investments. On that score we have a lot of work to do.

We are being told that this plan will help the economy by keeping the spigots of consumer credit flowing. However, to really address the fundamental problems, those spigots must be tightened. Since we have already borrowed and spent ourselves into bankruptcy, the last thing we need is for consumers to borrow more.

Our leaders maintain that without this bailout consumers will not be able to borrow money to buy cars. So what is wrong with that? We already have plenty of cars, and if we are broke, why do we need to buy more? Instead, we need drive our old cars longer, pay off our underwater auto loans, and produce more cars for export. It is also argued that without access to credit parents will not be able to borrow money to send their kids to school. That’s fine by me as it will force Universities to reduce tuitions to levels families can actually afford. They will either have to cut out all of that bureaucratic fat, or go out of business for lack of customers.

In the end it is impossible for the American economy to be rebuilt on a sounder foundation of savings and production without a lot of economic pain. Government efforts to reinforce the shaky foundation of borrowing and consuming will result in the entire structure falling down around us.

For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read my new book “Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse.”"
Click to expand...

I think this reflects the view of a lot of capatilists. This is basically how I feel. This plan could end up being a huge disaster in the long run.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
Good point from the Democratic Congressman on MSNBC right now. This was Paulson and the Bush Administration's plan. Democrats refined a few proposals and the Bush Administration still backed up the plan.
 
A

Askani

Member
Xisiqomelir said:
Image is fake, but I'm glad it brought this discussion.

You...don't understand copyright law, do you?
Click to expand...

I do. This was my mistake again. I read this:

"The song is licensed for use in public performances under a blanket fee paid to ASCAP by the Republican National Convention"

and in fact did not read this:

"the Xcel Energy Center's ASCAP license itself did not cover non-sporting events."
 
T

Thunder Monkey

Banned
Krowley said:
This came from the economy thread. It's an article from an economist who is against the bailout plan.

I thought it was pretty excellent and bolded the most interesting parts.



I think this reflects the view of a lot of capatilists. This is basically how I feel. This plan could end up being a huge disaster in the long run.
Click to expand...
The way our country has been managed for too long... we're headed for disaster regardless of what we do. It just depends on if you want this disaster to take place now, or later when we might be better prepared for it.
 
S

sevenchaos

Banned
Tyrone Slothrop said:
can't wait for tonight. i'm sort of hoping nobody calls me to go out so I can stay home, have a beer or three, and watch the MAVERICK in action.
Click to expand...
I'll go buy some alcohol for tonight if anyone wants to organize a drinking game.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
Thunder Monkey said:
The way our country has been managed for too long... we're headed for disaster regardless of what we do. It just depends on if you want this disaster to take place now, or later when we might be better prepared for it.
Click to expand...

Business cycles go up and down. Look what happened after the recession in 1982. Economic boom!
 
W

WaltJay

Member
sevenchaos said:
I'll go buy some alcohol for tonight if anyone wants to organize a drinking game.
Click to expand...

Is it time to create the PoliGAF Debate Party Drinking Game? :D

Take a swig of beer (or a shot) every time...

McCain says "my friends"
McCain says "maverick"
Obama says "change"

Although, at this rate, we might end passed out in the 1st half-hour if we used these rules. :lol
 
T

thekad

Banned
Thunder Monkey said:
The way our country has been managed for too long... we're headed for disaster regardless of what we do. It just depends on if you want this disaster to take place now, or later when we might be better prepared for it.
Click to expand...
No... We're going to hurt. The bailout is to make it so we don't hurt like Hoover.
 
H

Hootie

Member
WaltJay said:
Is it time to create the PoliGAF Debate Party Drinking Game? :D

Take a swig of beer (or a shot) every time...

McCain says "my friends"
McCain says "maverick"
Obama says "change"

Although, at this rate, we might end passed out in the 1st half-hour if we used these rules. :lol
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to get bombed REALLY fast, just take a swig everytime Obama says "uhh", "ahh", or "aaaaand...." in a sentence. :lol
 
W

WaltJay

Member
Hootie said:
Well, if you want to get bombed REALLY fast, just take a swig everytime Obama says "uhh", "ahh", or "aaaaand...." in a sentence. :lol
Click to expand...

Definitely! Or when the word "experience" is used. :D
 
S

Souldriver

Member
Hootie said:
Well, if you want to get bombed REALLY fast, just take a swig everytime Obama says "uhh", "ahh", or "aaaaand...." in a sentence. :lol
Click to expand...
No no, drink every time he says "yo" or "yall" in his sentences. :lol
 
S

ShOcKwAvE

Member
Posted?

Dubious Claims in Obama’s Ads Against McCain, Despite Vow of Truth

ROANOKE, Va. — Two weeks ago, Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign gleefully publicized a spate of news reports about misleading and untruthful statements in the advertisements of his rival, Senator John McCain. Asked by a voter in New Hampshire if he would respond in kind, Mr. Obama said, “I just have a different philosophy, I’m going to respond with the truth,” adding, “I’m not going to start making up lies about John McCain.”

