- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 27, 2008 at 7:15 pm #588517
WSMomParticipanthttp://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29031
United States is ranked 36th domestically and 119th outside its own territory in this year’s world press freedom index, as reported by Reporters Without Borders .
“It is not economic prosperity but peace that guarantees press freedom. That is the main lesson to be drawn from the world press freedom index that Reporters Without Borders compiles every year and from the 2008 edition, released today. Another conclusion from the index – in which the bottom three rungs are again occupied by the “infernal trio” of Turkmenistan (171st), North Korea (172nd) and Eritrea (173rd) – is that the international community’s conduct towards authoritarian regimes such as Cuba (169th) and China (167th) is not effective enough to yield results.”
Notice that most of Europe and Canada rank in the top 20.
“The United States rose twelve places to 36th position. The release of Al-Jazeera cameraman Sami Al-Haj after six years in the Guantanamo Bay military base contributed to this improvement. Although the absence of a federal “shield law” means the confidentiality of sources is still threatened by federal courts, the number of journalists being subpoenaed or forced to reveal their sources has declined in recent months and none has been sent to prison. But the August 2007 murder of Oakland Post editor Chauncey Bailey in Oakland, California, is still unpunished a year later. The way the investigation into his murder has become enmeshed in local conflicts of interest and the lack of federal judicial intervention also help to explain why the United States did not get a higher ranking. Account was also taken of the many arrests of journalists during the Democratic and Republican conventions.”
IMO, freedom of the press means freedom, period. We can’t take this cornerstone of our democracy for granted. My hope is that the Obama administration will be able to improve our standing in this critical area.
October 27, 2008 at 7:46 pm #645247
AnonymousInactiveWSMom, we’re behind in many areas. Just don’t tell House (of the we’re the greatest nation on earth, don’t need to improve, belief). Have you seen this site?
October 27, 2008 at 8:04 pm #645248
CountingCoupMemberThe Media has the responsibility to clean its closets of the blatant far right wing shills out there delivering news service to unaware Americans on prime time TV.
Look at this example of an interview with Joe Biden on Barack Obama making it appear as if Obama is a Marxist:
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/biden-to-florida-news-anchor-a.html
The interviewer (anchor of an ABC affiliate station, WFTV in Florida) must have gotten her her Republican conspiracy talking points from her husband, Wade West, Political Media Consultant for the GOP.
http://www.bluetidalwave.com/2008/10/conflict-of-interest-orlando-journalist.html
Biden did a great job, but this supposed news interview is outrages!
October 27, 2008 at 8:26 pm #645249
acemotelParticipantJT, great site, thanks. May be a jolt to those running around waving flags, screaming about liberty, in fear of losing their “freedom.” How easy it is to scare people….
October 27, 2008 at 9:24 pm #645250
bcollinsMemberthat doesn’t sound right…does it?
October 28, 2008 at 7:41 am #645251
HeavyMetalConservativeMemberCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. That wonderful amendment is for you and I. Whether we like or dislike what people or the press say, it is our inalienable right. If you are for the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, then you are for tyranny and censorship. I say freedom of expression for all us. I hope you agree. Yes, Obama’s platform bothers me. He and Joe get one tough interview and then cry foul. I want every interview of our politicians to be tough so that I can tell who is qualified. Those politicians should be accountable to us. Reed and Pelosi will try to stop conservative talk radio. I dislike much of our press. I work with some of them, but I would find it ironic if the Seattle P.I. had to be fair and balanced. Of course that will never happen.
