Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Is Good News for Obama

one4REALchange — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:01:18 GMT

This campaign season is historical in its ability to inspire and mobilize younger generations to involve themselves in politics and regain a pride in their country.

“At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a momentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.” Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic

I understand why McCain would want to seize Obama’s slogan of Change; it is innovative, inspiring, forward thinking, and it works.

“McCain is grounding his message of political transformation in the guise of personal character and biography.”

The maverick that John McCain was, is no more – that was history. We need to move forward, to look forward to real change.

The RNC campaign is all about personalities. They have no substance, no foundation, they have nothing to stand for, therefore they can only attack, and distract from the fundamental issues that the American people want to hear addressed.

Palin also is not an agent of change; I quote a commentary referring to her as a “trojan moose hiding a potential disaster of four more years.” Indeed she is the lipstick (distraction) on the pig (McCain’s failed policies). She is McCain’s Bridge to Distraction.

“America, we are better than these last eight years! This election is our chance to revive and relive the American promise that ordinary Americans can pursue and reach their dreams.” 

Obama’s campaign has been premised from the start that we need a fundamental change in government. This is what Obama's campaign is all about. Real change, not just rhetoric.

Focus on Obama"s inspiration and leadership to take us into real change.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Is Good News for Obama

quasqueton — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:59:56 GMT

Very nice article. And yes, what it Obama going to change???

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Is Good News for Obama

garnetgal11 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:43:09 GMT

Obama has talked about the economy since he started his campaign. Maybe the media is not listening, prefering to write and talk about 'lipstick on pigs' etc. etc. He has talked about getting the economy moving by providing jobs in the energy field, and in rebuilding the infrastructure, by finding new energy so we can break off our reliance on foreign oil. He has also said he would provide tax incentives for small businesses and persuade the auto makers to start building cars that burn less fuel, asp, not twenty years from now. What made the economy work under Clinton was mostly due to full employment, people able to afford new houses, cars, furniture groceries and gas. That's what makes this country prosper, jobs, jobs and more jobs. Once again, its the economy, stupid!!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Is Good News for Obama

DHeath — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:23:38 GMT

This headline almost writes itself. McCain and Bloomberg both suggest causing a run on the bank isn't leadership. Convincing our foreign investors America is on the ropes is a self-fulfilling prophecy. McCain will claim Obama is giving up on America, and that our can do spirit will prevail despite his panic.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Obama Drama — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:57:39 GMT

Obama will be busy giving all those tax breaks to all those groups he keeps promising tham to. He has no clue -

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Obama Drama — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:58:23 GMT

We nee Sahah in there -

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

breitk — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:18:37 GMT

This is not good news for the Chocolate Jesus. He and Biden helped create this mess and he wants to blame it on George Bush (who is not running for re-election) and link McCain to Bush. To say that McCain and Bush are the same doesn't make sense since McCain didn't go along with Bush on everything. Obama has no clue and to prove it just look at the attacks on the vp selection of McCain. When the presidential candidate of one party attacks the #2 of the other party you show that you have no leadership abilities. Just remember the Dems selected a former community organizer with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

sunshineannmarie — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:39:31 GMT

Excellent comments one4REALchange.

Most of the bloggers are only see the colour of the skin.

Wonder what we would do if we found out that God is multicoloured.

Just my views as a mixed race person.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

myview12 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:48:08 GMT

Obama has been talking about the financial crisis that is upon us for the past year and how regulation of the forces that control these entities need to be shored up. McCain has always been against regulation just as the Bush Administration, and has walked lock step with the Administration on deregulation of the financial markets. This is the comparison of the "McCain is more of the same" concept of Obama. Now we will see the complete about face of McCain to convince the American public that he has been for regulation of the financial markets all the time. Lies, lies and more lies. He is part of the problem, and not part of the solution and I hope that the America will see through his ruse.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

mychoice — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:52:37 GMT

John McCain has demonstrated his lack of judgement and poor temperment for being president. For months he pounded Obama for not having foreign policy experience, and demanding that he go to Iraq since he hadn't been there for 6 years. He said his top priority in choosing a VP was that person was qualified and ready to assume the presidency. He then discounted everything he had said and choose a person for political expediency. Hoping to capture the disgruntled Hillary supporters, he choose a person he didn't know, didn't have vetted, but simply because she was a woman and pro-life. The way he made this choice should give everyone serious pause in voting for him, and serious concern for how he would handle the serious situations facing our country, expecially with the pending financial collapse. He has put personal ambition over Country First as he has proclaimed. Looking at his actions is a frightening prospect for our future. Everyone is saying how he has lied, and is no longer the John McCain of honesty, honor and straight talk. His actions have proven this to be true. We need someone who is smart and who really cares about this country and the American people. We need Barack Obama, and I pray that people will wake up and vote their own and this countries best interest rather than their bias and opinions of petty issues. Our entire country and American way of life is at stake. Wake Up America!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

bwlear — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:30:01 GMT

Jeffrey Sachs, a renowned economist and special adviser to the U.N. secretary-general, said he blames the Bush administration for "ignoring the economy" and the Fed for increased deregulation.

Sachs said he thinks Obama's plan is "closer" to being on target, with his calls for regulation. McCain also has started talking about increased regulation, but Sachs said McCain has "reinvented himself in the last 24 hours" with such talk.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Karenn1 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:30:01 GMT

Well McCain removed the lipstick on his economic plans. Meltdown,job loss, boy this is a BIG PIG.Bacon for everyone.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

C. MacLean — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:32:40 GMT

Unfotunately, anything that fuels fear helps republicans, not democrats.

Republicans do best when they can inflame peoples' fears - the democrats do best when they can elevate peoples' hopes.

Right now, with the economy tanking, it is easy for republicans to play the blame game - it's the trade imbalance with the Chinese, it's the immigrants encroaching our tax revenues, it's the jihadists stealing our oil, it's the damn Russians being Russians.

The democrats are left trying to convince us they can fix the problems - a tall order given the complexities.

The fear and blame game is easier.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

vstillwell — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:36:01 GMT

It's sad that the electorate has to be slapped across the face for it to wake up to what's really important. I swear the electorate's civics IQ is lower now than in previous generations. I can't believe people take these stupid stupid stupid Republican ads seriously. It's a disgrace! You dumb ass Republicans won't be happy until we're all living under and damn theocracy. If you can't figure out what that means, here's the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary: "A government ruled by or subject to religious authority". Morons!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

cobalt6 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:45:48 GMT

This won't help Obama it just will make people realize his inexperience more!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

mariadcruze — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:51:37 GMT

mcain is a idiot he is worse than bush. mcain and palin are liars! Obama/biden is the change we need in washington.

obama 08,12

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

vstillwell — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:52:45 GMT

Hey, check out McPalin's health care plan. Another disaster from the far right. Keep the good ideas coming. We love disasters. It's fun watching people suffer. Especially our own citizens.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

mariadcruze — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:54:34 GMT

This will make people realize what a idiot mcain and bush are who got us in this mess in the first place. You dont need experience to become president but good judgement. Mcain doesnt have good judgement he will die and we will be left with another idiot for president sarah palin, and it will ge worse. Obama 08,12

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

bobbiewick — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:55:45 GMT

I think we need an experienced person to deal with our many present crises. This is no time to put a newcomer -- with only half a senate term under his belt -- in charge.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

cobalt6 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:58:24 GMT

Great Video Must See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJiBDu5gWtc

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Mike in Sac — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:09:35 GMT

What about this guy, McCain's, temper and unreasonable nature? Isn't that fair game? Why not hit him on that point? He really is a hot head.

Why isn't Obama hitting McCain on Veteran's issues? If he won't support them then how can we expect him to do anything for anybody else?

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

edweirdness — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:18:42 GMT

If I had to guess, Candidate Obama doesn't want to anounce what he would do differently than McCain, primarily because it whould shoot his campaign financing in the foot. It's been noted elsewhere that Candidate Obama was the recepient of the most dollars contributed by Fannie and Freddie Mac connected sources and individuals. He's already receiving bundles of cash from the legal community, specifically those Lawyers with a stake in tort law and corporate law. Candidate Obama would rather piss off Hollywood, rather than take a position on how he'd deal with the financial meltdown on Wall Street. Neither candidate is prepared to do what we, the people, recognize will be necessary to clean things up in the investment world. With the White House and Congress controlled by different party;s, I'd wager our chances of seeing anymore "pro Wall street, screw Main street" legislation getting passed, will decline precipitously. A veto proof margin, given partisan self interest, sounds gangerously misguided. Particularly now that it appears that neither party is listening to what we, the people, have to say!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

kcjc — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:25:50 GMT

The economy he is talking about includes Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and Senator Obama you have received 6X the amount of contributions from them. Sarah Palin gets it too. Remember when you point your finger, three others are pointing back at you!!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Iota1963 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:30:06 GMT

It won't matter. John McCain's father has a U.S. Navy Destroyer named after him. Senator McCain has 9 homes and a private jet. Barack Obama was raised by a single mother who was on food stamps. Barack Obama just paid off his school loans 4 years ago.

Even with that, John McCain has labeled Barack Obama an "elitist".

Republicans know they simply have to wrap themselves in the flag and appeal to Walmart Moms and NASCAR Dads while not doing anything to improve their standard of living. When Americans start dying in Georgia or the Ukraine, remember thats what you guys signed up for.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Sandra S — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:32:33 GMT

This is no time to put a good old boy in heels with less than a total of 3 years experience in anything and a BA in Journalist, or an ellitist who is out of touch with the American people, who can't remember how many houses he has and whose wife flaunts $300,000 outfits to the middle class. These peoplea re laughing at you. Obama is a brilliant man and is aware of all the issues confronting AMerican today.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

jefflz — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:49:25 GMT

McCain has launched the DoubleTalk Express and Sarah Palin is at the wheel of this bus. He said recently that he knows little of the economy and is on the record being against regulation of Wall St. before he was for it. Phil Gramm (Texas, Enron) a McCain financial advisor called Americans a bunch of whiners about the economy. McCain says he is bullish about the economy until the market crashed. McCain, whose family wealth is in excess of $100 Million has supported the combination of huge expenses for the Iraq War and tax cuts for the extremely wealthy that has helped to drive our economy into the dirt. He has supported Bush economic policies and rejection of Wall Street oversight for the past eight years. Palin can only repeat what McCain tells her to say about the economy and based on his actions, his claims of economic insight and reform are nothing but distortions and empty rhetoric.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Midwestmom — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:59:51 GMT

wait, wait, wait...let me get this straight...a democratic congress pushed through legislation that forced lenders to take more risks by providing loans to "less than perfect" credit applications, which caused defaults on mortgages when the interest only payment period was up, which in turn caused a crash in the housing market, which had a direct effect on the stock market, causing the recent downturn and I'm supposed to trust a democratic nominee's economic plan? Yeah, right.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Omaar — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:14:48 GMT

My Point: Why Vote back into Power a [ Republicans Pres. & Vice Pres.] when the Republicans are [Largely to Blame for Screwing the US Economy Up]

The Democrats have been in Majority Power, for a Short Time !!!

The Republicans have been at the Pre-Domninant Political Seat of Power, that in their time...

THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT AND IT'S MAJORITY SENATE AND CONGRESS EXPANDED BIG GOVERNMENT, DURING A TIME THEY HELD THE ADVANTAGE IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND THE CONGRESSS AND SENATE....

[OPPOSED TO SHORTENING BIG GOVERNMENT OR NORROWING BIG GOVERNMENT]

YEAH SURE, THEY SCREWED IT UP...NOW THEY HOLD THE KEYS TO FIXING IT UP...BORDERLINE-BULL-SPIT !!!

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

McCain’s Record On Economic Reform: [Zero] In [12 Years]

A new ad released this morning by the McCain campaign states, “Our economy in crisis.

Only proven reformers John McCain and Sarah Palin can fix it.”

In a statement today, McCain said he will “replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington” and bring “accountability to Wall Street.” That promise rings hollow considering he has the former lobbyists of AIG, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and Bank of America on his campaign staff.

On Bloomberg Television this weekend, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank noted that, as a leader in the Senate Republican caucus, McCain did nothing for years to deliver reform in the face an impending credit crisis:

So here’s the record – 12 years of Republicans, including John McCain being a committee chairman for much of that period. Zero – zero enactment of any reform. Democrats take power, and in a year and a half, we have passed a bill that did everything the administration asked for, in terms of enhancing the regulatory structure.

Years of right-wing economic policies have created this moment of financial crisis. The mortgage bubble resulted when Fed chief Alan Greenspan kept interest rates at historic lows, and the government failed to regulate questionable practices in the financial sector.

This fact was underscored recently by Republican Mike Oxley, the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Oxley noted that the House passed a bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis by issuing stronger regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

“All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.” […]

“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.

Oxley recalls that the bipartisan legislation “faced hostility from the Bush administration,” but also “lacked a champion in the Senate.”

UpdateYglesias: “And here we see a fundamental difference between the progressive worldview and the conservative worldview. Progressives believe in a robust safety net for everyone. … But conservatives don’t believe in that kind of safety net for regular people — just for the billionaires. Guaranteed health care? Forget it. Guaranteed retirement income? No way. Just let the market work, and when it stops working the executives will be okay and the rest of us will, oh, something or other.”

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

max in fl — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:35:34 GMT

McCain took notes, he saw that as long as the war continued, Bush could not be touched. McCain plans to continue the tradition. EVERYONE knows he plans to continue the war for at LEAST 8 years. This is why he is not worried, he promises the tax cut but it's WAR first, taxes second.

A large portion of our budget is directed to the war effort, perhaps he feels that as long as we get some news oversees from time to time we won't notice the bank failures. We also won't notice that China is picking up more of our debt and laughing at us get weaker every month. Don't think for a second they forgot about the RED jokes.

I still can't believe that McCain STILL believes the economy is sound.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

rs98101 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:45:57 GMT

I think McCain has made a huge blunder by stating "the fundamentals of the economy are strong". Look, this is a change election. McCain himself has said this is a change election. Bush has gotten away with the "rah, rah, go economy, go Iraq war" stuff in the past, but America has finally wised up to this. As I point out here:

http://www.somedork.com/daily-ramblings/its-the-economy-stupid-part-ii/

It's The Economy Stupid, Part II

McCain sounds just like Bush by making this statement, and Obama is capitalizing on the misstep. I think this is going to be probably the key issue to decide this thing, and Obama has just gotten a big head start.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

wandering1day — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:46:31 GMT

But if McCain looks the American people in the face and lies - that is dishonerable. If there is video/written evidence of these lies - and McCain/Palin continue to lie - that's incredibily dihonest and foolish. Why can't Americans realize that someone who will lie to their face - will be likely to do worse when they have the power to refuse accountability?

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

jnakhoul — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:56:34 GMT

eeeeeeerrrrrrrrr not quiet midwestmom:

deregulation passed in the early 90's thruogh the republican senate allowed mortages to be considered a tradeable debt. The loosening of credit standards was supposed to give banks greater leway in offering loans to people who could least afford them. The problem was that in a deregulated financial market this was seen as a green light to offer horrible loans and then sell the debt off. The result a catastrophic crash. The republicans and democrats both have partial blame but the real problem is the idea that neocons champion. that deregulation is the only way to bolstor our economy. Mr. Mccain is acctually foolish enough to suggest yesterday that he would further the deregulation policies (a slip that nobody has jumped on) as is lockstep with neoliberal economic policies championed by neoconservatives (weird with the neos prefix i know)

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

wildlifeusa — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:08:48 GMT

- Joseph Wilson, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq

"If the Republicans lose in 2008, they will leave office armed and dangerous. Blackwater is the utterly gripping and explosive story of how the Bush Administration has spent hundreds of millions of public dollars building a parallel corporate army, an army so loyal to far right causes it constitutes nothing less than a Republican Guard. The most important and chilling book about the death throes of U.S. democracy you will read in years and a triumph of investigative reporting."

- Naomi Klein, author, No Logo and The Shock Doctrine

"Jeremy Scahill skillfully chronicles the birth of America's frightening Praetorian Guard, one that has been unleashed - 25,000-strong - in Iraq. These hired guns, with their black uniforms and automatic weapons, appeared on the streets of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. They operate, at home and abroad, beyond the bounds of legal constraints and are controlled by secretive puppet masters, such as Erik Prince, who have close ties to the radical Christian Right. Should our nation enter a period of instability following another terrorist attack on American soil, an economic collapse or a series of environmental disasters the tyranny groups such as Blackwater impose on others could become the tyranny they impose on us. The rise of this unchecked mercenary force, as Scahill understands, could presage the final stage in the collapse of American democracy.

- Chris Hedges

"From Belgrade to Baghdad, from Nigeria to New Orleans, Jeremy Scahill leads a new generation of muckraking journalists. With trademark courage and conviction, Scahill is exposing the dark, violent and secretive world of the neo-mercenaries Washington is increasingly deploying in its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and at home in the US. This is an explosive book!"

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

wildlifeusa — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:10:28 GMT

The bush and religious right wing have been building a privat army with hundreds of millions of our tax dollars... read on...

ABOUT THE BOOK:

IT WAS THE MOGADISHU MOMENT of the Iraq war. March 31, 2004: Four American mercenaries are ambushed in the Sunni hotbed of Fallujah, their jeeps set ablaze with the men inside. An angry mob drags their charred corpses through the streets, hanging them from a bridge overthe Euphrates River. "Fallujah is the graveyard of the Americans!," the mob declares in front of the cameras. Within hours, the imagesspread across the world. The ensuing US slaughter in Fallujah would fuel the fierce Iraqi resistance that haunts US occupation forces to this day. Who were the mercenaries killed in Fallujah and who sent them there to die?

Meet BLACKWATER USA, the world's most secretive and powerful mercenary firm. Based in the wilderness of North Carolina, it is the fastest growing private army on the planet with forces capable of carrying out regime change throughout the world. Blackwater protects the top US officials in Iraq and yet the world knows almost nothing about the firm's quasi-military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and inside the United States. Blackwater was founded by an extreme right-wing fundamentalist Christian mega-millionaire ex-Navy SEAL named Erik Prince, the scion of a wealthy conservative family that bankrolls far-right-wing causes.

This is the dark story of the rise of a powerful mercenary army, ranging from the blood-soaked streets of Fallujah to rooftop firefights in Najaf to the hurricane-ravaged US gulf to the chambers of power in Washington DC, where Blackwater executives are hailed as new heroes in the war on terror. This is an extraordinary expose by one of America's most exciting young radical journalists.

Read Scahill on Blackwater in The Nation:

Mercenary Jackpot: US Pays Blackwater $320 Million in Secretive Global 'Security' Program

Blood Runs Thicker Than Blackwater

Blackwater's Private Spies

PRAISE

"Jeremy Scahill's exposé of the Blackwater mercenary firm forcefully demonstrates the grave dangers of outsourcing the government's monopoly on the use of force."

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

nobama-bidnsider — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:11:10 GMT

Wow, you folks really seem to have your craniums shoved right up your rectums don't you? Hmmm, "I'll use public financing" LIE, I don't take money from Federal Lobbyists, LIE. McCain is BushIII, LIE.

I wonder how many homes Nobama's Hollywood friends own? Clinton? A very very good liar, China gets most favored nation status, he had his crony Greenspun blow big big bubbles, had an intern blow him in the oval office. Nice work, honorable.

I think the country needs an adult as two boomer presidents have morally, spiritually and monetarily bankrupted this great country. More for me should be Nobabam's rallying cry. Get him of the teleprompter and see how good his oratory skills are. Aaaa aa aa bb bb bbb "get that kid a Breathalyzer"

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

jnakhoul — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:11:30 GMT

anyone trying to stick this to democrats is a fool, anyone who has seriously looked into this issue knows it is the republican's obsession with deregulation that has caused this crisis.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Rametyn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:12:24 GMT

I love the opinions in here that revolve around "current event" politics. Republicans, if you actually follow the HISTORY of politics, in no way expanded the government, and are in no way responsible for the economic problems we are facing today. You get too much information from the news, and not enough from study.

Truth is, there is an economic trickle that stems from every presidency. Truth is, the bottom dropped out of the over-blown dot.com bubble only two weeks after Bush took office. If you would really believe that Bush began the downward spiral of the economy in just two weeks, then you offer no intelligent argument that can be taken seriously, and are therefore just ranting nonsense that will do little to change any minds during this election cycle.

Clinton pushed too hard with dot.coms, bolstered them up, and while he was president it made him look great on economic policy. However, when the bottom drops out, and someone else is in the White House, the immeadiately get blamed for the previous administrations mistakes. This is the history of Democratic principles. Take credit for policies that were inacted ten years before you were in office, as those policy trickle into light, then blame someone else for overblown programs, and economic mis-steps that someone else has to take reponsibility for after you have already screwed things up and escaped office without blame. Sorta how Clinton escaped blame for not doing something about Osama when the reports of his intent camed in--because the attacks didn't happen until he left office--getting him off the hook.

Yes, that's right--Clinton knew Osama wanted to attack the US while he was president and did nothing.

Scarcity in oil. attacks on our country, two natural disasters of epic proportion, and an inheritence of an economy was that was teetering on the brink. Is it any wonder the economy is fragile? These are the culprits of the market--not the results of one man--you genuis minds of political astuteness.

Washington Post reported yesterday that Mccain reached across the aisles and went against his own party 55% of the time during his tenure in the Senate--on such important issues as campaign reform and illegal immigration--using Democrats, not Republicans to help write his co-sponsored bills. Obama has only done so 13% of the time according to the Washington Post, using Republicans only on such minor issues as postal stamp issuance. LOL How funny.

Democrats made up 55% of Mcains political partners, and yet the only argument you have is more of the same.

Does this mean Dems are more of the same, because he uses them more than Republicans.

These truths re why you are now losing. People are not stupid. They know the facts. Everyone is watching, and you making stupid blanket polity statements just doesn't fly anymore.

Mccain is provern BY FACT to be more partisan than Obams. Yet, it is your boy who says he is the man of change, the one who will reach across the aile. Hilarious.

Facts are Mccain has been doing that very thing--not on the empty promise to do so--but for a long time in congress, and a whole lot more often than Obama.

Fact check your idiotic statements---firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/15/1398117.aspx

Yes, that's right--this fact provided by the most liberal news organization in the business.

I'll bet Olberman and Mathews are rolling over.

LOL

The stupidity of people not even being able to be honest with themselves, just because they want their party to win, is staggering. Lie, twist, spin, and even fabricate--it makes your party look empty and hollow--and only continues to provide Mccain/Palin with growth and gains in the polls.

Just look at them.

No longer a bounce--Mccain has been up for three weeks straight--and is now climbing everywhere.

So keep up the bs tactics. Keep saying more of the same, It even sounds tiren now when Obama says it, and you will lose this election.

I mean, haven't you people stopped yet to ask yourselves what''s going wrong?

The say anything, mis-representing the facts politics of the nineties Democrat no longer work.

You will see that come Nov 4, when therapists around the country will be be treating masses of people for a new affliction called Democratic Denial.

LOL

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

nobama-bidnsider — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:14:03 GMT

Hmmm, lets see, when Bush was actually running you fools ran the "any one but Bush campaign" how'd that work for you? No that Bush isn't running, you're running the "McCain is Bush" campaign. How's that working for you?

