Election day.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rex said:
It's not about service. It should be, but it's not. It's about gaining, maintaining and wielding political power. And it's been that way for most of human history. That situation is cemented by political parties. I'm not a member of any party, because they don't exist to benefit you and me. They exist to benefit politicians. They'll pander to you and me if they think that'll win them a vote, but their first and last duty is to the politicians who run them.

Don't get me wrong—many noble deeds are done by people in high places. but nobility is not the most powerful force in any capital.
Click to expand...

Ha, I wouldn't call them politicians... more like selfish bastards, ever see the documentary Thrive? aside from some of the New Age over tones there is a lot of truth as to how this and other countries are really run.
 
I've given up on politics and I'm 21 years old. It really didn't help that I was gonna be a history major, was burning myself out in government/econ, and had a really good and really cynical history teacher.
 
Manning said:
I don't care who wins, as long as they don't take away all the credit market safeguards again. The decision back in 2002 (allowing merchant banks to create insurance policies against risky 'sub-prime' loans without having any capital to back up the policy) caused the GFC, the Euro-debt crisis and the worst global depression since the 1930s. And that comes from an Australian who wasn't directly affected by the massive property bubble which devastated the lives of many Americans - I don't even want to imagine what that was like.
Click to expand...

What "credit market safeguards"? Nothing has changed other than the banks aren't lending.

I don't want to get too political so I won't use names, but:

The same mortgage B.S. that contributed to the GFC happened in the southwest (Arizona) in the 1980's and one of the 5 politician's most responsible (a member of the "Keating 5") was almost elected President in the last election. Yep, the person in the Senate most qualified to identify and stop the mortgage crisis as it developed in the 1990's and early 2000's - did nothing and was rewarded with a nomination for president..

Want some more irony? A recent president was former governor of the state least affected by the mortgage crisis. Why was that state least affected? That person oversaw implementation of tough lending laws as a result of a housing crisis in that state in the 1980's prompted by the Savings & Loan crisis and collapse in the oil industry. Unfortunately that former president didn't see fit to implement the same lending requirements at the national level as he did as governor.

And what have politicians of both parties done since the collapse in 2007? Absolutely nothing! The S&L crisis in the 1980's was created by loans being given to people who weren't qualified, the recent mortgage crisis was the same. Both situations led to property devaluation and tax payer's picking up the tab for the damage created by irresponsible lenders.

This isn't the last time we'll see this. As long as loans are given to people who don't have sufficient income to pay them, then house prices will be driven up beyond what local salaries can support. Want to see realistic and stable house prices: Require 20% down and don't allow the down to be financed, then punish lenders who make loans to people who aren't qualified for the loan amount. Home prices should be directly related to local salary levels.

I apologize to anyone who takes offense to the political nature of this post but I lived in Phoenix in the early 90's and saw the destruction from the S&L crisis, I lived in the northwest (Silicon Forest) in the late 90's and saw what the local banks (WaMu) were doing and knew what was coming.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more. I was overseas for ten years, came back to buy a house and I bought in 2006. You know that graph where the housing market hit its absolute highest peak? That was me buying my house. Everything went to hell after that.

I wasn't able to do 20% down because there were McMansions starting in the low $700K's right down the road from me. What I paid for what I got is obscene, but you have to live somewhere. If the house wouldn't have been so artificially inflated I could have put the 20% down. Buying a house was the single stupidest thing I've ever done. Thank God I've been able to refinance because I was able to drop my mortgage almost $1000 a month. That is exactly $1000 in interest and PME. I'm just glad that I can afford it and we like the area because if I had to sell I'm probably so upside down that I'd have to file for bankruptcy or something. But I'm a big boy and I made a big boy mistake. What can you do?

But yeah, like I was trying to say it really comes down to the individual and living within your means. I mean just because the bank is stupid enough to give you the money doesn't mean that you should be stupid enough to take it. I could have bought a house that was a lot nicer for a lot more money and they would have said "congratulations, you've been approved," but I knew that it was stupid. I bought the absolute best deal on the market at the time. That's the only reason why things didn't go south for me. When I bought there was no indication of what was going to happen either. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but even when things were 'good' something reigned me in.

