Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 102 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
How do we protect unknown freedoms?
Published Sunday, September 21, 2008
Former U.S. President James Madison, George Mason and the other founding fathers who drafted the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are probably rolling over in their graves right about now.
“Freedom” has become the ultimate buzzword, especially in this hot political year. Sadly, it appears that many Americans don’t mind sacrificing some of the freedoms our forefathers fought for — in part because the average citizen may not even know what those freedoms are.
Here’s a pop quiz for you: What are the five fundamental freedoms we enjoy as Americans? Sounds like an easy question, right? Not so much.
In recognition of last week’s Constitution Day, the First Amendment Center released the 2008 State of the First Amendment survey that posed this question and others.
The nationwide survey asked adults specific situational questions about freedom of expression, a free press, religious rights and the other freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment.
Once again, the results are shocking, maybe more so than any year in the past.
“The survey found again this year that just 3 percent of those questioned could name ‘petition’ as one of the five freedoms in the First Amendment. Only ‘speech’ was named by a majority of respondents, 56 percent,” wrote Gene Policinski, vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center. “Less than 20 percent named religion (15 percent), press (15 percent) or assembly (14 percent). The number for speech is the lowest in the 11-year history of the survey. As troubling: 4 in 10 could not name any freedom – the highest such result in the survey’s history.”
Just as concerning, at least to me, is the lack of understanding how a free press — and a government-free media in general — is vital to democracy.
The survey revealed that 66 percent believe the government should be able to require television broadcasters to offer an equal allotment of time to conservative and liberal broadcasters. Sixty two percent would apply that same requirement to newspapers.
What about free press? So we want the government controlling the information we receive? Ring up Big Brother and tell George Orwell he wasn’t far off.
The survey also showed that 38 percent of respondents want the government to require broadcasters to report a pre-determined amount of positive news to be allowed to stay on the air.
Are they serious? So more than one third of those surveyed would rather sacrifice the truth for a watered-down picture of life in America? No thanks.
The results show that 55 percent believe the U.S. Constitution established a Christian nation.
I guess freedom of religion only counts if it is the religion that the masses practice. Maybe they have forgotten that having the freedom to not practice the mandated religion is one of the reasons our forefathers got on a boat to come over here.
Nearly one third of those asked — 31 percent — said they would ban song lyrics that others might find offensive.
Who gets to define offensive? You? Me? Uncle Sam?
Those interested can see the whole study at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pdf/SOFA2008survey.pdf.
Maybe its time for us to re-evaluate how and what we teach our youth. If not, we will become a nation that doesn’t even know the importance of what we have lost — until it is too late.
Michael Caldwell is publisher of The Tribune. To reach him, call (740) 532-1445 ext. 24 or by e-mail at mike.caldwell@irontontribune.com.
Comments
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 12:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmmmmmm, nice article Mike. I think I'll pick up my debate with Slick77 here.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 12:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Slick, here's the first question. Do you agree with this premise?
Premise:
"The United States of America including the Constitution, the government and everything foundational about this nation is based upon and was intended by our founding fathers to exemplify Christian values."
Thanks - Neo
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 4:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So Neo, were do you stand on the Fairness Doctrine? Here's my question:
Should government regulate equal time to both political parties in the media.
Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo...(Mr. Premise) I'll make 1 comment for now because I have a full day ahead.
"Do you agree with this premise?"
"Premise"...
• Something taken to be true without proof: assumption, postulate, postulation, presupposition, supposition, theory, thesis.
• To take for granted without proof: assume, posit, postulate, presume, presuppose, suppose.
Yep! accept the premise, not only Christian values, moral values.
Neo...waiting to hear the answer from the question by Noesis.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about freedom of intimidation from democrats?
News has emerged that the organizers of that anti-Iran rally that famously got snarled up in Senator Hillary Clinton's ire at Governor Sarah Palin last week were threatened by New York Democrats with IRS action against their tax-exempt status if they allowed Palin to speak. CBS local NY news reported this little fact and so did NBC but most of the national news has ignored this outrageous threat to use the IRS to silence Governor Palin.
Accusing New York Democrats of using "McCarthyism" to shut Palin down, Democrat Assemblyman Dov Hikind was flabbergasted by the behind the scenes threats against the rally organizers. "It's an absolute shame that this has happened," CBS quoted Hikind as saying. "To threaten organizations … to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don't withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we're going to look into your tax exempt status … that's McCarthyism."
http://wcbstv.com/local/clinton.palin.ev...
I guess they were taking that from the Clinton playbook... Have the IRS investigate people who disagreed with you.
Posted by SkyWatcher (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's an interesting article I came across :
On June 10, 1932, McFadden said in an address to the Congress: "We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States government institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customersThe Federal Reserve Banks are the agents of the foreign central banks In that dark crew of financial pirates, there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its powers, but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything here (in Congress) and controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will When the Fed was passed, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up A super-state controlled by international bankers, and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure!"
The source is http://www.rense.com/general83/palint.ht...
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Slick - OK, Thanks. Whenever you get around to it, here's the next question.
PREMISE:
Jesus was/is the authoritative source of knowledge regarding Christianity.
Do you accept this premise. If not, please explain.
Thanks - Neo
(Noesis - I'll get around to your question shortly)
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not familiar with that situation so I can't give you an authoritative answer. I am for free speech and freedom of assembly. I believe the government often, especially in recent history, has overstepped it's bounds in restricting these...especially freedom of assembly combined with freedom of speech.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis, would you like to ask a follow-up question?
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis, my apologies. I see your question now.
No, I don't think the government should regulate equal time to both political parties in the media. At least, not with the media as we know it now.
