Wall Street Journal blasts John McCain
- Thread starter DirtyDog
- Start date
McCain's campaign strikes me as one gigantic flip-flop. I truly have no clue where the guy stands on anything, except for maybe Iraq.
As for making the tax cuts permanent, does anyone think that's remotely possible now that the Government is on the hook for Wall Street?
As for making the tax cuts permanent, does anyone think that's remotely possible now that the Government is on the hook for Wall Street?
I didn't think it was possible before this fiasco with the record deficits and all. Were we just going to mint more money?
John McCain has jumped the shark.
If you don't fully understand macroeconomics, yes. "We keep writing checks and they keep clearing!"
Seriously though, this scares me the most of this entire ordeal. US:Wall Street::China:US
It's a good thing them red states don't read no papers. Unless it's NASCAR monthly or Weekly World News.
If we could get TV Guide to do a story, it might sink in.
If we could get TV Guide to do a story, it might sink in.
took a look at a newsstand today in the phx airport. 9/10ths of the mags were leisure (fashion, sports, streetrods, or entertainment).
only 1/10th were cerebral (political, technology, or current events)
usatoday's (print) niche is the magazine "reader" with all the ambition of an urban mayor
only 1/10th were cerebral (political, technology, or current events)
usatoday's (print) niche is the magazine "reader" with all the ambition of an urban mayor
Christ...you're like McCain. One of these days you're just going to blurt out the n-word.
back to the thread, i find one thing rather interesting: mccain's being "taken to the woodshed" over his suggestion that chris cox should be fired as head of the sec.
i would think this would be just the kind of remark itching ears here would warm to, what with all the past calls for bush's ouster for various sundry "miserable failures", and cox is just in charge of one thing: regulating the stock market.
if cox can't be held accountable, then really no one can be.
heads you win; tails i lose
i would think this would be just the kind of remark itching ears here would warm to, what with all the past calls for bush's ouster for various sundry "miserable failures", and cox is just in charge of one thing: regulating the stock market.
if cox can't be held accountable, then really no one can be.
heads you win; tails i lose
McCain wants the SEC head fired, yet he employs Phil Graham, the king of deregulation in the financial industries when he was on capital hill, along with McCain. They started this mess with the free market philosophy and less regulation makes for better markets. When everyone pays equal and fairly yes. But factor in the human nature of greed and being able to make the rules without any supervision or oversight. That's where we are today.
I want McCain to answer this:
Does he think we have a capitalist economy or a socialist economy?
Or better yet, let's ask Sarah...
I want McCain to answer this:
Does he think we have a capitalist economy or a socialist economy?
Or better yet, let's ask Sarah...
Sorry I posted without the quotes.
How should Cox be the only one held accountable when he was only trying to enforce a weak assed regulatory system that he had no input to?
Who's the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee?
how you figure he had no input? i hope you're not suggesting this position is a toothless one, or one that treats the reg system like an almanac
it's either grassley or baucus; you want they should hauled before congress? that would be interesting to watch play out.X3pilot said:
Nope, not saying Cox had no input, just saying he's not the only one to blame for this, IMO.
Stink, I've said it before, I'm not smart enough in regards to financial markets and investing to post very in depth arguments over minutia of the crisis.
My frustration right now stems at being an angry, soon to be former, registered Republican who is tired of "The Maverick" blowing hot air at me about reform and how this needs another goddamn committee hearing to see who at fault.
He has Phil Graham as his economic advisors and they both spearheaded the lees regulated free market approach. It did not work. Didn't for the S&Ls, the dot coms, the housing market and now the credit trading. Spoiled greedy rich 'masters of the universe' couldn't regulate themselves, now you, me, Silver, Curtix and everybody else owe a whopping $3600 per person to finace this boondoggle of a bailout. Bullsh!T!!! Representative government my ass. Are they going to debate whether to do this? Hell no, Congress is too busy on the recess for the year to go pander for votes. So what if I say no to my $3600 portion of the bailout? WhoTF cares, right?
On the other hand, we need obvious regulation and oversight but from the phuctards we have currently elected? The Dems who got put into office to end the goddamn war? BTW, how's that going? The SEC? The CEOs? Manimal, SteveW, Lord Opie??
With that being said, how can we call our selves a capitalist government when we won't abide by the basic principles of capitalism and free market economics? If we did, we'd let the market free fall and the finacial houses that had played by the rules, played smart and made good decisions would remain at the end. Would some homeowners lose their homes? Yep. Should they? Yep, they bought too much house and ran the credit up. Now it's time to pay the piper.
