CNN: 51% Obama, US blames GOP for Wall St

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ledroit, Sep 23, 2008.

  1. ledroit

    ledroit New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    854
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Good news from CNN. By 2 to 1, Americans are blaming the GOP for the financial meltdown (30 yrs of hype about "markets are good, govt is bad").

    But it's interesting to see where Obama is making gains. The emotional hysteria & hype of the "outrage industry" and hate radio are not having the same effect they once had. Maybe the shock value of that has worn off.

    Gains are occuring "In two core McCain constituencies: men, who now narrowly favor Obama, and seniors, who have also flipped from McCain to Obama," said Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst.

    When including people most likely to vote, the results are pretty much the same. Among likely voters, Obama has a four-point lead, 51 percent to 47 percent. [the trick that the right-wing partisan polls use is to ignore whether people are likely to vote or not.]

    A CNN Poll of Polls calculated Monday also shows Obama leading McCain -- 49 percent to 44 percent. "

    So maybe there is more common sense in the US than I give it credit for. I do think Obama needs to help the country see McCain's nasty side by provoking it in the debates. He's like a rattle snake, sitting, smiling & hissing on the side of the road, until suddenly he sees an opening, strikes, hits hard, and then gets this truly bizarre grin on his face about how pleased he is with himself. The whole point is for McCain seems to please himself, and show that at age 72 he still has venom. It's narcissism, like Bush's and Palin's. Infantile behavior.


    Do you think that infantile behavior will work in McCain's favor this time? Or will the financial crisis help people sober up, and make them think twice about electing a guy whose primary claim to fame is that he can get pissed off, and has a hot babe at his side?
     
  2. Dave NoCal

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,995
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    256
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sacramento (CA, US)
    When people like George Will turn on McCain, you know he is in trouble. As far as the debates go, I think an equally important issue will be evaluating McCain's mental competency. He is an old seventy-two and has had melanoma three or four times, once on the temple. The chance of such a cancer metastasizing to the brain is, so I am told, around 70%.
    I think Obama will have the sense and the skill to goad him him into showing his lack of emotional control.
     
  3. B_ScaredLittleBoy

    B_ScaredLittleBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,337
    Likes Received:
    8
    McCain barely forms coherent words. There is no way he can win any sort of debate. I bet it takes him ten minutes to order a drink at a bar.
     
  4. D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0
    you can blame who ever you want. it's your own lazy ass liberal selves who's toi blame. your acccepeted the 0 percent financing for your big screen tv you can t afford you accepted the intrest rates ont he mortgage for the house you couldn't afford. bullshit look in the mirror for your problem. no one man created it. bunch of losers that I have to pick up the tab for!

    you always whining and looking for someone to blame it's the liberal way. well look in the mirror. that's whose to blame!!!
     
    #4 D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III, Sep 23, 2008
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2008
  5. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,298
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,682
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    I think it rather shallow and shortsighted to characterize every family who dared to try to get a piece of the American Dream, who wanted to own a home as "lazy ass liberals". I'd suspect that if they read something like this they'd be maybe a little offended at the outright contempt - at that kind of a crass assessment of their situation from an apparently "conservative" perspective.

    In fact, I'd have to wonder how many of them considered themselves conservatives... that is, until they had the audacity to hope for a better life, the gall to try to become a homeowner.

    Imagine their surprise NOW at finding out that they (in your not so humble opinion) are nothing but a bunch of "lazy ass liberal losers" who only have themselves to blame for trying to get something for nothing.

    Certainly not the fault of the mortgage companies, the ones who knowingly financed risky loans backed by insufficient holdings (with the expectation of huge returns on balooning notes,) eh?

    (something for nothing??)
     
  6. B_Morning_Glory

    B_Morning_Glory New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    lucasville, ohio

    and your a jackass in your way of thinking, who is going to pick up the tab for your crazy lazy ass republican economy, news flash everyone in taxes if you get your way that includes the POOR so guess they are not so lazy after all huh, you have to work in order to pay taxes but aparently you repubs, dont know that or the jobs would be there still that your bush, lover sold out for a dollor to put in his pocket.
     
    #6 B_Morning_Glory, Sep 23, 2008
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2008
  7. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    The fact is that you can point blame at a number of entities for this meltdown. First and foremost, we had a thriving housing market for 7 years and a government that promoted home-ownership. Don't blame Republicans, don't blame Democrats, thats just the way it was. Some people could make their mortgage payments; some couldn't. Now we have big problems. Don't blame GWB because somebody couldn't balance a checbook. Don't blame the Clinton Administration for trying to expand home ownership. It just didn't work out. It sucks. It hurts. If you want to point blame, I would direct you to the ratings agencies; but don't blame the fucking Buch Administration. That's fucking ridiculous. You can point fingers and blame, but I could find several people in your immediate circle that bought too much house on an adjustable arm - and if you defy that you are simply not dependable. Everybody is responsible for this period. Blame GWB if you sleep better, but you damn well that's bullshit.
     