The reason I have this view is that I think it's probably logistically impossible. How could this ever be managed and enforced? Also, being in favor of free speech and freedom of the media, I don't see how you could place such a stipulation on the media. Further, if you have a "big story" pertaining to one party I don't see how you could really ask the media to allocate equal time. Also, when you say "equal time" does that mean equal "positive" time? Or, would that just mean an equal amount of airtime...including straightforward segments on positive or negative stories about the candidates?
This concept just seems, for many reasons, to be completely impractical and probably unconstitutional.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow Neo, you mean we actually agree on something? Democrats want to bring the Fairness doctorine back to try to muzzle people like Rush, Savage and Hannity.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis - Great. I knew we should agree on some things. I suspect that neither of us are just some kind of "robot" without original thought. As for Rush, Savage and Hannity....let them roll with it. Let the free market decide. If people want to tune in, more power to them.
I'm watching football right now so I'm just flipping over to check here. I'll come up with a new question for you asap.
See, man, we have things in common. That's great to see.
Take it easy - Neo
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis, OK here we go. New topic,
PREMISE:
Carly Fiorino, former HP CEO and McCain advisor, stated this past week that none of the 4 candidates for President or VP could run a corporation. The thought process is that it takes a lifetime of experience in that kind of business environment to have the insight to be a CEO. I say that the same thought process applies to being a world-class economist...that it takes years of experience to have the insight to be a world-class economist and none of the 4 candidates for President or VP have such experience.
Do you agree with this premise? If not, please elaborate.
Thanks - Neo
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pretty much so even though there are exceptions... just look at all the billionaires, I'm pretty sure that they were born with the instinct to make money in the free market.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, fair enough. Here's the next question.
PREMISE:
Given the real estate crisis, the banking crisis, the devaluation of the US dollar and a variety of other economic situations & indicators many experts say that we could be in the worst economic crisis (right now or very soon) since the great depression. Therefore, it will be of paramount importance that the next President perform superbly in handling the economy.
Do you agree with this premise? If not, please elaborate.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
side note - If you're checking this RIGHT NOW...check out 60 minutes. They're having both McCain and Obama on and it looks like hardball questions.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No I do not. It's up to the Congress to come up with the plan. The President can make suggestions but it's the congress who appropriates the money, make regulations, attach strings to the bill. All the president can do is sign what congress puts in front of him or not.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
60 minites interview on Obama: Sad about the old lady's husband dying before he had a chance to vote for Obama but... being dead has never stopped a democrat from voting before... what's changed?
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis what about the "Reagan Revolution", trickle down economics and all the rest. Would you give credit for all of that to Tip O'Neill? Come on???
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And as for the congress, it's almost a certainty that it will be a democratic congress. Do you really think that if Obama came to them with proposals they'd just brush him out the door?
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought Palin's 15 minutes of fame was over and her draw was decreasing?:
“Sa-Rah! Sa-Rah!” they chanted at every mention of her name, applauding loudly and waiving tiny American flags that were distributed -- along with free water bottles -- by local volunteers. The fire chief estimated the crowd at 70,000.
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll...
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It would depend on how big the majority is. They would still have to work with the republicans if it wasn't big enough... and I don't know what Reagan's relationship with Congress was to comment on that...
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Haha noesis...good comeback on Reagan. I get it. Here's the next question.
PREMISE
To the extent that the President DOES HAVE any ability to impact the economy, they will have to draw from the expertise of economists since neither McCain or Obama meet the requirements for being a world-class economist as agreed upon above.
Do you agree? If not, please explain.
Thanks - Neo.
Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Congress has given up so much of its power to the executive branch, that they go along with a lot of what the president wants, no matter what party. They squall for political reasons, but in a crisis like this one, or terrorism, they sign anything. they were ready to flee the capital, but were forced to stay put and get a bill through bailing out Wall street.. the unfortunate reality is that unelected officials are running the show. look at the cover of Newsweek this week.
when Clinton came in, Greenspan and Rubin sat him down, and he changed a lot of what he was going to do. and this is the guy who everyone lauded for his great intelligence.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis, not to dismiss cashmere's point but I'd like to stay on topic where we're at.
PREMISE
To the extent that the President DOES HAVE any ability to impact the economy, they will have to draw from the expertise of economists since neither McCain or Obama meet the requirements for being a world-class economist as agreed upon above.
Do you agree? If not, please explain.
Thanks - Neo.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cashmere, as a side note, you make a good point but I would like to say...at least for my part...I never saw Clinton as the "intelligent" one. He was one of the best politicians of our time. His skills as a politician were tremendous. I don't ever recall, however, thinking "this guy is brilliant."
Respectfully - Neo
Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo...catch up tomorrow, not avoiding you, it was a long day. Looks like Noesis and Cashmere helped out.
Neo, is it my imagination or are you softening up???
You and Noesis agreed on something? Stick around us Repubs and conservatives....it's doing you some good.
I can feel it, you're going toward the "light"!
Good Night
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Slick, maybe. What you're seeing out of me is what I've wanted all along. I like to debate on the big ideas and things that we can actually arrive at a mutually accepted consensus on.
In philosophy, it's called a mixed hypothetical syllogism. You present a series of premises which lead to a logical conclusion. If you've accepted the premises, and the premises are designed properly, you cannot logically refuse to accept the conclusion.
Take this the right way, though. It's not about manipulating someone into saying something they don't want to say. It's more about arriving at a conclusion that is simply consistent with the other things one believes.
And, slick, as for heading toward the "light" I will take that with a grain of humor. I still believe what I did a month ago. I have always been an Independent, whether others believe it or not. These exercises in debate simply demonstrate that we can have a civil discussion and arrive at a meaningful conclusion.
When we just swap headlines or speculations that none of us can speak authoritatively on, we're just passing time. Or, in other words, if we have a mud slinging fight all we get is dirty.