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

ramzfan — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:36:21 GMT

Once again, we gave the Senate and the House to the Democrats & look what happened...People have got to understand that the worse that the economy looks before an election, the MORE LIKELY people are to vote for the opposite party. Gas prices, the Housing slump, the stock market taking a dive, Lehman Bros going bankrupt...WHY do you think this is all happening right before an election...? C'mon folks, use your heads!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

j_mcdouglas — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:38:09 GMT

"The fundamental business of the country, that is production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis."

-President Herbert Hoover, October 30, 1929

"Our economy I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

-John McCain, on September 15, 2008

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

LVUONG — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:40:32 GMT

Like terrorism, it could be traced back to long-tern effect by Carter and Clinton presidency, and the doing-nothing Democratic congress.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Rametyn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:48:34 GMT

Strange, I think most people are using their heads; because ,in spite of the economic appearance, the trends of voters rigt now are not only sticking with the Republican party, the numbers toward independents are increasingly swinging toward the GOP.

What isn't being talked about enough is the Bradley effect.

While the polls only show Mccain ahead by three-four points on average, Democratic insiders say that Obama is not taking that seriously enough--given that you actually have to ADD five points to that given the possibility if hidden racial opinions, and people who poll one way, but will not doubt vote another.

This from very concerned Dem in senate and elsewhere right now. It is a sad truth, but a truth nonetheless,

There is an extreme possibility that, in actual numbers, when the polls show Mccain/Palin ahead by three--that actually means eight in the reality of actual votes.

Now, given that, go look at the polls agains--add five on Mccain side to every stat--sit back--and say to yourself--ohhhhhhhh crap.

Because the reality of it is staggering.

New York Times report--that Democratic insiders believe that Obama is not taking his drop in the polls seriously enough, refusing to take advice on the matter.

LOL

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

mcleodmn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:53:41 GMT

If we could just put all conservatives in a time machine and send them back 100 years, everyone would be happy.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Rametyn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:59:46 GMT

See what I mean.

J_mcdouglas. Prominent Democrat.

How does using a quote from Hoover make Mccain Hoover?

This is the iditotic kind of statement I was talking about. No red meat. Just conjecture.

Here's one.

"Our media has chosen not to criticize our leaders policies, and has remained supportive of his political views, especially where it pertains to the fervor in his stance to protect the Jewish community."

Italian Associated Press.

This right before Mussolin founded facism and sided with Germany initially in eradicating the Jews.

LOL

Does that mean that the press here and today, by using kid gloves with Obama, signal that he is going to eradicate a white America in conjuction with those views expressed by his pastor, Reverend Wright.,

No.

Usage of expressionisms from decades ago does nothing to define our candidates today.

So please, provide some fact in your accusations, or else stop wasting our time with the kind of politics I clearly defined in my pervious post.

It is a waste of time.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

mcleodmn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:00:22 GMT

If we could just put all conservatives in a time machine and send them back 100 years, everyone would be happy.

Make that 150 years, pre emancipation procalimation

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Rametyn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:14:01 GMT

mcleodmn,

That is probably the one Democratic comment I agree with.

Simply because most GOP affiliates understand that for civilization to exist, there has to be some construct of formality to the order of civilization. Barbarism didn't work genius. That is why the construct of civilization was formed--too keep us from destroying ourselves.

However, year after year, Dems keeps trying to chip away at that construct by disguising the return our return into chaos as "progressive thinking."

What people like you don't understand--and prob never will--is that with each stone that falls in the monument of civilization--NOTHING GETS BETTER. Your party has championed moral decline for decades--passing bill after bill to lessen the values of every day citizens.

Now, that being said--DOES THE WORLD RGHT NOW SEEM LIKE IT HAS GOTTEN BETTER< OR WORSE.

The less construct there is, the more you loosen the bound of the moral fibre, the further into chaos you regress. Take a look around. You are doing wonders for our kids.

God knows what this world will be like twenty years from now BECAUSE of people like you.

Read: Causes for the Fall of Modern Civilization. Research the overpopulation studies done at Berkley, and what affects it has on violence and sexuality, pansexuality, sex on sex crimes, and so many people having kids, that you have to come up with a procedure to cure it--like gettiing pregnant is just like getting a cold--both of which there is a remedy for.

You are doing wonders for this nation, and the fall of the doctrines held common for over thousands of years.

LOL

You're right. You guys really are the "progressive thinkers."

LOL

To me, thinking progressively means taking a look at what results will culminate from the idiotic deisions you make--as TO NOT have an adverse effect on the future of our world.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Hrap52 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:15:31 GMT

Get a real Job Mr. Romano, or I guess you will find one after this election. Opinions are like balls (nuts or testicular fortitude for the delicate among us) everyone has them.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

garysgary — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:15:57 GMT

When republicans run for office they tell you that they are going to take your tax money and give it back to the wealthy. They don't try to hide it ...they tell that is what they are going to do...Bush said it in 2000 and in 2004...Tax breaks for the rich. It was there for everybody to see and hear. He also said he would deregulate...everything. Republicans hate to be regulated ...so, they de-regulate. Is anybody suprised that this has happened...I'm not...they told they were going to do it! And you god and guns Americans keep voting for them because they tell you there is some boogeyman to be afraid of and they know you will vote for them. So, you low-information voters keep voting for them and soon your house won't be just worth less...it will be worthless!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Rametyn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:21:25 GMT

By the Way moron,

It was the Rebpublican party, the conservatives, who freed the slaves.

Jeeez!

Do you people actually read or study before you get on here and make such ridiculous statements.

Pre--emancipation proclomation--it was the Dems who opposed Lincoln's stance moron.

In fact, you probable actually believe the Civil War was really about slavery, don't you?

LOL

Never ceases to amaze.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Rametyn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:24:12 GMT

Talk about low-information.

Please see actual fact based data cited by Repubs in here VS the nonsensical rants of un-informed Democrats who keep posting the same old drivel--at much cost to you chances at now winning in Novemeber I might add.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

mcleodmn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:30:44 GMT

Rametyn -

Actually, I'd just would like to see an America that isn't in a religious headlock. You religious conservatives have infected every corner of our society with your 2000 year old lies, guilt and scare tactics.

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

mcleodmn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:36:16 GMT

Posted By: Rametyn (September 16, 2008 at 2:24 PM)

Talk about low-information.

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

If it weren't for low information voters, there'd be no republican party.

BTW - Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in a much different Republican Party. He was a strong critic of organized religion, which is a far cry from the disgusting mess you are a part of. Corruption, hypocracy, intolerance.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

gaucho01 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:38:31 GMT

This is responding to the angry, uninformed Rametyn.... Today's Republican party is the Democratic party of the civil war era. The South remained firmly democratic until the sixties civil rights movement. Lincoln, a republican, was Northerner who excercised the fist of the federal govt. Something that southerners despised. Let me ask you this...Do Republicans today enjoy federal encroachment in their lives or for the federal govt to tell them what's up? No, and neither did the Southern Democrats of the civl war era. Lincoln would be a democrat today. Long live the strength of federal intervention!! I'm tired of the GOP claiming Lincoln as one of their own, ridiculous.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

dotconnector — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:39:09 GMT

It would be shameful if the current economic crisis does not cause a shift in this election. We all saw this developing under the Bush administration. And for the first five years of his eight years iligitimate stay in the Whitehouse, I agonized over what was blinding America to what the raping of our country by Bush, Cheney and the Corparate Mob. Then, I came to accept the truth of it all in order to make sense of soicalized ignorance. Americans think it is patriotic to send our sons and daughters to kill or be killed without cause. America redefines "Hero" : One who did not study well, get shot down because he didn't know or follow procedure and paid the price of incarceration. ( the guys in my neighborhood that followed that path are called felons.) Americans continued watching the Whitehouse operate like the corporations that bought it, and we didn't get it - Bush was recieving favorable ratings for 5 years. Well a lot of damage can be done in five years - and it was. If America continues to look at this election and the state of our Union through gender and color lenses - we are really up a creek. I do not want to accept that too many Americans are stuck on stupid. If so, then that means the Amercian empire will likely fall in the next 4 years.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Beginnings — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:42:44 GMT

Rametyn,

You're right that it was the Republican party that freed the slaves...but you can't stop at that part of history...let's talk about what happened to the party when the topic of equal rights and segragation came up in the 60's. Many of the "Dixie-crats" changed to Republicans. So, yes, the Repubs freed the slaves, and as long as whites had the upper hand they were all for it. As soon as the conversation turned to give equal rights and opportunity, then it became a problem for the Repubs.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

prettiplus — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:47:25 GMT

I feel that all of your comments about Obama and his plan for America would totally change if he was Caucasian. I must simply say that it is a matter of race. If Americans look in their hearts and really vote their conscience, Obama will win with flying colors. Four more years of the same "stupid" leadership will bring this country to ruin. I will simply say this, if you have been doing great financially, emotionally, mentally, etc. these past eight years, vote for McCain. If you have a child fighting in a "useless" war, a foreclosed home, bankruptcy, etc., your choice should be OBAMA!!!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Butterfly Effect — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:56:12 GMT

How many times can Obama say the same ten lines word for word. The rhetoric is getting old very fast now after 1.5 years of endless repetetion. And remember the party of the lazy have had control of Congress for the last 2 years and only managed an approval rating way below Bush for their weak "efforts".

Economies go up and down, with little regard for politics. There is only so much the government can do to prop up a downturn. Hitting small to large business with increased taxes is distaster now, but Obama does not care because his votes come from:

1) Unionized, tenured teachers (too many of whick clog the system with laziness and block the infusion of younger more energic talent.

2) Union government empolyees

3) Unionized labor that stand in front of an abandoned factory and blame others for the closing (There should be unions. but ya gotta know when enough is enough). Threatening to crack someones skull because they won't pay a 55 year old slug 2-3 times hi market worth is not free market democracy, its organized crime.

4) Unemployable lazy - why start at the bottom and work your way up when you can be a gangster or a liberal arts major, and then demand handouts for your lack of effort.

5) Hollywood actor/director sluts

6) Wealthy Elitiest (would deep down like the title - but admitting so comes across as borish) .

What do these all have in common? They all stay mostly employed in a down turned economy. All except for the dumb union labor that shot themselves in the foot over the last 3 decades while stuffing money in their pocket, and really screwed their kid's union future. Everybody else has to face the spectre of closings, layoffs, increased unemployment and associated costs, decreased tax revenue etc, etc. etc.

New business is the only way ( short of a world war), that can generate new jobs and tax revenue to the governnment. Obama wants to create government positions for his army of lazy bodies to regulate stuff that the government time and time again has proven it can't perform properly, and then collect back his 20% in tax while commercial businees stagnates? Its socialism, so Obama at least call it what it is.

Obama wants to drag everybody down the the lowest common denominator (the unempolyable lazy) Maybe I dont want to send my kids to a public school staffed with unfirable, lazy carcassees. But no, Obama thinks the government (he) should tell you how to manage your life.

Screw him.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

xeyeldinTX — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:12:12 GMT

Rametyn - Yes, slavery ended as a result of the Civil War and because of Lincoln. But it was hardly out of any sense of moral purpose on the part of Lincoln. The Civil War was a war waged over the issue of Federal Government VS. State's rights. The slaves of the south were granted freedom under the Emancipation Proclamation in order to weaken the South during the war. It was only after the war that all slaves in the U.S. were granted their freedom. At least in theory. It has been a long hard hall since then for all people of color (whether descended from slaves or not) to be considered equal in this society. Know your history. Some really good books you might want to begin with Jefferson's Pillow/Mason, Lincoln/Vidal.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

xeyeldinTX — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:15:20 GMT

Prettiplus: I'll take that one step further. The idea that we need to "get to know both Obama and Palin" is odd. Since there is no real need to get to know our white leaders. In fact, when we get to know them we are generally disappointed as we find out (as we have in both the case of Palin and Obama) that the are really actually only human. Still they have both been held to a higher bar than past candidates. In the end however, I am voting Obama, for my country and for my fellow countrymen.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

valark — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:17:54 GMT

Actually, the issue of the slaves being proclaimed free was to sway allied forces.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

xeyeldinTX — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:29:36 GMT

Valark it achieved both things. The larger point being it was a political, war-time stategic move and had nothing to do with altruism. I am not trying to lambast Lincoln there's just a huge amount of misinformation with regard to history - mostly due to the crap they teach in schools.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

mcleodmn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:41:03 GMT

Posted By: xeyeldinTX (September 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM)

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

If things go Palins way, they'll be teaching Creationism in our schools. That is f-ing scary.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

SeanT007 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:52:46 GMT

Rametyn: Look at the autho's face, he is pre--puberty, so obvious he is gulible to the rose colored glass view of the world. Young Andrew, the author, has never held a real job yet and he knows all there is to know about life right now since he has recently graduated from Junior High School. After all, Winston Churchill stated, if you are 20 and you are not liberal, you are not living, and if you are 35 and not conservative, you are dead--or words to that effect.

So while young Andrew was watching Survivor and Punked on MTV and not the real world, when the current energy and economic crisis was begining to ferment, he was obviously not watching his hero DemocRATS block every and all energy intiatives that would have 2-3,000,000 barrels of domestic oil on the market, which would equate to 27-81,000,000 gallons of domestic gasoline, diesel, and heating oil on the market.

The current under construction natural gas pipeline from Alaska that was blocked by Sarah Palin's Democrat and Republican predessesors, would be in operation now, putting Natural gas at around 50 bucks per 1000 cubic feet, instead of the 70-90 per 1000 cubic feet.

Mining restrictions could have been lifted from clean burning, low sulphur coal found in Colorado, Eastern Kentucky, Pennsylvainia, and West Virginia, that placed by Bill Clinton through executive order and legislation by DemocRATS appeasing their enviromental facist wing.

Robert Riech, Clinton Administration and the DemocRAT held congress in the early 90's lifted several restrictions and controls on the mortgage lending process that lead to abuses and predatory lending in the housing industry, creating the bubble, that has obviously now bursted. And it also has contributed to easing restrictions on energy speculators and hedge funds for energy speculation, which is the next bubble from the Clinton Administration to bust.

So instead of taking action, the DemocRATS have given us $4.00 oil and an energy crisis, while investigationg steroids in sports, Anna Nicole's reproduction system and Judge Larry's pot problem. We stand to lose 4-5 million jobs from the Great Lakes region-(DOE FIGURES) and an additional $1,700.00 per year on home heating alone.

So what is Obama's proposed changes? Return to the Jimmy Carter years, a Jimmy Carter second term. That young Andrew is no real change, it is repeat of failed policies, and failed policies of the Great Society of LBJ.

My suggestion is that young Andrew should enjoy life, drink a few beers, crank up The Who, read some Aristotle-Cause and Effect, economics books and learn which policies work and ones that have failed. You do not penalize sucess and risk. You do not inhibit those with the money, you want them to have an incentive to take risk. Because when you punish those who risk, they no longer risk not, sucking all the investment money from the economy.

The government does not create jobs, no politician writes your paycheck or anyone elses. They spend them for you because you do not know how to spend and invest your money......so they want you all to think. The government's job is to protect the people from enemies foriegn and domestic, and facilitate fair and free commerce. And Andrew, Mr. Carter's and Johnson's did not as well as Barrack Obama's.

Sincerely: Your Dear Uncle Sarge and Truck Driver

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Satu — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:56:36 GMT

Excellent advice to all of us all over the world. Let us all understand that real issues are bringing America Down. Let us discuss the issues and vote on that not on weather we like or dont like the person because he or she wears or does not wear lipstick.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Youk2008 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:58:32 GMT

To Butterfly effect: While I normally don't reply to comments such as yours, I felt compelled to comment on the fact the extreme bias, predujice and unwarranted anger you have at Obama supporters is compeletely misdirected and off base.

First: a fact or two. McCain has support from some unions. Yes 25% of the SEIU, a very large scale labor group are registered republicans. It has been said that of 1Million members of the teachers union are GOP. And well, perhaps more labor unions would support him if he didn't support broadening guest worker amnesty programs (immigrants) to take on "the jobs Americans don't want". In this economy, I am pretty sure Americans want jobs.

I am a (female) CEO of a hi- tech software company, not a union worker, not a teacher- but an avid supporter of Obama. Most everone of my acquaintences, be they friends in hi- tech, sports marketing, human recourses,IT,sales, contractors, homemakers, entrepenuers and (unfortunately out of work) mortgage brokers are all for Obama. Not one of us is lazy, and none of us came from rich backgrounds but have all worked very hard to be where we are today.

However, we do support teachers who get paid so little to teach the children of our country and are overburdened by class sizes and lack of funds for essentials like books. We support unions, particularly fire and police unions- are you truly saying that those people, the ones protecting you are lazy becuase they are in a union? Because they want to make sure they get paid adequately for the dangerous jobs they do?

And I'm sorry, your comments saying its fair that people who have worked long and hard at factories should lose their job to workers overseas so the company can make a higher profit for stockholders is brutally callous. That is not trickle down economics, thats systematically impovershing the workers of our country while certain people get rich. And by the way- I do fit in the category of the over $250K crowd that will be taxed under Obamas plan, and I am fine with that if it helps get the rest of the country back on its feet. You call it socialism- I call it social justice. There is a big difference.

Yes we are divided in this country, and I believe people like you making such gross generalizations about the workers in this country, your fellow Americans, is truly one of the most devicive activites of all. I beleive Obama will bring us back to being a nation that actually shows respect and empathy for our fellow citizens, and whether you want to beleive it or not, that is critical for our economy to be reformed and our country to become the power it once was.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

think4yourself — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:18:50 GMT

He should hope that the economy gets better because if it gets worse the public will not trust a pretty young thing to fix it. They will turn to what they know and trust. It's the doctor theory. If you're in a hospital and some young doctor fresh off an intern saids we found something and I'll be in charge of your treatment. You imeditatley want someone who has had more practcie and has faced it more often and has lived long enough to know a thing or two. Bad economy not good for Barrak.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

paulte — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:26:16 GMT

I don't see why the Wall Street trouble should be good news for Obama. These things happen in a free market. Where is it written that financial giants can't get too big for their britches? It probably is a good time for a financial restructuring given the subprime mortgage mess. The financial institutions have been giving out mortgages to people who shouldn't get them in the first place. AND WHY? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN HARRASSING THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR NOT GIVING OUT ENOUGH MORTGAGES TO MINORITIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How is this good news for Obama? Liberal Democrats like Obama & Pelosi are responsible for the financial mess in the first place!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

SeanT007 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:36:06 GMT

Well miss CEO YouK2008, as a business person and alleged CEO I cannot you buy to Obama's policies-that have failed in the past.

A CEO that votes for Obama is liken to a chicken that votes for Colonel Sanders. Guess what is served up in his race baiting, poverty peddeling, class envy pot of demoguary? You, you are an evil greedy person and you should be punished for your sucess and give the government over half of it. And then some more when you die.

If you want to give up half your pay and effort for nothing, call me sweetheart, I have a sure bet in Vegas--I can roll that town with your big bucks.

Sincerely: Your dear Old Uncle Sarge and Truck Drivin Man

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Youk2008 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:42:34 GMT

While I am not an economist by any strech- I believe the act that is responsible for the deregulation in the financial industry was the Gramm Laech Bliley act of 1999, which loosened controls and allowed banks and other financial institutions to consolidate (and thus be able to "support "their own bad loans).

True, Bill Clinton signed it into law, but don't even think about blaming the democrats for that one. It was sponsored by two Republicans (Phil Gramm, he who thinks we are all whiners for being upset about the economy, and Leach)

At the time, the Senate had a Republican majority and the bill was voted right down party lines- 54 Republicans Yea, 44 Democrats Ney. Clinton just didn't veto it.

So, unless we are describing some other act that was put into place that has led to this current financial crisis- I would say that was a Republican sponsord measure all the way (oh and did I mention the $300M in lobbyist money that supported that bill???)

And to paulte- I think the financial institutions were giving out mortgages to anyone they could- it was called greed and irresponsible lending- it wasn't a social program to help minorites. That's Habitat for Humanity..

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Youk2008 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:50:18 GMT

Yes Uncle Sarge- I am really a CEO, and really for Obama. Say what you will about me, I believe in helping my fellow man. I gues that makes me evil. I feel very evil when I give to charities even when the government doesn't make me. And when I die, I do hope my money goes to helping others.

But for now, I will get back to work- helping my American employees be successful, and making sure the board of directors doesn't once again ask me to outsource development. I really do believe we should keep it all here so the people that work for me can keep a roof over ther kids heads and enjoy the American way.

And I hope I never run into such a mean spirited and angry individual like you in person.

Cheers

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Rametyn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:04:09 GMT

I'm gonna bite, since this was what I did my dissertation on last month xeleyldin.

First off, slavery was not a state's right issue in the beginning. The creation of the problem of slavery stemmed from an unbalance of "FINANCIAL POWERS" that existed at the time. In fact, the entire war was fought over control for financial power, and the freeing of slaves was actually a bi-product of it all.

The problem came after the start of the Market Revolution, and from the fact that a rivalry had evolved between plantation owners in the south and those who resided on smaller farms in the north who were being forced to enter into industrial jobs just to support their families.

The instigation of the idea that slavery was abominable did not stem from a human rights issue. It came from the notion that, at the time, plantation owners of the south held 3/4 of the nations wealth--they controlled the banks, they controlled the flow of capital, and they controlled a lot of the powers in congress. The North wanted to undercut this control, thus the only way to do so was to undermine the way in which they amassed such wealth--which meant undermining free labor.

From this, the idealogy that slavery was arong was born--and I might add, carried through a lot of states that were slave owning regions themselves, such as Kentucky and Deleware who tried to remain neutral through it all. It was the idea that free, or slave labor, was arong that they used as a tool to usurp the largest and wealthiest money holders in the US, thereby crippling southern economy in a bid for positioning of power by the North.

Don't get it twisted. The Civil War was fought on the grounds of financial reasoning alone. The issue of States Rights did not come to fruition until tafter he enacments of decreess that attempted to abolish slavery. Even after the war--it was the NORTH who still held slaves long after they had made it illegal in the South. In fact, the emancipation proclomation only pertained to confederate states who owned slaves, making it illegal in the south--who is most accredited with slavery--while still keeoing the right open to OWN SLAVES in the NORTH. And yet, they pat themeselves on the back for ending bondage--when it was only a ploy to economically disrupt the wealthy.

That is why it is called also, "THE WAR OR NORTHERN AGRESSION."

Freeing the slaves was a bi-product of the war, not the cause of it. That is the actuality of history, as opposed to what they teach within poliitically correct climates. States Rights would not even have been an issue if Lincoln had accepted to enter into negotiations with the south. However, he refused to recognize them as a legitimate party, opted for war instead, and well, the rest is--you know.

Next time you tell someone to know their history--I would try being more informed than they are. Escecially in light of the fact that, by tackling this issue by manner of fact instead of popular, diluted belief--my dissertation recieved several accolades by history professors, who themselves had not attempted to look deeper into the vibrant truth: that almost all conflicts such as the Civil War comes down somewhere to something much more monetary than the populist crusader opinions would like to believe.

