Saturday, September 27, 2008

McCain vs. Obama Debate Analysis

The debate last night was one of anger vs. level headedness. Many times it was also a debate on lies vs. the truth. While I feel Obama had a better night in terms of truth, McCain showed his strength on Foreign Policy in a haughty and, according to some, in a disrespectful way. McCain seemed to force himself to not look Obama in the eye even once the entire debate. I doubt any Republican out there will feel that McCain was too haughty and dismissive of actual facts. On the other hand, I am a Democrat who feels Obama could have done so much more, and didn't.

The polls show Obama winning by at least 1% amongst all the ones performed. I disagree with the polls.

Obama vs. McCain Round One:

While I was hoping to give this debate three rounds, it simply wasn't meant to be. As the debate begins Obama comes out strong on the bailout plan:

"No. 1, we've got to make sure that we've got oversight over this whole process; $700 billion, potentially, is a lot of money.

No. 2, we've got to make sure that taxpayers, when they are putting their money at risk, have the possibility of getting that money back and gains, if the market -- and when the market returns.

No. 3, we've got to make sure that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes.

And, No. 4, we've got to make sure that we're helping homeowners, because the root problem here has to do with the foreclosures that are taking place all across the country. Read more about the expectations"

With McCain siding with the House Republicans' initial plan for less regulation, less corporate taxes and lowering the capital gains tax it is apparent he doesn't realize that that is the exact recipe that got us in this mess in the first place.

"And (I) have no doubt about the magnitude of this crisis. And we're not talking about failure of institutions on Wall Street. We're talking about failures on Main Street"

It is obvious how out of touch McCain is with a statement like this. While "Main Street" can take some of the blame for our crisis, it is, in the end, the investment banks & lending institutions that approve loans. The crisis roots in their inability (thanks to no regulation) to vet the borrowers' ability to pay timely as well as passing around debt with far too little care on what happens in the long run. It is also failures of the Bush Administration to put taxes on shipping jobs overseas to encourage more growth at home. Adding to this the investment banks lack of oversight and extreme corporate greed, you have a recipe for the disaster we currently have. These three factors played a roll in our current crisis and McCain just doesn't get it. While he claims he wants oversight, his actions speak to the opposite. Let's not forget that McCain didn't even bother to read the 2 and a 1/2 page Paulson document until Wednesday of last week. He was making opinions on the crisis situation as if he had read it, but when pressed admitted he would have to get back to the reporter.

It is also important to note that in the opening question McCain decides to tell his first lie of many:

But there's also the issue of responsibility. You've mentioned President Dwight David Eisenhower. President Eisenhower, on the night before the Normandy invasion, went into his room, and he wrote out two letters.

One of them was a letter congratulating the great members of the military and allies that had conducted and succeeded in the greatest invasion in history, still to this day, and forever.

And he wrote out another letter, and that was a letter of resignation from the United States Army for the failure of the landings at Normandy.

Not only is this a bold faced LIE...but it is so widely known to be a false claim, that this, once again, shows how out of touch with the truth John McCain is.

By the end of the evening Lie-O-Meter showed McCain: 11 Lies - Obama: 3.5 Lies. (You can read the lies at the end)

It is also important to note that McCain claiming move oversight on Wall Street prompted Obama's first invocation that John McCain is "absolutely right." While I know some debate analysts will claim this is a bad debate tactic, I disagree. I think one candidate showing that they have the ability to think the other is right on some issues is noble and NORMAL. John McCain, I believe, did not claim Obama was right on ANYTHING the entire night. Not only is this the "Old Boys" way of thinking, it speaks volumes on his current stance on bi-partisanship. This is a different McCain from 2000. This McCain continues to scare me.

After a few minutes of all talk and no substance by both candidates, McCain had this gem to lay out to the American people:

"You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control."

Now, I don't know if the bears needed their DNA studied or not, but what I do know is that John McCain himself voted FOR the legislation containing this study. Again this shows that McCain continues to use poor judgement in his attacks against the 'system.' A clear point that needs to be made is the change in John McCain since the year 2000. He is no longer the maverick voting against his party. He has gotten more conservative as he's gotten older, not less. John McCain outright panders to the "evangelical right" (as an example) even though he's made direct attacks against them years ago. My real fear is, "Which John McCain do we get, old John McCain or the older John McCain?"

Obama: Let's just be clear.

What I do is I close corporate loopholes, stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas so that we're giving tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States. I make sure that we have a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage.

I think those are pretty important priorities. And I pay for every dime of it.

Now let me be clear on this one. The plan Obama currently has for public view does NOT appear to "pay for every dime of it." Obama did an excellent job of fending off the "Raise your taxes" attacks from Mr. McCain. He did so without admitting he is raising taxes (on the rich). Great debate tactic and kept the lie of earlier at even. While Obama DOES pay for the new projects that he proposes he fails to let the public know that he is inheriting a $700+ billion dollar deficit (thanks to Bush, the former rubber stamp congress and Iraq) and Obama needs to update his plan to account for the deficit.

Don't get me wrong, I feel Mr. Obama will do this but he needs to get more specific on spending cuts, capital gains tax increases, and more importantly, taxing companies who ship jobs overseas. This worker tariff tax could very well solve our national debt over the next few years. And if it didn't, it would create a huge amount of new American jobs, give us a better sense of national pride in our own products and give the world the view that we can still do it on our own now and then! Allowing companies like former CEO, Dick Cheney's Halliburton, to move their home base to Dubai just to avoid taxes should NOT BE ALLOWED. Especially when this company was given NO BID CONTRACTS in Iraq to do work on behalf of the American people.

McCain wants to make Bush's tax cuts permanent and his tax plan actually rewards companies for shipping jobs overseas. McCain's tax plan gives all corporate players tax cuts without any stipulations that give punishment to corporations for shipping jobs overseas. I'm not an accountant, but I'm pretty sure that giving Corporations tax cuts should come with stipulations. If the government is scratching YOUR back...then you should be scratching the American people's backs in return.

Debate Tracker: Round 1 on Economics goes to Barack Obama.

McCain vs. Obama Round Two:

I ended up having to split this debate up into two rounds instead of the three I originally wanted. It was a little less than halfway through that the debate shifted to Foreign Policy. This is where McCain gets angry and nasty and Obama is too timid on some responses.

I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict. Our initial military success, we went in to Baghdad and everybody celebrated. And then the war was very badly mishandled. I went to Iraq in 2003 and came back and said, we've got to change this strategy. This strategy requires additional troops, it requires a fundamental change in strategy and I fought for it. And finally, we came up with a great general and a strategy that has succeeded.

While McCain centered his Iraq policy around the Surge, Obama maintains the position that it was the poor judgement of leaders in Congress, like John McCain, that got us into a war based on lies in the first place. Unfortunately, the presentation by McCain was sharper and I think resonated a good knowledge on the subject.

Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure. Recently on a television program, he said it exceed our wildest expectations.

Let's be clear here. The surge was not and is not a complete success. While there was not an increase in sectarian violence, there was not a lessening of it, either. Never forget that we are paying off the Iraqis to not fight. A move that is politically motivated to help maintain peace until after the election. The sunnis and shi'a are still on the brink of a civil war. While I feel the surge was a great initial strategy, the list of goals originally proposed has still to be completed in a timely fashion. The Sunni Awakening has a lot to do with helping the short term success of the Surge appear to work. However, it hasn't. What it DID do was reduce U.S. troop death averages. I am totally glad it did, but we need to be thinking of the Iraqis as well as ourselves in this conflict. With over 100,000 Iraqi's dead and the countrymen and women still maintaining a 300-500 person death toll per month since the surge, a phased redeployment is obviously needed to get the Iraqis to stand on their own.

Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO that's in Afghanistan. To this day, he has never had a hearing.

Another outright lie by McCain. Obama has been to hearings on Afghanistan. On the flip side, McCain has not been to even one of the eight hearings on Afghanistan.

Despite the truth being on Obama's side throughout much of the debate, John McCain still came off better when it came to foreign policy. Unfortunately, the McCain lies appeared to be truth and the likelihood of normal America researching the truth is very low.

Because of his haughty and almost angry debate style John McCain lost the economic battle against Barack Obama. Ironically, the very same debate style is what led Mr. McCain to win the second round of the debate. Mr. Obama came off as cerebral, but he was not tough enough to call out McCain's lies and didn't have enough substance to offer himself.

Debate Tracker: Round 2 on Foreign Policy goes to John McCain

Conclusion:

In my opinion, last night's debate was a tie.

Obama showed his strength on the economy and silenced the critics who felt he would be severely beaten on Foreign Policy. While Mr. Obama did not win the debate on foreign policy, he showed that he has a plan and will make sure it gets executed. Mr. Obama did a far better job at telling the truth than his opponent. While some figures were off and "families" should have been used instead of "people," the list was very minor. Due to this, I believe Mr. Obama showed himself to be very presidential and maintaining a presidential sense of integrity and gave him Round 1.

John McCain showed his strength with several harsh and haughty responses. A lack of direct contact with Mr. Obama, which some may have seen as disrespectful, I saw as a smart move to keep Mr. Obama on the defensive during the entire foreign policy segment. It was this harshness 'street fighter' mentality that helped him in the end. Most of the American people will likely see him winning the debate on Foreign Policy. While I do not feel his tactics are right for (bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb) Iran & the rest of the world, there is no doubt he is driven in his desire to resolve foreign affairs. Mr. McCain did an excellent job of making Mr. Obama seem almost too reserved at a few key moments later in the debate. Mr. Obama needed to win at the podium, not in the fact check later. This is why I give John McCain round 2.

Congratulations on both Candidates for winning a round. I have major policy differences with John McCain, but I'm not so blind that I cannot see where he performed well.

