ThePete.Com |
Micro. |
Mini. |
Politricks. |
TheTech. |
Reviews. |
Earlier this evening a buddy of mine started an IM conversation with me. Here’s approximately how it began:
Him: Shit.
Him: You there?
Me: Yeah, man, what’s up?
Him: My bank got taken over.
Me: HA-HA!
Me: Mine, too.
Him: lol
Me: Which one?
Him: Wachovia. You?
Me:WaMu
Him: ahhh, sucks.
Me: S’ok, I’m broke.
Him: me too. lol
Me: haha
I guess this is where the meek inherit the Earth?
Sign of the (economic) times…
I was going to just answer her question right there, but then I realized my answer would make for a great blog post. So, here you go, Mom! Sorry it took so long, but I got a little distracted with the news lately. :)
By the screencap above, you might think we’d be better off if the bailout went through. The Dow dropped more than 500 points by closing today in reaction to the bailout bill not passing the House.
If the bailout did go through, we’d see banking begin to return to normal–loans could be given again, loads of people would still have jobs, and both the USG and Wall Street would save tremendous face (after all, it was the two bodies in concert who is responsible for this mess).
Of course, those are just the good things that would happen. There would be bad things, too, that our leaders aren’t really going into.
Most importantly, in my mind, if the government really decides to spend $700 billion (about the price we’ve paid in Iraq so far), the negative impact could be pretty far reaching–especially on one part of our economy that no one likes to *really* talk about.
We have a problem in our culture–no one really likes to talk about the "i" word.
No, not impeachment.
Well, they don’t like to talk about that either, but Americans seem even more loathe to use the other "i" word, inflation.
I’m kind of a broken record when it comes to inflation. I explained my view of it in a recent blog post here: http://thepete.com/…ed-economy
Suffice it to say, when $700 billion gets injected into our economy, it will be a lot of new money floating around. When you increase the supply of money, the existing money drops in value (as dictated by the law of "Supply and Demand"). When the bailout goes through, it’ll send the dollar’s value plummeting.
That’s what can really make for a weak economy, BTW. A weak dollar.
So, in the end, sure, a bailout is going to keep our lives more or less like they are now. We’ll be able to borrow again and bankers will keep their jobs and life will be grand until the real meaning of "trickle-down economics" is learned–when the lost-value of the dollar trickles down from the rich (who will use the new money first) to the poor (who will only see the benefits of that new money once the value of their own money drops–it’s a little abstract, my apologies).
Another thing any bailout will fail to do is guarantee this won’t happen again. We are all familiar with the Great Depression and the stock market crash that preceded it. Was there a bailout then? I don’t know.
Regardless, we, as a country, survived the Great Depression and I’m sure America will survive this, whether we have the bailout or not.
So, why does it matter? It matters because the bailout lets people get away with breaking the rules. Hell, the bailout itself is breaking the rules of the free market.
I’m no free-marketeer, but the way I look at it, if you’re going to bother to make rules, you should bother to follow them. If you don’t want to bother to follow them, then change them and follow the new ones.
Breaking your own rules just makes you look unprofessional.
I’ll post more about rule breaking tomorrow…
…assuming I don’t get distracted by the news again. :\
Tomorrow’s post on the rules will also involve socialism vs. capitalism, conservatives vs. liberals, and probably even McCain vs. Obama, if I can get really creative.
So:
Bailout = good in the short term (status quo, status quoed)
Bailout = bad in the long term (inflates inflation, weakens our overall economy and our individual power to buy stuff, doesn’t prevent another economic explosion, also lets bad guys get away with it)
Well, Mom? I hope that answers your question.
Either way, we’re in for a world of hurt. Luckily, most of us are broke, so we won’t feel it as much as the rich folks panicking right now (though we may have trouble buying things that are about to get more expensive).
For all the folks on Utterli who got notified about this post, I hope you don’t mind! I hardly ever notify everyone I’ve friended about posts, so hopefully you’ll forgive me if you’re not interested in this post.
Also, I’d love to hear what anyone reading this thinks. I really want to learn more about our money and how it works. I’m really nervous that it’s really as simple and truly as messed up as it looks.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli. Replies.
A truly stable economy should work the same way, in my estimation. The economic law of "supply and demand" is pretty similar to that physical law I mentioned above, when you think about it.
The economic law of "supply and demand" says that prices are determined based on those to things, supply and demand. High supply means low prices (to make sure you sell as many as you can) and low supply means high prices (to make sure you make as much money as you can). Demand works similarly but is inverted, with high demand making prices high and low demand making them low. In short, if you create more supply, the price goes down.
When it comes to money, the physical laws should apply here, too. After all, paper money used to represent gold. When new deposits of gold were found, the value of all gold would drop. However, back in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed and our current system of banking was created. Any kind of precious metals were cast aside and money stopped being based on the value of gold and started being based on the "good credit of the United States of America."
In other words, the US dollar came to represent the productivity of the American economy.
Now, you can’t just create money any more than you can just create matter or energy. The latter can’t be done because the universe won’t let us. However, because the concepts of money and economy are entirely man-made, the universe has no such regulations over our monetary system.
As a result, new money can be, and often is, injected into our economy. This money is either effectively created from nothing (lended/borrowed) or is literally newly created money (when banks or the USG borrow from the Fed). Either way, the result is inflation and, finally, a weak dollar.
And when the US dollar starts getting compared to the Canadian dollar (as it has been for about a year now), you know things are bad.
This morning on Democracy Now, Dennis Kucinich reminded us that our entire financial system is based on debt. The below is an excerpt that comes from a transcript (here: http://www.democracynow.org/…s_congress ) of an interview Dem Representative Dennis Kucinich gave to Amy Goodman this morning:
AMY GOODMAN: The issue of corporate compensation? According to the Institute for Policy Studies, chief executives of large US companies made an average of $10.5 million last year, 344 times the pay of the average worker.
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, this is really a fundamental issue in our society. Again, it’s all about how the wealth accelerates to the top and how work is not respected or rewarded for its own intrinsic value. We’ve really moved, you know. We’ve made a transition in our economy from industrial capitalism to finance capitalism. And with this debt-based economy that we have, where we keep—this public and private debt keeps exploding, as it has under—as it did under Alan Greenspan, quadrupling in a period of twenty years, we see ourselves in a position where the debt just keeps building and building and building, and we’re calling that economic progress. It is not.
