|
Post by 76chevy on Oct 2, 2008 15:14:20 GMT -5
It is really a shame that the great Tim Russert is no longer with us. He would be loving this political battle and providing all of us with some great coverage and insight.
Also, just as an aside. If Palin could have went onto MTP and stood up to some tough (and fair) questioning (that Tim was the master at) about the issues and her record it could have really changed a lot of minds about her.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Oct 2, 2008 15:08:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Oct 2, 2008 14:49:37 GMT -5
Libertarian presidential candidate to speak at Notre Damewww.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=9113621 South Bend - Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr will speak at the University of Notre Dame Friday. The event, which is being sponsored by the College Libertarians of Notre Dame, is open only to Notre Dame and Saint Mary's College students and staff members. Barr is the only third-party candidate for president whose name will appear on the Indiana ballot. Ben Linskey, co-president of the College Libertarians, says Barr has proposed cuts in taxes and spending and getting the U.S.government out of debt. Linskey also says Barr wants the U.S. to adopt a responsible foreign policy focused on protecting American citizens. The speech begins at 3 p.m. in Washington Hall.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Oct 1, 2008 23:08:15 GMT -5
I dont want EITHER of them! We've all witnessed decades (well, some of us anyway) of Biden's foot-in-mouth gaffes. Would you feel so very much better with him as your vice president?
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 30, 2008 18:43:17 GMT -5
Ok I agree that he is biased. But how about kathleen Parker a loyal conservative and early palin supporter now having doubts about Palin's experience? Read more here: townhall.com/Columnists/KathleenParker/2008/09/26/the_palin_problemMore media garbage. He writes trash from both sides of the fence. Anything to get ratings and make a buck. My impression too.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 30, 2008 18:40:02 GMT -5
I'll agree that Fareed is biased. but how about kathleen Parker a loyal conservative and early palin supporter now having doubts about Palin's experience? Read more here:townhall.com/Columnists/KathleenParker/2008/09/26/the_palin_problemConservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early Palin supporter, on Friday bluntly called on Palin to step down to "save McCain, her party, and the country she loves". Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early Palin supporter, on Friday bluntly called on Palin to step down to "save McCain, her party, and the country she loves". "Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin, should conditions warrant her promotion," Parker wrote in the conservative National Review. One would, wonder where this man was when Obama announced his candidacy? Yeah, it is pile on time from the MSM and few others..
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 30, 2008 18:35:07 GMT -5
Obama and McCain both supported the bill as well.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 30, 2008 15:05:03 GMT -5
what a very sad story!
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 30, 2008 14:57:15 GMT -5
September 17, 2008 10:48 am EST
Atlanta, GA – “Richard Nixon once said that we are all Keynesians now, meaning that Republicans and Democrats alike believed in government micro-management of the economy,” observes Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president.
“It appears that President George W. Bush should say that we are all socialists now," says Barr, as he explains that the government has now taken over insurance giant AIG with an $85 billion loan, for which it received an 80 percent equity stake in the company. "In other words, the federal government now will own and run one of the nation's largest insurance companies."
“This administration, supposedly devoted to free markets and fiscal responsibility, has bailed out the housing industry, the quasi-government mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the investment house Bear Stearns, and a leading insurer. What’s next?” asks Barr.
“And how will we pay for this ever-rising bill for corporate welfare? The national debt already runs $9.5 trillion,” Barr explains. “The deficit this year will run a record $407 billion. Next year the red ink will be even greater. And there are trillions upon trillions of dollars that will come due under Medicare and Social Security as the Baby-Boomers retire,” he adds.
“Moreover, the latest bailouts are being made in secret by the Federal Reserve. At least the housing and Fannie/Freddie bailouts came with congressional authority, if not understanding,” notes Barr. “However, no one voted to pour taxpayer funds into Wall Street. And no one voted for the government to take over an insurance company. If the Federal Reserve can spend as much money as it desires to bail out any company that it desires, is there anything that it cannot do with taxpayer funds?” asks Barr.
“President Bush should fire Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson," insists Barr. "We need a Treasury Secretary who can be trusted with the keys to the taxpayer vault. It is imperative for Congress to explicitly limit the authority of the Federal Reserve. The Fed was not created to take over parts of the U.S. economy. Its authority must be limited and its officials must be held accountable for their actions,” says Barr.
“Capitalism involves losses as well as profits," Barr explains. "When government tries to insulate businesses and investors from paying for their mistakes, we all lose. In a Barr administration, there would be no more corporate bailouts or takeovers."
"The days of loss-free capitalism would be over," Barr notes.
Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 30, 2008 14:53:18 GMT -5
let's not forget who strongly pushed for the bill's passage. the highly unpopular guy on the left....
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 30, 2008 14:49:53 GMT -5
even staunch conservatives are starting to have their doubts....
