McCain support drops like rock as economic reality sinks in

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adM8Fq0RTis0&refer=home

Well it appears that at long last this republican strategy of relying on so-called "wedge" issues is failing this year.

Abortion and anti-gay demagoguery does not work as well when people are losing their jobs and their 401K's are going to hail in a handbasket.

There was an AP article by C.S. Rugaber in yesterday's Gazette that pretty much sums it up. (sorry I can't link to it for the free readers.)

The Democrats appear to have an economic plan, while the republicans are just more of the same.

Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying "This is just the beginning of our work." (speaking of the passage of Pres. Bush's rescue bill.)

Rep. Barney Frank likened their plans for the financial services and housing industries as a reincarnation of the NEW Deal enacted by Democrats to rescue the nation from the Great Depression.

"We were the EMT's rushing to the rescue of an economy that suddenly found itself choking, but now we have to implement more serious reform..."

There is an old saying that if you give them enough rope they will hang themselves.

That is just what the de-regulators have done in this instance.

They have shown that unbridled greed ends in disaster.
Just like the Good Book says, "The love of money is the root of all evil."

I figure when we get out of this mess it will be a real long time before people listen to that bull about unfettered free enterprise leading to the land of Nirvana.

sodbuster wrote:I figure when we get out of this mess it will be a real long time before people listen to that bull about unfettered free enterprise leading to the land of Nirvana.

Perhaps if we had "unfettered free enterprise" we might know. But as the socialist rushed in to protect "main street" instead of letting the markets work as they are supposed to, we'll never know.

And now it appears the socialist government intervention you demanded isn't going to work. Imagine that!!!

"And now it appears the socialist government intervention you demanded isn't going to work. Imagine that!!!"

Well in the first place I have not "demanded" anything.

And in the second place they are just proposals at this stage and have not even started through the legislative process and you are saying they are not working?

Almost sounds like you are hoping they dont work!

I hope I am wrong about that.

They will probably wait till after the election when they will hopefully have working majorities in both chambers.

That is if they can wait that long.

If the crisis is SO bad that we had to pass this legislation NOW, why would they wait until January to implement the legislation that HAD to be passed now?

Well it appears to me you didnt take time to read the articles.

But in any event it is obvious that the republicans are able to hold things up now since the Dem majorities are so slim.

The bill passed by 75% in the Senate and 63% in the House. There's no thin margin to this bill and no one's holding up any implementation Sherm.

Well since you apparently did not read the post or the link completely let me re-state i.e.

"Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying "This is just the beginning of our work." (speaking of the passage of Pres. Bush's rescue bill.)

Rep. Barney Frank likened their plans for the financial services and housing industries as a reincarnation of the NEW Deal enacted by Democrats to rescue the nation from the Great Depression.

"We were the EMT's rushing to the rescue of an economy that suddenly found itself choking, but now we have to implement more serious reform..."

You keep referring to Pres. Bush's rescue plan and that clearly is not what Nan Pelosi and Rep. Frank are referring to.

They are talking about a comprehensive overhaul reminiscent of the NEW Dealthat was the cornerstone of FDR's major initiative to lead the nation out of Hoover times.

You don't have to reiterate anything Sherm. On one hand, you are lamenting about how the demons are hindering the process and that the Savior may have to wait until after he gets a commanding margin in both houses to overcome the demons constantly holding the Savior party back while on the other hand you're lamenting about how it's going to take time for the savior party to get things done as you guys have just started to work.

Make up your mind. Do you need time or should we see results now.

As for FDR's New Deal leading us out of the depression, that's about as big a load of BS as there is. He started his socialism in 33 and continued implementing programs throughout the 30's and nothing worked. For each socialist program he instituted, nothing improved. The only thing that brought this country out of the Great Depression, created AND prolonged by GOVERNMENT intervention in economic matters in which they had no business was the massive manufacturing and spending required by the United States of America fighting wars in Europe and the Pacific.

All the new deal did was saddle tax payers with TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of dollars of debt.

And instead of learning from the FDR mistakes of the 30's, today's democrats desire to outspend him which will only make matters worse. It's true that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat the failures of the past.

Yes, Barney Frank is the great savior! Right, after he blocked all attempts at strengthening regulations for years. After he spent YEARS lying to the American people and denying that there was anything wrong with Fannie or Freddie. After he spent a decade making sure his lover-boy could bring home plenty of bacon by intervening on his behalf to make sure nobody looked too closely at the books they were cooking over there.

We should erect a monument to Barney Frank. Yeah, that's it.

Stephanie wrote:Yes, Barney Frank is the great savior! Right, after he blocked all attempts at strengthening regulations for years.

Yes, and when one's election campaigns are bankrolled by high stakes bankers- or by any other industry, one is not likely to tell them to go pee up a rope and run off to strengthen the regulations on their industry.

And when did you start calling for "strengthening regulations" on the financial services industry, anyway?

After he spent YEARS lying to the American people and denying that there was anything wrong with Fannie or Freddie.

Yes again. Millions of dollars of free, legal campaign money will do that to someone- to lots of someones.

After he spent a decade making sure his lover-boy could bring home plenty of bacon by intervening on his behalf to make sure nobody looked too closely at the books they were cooking over there.

If his lover over at wherever had been a female instead of a male, would you still be as indignant about it?

Are you kidding me? Are you for real?

You think I'm pissed at Barney Frank because he's gay?

You don't know me at all.

Would you have said:

After he spent a decade making sure his lover-girl could bring home plenty of bacon by intervening on her behalf to make sure nobody looked too closely at the books they were cooking over there.

No, I probably would have called her his mistress, or maybe his belly warmer. I don't ever refer to women as lover-girls. I do refer to men as lover-boy, irregardless of which gender they're taking to bed.

Ok. But either way what would be illegal about it? I'm not condoning it. I am just suggesting that as corrupt as it may be, that unless some laws are violated, it is not illegal.

So you don't think it's a crime for a member of congress to use his influence to cover the crimes of his lover? I'm not an attorney, I don't even play one on tv, but that sure sounds like obstruction of justice at the very least.

Stephanie wrote:So you don't think it's a crime for a member of congress to use his influence to cover the crimes of his lover? I'm not an attorney, I don't even play one on tv, but that sure sounds like obstruction of justice at the very least.

I'm not a lawyer either. And even if we were, we might not know what a jury would decide.

What were the "crimes" of his lover? Obstruction of justice usually implies some underlying crime on the part of someone. The banking regulation laws have been so weakened over these past 12 to 15 years or so that it appears that almost nothing is actually illegal. Is "cooking the books" actually illegal these days? Stockholders might have civil claims related to "cooking the books" to cover up company losses. But somehow I doubt that these guys so flagrantly violated the laws as you indicate. Not that they are paragons of virtue; I don't believe that they are that. IMHO, some of them are sewer scum. But if it's a blatant as you and Jimmy seem to think, then I figure they know that, legally, their rear ends are covered. No one seems to be denying anything- probably because they know that whatever they did, it is not illegal.

I watched some of those Congressional hearings today where they asked former AIG executives if they had any regrets about how they managed to be paid millions of dollars as they were going out the door while the company was going down in the flames of bankruptcy - "golden parachutes" I think it is called. They seemed quite confident in stating that they had no regrets about taking the money, and didn't plan on giving any of it back. Only one current CEO said that he might night accept all that he is "due"- but which he might not actually accept.

And not one even hinted at taking the 5th amendment. So from what I have seen so far, I don't think anyone is afraid that they are about to be charged with anything. But what do I know?

No, I think they have no fear because they expect those same members of congress who've been protecting them for the past dozen years or so to continue to do so. That's what I think.

It's not that no crimes have been committed by these scumbags. It is that the scum in congress has been covering their hind ends. That's why we need an investigation into members like Barney Frank and others.

ziggy wrote:If his lover over at wherever had been a female instead of a male, would you still be as indignant about it?

Would you have said:

After he spent a decade making sure his lover-girl could bring home plenty of bacon by intervening on her behalf to make sure nobody looked too closely at the books they were cooking over there.

See what I mean, Ziggy will defend any public employee, even the crooked queers.

Steph, instead of Ziggy admonishing the Congressional crooks and thieves for their dastardly dishonest dispictable conduct, .......... he jumped your arse for doing it and is now questioning your honesty and integrity by implying with his questions to you ........ that you hate queers and that is you reason for attacking Barney Frank's devious dishonest actions and lies.



.