We need to challenge again the underlying assumptions about a debt-based economy, about whether or not we should revisit the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which has an unfortunately privatized monetary system and created a system which includes banks having the ability to create money almost out of thin air with a fractional reserve. We have to look at the implications of that, maybe put the Federal Reserve under the Treasury and have the Treasury really be responsive to the interests of the American people and keeping the economy going.
Yep, the Federal Reserve is a private entity. We don’t vote for anyone who runs it, though we do vote for the guy who appoints the guy who runs it (aka, the president appoints the Fed Chairman). But considering how much control the Fed has over our lives and our money, it seems like we should have a bit more control over them. I really wish Kucinich had a real chance of ever winning the White House. I think it’s his honesty that prohibits this.
Wow, just read that the bill didn’t pass in the House. Kucinich got his way and Wall Street is totally panicking. Looks like that chant I heard down on Wall Street last Thursday was right: "You break it! You bought it!"
Dig that CRAZY irony!!
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli. Replies.
Well, there’s not a whole lot to say about Friday’s big debate. I’ve been watching these things since I was a kid and they’re more often about propagandizing than any truly substantive political debating. I mean, the whole idea that anyone could “win” in a presidential debate in a literal sense is kind of crazy.
Besides, everyone knows that, for most people, the person you like tends to do better in your own mind. For me it was a little different since the guy I’m for? I’m not that for him.
In fact, I’m pretty much basing my vote on race alone–since I don’t like either candidate, I’m voting Obama just because he’s not a white guy. As a result, I feel like I was able to listen to what both candidates said and then interpret from there.
With that in mind, I don’t think either did more than remind us what we like or dislike about them. McCain stayed on message, like a pit bull, sometimes offering up something vaguely useful to us, but most of the time he just sounded like a pissy old man.
Obama reminded us how graceful he can be under fire, but because he only got in a couple of subtle zingers, I feel like all he had going for him was the ability to stand there and look like he wasn’t losing. He sounded just like he always does–but didn’t bring anything new to the table–er–the podium.
In the end, I suppose I can agree that Obama probably did better than McCain if only because he didn’t do anything to make me dislike him more.
Well, there was his talk of the bailout being necessary–which, it seems, every politician in America agrees with despite many of those politicians being free-marketeers. Seems hypocritical to me–let’s give the market free-reign until it’s going to collapse in on itself–now we’ll give it all sorts of money! Yay!
So the fact that neither candidate spoke of alternatives to a bailout makes me think the game is rigged. Perhaps that is the biggest thing we should take away from this first debate: the fact that McCain and Obama actually do seem to represent the same general interests.
It’s almost like they’re not giving us a choice! ;)
If you’re curious how factually accurate the candidates were, check out FactCheck.org’s report on the first debate here: www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html
It makes for some interesting reading. :)
Missed the debate? C-SPAN will still let you watch it right here at ThePete.Com!
 This is a totally useless observation, but I noticed tonight while looking at the pic of Bush delivering his historic "we’re screwed" speech to the nation a little black spot under his jaw. Can you see it? WTH is that? Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli. |
Ugh, so here is a fun one–George W. Bush trying to convince us all that he’s right about something else that has gone to shit under his watch.
Seriously, everything this man touches turns to fine smelling feces. I challenge anyone to name something he’s gotten right. I mean, do we really need me to go through this transcript to know that Bush will distort the facts, deceive us and dodge responsibility? Well, I’m a glutton for punishment (it comes from watching every episode of MST3K several times over), so here we go!
The below transcript of Bush’s historic “We’re Screwed” speech comes from JPGardners’ Donkelphant.com and remember, Bush’s comments will be in italics while mine will be factually accurate and not in italics.
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening.
Oh, Al Gore was there? :P (Get it? It says “THE PRESIDENT”. YES I’m still bitter god damn it!!)
This is an extraordinary period for America’s economy.
THIS GUY IS SHARP, BOY! What’s next? An observation that touching open flames cause pain??
Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future.
“Few weeks”?!?!?!
Try “few years” idiot. I’ve been blogging about the value of the dollar dropping for three years, possibly more.
It’s really hard not to use the word “retard” in connection with this fool, but I don’t want to insult anyone who is actually mentally handicapped.
I understand their worry and their frustration.
Ah, so you’re not frustrated? Why should you be? You’re wearing a beautiful new golden suit spun with gold so fine that you can’t see it, you tremendous feeb.
Sorry, I know it’s not mature to call people names, but this fucker won’t go away! He’s committed crimes, failed to protect Americans from terrorists and killer storms, bungled two wars almost simultaneously and now he’s managed to oversee one of the biggest economic failures America has seen since the Great Depression.
Ah, good stuff! o_O
More…
*I have no proof of this, of course! BUT…I did make fun of Obama recently for staying on the campaign trail rather than heading back to Washington to help sort this money mess out. You can check out my Obama commentary (Obamentary?) here: http://thepete.com/…ng-fingers
Now, when I first heard about McCain wanting to reschedule the debates so he could go work on the economy earlier today, my gut reaction was: "No way, John–it’s a little late to be doing your homework this close to the final exam."
But really, both he and Obama are senators, and as I said in that Obamentary blog post, they should be doing their job in Washington. I suppose they could Skype it in and then just Twitter their votes (assuming McCain knows what Twitter even is), but it’s probably best if they be there in person.
Personally, I think it’s absurd to bail these lying cheats out of their (and our) financial dilemma, but obviously, they’ll cave and give Bush his bottle (aka Wall Street their $700 billion).
That said, I’m glad the word is that the debate is still on for Friday. With just 41 days left (!!) until the election, we need to get those debates going as soon as possible so we’ll have time to mentally digest everything that we see in them. Financial crisis or no, We The People have to prepare to make a decision in November that will impact the world for at least four years.
Debates may be robotic propaganda delivery systems, but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn about the candidates in the process–just like Palin had a chance to let us get to know her at the RNC (but blew it), all of the candidates can really show us what they think are their most important qualities in the debates.
Of course, they can also screw up… please Joe, stay on the meds!! ;)
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli. Replies.
I’ve only been living in New York City for about five months now (though it feels like five minutes) and in that time I’ve never gotten around to removing my email address from the list of one of my old senators, Barbara Boxer.
Boxer, a Democrat, was a woman I was proud to vote for. She was smart, outspoken and didn’t seem like a Republican hardly at all (unlike her fellow California Democrat senator, Diane Feinstein who counts Condy “White” Rice as a pal). Of course, I mean this praise in the past tense. Not just because I am no longer a constituent of hers, but because, since that prideful voting moment, I’ve discovered she’s a fricken moron.