October 28, 2008 at 7:47 am #645252
JanSParticipantHMC…how do you feel about the Palin interviews? too tough? too easy? not enough hard questions? too many hard ones? just curious…
I love reading the PI when there’s a Soundoff..makes us here look perfectly sane and polite – lol…some fantastically ignorant people out there…
October 28, 2008 at 4:55 pm #645253
HeavyMetalConservativeMemberGood Morning! I think they were OK. Some could have been tougher. Her early interviews with Gibson and Couric were not good. I think she was trying to be a good McCain soldier and not Sarah Palin. These candidates are going to possibly be in charge of our country. Tough questions need to be asked. It is interesting to see where people see press bias. Maybe you will find this interesting. O’Reilly and Barney Frank starting yelling at each other a couple of weeks ago. I was dissappointed that two “professionals” would do that. Because of my political view, I think Mr. Frank is part of the financial problem but I don’t think he should have been yelled at by O’Reilly. To recap, I want tough but not stupid. Factual not Opinions. That is what I want from our press. The big news bureaus generally support Democrats and it creeps into their reporting. It is their job (and ours) to dig up facts and betray the dishonest politicians. Since I lean right, I use the Media Resource Center for media fact checking. I use Real Clear Politics for the range of items they post. I also use the census when applicable. I can’t speak about the PI Soundoff. I read the editorial page of the PI about 3 times a week. Horsey cartoons really irritate me. The Times is a bit more middle of the road but definitely not conservative. At least the Stranger seems more honest about some local issues.
October 28, 2008 at 5:02 pm #645254
JoBParticipantHeavyMetalConservative…
welcome.. i think we are finally going to get some conversation in these waning days of the election…
i have what will seem like an arrogant question. do you support McCain and Palin.. and if so.. why?
October 28, 2008 at 5:17 pm #645255
JoBParticipantHeavyMetalConservative..
i hadnt’ read the interviews.. so i went back to see what tough questions were asked…
In the case of the Dallas News.. these were the “tough” questions..
“”Aren’t you embarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?”
“How is Sen. Obama not being Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around.”
“Are you forewarning Americans that .. American’s days as a world’s leading power are over?”
Isn’t the first just another version of the when did you stop beating your wife question?
The second assumes McCain campaign rhetoric as truth…
and i am really not sure what the third one assumes…
Were I asking tough questions…
i would be asking exactly what regulations Obama/Biden will be asking for in the banking industry in addition to those already passed and how they intend to close the loopholes for golden parachutes?
I would ask if they are in favor of a mortgage program similar to the one that was enacted during the depression to save the housing industry in America.
I would be asking whether they think it is a wise idea for America to borrow it’s way out of this financial crisis?
I would ask what their plan is for winning in Afghanistan since we face the same obstacles there that broke the soviet union.
Those questions would speak to the heart of the democratic economic and foreign policy….
not just spread more insinuations around.
so maybe i should ask…
did you consider those tough questions..
and… what tough questions would you like answered by the candidates.. on both sides?
October 28, 2008 at 5:24 pm #645256
JoBParticipantBTW.. lest we think that interview was nt politically motivated…
Barbara West’s tough questions for John McCain
October 29, 2008 at 1:17 am #645257
HeavyMetalConservativeMemberJoB, your question is not arrogant. It’s mostly a free country. I will be supporting John McCain and Sarah Palin. Why? I basically align myself with the more ideologically conservative aspects of the Republican party compared to the more progressive Democratic party. Although McCain was not my first choice, he is our nominee. I liked Thompson, Romney and Giuliani better. (Doesn’t Rudy look cute in drag!) I go with the Reagan view of America. With a Republican nominee, I look for limited Government and more States rights, lower taxes, business friendly policies with sensible restrictions on businesses, Strong National Security and secure borders, right to life, and educational choices. I trust the free market as long as there is some regulation where needed. (Example – GSE’s like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn’t play by the rules and look at the bailout that came from our government. The government doesn’t usually make money, but just spends it. It could have been avoided. The hated Mr. Bush brought it up and so did McCain but they were blocked.) I try to look at people as individuals and not groups but at times we need to. Every individual has the ability to do what they want with the right decisions. Follow the law, respect people, and most of the time things will work out. I am probably more aligned with Sarah Palin than John McCain. I will vote for McCain Palin because Mr. Obama’s voting record, experience, and political outlook do not fit what I want. Yes, these are talking points. I do not deny this. Mr. Obama’s own books say that in college he gravitated toward the fringe elements. I know some fringe elements myself. Although fun at times, not the people that I generally used to shape my views. His 20 year association