|
|
|
| |
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 |
|
| |
Summer is Over, But Republicans Still in Flip-Flops
|
| |
So-called bloggers who rarely write an original thought but instead post YouTube videos every day, as though we couldn't find that stuff ourselves, drive me nuts.
However today is special! I would love to hear any of my five readers, 4/5 of which are Republican, defend this video. Wasn't John Kerry defeated on the basis he was a "flip-flopper?" What do you call this?
Thank you, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. I've never been a viewer before, but I may have to start tuning in. |
| |
|
|
| |
Posted by Art | 8:30 AM EST |
14 comments
|  
14
Comments:
|
|
Previous Posts >>
|
|
|
We all have our opinions and no one can dig up or say anything that is going to convince the other person to change their mind. While we argue amongst ourselves the politicians are screwing us over -- regardless of the side they are on.
For the record...I don't like any of the folks from either of the major parties. They are all flip-floppers and 'yes' men. It's all a friggin' facade. Do and say whatever you must to get elected. None of them ever deliver on the promises they make during campaign time.
All of our arguing achieves nothing positive and drives the rift between us ever deeper. Fuck all that. I'm over it. I just have this feeling we'll never all come back towards the middle and in the end that is what will destroy this republic for good.
I'm writin' in 'Jerry Garcia' on November 4th.
I felt much less "hate" in that post than I did in what Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin had to say at the convention. Actually I just felt a bit of satire.
It's not all negative. I called the union hall today and volunteered to help with voter registration drives. I think we have enough Obama fans in the call center we could certainly give him 1/5 of a point, at least.
I also picked up a couple of books of famous speeches at the library today because I'm thinking about offering my meager abilities to some up-and-coming candidate as a speechwriter. "I guarantee you, citizens of Nowheresville, that your garbage will be picked up every Tuesday, by any means necessary!"
But, take heart, there IS a distinct difference between the two candidates this time around. And, although I despirately wanted to see Hillary's name somewhere into the mix, I can live with Obama for the simple reason he is less full of shit than John McCain. McCain, and the lobbyist consortium that runs his campaign continues to spew forth one blatent lie after another; all the while claiming to be against lobbyist influences, and dirty politics.
His pick for a VP candidate just solidified his ignorance and hubris in my mind.
When push comes to shove, I predict Scott will hold his nose, and vote the Democratic ticket.
Kimba
I’ve never posted on a blog site before, or a forum for that matter, but a mutual friend of ours told me recently that Art was hosting a blog site, so I figured I’d check it out.
I wanted to respond to some of the comments I see in Kimba’s post. I also share the perspective that many voters feel like their vote is meaningless and I think there is good reason. Both of the major parties are virtually the same. That’s right; I said it! The candidates that are selected by each party are endorsed primarily because they represent the status quo. Sure they may wrap things up in cute slogans and words that rhyme to get people to remember them. Yes, they make promises about things they have no possibility of actually doing. But at the end of the day they are representatives of the Republican and Democratic party and will ‘propose’ and ‘try’ to do things that support the parties platform. If John McCain was really a ‘maverick’ or Barack Obama was really for ‘change’ the parties would not have endorsed them.
It’s very interesting to me that people get so wrapped up in one vs. the other to the extent that we sometimes fail to remember that there are many candidates running for President of the United States. Who is the number 3 candidate?....Who is the number 6 candidate...? Do they more closely represent your values and ideas? Who knows??? If you’re not one of the big two, you get virtually 0 time on Radio and TV; so our choice is either the Whopper or the Big Mac and no one cares if you really just wanted a bagel.
Do you use your vote to pick the candidate you most support, or do you pick the lesser of two evils, (which I am hearing more and more often, in fact I used to feel this way too) or worse yet, use your vote to cancel out a vote for the other side? I know that the candidate who will win the election is most likely going to be someone from one of the two major parties, but I think my vote is more valuable to me if I’m given a chance to raise my hand for the person I think would be the best for the job regardless of who wins (and wouldn’t that be a change we could all believe in...) It’s just tragic that we have to dig so deep to get past the rhetoric and learn about the options especially if you are not satisfied with the two primary parties. And I have to say it again because we are seeing both sides now starting to get on the ‘change’ bandwagon. If anyone really wants change, don’t vote Democrat or Republican.
Kimba said it very well. These parties are not run by the candidates. They are run by people who have insane amounts of money and influence and that’s not going to change until the people of this country force it out of their hands (if you could run the world would you just give it up because someone asked nicely?) We The People will have to take it and I don’t see the people really making any moves to change anything.
I’m sure I’ve rambled on way to much and I apologize if this has already been covered in another topic (like I said...new to blogs), so I now yield the floor. Besides, Art will probably delete this post anyway...hehe
Talk to you later,
Hardy
How did you find this topic past my front page of Metallica posts?
Right, there are other candidates, like Ron Paul, and maybe...is Dennis Kucinich still around? But as you say, they're not going to get any coverage, they don't have much of a chance of getting voted in, so we're not going to use mental real estate to contemplate them. Ultimately we just vote for one of the two who seems to have a real chance who most closely reflects our ideal.