What's next?

On Thursday, October 2nd, 2008, VP candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin will participate in a debate that will likely cover a large amount of topics. While most of the country is anticipating a blood bath, I am not. Sarah Palin will show up poised, knowledgable, and confident thanks to McCain's strong finish last night.

Do not be fooled into believing she will mess up. Instead, focus on her policies and the way she could shape the country. It doesn't take long to realize that Sarah Palin is more like George W. Bush than even McCain is. Her lack of experience is real, but she will be trying to hide that the entire evening. I feel Palin will be successful unless the moderator actually follows up on questions and encourages answering the question with something other than the memorized responses.

The problem with that is that Biden will be put into the same spot. While I like Joe Biden and feel he is the most qualified of the entire bunch to be President, he has gaffe issues and sometimes doesn't think before answering.

Here's the list of lies and how much they weigh:

McCain's Debate Lies, Half Truths and Exaggerations
Lie: 1 McCain
Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.

Lie: 2 McCain
McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained.

Lie: 3 McCain
McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.

Lie: 3.5 McCain (McCain's healthcare gaffe is only worth 1/2 point)
McCain misrepresented Obama's plan by claiming he'd be "handing the health care system over to the federal government." Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well.

Lie: 4.5 McCain (here's where a simple Google search would have prevented)
McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning.

Lie: 5.5 McCain
McCain claimed that Admiral Mullen suggests that "Senator Obama's plan is dangerous for America." It is important to note that this was a particularly heated exchange between the two and McCain appeared to win the exchange with an outright falsity.

Lie: 6.5 McCain
McCain brought up that he went against President Bush when it came to torture. This is not true. While McCain was outwardly spoken against torture, in the end he voted AGAINST the bill that would ban waterboarding as an interrogation tactic.

Lie: 7.5 McCain
McCain again repeated the claim that we send "$700 billion to foreign country's that don't like us very much." The number is actually $536 billion. Normally I would let this go as a 1/2 point, except one third of that money is sent to the U.K. (ally), Canada (ally) and Mexico (ally). A slap in the face to our 3 best allies.

Lie: 8 McCain (Would have not counted it at all, except he's repeating lies that have already been debunked a while back - 1/2 point)
McCain repeated the false insinuation that Obama opposed naming Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

Lie 9 McCain
McCain was went too far when he said, "I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion by fighting a contract that was negotiated between Boeing and DOD that was completely wrong. And we fixed it and we killed it." McCain did lead a fight to kill the contract, and the effort ended in prison sentences for defense contractors. But the contract isn't exactly "fixed" yet. In fact, questions have been raised about the role McCain has played in helping a Boeing rival secure the new contract.

Lie 10 McCain
McCain said Obama was against storing nuclear waste. That's very obviously not his position. Obama's official position has always been that he does support safe storage of nuclear waste.

Lie 11 McCain
McCain stated, "I have voted for alternate fuel all of my time. ... No one can be opposed to alternate energy." But McCain's record says differently. He has voted against funding for alternative energy on 11 occasions. He may be in favor of alternative energy in theory, but he has declined opportunities to support it.

Obama's Debate Lies, Half Truths and Exaggerations
Lie: 0.5 Obama (no such increase is in Obama's current plan and the legislation voted for would not actually tax the single taxpayer without further legislation being written, so as it stood the taxing of that bracket did not take place in that particular vote - 1/2 point)
Obama denied voting for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan.

Lie: 1 Obama (a dumb mistake that was true not long ago - 1/2 point)
Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion.

Lie: 2 Obama
Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households.

Lie: 2.5 Obama (saying employers instead of employees is more of a gaffe than a lie and since McCain made his own 'gaffe' on healthcare we will call it even)
Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance.

Lie: 3.5 Obama
Obama said that McCain had voted 23 times against alternative energy.

14 comments:

jessica said...

redwing i disagree with your assessment of john mccain in this debate. to me he seemed completely out of touch on foreign policy and didn't offer any real solutions for iraq.

obama, on the other hand, offered a phased withdrawal of all major combat troops as his solution to not only save america billions and billions of dollars but also save american lives, improve our status in the world and still keep iraq as an ally.

im glad you at least noticed that mccain had a hard time looking his opponnent in the eye. this tells me he lacks character and could quite possibly feel tha obama is beneath him. considering how long mccain fought against a holiday for martin luther king, this could also be a hint of racism.

where you saw obama as being timid i saw him as being presidential. he trapped mccain into appearing angry and helped show that he may not have the proper temperament for a job where you will have to deal with people you dont like.

im also glad you caught the lies that mccain told. i really like that factcheck.org website!

my roommate eve (evelynn) thinks you are right though so i could be wrong in my assessment.

i am really looking forward to everyone's thoughts on this debate so please respond!

suebee what did you think????

jessica

SueBeeHonee said...