It probably was that time she emailed everyone on her mailing list to brag that she was very serious about fighting spyware. A few months later she truly wowed me when she actually did her job by telling us how she was concerned about wildfires. Goshes, I was so glad to get those emails from her!
Sadly, depressingly, that sarcasm would have been completely unmerited if she had just followed through with her attitude that impeachment of Bush should be back on the table. She let us and America down when miraculously, her interest in impeachment evaporated.
Then, last night, while basking in the afterglow of the classic western, Shane, watched on DVD compliments of Netflix, I checked my email to find another dumb-ass email from Barbara Boxer!!
And to show off my independent stripes, I’m going to take it apart for you! Screw the Dems! They’ve let the Republicans get away with all of this stuff.
As always, my comments are NOT in italics.
Enjoy (I know I will):
Dear Friend:
Ooo, it’s like she knows I’m going to dump her. :(
Traffic and air quality are issues that impact all Californians.
Except those of us without cars. I haven’t owned an automobile since 2003. Traffic impacts my bus driver. Air quality, you’re right about, though. Please, go on:
We all hope to quickly and safely travel to work or school and then home to our families. We also all depend on clean air that is too often degraded by cars, trucks and trains.
And the factories and the power plants.
OH and the refineries! Can’t forget the oil!
Funny, we refine oil to make gas then burn the gas in cars and that pollutes the air! NEAT!
Sorry, old friend, what were you saying?
As the Chairman of the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works,
“I’ve been doing a shitty job! In fact, I’m writing to tell you how sorry I am for that cancerous growth that’s clinging to the inside of your lungs.”
one of my most important priorities for the coming year is to authorize a new federal highway, transit and highway safety bill.
Uhhhmmm… was there something wrong with the old one?
Why’d you wait until now to get around to doing a new one then? You’re talking about California–the car capital of the world.
Was the old one just stanky? Skunky, maybe? Check the drink-by date, maybe you can get another year or two out of it!
The aim of the bill is to improve surface transportation nationwide, which can help improve our air quality as well.
HAHA!!
…sorry…
So, smooth roads will help the environment?
hmmmm….
hm…
hm.
Do you think we’re morons? Smooth roads = better air??
Lady, killing every cow in America would do more to help the air quality AND it would help us eat better, thus improving our health, too.
Tell me you’ve got more–emissions cuts, new regulations on factories and refineries, SOMETHING to make me change my mind…
My committee has begun the process to write the next bill. I am writing to you both to offer some information about the process and to ask for your thoughts about the focus and priorities of the bill.
Oh, I’ve got some thoughts!
Like why the fuck are you emailing us about stupid shit like this when you should be asking us what we think about the $700 billion you idiots in Congress are about to give to Wall Street.
Or how about why you are letting Bush, Cheney and pals get away with all of the things they’ve done in office (illegally invading a sovereign member of the UN, spying on American citizens, torturing suspects, withholding habeus corpus rights from suspects, OH YEAH and bailing out their Wall Street pals when they go for the greed)?
You really disgust me, lady. To think I had hoped you’d run for president.
Why do you even bother with these stupid emails?
Do you think they fool us? Do you think we’re rock-stupid enough to not be concerned about real issues?
SIGH… if ONLY you really gave a crap and cared what I and other constituents thought.
Recently, I held briefings in California to hear from transportation officials in California about their priorities.
Let me guess. Their concerns were: getting raises? Keeping their jobs, perhaps? :)
With the following links, you can watch video of the two briefings in Sacramento and Los Angeles and read the testimony of the witnesses:
Ooo, do I dare?
Hell no. I like watching C-SPAN, but even I can’t sit through “witnesses” testifying to how sucky roads are in California. My eyes hurt just thinking about it.
I also want to hear from you.
Yyyy-no you don’t.
You haven’t listened to what the blue state of California has really wanted for years.
I want to know your priorities for the next federal transportation bill.
“But screw you if you think I care whether you approve of my job or the job any of us are doing in Washington. The truth? We can’t wait to sign that bill to give Wall Street $700 billion!! We are WET with anticipation!!”
I hope you will use the instructions at the bottom of this page to send me your thoughts about what the transportation priorities for the nation should be for the coming years.
Actually, I see high gas prices and low US dollar value. As a country, we’ll likely be traveling a LOT less. In short? Don’t worry about the roads. Most Americans won’t be able to afford to use them. You probably don’t even need to worry about this new bill at all.
In fact, you know what? Why don’t you just go home? Go back to Sacramento, or where ever the hell you came from and just don’t worry about Congress any more. It’s cool–you guys can all go home. All you senators and representatives in the House–it’s cool. Just leave work and don’t come back.
I mean, it’s not like you guys are doing anything, so why bother coming into work?
What can be done to best reduce congestion?
No, really, it’s cool, Barb. Just head on home.
Do you want more public transit?
Oh, look, Barb. Let’s not make this awkward. I mean, I’m flattered and all and I think what we had was special, but really. This whole “Congress serving the people” thing–it’s just not… it’s just not working out.
What should be done to more quickly move freight across the nation?
Oh, you poor girl! You’re just not getting it, are you? There’s just no easy way to tell an entire branch of government that it’s over.
While these are not easy questions, I would like to hear from you.
You know what, Barb?
SIGH.
It’s not you, it’s me–it’s all of America. We really just don’t think we deserve your type of leadership. Really, it’s all our fault.
Maybe, in a few years, we can talk about giving it another try, but…
By considering the thoughts of Californians, I think we can craft a better bill for the nation.
You can just keep my stuff. My freedoms always looked better on you, anyway. Seriously.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Aw, thanks, kiddo. I know you’re trying to be sincere, but I’m afraid it’s just not enough. And I hate to dump you, and the rest of Congress, like this, you know, in a blog.
Heh…
:\
But it just really is time.
I’m sorry, Barb.
So long Congress.
…
…
…
SIGH…
Guys, look, I know this is weird, but really–JUST GO HOME.
NO, I don’t want to give it “one more week!”
NO, I don’t care if none of you are wearing panties!
Now come on!! Don’t make this embarrassing for all of America!
Oh, God…
…it’s like they just don’t get it.
It’s like they think they’re making laws that count!
It’s so sad!
Don’t they remember trying to pass a second law banning torture that even McCain (of all people!) voted against it?
Don’t they realize that George Bush will just issue a signing statement when he signs whatever bill into law, thus making it irrelevant?
Oh, man… I just can’t look at them anymore…
Did that headline get your attention? Good :)
I just snagged this transcript of Obama’s remarks to “a crowd in Green Bay, Wisconsin” today from BreakingToday.com, the site behind twitter.com/BreakingNewsOn
These remarks were “described as a ‘major policy speech’” according to BreakingToday.com.
As always, my quips are NOT italicized.
The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has led us to a perilous moment.
DO YA THINK?
They said they wanted to let the market run free but instead they let it run wild, and in doing so, they tramped our core values of fairness, balance, and responsibility to one another.
“tramped”?
So much for Obama being “well spoken” ;)
As a result, we are facing a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression. As a result, your jobs, your savings, and your economic security are now at risk.
I had savings?
WAIT! I had economic security?? I HAD A JOB???
Holy CRAP! Why didn’t anyone tell me??
This week, we must work quickly, in a bipartisan fashion, to resolve this crisis and avert an even broader economic catastrophe.
“Which is why I’m here in Wisconsin campaigning, rather than in Washington helping my colleagues sort this shit out.”
More…
It’s the end of an era on Wall Street, according to that screencap from CNN.com, it’s the end of the era of the Wall Street investment banks. According to the article that the headline links to (here: http://money.cnn.com/…/index.htm ) the government is taking over the last investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. This is a move that: "allows Goldman and Morgan to scoop up retail banks and to streamline their borrowing from the Federal Reserve. The shift also is aimed at removing them as targets of nervous investors and customers, who brought down their former rivals Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch this year."
So, basically, this was done to strengthen these huge banks and to stop them from crumbling under the pressure of the other banks crumbling. If these banks did crumble we’d have a bigger economic meltdown.
At least, that’s how I understand it.
HOWEVER, the cry of "socialism!" is a common thing in our country. Obama’s been called a socialist, anyone who wants to see free health care for everyone has been called a socialist and now I’m calling the USG socialist since so many seem to think the government doling out money is socialism.
This puts the USG in the same category as the Soviet Union and the Nazis (apparently). They were all considered socialists–and thanks to that, we know that socialism IS EVIL.
OK, the real irony here is that socialism is NOT evil. It’s the people who practice it that can either be corrupt or not. When you ignore hundreds of thousands of homeless and jobless people in our cities, that’s OK. But when you ignore the plight of our crumbling banking system that’s just wrong.
Amtrak? The airlines? Banks? They’re all corporations and all have been bailed out by the government–by our tax dollars.
The people who cry out against socialism think it’s fine when corporations need help, but not individuals.
When individuals need financial help it’s because they didn’t work hard enough or they’re lazy or druggies or hippies.
When Wall Street needs help, no one really talks about why they need help, they just get that help.
Sure, the news and pundits explain that "these banks are too big, they can’t be allowed to fail" but what does that really mean?
It means that the individual is not important. Only the system matters.
That doesn’t just sound like socialism, that sounds like <em>communism</em>.
What it all sounds like to me is hypocrisy.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli. Replies.
We now join ABC News’ Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, accompanied by round 7 of my commentary (check out round 1, round 2, round 3, round 4, round 5 and round 6!), already in progress:
Sarah Palin on Economic Policy:
WOW! FINALLY TO THE ECONOMY! WAY TO GO CHARLIE GIBSON!
PUH-LEASE! What journalism school did you go to, Charlie?
Cracker Jack University?
Is your degree very small and does it transfer to your skin when you apply water to the back of it? :P
The economy is only the most important issue we face right now!
GIBSON: Governor, John McCain and you are now talking about the GOP as a party of change. We’ve got a very sick economy. Tell me the three principal things you would do to change the Bush economic policies.
PALIN: And you’re right, our economy is weak right now and we’ve got to strengthen it, and government can play an appropriate role in helping to strengthen the economy.
Wow, these two are the brightest bulbs on TV!
The economy IS weak right now! And the government CAN play a role in helping to strengthen it! WOW!!
I may vote Palin, after all!
***
PALIN: Our 6.1 percent unemployment rate is unacceptable, also, across our nation.
Can’t they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps? I don’t get it!
We need to put government back on the side of the people and make sure that it is not government solely looked at for all the solutions, for one.
Where else do solutions come from? Should we expect the Coca-Cola Company to rebuild our homes after a hurricane destroys them?
Or are we supposed to be SO self-reliant that we work extra hours at our jobs to pay for enough insurance to pay for our homes if/when they get destroyed in a natural disaster or fire or something?
Government has got to get out of the way, in some respects, of the private sector, being able to create the jobs that we need, jobs that are going to allow for the families to be able to afford health care, to be able to afford their mortgages, to be able to afford college tuition for their kids.
Yeah, because it’s government getting in the way that allowed Enron to fail. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Bear Sterns and so on and so on and so on all failed because of…
Come on you idiot! It’s a LACK of regulation that allowed banks to make bad loans and companies to make bad choices.
Once again, I think John Edwards was right–there are two Americas. Bizarro America and… and… well, that’s the only America I see–where Republicans say less regulation is needed to stop companies from breaking the law and screwing people out of billions.
That’s got to be the principal here, reform government, recognize that it’s not government to be looked at to solve all the problems.
Again, Bizarro-logic.
Taxes, of course, I think is one of the most important things that government can obviously control and to help with this issue.
Taxes? What do taxes have to do with the fact the dollar is worth crap and that another bank just went belly-up?
GIBSON: What you said to me at the beginning I don’t think anybody in the Bush administration would disagree with. What do you change in the Bush economic plans?
PALIN: We have got to make sure that we reform the oversight, also, of the agencies, including the quasi-government agencies, like Freddie and Fannie, those things that have created an atmosphere here in America where people are fearful of losing their homes.
Yeah, it’s much better to not let them have homes in the first place.
How about we work out why the dollar is worth a pittance and then fix that problem so we can all afford to buy houses and not even have to take loans out to buy ‘em?
People are looking at job loss. People are looking at unaffordable health care for their families. We have got to reform the oversight of these agencies that have such control over Americans’ pocketbooks.
Job loss has an agency?
Health care has an agency?
If so, what the hell do these agencies have to do with our pocketbooks?
How does a government agency control whether corporations create jobs or not? How does a government agency determine whether health insurance companies cover certain procedures and medicines or not?
YOU’RE TALKING NONSENSE AGAIN.
GIBSON: So let me summarize the three things that you’d change in the Bush economic plans. One, two, three.
PALIN: Reduce taxes, control spending, reform the oversight and the overseeing agencies and committees to make sure that America’s dollars and investments are protected.
Wow, sounds like the number one target for said reforms would be unnecessary military incursions and occupations in and of foreign countries. Hell, we spend more on “defense” than anything else. Curb your spending? Start with the military.
I’m all for defending our borders, but that’s not what we’re doing in the middle east.
As for the other two, seems like the agencies and committees are only an imagined problem (since there IS no oversight of ANYthing it would seem) and cutting back on defense spending just might invigorate the economy in that we’re not borrowing BILLIONS every month anymore to keep the wars going.
GIBSON: So let me break some of those down. You talk about spending. How much smaller would a McCain budget be? Where would you cut?
PALIN: We’re going to find efficiencies in every department.
Doesn’t she mean “inefficiencies”?
We have got to. There are some things that I think should be off the table. Veterans’ programs, off the table.
Yeah, we already spend too little on veterans, we shouldn’t cut their funding any more.
You know, we owe it to our veterans and that’s the greatest manifestation that we can show in terms of support for our military, those who are in public service fighting for America. …It’s to make sure that our veterans are taken care of and the promises that we’ve made to them are fulfilled.
So, no cutting VA bennies. How sweet.
GIBSON: So you’d take military off the table, the veterans’ benefits. That’s 20 percent of the budget. & Do you talk about entitlement reform? Is there money you can save in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?
Wait! Charlie, why did you take “military” off the table?? WTF! Dude, that’s what we spend too much on!!
PALIN: I am sure that there are efficiencies that are going to be found in all of these agencies. I’m confident in that.
I don’t know what she means–he keeps asking about what to cut and she’s talking about “efficiencies”. You cut “inefficiencies” not “efficiencies.” I thought efficiencies were good.
GIBSON: The agencies are not involved in entitlements. Basically, discretionary spending is 18 percent of the budget.
PALIN: We have certainly seen excess in agencies, though, and in — when bureaucrats, when bureaucracy just gets kind of comfortable, going with the status-quo and not being challenged to find efficiencies and spend other people’s money wisely … then that’s where we get into the situation that we are into today, and that is a tremendous growth of government, a huge debt, trillions of dollars of debt that we’re passing on to my kids and your kids and your grandkids … It’s unacceptable.
I’m down with that! The thing is, no politician is willing to say the military is what we overspend the most on.
And I’m definitely thinking I’m missing something on using the word “efficiencies” the way she is. Either that or she’s a moron.
Could go either way.
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures
There you have it! WHEW! It’s been a long time coming, hasn’t it? Just wait until the debates. Actually, I think I’ll quip to them live. This took a long-ass time to finish…
So, today McCain said some things that cracked me up. I mean “cracked me up” in the way that it makes me laugh at how completely out of touch with reality McCain really is.
OK, check it out and remember that his comments are in italics:
Thank you, Major General Marty Umbarger, for that kind introduction. Colonel Al Faber, Major General Poythress, Brigadier Generals Arflack, Taylor, and Ross — I thank you gentlemen as well. And let me add a warm hello to my good friend Major General Stan Spears of South Carolina, and to Brigadier General Steve Koper, and Lieutenant General John Conaway. It’s an honor to join with all of you again for this 130th General Conference. And I bring greetings from the Governor of the Great State of Alaska, Sarah Palin.
No blatant lies so far…
Every day in this country and across the world, the men and women of the National Guard are giving brave and faithful service. Everyone who wears the uniform of the United States has accepted the calling of service to a cause greater than self.
“Because country IS greater than self. It’s called communism and I think you’ll like it!”
This hard calling is what defines the citizen soldiers of the National Guard, and America is in your debt.
“Which we plan to pay off by sending you on more unjustified wars based on lies.”
“Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”
Sorry, that was from a different McCain event. :)
As we meet, Guard members are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, while still others have just returned from a training mission in the nation of Georgia. Other guardsmen are still working to bring order and safety to the victims of Hurricane Ike along the Texas coast, just as they did after Katrina.
It’s pretty cool when we don’t abuse our men and women in uniform, isn’t it?
Our nation faces many challenges. We have all watched the crisis on Wall Street this past week, and I would like to address that for just a moment.
Because it has SO much to do with the National Guard! :P
Last Friday, I proposed a plan for comprehensive reform of the broken institutions that allowed this crisis to become a grave threat to our economy.
Was this the part about even less regulation for banks? I’m pretty sure it was the lack of regulation that got us into this mess.
At the center of the plan is the principle that we must keep people in their homes and safe guard the life savings of all Americans by protecting our financial system and capital markets.
“Life savings”?
Who’s got life savings?? How many Americans even have savings accounts?? I don’t.
Could this guy be more out of touch?
More…
So, I’m not entirely sure how my personal email address got on the “Democrats.com” email list, but some how it got on it. (My email was on the Republicans email list, too at one point, but I had the good sense to remove it.) Earlier tonight I got an email from them that had an amusing subject–I’ve made it the title of this post.
My first reaction was: “That’s rich! Where were the Democrats five years ago when Bush illegally invaded Iraq?”
I still think it’s a valid concern, but I actually read their email and something in it really got me going. Have a look:
Congress Must Demand Bush and Cheney Resign
George Bush wants taxpayers to pay $700 billion to bail out Wall Street for its reckless investments in mortgage-backed securities. That’s on top of $800 billion for other recent bailouts, including A.I.G., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns.
The current financial disaster is the direct result of the Bush-Cheney Administration’s 8-year policy of deregulation, corruption, and greed.
The Bush-Cheney Administration cannot be trusted to solve the massive problems they created. Before Congress gives the Bush Administration one dime of taxpayer money for financial bailouts, Congress must demand the immediate resignation of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Henry Paulson and the appointment of Speaker Nancy Pelosi as President until our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2009.
Email your Senators and Representative and spread the word:
www.democrats.com/resign
Again, my instinct, initially, was to blow this email off, just like I did Robert Wexler’s attempts to impeach Bush while simultaneously asking for campaign donations. However, I’ll give you one guess at what it was in this email that made my ears prick up.
No, it wasn’t the basic message that Bush and Cheney should be gone from the White House. I’ve been saying that for years and there are WAY more reasons for them to leave than just Bush and Cheney’s move to embrace socialism for corporations. No, what made my right eyebrow rise was that last bit. They want Bush, Cheney and Paulson out and:
…the appointment of Speaker Nancy Pelosi as President until our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2009.
Now, I’m no fan of Pelosi. She lost my faith when she said that impeachment was off of the table a while back. However, getting a Democrat woman into the White House before even the election would be a devastating blow to the McCain campaign. There would be no way in hell he could win after enough of raised our voices to get his man out of the Oval Office.
I get scared looking at the polls and wondering why Obama isn’t doing better in them. How can they be polling so close to neck and neck when McCain is campaigning on a platform he ripped off from George Bush?
I don’t believe Americans are that stupid. This is why I’m hoping you, my faithful readers will please click on that link above (or this one here: www.democrats.com/resign ) and voice your support for a demand of resignations from Bush, Cheney and Paulson.
If enough of us speak up now they won’t have a choice but to actually react. We, The People of the United States of America can make our opinion known by telling Congress ourselves that we want this administration GONE from the White House.
Please, please, please, please, do this!
I don’t ask for much–I hardly ever ask my readers to sign on any dotted line, but if we can just get together on this one point–that we want the Bush Administration gone IMMEDIATELY–we don’t have to worry about McCain winning in November.
Please go here:
…and fill out the form.
Here are some other places around the ‘net you can read about this email:
digg.com/political_opinion/Congress_Must_Demand_Bush_and_Cheney_Resign
suzieqq.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/congress-must-demand-bush-and-cheney-resign/
boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=788298
mccainsucks.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/congress-must-demand-bush-and-cheney-resign/
www.nj.com/forums/politics/index.ssf?artid=1801971
Got a blog? Please blog about this. Got a Twitter account or an account at another micro or miniblogging site (like Jaiku or Tumblr)? Pleeease post about this there.
Feel free to post links to your blog posts in the comments.
By doing this we can avoid giving our flawed election system the chance to screw up another presidential election with a tight race! We need a landslide to have an undeniable winner–unlike in 2004 and in 2000 when Bush won by an iffy hair’s width.
By making your voice heard you can beat the electronic systems that are owned by Republicans and don’t provide reliable methods for recounts.
I’ve already filled out that form. I hope you will, too.
Please and thank you! Congress Must Demand Bush and Cheney Resign
We now join ABC News’ Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, accompanied by round 5 of my commentary (check out round 1, round 2, round 3 and round 4!), already in progress:
Sarah Palin on Hillary Clinton:
GIBSON: I saw you quoted somewhere as speaking rather admiringly of Mrs. Clinton, Senator Clinton, during the primary campaign. Do you think Obama should’ve picked her?
PALIN: I think he’s regretting not picking her now, I do. What, what determination, and grit, and even grace through some tough shots that were fired her way, she handled those well.
Wow, no talk of how thankful Sarah is to Hillary for blazing a path for her?
No follow up from Charlie on how Palin might feel about people who think that maybe if Hillary hadn’t run McCain would never have chosen her?
GOOD TV!
Sarah Palin on Abortion Rights:
GIBSON: In the time I have left, I want to talk about some social issues.
PALIN: OK.
PALIN: What, like MySpace, errr that Facebook? Errrr, the Twitter?
GIBSON: No, those are social networks, I’m going to ask you about social issues like whether or not you think a woman has the right to kill a creature living inside herself–a creature that gestates and eventually emerges, forcing vast amounts of blood and treasure to be spent on its behalf. You know, abortion.
GIBSON: Roe v. Wade, do you think it should be reversed?
PALIN: I think it should and I think that states should be able to decide that issue…
So, she’s anti-individual choice, but pro-state choice. Well, it could be worse.
I am pro-life. I do respect other people’s opinion on this, also, and I think that a culture of life is best for America…
PALIN: Which is why I believe that going over and killing Iraqis who don’t do as we say is part of God’s plan.
What I want to do, when elected vice president, with John McCain, hopefully,
Oh, snap, dude! McCain, man, your girl just said she’d be VP with someone else!! That’s so wrong, man!
Where’s the loyalty!
be able to reach out and work with those who are on the other side of this issue, because I know that we can all agree on the need for and the desire for fewer abortions in America and greater support for adoption, for other alternatives that women can and should be empowered to embrace, to allow that culture of life. That’s my personal opinion on this, Charlie.
So, she’s for expanding government programs that would give expectant mothers money and health insurance so that they can afford to blow nine months of their lives, popping out this child who will only get stuck in a system that is already crowded with kids that need parents?
I mean, how else could expectant mothers who didn’t plan on having a kid get the support (financial and otherwise) they need to be able to “embrace” alternatives to abortion?
Carrying a baby to term is a HUGE commitment and a HUGE sacrifice. Sure, Sarah, your kid is lucky because she was born to rich (and white) parents. What happens to women who can’t just run to their parents for financial and emotional support? What happens in cases where the woman simply can’t afford to get proper prenatal care? What about cases of rape or incest? That requires even more than just financial and emotional support.
Where does all of it come from for people who don’t already have it in their families?
GIBSON: John McCain would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?
PALIN: That is my personal opinion.
Well, at least she’s willing to let the mother live!
GIBSON: Would you change and accept it in rape and incest?
PALIN: My personal opinion is that abortion allowed if the life of the mother is endangered. Please understand me on this. I do understand McCain’s position on this. I do understand others who are very passionate about this issue who have a differing.
A differing WHAT? :P
So, Sarah Palin’s advice for women who have been raped is: “Suck it up! It’s only nine months!”
Sarah Palin on Social Issues:
Isn’t that what we’ve been talking about?
GIBSON: Embryonic stem cell research, John McCain has been supportive of it.
PALIN: You know, when you’re running for office, your life is an open book and you do owe it to Americans to talk about your personal opinion, which may end up being different than what the policy in an administration would be.
This is a good point. In fact, it’s a great point. If she votes with the Constitution and the will of the people, I’d be OK with that (I still wouldn’t be happy with her as VP, but I’d be glad she’d be using the USC as her guide and not, say, the Bible).
My personal opinion is we should not create human life, create an embryo and then destroy it for research, if there are other options out there… And thankfully, again, not only are there other options, but we’re getting closer and closer to finding a tremendous amount more of options, like, as I mentioned, the adult stem cell research.
Does she even understand this topic? It’s not like the cells are taken from some sort of human-like thing. This is a tiny, tiny, little blob, we’re talking about. Something that is so far off from knowing ANYthing that it really is quite impossible to call it a human life.
GIBSON: Homosexuality, genetic or learned?
PALIN: Oh, I don’t — I don’t know, but I’m not one to judge and, you know, I’m from a family and from a community with many, many members of many diverse backgrounds and I’m not going to judge someone on whether they believe that homosexuality is a choice or genetic. I’m not going to judge them.
GIBSON: All right, then judge gays. Destined for hell or heaven?