Yet as Mr. McCain’s misleading advertisements became fodder on shows like “The View” and “Saturday Night Live,” Mr. Obama began his own run of advertisements on radio and television that have matched the dubious nature of Mr. McCain’s more questionable spots.

A radio advertisement running in Wisconsin and other contested states misleadingly reports that Mr. McCain “has stood in the way of” federal financing for stem cell research; Mr. McCain did once oppose such federally supported research but broke with President Bush to consistently support it starting in 2001 (his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, does not support it).

A commercial running here on Thursday morning highlighting Mr. McCain’s votes against incentives for alternative energy misleadingly asserts he supports tax breaks for “one source of energy: oil companies.” Mr. McCain’s proposed corporate tax break would cover all companies, including those developing new sources of power.

A new television advertisement playing in areas with high concentrations of elderly voters and emphasizing Mr. McCain’s support for President Bush’s failed plan for private Social Security accounts misleadingly implies Mr. McCain supported “cutting benefits in half” — an analysis of Mr. Bush’s plan that would have applied to upper-income Americans retiring in the year 2075.

A much criticized Spanish-language television advertisement wrongly links the views of Mr. McCain, who was a champion of the sweeping immigration overhaul pushed by Mr. Bush, to those of Rush Limbaugh, a harsh critic of the approach, and, frequently, of Mr. McCain.

The advertisement implies Mr. Limbaugh is one of Mr. McCain’s “Republican friends,” and quotes Mr. Limbaugh as calling Mexicans “stupid and unqualified.” Mr. Limbaugh has written that his quotes were taken out of context and that he was mocking the views of others.

In all, Mr. Obama has released at least five commercials that have been criticized as misleading or untruthful against Mr. McCain’s positions in the past two weeks. Mr. Obama drew complaints from many of the independent fact-checking groups and editorial writers who just two weeks ago were criticizing Mr. McCain for producing a large share of this year’s untruthful spots (“Pants on Fire,” the fact-checking Web site PolitiFact.com wrote of Mr. Obama’s advertisement invoking Mr. Limbaugh; “False!” FactCheck.org said of his commercial on Social Security.)

Some Democrats expressed concern that Mr. Obama, in stretching the truth in some of his advertisements, was putting at risk the “above politics” persona he has tried to cultivate.

“I do think there is a risk,” said Joe Trippi, a longtime Democratic strategist. “The risk is that they seem to be different, that the appeal for Obama is ‘it’s not the same old politics.’ ”

Nevertheless, Mr. Trippi described the advertisements as “an eye for an eye.”

And other Democrats shrugged off the questionable advertisements, saying they were relieved Mr. Obama was responding to continuing, frequently misleading assaults from Mr. McCain. They did not distinguish between advertisements that are tough on Mr. McCain and those that are misleading.

Some Democrats argued that Mr. Obama had yet to produce spots along the lines of two from Mr. McCain that drew criticism two weeks ago: One that wrongly asserted Mr. Obama supported comprehensive sex education for kindergartners and another, created only for the Internet, that incorrectly asserted that Mr. Obama had been referring to Ms. Palin when he said of Mr. McCain’s new message of change, “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.”

“All’s fair in love, war and politics,” said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who was Vice President Al Gore’s press secretary in 2000. “Given the fact that the other side has come after him for quite some time, he has every right to fight back, and I think people understand that.”

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said the campaign stood by its advertisements.

“Our ads discuss serious differences on critical issues like stem cell research, Social Security and energy policy,” Mr. Vietor said. “John McCain’s ads are about Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, and have been called some of the most frivolous and dishonest ads in campaign history.”

Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Mr. McCain, said, “It’s bad enough that Barack Obama fictionalizes his own record, but it is a disgrace that he lies about John McCain’s.”

The disputed spots from Mr. Obama coincide with a significantly increased advertising push by his campaign and the Democratic National Committee that has taken a decidedly negative tone in the past few weeks, perhaps reflecting the natural progression of a tight campaign. CMAG, a group that tracks political advertising, said Thursday that the $10 million Mr. Obama had spent over the previous week on advertisements represented a nearly $4 million increase from the week before.

The increased advertising push has been accompanied by a campaign by the Democratic National Committee featuring an emotional advertisement shown on African-American-oriented programs meant to encourage blacks to register to vote. It opens with violent images from the civil rights era of black marchers being attacked with power hoses and the words, “Thousands died so you could vote,” the advertisement states. The advertisement was not publicly announced by the party.

Some of the advertisements that have drawn criticism were similarly started without fanfare. Mr. Obama’s campaign did not announce it was running its new radio spot that said Mr. McCain “has stood in the way, he’s opposed stem cell research.” That ad concluded, “John McCain doesn’t understand that medical research benefiting millions shouldn’t be held hostage by the political views of a few.”

The radio advertisement correctly asserts that Mr. McCain’s running mate, Ms. Palin, is against the use of federal funds for stem cell research. But since 2001, Mr. McCain has consistently supported the financing. Last year, he voted for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which Mr. Bush vetoed, and in 2004 signed a letter to the president with 57 other senators, urging him to change his policy on stem cell research.

