New Political Thread

What do you guy's think about after AIG gets the $85 Billion Bailout. They go off to a Spa for a week as a reward for good performance and spend $440 thousand. The rooms alone were $1000,00 a night.

Not only that, the $85 Billion is already gone, used up.

And to top all that, AIG is to get another $37.8 Billion.....That news came out late this afternoon.

Hi, Renee and welcome back Nice post and I'll try to respond in order to your comments.

1 - First, I have personally never played the race card or accused anyone of "just not liking black people" or painted McCain supporters as racist.

2 - While I don't hate George Bush, I do question some of his ties with the bin Laden family. I'm sure that those friendships were also investigated and if there had been any credence in the Michael Moore portrayal of him, I don't think the matter would have been covered up. I don't buy into all conspiracy theories. I would not say I want a Democratic President NO MATTER WHAT but I do think a McCain presidency would be more of the same Bush policies...and it is GWB's policies that I do not support....I have never supported our reasons for being in Iraq (although the troops have my support and admiration).

3 - Obama may well be the favorite of the media. Many artists (not all) are liberal-minded in their politics and always will be counted on to take that approach to their politics. As for the elite, I don't see Obama as their "darling" because when I think of the elite, I think of the corporate CEO's and other fat cats who obviously do not count Obama among their favorites.

4 - Obama knows that to win, he has to bring new voters to the polling booths. There is nothing wrong with that. I agree that ACORN is working their asses off to get as many people registered to vote as possible. Do I really want a president elected by the vote of the uneducated (or homeless)? That question is what scares me. Why would I think that my somewhat educated and homeowner status gives me anymore say than them??? You state that next time, these same voters could vote for someone I don't like....well, so be it... I have "lost" the last two elections but I wouldn't deny any qualified and registered voter their right to vote. What other hope do the under-uneducated/homeless have but to voice their voting rights. Go ACORN, God love ya!

5 - Form over substance....well, that only fits if applies. And it goes both ways. I found much more substance in the policies of Al Gore and John Kerry than GWB and I think particularly in the last election, many Republicans turned a blind eye to GWB and his foreign policies out of a sense that you shouldn't oust a sitting President during a war.

Not all liberals or Democrats are socialistic. When you say "paying the price of his judgments" are you talking monetarily? Because if you are, I disagree. For instance, we own both of our houses, no mortgages BUT I still want to reach out to those people who are losing their homes because of the state of our economy (for which the current administration, whether you choose to admit it or not is to blame.) We took a beating right along with the rest of you on our retirement but I think only the Democratic ticket can turn things around. I have no problem with taxes....so long as they are used for the things I am in favor....no problem whatsoever with a new projector for a museum's planetarium, funding for the arts, welfare, affirmative action programs. The words "to those which much has been given comes great responsibility" are not idle words to me. I would venture to suppose that you would likely think me a Socialist.

If any of the revelations proved to be true...would THAT be enough to change my mind? What would have to happen to get me off the Obama Wagon? Just like you, that is a hard question....I would guess an abuse of power once elected, a failure to use and exhaust diplomatic measures before engaging our troops, failure to regulate bank and securities, ....but having researched and found no reason to believe the "revelations" and in not finding much revealing in any of them, I really can't say. The only real response would be if he were to continue the current administration's policies and not work toward the change I feel necessary.

Again, I am so glad you are back posting and hope things are going well.

Janey wrote:

What do you guy's think about after AIG gets the $85 Billion Bailout. They go off to a Spa for a week as a reward for good performance and spend $440 thousand. The rooms alone were $1000,00 a night.

Not only that, the $85 Billion is already gone, used up.

And to top all that, AIG is to get another $37.8 Billion.....That news came out late this afternoon.

I think it's terrible!!! A great example of why we need not only regulation, but these CEO's should face criminal charges. They also gave golden parachutes to some CEO's who were asked to resign for improprietries, giving them multi-million dollar severance and even one of them is getting $1 million a month...that right $1 million A MONTH. Jane, I also saw that yesterday...and actually Obama made mention of it during the debate last night.

Janey wrote:

What do you guy's think about after AIG gets the $85 Billion Bailout. They go off to a Spa for a week as a reward for good performance and spend $440 thousand. The rooms alone were $1000,00 a night.

Not only that, the $85 Billion is already gone, used up.

And to top all that, AIG is to get another $37.8 Billion.....That news came out late this afternoon.

I think it's obscene. Who's doing the oversight? I thought they promised oversight.

WELCOME TO OUR NEW KITCHEN HOME!

Renee, I'm with you, the question of oversight is a major issue to me...and one of the sticking points in the 700 trillion dollar bailout.

I would not at all be surprised to find that the heads of the banks and corps that are going under will still come out of this with huge golden parachutes. They will name their new yacht the "2008 Bailout."

spongie wrote:

WELCOME TO OUR NEW KITCHEN HOME!

Renee, I'm with you, the question of oversight is a major issue to me...and one of the sticking points in the 700 trillion dollar bailout.

I would not at all be surprised to find that the heads of the banks and corps that are going under will still come out of this with huge golden parachutes. They will name their new yacht the "2008 Bailout."

The question of oversight has ALWAYS been a major issue and the lack of regulation. McCain, up until a week or so ago, said he is always a deregulator. And that is what caused much of the current situation.

Regulation of banks and securities is a major reason I support the Obama campaign. To truly solve the problem, we have to first look at what got us to this point in the first place. The Republican position of not wanting government involvement has been its own method for seeing to it that the have's are given free rein over the decisions that affect the have-not's. It is direct evidence that the "trickle down" theory doesn't and isn't working.

CinC wrote:

The question of oversight has ALWAYS been a major issue and the lack of regulation. McCain, up until a week or so ago, said he is always a deregulator. And that is what caused much of the current situation.

Regulation of banks and securities is a major reason I support the Obama campaign. To truly solve the problem, we have to first look at what got us to this point in the first place. The Republican position of not wanting government involvement has been its own method for seeing to it that the have's are given free rein over the decisions that affect the have-not's. It is direct evidence that the "trickle down" theory doesn't and isn't working.

Not so, Cincy. In the case of Fannie & Freddie, John McCain HAS been calling for regulations. I think part of the problem is that people will take exact words without understanding their meanings within a sentence. For instance, I'll say "I'm always conservative. You have to know that about me. But when it comes to the environment, I want to work there too!". People will hang on to the part where I say "I'm always conservative" and not realize it was meant as background to reflect the importance of this different stand on an issue.

John McCain says, "I'm ALWAYS for deregulation" meaning "that's my pattern; that's what I believe in". I get that. So when someone is always for dereg, when he calls for additional regulation, I listen.

Does that clarify the whole "I'm always" confusion? I hope so, because John McCain HAS fought for regulating Fannie & Freddie. Just ask Barney Frank.

Playing catch up here. See what happens when you read a thread backwards???

CinC wrote:

1 - First, I have personally never played the race card or accused anyone of "just not liking black people" or painted McCain supporters as racist.

No Cincy, the thought that you personally would do this never crossed my mind. But it is happening. Just go to CNN or MSNBC or FOX and check out the message boards. Read how many times anyone who speaks out against Obama is instantly called a racist. It's ridiculous but it's a real weapon in this fight.

CinC wrote:

2 - While I don't hate George Bush, I do question some of his ties with the bin Laden family. I'm sure that those friendships were also investigated and if there had been any credence in the Michael Moore portrayal of him, I don't think the matter would have been covered up. I don't buy into all conspiracy theories. I would not say I want a Democratic President NO MATTER WHAT but I do think a McCain presidency would be more of the same Bush policies...and it is GWB's policies that I do not support....I have never supported our reasons for being in Iraq (although the troops have my support and admiration).

Well there's you then there's the George Soros' of the world. I believe you completely. I wouldn't trust those agenda driven bastards as far as I could spit. Given the fact that McCain was very vocal in arguing against the president in many things, I question if your fears are reflexive or really thought out. I see an absolute difference in the way they would govern. As much as I support President Bush, I see McCain better able to lead. As to Iraq, at this point, the reasons for going in are moot. We're there, now what do we do? And I support McCain's exit plans infinitely more than Obama's.