  8. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,298
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,682
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    ...in MY "immediate circle"? Who?? Gimme some names. I'd like to know...

    ..."the fucking Buch Administration"??? You mean Bush???

    ???

    ???

    Funny, I don't recall mentioning him at all.

    (...why do i get the feeling i'm responding to a 16 year old kid??)
     
    #8 b.c., Sep 23, 2008
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2008
  9. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Probably because you are used to debating children and a 16 year old blows you away. You indicated that mortgage companies "knowingly financed risky loans backed by insufficient holdings." Mortgage companies are a surrogate between a lender and a borrower. If the lender (investor) is willing to extend credit based on a certain criteria, the mortgage company is no more at fault than a convenience store selling Doritos to a patron. The fact is that mortgage companies are no more responsible for this meltdown than your local gas station is responsible for stale beef jerky. Before you start attacking people, get your fucking facts in order.
     
  10. Notaguru2

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    McCain gave his first press conference in 6 weeks, today. You know how long it lasted? 11 minutes. This guy either doesn't want to be president or he's afraid he or Palin will say some shit that will come back to bite them in the debate this week.

    He can hide HER all he wants, but she is going to get exposed in her debate with Biden. Damn, I can't wait... its going to be akin to a welterweight hoping into the ring with a heavywieght; and Palin isn't the heavyweight.
     
  11. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    We'll see.
     
  12. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    The only people we can blame for this is A)consumers who were duped into subprime adjustable rate mortgages B)mortgage companies for putting money before risk and C)the current admin. for not realizing there was a problem when the first 2 million people's houses were forclosed on...neither McCain, Obama, the democtratic party, the republican party, nor congress had anything to do with this. But the Bush admin., not the GOP, needs to own up to the fact that they didn't take action when the first few dominos started falling
     
  13. ledroit

    ledroit New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    854
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. And Scared's got a point that McCain has a problem remaining coherent. A psychologist friend of mine wonders if he is exhibiting the signs of pre-dementia, in the cranky, reationary emotional hysteria he has. I think that's an interesting question.

    The trick the GOP uses is to use personalities or foibles to distract public attention away from real problems and policy. The GOP is superb at this. That is why it makes no difference to them whether distractions are based on fact or fiction. If the distractions work, the GOP stays in power. This is why they zone in on making the attacks as personal and nasty as possible.

    So it's a test of maturity. Can people in fact keep their attention focused on real problems and work, without getting distracted by these inflammatory, "entertainment news" sorts of gossip attacks that are aimed at personal attacks and emotions alone? The GOP is clearly not aiming at the kind of thinking that a mature, adult man or woman engages in, since that is not their strong suit.

    The outcome of this election will be based on maturity and common sense more than any in the past 30 years, I think. You can elect a sweet old harmless romantic like Reagan only if you think the US is so strong it doesn't need a competent president. Same with a bimbo like Palin, who is clearly little more than a bimbo. You can elect her only if you think the US does not really need a government at all, and you want to prove it by putting a romantic airhead into that slot.

    This election will be a test of how much maturity, intelligence and common sense is left in the US electorate, whether they are old or young, rich or poor, black or white, independent, or left or right-wing.

    I hope that in the debates, Obama will be able to appeal enough to that kind of adult behavior, and help to sober people up. He is going to have to make accountable, adult, and intelligent behavior attractive, against the GOP's ability to make people think they never have to grow up, and that they can always make someone else pay their bills.

    It's not easy. How exciting is it to think that the future involves problems you can't fix by shooting off your gun, scaring others, bullying and humiliating them, or scoring points against them by attacking their "characters"? The future of this country depends on recognizing we have problems that can only be managed if we treat other people and other countries as equals. This is what the US used to stand for, before Karl Rove.

    Choosing the adult path means deciding we will no longer be primarily interested in labeling others as friends or enemies, like high school cheerleaders do. The focus of this country and our policies will have to change. We will have to admit it is not a luxury to be more concerned about common problems we have to manage together, with others who disagree with us.

    To do that, we will have to be less concerned about "branding" others as enemies if they are not pro-Bush or pro-McCain, and kicking them out of our private social clubs. We will have to grow up, and be more concerned about the actual problems we face together in a global community, or as a nation, whether they are environmental, financial, social, or political.

    I don't support Obama because he is "liberal," or because I am, since that word no longer has any meaning. I support him because he doesn't play Bush's old "either you are with me or against me game." That game was all about Bush as frat boy. The stakes are higher now. They are about problems the US can't manage on its on, as if it were the King of the Prom.

    Of the two, I think Obama is much less likely to believe he is homecoming King than Palin-McCain are. And I do think we should call it the Palin-McCain ticket. By choosing her, the GOP shows it is more concerned with looks and appearances than with competence. Her choice is one more way of saying that government doesn't really matter. All you need is a figurehead. If that were true, I would much rather the US had Queen Elizabeth II as head of state than Sarah Palin.

