For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Are we witnessing the end of American capitalism?
First we're going to bailout banks and brokerages firms. Next it will be our failing auto industry. Then if Obama becomes president we're going to nationalize health care.
For almost thirty years, a conservative revolution led by President Reagan ushered in a new era of capitalism in our nation creating wealth and a standard of living never seen before. Now, it looks like that's all coming to an end, and a new, FDR-style socialism is replacing it likely making it impossible for baby boomers to ever retire while dooming their children to a far less desirable lifestyle.
Do you believe this is the case, what's the real cause, who's to blame, and what can be done before America becomes France?
Comments Policy
That's certainly my take. I
September 23, 2008 - 09:17 ET by HelenSThat's certainly my take. I get all glum about the hemorrhaging of capitalism and the encroachment of socialism that I feel is happening.
No matter how many plugs we put in the system, it seems as though nothing is working.
My only flashes of hope and sanity are when I listen to Rush and his level-headedness and optimism get me back up for a while but it seems that even though we may bounce back for a little while, the overall trend is toward socialism.
Disclaimer: I have absolutely no clue about anything to do with markets or money matters. I only know what I pick up in my heart and that's my sense. Someone, anyone!, please feel free to correct my perception!
...sigh...
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." - Paul (Rom. 13:1)
Helen, I feel the same way,
September 23, 2008 - 09:28 ET by motherbeltHelen, I feel the same way, and not only because of the latest government "takeover."
It's been my perception for a long time (and I've brought it up here for discussion) that the country as a whole is moving left. That's why true conservatives are now seen as the "extreme right wing."
More and more people want government to solve their problems. And Obama plays into that with his (paraphrasing) People want to know how government is going to help them in their daily lives.
we always have the second
September 23, 2008 - 09:31 ET by TruthMongerwe always have the second amendment...
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
2nd Amendment option
September 23, 2008 - 11:41 ET by RackieYou go first.
its always gotta be me
September 23, 2008 - 11:47 ET by TruthMongerits always gotta be me doesn't it
all right then...
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
WWJBD
September 23, 2008 - 19:19 ET by RackieWhat would Jack Bauer do?
We Are Still Predicting
September 23, 2008 - 11:36 ET by JDWAt this point we know the bailout will create obvious constraints on aforementioned government expansions. How will education, energy, or health care be funded?
JDW
DAILY WAVE
Baaah, not a problem,
September 23, 2008 - 14:11 ET by ckc1227Baaah, not a problem, they'll just borrow another 2 or 3 trillion.
I'll try, Helen,
September 23, 2008 - 09:31 ET by Indiana JoeThis is a mess, no doubt about it. A poster below makes a "pendulum" argument, and I think that's apt, as far as it goes.
But I think, with the history of past bail-outs and the clear advantages of letting the market settle on it's own, the pendulum won't swing as far this time. I don't think those who really know how this all works will let it. At least the question of "can we afford it" is out there now, and it won't go away.
So the "swing" will dampen out, over time. And I think the point of equilibrium will be closer to capitalism than it will be (or is) to socialism.
That's my take, anyway.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Thank you so much for
September 23, 2008 - 09:58 ET by HelenSThank you so much for that. I hear Rush and Sean and Mark Levin hammering the point of accountability (Senators and others who orchestrated this) and since collectively they have 8 hours a day to get the word out to their millions of listeners, it seems we can survive this.
I've also heard that McCain is not as agressive about letting the checks and balances do their work but I keep hoping that he or one of his people are listening and in the end they will do the right thing. (kick as$ and take names)
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." - Paul (Rom. 13:1)
MST3K
September 23, 2008 - 09:18 ET by inquiringmindIn watching Olbie the clown I've come to the conclusion that he is so bad that he's actually kind of fun to watch. If for no other reason than to hear what stupid thing he will say next.
It might be fun for someone who is much more tech savvy than me to put together a short clip of him and his Olbieisms. It would be funny for the setup to be similar to the old MST3K. ( If you don't know,Google it)
Just something fun for a Tuesday.
Don
Did someone say MST3K???