But thanks. for trying to enlighten me. LOL

BTW, that remark was geared toward someone not discussing Civil Rights Issues, but by someone who eluded that pre-emancipation--it was the Republicans who were in favor of slavery in the first place.

Like I said in my earlier posts.

People should read and study more before coming here and just posting piles on nonsensical drivel that makes themselves look stupid.

Class dismissed.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Rametyn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:04:11 GMT

I'm gonna bite, since this was what I did my dissertation on last month xeleyldin.

That is why it is called also, "THE WAR OR NORTHERN AGRESSION."

But thanks. for trying to enlighten me. LOL

BTW, that remark was geared toward someone not discussing Civil Rights Issues, but by someone who eluded that pre-emancipation--it was the Republicans who were in favor of slavery in the first place.

Like I said in my earlier posts.

People should read and study more before coming here and just posting piles on nonsensical drivel that makes themselves look stupid.

Class dismissed.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

8 Year Nightmare — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:27:56 GMT

Hmmm the good ol' folks at Newsweek seem threathened.

Well, you should be cause your days are numbered.

No one is concerned about a history lesson or who caused Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to crumble...people want to fill up their gas tanks, grocery shop, take in a movie from time to time, and most importantly NOT be stressed about losing their homes.

Today, right now, we are faced with a choice between trusting McCain to not follow in Bush's footsteps or going with Obama agrees with the above.

Experience is out of the window, you know why? Bush came with much experience AND his dad was a president and look at the MESS we are in. It's deplorable!

I'm putting my money on INEXPERIENCE cause having experience has caused this 8 yr nightmare!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Rametyn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:31:17 GMT

Youk.

You define the insanity of the Democratic party.

Don't blame Clinton for that bill? It wasn't his falt? Just because he didn't veto it?

Well. as a president was that not his responsiblity to do so if he did not agree with it?

Funny. The Democrats are in control of congress right now--but narrow minds like yours will still hold the Republican president responsible for that that because he is in office now. __Completely contrasting the excuse you made for Bill Clinton--who could have vetoed that bill and stopped it__BUT DID NOT!

So yes, his decision to sign it puts the blame on him as the leader of the country at the time.

Jeez, the excuses some people come up with.

LOL

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Rametyn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:31:20 GMT

Youk.

You define the insanity of the Democratic party.

Don't blame Clinton for that bill? It wasn't his falt? Just because he didn't veto it?

Well. as a president was that not his responsiblity to do so if he did not agree with it?

So yes, his decision to sign it puts the blame on him as the leader of the country at the time.

Jeez, the excuses some people come up with.

LOL

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

justanothervet — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:59:52 GMT

"NUTS" this is a Carter and Clinton caused fiasco of little concern to me. Let all those greedy financial trust guru prostitutes hang. Accoutability can be nasty and I cincerly hope it is.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

justanothervet — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:00:55 GMT

"NUTS" this is a Carter and Clinton caused fiasco of little concern to me. Let all those greedy financial trust guru prostitutes hang. Accoutability can be nasty and I cincerly hope it is.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Denchli — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:46:58 GMT

Where was Barney Franks (D-NY) he is the chair of the Financial Committee in Congres? He had oversite over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. How come he didn't know anything was wrong? Oh wait, that's right he didn't know his roommate was running a gay escort service out of their apartment either.

Obama, over the last four years has received over $140,000 in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is the most per annum average of any Congressman.

The Dems wanted to make getting a home loan for poor people easier they felt it was discrimination because the poor could not buy homes, now we the tax payers get to pay for it.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

ayeaga — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:51:49 GMT

Two things wrong with your analysis:

1) You stated that McCain reached out to Democrats more often than Obama. What were the issues? It is important to know what issues were being debated in congress when this happened to sell this point.

2) The argument about McCain being Bush is a philosophical one and it is about policy. The argument seeks to say that McCain will continue the same failed Bush policy, such as trickle down economics, which is now causing the financial upheaval or free market without any oversight. Republican criticise oversight functions as waist or to use their term bloated government. If people ignore this reasoning then they have themselves to blame for making the wrong selection.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

smdurst — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:58:16 GMT

Hopefully the independant voters can see through the smears and base their votes on the outcome of the coming debates. The partisans have their minds made up.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Grulg — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:03:58 GMT

I love how you just KNOW that the planned negative attacks on McCain/Palin wouldn't work or resonate. You cherry pick some 20 year old Dukakis quotes and ads to support this?? What, were Carter's talking points from '80 used up or something? C'mon pal, this approach has already been shown to work, the Wall St stuff just pushed it over the edge.

At least try to read your reams of polling data a little better and less smugly sirrah. It will help you.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

joseph jacir — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:44:01 GMT

since the fundamentals of our economy are in good shape then we shold all vote for the self poclaimed maverick who also proclaims he knows nothing about economics and since Ms. Palin continues to read with sarcasm her scripted lines about the economic state of the union and her handlers refuse to let her talk to the media .......WHERE IS HE MEDIA

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

judithod — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:00:47 GMT

But how beholding is Obama to Wall Street? A number of the former and current Wall Street giants are among the top contributors to Obama's campaign: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley. Obama also has been cozy with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Of the 354 lawmakers who received monies from Fannie and Freddie PACs and employees from 1989-2008, Obama was ranked 2nd (with Chris Dodd ranked 1st). That's a pretty high contribution rate for a guy who's only been in the Senate for 3 years.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

califsteve — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:24:22 GMT

Democrat Reich even admits the crisis is the fault of the dems in Congress. Dems will pay for their lack of action.

Obama has tied to Wall Street and big business. He just hides them pretty well.

Even the media can't help their love child Obama.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

thehappyamerican — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:28:45 GMT

When Russia invaded Georgia the question was,can this be good for Obama? Can this economic news be good for Obama?

Why would we elect anyone who gets GOOD from bad?

But then the DNC is all about BAD FOR AMERICA = GOOD FOR US... because they run an Americans Suck First campaign.

If BAD =GOOD FOR OBAMA then we better keep him out of the the White House! Or BAD is all were going to see!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

chazn — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:24:24 GMT

It is pretty sickening to watch Obama and Biden and their media surrogates actually get "energized" by very difficult problems for the american people (the vast majority of which own stocks and work for the private sector). You could almost sense the glee in their tone and communication today, They wanted America to fail in Iraq and now they want us to fail economically all for their own personal political agendas. You want problems with the fundamentals of the American economy, just elect these two tax & spenders with a good bit of protectionism too boot.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

RRuin — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:24:15 GMT

The current crisis can be partially laid at the feet of McCain economic adviser Phi Gramm who McCain calls a genius. "Genius" Gramm shoved through deregulation that help cause this mess we're in. But somehow it's Obama's fault?

Obama and Biden aren't "gleeful" but passionate in their determination to get the public to realize the danger they're facing if they elect McCain/Palin.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

SAGG — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:25:18 GMT

Posted By: chazn (September 16, 2008 at 10:24 PM)

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

No more sickening than McCain and Gidget lying like there's no end on Obama. Then the "You're defeatists and doomsayers" argument Repubs make is just as sickening, as if when anyone points out bad news, they somehow have the power to make it happen when it does. Let me clue you in on something I call REALITY, bud--things are getting BAD. REAL bad in this country, and McCain's calling for idiotic 911-type comissions to find out why Wall Street has tanked when his party's policies have been the root cause because of little to no regulation on all of these firms. Keeping your head in the sand and chosing to ignore reality while blaming the Dems for wanting something bad to happen to the economy is nothing short of pathetic.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

pammygamherst — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:28:49 GMT

oh please. the wall street crisis which has and will impact our economy is the fault of the republicans...remember reagan. and, oh, let's talk about phil graham who WAS mccain's economic advisor. wasn't he the one who shoved thru all the deregulation for his good ole wall street buddies? did away with the depression era regulations which let all this crap happen in the first place? and didn't his wife sit on the enron board of directors when it went under?

don't say obama and biden are sickening. mccain is the poster child of hypocrisy - look what he's done with the iraq war - oh the "surge" has worked...so what john....when are you going to admit invading iraq was WRONG? and he uses the iraq war for his only political gain...

no one wants america to fall in iraq - they just know and the rest of us who are intelligent and did not swallow the bush/cheny/rice bait hook/line/sinker that even invading iraq was wrong.

obama and biden are merely using this economic crisis CAUSED by the republicans to point out what has happened what happens when we let conservative pigs run our country for how many years now?

these two are not tax and spend. why don't you go out chazn and do some research and find out which tax plan will benefit the most americans...barack obama's will. 90% of taxpayers - lower and middle class americans - will see their tax rates fall. it'll be the rich that bush gave his biggest tax breaks to that will pay the most. mccain's will of course benefit the richest americans...republican business as usual. and mccain doesn't even understand the economy so how the hell can he offer any change for it? he has been the poster child of deregulation. he's only been for regulation for about the last day. he said today and yesterday this financial crisis on wall street was caused by greed...golly gee...greed because of the republicans....please....and oh, let's not forget the keating five. if you don't know about this please go do some research and you'll see what mccain had to do with this...it wasn't good.

oh, and i have a good book for you to read. 'the prosecution of george w bush for murder' by vincent bugliosi. he's the prosecutor who prosecuted and got a conviction returned against charles manson. the amount of lies told by this administration should sicken even you...i hope if you have a shred of human decency in you (i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt). mccain went right along with bush and voted with him to invade iraq - and voted with him over 90% of the time - but he's a maverick and for change....right.

obama/biden '08

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

SAGG — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:32:01 GMT

Posted By: thehappyamerican (September 16, 2008 at 9:28 PM)

When Russia invaded Georgia the question was,can this be good for Obama? Can this economic news be good for Obama?

Why would we elect anyone who gets GOOD from bad?

But then the DNC is all about BAD FOR AMERICA = GOOD FOR US... because they run an Americans Suck First campaign.

If BAD =GOOD FOR OBAMA then we better keep him out of the the White House! Or BAD is all were going to see!

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

Actually, when Russia invaded Georgia, it was "Can this be good for McCain?" McCain was so eager to show his foriegn policy "expertise" he leaped in front of President Bush and gave a belligerent statement. Knock off the reverse logic, dude. As for the economy, you Repubs are doing it again: Somehow or another trying to say the Dems have the power to make the economy bad at America's expense. YOUR party's policies did this. Knock off the stupidity and accept reality.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

gbgt4me — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:11:54 GMT

"W" and his cronies have brought our country to it's knees thanks to their idiotic policies. The reason why Republicans are not generally good for the economy is because they believe in trickle down economics. They think that the rich have to be motivated to spend their money so that all those profits they make will trickel down to all us poor dumb slobs in the middle and lower classes. McSame and Painlin just can't fathom the notion that giving tax breaks to the middle and lower classes might actually be a good idea! I'm a pro-life Democrat who will vote for Obama because I can't imagin what another four years of Republican leadership will do to this ailing country of ours.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

thehappyamerican — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:34:51 GMT

dear Sagg.

The DNC thrives on bad...

The theme is AMERCANS Suck First and it is composed of 5 discrimination campaigns targeting Americans.

They do not want problems fixed because then they might lose votes as they promise to fix them! YES, the DNC has had the power to to disrupt the economy as it has held the majority in the US Congress!

And yes..they fully intended to blame Republicans and do..AND they drug in oil experts to testify in a bit of theater intended to convince the public these people were "guilty" of something!

So , go watch TV wrestling. The first time the World Trade Center got bombed that's probably what you did because Bill Clinton said the guilty will be bought to justice! And you belived it!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

abadreview — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 05:16:15 GMT

Yes We Can!

Obama is our only hope to get America back on track. It becomes more clear every day.

Obama/Biden '08

It's about America, STUPID!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

newsweekthisweek — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 05:48:34 GMT

John McLame has proved to all American citizens he is a dunce at economics. He even claimed it in his own words, and it came out of his own mouth. He is so out of touch and so far removed from it all, it's outrageous. Then he turns around and says the fundamental economic climate is strong...? Where is he coming from...? How far can he go in misleading the nation with all this stupidity...? Can't he read what's in the news? Or is he also incapable of doing that..?

All I can do is hope and pray that Obama wins this campaign. It is also up to him to explain fully that this economic crisis cannot remain as such, that change is a must in order to alleviate this unforgiveable mess that the present government has created through all its corruption.

It would be a real shame for all American citizens if the Republicans come into power; they clearly do not understand the serious implications of what is happening in today's economic climate which is affecting the Americans in untold ways. My God, one day you own a home and the next day you're out on the street. Never mind all the years you've struggled to keep up with your monthly mortgage payments. It's gone!!! What about the savings that you've worked so hard to put away for your retirement...? It is dust now in the wind - it has vanished!!! Many thanks to the Republicans. This is sad beyond description.

Not only that, this American crisis seriously impacts the world as well.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

leighg1 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:05:57 GMT

Piloted by Bush, America is like a sinking ship right now. Think McCain can save the country? NO WAY. He has been a copilot and cheered all the way for Bush's policies.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

patattn2me — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:31:03 GMT

Did anyone other than myself understand what McSame was saying when he called for a 'comission' to study the failings of the economy? He was saying that he doesn't know a damn thing about the economy and does not have any idea how to begin to fix it. This time calling on Saracuda to get him out of this mess is not an option. I hope that Obama puts that into an ad to show the people what we are dealing with when it comes to competence and ideas. McSame has hijacked everything from Obama from his slogans to his mantra on "change" but he can't hijack his brains and thats what is needed to fix this mess that Bush/Ghram/McCain has gotten us into. Palin can best use this time to refresh her lipstick while brushing up on the Bush doctrine.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

patattn2me — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:14:54 GMT

I have read many of the blogs here and one thing is for certain. 1) Each of the Obama supporters are talking about the need for the policies that Obama and states needs, causes and history to support their conclusions to a greater or lesser degree. 2) Each of the McCain supporters seems to cite Obama, Clinton and other bogus reasons that their candidate is their choice. QUESTION: Why does no one supporting McCain discuss his plans to help the majority of the people and the country as a whole. The McCain philosophy of Distract, Attack and Hijack seems to work on the bloggers that can't spell, uses old tired talking points, and spew hatred at the oppopsition rather than an intrest in being more well informed about the possibility of the demise of our democracy. I, for one, have a greater intrest in choosing what in right for this country at this time than being on the winning side of a failing policy for my country. THINK ABOUT WHAT YOUR VOTE CAN DO TO OUR FUTURE !!!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

patattn2me — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:14:59 GMT

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

kidaho — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:09:47 GMT

The shakeup can be good news for Oama only if the news media and the public not look at the crisis too closely. Freddie/Fannie are Democratic controlled institutes. The Democrats blocked McCain when he attempted to get an investigation going. Senate Resolution over the Housing Industry Reform Act No 190. Check it out. Who benefited from contributions from Freddie/Fannie?

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008 Name Office Party/State Total 1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900 2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000 3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849 4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550 5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500--

Perhaps Obama does not want too close an investigation or enquiry into the collapse. I am sure the Democratic Congress does not want too close an investigation especially before the election showing their duplicity. Obama did not do what the Canadians claim involving NAFTA. Obama did not meet with the Iraqi leaders and try to post pone the troop withdrawal until after the election so he could show the war was failing. I am sure Obama will deny taking the contributions from Freddie/Fannie Mac or the fact the Democratic Congress did not want regulations tightened because it would stop too many people from obtaining loans they could not afford.

Obama is afraid too much scrutiny will make his house of cards come tumbling down. It behooves his cronies in the media to keep people focused on Alaska and not what the Democrats have done or tried to do. The latest is the BS vote on drilling. If Congress truly wants to get things started open up the coast line without the 50 mile BS, allow the extra drilling in Alaska, and begin a truly innovated beginning of obtaining alternative fuel resources. Fifty years ago it may have been an issue about oil spills, but today the oil platforms survive the hurricanes with success. The oil industry has come a long ways.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Amy Lomasney — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:23:11 GMT

Good luck - it's going to take more than that to lift Barack. can't you tell the excitement has completely deflated. he's not the "it" story any more. Like myself, of months ago, we have simply bored of him and his glorified rhetoric.

I personally am looking for a compelling reason to vote democrat this year. But in 4 years nancy and Harry have given me no good reason to do so.

Ahhh, only the dems could lose this one so beautifully...

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

agnstheflow — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:39:57 GMT

Obama just loves another opportunity to blame McCain and compare him to Bush taking for granted all of us are stupid. Just another smokscreen to keep us from finding out Obama's hidden agendas untill after the election. He has one ambition.....suceed at all cost! Despite all the sweet talk, he cares nothing at all about the American people. Manipulate the poor with promises and empty talk, then once in office inflict our country with their hidden not just socialist but communist agendas that once belonged to Obama's father and dedication to the United nations with his "Global Poverty" bill that will put the United nations in complete control over all the money we pay on foreign aid which will INCREASE about 840 billion dollars over the next 13 years. This is our tax dollars that Obama will have to increase to do this along with his other seemingly nice ideas about giving money to the poor. Tax the hell out of us, so we will need more government support to make ends meet. Obama is out to make all of us poor and totally dependent on the government for all our needs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news do a search on Obama. Sad I had to find the news in Britian back in 07 to when they did research on Obama's life before this campaign battle to find out the real truth. His books are full of lies and half truths. There's many articles there...read if you dare.

McCain is the lesser of the two evils!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

kidaho — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:46:55 GMT

To support McCain and what he wants done -- check Senate Resolution 190 the Federal Housing Regulatroy Reform Act. McCain tried to get an investigation going into the Fannie/Freddie housing industry before the collapse and it was blocked by the Democrats. Obama had his hand in the cookie jar when it came to receiving funds. McCain/Palin is for opening up the drilling in our own country which will help across the board but is being treated as a joke by the democrats. Fifty miles off shore -- give me a break. Ninety Five percent of the American people will get a tax break -- how is that possible when 40 percent of the American people do not pay taxes? Some of the sites list the contributions given by Obama and others -- however, this also reduces the tax liability of the individual -- i know as I take the same deduction -- so give me a break -- it is for a tax write off.

I enjoy the jibes from some of the others who write in about spelling when the person complaining apparently cannot use spell check before posting.

Take time to look into who benefited year after year from Freddie and Fannie. Which party received all of the contributions? Take time to ask why the Canadians would lie about the NAFTA issue or why the Iraqi leader is now lying about what was discussed in July with his meeting with Obama. The economy does need to be fixed. People do need to be held accountable for the collapse of the housing industry. BUT rather than point out all the past failures of either party, it would seem to be beneficial to have some honest discussions on how to fix the problem. We can always look at who is responsible AFTER we get things going in the right direction.

The American people can think for themselves. The American people can ask the tough questions to each candidate in a logical forum like a town hall meeting where both candidates have to answer without a teleprompter or a rehearsed speech. I think it would be great if we had this type of an opportunity to truly hear what a candidate has to say. In the real world, whoever is placed into the white house will have to make decisions and some of these will have to be without a lot of time. A town hall setting can show whether the candidate can think on his/her feet.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

cuppa jo — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:02:38 GMT

You know, it seems like the media is almost happy that this happened. I see these headlines everywhere spouting how this is great for Obama. What jerks!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

desertclair — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:59:58 GMT

The Republican's deregulation philosophy is responsible for this economic situation. They were wrong! You must have oversight of gov. They also cut taxes as they raised expenses leading to an overwhelming national debt. They have no idea what they are doing!!!!

Check out this video: Get Ready For America's Crash

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD4VKWDt2uk&feature=related

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

busby — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:51:38 GMT

What a negative connotation. To say that this crisis is good for Obama while it is bad for so many Americans pits the good of the voters against the good of Obama. Is Obama's newsweek sure they want to push this thought? This situation is so complicated that to say one man can fix it is to so oversimplify that it denigrates the intelligence of the voter. Sorry, but the press are the ones who so "distracted" the voters with their unimportant "gottcha" reporting and continue to ill serve the public with their shallow and one-sided views. This situation is so complicated that it is going to take better heads than yours to fix it and the ramifications are so great that voters can no longer afford to listen to your garbage. Right now this country needs a miracle and some clear thinking beyond most of us. You guys are part of the problem in this country, not part of the solution. Edward R. Murrow, Ernie Pyle and the rest of the "real" press must be spinning in their graves.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

willnotvoteobama — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:54:40 GMT

i remember when hilary tried everything to knock obama down even the kitchen sink and it did not work! now the obama camp is trying everything including the kitchen sink on palin and its not working ! she gets bigger crowds at her rallies and he gets small ones his ego is crushed and he is worried that he will lose the white house ! and he should be ! McCAIN / PALIN 08 ! >>>>>>>>>> OBAMA / BIDEN BACK TO THE SENATE !

as history suggests issues of policy will ultimately trump the politics of identity. obama is all about who he is and nothing about what he has done ! McCain is all about what he has done not who he is ! the choice is clear !

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Donna1000 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:41:11 GMT

Has Andrew Romano ever written anything negative about Obama?

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

busby — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:45:29 GMT

Will Obama return the $10 million in contributions from Wall Street since he is now attacking them along with McCain and the republicans? Weren't the democrats there doing nothing to stop them under Nancy and Harry? Please understand that the only innocent victims here are us. We need to do some equal opportunity blame laying at all their feet, including the media that has so ill served the public. We have to get money out of politics if there's to be any chance of a decent country again. Obama dines on $28,000 steak while wall street and the possible futures of thousands of Americans go up in smoke. McCain's little dinner was about $50,000. What is wrong with this picture. Why doesn't the media, that "cares so much" donate a some free time so these pols can pay a little attention to us.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

keeptrying10 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:27:02 GMT

AIG CEO a huge dem. Explains the need for a govt bailout / handout due to irresponsibility. How does one sink so low in life as to become a democrat should be studied. Do you have no self-respect?

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

yadayada — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:45:37 GMT

Why is McCain's lawyer's trying to shut down the probe into why Sara Palin fired Monegan?

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

bloopfish — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:46:03 GMT

One thing I have always assumed is that you will never change the way people think! Especially when it come to hardcore republicans, for some chemical imbalance in there brains they are prone to keep on walking into the same wall no matter how many times you tell them that it's there.

Quoting a great speaker, " They're outta touch with reality!" http://www.chilitoz.com

That makes so much sense to me now days, I can see it crearly in the eyes of John McCain.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

keeptrying10 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:51:18 GMT

I certainly DO NOT want a hussein obama running my country. Look what you dems keep doing to yourselves! Your decisions in life, business and politics are mind-boggling. Here is the company you keep...Crazy man gore, howard dean, out of touch kerry, celebrities, michael moore, news media, al franken, barack hussein obama, keith oberman, rosie, kucinich, etc. Look what makes up you people. Do you really want to be part of that crowd? Don't you aspire to be more? Get the hell out of there. Be happy, prosperous, do your best, work hard, work on your thinking, enjoy your short life. The Gov't ain't going to change a things, only you can do that.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

keeptrying10 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:54:25 GMT

bloopfish

Smoking another man's pole is reality? Is that who you are and the dems have decided is reality? That explains everything why there have been 2 dem pres in 40 yrs. I can tell by your post, that's your agenda.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

keeptrying10 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:00:24 GMT

Why is McCain's lawyer's trying to shut down the probe into why Sara Palin fired Monegan?

