Moneychangers rule the economy
As the market collapses, notice that banks that are
subject to regulation remain healthy, with plenty of capital reserves to meet
customer demands. Those without regulations need bailout with taxpayer money.
This is the result of YEARS of deregulation.
In other words, they let the money
changers run the country.
McCain throughout the last decade described himself
as opposed to regulation.
A Christian Liberal Perspective 
Different kinds of regulation. Actually regulation means the government has more control, which is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So, if anything, Fannie and Freddie have more regulation than others.
If you are talking about rules and safeguards, yeah they definitely don’t abide by it.
If we privatize it, we would deregulate it, and release government control. That’s what we need. We want deregulation. Years of this kind of regulation has led to this economic crisis.
So, I just wanted to clarify that this is taking out of context what regulation is, when it comes to politics.
thecoltblog said this on September 17, 2008 at 8:58 pm |
True, Colt, but sometimes that control is needed. The GOP mantra was to deregulate and the market itself would set limits and prevent abuses. Unfortunately it has not worked.
It’s like letting the loggers cut whatever trees they want, anywhere, any time, without regard to watersheds, habitat, or sound forest management, then “trusting” in the moneychangers to regulate themselves. Too many are willing to clear-cut every tree in the forest for short-term cash. The same kind of thing happened int he financial sector, and now we see how greed and profit above all else has ruined this crucial service.
christianliberal said this on September 18, 2008 at 8:34 am |
What deregulation policy was put in place by GOP that led to this turmoil in the financial markets? Once again, give me something substantial in order to convince me. Otherwise, it sounds like you might be confused on what regulation actually is.
And I don’t even know what to reply about the trees. That comparison is not really working for me.
thecoltblog said this on September 18, 2008 at 9:08 am |
When, exactly, did McCain promise to send your children to war?
kolchak33 said this on September 18, 2008 at 7:23 pm |
McCain has a long history as a war hawk.
He wanted to send 450,000 troops into Iraq.
His POW experience has molded his thinking into favoring the use of force in conflict resolution.
He is on record as supporting staying in Iraq “for 100 years.”
Check this out:
christianliberal said this on September 19, 2008 at 7:18 am |
The current Wall Street crisis can be traced back to greed and profit-motivation, as exemplified in the GOP push toward de-regulation. Phil Gramm was a primary architect of CHANGING the regulations that kept banks solvent. Yes, the same Phil Gramm is now economic adviser to John McCain.
From:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5850226.html
As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Gramm was instrumental in pushing major banking deregulation in 1999 that critics say has contributed to the current mortgage crisis.
The bank deregulation law, known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, was the most important update in banking laws since the New Deal. Its most important feature: breaking down walls between commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies.
Gramm’s critics say the deregulation of commercial banks contained in the law made it easier for banks to push risky subprime mortgages on lower-income customers.
christianliberal said this on September 19, 2008 at 7:27 am |
1) You didn’t answer my question. I asked when he said he’d send your kids to war, which is what you alleged.
2) As far as staying in Iraq for 100 years, If you actually look at the entire clip (something liberals tend to constantly overlook), It’s pretty clear what the context is. He was referring to the fact that we might have a presence there for a long time, much like in: Bosnia, South Korea, Japan, or Germany. Wherever we go militarily, we usually keep small numbers there. The point was making sure that it’s stable and stopping the casualties.
Try not to guttersnipe.
kolchak33 said this on September 19, 2008 at 9:12 am |
Sorry if I seem stubborn, but that is war in my book. It takes our young people and puts them in harms way for Bush’s oil buddies.
Just not worth it in my book. Sure war is necessary sometimes, but there is a tendency lately, personified by Bush, Cheney, and McCain to go to war at the drop of a hat. McCain was for massive war with Iraq, requesting 450,000 troops. In other words, he’s more for war then Bush is.
christianliberal said this on September 19, 2008 at 10:50 am |
So…according to your belief system…we’re currently at war with Germany?
McCain requested that many troops because he knew that was the only way to win. Bush ignored it, we struggled for a good long time. Then comes the surge (McCain’s original proposal) and then suddenly the tide is turned in Iraq (even Obama admits it). It’s the way we should have gone in the first place.
kolchak33 said this on September 19, 2008 at 11:26 am |
I HALF agree with you. If we were to go in to Iraq at all, we should have done it right, with the 450,000 troops that almost all the generals and analysts said we would need. Bush fired the military leaders who didn’t agree with him.
Trouble is, the reasoning to go to war in the first place was stupendously wrong. Bush/Cheney knew it was a farce, so to placate the critics they tried to low-ball the troop estimates. What happened? Massive looting, chaos, civil war, porous borders – in a nutshell, a quagmire.
No, we are not at war with Germany.
Out troops in Iraq WOULD be in danger of getting caught in their civil war – and for WHAT? Bush’s oil buddies. NOT worth it.
christianliberal said this on September 19, 2008 at 11:45 am |
Okay but that’s a completely different argument. At the time we were going in either way and McCain warned that if we didn’t go in with a bigger push we’d risk not winning and that’s exactly what happened.
Everyone thought Iraq had WMDs for good reason: Saddam wanted us to. Even his top military officials were being told that they still had weapons, this was only exacerbated by him not letting weapons inspectors in. Nobody is to blame for the faulty intelligence.
Our troops in South Korea are in danger as well and I don’t see you whining. Maybe they don’t mean as much? After the violence is quelled we always leave a small group of troops behind. Likewise, there is always a chance of some sort of violence reigniting.
It’s not like they’re going to be running around in the front lines of this “civil war”, which, I might add, is completely speculation from you. There’s no evidence of an impending war and if there was the Iraqi military have made huge strides since we began training them. We already handed over the Anbar province to them.
The idea we went to Iraq for oil is looney. If we wanted oil we’d probably go for the 4.3 billion barrels in N. Dakota; Montana.
kolchak33 said this on September 19, 2008 at 12:02 pm |
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/17/nation/na-oil17
“The Iraq war is largely about oil,” former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his new book – an assertion disputed by lawmakers and the U.S. Defense secretary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/palin-iraq-is-a-war-for-o_n_122876.html
In a recent BusinessWeek interview, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) admitted that she believes the Iraq war was fought because of oil:
christianliberal said this on September 19, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
You mean the same Alan Greenspan that’s endorsing John McCain?
The man’s an economic genius, not a foreign policy expert. And he certainly didn’t have any insight into the goings on in the white house when we shaped our invasion.
Sarah Palin, by her own admission, isn’t exactly well versed on foreign policy either.
kolchak33 said this on September 19, 2008 at 3:56 pm |