mr_genius

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 2, 2008 -> 08:09 PM) I don't disagree on the inconsistencies, some of which are the result of vagueness in the plan. I've seen Obama's plan, and I've seen multiple sites do articles resulting in slightly different results. If he allows all the Bush tax cuts to expire it will be the largest tax increase in history. Certainly not a 'tax cut' like the media/obama campaign are telling voters. His tax cut isn't even a tax cut, it's a $500 giveaway. He has also proposed massive spending increases and his only answer to "How exactly are you going to pay for this?" is tax rich people. If I had to make a prediction, which I will right now, it is that Obama allows the tax cuts to expire for a large number of people, not just those making $250k or more. However the media and Obama will refer to it as merely a rate adjustment and Obama fans will be here arguing with us about how it's not a tax increase.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 2, 2008 -> 07:59 PM) Richardson said nothing about that being the threshold. Read the quote. The Obama plan has been published, and many sites are there doing the math for you. I wouldn't go and take the words of someone not even in the campaign and take a single number out of context to mean much. That said, I certainly HOPE that Obama doesn't lower that actual threshold that low. I don't think he will. I could turn out to be wrong. There's actually a great deal of inconsistencies in his tax plan which are well documented and discussed in other threads. I don't need to go to some website and get a 'journalist' to do math for me.

An interesting side note of this election, Massachusetts will be voting on whether they will abolish state income tax. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...8-masstax_N.htm also

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Oct 31, 2008 -> 11:39 PM) Middle Class started at below 250k, then 200k, then Biden said its 150k, and now Richardson says its 120k. The number keeps falling. And it keeps dropping.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 2, 2008 -> 10:20 AM) i have no idea, but i'll make an educated guess that they are drunks, welfare receipients and wife beaters. 97% chance they are Democrats then.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Nov 1, 2008 -> 09:00 PM) I think its message board worthy and I also think its a bigger deal than a lot of the bs posted about McCain. The thing that bothers me about it is how blindly some people will defend this stuff and then go and post garbage about McCain. stooping to the level of an ignorant Obama fanatic is a step in the wrong direction. just look at the ideas you are embracing by moving in the same direction as them.

drunkbomber, do you really think this is an issue? i mean really, does it matter that Obama has a relative that stayed past their visa? is this what it has come too? that and the crazy anti-McCain stuff, like he gave up national security secrets while being tortured. I have really had enough from both sides.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Nov 1, 2008 -> 08:25 PM) Has anyone heard more information about this "civilian national security force" Obama has been mumbling about? I can't seem to find information without running through some conservative blog. never heard of it

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 1, 2008 -> 06:16 PM) If this was McCain, he probably would just give her one of his seven houses. haha

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 10:24 AM) Anyone in favor of a 6 year term for President? no

why would Obama want to buy CNN airtime? their shows are all already Obama infomercials. I can't believe people still don't think CNN is in the tank for Obama if they actually watch the majority of programming the news channel offers. Well i guess there are people who think Sean Hannity is an unbiased journalist, so i suppose people will believe anything that reaffirms their political opinions.