September 23, 2008 - 09:55 ET by UnsaneI MISS MST3K!!!
Whoever casts a vote for Obama-Biden is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against them is nothing more than a moral coward.
Socialism
September 23, 2008 - 09:20 ET by Rhino_itallSteve Forbes made an interesting argument yesterday that i hadn't heard before. He said Sarbox was a main culprit in this mess because it forced companies mark to market their holdings. So in other words they had to value thier holdings as if they were going to sell them that day. When the value went down it led to huge write downs and looked like losses even though their was no actual loss because the holdings weren't sold. IBD has done some great editorials on the whole mess as well.
This means that Forbes is
September 23, 2008 - 10:55 ET by Evil CapitalistThis means that Forbes is getting delusional.
If this is a public company, it MUST mark all its assets to market. Any other method of accounting for assets is clear fraud. It comes from the pesky equity = assets - liabilities.
The end of America came with...
September 23, 2008 - 09:26 ET by Dr_Libertythe creation of Vonage.
Poor quality, intermittent service and if you need a tech solution be prepared to wait three weeks.
We had it for two months and could not make or receive a phone call, and we live in an area with weak cell phone coverage. Oh, and if you are in the countryside, well they remind you that Vonage is not really good with that.
To top it all off, when we went back to our old landline provider Vonage refused to release our old phone number back and then jerked us around for a month.
NEVER, EVER get Vonage. I hope they go bankrupt next.
<insert witty signature here>
I believe it will be like a
September 23, 2008 - 09:21 ET by illinois conservativeI believe it will be like a pendulum, eventually these policies and actions will cripple the economy to the point where a massive deregulation and privatization takes place. A strong, true conservative candidate will probably emerge from the chaos and do this. As you can tell i am a bit of an optimist.
Can Someone Help Me?
September 23, 2008 - 09:21 ET by GothampcMany people have been through hours and hours of having to deal with Sarbanes-Oxley. Was SOX supposed to help avoid the mess we are in now? What am I missing here?
elephant in the room
September 23, 2008 - 09:22 ET by candanceI'd like to thank George W Bush for prodding Congress into this bailout with no allowances for us to have a say in the process. I realize why Bush believes the bailout is necessary, but handing over hundreds of billions to Henry Paulson is not what Republicans are made of.
It's our own fault if we lose more seats in Congress come November.
»→ No kidding candance
September 23, 2008 - 09:39 ET by Cool ArrowThe focus should be just as much on how Cool Arrow and candance can position themselves to face this burden.
But all emphasis is on how to prop up the banks. I'm not convinced bailing out these losing entities is good for me.
In fact, I think I've positioned myself well enough to prosper amidst this chaos.
"Don't taze me bro" - Joe Biden
I find it comical
September 23, 2008 - 09:30 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarRatings and viewership continue to wane on network shows such as late night, awards and evening "news" and the execs sit there scratching their heads wondering what could be wrong??? It must be the economy, it must be President, it must be computer gaming, it must be (you fill in the blank). Yet, the answers are smacking them square in the face. Prime examples being the political (anti-Republican) commentary by those that have no clue.
Let me help them out. We don't give a sh!t about their views. You're an actor, comedian, "journalist", talk show host, mid-morning cow. I would say, do what you do best, but they aren't that good with that, either.
"All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain
The Emmys
September 23, 2008 - 09:33 ET by ricklailI read an article yesterday about the low ratings for the Emmys. At the bottom of the story was the comments. Most comments echoed your sentiment about not giving a crap about their views.
If pro is the opposite of con what is the opposite of progress? Congress!
I am a contrary---
September 23, 2008 - 10:29 ET by misterbillI am a contrary---I have not watched any award show for over 20 years. When "celebrities" started using these shows as platforms for their views. I lost all interest. (Marlon Brando e.g)
Then I developed a very cynical attitude that many may not agree with. These folk work in a profession that , with a small amount of success, is extremely rewarding financially. Many of them are millionaires. Then, after earning the big dollars, they turn around and pay tribute to themselves annually. Well, I don't watch the award shows and I probably never will.
