Palin Options

[Hellfighter]

.............
Nice use of liberal talking points there.
........................
You think Obama/Biden will devastate McCain/Palin during the debates?
Are you on drugs? .....

Alrighty- ol'chum
How about we keep personal 'debasing' out of this -as well as the 'are you stupid' insinuations....
I'm pretty good too in colouring up my blabbering in that 'style', but I'd rather refer to you on 'clean' debating terms.

First my views are not straight from the liberal bandwagon.... I'm listening to Palin, McCain, Biden, Obama speaking regularly and determining my assessments from those direct sources chiefly.... if you like I can say you're a neo-con and that dear Robert is making all of his analysis based on right-wing agenda website blogs.... it's pretty easy to do so.
I'm sure the truth however is that you're thinking for yourself-as am I......

What I think the debates will be quite revealing, is my speculation /prediction.
The points I make are valid imo;
Palin is currently in scripted dialogue mode -one can imagine she's being boot-camp rehearsed in how not to sound to right-wing nor too neo-con/Bush doctriner-like. Her biggest drawback will be putting forth the dialogue of those who thrust her into her VP hopeful spot rather than how she'd comfortably put forth her own views. You can imagine in debates with Biden he will be knocking her off balance with precision questioning on the workings of critical-mode International affairs ....
ps. Palin should know the Bush Doctrine if asked should she not? ...it's a formula of her party boss and she's running for VP -so why deflect the issue as to who else is not sure about what it means....

Actually all those queries pointed at Obama you mention were very critical ones -they weren't mickey mouse fluff -at the time horribly answering those questions could knock off a few popularity points.
Palin's questions were pretty easy - what was so tricky about the questions... if she had a firm belief in her party's policies in those areas the questions covered there was no problem in answering them sincerely- any real conservative would be able to put forth answers easily to all of those questions without batting an eyelash -in so doing the respondant would make themselves look pretty good in their beliefs-McCain could answer those questions very easily -why should Palin find them difficult -nothing harsh at all in that interview -if she can't handle that, well.....

Of course you're right about Barney Frank having paved the way for the 2 fallouts you mentioned, but the condition were building up before that point due to lack of regulations.But beyond that there are more crunches coming up most likely on Wall st.
Perhaps you missed the various occasions McCain touted himself as all for deregulation;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQVd_FdRw6Q
the clip mentions a couple of occasions, but he's put himself in that same spot several times.
As much as you can claim McCain was predicting dire straits heading for Wall st. the same can be said about Obama giving such warnings.
http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/fina...n-bush-policies
Anyway see it for yourself while we're on the subject of fundamentals....
McCain here, says he's 'fundamentally a deregulator'
see the bottom of page 1 at this link...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/sto...4379&page=1


I think the Obama campaign could do alot more painting McCain as a tremendous flip-flopper. Like the end of the youtube clip above said near the end, McCain does alot of 'conversion of convenience' on many issues.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 09/17/08 8:14pm

[HammaTime]

Nice use of liberal talking points there.

Ouch. You accuse Pat of spouting talking points, and then you trot out your own list...

I got a lot of laughs the next day when the talking heads gave Palin scathing reviews about her supposed lack on information concerning the "Bush Doctrine".

All that proves is that you should be listening to some other talking heads!! LOL!

Also you completely mischaracterize McCain's stance on deregulation, he was the one calling for more oversight 3 years ago an partially predicted the financial collapse of Fannie May an Freddy Mac. Which is why he co-sponsered the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. Which was shot down by demcrat leaders. Then the Republicains tried again two years later with the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2007.

Hmmm, your facts seem out of alignment with McCain's facts.

On November 4, 2007 he stated during an interview with the New Hampshire Sentinel Source:

------------

"Question: Well the dimension of this problem may be surprising to a lot of people, but to many people, to many others there were feelings that there was something amiss, something was going too fast, something was a little too hot. Going back several years, were you one of them? ... Were you surprised?

McCAIN: Yeah. And I was surprised at the dot-com collapse and I was surprised at other times in our history. […]
I don’t know of hardly anybody, with the exception of a handful, that said “wait a minute, this thing is getting completely out of hand and is overheating.” So, I’d like to tell you that I did anticipate it, but I have to give you straight talk, I did not."

-------------

McCain relies on Phil Gramm for his economic advice. This is the man who pushed through legislation that repealed the Glass Steagall Act which effectively deregulated both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I believe this is the speech that McCain delivered in 2005 that you now use as evidence of his calling for oversight. Clearly, he had been aware that senior executives were ginning the system.

I bumped into this earlier in the day. I think it is one of the best columns I've read that sums up the fiscal conservative conundrum. I'd be interested in your feedback. The article is titled, "A Conservative for Obama
My party has slipped its moorings. It’s time for a true pragmatist to lead the country."

You can find it here: http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm...6A3EF81822D9F8E

[HammaTime]

Actually, I was wrong about the above column being the best. This one comes a lot closer...your mileage may vary.

A long-time member of McCain's media "base," Richard Cohen admits that things seem different today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

[Robert]

To Hellfighter.
My Mostest an Sincerest apologies.
XOXOXOXO
Most of the political boards I frequent tend to get more heated an that particular line of reasoning about Palin ( heartbeat away from the presidency ) has gotten to be a pet peeve of mine.
I've no problem with disagreements on her stance on the issues, it just drives me nuts when people dismiss her. For example, Gibson asking implying during the interview she was conceited to think she could/should be VP. Same goes for the silly idea that Biden would stump her in the debates. I don't see that happening as I've gone back an watched her debates during the Governor race. A debate she was hit harder on because she was running against both the Dem and incumbent Repub an she did better than both of the more seasoned candidates. Not that debates are the end all of the race because Kerry won 2 of the 3 debates, decimating Bush in one of then, yet Kerry still lost.
It bothers me that people have this misconception about the presidency an who is so called qualified to be run for it. It's the voters choice to make that decision, not some hack of journalist.
In my humble opinion way to many people have this misplace idea that Obama is automatically qualified because he comes across as smooth talking, feel good, I don't know what.
Kind of like Hamma's remark about Obama writing his own books. Heck, one of my favorite writers is a huge conservative activist, doesn't mean I would vote for him. I may love the way he writes but I think his political views are nuts.







For both Hell and Hamma.
I still believe in deregulation. The problem comes from the fact when it's talked about, it's now a catch all for a 100 different things. People for government regulation of business act like it's either all or nothing an that's not really true. Also the support for it's normally brought up after the fact, in response to some catastrophe that has already happened, by then it's usually to late. It's easy to point fingers with 20/20 hindsight. Also it's worth pointing out, most industries which has been deregulated, were never deregulated correctly an I think that's why we often times haven't seen the expected benefit. Most of the deregulated industries were initially GOVERNMENT controlled monopolies, then became PUBLIC monopolies. While everyone agrees monopolies are inherently bad regardless if they are Government or Public one. To me, the government regulations people are talking about now have more to due with oversight for consumer/investment/public protection an not specifically deregulation.

I'm not near as concerned about what McCain said a year later in some interview as I am to what he did as a
legislator, that's what he's getting paid for. McCain absolutely was on the right side of that reform legislation, while several leading Democrat were on the wrong side of it including the one who just happen to be the #1 recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie. The reform he tried to get pass wouldn't have prevented the subprime mess as it wouldn't have directly effected it but it would limited the mortgage collapse. Fannie an Freddy were not the cause but they definitely helped enable the mortgage meltdown.

Government regulation falls short all the time. For example Medicare is the most regulated insurance program in existence. When it started out it cost $3 Billion, now it cost $180 Billion with a fraud rate of somewhere between 20-30% depending on who you believe. Fully ran an regulated by the government.




I'll reply later to the articles you linked to, kind of busy right now.

[HammaTime]

You are onto something here. Lets keep the XOXOXOXO's flowing. Political debate in this country has become way, way, way too hostile. We used to be able to talk politics and then all go grab some beers. Now it seems we live in such a contentious political environment that politics only comes up once the group determines that everyone is like-minded.

I enjoy reading both Robert's and Hell's pure thoughts, not the stuff that comes bouncing off some talking-point laden political spin piece, but just your pure thoughts, impressions and honest opinions.

A problem I have with discussing and comparing any of McCain's past work with his current statements is the reason so few U.S. Senators have made it to the Presidency. The track records of Senators are just too diverse, votes can be pulled from their backgrounds to back up virtually any argument, either pro or con.

I wish the media would concentrate more on issues, and perhaps this is one of those rare times when issues will triumph. Certainly, the country and the world are anxious to hear their solutions to the current economic mess. Perhaps we'll get the chance to focus on their plans for the future as opposed to their plans for their campaign's future tactics. That would be a welcome relief.

Our current crisis was borne of rosy optimism. At the lowest common denominator it stemmed from a small family or a couple who wanted a bigger house than they could really afford. They jumped at the figure the mortgage lender claimed they were qualified and put the minimum money down. Hell, real estate prices always rise. What's the worry. They'll be ahead in no time. They maxed out their credit cards, fixing the place up, buying furniture and new appliances. "Hell, interest rates were low, why not buy that boat and motorcycle," they thought as they pulled out their plastic.

Bundlers came along and helped ease the burden on all those at-risk mortgage lenders. They too were surely optimists. After the dotcom bubble, real estate seemed the only viable investment. But, as the bundler's exposure grew and risk threatened to turn off foreign investors, those bundlers insured their risk with people like AIG. After all, we had to keep the Chinese willing to buy our debt, otherwise we'd be up shit creek without a paddle. Yet, now we find ourselves up that creek, with no paddle and the Chinese own our ass.

Did McCain get us here? No. Did someone like Phil Gramm, his most trusted financial advisor, have a heavy hand in greasing the wheels of this crisis. I'm sure if you asked Warren Buffet he would point directly at Gramm, a Senator who was only too eager to help these companies develop incredibly complex and deceptive financial tools like the derivatives that Buffet referred to in 2003 as "financial weapons of mass destruction."

In the article cited above, Buffet points directly at the derivatives that brought us the Enron crisis. The legislation for those was created by Phil Gramm and his 2005 Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

So, we've finally found Bush's WMD's! They were cleverly disguised to enrich only those who were destined to take the golden parachute route out of the chaos that was once a mighty economy.

More lemmings fleeing the ship. This time, the author of the book "Citizen McCain." Anyone read that book?

[Robert]

See thats why I enjoy political debates or most debates in general, I don't really expect to get anyone to change their opinion. For me they are very informative, not because what the other person says but it forces me to learn an research both sides of the issues.

Something I've already agreed with you about is how McCain was a much better candidate in 2000 then 2008. Sadly, the only way to get the nomination was for him to move more right. I firmly believe if elected he will again become the more outspoken maverick he was in the past. For me the single best credential MCCain and Palin have is they have both shown they are willing to go against party interest when they believed the party was wrong. The exact opposite is true of Obama and that's why he scares the hell out of me as President when people like Reid and Pelosie lead the congress.
As much as I personally dislike Hillary, I would much rather have seen her win then Obama as she would not be a Reid/Pelosie puppet.

Two questions for the Dem supporters.
1) Do you believe in Obama's campaign promise of being energy independent in 10 years?
This is something I firmly believe MCain has right because he's the only one calling for nuclear energy. Not that it will solve the problem but it will certainly help.
Sadly as much as ethanol is a failure, neither candidate will say so because of fear about losing those important Iowa votes.
2) Do you believe in his characterization of his tax plan. Only taxing the rich an closing corp tax loopholes? I'll give him credit, it play really well to the poor an middle class who want to lay their problems at the feet of the rich an corporations taking advantage of the poor working man. I think it will stifle both middle an large businesses, while having a negative effect on the economy. Any additional tax forced on business will only be passed onto the consumer, be it a service or manufacturing based industry. This will be a huge tax increase which doesn't even cover his large list of new entitlements.

BTW did you catch Biden's speech today where he said the rich paying higher taxes is their patriotic duty. This from a man who makes almost 4 times what I do but I had more charitable deductions on my taxes. Talk about a cheapskate, same goes for Obama with his 1 measly percent for his charitable contributions.

Reagen had a great line.
"If they get their way, they’ll charge everything on your “Taxpayers Express Card.” And believe me, they never leave home without it.'

Why he was without a doubt the most important president of my lifetime
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS4yf723kmY&NR=1
Those words are even more true today.

[Hellfighter]

To Hellfighter.
My Mostest an Sincerest apologies.
XOXOXOXO

1.
Most of the political boards I frequent tend to get more heated an that particular line of reasoning about Palin ( heartbeat away from the presidency ) has gotten to be a pet peeve of mine.
...........
2.
For both Hell and Hamma.
I still believe in deregulation. The problem comes from the fact when it's talked about, it's now a catch all for a 100 different things...................
I'm not near as concerned about what McCain said a year later in some interview as I am to what he did as a
legislator, .....................

1] LOL- I'm sure it's actually the two of US unknowingly pimp-slapping each other with vulgarities and insults in other forums
Amen -on opinion changing actuality -> my other purpose in 'discussions' is putting forth facts that I personally see are undisputable and seeing what arguments are put against them.

2] It's not the point about when/ where deregulation actually has its merits. It's the fact that on multiple occasions [not 1 or 2] early in this campaign McCain has stated profusely he's a deregulator. Now he's the trumpeting himself as the Sheriff who is going to shore everything with Uber-regulation. Note, in these attacks he steers clear of blaming Dems - because he knows its his 'old boy network' bearing a good chunk of responsibility in this issue.

I'd say Biden was referring to how most of his ticket's tax plan is aimed at $250,000+ earners sharing the burden more on their own shoulders like the average blue collar worker feels taxes pinching into their own take home earnings. So yes it's a patriotic duty to share the load in what actually pays to keep the nation's services moving.
Also middle class may see some tax increases in some aspects -capital gains primarily I believe -so its not just the filthy rich being sought out.
Taxes on businesses will only get passed onto the consumer if it hurts them very badly -just like gas price increases affecting transport of goods will affect prices. Businesses won't automatically raise prices everytime they have to payout extra elsewhere -> prices going too high too fast drives away customers.

Regarding Palin... I like alot of what she does as a Governor -she's in fact not too much of a right-wing IMPOSER from what I found out about her. I'm not concerned with interviewers/others views of her;
As I said- while the masses of anti-Paliners were focussed on her the right-wing stop gap/independant vote tactic, and before she did her infamous interview, MY only concern about her was her view on international affairs -to me, her ultra-cheerleading mode before that point failed to reveal any instinct she had towards how to run the world if push came to shove. I was worried if she was another saber-rattling Bush prompted by others behind the scenes; I'll give Bush credit for being genuinely nice in the company of others on the world stage -he makes dumb choices and is gullable however - > I still can't believe he was dumb enough to assume N.Korea wants to stop their nuke bomb intentions! they are clearly going all the way and merely bluffing at EVERY negotiations talk!
Palin makes me nervous because she doesn't seem to have an international stage comfort level; I'm sure foreign leaders would take this as worrisome jittery-ness. The interview served to tell me from solely my point of view -not bandwagons points or what lefty blogs are saying- that she's not naturally well versed on world affairs and she likely has some awkwardness in how she's now being prepped on what to say on International policies - I have a strong feeling she doesn't like other people telling her what she MUST say in order to tow the party line at so high a level. But she needs to get that briefing absorbed into her brain - typically along the lines of giving realistic answers re: her ideas on Georgia joining NATO. As a VP she can't say stuff like that -in particular so boisterously/challengingly.

Your questions.
1] Both candidates are naturally just puffing themselves up on energy answers. McCain limits himself though by wallowing in the idea that domestic oil is an eternal solution of sorts..... Science and alternative energy technology will be the answer for the true long term future -imo.
2] Tax plan answer as mentioned above.....

I'm glad mr.Hamma finds this dialogue even better than fish and chips he's indulging in every Friday - I'll wager you're now taking to putting your chips in grease paper/newspaper, guvnahh......
I hope Crossy is adapting well to having to make do with Canucksville's poor imitations melt-in-your-mouth chips. Maybe resorting to making them the real thing at home!!!

See y'all next week-probably after their first debate.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 09/19/08 7:40am

[Robert]

A few things

Concerning Gramm, I never liked him. I do find it interesting that the libs are trying to lay the financial mess at his feet over the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Are the purposefully forgetting to mention the voting was bipartisan? It passed 90-8, so it was even veto proof. While I don't like Gramm, I'm even less impressed by Obama's economic advisors. Two former CEO's of Fannie & Freddie, who combined walked away with over $100 million from a comapny they left in ruins.
BTW, remember the reform legislation McCain tried to get passes in 2005. One aspect of that bill was to prevent those golden parachutes like Obama's two advisors got after leaving Fannie and Freddie. Does it make since they walk away with millions when the mangaged the comapany so badly that the federal government has had to step in and save it.


As for the Richard Cohen editorial you linked to, not impressed nor surprised by it.
One thing I will give you, outside of the Palin pick I think McCain has ran a weak campaign.
While his negative ad game is unforunately effective, it's only short term an leaves mcCain open to all kinds of critisms. I think he should have ran smarter.

Something I forget to add earlier concerning deregulation.
One of the biggest problems is the current bail out scheme. We're talking about over 1 trillion in bailouts.
People's heads should be rolling not rewarding companies for their failures. The whole idea behind the current bailouts do nothing but perpetuate the problem. I could understand an support the government stepping into lend some support when needed but only at a fraction of the cost so far an it would have to be for better reasons. By most reports I've read, the 85 billion to AIG won't be enough to save the company.
People should be furious an it's hardly be talked about.
You can't save any American company by a trillion dollars worth of loans financed outside of the country.
On a happy note, I belong to a friendly investment group who took a risk on AIG. Bought in below $2 with options to sell at $4, just doubled my investment in a little over a day.
If I could always be that lucky, one day I might be one of those Rich Americans Biden refereed to as needing to pay more taxes as part of their patriotic duty.

I'll make it more interesting.......
While I still think Obama will win unles he continues to make mistakes ( even though he's a poor choice.) I would be willing to bet money he will be a one term president, for many of the same reasons Bush 41 was.

[HammaTime]

Gramm's high crime wasn't the repeal of Glass-Steagall, that was done in the light of day and was indeed supported by a super majority. I specifically was referring to the rider he attached to the omnibus bill, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This was a "dead of night" attachment that no one bothered to read, let alone debate.

Shortly after George W. Bush was elected president, Congress and President Clinton were trying to pass a $384 billion omnibus spending bill, and while the debates swirled around the passage of this bill, Senator Phil Gramm clandestinely slipped a 262-page amendment into the omnibus appropriations bill titled: Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It is likely that few senators read this bill, if any. The essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading (financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes in underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for one party). The legislation contained a provision -- lobbied for by Enron, a major campaign contributor to Gramm -- that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. Basically, it gave way to the Enron debacle and ushered in the new era of unregulated securities. Interestingly enough, Gramm's wife, Wendy, had been part of the Enron board, and her salary and stock income brought in between $900,000 and $1.8 million to the Gramm household, prior to the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. - citation from InjuryBoard.com

I've never been impressed with Richard Cohen either! LOL!

We're aligned with our concerns over the bailout. Insanely pompous Jim Cramer claims that "we" can make money on the deal. I'm anxious to see how all of this real estate will be unloaded. Clearly, they have to hold that real estate for a significant period of time, or we'll see this mess simply snowball into an out and out disaster.

But back to the star of this thread, Palin. The polling trend is unmistakable, she is crashing and that crash is going to really impact the campaign.

I don't share your concern for the type of questions "Charlie" asked her. How could you possibly suggest that the questions were too tough? These candidates should be absolutely grilled. The questions can't be tough enough. Do you suggest that these candidates should face the type of softballs that Hannity lofted for her? I certainly hope not. Jon Stewart had an inspired take on that interview when he juxtaposed the questions and answers with those from an infomercial.

Palin does not have what it takes to be President. Period. Even if she can see Russia from her house.

I'll leave it to you and Hellfighter to predict the future, but it is starting to look like Palin/McCain was the stronger ticket and I don't doubt that she will prove to be a force in the years to come. If she is elected, I don't buy your theory that McCain will revert to the man he was in 2000. He has gone all in and if he wins he will be completely beholden to Palin and her neo-con handlers as they are the ones that have given him a fighting chance. We see the evidence of this so clearly right now. Crowds flock to hear her speak and then leave in the middle of McCain's speech. That is bad news, "my friends!"

[UNDEAD 1]

"The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America," said Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky. The U.S. Treasury's proposal would "take away the free market and institute socialism in America,"

[HammaTime]

HA! He got that very, very wrong. Oh so wrong.

It is clearly socialism if the State helps the poor and downtrodden citizen.

It is a bailout, or economic imperative, if it helps the corporation.

[Shred]

I may be able to vote for McCain if the lying stops.

But it has to stop at some point. Does it not?

[Hellfighter]

I bear good tidings for you Robert....

Actually I am not sure if you've seen this; a slanderous anti-Palin piece of journalism by Canuck ranter/writer for CBC Heather Mallick
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...d=commentisfree
Its making some stir. Mallick has cut off comments to the piece and at her website - She is no doubt getting what he deserves -Disassociation by her fellow professional journalists would be better.
Hypocritically Canada has anti-hate laws to which Mallick comes very close to approaching.
It's a Palin bash but like many Canadians I find it divisive and repulsive in its racial/prejudice overtones and elitist snootyness....
It also sickens me that many Canadians liken this to freedom of speech satire rather than a ranty piece of crap. Normally it'd be easy to overlook, but its done by someone working for the CBC -using taxpayers money- its like a CNN reporter bringing up similar garbage.
In forum discussions sprouting up over it, these same Canadiana aldo babble idiocy about Canada having more freedom of speech in the press rather than most journalists in the USA -and Canada- use their power/freedom responsibly and write in such fashion.

So Robert [and other chums here perhaps] added to my own commentary denouncing the writing is cheap, lying+ prejudiced in various forum debates on the piece, I hope you'll show up in this particular forum to lay some smackdown on some anti-US pompous, fellow-Canadians.... ps. Canada's CBC are all snooty eggheads that have no visible minority representation in their staff at all and on the airwaves - so I find it funny they+ their supporters take the high road about others being prejudiced.

Go crazy chum;
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/...#socialcomments


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 09/21/08 7:46am

[HammaTime]

It seems to be an amateurish hit piece that isn't even worth consideration. My guess was that the real intention behind the piece was clearly to give the writer some publicity.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is a lot to be critical of Palin, but this kind of slam isn't worth the time it took you to link to it. I tried scanning the comments, looking for the HF sig, but there were so many replies, it amounted to searching for the elusive needle in the haystack.

[HammaTime]

Where have the fiscal conservatives gone? When I was young, we had a movement of like-minded folks who felt the key to sound fiscal policy was a conservative approach. Who couldn't support that? All of us certainly want leaders who guard our financial well being with the same vigilance that the military employs as they guard our shores.

As I look back over the past 8 years of this presidency, I'm stunned to count up all the financial disasters that have befallen our nation. No matter where you stand on the Iraq war, there is no denying that it has been a fiscal disaster for the United States on the highest order. It seems that at every turn, folks have been caught with their hands in the till, whether it was people like Chalabi, or our very own contractors, there were hundreds of documented cases where our hard-earned money was stolen from us. War profiteering suddenly seemed to be just one more line item in the budget, something we were forced to write-off.

I had family and friends who lived through the California Electricity Crisis, I watched in amazement as the very first electricity producers to face bankruptcy just happened to be all green power companies. It seemed as if someone was gaming the system and forcing alternative energy companies to go belly up. We now know that that someone was Enron, and their target wasn't just the alternative energy producers. Their true target was all of our wallets.

We all groan about $4 gas and $5 diesel, but have any of you heard a reasonable explanation as to why we are faced with these outrageous prices? Again, when I was a younger man, the mantra we heard about diesel costing less was because it required less refining. Today, diesel still takes less refining, but mysteriously it costs much more than gas. Why?? We are told that gas prices are a result of the free market system, that demand has been driving prices up. Yet, Hurricane Ike plows through the Texas refineries and takes major refineries off-line, demand spikes and somehow prices mysteriously GO DOWN. Why? Last summer, as demand allegedly soared, it was reported that U.S. refineries were experiencing an historical high level of idle time. They weren't working anywhere near capacity!

I'm starting to think that those of us who consider ourselves fiscal conservatives are simply chumps who are being played by the system.

I received a link to an article titled "Three Times is Enemy Action." Normally, I wouldn't share a link from the DailyKos, but I found this article to be an excellent summation of our current fiscal crisis. I post it here in the hopes that we can open up an indepth discussion over the major points of the article.

Robert, you rightly noted in a previous post that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed by a majority in Congress. To me, this illustrates the very problem that faces us all. We have a government that is no longer a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Instead, we have allowed leaders who claim to honor the fiscal conservative banner to work the back rooms of our governmental and fiscal institutions to line their own pockets. Whether it is Enron, Halliburton, Exxon or the banking industry, the equation seems to be the same, extract as much money from Americans as possible.

This article has left me feeling that we need substantive change in our country. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

This post has been edited by HammaTime: 09/21/08 11:05am