The campaign has said Ms. Palin will defer to Mr. McCain on the matter should they win the White House.

As backup for the advertisement’s implication that Mr. McCain is against stem cell research financing, Mr. Vietor of the Obama campaign pointed to a recent report in The Los Angeles Times that Mr. McCain had told evangelical leaders he was open to learning more about their concerns, though the article stated, “McCain did not offer any indication he would change his mind.”

The stem cell advertisement hit the airwaves around the same time Mr. Obama released his Spanish-language commercial about Mr. Limbaugh. Bill Adair, the editor of PolitiFact, the fact-checking Web site of The St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly, said that until last week, the McCain campaign was more frequently guilty of including the most egregious falsehoods in its advertisements.

But the advertisement with Mr. Limbaugh, he said, prompted PolitiFact to deliver its worst rating, “Pants on Fire,” to Mr. Obama for the first time (as opposed to six times for Mr. McCain). The “Pants on Fire” rating is defined as, “not just false, but ridiculously false,” Mr. Adair said.

“I think the Obama campaign in the last two weeks has been very aggressive with its advertising,” Mr. Adair said. “And ads like the stem cell ad and the Spanish-language ad are just not accurate.”

Mr. Obama has been previously challenged over falsehoods or misleading statements in his advertisements. For instance, the campaign has frequently been criticized for implying that Mr. McCain has singled out “big oil” as the sole recipient of his broad, corporate tax cut. Mr. Obama does it again in his latest spot, in which the announcer says he “does support tax breaks for one source of energy: Oil Companies.”

Mr. Vietor defended the ad, saying it was accurate and had not said the oil companies would be “the only” recipients of Mr. McCain's proposed corporate tax break.
Click to expand...
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
artredis1980 said:
new poll:


VIRGINIA!

VA: Obama 50, McCain 45 (9/25)

By Eric Dienstfrey

Rasmussen Reports
9/25/08; 700 LV, 4%
Mode: IVR

Virginia
Obama 50, McCain 45
Click to expand...


Obama is running away with this thing.
 
X

xnipx

Member
so basically those against the nails out think we should just say screw the middle class working families.their sacrifice will make life better in the run? like do u understand how many ppl would have to NOT GO TO COLLEGE before college tuition is actually lowered? of course that would be cool and gravy if tuition was lowered and housing prices fell to 90s levels but we are where we are right now and saying fuck you to the working middle class to achieve some goal is not the way. I don't care wat ur degree says
 
F

Fatalah

Member
Fivethirtyeight is updated.

Still, McCain has very serious problems in Virginia, and extremely serious problems in Michigan, which is starting to drift off the swing state list. And forget about the Pacific Northwest. But at this stage, the electoral math is starting to diminish in importance; McCain needs to make gains everywhere, which means he needs a clutch performance in tonight's debate.
Click to expand...

Wow.
 
Grizzlyjin

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
God damn, Jack Cafferty was pretty tough on Palin just now. He said something along the lines of "that was the most pathetic interview I've seen from someone aspiting to be Vice President" in reference to the Couric interview, and her answers about the bailout. Then Blitzer tried to calm him by saying she was trying to jam a lot of info in at once, but Cafferty wasn't havin' it and came back with "don't make excuses for her." :lol
 
G

Gary Whitta

Member
Brannon said:
Damn, on the Situation Room, Cafferty just flat out said Sarah was pathetic.
Click to expand...
"This woman is one 72 year-old's heartbeat away from becoming President of the United States - and if that doesn't scare you, it should."

Gotta love Cafferty.
 
P

PhatSaqs

Banned
Jack Cafferty just roasted the hell out of Palin. :lol

Said part of the Couric interview (where she talks about $700 billion bailout) was one of the most pathetic pieces of tape he's ever seen for someone vying for President or VP.
 
A

artredis1980

Banned
Quote of the week courtesy of Politico

“In the end, [McCain] blinked and Obama did not. The 'steady hand in a storm' argument looks now to more favor Obama, not McCain…My guess is that plasma units are rushing to the McCain campaign as we speak to replace the blood flowing there from the fights among the staff.” – Craig Shirley, a Republican consultant and former McCain adviser, shaping a dangerous storyline for his former boss in an interview with the Huffington Post.
 
M

minor effort

Banned
Gary Whitta said:
Question:

Palin - better or worse than Quayle?
Click to expand...

Much worse.

Dan Quayle was in Congress for 12 years prior to being selected. Dan Quayle was willing and able to give interviews and press conferences. Don't insult the man by comparing him to Sarah Palin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Trump holds town hall that's totally not debate prep you guys
2 3
149
22K
Mahonay replied
  • Locked
Politico: Democrats dread Hillary's book tour
2 3 4
187
16K
ModBot replied
  • Locked
The Democratic National Committee Chair Debate |OT| - Dem One: A Politics Story
2
79
8K
kirblar replied
  • Locked
RNC suspending GOP Feb '16 debate with NBC (Because lol CNBC)
2 3 4 5
212
19K
OuterLimits replied
  • Locked
GAF Elects: Help Elect a Democratic Senate
2 3
101
12K
jiggle replied
Top Bottom