It's not cynicism
September 23, 2008 - 12:01 ET by Indiana JoeI agree with you, mr.bill. Why anyone cares who these insulated prima-donnas think is the best among themselves is beyond me.
And to care what they think or say about politics? No thanks.
They have careers, like most of us. Some are good at it. Many are not, but get by. That's it. Nothing else about them is relevant.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
The Emmys were painfully
September 23, 2008 - 10:37 ET by balboaThe Emmys were painfully awkward, but had some funny moments, such as Ricky Gervais demanding Steve Carell give him back his Emmy from last year, Don Rickles riffing off script, and Colbert and Stewart "not" talking politics.
But there was a whole lot of THUD, clunk, [crickets].
Fake Sarah Palin
September 23, 2008 - 09:33 ET by GothampcThe NY Daily News sent around a fake Sarah Palin.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/22/2008-09-22_fake_sarah_palin_earns_a_real_new_york_w.html
open thread
September 23, 2008 - 09:34 ET by oorampI think one news channel dedicated to the whole truth, the good, the bad, and of course the ugly would turn this country around in a few election cycles. News is not fair and balanced, that is for the high school debate team. Change the name of news to stories, cause that is what they are. Call the new network The Information Network. See how long it would take " The News Channels " to scream in defeat.
Remember the republican prosperity 94-06,
as the democrat depression deepings 06-??
Word!
September 23, 2008 - 10:02 ET by HelenSThat is so true! The local news I watch here always inserts their catch-phrase: "On your side". and every time I yell back at them: "I don't want you on my side or anyone else's side. I just want the news!"
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." - Paul (Rom. 13:1)
Well we obviously need a
September 23, 2008 - 09:34 ET by motherbeltWell we obviously need a bit of a chuckle this AM, so I will throw this out: ......Biden's mouth gets him in trouble with Obama!
HERE and HERE
LOL
We knew it was only a matter if time, didn't we???
If the greed and personal
September 23, 2008 - 09:41 ET by celatorIf the greed and personal corruption of some financial decision makers leads to the abandonment of healthy capitalism, we are doomed, financially. As we all know here, the issue isn't whether capitalism works; obviously, it works well when proper economic principles are honored.
It's the characters at the helm--greedy, bloated politicians, and corrupt financial manipulators etc whom we have to watch like a hawk. They are the problem, not capitalism. Obama and his ilk will argue otherwise, of course.
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
Non, non, non, je suis
September 23, 2008 - 09:45 ET by zhombreNon, non, non, je suis americaine!
»→ Right on zhombre
September 23, 2008 - 09:48 ET by Cool ArrowThat what you just said.
"Don't taze me bro" - Joe Biden
The problem
September 23, 2008 - 10:10 ET by cvgbuckeyeThe problems that we are having now, are not a result of capitalism but the result of socialism compromising an important element of capitaism via the socialization of the lending arm of the economy.
It didn't only start with the dems insistence on unqualified people getting home loans that they couldn't afford, although that was the drink that made the drunkard puke. The opening rounds of drinks were the non-judicial use of credit cards, even so far as banks pressing college students with no visible means of income to accept credit cards with huge borrowing limits.
The cu-de-gras would be the election of Obama, a Marxist by any standards, who is so obsessed with his hatred of The American Way (even though he has benefitted more than any person in U S history) that his socialist policies, running unchecked due to a dem contrlled congress, that it will spell the end of this nation as we know it.
We are the leader of the free world, basically because we wield the strongest military in the world and are the gatekeepers to the world's food garden.
We maintain this world position because we have an economy, unparalleled in history, that can support it.
This affords us our freedom.
We lose the economy, and it is uncertain right now, it will be certainly lost under the Marxist/socialist government of Obama and the dems;;;;OUR FREEDOM and WAY OF LIFE ARE GONE within months if not weeks. The terrorists may wait as long as a year to come in to clean up, to make sure that the body is cold.
I hope everyone likes a skyline filled with spiral towers, rather than towers of crosses and lots of little boys with the middle name Hussein.
