"Hey, I liked the video, but it doesn't tell a full story. First of all, if the democrats under Clinton caused the problem, in the 7 years that the republicans controlled the house, senate, and white house, the republicans did nothing to fix it. The democrats have only controlled congress for 22 months now, and not by a veto-proof margin. There's enough blame to share across party lines, and I think everyone can agree on that.
I have a lot to say about that video, so I hope you read this and get back to me with your thoughts. Also, I have a video for you, it's Barack's 2004 speech at the DNC. I voted him in the senate because he ran on these themes and this is why I support him as president. This is pure presidential material:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fMNIofUw2I
If you have time look up his speech on race in America. It is pure genius. No politician has ever explained race in this way, nor has a better plan for uniting all races toward a common cause.
I am glad to say that this election is not about the lesser of two evils, but the better of two goods, and that makes me very proud. I like McCain and Obama, but let me explain why I'm voting for Barack.
The most important reason for my support for Obama is this: He inspires people. Obama has the eloquence and poise to inspire an entire generation of people my age, people who typically never vote and don't care about politics. Obama believes in leading from the bottom up, not from the top down. He rallies the people for a cause and then drafts legislation, he doesn't draft legislation and find support for it. He believes in bringing the people back into the government and making our government by the people and for the people again. He can go to Mile High and inspire crowds of thousands of people. He can go to Germany and do the same thing. He is a President who will inspire our nation to something better and he will inspire the world as well. America will have friends again in Europe. Instead of being chastised by the rest of the world, we will once again be looked up to. That, in and of itself, is enough of a foreign policy and domestic policy. An inspirational leader helps consumer confidence. Look at FDR's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" or JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". An inspirational leader encourages our allies to help us in global conflicts. When our country is in trouble, we need an inspirational leader to help us out. I believe that Obama is that leader. And in that way, Hope is a policy.
I also like Obama because he's straight-forward. He's not for universal health care, but he wants to lower insurance coverage rates (I'm not covered because I can't afford it). He is for the death penalty. He has a program that allows you to go to college for free if you do community service afterwards, as in Army, Peace Corps, etc. He's going to cut my taxes significantly. He wants to invest in green collar jobs. He's a smart guy. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard and served as the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review (Without the help of Affirmative Action - which he is against). John McCain graduated 3rd from last in his class (of something like 850 students), at a Naval Academy that he was admitted into under legacy because his daddy was an admiral. John McCain is a hero, but I don't know how 5 years as a POW gives you experience as president. He never led troops or delegated authority.
Barack wants to safely and slowly end the war in Iraq so that we can put troops where they are needed - in Afghanistan, along the border of Pakistan - where Osama is. And he has a great VP, Joe Biden has always fought for the working people, and Joe has 36 years of foreign policy experience. Although, he might not be as experienced as Palin, who can see Russia from her house. In the biggest decision of his campaign, John McCain passed up Mitt Romney to make a blatantly sexist pick. Imagine if Romney was the VP nominee right now. The economy would have crumbled and there would be a candidate who made a business out of nothing on the ticket. Everyone would look at the McCain campaign to solve the crisis. But McCain lacked the foresight and judgment to pick Romney. He picked Sarah Palin because he thought Hillary supporters were stupid enough to disregard policy in favor of electing a woman.
Obama wants to surround himself with people who disagree with him. He wants to hear all opinions before he makes a decision. Just wait until Sunday. Colin Powell will be on Meet the Press and may make an Obama endorsement. I wouldn't be surprised to see Powell on an Obama cabinet.
Now, as for what I think about the video you sent me:
I think the guilt by association argument is weak. It would be very easy for someone to make a video about the Charles Keating Scandal that McCain was involved in. It was a similar situation where McCain was directly tied to violating ethics rules to bail out a savings and loans company that went under. We could also create videos about Sarah Palin being found to have abused her power as governor of Alaska by committing unlawful, unethical acts by pressuring Walt Monegan to fire her sister's ex-husband. The reason why Barack isn't doing that though is because he doesn't think people want to hear these types of attacks. He thinks they want to hear what the candidates will do to fix the problem. But here we go, let me explain what I think about the video. Please hear me out:
Clinton did start the initiative for more subprime mortgages to counteract the burst of the dot-com bubble that happened in the 90s. The thought was that these subprime mortgages would offset the market until a more permanent solution came about (this was supposed to be the growth of green collar jobs and a revitalization of the auto industry). Innovation is the driving force of our economy, and historically, the housing market is used to fill voids in innovation, because when the stock market becomes a risky investment, people invest in good long-term things, like real estate. The problem is when Clinton left office and Bush was "elected", science funding was cut drastically, as was funding for higher education, and we basically ignored the environment and the opportunity to encourage green collar jobs in favor of tax breaks to the large oil companies. The combination of these programs basically put a stop to all innovation, and we began relying solely and permanently on the subprime market that was supposed to be a temporary fix.