Have a good tomorrow - Neo
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 1:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ps - I don't recall ever asking this but...all of you who care about our community, whether you are of my political persuasion or not, please go to....
http://www.irontontribune.com/news/2008/...
...and post "AMEN" as your vote that our local politicians should have a forum just like this here at the Tribune website. With all due respect to those who have agreed to debate with me, THEY are the ones who really need to step into the ring.
Posted by Shooter (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen Neo to the local forum. There will have to be a moderator. I nominate you, Neo, because you keep a cool head no matter how bizarre and off subject these comments gets.
P.S. Eat a bean............We need the gas
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Shooter and I appreciate the remark.
P.S. A lot of these local politicians have taken your advice.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
America not quite at its best
http://www.economist.com/opinion/display...
"AS RECENTLY as a few months ago, it seemed possible to hope that this year’s presidential election would be a civilized affair..."
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo said: they will have to draw from the expertise of economists since neither McCain or Obama meet the requirements for being a world-class economist as agreed upon above.
Do you agree? If not, please explain.
__________________________________________________
No, I don't... Obama didn't have great foriegn policy credentials so what did he do, he got together what was it, 300-500 foriegn policy experts to be on his team.
Russia invaded Georgia. What did Obama's "experts" come up with? Hey, we'll get the U.N. security council to vote on a resolution condemning Russia!!!!
Someone forgot to tell all those experts that since Russia was a voting member of the council, they could easily veto the resolution.
I think Obama could have come up with a lame answer just as good as all his experts all by himself.
To get good answers, you need to ask the right questions.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rusty Shackleford has posted the results of his and his Jawa team's investigation to determine the source of smears directed toward Sarah Palin. The smears include false allegations that she belonged to a secessionist political party and that she has radical anti-American views. Shackleford's research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated the rumors, that the rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure and that the firm was paid by outside sources to run the smear campaign. While not conclusive, Shakleford's evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign.
Shackleford's report is "Hope, change & lies: Orchestrated 'grass roots' smear campaigns and the people who run them."
Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo.... or anyone interested. You can go on ohiogop.org to get some info. or google Les Boggs Co. commissioner or stop by the Rep. Headquarters up on the hill. Their number is 532-0840. They supposedly have a brochure on the information you are looking for.
Neo....
p.s. They now have the bumper stickers and signs for McCain/Palin if you want one. I'll even pick them up for you!
"McCain 5% edge over Obama in(Ohio)"
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Slick - Those must be old bumper stickers!!! I went to the website you listed but didn't find the Leslie Boggs plan anywhere on the site. All I saw was his name listed as a candidate. You seem pretty knowledgeable, and also pretty Republican. Why don't you just tell me what his plan is?
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis, help me follow your logic here. When I stated, "Carly Fiorino, former HP CEO and McCain advisor, stated this past week that none of the 4 candidates for President or VP could run a corporation. The thought process is that it takes a lifetime of experience in that kind of business environment to have the insight to be a CEO. I say that the same thought process applies to being a world-class economist...that it takes years of experience to have the insight to be a world-class economist and none of the 4 candidates for President or VP have such experience." and asked if you agreed you replied:
"Pretty much so even though there are exceptions... just look at all the billionaires, I'm pretty sure that they were born with the instinct to make money in the free market."
Then when I presented the premise, "To the extent that the President DOES HAVE any ability to impact the economy, they will have to draw from the expertise of economists since neither McCain or Obama meet the requirements for being a world-class economist as agreed upon above." and asked for a response you replied:
"No" and then changed the topic, going of into a discourse about foreign policy. If you want to talk about foreign policy, great. You're up next and I'd be glad to talk foreign policy. However, right now the discussion is economics.
So, let me ask this again. You agreed that neither Obama nor McCain are, themselves, world-class economists. If neither are world-class economists, they will have to rely on ADVICE FROM world class economists in making any decisions regarding the economy.
Do you agree? If not, please explain.
Thanks - Neo
Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo....I just left the Rep. Headquarters, Les Boggs was there. We talked for a while, His forum and beliefs are being printed as we speak. He said he has retired from his other jobs, to do this full time, the only one to do this for commissioner. He wants to increase jobs here, and has a plan to save money, which you can read when you google his name. I saw it on there. He is very nice and accessible, if you want to speak with him.
He was a personal friend of my family since I was reallly young. I was gone for over 25 years and haven't seen him until now. Still the same good guy. Of course I am for the person with integrity, morals, and who cares about the community.
p.s. lots of signs and stickers for you there.......lol
Hope this helps you.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Slick, it's great that you know the candidate personally...that he's an old friend of the family and all that. Why don't you ask him to follow the example of Jason Stephens and offer to come online with us?
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ps - I googled his name and came up with the following results:
1. the clerk of courts website
2. an article on congoo.com about a race at rockytop where he gave "Les Boggs for County Commissioner Twin 25's"
3. I can't even mention this one....LOL!!
4. The following credentials:
"Boggs, 42, has lived in Coal Grove for the past 35 years.The Dawson-Bryant graduate has been married for 18 years and has two children.
He has a master's degree in theology as well as degrees in nursing and respiratory therapy...."
Didn't find any plan for the county though...
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Still googling....
http://upstatelink.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gal...
...nope, that's not it.
http://allrecipes.com/Cooks-Profile/Main...
...another dud.
Maybe you should just post the link;) LOL
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
- "wants to increase jobs here": What a novel idea. Why didn't someone think of that 30 years ago?? Does he have a "specific" plan that will allow us, if he's elected, to determine if his plan was a success or failure when he runs again in 2012?
- "has a plan to save money": It's not the paper thing again is it? How about CFC light bulbs throughout the courthouse? That seems like a good no-brainer that (surprisingly) nobody's taken yet.
- "same good guy": That's swell. I've yet to meet a candidate standing in their own party headquarters gladhanding that was anything but a "good guy." It's called game face, Slick.
- "His forum and beliefs are being printed as we speak": Really? Just now being printed?? Seems that should have been done a long time ago...like before all the signs went up with the "proven leader with a plan" header. Is he going to come online and talk about the plan or just hand out sheets of paper?
- "More signs and buttons": Perfect. Two good examples of ways to waste money. Granted it's his or the republican party's money to waste, but still exemplifies the kind of thinking that fails to bring county departments in on-budget.
Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo, I told you he was there and was willing to talk with you in person. I can get you the brochure when it comes out if you want. I was saying he was a good guy way before he came onto the local political scene. Way, Way, before. I knew him through church and family.
I know a "gameface" when I see it. Why do you think my name is "Slick"? My advice to you is to go see him and suggest these things in person. Share your ideas, etc.... You're good at taking control, you have the tenacity, go for it. What can you lose?
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well that's great Slick but why won't he come on here? What does he have to hide??
If someone expects the public to support them in a political campaign then they owe it to the public to speak to them in a public forum, on the record...like Jason Stephens and Tanner Heaberlin have done.
My advice for you, and for him, is not to bring religion into it. That would lead to questions like "Why aren't you preaching anymore?" and would really devastate his career if anything scandalous would ever come out. I'm not saying that there IS something scandalous that MIGHT come out but, these days, you never know. I know you think he's a swell guy and that's great. A lot of people thought Jimmy Swaggart was swell too...nobody is beyond reproach.
Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo...You're right, nobody is beyond reproach.. That's one thing I've learned in my life. Did you want me to ask him to come on here? Have you already tried?? I am not bringing religion into it. We all have skeletons don't we? We learn from our mistakes. I believe his intentions are for the good.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jason Stephens contacted me via this website and Tanner Heaberlin reached out to all the readers here with his post today. Leadership doesn't wait to be asked.
Do we all have skeletons? Maybe. Some probably have a whole graveyard. Maybe that's why some politicians hate it when people start digging around before giving their vote to someone and, frankly, we need more than good intentions. We need leaders who want to get online and listen to the voters, answer their questions and share their vision for Lawrence County.
We don't need good intentions nor do we need candidates who have to be begged to come here, on the record, and talk to all the voters. I respect that out of Stephens and Heaberlin because when you're talking to everyone and the dialogue is here for all to see, they can't say one thing to you...another thing to someone else...and something entirely different to me.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo....I just left the Rep. Headquarters, Les Boggs was there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming that you don't live at BW3s (joking) it had to take you a few minutes to drive home. You also mentioned talking with him for the first time in a long time...long enough to determine that he's the same old swell guy.
That's also long enough, combined with your drive time, to tell me he cut loose from the courthouse before 4pm to go and work on his campaign. Is that the work ethic he brings? Would you sneak out the back door at your job to go work on a political campaign if you were running for something. If so, and if you were working for me, I would fire you.
Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo..without giving out too much info. It takes me about 3-4 min. Remember, Ironton is about 3 miles long, and 1 mile wide. lol.......He had just walked in because I heard Burton Payne say Hello to him and how was your day. He probably got there right after quitting time. Takes about 2 min. from there. Why am I even responding to this....the things you say sometimes neo....lol. My sister worked for him. I kept up to date through her. p.s. Don't forget in Ironton you have to come to a complete stop and count to 10, otherwise you will get a big fat $160 ticket. Trust me, I've had 3 just since I moved back. Lived all over u.s. big cities, never had a ticket. The first week I moved back I got one for the stop sign thing. But, that's another forum right?
Another whole mess. That's why I said one thing this town needs is an enema!
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, I see. Your sister worked for him. Yeah, probably just walked in...that's the ticket. You probably RAN from your car to the house and then to the computer after leaving the HQ, right?
Your earlier post went on to say "He said he has retired from his other jobs, to do this full time, the only one to do this for commissioner. He wants to increase jobs here, and has a plan to save money, which you can read when you google his name. I saw it on there. He is very nice and accessible, if you want to speak with him." There's another 10 minutes or so.
Why ARE you responding to the last post?
Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo...Never thought I would stoop this low...."Eat a bean"!
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo, earlier today when someone asked about Boggs website, said they looked, couldn't find it....
I did what I thought surely had been done. I typed in www.lesboggs.com and guess what? I found his website, boring as it was.
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hey, slick!
Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MasterChef, Hey....Neo was the one who couldn't find it. Tried to tell him. Do you guys want me to get Les to come on here? I can ask? Will that apieze you?
Did you read my last comment about our conversation? I appreciate your input and for having an open mind. Have a good evening.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And as for the congress, it's almost a certainty that it will be a democratic congress. Do you really think that if Obama came to them with proposals they'd just brush him out the door?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets see how well they listen to the President:
Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone... Dems Ignored Warnings
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.
Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001. Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president's warnings:...
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/0...
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo said: Then when I presented the premise, "To the extent that the President DOES HAVE any ability to impact the economy, they will have to draw from the expertise of economists since neither McCain or Obama meet the requirements for being a world-class economist as agreed upon above." and asked for a response you replied:
"No" and then changed the topic, going of into a discourse about foreign policy. If you want to talk about foreign policy, great. You're up next and I'd be glad to talk foreign policy. However, right now the discussion is economics.
So, let me ask this again. You agreed that neither Obama nor McCain are, themselves, world-class economists. If neither are world-class economists, they will have to rely on ADVICE FROM world class economists in making any decisions regarding the economy.
Do you agree? If not, please explain.
