Important: An explanation we can understand.....see inside
Posted By: ms on 2008-09-27
In Reply to:
Please read this, as this is finally an explanation in terms we can understand, of what this 700 billion plan will entail.
I hope they go into more details once it's all decided.
September 27, 2008
President's Radio Address
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Many Americans are anxious about their finances and their future. On Wednesday, I spoke to the Nation, and thanked Congress for working with my Administration to address the instability in our financial system. On Thursday, I hosted Senator McCain, Senator Obama, and congressional leaders from both parties at the White House to discuss the urgency of passing a bipartisan rescue package for our economy.
The problems in our economy are extremely complex, but at their core is uncertainty over "mortgage-backed securities." Many of these financial assets relate to home mortgages that have lost value during the housing decline. In turn, the banks holding these assets have restricted credit, and businesses and consumers have found it more difficult to obtain affordable loans. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I proposed that the Federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently needed money to help banks and other financial institutions avoid collapse and resume lending.
I know many of you listening this morning are frustrated with the situation. You make sacrifices every day to meet your mortgage payments and keep up with your bills. When the government asks you to pay for mistakes on Wall Street, it does not seem fair. And I understand that. And if it were possible to let every irresponsible firm on Wall Street fail without affecting you and your family, I would do it. But that is not possible. The failure of the financial system would mean financial hardship for many of you.
The failure of the financial system would cause banks to stop lending money to one another and to businesses and consumers. That would make it harder for you to take out a loan or borrow money to expand a business. The result would be less economic growth and more American jobs lost. And that would put our economy on the path toward a deep and painful recession.
The rescue effort we're negotiating is not aimed at Wall Street -- it is aimed at your street. And there is now widespread agreement on the major principles. We must free up the flow of credit to consumers and businesses by reducing the risk posed by troubled assets. We must ensure that taxpayers are protected, that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars, and that there is a bipartisan board to oversee these efforts.
Under the proposal my Administration sent to Congress, the government would spend up to $700 billion to buy troubled assets from banks and other financial institutions. I know many Americans understand the urgency of this action, but are concerned about such a high price tag. Well, let me address this directly:
The final cost of this plan will be far less than $700 billion. And here's why: As fear and uncertainty have gripped the market for mortgage-related assets, their price has dropped sharply. Yet many of these assets still have significant underlying value, because the vast majority of people will eventually pay off their mortgages. In other words, many of the assets the government would buy are likely to go up in price over time. This means that the government will be able to recoup much, if not all, of the original expenditure.
Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have contributed constructive proposals that have improved this plan. I appreciate the efforts of House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders to bring a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to these discussions. Our Nation's economic well-being is an issue that transcends partisanship. Republicans and Democrats must continue to address it together. And I am confident that we will pass a bill to protect the financial security of every American very soon.
Thank you for listening.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080927.html
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Thx - your explanation helped me understand it better
I understand that it had to be done, however, I guess I'm wondering is who is going to end up paying for it. Is it going to be us (people who make around $30K or so), or will it be the super wealthy millionaire, billionaire, and then the gluttonous people like Soros - now there's someone whose a slime lizzard). I did find this article written by Motley Fools. They are pretty good for writing things that even I can understand and they wrote an article listing the people responsible. So, I guess my questions is...Are the people who are responsible for letting this happen going to be responsible to get it fixed. After all, if I have a business and I run it into the ground nobody but me is going to pay for it. Anyway...think this is a good article...
http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/09/10/the-people-responsible-for-fannie-mae-and-freddie-.aspx
Can't understand why you think experience is so important...
Obama and Biden have what, 35-36 years in the senate between them, a Dem majority for the past 2 years, congressional record full of JOhn McCain and yes, the Bush admin, warning of this very financial crisis...where the heck did experience get us...??? In one mell of a hess. I am ready for a little INexperience in Washington politics as usual. That is the LAST thing we need.
explanation
It is the thought that everyone, no matter what situation they were born in, is solely responsible for their own misfortunes. It is the thought that what is yours is yours and you are never under any obligation to help anyone in need. It is the philosophy that government's only duty is to fight wars and sometimes pave the roads. It is the philosophy that if you are 80, handicapped, and have no family or vehicle in which to escape a natural disaster, it is your choice to remind in a natural disaster and the consequences are your problem.
No one had given me an explanation still. Because you don't have one. nm
x
explanation
I haven't seen him show any disrespect to the flag, EVER! Can you show an example of actual DISRESPECT?
And there is still no explanation..(sm)
of *the reality of O.*
Explanation...........
They ALL spend like drunken sailors. Didn't Clinton (at least) leave us with a balanced budget? I have a granddaughter in Brownsville, Tx, and kids in Houston so I get a weekly report on how bad the illegal situation is.
People can blame the Democrat congress of the past 2 years and don't get me wrong, I think they all need to be sent to the moon, but Bush and his Republican majority didn't work out so well did they?
I'll take the promise of change over more of the same. At least we can change the change we don't like if we're of a mind to. But before we do that the "rabid" Republicans AND Democrats need to get over it.
DEFINITION OF RABID REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT: A person who has such tunnel vision regarding their "party" that they can't see past the end of their nose.
Explanation
Republicans on this board have been calling Democrats sheeple...sheep people I think.
Partial explanation perhaps?
I've been noticing that quite often when there is a conservative belief/claim being put forth repeatedly on this board (right now it's that Republicans always do the right thing and admit to their behavior and resign versus the Democrats who never do the right thing/can't admit their behavior and never resign), when doing research I find that the posters on this board are simply regurgitating what they are reading on the many far-right blogs/newsletters/publications. It's almost word for word. THere have been many examples in the past besides this most recent rant. At this point it seems that the far-rights are guilty of being unable to have original thoughts. Now let's see if they can do the right thing and admit it.......(laughter here, please).
On a more serious note, I never saw Clinton referred to as a serial rapist until reading this board. Once again, upon checking this out I see multiple, multiple references on -- you guessed it - multiple far-right-crazy political blogs/newsletters, etc......you get the idea. The thing that I find worrisome, though, is that we have been requested repeatedly not to bash Bush on this board in any fashion, yet past presidents (especially those that are Democrats) are fair game for any manner of accusations. If we shouldn't question Bush's decisions (as an example) because of how it will look to other countries who might read this forum, how does it look to call our former president a serial rapist?
Sam explains it very well, see her explanation below....nm
Good explanation! nm
x
This is not an intelligent explanation
First, if the administration was pushing for good things for our country, not taking the country down the path of socialism/communism and had a good plan for the future to get us on the road to recovery, everyone would want him to succeed. But since he is not and we're on the brink of depression/socialism with no hopes for the future and no plans to help Americans, more unemployment ahead, more people losing homes, etc, yes we want "that" to fail (not "him", we want "that" to fail). If it was anyone else in the seat doing the same actions I would wish for the same thing. If Hillary, Mit Romney, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, etc had the same exact failing policies that are being pushed on us now I would have the same opinion.
I've listed to plenty of their lies they are spewing. This is not an "intelligent explanation about the plan for this country". This is another distortion and lies to us and we are tired of it.
Calling people un-American because they are tired of being lied to is really un-Patriotic.
It's quite simple and doesn't need an explanation...sm
Get your hands (control) in areas that product oil, i.e., Iraq.
Thats a great explanation (no message)
x
Not that you are owed any explanation for what we chose to post...sm
because anyone who wants to come on the liberal board and post liberally and respectfually can. From your tone, I would think you were not a liberal.
FYI, we have discussed the Gitmo decision, and you or anyone else is welcome to post *important legislation* coming up. I'm sure there will be in response to the Gitmo judgement.
The firing off of misses by North Korea is a few days old and I'm waiting to see how the government reacts. I mean we went into Iraq for so-called stockpiles of WMDs and yet N. Korea is test firing their missles and the White House says there is no threat, so this tells me one or two things. #1. There was equally no threat in Iraq. OR #2. We are more ambivalent to fight in N. Korea than we were in Iraq, especially since our troops are already spread out.
Thanks for your input new blood. Feel free to open a debate of your own if that's what you want to see happen, but if you are a conservative here to stir the pot spare us and yourself the annoyance.
A good explanation of the polls and margins...sm
Pollsters Struggle to Handicap Presidential Race
Barack Obama's leading in virtually every national poll, but his margin fluctuates wildly -- suggesting that in some cases, the numbers do in fact lie.
Barack Obama's been leading John McCain in almost every national poll since late September, and it may seem like he's got the election all sewn up.
But the Democratic presidential nominee's margin has fluctuated wildly, anywhere from 1 to 13 points in the past two weeks alone. And a few recent polls are even within the margin of error, suggesting McCain could actually be leading among certain sets of voters.
This doesn't mean the surveys are masking a widespread McCain advantage -- he's still trailing in most major battlegrounds needed to secure the election. But survey disparities are so great this year as to suggest that the numbers, contrary to the old adage, sometimes do lie.
Part of the problem? The sheer amount of polls being conducted across the country.
FOX News political analyst Karl Rove said by his count, there have been 177 national polls conducted as of Oct. 24, compared with 55 at the same time in 2004.
"The proliferation of polls, particularly polls run by universities that may not have the skill and capability that a professional polling outfit has, are really not helpful to the process, in my opinion," Rove said.
But some of the inconsistencies in the polls this year can also be traced to the method used by the pollsters.
The "expanded" Gallup poll, unlike the "traditional" one, includes those citizens who call themselves likely voters but who've never actually voted before.
"This year, I think all pollsters are concerned about how they're defining 'likely' voters, and trying to understand turnout," FOX News polling director Dana Blanton said. "There's been so much attention placed on new registration and enthusiasm among the electorate, and it's just -- it's extremely hard to figure out that, that piece of the puzzle."
Obama held a 10-point lead Monday in Gallup's expanded poll, but only a 5-point lead in their traditional poll.
Karlyn Bowman, who studies public opinion for the American Enterprise Institute, urged voters to examine the wording and sequencing of a poll's questions, to be wary of sudden spikes -- and to shop around.
"If you see a huge change in let's say the McCain-Obama margin overall, you might want to think about whether or not there has been something that's happened that would produce that kind of extraordinary change," she said. "But I think it's important to look at one poll, and then to compare that poll to other polls, and that's the way you can be an educated consumer."
A survey of the polling landscape shows the latest CBS News/New York Times poll to be the outlier, placing Obama up by 13 points.
A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll last week had Obama up by 9 points.
Investor's Business Daily, which came closest to nailing the race between President Bush and John Kerry in 2004 (within four-tenths of a point), has the current presidential race within the margin of error. And The Associated Press recently reported a virtual tie.
With polls still fluctuating but mostly showing Obama in the lead, the Illinois senator says he's taking nothing for granted.
"Don't believe for a second this election is over. Don't think for a minute that power concedes," Obama said Monday in Canton, Ohio. "We have to work like our future depends on it in this last week, because it does depend on it in this last week."
McCain, meanwhile, is pledging to stun the pundits on Election Day.
"Let me give you the state of the race today. There's eight days to go. We're a few points down. The pundits have written us off, just like they've done before," McCain said Monday in Ohio. "Senator Obama's measuring the drapes ... You know I guess I'm old fashioned about these things. I prefer to let the voters weigh in before predicting the outcome."
Both Blanton and Bowman said there appears to be no evidence of a so-called "bandwagon effect" in American elections -- the idea that widespread dissemination of polling data trending a certain way will cause voters to in turn move in that direction. Such an effect might have led to a Hillary Clinton-Rudy Giuliani pairing, once the favorites in their respective races.
Experts say the "bandwagon" effect might be more common in places like Israel or Great Britain, where election cycles are much shorter.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/dont-like-polls-wait-minutes/
The best explanation I've heard thus far for economic crisis..(sm)
The Real Deal
So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
- The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
- Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
- Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
- Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
- The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
- Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
- Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
- Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
- The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
- An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
- Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.
–by Joe Miller and Brooks Jackson
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html
I no more understand it than I understand the extremely poor taste and blasphemous sm
post with pictures on the other board. Are we clear now?
Finally, a clear, concise explanation of ""The Plan". check out link
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224262&title=Elizabeth-Warren-Pt.-2
Wow, common sense!!
more important to you?
Excuse me, more important to you than me? No, it is more important to ME. You are an onlooker, it is my blood.
He has just never been that important to me.. nm
nm
So are dad's not as important?
Is this what you are suggesting because I do believe some of SP's children are older than Obama's and yet no one seems to be spatting about him leaving his children to run for president. Of SP's 5 children....only 2 are younger....which is the same number of young children Obama has. Yet it seems to be okay with everything that he just let Michelle Obama raise their children while he runs around the country to be prez. Why is it not acceptable that Todd Palin take care of the two younger children while his wife tries to make this country better....including for her children. Why....because Todd is the dad and he should be out working while SP stay at home cooking, cleaning, taking care of the kids.........seriously....who time warped us back to the 50s?
Oh I see....what was more important than ....
the Katrina victims at that point? Looks like I need to go to the senate site and see what Biden and Obama felt was so important they had to vote for the bridge.
People WERE suffering from Katrina and they had a chance to vote for it. They chose not to. Where does integrity come in? Where is country first, party second? What was so all-fired important they voted FOR a huge earmark for a bridge and against help for Katrina victims?
As as for pork...it is added by BOTH parties and that is what McCain/Palin seek to stop. Plus earmarks for personal gain...like Obama earmarking a million bucks for his wive's employer...who had just that month DOUBLED her salary.
Face it...Obama is old Washington politics, just like Biden is. There is no change there. Same old washington politics. He has demonstrated throughout his career. Yes, other politicians do it. That is exactly what I am talking about.
It is time it stopped, and the only people who have ANY history of bucking their own party to do that are McCain/Palin. Now THERE is change you can believe in.
Well, I think it is more important when the man...
running on the ticket with you only a few months ago voiced the opinion that you were not qualified for the job...however...in a strict changing your story view, yes. Weighing the importance of the two issues (lipstick on a pig and your #2 saying you were not qualified for the job) is up to the reader.
How is this not important?
I know that, on the surface, it's really easy to write this off as a nonissue. But I would ask that, regardless of party, everyone stop for a moment and consider what it MEANS.
It means that a make-up artist was more important to the McCain campaign than any other adviser or staff member. It's representative of shallowness and wasteful excess. It shows clear skewed judgment in what's important in our nation.
And, frankly, it was clearly wasteful expenditure. Palin looked perfectly fine before the excessive celebrity life the campaign brought to her. There was no need for this. She's an attractive woman, and absolutely not in need of this Paris Hilton-esque extravagance.
Why the campaign and RNC thought it would make her more "popular" is pretty head-scratching. Instead, they just made themselves look like, well, the type of people who aren't really "for" the middle class after all. The type of people who think style is more important than substance.
Is it?
Why this is important...(sm)
If Bush is not tried for his crimes, it sets a precedence for successive abuse of power....even for Obama. As a country, until we acknowledge and correct our shortcomings we cannot move forward. What do you think the rest of the world will say if we don't do something about it? We talk alot about justice and being fair, but until we can show that we are willing to uphold those ideals we are no better than the ones who would commit those crimes.
The economy is the focus right now, and yes, it should be dealt with first and foremost, and that is being done. But that is not to say that we cannot accomplish other things at the same time. If they do go after Bush, all Obama has to do is step aside and not stop the preceedings. This is all about the judicial branch of government, not the White House.
Seems pretty important to me
Well, if his trustee is saying Frist was updated regularly on his blind trust, I kind of think that is something. It is a formal investigatinn by the SEC. I kind of think that is something.
Yeah, you wish you were important enough
for somebody to be spying on you....does your paranoia know no bounds? 
BUt that's the most important thing to me....
Unfortunately not all news sources are created equal and unbiased.
As far as things changing over time.....it seems that things have to change as new information is brought to light. Ask Colin Powell. We have to adapt and change with this new information.
Can't find your quote from Russert to Cheney anywhere on the internet.
As far as Tenet's slam-dunk comment, the people at that meeting were Bush, Cheney, and CIA-director John McLaughlin.....oh, and you. Couldn't find any female names mentioned in that meeting, however.
As far as the 747 fuselage in the desert....could only find a handful of references to it on the whole internet and none were compelling and again, most were from far right wing publications.
I feel a story is only as truthful as its source and sometimes the truthfulness of a story can never be completely determined. You say the source doesn't matter, I say it is EVERYTHING. Reflect upon North Korea today, former communist Russia and China even today....all highly censored government news sources. Those folks will never get the real story and heaven knows it's hard enough to get it in a free country like the US.
much too important to go unread
brought up from below.
It's long been a safe assumption that U.S. troops generally vote Republican. And with Vietnam war hero John McCain leading the GOP presidential ticket, many pundits expect the military to favor the Republicans with their wallets, too. But so far, Barack Obama appears to be leading his rival by a 6-to-1 margin in campaign contributions from deployed troops. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that Obama has collected just over $60,000 from deployed troops compared to McCain's $10,000 in figures up to June 30.
More importantly, why is it so important to YOU
What are you so afraid is going to happen if some of us don't?
Important issue
Dealing with our enemies - I read an article and was going to post the link, but the article is positioned on the page odd and I had to scroll down to the bottom and words went off the screen so I cut and pasted some of it here. If you still wish to see the article let me know and I'll provide a link..
Obama is described as “eloquent and dazzling. In writing, he sounds like the candidate for class president pledging no more homework and free pizza”. – (pretty good description I'd say)
His position on Iran – “If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation”. – That, that’ll show them.
While other candidates have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because “the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons”. Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. “This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear material”. – Does he really believe the most vicious people will be thwarted that easily?
People should remember that no matter how eloquently offered it is not always for the better.
You actually think it is more important for Obama...
to keep campaigning than to go back to Washington and do his job as a United States Senator which he, by the way, still is and we are paying him for? Pullezzzeeee.
Did I miss something important? AS is a pub gov
He ran under the pub ticket and was elected by Californian pubs and other star-struck Californians. Do you disagree with the idea that repulicans come in different flavors or should I be translating you message from Christian right-wing fringe-speak to mean roughly "my way or the highway" on what it means to be a REAL republican?
The most important issue.....
this election is freedom. On November fourth we will determine which path our government will take, liberty or Marxism. I will choose liberty.
McCain/Palin 2008 
I guess I consider it to be more important
to be well read and informed on the important issues rather than worrying about some trivial little geek-speak that you seem so well versed in. Congratulations, you win the petty award of the day!!
Believe it or not, the appearance is also very important..
IN ADDITION to his fabulous qualifications.
I recommend you to log off and take a rest.
Thank you! There are so many actual important
issues to be discussing rather than wasting time on their silly fairy tale while the economy crumbles.
Why do you just ignore the important
the gutter? Girl, you need to get a life! Oh, that's right, you said you did already. Transcribing 3500 lines a day, then the rest of a day stirring the pot on an internet forum just isn't my idea of a life.
NOTHING is more important from a president than
NM
What's more important than the most vulnerable........
nm
The important question here is..
You are rude and condescending. I hope it gives you back some little feeling of power that is obviously missing in your "real" life. I pity you.
I'm going with -- because they have more important things to do (nm)
I guess I think it's important to know his history.
In my case, that means a lot to me, even when people say things I agree with. Besides, a famous man once said A litany of complaints is not a plan. I believe most Americans want us out of Iraq. I don't believe a precipitous withdrawal will be to the benefit of anyone. None of us wants to see those men (not boys, as Phil says. That's an insult to these men and women who are all enlisted voluntarily.) and women harmed. The idealouge is definitely diametrically opposed. Some mouthpieces are just better to hear it from than Phil Donahue. As Bernard Goldberg said of Phil in 100 People Who are Screwing up America, Phil Donahue made the world safe for emotion masquerading as thought. His first guest on his first show was Madalyn O'Hair (very appropo, since he is himself an atheist). Bernard says in his book that his show was so fresh that no one stopped to realize how far, even for a liberal, his ideas were from the mainstream. But mainly what he did, in show after show, year after year, was give tremendous exposure, and his own strong support, to the forces challenging traditional beliefs and behavior. Phil was the champion of the it's not your fault, blame society way of thinking. His shows centered around this way of thinking. His virulent hatred for authority extended to anyone in positions of authority, including police, for whom he had an especial loathing. Yes, we will have to agree to disagree.
There doesn't seem to be any objectivity here. However, more important
there seems to be no concern for what is going on in our classrooms. I am not talking about political bias, either. I am talking about WHAT THE TEACHER SAID. It's been recorded. There is no way to misinterpret it. I am AMAZED that anyone would defend it. But not surprised. Thankfully, not all liberals are so close-minded. And I AM thankful for that.
but in that 24 hours important information
could get away. The NSA should be monitored, but 24 hours on wiretaps that need to be done right now is just not realistic for accurate intelligence gathering.
When you dial into a phone line you've just given up your right to privacy. You are not guaranteed privacy on phone lines owned by private companies. There is no privacy contract of any sort when you dial a phone. That's where the disconnect lies. Pardon the pun.
You said it, I didn't...you said those things are important...
so why not post those concerns instead of Bush bashes? Lip service. You do not believe your own platform.
If John Edwards was not important...
The Clintonites are now saying that John Edwards nomination is not that important. (what???)
If that is true then why did she campaign so hard to try to get him to endorse her? Why did she immediately after he dropped out of the race change her tone and try to mimick him. You know for a fact if he endorsed her she would be making this out to be the greatest victory in America.
The fact is this IS an important endorsement. As important as AL Gore's will be and as important as Bush's endorsement to the republicans.
She's just upset that it took away the limelight of her win in W.Virginia, which I believe was not as big as a win in Iowa, Washington State, Maine and other bigger states. Now they said that because Obama didn't win WV there is no way he'll win the election in November?....yeah right. Funny how they are completely missing all his big wins. Of course they are trying to spin it as if all of his wins are not important...only the ones she won. Brother give me a break!
The sooner she is out of the race the more I can breath a sigh of relief!
mccain 2 important things
When making up your mind remember that when a town hall participant said we needed to restart the draft, McCain said he did not disagree. Why a draft if the war is being resolved and no other ones in the works? Also, McCain wants to privitize Social Security. Bush did his best to get that begun, and the country resoundly said thanks, no thanks. Wall Street disasters like oil speulators, Enron and Fannie Mae surely are enough to give a thinking voter pause when it comes to turning over your future retirement to those on Wall Street
You make an important observation.
The "arrogance" and "elite" accusations are tactics used ad nauseum in the absence of direct debate on issues, when trying to avoid confronting talking points that have been raised and when trying to run from fact and valid observations/opinions. Usually these accusations are made by folks whose own fund of knowledge is limited on the issues at hand and who are not inspired to research to broaden their own fact base in rebuttal.
This is when the accusations surface and attitudes are substituted for intelligent discourse. You are right. The confusion you describe and accusations of this nature are typically leveled against Obama, who does display confidence, intelligence, substance and ability to lead, which unnerves his detractors and send them into fits and tantrums.
If it is so important, where was it before Sarah Palin...
entered the race? Come on. You are trying to somehow add validity to making a 17-year-old political fodder. Now, after the cat is out of the bag, the political spin is being put on it. Go ahead and put the focus there...no one is going to be fooled by this. People who engage it in are still going to look like what they are.
|