I mean we can sit here and blame the government all day long for jobs and the economy and crap, but there is a distinct separation in my mind between the two. And as much as I hate to say it regardless of who is elected there aren't 12 million jobs out there that are going to miracle their ass into creation by just voting one way or the other. We're still recovering and we're going to hopefully continue to do so responsibly. But in the end we dictate what the economy does and not the government. I mean does anyone really think that Clinton created that surplus because he had a degree in accounting? (I had some really inappropriate jokes here, but I'll refrain...they were funny though so feel free to laugh). It was just the state of the economy at the time.

On a side note this whole Benghazi issue has been bothering me a lot. I won't politicize this either, but I did find a statement from the Marine Corps and some stuff from people who actually worked at embassies. I'll just say that if I understand correctly this isn't an issue of someone failing to react. I had no idea that the security that's in place had been contracted out since the 1970's and their only role was to destroy classified material if they were overtaken. The thing that really shocked me was that the reports about the local 'government' was responsible for defending them is actually standard procedure. The crappy part is that this isn't a Libya specific decision....this is how our embassies are run on a global scale unless I read it completely wrong. That's why there weren't marines in place. Of course Congress determines how much is spent on security and then the State Department divvies up the manpower. If the security details are this damn anemic at every site then I can imagine that a good portion are always asking for more bodies.

Anyway, long story short, I'm not an expert on how embassies are run, but the news as usual is either ignoring this story or is politicizing it to death. What this looks like to me is that we've gotten away with doing it half assed for over 30 years and that it's a miracle it hasn't happened more often if this is how we protect our diplomats. If I'm way off base then of course correct me. I'm highly disturbed by what happened and I'd like facts and whether its the silence from the State Department and White House or the attacks from Fox News (who are the only ones "covering" this story) there isn't a lot of credible stuff to go by. Its just sad that the media outlets have absolutely destroyed their reputations to the point that if they were to ever cover a story straight up you'd have to question it's authenticity.
 
MaxTwang said:
What "credit market safeguards"? Nothing has changed other than the banks aren't lending.
Click to expand...

Eek. I was wrongly under the impression that some of the removed safeguards had been restored, but a bit of googling indicates the awful truth. (In my partial defense, most countries have since made it illegal to engage in these practices, and I assumed the US had done the same).

So... the only thing currently preventing this from happening again is the lack of ready cash.
 
shasha said:
The thing that really shocked me was that the reports about the local 'government' was responsible for defending them is actually standard procedure. The crappy part is that this isn't a Libya specific decision....this is how our embassies are run on a global scale unless I read it completely wrong.
Click to expand...

This isn't a decision that was made by any US government, its part of the 1961 Vienna Treaty. All governments are solely responsible for the defense of foreign embassies on their territory. Without this you'd have representatives of over 150 different national militaries wandering around Washington with guns.

Embassy defence (in the USA) is actually the responsibility of the US Secret Service. Michael Moore tried to insinuate a conspiracy in Farenheit 9/11 when he observed that Secret Service agents were guarding the Saudi embassy. Had he looked around, he'd have noticed they were also guarding the Australian and British embassies.
 
Last edited:
I agree, Shasha. I watch the news because I feel that it's important to be informed on national and global events. So the question becomes, "Where do I get actual unfiltered, no BS news?" I haven't come up with an answer for that as of yet. And I'm starting to worry that in 2012, there isn't an answer for that. We're two steps away from would-be journalists going to college and getting a degree in "Sensationalism". That's not even touching the political slant that most of these news outlets exemplify, being for either the left or the right. And as far as the election goes, well...I don't have a whole lot of hope no matter what the outcome. And that saddens me. The government that was created of the people, by the people, and for the people is now operating for the corporations and by the corporations. The two-party system is broken. There is no bi-partisanship. Politicians vote on issues according to their chosen party's lines with no regard for what's really best for their state or the nation as a whole. They intentionally make it a priority to vote against anything from the "other side of the aisle" as a matter of course. Once elected, the first thing they do is to start raising funds to get re-elected. Without having done one damn thing yet. We continually move further and further away from the ideals that this country was founded upon. Ok, I'm starting to feel a little bleak here. So I'm gonna just shut up. But let me just say that we need another way. We need a new idea (or maybe just a return to an old idea...or ideal) and we need it fast. Before this all comes crumbling down before our eyes and we're left wondering what happened. (As if we wouldn't be able to figure that out.) I hate feeling like the U.S. is the Roman Empire V2.0. We're so intelligent to have come this far, and so utterly stupid to think that it can't happen again or won't happen to us. Rant over. I'm just gonna go mutter unintelligible sentences to myself as I drift off to sleep. :)
 
