Poll: Who won the First Debate?

Who won the debate?

Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.71%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    I agree, this goes well beyond party here. Both parties are a$$ deep in this and they are to blame. Now, sadly the taxpayer takes the hit, which is what we are getting far too acustomed to.
    One party is a$$ deep in it. The other party had some guys a$$ deep but definitely not all of them. Obama is most definitely a$$ deep. Obama is in deep with every dem special interest that i can think of:

    - Unions
    - ACORN/Fannie/Housing
    - Teachers

    I'm sure theres more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

  2. Senior Member
    grila jujitsu's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,564
    Rep Power
    1376
    Level
    38
    Lv. Percent
    45.62%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    The policies began with Jimmy Carter and were given fresh legs by Bill Clinton. The current crisis is due primarily to subprime lending and not just Bush's messing with the rates as you try to imply. There are other issues at play but to try and reduce the home mortgage industry as a bit player just shows how much you fail to understand about everything. In fact, Bush wanted regulation of the home mortage industry as far back as 2003 and McCain wanted it in 2005. This current crisis is the result of businessmen having politicians in their pockets. Every time regulation was proposed the politicians in bed with the mortgage industry squashed it. Both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame, but of the two, only the Democrats are still in office.

    oh my.... come now, to say that I think that the mortgage problem is not big catalyst is wrong. I believe it is a big player in our poor econ, although it is not the main reason. It is merely a domino that has just fallen because of other dominos. Can u reference some facts showing that it was Clinton that gave it new legs? from what I have read reagon is to blame for the mortgage crisis and Bush jr gave it the legs of usain bolt. (If I can find the page in Greenspans book I will post it).
  3. Senior Member
    slow-mun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,149
    Rep Power
    1176
    Level
    33
    Lv. Percent
    80.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    oh my.... come now, to say that I think that the mortgage problem is not big catalyst is wrong. I believe it is a big player in our poor econ, although it is not the main reason. It is merely a domino that has just fallen because of other dominos. Can u reference some facts showing that it was Clinton that gave it new legs? from what I have read reagon is to blame for the mortgage crisis and Bush jr gave it the legs of usain bolt. (If I can find the page in Greenspans book I will post it).
    This is readily available information......

    How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable
    Terry Jones
    Wed Sep 24, 7:19 PM ET



    One of the most frequently asked questions about the subprime market meltdown and housing crisis is: How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?

    The answer is: President Clinton wanted it that way.

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even into the early 1990s, weren't the juggernauts they'd later be.

    While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's rules.

    In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.

    Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended.

    Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, Clinton bluntly told the group that "more Americans should own their own homes." He meant it.

    Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class.

    Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department to rewrite the rules in 1995.

    The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a satisfactory CRA rating harder." Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another.

    Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else.

    "Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on performance," wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.

    But those rules weren't enough.

    Clinton got the Department of Housing and Urban Development to double-team the issue. That would later prove disastrous.

    Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis," the liberal Village Voice noted. Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.

    Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks.

    Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit government guarantees for their debt, the government-sponsored enterprises boomed.

    With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no doc" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income.

    By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market -- a staggering exposure.

    Worse still was the cronyism.

    Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. An informal survey of their top officials shows a roughly 2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans.

    Then there were the campaign donations. From 1989 to 2008, some 384 politicians got their tip jars filled by Fannie and Freddie.

    Over that time, the two GSEs spent $200 million on lobbying and political activities. Their charitable foundations dropped millions more on think tanks and radical community groups.

    Did it work? Well, if measured by the goal of putting more poor people into homes, the answer would have to be yes.

    From 1995 to 2005, a Harvard study shows, minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners.

    The problem is that many of those loans have now gone bad, and minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.

    Fannie and Freddie, with their massive loan portfolios stuffed with securitized mortgage-backed paper created from subprime loans, are a failed legacy of the Clinton era.
    BTW, I guess I must have misinterpreted this quote....

    Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    Besides, to blame the struggling econ on the housing market is ridiculous. There are a multitude of factors that created this econ that we no live in!
    •   
       

  4. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    The sub prime mortgages started before the Clinton and the real problems strated when the second bush decided to mess with the rates. (READ GREENSPANS BOOK HE EXPLAINS IT ALL VERYY WELL)the econ turned bad when bush and his cronies turned big business free and in to a laissez-faire. The kicker is that Bush allowed big business to manufacture in other countries with lower tariffs and taxes. thus, causing a loss in jobs and more money being spent in other countries instead of the good ole USA.

    Besides, to blame the struggling econ on the housing market is ridiculous. There are a multitude of factors that created this econ that we no live in!
    1. The President doesn't decide rates. His book was meant for one reason...covering his ass.

    2. Corporations have been moving manufacturing overseas for 20 years because we have the 2nd HIGHEST tax rate in the world. Look it up. We're at 35%.

    3. The housing bubble is the PRIME reason the economy is faltering. GDP was 3.3% the last quarter, unemployment is still at a historically moderate level even at 6%. Removing the foreclosures and tightening of credit because of the housing bubble and the economy will be fine. Historically, we've just went through the biggest boom in the last 50 years.


    4. "Clinton Administration Changes of 1995

    In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to target to groups to collect a fee from the banks.[4][7]

    The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages." Banks set up CRA departments, a CRA consultant industry was created and new financial-services firms helped banks invest in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to ensure compliance. Established and new community groups began marketing such mortgages. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million.[4] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.[8][9]

    Related rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.[5] Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.[10]

    Bush Administration Changes of 2005

    In 2002 there was an interagency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[7] In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended that a new Department of the Treasury agency should supervise the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressional support was approximately split along Party lines and the proposal eventually failed.[11]

    The new CRA regulations proposed in early 2005 were put into effect in July and September of 2005. They included new definitions for "small" and "intermediate small" banks which were subject to less restrictions than formally.[3] The regulations were opposed by a contingent of Democrats[12]
    If you are going to talk about the economy, please at least be familiar with it."
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  5. Board Moderator
    Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    47
    Posts
    31,888
    Rep Power
    852764
    Level
    95
    Lv. Percent
    49.84%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity RoyaltyActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by J. Peterman View Post
    1. The President doesn't decide rates. His book was meant for one reason...covering his ass.
    I think 2 reasons, ass cover plus $$$
  6. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Wikipedia already changed the description of the CRA.


    This is what it was a couple days ago. They already took out quotes from Barney Frank and Andrew Cuomo. WONDER WHY!

    Clinton Administration Changes of 1995

    In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs. These revisions[3] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.[citation needed]

    The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a satisfactory CRA rating harder." Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another.

    Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis," the liberal Village Voice noted. Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.[1] Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks.

    Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. [4] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent. [5] [6]


    George W. Bush Administration Proposed Changes of 2003

    In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." [7] This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."[8]
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  7. Senior Member
    slow-mun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,149
    Rep Power
    1176
    Level
    33
    Lv. Percent
    80.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    I think 2 reasons, ass cover plus $$$
    Seriously, his book erased whatever credibility he once had. I hope he made a nice penny off of sales.
  8. Senior Member
    grila jujitsu's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,564
    Rep Power
    1376
    Level
    38
    Lv. Percent
    45.62%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    This is readily available information......



    BTW, I guess I must have misinterpreted this quote....

    i should have said scholarly evidence...


    yes you did
  9. Senior Member
    grila jujitsu's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,564
    Rep Power
    1376
    Level
    38
    Lv. Percent
    45.62%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    by the way i guess you guys for got the toll the war has taken on our econ.
  10. Senior Member
    slow-mun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,149
    Rep Power
    1176
    Level
    33
    Lv. Percent
    80.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    i should have said scholarly evidence...