Redwing, I disagree with your analysis. I felt more confident about Obama than McCain. McCain stumbled often and looked like a fool. I found myself wanting to look away and yawn when he spoke versus Obama who seemed poised and put together and more assured. While Obama may have had his two lies to McCain's seven, it still shows that he was more truthful and not as desparate sounding as McCain. I agree a lot with what Jessica said as well. Yes, factcheck.org is great. It helps to keep the candidates claims and statements in check.

Larry said...

Well redwing, pretty good analysis. I was shocked how well McCain did. I understand why you feel Obama did better on the economy but I felt it was a tie because I think they both are equal. I gave round 2 to McCain, so because of the tie first part, I said McCain won. However I think Obama will win out the rest of the debates. I do differ with you on the VP debates as I think Palin may screw up. We'll see and I can't wait for it. Could you please tell me the 2 lies Obama said? factcheck shows more so I wasn't sure.

I actually saw more anger in Obama. Maybe because of the lies by McCain, but still the anger was there more. Maybe McCain was more of a smart ass though. I totally didn't agree with Obama calling McCain John. It is disrespectfull because McCain is a senior to Obama. CNN actually said that in prior debates in history the use of first name was not used. This doesn't make me dislike Obama, but just a lack of respect that he needs to change.

On the gaffes here is a youtube of the gaffes Obama and Biden has said. I believe you posted before some on McCain. On the video below the very last one on Obama was stupid, so no use telling me it was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvZpp9QJRME&feature=related

Finally I thought the debate overall was boring. Both candidates put me to sleep.

Larry said...

Its funny how they can change their mind so easily, or maybe not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EGiqfkO8ss&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3VBAbqjhvA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R20pQK5KO2E&feature=related

Burr Deming said...

McCain was indeed transparently angry. I think it goes beyond the debate or even the campaign.

John McCain suffered unimaginably in service to the rest of us. When his sacrifices are denigrated or ignored by those who never endured such treatment, his anger is understandable. I believe this instance is more revealing than the debate.

RedWing said...

Larry, I have now provided a list of the lies and how much weight I gave them (point system) at the end of the blog entry. I have revised my 'Lie-O-Meter' to 11 lies for McCain and 3.5 lies for Obama. Also, you can use "a href=" in the comments as 'burr deming' did in his comment. This will allow us to click the links you provide.

Burr Deming, thanks for stopping by and commenting. I hope you'll stick around till at least November. :)

Larry said...

thanks Redwing. The only one I do not agree with is you giving .5 to the 42,000 income tax increase. Why? Because McCain said he has voted for it and he DID and Obama said it was not true. That was a true lie. It may not be in his current plan, but it is a record. So to me your 3.5 should be 4. Still much less than McCain's.

kevin said...

Can't wait to see how Joe Biden handles/copes with Sarah Palin on Tuesday.I will be Super Glued to the TV.... Obama can't remember the name of the kid who's bracelet he wears? Blew my mind. Told me plenty. McCain showed me more than I thought he would during the debate. But I will still vote for Ron Paul for President and Wayne Root for V.P. Wayne reads Coffee and I know he will be pained to hear that I am not voting for Barr, but I think Ron Paul is thechoice for President. I respect Barr, McCain and Biden, but we're at a conscience-point in American History. There's no way I can vote for someone who cuts checks from YOUR personal bank account to PEOPLE whomismanage companies. It's not a government "bailout," it's a Coffee Readerobligated gift to the corrupt. It's dead wrong..........

kevin said...

I wanted to get out more so I am re-hashing what I said from another blog comment and adding more..here goes...

How much do you really want Sarah Palin to "know"?
Is she competent? Is she smart enough? Is she smarter than an Investment Bank CEO? Smarter than the guy that ran Freddie Mac? Fannie Mae? Smarter than the CEO of Bear Stearns? AIG? Lehman Brothers? Ben Bernake? Hank Paulson? President Bush?
Sometimes HOW MUCH YOU KNOW, is NOT the question they should be asking....
NO, I'm not voting for her, but I'd be happy to if I was philosophically inclined to do so.
The sharpest minds in the world are theoretically the leaders of the world's largest corporations, especially banks, central banks and trillion dollar insurance companies.
These are the people to whom we entrust our entire future.
Now, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you borrow money from the Fed at 2%, loan it out at 6% and earn 4%.
Period.
That's all a bank has to do to make money. If a tiny little bank starts up in a community and writes $150,000,000 in loans, (about 600 houses) they make 4% on that, or about $600,000. That will cover the building lease space, the bank's owner/CEO for $150,000 and perhaps a few bankers at 50K each with a nice little profit left over.
There is nothing complicated about it. I explained it to my 10-year-old son in about 7 minutes. He got it. He's not as smart as Sarah Palin.
The bank can also take deposits. They pay 0-3% on those deposits and then invest them into bonds that pay 1-5%. Again. Guaranteed income. Brainless activity. No thinking required. None. Zip.
It is the absolutely easiest and simpleton way to make money on the planet.
NO ONE can screw it up.
"But Kevin what if the loans 'go bad' or become toxic?"
First of all, there are no toxic loans. There are toxic PEOPLE.
1) There are corrupt people who write a loan that someone can't pay off in exchange for the fees.
2) There are idiots who think they can buy a house they can't afford.
3) There are STUPID bankers who take a loan with less than 20% down.
4) There are GREEDY bankers who write loans knowing that the performance of the loan will be absorbed by the Freddie Mac...
KEYPOINT: People who aren't corrupt or stupid CAN NOT screw it up.
[and by the way, there are a LOT of GOOD bankers who bust their butt to make sure that greed and stupidity don't enter their buildings...or leave them at night.]
See...it's OK TO BAILOUT THE TOXIC LOANS; but if the facts were told, you'd be being asked to bail out TOXIC PEOPLE.
The power of spin. How does it apply? The power of spin.
If someone can't pay their mortgage, the bank takes the house, sells it and gets their money back. No rocket science involved.
It takes a real first-class screw up....to screw up this kind of a business.
I don't know much about Sarah Palin, but give the girl a calculator and in about 15 minutes she can figure out the math.
Is she qualified to be Vice President? To be President? To be in charge of an economy?
COMPARED TO WHO?
From there, you can figure out good and evil.
Borrow at 2. Loan at 6. Secure the loan with the house, not air.
Stupid, greedy or corrupt.
Those are the only three ways that a banker can screw up. That's it.
Now, I'm watching many of the biggest banks on the planet go under (latest WaMu).
Why?
How is it possible?
Had they borrowed at 2, loaned at 6, secured the loan and not gotten greedy, they'd take home their millions and billions and be happy as can be.
But (1) GREED, (2) STUPID, and (3) CORRUPT can get in the way.
And when they do, SOMEONE will get hurt.
Who?
You will be surprised....
The guy who borrows the money to buy his house is self responsible. He either knows he will bust his butt to pay the loan off or he won't. Period. He can't "win" or "lose." The future homeowner (the guy with a mortgage is a FUTURE homeowner...not a REAL homeowner) decides HIMSELF whether or not he will pay off the loan. He didn't get hurt, he inflicted pain upon himself.
So the homeowner doesn't win or lose. They determine their own fate.
The bank can't make them screw up, even if they were greedy, the person is putting themselves on the line for $300,000. If that is taken lightly, so be it. Go party. Get foreclosed on. That's a choice.
Back to the bank.
So the bank is either greedy, stupid or corrupt.
People go bankrupt and have houses go into foreclosure and the houses aren't secured.
THAT IS THE BANK'S PROBLEM.
They got greedy, were stupid or corrupt.
If they didn't get a 20% down payment they are IDIOTS.
If they closed a deal to get the closing fees and fees to write the loan only to have it foreclose, they are GREEDY and CORRUPT. (It means they know Fannie Mae will be there to cut them a check later...and Fannie Mae ultimately is YOU AND ME)
If people are STUPID, you DO NOT GIVE THEM money to erase their mistakes. THEY ARE OUT OF BUSINESS. PERIOD.
The government (AGAIN YOU and ME!) guarantees the deposits in the bank, so the bank has no pain there. No one gets an oweee at the bank.
If you work for a bank and the bank goes under, that is your choice. It happens to businesses every day. It's part of the world. Intelligent people go to work ASSUMING the business will CEASE to EXIST at point X and they will be prepared to move to another Y.
So the answer is YOU NEVER CUT A CHECK TO CORRUPT, GREEDY OR STUPID PEOPLE.
What will happen if the government does cut that check? Now, let's say "the govenment" decides to cut $700 BILLION dollars in checks in the next few weeks on top of the BILLIONS that were cut to all the other firms/banks in the last year.
That was WRONG and STUPID and CORRUPT on the part of the GOVERNMENT.
You NEVER SUBSIDIZE STUPIDITY, CORRUPTION OR GREED.
If YOU DO, YOU are an idiot.
So, "we have to get this 'BAILOUT' passed quickly" is a crock of HOOHA.
The answer is NO F'ing. way.
It's NOT a BAILOUT.
It's giving your money and mine to STUPID, GREEDY AND CORRUPT PEOPLE. UNDERLINE PEOPLE!
You had a TRILLION dollars, you LOST MONEY?!?!?!?!?
(please read that again. If YOU had a trillion dollars you think YOU would lose money?!)
That is NOT possible unless you are STUPID, CORRUPT or GREEDY.
I'm thinking Sarah Palin doesn't do that, wouldn't do that, would have the common sense to tell the bank, "bye bye, it was nice seeing you."
I could be wrong.
It does not take a genius or even a beauty queen to run a bank and make money.
It takes a criminal, a sleaze ball OR an idiot to LOSE MONEY in a bank.
Take a moment. Think, "but Kevin there must be an exception to your point."
Really?
Name one.
Just one.
Only one.
If the bank is robbed, they have insurance.
If the bank is blown up. They have insurance.
If they are stupid, they have insurance.
IF THEY ARE CORRUPT OR GREEDY only one person can help them and that is YOU and if YOU want to cut them a check, well by all means, have at it.
But I'd rather cut a check to victims of earthquakes, tsunamis, children who have suffered in genocide. Innocent people who weren't stupid, corrupt or greedy that had bad stuff happen TO them.
"But Kevin, what if the bank goes under and that causes problems, X,Y,Z.???!! Surely you don't want the economy to collapse."
Hell no I don't want the economy to collapse. I have 2/3 of my net worth in banks. I've tried to choose like Warren Buffet which banks I use, but I know that stuff can go wrong. THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES to using American currency and American banks. Gold, silver, platinum, diamonds. The Brazilian Real, The Yen.
These are choices.
If the economy collapses, what I entrusted to the banks to take care of can vaporize and that is MY FAULT for trusting people who can be GREEDY, CORRUPT or STUPID and that means I BLEW MY OWN RISK ASSESSMENT and that is MY FAULT.
What is NOT my fault is that Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, AIG (and don't even ask me how it is possible for an INSURANCE COMPANY to go under because THAT REQUIRES MAJOR STUPIDITY, MAJOR CORRUPTION AND MAJOR GREED.)
It is NOT my job or choice or interest to take money money and stop off at someone's office who is CORRUPT, STUPID or GREEDY and write them a check.
Not now. Not ever.
No, no. no.
No "buts." or "if's" or "ands."
You don't cut these people checks, EVEN IF IT BRINGS THE ECONOMY DOWN.
Because it will cause an EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM.
1) YOU will have to write a check to a CROOK OR AN IDIOT for something you had nothing to do with. That's wrong.
2) You will have to pay interest on the check that you are writing!
3) You will be giving the government CONTROL OF BANKS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES!??!?!?!?!?!
You gonna teach YOUR CHILDREN THIS LINE OF THINKING?!??!?!?!?
Hell, just hand over the keys to your house, the security code to your garage and the directions to your bedroom and the time your wife goes to bed.
What the HELL are people thinking?!
HELLO?
"You must act now or suffer the consequence?!"
I don't think so.
What will happen to our economic system? THE CORRUPT, GREEDY and STUPID do NOT get my money. I WORKED for my mine. I didn't steal it like they did, or gain it from other crimes or just from being stupid.
WHEN I SCREW UP SOMEDAY NO ONE WILL BE STOPPING A CHECK OFF HERE and if I chose to be greedy or corrupt, you GO TO JAIL.
ANSWER: YOU SEND THE PEOPLE WHO WANT THE MONEY TO JAIL.
YOU DO NOT CUT THEM A CHECK.
"But Kevin you could lose 2/3 of your net worth if things went the honest way with integrity."
Yep. That stinks. Drives me nuts. But you know what? You CAN NOT EVER pay off criminals or entrust futures of innocent people into the hands of CORRUPT, GREEDY or STUPID people.
I voted. You did too.
No one is asking for our opinion....because we know right from wrong and if someone asks, this would have a VERY different ending.
The End?
(You can stop reading here or read what "the bailout" will accomplish.)
"Bailout"
In this case, the definition is you and me cutting a check to a CRIMINAL OR AN IDIOT.
Answer is no.
Would it save the "system?"
You can't be serious.
The Net Worth of all the households in the USA (not the businesses, just households) is about $55 TRILLION dollars. A lot of that is wrapped up in real estate. A lot in the stock market.
If the U.S. Dollar collapsed and became absolutely the worthless piece of paper that it is, anyone who owned a house would still have wealth and worth. A paid for automobile. A computer. A farm. A diamond. A gold coin. (because it's gold, not because it's a coin.)
MOST of the net worth would disappear but a lot would remain. Banks would get the houses that aren't paid off back.
The world would begin anew.
It's pretty common. Happens all over the world and has for thousands of years. No piece of paper currency hangs around forever. None. It CAN'T. It's a PIECE OF PAPER.
You and I simply KNOW that at some point the dollar will collapse just like all empires collapse. The United States can't even pay it's bills without printing more pieces of paper. It has ONE DESTINY.
THERE IS NO BAILOUT.
It CAN'T "work."
It CAN expedite the end of the currency and empire that we call the United States, however.
Print more paper.