with his church preaches liberation theology. I do not subscribe to that type of social religion. His associations with certain people, like Ayers, seem a bit fringe and if it was only in passing I wouldn’t be as worried but there seem to be more than chance Annenburg meetings. His community organizing seemed to be effective but it seems to have had strong leftist political slant. Acorn certainly has run into problems lately. He was a recipient of Fannie Mae donations, much more than McCain. Why is it so difficult for him to release certain background information that others already have? Why can anyone give to his campaign and after the money is submitted they might find that it doesn’t qualify whereas with Hillary and McCain, they don’t accept anonymous donations. Finally he said he wanted to spread it (wealth) around. He seems to want big government to level the playing field. Putting all this together I see that he wants bigger government, if not socialist policies. I cannot agree with that. I cannot agree either with how much money the Bush Presidency and the congress’s have spent. If there is a Super Majority in Congress and Obama is President, we will see more taxes taken from everyone. You see, the income tax is one of the items in the Communist Manifesto. We have gone too far to repeal it but time and again it has been proven that lower taxes spur revenues, even as far back as Woodrow Wilson’s presidency. With a Republican Congress and Bill Clinton cutting the Capital Gains tax, the deficit was obliterated. I really thought the first black president, or woman would be a Republican. We will see, I might have to revise that to the first woman President will be a Republican. But for awhile I thought Hillary had a chance. Non-Partisanship: McCain has crossed the aisle to work with Democrats. Yes he has a mostly Republican voting record. I have not always agreed with him on this but he seems willing to try to work something out just like (gasp) Edward Kennedy does at times. I must admit that I use the general ideology of the Republican party verses the minute specifics of all these candidates. I believe history has a place in learning the mistakes of the past. I do not want New Deal projects popping up. I don’t think we can afford it. Social Security has grown too big and will go bankrupt for the people who need it. I am trying to guide my finances so that I do not have to count on a supplement from the government. I feel we have inalienable rights that can only come from God but that there is a division between church and state, but acknowledging the role the Judeo-Christian ethic plays in our lives. We cannot pass laws for everything. Our good friend John Stossel at ABC News has shown that Government costs us more money than the private sector. Finally, I want qualified and at least centrist or right leaning Supreme Court judges. McCain did vote for Breyer and Ginsberg. I would not have voted for her but she was qualified as a judge. McCain Feingold, not a favorite of mine but again, he crossed the aisle. Barack Obama has been more partisan in his voting 96% vs McCain’s 88%. Barack is a handsome figure and an extremely intelligent man. I can see why some people can be swayed by that but those aren’t the issues are they? I pray with all my heart that if he becomes elected he will be safe (from idiots who would want harm to come to him) and realize that campaign promises are one thing but the business of the country is another. I would just prefer McCain. He is not my ideal candidate but for me, better than the alternative. There is a lot more I could say and I am trying to be not too partisan but I can’t help it. I don’t know if I can really answer all of your follow up posts due to life and time constraints (and a toddler) but I will eventually try. Whom are you voting for if I may be so bold?
October 29, 2008 at 1:49 am #645258
CaitParticipantMaaaan! My eyes need some paragraphs, HMC! :)
But ya know what – that’s a view I can respect. Backed up by facts, well thought out opinions, respect and fairness. Very enlightening. Welcome, HMC.
October 29, 2008 at 4:41 pm #645259
ellenaterMemberHMC, thanks for posting. I liked reading your opinions very much!
I am voting for Obama but share your concerns about his being a little green. However, I feel better about him since he chose Biden. What I am looking for in a candidate is a person who holds him or her self accountable. To me that is the number one criteria. I think Obama’s experience at Harvard balanced out his fringe experiences. I also like Biden a lot, particularly his willingness to go on Meet the Press with Russert. He always struck me as honest.
As far as the issues go, I am Obama all the way down the line. I particularly support his health care plan, his energy and infrastructure plan, and his grasp on law. I like that he has a minority perspective because I think he can balance things that have gone unbalanced for too long. He is going to make the drug laws equal. Currently cocaine and crack have different sentences. Stuff like that. I agree that many are swayed by his charms! But beyond that, I think he’ll do well and I think there are enough checks and balances to support and round out his lack of experience.
BTW, many of my best friends are Republicans and I enjoy spirited, respectful conversations. I really appreciate your perspective.
cheers!
October 29, 2008 at 9:32 pm #645260
HeavyMetalConservativeMemberHello JoB. I had a reply all written out and then I closed the wrong tab. Save early save often.
Your questions that you posed seem relevant, not overly tough.