As (UK Prime Minister) David Cameron noted in a US interview, the total amount of money any political party in Britain was allowed to spend on the election was approx $300,000.

And that's for the entire party, not one candidate. Across all the major parties, the total spent on the last election was roughly 1 million USD.
 
I agree that the political system is a mess. Without campaign finance reform, it's hard to see it improving and the "Citizens United" decision made that even more unlikely. So long as corporations are people and money is speech, it's hard to see how politicians can be focused on issues beyond how to pander to interests that can give them enough $ to run. Disheartening to say the least.
 
Manning said:
As (UK Prime Minister) David Cameron noted in a US interview, the total amount of money any political party in Britain was allowed to spend on the election was approx $300,000.

And that's for the entire party, not one candidate. Across all the major parties, the total spent on the last election was roughly 1 million USD.
Click to expand...

The UK also spends 30 days - debates included - for their election. I remember watching the reporters on BBC complaining about how long the next 30 days were going to be.
 
About the only thing that can actually be classified as news nowadays is the PBS News Hour. There's a clear line between news and commentary, not this BS hybrid that Fox and MSNBC spout. The PBS commentary also tends to be fairly balanced. If there's a hyper conservative giving a POV then there's an equally liberal pundit doing the same. They also tend to actually debate issues as opposed to just spouting vitriol. You don't have to hate someone simply because you don't agree with them. I think the nation forgetting that fact is one of the biggest causes of the current mess.
 
When it comes to elections, I trust good ole comedian emeritus George Carlin... the way i see it, it's David vs. Goliath... only difference is that there's no sling in this scenerio.
 
PBS and NPR are the closest it gets to objective, even-handed news on this side of the pond. The rest of America's national news outlets are sensationalist at best, shamelessly partisan at worst.

BBC World News does a pretty good job, too.
 
Sometimes outa the blue I think about Jabba The Hut. There is just something magical about a giant maggot. I wonder if his mommy was a giant fly. If thats the case I guess he never spread his wings. Poor guy. No wonder he's a criminal.
 
Last edited:
Mankind is deeply flawed. there was a thread on here that resorted to name calling over a computer program. Put flawed men is positions of authority.... Well, need I say more?
 
edawterb said:
Sometimes outa the blue I think about Jabba The Hut. There is just something magical about a giant maggot. I wonder if his mommy was a giant fly. If thats the case I guess he never spread his wings. Poor guy. No wonder he's a criminal.
Click to expand...

Wonder no more... Zorba Desilijic Tiure was a Hutt crime lord and the leader of the Desilijic kajidic. One of few Hutts to possess hair—as a result of a genetic throwback—Zorba was the sibling of Jiliac, Ebor, Ziro and Pazda, the parent of several Hutts, among them Jabba Desilijic Tiure, and also a grandfather of several Hutts, including Jabba's son Rotta and both Gorga and Grubba Desilijic Aarrpo. Zorba was an inept leader of Desilijic, and he had few supporters in his clan, due to his outlandish schemes and financial mismanagement. During the Separatist Crisis, he was apprehended by law enforcement and sentenced to prison on the planet Kip. Jiliac took over as Desilijic leader, and Jabba inherited much of Zorba's holdings.

You're welcome. LOL
 
No ads here, Sandy took care of that. It's sad to think our fate depends on the undecided voters of Ohio. The process is 18 months in and they still are undecided? Are they sitting up at night weighing the issue positions or just going to wing it come Tuesday?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom