On Sep 10, 6:48*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
stuff snipped
Next Tuesday a special election will be held to replace Anthony Weiner.
The
district comprises most of the Bronx and went for Obama by over 60%. It
holds a 3-1 Democratic registration advantage.
As of last night, the Republican was polling six percent ahead of the
Democrat.
I ran down that poll, via Google and it turned out to be a Siena College
poll. *Who and what is Siena College and what is their background in
polling? *I'll let them say:
http://www.siena.edu/pages/1180.asp
Siena College is a learning community advancing the ideals of a liberal
arts education, rooted in its identity as a Franciscan and Catholic
institution.
Hmmm. *Do you think Catholics might have an agenda? *Do you
think they might not be the most experienced pollsters?
Even if Gallup rose from the dead to do the poll personally, the win or loss
is not the end of the world or an indication of an overwhelming mandate from
anyone. *It is a special election where there was serious misconduct.
Voters will typically vote against the party of the miscreant because they
can no longer vote against the man. *That's how Bush Jr. won. *People wanted
to vote against Clinton, but he was not running, so they voted against his
proxy, Al Gore.
What chicken-counters should know about their unhatched eggs is that polls
which show candidate X ahead can actually work for candidate Y. *X's
supporters think they have the election in the bag, and they blow off voting
for whatever reason. *Y's supporters really go all out to try to reverse
what they see is a losing trend and pour on the coals.
What bothers me most about some posters here is that they treat the
political process as some sort of high school football game, cheering at
every "play." *Scheduling conflict? *Oooh!!!! Another play to cheer.
This coming from the guy who admits he's registered
as a Republican so he can go to the polls on primary
day and vote for the Republican that's most likely
easier for the Democrats to beat. Of course if it came
to light that some Republican ever did that, why it would
be the most unpatriotic, dishonest trick ever.
If you don't like that poll in NV, how about the other one
that Heybub pointed out. The race in NYC for the former
seat of Anthony SEEmy Weiner? That district is
3:1 Democrat and his been a Democratic seat forever.
Latest polls shows the Republican ahead by 6 points.
If he winds it will be the biggest upset since Scott
Brown won the former Kennedy seat in MA.
Even if the Dems win by a small margin, what does
that say about the notion that the Tea Party is dead
and it's back to business as usual?
The political process should be about the very serious business of
leading the country out of what's really the Great Depression II. *To do
that requires honesty in analyzing why this huge meltdown occurred.
When I see the "CRA caused the meltdown" accusations crop up repeatedly with
almost no factual backing, I realize that many people either aren't very
interested in finding out what went wrong or they *know* exactly what went
wrong and it doesn't serve their interests to publicize it.
I don't think anyone here said the Community Reinvesment Act
alone was responsible for the current financial crisis. I've listed
the many factors here over and over. The CRA is certainly one
of many factors that contributed towards it. Yet, you choose
to keep bringing up this strawman that all Republicans say CRA
exclusively is the cause.
Capitalism has flaws, and the boom/bust cycle fallout is perhaps the most
serious. *If it weren't for Social Security and Medicare, there would have
been rioting in the streets a long time ago.
There was rioting in the streets here in the 60's, 70's, and most
recently the LA riot in the 90's. We had SS and Medicare then.
And for really serious riots you need look no further than
the countries that have even more extensive social programs,
eg Britain, France, Greece, etc. In fact, it's precisely those
programs that can no longer be supported because there
is no more money and the high
unemployment that those programs have caused in those
countries that caused those riots. There goes that argument.
* And yet some wish to destroy
those important safety nets.
Another strawman. For the most part, the Republicans
want to reform those programs because they are
going broke. The guy most villified for
daring to offer a plan, Paul Ryan, wanted to turn Medicare
into a voucher system, where recipients would be given
vouchers that they could then use to purchase medical
coverage in the private market. That transition would
occur over decades. Maybe a bit radical,
but it's clearly not destroying Medicare. It's substituting
a new safety net for an existing one to solve the problem
of the current program going bust.
The Democrats response? Did they at least discuss
it, consider it? Why, no. Obama gave Paul Ryan a
front row seat at his news conference where he
proceeded to harpoon him. And what about the
Dems plan to keep Medicare and SS from going
bust which will start to occur about 2020 if nothing is done?
They have no plan other than to vilify any
Republican who does have a plan.
*Good luck. *Government, as Warren Buffet said,
is an important counter-balance to the problems of business. *Those who seek
to "starve it to death" are pretty off-kilter because they really wouldn't
want to live in the government-free Xanadu they so often go on and on about.
They just don't know it.
Oh dear. Starve it to death? One more time.
The federal budget is now 40% larger than it was
just 4 years ago. In 2007 it was $2.6tril. This
year it's $3.8 tril. Thank you for the opportunity
to get the real facts out once again. Facts, not
emotion.
Here's the unvarnished truth. *Business has no conscience. *BP assured us
that they could drill and stop any blowouts. *They lied. *Big time. *That
*earned* them a moratorium while the Feds (stewards of oil that belongs to
all Americans) try to figure out what else they were lying about. Obama
didn't capriciously stop drilling (the fairytale that HeyBub tries to sell
from time to time). BP and co-polluters gave him virtually no other choice.
And that's why we need government - among a million other reasons. *People
forget about the Equity Fundings
You seem to forget that accidents happen. When a Britsh Airways
A330 crashes somewhere, do we ground all planes from all
airlines indefinetly? And you conveniently forget that offshore
drilling was already highly regulated. The govt approved the
specific drilling plan for the BP well. Why is it that you always
vilify any business while at the same time giving govt a
pass. No, wait. That's not quite it. You want MORE govt.
How about next accident, we shut down the govt because
they contributed to it happening too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_Funding
and the Enrons of this world too soon. *There has been serious fraud and
corruption on Wall St. since I bought my first stock in the '70's. *I doubt
it's EVER going to go away. *I, for one, want strong, honest regulators to
make sure that the interactions between people and businesses are legitimate
and not predatory. *Business is by nature predatory, and has to be
constantly steered away from those impulses. *As Chris Rock said, if
employers could pay workers in popsicle sticks, they would.
--
Bobby G.
Many of us are more concerned about the interaction between
people and their govt and making sure that relationship is
legitimate and not predatory. See, I have a choice. If I don't
like a company, no one is forcing me to have anything to
do with them. On the other hand, govt is forcing us,
controlling us more, each year. For the clearest example
of this, you need look no further than how many days
the typical American must work today to pay all their
taxes compared to 10, 20, or 50 years ago. At what
point do we just become serf's of the state? It was
precisely that which concerned the founding fathers,
not the citizens relationship with a private company.
Sadly, for a long time, Americans have forgotten that.
But, I believe the libs have finally awakened a sleeping
giant.