Can someone explain to me why anyone wants to vote for McCain/Palin?

Regulations = good.

Government bureacrats = bad. Having several as your overlords = bad. Excessive regulation = bad.

The housing crisis started BECAUSE OF regulation, and those same regulators, none of whom have been fired, gone to jail or had their assets seized, are presenting themselves as the solution.

When Enron collapsed we all saw the perp walk on TV with executives escorted out of their homes in handcuffs.

Nobody has paid for this disaster.
 
Nobody has paid for this disaster.
What are we going to do? Arrest Congress? Make the last 4-5 presidents pay for it? This was a systemic failure all the way from the White House to Wall Street to the idiots who took out mortgages they couldn't repay. You can't point the finger at one person. There may have been certain people or certain incidents that led to this point, but everyone else went along with it.
 
Sir that has to be one of the best explanations of the whole mess. You wont hear that on the Media Megaphone because they forget that the "NEWS" has become entertainment and pundits don't get paid for sense they get paid for crazy. When you get right down to it the entire economic downturn is "our" "the worlds" fault and when ever you point a finger you have three point right back at you.
 
What are we going to do? Arrest Congress? Make the last 4-5 presidents pay for it? This was a systemic failure all the way from the White House to Wall Street to the idiots who took out mortgages they couldn't repay. You can't point the finger at one person. There may have been certain people or certain incidents that led to this point, but everyone else went along with it.

Exactly right. There is plenty of blame to go around and the knee jerk reaction of one side or group to blame the other is not going to fix anything.
 
What are we going to do? Arrest Congress? Make the last 4-5 presidents pay for it? This was a systemic failure all the way from the White House to Wall Street to the idiots who took out mortgages they couldn't repay. You can't point the finger at one person. There may have been certain people or certain incidents that led to this point, but everyone else went along with it.

Doing nothing is EXACTLY why we have no accountability.

When the Enron scandal broke, CEO Ken Lay was brought out in handcuffs and politicians were all too happy to gleefully celebrate his incarceration. Congressmen celebrated in session. But nobody has paid a dime for the Fannie/Freddie disaster.

Let's start by naming names and what out-of-power government stooges were installed at the top of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac despite having absolutely no financial background whatsoever. One gem in particular is Jamie Gorelick, who was made Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and is the same genius who in the Clinton Administration as Deputy Attourney General erected a wall between the CIA and FBI. Let's talk about Franklin Raines, who was the head of Fannie from 1998 - 2004 and pocketed $100m during that time. Did he get arrested? No, he's one of Obama's top financial advisers. Let's talk about Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and how much campaign money they got from Fannie/Freddy. Jim Johnson, another Fannie executive, is also in his economic team.

These political lackeys mismanage the "company" into the ground, pocket huge salaries and bonuses while doing it, make political contributions to the people who got them those positions, and then get a bailout for their incompetent management jobs -- all at taxpayer expense.

Someone needs to be held accountable for once.

Yes, idiot people took out mortgages they couldn't afford. However, this was all set up and encouraged by greedy and incompetent government policy.
 
Cut...

Let's talk about Franklin Raines, who was the head of Fannie from 1998 - 2004 and pocketed $100m during that time. Did he get arrested? No, he's one of Obama's top financial advisers. .

Cut...

Sorry that's not true. Raines did an interview with the Washington Post and they asked if he had talked with anyone in the Obama campaign. He said yes he had spoken to one person in the campaign during a couple of phone calls but he was never a top adviser, never had any sit down meetings with Obama and was never an actual part of the campaign.

That myth is just left over McCain/Palin campaign smear.

Here

and here
 
Sorry that's not true. Raines did an interview with the Washington Post and they asked if he had talked with anyone in the Obama campaign. He said yes he had spoken to one person in the campaign during a couple of phone calls but he was never a top adviser, never had any sit down meetings with Obama and was never an actual part of the campaign.

Fine if the part about being an Obama adviser isn't true, it doesn't change the point I'm making.