Why the fvck should a guy like me, who busted his ass for 15 years to get debt free, currently owns his home worth 300,000, has 3 cars paid for, 4 bikes paid for, a fridge full of Weyerbacher and works 45-50 hours a week pay for Joesh!t the investment bankers way out or worse yet, as I see all the time here in eastern PA, help bail out the mortgage of some slapheaded dillhole from NYC or NJ who moved from his apartment to the country and now when that 3/1 ARM or interest only has rolled up due, he can't make the payment on that and the credit cards it took to buy the plasma and put $4.00 a gallon gas in the leased BMW that sh1tstick drives back and forth from the city everyday?
Whew...I'm sorry guys. Second rant on this forum over...
Stink, I've said it before, I'm not smart enough in regards to financial markets and investing to post very in depth arguments over minutia of the crisis.
My frustration right now stems at being an angry, soon to be former, registered Republican who is tired of "The Maverick" blowing hot air at me about reform and how this needs another goddamn committee hearing to see who at fault.
He has Phil Graham as his economic advisors and they both spearheaded the lees regulated free market approach. It did not work. Didn't for the S&Ls, the dot coms, the housing market and now the credit trading. Spoiled greedy rich 'masters of the universe' couldn't regulate themselves, now you, me, Silver, Curtix and everybody else owe a whopping $3600 per person to finace this boondoggle of a bailout. Bullsh!T!!! Representative government my ass. Are they going to debate whether to do this? Hell no, Congress is too busy on the recess for the year to go pander for votes. So what if I say no to my $3600 portion of the bailout? WhoTF cares, right?
On the other hand, we need obvious regulation and oversight but from the phuctards we have currently elected? The Dems who got put into office to end the goddamn war? BTW, how's that going? The SEC? The CEOs? Manimal, SteveW, Lord Opie??
With that being said, how can we call our selves a capitalist government when we won't abide by the basic principles of capitalism and free market economics? If we did, we'd let the market free fall and the finacial houses that had played by the rules, played smart and made good decisions would remain at the end. Would some homeowners lose their homes? Yep. Should they? Yep, they bought too much house and ran the credit up. Now it's time to pay the piper.
Why the fvck should a guy like me, who busted his ass for 15 years to get debt free, currently owns his home worth 300,000, has 3 cars paid for, 4 bikes paid for, a fridge full of Weyerbacher and works 45-50 hours a week pay for Joesh!t the investment bankers way out or worse yet, as I see all the time here in eastern PA, help bail out the mortgage of some slapheaded dillhole from NYC or NJ who moved from his apartment to the country and now when that 3/1 ARM or interest only has rolled up due, he can't make the payment on that and the credit cards it took to buy the plasma and put $4.00 a gallon gas in the leased BMW that sh1tstick drives back and forth from the city everyday?
Whew...I'm sorry guys. Second rant on this forum over...
First, I was of the opinion a few months ago that, like you say above, we should let bankruptcy laws do their thing and play by exactly the rules that were in place when everyone priced out all the existing mortgages. This would have punished both creditors and debtors in a manner that has shown to function pretty well for the last 50 years.
I was wrong, in that the problem got too big. It would be great if the effects were isolated to just the players in the game. Unfortunately, all of Wall Street was wrapped up in the same low-rate (pushed by Bush to stimulate the economy, and opposed by Greenspan) leverage, which means that it ended up hitting every public company on the planet. You could weather it if you have enough socked away in government bonds to last you the rest of your life, but had the fed gov not stepped in, we would have had a crash... all your stocks/funds would go to ****, your house would drop in value by 2/3rds while everyone scrambled for liquidity, your employer likely would go under. Dogs and cats living together. It would be bad.
After writing all that I realize that's not even my point...
What I meant to say is that what is missing from all these ideological arguments is an understanding that you CAN have capitalism and regulation. In fact, regulation is essential to a properly-running capitalist system. This is NOT about regulation versus de-regulation. It is about putting in place the right regulations and not shifting them suddenly (thus changing the math on every mechanism that evolves around the regulation). Arguing about the "bail-out" is like arguing about the Katrina response, when the response was not the issue it was the failure to build levees properly, THEN the failure to have strong local, state, and federal level response mechanisms, THEN the failures to properly anticipate the implications of the storm in the days leading up... and only finally after all of that the response to the levees breaking. Sure we can get more passionate about what happened from that point on 9and it DID tell us a lot about our politicians and disaster readiness), but the real failures all happened before. Same here.