CinC wrote:

3 - Obama may well be the favorite of the media. Many artists (not all) are liberal-minded in their politics and always will be counted on to take that approach to their politics. As for the elite, I don't see Obama as their "darling" because when I think of the elite, I think of the corporate CEO's and other fat cats who obviously do not count Obama among their favorites.

I'll tell you what, the Barbra Streisands, Jolie-Pitts, and other Hollywood elite have much more access and control of the media than the CEOs do, and therein lies the power. The one thing the Democrats do INFINITELY better than Republicans is control the media. And THAT is scary to me.

CinC wrote:

4 - Obama knows that to win, he has to bring new voters to the polling booths. There is nothing wrong with that. I agree that ACORN is working their asses off to get as many people registered to vote as possible. Do I really want a president elected by the vote of the uneducated (or homeless)? That question is what scares me. Why would I think that my somewhat educated and homeowner status gives me anymore say than them??? You state that next time, these same voters could vote for someone I don't like....well, so be it... I have "lost" the last two elections but I wouldn't deny any qualified and registered voter their right to vote. What other hope do the under-uneducated/homeless have but to voice their voting rights. Go ACORN, God love ya!

Voting is NOT a right in this country; it's a privilege. It can be taken away, as in those who are felons, etc. There is nothing wrong with bringing new voters to the polls, but the way ACORN is doing it, I'm reminded of the carpetbaggers promising "20 acres and a mule!" if you vote their way. There's a moral imperative that must be applied. It's buying votes, with empty promises to those who are not in the position to question the validity. Try to read to articles on the techniques of ACORN with an open mind. It's disgusting.

Also, I wouldn't deny any qualified and registered voter their right, either. But the question of the homeless voting...that's another story. Of course, being homeless in and of itself shouldn't disqualify anyone, but shouldn't they have to file taxes? Shouldn't they have to have participated at some level of society before casting a vote. And how do know that the homeless live in a certain state? How can we even be sure who they are? What will stop candidates from busing homeless across state lines to pad the roles? For the preservation of the election, you CANNOT just open the polls to the homeless. It is fraught with danger.

CinC wrote:

5 - Form over substance....well, that only fits if applies. And it goes both ways. I found much more substance in the policies of Al Gore and John Kerry than GWB and I think particularly in the last election, many Republicans turned a blind eye to GWB and his foreign policies out of a sense that you shouldn't oust a sitting President during a war.

Not all liberals or Democrats are socialistic. When you say "paying the price of his judgments" are you talking monetarily? Because if you are, I disagree. For instance, we own both of our houses, no mortgages BUT I still want to reach out to those people who are losing their homes because of the state of our economy (for which the current administration, whether you choose to admit it or not is to blame.) We took a beating right along with the rest of you on our retirement but I think only the Democratic ticket can turn things around. I have no problem with taxes....so long as they are used for the things I am in favor....no problem whatsoever with a new projector for a museum's planetarium, funding for the arts, welfare, affirmative action programs. The words "to those which much has been given comes great responsibility" are not idle words to me. I would venture to suppose that you would likely think me a Socialist.

I've never thought that all Dems are Socialists, nor do I think you're one. I LOVE your attitude about great responsibility. I, however, believe that responsibility rests on MY shoulders, not the governments. I believe it is up to the PERSON, NOT the government to lift up those in need. And therein lies the primary difference between Dems and Republicans. Dems believe the government should help. Republicans believe they should get the hell out of the way and let the PEOPLE help. Simplistic explanation, but one I believe.

CinC wrote:

If any of the revelations proved to be true...would THAT be enough to change my mind? What would have to happen to get me off the Obama Wagon? Just like you, that is a hard question....I would guess an abuse of power once elected, a failure to use and exhaust diplomatic measures before engaging our troops, failure to regulate bank and securities, ....but having researched and found no reason to believe the "revelations" and in not finding much revealing in any of them, I really can't say. The only real response would be if he were to continue the current administration's policies and not work toward the change I feel necessary.

I meant, if any of the revelations (Ayers, ACORN, etc) that are floating around now prove to be true, would any of that be enough to get you to NOT vote for Obama?

WHEW! Good conversation, Cincy, thanks!

Although John McCain co-sponsored the 2005 proposed bill, he did not become a co-sponsor or add his support until 18 months after it was presented to the Senate floor. It was an embellished bill. proposing taking oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac away from HUD's Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight and creating a new "independent" Federal Agency with far greater authorities that would also take over supervision of the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks from the Federal Housing Finance Board set up in 1989 after the Keating 5 S&L mess, effectively consolidating control of all these government sponsored entities under one roof. . Many of the features of this failed bill were included in the Housing & Economic Recovery Act of 2008 signed 7-30-08, and which also enabled the Fannie/Freddie conservatorships, as well as a plethora of other legislative proposals. Neither McCain nor Obama cast a vote on this bill.

Both Rs and Ds were close to an agreement on the initial 2005 bill. It ended on a party-line, which means somebody insisted on putting something in it that was totally offensive to the other side. Clearly, a compromise would have passed the bill, which is what they did in the House with their version. It takes two sides to have a standoff. It ain't a solo. The bill passed in 2008 (the House version in 2007.)

So, it's not as simple as it may appear. McCain did sound an already blaring alarm in May or June 2006, but there was so much unacceptable parts and principals in the drafted bill that it did not pass. Nothing was done in reality until the July 2008 legislation passed.

Both candidates realize that it is necessary to change the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are set up and regulated. Too many loans were given out with balloons that could not be met or given to people who the banks should have known did not have the means to make their payments. McCain, if I understand his position, wants to renegotiate the loans at a devalued principal balance lowering the fair market value of the homes involved, have the government buy those loans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On the surface, this may sound like a good idea, but remember that real money changed hands at the time of the initial loans. To renegotiate now would be giving the very bankers who are guilty of the bad loans being approved through FMAE and FMAC and who set up their terms a reward for their acts. It does not take into account that many of those loans will again default. A band-aid is not a cure. And the people who will be hurt when that happens are property owners who did not default on their mortgages, but who made their payments every month and would, under McCain's plan find their own property's market value devaluated. It simply prolongs the problem.

I do give McCain credit on this. He is thinking outside the box and I actually understand his approach more than Obama's. I am by no means an expert on this subject. It is very complicated. But it does appear to be an instance where McCain did not oppose some form of regulation, so I agree with your conclusion Renee about his comment on "always a deregulator".....but even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. With McCain it is the 1438 other times when he opposed necessary regulation that worry me.

Renee said:

Voting is NOT a right in this country; it's a privilege. It can be taken away, as in those who are felons, etc. There is nothing wrong with bringing new voters to the polls, but the way ACORN is doing it, I'm reminded of the carpetbaggers promising "20 acres and a mule!" if you vote their way. There's a moral imperative that must be applied. It's buying votes, with empty promises to those who are not in the position to question the validity. Try to read to articles on the techniques of ACORN with an open mind. It's disgusting.

Also, I wouldn't deny any qualified and registered voter their right, either. But the question of the homeless voting...that's another story. Of course, being homeless in and of itself shouldn't disqualify anyone, but shouldn't they have to file taxes? Shouldn't they have to have participated at some level of society before casting a vote. And how do know that the homeless live in a certain state? How can we even be sure who they are? What will stop candidates from busing homeless across state lines to pad the roles? For the preservation of the election, you CANNOT just open the polls to the homeless. It is fraught with danger.

I have seen ACORN workers in action. At least here, they ask EVERYONE on the street if they are registered to vote. They are expected to sign up as many people as they can. I would imagine some ACORN workers pad their numbers. But there ARE safeguards to prevent the things you are worried about. Safeguards at the voting precincts. If a voter does not have a valid drivers license or state id showing not only their SS # but also an address (which can be a homeless center or even a city hall or other community building), they are required to produce other identifying information. If their ID is not sufficient, they are still permitted to vote, but it is a provisional vote (only used in case of ties or inability to show a clear and decisive winner).

Of course, some people will slip through the cracks. But you can't "Grandfather" people into the system anymore. In my opinion, for any person who does vote twice (on either side...it doesn't go just one way), there are hundreds if not thousands of other new voters that ACORN and groups like it get involved in the voting process. For the preservation of the disenfranchised's rights/privileges/dreams/hopes, you CANNOT deny them voting privileges. The danger of that is IMO much greater than voter fraud.

Renee wrote:
I've never thought that all Dems are Socialists, nor do I think you're one. I LOVE your attitude about great responsibility. I, however, believe that responsibility rests on MY shoulders, not the governments. I believe it is up to the PERSON, NOT the government to lift up those in need. And therein lies the primary difference between Dems and Republicans. Dems believe the government should help. Republicans believe they should get the hell out of the way and let the PEOPLE help. Simplistic explanation, but one I believe.

Most Dems believe we can and should (and in most cases do) do both. A simplistic reply.

Renee wrote:

I meant, if any of the revelations (Ayers, ACORN, etc) that are floating around now prove to be true, would any of that be enough to get you to NOT vote for Obama?

Obama has answered the Ayers question to my satisfaction and I believe him based on the fact that Ayers is obviously not a terrorist. If that would prove to be a lie on Obama's part and his relationship with Ayers was more than he has said it is, or if Ayers should turn out to actually pose a current threat and Obama was aware of it, of course, my opinion would change and I would reconsider my vote.

As for ACORN, I would not hold Obama responsible for the actions of a grassroots effort to get out the vote, so I would not be likely to change my vote or reconsider it if ACORN was engaged in voter fraud.

[quote="Renee"] I, however, believe that responsibility rests on MY shoulders, not the governments. I believe it is up to the PERSON, NOT the government to lift up those in need. And therein lies the primary difference between Dems and Republicans. Dems believe the government should help. Republicans believe they should get the hell out of the way and let the PEOPLE help. Simplistic explanation, but one I believe.

Renee, while it does indeed sound very humanitarian to say "let the PEOPLE help", in actuality there's a very good chance that the PEOPLE would not always step forward to help and those who are the most vulnerable would be left out in the cold.

One thing I can offer is my own experience with my daughter Laura. She became mentally ill with schizophrenia at the age of 17, and right now at the age of 38 she is hospitalized in a state mental hospital. What the future holds for Laura, I don't know. What I do know is that California had cutbacks in programs for the mentally ill during the time that we had Republican governors in our state. When Ronald Reagan was governor, he closed down mental health facilities and many mentally ill people became homeless. Now with Republican governor Arnold Schwartzeneger, he is also making mental health cuts. Here's an article:

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/08/25/metro/me-mental25

Anyone who has ever been exposed to people like my daughter Laura who have a major mental illness knows what a devastating disease it is. Daily life can be a horror for a person with untreated mental illness. I'm sure that most of you have seen people on the street asking for change.....a good portion of those folks are likely mentally ill and have fallen between the cracks. The way that many, many people walking down the street avoid these street people and wish they would go away, do you honestly feel that they will then go out of their way to assist them if there were no government programs to do so?

My nephew who also suffers from mental illness has recently lost his long term health care placement and with my sister dying, the only place for him to go was with his father.

sounds ok right. His father has been arrested in the past and convicted of abusing him and his younger brother. He actually rented an apartment for his 3 small children - oldest was age 7 - and supplied weekly food but left them there because his new wife didnt want the kids. And that was the good part of having him for a father. When they actually lived with him he had hooks on the wall he hung the boys on by their belts and left them for endless hours - sometimes days as punishment. That's besides the physical abuse he used as punishment. These stories come from the sister who witnessed all of this but was not physically abused. All 3 children suffer from various forms of mental illness now - this boy now living with the father being the most lost to reality. He's completely incapable of taking care of himself and just sits in one place. It breaks my heart to think of his fathers possible abuse and neglect now. I can only hope he reallizes his sins and atones for them by being good to him. The girl takes meds and is somewhat functional but the younger boy ran away at nine and wasnt heard from again until recently and it appears hes going to prison for possibly life now. Very sad story of my sister's children - it breaks my heart. I would have rescued them in a heartbeat if I was allowed but the father would not let anyone near them.