The other problem is that when Clinton set up the initiative to increase subprime loans, there were significant regulations in place to ensure that bad mortgages weren't made. It was when the republicans took power that they got rid of the regulation, saying that regulation hinders free market. It may be true that regulation hinders free market, but if you're going to get rid of the regulation, you need to get rid of the government incentives to make subprime loans as well. I'm just saying if the Dems started the problem, the Reps made it worse, and they definitely didn't fix it.
I think there's enough fault on both sides of the isle. Clinton can be blamed for thinking that subprime mortgages were even a good temporary answer, and Bush can be blamed for furthering the stagnation of the innovative driving force of our economy. Also, by the republican's theory of trickle-down economics, the Bush tax cuts should have created enough jobs and stimulated the economy enough to offset the dwindling subprime market. This did not happen. This did not happen because trickle-down ecomomics doesn't work. The rich don't re-invest their tax cuts to create jobs, they spend $400,000 on junkets at 5 star resorts in California (That's what AIG did...AFTER we bailed them out).
I should point out here that Obama does not want to increase taxes even on the rich, he simply wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts and enact tax cuts for the 95% of Americans that make less than $250,000. The rich will pay the same tax rates that they paid before Bush took office.
Obama did receive more campaign money than John McCain, but he strictly does not accept money from lobbyists and most of his donations come from people who donate less than $200. Simply put, he doesn't have a few big donors, he has a lot of small donors. You'll also hear that Obama spends more money on advertisement than McCain, but that isn't exactly true. The Obama Campaign spends more money than the McCain Campaign on advertisement, but the Obama Campaign and the DNC spend LESS money than the McCain Campaign and the RNC on advertising for the presidential race. The reason? The RNC can accept money from big companies without the McCain campaign being tied directly to the companies. While both campaigns do not accept lobbyists money, the McCain campaign is more significantly run by lobbyist money because of the spending by the RNC. On top of that, Sarah Palin's husband works for BP. That's who their campaign will be accountable to when they take office. Not the small donors who paid to run Obama's campaign, but the oil industry that has a vested interest in continuing our dependence on oil - foreign oil. The US has 3% of the worlds oil (including areas not currently drilled) and 25% of the world's demand. There is no way to stop our dependence on foreign oil without stopping our dependence on oil altogether.
As for illegal immigration, the reason you don't hear about it is because both candidates are on the same side of the issue. They both have supported amnesty for illegal immigrants.
As for John McCain foreseeing the economic crisis. Here's a fact check:
*McCain Says He Wants Tough Lender Standards—But Votes Against Them.* McCain has called for strict standards and greater transparency for lenders and for cracking down on predatory lenders. But he voted against a measure to discourage predatory lending practices and failed to vote on a bill that would overhaul the mortgage lending practices of the Federal Housing Administration. (McCain’s Remarks on Economic Woes, 3/25/08; /St. Petersburg Times/, 1/24/08; S. 256, Vote #22, 3/3/05; S. 2338, Vote #432, 12/14/07)
As for the connections between Barack Obama and Fannie Mae, anyone out there can publish lies about anyone else. Here's the real info from a non-partisan fact-checker, or you could trust Obama when he says he gets his economic advice from Warren Buffet, who just announced today that he's putting all of his money into American stocks, and is encouraging others to do the same to try to stimulate the market, suggesting that we need to invest in American stocks, and let the world follow us. Here's the fact check:
"The non-partisan fact-check website Snopes.com
*
Not an adviser: Frank Raines
*Barack estimates that he and Raines have talked for “maybe five minutes” in their lives, and Frank Raines
*Not an adviser: Tim Howard*
This supposed connection appears to have been made up completely out of thin air. Snopes.com writes, “We haven’t yet found any tangible connection between Tim Howard
*Not an adviser: Jim Johnson*
Jim Johnson
Thanks for hearing me out. Write back soon."