Because it's nothing more than a Dem lead lynching. Even people in their own party admit it. When you see the WHOLE story, and not a soundbite, there is NOTHING there.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

yadayada — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:01:59 GMT

I have been following the election coverage since the beginning. I have seen just about every poll there is to see. I have watched every news report on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC and even some of my local news media reports. And the one thing that sticks out in my mind is that not one reporting media has even addressed the influence that the afro-american voter will have on this election. It's almost as if these people don't even exisit. I wonder if chuck todd the so called expert on numbers took into account the african american numbers. How about it chuck where are the numbers? And not only that I have yet to hear about any pollisters calling anyone in the the afro american community. I know that if they did there would most definitly be some talk about.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

americandefender — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:10:28 GMT

It's amazing all these ignorant republicans can do is attack obama's name with idiotic kindergarden tactics you really do show your ignorance! And what it really comes down is that the thought of a Black Man being president scares the hell out of your racist asses Run Chickens Run.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

mrzoid — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:12:19 GMT

Sure the economy is favorable for Obama; simple politics says, "when things are going bad, blame the guys who have been in control.". The arguement that the Dems have controlled congress for two years just isn't going to stick; people lay blame on Bush for everything, and the GOP suffers for the disapproval of GWB. If the election comes down to the economy, and have no illusions, it is issue #1 right now, than Obama wins.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

reggie92 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:17:31 GMT

Nobama is going to need more than a shakey economy to help him. He needs to start being honest about his Muslim backround. He is definately hiding something and the media is helping him. He needs to tell us why his wife is not proud of her country and why she always looks so angry. He needs to let us know why he thinks it is o.k. to remove the American flag from his private jet and replace it with his own flag symbol. What kind of leader would even think of such a thing. This is a discrace. He needs to let us know why he will not lend a hand to his step-brother who lives in a box. What kind of a man is this. He is a Manchurian Candidate!!!! He needs to let the American people know why over the past two years when his own party has been in charge he has spent NO time on the Senate floor trying to get some of his so-called CHANGE legislation passed. I can tell you if I was from the great state of Illinois I would be wondering just what did I send this guy to Washington for. He has done nothing to help his own State improve. NOTHING!!! How can we expect him to do anything for our Country?

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

mtgmother@comcast.net — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:28:22 GMT

I don't care what color, or gender the next Presiden is. What I do care about is that the next President has to knowledge and where withall to LEAD this country back in the right direction. Quite frankly, NEITHER candidate impresses me as being capable of doing this. I believe that no matter which is elected, they will be one term Presidents, as neither can live up to the promises they are making to get there. I can't imagine not voting, so I think I will write in "None of the Above".

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

RiversideWarrior — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:55:43 GMT

The 'voodoo' unregulated economics that has been the norm of the past 8 years has finally been exposed in a most resounding fashion given the latest announcements on AIG, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie mac, etc. Funny thing is, until less than 2 years ago, Sen. McCain was Chair of the Commerce committee that had oversight on the regulation of the banking and financial investment industries, he along with his buddy Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) did everything they could to deregulate such protections designed to protect the American people in order to allow their supporters to steal and gamble. Farewell to Bush/McCain/Palin, it has not been so nice knowing you as the chickens finally come home to roost!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

macfive — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:20:30 GMT

It's about the economy and the future of our economy. Who protect us best ? Jobs. Who will create them. National security. Who will protect THIS counrty and put our nose in others affairs. Can the next leader take of home first. I could care less about Palin and her life at home is she able to run this counrty. Who cares what Obama's name sounds like his parents picked his name not him. Can he fix our economy? Please lets foucus on what matters and not allow the media to push our thought pattern in their direction. Use your our head that time look some information about these people and make an informed choice. Don't place your vote based on a sound bite. Think about your house and how these people will help or hurt our every day life.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

ndrock — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:25:19 GMT

How can it help Obama? With the way the Democrats spend money on fruitless social issues trying to solve all our ills, who is going to pay for all this? It sure as hell is not going to be Obama and people in his wage range! He talks tax relief.WHAT A JOKE! Where is all this money coming from.

I know, from Hollywood celebrities that can dish out hundred of thousands of dollars worth of lobbying money for a dinner. If anyone thinks that the lobbyists have not funded this campaign of "ah sucks, I'm just your average guy on the street", then you need to get out your head out from what ever it is you are smoking.

Who really gives a crap. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE RESPONISBLE! Congress let it get this bad. OH YA, aren't the Demarcates suppose to be in control of congress? YA all you Obama supporters, that what I thought. Save it for someone who is not up to date on the issues. Hollywood Rag Journalism at its best in this article.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

ndrock — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:25:31 GMT

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

macfive — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:26:02 GMT

Oh please leave the way this man's (Obama) wife look out of our comments. Her facial expression have not to do with her husbands ability to lead. Another example of allow simple things to cloud our judgment. Those type comments have no place in issuse based conversation think of something better. It was just plain mean!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

reggie92 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:43:55 GMT

It's really funny how Nobama thinks we do not see him for what he is. On a day when people are confused about their financial future he goes to Hollywood and has a party with the elites. Talk about out of touch. And stop it with all this race crap. He is only half black. The main reason not to vote for him is his radical Muslim beliefs. At a time when the radical Muslims want to destroy all of the Western civilization we certainly do not need their leader in charge of the U.S.A.!

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

LastLaugh — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:44:20 GMT

A RED flag should be going up - - WARNING ----Everything that is BAD for America is Good for Democrats!! Bad Economy? The Democrats are Estatic!!! How Ironic - - THEY CAUSED the

economic problems through Clinton (by putting neophite Cuomo & Raines in charge) and the Congressional Dems (Dodd, Obama, Frank, etc.) loosening lending rules and being in the pocket of FannieMae/FreddieMac. THOSE that CAUSED our housing crisis WILL NOW BENEFIT FROM

THE TRAGIC EFFECTS OF IT!! AND THE NEWSMEDIA IS COMPLICIT IN THIS FRAUD!

YOU know all this, but keep silent in order to elect Obama. SHAME on you.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

sweetm74 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:44:54 GMT

Obama is the only presedential candidate that doesn't receive any financial help from the lobbyist , corporate world.Could someone look back and tell me if you have ever seen our country in such bad economical state,bad relationship with the world.Please let me know when is it that we had so much unemployment,please let me know when is it that we had to really accept that their is a possibility our kids will not be in school.Why do I see billboards saying vote for the best hockey mom and not for the one that will assure you the job will be done.Are u blind?Our country was given to one party for eight years and we are fighting two wars.We have the highest unemployment rate.Why would you wish for that party to serve another day to do the decision making.We are on a continous downfall.Our jobs are no-longer here because the business owners were offered a better deal to go else where. India,Phillipines etc.When was the last time you were able to received customer service and the person is station in the us on the phone.Are u blind?

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

sweetm74 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:54:02 GMT

Obama's dad had a muslim name.His mom gave him that name which is white like us.

Stop looking at the color and the name and find out more about someone's accomplishment.

Obama did not spend that much time with his dad to even know about muslims.

You should read more.His white maternal grand-parents raised him.His mom died at an early age too.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

sweetm74 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:58:12 GMT

Look at your economy,Get an appraisal for your home and see what happened to the value over the past year.Accept that the party that is making our decision is not doing the job and you gave them eight years.It is time for the other party to clean up their dirty work.IT is a mess. Look at what is going on.Every other person is laid off.Our jobs are no-longer here.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

sweetm74 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:58:40 GMT

In eight years we are fighting two wars.....

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

yadayada — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:36:35 GMT

If Sara Palin fought big oil companies and the good old boys why is the price of gas still so high?

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

reggie92 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:04:00 GMT

The Dems. have been in charge of both Houses and still gas prices are so high. It's Palosi's fault.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

eagles1776 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:26:52 GMT

I read a lot of posts on several sites and one thing is for sure when people criticize the media. The right calls the media favoring the left and the left says it favors the right. That usually means they are doing their job of stying generally in the middle.

As for Obama being a Muslim how stupid do you think we are? One minute his detractors complain that he is a Muslim and the next they complain about his former minister (Protestant, Christian type) and comments said preacher made. So they seem to want it both ways. What ever is convenient at the time.

Since they want to criticize people for names lets ask what kind of person would name a kid track or trig? This sounds like Halloween and trick or treat from someone who just may be the wicked witch of the North.

Phil Gramm and John McCain were partly responsible for the deregulation that was a major contributor to the financial mess we have right now.

Much of what I read in the posts of those detractors of Sen. Obama are the usual low life attacks that have long since been debunked. They don't dare talk about the real issues as they know they will lose big time. Sad and pathetic are those who post such garbage. But since we still have free speech (much to the shagrin of Bush/Cheney) they can say such things. What a wonderful country we live in.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

yadayada — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:27:00 GMT

President Bush is in charge with his veto pen. that is why the price of gas is so high

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

haynessemperfi — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:49:43 GMT

RALPH NADER PREDICTED WALL STREET MELTDOWN 8 YEARS AGO

Eight years ago, consumer advocate Ralph Nader correctly predicted that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) were on track to follow the savings and loan industry of the 1980s and 90s into a big financial heap of trouble. Nobody listened, and taxpayers are now at risk of losing tens of billions of dollars. Wall Street is being shaken to its foundation. American International Group Inc., the biggest U.S. insurer by assets, is now teetering on the brink of ruin after suffering losses of $18 billion in the past three quarters, largely due to its sub prime mortgage exposure.

"Nader Rips Mae and Mac," declared the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal on June 16, 2000. "Ralph Nader, warning of a potential taxpayer bailout similar to the savings and loan crisis, urged lawmakers to cut government benefits to mortgage-market giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which he called 'poster children for corporate welfare.'"

This year Nader, who is also running for president as an independent, is getting credit for his prescience.

"Give one presidential candidate credit for identifying the problem and getting the policy right -- and doing so before the twin government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went into the tank in mid-July," wrote Lou Dubose in The Washington Spectator on Aug. 1. Dubose went on to quote Nader's June 15, 2000 Congressional testimony about HR 3703, a bill that would have reigned in some of the most dangerous tendencies of GSE's, had it passed.

In a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox in 2006, Nader also criticized the exorbitant salary of GSE executives Jamie Gorelick, Daniel Mudd, Robert Levin and Timothy Howard, and noted that their financial incentives were in direct conflict with consumer financial security because of the grave moral hazard created by accounting manipulations they sanctioned that benefited their personal wealth, with no penalty for being caught.

"As you continue to investigate the Fannie Mae accounting debacle, we are writing to urge you to seek civil sanctions, including disgorgement, from senior executives who profited directly from the misconduct at Fannie Mae, and that you urge the Department of Justice to give careful consideration to criminal prosecution of these individuals," wrote Nader.

Candidate Nader has called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt, an end to corporate subsidies and unconditional taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and a start to the aggressive prosecution of corporate criminals.

Today, in his prepared remarks for New York Times editors in its Washington Bureau, Nader stated : "Given the contrast between the 'free market' ideology of the Republicans and the corporate or state socialism that is their increasing practice, the time is ripe for full Congressional hearings next year on the organized power, greed and lack of regulation that is shaking the foundations of Wall Street."

Nader added, "What we need to do now is find a just way to deal with the millions of homeowners facing foreclosure and make sure that this level of financial market manipulation does not happen again." He elaborated a 10-point plan to cool off the financial markets meltdown:

Immediate Changes Required for Any Bailout

- No bailouts without conditions and reciprocity in the form of stock warrants

- No more lobbying for any company that is bailed out

- No golden parachutes and get out of jail free cards for guilty executives

- No bailouts without public hearings

Changes to Housing Market

- Reduce the moral hazard in U.S. mortgage markets by introducing covered bonds for the majority of mortgage products as they do in Western Europe. That gives institutions that finance mortgages an incentive to be prudent, because they cannot just unload them and wipe their hands clean of the liability, but are instead on the hook if the homeowner defaults.

- Maintain neighborhood stability and housing security by passing a law with a sunset clause allowing below median-value homeowners facing foreclosure the right to rent-to-own their homes at fair market value rates.

- Avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than 15-20 times the annual fair market rent value of the home.

Structural Changes to Financial Markets

- Make the Federal Reserve a Cabinet Position, so it is accountable to Congress, as well as making sure all Federal Reserve Bank presidents are appointed by the President and answerable to congress.

- Reduce conflicts of interest by taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment.

- Implement a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives to deter casino-style capitalism.

For more information, visit votenader.org.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

haynessemperfi — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:59:08 GMT

The reason for our current economy situation is because our duopoly government omits real decision and debate. Neither Obama nor McCain will product any real change until you open our government to third party and independent candidates. How can you get a diverse viewpoint on the economy, environment, or foreign affairs from only two sides of the political sphere?

www.votenader.org

OPEN THE DEBATES AND OUR GOVERNMENT

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

RiversideWarrior — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:05:45 GMT

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

dyellon md — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:35:35 GMT

McCain can't run on the promise of oversight of the economy and call himself 2 months ago the deregulator. He will have to defend this obvious lie when he debates Obama. Obama needs to get more fire in the belly, like Joe Biden, and get people interested in what he has to say. I think his spelling out his solutions compared to McCain's recommendation for a Commisssion to study the issue is a winning theme. We also need all the Democrats such as Hillary, Bill, Robert Reich from the Clinton years, Carville, Begala join in the refrain about income tax reductions for the middle class and more job creation and less money returned to the wealthiest Americans.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

dyellon md — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:44:56 GMT

Reggie92. Your racism is showing. Obama is Christian, not muslim. Obama was raised by his mother who was from Kansas. His father was absent his entire life. He took a trip to visit him grandmother in Hawaii. He attended a fund raiser to get money for the campaign, just like McCain, He has been talking about the economy for the last 19 months, not the last two days. McCain has called the fundmentals of the economy sound 19 times, and has Phil Grahm as his potential Secretary of the Treasury. We are just a bunch of winers eh? We will be crying if McCain gets a chance to put us into a Depression.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Pain — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:30:15 GMT

Sell your house, sell your car, sell the kids. Head for the hills. It's over. Obamacain can't fix this any more than I can.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Pain — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:35:19 GMT

"You know, it seems like the media is almost happy that this happened. I see these headlines everywhere spouting how this is great for Obama. What jerks!"

Jerks indeed.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Pain — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:35:27 GMT

"You know, it seems like the media is almost happy that this happened. I see these headlines everywhere spouting how this is great for Obama. What jerks!"

Jerks indeed.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

wyomingite — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:39:43 GMT

Obama ought to can the lame-ass campaign managers he has now and hire Andrew Romano

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

torrac — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:42:37 GMT

THAT IS ALL BECAUSE OF THE MISSMANAGEMENT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE ECONOMY THROUGH BUSH, A BUSH 3 RD TERM THROUGH THAT ASS OF MC CAIN WOULD BE FOR AMERICAN PURE SUCIDE. BUSH HAS MADE OF CHINA AN ECONOMIC SUPER POWER THROUGH OUTSOURCING OUR JOBS, ENJOY THE RESULT MORONS.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

alfa11 — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 01:50:58 GMT

JOHN MACCAIN IS A "JOKE" AS POLITICIAN AND CANDIDATE.

HERE IS A MAN WHO IS TOO MENTALLY DISTRACTED TO KNOW, HOW

MANY HOUSES HE OWNS, AND TO IGNORANT OF THE AMERICAN

ECONOMY; TO REALLY CATER, TO THE NEEDS OF THE WORKING CLASS

AVERAGE AMERICAN.

AND SARAH PALIN IS HIS SELFISH,OPPORTUNISTIC CHOICE SO HE CAN

GET ELECTED, BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN; BUT THIS WOMAN IS LIKE

HIM A "JOKE" OF A POLITICIAN,IN EVERY ASPECT TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED,

AND EVEN DANGEROUS TO LEAD A COUNTRY LIKE THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA.

YOU CAN NOT COMPARE POPULATIONWISE "MICKEY MOUSE" ALASKA,

WITH THE REST OF THE U.S.A. TO BE ABLE TO LEAD.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

willnotvoteobama — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:45:09 GMT

If there is anyone out there that doesn't know this; this is the best visual presentation I ever saw. just remember who did this when you vote....

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,

That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,

That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and

That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and if we get a Social Security check every month we are finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government and now to Dwight Eisenhower

34th. President, Republican,

in 1958 the first year that Congress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.

If I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress. And From what I understand, the Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for. Then comes Lyndon Johnson 36th.President,a Democrat

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson a Democrat, and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party. Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Albert Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S. Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! (Jimmy Carter) a Democrat, and the Democratic Party. Voted to give

Immigrants who moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! TheDemocratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people read this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Oncethereuponatime — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:30:05 GMT

It's not what happens, it's what you do after it happens. The financial crisis is real and palpable and scary for those of us who don't understand how it all works.

That the government(s) didn't do whatever is history, and it will take the better fiscally-savvy party to put the monetary humpty-dumpty pieces back together.

Since the past is history - we can input our future. Now the question becomes who can be be relied upon to rebuild an American economy of future enterprise and success?

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Nins — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:25:02 GMT

Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, AIG and the rest of the failed institutions have failed primarily because of former Senator Phil Gramm. The Gramm-Leach-Biley Act stripped away the regulations separating banking from investment companies, insurance companies and mortgage guaranty companies. Those regulations were added after the Great Depression when it became obvious that allowing banks to be in bed with the stock market was a sure way to rig the system to collapse, as it did in 1929.

Lo an behold, a few years after the regulations were removed, the sh!t has hit the fan, and the inter-related investment, insurance, mortgage and banking industries are now starting to collapse, and guess what, you, the taxpayer will have to pay to clean it up.

Phil Gramm is the Senator who brought you the "Enron Loophole" that de-regulated futures trading, causing the prices of oil, gas and food to spiral out of control.

Senator Phil Gramm was McCain's top economic advisor until recently, when he was forced to step down after he said that there is no problem with our economy other than a "mental recession" on the part of a "nation of whiners." Phil Gramm is the man who McCain said he wants to name Secretary of the Treasury if he becomes President. You have to believe John McCain when he says that he knows little about the economy -- so little that he doesn't even know who to choose as an advisor.

Barack Obama addressed the Enron Loophole, futures trading, short-selling and Wall Street de-regulation months ago in his economic position papers, which are available on his website. Obama has been saying all along that he is going to put in strict regulations and clean up Wall Street.

McCain just started saying that he favors regulation in the past couple of weeks. How is it that McCain is going to put in new regulations, when he plans to appoint Phil Gramm, the man who authored the de-regulation, as Secretary of the Treasury? McCain says he would fire Christopher Cox, the SEC Chairman, to solve the problem. However, the problem is caused by lack of regulations on the legislative level, regulations that were removed before Cox was appointed. The SEC can only enforce regulations that actually exist, so making a scapegoat of Cox solves nothing. I would suggest that McCain is guilty of saying what's politically expedient, that he does not actually intend to regulate the banking industry. McCain knows that most Americans are unaware of the details.

I am a middle-aged white conservative Republican who loves America. I am voting for Barack Obama.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15050.html

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145011/page/1

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6007788.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E0D81038F934A25752C0A9649C8B63

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5Rzb

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

kirt — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:46:18 GMT

McCaiin and his pals have stripped regulation and we are now going to pay for the price for greed and corruption. If that is not bad enough McCain and pals keep playing the race card on this putting the blame on minorities load calling it the cause. Firing someone after the effect sounds good but dose nothing to fix the problem. Believing that middle class make $5million a year speaks for itself. Making about face only after the worst stock fall in history to admit the economy is in trouble is out of step and out of touch. Never addressing the issues until this time leaves little trust.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

kirt — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:05:21 GMT

Palin dosen't want to represent women of colour nor dose she want to represent blue collar women. Here is a person who can be just one step away from the president and she has no need to understand diversity? You want votes from the same groups you don't represent? According to your spokewomen only executive white female you represent? Yet you can't speak without permission, prewriten of course, strange just strange.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Omaar — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:34:33 GMT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092300439.html

By Chris Cillizza

washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

Tuesday, September 23, 2008; 7:17 AM

The presidential race between John McCain and Barack Obama in four key battleground states remains remarkably stable despite a month of politically significant developments, with the Illinois senator running ahead of or even with his Republican rival according to polling conducted by Quinnipiac University for washingtonpost.com and the Wall Street Journal.

In Colorado, Obama takes 49 percent to 45 percent for McCain while in Michigan Obama stands at 48 percent as compared to 44 percent for McCain. The contest in Minnesota, once considered a lock for Obama, is also quite close with Obama at 47 percent and McCain 45 percent. Only in Wisconsin does Obama have an edge -- 49 percent to 42 percent -- outside the statistical margin of error for the poll.

Those results are remarkably similar to data from July Quinnipiac polls in each of the four states and suggest that despite the massive media coverage surrounding the two parties' national nominating conventions as well as the vice presidential selections -- especially that of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, which many presumed would alter the campaign's dynamic -- little has changed in the race for the White House.

The upheaval in financial markets has crystallized the importance of the economy in each of the four states where it is, by far, the most important issue for voters. The results are most pronounced in Michigan, whose economy has been badly crippled with the collapse of its manufacturing and auto industries. Nearly six in ten voters in the Wolverine State cited the economy as the most important issue in their vote; the war in Iraq trailed far behind (12 percent) as did energy policy (10 percent). In each of the other three states more than half of voters named the economy as the most critical issue in the election.

re: Why the Shakeup on Wall Street Could Be Good News for Obama

Omaar — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:42:15 GMT

CO-Pres: Palin drags McCain down

by kos

Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:14:22 PM PDT

McCain (R) 44 (46)

Obama (D) 51 (47)

A precipitous drop in Sarah Palin’s approval may be helping to fuel Obama’s gains. Immediately after the convention 41% of Colorado voters said that her selection made them more likely to vote for John McCain, compared to 38% who said it made them less likely to do so. Since then there’s been a 12 point drop in her net favorability. Now just 38% say that she makes them more likely to vote for the Republican, with 47% saying they’re less likely to do so.

“Barack Obama has greatly increased his lead with independents since we last polled Colorado,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “It seems like the more voters have learned about Sarah Palin the less they’ve liked her, and that’s allowed Obama to open up the largest lead he’s shown in a PPP poll of Colorado.”

Those who argued giving Palin a pass when she was wildly popular were wrong. While she's rallied the base and solidified states like North Dakota and Alaska for Palin, she is now toxic to independents and Democrats.

The movement over the last couple weeks has been particularly acute with independent voters. 56% of them say that the Palin choice makes them less likely to support McCain and what was a 49-38 lead for Obama with that group is now a 58-31 advantage.

Voters have "learned [more] about Sarah Palin" because we aggressively investigated her record and encouraged the traditional media to do the same (and they did a pretty darn good job). Giving her a pass because she was "too popular" or because it "took the focus off McCain" would have allowed her positive narrative to stick, allowing her popularity to continue propping up McCain. As I've said before, this is a tactic straight out of Taking on the System.

Instead of being an asset to the McCain effort, they're now forced to hide her, afraid of giving critics more ammunition to use against her (and, by extension, McCain).

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092300439.html

By Chris Cillizza

washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

Tuesday, September 23, 2008; 7:17 AM