    yes you did
    I guess historical evidence doesn't count for much.
  11. Board Moderator
    Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    47
    Posts
    31,888
    Rep Power
    852764
    Level
    95
    Lv. Percent
    49.84%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity RoyaltyActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    by the way i guess you guys for got the toll the war has taken on our econ.
    What toll is that? national debt went higher, but wages for average amerericans went up. wages are a supply/demand situation, and with as many working age men not working as they were deployed in the military (all the reservists, etc) means that our stateside job prospects should have been better.
  12. Diamond Member
    strategicmove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    10,754
    Rep Power
    774633
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    25.25%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    ....
    The problem I saw with obama during the debate was him rolling his eyes, making faces, that sort of thing the whole time, which didnt seem quite presidential or even professional, particularly considering how many times he said that mccain was right about things....
    Debates, presidential or otherwise, encompass more than just verbal exchanges. Body language is also a part of it. One might like this or not, depending on one's taste. I doubt if the intention is to have two robotic (presidential) debaters with plain faces devoid of any emotion. Making faces, shaking heads, while the opponent is talking suggests disagreement with what he says, and ensures people know one is in disagreement, in case one does not get a chance to respond to the opponent's comments.
    So, given strict time rules, one should use a combination of verbal and non-verbal communication to drive as much point as possible. Just my thought.
    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Also the difference between him attempting to be familiar and friendly and using John all the time while mccain said Senator Obama kind of irked me. Just not quite professional/presidential. If the next debate obama manages to avoid that, he'll look even better I think.
    If I am allowed to address you as "Easy" in a one-to-one conversation off-camera, would I address you as "EasyEJL" when we are in a debate on-camera? I personally do not see it that strict! I may be wrong, though!
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.
  13. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.71%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post
    If I am allowed to address you as "Easy" in a one-to-one conversation off-camera, would I address you as "EasyEJL" when we are in a debate on-camera? I personally do not see it that strict! I may be wrong, though!
    If Mr. McCain and Mr. Lehrer started addressing formally....it makes Barry look informal when hes like hey, "Johnny whats going on!" Its like using tu when usted is called for in Spanish.

    It probably didn't matter one way or another.
  14. Board Moderator
    Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    47
    Posts
    31,888
    Rep Power
    852764
    Level
    95
    Lv. Percent
    49.84%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity RoyaltyActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post
    Debates, presidential or otherwise, encompass more than just verbal exchanges. Body language is also a part of it. One might like this or not, depending on one's taste. I doubt if the intention is to have two robotic (presidential) debaters with plain faces devoid of any emotion. Making faces, shaking heads, while the opponent is talking suggests disagreement with what he says, and ensures people know one is in disagreement, in case one does not get a chance to respond to the opponent's comments.
    So, given strict time rules, one should use a combination of verbal and non-verbal communication to drive as much point as possible. Just my thought.


    If I am allowed to address you as "Easy" in a one-to-one conversation off-camera, would I address you as "EasyEJL" when we are in a debate on-camera? I personally do not see it that strict! I may be wrong, though!
    I see what you are saying on both, but how would you feel if as president he did the same during a limited meeting with putin(the faces, etc) or how about if he went "casual" first, calling him vlad many times, but even tho putin continued to call him president obama? just seems like trying to force a familiarity and friendliness that doesn't actually exist
  15. New Member
    Arrogant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    121
    Rep Power
    192
    Level
    9
    Lv. Percent
    85.41%

    I didn't think there was any clear winner.

    McCain did horribly when it came to addressing middle class issues and the economy at large.

    When it came to Iraq, he came off like an arsonist that wanted credit for putting out his own fire. He just doesn't get it.

    He also looked and sounded like a cranky old man, refusing to look at Obama and using condecending tones all the way.


    Obama continues to believe that being the more intellectual and calm candidate will win, and as we've seen in the past - smarter doesn't resonate with dumb voters - regardless of their political leanings.

    The only time he really resonated with me was when he hammered McCain on Iraq.

