U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[OverKnight]

Gah?

[Xiahou]

Congratulations Obama supporters. Your guy just put out an Ad calling McCain and Rush Limbaugh part and parcel of the same package in his new Hispanic ad.

This is like saying Elliot Ness and Organized Crime are the same thing. Two opposing sides on the Immigration issue, but since they are mentioned in the same sentence, they must be the same thing!

This is and outright dishonest Ad. It is safe to call the originator of this ad a liar. I wonder what Lemur thinks about it?

FactCheck comes to Limbaugh's defense and criticizes the dishonesty of the Obama ad. (while also criticizing McCain for blaming Democrats for the failure of the immigration bill.)

Unlike FactCheck, I think it's obvious that she was talking about "domestic" energy- she said as much in the quote. However, they go on to point out that, "domestic" aside, her statement was still factually wrong. Had she been talking specifically about domestic oil production, she would've still been exaggerating, but at least she would've been in the ball park. Did she misspeak? Did she not know the facts? Or was she shamelessly lying as Lemur believes? We don't know- but I think she should be further pressed on the issue.

Turns out, she was pressed on the issue and explains that she meant oil and natural gas. FactCheck still disagrees with the 20% figure, but the campaign also provided it's source, the Alaska Resource Development Council- which listed the 20% figure, that they now caution is a 20yr average(they now peg the current number at 15% and FactCheck still disagrees).

If it sounds confusing, just read their update on the topic, at the bottom of the page.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I wonder what our leading economics expert had to say about deregulation a couple months ago?

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

[m52nickerson]

Isn't the definition of insanity to try the samething over and over and expect a different result?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I wonder what our leading economics expert had to say about deregulation a couple months ago?

Sasaki. "Regulation" is just a word. Of course we want good regulation and we want to get rid of bad regulation. The government should step in where there is widespread de-stabilization, but it should loosen the reigns were it looks like it would be a good idea.

It seems like some people will use this event to attack anyone who says that the government is doing too much regulating. That is crazy. There was obviously not enough regulation of honesty in numbers with regards to mortgages and securities, but I don't think it is reasonable to say; "because of that failure to regulate we now need to go overboard and regulate everything, even if it has very little to do with the problem at hand - anyone who stands in the way of regulation in any industry are enablers of the financial crisis".

Many are arguing for a federal de-regulation of marriage allowing 2 people of the same gender to marry. Oh my God - De-regulators!!!!! Crucify them for financial sabotage!

What would you say are the drawbacks to de-regulating interstate barriers in health care?

[Gregoshi]

Isn't the definition of insanity to try the samething over and over and expect a different result?

Like the discussions in this thread?

[Strike For The South]

Insanity- Such a mental condition, as, either from the existence of delusions, or from incapacity to distinguish between right and wrong, with regard to any matter under action, does away with individual responsibility.

[KarlXII]

Isn't the definition of insanity to try the samething over and over and expect a different result?

I thought that was the philosophy of the Republican Party......

[ICantSpellDawg]

I thought that was the philosophy of the Republican Party......

Oh this is a Republican thing now? I could have sworn it was a bi-partisan debacle, unless guys like Barney Frank switched over to red without notice.

[KarlXII]

Oh this is a Republican thing now? I could have sworn it was a bi-partisan debacle, unless Barney Frank switched over to red without notice.

Seems humor is lost to the right

Oh well......

[ICantSpellDawg]

Seems humor is lost to the right

Oh well......

It was very clever to say that Republicans are insane...

[KarlXII]

It was very clever to say that Republicans are insane...

Didn't say that, said their philosophy is insane

There's a difference

Just don't get your panties in a bunch.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Isn't the definition of insanity to try the samething over and over and expect a different result?

"I thought that was the philosophy of the democratic party..."

Nope. Wasn't funny then either. Vaguely related mainstream pot-shots are for morons. You are better than that, no?

[KarlXII]

"I thought that was the philosophy of the democratic party..."

Nope. Wasn't funny then either. Vaguely related mainstream pot-shots are for morons. You are better than that, no?

That wasn't funny because you plagarized....10 bucks please.

"Moron" is such a strong word. Getting angry, are we? I didn't think you'd get so hot headed over a stupid little comment.

[Big_John]

emocons.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"Moron" is such a strong word. Getting angry, are we? I didn't think you'd get so hot headed over a stupid little comment.

...

Just don't get your panties in a bunch.

Don't be catty.

Like the discussions in this thread?

Sasaki. "Regulation" is just a word. Of course we want good regulation and we want to get rid of bad regulation. The government should step in where there is widespread de-stabilization, but it should loosen the reigns were it looks like it would be a good idea.

It seems like some people will use this event to attack anyone who says that the government is doing too much regulating. That is crazy. There was obviously not enough regulation of honesty in numbers with regards to mortgages and securities, but I don't think it is reasonable to say; "because of that failure to regulate we now need to go overboard and regulate everything, even if it has very little to do with the problem at hand - anyone who stands in the way of regulation in any industry are enablers of the financial crisis".

