What Is Next For The Point?

djDaemon said:
I don't consider it apathy. I consider it treasonous, disrespectful and just plain lazy.

Who cares? It's not a big deal. If people do not want to vote, oh well, that's their choice. It's not a responsibility, nor is it expected that every person is going to vote. Shut up, hrow up, and stop your stupid, pathetic whining.

^ The real question is, can you get that out in one breath as you try to scare someone on Terror Island? ;-)

Jeff - that was a great read. It is interesting to note, that it was the removal of some regulations that kick started this thing, and then the refusal to suspend other regulations (mark-to-market and asset requirements) that allowed it to continue spiraling down.

Jeff said:

This is a good description of what happened, probably the best I've seen. Even Palin could understand it.

I'm not so sure... there are a lot of words that have more than three letters and one syllable in them... God forbid the word "Nuclear" might be written somewhere. Oh thats right... in Alaska maybe they say it "Nucular"

See now what assumptions people might make!!! If nothing else the Alaska public should demand a recount!

I think I'll steal my sister's lipstick and decorate my piggy bank tonight instead of slaughtering an innocent pumpkin.

The scariest part of this whole scenario is the lack of foresight and hindsight. The very same people who were warning of this impending problem for years are being largely ignored as they point out what a terrible idea the bailout is.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

Just had to let some of this talk about "not voting" sink in for about 24 hours before responding; I know we have moved on a bit.

First and foremost, yes, it is your right not to vote, but to think for a moment that by not voting you are making some sort of statement, or to rationalize it by saying "my vote doesn't matter", or to argue that both candidates are the same (or any of the other arguments I typically hear students tossing around) is simply, to be blunt, ignorant. Your vote is your voice.

Try telling a democrat from Florida who has been around for a couple elections that you are not voting; ask them if it matters (well, assuming your vote actually gets counted).

And not excited about this election? I cannot think of a time in our nation's history when an election actually meant so much. Not only are these two (the two that actually could win) polar opposites of one another, they clearly dislike one another, and whoever does get elected has the power to change the very nature of your life, no matter who you are. Whether or not that happens is another story...I can relate to Jeff in that throughout my life the executive and legislative branches have almost always balanced each other out, which is exactly how it is supposed to work...but don't forget about the judicial; that is where either of these two could have a real impact, assuming one or two need replaced.

If you doubt the power of a presidential election, answer this question; had the supreme court not given George Bush the presidency back in 2000, would the world you live in look any different today? Whether or not you think it would be better or worse, one cannot argue that it would not look different.

You're not making a statement if no one can hear you.

DJ that is the scariest part. Even scarier is that I haven't seen anyone in Congress stand up and just flat-out say the bailout is a bad idea.

Yes it did fail the house the first time, but that's because it didn't have the "right provisions" not because the whole idea is flawed.

Kevinj said:
answer this question; had the supreme court not given George Bush the presidency back in 2000

And with one statement you completely wipe out any credit you had going for yourself.

Here's a link.

Actually, there's some correlative indication that House "No" votes were largely cast by those who are up for reelection. That is, they were (get this) listening to their constituents! Crazy, I know. While the public outcry over this thing is likely related more to revenge on Wall St. than it is to the fact that this is such a terrible idea, its somewhat heartening to know that people can have a voice.

But you're right - even the candidates are more concerned about "saving Main St." than they are with doing what's actually in the Country's best interest, and that's unfortunate, to say the least.

Well, Congress has officially screwed the pooch on this one. At least they made my job easier for determining who to vote for the next time they are up for election.

Look at the bright side... at least this $700,000,000,000 down payment will help defer the rest of the cost.

;)

Jugga,

Your website actually supports what I was saying, but I do feel content that you are the grand marshall of annointing credibility. But I think the tone of your response missed the target; my point is, all the votes were not counted, and your website comes to the same conclusion: we dont know either way; hence, every vote is important, and does count, because you never know how narrow an election could be.

By not demanding every vote be counted, the Supreme Court did hand the presidency to Bush. Would he have won anyway? Perhaps...and perhaps not. Again, you miss the point, which was, regardless of whether you think the world would be better or worse with Gore in office, it certainly would be different.

^ - they didn't "hand" anything to Bush. What they did is determine that the recount, as requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, violated both the US Constitution and Florida Election Law.

You're not handing someone something by determining that Constitional rights will be trampled if a court ordered action is allowed to continue forward.

All house members are up for re-election next month John.

Mike Rogers secured my vote for voting against this atrocious bailout today.

Pete Hoekstra lost mine.

There's a great quote in the Free Press from Knollenberg though (emphasis mine).

“My vote today reflects my view that a solution is the most important end game for our economy and for families throughout Oakland County.”

Hoekstra voted against it

No, he didn't.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

He had voted against it on Monday, but switched to yea on today's vote.

Huh. I had the URL from the other day. I failsauce.

Rogers still voted against it today.

Maybe we can go back on topic? I hate discussing politics on a non political board. Especially when people are making comments that they have no business making.