MERGED: The Politics Thread

pedonbio · « **Reply #165 on:** September 25, 2008, 01:46:59 PM »

Quote:

mastert said:
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:

The 3rd parties in the US are stuck in a catch-22: they can't attract many voters unless they have some realistic chance of winning elections (or at least get 5-10% of the vote), and they can't have a realistic chance of winning elections until they attract more voters.

The Democrats AND Republicans don't want a third party and they do it by controlling the media and just outpricing their competition. How did they do it, they tried to shun Ross Perot in 1992 and did shun Ralph Nader from the debates in 2000. The internet hurts major party candidates because it's a free tool to market yourself which is a hell of a lot cheaper than buying a TV commercial or a newspaper ad. It also costs a fortune to get on a ballot, Stephen Colbert made fun of this when he ran as a presidential candidate in SC for both parties. If campaigns were publically funded, then anybody could run for president. This is a short argument but anyway....

There's also our simple minded that there are only 2 solutions to a problem, Republicans represent 1 solution and Democrats represent the other. Until people get fed up with both parties and just write in a third candidate, it won't end anytime soon.

Mastert, I don't disagree with your analysis, but the reasons for the two-party are much deeper than that. We had a two-party system long before we had a national press.

First, we don't have a prime ministerial system. Every successful three-or-more party system has executive authority vested in a prime minister.

Second, one effect of the Electoral College system is to limit distribution of electoral votes to candidates who obtain a plurality in each state. Therefore, you can never have a president who cannot get at least a plurality in at least a plurality of states.

Third, the only example we have of a "third" party replacing a major party was the period 1855 to 1860, in which a non-existent party gelled around a collection of issues within a single election cycle and displaced a major party. In short, that's they way Americans behaved then, and there's no reason to think it would be different now.

In short, despite claims to the contrary, the two-party system was written into the Constitution. And for third-party fans, get a clue: There is no easy way to build a majority. Working with the raw material of history is a messy and sometimes dangerous job.

TheZookie007 · « **Reply #167 on:** September 25, 2008, 01:59:03 PM »

Sorry cherri but I've fixed the link now. I hope you were able to see the full Chris Rock segment too

PregNut · « **Reply #168 on:** September 25, 2008, 06:45:37 PM »

Zookie, FTW!

Chestnuts · « **Reply #170 on:** September 26, 2008, 03:00:34 AM »

McCain Warned of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Meltdown in 2006: Democrats Ignored Him
From the Congressional Record (May 25, 2006):
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
- Senator John McCain

Chestnuts · « **Reply #171 on:** September 26, 2008, 03:03:18 AM »

NYT Revealed True Cause of Fannie Mae Crisis -- In 1999!
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
"Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements," said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. "Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market."
- New York Times, September 30, 1999

Real · « **Reply #172 on:** September 26, 2008, 10:16:36 AM »

pffft. the republicans had control of the house and the exectutive right up to 2 years ago. and if you believe the house republicans still holding out on a deal, this isnt even bad. this apparently is the free market that will correct itself, no oversight needed.

neither the center-right or far-right parites in america will stand up for the people over the rich elites, but acting like the laissez faire crowd comes out of this unscathed becuase fanny and freddie had their hooks into the democrats is some serious revisionist history. one day democrats are marxists, the next out of control wall street capitalists. while the latter is far closer to the truth, the desperation on the right is really showing...

Dearc · « **Reply #174 on:** September 27, 2008, 08:04:09 AM »

The first Presidential debate was last night, and I actually thought Obama did better than McCain. Obama clarified his talking points, and attempted to knock down each shot fired by McCain. Did anyone else noticed McCain NEVER looked at Obama, except once?

I was going to vote for McCain, but now, honestly, I'm not so sure...

3deroticer · « **Reply #175 on:** September 27, 2008, 09:23:58 AM »

I think one of a good sign of a leader is the ability to look at the person your talking to, and the moderator made an attempt to get them to talk to each other, and McCain refuse to that to Obama. McCain tone was condescending most of the time. Instead of saying "my friend" zillion of time, he switch to "Obama doesn't understand". I really hate it when someone tries to speak for someone else, but McCain put Obama on the defense, and I think Obama did pretty good to move on.

http://www.cnn.com/

check out the quick poll from the debate.
also Paul Newman died today........sad......I know!

notty · « **Reply #176 on:** September 27, 2008, 01:29:57 PM »

I was underwhelmed by both men, but I've come to expect that of them. A real debate would acknowledge the 3rd party candidates.

pedonbio · « **Reply #177 on:** September 27, 2008, 03:13:37 PM »

I think Jim Lehrer won the debate. It's unusual to get a modertator who asks intelligent questions.

The scariest moment was when he asked each of them what they would give up, now that they've both endorsed the hand-out to Wall Street. You can't give away $700 billion, or whatever, and pretend it doesn't affect your administration.

It was clear from both their answers that they either hadn't thought about it or were afraid to say.

Imagine next January if McCain wins: "Sure we just gave $700 billion to Wall Street; so what we need is to cut taxes for rich Wall Street people."

BarnacleBill · « **Reply #178 on:** September 27, 2008, 04:05:52 PM »

Their answers to that easy question... disturbing.

Obviously, neither one wanted to really talk about it.

I believe the truth is that BOTH PARTIES are indebted to Big Corporate America (obviously included Big Banking) and they know its political suicide (to their true constituency, i.e. their contributors) if they make waves in this bailout.

My question is this... why in the HELL have we not heard other numbers instead of $700 billion bounced around?

Why doesn't some Senator, Congressman or (dare I even think it), some Candidate for President come out and say, "Hey, lets only give them $350 billion?"

pedonbio · « **Reply #179 on:** September 27, 2008, 05:37:43 PM »

A few days ago one of the Representatives --Maybe Barney Frank-- was talking about an initial grant off $150 billion, which would be enough to solve the liquidity problem.

Re: MERGED: The Politics Thread

Re: MERGED: The Politics Thread

Re: MERGED: The Politics Thread