My choice is made by a simple rule of thumb my uncle gave me: "When Democrats were in there was work, but when Republicans were in you had to hunt like hell to find a job!"
Also, 1929, stock market crash. Who was president? Herbert Hoover -- Republican.
Stock market crash of 1988? George Bush, Sr. -- Republican.
Economic recovery 1945? FDR -- Democrat.
Economic recovery 1992 -- Bill Clinton, Democrat.
I think it's a rule of thumb that works.
The world renowned Wikipedia cites some of these historic points in a very interesting page on The Great Depression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
“Debt is seen as one of the causes of the Great Depression.” “Government guarantees and Federal Reserve banking regulations to prevent such panics were ineffective or not used.”
“The end of the depression in the U.S. is associated with the onset of the war economy of World War II, beginning around 1939.”
There are many indicators and parallels that are frighteningly close to what’s happening in our economy today. So I guess what we need to save us is a good old fashioned WAR! Ohhh, wait…We already got one. I guess its back to the drawing board. Why can’t everything be a simple formula? Like push this button and you get good…push that button and you get bad. Vote for this party and you get good, and vote for that party and get bad…tricky.
I’m not sure if it’s really fair to blame economic downturns on one party or the other (The depression started way before the stock market crash and ended several years after multiple Presidents sat in office). I think it’s much more appropriately seated on the shoulders of America’s appetite for debit. As I’m sure you recall, even when we were in High School the economic principal of ‘The more money spent; the more money spent!’ resonated clearly, even with teenagers at the time!
I personally have a hard time going along with a lot of the stories that I see in the news where people are calling foul on banks giving them money for things they could not afford, suggesting that they were confused by the wording of their contracts. Contracts have been confusing since the dawn of man when the first one was chiseled on a cave wall. When you are meeting with the lender to close on a mortgage; it is abundantly clear (right up at the top of the page in large numbers) how much you are going to have to pay each month if you do the deal. Even if it wasn’t listed clearly listed a person would naturally ask “So, how much is this going to cost me each month?” and compare it to what they have before they signed on the dotted line (100 times).
**Hardy is now stepping off the soap box**
To bring this back around to the original topic. I picked up some very nice flip flops last time I went to Hilton Head Island, but I don’t wear them every day. Some times I wear shoes, and sometimes I go barefoot. Just because I make a decision today, I’m not sure why anyone would assume that I would always make the same decision for the remainder of my life. Just like it should not be surprising to see people speaking out against the people they oppose and speaking for the people they support. In fact I think it would be down right scary to see everyone always wearing the same footwear that they selected when they first had the ability to choose for themselves.
**How did that soap box get back under there?**
But of course, I probably have no idea what I’m talking about.
Hardy
hehe
Last night Ben Stein, of Ferris Bueller fame, who is a real-life economist and Republican, said that deregulation his own party fought for is what instigated what's happening on Wall Street now. The "they will police themselves" line from Bush, Sr. turns out to not have been true.
Okay, so the people signing the contracts claim they didn't understand them (and btw, "what's this gonna cost me each month?" -- they were variable rate mortgages, which meant the cost was highly elastic, and the elastic snapped), but how about the financial pros who were selling the contracts? Did they not know they were loaning money to people who could never pay? What was their motivation?
Loan companies would sell these mortgages to Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Fannie and Freddie would then bundle these together and sell them to the government to be backed up by government bonds (this is my very rough understanding of it).
My mom, who has an accounting degree, says it looks like what happened is someone thought they could just sell a lot of loans to people who could never pay them, then sell the debt off to the Macs, and in turn the government, at a profit; everyone else was left holding the bag.
So Ben Stein -- again, a John McCain supporter -- said the Bush administration has shown no stewardship, and just like your Wiki quote, the laws that were already in place were never used.
And we came out of the Great Depression under Roosevelt. He took us off the gold standard, which worked up until just lately. Now we've over-printed money. Also, the value of our dollar internationally was only backed up by the faith the world had in America, which has slipped of late. (And they didn't have credit cards in 1929.)
Hmm...the stock market crashed in 1929, and FDR was inaugurated in 1933...and served four terms (although he died at the beginning of the fourth). So I think those "multiple Presidents" were actually ONE President -- the Democrat, Franklin Delano Roosevelt!
By the way, if you haven't already, it's really worthwhile to check out that Metallica CD (the Guitar Hero rip). I'm loving it! Finally, modern music I can listen to!
Well, I guess I’m going to have to fire my editor. One more job lost to the spiraling economy... :(
By the way, is that the same Franklin Delano Roosevelt that put all those poor Japanese and German American Citizens into internment camps for no crime? I’m not sure that’s the kind of leader you’d really want running our country today. In fact, as I look a bit deeper, Roosevelt introduced quite a few programs as part of his “New Deal” that were later found to be unconstitutional.
“On May 27, 1935, the NRA was found to be unconstitutional by a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Schechter v. United States. On that same day, the Court unanimously struck down the Frazier-Lemke Act portion of the New Deal as unconstitutional. Some libertarians such as Richard Ebeling see these and other rulings striking down portions of the New Deal as preventing the U.S. economic system from becoming a planned economy corporate state. Governor Huey Long of Louisiana said, “I raise my hand in reverence to the Surpreme Court that saved this nation from fascism.”
My point was an event like The Great Depression does not occur or get rectified as a result of the actions of one person or office.
Okay, so the people signing the contracts claim they didn't understand them (and btw, "what's this gonna cost me each month?" -- they were variable rate mortgages, which meant the cost was highly elastic, and the elastic snapped), but how about the financial pros who were selling the contracts?
Variable rate mortgages have been around for a very long time (see I’m learning; stick to the vague generalization) and everyone choosing one knows that there’s a risk that their payment may/will go up before they sell the house. It’s a gamble. Kinda like going to Vegas. But in Vegas when I put my money down and I loose; I loose. The Casino does not care that I made a mistake when I put down the family fortune on a hand of cards.
I know that it’s only human to want to try to blame our mistakes on someone else, but people need to take responsibility for their poor decisions (they have no problem takeing responsibility for the good decisions). I’ve purchased two homes; both times I could have taken an option for a variable rate loan and taken advantage of a lower payment going in, but for me the risk of economic changes was too great to gamble on the rate staying low, so I went with a fixed rate and paid a little bit more. The important part is, I chose a house with a payment that I could afford regardless of the amount that the lender said I qualified for (which was nearly double the amount I financed).
Did they not know they were loaning money to people who could never pay?
Perhaps. But I’m sure you’re not suggesting that lenders should profile or discriminate against the people asking for money.
Potential Lender - “Hmm....Let’s see Mr. Jones, it looks like your car is kinda shabby so that’s going to go against you on this request for money. Oh, and that watch your wearing; it does not look like a watch a person with a good work ethic would wear. It doesn’t even have a metal band! (Metal Band! Hell Yea!) We’re sorry, we can’t possibly give any money to you, it’s just too risky.”
Loans are granted based on credit and employment history. If someone qualifies, they qualify regardless of race, gender, creed, etc. There's no way we can know how those conversations went when the request was made for the loan. The lender may have cautioned the customer about spending more money than they could afford. Yet, when the news crew shows up to talk to the out of luck home buyer, they naturally don't remember that part of the transaction.
What was their motivation?
Greed, challenge, wanting to be on top of the list of loans sold, who knows? But none of those things are illegal and they surely don’t abdicate the buyer from their responsibility. I'm sure there are some lenders that may have done some things that are wrong, and they should be punnished if they are found guilty of breaking the law. But the people that sign the contracts are responsible for the articles outlined in the agreement as long as the contract does not violate their Civil Rights.
Not sure what all this has to do with flip flopping, but...
I’ll defiantly check out (and play) the new Metallica album. In fact, you still need to come over to check out all the goodness of Rock Band and Guitar Hero. Rock Band recently put Megadeth’s Peace Sells album up for download. So the metal flows.
Later,
Hardy
So based on that reasoning, we should shred the Declaration of Independence because the founding fathers owned slaves. At the same time we should take Abraham Lincoln off the $5 bill and repeal his holiday because he also suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. Throw out the Civil Rights act because MLK, Jr. also had affairs. If we dismissed every thing good in our history because the person who did it also did something bad, we would just fold up the whole country and call it a day. The economy was the issue, and FDR did a inarguably fine job with it. Fortunately this internment camp tangent is called a "red herring argument."
But I’m sure you’re not suggesting that lenders should profile or discriminate against the people asking for money."
Credit check are done all the time for big purchases, you don't have to judge by the car or clothes. When you finance a car they ask about income and check your credit history. What I'm saying is Japanese people should not be able to buy houses, they should be put in internment camps. Do you follow my logic?
There's no way we can know how those conversations went when the request was made for the loan. The lender may have cautioned the customer about spending more money than they could afford.
Or they may not have. Whatever the case, the lender AND the loaner are both in deep poop now, and taking the rest of the country with them. So I say we get John McCain so we can give them four more years to finish drowning! USA! USA!
Actually that was not my desire at all.
On a seperate note; I’m getting tired of copying lines from your posts to refernece in my posts, so we’ll try to do this with just my thoughts.
None of your responses accurately reflect the positions or ideas I’m suggesting, so I have no other option but to believe that your responses are intended to be inflammatory, or you really have no interest in hearing what other people think (like I didn’t know that all along). ;)
It’s kind of funny that this post started with commentary on Flip Flopping. Don’t be scared. Taking a little bit from the perspectives of people you encounter, even if they are not Democrats, is not flip flopping. It’s just sharing and learning.
My first post was in no way an attack of anyone’s ideas. Just posting my own thoughts that are somewhat aligned with Kimba’s. I never imagined that it would resolve to folding up the country and going down in poop.
Sorry for wasting hard drive space on a server somewhere on the internet with this abundance of pointless text.
I guess blogs are not for me.
Later,
Hardy