-PHtC
I have a lot to say about that video, so I hope you read this and get back to me with your thoughts. Also, I have a video for you, it's Barack's 2004 speech at the DNC. I voted him in the senate because he ran on these themes and this is why I support him as president. This is pure presidential material:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fMNIofUw2I
If you have time look up his speech on race in America. It is pure genius. No politician has ever explained race in this way, nor has a better plan for uniting all races toward a common cause.
I am glad to say that this election is not about the lesser of two evils, but the better of two goods, and that makes me very proud. I like McCain and Obama, but let me explain why I'm voting for Barack.
The most important reason for my support for Obama is this: He inspires people. Obama has the eloquence and poise to inspire an entire generation of people my age, people who typically never vote and don't care about politics. Obama believes in leading from the bottom up, not from the top down. He rallies the people for a cause and then drafts legislation, he doesn't draft legislation and find support for it. He believes in bringing the people back into the government and making our government by the people and for the people again. He can go to Mile High and inspire crowds of thousands of people. He can go to Germany and do the same thing. He is a President who will inspire our nation to something better and he will inspire the world as well. America will have friends again in Europe. Instead of being chastised by the rest of the world, we will once again be looked up to. That, in and of itself, is enough of a foreign policy and domestic policy. An inspirational leader helps consumer confidence. Look at FDR's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" or JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". An inspirational leader encourages our allies to help us in global conflicts. When our country is in trouble, we need an inspirational leader to help us out. I believe that Obama is that leader. And in that way, Hope is a policy.
I also like Obama because he's straight-forward. He's not for universal health care, but he wants to lower insurance coverage rates (I'm not covered because I can't afford it). He is for the death penalty. He has a program that allows you to go to college for free if you do community service afterwards, as in Army, Peace Corps, etc. He's going to cut my taxes significantly. He wants to invest in green collar jobs. He's a smart guy. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard and served as the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review (Without the help of Affirmative Action - which he is against). John McCain graduated 3rd from last in his class (of something like 850 students), at a Naval Academy that he was admitted into under legacy because his daddy was an admiral. John McCain is a hero, but I don't know how 5 years as a POW gives you experience as president. He never led troops or delegated authority.
Barack wants to safely and slowly end the war in Iraq so that we can put troops where they are needed - in Afghanistan, along the border of Pakistan - where Osama is. And he has a great VP, Joe Biden has always fought for the working people, and Joe has 36 years of foreign policy experience. Although, he might not be as experienced as Palin, who can see Russia from her house. In the biggest decision of his campaign, John McCain passed up Mitt Romney to make a blatantly sexist pick. Imagine if Romney was the VP nominee right now. The economy would have crumbled and there would be a candidate who made a business out of nothing on the ticket. Everyone would look at the McCain campaign to solve the crisis. But McCain lacked the foresight and judgment to pick Romney. He picked Sarah Palin because he thought Hillary supporters were stupid enough to disregard policy in favor of electing a woman.
Obama wants to surround himself with people who disagree with him. He wants to hear all opinions before he makes a decision. Just wait until Sunday. Colin Powell will be on Meet the Press and may make an Obama endorsement. I wouldn't be surprised to see Powell on an Obama cabinet.
Now, as for what I think about the video you sent me:
I think the guilt by association argument is weak. It would be very easy for someone to make a video about the Charles Keating Scandal that McCain was involved in. It was a similar situation where McCain was directly tied to violating ethics rules to bail out a savings and loans company that went under. We could also create videos about Sarah Palin being found to have abused her power as governor of Alaska by committing unlawful, unethical acts by pressuring Walt Monegan to fire her sister's ex-husband. The reason why Barack isn't doing that though is because he doesn't think people want to hear these types of attacks. He thinks they want to hear what the candidates will do to fix the problem. But here we go, let me explain what I think about the video. Please hear me out:
Clinton did start the initiative for more subprime mortgages to counteract the burst of the dot-com bubble that happened in the 90s. The thought was that these subprime mortgages would offset the market until a more permanent solution came about (this was supposed to be the growth of green collar jobs and a revitalization of the auto industry). Innovation is the driving force of our economy, and historically, the housing market is used to fill voids in innovation, because when the stock market becomes a risky investment, people invest in good long-term things, like real estate. The problem is when Clinton left office and Bush was "elected", science funding was cut drastically, as was funding for higher education, and we basically ignored the environment and the opportunity to encourage green collar jobs in favor of tax breaks to the large oil companies. The combination of these programs basically put a stop to all innovation, and we began relying solely and permanently on the subprime market that was supposed to be a temporary fix.
