Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Scent of Fear
AIG's Rotten Paper Could Bring the House Down
For the first time in this unfolding financial crisis, I felt personally scared by the news. Not about my money, but about the potential for catastrophe. The Federal Reserve's lightning rescue of AIG has the smell of systemic fear. The house of global finance is on fire and everyone is running for the exits, no sure way to turn them around. What's next? The question itself is ominous, because there are no good answers.
The US central bank and other nations acted with speed, and good that they did--an emergency loan of $85 billion to prop up the failing insurance giant, plus another $75 billion in liquidity pumped into the banking system to calm nervous bankers worldwide who abruptly stopped lending. The international rate for overnight lending among banks has doubled, an expression of fear that describes the potential danger of a sudden freeze in lending, more or less everywhere. That would deliver a deep shock to real economic activity, not just in the United States but worldwide. This feels ominously parallel to the financial chaos that followed the crash of 1929 and led to global economic collapse.
Government is much better equipped this time with various safeguards to defend the system against an implosion--including Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's personal willingness to act swiftly with unorthodox measures. But the case of AIG suggests the present unwinding has a malignant dynamic to it that might even overwhelm the authorities' capacity to put out fires. That's scary. I hope I'm wrong.
The reason the Fed was compelled to save an American insurance company in order to save the global financial system goes to the source of the rot--the "new financial architecture" developed during the last generation. These innovations allowed banking and finance to expand their leverage explosively, borrowing and lending far beyond the traditional limits defined as prudent risk-taking. One gimmick that supposedly made this okay was the creation of esoteric insurance derivatives--the so-called "credit default swaps" that supposedly protected investors and firms against losses in mortgage securities and other debt paper.
Critics repeatedly warned that these derivatives were a time bomb--trillions of dollars in risk insurance that would be exposed as meaningless if financial markets ever experienced a sharp fall in asset values. Politicians and regulators from both parties brushed aside the critics and led cheers for Wall Street's fancy new ways of guaranteeing risk.
AIG sold those guarantees in huge volume. It assumed potential liabilities far beyond the firm's capacity to make good on the deals if something went terribly wrong. The problem is global because AIG--an imperious promoter of globalized finance--sold this rotten paper all around the world to big investors and leading banks. If AIG is suddenly insolvent, the pain and loss are spread instantly to thousands of balance sheets in Asia and Europe--banks and corporations that must suddenly write down their own assets. That's why the Fed could not wait to find out what would happen if AIG was allowed to fail.
But the system is not free of these troubles. AIG was not the only high flier peddling false hope to supposedly sophisticated financiers and bankers. Some of the largest, most respectable banks--led by JPMorgan Chase--did the same thing. It was a highly profitable line of business. The gimmick insurance was widely admired by financial economists and approved by the supposedly objective rating agencies. It is not clear to me how government intervention can unwind this feature of our corrupted financial system--short of making good on the trillions in these essentially fraudulent contracts. Not even the Federal Reserve has the assets to swallow all of Wall Street's folly and deception.
If my fears are right, a more fundamental reckoning may lie ahead and Washington will have to take far more decisive action. At some point, the new president might have to do what FDR did in the wreckage of early 1933--declare a "bank holiday" and announce emergency rules to govern banking and finance until the crisis is broken. For the country's sake, I think this a better approach than buying up junked banks and failed financial firms, one by one. People have the right to ask: what exactly are the rest of us getting for our money?
- Posted in
122 Comments so far
Show All.
http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/nader_predicted_wall_street_me.php
Nader Predicted Wall Street Meltdown
By The Nader/Gonzalez Campaign
Posted on September 17, 2008
Eight years ago, consumer advocate Ralph Nader correctly predicted that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) were on track to follow the savings and loan industry of the 1980s and 90s into a big financial heap of trouble. Nobody listened, and taxpayers are now at risk of losing tens of billions of dollars. Wall Street is being shaken to its foundation. American International Group Inc., the biggest U.S. insurer by assets, is now teetering on the brink of ruin after suffering losses of $18 billion in the past three quarters, largely due to its sub prime mortgage exposure.
"Nader Rips Mae and Mac," declared the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal on June 16, 2000. "Ralph Nader, warning of a potential taxpayer bailout similar to the savings and loan crisis, urged lawmakers to cut government benefits to mortgage-market giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which he called 'poster children for corporate welfare.'"
This year Nader, who is also running for president as an independent, is getting credit for his prescience.
"Give one presidential candidate credit for identifying the problem and getting the policy right - and doing so before the twin government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went into the tank in mid-July," wrote Lou Dubose in The Washington Spectator on Aug. 1. Dubose went on to quote Nader's June 15, 2000 Congressional testimony about HR 3703, a bill that would have reigned in some of the most dangerous tendencies of GSE's, had it passed.
In a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox in 2006, Nader also criticized the exorbitant salary of GSE executives Jamie Gorelick, Daniel Mudd, Robert Levin and Timothy Howard, and noted that their financial incentives were in direct conflict with consumer financial security because of the grave moral hazard created by accounting manipulations they sanctioned that benefited their personal wealth, with no penalty for being caught.
"As you continue to investigate the Fannie Mae accounting debacle, we are writing to urge you to seek civil sanctions, including disgorgement, from senior executives who profited directly from the misconduct at Fannie Mae, and that you urge the Department of Justice to give careful consideration to criminal prosecution of these individuals," wrote Nader.
Candidate Nader has called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt, an end to corporate subsidies and unconditional taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and a start to the aggressive prosecution of corporate criminals.
In his prepared remarks for New York Times editors in its Washington Bureau, Nader stated: "Given the contrast between the 'free market' ideology of the Republicans and the corporate or state socialism that is their increasing practice, the time is ripe for full Congressional hearings next year on the organized power, greed and lack of regulation that is shaking the foundations of Wall Street."
Nader added, "What we need to do now is find a just way to deal with the millions of homeowners facing foreclosure and make sure that this level of financial market manipulation does not happen again."
He elaborated a 10-point plan to cool off the financial markets meltdown:
1. No bailouts without conditions and reciprocity in the form of stock warrants.
2. No more lobbying for any company that is bailed out.
3. No golden parachutes and get out of jail free cards for guilty executives.
4. No bailouts without public hearings.
5. Reduce the moral hazard in U.S. mortgage markets by introducing covered bonds for the majority of mortgage products as they do in Western Europe. That gives institutions that finance mortgages an incentive to be prudent, because they cannot just unload them and wipe their hands clean of the liability, but are instead on the hook if the homeowner defaults.
6. Maintain neighborhood stability and housing security by passing a law with a sunset clause allowing below median-value homeowners facing foreclosure the right to rent-to-own their homes at fair market value rates.
7. Avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than 15-20 times the annual fair market rent value of the home.
8. Make the Federal Reserve a Cabinet Position, so it is accountable to Congress, as well as making sure all Federal Reserve Bank presidents are appointed by the President and answerable to congress.
9. Reduce conflicts of interest by taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment.
10. Implement a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives to deter casino-style capitalism.
.
Nader is a great man. He started off protecting us from exploding Pintos and has since moved into trying to restore Democracy. If he had any chance of winning I'd vote for him.
But he doesn't.
If forced to choose between Obama and McCain you would pick Obama, then you cannot vote third party because approx 50% of the population is going to vote for McCain therefore your vote for the third party candidate will help to ensure McCain's win.
If you're like me and you don't give a rat's butt who wins, then you can vote third party.
This is a bit old ( after the 2000 election. But it explodes the myth of "spoiler" pretty darn well..if you would only listen
.http://www.umich.edu/~michind/84/nader.html
The two states that have been overshadowed by the Florida debacle are New Hampshire and Oregon, yet even there Nader has absorbed all the blame for Gore's marginal defeats. In New Hampshire, Bush won by 7,500 votes with Nader capturing 22,000 votes, seemingly handing the victory into Bush's hands. Yet exit poll data shows that less then half of the Nader votes would have gone to Gore, with a fifth going to Bush, still assuring his victory in that state. Likewise in Oregon, a Nader stronghold (as far as Nader strongholds go), where Bush won by 23,000 votes with Nader receiving 54,000. Yet again exit polls show that only 47% of Nader voters would have gone to Gore without the Green party, and 21% would have gone to Bush, affording him a comfortable victory margin of about 8,000 votes.
But even with those points aside, the hatchet truly comes down in Florida. Sure, its safe to say that without Nader many of his 97,000 votes would have voted for Gore, thereby assuring his victory. But Nader is only a small piece of the puzzle. What happened to Clinton's easy victory in 1996? It cannot be that all of these formerly Democratic voters were captured by Nader, who after all the hoopla walked away with a meager 3 percent of the national vote. Other demographics must have been responsible for Gore's defeat, and in fact the voting demographics show this to be the case.
Despite Bush's threats to criminalize abortion, Gore lost among white women in Florida. Gore also lost among the seniors in that state, who were apparently undeterred by his opponent's ideas about privatizing social security. Nader support in both groups was negligible. Both of these were crucial demographics which Clinton carried in 1996 and Gore should have carried in this election. And despite the notion that all those Nader votes would have easily gone to Gore, exit poll data shows that
self-identified "Democrats" were 12 (!) times more likely to vote for Bush then for Nader. What that says about the Nader campaign is downright saddening, but that's not the point. Incomprehensibly, sixteen percent of self-described Florida "liberals" voted for Bush, representing 3% of the state vote, and this demographic alone is larger than Nader's 2 percent in that state. Clearly, when your core supporters turn to the GOP candidate, the Green party cannot be at fault. There is one person to blame for Gore's failure, and that is Gore himself.
Exit polls are meaningless since not everyone who votes answers those polls anyway. Besides, the main reason Gore couldn't secure a victory was he refused to be a populist. Unfortunately, in 2004 Kerry repeated this mistake and it appears that Obama might be doing the same now. The only poll that counts is the one on election day at the voting booth.
You seem to be unaware that exit polls have traditionally been exceedingly accurate, not at all meaningless, excepting perhaps to those who will grasp at any straw to avoid confronting the truth of a Ralph Nader candidacy..a real pity.
You may, of course, continue to ignore the voluminous truths and proofs of both your Democratic Party's betrayal of all progressives and the truths that Nader continues to speak. But it is really silly to post stuff as the demeaning of exit polls when the facts speak otherwise. It was, in fact, the outcomes of the 2004 election and the dichotomy of polling data that first alerted people to the possibly of election theft.....
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Opening closed minds , fun for the whole family:
Exit poll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An exit poll is a poll of voters taken immediately after they have exited the polling stations. Unlike an opinion poll, which asks whom the voter plans to vote for or some similar formulation, an exit poll asks whom the voter actually voted for. A similar poll conducted before actual voters have voted is called an entrance poll. Pollsters - usually private companies working for newspapers or broadcasters - conduct exit polls to gain an early indication as to how an election has turned out, as in many elections the actual result may take hours or even days to count.
[edit] Purpose
An exit poll during an elction in Hong KongExit polls are also used to collect demographic data about voters and to find out why they voted as they did. Since actual votes are cast anonymously, polling is the only way of collecting this information.
Exit polls have historically and throughout the world been used as a check against and rough indicator of the degree of election fraud. Some examples of this include the Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004, the Ukrainian presidential election, 2004, and the U.S. presidential election, 2004.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Of the candidates that have a chance of getting elected one is clearly better. That's the one I'm voting for.
Now, I've voted for a Presidential candidate who held a position I opposed before. I did it because I thought his other positions outweighed the thing I disagreed with. No politician is going to agree with you on everything.
So I voted for someone I disagreed with.
Now, I think it is more important for the future of the country to vote for someone electable. That's why I'm voting for the clearly better electable candidate, Obama.
Oh, the candidate I voted for that held a view I strongly disagreed with - Ralph Nader. He opposes assisted suicide because he thinks it will turn into insurance companies pressuring patients into suicide so the insurance companies won't have to pay for end of life care. I've seen people dying of cancer and think they ought to have the option.
But I voted for Ralph anyway.
Well, when McCain and his jack-booted thugs are carrying you off to the gulag because they didn't like what you said on the phone, when the attack on Iran has begun, when abortions are outlawed and we're on the brink of a nuclear exchange, I'm sure you'll be shouting: "Obama was the same! He would have done the same thing."
Don't think you won't be responsible because you decided on a no-impact vote.
RichM
You may find this book, as I have, to be of great interest.
http://www.amazon.com/Savage-Mules-Democrats-Endless-War/dp/1844672654
The Naderites (and all those who will vote for other than Obama) may as well write-in Mickey Mouse for president on their ballot. Because that is all their vote is going to amount to. Ralph is a great person, but he likes his role as a gadfly, and it seems clear he does not like the political process. Otherwise, he would find monetary support somehow, and either take over the Democratic Party (an old wish of mine) or really run a viable third party.
Raising a viable third party is exactly what Ross "And Do You Hear THAT GIANT SUCKING SOUND NOW, FINALLY?" Perot did way back in 1992, which led to the first Bill Clinton election, as Perot took a huge percentage of votes away from that Republican war-wager Bush the First. And if Ross Perot could do it, why not Ralph? But Ralph doesn't seem to really care about being elected, and doesn't want to really bother to organize, to raise funds, or to compromise. For example, I wrote his firm years ago with several economic issues (that have since bloomed into the current crisis), asking for help and information from his public interest law firm, and never received any response... even so little a one as a form letter stating they had gotten my missives... from him or anyone in his firm. So much for his growing a real base of supporters.
For now, the American people have ONLY two real choices, McCain or Obama. And Naderites and others, please don't bore everyone anymore with the tired old refrain of 'it makes no difference.' If you can't see any differences, you are either delusional, or a Republican 'divide-and-conquer' troll... or both. Though not perfect, Obama is to be vastly preferred over McSame, who is poised to continue the Bush/Cheney/Gramm policies of foolish selfishness, bloody insanity, and criminally grave injustices and injuries to this country, its people, its real democratic freedoms, and its reputation in the world.
Vote for Obama. Not because he is going to solve all things, which he isn't, or because he is perfect, which he isn't, but because the alternative of the election of McCain/Palin is too horrible to contemplate. And vote for Obama because the current election is, amazingly, too close to call (due to far too many easily-confused and manipulated, or greedy, or unthinking, or uncaring, or warmongering, or bigoted Americans.) Try a Nader in another four years. VOTE NO ON McCAIN, which in essence means Vote for Obama this time. Liberal, progressive ideas will then at least have a hearing and a place at the table going forward. They will just be sneered at, shunted aside, ignored and crushed under a McSame/Palin/Scalia regime, guaranteed.
FVHorn believes that Obama is "vastly preferred" over McCain while also, justifiably, condemning McCain for his "bloody insanity" policies. One wonders why he does not use that same epithet for Obama since the [alleged] antiwar candidate wishes not to withdraw but to ADD more troops to Afghanistan, the so-called good war, which will then contribute to more Afghans being ripped apart by 500 lb. and 2000 lb. American bombs. Obama wishes to maintain approximately 100,000 troops in Iraq as well as leaving 100,000 civilian contractors such as Blackwater in Iraq. Not exactly the sign of a genuine peace candidate [as the Iraqis would attest] now is it? Obama also endorses Bush's plan to send American forces into Pakistan and uses bellicose rhetoric against Iran, two countries which never threatened anyone in these United States. Yet if anyone points out that Nader is the true progressive and antiwar candidate while Obama is just as militaristic as McCain, that person is dismissed as being a "troll".
So, ummm, where are your links?
Oh yeah, you're not in the fact based community.
President Palin thanks you. Where should we send the check?
" Of the candidates that have a chance of getting elected one is clearly better". Yea, one is 95% corrupt and the other is only 75% corrupt!
You debate exactly as a Rovian agent would....???
With guilt trips.
You're trying to guilt-trip realists as if we were only interested in casting a vote for a winning candidate, for some sort of weird bragging rights? As opposed to yourself, you claim, who is holier-than-thou and willing to do something noble and somehow more courageous(??!!) by voting for an idealistic candidate (with admitted very non-idealistic investments) and who can only help McCain get elected by skimming left votes.
A lot of Rove agents and hard right-wingnuts are former leftists, former trotskyites who understand the left perfectly. They know that leftists are extremely vulnerable to a 'you're-not-being-left-enough' guilt-trip. We progressives tend to be extremely vain about being good people who want to do what's best for the poor, the planet, etc. That makes the left extremely vulnerable to your type of guilt trip (obviously why you use it), that we're doing something 'bad' and against our own principles by voting Obama.
Of course, you know as well as me that hard left realists votre Obama because we understand that McCain/Palin would be much worse. And it does make a difference. So we're not voting for a candidate who is perfect about US war-mongering or about anything else. We're voting realistically for a candidate who will do far less damage that McCain. Gore would not have governed like Cheney/Bush/Rove. And you know it. And the difference is deeply significant.
But your only arguments come down to guilt trips about us not being pure enough. Those are exactly the arguments of Rovian agents who push Nader to skim off some left votes to allow McCain to win in what promises to be a very close election.
Isn't that a coincidence? No really, though, isn't that a coincidence that your only arguments are staight out of the Rove playbook.
Funny about that.
"But the system is not free of these troubles. AIG was not the only high flier peddling false hope to supposedly sophisticated financiers and bankers. Some of the largest, most respectable banks--led by JPMorgan Chase--did the same thing. It was a highly profitable line of business."
There it is again - Greed and Stupidity. They never go away in this country. Reregulation of the deregulation will be a sham; it'll have as many holes in it as Blackburn Lancashire in 1967. The Filthy Lucre Party will see to that. And if McCain/Palin wind up ruling the roost, we'll all be lucky to have one meal of Milk Bone a day to eat. At least our teeth will be clean.
"Reregulation of the deregulation will be a sham; it'll have as many holes in it as Blackburn Lancashire in 1967."
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill their greedy maws.
-- EKATON --
Not only did Nader predict this financial crisis many years ago, so did Ron Paul. If you want the truth--- you have to support third party candidates.
Absolutely. To vote for the Democrats or Republicans at this point amounts to out and out treason. Only a genuine criminal would do so.
You win our [fairy tale character similar to a garden gnome] of the day award!!!!
You're gonna be interviewed by Sean Hannity himself!!!!!!!
Just kidding. About the interview.
Terrorist attack, spying, rendition, torture, and now financial disaster. Why is all the crap happening during the Republican Bush’s reign of terror?
.
Because that is what they do...
Vote Nader/Gonzalez for a united AMERICA.
.
Vote Nader/McCain for more of the same.
That comment makes absolutely no sense since Nader's positions on the issues are anathema to what McCain believes in. A more accurate pairing would be Obama/McCain for more of the same since both of the two major party candidates are corporately owned and are quite willing to use the military to further American imperialism.
You've got one vote. You can vote for someone who has a chance of winning or you can vote for someone with no chance of winning.
As much as you may try to pair McCain and Obama, Obama is clearly the more liberal/better of the two.
Some of you call this kind of thinking 'lesser evilism'.
The other side of that is 'greater goodism'.
I'm voting for the greater good.
If you vote for Nader you're not.
So yeah, I'll pair McCain and Nader, cause a vote for either is not a vote for the greater good.
Nader/McCain for more of the same.
Lincoln reminded us that calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.
Calling a pro-war corporate candidate the "greater good" doesn't make it one.
From the 'pro-war' candidate:
“Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.
So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden- as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.”
—Barack Obama, Clinton, Fayetteville, North Carolina, March 19, 2008
From the 'Corporate' Candidate:
"Labor
Obama and Biden will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama and Biden will ensure that his labor appointees support workers' rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama and Biden will also increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation to ensure it rises every year.
Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama and Biden believe that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.
Fight Attacks on Workers' Right to Organize: Obama has fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) efforts to strip workers of their right to organize. He is a cosponsor of legislation to overturn the NLRB's "Kentucky River" decisions classifying hundreds of thousands of nurses, construction, and professional workers as "supervisors" who are not protected by federal labor laws.
Protect Striking Workers: Obama and Biden support the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. They will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.
Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs."
-Obama's website.
ctrl-z reminds you that calling yourself a seriousprofessor doesn't make you one.
Just out of curiosity, how do you figure that Nader (or any 3rd party candidate) is going to end the war? I mean, even you can agree that ending the war would be for the greater good, right?
Your arguments, such as they are, aren't serious.
It's cute and all that you're more dazzled by Obama's website campaign rhetoric than you are by evidence, but neither that nor your snotty imitation of my style could help you pass my classes.
Now go bite someone else's ankle for attention.
"...neither that nor your snotty imitation of my style could help you pass my classes."
Well, good luck passing your classes with your current style. If you're in a debate class, or maybe in a logic one, you might ask your teacher to help you out with that false dichotomy thing.
ctrl-z
What Nader would do is what Obama refuses to do and that is is to change U.S. policy in the Middle East by removing U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama claims: "I will end this war." What neither you nor the pro-war candidate mention is that Obama will leave close to 100,000 American troops in Iraq even after his phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal finally takes place. In addition, the pro-war candidate and yourself also failed to mention that Obama wishes to maintain 100,000 civilian contractors in Iraq after his phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal is complete. Not exactly the best way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis by that [alleged] peace candidate, now is it?
Strange how neither Obama nor yourself made mention of Obama's desire to send two to three brigades of American soldiers to Afghanistan, the so-called good war, where they can undoubtedly help contribute to slaughter more innocent civilians and children. Not exactly the best way of winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans, now is it? Or do their voices and dead bodies not count because their faces happen to belong to a third world country?
Why did neither Obama nor you mention how the [alleged] peace candidate is in favor of promoting Bush's policy of sending American soldiers and Special Forces into Pakistan where they can unleash more havoc and destruction upon a country which never threatened anyone in the United States?
Martin Luther King Jr. is undoubtedly rolling over in his grave at the audacity of this presidential candidate claiming to be a man of peace. This would be because Obama could never utter with any hint of veracity what King had the courage and honesty to state in his Beyond Vietnam speech in April 1967 when he said that "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government" without indicting himself in the process.
Hey, error-ll: I'm sure you'll understand after you see my correction of your total mischaracterization of opensecrets.org's information on Obama's fundraising, but I'm not going to bother reading anything you post that doesn't have quotes and LINKS to your sources.
ctrl-z
I have no idea what you are talking about when you claim that I am "mischaracteriz[ing]" opensecrets.org since I never made any reference to that site. I do however have great faith in the accuracy and reporting of investigative writer and independent film maker John Pilger who is not star struck by Obama nor bought and paid for by the corporate media.
Also, allow me to provide you with a little advice, if I may. You will make very few persuasive arguments for your side when you engage in such puerile ad hominem attacks.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/31/9327/
OpenSecrets.org aka The Center for Responsive Politics. Ringing any bells?
You know, the one you 'mischaracterized' the info from.
I honestly believe Obama is every bit as likely to start a nuclear war as is McCain. Obama was one of the first to advocate attacking Pakistan.
-- EKATON --
EKATON
Good point.
Realistically, I can't believe Obama would do that. Whereas, I could see Bush or another Republican starting a nuclear war.
What's clear is that if a nuclear war happens it will be Americans who start it. The sense of empire and invincibility is strong. And more military spending is always welcomed by the American congress.
So what is "minimalist" "I wont report a plan yet" Obama going to do about this mess?! Give everyone $500-$1000 ?
Since when is casting ones vote a contest you win by voting for the eventual winner? Do you then congratulate yourself profusely for picking the winner regardless of whether that person is the best choice, regardless of whether that person speaks to your vision for this nations course?
We are in this mess precisely because far too many folks have trivialised the election process, voting for a party rather than a candidate, or worse, voting for one you perceive to be a "buddy". The Democratic Party has betrayed the progressive, the centrist, the people of this nation as much has has the GOP. They have done it by not standing up to the tyranny of the imperial presidency and the blind partisanship of the Republican Party. They vote for war and coninue to fund it, while speaking out against it ( sort of). Obama will continue this war as much as will John McCain and you contribute to this horrific status quo by refusing to take a stand, to think outside the box and by continuing to make the same damn mistakes election after election. Congratulations for being a part of the problem.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Tell me how voting for someone who cannot win is part of the solution.
BTW - I love your Nin quote.
Thanks, she was an early feminist, an outrageous lady and a personal favorite of mine.
I believe that my earlier post above enumerated several reasons for voting ones conscience rather than the status quo. If we first understand that this mess we are in ( as a nation) was a long time in the making, that our electorate has become passive and unengaged in the process ( rarely do we get even half the eligible voters to participate) and that neither party is loyal to anything but the money then we must arrive at the correct conclusions.
After you have voted for Obama reflect upon what it is you cast your lot with, and rue that vote. No real solution to our health care fiasco, no ending of this eternal war , only a shifting of its geography ( kids die wherever), no shifting of the governments responses to us rather than to those who paid for Obama's allegiance. By supporting the candidacy of Barack Obama you support the creeping fascism ( as defined by the merging of corporation and government)and assure the powers that be that we the people continue to be sheeple not people.
If you are sincere about wanting change then you must work for that change. A vote for one who 'cannot win' is a first step in that direction. A McCain victory ( if that is what a Nader vote means to you, it certainly does not mean that to me) will not much alter the course of this nation as compared to an Obama in the WH, sad to say. They both serve the same masters in the end.
It is time we showed them that we are fed up with the creeping (galloping as of late) looting of our treasury to bail out crooks and scoundrels who ttok advantage of a bipartisan deregulation of all our safeguards. It is time we stood up and showed them ( through the ballot of course) that we want change. You do not do that by continuing to vote for the status quo.
Please reflect upon these poor words that cannot match in eloquence my passion for this cause.....
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee
Your comments, especially your second paragraph ["no real solution to our health care fiasco, no ending of this eternal war, only a shifting of its geography"], are intelligently, eloquently and persuasively stated. But your other words, "They [Obama and McCain] both serve the same masters in the end" and that in order to "want change... "You do not do that by continuing to vote for the status quo" also ring quite true indeed.
It is reassuring and [to use a word that Obama might use] hopeful to see someone who has not fallen under the spell of Obamamania and to reflect upon the words of someone who can think with his head as well as his heart.
You are far too kind, and I thank you for those words.
I understand that a physical revolution to free us from our current masters is not a practical solution, as it was in 1775. The real fight is to free the minds of those enslaved and befuddled by loyalty to a party and a candidate looking, not at us and our needs, but at how much money can be raised and by whom.
As the proof of our enslavement becomes more obvious, as capitalism eats itself to death, the lives and lifestyles of average Americans will continue to slide and become more precarious. It is then that those who oppose us now become our allies. In the meantime we must avoid alienating our future allies.
I do readily admit that it is easier with some than with others....
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee
No third party candidate is going to become President in this election. I want to vote for the candidate who has a chance of winning whose beliefs are closest to mine. That's Obama. Is he going to do things I disagree with? Undoubtedly. But I'd rather bear some responsibility for Obama's mistakes than for McCain's.
If you vote for a third party candidate, in essence choosing to opt out of the real race, you'll bear responsibility for whoever wins, because you chose not to vote against them.
You can vote for the better of the two viable candidates, or you can make a protest vote.
And should it come to it, I'd rather rue a vote where I chose to make a difference than rue a vote where I chose to have no impact on the Presidential race.
.
http://www.youtube.com/user/votenader08
"The only vote that's wasted is a vote for someone you don't believe in," Nader said, at the University of Hawaii-Manoa campus
.
If you vote for someone who can't win you aren't voting, you're protesting.
I'd rather vote.
It is a shame that you give my heartfelt words no consideration, that you avoid the points I raised only to repeat endlessly the same tired mantras, and false ones they are!
You may not understand it now, but perhaps you will someday. You are a part of the problem.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Somehow I can't see voting for someone who isn't really in the race as part of the solution.
You also cannot seem to read and digest posts, a trait that makes honest debate a bit difficult. You constantly ask for reasons for casting ones vote for Nader, then you ignore those reasons and basically repeat the same stuff over and again.
You may continue to vote for the democrat in the race, and you will be simply perpetuating the problem. Your choice.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"You also cannot seem to read and digest posts, a trait that makes honest debate a bit difficult. "
Really? Cause if I'd 'digested' your posts I would have changed my mind?
I think that's a bit ego-centric.
Wasting a vote is not changing the system, it's just throwing away your chance to make a difference.