strong Obama turnout in California could actually help pro 8 pass. Hispanic and Black voters support the measure more than whites in Cali from the polls i've seen. From personal experience I would say those polls are accurate. Not to say African-Americans and Hispanics are homophobic, but there is a majority within this voting subset which have strong religious convictions on this.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 12:32 PM) You seem to have the basic assumption that if the banks are going to use the money for anything else but lending, that is wrong. The fact is that there are beause of Depression era banking laws and modern stupidities such as Sarbanes Oxley, there are more things to consider than just lending. If a banks capitalization falls too low, investors panic, sell, and it fails. If a bank doesn't have enough capital reserves to cover a specified percentage of assets, it fails. If value of assets fall to too low of a ratio as related to money lent out, it fails. It's not nearly as simple as people are trying to make it out to be. Sure it would have been great to have years to reform things the way they should have been done since the 1930's, but the fact remains, that at the rate that major financial institutions were failing, there wasn't time to waste. It's not like we were talking about Mom and Pop's bank down the street. The 4th largest investment bank in the United States failed. Most other banks have assets with other banks to fulfill their own reserve requirements. Banks are very interconnected. If the largest banks on the planet were starting to fail, it was time for action. That seems pretty obvious to me anyway. The whole idea of all of these "regulations" that you keep referring to making some sort of a difference is a myth. Places all over the world that are MUCH more heavily regulated than the US have been failing or getting governmental bailouts. Britian, Iceland, France, German, and Russia are places that come to mind right away. Please tell me what exact regulation has most of the world been missing that would have prevented this? The issue here is two fold; both of which have no finite solution, we base our views on evidential theory and speculation. As much as you or I think we know the absolute answer to whether the current bailout structure was the best actions, it is impossible to know with complete certainty. I believe that more transparent account procedures, explicit regulations on the amount of risk a bank (which is publicly backed) can take, and detailed emergency plans should all be included in oversight. This would help protect investors and our financial systems. I think we went past the point of no return a while ago as far as banking institutions being absolute free market entities. The second issue is that of public ownership and tax payer funds. I strongly believe that the taxation which we are financing these institutions also should include investor representation. These are no longer private institutions, they are public. Of course, the counter to my argument would be that elected representatives voted for this giveaway, therefore there is representation.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 12:03 PM) Not giving them checks will destroy most banks. It is not a false assumption, no matter how many times you repeat it. All you have to do is look at the period of time leading up to this and how many huge banks were already failing. Exactly how would the problem have been solved with more regulations instead of money? Giving these banks money to do whatever they want with it does not help the economy or financial institutions. If they want a big handout, there are also strings that need to be attached as ANY major share holder (the government is now this major investor) would demand if investing this amount of capital. Yes, I believe it is a false assumption that the entire banking industry would collapse if these institutions we just gave 700 billion to, people whom mis-managed these companies, have to report to their new owners. I think this debate is at the point where all we can do is watch what unfolds, time will tell if the bailout structure was appropriate. .

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 11:17 AM) Ugly. God I hate this regulatory system. This is just a joke right? The Washington Post was bought out by the Onion yesterday? I knew this was going to happen, and honestly if you think that is bad you are going to be super pissed when you see where most of the bailout money goes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2008 -> 07:42 AM) They missed by far the most important aspect. Actually having banks around. Nothing they said actually solved the biggest immediate problem in the system which is a lack of liquidity. Everything they criticized was the things that actually put capital back into the system that had seized up and wasn't moving. All of the cutesy stuff about targeted injections doesn't work if the target is dead. Its like putting a tank full of gasoline in your car when you have no oil in it. The damn thing isn't going anywhere anyway. All of the stuff you are talking about is secondary to saving the whole system. Banks were already failing at an alarming rate. The longer you waited playing around with transparency and demands, the more capital that disappears out of the system forever. Ask Lehman Brothers and FreddieMac what the delays did for them. Again, you are under the false assumption that not giving them a check with free reign will destroy all banks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 06:58 PM) Florida was so close in 00 that I have like 14 things I can blame the disastrous last 8 years on. Back on to the subject of the thread...Al Gore comes to mind...flame away. I don't have the energy to go on a anti-Al Gore rant today. Maybe next week after a few cups of coffee.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 06:55 PM) Without him you wouldn't have had your president in office for the last 8 years not really. but you guys can keep blaming everything on the Nader boogeyman edit: and swiftboats and hanging ballot chads just imagine if Nader hadn't reached for that foul ball, you guys would have won it all.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 04:32 PM) Ralph Nader is my favorite I actually have a lot of respect for Nader.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 06:38 PM) Because all that happened under so many Democratic Congresses. Republicans didn't do enough to stop it, thats for sure. I'm sure they received enough bribes to look the other way.

I'm sure she'll try to be a major player and will get the evangelicals blind support. but if she is the new party lead, the GOP is completely doomed.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 02:32 PM) But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan," said Pelosi. Who writes her stuff, GWB? just means they can slam through bad legislation like the stuff that led to the banking collapse.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 06:05 PM) Reforms I'd like to see. 1. Fully public financing. Of everything. With enough money that we don't need lobbyists. Distantly: 2. Reorganize the primary calendars to have closer to regional or national primary days. No reason at all for Iowa and New Hampshire to achieve that level of importance every single time. Vary the opening states or have much larger blocks happen, where there are 3 or 4 days of primaries with adequate spacing in-between and that's it. And no more weird 6 week gaps like we had before PA, that was just excruciating. 3. I think I agree wtih Alpha, those exploratory committees are just silly. public financing is dead. Obama has made sure of that. unless you want to give each candidate over a billion each, no one is going to take the public financing when they know their opponent can out spend them by a large margin.

I give you the intellectual Obama voters.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 10:49 PM) From the Fascinating graph department... Hmm, my vote doesn't matter very much. But it matters more than someone in Idaho! you suck Idaho.