Raines collected $100m in salary and bonuses in 6 years, under which Fannie's worst abuses took place. He is a well connected political insider. None of his assets have been seized, no charges have been filed, he hasn't been led away in handcuffs. And let's not forget he was Clinton's Budget Director.

You didn't talk about Jim Johnson either, another Fannie executive. He was a key advisor on Obama's VP search, who resigned over accusations of favoritism by Countrywide Financial. You didn't talk about how Jamie Gorelick was installed at a top position in Fannie when she has no financial background.

With the overwhelming apperance of former Clinton people in Obama's transition, is there any doubt that Jamie Gorelick will land a spot high in Obama's administration such as Attorney General, despite being nothing but a screwup in the AG's office and an incompetant Vice Chairman at Freddie. And let's not forget she co-authored the 9/11 commission report.

My point is, look at the top levels of government and specifically on the Democrat side, and you will find Fannie and Freddie alums littered all over the place, none of whom have been held to an ounce of blame.

Nobody has been held accountable. Most people don't even recognize any of their names, but they sure as heck know who Ken Lay was. Fannie & Freddie are a government ATM machine for out of power politicians.

Dems whine and moan about Haliburton and Carlise Group all day long, but don't have a peep to say about Fannie/Freddie.

I'm forced to remind people of the 1992 House Banking Scandal, it best illustrates the raiding of the public treasury by politicans. Essentially they could withdraw from the House Bank however much money they wanted regardless of their actual balance; it was a free money ATM machine for Representatives, and everybody abused it for years.
 
Last edited:
Doing nothing is EXACTLY why we have no accountability.

Yes, idiot people took out mortgages they couldn't afford. However, this was all set up and encouraged by greedy and incompetent government policy.
Comparing this to Lay/Enron is comparing apples to oranges. Like I said, there are people who may be more to blame (at least they'd make better scapegoats), but you can't just nail a handful of people to the wall for this. Like you said, this whole situation has been encouraged by 30 years of idiotic, short-sighted government policy. So is the Fannie/Freddie leadership any more to blame than the bureaucrats who allowed them to make the loans (told them to)? Or should we blame all the companies who bundled those mortgages, sold/bought them as securities, knowing they were ridiculously inflated in value? Or the people who wanted their own home so bad they were willing to sell their soul to their bank for the next 30, 50, 90 years? If you want to convict one person for this situation, then you're going to have to put thousands of others on trial for conspiracy, or aiding and abetting, know what I mean?

Dems whine and moan about Haliburton and Carlise Group all day long, but don't have a peep to say about Fannie/Freddie.
Of course not. You don't hear and any republicans investigating KBR or Haliburton, etc. No one wants to kill their personal cash cow.
 
Fine if the part about being an Obama adviser isn't true, it doesn't change the point I'm making.

Raines collected $100m in salary and bonuses in 6 years, under which Fannie's worst abuses took place. He is a well connected political insider. None of his assets have been seized, no charges have been filed, he hasn't been led away in handcuffs. And let's not forget he was Clinton's Budget Director.

You didn't talk about Jim Johnson either, another Fannie executive. He was a key advisor on Obama's VP search, who resigned over accusations of favoritism by Countrywide Financial. You didn't talk about how Jamie Gorelick was installed at a top position in Fannie when she has no financial background.

With the overwhelming apperance of former Clinton people in Obama's transition, is there any doubt that Jamie Gorelick will land a spot high in Obama's administration such as Attorney General, despite being nothing but a screwup in the AG's office and an incompetant Vice Chairman at Freddie. And let's not forget she co-authored the 9/11 commission report.

My point is, look at the top levels of government and specifically on the Democrat side, and you will find Fannie and Freddie alums littered all over the place, none of whom have been held to an ounce of blame.

Nobody has been held accountable. Most people don't even recognize any of their names, but they sure as heck know who Ken Lay was. Fannie & Freddie are a government ATM machine for out of power politicians.

Dems whine and moan about Haliburton and Carlise Group all day long, but don't have a peep to say about Fannie/Freddie.

I'm forced to remind people of the 1992 House Banking Scandal, it best illustrates the raiding of the public treasury by politicans. Essentially they could withdraw from the House Bank however much money they wanted regardless of their actual balance; it was a free money ATM machine for Representatives, and everybody abused it for years.

Obama has already essentially picked his AG and it is Eric Holder. That news has been out there for quite a while and should be announced officially tomorrow.

As for wanting to see people led out in handcuffs I am sure it is coming but you need to be patient and wait for the evidence to be collected by the FBI so that they can get an indictment.

I had meant to come back and Edit my post to include some references to the Enron time line but the end of the month is always crazy at work so I never had a chance.

Enron declared bankruptcy on December 2nd 2001.

The govt siezed FRE and FNM on September 7th 2008.

The FBI started their investigation of Enron on Jan. 23rd.

The FBI started investigations into FRE, FNM along with Lehman and AIG on Sept. 23rd.

The first convictions related to Enron came down in April of 2002 but it was for people in Arthur Anderson not Enron

The serious indictments didn't come down till near the end of 2002 and the the first Criminal trial involving Enron Executives didn't start till September 2004.

Everyone before that had pleaded guilty to the charges. Ken Lay isn't officially charged until July 8th 2004 and Skilling isn't charged until Feb. 4th of 2004.

Just give the FBI more time. If there is wrong doing at Freddie or Fannie that is a chargeable criminal offense then they will find it.

It took two and a half years for Lay to actually be charged with something. The FBI has had less then three months to look into FRE and FNM.

Remember they were also conducting Operation "Malicious Mortgage" over the summer and I am sure there is more to come from that investigation.
 
Wow, this thread's still around? I haven't been in here a while, as I haven't had time for websurfing lately. Plus, it was getting frustrating trying to debate people who insisted on giving opinions while admitting they weren't willing to actually research past what they wanted to know.

And while I don't care about my "rep level", I found the negative rep comments somewhat amusing.

On the thread about Sarah Palin's email being hacked, I received:
"suck a bag of dicks"
-and-
"You cannot assume that the hackers are liberals or even give a shit about the elections."
Aside from the fact that the hacker was a liberal who did give a shit about the elections, why can't someone assume they were?

On this thread, I received this one:
"More arguments, less "do something impossble" comebacks... And by the way, you'd suck as a politician."
Well of course I would. Politicans the world over these days base their success on promising stuff to voters and billing it all to a small percentage of taxpayers. That's just not the kind of government I believe in.
 
Dunno. UK conservaties, at least they are reasonable- they don't try to destroy the nhs, they don't get rid of gay marriage, they don't destroy women's rights or enforce a church-state. US conservatives? Just the opposite. Plus the us needs a liberal now like the uk needs a conservative- desperately. the US needs to cancel out unregulated capitalism, extreme ceo wages, and declining forgein presence. UK, needs to fix high food prices, high taxes, nanny government and speed cameras.
 
Dunno. UK conservaties, at least they are reasonable- they don't try to destroy the nhs, they don't get rid of gay marriage, they don't destroy women's rights or enforce a church-state. US conservatives? Just the opposite.
First, what is the "nhs"? National Health Service?

Second, how do you "get rid" of something that only a couple of states have?

Third, "destroy" women's rights? Which ones? The right to vote? The right to self-defense? The right to an education? The right to sit at the front of the bus? The right to get a divorce?

Oh wait, you mean the right to kill an unborn child, without the father or their parents (if they're an underage child) finding out? Is that the "rights" (plural) you're worried about?

Fourth, what "church-state"?!?

Plus the us needs a liberal now like the uk needs a conservative- desperately.
Oh sure, what we need right now is even MORE unchecked federal spending, more federal departments of this-and-that, more entitlement programs, more inflation, and the stopping of all economic growth. Sure.

the US needs to cancel out unregulated capitalism, extreme ceo wages, and declining forgein presence. UK, needs to fix high food prices, high taxes, nanny government and speed cameras.
Dude, captialism is plenty regulated here. In fact, what happened in our housing market (that triggered our recent recession) was a bubble economy created by federal regulation (requiring banks to make more mortgage loans to people with bad credit). It was the federal government telling the banks how to do their job. Like congress knows how to manage money!