    Dems think their guy won, Repubs think their guy won.
    Independants, however, widely believe that Obama won. And that's what matters most to the two campaigns. Because at this stage of the game, they don't give a **** about their base.
  16. Diamond Member
    strategicmove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    10,754
    Rep Power
    774633
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    25.25%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    I see what you are saying on both, but how would you feel if as president he did the same during a limited meeting with putin(the faces, etc) or how about if he went "casual" first, calling him vlad many times, but even tho putin continued to call him president obama? just seems like trying to force a familiarity and friendliness that doesn't actually exist
    I actually do not know what level of familiarity Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama enjoy, if at all, to justify first-name addressing or not. Hence, I am unable to say if Mr. Obama's style was inappropriate, or if Mr. McCain was overly formal.

    Regarding Putin, faces, and all that, the context is different. Every one gets a chance to talk, with loose time restrictions, if any. Besides, some presidents or heads of state are on first name bases in front of, or behind the camera.
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.
  17. Senior Member
    grila jujitsu's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,564
    Rep Power
    1376
    Level
    38
    Lv. Percent
    45.62%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    What toll is that? national debt went higher, but wages for average amerericans went up. wages are a supply/demand situation, and with as many working age men not working as they were deployed in the military (all the reservists, etc) means that our stateside job prospects should have been better.

    The national debt went WAY higher!

    Because Americans wages went up is not a always a good thing. Inflation is not a good thing.

    We are in such a bad situation we are borrowing money from other countries. Also, not a good thing. we owe more then 1/2 a billion to china.

    Oh and those jobs you think are so secure, not so much, just this year we have lost over 600,000 jobs.
  18. Senior Member
    Nabisco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,163
    Rep Power
    684
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    26.33%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    The national debt went WAY higher!

    Because Americans wages went up is not a always a good thing. Inflation is not a good thing.

    We are in such a bad situation we are borrowing money from other countries. Also, not a good thing. we owe more then 1/2 a billion to china.

    Oh and those jobs you think are so secure, not so much, just this year we have lost over 600,000 jobs.
    1. 500 million dollars is chump change to this country.

    2. We've always borrowed from other countries. And in turn, other countries have borrowed from us. It's nothing new. It's called credit...you know, the thing is country and others live off of.

    3. American wage increases not always good? Are you an idiot? How do increased wages result in increased inflation? Oh, that's right, the two are not exclusively linked. One doesn't have to follow the other.

    4. I'm sorry, but I've been able to follow the majority of the posters in this thread. And although I may not agree with them, they are demonstrating a fairly knowledgeable take on the situation. Where as, you my friend are coming out of left field with a bunch of useless unsupported rhetoric.

    5. The "economic crisis" is the housing crisis. Because people are defaulting on their mortgages there is a crunch on credit. No one wants to loan any money unless they are nearly guaranteed safe returns. This means the bankers are puckering up and clamping down on the coffers. Now you have to show you have the means of paying back a loan before you get it. Oh the humanity! I have to be able to pay things back! Shock! Horror!

    6. If you stop the foreclosures, you free up those uptight bankers to release the purse strings and provide more credit. And whether you want to believe it or not, this country and the world market runs on CREDIT.

    7. The war didn't cause this economic crisis. People with jobs paying 50k/yr buying a $500k house on an ARM loan are what is causing this "economic" crisis. You can blame the banks, because they rightfully deserve to reap what they sowed. However, don't forget that Clinton is the one who decided that everyone ought to have a house, which created these outrageous subprime loans, and then made them readily available, in the first place.

    8. Take a nap, please. Also, it would be much easier to follow your posts, if there was a semblance of sentence structure, punctuation, or logical transitions between points.

    As far as staying on topic. It was a general tie, which means McCain lost (And I'm a McCain supporter). He needs to step up and provide some resounding wins in the next two debates. And I really thought this would have been an easy one for him, being based on Foreign policy. (Although the economy did get tossed in).

    <== That's how I felt after the debate.

    Edit: The majority of those $600,000 jobs lost are unskilled (excuse the terminology, its used for lower skilled jobs) labor jobs. Get an education. This is a technology driven world, not just here in the US. You know we actually give tens of thousands of visas to people from all over the world, because we don't have enough engineers and scientists being produced in the US to fill demand? You want job security, then get an education.
  19. New Member
    dieselxxl's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  240 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    7
    Rep Power
    79
    Level
    2
    Lv. Percent
    48.17%

    Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    The policies began with Jimmy Carter and were given fresh legs by Bill Clinton. The current crisis is due primarily to subprime lending and not just Bush's messing with the rates as you try to imply. There are other issues at play but to try and reduce the home mortgage industry as a bit player just shows how much you fail to understand about everything. In fact, Bush wanted regulation of the home mortage industry as far back as 2003 and McCain wanted it in 2005. This current crisis is the result of businessmen having politicians in their pockets. Every time regulation was proposed the politicians in bed with the mortgage industry squashed it. Both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame, but of the two, only the Democrats are still in office.
    that is the truth
  20. Senior Member
    grila jujitsu's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,564
    Rep Power
    1376
    Level
    38
    Lv. Percent
    45.62%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabisco View Post
    1. 500 million dollars is chump change to this country.

    2. We've always borrowed from other countries. And in turn, other countries have borrowed from us. It's nothing new. It's called credit...you know, the thing is country and others live off of.

    3. American wage increases not always good? Are you an idiot? How do increased wages result in increased inflation? Oh, that's right, the two are not exclusively linked. One doesn't have to follow the other.

    4. I'm sorry, but I've been able to follow the majority of the posters in this thread. And although I may not agree with them, they are demonstrating a fairly knowledgeable take on the situation. Where as, you my friend are coming out of left field with a bunch of useless unsupported rhetoric.

    5. The "economic crisis" is the housing crisis. Because people are defaulting on their mortgages there is a crunch on credit. No one wants to loan any money unless they are nearly guaranteed safe returns. This means the bankers are puckering up and clamping down on the coffers. Now you have to show you have the means of paying back a loan before you get it. Oh the humanity! I have to be able to pay things back! Shock! Horror!

    6. If you stop the foreclosures, you free up those uptight bankers to release the purse strings and provide more credit. And whether you want to believe it or not, this country and the world market runs on CREDIT.

    7. The war didn't cause this economic crisis. People with jobs paying 50k/yr buying a $500k house on an ARM loan are what is causing this "economic" crisis. You can blame the banks, because they rightfully deserve to reap what they sowed. However, don't forget that Clinton is the one who decided that everyone ought to have a house, which created these outrageous subprime loans, and then made them readily available, in the first place.

    8. Take a nap, please. Also, it would be much easier to follow your posts, if there was a semblance of sentence structure, punctuation, or logical transitions between points.

    As far as staying on topic. It was a general tie, which means McCain lost (And I'm a McCain supporter). He needs to step up and provide some resounding wins in the next two debates. And I really thought this would have been an easy one for him, being based on Foreign policy. (Although the economy did get tossed in).

    <== That's how I felt after the debate.

    Edit: The majority of those $600,000 jobs lost are unskilled (excuse the terminology, its used for lower skilled jobs) labor jobs. Get an education. This is a technology driven world, not just here in the US. You know we actually give tens of thousands of visas to people from all over the world, because we don't have enough engineers and scientists being produced in the US to fill demand? You want job security, then get an education.

    lol left field huh?

    where do u get ur info! lol

    I dont even know which point to start with.

    Your argument is so base, talk about useless rhetoric!
  21. Board Moderator
    Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    47
    Posts
    31,888
    Rep Power
    852764
    Level
    95
    Lv. Percent
    49.84%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity RoyaltyActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    Your argument is so base, talk about useless rhetoric!
    What have your posts in this thread been then?
  22. Senior Member
    slow-mun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,149
    Rep Power
    1176
    Level
    33
    Lv. Percent
    80.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    I'm going to settle things once and for all by relating it to "Team America, World Police."

    YouTube - World's greatest speech
  23. Senior Member
    grila jujitsu's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,564
    Rep Power
    1376
    Level
    38
    Lv. Percent
    45.62%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    I'm going to settle things once and for all by relating it to "Team America, World Police."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6rDeOojFXk

    lol i love it slow-mun! **** yea!
  24. Registered User
    somewhatgifted's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,390
    Rep Power
    2337
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    13.93%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Tell me why I watch the debate and I see McCain win the economy and Obama win the foreign policy. Then the analysts say exactly the opposite....
    Whos signing the pay cheques of said analysts.

    Im sure youve factored that big buisness (the people behind the people funding everything) own broadcast stations and some networks.
    So finding conflicting info or similar info is a region or channel change away.
    Its funny how sometimes people comment on the stupidest things , oh obama is younger, mccain had a nice suit, i didnt like his tone....... Is this real?
    "I heard brittney lost her liscence again oh and i herd obama the cute kinda black one, yeah , he won the debate im votin fer him."
    "Mclean just doesnt do it for me, hes red like my husband and yall know he aint running no country or takin control in the bedroom."

    Then theres the fanatics who think politics are like sports matches ... "yeah fck yah hes the man, all the way!!!" "Mccain would go military style on obamas azz, beat down!!!"

    This is very successful brain washing IMO where people feel so discouraged and distracted from the issues that they focus on easier things to like or disslike. As if it were someone elses job to find valid realiable information, and to stick to the obvious. I think any quality news station or publication would avoid such stories, dont get your political advice from beauty magazines, gossip columns, sports analysts or sources that wastes disscuss things not related to a mans ability to run a country.

    I think the best way to make good decisions is by getting all the info and digesting it then making your own decisions. Others choose to ignore opposing views, make blanket statements, write off unkown content and disregaurd certain information depending on the source. Isnt this ignorance?
  25. Registered User
    somewhatgifted's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,390
    Rep Power
    2337
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    13.93%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    I'm going to settle things once and for all by relating it to "Team America, World Police."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6rDeOojFXk
    South park writers use sarcasm, children and sometimes overblown stereotypes to expose the ignorance of people in the us.
    They seem to make complex political statements so extreme or obsurd that its seems over the top, yet somehow paralell to actual events.
    It takes a bit of imagination but the characters personas replicate differing sides of intelligence and imformed opinions against a starkly contrasting ignorant one.
    Statements so "extreme" that it would not be allowed on t.v if it were not done with marionettes.

    "actors use lies to tell the truth whereas politician use lies to cover it up"

    Just thought id throw that out there.
  26. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.71%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Tell me why when Palin says she'd support Georgia if they were a member of NATO, she's seen as naive and everyone on TV makes a huge deal out of it...but when Obama says he'd attack insurgents in Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistani government (who already is second guessing working with us) nobody gives it a second thought.....
  27. Senior Member
    Nabisco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,163
    Rep Power
    684
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    26.33%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    lol left field huh?

    where do u get ur info! lol

    I dont even know which point to start with.

    Your argument is so base, talk about useless rhetoric!
    You don't know which point to start with, because you can't prove any of them wrong.

    Here, since you're too slow to follow along I'll list where I get this type of info for each point. Try to follow along, and be careful that you don't drool on your keyboard.

    1. The 2008 US government budget. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...get/tables.pdf

    Refer to table S-2. You'll notice that the total Discretionary budget is 929.8 BILLION dollars. Therefore your comment of owing 500 million to China is 0.05% of the 2008 Discretionary Budget. I don't see that as a lot of money, do you? No. Wait. Don't answer that question.

    2. This doesn't even deserve a response. If you think the global economies survive without lending to one another, you're beyond my assistance. But here is a little article on US debt, so you can see how it works. Just who owns the U.S. national debt? - Answer desk - MSNBC.com

    Notice that private investors own more of the US than China. I hope you're learning, I'll try to go slowly.

    3. Do wage increases lead to inflation. NO. I hope that this is clear enough for you.
    http://clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/pd1.PDF

    I know its small print, and that your head might hurt trying to process this, but just read the opening summary and you'll get your answer. The summary...you know, that paragraph where they take all the big words you can't seem to grasp and make them smaller so you won't have to google what they mean.

    4. This doesn't need a response. I still feel that you're an idiot, that hasn't changed.

    5. So you don't think that the housing crisis is the overwhelming factor of our "economic" crisis do you.
    Greenspan: Financial Crisis Likely Worst Since WWII
    That right there is from your best friend Mr. Greenspan.

    6. This is common freaking sense, you deserve nothing further on this one.

    7. Refer to my above post by your "All knowing" friend Mr. Greenspan. Do a quick search on the economic crisis and not a single professional economist will tell you the Iraq war is the cause of this economic crisis. It doesn't help that we're spending extra money (that I'll admit), but it has nearly zero effect on the current crisis.

    8. This still hasn't changed. Now that we've finished our lesson that my 8 year old cousin already understands I'll move to the rest of your post.

    My argument is base? Do you even know the definition of the word you just used? You're saying that my argument is "a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis"? Right, because that makes sense. But if it makes you feel better to use words that don't fit in this context, ok. In fact my post was clearly outlined, and not "base" at all. I outlined my argument in number fashion so you could follow along. Kind of like paint by numbers for incredibly slow people.

    Useless rhetoric? Congratulations, you can copy and paste comments from my post that sound intelligent and reuse them. And for my own morbid curiosity, if I'm spouting rhetoric, whose rhetoric is it? As I've posted government documents, links to Democratic leaning news outlets, and your very favorite economy guru, Mr. Greenspan.

    You've provided absolutely nothing to this thread except asinine comments like the above. I almost feel like a special education teacher, trying to find different ways of explaining when you know that the handicapped child across from you isn't understanding what you're trying to get across. But patience is a virtue they say.

    Now I know how Mullet feels.
  28. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27066
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.18%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    I think we should simply solve this in the most elegant, professional, and erudite manner possible: A fucking kick-ass game of Slapsies!!
  29. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  30. Senior Member
    slow-mun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,149
    Rep Power
    1176
    Level
    33
    Lv. Percent
    80.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    I think we should simply solve this in the most elegant, professional, and erudite manner possible: A fucking kick-ass game of Slapsies!!
    As a kid, every time we played this.....

    YouTube - Slapsies

    ....it evolved into this...

    YouTube - Hand - Vagina
  31. Advanced Member
    bigrobbierob's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  240 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Age
    42
    Posts
    748
    Rep Power
    7810
    Level
    22
    Lv. Percent
    16.52%

    I've found the post-debate coverage quite...odd.

    I was online the night of the debate. While most people said it was pretty even, McCain seemed to get a slight nod. It was that way on initial analysis I saw as well. Most talking heads called it a tie, but if pressed gave it slightly to McCain.

    The next day, the MSM says Obama won overwhelmingly.
  32. Registered User
    somewhatgifted's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,390
    Rep Power
    2337
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    13.93%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by bigrobbierob View Post
    I've found the post-debate coverage quite...odd.

    I was online the night of the debate. While most people said it was pretty even, McCain seemed to get a slight nod. It was that way on initial analysis I saw as well. Most talking heads called it a tie, but if pressed gave it slightly to McCain.

    The next day, the MSM says Obama won overwhelmingly.
    Well for those who arent paying attention and blindly believing the media its irrelevant to consider the truth. This is not accusational but a natural consequence of ignorance in not realising the conflict of interest when a body who stands to benefit, also owns a news publication or network, provides extremely biased perspectives likely untrue.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. The 2nd Debate
    By TruffleShuffle in forum Politics
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-09-2008, 10:59 PM
  2. hcg debate
    By Get Big or Die in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-14-2006, 11:03 PM
  3. 40/30/30 debate
    By Head Nurse in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-10-2005, 09:46 AM
  4. Okay another something to debate
    By Matthew D in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-30-2005, 07:36 PM
  5. And now for some debate....
    By goa1175 in forum News and Articles
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 02-01-2005, 03:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in