Freewill
September 23, 2008 - 10:19 ET by UnsaneThe opening rounds of drinks were the non-judicial use of credit cards, even so far as banks pressing college students with no visible means of income to accept credit cards with huge borrowing limits. So the banks have the power to usurp people's freewill?
Whoever casts a vote for Obama-Biden is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against them is nothing more than a moral coward.
No
September 23, 2008 - 11:04 ET by cvgbuckeyeNo, unsane, they only exploit the weaknesses of the human condition, which are abundant.
It is only a matter of G-R-E-E, degrees and greed. For example.
* Starving peoples of third world countries will accept any old dictator as long as that dictator gives them an extra spoon of rice a day. It would be a stretch to call those poor people immoral.
* Spoiled young people raised in the "Everything Now" generation will quickly grab at anything. They have learned their lessons well. Everything about that is immoral.
* Angry people, being preached to that they have been victims their entire existence and convinced that they will never get anything through their own efforts, will accept loans that they know they can't pay back and could care less. That is immoral on the parts of both the givers and the recievers.
Free societies are the solutions to tyranny but undisciplined freedom is the path to greed and destruction.
cvgbuckeye, 2008.
Freewill, freewill, freewill
September 23, 2008 - 11:17 ET by UnsaneNo, unsane, they only exploit the weaknesses of the human condition, which are abundant. So, it is the BANK'S FAULT that people overextend themselves and get themselves into trouble. No freewill exists in your world? Do you not believe in the concept of freewill?
Going back to my point: freewill. I was a college student once and never took up any of those offers. I was berated repeatedly for not buying a house early on and deciding to live in an apartment, because I determined, going against the grain, that I could not AFFORD a house so I should not get one.
I point this out not to pat myself on the back but rather to demonstrate that if an unsophisticated hick like me can say "No" every so often, why can't anyone else?
Whoever casts a vote for Obama-Biden is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against them is nothing more than a moral coward.
Point taken, Unsane
September 23, 2008 - 12:12 ET by Indiana JoeHowever, I think cvg's point is valid as well. It would be nice to presume that everyone understands economics to the seemingly simple point of whether or not one can afford something. But we see every day, and long before this, that's simply not true.
People are told they can afford it with credit, and are inundated with offers. Now, the ultimate responsibility clearly rests with those who accept the terms of a loan, no argument. But it may not be beyond the pale to suggest that the snake in the Garden bears some of the responsibility for that apple incident.
Cvg mentions the "socialization of the lending" side of the economy. I like that term, "back-door socialism." It was a "you CAN have it all, you deserve to have it all" mentality. Not surprising that people fell for it.
Bottom line, the primary fault clearly lies with those who bit off more than they could chew. They screwed up. But I think there's a little blame left over for those "advisors" who convinced them they could do it.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Let
September 23, 2008 - 12:25 ET by cvgbuckeyeLet me try again unsane and see if I can get it to sink in to you;;;;;;just a little: I most certainly believe that free-will exists, to the Biblical degree.
HOWEVER, failure cannot exist in a void. There are always four elements: The Temptee, the Desire, the object of Desire and the Provider (enabler if you will). I don't know what the hell we are arguing about because we likely agree on every point.
You'll probably answer that "No two people can agree on every point". You're wearin me out with this.
Obama loses on the PMS vote - Angry Hillary backlash
September 23, 2008 - 09:56 ET by JayTeeA certain percentage of Obama women supporters will arrive at the polls with PMS. . .THEY will be pissed at BHO and pull the Palin Vote lever.
It is THE swing vote this Election .
Or as Jesse Jackson would say . . The Dis infranchised Vote.
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
»→ JayTee
September 23, 2008 - 09:58 ET by Cool ArrowWe have witnessed a softening of rhetoric towards Sarah Palin from none other than Susan Estrich.
I think you may be right.
"Don't taze me bro" - Joe Biden
Don't take this sitting down!!!
September 23, 2008 - 10:00 ET by UnsaneBefore America becomes France, we the people must demand it NOT happen. And if McCain/Palin take office, regardless of the Congressional majorities if that happens, we HAVE to constantly, repeatedly hammer that point home.