As for the CEO wages, why should a paycheck in the private sector be regulated? Doing so will only inspire more companies to set up shop outside the U.S. We've already lost many, many manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, we should send the CEO incomes over as well? Currently, we have $13trillion in U.S. corporate assets in offshore tax shelters. That's $2trillion more than we need to pay off the federal deficit. How will cutting CEO pay help that?

For the record, I don't like CEOs making giant bonuses when regular employees are asked to take a cut to help a company through rough times. But someone smart enough to be a CEO will make sure he'll get his wealth no matter the regulations standing in his way. Regulate his regular pay, he'll make up for it in the bonus. Regulate his bonus, he'll make it up somewhere else. Regulate everything, and he'll set up outside the U.S. and take the money with him, and not spend it on things that keep middle-class Americans in business.

What do you mean by "declining foreign presence"?
 
FIRSTLY- UK conservatives refers to UK conservatives. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with the US, I was using it as a parallel.
SECONDLY- Women's rights to fair pay, and right to be protected from harassment in the workplace.
THIRDLY- When Palin was brought in, it got a lot of attention from religious extremists like the moral "majority", the christian coalition, and much of the christian right who blindly follow them. I just tried to talk to on of the CC's spokeswomen on youtube, and she was completely unreasonable. All they want is for the entire country to believe in the Christian God, and for everything to be ruled over by a traditional interpretation of the Bible. And many of their blind followers don't mind such talk because they feel somehow against their religion and morals when they don't support it. THAT could theoretically create a church-state.
FOURTH- we all know that Bush had regulations taken away or tangled during his presidency, and most of the regulations and federal programs were either stupid or simply illogical.
FIFTH- This may sound somehow marxist, but I do not ever agree with people like CEOs who do relatively little work making over 100,000 times what their workers make. Liberal policies must be taken with moderation to avoid communism, but so should conservative policies to avoid what amounts to economic authoritarianism. And secondly, I think you overestimate CEOs- and vice-presidents etc, for that matter. Many of them are content, after a certain amount of money has been "earned", to retire, even at an early age. They may be driven by money, but at a point most of them realise that they have so much it won't matter to get more. Then they retire on the beach, buy houses and servants, whatever. So regulating their wages and bonuses- or perhaps simply forcing worker's wages to go up the same percentage as employer's- wouldn't drive many of them out. Some, perhaps, but not enough to damage anything seriously.

Believe me, I am no liberal or conservative- perhaps I am liberal in a moral sense, but fiscally, governmentally, and socially I have neither affiliation. I know what the nanny-labour government did here in the UK- high taxes, little to show for them, speed cameras and monitors all over the cities, and too many environmental laws which don't only restrict expansion and protect species but harm people. Plus ridiculous food prices. The whole thing amounts to an issue of balance, I think. Labour in the UK has tipped the scales way too liberal, and Republican in the US much too conservative.
 
FIRSTLY- UK conservatives refers to UK conservatives. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with the US, I was using it as a parallel.
Okay.

SECONDLY- Women's rights to fair pay, and right to be protected from harassment in the workplace.
Yeah... those became law at least a few decades ago.

THIRDLY- When Palin was brought in, it got a lot of attention from religious extremists like the moral "majority", the christian coalition, and much of the christian right who blindly follow them.
Actually, she garned a lot of attention from right-wing conservatives, those like myself who see McCain as too far to the left, and feel that Republican politicians have lost their way (the way of fiscal responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes, avoiding personal scandals, etc.). The Christians probably liked her too, but they were going to vote for McCain anyway because of his pro-life stance. What the introduction of Palin changed was the interest from the right-wing base.

I just tried to talk to on of the CC's spokeswomen on youtube, and she was completely unreasonable. All they want is for the entire country to believe in the Christian God, and for everything to be ruled over by a traditional interpretation of the Bible. And many of their blind followers don't mind such talk because they feel somehow against their religion and morals when they don't support it. THAT could theoretically create a church-state.
That's what you get for debating someone on YouTube. And theoretically, Barack Obama and Keith Ellison could open the door for Islamic fundamentalists to do the exact same thing you described above. Theoretically.

FOURTH- we all know that Bush had regulations taken away or tangled during his presidency, and most of the regulations and federal programs were either stupid or simply illogical.
Um, specifics, please? And don't forget, it was Bush (and McCain) who called for oversight of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, which was blocked by many congressional democrats, not the least which being Barney Frank (who had a relationship with a FM executive) and Chris Dodd (who got a sweetheart loan from Countrywide, a sub-prime specialist).

FIFTH- This may sound somehow marxist, but I do not ever agree with people like CEOs who do relatively little work making over 100,000 times what their workers make. Liberal policies must be taken with moderation to avoid communism, but so should conservative policies to avoid what amounts to economic authoritarianism. And secondly, I think you overestimate CEOs- and vice-presidents etc, for that matter. Many of them are content, after a certain amount of money has been "earned", to retire, even at an early age. They may be driven by money, but at a point most of them realise that they have so much it won't matter to get more. Then they retire on the beach, buy houses and servants, whatever. So regulating their wages and bonuses- or perhaps simply forcing worker's wages to go up the same percentage as employer's- wouldn't drive many of them out. Some, perhaps, but not enough to damage anything seriously.
You're right; that does sounds somehow Marxist. I haven't seen any polling of CEOs, and I doubt you have either. I think you're basing your opinion on conjecture, while I'm basing mine on what CEOs obviously want to be paid.

Believe me, I am no liberal or conservative- perhaps I am liberal in a moral sense, but fiscally, governmentally, and socially I have neither affiliation. I know what the nanny-labour government did here in the UK- high taxes, little to show for them, speed cameras and monitors all over the cities, and too many environmental laws which don't only restrict expansion and protect species but harm people. Plus ridiculous food prices. The whole thing amounts to an issue of balance, I think. Labour in the UK has tipped the scales way too liberal, and Republican in the US much too conservative.
Hmmm... micromanagement of society and equality in misery.

Republicans in the U.S. can't be "much too conservative". Look at their spending during the period they had the White House, the Senate and Congress. They spent like a bunch of drunken Kennedys. And not all on the WOT, as many critics claim. No, there was a prescription drug program which gave us our biggest leap towards socialized health care since FDR, among other projects. If anything, the Republican party has moved to the left since the days of Reagan and Gingrich.

Speaking of Republican spending, remember the "Bridge to Nowhere" that first Stevens, then Palin were criticized over? Funny how pundits on the Left and Right used that as an example of reckless, pork-barrel spending. But what is Obama's plan to get the economy going again? Builds roads and bridges, of course! So one Bridge to Nowhere was reckless spending, but a thousand Bridges to Nowhere is an economic stimulus?

(P.S. FDR's New Deal didn't save America from the Great Depression either. In fact, unemployment stayed in the 20% range until WWII.)
 
But what is Obama's plan to get the economy going again? Builds roads and bridges, of course! So one Bridge to Nowhere was reckless spending, but a thousand Bridges to Nowhere is an economic stimulus?
:lol: Yes, the entirety of his plan is the construction of thousands of randomly placed bridges.

Here's a pretty good CSM article if you're interested.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0507/p09s02-coop.html?page=1

And another, older one ...
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archi...trucure_bridges_roads_congestion_funding.html

Basically, we need 1.6 trillion over the next 5 years to improve existing roads. Hundreds of billions more to build new ones. And bridges, yes bridges. "Of the more than 116,000 NHS bridges, over 6,000 are structurally deficient and more than 17,000 are functionally obsolete."

How can you fault real infrastructure improvements? Come on man, you're a car guy.
 
