Barack Obama or John McCain

[Don Jeffries]

John,

John McDonnell sounds like a candidate I'd love to vote for; too bad we don't have many American politicians like that.

I've been proposing a "2-2-2-" solution, within my very limited sphere of contacts. Who knows, if I rant long enough, maybe it will eventually find its way to someone's ears who actually has a public platform. Basically, the "2-2-2" would be a watered down version of the Biblical Year of Jubilee. Every debt held by individuals (mortgages, credit cards, car loans, student loans, etc.) would have their balance cut in half, their interest rates cut in half and their terms cut in half. I feel this would greatly improve consumer confidence, although obviously it would anger all creditors. Maybe a special tax break could be given to those creditors to at least somewhat offset their profits being sliced in half.

We need to do something, because the situation is growing dire. I can't imagine what people aged 65 are going through, who had planned to retire during the past few months and have seen about half of their pensions disappear while they were waiting to collect them. This pension drain, combined with the Social Security disaster that is bound to happen once the Baby Boomers really start to retire, ensures that the problems are only going to get worse unless our elected officials do something which is apparently almost impossible for them; actually act in the best interests of the people. They won't even demand means testing for Social Security, or at least tax all income. Most people are astonished when I tell them that only the first $100,000 of income is taxed for Social Security. Just imagine how much money can be brought into the system simply by taxing the entire incomes of Bill Gates, Warren Bufett, Donald Trump, etc. Talk about a backwards version of the graduated income tax!

I hope you're right about Obama, because it certainly looks like he will be elected easily now. At any rate, he has to be better than Bush.

[John Simkin]

Gary Younge in today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...2008-johnmccain

So if the McCain campaign seems desperate it's because it has every reason to be. It has a candidate - who thanks to his war record and foreign policy experience, would have been formidable in 2004 - being handled by Bush strategists who are working from a playbook of smear and innuendo that worked brilliantly in 2000 and 2004, and running on a tax-cutting manifesto that has barely been updated since the mid-80s. The result is a mixture of the demotic, the erratic and the irrelevant.

"I think you're seeing a turning point," says Saul Anuzis, the Republican chairman in Michigan. "You're starting to feel real frustration because we are running out of time. Our message, the campaign's message, isn't connecting."

If anything, the trouble is quite the opposite. Their message is connecting too well. Last week the plan was to change the message from fixing the economy to denigrating Obama's character. This task was left to Palin, who executed it faithfully and effectively.

"For me, the heels are on, the gloves are off," she told Republican donors in Florida. For the rest of the week she invoked Obama's association with Bill Ayers, the former 60s radical and founder of a domestic terror group, as though Obama had just emerged from the Tora Bora mountains with a "Vote for Bin Laden" sign under his arm.

Obama, she claimed, has been "palling around with terrorists and launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist". "This is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America," she told one crowd. "I'm afraid this is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country," she told another.

The truth is that Ayers, who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to the Chicago mayor, Richard Daley, lives a few blocks from Obama, donated $200 to his re-election fund to the Illinois state senate in 2001, and sits with Obama on the eight-person board of the Woods Fund, which supports low-income and minority groups on the South Side of Chicago.

But in post 9/11 America, where fear often works better than truth, Palin certainly connected with her audience. Her rallies have taken on the air of lynch mobs, with supporters yelling "Kill him", "Terrorist" and "Treason" at the mention of Obama's name. Meanwhile, local officials introducing McCain have been emphasising Obama's middle name, "Hussein".

Given that Hillary Clinton was the first to raise the connection between Obama and Ayers during the primaries, it is difficult for the Democrats to now claim it is off limits. But the Republican base, which has been in a rage for some time, has taken it to a whole new level. For six years the party controlled all three branches of the government. They slashed taxes, started wars and ignored international agreements at their whim. Eight years on America is poorer, weaker, and more isolated and vulnerable than it has been in several generations. They look around for someone or something to blame. As their own president is poised to nationalise the banking system, they hear Obama's name and reflexively scream "socialist".