We can go to the candidates websites to see where they stand on the issues. Then we have to dig deeper to see how they plan to accomplish them.
I find the questions about “integrity” to be the most enlightening.
I would ask John McCain about him being implicated in the Keating 5. I would follow up with what lessons he learned from that and did he try to pass legislation to stop other future problems. I would then ask him about about his weakness stated by him on economics. Followed up by what are his plans to get this economy working better.
I would ask Barack Obama about his statement at the San Fran fund raiser about “clinging to guns and religion”. I would follow up with a question about his radio interview saying the Warren Court didn’t break away enough from the Constitution, followed by if he were elected President, wouldn’t he be the defender of the Constitution.
I would press Palin on Troopergate, and what she has taken from that.
I would ask Biden why he keeps saying things that get him in hot water.
If I had time I would go back and find facts and figures for various votes both men (the prez candidates) took. Then I would try to find inconsistencies between how they voted and what they are currently saying.
I do not have that much time. Other people do so we need to use them as resources.
Although, I would ask about energy independence
and what steps will they take to shore up our financial system.
I am so angry that this (financial bailout) happened. I think this started with good intentions from the democrats wanting to help people own homes. Republicans weren’t strong enough to get regulations in and Democrats were saying it was fine. (kind of a reversal of generalizations). It was a bi-partisan screw up. And then W does what his father would have done and has Paulson bail out badly managed companies. The root was the GSE’s, the banks and securities ran with it. Sorry, but we are all losing in this one.
Anyway, none of these candidates deserves a pass. The press needs to be objective if that is there mission. If there is a stated partisanship in a company, they should come clean.
This we know, Sean Hannity is right wing. Keith Olbermann is left. It’s those others that say they are fair that might be deluding themselves.
If a candidate is not prepared for the answers, that reflects badly on them. I know Palin’s first interviews were not good. She has gotten stronger. Biden started out good but has made some gaffes here and there. Obama isn’t closing the deal as strong as he should (in my opinion) and McCain is making headway with undecided voters in this last week because I haven’t seen (or I am unaware of) any public speaking mistakes.
Will he catch him? I don’t know but it is not a slam dunk.
Chat with you all later.
October 29, 2008 at 10:38 pm #645261
JoBParticipantHeavyMetalConservative…
i am not the least bit swayed by Obama’s charms… although i do appreciate that charm will sway many in a presidential election.
John McCain once understood that.
but i will be voting for Obama.. for many of the same reasons you say you are voting for McCain/Palin.
I want more a smaller more effecient governemnt that actually provides essential services to it’s people… and i think we have a much better shot at that with Obama than with McCain. Yeah, i know that the republicans talk small government but they walk an increase in govt… and if this last administration is any indication, they care more about paying back political favors than making sure someone qualified ends up with the job.
What happened with the response to Katrina was a national disgrace.. and the fundamental problems that created that disgrace have not been addressed. In fact, those basic policies are still victimizing those who were displaced by Katrina… and placing undue burden on other states.
The last time the democrats were in the white house, they actually reduced the size and cost of government…
since an actual smaller more efficient government is my goal, i am backing Obama.
I too would like lower taxes.. but have to ask that nagging question.. am i going to benefit from those supposedly lowered taxes or is that promise just more hype designed to get my vote?
It turns out I wont’ benefit from McCain’s tax plan…. and neither will most Americans. I think Beachdrivegirl figured out she would have to gross over $350,00O a year to benefit from McCain’s tax cuts. My brother thought he would until i pointed out that he needed to look at Net income… reportable taxable income.. not gross. I am not sure he’s figured it out yet.. but i know his wife has.
If i want a tax break, i will have to vote for Obama who will pay for my tax break by not extending the tax cuts given to the very wealthy Americans by Bush.
All that reagonomics trickle down theory sounds great until you realize that it isn’t trickle down.. it’s hemorrhage up.
If the trickle down theory worked, we wouldn’t be in the financial mess we are in now.
That is the financial mess we would be in even without the subprime mortgage escalated collapse of several commercial financial institutions.. fannie mae and freddie mac being bit players in this scandal.
The problem with our economy is that is is fueled by consumerism. The last stat i heard was that our GDP is 70% consumerism. That was a house of cards to start with.. which isn’t being made any better by the collapse in home values which is still escalating.
This is the first time in our married life that we have chosen not not buy a home.. and since we would have bought a year ago following our move… i am eternally thankful that we didn’t jump into that particular mess.
You can’t spend what you don’t have.. and once the inflated equity in homes was tapped.. without an increase in wages.. ( real wages have been going down) … and with our current national savings rate.. there just isn’t another source of funding for a consumer driven economy.
You have to give people money back if you expect them to spend it… and you have to give it to people who are consistently overspending if you want it to keep this economy afloat.
We have an 8 year history of lowered taxes that were supposed to stimulate the economy.. and although the overall American economy did well… the average American did not do so well at all… and the average American fuels our consumer goods driven economy.
Our economy would have taken a serious nose dive if we hadn’t bailed out several financial institutions who made risky, but profitable business choices and are now planning to bonus their employees to the tune of billions each on our bailout dime.
So, lower taxes and hopes for a stimulated economy are a big reason why i am voting for Obama.
The other economic reason i am voting for Obama is that he realizes that an economy based mostly on consumerism is doomed to fail… while one based more on production is one that will stand up long term. The strongest periods of prosperity in America’s past have been based on a productive economy… production produces goods which employs Americans whose wages help consume those goods. It lowers the trade deficit, strengthening the American dollar. Production stimulates education because business requires a well educated innovative citizenry to fuel it’s technological innovations.
Consumerism on the other hand… does not require such a well educated pool of service personnel.
Obama would help stimulate the production of alternative fuel technology in the United States through the use of business incentives.. including the most important one for stimulation of our current economy.. an incentive for creating American jobs…
an incentive incidentally that would not be limited to businesses producing alternative energy but would spill over into all production jobs currently shipped overseas…
Instead of giving companies incentives to ship jobs overseas.. he would give incentives to keep and create jobs here.. which would fuel the economy while we move from a more consumer driven economy to one which trends towards production…
and in the process reduces our dependence on foreign oil.
And it comes with an added national security bonuses… no incentive to invade middle east or south american oil producing countries… and if you are into all of that cold war stuff.. it weakens Soviet Russia’s current bargaining power.
What’s not to like about that?
As for those new deal programs you think you can’t afford… are you aware that a great deal of the current infrastructure that is currently crumbling from a lack of investment was the direct result of those new deal programs?
We employed people, created wealth which produced consumerism and we got an infrastructure that was once the envy of the world in return.
Not such a bad deal… and it even protects your social security. without wage earners social security will collapse.
So it really comes down to ideology doesn’t it…
because in the end.. the democratic party is actually accomplishing many of your stated goals.. while the republican party pays them lip service…
if you are genuinely worried about extremism, you have to be as worried about Sarah Palin’s church as you are about Obama’s. And as worried about Sarah Palin’s approval of the secessionist party in Alaska as you are about any possible flirtations Obama might have had with the radical left. And as worried about the current republican fed inflammation of the neonazi right wing as you are about the possible inflammation of the radical left. And as worried about McCain’s endorsement and friendship with Liddy who actually advocated killing ATF officers to the crowd who spawned our own American terrorists not so many years ago.. while he was associating with McCain… as you are about the possible taint of Obama’s association with a man whose own political extremism occurred when Obama was 8 years old.. who was no longer involved when the group he helped found resorted to violence that resulted in deaths and was so clearly in his youth that the republican power structure of Chicago invited his participation in school reform… where Obama encountered him.
We aren’t going to ever agree on the right to life issue as long as the right to life for the mother is placed behind that of the child…. the position Sarah Palin has taken.
ok.. and to be truthful.. we wouldn’t agree even then.
I believe that the person who assumes the responsibility should get to make that decision… and as long as republicans are vehemently behind taking responsibility for the children who are the outcome of their position.. we could never come close to agreement on that subject.
My personal decision on that subject is far closer to your position than to what the right represents as pro-choice.. but i have paid a terrible price for that decision.
I am not complaining.. because it was clearly my choice to make… and my responsibility to bear all of the consequences of that choice… and i have done so for a lifetime. But it was my choice… and that is the entire point of pro-choice.
If it were any other issue .. i know few right to life advocates who would agree for someone else to make their decision for them on the basis of their morality… and then require them to bear the full responsibility.
Obama is not my ideal candidate… as anyone who had been reading this blog long knows.
I fear his learning curve.. since we have just had such a blatant example of a President who is only now beginning to understand his job… but I am comforted by the fact that Obama is a man who values education and who believes that an informed opinion is worth more than agreement with his position.
I am concerned that we are entering an economic period where those who have the least.. and therefore have the least power… will suffer the most.. and his concern is more intellectual than personal where those Americans are concerned.
I am concerned that he doesn’t seem to have learned the one lesson we should have learned while aiding the jihad in Afghanistan to rid itself of the Soviets.. that battling them on any front is a no-win proposition. Hearts can not be won by war… and as long as we are more dangerous than the extremists, religious fanaticism will prevail… as it has in Iraq.
But John McCain’s ability to deal with the concerns i have about Obama as president are so much worse.. and Sarah Plain’s lack of experience and extremism so frightening…
that I have to conclude that my concerns are more wishful thinking for the Presidential candidate i thought.. and still think.. would have been the better choice… than valid concerns about an Obama presidency.
Whew… you are a hard act to follow.. i didn’t even begin to address the list of issues you crammed into one paragraph :~>
October 29, 2008 at 11:11 pm #645262
JenVMember“and McCain is making headway with undecided voters in this last week because I haven’t seen (or I am unaware of) any public speaking mistakes”
HMC, you must have missed these- enjoy!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/21/mccain-accidentally-agree_n_136702.html
and a little further back:
October 29, 2008 at 11:31 pm #645263
JoBParticipantHeavyMetalConservative…
were you aware that 30% of the subprime mortgage failures so far were due to investors… house filppers? The New York Times had a great article on the subject.
and NPR did a great piece on why brokers who could have qualified applicants for regular mortgages chose to guide them towards subprime mortgages instead. I think their estimate was that 70% of those who ended up with subprime mortgages could have qualified for a regular mortgage.
If this was just about helping some low income buyers into houses.. as it has been represented..
this would be an entirely different crisis than the one we are experiencing.
October 30, 2008 at 6:59 am #645264
HeavyMetalConservativeMemberHey, thanks for your honesty and the passion. We differ in some of our interpretations but that is essentially good. I can’t go head to head on some of your items that you mentioned. I don’t have the background and knowledge to try and point out my disagreements. If I knew more, maybe I would have tried to be a politician. Forget I said THAT.
Essentially, I have been dissappointed with the way the Republican party has been behaving since Gingrich left. They have not been consistent with what I believe they should be working towards.
Many on the left hate George Bush. He is a man of conviction in my opinion. He was stubborn to the core and really never waivered, even when he was wrong. When he came into office he stated what he wanted to do. Although religious, he was not a true conservative. He did try to address certain issues and the Republican majority in congress was fairly inneffective. They spent too much. But, to do what the Republicans did with his father (and Perot butting in) would be sacrilege. Mr. Clinton certainly gained from that, didn’t he.
I have to take issue with you on Katrina. Katrina hitting New Orleans was a political and natural disaster, but be honest, New Orleans was extremely corrupt. The governors and mayors and leaders of parishes screwed up for many years. I remember reading in National Geographic a few years before Katrina hit, that any Hurricane over a 4 would trash the place. Mike Brown(?) was an idiot. Blanco was completely over her head too. Do not blame everything on Bush. Most of the hate for him is transference from Bill’s mistake or Florida. (Side note – Ponder this. . . If Bill had resigned, would Al Gore have won in the next election??? I think he might have. I have always wondered about that. I don’t want to argue about privacy and Ken Starr.) Anyway, Haley Barber did much better in Mississippi. At least this year the government showed that it learned from some of its past mistakes.
Woodrow Wilson really started the trend of modern (big) government from the start of the century and Progressive ideals. Andrew Mellon figured out that higher taxes meant less revenue. Hoover, after the 29 crash raised taxes and became protectionist. FDR’s New Deal programs helped the national conscious but delayed the economic recovery. He was GREAT during WWII. Kennedy was smart enough to cut taxes from 90% to 75% for the Rich. Johnson tried to help our poor and minorities and boy did our federal government grow. Reagan cut taxes again and the 80’s were eventually a time of huge growth. Clinton and the Repub congress worked enough together to have a decent economy. This is a simplistic 20th century view but the past is good to use for gauging the future, don’t you think?
You said it yourself that you can’t spend what you don’t have. You are correct about the subprime mortgage practices, banks, brokers etc. There was not enough oversight. It was not all the GSE’s but regulations were not put in place and should have been. We refinanced a 2nd mortgage and I saw exactly what was going on. It was too good to be true. Same thing happened in the 20’s.
I mentioned (Republican) Hoover. I do not think we should repeat the sins of the past. Historically, I do not want the new President and Congressional leadership to raise taxes. I truly believe we will go into a deep recession if that happens.
It seems to me that Mr. Obama is cut from the cloth of Illinois politics and possibly a bit of Pelosi and Reed. I lived in southern Wisconsin. We are extremly leary of the Windy City political machine. Anyhow, I believe from what I heard, they plan to start many more programs. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it is most likely a duck. Maybe it will be a swan! Nah, I do not want them to have carte blanche on our country. Washington corrupts. It is only there to spend money. Mine and yours. Maybe I will be proven wrong, but I doubt it. More likely we both will be slightly dissapointed?
I think I shall indulge the rest of you on another subject. I seem to have gotten away from the free press string but I thoroughly enjoyed the time. But who knows, maybe this will keep going.
Thanks for the chat.
October 30, 2008 at 6:59 am #645265
HeavyMetalConservativeMemberEllenator, thanks for the kind words. Good Luck, I suspect that your hope for this election is better than the last. I also hope in the future my candidates get in. Someday I want you all to tell me why Jim McDermott is so popular, but that is for another post isn’t it.
October 30, 2008 at 7:39 pm #645266
JoBParticipantHeavyMetalConservative..
I don’t think you can blame the federal response to Katrina on corrupt New Orleans politicians.
Corrupt New Orleans politicians didn’t have any control over the levy that failed.. the US govt did.
and btw.. i have an inside peek into the Corp of Engineers whose head in New Orleans is choosing outsourcing on a political not scientific basis as we speak… and basing the calculations used in analysis and possible reconstruction on data that is known to be suspect.
but that’s what happens when you choose political appointees over qualified personnel. those choices have already been made all over the United States in positions that directly effect public safety…
Katrina is just the most obvious example of federal ineptitude when you appoint unqualified people, gut their human infrastructure and then delegate the real authority to another agency who is not qualified to make decisions in that area.
I dont’ know what you call it, but i call it a clusterf..k .. and the choices that created that situation came directly from George Bush’s white house.
I could go further with his choice to employ blackwater for security.. and their choice to force people back into life threatening situations to protect property…
a prime reason governors like Arnold are no longer so eager to accept federal assistance with a disaster…
Who should we hold responsible?
Most of the people who died in New Orleans did so because of human failure.. not because of a hurricane.
Yes, New Orleans was full of corrupt politicians who made poor choices in the initial phases of the hurricane.. but that doesn’t excuse the federal response that compounded the situation.
New Orleans is still full of corruption… currently funded by federal dollars that were appropriated to help Katrina victims.. not Katrina opportunists.
but helping opportunists would appear to be the primary purpose of the current Bush administration.
As for George’s promises.. i assume you aren’t talking about his campaign promises.. because even in his second election the St Paul newspaper endorsed him because they thought he might get around to some of his campaign promises and they liked the sound of those… even though he had yet to fulfill any.
but heck.. that’s the past. with any luck we will get an administration that values competence and some of our public safety institutions.. you know. those things we supposedly pay taxes for.. will be restored to their former level of competency.
That wouldn’t be Sarah.. since she thinks going to high school with her qualifies applicants for the top jobs in Alaska.
But.. let’s ignore that too.
Let’s talk about taxes. You keep making the assumption that electing a democrat equals higher taxes.
You have seen the tax plans. So where exactly are these raised taxes?
i see controversial tax cuts for the very wealthy that won’t be restored.. but not tax increases…
except in John McCain’s plan… where there will be tax increases for those making less than $250,000 in taxable income.
He has to pay for those increased tax cuts for the very wealthy somehow… and he has a bailout and a war to finance.
I’m betting that might hit your pocketbook. It sure will hit ours.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.