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early Palin supporter, on Friday bluntly called on Palin to step down to "save McCain, her party, and the country she loves".
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early Palin supporter, on Friday bluntly called on Palin to step down to "save McCain, her party, and the country she loves".
"Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin, should conditions warrant her promotion," Parker wrote in the conservative National Review.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 30, 2008 14:48:26 GMT -5
www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE48S8JW20080929?sp=truePalin's troubles mount for McCain in White HouseMon Sep 29, 2008 6:21pm EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page | Recommend (39) [-] Text [+] By Jason Szep - Analysis BOSTON (Reuters) - Mocked by comedians, derided by prominent conservatives and reeling from flustered interviews with national media, Sarah Palin is proving a risky gamble in Republican John McCain's quest for the White House. "Palin is Ready? Please" a headline in Newsweek said this week of the moose-hunting Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate, capping a turbulent week in which Palin's fitness for the job came under growing scrutiny. "Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president," Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria wrote. "She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start," he said. The column could be dismissed as one of hundreds of biting news stories in the hard-fought race between McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, with less than six weeks before the November 4 presidential election. But it follows a whirlwind of criticism and ridicule from Republicans and Democrats alike since interviews with CBS news anchor Katie Couric, Fox News' Sean Hannity and ABC News' Charles Gibson that raise question over her nomination and dealings with the media. History shows most Americans vote for presidents, not vice presidents and Palin's folksy appeal energizes far larger crowds than those drawn to gaffe-prone Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, whom she debates on Thursday. But the governor's troubles are piling up -- from a stubborn investigation into charges that as governor she abused her power by firing a public safety commissioner to her latest stumbles with the media. Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early Palin supporter, on Friday bluntly called on Palin to step down to "save McCain, her party, and the country she loves". "Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin, should conditions warrant her promotion," Parker wrote in the conservative National Review. Palin could withdraw from the race for personal reasons such as wanting to spend more time with her newborn, added Parker, who in September rallied behind Palin for showing "strength, conviction, determination" and confidence. 'EMBARRASSING' The 44-year-old self-described hockey mom's image of homespun authenticity, which boosted McCain last month with a leap in support among white women, has been replaced by a less flattering image as a political neophyte and butt of jokes. The popular TV sketch comedy show Saturday Night Live mocked Palin's assertion that governing Alaska gives her foreign policy experience because of its geographic proximity to Russia. Late-night television host David Letterman said Palin's meetings with world leaders at the United Nations looked like "take your daughter to work day." Until last Tuesday, Palin, who would be a heartbeat away from the presidency if 72-year-old McCain were to win the election, had never met a foreign leader. Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks called her candidacy "embarrassing." But political analysts say Palin remains a powerful force in McCain's campaign despite her bad reviews. They cite her proven ability to rally evangelical Christians and connect with other socially conservative Republicans, whose grass-roots muscle could propel McCain in crucial states. Expectations for Thursday's debate are also now so low that Palin's chances of looking good have improved, they add. "The more interviews she does, the more nervous not just moderates get, but some conservative Republicans get. But thus far they still generally see her as a benefit," said Julian Zelizer, a professor of politics at Princeton University. "They didn't pick her to please David Brooks. They picked her to please conservative activists. If anything, the attacks on her from Saturday Night Live or from New York Times columnists will only fuel some of the resentment and excitement about her. In that respect she is still a plus for McCain." McCain stuck by Palin on Monday, telling a crowd in Ohio that "she will be my partner in reforming everything that's broken in Washington." On Sunday, he defended her after she contradicted his policy against talking publicly about attacking terrorist targets in Pakistan. Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, once touted as a possible McCain running-mate, questioned the campaign's strategy of restricting Palin's media exposure. "Holding Sarah Palin to just three interviews and microscopically focusing on each interview I think has been a mistake," Romney said on MSNBC television. "I think they'd be a lot wiser to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Let her talk to the media, let her talk to people." (Editing by Patricia Zengerle)
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 30, 2008 14:47:33 GMT -5
you know I am.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 30, 2008 13:41:38 GMT -5
norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/september-surprise/?pagemode=printSeptember 29, 2008, 3:30 pm September SurpriseBy Floyd Norris The House has voted down the bailout bill, to everyone’s surprise. So much for party discipline. This bill was supported by John McCain and Barack Obama, the presidential candidates who, between them, have the support of nearly every member of the House. But a majority of the House voted along with Bob Barr, the Libertarian who said, “We need to make Wall Street take the hit for its irresponsible investment decisions,” and Ralph Nader, the independent candidate who described the bill as “a bailout for Wall Street crooks.” I had assumed the House leadership could assure that enough members of both parties held their noses and voted yes to gain a narrow margin for passage. But what we have here is a rejection of what Mr. Nader calls the two “corporate candidates.” The vote came just as I finished the preceding post, called October Surprise. Let’s hope the banking industry gets that far. The banking industry is in trouble with or without this bailout. Its efforts to change accounting rules to hide its problems are sad and appalling. The defeated bill would have authorized the Securities and Exchange Commission to suspend the mark-to-market rule, which forced the banks to admit how badly they had gambled and lost. The S.E.C. has already yielded to political pressure and barred short-selling in financial stocks, so it is possible it would yield to the accounting pressure as well. “Truth is the first casualty,” is an old line to describe war reporting. It could also apply financial reporting at a time of crisis. Economists tell us that markets where short-selling is barred are less likely to be efficient, and more likely to be overpriced. So we present investors with companies that are probably overpriced and doing their best to hide the low current value of their assets. For some reason, few want to buy. Yesterday, on “This Week” on ABC, Newt Gingrich argued for suspending the mark-to-market accounting rule, on the ground that market values now are unreasonably low. To support that thesis, he pointed out that both the secretary of the Treasury and the chairman of the Federal Reserve think prices are lower than they should be. They make that claim in arguing that the government can pay above-market prices for dodgy assets and eventually make a profit. Did you ever think you would hear a leading conservative say government officials are better judges of value than the market? Absent the defeated bailout, the government is picking off weak banks one by one, arranging takeovers (takeunders might be a better term) when they can. In both the Washington Mutual and Wachovia deals, the depositors are doing fine, while shareholders suffer. That discourages bank runs by depositors, which is good, but encourages what we will call “stock market runs” by shareholders of any bank that might be in the same league as those banks. (If your bank ever bragged about its mortgage lending, look out.) I still think Congress will salvage something — presumably by coming up with changes that assuage enough dissenters — but with the Jewish holidays starting this evening, it could be a while before that happens. The risk of a big bailout always was that it would make investors think the banks were in even worse trouble than they appeared to be. Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary, tried to structure this bailout as a purchase of assets, so that banks taking the money would not be tarnished by doing so. But the decision to force those banks to turn over equity may have killed that move, and the changes to be made in the bill now could well make it more punitive. That could be good for a sense of justice, but bad for containing the crisis. This is looking like a very interesting week in the markets, which were doing none too well before the September Surprise.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 29, 2008 9:40:37 GMT -5
The problem with the credit market is the assets that AIG (and others) holds are not liquid! There were no buyers for them because no one knew what they were worth due to the risk exposure. As for AIG – liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up. Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't. Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.' But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party ! How do you spell Economic Boom? I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC . And remember, The this plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 29, 2008 9:36:06 GMT -5
Or the priorities of those who cancel an appearance on the David Letterman show at the last minute for an interview with Katie Couric down the street at CBS.... Just goes to show the priorities of some....who put late night TV guest appearances over dealing with a National crisis.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 27, 2008 12:48:51 GMT -5
There are several. I dont have an exhaustive list though. Here is an interesting paper I just found about Jamaica and their switch to a consumption tax. isp-aysps.gsu.edu/papers/ispwp0712.pdfDoes anyone know if there is a country that has a consumption only tax? While it certainly will not affect me I just do not see where taxing a person for being successfull is right.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 27, 2008 12:30:15 GMT -5
Just to add to what Russ Koon said above, The consumption tax allows taxation of those involved in the 'underground' (ie illegal activity) economy and those here illegally who pay no income taxes now. I agree with Russ, the overall level of consumption would stay the same or likely even increase as people had more of their own money in their own hands. Does anyone know if there is a country that has a consumption only tax? While it certainly will not affect me I just do not see where taxing a person for being successfull is right. The big problem with a consumption tax is that it discourages, well, consumption. That's a bad thing in a capitalist economy. It particularly affects the purchase of non-essential goods.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 26, 2008 9:34:36 GMT -5
yes, I thought the same thing. That would have been very interesting to see. I found it particulary interesting to learn that deer have 2 cones (not 3 as we have) in their eyes. This means that they have limited color vision. I had always thought that deer just had rods, involved in simply seeing in black white and used in low light as we use them for in our vision. Biology sure is amazing! ;D Interesting videos... the one thing I would have liked to see them demonstrate is the effectiveness of the patterns while moving...
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 25, 2008 14:48:23 GMT -5
I agree that national defense is one of the powers given to the federal government and I dont take it lightly. The truth is that we already have more than enough war tools to defend this country from anyone on earth. If they were not deployed to fight an illegal and injust war based on lies fear and misinformation then they would be here to defend us if called upon. The fact that you consider a strong defense of our country to be a "waste" of taxpayer dollars concerns me 76. Apparently, you have not been paying attention to world events or refuse to believe that we live in an increasingly dangerous world and a lot of it wants to obliterate us from the face of the earth. National defense is one of the only powers enumerated to the federal government and it's most important responsibility. Dabbling in the economy and social engineering, "free" college educations etc, are where the feds need to cut the budget and keep their nose out of.
|
|