On Friday McCain had to pull them back from the brink. One man said he was "scared to bring up [his] child in a world where Barack Obama was president". McCain replied: "He is a decent person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States." The crowd booed. Later a woman said she could not trust Obama because he is an "Arab". McCain grabbed the microphone from her before she could go on. "No ma'am, he's a decent family man, a citizen, who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues." The crowd applauded.

The trouble is that if Obama is the man they say he is, then the crowd has every reason to be scared - after all, what decent family man "pals around with terrorists"?

Indeed, ordinarily these attacks and McCain's agenda would work. But not in the middle of a stockmarket crash. People are more concerned with keeping their jobs than with being taxed in them; more focused on economic security than on national security; and they care more about their retirement accounts and homes than they do about Ayers - whom most have never heard of.

It's not that the barely veiled racial slights don't resonate with some. It's that when faced with the question: do you hate black people more than you like your house, your job or your retirement account, for many the hurdle of racism does not seem quite so high.

Nonetheless there are a few reasons why Obama should not be complacent. First of all, the election is not today. What has turned around in a month can turn back again. After the final debate in 2000 Al Gore was leading Bush by 11%; we all know how that turned out. Second, the polls may not be accurate. True, all of the last 30 polls show him ahead. But while nine give him a double-digit lead, 10 have him ahead by just five points or less - within the margin of error. In other words, it could yet tighten and probably will.

But for now the fundamentals of his campaign are strong. And while McCain may keep trading in smears, for the time being no one seems to be buying them.

[Len Colby]

Based on Real Clear Politics poll averages Obama only needs to carry states where on average he is 6.5% or more in front of McCain. A recent poll showed him 10% in front.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The "gimmicks that got us into this terrible mess in the first place" were made legal by the passage of radical deregulatory legislation that McCain, as much as anyone in Washington, enthusiastically supported. Those gimmicks--hybrid instruments, credit swaps and so on--were codified in laws pushed through Congress by Phil Gramm, the man McCain esteemed so highly that he chaired the then-senator's 1996 presidential campaign and then chose Gramm to co-chair his 2008 run for the White House.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081027/scheer

[Craig Lamson]

Based on Real Clear Politics poll averages Obama only needs to carry states where on average he is 6.5% or more in front of McCain. A recent poll showed him 10% in front.

Look at the internals Len, they are WAY oversampling Dimbulbs and Indies. At best the Obamanation is tied or in the margin of error...

[Craig Lamson]

The "gimmicks that got us into this terrible mess in the first place" were made legal by the passage of radical deregulatory legislation that McCain, as much as anyone in Washington, enthusiastically supported. Those gimmicks--hybrid instruments, credit swaps and so on--were codified in laws pushed through Congress by Phil Gramm, the man McCain esteemed so highly that he chaired the then-senator's 1996 presidential campaign and then chose Gramm to co-chair his 2008 run for the White House.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081027/scheer

Lets see...they write MORE legisilation and that somehow is DEREGULATION?

[Len Colby]

Based on Real Clear Politics poll averages Obama only needs to carry states where on average he is 6.5% or more in front of McCain. A recent poll showed him 10% in front.

Look at the internals Len, they are WAY oversampling Dimbulbs and Indies. At best the Obamanation is tied or in the margin of error...

I assume you can provide some data to back this up? You're in that famous Egyptian river!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Lets see...they write MORE legislation and that somehow is DEREGULATION?

Very good Craig, I think you are beginning to get the picture.

It is indeed possible (actually quite easy if your party controls congress) to enact legislation that allows the sharks to operate without let or hindrance from responsible authority, as happened with the phoney "credit swaps" that ultimately brought down Lehman, AIG etc.

[Craig Lamson]

Lets see...they write MORE legislation and that somehow is DEREGULATION?

Very good Craig, I think you are beginning to get the picture.