Thanks - Neo
_____________________________________________________
Neo, what I was pointing out by referencing the foreign policy experts is that it doesn't matter what discipline they are, so called "experts" aren't always right. Aren't these same "experts" the ones who got us into the mess in the first place?
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Two years ago, the Democrats, with great fanfare and much spiteful mirth, took control of both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate promising great changes and great advances.
Are you better off …?
Just to review the bidding. On January 5, 2007 (just about the time Nancy Pelosi and her cronies took control of the House):
- The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at about 12,400.
- The New York-based Conference Board said its consumer confidence index was at 110.3.
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics had the unemployment rate at 4.6%
- According to CNN gasoline a gallon of gasoline, in January 2007, averaged about $2.20.
That was then. This is now:
- Last Thursday at about 1 pm Eastern, the Dow had hit a bottom of about 10,500 before Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke intervened. That is a drop of about 15% in the Dow from two years ago.
- The Conference Board's latest take on the pulse of consumer confidence had it at a very thready 56.9 in August - a drop of about 48%
- The unemployment rate in August was reported at 6.1% by the BLS an increase of 33%.
Gasoline prices are at about $3.70 a whopping 68% jump.
What's changed?
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Ct) took control of the House and Senate Banking Committees.
Rep. George Miller (D-Ca) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Ma) took over their respective Labor Committees.
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mi) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) became chairs of the Energy Committees.
The McCain campaign should be pointing the finger where it belongs: On the appalling lack of oversight exhibited by the Democrat-controlled Congress of the United States.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Out of bounds! Obama scares elderly over Social Security
By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Throw the flag against: Barack Obama. Call: Unsportsmanlike conduct. What happened: Obama played the fear card, telling the elderly they'd have lost their Social Security last week had John McCain been president.
"If my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week," Obama said.
"How do you think that would have made folks feel? Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes."
Obama rolled out the incendiary comments in Florida, home to a large retiree population and a crucial battleground state in the election. He trails McCain by nearly 3 percentage points there in an average of recent polls compiled by www.realclearpolitics.com.
Why that's wrong: McCain doesn't propose that the elderly divert their Social Security money into the stock market. He's said that he wants to allow younger workers — not current retirees or those close to it — to divert some of their Social Security taxes into privately managed accounts that could include stocks. He's said that he'd want a plan "along the lines of what President Bush proposed."
Bush said flat out in 2005 that current retirees and those close to retirement wouldn't be included and their benefits would remain exactly as they were now. Only those born after 1950 — 55 or younger at the time of Bush's proposal — would have the option of diverting some of their taxes into private accounts.
Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Noesis....Haven't heard from you for a while...Been busy? Pre-occupied? Good to read your comments again.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 12:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis, you make a valid point in saying "...what I was pointing out by referencing the foreign policy experts is that it doesn't matter what discipline they are, so called "experts" aren't always right. Aren't these same "experts" the ones who got us into the mess in the first place?"
It's true that the "experts" can be wrong. Since we've been on this debate line for a while I'll get to the point.
I believe Obama has a greater ability to listen to and comprehend fully to feedback from a wide array of people at the very top of their fields. It would be overly simplistic for me to base this purely on the fact that McCain finished fifth from last in his graduating class at the Naval Academy while Obama graduated with Honors from Harvard. One of Obama's gifts is his oratory. But his speeches aren't just pretty words with a nice rhythm. I distinctly hear the words of an extremely intelligent man when he speaks...and, no, not just in front of a teleprompter. I know that if I google hard enough I can find a site somewhere that gives an example of him incorporating a lot of "uhs" into some statements but I've never seen him off balance.
So, given the gravity of our current economic situation, I believe Obama is the better qualified candidate to bring together the best and brightest this nation has to offer, and to lead them as we move forward into full recovery.
I don't believe McCain has the same capacity but, even more importantly, the same temperament for meeting and overcoming our current economic challenge. I think McCain is much more likely to "shoot from the hip", as suggested when he said he'd fire the chairman of the SEC, whom even George Will said didn't deserve it, and that the statement from McCain was irresponsible.
Listen, noesis, you're a smart guy and I know you're dead set on voting for McCain. I'm not trying to disrespect you for that. In fact, I've come to respect you quite a bit as we've found it within ourselves to discuss and debate these issues in a civil manner.
I simply believe Obama is a remarkable candidate. He's extremely intelligent, he "lives" family values with his wife and kids from what I can see, he has the courage to take bold positions, he respects people with different positions, he isn't afraid to go into a forum like Saddleback and talk about the controversial issues of our time and ... even just in his campaign ... he's demonstrated superior skills in communication, motivation, organization and mobilization. I would say that nobody can take these points away from him but, I guess anything goes, technically, in politics.
Anyway, that's how I see him and I think that we need him badly in the office of the Presidency in January of 2009.
Again, I will respect our mutual right to "agree to disagree" at this point.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo, I already knew where you were going in this discussion and that's why I threw out the foreign policy experts... as a preemptive strike ;)
While I agree with your assessment on Obama's characteristics (and disagree with McCain's... he scored low in school because at the time, he didn't want to be there), we have a fundamental difference on the direction this country should be taken.
I believe in our founding fathers... They hated taxes with a passion. George Washington and others down the road had problems forming their armies and supplying them because the government did not want to tax the people.
I hate paying taxes. Anybody does. But... I know we need roads, the military and other essential services. I think EVERYONE should pay taxes, I don't care how rich or poor you are, you should contribute to the upkeep of this great nation. Even our poor have it better than the poor in other nations.
