If SCOTUS had not intervened, only the Gore strategy would have mattered. You know, the one where he still lost. I highly doubt you know enough about the founding fathers to have much valid input there. The Constitution provides that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” So it seems the founding father did intend just that. There are a few good reasons for it: Certainty of outcome rather than widespread calls for endless recounts No single region has enough votes to determine the outcome, which would disenfranchise much of the country Toss-up states are given more attention and their electorates are often more politically educated, making them the best people to determine a close race Avoid run-offs If you think doubling the national debt is fiscal responsibility then I will skip the rest of your propaganda.
But SCOTUS did not know that, nor did the rest of the Republican authorities managing the situation. The Republican Party - especially the local authorities in Florida, who knew what had been happening - had reason to be seriously worried about a recount or investigation of any kind, especially one launched before the new President had taken office and control of the Federal law enforcement agencies. Gore won the popular vote in Florida, and in the US generally. The fact the specific influence and "attention" paid to Florida was able to give the Presidency to W is evidence against the electoral college, which has proven to be vulnerable to the influence of corporate money - smaller populations are easier to swing. I don't think Obama doubled the national debt. I think that's wingnut propaganda designed to conceal the scope of the disaster that W's Presidency and the Republican Congress had created (the Republican Congress is still abetting it, attempting to expand on it) I also think his failure to throw enough debt stimulus of the right kind (work programs, infrastructure repair, etc) at the lower levels of the US economy is Obama's signature failure as chief executive - I would have thought him more responsible had his administration's contribution to the national debt, of that kind, been twice as big as it was. Nice idea, but in practice "attention" (money) has not translated into "education" (a reality based operation), but rather into "influence" (money talks). . People, even Presidents, are not necesasarily responsble for stuff they opposed and attempted to prevent. Clinton can be held responsible for NAFTA, and a good deal of the rest of the Reagan program he supported and helped along, but not stuff he opposed that represented others overcoming his opposition.
That assumes you can spell when it is obvious you can’t. It’s very obvious you know nothing about economics or finance. No it isn’t rocket science, but it is apparently too difficult for you. As previously pointed out using your own reference, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, “We conclude widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets.” It helps if you read your references rather than cherry pick irrelevant material and misrepresent it as you have done. There are multiple factors that affect loan profitability. Default risk is just one of them. Just because loans are less profitable, it doesn’t mean they are higher risk. Two, there is this thing called interest. Interest is the rent associated with the use of money. Apparently you don’t know how interest rates are priced. Let me give you a clue, interest rates are NOT magical beings. Interest rates are priced to include ALL risks…that include default risk. It gets back to that old supply-demand thingy. So if loans are appropriately priced, default risk isn’t an issue. Ye of short memory. It was you who initially said: LOL, you are a little strange dude. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh, so now we cannot blame a Republican POTUS for his appointees. But we can blame Obama for his appointees and civil servants whom he did not appoint (e.g. IRS). Yes the SEC is an independent commission. But who appointed the commission members? Who appointed the SEC Chairman? Baby Bush appointed 13 commissioners to the SEC during his 8 years as POTUS. Considering there are only 5 commissioners, the SEC was stuffed with Baby Bush appointees. Do you really think Baby Bush would appoint commissioners who didn’t do his bidding? I have already covered Clinton’s culpability. But the unpleasant fact is Baby Bush and his merry bands of Republicans were just as much responsible if not more that Clinton and the Republicans who repealed Glass-Steagall. And you think that makes sense? As previously explained to you your Republicans initiated, drafted, and passed the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Commodities Modernization Act, Clinton signed it. Baby Bush further deregulated with lax enforcement and appointing commissioners who further deregulated financial institutions. Baby Bush was responsible for watching over the economy of the nation. He very obviously failed. Sorry, but you don’t seem to be capable of rational thought. What is the difference between a commission making a regulation with the full weight of law or Congress and the POTUS making a law? Both are laws that must be obeyed (e.g. Uptick Rule). The distinction you are trying to make is partisan and silly. Oh…and where is your evidence for that assertion? Let me guess, you don’t have one. All you can do, all you have done is mimic Republican memes. Additionally, you are attempting to obfuscate with minutia and irrelevant material. In short, you are hefting chaff into the air in order to avoid addressing the naked gapping wholes in your belief system. Apparently you know very little about Dodd-Frank. Rather than me explaining it all to you, I’ll give you a Wiki link and your get come up to speed on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act Dodd-Frank did eliminate too big to fail. Dodd-Frank was similar to Glass-Steagall in that it prevented banks from engaging in the kinds of activity which caused the banking crisis of 2007-2009. If banks can never fail because they are prohibited from engaging in the risky activities which created the crisis (e.g. Dodd-Frank) then effectively "too big to fail" isn't a possibility. And Dodd-Frank went further. It set up a process for the orderly dismantling of "too big to fail" banks. So only in that Republican fantasy world did Dodd-Frank not end "too big to fail". The best solution is a proactive solution, a solution which prevents the problem (e.g. Glass-Steagall). It’s that old adage; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and that is Dodd-Frank. The Republican solution is let the whole thing crash in and we will all go back to the days of robber barons. Here are some of the things you are ignoring: Dodd-Frank gave the Federal Reserve new powers to regulate “systemic risk”. It prohibited banks from gambling with federal insured funds (something Republicans have recently repealed). So if we don’t allow banks to get to the point where they will default, then your assertion is mute and that is what Dodd-Frank did. As previously stated, you Republicans have put too big to fail back on the table by allowing banks to once again fail. Additionally, why wouldn’t there be investors to buy defaulted bank securities? The only way that would occur is if those securities couldn’t be accurately priced quickly (e.g. the banking crisis). It’s very easy to price loans. It isn’t easy to price derivatives.
I meant what I said, contrary to your assertion; there was nothing liberal about Baby Bush. Baby Bush was and is a Republican. He ran on the Republican ticket. He was the Republican Party nominee. He was supported by the Republican Party, Republican members of Congress, and the Republican entertainment industry for not just a few years but through his entire 8 years as POTUS and his years as governor of that bastion of liberalism known as Texas. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You are again repeating Republican memes. Rather than own up to your culpability, you do what Republicans have always done, blame someone else and the mystical magical RINO was born. Baby Bush really wasn’t one of us. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But for the 8 years of his presidency, he was. I recall hearing Fox News go so far as to call anyone who even disagreed with Baby Bush a traitor. Unfortunately for you Republicans there is this thing called history, and it shows Democratic administrations have been more fiscally responsible and the economy has done better under Democrats than Republicans. It’s kind of funny to see you accuse someone of playing the blame game. But it is consistent. It is just more repetition of Republican Party memes. It’s your gig. It’s what you do. You don’t have any qualms about blaming Obama for things which preceded his presidency (e.g. the trillion dollar deficit). But God forbid anyone should blame Baby Bush for anything that preceded his presidency…just a little hypocrisy there.
First, the 95 HUD Authorization as previously and repeatedly pointed out to you didn’t do anything to induce or incent bad loans. It addressed property valuation. You do realize property values change over time? The bulk of your paragraph is gobbledygook. It just doesn’t make sense…even remotely. It appears you never graduated kindergarten…what is with the fixation with gold stars? Did you not graduate from kindergarten? Here is the bottom line; you obviously know nothing about derivatives, finance and economics. And you have a strong proclivity for mindless mimicking of Republican Party memes. Except, those words are not in the Financial Crisis Inquire Commission Report – one of “dem” minor details again. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I previously quoted the conclusion of the Financial Inquiry Commission Report and it doesn’t support your assertions as previously posted. It’s difficult to overlook something that doesn’t exist. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Unfortunately, these days Republicans call anyone who doesn’t blindly accept Republican dogma as gospel no matter how false or unreasoned it might be, a liberal or called a Democrat. And their thoughts are summarily dismissed. Unfortunately, it is a technique Republicans use to avoid unpleasant facts - facts that are not friendly to their ideology. Yeah, by all means, join the other Republicans with their heads buried in the sand. Let me remind you it was you who first introduced the Financial Crisis Investigative Commission as evidence to support you’re your assertions. Now that you understand what the commission really found, you are attempting an about-face and a rather dramatic one at that. There were 10 commissioners appointed by Republicans and Democrats. The commission was bipartisan. And the commission repudiates your assertions. The commission deregulation and a failure to enforce regulation as the cause of the crisis. There were 10 commissioners appointed by Republicans and Democrats. The commission was bipartisan. And the commission repudiates your assertions. If you believe the commission was in anyway biased, why did you cite it? Contrary to your assertions, the commission's findings are diametrically opposite of your assertions and beliefs. The fact is we have had problems with banks making bad loans before, but they haven't caused a banking catastrophe because we have mechanisms to deal with that. The previously referenced Savings and Loan Crisis which occurred under the presidencies of Reagan and Bush I, didn't cause the collapse of the global banking system. With the repeal of Glass-Steagall, we no longer had mechanisms in place to manage banks engaged in derivative trading. That is the ugly truth you don't want to recognize because it is inconsistent with your ideological beliefs. LOL, that is funny…you claiming someone else has a double standard. As for John Stewart, I don’t know him and I don’t watch his shows. But I understand he is a comedian. O’Riley isn’t a comedian. Now how you can equate Stewart to Bill O’Riley whom I have watched is beyond me. And I don’t recall anyone ever claiming Stewart “opinioning” himself into a war zone as O’Riley has done. Yes it does reflect on the veracity of commentary. If a journalist is willing to lie about what is supposed to be factual honest reporting, he is likely to lie about his opinions as well. You have demonstrated the gullibility of Fox News viewers and consumers of Republican entertainment. LOL…seriously….where have you been? You remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python’s, “Holy Grail”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw Everything you have written has been debunked. If you could make a cogent case, you wouldn’t need to misrepresent information as you have done with the Financial Crisis Investigative Commission, and you wouldn’t need illogical argument, and your arguments would not be inconsistent with known facts. Nowhere in any of that is there anything about “govment” forcing banks to make bad loans? It doesn't. I’ll repeat my challenge to you, the same challenge you have been unable to answer since the onset of this discussion, where is your evidence the “govemnet” forced poor abused bankers into making bad loans? You haven’t shown it because it doesn’t exist and that is why you have been running away from it. A dump of garbage, isn’t an answer. This was established early on so why do you feel it necessary to repeat it? It isn’t an item of contention. Although I do find it telling that you are quick to lay blame on Democrats, but not so much for Baby Bush. You readily push Baby Bush’s foibles onto Obama. You know repeating nonsense over and over again doesn’t make it better. Unlike wine, nonsense doesn’t get better with age. There will always be a buyer if the product and risk are known and the price is right. The problem during the financial crisis was no one knew the risk - not even the holders of derivatives knew the risk they faced. And if you don’t know the risk, which was the case, then you cannot price the security. People and companies buy bad debts ALL the time. But they know the product and they know the risk. The “living will” mandated by Dodd-Frank requires banks to know their portfolio risk at all times. So if there should be a reoccurrence in the future bank assets can be sold off. Thanks to Dodd-Frank risk is no longer an afterthought for the nation’s bankers. As previously explained to you, the best remedy is prevention. Dodd-Frank prevented a reoccurrence by not allowing banks to gamble with federal insured deposits. The problem cannot reoccur if banks are not allowed to gamble with federally insured funds. It’s just that simple. It also invokes more regulation which ensures banks are not becoming overleveraged as they were during the banking crisis. Thanks to our Republican brothers, “too big to fail” is back on the table as they have repealed portions of Dodd-Frank. Thanks to Republicans, banks can once again gamble with federally insured deposits as they have repealed portions of Dodd-Frank and intend to repeal more.
Well, we will never know because Republicans on the US Supreme Court took unprecedented action and did intervene and stop the recount. Well, your doubt isn’t surprising. You doubt anything that isn’t a Republican meme. It’s what you have been taught. Everything which isn’t Republican dogma is a liberal conspiracy because the Republican entertainment industry told you so (e.g. Bill O’Riley). We all know what the Constitution says. The Constitution also sanctions slavery. So are you advocating we go back to the days of slavery? Of the reasons you gave for the Electoral College, none of them were the reasons for the creation of a select group of presidential electors which we now know as the Electoral College. It was all about big states versus small states. We elect people to office every year in this country with definitive results without an intermediary Electoral College. It has nothing to do with “toss up” states. Additionally, the Constitution lays out a process for resolving “ties”. The Electoral College does not prevent run-offs¸ nor does it prevent “endless recounts” (e.g. Florida). Had the State of Florida (i.e. Republican state officials) not illegally disenfranchised of thousands of voters the Florida vote would have been much less close. The founding fathers created a document that could change over time. That is why we no longer have slavery. Things change. Many of the conditions which existed at the creation of our country do not exist today. Society has changed, the economy has changed. Virtually everything has changed. The founders embraced change. They understood change was necessary. That is why the created a process for change. That is why slavery is no longer constitutionally sanctioned. The way we elect the president has changed. It is time for us to change the way we elect our president once again. LOL, it depends on why the national debt was doubled. You and those like you tend to suffer from a chronic case of myopia. You can’t see the forest for the trees. You and those like you didn’t suffer any angst when Baby Bush frivolously squandered government funds on two botched wars and crony capitalism (e.g. Medicare Part D). Baby Bush outright lost 12 billion dollars cash in Iraq through outright incompetence and more than doubled the national debt with spending on crony capitalism and two botched wars, but I didn’t hear any of the folks like you complain about Baby Bush’s spending before, during and after his speeding spree. Baby Bush took a budget surplus he inherited from a Democratic POTUS and turned it into a massive 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. Funny, I never heard Republicans complain about Baby Bush’s profligate and irresponsible spending when he was in office. Obama took Baby Bush’s trillion dollar deficit and cut it in half. Yeah, I would much rather have half trillion dollar deficits than a trillion dollar plus deficit all things being equal. And that is what Obama has delivered. It’s a refreshing change from the previous Republican administration. That said, there are times where deficit spending is legitimate (e.g. war, WWII, etc.). Without deficit spending, would have lost the Revolutionary War and WWII as well. Context is everything. But Baby Bush's spending can in no way be rationalized. It was profligate, it was spendthrift.
Wait...what?! Obviously you are clueless about the Constitution. It NEVER 'sanctioned slavery'. Slavery existed solely by state law, not federal law and certainly not the Constitution. But you're obviously partial to this liberal meme...that the founding fathers where all in favor of slavery, even though many sought to free their slaves and could not due to their state's law. Washington was able to free his slaves upon his death, but Jefferson could not because he had inherited debt.
LOL...I think you need to revisit the US Constitution. As PJ mentioned, there was the 3/5th Compromise and then there is Article One, Section 9, Clauses 1 which "prevents Congress from passing any law that would restrict the importation of slaves into the United States prior to 1808" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Article_One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise Yeah, the US Constitution did sanction slavery. And this gets back to my previous comment about how folks like you have a rather selective knowledge of the US Constitution. You take what you like and ignore the rest. In this case you ignore the slavery thingy, either that or you and your fellows are just ignorant of US history and government. Not all of the founding fathers shared the same beliefs about virtually everything, slaver included. But the fact is, the founding fathers did sanction slavery in the US Constitution. George Washington held slaves virtually his entire life and contrary to your assertion, he didn't free his slaves upon his death. Upon his death, Washington gave his slaves to his wife Martha and they were to be freed upon her death. Martha freed them a year later, but Washington's wife kept her slaves, the slaves she inherited from the Curtis estate, until her death and when she died, her slaves were returned to the Curtis estate, the estate of her first husband. Washington had contradictory views of slavery. Before you go calling other people "clueless" you should take a very long and serious look at yourself friend. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
At the risk of getting dragged in to a stupid thread, I'll point out that Amendments to the Constitution are part of the Constitution, so no, the Constitution most certainly does not sanction slavery.
Yes, but that didn't occur during the period under discussion in this thread. The fact is the US Constitution did sanction slavery for the first 78 years of its existence. It took a civil war to make slavery illegal in the US. No one is arguing the current version of the US Constitution endorses slavery.
That wasn't your original claim: Present tense. Syne is wrong that it "never" sanctioned slavery, but you were wrong when you claimed that it currently does. Syne's wrong claim just enabled you to goalpost shift away from your wrong claim.
Actually, my original claim was more than that. I suggest you go back and read the entire conversation. Context is important, and you commented without understanding context. So you are wrong. Contrary to your assertion, no one has said slavery is currently illegal. In fact, I clearly wrote in response to Syne, "So are you advocating we go back to the days of slavery?". That's one of the parts you are ignoring. If you read the relevant posts, you should know the discussion was clearly in reference to Syne's claim related to the founding fathers and his belief in the doctrine of original intent and his belief that the Constitution should not be changed because it would violate the doctrine of original intent. Because the founding fathers created the Electoral College, the Electoral College should not be changed. I brought up the issue of slavery as an example of change, asking if he preferred we go back to the days of slavery. So you are wrong yet again. Additionally, my statement, "The Constitution also sanctions slavery.", still remains true. Those articles which I cited are still in the US Constitution. No one has eliminated the articles which sanction slavery from the Constitution. Those articles are still there. When amendments are ratified, no one erases portions of the the Constitution with an ink eraser. Those articles which sanction slavery still exist within the US Constitution. So the present tense is correct, and you are once again wrong. Except as proven here you and Syne are the only people who are wrong here. And just what goal post do you think I have moved? I asked Syne a simple question in order to demonstrate the absurdity of his original intent argument. Syne said, "So it seems the founding father did intend just that", to which I responded with, " The Constitution also sanctions slavery. So are you advocating we go back to the days of slavery? ". Now were is the goal post in that? There isn't. And you should have been able to infer from that question no one said or even hinted that slavery was currently legal in the United States. And Syne went on to deny the Constitution has any provisions which sanction slavery, and clearly his assertions in that regard are clearly wrong. It really is that simple. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And if you had read that and understood the principal of original intent which was the object of this discussion, it should have been very clear to you, that conversation wasn't about about today or the post Civil War period but about the founding fathers and original intent. The founding fathers had all died long before the Civil War. Slavery was the original intent of the founding fathers and that is reflected in the US Constitution even to this day.
LOL! Apparently neither of you know the actual impact of the alternatives. No slaves counted Slaves would be recognized as property by the Constitution Southern states would have had less representation but would have refused to ratify the Constitution All slaves counted Slaves would be recognized as free people Southern states would have a an extremely disproportionate influence in Congress and POTUS elections (both especially problematic before the Civil War) Compromise Slaves count as a 3/5 of a free person Southern states agree to ratify the Constitution and have less influence than if slaves were treated as free people, like in the north. So the founding fathers did the best they could to unify the country under one Constitution, recognize slaves as people, and curtail the influence of slave states. The 3/5 Compromise did nothing to 'sanction slavery'. Quite the contrary, it allowed the Constitution to be ratified (which was the ultimate vehicle for the legal abolition of slavery) while attempting to temper slave state sway. Yes, Washington inherited slaves at the age of eleven. And you're right about him willing them to Martha until her death, although the Curtis slaves could not legally be freed even then. Washington's estate did take care of elderly and sick slaves in perpetuity, and Martha freed the non-Curtis slaves a year after George's death. [Jefferson's] 1784 Ordinance would have prohibited slavery completely by 1800 in all territories. Congress, however, rejected Jefferson's original 1784 Ordinance prohibiting slavery by only one vote, due to an absent representative from New Jersey. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoma...lowing_the_Revolution_.281784.E2.80.931800.29 Both men, and most founding fathers, were working to unify a nation while dealing with slavery (which was a social norm in England and many European countries).
The original US Constitution required that states return escaped slaves to their owners. It is almost a maxim that anyone on the Internet who mocks someone for not understanding the Constitution - understands it even less themselves.
so you admit the constitution sanctioned slavery to get the slave states on board but claim it wasn't sanctioning them? i'm familiar with the arguments your read is really bad and rather self serving.
I stand corrected. The 3/5 Compromise doesn't sanction slavery, but the Fugitive Slave Clause does. So you and Joe were right, just for the wrong reason.
to quote Inigo Montoya You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. pray tell how is the 3 fifths compromise not doing that. it is allowing slavery to commence hence sanctioning it.