To wit, I will be putting together letters to send to my Congressional delegation blasting this nationalization relentlessly and will be sending them off tonight as soon as I am done with all I need to do today.
Whoever casts a vote for Obama-Biden is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against them is nothing more than a moral coward.
blame the Dems (why not?)
September 23, 2008 - 10:12 ET by SouthJersey1953I will be the first to admit that I do not understand the financial markets.....
The thing that gets me is that BHO is constantly blaming the Republicans for the financial mess. Why doesn't ANYONE on the Repub side point out that everything was "hunky-dory" until after the dems took over control of the House and Senate in 2006? Granted, it really can't be pointed at that, but it makes as much sense as blaming it on Bush.....The numb public might even buy it.
Most of us know that it is because the mortgage companies made bad decisions to loan money to people that they (should have) known could not repay and the people that gambled on the real estate market. I do not think we should help anyone facing foreclosure since it is not MY fault they made bad financial decisions/took bad risks.
McCain/PALIN '08
PALIN/Jindal '12
Not even a potter's damn of a clue
September 23, 2008 - 13:45 ET by Ten7sVery basically, here's what happened. The financial institutions shifted the risk with various "credit securities". So they took the cheap money that the Fed was spewing and loaned it to anyone with a pulse (in the form of mortgages, credit cards, student loans, home equity loans, reverse mortgages, etc.) b/c the financial institutions weren't taking the risk of getting paid.
Then, they started issuing other complex "credit securities" that mixed the bad debt with the good that through various loopholes maintained their AAA status.
Its like if a distiller mixed single malt scotch, various cheap whiskies, and wood alchol and sold it all as single malt bonded. Then people started drinking it, and going blind and dying, Opps! all of it is garbage.
Those are the "toxic assets" that Paulson and Bernanke want the US to buy. We might as well pound the money into a rat hole b/c it will be spent and the bubble will still crash, and we'll be in a depression.
And if you listen to the hearings, you'll note that Paulson and Bernanke don't have a potter's damn of a clue; they just want a trillion of OUR dollars to play with. And it may be cynical, but I can't help but think that they'd use it merely to try to escape the crash happening on their watch.
Kudos to Biden for this one
September 23, 2008 - 10:13 ET by Jack BauerYou have to praise a political opponent when they deserve it.
So kudos to Joe Biden for saying the Obama campaign ad which mocked McCain for his inability to physically use a PC was TERRIBLE. ( He clearly knows McCain cannot really use a keyboard because of his war-injury disabilities.)
And that had he known about it, he was have made sure it never ran.
Well done Joe.
I see us a small boat stuck
September 23, 2008 - 10:17 ET by Dan The Man 2I see us a small boat stuck in a horrendous storm. The only thing we can do is ride it out and hope our deckhands are proficient at thier craft. I am not knowlegeable enough, not that I think teh politicians are, to do anything about the storm or piloting us out. I will say I think we should let the weaker ships sink while the stronger ones or the ones who were smart enough not to get caught in the storm survive.
One thing we should not do is what we are doing now, siezing private assets for public use.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
As I see it, if GWB signs
September 23, 2008 - 10:18 ET by R D HelmAs I see it, if GWB signs this bailout bill into law, his presidency will be a failure.
Nice to see at least some republicans are beginning to line up in opposition to this lunacy.
The dims are too busy trying to figure out a way to include the auto industry and consumer credit card debt in this bailout.
-Dave
Make them go LIVE WITHOUT A NET!!!
September 23, 2008 - 10:23 ET by UnsaneR D, as much as I like Bush's foreign policy, this bailout is absolutely stupid and unnecessary.
If we really want healthy financial system, we will let the screwups fail and fall flat on their faces, so as to let the capital chase the functioning companies. Let the world know that people and business operate live without ANY net and if they fall, they fall. (This tends to make for better business decisions for some odd reason.)
Whoever casts a vote for Obama-Biden is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against them is nothing more than a moral coward.
The smartest campaign will blame EVERYONE involved
September 23, 2008 - 11:03 ET by mom_roxJust blaming one party is ridiculous - simply preaching to the choir and not looking at the big picture. Chefs from both parties added ingredients and removed stabilizers. The pot boiled over with all the chefs immediately pointing fingers at the chef across the pot. The smartest campaign will step back and realize that the blame and the fix should be non-partisan.
I've heard that the credit markets will suffer if Paulson's plan is not approved. Is this really a bad thing? Life is the Serengeti Plain - it shouldn't be cheap and easy.
What's the difference between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin?
One is eye candy while the other kills her own food.
Unsane, not only is this bailout stupid and unnecessary...
September 24, 2008 - 00:07 ET by R D Helm...it will pretty much be it for the good old US of A financially.
Don't forget the untold billions in un-funded mandates floating around, not to mention the looming failure of the SS system.
-Dave
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them-Rick Roberts
Here's another case of the
September 23, 2008 - 10:24 ET by Ruths husband BenHere's another case of the MSM failing to report the political affiliation of someone caught in criminal activity. Although its clear from her occupation (no, not "Community Organizer" - whatever the heck that is), that she is a Democrat.
“But maybe you obviously have a better memory about that."- Wolf Blitzer
True life Democrats. I
September 23, 2008 - 10:26 ET by Dan The Man 2True life Democrats. I was unfortunate to have some older lady come to my door this weekend stumping for a local candidate. She said she was campaigning for a state representative or some such, I have forgotten which. I ask her what I ask myself when I see a candidate, what do they stand for? She had this bewildered look on her face and I asked the question again. Same look and some thoughtful changer ahh and uhhs ensued.
I then asked her why she was voting for him. She kinda stammered and finally said well he is a Democrat. Whereupon I said “Well that is exactly why I am not noting for him.” And they walk among us, those who don’t have a clue about the people they vote for.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I love doing that!
September 23, 2008 - 11:32 ET by SouthJersey1953Since I built my house out in the sticks, I don't get many people campaigning door-to-door anymore, but I really enjoyed asking the door knocker the "Why are you voitng for ______?" question. It is amazing, but MOST could not answer intellegently why!!!
McCain/PALIN '08
PALIN/Jindal '12
I think that this bailout
September 23, 2008 - 10:29 ET by Ruths husband BenI think that this bailout is a particularly bad idea. It all seems to have started with the first bailout of Chrysler back in the 80s. Companies going under is a pruning process and as painful as it may be in the short term, you just have to let them take their lumps. It was because of government fiddling that this problem got as big as it has. Now the government is going to fiddle some more and make it better?
Which is not to say that I wouldn't be in favor of taking the CEO's, CFO's, and Boards of these companies out and horsewhippng them. But that would just be for pleasure and wouldn't solve anything.
“But maybe you obviously have a better memory about that."- Wolf Blitzer
"But that would just be for
September 23, 2008 - 12:19 ET by Indiana Joe"But that would just be for pleasure and wouldn't solve anything."
I dunno, Ben. Maybe the French said it best:
"pour décourager les autres"
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Palin (abortion)
September 23, 2008 - 10:39 ET by SDSDo conservatives really want to over-turn R v W? Or better question, do conservatives really want to make abortion illegal across the board?
It seems like this issue has high-jacked the republican party.
Do conservatives really
September 23, 2008 - 10:50 ET by Jack BauerAn even better question. Do you understand how
1. The US constitution works?
2. That even liberal law scholars admit that Roe v Wade was an appalling piece of judicial legislation from the bench, invented from thin air, and that one day it will be overturned because of the aforementioned points.
3. Its seems that being gung-ho for aborting babies has hijacked the Democrat party.
Abortion - great rebuttal
September 23, 2008 - 10:51 ET by MaximusBraveheartJack that was great!
Yes where does it say it is OK to suck their brains out just because they have not popped out yet... clearly they ARE humans inside or out. Just crazy to see it any other way... the plain facts.
maxi -- thanks. I guess
September 23, 2008 - 10:55 ET by Jack Bauermaxi -- thanks. I guess it's not above my pay grade.
And I'm not even that well paid!
If RVW is overturned
September 23, 2008 - 11:06 ET by T-Bone Massit would not make abortions illegal, it would leave it up to states right to decide if it is legal in their state.
newsflash: killing babies
September 23, 2008 - 11:29 ET by TruthMongernewsflash: killing babies has always been illegal in the US
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Yeah but, only for the ones
September 23, 2008 - 11:42 ET by Clear thinkerYeah but, only for the ones out of the womb. I would like to protect babies that are still in the womb.
A Feminist Cat Fight Over Sarah Palin
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
those are already
September 23, 2008 - 11:46 ET by TruthMongerthose are already included...
we have about 40 million murders to prosecute sometime soon...
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
TM even in the 60's a few
September 23, 2008 - 14:05 ET by Dan The Man 2TM even in the 60's a few states allowed abortion. The argument is one of states rights.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Abortion - great rebuttal
September 23, 2008 - 11:21 ET by SDSIt wasn’t that great of a rebuttal because he didn’t answer the question. I do understand how the constitution works and agree that R v W is bad law. I’m a pro life conservative and the thought of partial birth abortion is appalling. But conversely, I can’t agree that a woman might be forced by the state to bring a baby to term and deliver it against her will.
So, do conservatives really want to ban all abortions?
murder is already illegal,
September 23, 2008 - 11:30 ET by TruthMongermurder is already illegal, bro - sorry
great abortion rebuttal: the baby is always innocent
when should murder be allowed?
September 23, 2008 - 11:39 ET by SouthJersey1953If you think banning abortion would "force a woman to deliver the baby" why not allow the mother (or her doctor) to kill the baby after birth if she didn't like it for one reason or another?
Nobody "forces" her to keep the baby. She is always free to give it up for adoption.
The point Jack made, and I think he DID answer your question, is that the Constitution does not allow a provision for murder if the mother decides against carrying her baby to term.
McCain/PALIN '08
PALIN/Jindal '12
I’m a pro life
September 23, 2008 - 11:49 ET by Jack BauerSure. Of course you are!
"But conversely, I can’t
September 23, 2008 - 13:56 ET by ckc1227"But conversely, I can’t agree that a woman might be forced by the state to bring a baby to term and deliver it against her will."
Then she shouldn't have sex if she isn't prepared to face the consequences.
The state forces us to do all sorts of things against our will. Why should protection of innocent life be any different just because you're a woman?
On subject
September 23, 2008 - 11:14 ET by cvgbuckeyeJack: That makes me think that I may disagree with McCain a little on his Answer about when life begins: He is physically correct when he answered "at conception". But God said, at least in the book of Isaiah, and maybe somewhere else, (I can't remember now), "I knew you before I formed you in the womb". It may have been in Isaiah, Chapter 53 somewhere.
Upon the day of judgement, I have enough to explain, lest any association with any abortions or the lack of my intolerance of such.
Jack...
September 23, 2008 - 11:23 ET by Clear thinkerThey are making the same claims against Gov. Palin, and worse.
A Feminist Cat Fight Over Sarah Palin
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Abortion
September 23, 2008 - 16:26 ET by SDSThanks, I didn’t realize the constitution was so simple. Maybe you should tell the 4 dissenting justices in the recent DC gun ban ruling not to read too much into the 2nd amendment. Is this big gov bail-out constitutional? If Roe gets kicked back to the states, many/most states already have laws in place to continue legalized abortion. S Dakota is a good example of what would be the result if not (Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act, 2006) an effort to ban abortion and put pressure on Roe ended in defeat by a large margin in a conservative state. Point is, Roe is not going away, ever. In the mean time, we get stuck with Pres. Obama with his radical abortion views and record.
Abortion
September 23, 2008 - 10:56 ET by mofosesameAbortion should be up to the fetus.
...so you are truly
September 23, 2008 - 11:32 ET by TruthMonger...so you are truly pro-choice - just like me:)
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
PERFECT ANSWER!!!
September 23, 2008 - 11:41 ET by SouthJersey1953Great answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
McCain/PALIN '08
PALIN/Jindal '12
Screw Roe v Wade ... support the Constitution
September 23, 2008 - 12:16 ET by LionKingForget the idiotic Roe v Wade decision.
Decide once and for all when life begins and then support the Constitution and stop the murders.
In the meantime while those whose pay-grade cannot determine when life begins, I suggest that the States create a new tax --
The Abortion Tax ... $10,000 per ...
this money could be used for sex education, education on alternatives to abortion, orphanages, and adoption assistance.
If you really understand
September 23, 2008 - 12:25 ET by Indiana JoeIf you really understand the Constitution, as you claim, then you realize your question is meaningless in that context. Read the Tenth Amendment.
Overturning Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with "banning" abortion. It has to do with the checks and balances of the Constitution, and the Federal government not intruding on the rights and priveleges "reserved to the states, or to the people."
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Other people have given you
September 23, 2008 - 12:49 ET by Ruths husband BenOther people have given you better answers. I will give you a more succinct one.
Yes. Yes.
“But maybe you obviously have a better memory about that."- Wolf Blitzer
Don't Bail Them Out!
September 23, 2008 - 11:04 ET by PopularTechThey are trying to save every idiot who got a bad mortgage and all the idiots who invested in those bad mortgages, including foreign investors.
Don't Bail Them Out (Ludwig Von Mises Institute)
Can the Rescue Plan Fix the US Economy? (Ludwig Von Mises Institute)
How to Avoid Another Depression (Ludwig Von Mises Institute)
Paulson & Bernanke: Financial Dictators (Ludwig Von Mises Institute)
The Real Cost of a Full Bailout (Ludwig Von Mises Institute)
Jim Rogers: Let the Fannie and Freddie go bancrupt (Video) (10min)
America's Great Depression (PDF)
"When Hoover finally took over the White House, he followed his own advice, and made it an engine of interference, first pumping more credit into an already overheated economy and, then, when the bubble burst, doing everything in his power to organize government rescue operations."
These maniacs are going to cause another depression trying to save their legacy. They cannot control this, it is out of control and making more credit available to people who cannot pay off their debt now will simply make this worse.
Mises
September 23, 2008 - 11:34 ET by brentraileyI am glad to see that someone finally posted mises in response to the demise to capitalism...What we are witnessing is not a failure of pure capitalism, for our current economic system is as much socialist as capitalist, and a failure of our current system will only demonstrate that you cannot blend government intervention in the market with so-called capitalism and expect it to succeed in the long-term. To demonstrate how socialist we are:
1. Education: It is government-funded (which means tax-payer funded), government run, no choice, no competition--from pre-school to college. We are at the mercy of government to provide for us quality education. Yes, we have private institutions, but they are the exeception and they cost so much because of high demand to escape poor public education. Oh...it isn't voluntary, either.
2. Social-Security: Government forced "retirement" program. Ask one person below the age of 50 if they will depend on Social Security as their retirement program. (Also, take abortion into account for this one...for it has significantly reduced the amount of contributors into this program..)
3. Medicare: Government Sponsored Medical Care for the elderly and disabled.
4. Mass amounts of entitlement programs: welfare, unemployment, child-care, etc. Entitlement programs = socialism
5. Banking: The government controls the banking industry via the federal reserve, of which private banks are extensions. We have a fiat currency imposed by the government with no accountability for its production because it is not tied to anything valuable. The US $ is nothing more than paper and electronic bits and it is because of faith that the currency has value. It is nationalized money.
Look at the housing bust: It is government intervention in the banking industry that brought it on by making credit so cheap in the 2001-2004 timeframe and thereby creating an artificially high demand and accelerrated "appreciation" of housing values.
When you see how much government control numerous aspects of the market (wall street, banking, agriculture, oil availability by drilling prevention, etc etc etc etc etc), you simply can't call this capatalism anymore.
Brent Railey
I am retired-
September 23, 2008 - 11:07 ET by misterbillI am retired- I have a VERY small portfolio. This morning I was advised to sell AIG. I did. I got $1000 for my $8000 investment. Like, I have a lot of money to lose. Riiiiight!!
So, the government is rescuing them??? It looks like it's the small investors like me who are bailing them out while the rest of you are having your tax dollars used to finish paying off the rich *&^^* friends of our politicians. </