karn wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

karn wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

karn wrote:Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist.

This is pure unadulterated Kool Aid.

See my above post

When you tie to unlikes together and present a conclusion - I don't get it, your math doens't make sense.

Believing someone is or is not qualified to do a job has no relation to their race that I can percieve, yet you link them nonchalantly. Once you make the link you then conclude that if one doesn't agree that Obama is mature and qualified they must be a racist.

This makes no sense to me. Is the flip side also true, that if one is not a racist they must recognize the not-like-me as de facto qualified? What if someone is evaluating the qualifications and maturity of a person that shares their own race?

I made that conclusion because I don't think there is any way a strong argument could be fashioned that contends Obama to not be qualified (which I believe does supercede experience, being of the best-person-for-the-job conviction in all cases entirely). Hence, only personal prejudice could forgo someone, at the very least, to agree that he's qualified. Whether or not he's the best qualified is a decision that can be based on broader considerations including experience.

Each person does represent a separate case, but when clearly qualified persons -regardless of age, race, or gender- are being held up as unqualified for something as specious and arbitrary as 'lack of experience', it will always suggest to me some kind of prejudice- which can just as equally be gender-biased, ageist, or even anti-intellectual in its nature.

But the responsible parties in Congress were moving the administration towards compromise, and it appeared that legislation that includes meaningfully addressing the underlying problem of home and asset values was very close. The last minute proposal by the defecting Republicans has, however, essentially put the discussion back to square one. That is a huge problem.

Also, the new proposal would be absolutely, totally and completely ineffective. Details are scarce at this point, but if reports are to be believed, its central components are:

1. Tax cuts for the rich and corporations (surprise!)
2. Insurance for mortgage-backed securities
3. Deregulation (sound familiar?)

Why each of these components would be ineffective is discussed below.

Tax Cuts

The phrase “breathtakingly hairbrained” comes to mind when considering the apparent tax cut proposal. We know that for the group authoring this proposal, tax cuts for the rich and corporations are the answer to every problem. But even the administration, which has relentlessly imposed that agenda for eight years, has recognized that the well was dry on that front for this crisis. But it gets worse. Not only is this another tax cut for the rich, it appears to be one that is dead-aimed at doing much more harm than good — abolishing the tax on capital gains.

Capital gains are the profits that investors make from the sale of assets. There are many reasons why eliminating the tax on these profits is a bad idea. But one of them shines above the rest at this particular juncture. The reason capital is not flowing into the market isn’t that investors are thinking “I don’t want to buy this asset, because if I make money on it I’ll eventually have to pay tax.” They’re not investing because they don’t think they’ll make money. In fact, if the tax on capital gains is affecting behavior at all right now it’s keeping investors from bailing out on a rotten market (because they don’t want to pay tax on their gains). Zeroing out the tax (especially zeroing it out temporarily as at least one senator has proposed) would cause an absolute fire sale on the market—with capital jumping at the opportunity to get out at no tax cost.

Mortgage Backed Security Insurance

The idea of insuring mortgage backed securities almost seems like a cynical ploy to pretend to be doing something when actually doing nothing. The idea is that the government would sell holders of mortgage backed securities insurance against losses—and that it would charge such premiums that the government wouldn’t lose money on the deal. That’s akin to selling homeowners insurance in New Orleans after the dikes broke. To actually not lose money the government would have to charge such high premiums that no one would buy the insurance. The only ones who might be willing to pay are those with the worst assets — so it’s hard to see how the government (and taxpayers) doesn’t lose on the deal.

Deregulation

What they propose on deregulation isn’t clear, but the fact that they’re even still talking about “deregulation” when it was slipshod regulatory oversight that got us into this mess shows a profound misunderstanding of what’s going on. One rumored target is the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations which, in fact, impose accountability on Wall Street — not something we want to do away with right now.

There’s also an accounting rule change that’s on the table. It would temporarily change the way holders of securities value their assets on their books: moving from using the asset’s current market value to a value based on what the holders claim the asset will be worth in the future (or alternatively a moving average which includes their value in the past). While looking at the longer-run value of assets can be useful for some purposes, changing the rules right now, in the middle of the crisis, is more likely to deceive or confuse investors than enlighten them–which is the last thing we need.

seke2 wrote:

Woody wrote:I'm going to the zoo and punching an elephant

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

seke2 wrote:

I assumed this was a joke but my roommate is telling me it's really paid for by McCain? He's crazy, right?

Woody wrote:I mean, that stuff floppy posted is a joke right

FTN wrote:

Woody wrote:I mean, that stuff floppy posted is a joke right

The gap between the top 1% of this country and everyone else can NEVER be big enough. Any chance to widen is welcomed, and certainly part of the solution.

Camp Holdout wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

seke2 wrote:

I assumed this was a joke but my roommate is telling me it's really paid for by McCain? He's crazy, right?

do you know what site is hosting it? i wanna see it in action.

meatball wrote:It'll trickle down to you, man. Wait for the trickle!

meatball wrote:

FTN wrote:

Woody wrote:I mean, that stuff floppy posted is a joke right

The gap between the top 1% of this country and everyone else can NEVER be big enough. Any chance to widen is welcomed, and certainly part of the solution.

It'll trickle down to you, man. Wait for the trickle!

jerseyhoya wrote:

seke2 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:The argument against Obama of inexperience is as flimsy as the one that the American president should be picked independent of international consideration, given the extent globalization has impacted economic and political process and policy.

There's inexperience and there's lack of qualification. Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist. By the same measure, anyone who does see Palin as a qualified and capable candidate is most likely not a critical thinker.

Perhaps you can argue how exactly we Americans are better off when we listen to what foreign citizens would prefer? It's not inherently obvious to me, especially when speaking in generalities, why the preference of France's or any other country's population is what's best for the US citizenry. Wouldn't any other country not strongly allied with our foreign policy objectives want the wussiest President on the ballot to be elected?

I guess my perspective is one that it is more mutually beneficial for the US to have a leader who is better for the world in general. A big part of that is the world's willingness to cooperate with us. I guess in a way I sort of look at it as a global prisoner's dilemma. Picking Obama is our method of "cooperating" with the rest of the world in a way that I feel is likely to benefit both us and the rest of the world.

I guess I also value the overall quality of life for the world more than I value the quality of life for the USA, so I suppose that's part of why I "care" about the the rest of the world's opinion on who we elect.

Oh please. Like people who are voting for McCain don't think he'll be better for the world as a whole as well. Just because some dumb $#@! in Germany or whatever thinks Obama will be better for the world doesn't mean he would be.