What Obama is proposing in his wealth redistribution is nothing less than class warfare. Hey, lets just have the rich pay for everything, they can afford it! What happens when taxes are increased on cigarettes to supply social programs? People smoke less, cross state lines, order off the internet and the revenue generated decreases. The same will happen if the rich are paying all the taxes. They are going to make their money and run with it. Why pay the stock markets in the states when they can go to an island nation with no taxes and play the stock market there for free... How about moving their headquarters there and save millions of dollars?
Our country was founded on the principle that any man could go out, work hard and prosper. I don't remember anything in our history that implied that he should go out, work hard prosper and give it to the government so the government could give it to those that didn't prosper.
I think our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves in disgust if they could see what we have done with taxes.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
New type of politics eh?
Closing the Whopper Gap
...But a series of new Obama attacks requires a rebalancing of the scales: Obama has descended to similarly scurrilous tactics on the stump and on the air. On immigration, Obama is running a Spanish-language ad that unfairly lumps McCain together with Rush Limbaugh -- and quotes Limbaugh out of context. On health care, Obama misleadingly accuses McCain of wanting to impose a $3.6 trillion tax hike on employer-provided insurance.
Obama has been furthest out of line, however, on Social Security, stooping to the kind of scare tactics he once derided.
"If my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would have had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week," Obama said Saturday as he campaigned in that retiree-heavy state. "Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves."
This is simply false -- even leaving aside the incendiary language about "privatizing" Social Security. As the invaluable FactCheck.org noted, the private account plan suggested by President Bush and backed by McCain would not have applied to anyone born before 1950. It would not have changed benefits by a single penny for current retirees like the nice Florida folks that Obama was trying to rile up. The sensible notion was that workers at or near retirement age should be able to rely on promised benefits and should not be subject to the vicissitudes of short-term market fluctuations...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Biden says ad that mocked McCain was 'terrible'
WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama's running mate says a campaign ad that mocked Republican presidential candidate John McCain as an out-of-touch, out-of-date computer illiterate was "terrible" and would not have been done had he known about it.
Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the "CBS Evening News," Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it.
"I thought that was terrible, by the way," Biden said.
Asked why it was done, he said: "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it."
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/pol...
"Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say...."
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Obama, Not McCain, Shows Steady Hand in Crisis"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...
" Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- For the first time since 1932 a presidential election is taking place in the midst of a genuine financial crisis. The reaction of the candidates was revealing.
John McCain, railing against the ``greed and corruption'' of Wall Street, won the first round of the sound-bite war. He came out with a television commercial on the ``crisis'' early on Monday of last week, and over the next three days gave more than a dozen broadcast interviews. He and running mate Sarah Palin would reform Wall Street and regulate the nefarious fat cats that caused this fiasco.
It was a great start. It then went downhill as he stumbled over his record of championing deregulation, claimed the economy was fundamentally strong, and flip-flopped over the government takeover of American International Group Inc.
For his part, Barack Obama didn't come across as passionately outraged and wasn't as omnipresent or as specific.
More revealing, though, was to whom both candidates turned on that panic-ridden morning of Sept. 15, and how the messages evolved before and after that day.
McCain called Martin Feldstein, the well-known Republican economist and Reagan administration adviser, John Taylor of Stanford University, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury and Carly Fiorina, once the chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co.
Obama called former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, and former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.
It was a mismatch...."
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
McCain Lies: "I've Bought American Literally All My Life"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22...
13 cars total...almost two for every home:-)
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"CNN Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy, Obama gains"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200...
"WASHINGTON (CNN) – A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll suggests that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks — one factor that may have contributed to an apparent increase in Barack Obama’s edge over John McCain in the race for the White House..."
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Morning, All!
Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MasterChef..Good morning to you. Wow, "Liberals" and "Conservatives" getting along!! (For now anyway) lol
Have a good day, catch up with everyone later this evening. :)
Posted by Vil (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo, please stop reporting stories and lies from the far left liberal sites. It really cheapens any opinion people may have of you and your opinions. Let us move from the half truths that get blown out of proportion.
Saying he has 'literally bought American cars all his life' doesn't mean he hasn't bought foreign cars too.
My family owns two Japanese models because they are superior vehicles compared to anything the American companies have put out. I buy American as long as it is quality.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/pol......
"Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say...."
______________________________________________________
And the guy who is actually running for President... that would be Obama was given $123,000 by Fannie and Freddie in just two years.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
More democratic flip-flops:
Biden: 'No coal plants here in America'
Some great rope line video from Joe Biden's recent Ohio swing, where he was asked by an anti-pollution campaigner about clean coal -- a controversial approach in Democratic circles for which Obama has voiced support, particularly during the Kentucky primary.
Biden's apparent answer: He supports clean coal for China, but not for the United States.
"No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there. Make them clean."
"We’re not supporting clean coal," he said of himself and Obama.
And here was just a few days ago...
....just three days ago, he praised the possibilities of coal to a crowd at the United Mine Workers of America annual fish fry in Castlewood, Va.
“You know we have enough coal in the United States of America to meet out needs domestically for the better part of the next hundred to 200 years,” Biden said before launching into a critique of McCain’s energy priorities, slamming his support for billions in tax breaks for oil companies as the industry rakes in record profits.
“Imagine ... what Barack and I can do taking that $4 billion … and investing it in coal gasification, finding out what we can do with carbon sequestration, finding out how we can burn the coal that you dig that can free us from being dependent on foreign oil countries and at the same time not ruin the environment. That’s within our capacity to do it, if you give me $4 billion I promise you, I promise you we will find the answer,” Biden said.
He linked the ticket’s support for coal with their call to have U.S. automakers produce plug-in electric cars. “Where’s that [electricity] come from? That comes from a utility. What do utilities burn? They burn coal mostly.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0...
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo, would you agree that "No taxation without representation" was the major reason that the colonies went to war with England... It was the colonialist's belief that since they had no representation in the English courts, taxation on them was illegal.
Pretty profound concept if you ask me... But, that brings up an interesting question... If people aren't being taxed, why should they be represented? Since the rich are paying all the taxes, shouldn't THEY be the ones who are being represented???
Our founding fathers had a pretty good idea who should vote... only those people who owned land. Was that because they knew that people who worked and had money bought land?
No taxation without representation... so, if people aren't taxed/pay no taxes, should they have the right to vote?
Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Neo, earlier today when someone asked about Boggs website, said they looked, couldn't find it...."
MC--That was me--I only Google. I like to read the description before I go there.
Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dumb, I know.
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, AM. With all the pastes, cut and pastes, and cut and pastes over those, its easy to get confused. -MC
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How do the rich get rich? Hard work, rarely. The country was built on the backs of poor people who paid no tax. It was their sweat and labor that made the rich person rich.
So, should people who don't pay taxes be represented? HELL YES! They can't depend on rich republicans to not take advantage of them.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, this country was built by farmers and frontiersman.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey MasterChef and Neo, I have a quote for you: 2003
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is nobody going to note the reason why the answers to the quiz were horrible, including the author of the article?
Government run schools. Like everything they get their hands on, the government proves itself inept at everything. History is not even taught any longer because the liberal educators are ashamed of this country and do not want the people to know the true meaning of the founding of this country and its'historical importance. The only successful government entity is the U.S. military and that is due more so to the soldiers than the bureaucracy. The soldiers do with less because of the fraud in the bureaucracy but they still find a way to be successful on the battlefield. If you are going to write an artical about the failings of the American people, you can at least admit and point out in the same article the reason why.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 4:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo, would you agree that "No taxation without representation" was the major reason that the colonies went to war with England... It was the colonialist's belief that since they had no representation in the English courts, taxation on them was illegal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. That is a very commonly held notion. However, Benjamin Franklin was quoted as saying that the primary reason for the Revolution was that England insisted that the colonies stop using their "Colonial Scrip" as legal tender. The colonies did not have a central bank, nor did they use the gold standard. They merely printed just enough Colonial Scrip to facilitate trade. The colonies, therefore, borrowed from nobody and paid interest to nobody. Generally speaking, the colonies were prosperous under this system and since they managed the creation of Scrip properly there were no problems with a deflated currency like, for example, Germany experienced in the first half of the 20th century.
England insisted that America stop using Colonial Scrip, establish a central bank and start participating in the international banking system. In short, England wanted the colonies to surrender the power to create their own currency, the prosperity that came with it and the freedom from debt and interest to third parties.
Here's a link were you can see Franklin's quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Sc...
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 4:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis, as for your other post, I'm not an expert on Barney Frank's political views. I have read/heard a few sources, though, suggesting that Paulsen/Bernanke/Cox might be exaggerating the situation as a power grab. I don't know about that. I've also heard a number of people, including Obama and McCain, that they would not want to see one man...Hank Paulsen...with sole control over the $700 million to $` trillion fund with absolute power...no review of his decisions by any court or legislative body.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo, I stand corrected on the "No taxation without representation" was the major reason that the colonies went to war . I was basing what I said on the following:
"No taxation without representation" began as a slogan in the period 1763–1776 that summarized a primary grievance of the British colonists in the Thirteen Colonies. In short, many in those colonies believed the lack of direct representation in the distant British Parliament was an illegal denial of their rights as Englishmen, and therefore laws taxing the colonists (the kind of law that affects the most individuals directly), and other laws applying only to the colonies, were unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation...
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Neo
Noesis, as for your other post, I'm not an expert on Barney Frank's political views. I have read/heard a few sources, though, suggesting that Paulsen/Bernanke/Cox might be exaggerating the situation as a power grab.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was Neo that Bush tried in 2003 to reform Freddy and Fannie.
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...
It was democrat "experts" Like Barney who stated that there were no financial problems with Freddy and Fannie and that more regulation would lead to less housing affordable to the poor so they fought what Bush wanted and... The EXACT reason we have this problem today.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 7:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo: have read/heard a few sources, though, suggesting that Paulsen/Bernanke/Cox might be exaggerating the situation as a power grab. I don't know about that. I've also heard a number of people, including Obama and McCain, that they would not want to see one man...Hank Paulsen...with sole control over the $700 million to $` trillion fund with absolute power...no review of his decisions by any court or legislative body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh give me a break!!!! Exaggerating the situation as a power grab? You don't think it would be the same if it was only $300 billion (I hope your 700 million was a typo). And I don't think any of those guys are exaggerating... I think it's the markets and the experts who are saying this.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo, this gets back to Obama surrounding himself with economic experts... Barney Frank would be considered an "economic expert" that Obama would use to help set policy. Barney's overriding interest was not to do what was best for Fannie and Freddy but to his democratic beliefs... that the poor have a higher priority than the financial stability of the banking system.
Bush made the right call on Freddy and Fannie and the democrats fought him. The democrats and their "affordable housing for the poor" are the sole reason that we are in this predicament today.
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Without using Google I don't know what the Congressional balance was in 2003. But yesterday afternoon the ass't whitehouse press secretary, during a briefing, said Dumya had this plan ready to roll months ago, but waited until now to reveal it.
Once again Congress is asked to follow Dumya blindly.
Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"No, this country was built by farmers and frontiersman."
Don't forget the slaves.
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
and the slave crews used to row the merchant ships back and forth
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Barney Frank is not an adviser to Obama, nor has he been mentioned as a potential adviser. Of course, Obama would work with Congress but he will have his own staff as well. The people he's been working with include Former Fed Chairman Paul Volker, Warren Buffet and Robert Rubin among others.
That would be like saying that Larry Craig will be an adviser to McCain. We both know that, whatever you might say to justify it, Barney Frank is a controversial figure in Congress and just bringing his name into the mix is a "reminder" that he's in the same party as Obama. Well, likewise with Larry Craig who's in the Republican party. Let's don't go into that kind of debate. We're on a good track now and I'd like to keep it that way.
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Buffet just made $500M by investing $5B in Goldman.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, it was a typo as was the $' trillion on the other side of the hyphen. Guess that comes w/posting at 4:45am.
As for any potential exaggeration by Paulsen and friends, I'm just saying that it's a possibility. I'm just saying that this is a very big commitment that should be thoroughly vetted before moving forward.
As for Bush having wanted to establish oversight of Fannie and Freddie, great. I follow politics relatively closely and I don't recall that ever being brought up by Bush as a key national imperative but, per your link, apparently it was brought up. Would it have been the kind of rigorous oversight that, given 20-20 hindsight, that was needed? I don't know. Fannie and Freddie were both behind the oversight proposed so that makes me question it.
As many have already seen and many more will as this continues to unfold we are looking at unethical acts, negligence and recklessness on the highest order by our financial institutions. It was a Ponzi scheme all along.
Here's the scheme they've been running. You want to buy a house. You go to the Bailey Building and Loan and take out a mortgage. OK so far because, as a primary lender, the Bailey Building and loan is governed by regulations. But, shortly after closing on your mortgage what does George Bailey do? He sells your mortgage to Mr. Potter. Guess what, Mr. Potter isn't beholden to the regulations like Bailey so he can do pretty much whatever he wants. Now, having gotten your mortgage off the books, Bailey can go out and make more loans. Every time he does, he then sells the mortgages to Potter. But is Potter going to hold these mortgages? Heck no. He knows that Bailey is probably just making it as easy as possible for everyone to get a loan since Bailey knows the loan won't be on his books a month later. Bailey has nothing to lose. Knowing that, Potter is going to re-sell the mortgage, and so on...and so on. What does all this lead to? A lazy, no-good riff raff? No, just had to slip that in..ha ha. No, what it leads to is a massive leveraging of the financial system which has now reached the brink. It is a house of cards praying that no strong wind blows its way.
As for regulation, Obama has been for it all along and McCain was against it until last week. Really this all goes back to Reagan's deregulation and trickle-down economics era. The thought process was that the free market could be relied upon to manage itself and to best serve everyone in the economy. Now we're seeing crisis after crisis. As for trickle down, yeah it trickled down....all the way to China, India and Mexico right along with all the American jobs that were shipped there.
It's time for a change.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"McCain Loses His Head Concerning Economy"
by Conservative Icon George Will
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
"Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama..."
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"George Frederick Will (born May 4, 1941) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative American newspaper columnist, journalist, and author."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will...
"...Will is also a news analyst for ABC since the early 1980s and was a founding member on the panel of ABC's This Week with David Brinkley in 1981 (now titled This Week with George Stephanopolous). Will was also a regular panelist on television's Agronsky & Company from 1977 through 1984 and on NBC's Meet the Press in the middle and late 1970s."
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Neo: "As for regulation, Obama has been for it all along and McCain was against it until last week."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005
The United States Senate
May 25, 2006
Section 16
McCain: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal...
...For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
Now Neo, you were saying???
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I was saying that according to his own statements on the campaign trail that John McCain was "fundamentally a deregulator", that he believed that the "fundamentals of our economy were strong" up until last Monday and now even George Will agrees that "Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama..."
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And Neo you left out two key players in the fraud scheme... One is the buyers themselves. Over-reporting their income AND being foolish enough for taking an ARM. When I bought this current house, they tried pushing an ARM on me. I asked what it was. They said they would knock off about a point of my interest rate. I asked what the difference was between the normal rate and the ARM. They said that the ARM follows the interest rates and my payments would go up if the rates did. I told them no thanks. Many people were stupid thinking that it would never go up. They had no business buying houses they couldn't afford.
The second group was real estate agents, They knew what these people could and couldn't afford but used ARM's to shoehorn people into houses they couldn't afford, just so their commission would be larger.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo: "I was saying that according to his own statements on the campaign trail that John McCain was "fundamentally a deregulator"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow Neo, pretty good attempt at spin here... I have to give you credit. McCain is against regulation and Obama for it.... But you left out the facts....McCain attempted to regulate it and democrats and Obama is against regulating the institutions that gave bad loans to poor people:
...But the 2005 bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. (would have Obama voted against his party? It would have been highly unusual... and, think about all those poor people in Chicago who couldn't afford homes if he voted for more regulations)
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=n...
Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AlisonMiller........the "slaves", to correct you they were the "enslaved" peoples. Yes, the "enslaved" played a major part in helping America and its prosperity.
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
so, noesis, in talking about healthcare, McBush didn't say, "WE'LL deregulate healthcare just as WE did banking"?
Doesn't sound like alarm bells going off to me.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No MasterChef, Lets see what the NYTimes says about that issue:
But by making questionable assertions about the roots of the crisis and then making a link to Mr. McCain’s health care plans, Mr. Obama opens himself to the same criticism that Mr. McCain has faced about the truthfulness of his attacks.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't need your stinkin' link for this one, because I heard it myself.
McBush/Palin = incontinent/incompetent
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Before the Democrats' affirmative action lending policies became an embarrassment, the Los Angeles Times reported that, starting in 1992, a majority-Democratic Congress "mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."
Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001.
Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn't a joke -- it's a fact.
When Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches, political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices.
In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration's affirmative action lending policies as one of the "hidden success stories" of the Clinton administration, saying that "black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded."
Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn't get out of their loans by selling their houses.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)