Vice presidential debate

[SPANISH-RICE]

so i didnt miss much?

[KA-T_240]

Based on info from my sources, I did not watch this event.

[legacy-user-532]

SOB forgot all about it. I was playing in a pull tractor.

[Guest]

I watched for as long as I could stand to listen to Palin not answer the questions presented to her. She simply kept trying to answer things that weren't even up for debate. I would have had more respect for her if she would have dropped down and given Biden head than I do after listening to her speak.

I mean really, how many times did she say "What I want to talk about is........" when a question was asked of her or when it was time for her to counter point a debate? I think it is funny that the republican party is saying "We need more oversight on wall street, we need more regulation, blah blah blah blah blah...." when McCain is directly responsible for the deregulation of wallstreet and banking. Had they said "You know, after de-regulation there are bound to be some institutions that fail to regulate themselves, and unfortunately that leads to market shake up from time to time, but in the end we end up with stronger institutions that have learned from their mistakes and the mistakes of others...." I might have actually considered changing my vote. Instead the John Kerry'ed the issue and flip-flopped....I mean they were for it before they were against it...right?

Please, this chick isn't qualified to be a cashier at Walmart.

[SPANISH-RICE]

Figures^ im not a fan of her

[Grr]

Good completely one sided post again chuck. She did alot better than anybody thought she would, and the moderator had to ask both of them after their rants to answer the question at hand. Both beat around the bush on some answers but gave a simple yes or no when asked again. Biden on the other hand, based on what ive read as far as plans, straight out lied about their tax policy for one. I didnt like either of their answers about the bailout plan, but i did like palins answers for gay marriage and abortion.
Chuck, you used to put up very informative posts and such, but your really starting to sound like Keith Overbite (Oberman) and PMSnbc. Broaden your topics a little instead of pouring kool aid.

[PSiedTSi]

Honestly, thats about all I've heard about the debate too. Palin just talking about energy or the economy when asked something completely different. I think it may hint at overcoaching by the republican party, and her cramming for this debate. Biden was watching his mouth as he had similar troubles as Palin(although his weren't about not knowing what the hell was going on, he just had a differing view than Obama :), which I think is a decent thing because it may give some more balance?). Anyway, She didn't do much to hurt or improve her standings, and that is exactly what is wrong. IMO, they needed a strong showing from Palin to put down all the negative publicity. Did anyone get a count of how many times she said "also"? haha

[Guest]

Grr;239710 wrote:
Good completely one sided post again chuck. She did alot better than anybody thought she would, and the moderator had to ask both of them after their rants to answer the question at hand. Both beat around the bush on some answers but gave a simple yes or no when asked again. Biden on the other hand, based on what ive read as far as plans, straight out lied about their tax policy for one. I didnt like either of their answers about the bailout plan, but i did like palins answers for gay marriage and abortion.
Chuck, you used to put up very informative posts and such, but your really starting to sound like Keith Overbite (Oberman) and PMSnbc. Broaden your topics a little instead of pouring kool aid.

Yes, it was one sided...but it was not untrue.

Seriously, I could only listen to her for so long. Her "facts" were somewhere between straight out lies and exaggerations/stretches of the truth (94 times voted for a tax increase for example....she might want to check those facts a little better).

I quit watching about 20 mins in. Biden at least (IMO) started out somewhat on topic in his responses...yes, he steered away from things that could have opened the door for an attack from Palin, but I felt he actually gave responses to the question and/or countered what Palin was talking about.

As for the tax plan, what was talked about? The fact that they plan on reversing the tax cuts for the wealthy (above $250,000 income earners) that was implemented under Bush? The fact that they want to return them to Reagan Era rates (I liked Reagan btw...I like Bush Sr.....from what I've read, I like Nixon)? The fact that the majority of us won't feel the tax increase? Yes, it is wealth redistribution to a degree, but it's hard to call it redistribution if that money is (presently) being redistributed to the military for their activities in Iraq.

McCain's failure to admit that his deregulations (Edit by tjamz: Only partially true it seems...see below on voting records) have enabled the crisis on wall street (whether needed or not is another story all together) absolutely pushed me from ever voting from him. McCain used to be a maverick. Used to do what was right for the country and say fuck party lines. Now he has sold out in an effort to become president.

