O/T: What's Next?

Page 1 of 10  
First it was "Slick Willy", now it appears to be "Slippery John, The Chameleon.
McCain has repeatably emphasized that he is for less gov't, less regulation.
Even voted for some of the legislation that created the loop holes the wall St sleaze balls used to their advantage.
Now, with the fiasco on Wall St coming down around the countries ears, he wants to legislation so that it won't happen again.
Well "Slippery", which is it?
Total free market or a market with some gov't controls?
You don't get both, pick one.
Tell us a vision has come to you while you slept and it has given you new insight.
If so, tell us something.
McCain was against the "bailout" of AIG, now he admits it was a necessity.
BTW, Hank Greenberg, founder and former majority stockholder of AIG, whose personal loss exceeds over $3.5 billion as a result of the AIG problem, calls the $85B transaction a "bridge loan" rather than a bailout, a short term loan to be repaid with interest.
He indicates AIG can be saved and rebuilt.
He built it the first time, maybe he knows something.
Sure hope so.
Some how, I think he has a better handle on things than any of the politicians.
Wonder what position Chameleon John will take tomorrow?
Stay tuned.....................
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

So did, apparently, the majority of house and senate members.

So do, apparently, the majority of house and senate members.

You can't possibly come up with a cite for him railing for "total free market", can you? Didn't think so. Stop making stuff up.

see above.

Successful business people usually do.

He's a politican. No telling.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And... as most successful business people would do, they alter their course and their actions based on what lies before them. Only a fool would want a business leader or a politician to embrace a course and hold to it regardless of what faces them now. Things change - smart people change to deal with those changes. Fools sit and decry these things simply for the sake of complaining. Bigger fools simply do not realize the need for constant changes in direction in response to conditions surrounding you. Then there are those who simply like to bitch...
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I love it.
Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound" to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and you characterize it as 'altering course.'
With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.
If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full justification.
Priceless.
Scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Elrond Hubbard" wrote:

You noticed.
McCain appears to have become a practioner of the Mitt Romney school of politics:
IOW, say and do anything necessary to satisfy your audience at the moment.
Forget principles, they no longer seem to matter.
It's a damn shame.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew,
The real shame is the two choices we have for President.
cm

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Buy that man a beer.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why, thank you. Really - I find that to be a great phrase. Though... you misunderstand my point. McCain didn't simply assume the former position three or four days ago. He reversed a position that he held of some time. He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances that nobody predicted, or could predict. If you wish to see it as flip flopping, that's exactly how you'll see it. It appears to me to be more of a response to events.

Why do you say that? You've never seen me do that, and you don't even know enough about me to guess whether I'd do so, or not. Your projections are showing, sir.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Excuse me? In light of *recent* circumstances? Does the man not read the news? Do you?

It appears to me to be a response to his handlers. To go from "fundamentally sound" to "worst crisis since the depression" without any steps in between... there hasn't been a conversion that quick since Paul ambled off to Damascus.

My apologies for putting words into your mouth. I should not have assumed that just because you came to the defense of McCain's expedient philosophical backflip you would find the similar behavior in the other party to be absurd.
Scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do you correspond intelligently? Just what in the hell is that supposed to mean? Other than yet another failed attempt by you to throw a jab. You are proving yourself to be unworthy of any intelligent form of conversation. Content yourself with simply throwing out meaningless insults. You can converse with yourself.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Happiness can never be mine now, having proven my unworthiness. I come to rec.woodworking for a bit of repartee and to poke fun at the most egregious bits of silliness that I come across, your "altering course" comment falling squarely into that category. If I want deadly earnest discussions of important issues, I can find that at home or with friends - yakking into my laptop is an ephemeral source of amusement at best.
Sorry if I hit a nerve.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

[1] I think the only people who could have failed to predict it are those who believed that the housing "bubble" would continue indefinitely.
In Des Moines, an average person earns 30-40K. The average price of a new home here passed the quarter-million mark a year or two ago, and homes were sold as quickly as banks could process mortgage applications.
[2] The legislature recognized that lenders had become too greedy and that credit card debt had become a serious problem for many cardholders. It was interesting to note that in the course of the congressional hearings, it was the lenders' predatory practices that were identified as the most significant part of the problem.
[3] Under pressure from lobbyists representing lenders who recognized that borrowers were over-extending, the legislature tightened up the bankruptcy laws to protect the lenders - a clear departure from the principle that bankruptcy laws were to protect honest debtors.
[4] With the bankruptcy legislation in place, lenders exercised their options to raise rates on ARM's - and foreclosure rates skyrocketed. Unfortunately for the lenders, they had made mortages for homes whose actual values were considerably less than the amount of the loan and, following foreclosure, could not recover the principal by selling the property in a rapidly disintegrating market.
IMO, any one (and certainly all) of these things was sufficient to make a crystal ball unnecessary. YMMV.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Excellent points one and all. But - while they are all true, they only point out the fundamental greed of the system and they only pessimistically predict the future. What those points don't do though is explain the suddenness of Lehman, AIG, Morgan, etc. That's what took everybody by surprise. One would not have to agree with the prevailing practices to feel more secure in the economy, up until Wall Street took a dive. That suddenness is what I was making reference to in my statement.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And I agree (unfortunately) wth McPain that it is due to excessive greed of the bankers - which is what regulators and legislators should protect the "common" man from. Now, caveat emptor should go both ways - the unscrupulous bankers and the stupid borrowers should be punished, but in a way that leaves the rest of US (pun intended) protected. If I have been prudently spending and borrowing within my means, why should I have to bail out the aforementioned unscrupulous bankers and the stupid borrowers?
And to protect the future, more regulation, including more openness with short sellers, is absolutely required.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Have you been listening in to the conversations in my neck of the woods? Though it will never happen, the single most common thought in our conversations has been that of holding the decision makers in these events personally responsible. Financially responsible. And not just in light of this debacle - this type of house of cards problem persists throughout corporate America as CEO's play fast and loose in the name of creating the appearance of profit and health. They leave - they take their golden parachutes or their bonus package and the mess is left behind. No matter - they're off with their wealth. I'm every bit a capitalist, and I do not begrudge anyone wealth - even excess wealth, but I do have a big problem with the ill gotten gains of deceit.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But then there are the lobbyists ... I'll do you one good, but see, there is this terrible provision ... Or, it would be so much better if (there was a road to nowhere) ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds" that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by Enron. Been going on since FDR.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.
And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I would pay more taxes too.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

I'd be all for that so long as:
1) The money *had* to be used to fund SS/Medicare/Medicaid and any surplus had to be banked and untouchable for other purposes.
2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say, 50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional authority to operate.
3) Take the caps off 401Ks and make it clear to people it is their responsibility to worry about their own retirement. Better yet, go to a flat tax like the Fair Tax system and eliminate income taxes altogether.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com says...

The "fat cats" are already paying the "war costs".

How exactly does the government "bank" anything?

I'd go for this, but your congress critter wouldn't like the pay cut.

I'm unconvinced by the "fair tax" but your suggestion, taken as a whole, is a lot better than what we have now.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.