1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

VP Debate Questions

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Andy, Oct 3, 2008.

  1. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I would say it was typical Washington played out. Washington has a history of causing problems and then setting themselves up as the solution. Here we see an attempt to remedy a problem started in the mid 90s with a directive to encourage the industry, through the two GSEs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to give out high risk loans to people with low or questionable finances.

    Now, after the logical results of such practices have caused problems throughout the industry, they want to hand out billions in tax payer money to the people who made the bad loans.

    Government isn't the solution, Government is the cause. We need to stop interfering in the free market, and reign in our out of control GSEs. The market will iron itself out if we simply allow the system to work.

    I would not work to shrink the gap at all. This gap, is a gap of ideology. It's a gap of differences in opinion and perspective. The only way to reduce this gap is to have everyone believe the same on the issues.

    But since I have no intention to change my views to theirs, there will always be a gap. If they wish to join my views, the doors are open and all are welcome. To that end, I will proclaim my views and the evidence I back them with. But we all know not all will come to my side, and I will not go to theirs. Thus the gap will always be.

    The ones who are at fault are, the Government through GSEs, the Lenders who made the loans, the People who accepted those loans, in that order.

    The Government, through the two GSEs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged subprime loans, and thus made the loans appear to be safe since they were doing them.

    The Lenders believed that since GSEs were accepting such loans, that they could then make these dangerous loans and pass all the risk off to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, banking on the idea government would bail them out if there was a problem. Although it was true that Government did bail them out, it still didn't spare many from the cost of bad loans.

    The people believed that they could make bad loans and that they could then refinance them later. Most knew they were taking out a loan too large to pay for, but did it anyway.

    In the end, Government needs to learn to stay out of the market. They only screw things up. Lenders need to learn that passing off risk will only work for a limited time. Eventually it will catch up with you. The people need to learn to not take out loans they can't pay for. Don't assume that 5 years from now, you'll be swimming in cash or able to refinance when that subprime loan jump up 10 points.

    It is true that Republicans are generally against regulation of the free market. But we are not against all regulations, as we want to regulate the wasteful spending of public money by government, and the out of control companies under our care.

    McCain supported new oversight and controls of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when the reports came out that the CEO was manipulating accounting numbers to get bonuses, and that the companies assets were questionable and full of risky loans, and ultimately engaging in fraud, if not equal to, exceeding the levels found at Enron.

    However, we do see some problems with our health care system, in the way insurance is handled, and how Medicare effects the industry. We do need to find a solution to these problems.

    That said, we don't need to socialize the industry the way some have indicated. That level of regulation will only cause problems similar to our oil situation where we have trillions of barrels of oil under our feet, yet we prevent ourselves from getting it, forcing us to import 2/3rds of our oil.

    Seeing how badly government handled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and seeing how regulations have forced us to import more than half our oil, putting government in charge of health care will only lead to similar devastating results.

    What the Senator fails to understand is that all taxes hit the lower class. When you tax any group of people, especially the rich, you simply cause them to shelter their income in other ways, like stock options and company benefits. In the end, government will spend more, believing this new tax will bring in more money. Then when the new money doesn't show up, they have to raise taxes on the middle and lower class to cover it.

    Some studies? So some studies say the opposite? Some say they don't like tax loop holes that employers have. Isn't this a loop hole?

    Our goal is to separate insurance from job. We need to make insurance untied to peoples jobs. It is not right for a person to lose their insurance just because they switched jobs. But in order to do this, we have to change the rules.

    Would anyone stand to lose their automobile insurance or home insurance if they went to different company? Of course not. We need health insurance to be the same. The reason insurance companies abuse their patients is because they know you can not choose a different policy. They know you are stuck with the insurance plan the company gets. That needs to change.

    Yes of course. The ability for a company to make billions in bad loans, all while lining their pockets with bonuses gotten by cooking the books, and then passing off the failed companies debts onto others, is something that only should be allowed for democrat appointees to GSE bailed out by tax payers... right?

    No the system should minimize the ability for massive debts to be passed on to others. Personal accountability should be required for all people. If Fannie Mae has taught us anything, it is that when a company knows someone else will pay for their mistakes, they are more willing to make those mistakes. Similarly, if bankruptcy is more difficult, and you know you are more likely to be held responsible for bad loans, you will be more cautious about making them.

    Our climate is in a constant state of change. Global warming has being happening since the last ice age, with or without human intervention. Further our sun goes though changes too, sometimes emitting more heat energy, and sometimes less.

    Finely more than 90% of the so-called greenhouse effect is due to water. Of the remaining 10%, only about 8% of it is due to carbon dioxide. Of the carbon dioxide emitted into atmosphere annually, only 3.5% of it is attributed to humans, and that includes breathing. This means only 0.28% of the total greenhouse effect is possibly due to humans.

    Since the total greenhouse effect raises Earths temperature by a mere 33ºC, this means the human contribution to the so-called greenhouse effect can't be much more than 0.09ºC, or less than 1 tenth of one degree, and I'm rounding those numbers up.

    In other words, our impact on global warming is at best barely identifiable and falls within the margin of error, and at worst, is non-existent.

    I do not support caps on carbon emissions, since as stated, there is no real effect on global warming. It's more due to natural changes in our atmosphere and changes in the output of our sun.

    As for so-called clean coal, from the proponents own stand point, there is no such thing as clean coal, since burning any coal will produce CO2.

    But the clean coal program is like so many government programs that absorb millions in government tax payer funded grants, and never delivers. McCain stands for only funding things that actually produce results.

    If a group asked for funding from you for a new type of grass that grew only 3 inches tall and never needed cut, how many years would you fund them with zero results before you realized it was a sink hole for money?

    Similarly, supposed clean coal technology has been funded for years without any results. Yet the only answer on the left is, more money. It is time we were a little bit more frugal with public funds, and only support programs that are actually producing real results.
     
  2. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That should be left to the companies to choose. It's their policy, and their money, to choose to do as they see fit.

    Beyond that, marriage is between one man and one woman. That is what marriage is, and what it should be. We can no more redefine what marriage is, than redefine what a person is, in order to justify slavery. I thought we had learned this from our history of a 3/5ths compromise.

    We have a clear exit strategy. When our generals and people in Iraq have turned over control of every province in Iraq to local control, which we have been doing, and when we see that they are stable and able to handle defending themselves from those that would do them harm, then we will know it is time to withdraw completely from Iraq, or as much as the government there wishes it.

    This is the strategy. As more and more of Iraq is under self rule, our troop levels have been steadily declining, just as planned.

    All three are important. Pakistan is generally favorable to the US. That said, we can't ignore a growing possibility of terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan, and work towards finding a solution. We have to deal with the situation, without endangering our favorable connection to their government.

    Afghanistan is very important because we have a duty to help that country, and since it still could become a hot bed of terrorist groups.

    Iran is the largest threat since it's leadership has shown a lack of restraint and we can't tell what he'll do if allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. We still have a remote possibility that they will listen to reason and disarm, but we must also be prepared for the possibility they will not. All options should be on the table for dealing with this massive threat.

    Of course not. It should be noted that, engagement is merely one of many options. It is not necessarily wrong or right. It is one possible option, an option that normally comes after negotiations have broken down.

    We have stated that we will not tolerate, a hostile, terrorist supporting, threat to one of our closest allies, being armed with nuclear weapons. The president of Iran has openly stated he doesn't believe, the well document holocaust, ever happened, and that he supports the total genocide of Israel.

    If it is possible to diplomatically have him disarm, I'm for that. If not, other options should not be eliminated.

    The administration has involved itself to heavily in the conflict of a sovereign nation. If we attempted to dictate to other nations, how they should divide up their land, it would never fly. Yet because Israel is small, for some reason we think we should tell them to just let go of their land. Land they acquired through wars instigated against them by those around them.

    All during vietnam, we were told we should not be their because it's a private internal war. Even during our fight in Iraq, we've been told it's a civil war now that we should not be involved in. Well, I say that Israel has a private matter that it, and only it can take care of, and we should leave it to them.

    We should never say we are not willing to use weapons if needed. That will only embolden our enemies and cause our chances of being forced into a situation requiring them more likely.

    That said, of course nuclear weapons are a last resort. It's not option 1 at the top of the list, but option 50 at the bottom. We have long worked toward making our military more focused on hitting military personnel and targets. We have developed smart bombs and missiles that only hit what we want to hit. Although war will never be free from civilian casualties, we have done more to minimize them, than any other nation.

    This does not mean nuclear weapons will never be used. It does mean we will avoid it until the very last alternative option has been used.

    Iraq and Pakistan were security issues for the US. Bosnia, Kosovo and Darfur, are not. One problem we have is giving legitimacy to the claim but some that the US is effectively world wide bullies that run around stomping people indiscriminately.

    By involving ourselves in conflicts that we have no cause or invested interest in being in, we are proving to the world, we stick our nose in things that we have no business being involved in.

    More over, in the case of the Bosnia serbs, before intervening, the serbs were losing. Then under our protection, the serb ran round slaughtering people. Mean while we dropped bombs from 10 thousand feet leveling cities killing everyone. In other words, we simply reversed who was killing who, without actually helping the situation.

    The use of our military is a grave thing, and needs to be used with greatest caution, and with strict reasoning that the lives of our soldiers, should only be put in harms way when it is for the security of our country.

    It would be great if we could stop every wrong in the world, but that is not our position, nor our right to do. It will only build the hatred of the US with countries that see us as an arrogant cop and busts into situations we have no business being in.
     
  3. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Did I win the debate? :D
     
  4. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Well done Andy :)

    I'd like to give it a shot...
    The worst... Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barrack Obama, Joe Biden, and a majority of Democrats all joined hands with George W. Bush (43) to enact: "Another failed Bush Policy - One Democrats happily signed onto.
    Democrats love quotas but they shouldn't be limited to Race and Sexual orientation... Lets extend them to include Political philosophy and impose a quota on all education which requires they have Conservative teachers in equal proportion to Liberal ones.

    Democrats love regulation and Taxation too! Lets impose price controls, and a windfall profits tax, on all college institutions. We can once and for all squash the price gouging that takes place in "Big College". We will also institute Price Controls and a Windfall Profits Tax on "Big Lawyer" to rid the courts of frivolous lawsuits.

    These institutions/industries can finally see what its like to have Altruism and Socialism forced onto your financial operations.
    Government is at fault and needs to be purged. Democrats like Barney Frank have blocked attempts at regulation that would have ended such practices and even went so far as to deny there were any problems... Which leads me to my next point: Drug tests will now be mandatory for all Politicians until Government ends the war on drugs.
    Well, Biden says Sen. McCains plans for Healthcare won't work... Biden also said Sen. McCains plan for a Surge wouldn't work... We can see who has more credibility here.
    There were studies that said the Surge would fail too... It was Harry Reid who said: "The surge has failed, the war is lost" A statement based on similar studies.
    To quote Sen. Obama: "Thats above my paygrade" And probably beats being "Punished with a baby"
    Its hard to tell with how politicized the issue has become. I am not convinced that mankind is to blame and I think its absurd for a presidential candidate, and sitting member of Congress, to claim he can "Heal the earth and lower the sea level."
    No, I don't support higher taxes on Energy. Unlike Sen. Obama, I really do support clean coal technology and have a record that proves MY position is not one of political expedience.
    Sure... just make sure, upon separation, it has the same pitfalls associated with hetero couples and don't redefine marriage in the process.
    What that should be, is left to the soldiers in the field and not the politicians in Washington.
    The greatest threat would be an Obama administration dealing with these problems.
    Of course they are not wrong. The only way to answer force is with force.
    Israel gave up land for peace in the 90's and it lasted just long enough for their enemies to reload their rockets and mortars. Selling out our ally Czechoslovakia, who we split up for "peace" in 1938, did nothing to prevent war in 1939. Israel deserves our full support but not without qualification.
    Mutually Assured Destruction, that's the trigger.
    Only with a Democrat in the White House... Democrats know Republicans won't be on TV, Radio and Broadband media bad mouthing our troops, declaring defeat in our national efforts, or otherwise granting aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war.

    As we have all seen, when its a Republican Commander in Chief; Democrats call those same troops: torturers, murderers, terrorists, Nazi's, thugs, etc. And some, like Sen. Obama, have even minimized our troops and their mission by saying our troops are doing nothing more than "air raiding villages and killing civilians", or "terrorizing children and women in the dark of night" - Kerry, or "The surge has failed and the war is lost" - Reid, or "[our soldiers] murdered innocent civilians in cold blood" (all of whom have since been exonerated of the charges) - Murtha.... Democrats also vote to defund the same troops they authorized into action... All this to score political points and win some elections.
     
  5. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    lol nice
     
  7. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It gets better!!!!!!!!! ;)

     
  8. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    As if we can trust anything said by a guy who lies every post.
     
  9. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gee.....I guess I need a witch-doctor, huh? :rolleyes:

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p
     
  10. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And... you still lie every post. Posting more lies, doesn't help make a case that we should listen to your lies.
     
Loading...

Share This Page