The other problem is that when Clinton set up the initiative to increase subprime loans, there were significant regulations in place to ensure that bad mortgages weren't made. It was when the republicans took power that they got rid of the regulation, saying that regulation hinders free market. It may be true that regulation hinders free market, but if you're going to get rid of the regulation, you need to get rid of the government incentives to make subprime loans as well. I'm just saying if the Dems started the problem, the Reps made it worse, and they definitely didn't fix it.
I think there's enough fault on both sides of the isle. Clinton can be blamed for thinking that subprime mortgages were even a good temporary answer, and Bush can be blamed for furthering the stagnation of the innovative driving force of our economy. Also, by the republican's theory of trickle-down economics, the Bush tax cuts should have created enough jobs and stimulated the economy enough to offset the dwindling subprime market. This did not happen. This did not happen because trickle-down ecomomics doesn't work. The rich don't re-invest their tax cuts to create jobs, they spend $400,000 on junkets at 5 star resorts in California (That's what AIG did...AFTER we bailed them out).
I should point out here that Obama does not want to increase taxes even on the rich, he simply wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts and enact tax cuts for the 95% of Americans that make less than $250,000. The rich will pay the same tax rates that they paid before Bush took office.
Obama did receive more campaign money than John McCain, but he strictly does not accept money from lobbyists and most of his donations come from people who donate less than $200. Simply put, he doesn't have a few big donors, he has a lot of small donors. You'll also hear that Obama spends more money on advertisement than McCain, but that isn't exactly true. The Obama Campaign spends more money than the McCain Campaign on advertisement, but the Obama Campaign and the DNC spend LESS money than the McCain Campaign and the RNC on advertising for the presidential race. The reason? The RNC can accept money from big companies without the McCain campaign being tied directly to the companies. While both campaigns do not accept lobbyists money, the McCain campaign is more significantly run by lobbyist money because of the spending by the RNC. On top of that, Sarah Palin's husband works for BP. That's who their campaign will be accountable to when they take office. Not the small donors who paid to run Obama's campaign, but the oil industry that has a vested interest in continuing our dependence on oil - foreign oil. The US has 3% of the worlds oil (including areas not currently drilled) and 25% of the world's demand. There is no way to stop our dependence on foreign oil without stopping our dependence on oil altogether.
As for illegal immigration, the reason you don't hear about it is because both candidates are on the same side of the issue. They both have supported amnesty for illegal immigrants.
As for John McCain foreseeing the economic crisis. Here's a fact check:
*McCain Says He Wants Tough Lender Standards—But Votes Against Them.* McCain has called for strict standards and greater transparency for lenders and for cracking down on predatory lenders. But he voted against a measure to discourage predatory lending practices and failed to vote on a bill that would overhaul the mortgage lending practices of the Federal Housing Administration. (McCain’s Remarks on Economic Woes, 3/25/08; /St. Petersburg Times/, 1/24/08; S. 256, Vote #22, 3/3/05; S. 2338, Vote #432, 12/14/07)
As for the connections between Barack Obama and Fannie Mae, anyone out there can publish lies about anyone else. Here's the real info from a non-partisan fact-checker, or you could trust Obama when he says he gets his economic advice from Warren Buffet, who just announced today that he's putting all of his money into American stocks, and is encouraging others to do the same to try to stimulate the market, suggesting that we need to invest in American stocks, and let the world follow us. Here's the fact check:
"The non-partisan fact-check website Snopes.com
*
Not an adviser: Frank Raines
*Barack estimates that he and Raines have talked for “maybe five minutes” in their lives, and Frank Raines
*Not an adviser: Tim Howard*
This supposed connection appears to have been made up completely out of thin air. Snopes.com writes, “We haven’t yet found any tangible connection between Tim Howard
*Not an adviser: Jim Johnson*
Jim Johnson
Thanks for hearing me out. Write back soon."
-PHtC
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment