dajafi wrote:

Woody wrote:

WARREN, Ohio (CNN) – Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO turned John McCain Victory chair, said Tuesday that Sarah Palin isn’t qualified to run her old company.

Appearing on a KTRS Radio show in St. Louis, Fiorina was asked by the host, “Do you think she has the experience to run a major company like Hewlett Packard?”

“No, I don’t,” Fiorina answered. “But that’s not what she’s running for. Running a corporation is a different set of things."

Apparently she's added to this by saying that Biden, Obama and even McCain couldn't serve as a CEO either.

Someone remind me how Fiorina herself did in that gig?

During her tenure, the market halved HP’s value and the company incurred heavy job losses

mpmcgraw wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Typically, what you call "systemic change" leads a lot of people to the guillotine and the gulag.

Or a New Constitutional Congress, remember that first one turned out ok, nto to mention Bastille etc...

Do the articles of Confederation ring a bell ding dong?

pacino wrote:FWIW, am I the only one that thinks Michelle Obama > Sarah Palin in the looks department?

Woody wrote:Al Gore:internets::McCain:Crackberries

(CNN) – McCain senior domestic policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said Tuesday the BlackBerry mobile e-mail device was a “miracle that John McCain helped create.”

...

He added, though, that McCain — who has struggled to stress his economic credentials this cycle — did have experience dealing with the economy, pointing to his time on the Senate Commerce Committee. Pressed to provide an example of what McCain had accomplished on that committee, Holtz-Eakin said the senator did not have jurisdiction over financial markets — then held up his Blackberry, telling reporters: “He did this.”

Philly the Kid wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Typically, what you call "systemic change" leads a lot of people to the guillotine and the gulag.

Or a New Constitutional Congress, remember that first one turned out ok, nto to mention Bastille etc...

Do the articles of Confederation ring a bell ding dong?

Listen Quickdraw, you are good at being a punk. I don't really see you with any substantial analysis? What books have you read? What are your views?? You seem to think highly of yourself -- show us some of your concepts and solutions for improving things??

pacino wrote:RIM is a Canadian company, right?

drsmooth wrote:

pacino wrote:RIM is a Canadian company, right?

yes - but....

the aide's idea was McCain had something to do with creating a regulatory environment amenable to mobile devices.

That sort of technopomorphization seldom goes well for pols of any persuasion, but they keep trying it

TenuredVulture wrote:I think much like casual football fans over-state the importance of the quarterback (heh, heh, Jets favored over the Pats) people put too much emphasis on the role of federal policy in the economy. Especially in a global market, there ability of governments to intervene is rather more limited than people think. We can attribute some of these problems to poor regulation, but not all. And the problem with regulated financial markets is that it's always a moving target. The compexities are enormous, and you've got moral hazards and unintended consequences galore. It's like a high pressure hose spraying water all over the place--you can try to grab it, but you're going to get wet.

Actually, it's more like trying to grab a dozen high pressure hoses all going crazy at the same time.

FTN wrote:and your signature makes my brain hurt.

mpmcgraw wrote:That sounds like a bad idea.

mpmcgraw wrote:I read enough to know that our current constitution was not our first constitution.

What analysis do you provide? You spew utter nonsense, challenge us to prove you wrong, and then provide a link to a random blog that more likely than not does not even address your point when you are called on it.

The biggest lol in all of this is you always talking about respecting the constitution and then calling for a new $#@! constitutional convention.

FTN wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:That sounds like a bad idea.

so is giving 30 year mortgages to people who cant afford them

Laexile wrote:If they can't afford them, why are they taking them out in the first place? People want to blame the banks for trying to make a quick buck, but don't the people who took out the loans also share in the responsibility for the financial collapse? I know everyone wants to blame corporate greed, but there was enough greed to go around. There were a lot of people envious of those whose home values were increasing and wanted their share for free.

People want to blame Republican government deregulation but it was Clinton administration budget director Franklin Raines running Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae's CEO was Jim Johnson, who was part of Barack Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee. Barney Frank has been a huge proponent of government having hands off the companies. But let's blame the Republicans. We know it was their fault.

The solutions favored by Ron Paul is to let companies who are failing fail. This will create a big financial downturn and put a lot of people out of work. The alternative is propping up failing companies. It's unlikely the companies will succeed, so the government is pouring good money after bad. This solution is rarely successful long term. Saving Bear Stearns, Fannie, Freddie, and others may slow a financial crisis, but it's unlikely to prevent it.

FTN wrote:

Laexile wrote:If they can't afford them, why are they taking them out in the first place? People want to blame the banks for trying to make a quick buck, but don't the people who took out the loans also share in the responsibility for the financial collapse? I know everyone wants to blame corporate greed, but there was enough greed to go around. There were a lot of people envious of those whose home values were increasing and wanted their share for free.

Point to where I indicated that its not the fault of people. Its my belief that we're nearing the bottom in terms of common sense and practicality across society. I think you have an entire generation living above their means. But it doesn't mean that banks weren't at fault. Its like a child who wants to eat nothing but sweet tarts for dinner. Could they? Sure. But its their parents' job to say "um, no, thats not going to work". I can go into a bank and ask to borrow 500,000 for a house. The bank could give me that money. They can do whatever they want. But someone needs to tell the bank "um, no, thats not going to work". The problem is, everyone in this country, especially in the financial sector, got too comfortable taking inordinate amounts of risk.

People want to blame Republican government deregulation but it was Clinton administration budget director Franklin Raines running Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae's CEO was Jim Johnson, who was part of Barack Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee. Barney Frank has been a huge proponent of government having hands off the companies. But let's blame the Republicans. We know it was their fault.

You're a partisan hack. I never blamed the Republicans for this mess. I blamed Bush and Paulsen for not having a strategy that could be applied across the board. Bail out these guys, but now say we're not bailing out anyone else. What kind of strategy is that?

The solutions favored by Ron Paul is to let companies who are failing fail. This will create a big financial downturn and put a lot of people out of work. The alternative is propping up failing companies. It's unlikely the companies will succeed, so the government is pouring good money after bad. This solution is rarely successful long term. Saving Bear Stearns, Fannie, Freddie, and others may slow a financial crisis, but it's unlikely to prevent it.

We're not talking about "just a few companies", we're talking about an entire sector (and a big one) of world economy. AIG is the 18th largest corporation in the world. Read that three times, real slow. You cannot let a company like that fail. They have so many enterprises, and are counted on by too many people. You just can't.

I'm afraid that in your partisan hackery, you've missed the entire point. This isn't something that happened yesterday, or even 8 years ago. This is a fundamental problem that goes back decades. The oversight on these companies is awful. These companies are filing for bankruptcy, analysts are estimating what bad marks they have on their books, then they see the real books, and its 100x worse. There needs to be transparency, and until the government steps in, these companies are going to say as little as they have to. And I haven't even got into the speculation aspect of the market, which needs to be massively regulated.

This isn't really a "big government v small government" argument. This is about common sense and protecting the average person.