It is indeed possible (actually quite easy if your party controls congress) to enact legislation that allows the sharks to operate without let or hindrance from responsible authority, as happened with the phoney "credit swaps" that ultimately brought down Lehman, AIG etc.

Oh I have the picture, I'm afraid YOU need the glasses. Sadly you can't see the forest for the trees. It was not the CDS that brought the house down, it was the bad mortgages inside that did... problem mortgages foisted on us by Clintoon....

Try again next time Ray

Edited October 15, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It was not the CDS that brought the house down, it was the bad mortgages inside that did... problem mortgages foisted on us by Clintoon....

Try again next time Ray

There have always been bad mortgages, but banks and insurance companies never used to be allowed to make UNHEDGED multi-billion dollar bets on them like AIG, Lehman and the others were allowed to do when the republican free-marketeers took power.

But even if your argument were true, Craig, it wouldn't help John McCain very much in tonight's debate or this election. The Democrats jettisoned Clinton a while back, in case you didn't notice.

[Craig Lamson]

It was not the CDS that brought the house down, it was the bad mortgages inside that did... problem mortgages foisted on us by Clintoon....

Try again next time Ray

There have always been bad mortgages, but banks and insurance companies never used to be allowed to make UNHEDGED multi-billion dollar bets on them like AIG, Lehman and the others were allowed to do when the republican free-marketeers took power.

But even if your argument were true, Craig, it wouldn't help John McCain very much in tonight's debate or this election. The Democrats jettisoned Clinton a while back, in case you didn't notice.

You are STILL missing the point Ray, but why am I not suprised. SOMEONE had to create the climate for this to happen. That someone was Clinton. CDS are not that different than you being required to insure your car against loss if you have a loan witb a bank for that car. The Insurace company makes a bet that your car will not be involved in a wreck or theft and be rendered totaled. Thats not unlike somone buying insurance that a bond or a a bunch of mortagers packeged together will not default. Now exactly WHY should you have a problem with this private, non banking transaction? Its not the CDS that is the problem , its the bad loans underneath. The groundwork for this is PURE Clinton.

However EVEN if your argument were true, where is the legislation starting when the dimbulbs tookover Congress in 2006 to reign in the problem? After all THEY make the laws? Oh thats right, there was none, they were on the take wiht your "bold" (lol!) zerOBAM right there with this hand out for cash and kissing ACORNS azz. Baaarack is lying his azz off about this, and its not going to help him in tonights debate. His chickens are starting to come home to roost

[David G. Healy]

It was not the CDS that brought the house down, it was the bad mortgages inside that did... problem mortgages foisted on us by Clintoon....

Try again next time Ray

There have always been bad mortgages, but banks and insurance companies never used to be allowed to make UNHEDGED multi-billion dollar bets on them like AIG, Lehman and the others were allowed to do when the republican free-marketeers took power.

But even if your argument were true, Craig, it wouldn't help John McCain very much in tonight's debate or this election. The Democrats jettisoned Clinton a while back, in case you didn't notice.

You are STILL missing the point Ray, but why am I not suprised. SOMEONE had to create the climate for this to happen. That someone was Clinton. CDS are not that different than you being required to insure your car against loss if you have a loan witb a bank for that car. The Insurace company makes a bet that your car will not be involved in a wreck or theft and be rendered totaled. Thats not unlike somone buying insurance that a bond or a a bunch of mortagers packeged together will not default. Now exactly WHY should you have a problem with this private, non banking transaction? Its not the CDS that is the problem , its the bad loans underneath. The groundwork for this is PURE Clinton.

However EVEN if your argument were true, where is the legislation starting when the dimbulbs tookover Congress in 2006 to reign in the problem? After all THEY make the laws? Oh thats right, there was none, they were on the take wiht your "bold" (lol!) zerOBAM right there with this hand out for cash and kissing ACORNS azz. Baaarack is lying his azz off about this, and its not going to help him in tonights debate. His chickens are starting to come home to roost

man, I've never seen you dance like this.... oh-wee: "SOMEONE had to create the climate for this to happen" so blame it all on Clinton? Write the reich-wing morons off that have controlled the White House for the past 8 years, as in 'wasn't me'?.... President Cheney, please step forward....