Firstly- women still get lower salaries up to 20% in the uk and 50% in the us on average.
Second- She may have attracted fiscal conservatives, but she nonetheless also attracted these extremists and put forth an image which catered to them. And I'm not going to get into the whole stupid "Obama is Muslim" thing, for the simple reason that these organisations- the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority etc- openly state that they want such things to happen. With Obama and Islam it is all suspicions, but these people shamelessly admit that's what they want.
Third- I am not trying to remove the blame from democrats or blame Bush for everything. I don't think he was a good president but nonetheless he did try to create oversight on these companies. What I am saying is the US needs some of the liberal policies, not necessarily liberal people.
Fourth-I suppose it IS marxist, but I won't retract it nonetheless. As I said, ideally there is always some balance, and without a tiny little pinch on socialism, or a good portion of capitalism, we would have an unjust system. The CEO wages are one of the things this little bit of socialism can cover. And don't go saying every socialist policy is bad; I have experienced US and UK healthcare, and the quality is much the same (crappy) but we get it for free and with better medicine, and the US gets the same low quality AND has to pay. Lesser of two evils.
Fifth- how much they spend has nothing to do with being much too conservative. Has the republican party lost its values, though? Probably. I have never been with them in the moral sector since the American Civil War, but their policies themselves have changed. Nonetheless, could we have managed with a traditional, old-time republican right now either?

Finally- Yes, I thought that was funny too. Perhaps the little wasted bridges could be a bit more practical than one wasted bridge, (Mudboggers rejoice!) but I think the whole thing is a bit wasteful- how about diverting all that money into making America's roads better? Not necessarily building more, but fixing the broken ones? I have gone back to the US on holiday several times and some roads are awful.
 
Basically, we need 1.6 trillion over the next 5 years to improve existing roads. Hundreds of billions more to build new ones. And bridges, yes bridges. "Of the more than 116,000 NHS bridges, over 6,000 are structurally deficient and more than 17,000 are functionally obsolete."

How can you fault real infrastructure improvements? Come on man, you're a car guy.
I won't argue that our roads and bridges need work. Take a drive in my Miata track car and see how much of your dental work is still there. I drove it to New Jersey once and had to buy two new wheels and tires when I got back.

But, while the money to create the roads and bridges is largely funded the federal government (taxpayers), the maintenance after the system is built is the responsibility of the states (taxpayers). Some funding is provided by the federal government - if the state asks correctly and the funding is approved - but then the state decides where to spend that money.

Here's where it takes a turn for the worse. Remember that bridge collapse in Minneapolis last year? The collapse was due to two factors - the original design, and maintenance. Where was the state spending its money? Same place many states spend their money: Building sports arenas. Tennessee (my state) has done the same thing. Governor Phil Bredesen (D) took highway funds and moved them into the general fund. Which was illegal. Is Governor Bredesen under indictment? No. The state legislature merely passed another law, which only reiterated the original law. Sort of a "and this time, we mean it!" law.

And believe it or not, but I'd like to see an investment made in public transport, something we're sorely lacking here in the South. Just think, roads would last longer and we would live longer if all the elderly people who couldn't pass their post-65 driving tests (something else we need, but the AARP lobbies too well aginst it) were removed from the roads and put on buses and trains. People would feel safer driving smaller cars and motorcycles. Even Al Gore could get behind that! (Not personally, of course, as he won't give up his hybrid SUV and flying on private jets.)

Firstly- women still get lower salaries up to 20% in the uk and 50% in the us on average.
Where and when was that study?!?

Not only are the current and most recent companies I've worked for both owned by women, but my female co-workers at the last comany were paid at the same rate scale as everyone else.

Second- She may have attracted fiscal conservatives, but she nonetheless also attracted these extremists and put forth an image which catered to them.
Again, the difference is those "extremists" were going to vote for McCain anyway, whereas the fiscal conservatives were not.

And I'm not going to get into the whole stupid "Obama is Muslim" thing, for the simple reason that these organisations- the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority etc- openly state that they want such things to happen. With Obama and Islam it is all suspicions, but these people shamelessly admit that's what they want.
So does CAIR.

Third- I am not trying to remove the blame from democrats or blame Bush for everything. I don't think he was a good president but nonetheless he did try to create oversight on these companies. What I am saying is the US needs some of the liberal policies, not necessarily liberal people.
Um, riiiight. :hmm:

Fourth-I suppose it IS marxist, but I won't retract it nonetheless. As I said, ideally there is always some balance, and without a tiny little pinch on socialism, or a good portion of capitalism, we would have an unjust system. The CEO wages are one of the things this little bit of socialism can cover. And don't go saying every socialist policy is bad; I have experienced US and UK healthcare, and the quality is much the same (crappy) but we get it for free and with better medicine, and the US gets the same low quality AND has to pay. Lesser of two evils.
You don't get it for free. You have this thing called taxation...

Fifth- how much they spend has nothing to do with being much too conservative.
Um, it has quite a lot to do with it, actually.

Has the republican party lost its values, though? Probably. I have never been with them in the moral sector since the American Civil War, but their policies themselves have changed.
You do realize that it was the Republicans that fought to end slavery, right? In fact, that's why the party was started. It was also the Republicans who who supported women's right to vote, and the Civil Rights acts of 1964.

Not that we get any thanks for it.

Nonetheless, could we have managed with a traditional, old-time republican right now either?
Managed? More like "desperately need". But hey, maybe we'll have one running in 2012 after people are reminded what four years of McGovern/Carter/Obama is like.

Finally- Yes, I thought that was funny too. Perhaps the little wasted bridges could be a bit more practical than one wasted bridge, (Mudboggers rejoice!) but I think the whole thing is a bit wasteful- how about diverting all that money into making America's roads better? Not necessarily building more, but fixing the broken ones? I have gone back to the US on holiday several times and some roads are awful.
As I addressed it above, I agree that the quality of our roads - especially in the Northeast - really needs to be addressed. Same for the bridges. Both the federal and state governments have been too distracted by shiny pretty things to do proper boring maintenance of existing structures.
 
I won't argue that our roads and bridges need work. Take a drive in my Miata track car and see how much of your dental work is still there. I drove it to New Jersey once and had to buy two new wheels and tires when I got back.

But, while the money to create the roads and bridges is largely funded the federal government (taxpayers), the maintenance after the system is built is the responsibility of the states (taxpayers). Some funding is provided by the federal government - if the state asks correctly and the funding is approved - but then the state decides where to spend that money.

Here's where it takes a turn for the worse. Remember that bridge collapse in Minneapolis last year? The collapse was due to two factors - the original design, and maintenance. Where was the state spending its money? Same place many states spend their money: Building sports arenas. Tennessee (my state) has done the same thing. Governor Phil Bredesen (D) took highway funds and moved them into the general fund. Which was illegal. Is Governor Bredesen under indictment? No. The state legislature merely passed another law, which only reiterated the original law. Sort of a "and this time, we mean it!" law.

And believe it or not, but I'd like to see an investment made in public transport, something we're sorely lacking here in the South. Just think, roads would last longer and we would live longer if all the elderly people who couldn't pass their post-65 driving tests (something else we need, but the AARP lobbies too well aginst it) were removed from the roads and put on buses and trains. People would feel safer driving smaller cars and motorcycles. Even Al Gore could get behind that! (Not personally, of course, as he won't give up his hybrid SUV and flying on private jets.)
Can't really argue with any of that. It's no track car, but my Ford loves to remind me that it's got a few hundred pounds of solid axle in the back of it. I've got a good friend of mine who's a civil engineer (works for the Kansas City firm HNTB, if you're familiar with them at all). All he does is complain about all the great stuff they could do if there was the money for it.