It doesn't DO anything. It makes corrupt, greedy and stupid people happy. It makes good people who are smart, upset and angry.
$700 BILLION dollars is a bunch of money. That's about $15,000 per TAXPAYING HOUSEHOLD in the USA.
It's what we've spent on the frigging Iraq War.
Want $700 Billion?
Stop the frigging war.
Anyone REALLY think the oil in Iraq is going to do ANYTHING for the United States? It's MEANINGLESS.
The "national debt" (the money on the USA Taxpayer Credit Card...) is 10 TRILLION dollars.
The USA brings in what, 3.13 TRILLION per year in tax revenues, right?
So if you pull the plug on ALL GOVERNMENT, MILITARY, SOCIAL SECURITY, HEALTHCARE, EVERYTHING for 10 years....you can pay the credit card off and start at EVEN.
Five brutal years.
"Can't do that Kevin, the old people, the sick, the national security."
SHUT UP.
IT'S PAPER.
IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN THIS YEAR OR IN FIVE YEARS. It's not what someone "wants."
We have this instant gratification problem that we MUST get over.
We don't DESERVE health care. Or social "security" or ANYTHING.
We SPENT all that money on STUFF so we could have our FIX.
Now WE the PEOPLE are choosing to be STUPID, CORRUPT AND GREEDY because we are STEALING from our own kids and neighbors' kids wallets. LITERALLY.
Want to bailout someone? Who should it be? Bailout YOURSELF and YOUR FAMILY and YOUR KIDS from living like 2/3 of the population of China.
There's no metaphor here.
You/I are beating the hell out of your/our own children or your neighbors kids. That's not healthcare. It's child abuse.
Obama can make it sound airy fairy, "oh you deserve healthcare and education and ...."
NO.
No one DESERVES anything.
We have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
We deserve THAT.
We DO NOT DESERVE free healthcare, welfare, or anything else.
Because ALL of those things are PAID FOR BY SOMEONE.
So if it is "free to me" it's PAID FOR by my neighbor and as I tell my kids, my neighbors without kids have NO REASONABLE obligation to have to pay for THEIR education (my kids education). It's insane.
The "COLLAPSE" WILL HAPPEN. It's not a question of "maybe." It HAS to happen.
The question is, HOW LONG it will last and we are MAKING THE PERIOD OF PAIN LONGER BECAUSE WE WANT OUR FIX A LITTLE LONGER.
And that is generally the case with people.
We wanted free stuff. Free health care, free schooling, free roads, free this, free that, free everything. We vote for the guy or gal that promises us MORE FREE STUFF.
Because we don't want to experience effort in exchange for what we TRULY deserve (what we EARN).
We can take the five years (it will really be closer to 7-10 if it happened today) OR we can add about one year for every year that goes by for 1-10 more years, and then the bridge will collapse.
Again, it HAS to collapse. It ALWAYS happens. There are NO exceptions in history. Shoot, it's happened IN the United States.
The point is that the junkie and her family will pay a price for the ongoing fix of free stuff.
You and I are entitled to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. We have the right to free speech, religion, bear arms. Those are the guarantees, the promises.
And in return, we MUST pay for those things.
But education, healthcare, blah, blah, blah.
Not part of the deal.
Healthcare is expensive as heck BECAUSE it is EXPENSIVE AS HECK. And people who "WANT THEIR STUFF FOR FREE" are saying they want to steal the money from someone else to pay for their stuff.
STUPID, CORRUPT, GREEDY.
It's not just bank CEO's that are greedy....
...and ultimately it makes little difference. $700 BILLION new pieces of paper is a LOT of paper....but it is meaningless in the scope of the world.
Politicians have already put YOU on the hook for $10 TRILLION dollars. We seriously CAN'T get out of debt without stagflation (all for another time), but essentially like all socialist societies, we have screwed ourselves in so deep, this chapter in history is done. It's a question of when it will OFFICIALLY be over and the next can begin.
For me, let's get moving. Do what every other country, empire, nation has to do. Go bankrupt and start fresh and do it with a gold/platinum/commodity based currency. It did REAL WELL until about 50 years ago when people wanted FREE STUFF and they wanted to VOTE FOR WHOEVER GAVE THEM THE FREE STUFF.
And that is how it ALWAYS begins...to end.
You'll survive. So will I. It just will be a first class pain in the butt.
Vote for ANYONE who will tell you the TRUTH and stop beating up and ABUSING innocent little kids who had nothing to do with it, and will end up paying for it.
We can choose to buck up and be responsible or beat the heck out of our kids and the baby next door.
Let's for once do the right thing.
Is it possible to fix the system? It's NOT POSSIBLE to fix the current "system." Corruption cleaned it out.
BUT....
There are a lot of hardworking people in this country that will make us competitive again. I believe that in a decade we could be past this and be on a gold standard currency and my kids will live MOST of their lives in a secure and truly free country again...one where banks are NOT owned by a BIG government....but one where next to NO ONE works for the government...but works for their families....
"But Mom, I don't WANT TO GO TO THE DENTIST TODAY...IT'S GOING TO HURT."
But, you take the kids because if they don't get the cavity filled now...the problem geometrically grows bigger and bigger.
I bet a HOCKEY MOM WOULD GET THIS....

RedWing said...

Kevin,

That's quite a mouthful and took me a while to read thanks to your crazy style of writing. My apologies on not responding.

While I see your point on almost every issue, I'm not sure I can agree that a "hockey mom" would understand it. In fact, I'm pretty sure if I put this in front of THE hockey mom (Palin) that she would tear it up before finishing the read because her head might explode.

While you claim to respect Barr, McCain and even Biden(noticably leaving out Obama), It's hard to see that as the case when a lot of what you said goes against things they all believe, including Ron Paul. You can't have it all ways. However, Paul's Iraq policy and fiscal conservatism could be your motivation.

Just don't forget who pushed this bailout plan. It wasn't a dem or a rep...it was the Bush Administration.

I also disagree that we live in a socialistic society. Pinning down our society using one aspect is impossible and just plain wrong. While many people want pure Capitalism or pure Socialism, neither will ever happen.

What do I want? I want capitalism with government oversight and a pinch and a dash of socialism/communism. Only the best parts, of course.

Larry said...

well Kevin, I didn't respond to your post because 1) it was long and I needed time to read it all and 2) I don't know whether to agree with you or not.

I don't want the bail out, but then I do. Maybe we need it, maybe we don't. So there is nothing for me to argue with you about as I don't know the answers. I understand what you are saying, but I also want to keep what little bit of money I have in retirement. Who ultimately is to blame? Redwing thinks the Republicans but even Clinton says democrats are also to blame and even his administration could partly be over Freddie and Fannie. So who goes to jail? Redwing? Fine with me.

I do agree what you say about Mrs. Palin though.

kevin said...

Thank you Redwing and Larry for responding. Though I may take a very different view of things, I still enjoy others' input and I respect that right to our opinions. To me, banter keeps things interesting and gives people the freedom to express their ideas. Redwing, I was reading back through all your blogs and the comments that ensued and I would like to see you and others try to not get so angry in your responses. You can still speak your peace without attacking the commenter. Try to show respect amongst each other and realize that we are a country that allows such freedoms of speech that other countries such as China and North Korea do not have and probably never will. I like this blogspot and I am enjoying all of your postings. I look forward to giving my unique view of politics and I hope you can take on more authors to make the mix even more exciting. Finally, I would like to say to Suebeehonee that I found your passionate view of the environment enlightening and I hope you do continue to author posts about going green. I need to make those changes as well. So far, me and my wife have managed to change our lightbulbs over to the funny looking eco-bulbs and we purchased a pair of bicycles to go riding to the park and local restaurants instead of taking the car. We might have to wait a bit to purchase a Smart Car. We are on the list though. Til later--tally ho!

RedWing said...

Kevin,

I really do try and not get angry with anyone posting a comment. Perhaps I've gone a bit too far in the past, and for that, I apologize. I'm passionate about my views and usually do not get angry unless someone has been angry at me first.

I look forward to any future comments you give and would like to take this time to formally invite you to be an author on my blog. If you are interested just post a comment on my most recent post so I'm sure to see it!

FYI, SueBee is my sister and is very passionate about the environment. She will be excited to see that people are paying attention to her and loves receiving comments on her posts. Keep posting comments and she'll keep posting!

Again, let me know if you're interested in being an author!

freedomofspeech said...

RedWing,

Great analysis on the debate. I totally agree with just about everything you said. I think this debate was a tie.

McCain is good at being angry. I feel he wasn't looking at Obama because he knew how angry he could get. He has a terrible temper when someone disagrees with him. There have been many stories floating around Congress that speak of his nasty temperament.

I actually find it odd that someone with such a temper and so "manly" to resort to his POW story for votes. He clearly does that and this debate was no exception. "When I got back from prison."

Let's just not forget the difference in education level between these two candidates. Obama's performance in school FAR outweighs McCain's. He was clearly an A+ student and also showed excellent social skills. McCain, however was at the bottom of his class and his temper showed back then, as well.

Of course, McCain has 'more experience.' You know what? I think that's his problem! His greater experience means more 'Old Boys Network' attitude. Yet he claims he's an agent of Change? HAH!

To me all of this showed in the debate, yet he still managed to win on Foreign Policy. His whimsical quips and spin created an environment the dumb people in America could agree with.

In my opinion, if I may be so bold, is that anyone voting McCain based on abortion, the economy, gay rights, sarah palin or his stance on guns is a complete and total moron. I have yet to have a Republican give me one REALLY good reason to vote for McCain.

Sorry to ramble on but it upsets me greatly that McCain managed to win one round of this debate using LIES and DISTORTIONS. Everything he won, it seemed, was out of a lie.

We do not need this man in office. We do not need Sarah Palin another melanoma away from being president. I want this man's medical records. I want the McCain campaign to open up their books like Obama does and I want a debate with NO LIES from either candidate.

There is a good chance Barack Obama will not be president this November. I could almost cry that it's this close in the polls. I could almost cry because I KNOW this is racism at its finest. I don't care what anyone says...a black man running for president will turn off a ton of voters. Anyone you ask why they are voting for president that just says "There is just something about him (or her) that I like." should be ashamed of themselves.

My office is full of right wing nutjobs that think McCain won the debate and Sarah Palin is an economic genius.

God help us all.

fos out...