..........I've made my point about people turning the other way when they see the mentally ill. Both Morgan and I posted about mental illness in our families and not one person had any comment or suggestion about how PEOPLE will assist the mentally ill in this world. That's exactly why government programs are necessary to help those who have this most terrible disease through no fault of their own.

[quote="jojoincal"]

Renee wrote:

I, however, believe that responsibility rests on MY shoulders, not the governments. I believe it is up to the PERSON, NOT the government to lift up those in need. And therein lies the primary difference between Dems and Republicans. Dems believe the government should help. Republicans believe they should get the hell out of the way and let the PEOPLE help. Simplistic explanation, but one I believe.

Renee, while it does indeed sound very humanitarian to say "let the PEOPLE help", in actuality there's a very good chance that the PEOPLE would not always step forward to help and those who are the most vulnerable would be left out in the cold.

One thing I can offer is my own experience with my daughter Laura. She became mentally ill with schizophrenia at the age of 17, and right now at the age of 38 she is hospitalized in a state mental hospital. What the future holds for Laura, I don't know. What I do know is that California had cutbacks in programs for the mentally ill during the time that we had Republican governors in our state. When Ronald Reagan was governor, he closed down mental health facilities and many mentally ill people became homeless. Now with Republican governor Arnold Schwartzeneger, he is also making mental health cuts. Here's an article:

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/08/25/metro/me-mental25

Anyone who has ever been exposed to people like my daughter Laura who have a major mental illness knows what a devastating disease it is. Daily life can be a horror for a person with untreated mental illness. I'm sure that most of you have seen people on the street asking for change.....a good portion of those folks are likely mentally ill and have fallen between the cracks. The way that many, many people walking down the street avoid these street people and wish they would go away, do you honestly feel that they will then go out of their way to assist them if there were no government programs to do so?

Hi Jojo, I didn't see these posts. The little dancing Clay shows up instead of NEW POSTS so I didn't know anyone had posted.

I'm so sorry about Laura. I can't imagine what you go through.

I have never supported cancelling programs for the mentally ill. I absolutely see the need for government to intervene here. I'm not against all governmental programs; I'm against the governmental programs that waste the money that could be used for programs like this.

I would like to see more hospitals in the vein of the Shriner's, St. Judes, Mercy Hospitals, etc, that are privately run that could help the mentally ill.

I would like to take the money used for state funded abortions and give it all the mentally ill. Or the money used by the government studying the behaviors of small children to come up with the amazing discovery that boys and girls are basically different? Or how about all the millions we send supporting countries that hate us in the United Nations?

I say we take that money and support education, healthcare (especially for those who need it most, like your Laura), and national security.

Again, maybe the reason people didn't post, Jojo, is because they didn't know there were new posts. Darn that dancing Clay!

Jojo, I just now got back into this thread. But you are 100% correct, we cannot count on the PEOPLE to address the issue of helping those with mental illness. People do tend to look the other way and take up an attitude of thank God, that's not me or mine rather than there but for the grace of God. And it's not just mental illness....it's a wide spectrum of people not looking beyond their own circumstances.

Yes, this country is full of people who give and give until it hurts in some cases, but there is only so much an individual or even a group of fundraising individuals can do. While on the other hand, the funds necessary can be readily and easily provided by the government, with a more widespread and quicker result. And ya know what, even when the government steps in, the private sector will continue their own contributions and will continue to fundraise and to raise awareness to support thousands of causes. There is a great need to do good that can't be discounted and will only be refueled when not only their efforts but those of our leaders reflect meaningful results.

Cuts in mental health care and housing is exactly why you see homeless people on the streets. Once homeless people were drunks and drug addicts and assorted others but now their numbers have swelled dramatically with the release of the mentally ill to the streets.