    On another note, has anyone actually explained to Palin what a VP does, or what a President does? That might be more important than introducing her at the UN to foreign heads of state, so they can check out her chest and face up close. I assume the reason McCain wants to do this is that he hopes they will find her attractive and compelling, just like Bush found Putin attractive and compelling when he looked "into his eyes and saw his soul."

    Good grief. No wonder people hate the US, or think we have lost our minds. In fact, if we keep putting a man like Bush or a woman like Palin, or a cranky old nut-case like McCain into our highest offices, can there be any doubt that intelligence and reason are no longer in command of this country?
     
    #13 ledroit, Sep 23, 2008
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2008
  14. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,298
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,682
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    (jeeezzz...now he wants to argue technicalities.)

    My use of the term is in its more generic sense. In some cases they are surrogates and in some cases not. See:

    Top 10 Mortgage Companies: An Overview | eFinanceDirectory.com

    Lender/mortgage company...the fact is they knowingly made risky loans. And yes, there's plenty of blame to go around.

    MY point was, given that fact, it was unfair to characterize families who tried to own homes as "lazy ass liberal losers" - a point apparently LOST on you.

    (Y'know, if you stopped examining every tree you might actually SEE the fuckin' forest!?)
     
  15. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Here again, I'm wondering how consumers were 'duped.' Here is your payment: $1062 which includes taxes and insurance. Can you afford that? "Yep."

    Second, the Administration is responsible for predicting real estate movements and credit markets? Jesus. They should read palms too.

    And the old lovable -- mortgage companies for putting money before risk. If you buy a baseball glove and miss a fly ball, its Rawlings fault, right?
     
  16. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
     
  17. ledroit

    ledroit New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    854
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Star, if you are primarily interested in "blame" and in blaming consumers, I think you may have missed the main point in the melt-down.
     
  18. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    How ledroit? My position is that borrowers can share in the blame with those that extended them credit. If they chose not to pay them back, they don't deserve to be exonerated.

    Were loans extended to people that were credit risks? Yes. But at the end of the day, there were people like you and me that were providing those loans.

    If you've ever lent money to someone, and before they pay you back you see them partying or buying a new car - you can appreciate the frustration.

    When I see time and time again on this board -- the poor, innocent borrowers being screwed by a greedy mortgage company, it touches a nerve.

    Screw the rich creditor. Well, now the rich creditor will find other things to do with his/her money. In the end, who will lose? You guessed it. The borrower.
     
  19. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Look. It is up to the business to decide on how much risk to take. If a business takes too much risk, and the risk outweighs the reward, it is the businesses fault when they go out of business. If you're an investor, you know this, please don't deny it. These companies took the risk of literally giving away loans, in hopes that they could up their rates, and that some, not all, of these people would not be able to make their payments on time. It is their fault they did not ensure that their borrowers could repay their loans, before offering them to their borrowers. If these companies would not have been so lax on their lending policies, we would not be in this mess.

    With that being said, I'll be the 1st to admit that the average American citizen is not by any means intelligent, and in many cases, could probably classify as being mentally disabled. IMO however, it was unethical for these companies to take advantage of these people.

    But I also believe that borrowers need to take responsibility for signing such risky contracts, which is why I stated they were to blame also. 30 yr, fixed rate is the only way to go unless you are super welathy; I could have told you that in 7th grade.

    As for the administration...what is their job? Aren't they supposed to oversee our economy, military, and society in general? Any economist could have told you (and they were) back in January when the housing crisis really started, that something needed to be done before it spread to other sectors of the economy. What did Bush say? "We will not bail out consumers who purchased houses out of their price range"...something along those lines. I agree with this, but this administration failed to stop these lending companies from GIVING AWAY loans, which IS what caused this mess. So, like I said, a combination of consumers, lenders, and a failure to observe our economy and act accordingly by our administration are all to blame.


    Instead of actually looking into this crisis back in January, it was dismissed by the Bush adminisitration, "blame the consumer, not the business" is absurd. "Blame the business, not the consumer" is also absurd. A combination of lack of responsibility on BOTH parts, combined with the administration's failure to recognize a pending crisis are all root causes for all of this.

    One thing I am starting to notice about the GOP though is that they feel being President means you don't have to do anything. War is not the only function of a president. It seems to me that they feel raising and lowering taxes and declaring war is enough to run a country. No wait, I take that back, I forgot, the President isn't actually supposed to run our country, it runs itself...riiiiiiight.....
     
  20. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,298
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,682
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    And I'm in agreement with you when you said (in another thread) that we shouldn't bail out the lenders - in fact said so days ago in yet another thread.

    I've come to be convinced by the doom sayers that not bailing them out will result in greater catastrophe for us all. The way I figure it, you can't bail them out without offering some kind of protection for homeowners (in danger of foreclosure) as well.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted