"ABC Panel tears into McCain"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
We should also go back to the last major economic scandal, the S&L bailouts, and ask who who were Keating Five? From wiki, the relevant quotes.

After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

All five of the senators involved served out their terms. Only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election, and they were both re-elected.

Now I ask, has McCain learned a damn thing since 1991, as he has championed de regulation, which is a good part of the root "poor judgment" that has allowed this bigger meltdown now. And since McCain is the last survivor of those five, is it not time to to make it a five of five clean sweep into the dustbin of history?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: bamacre
And please stop calling me a "conservative."

Excuse me, who has not yet spoken on this topic, but you were a politicallly coservative Republican (redundant, I know) before your conversion to Libertarianism.

LOL, if you know when this "conversion" took place, please let me know. :D

I never voted for Bush, and I haven't been happy with the Republican party for some time now.

Originally posted by: bamacre
Yeah, I guess you're right. I shouldn't over-expect, Obama is no different than anyone else. Hoping for some change just makes me naive, I suppose.

You say that sarcastically, but it is the core mistake of your political conversion to "Libertarianism."

You don't like this, because you somehow think that your simplistic and overblown response to the complexity of the modern world, which relies on less oversight rather than more, isn't a naive pipedream of those like you, who are converted Republican conservatives.

Ok, please stop assuming you know who I am and what I have been, because you likely have no idea.

You probably don't like the stereotype Christians often get these days, so let's not throw rocks. ;)

In this one respect, you are as naive and as backwards as McCain.

Ours is an inextricably interdependent world. You had better get used to it, or you will fall into the yahoo backwater of faux "rugged individualism" and retrograde "isolationism."

"From each according to his ability to each according to his need?"

No thank you!

The system that you Democrats and Republicans think you can keep propped up is in shambles. Both of your parties are spending money as if you can just print it up. ;)

We surely and truly don't need the idiot a priori interventionism of the "Bush Doctrine" -- it is sheer hubris and was a bloody, costly mistake -- but whether YOU like or not, our future is indeliably bound up in the world's future.

And the Left's interventionism is any better? I got news for you, it isn't. It's still murderous, it's still policing of the world, and it's still making us less safe at home.

China, still ruled at the top by committed and ideological communists, are the ones who will, without one whimper and in their own self-interest buy the treasury debt we are now about to loose on the world market; thanks to our mother-effing, near criminal, hewing to the retard Reagan and Republican banner of deregulation, which is akin to YOUR standard of smaller, laissez-faire federal government.

WHAT does that tell you about the present?

:laugh:

You have no idea how wrong you are. Your simplistic view of this situation shows your own "Party over Principle" mentality. The people "akin to MY standard" as you say, predicted this mess and have been trying to prevent this mess for some time. "WHAT does that tell you about the present? "

Please wake up and smell the past.

And your simplistic view of this financial crisis tells me you should take your own advice.

So, yeah, the Gold Standard, economic and political isolationism, AS IF! Hark back to the golden days of yore and get off my monetary and geopolitical lawn! :roll:

Yeah, because your federal reserve is doing such a wonderful job of managing the economy. :laugh:

You need to wake up, Perknose.

And I don't know why you bring up isolationism.

I'm no Obama fanboi, check my posts by date if you don't believe me.

But my future depends on your future, just as your future depends on my future; all of which is our future as a nation, and Obama is by far our nation's best practical choice.

Saying that Obama is a better choice than McCain isn't saying much at all.

But sorry, no, I will never vote for Obama. Nor McCain.

Like I have told Moonbeam, I will sit down and watch you all destroy the greatest country ever before I'll ever stand up and help you do it.

I can only hope intelligent people like yourself and Moonbeam will someday wake up and sit down next to us.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm worried about a guy who cares so much about winning and so little about his country ...

Oh please. Obama has changed his stance on a number of issues in order to increase his chance of winning.

Make no mistake, if any candidate wins anything, it is because he kicked his integrity to the curb.

Yawn. Stick to Ron Paul boards.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm worried about a guy who cares so much about winning and so little about his country ...

Oh please. Obama has changed his stance on a number of issues in order to increase his chance of winning.

Make no mistake, if any candidate wins anything, it is because he kicked his integrity to the curb.

Yawn. Stick to Ron Paul boards.

And you know where you can stick it.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm worried about a guy who cares so much about winning and so little about his country ...

Oh please. Obama has changed his stance on a number of issues in order to increase his chance of winning.

Make no mistake, if any candidate wins anything, it is because he kicked his integrity to the curb.

Yawn. Stick to Ron Paul boards.

And you know where you can stick it.

Meh. Your ish is so predictable it's sad. You like to parrot crap like "Ron Paul predicted this meltdown!" while ignoring he has been saying the the same shit about economic meltdowns and doom for the last 25 years. Your alternative candidate is worse than either Obama or McCain, because he doesn't live in the real world, and it has been delineated ad nauseum to you exactly why.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Meh. Your ish is so predictable it's sad. You like to parrot crap like "Ron Paul predicted this meltdown!" while ignoring he has been saying the the same shit about economic meltdowns and doom for the last 25 years.

And while the Fed has been able to delay the inevitable for a while, I must ask you, have you been watching the news lately? :confused:
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Meh. Your ish is so predictable it's sad. You like to parrot crap like "Ron Paul predicted this meltdown!" while ignoring he has been saying the the same shit about economic meltdowns and doom for the last 25 years.

And while the Fed has been able to delay the inevitable for a while, I must ask you, have you been watching the news lately? :confused:

you miss the point - if he's been screaming about the impeding doom for 25 years...well, sooner or later it's gonna happen, the economy always goes up and down.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Meh. Your ish is so predictable it's sad. You like to parrot crap like "Ron Paul predicted this meltdown!" while ignoring he has been saying the the same shit about economic meltdowns and doom for the last 25 years.

And while the Fed has been able to delay the inevitable for a while, I must ask you, have you been watching the news lately? :confused:

you miss the point - if he's been screaming about the impeding doom for 25 years...well, sooner or later it's gonna happen, the economy always goes up and down.

And you miss the point. If our government and the federal reserve could do what you all say, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

Up and down, yes. This isn't down, this is FUBAR'd.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,710
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
^LOL you can't even get your smear attacks straight bamacre. Obama said we need to "rethink" our policies on marijuana, not that we should outright de-criminalize it in our society. Like I said, there is nothing funnier than a conservative trying to debate politics on the issues. They are terrible.

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws,"

What part of that is confusing?

And please stop calling me a "conservative."

and what's your opinion on that?

I'm for full legalization. Do you think it would be good or bad?

Even my dad, who is 83 and is somewhat conservative, thinks is should be legal.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
^LOL you can't even get your smear attacks straight bamacre. Obama said we need to "rethink" our policies on marijuana, not that we should outright de-criminalize it in our society. Like I said, there is nothing funnier than a conservative trying to debate politics on the issues. They are terrible.

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws,"

What part of that is confusing?

And please stop calling me a "conservative."

and what's your opinion on that?

I'm for full legalization. Do you think it would be good or bad?

My position is to let the states decide.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,710
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
^LOL you can't even get your smear attacks straight bamacre. Obama said we need to "rethink" our policies on marijuana, not that we should outright de-criminalize it in our society. Like I said, there is nothing funnier than a conservative trying to debate politics on the issues. They are terrible.

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws,"

What part of that is confusing?

And please stop calling me a "conservative."

and what's your opinion on that?

I'm for full legalization. Do you think it would be good or bad?

My position is to let the states decide.

I think it should be treated like alcohol. Taxed and regulated.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,288
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm worried about a guy who cares so much about winning and so little about his country ...

Oh please. Obama has changed his stance on a number of issues in order to increase his chance of winning.

Make no mistake, if any candidate wins anything, it is because he kicked his integrity to the curb.

It's almost like everyone who runs for president has to choose governing positions that are centrist. Moreover, another breaking news flash is that people can compromise positions on some things they believe in order to enact policies that they consider to be more important.

Yeah, I guess you're right. I shouldn't over-expect, Obama is no different than anyone else. Hoping for some change just makes me naive, I suppose.

No, you should just realize that anyone who is expecting to get 51% of the votes in our country will attempt to appeal to 51% of the voters or more. People who appeal to 51% of the voters can certainly change things. You are one of those people whoever who think that if anyone abandons one of their values that they have sacrificed their integrity, which is obviously false.

You can keep rooting for your pie in the sky candidates as long as you want. Just don't expect to be able to marshal enough voters for it to matter. (and I'll give you a hint: the problem isn't with the electorate, it's with you.)
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,782
6,339
126
The Gold Standard or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with this crisis.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: bamacre

And you miss the point. If our government and the federal reserve could do what you all say, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

No, sorry, that's a false choice by a layman economist. If you can come up with specific solutions you would have proposed, by all means list them here. We all know you won't.

Up and down, yes. This isn't down, this is FUBAR'd.

The stats say you're utterly clueless.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Originally posted by: JTsyo
Something I wondered after watching McCain in the RNC, does he have some health issue with his shoulders? It seemed like he couldn't lift his hands above his head.

Actually he does. Due to injuries sustained while a POW he can't lift his arms above his head.

 

Wulfgang

Junior Member
Sep 22, 2008
1
0
0
So, yeah, the Gold Standard, economic and political isolationism, AS IF!

Ever heard of going forward in reverse? How about this quote circa 1776:

"Split with the British empire!? AS IF!"

And how's that global economy working our for Americans?

"The growth of U.S. trade with China since China entered the World Trade Organization in 2001 has had a devastating effect on U.S. workers and the domestic economy. Between 2001 and 2007 2.3 million jobs were lost or displaced, including 366,000 in 2007 alone. New demographic research shows that, even when re-employed in non-traded industries, the 2.3 million workers displaced by the increase in China trade deficits in this period have lost an average $8,146 per worker/year. In 2007, these losses totalled $19.4 billion."
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp219

And,

"A fact sheet released by Treasury officials Saturday evening, meant to answer questions about the most ambitious financial markets intervention in our nation?s history, has instead provided a rallying point for those who say the Paulson plan is a bad idea.

In particular, a section of the fact sheet suggests that U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook for the bailout of foreign corporations as well as those in the U.S. ? a significant change from the language sent to Congress in the Treasury?s original proposal.

?Participating financial institutions must have significant operations in the U.S., unless the Secretary makes a determination, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that broader eligibility is necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets,? read the fact sheet.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13690.html

But I guess we just have to accept this because, hey, it's 2008 and global everything is in, man.

Now, had you rolled your dollars into gold a few years ago you'd be looking at around 30% ROI. Put another way, had we stayed on the gold standard a gallon of gas would be right around $1.70 presently.

What an anachronistic bunch of nonsense, huh?

And why oh why do people have such a problem distinguishing between isolationism and non-intervention? As if my not jumping into every argument my neighbor and his wife have makes me a nieghborhood isolationist.

AS IF!
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Modelworks
I am concerned about his age.
Have you seen how fast the office of President ages people.
It is like the position comes with the power to leech years off a life.
ABC has a slideshow showing the changes:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightlin...x=1&start=false&page=1

8 years of natural aging combined with comparing their best "young" photos with their worst "old" photos?
Yeah I think that link is fail. They look about 8 years older to me.

Anyway, I do think mccain is too old. He's clearly lacking in the intellectual speed the office should demand.

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Ron Paul may well be accurately warning of an iceberg for the Titanic.

But his policy is to get rid of the Captain and crew and let the passengers run it.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Here's some interesting thoughts on going back to the gold standard. Click on the link to see the graphs.

Basically it would be a big mistake.

http://www.econbrowser.com/arc...2/the_gold_standa.html
The gold standard and the Great Depression
How the gold standard contributed to the Great Depression.

There always seem to be voices raising the possibility that a return to a monetary gold standard could solve all our problems. Among those championing this meme this week were Chris Mayer at Daily Reckoning, Robert Blumen at Mises Economics Blog, and some of my fellow blogjammers.

Under a pure gold standard, the government would stand ready to trade dollars for gold at a fixed rate. Under such a monetary rule, it seems the dollar is "as good as gold."

Except that it really isn't-- the dollar is only as good as the government's credibility to stick with the standard. If a government can go on a gold standard, it can go off, and historically countries have done exactly that all the time. The fact that speculators know this means that any currency adhering to a gold standard (or, in more modern times, a fixed exchange rate) may be subject to a speculative attack.

After suspending gold convertibility in World War I, many countries stayed off gold and experienced chaotic fiscal and monetary policies in the early 1920's. Many observers reasoned then, just as many observers reason today, that the only way to restore fiscal and monetary responsibility would be to go back on gold, and by the end of the 1920's, most countries had returned to the gold standard.

I argued in a paper titled, "The Role of the International Gold Standard in Propagating the Great Depression," published in Contemporary Policy Issues in 1988, that counting on a gold standard to enforce monetary and fiscal discipline in an environment in which speculators had great doubts about governments' ability to adhere to that discipline was a recipe for disaster. International capital flows became more erratic, not less, as doubts were raised about whether first the pound would be devalued and then the dollar. Britain gave in to the speculative attacks and abandoned gold in 1931, whereas the U.S. toughed it out by deliberately raising interest rates in 1931 at a time when the economy was already near free fall.

Because of this uncertainty, there was a big increase in demand for gold, the one safe asset in this setting, which meant the relative price of gold must rise. If everybody is trying to hoard more gold, you're going to have to pay more potatoes to get an ounce of gold. Since the U.S. insisted on holding the dollar price of gold fixed, this meant that the dollar price of potatoes had to fall. The longer a country stayed on the gold standard, the more overall deflation it experienced. Many of us are persuaded that this deflation greatly added to the economic difficulties of those countries that insisted on sticking with a fixed value of their currency in terms of gold.


Ben Bernanke and Harold James, in a paper called "The Gold Standard, Deflation, and Financial Crisis in the Great Depression: An International Comparison" published in 1991 (NBER working paper version here), noted that 13 other countries besides the U.K. had decided to abandon their currencies' gold parity in 1931. Bernanke and James' data for the average growth rate of industrial production for these countries (plotted in the top panel above) was positive in every year from 1932 on. Countries that stayed on gold, by contrast, experienced an average output decline of 15% in 1932. The U.S. abandoned gold in 1933, after which its dramatic recovery immediately began. The same happened after Italy dropped the gold standard in 1934, and for Belgium when it went off in 1935. On the other hand, the three countries that stuck with gold through 1936 (France, Netherlands, and Poland) saw a 6% drop in industrial production in 1935, while the rest of the world was experiencing solid growth.

A gold standard only works when everybody believes in the overall fiscal and monetary responsibility of the major world governments and the relative price of gold is fairly stable. And yet a lack of such faith was the precise reason the world returned to gold in the late 1920's and the reason many argue for a return to gold today. Saying you're on a gold standard does not suddenly make you credible. But it does set you up for some ferocious problems if people still doubt whether you've set your house in order.

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Ron Paul may well be accurately warning of an iceberg for the Titanic.

But his policy is to get rid of the Captain and crew and let the passengers run it.
Poignant and I agree, he sees the problem but I don't know about the solution.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Craig234
Ron Paul may well be accurately warning of an iceberg for the Titanic.

But his policy is to get rid of the Captain and crew and let the passengers run it.
Poignant and I agree, he sees the problem but I don't know about the solution.

No, it's a bad analogy.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Here's some interesting thoughts on going back to the gold standard. Click on the link to see the graphs.

Basically it would be a big mistake.

http://www.econbrowser.com/arc...2/the_gold_standa.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard184.html

I stopped after www.lewrockwell - he's just another hack for Ron Paul who follows the Ludwig Von Missus school. Another anarchist. Show us some mainstream economist who advise going back to the gold standard.


 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Here's some interesting thoughts on going back to the gold standard. Click on the link to see the graphs.

Basically it would be a big mistake.

http://www.econbrowser.com/arc...2/the_gold_standa.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard184.html

I stopped after www.lewrockwell - he's just another hack for Ron Paul who follows the Ludwig Von Missus school. Another anarchist. Show us some mainstream economist who advise going back to the gold standard.

Limit your scope, limit your findings. The piece isn't even by Rockwell, it's by Rothbard.