Come on, Charlie–always letting us down with the lack of follow-ups!
GIBSON: Guns, 70 percent of this country supports a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. Do you?
PALIN: I do not and, you know, here again, life being an open book here, as a candidate, I’m a lifetime member of the NRA. I believe strongly in our Second Amendment rights. That’s kind of inherent in the people of my state who rely on guns for not just self-protection, but also for our hunting and for sports, also. It’s a part of a culture here in Alaska. I’ve just grown up with that.
I actually think this is a fair response. One of her only fair responses in this interview. I’m an independent so I have beliefs that fall toward both major parties. I’m for realistic gun laws that stop people with mental issues or certain types of criminal records from getting guns. Ultimately, I’m all for the right to bear arms. Even fully automatic weapons.
Of course, I’m also for mandatory training for all American citizens in the firing of guns. I think it should be federally mandated that every child know how a gun works, how to fire it and the kind of harm it can do. I think if we’re taught an early fear of the gun, we’ll be able to cut down on deaths by firearms.
Remember, the reason we have the right to bear arms is so we can defend ourselves against thieves and murderers and politicians.
I know, I know, it’s tough to tell all those guys apart sometimes. :) But seriously, the idea was that if Americans were armed, politicians would be less likely to screw around with laws.
GIBSON: Isn’t gun violence in America a health issue? We spend billions of dollars a year every year treating people who are victims of gun violence. Nothing we can do about that?
Well, I pretty much just said that it’s an education issue but this question was directed at Ms. Palin.
PALIN: Do I think that all of that gun violence, though, is caused by people pulling a trigger who would have followed any law anyway? No. You start banning guns and you start taking away guns from people who will use them responsibly and use them ethically.
You put more and more laws on guns and you start taking away a Second Amendment right, it’s going to be, Charlie, the bad guys who have the guns, not those who are law-abiding citizens.
If only she held the other amendments in as high esteem (I’m looking at you 1st amendment!).
Sarah Palin on Sexism:
GIBSON: Is it sexist for people to ask how can somebody manage a family of seven and the vice presidency? Is that a sexist question to ask?
PALIN: I don’t know. I’m lucky to have been brought up in a family where gender has never been an issue. I’m a product of Title 9, also, where we had equality in schools that was just being ushered in with sports and with equal opportunity for education, all of my life.
But not equal pay, though.
I’m part of that generation, where that question is kind of irrelevant, because it’s accepted. Of course you can be the vice president and you can raise a family.
DUDE, FIVE KIDS. Clearly, what with Bristol getting pregnant, you can’t handle the job while being governor. Come on. Let’s be adult and honest here.
This is a sexist issue, only in that it’s about being a mom. Sure, if the dad wants to quit his job and take over, that’s cool. But, as I mentioned, as a good Christian, you couldn’t even keep your own daughter from having sex, clearly you and your hubby were missing something.
I’m the governor and I’m raising a family. I’ve been a mayor and have raised a family. I’ve owned a business and we’ve raised a family.
Yeah and everything’s been FINE!
What people have asked me when I was — when I learned I was pregnant, “Gosh, how are you going to be the governor and have a baby in office, too,” and I replied back then, as I would today, “I’ll do it the same way the other governors have done it when they’ve either had baby in office or raised a family.” Granted, they’re men, but do it the same way that they do it.
Stick the babies with their spouses while they sleep around? :P
Nooo, of course, it’s possible to have a HUGE family and still be a politician. However, the other spouse has to want to take a very hands-on role in order to still be good parents. The myth that two income families turn out just fine is just that, a myth–at least for the first several years of childhood. Once they go to school, it’s easier, but not by much.
What happens if Palin has to cast a deciding vote on the senate floor and her husband is off field dressing a moose and one of her kids falls and cracks their skull open?
The kid bleeds by him/herself until she’s done with the work of the nation.
GIBSON: When we posted this question on the Internet, we had 15,000 replies within 48 hours and every woman with young children struggles with this question, should I, how can I, will I be able to. And I’m curious to hear you talk just about how you’ve internalized that.
PALIN: Sure. And I understand what that struggle is, what those internal questions are. I’ve gone through the same thing over these 19 years from having my first born to today having a newborn.
In these 19 years, a lot of circumstances have changed. I stayed home with my son until he was seven years old, had just worked part-time, until I got into full-time employment again when he was seven. I had that choice then and I’ve had choices, of course, along the way.
Must be nice having all of those choices, huh, Sarah?
I bet you’d really hate to lose any of those choices.
Would you say that your pro- choice, Sarah?
Sarah Palin on Banning Books:
We’ll save this for part 6! That’ll be posted tomorrow. Thanks for reading!
Happy Saturday! Bush and TreasSec Paulson want Congess to agree to spend nearly three-quarters of a TRILLION dollars to save our economy.
Where the hell do we have that kind of money laying around? You can’t even say "Oh, we’ll be paying for this for decades in taxes!"
You can’t borrow money from the future. We WILL be paying it back for that long but where is that money coming from and what were we going to use it for?
I’m pretty sure we will be just conjuring the cash from nothing but I’d like to hear that from someone official for once.
Do you have any idea how injecting 700 billion new dollars will change the value of the US dollar? The value will drop even lower.
What worries me even more is that Bush made the comment today that “The risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package.”
Doing nothing would be a much greater risk than spending $700 billion.
He just admitted that our economy is totally screwed.
And I mean TOTALLY.
What’s worse than needing to spend nearly one-tenth the national debt to "save" our economy?
I’m betting that the media and even most people won’t get the severity of this.
The US economy is FUBAR and the only thing that will save it is 700 BILLION.
One helluva thing to wake to.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli. Replies.
This is just a quick post because the thought occurred to me while considering the blatant hypocrisy of the Federal Reserve and the USG bailing out/taking over banks.
See, we need banks in order for our monetary system to function. Without them we’d all be carrying too much cash or we’d make our homes a magnet for home robberies. Banks also allow for a much smoother and faster (believe it or not) transfer of money from one person or corporation to another.
Sure, they also allow for quite a bit of money laundering (read: crime) but there’s essentially no modern tool of society that can’t be repurposed for corruption and greed. The point is, we need the banks.
So, the USG and The Federal Reserve effectively nationalizes a bunch of them. Now the Fed is not really part of the government–the USG pretends to oversee it but really, the Fed chairmen over the years have been so good at obfuscation that I blame no politician for not wanting to exert force over these guys. Of course, I DO blame politicians for not doing it despite not wanting to–but I’m getting off-topic.
OK, so here the USG/Fed are, taking over banks–essentially owning said banks. So, now our tax dollars (and any investments in the Fed) make each of us (and investors in the Fed) partial owners of these banks. You know what this looks like, right?
Communism.
Or even Socialism.
Or both!
So, isn’t this completely hypocritical of a government whose excuse for not nationalizing health care is that government-run health care would be too much like socialism?
Doesn’t this make the government completely full of shit when it gives us any reasons for anything (especially after losing all credibility in stating facts about “enemy” countries)?
Let’s also consider how nationalized health care benefits would help hundreds of thousands of people–possibly millions of people–who don’t have health care insurance (like yours truly).
Yes, banks are important, too.
But which is more important to prop up?
1) America’s financial health
2) Americans’ actual health
I say both. Instead, we worry about “isms” and assume that they’re all bad except for the one the rich folks practice: Capitalism.
The catch is, that we can see that no regulation on banks has gotten themselves into this predicament. Our economy is failing and some people are calling for even LESS regulation. It’s unchecked greed that caused this problem.
Surely, as with complete socialism, you can see that complete capitalism is also dangerous. Leaving everything to the “free market” means greed and power can rule all things.
Only a just set of regulations can keep the power-brokers from abusing their power.
This is especially obvious when you consider that sometimes socialism is OK. The USG/Fed and the rich folks of America are happy to see the banks be bailed out. Meanwhile, I would like to see health care be free for all Americans.
So, once you realize that in some cases socialism is OK, why do so many people insist that we stick to one “ism”? Surely, ANY extreme is bad–so why not regulate socialism AND capitalism and any other “ism” that will help America and the American people be stronger?
Why is Muslim extremism bad and Christian extremism not?
Why was Soviet extremism bad and American extremism not?
Why is Socialism bad, except when it helps the rich?
How can you say your way is better or best and assume that other folks who say the same thing about their own way are wrong?
What if you’re both right and in some ways bits of all ways just might be the best way of all?
I thought I’d take a day off from posting my commentary of Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson and post my commentary on McCain’s appearance on The View instead. The transcript I’m about to use comes from TheRebeller.Blogspot.com here: therebeller.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-on-view-transcript-9-12-08.html So, if there’s anything wrong with it, blame that guy! :) Thanks to John Rivera, the man behind TheRebeller.Blogspot.com, for transcribing the interview.
Actually, I can’t work out exactly who transcribed it, and the text below looks incomplete, so I’m going to quip away and then watch the whole thing to see if I missed anything.
OK–I grabbed the second half of the transcript below from shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/09/john-mccain-on-view.html
Man, doesn’t anyone host their own blog anymore?
As always, the comments below that are NOT in italics are mine and they are straight, off-the-cuff comments as I read the transcript for the very first time. I have yet to see any of the footage of McCain’s appearance.
Here we go:
Whoopi: Do you believe in the Separation of Church of State?
McCain: Sure, but God has a plan for the world and people can believe want they want. I happen to be spiritual. P.S. In God We Trust
WOW, pander much?
I hope he’s not fooling any Believers out there.
ELISABETH HASSELBECK: There has also been a question burning amongst voters and actually our viewers, and that is the question of Roe v. Wade. And as president, if you were, no softballs coming from me, even though you have my vote. Would you as president work to overturn that? And then would Sarah Palin be working to overturn Roe v. Wade?
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I think what we would be doing is appointing or nominating justices to the United States Supreme Court and other courts who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States. We would not impose a litmus test on any issue because that’s not fair to the American people. But they would have to have a clear record of strict interpretation.
Wow–looks like McCain’s been taking lessons from Palin! Talk about a nice, vague answer!
Hey JOHNNY, you for RvW or not? Simple question.
BARBARA WALTERS: That’s kind of the other way of saying people who would want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
McCAIN: That, that, well, that is saying that, I believe Roe v. Wade was a very bad decision, Barbara. I think it was a bad decision. I thought other, I thought other decisions of the United States Supreme Court were bad decisions.
ME TOO! Like when they decided George Bush should have won back in 2000! :P
No, I won’t let that go because the Supreme Court should have dismissed the case on the grounds that the Congress is Constitutionally required to break ties in national elections–NOT the Supreme Court.
It’s true! Look it up!!
But I want people on the Court who, quote, “do interpret” and not just on the issue of Roe v. Wade, but on other issues.
DUCK!
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Do I have to be worried about becoming a slave again?McCAIN: My interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is that the United States Supreme Court enforces the Constitution of the United States and does not legislate nor invent areas that are responsibilities, according to the Constitution, of the legislative branch.
It’s both relieving and worrisome to hear him say this.
Could go either way.
HASSELBECK: So it was in how the law came up, it was in how Roe v. Wade came apart was the issue. You, you want it to be through the Constitution from the people not from the bench.
McCAIN: And I believe that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, then the states would make these decisions.
Just so long as the federal government doesn’t decide to toss up a law in it’s place—HANG ON–almost had me there with the states rights argument, but NOPE, thanks for playing!! We need a guarantee that abortions will be kept legal because this is an issue of freedom for women. If the USG doesn’t legislate a guarantee that all women can get abortions, some states will take away women’s right to get one.
WHEW! That was close!!
GOLDBERG: Sir.
McCAIN: Yes?
GOLDBERG: Can you just, and I don’t want to misinterpret what you’re saying. Did you say you wanted strict Constitutionalists? Because that, that-
McCAIN: No, I want people who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our founding fathers envision-
GOLDBERG: Does that-
McCAIN: -for them to do.
GOLDBERG: Should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change.
McCAIN: I, I understand your point.
Haha! I’m sure he does!
Of course, I don’t remember anything in the Constitution about owning slaves…
GOLDBERG: Okay, okay.
McCAIN: I understand that point and I, I, thank you. That’s an excellent point.
Sheesh, you’d think they were talking about the Bible or something!
GOLDBERG: Thank you sir.
McCAIN: And I thank you.
And I thank you BOTH! Now can we PLEASE GET ON WITH IT??
WALTERS: Before we go, before we go, just to give a different picture because you talk-
GOLDBERG: I got scared.
JOY BEHAR: She’s picturing herself on the plantation.
GOLDBERG: I got scared. I gotta start running.
If McCain ends up in the White House, we’d ALL better start running!
WALTERS: You and Sherri, we’ll take care of you. Us white folk will take care of you.
Barbara Walters: Mistress of the Underground Railroad!
SHERRI SHEPHERD: Oh my