No, it is the government's responsibility to avert disaster. There would be no need for a bailout if the government did its job. I suspect you do not understand the economic and social ramifications of a major housing crash. This is more than a simple matter of political alignment, or I would be just as opposed as you are, if not more so.

Besides, what we have is an economic center-left pragmatist (Obama) running against a dangerous prodigal (McCain); the former at least has a chance of being fiscally responsible, whereas the latter's policy is hell-bent on destroying our economy. China has bankrolled our deficit, but their ability to do so in the future will be limited, causing significant economic damage along the way. With a trillion dollars worth of Chinese loans, can we afford another trillion or two with a McCain administration?

Damn it, I used to respect the man. He has thrown intelligence under the bus by flip-flopping to the stupid (not conservative, stupid) Bush tax plan.

In creating today's mortgage mess, it's not just one side being stupid and having to take on the responsibility, it's both sides, buyers and sellers. The reason some homeowners are facing distress is because they were, in a sense, tricked into thinking they could afford it by the mortgage companies who were advertising and dangling all the intricate ways of affording it in front of their eyes. With housing market booming at the time, the mortgage companies had huge incentive too. So if you're going to bail out one part of the equation, you should bail out the other part as well.

I pretty much agree with what Angela Merkel said. I'm more of a fiscally conservative and socially liberal too, but the latter outweighs the former, so although I believe it should mainly be individuals' responsibility in achieving financial freedom, when the issue has grown to such a scale, the social aspect comes into play, as well as the economic health of the society overall, and then the government should step in, like how they tried to step in to "save" or bail out the stock market.

Back on topic, its simply shocking about how close this race in Pennsylvanias become!

The last few polls, in order of most recent

Clinton +3 (4/3)
Obama +2 (4/2)
Clinton +5 (4/1)
Clinton +12 (4/1)

What happened to Hillarys huge lead or 20%+ victory corpse or eagle?????

Anything under a 10% margin of victory isnt good for Hillary. Strangely enough, the poll that has Obama winning was taken from 1,400 people...the rest are about 600-700. And NC...

Obama +18 (4/2)
Obama +13 (4/1)
Obama +15 (3/30)
Obama +21 (3/29)

I think this will be all over after NC.

PA will have a single-digit margin, barring disaster.

What is dangerously worrying about McCain's economic policy is that he wishes to continue extensive top-bracket tax cuts without corresponding cuts in expenditure. His favorite pinata, earmarks, are a very small proportion of the federal budget. Beating up earmarks sounds good to those that can't tell the difference between a horse and a cow, but anybody that understands the budget structure knows McCain is shooting blanks with his proposals. The war itself costs more than congressional earmarks... there, I said it.

God, just let Obama win in PA and we will be done with this.

He's talking to God.

Hito, when I read your posts I want to marry you. You're smart, funny, and charming all rolled into one.

I think this means I am developing a subconscious crush on Merkel due to your avatar choice!

bump, it goes down a week from today. polls shows hilldog with an 8.6% victory, I predict Obama wins by 7%

Meanwhile, Obama is also looking at 15%+ win in North Carolina, which should be the ifnal nail in Hills coffin. After that is when all the "gtfo" calls will sound.

I scored exactly the same as Merkel on the Nolan Chart, it's disconcerting. That was years after I chose this name too.

I predict a 6% Clinton victory in Pennsylvania, without considering the debate. If Clinton shits her face again like at the last debate, Obama could squeak out a victory.

Translation?

I'm confused, just what exactly do you think the government's job is, Eagle?

Sit around and make wide reaching policies that they will never enforce probably. Or just sit around and do nothing.

republican ideology is so flawed IMO. So they want less federal government, and more states rights. So if I'm a Republican in the state government, who do I want to then have authority? County govornment? Well, if I'm a republican in the county government, then... oh you get the point.

And while government shouldn't help out people with bad mortgages, apparently it's in the governments right to enforce morality and ethics. It's all very backwards.

I'm a total socialist, btw. I think government should rule everything.

when is this debate and will itt be televised?

I believe ABC will air this tonight, 8 PM eastern.

thanks

I believe that the larger the scope a government is, the less power it should have. The most supreme power to rule my life lies within me and me alone, and I should have the most possible say in my own life as should be reasonably allowed. From there, the larger a government gets, the less powerful it should be because it is less influenced on my choice on how I want to live my life, and more subjective to a majority (whether I agree with that or not). I'm really just a devout believer in personal freedom. The government should only exist to protect those freedoms and loosely maintain order for it's citizens...this includes limited laws and policies on social issues and economic issues. (both of which are things the current government fails at achieving).

Not that there aren't any merits to socialism. A lot of good can come from a less conservative government. But my primary concern is with personal choice, and the best way to fully preserve that to its fullest extent is with limited government.

I don't want to hijack the thread though, so if you want to respond and spark a new discussion, PM me or (preferabbly) make a new topic.

While Marxist ideals work great on paper, they never work in reality because they fail to account for human motivations and corruption. See: the former Soviet Block for reference.

The campaigning has finally kicked off in my county today. Our primary will be May 13th.

Today our local paper ran an section going into detail about the race, how to vote early (which is big here, over 40% of the vote in 2004 was from early voters). The last day to register to vote will be April 22 (PA's Primary date) and the last day to cast you vote early will be May 10th, 3 days before the primary. And info papers came in the mail today going into further detail about all of it.

Pretty exciting since it's the first time (and who knows, maybe the last time a race will come here since we vote so late).

That's pretty scary. It takes growing up under communism to realize the folly. Historical memory is short; maybe we'll have Nazis again in a hundred years when people forget Nazism was an abject failure.

After seeing Edwards on Colbert tonight, I wish he was still in the race.

I drove down to New Hope, PA today -- following the Delaware river (beautiful drive!). I think I saw one Hillary sign for every 30 Obama signs.

Mind you, this is the east coast of PA, where Obama is expected to do better. But the huge disparity was interesting to see.

That might also have to do with the fact that, in my opinion, Obama supporters are more avid about it. They'd be more likely to go out and get a sign and put it up than Hilary supporters.