Look man, even if a case could be made against Clinton, why did the GOP bury its collective head in the sand over the last 8 years? Doesn't hold water, Craig.

You're a socialist for the time being, so think Ron Ray-gun: Problem? What problem? The markets will take care of themselves....

Edited October 15, 2008 by David G. Healy

[J. Raymond Carroll]

CDS are not that different than you being required to insure your car against loss if you have a loan witb a bank for that car. The Insurace company makes a bet that your car will not be involved in a wreck or theft and be rendered totaled. Thats not unlike somone buying insurance that a bond or a a bunch of mortagers packeged together will not default.

Craig, who is stuffing your head with this nonsense?

You think credit default swaps and guarantees are like insurance against car accidents??

How come no one else does?

[Craig Lamson]

CDS are not that different than you being required to insure your car against loss if you have a loan witb a bank for that car. The Insurace company makes a bet that your car will not be involved in a wreck or theft and be rendered totaled. Thats not unlike somone buying insurance that a bond or a a bunch of mortagers packeged together will not default.

Craig, who is stuffing your head with this nonsense?

You think credit default swaps and guarantees are like insurance against car accidents??

How come no one else does?

Of course they are Ray. If you think you can show other wise please do so.

[Craig Lamson]

It was not the CDS that brought the house down, it was the bad mortgages inside that did... problem mortgages foisted on us by Clintoon....

Try again next time Ray

There have always been bad mortgages, but banks and insurance companies never used to be allowed to make UNHEDGED multi-billion dollar bets on them like AIG, Lehman and the others were allowed to do when the republican free-marketeers took power.

But even if your argument were true, Craig, it wouldn't help John McCain very much in tonight's debate or this election. The Democrats jettisoned Clinton a while back, in case you didn't notice.

You are STILL missing the point Ray, but why am I not suprised. SOMEONE had to create the climate for this to happen. That someone was Clinton. CDS are not that different than you being required to insure your car against loss if you have a loan witb a bank for that car. The Insurace company makes a bet that your car will not be involved in a wreck or theft and be rendered totaled. Thats not unlike somone buying insurance that a bond or a a bunch of mortagers packeged together will not default. Now exactly WHY should you have a problem with this private, non banking transaction? Its not the CDS that is the problem , its the bad loans underneath. The groundwork for this is PURE Clinton.

However EVEN if your argument were true, where is the legislation starting when the dimbulbs tookover Congress in 2006 to reign in the problem? After all THEY make the laws? Oh thats right, there was none, they were on the take wiht your "bold" (lol!) zerOBAM right there with this hand out for cash and kissing ACORNS azz. Baaarack is lying his azz off about this, and its not going to help him in tonights debate. His chickens are starting to come home to roost

man, I've never seen you dance like this.... oh-wee: "SOMEONE had to create the climate for this to happen" so blame it all on Clinton? Write the reich-wing morons off that have controlled the White House for the past 8 years, as in 'wasn't me'?.... President Cheney, please step forward....

Look man, even if a case could be made against Clinton, why did the GOP bury its collective head in the sand over the last 8 years? Doesn't hold water, Craig.

You're a socialist for the time being, so think Ron Ray-gun: Problem? What problem? The markets will take care of themselves....

I've got no problem what so ever giving the Reps their share of the blame for the last 8 years. Quite a few of them are dirty as can be. But there is NO dance when it comes to CRA and Clinton and there is no dance when it comes to fanny and freddy and the dims who controlled when it. That the "someone' who created the climate. It did not materialize from thin air....

And yes, the market WILL takew care of itself, IF the pols keep their fingers out.

Sadly thats not happening so just like during the great depression I suspect government will prolong the pain and suffering in the name of "helping".