Now, if you want the Chuck Schwan approach to fixing our problems:

[LIST=1]
[]Place safeguards for banks that haven't been caught up in this debacle and make sure that they don't get sucked down because of it. There may need to be a little more oversight on this...be it tougher regulation or whatever. Every industry is regulated to a degree...except those ignoring the rules.
[]Punish those involved in predatory lending. Loan sharks are illegal, these people were nothing more than legal loan sharks.
[]Figure out an exit stategy for Iraq. If we can train our soldiers to defend their country in as little as 8 weeks, there is no reason that they can't defend themselves after 6 years.
[]For the time being, we need to get the country back on track financially. This will mean cutting spending....especially on those here illegally. If this doesn't help, there may need to be a tax increase (short term) to do this.
[]Find a way to make healthcare more affordable. The cost of those who don't have healthcare makes it more expensive for those that do. Also, there is no reason why a prescription drug sold in the USA should cost more than the exact same drug sold in Canada, Mexico, Iraq, China, etc... A tax credit for having insurance may help as well, unlike some people who have said they want to tax the money you spend on insurance. Why not open up the insurance pool that politicians get to buy from to the general public? It doesn't cost the gov't a penny to do this and it allows for a choice of insurance providers.
[]Offer incentives for people on welfare to get off the system. Right now there are none. Hell, I'd rather pay a daycare to watch a couple kids while the mom/dad work/go to school than pay the mom/dad to sit home all day and smoke cigarettes and collect a check.
[*]Ultimately have a flat tax...across the board w/ ZERO deductions other than dependants and spouse. You earn $1 you pay $.12...you earn $100, you pay $12.00...etc...
[/LIST]
I'm sure I can think of a bunch of other things, but that should tell you what I am looking for in a candidate.

So, who is going to get me there

1. Both...maybe, though McCain has flip-flopped on this too many times that I can only trust him partially to do this....So the credit will go to Obama (1/2 point for each)
2. Honestly...neither.
3. Obama (1 pt)
4. Obama is more likely to get us closer to balanced...but neither will be successful with their plans. (1/2 pt)
5. Obama (1pt)
6. Neither
7. Neither

So...that means, by my standards, Obama meets my standards on 3 out of 7 points and McCain meets them on 1 of 7.

Hence my support of Obama over McCain.

[Guest]

Grr;239710 wrote:
Good completely one sided post again chuck.....snip..... Broaden your topics a little instead of pouring kool aid.

Name the topic, I'll gladly add my perspective on it.

[SmitEvo]

If it were only that easy chuck...

[Guest]

Oh, I agree. It's not easy. But it is something to shoot for.

[thrash]

how the fuck is bank deregulation at fault for this?

i've already told you -- BLOCKING the psychotic antics of fannie and freddie (who contribute money to political campaigns!!) and BLOCKING the ability of the FED to buy GSE debt, and BLOCKING oversight on CRA -- all of this was blocked by the democrats. They needed CRA for social reasons and they needed Fannie/Freddie for lobbyist backscratching. And they needed avenues to continue funding for ACORN.

The government always complains that when something goes messy in the market, it is because there wasn't enough government regulation.. when in reality the situation is ALWAYS that the government has fucked up the market to begin with and has resisted any lessening of its interventionist powers. Expanding Government is a tautology because the answer to EVERY problem of failed interventionism is MORE intervention.

You should be pissed off at McCain because he voted for this bullshit bailout.. and because he's fallen for the bullshit line that "now we must do something" or "now we need to regulate this stuff".

No, he was right years ago when he wanted to regulate the government.

[3_Series]

Chuck for write-in president?

[Grr]

Once again, thrash chimes in with his almost perfect "economist" opinion. The fact is chuck, bill clinton was a MAJOR backer in 1999 to de-regulate the banking industry. In fact it was the DEMOCRATS ALONE, including bill clinton that passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. If you want to learn something about how this whole mess happened, look it up. Im sure thrash will agree with me 100% on this one. It is highly documented be ALL the leading finacial-ists that this was the sole reason why this whole mess has happened. You have to thank the democrat party alone for everything that is going on with the economy at the moment, and the most recently, Nancy peloci.
Another thing, McCain was one of the most important people in 2003 that sounded the alarm on fannie and freddie, you cannot deny that because it is true. All the democrats that are pretending to be your freinds now are the very people that said nothing was wrong before, and are the same people that have been receiving money and adding to the corruption.
And one more thing, did you see what happened today? The stupid bill passed. This bill is going to be the sole downfall of the US economy from this point on. The 440 pages of PORK in this thing is simply immoral! Society and the markets that could have fixed all of this have made their opinon already. Since the bill has been signed, as of this moment the DOW is down 150, with a total drop of almost 500 points since the news of this bill passing has been anounced. This may be the first day the DOW goes below 10k in years, and i assure you, this bill will fail in all aspects of the word.
(at this point i would like a reply to this post from Thrash)
You have really dissapointed me lately for real, your posts are a blur of the facts to suit your own agenda and that quote of mine you have in your sig i no longer stand by, REMOVE IT

[SmitEvo]

3_Series;239767 wrote:
Chuck for write-in president?

No!?

[Link]

Oh Snap...

[Guest]

thrash;239760 wrote:
how the fuck is bank deregulation at fault for this?

You should be pissed off at McCain because he voted for this bullshit bailout.. and because he's fallen for the bullshit line that "now we must do something" or "now we need to regulate this stuff".

No, he was right years ago when he wanted to regulate the government.

Seriously....did you read my post? At all?

tjamz wrote:
I think it is funny that the republican party is saying "We need more oversight on wall street, we need more regulation, blah blah blah blah blah...." when McCain is directly responsible for the deregulation of wallstreet and banking. <u>Had they said "You know, after de-regulation there are bound to be some institutions that fail to regulate themselves, and unfortunately that leads to market shake up from time to time, but in the end we end up with stronger institutions that have learned from their mistakes and the mistakes of others...." I might have actually considered changing my vote.</u> Instead the John Kerry'ed the issue and flip-flopped....I mean they were for it before they were against it...right?

You MIGHT want to check the facts about what I posted before you make claims about my feelings on things.

Do I think that the rules need to be looked at again? Sure. Why not? I heard all sorts of complaints when SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) law was passed on how it was going to hurt corporate America...blah blah...truth of the matter, it didn't. In fact it made the corporation that I used to work for a much better place to work.

I'd love to believe that the businesses of the world (whatever industry) would do better w/o any oversight, but the fact of the matter is that EVERY time I've seen it happen, they fail.

[Guest]

Grr;239773 wrote:
Once again, thrash chimes in with his almost perfect "economist" opinion. The fact is chuck, bill clinton was a MAJOR backer in 1999 to de-regulate the banking industry. ** In fact it was the DEMOCRATS ALONE, including bill clinton that passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999.** If you want to learn something about how this whole mess happened, look it up.
The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This 'veto proof legislation' was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.
Here is the official voting record, if you care to see it

Alabama
Aye AL Sessions, Jefferson [R]
Aye AL Shelby, Richard [R]
Alaska
Aye AK Murkowski, Frank [R]
Aye AK Stevens, Ted [R]
Arizona
Aye AZ Kyl, Jon [R]
Aye AZ McCain, John [R]
Arkansas
Aye AR Hutchinson, Tim [R]
Nay AR Lincoln, Blanche [D]
California
Nay CA Boxer, Barbara [D]
Nay CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]
Colorado
Aye CO Allard, Wayne [R]
Aye CO Campbell, Ben [R]
Connecticut
Nay CT Dodd, Christopher [D]
Nay CT Lieberman, Joseph [I]
Delaware
Aye DE Roth, William [?]
Nay DE Biden, Joseph [D]
Florida
Aye FL Mack, Connie [?]
Nay FL Graham, Bob [D]
Georgia
Aye GA Coverdell, Paul [?]
Nay GA Cleland, J. [D]
Hawaii
Nay HI Akaka, Daniel [D]
Nay HI Inouye, Daniel [D]
Idaho
Aye ID Craig, Larry [R]
Aye ID Crapo, Michael [R]
Illinois
Nay IL Durbin, Richard [D]
Present IL Fitzgerald, Peter [R]
Indiana
Aye IN Lugar, Richard [R]
Nay IN Bayh, B. [D]
Iowa
Aye IA Grassley, Charles [R]
Nay IA Harkin, Thomas [D]
Kansas
Aye KS Brownback, Samuel [R]
Aye KS Roberts, Pat [R]
Kentucky
Aye KY Bunning, Jim [R]
Aye KY McConnell, Mitch [R]
Louisiana
Nay LA Breaux, John [D]
Nay LA Landrieu, Mary [D]
Maine
Aye ME Collins, Susan [R]
Aye ME Snowe, Olympia [R]
Maryland
Nay MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]
Nay MD Sarbanes, Paul [D]
Massachusetts
Nay MA Kennedy, Edward [D]
Nay MA Kerry, John [D]
Michigan
Aye MI Abraham, Spencer [?]
Nay MI Levin, Carl [D]
Minnesota
Aye MN Grams, Rod [?]
Nay MN Wellstone, Paul [D]
Mississippi
Aye MS Cochran, Thad [R]
Aye MS Lott, Trent [R]
Missouri
Aye MO Ashcroft, John [?]
Aye MO Bond, Christopher [R]
Montana
Aye MT Burns, Conrad [R]
Nay MT Baucus, Max [D]
Nebraska
Aye NE Hagel, Charles [R]
Nay NE Kerrey, J. [?]
Nevada
Nay NV Bryan, Richard [?]
Nay NV Reid, Harry [D]
New Hampshire
Aye NH Gregg, Judd [R]
Aye NH Smith, Bob [R]
New Jersey
Nay NJ Lautenberg, Frank [D]
Nay NJ Torricelli, Robert [D]
New Mexico
Aye NM Domenici, Pete [R]
Nay NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]
New York
Nay NY Moynihan, Daniel [?]
Nay NY Schumer, Charles [D]
North Carolina
Aye NC Helms, Jesse [R]
Nay NC Edwards, John [D]
North Dakota
Nay ND Conrad, Kent [D]
Nay ND Dorgan, Byron [D]
Ohio
Aye OH DeWine, Michael [R]
Aye OH Voinovich, George [R]
Oklahoma
Aye OK Nickles, Don [R]
No Vote OK Inhofe, James [R]
Oregon
Aye OR Smith, Gordon [R]
Nay OR Wyden, Ron [D]
Pennsylvania
Aye PA Santorum, Richard [R]
Aye PA Specter, Arlen [R]
Rhode Island
Aye RI Chafee, John [?]
Nay RI Reed, John [D]
South Carolina
Aye SC Hollings, Ernest [D]
Aye SC Thurmond, J. [R]
South Dakota
Nay SD Daschle, Thomas [D]
Nay SD Johnson, Tim [D]
Tennessee
Aye TN Frist, William [R]
Aye TN Thompson, Fred [R]
Texas
Aye TX Gramm, Phil [R]
Aye TX Hutchison, Kay [R]
Utah
Aye UT Bennett, Robert [R]
Aye UT Hatch, Orrin [R]
Vermont
Aye VT Jeffords, James [I]
Nay VT Leahy, Patrick [D]
Virginia
Aye VA Warner, John [R]
Nay VA Robb, Charles [?]
Washington
Aye WA Gorton, T. [?]
Nay WA Murray, Patty [D]
West Virginia
Nay WV Byrd, Robert [D]
Nay WV Rockefeller, John [D]
Wisconsin
Nay WI Feingold, Russell [D]
Nay WI Kohl, Herbert [D]
Wyoming
Aye WY Enzi, Michael [R]
Aye WY Thomas, Craig [R]

[Guest]

I shall keep my sig, thank you very much.

[Guest]

But yes, I will put the fannie mae/freddie mac blunder on the Dems mostly....and even Obama. Contrary to popular belief on here, I am not an Obama nut swinger. I find myself shifting more to the right each day.....even though I am voting for a democratic president.

BTW, Obama did issue the following in March of 2007 regarding the predatory practices of sub-prime mortgage companies.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070322-obama_urges_ber/