Does all this government involvement in the financial markets scare you ? - Page 3

Wagner · #21 09-20-2008, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krimson X

You are a funny guy. Nothing I said was made up. Seeing what you want to see... again. That is a shame.

I never said he didn't rank no. 2 in that regard. In fact I agreed with you that it was probably true. Obviously you have a problem with reading. I said they both have F/F problems in my first post on this thread. Unless you can produce actual data that shows McCain does not have F/F staff on his team....Then I rest my case.

See you still mislead yourself and yes you did make up some non-sense as if I said McCain anywhere in my first thread. "Probably true" it is true, there is no probably. I never said McCain didn't have any ties to F/F (though it seems you had to go back about a decade to find any)...you just make up arguments left and right to defend your boy. You didn't have a case to rest

Try to read the posts before you attempt to blinder them, it helps logic flow

Had you posted anything that denied Obamas current involvement, that would have been a tangible response. Instead, you attempted to create a new flow so you could work in your point. Though I really can't blame you, trying to support Obama right now is getting harder and harder to define.

Sponsored Links

JCL · #22 09-20-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

See you still mislead yourself and yes you did make up some non-sense as if I said McCain anywhere in my first thread. "Probably true" it is true, there is no probably. I never said McCain didn't have any ties to F/F (though it seems you had to go back about a decade to find any)...you just make up arguments left and right to defend your boy. You didn't have a case to rest

Try to read the posts before you attempt to blinder them, it helps logic flow

Had you posted anything that denied Obamas current involvement, that would have been a tangible response. Instead, you attempted to create a new flow so you could work in your point. Though I really can't blame you, trying to support Obama right now is getting harder and harder to define.

I don't really want to get in the middle of this sparring session, but I am trying to follow the logic, so help me out.

Wagner, you didn't say McCain anywhere in your first post. What you did do, as far as I can tell, is take a thread about government bailouts and say it doesn't worry you as much as Obama's involvement with lobbyists. Fine. Hard to argue that wasn't a support for McCain. If it wasn't, then OK, but it certainly came across that way and apparently not just to me. You didn't post a second link with McCain's equal involvement in lobbyists, so it was clearly interpreted as a MLG-esque post.

I believe that both are connected with lobbyists. Hard to dispute. But if you want to say that one is cleaner using that Foxspin news article, then you should read further down in your own posted link and see the chart that was posted from the NYT (which you will quickly point out is from the leftspin news media). They got it from the US Federal Elections Commission according to the chart, so maybe it is grounded in fact. That chart shows that McCain had many times the donations from FF lobbyists as Obama did, in 2008. Not going back 9 years here, but now. Why do the two charts draw opposite conclusions about who received contributions? Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics. You can make the numbers read factually any way you like, because it depends entirely on which narrow definition you use. Fox spins it one way, NYT spins it another way. Maybe they don't even mean to, and they are just incompetent. Most of the debates on here seem to be people picking up a single data point, and using it as a platform. Strange.

Now, before someone calls me an apologist for Obama (sorry, I can't vote....), here is a question to ponder, on the original topic. Does smaller government (which I like in principle) mean less regulation? Aren't the two incompatible? Are we in fact suffering from having dismantled over the past decade, the safeguards designed to regulate the banking and investment industries? And can either candidate claim to be able to lower taxes when they are taking your money and buying up worthless paper with it? Get ready to pay more, it doesn't matter which party it is. The tax holiday might just be ending.

Oh, and thanks for that bailout by the way. Our largest stock exchange rose 7% on the news. Glad it is your debt and not ours. Hope you can afford it.

Krimson X · #23 09-20-2008, 03:04 PM

Boy, you are really showing your ignorance today. You are in rare form.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

See you still mislead yourself and yes you did make up some non-sense as if I said McCain anywhere in my first thread. "Probably true" it is true, there is no probably. I never said McCain didn't have any ties to F/F (though it seems you had to go back about a decade to find any)...you just make up arguments left and right to defend your boy. You didn't have a case to rest

Try to read the posts before you attempt to blinder them, it helps logic flow

Had you posted anything that denied Obamas current involvement, that would have been a tangible response. Instead, you attempted to create a new flow so you could work in your point. Though I really can't blame you, trying to support Obama right now is getting harder and harder to define.

Fredflf · #24 09-20-2008, 07:50 PM

Yah but what about the bailout? We are going to pick up the bill for the speculators who already made thier money on thier gamble. What about free market capitalism. I can see bailing out owner occupied homes by making it easier for the homeowner to keep thier homes. But picking up the tab for bad risk taking is absurd. Yes the banking sector is in shambles, yes this is very serious for our economy, but the bailout just causes other problems down the line.

MrLabGuy · #25 09-20-2008, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fredflf

Yah but what about the bailout? We are going to pick up the bill for the speculators who already made thier money on thier gamble. What about free market capitalism. I can see bailing out owner occupied homes by making it easier for the homeowner to keep thier homes. But picking up the tab for bad risk taking is absurd. Yes the banking sector is in shambles, yes this is very serious for our economy, but the bailout just causes other problems down the line.

I don't like it either; however, the US economy functions because the American people have access to credit. Think about all the items people buy on their credit cards that they don't need but would not buy if they had to pay cash. That's jobs lost if they don't have access to credit. Then you have the all the small business that would not exist without access to credit to keep running or expand.

Sure...Bail out the guy who purchased a house he could not afford. End result is he gets rewarded and we pick up the tab. What does America get out of that investment other than warm and fuzzies?

Fact is the ENTIRE government was asleep at the switch Congress and the Executive branch and since we elected them we have to pay. I say bail out the banks so the economy can recover and learn from our mistakes. Vote in November and get involved. That is about all we can do.

chilliwilli · #26 09-21-2008, 12:58 AM

Someone recently reminded me of the below quote, the clairvoyance of the founders...

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties
than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to
control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will
deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on
the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken
from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

- Thomas Jefferson
Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakai

We all know the good that comes out of it, but started to bother me was the ban on short selling. Say goodbye to the free market. The worse case scenario outweighs the best case scenario. Ultimately the US has become one of the largest hedge funds using our money to hedge their bets. Taxpayers are taking all of the risk and will never see the gains.

Wagner · #27 09-24-2008, 06:47 AM

The part Jefferson didn't account for was that the people would be just as corrupt as the banks.

Oops....

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09...reddie-report/

Sponsored Links