I'd like to think that a drastic increase in federal infrastructure funding today would be akin to what they did with the interstate highway program in the '50s-'60s. The Fed pays for the roads and then helps with maintenance indefinitely. I know in most midwestern states federal funds pay for a lot more infrastructure than just highways. Most rural states just don't generate enough tax revenue themselves. There's certainly the problem of 'misuse' of federal funding, but some states at least seem to have a firmer grip on their governor than Minnesota. Hopefully such a program would come with conditions. I know that's probably too optimistic, given the way that Congress has been doling out money hand-over-fist.

I certainly remember that bridge collapse. My sister lives in St.Paul, so I got a call that day, "A FUCKING BRIDGE JUST COLLAPSED!" Pretty scary stuff considering she drove across that bridge every day to go to school. If I'm remembering things right, even increased maintenance wouldn't have saved that bridge. It was too old, overloaded, "functionally obsolete", etc. The fractures were (up until the collapse) microscopic.

I'd love to see more public transportation too. It's just hard to effectively implement in cities that are so spread out, or weren't laid out with any intention of ever having a large scale public transportation system. People obviously want it though. Kansas City approved plans for a light rail system not too long ago, and the city gov't tried to dismiss the vote and the plan. :lol: that pissed some people off. Now they're trying to figure out how to pay for it.
 
First- Many extremists would NOT have voted for mccain, in fact many of them were saying they would even vote for Third Parties, because they thought Mccain was too liberal.
Second- So, you have heard Obama say he wants Islam to be the state religion and damn anyone who doesn't agree with him?
Third- My point is we don't need completely liberal people, i.e. socialists, but we do need some liberal policies, like socialist health care. Sometimes the only way to get that is to elect a liberal.
I was in the "underclass" for a while- I am not anymore, so I pay high taxes here in the UK. But I don't mind, because without the NHS, there would have been a hell of alot wrong with me because at most of the times I was seriously sick, I just couldn't pay. But I got care anyway. And I paid low taxes at the time. So it is "free" in that sense. And if food is counted as some sort of universal right, how can proper healthcare NOT be? And yes, US physicians can't turn you away if it is an emergency, but they often give even lower-quality care than you would get if you could pay up-front. And this "universal" healthcare should not account for idiotic little things like prisoners wanting nicer soap or convicted murderers wanting botox. (Both real cases).
Fourth- That's why I said after the civil war...
Finally- Could never go for Palin. Please find someone else. Personally though, I think it is the UK that needs the Tory, not the US, still. The US needs to fix its healthcare, wages, business regulations, forgein policy, forgein image, and economy. The only thing that US conservatives could do at this point would be to fix the economy and forgein policy- conservative doctrine doesn't support socialist healthcare (obviously), regulation of businesses or wages (therefore ceos will continue to make one million-billion whilst employee make around $32000 a year), and our forgein image would not be fixed by Palin, at least- sorry to be harsh, but from experience the US needs a conservative with dignity and a strong record if it's going to have one.
 
Dunno. UK conservaties, at least they are reasonable- they don't try to destroy the nhs, they don't get rid of gay marriage, they don't destroy women's rights or enforce a church-state. US conservatives? Just the opposite. Plus the us needs a liberal now like the uk needs a conservative- desperately. the US needs to cancel out unregulated capitalism, extreme ceo wages, and declining forgein presence. UK, needs to fix high food prices, high taxes, nanny government and speed cameras.

There's a certain hilarity in this post.

The problems mentioned in the UK came about as a result of Labour/liberalism. High food prices came about as a result of the high taxes on fuel which add to transportation costs, and pushed people toward biofuels. High taxes result as a sustaining mechanism of the NHS. Ditto speed cameras.

Furthermore, what you just described is a neo-conservative. Barry Goldwater was a conservative. George W. Bush was a neo-conservative. It's worth noting that neo-conservatism is closer to modern liberalism than conservatism, really... the difference is the recipient of the redistributed wealth.

Also, British Conservatives have all the integrity of Jello. In contrast, the Republican Party is so rigid they still pretty much refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Internet, or the capability of "non-white men under 45" to hold office.

Anyhow, I'd like it if this topic would die.
 
Top