Many are arguing for a federal de-regulation of marriage allowing 2 people of the same gender to marry. Oh my God - De-regulators!!!!! Crucify them for financial sabotage!

What would you say are the drawbacks to de-regulating interstate barriers in health care?

Well I don't have time to go into it now, but clearly there are times when deregulation is good and when it's bad, obviously we agree on that. That's a basic philosophy difference that republicans go for more free market solutions (free market solutions are great sometimes, so the remark about insanity doesn't follow).

The point of the quote to me was that a couple months ago McCain supported the deregulation of the financial industry...now look at his recent comments.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I know, but he was using the good examples of reduced regulation in finance to support his plan of reducing regulation in the Health Insurance industry. I don't believe that anybody would have stood behind the idea that people were given unsafe loans that they had no ability or desire to pay back - without any check int other financial backgrounds. Nor would anyone have stood behind cooking financial books in such a dangerous way as to eventually scare everyone from investing money anywhere. I'm sure McCain wasn't talking about those unfortunate changes.

There needs to be common sense about this. After Bear Sterns there should have been task forces going in to investment firms and straightening the books, but nobody did tha. Hindsight is 20/20 - Certain developments have been terrible, but others have been pretty good. Mostly terrible as of late.

The question is - for all of the onslaught against McCain, does anyone here responsible really believe that Obama understands the economic situation or what needs to be done? I'm not so sure that many Presidents get finance unless they've worked in finance. Even financiers in general are confused and have little idea what to do or how to do it. Isn't it a little pompous to believe that Obama transcends things like snags in widely understood rational thought on things he has had little to nothing to do with in his entire life?

[m52nickerson]

Many are arguing for a federal de-regulation of marriage allowing 2 people of the same gender to marry. Oh my God - De-regulators!!!!! Crucify them for financial sabotage!

What would you say are the drawbacks to de-regulating interstate barriers in health care?

Well right now their are no federal laws that recognize the marriage of same sex couples, so you can't de-regulate something that is not their.


Drawbacks of removing interstate barriers in health care, none. Drawbacks in de-regulating the health care system in the whole, a future of failure. The health care system in this country is not failing because of state barriers and regulations. It is failing because insurance companies will take your money, then deny you meds and procedures everywhere they can. They cover only the people least likely to need them so they make more profits. They can change what meds they cover at their whim and in some cases tell you nad your doctors what treatments you can get. The insurance companies care only for their bottom line. That will continue less regulation or no regulation at all. That is why the rest of the industrial world has gone to universal health care.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Drawbacks of removing interstate barriers in health care, none. Drawbacks in de-regulating the health care system in the whole, a future of failure. The health care system in this country is not failing because of state barriers and regulations. It is failing because insurance companies will take your money, then deny you meds and procedures everywhere they can. They cover only the people least likely to need them so they make more profits. They can change what meds they cover at their whim and in some cases tell you nad your doctors what treatments you can get. The insurance companies care only for their bottom line. That will continue less regulation or no regulation at all. That is why the rest of the industrial world has gone to universal health care.

I don't remember hearing that he wanted all-around deregulation of the health care industry. Even in the quote he limits his statement to being for "nationwide competition". Of course feeding more sheep to infinitely gluttonous wolves is not the answer, but opening up competition in markets with terrible service and sky high prices tends to drive prices down. It is a good idea for starters.

Also - about the gay marriage thing - various State laws and common law interpretations "regulate" marriage as between one man and one woman. Any change allowing for different kinds of unions would technically be "de-regulation", No? Maybe "re-regulation" - but then so are most forms of things commonly understood to be "de-regulation".

[CountArach]

"I thought that was the philosophy of the democratic party..."

Nope. Wasn't funny then either. Vaguely related mainstream pot-shots are for morons. You are better than that, no?

I lol'ed.

[m52nickerson]

I don't remember hearing that he wanted all-around deregulation of the health care industry. Even in the quote he limits his statement to being for "nationwide competition". Of course feeding more sheep to infinitely gluttonous wolves is not the answer, but opening up competition in markets with terrible service and sky high prices tends to drive prices down. It is a good idea for starters.

Also - about the gay marriage thing - various State laws and common law interpretations "regulate" marriage as between one man and one woman. Any change allowing for different kinds of unions would technically be "de-regulation", No? Maybe "re-regulation" - but then so are most forms of things commonly understood to be "de-regulation".

What competition? all the major insurance companies all ready exist in all or at least most of the states.

As for same sex marriage, changing laws and regulations are not the same as de-regulations. If you de-regulated marriage the government would not be able to recognize any marriage as there would be no rules.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What competition? all the major insurance companies all ready exist in all or at least most of the states.

As for same sex marriage, changing laws and regulations are not the same as de-regulations. If you de-regulated marriage the government would not be able to recognize any marriage as there would be no rules.

Wrong. Is this why there people are having such a hard time understanding what de-regulation is? It is a general term for changing laws to lessen only one aspect out of the many. De-regulation means very little.

Deregulation, a term which gained widespread currency in the period 1970-2000, can be seen as a process by which governments remove, reduce, or simplify restrictions on business and individuals

Removing the restriction that "only one man may marry one woman" to allow any 2 people to wed is de-regulation. After the de-regulation, the law would effectively say "only one may marry one."

People are using de-regulation interchangeably with lawlessness which is inappropriate.

[m52nickerson]

Wrong. Is this why there people are having such a hard time understanding what de-regulation is? It is a general term for changing laws to lessen only one aspect out of the many. De-regulation means very little.

Deregulation, a term which gained widespread currency in the period 1970-2000, can be seen as a process by which governments remove, reduce, or simplify restrictions on business and individuals

Removing the restriction that "only one man may marry one woman" to allow any 2 people to wed is de-regulation. After the de-regulation, the law would effectively say "only one may marry one."

People are using de-regulation interchangeably with lawlessness which is inappropriate.

Right now 2 men could go out and take vows in front of an ordained minister and marry. The problem is the law does not recognize that marriage because it does not fit into the current regulations. The law spells out the rights given to married man-woman couples, they currently don't not do the same for same sex couples. So same sex couples the rights of other married couples would be expanding laws and regulation, not remove, reduce, or simplify them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Right now 2 men could go out and take vows in front of an ordained minister and marry. The problem is the law does not recognize that marriage because it does not fit into the current regulations. The law spells out the rights given to married man-woman couples, they currently don't not do the same for same sex couples. So same sex couples the rights of other married couples would be expanding laws and regulation, not remove, reduce, or simplify them.

That is a bad argument. You would be removing government impediment - that is de-regulation. There is currently a government impediment against 2 men marrying, requiring de-regulation of marriage.

I understand that there may be new laws made, but the fact is that the new laws would serve to reduce the government restriction. Neither of us seem to be agreeing on what seems like a pretty obvious argument. Am I on crazy pills here? Somebody else please take a crack at this.

[m52nickerson]

That is a bad argument. You would be removing government impediment - that is de-regulation. There is currently a government impediment against 2 men marrying, requiring de-regulation of marriage.

I understand that there may be new laws made, but the fact is that the new laws would serve to reduce the government restriction. Neither of us seem to be agreeing on what seems like a pretty obvious argument. Am I on crazy pills here? Somebody else please take a crack at this.

Unless a state has specific laws barring gay marriage their is no restriction, just not an option.

Current marriage laws give people the right to file taxes jointly, the right to not to testify against your spouse, etc....

Those right exist because of the laws. Currently in most places their is just not that option for gay couples. Giving them those rights is not de-regulation.

Even if you believe it is de-regulation, it would only show that some de-regulation is is good.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

Further disrespect, insults and provocation will attract increasingly severe sanctions as I am getting bored with repeating myself in advisories.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Here's a challenging analysis of both candidates' readiness for dealing with the economy. Well, maybe readiness is the wrong word.

The best part is the scathing summary of General Secretary Bush's Communist Fairy Land.

As the financial historian Ron Chernow told The New York Times last week: “We have the irony of a free-market administration doing things that the most liberal Democratic administration would never have been doing in its wildest dreams.” That has been the story for eight years: spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, lie, lie, lie. The one liberal policy the Bush administration did not follow was any serious regulation or oversight of the banking and lending industries. And so they did not merely make the American government bankrupt, but they enabled the private sector to head directly off that cliff as well.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Unless a state has specific laws barring gay marriage their is no restriction, just not an option.

That sounds awfully like a government restriction.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here's a challenging analysis of both candidates' readiness for dealing with the economy. Well, maybe readiness is the wrong word.

The best part is the scathing summary of General Secretary Bush's Communist Fairy Land.

As the financial historian Ron Chernow told The New York Times last week: “We have the irony of a free-market administration doing things that the most liberal Democratic administration would never have been doing in its wildest dreams.” That has been the story for eight years: spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, lie, lie, lie. The one liberal policy the Bush administration did not follow was any serious regulation or oversight of the banking and lending industries. And so they did not merely make the American government bankrupt, but they enabled the private sector to head directly off that cliff as well.

That quote seems rather accurate.

[Lemur]

Yup, sad but true.

Meanwhile, the V.P. candidate who nobody is allowed to have at a press conference, whose press access is severely restricted, is also getting special treatment for the debates. 'Cause she's so ready to lead.

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

The wrangling was chiefly between the McCain-Palin camp and the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is sponsoring the forums.

Commission members wanted a relaxed format that included time for unpredictable questioning and challenges between the two vice-presidential candidates. On Wednesday, the commission unanimously rejected a proposal sought by advisers to Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, to have the moderator ask questions and the candidates answer, with no time for unfettered exchanges.

What a long, tedious joke.