More Brooklyn McCain Supporters Speak Out

Don't like the liberals then move to the heartland.

meh, I'll stick with y'all. Flows better.

that photo is from a house in the rockaways...i can tell by the addition of sullivan. gerald sullivan is running against long-time democratic incumbent audrey pheiffer (he's also a huge crazy).

you think brooklyn's bad with signs, come to rockaway. they multiply overnight; some houses have more than one.

Take a look at this Data Base:

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=66&go.x=15&go.y=11

McCain has been absent in all veterans bills... (strategy to don't vote when something will compromise you)

You can pick by issue and see the real stuff McCain (best republican hope!?!) is made: Hypocrite!

how static can republicans be than even if they are getting fkd by the system they want things to be the "same" for the sake of the HOLY status quo.

The traditional Republicans hate the status quo, the status quo built by Democrats and progressive Republicans.

The free healthcare, the policing of the world, the interference in the markets, the Department of Education, and the social welfare programs are loathsome to the Taft-wing of the GOP. And those are all part of the status quo and are pillars of the Democratic party.

A vote for McCain is a vote for George W. Bush

Amanda, you're obsessed with Palin like most Obama cultists. Why must you fear a strong independent woman? Could it be that you're jealous of her looks? Kool-Aid is being served, line up!

Hmmmm, most people in Ohio are republicans and here in Brooklyn, you have all these McCain supporters. What gives?

Actually, the person in the article makes a great point. If you actually look at the pre Reagan Republicans, they weren't insane like the Republicans are now, they were a legitimate, intelligent party who actually believed in being fiscally and morally conservative, so in a way I understand his point of view. Reagan, and most Republicans since then have gone off the rails.

I'm no big fan of Obama either, and I think while he will be better than Bush, that's akin to being the world's tallest midget. I'm voting for Nader.

"Sorry to burst your defeatocratist bubble but a lot of us Republicans have been here a long time..pre-Reagan. Long before entitled liberals started showing up and buying their million dollar brownstones and whining for free health care. So if anyone should leave it's you."

"....it was all because of too much regulation. What do you think was the root problem: greedy Wall Street?"
Have you heard to the sacred cow of republicans, Mr Greenspan? He actually points to deregulation as the main cause. Or is he a democrat?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&oref=slogin

“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”

Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

“This modern risk-management paradigm held sway for decades,” he said. “The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year.”

Mr. Waxman noted that the Fed chairman had been one of the nation’s leading voices for deregulation, displaying past statements in which Mr. Greenspan had argued that government regulators were no better than markets at imposing discipline.

Mr. Greenspan, along with most other banking regulators in Washington, also resisted calls for tighter regulation of subprime mortgages and other high-risk exotic mortgages that allowed people to borrow far more than they could afford.

Have you heard to the sacred cow of republicans, Mr Greenspan? He actually points to deregulation as the main cause. Or is he a democrat?

Regulation was the main cause: Greenspan and The Fed were the problem.

When you have an easy monetary policy in the form of artificially low federal funds rates post-9/11/NASDAQ you get these bubbles.

Regulation is the problem. If we don't recognize that we'll continue to have these bubbles.

What is all the bickering about? Obama's clinched it. I don't give a shit about some assholes in Park Slope who don't like it. The rest of the world doesn't like everything else. Grow up.

Mr. Greenspan, along with most other banking regulators in Washington, also resisted calls for tighter regulation of subprime mortgages and other high-risk exotic mortgages that allowed people to borrow far more than they could afford.

First, Greenspan was questioned unfairly. He was the Chairman of The Fed...not ruler of the economy. Waxman acted like Congress wasn't where regulation comes from and where monies are supposed to be allocated. He's a hack.

Amanda, it's really quite simple:

Easy money from The Fed goes to the banks. When rates are low, capital is abundant, and there's a lot of borrowing. Coupled with HUD, CRA, and the White House encouraging home ownership, you get risky lending since the money is cheap.

The Fed is the problem. You have to let the markets decide the interest rates.

If you tell me that when Greenspan and Stiglitz point at "free market" (THE FREE MEANS NO REGULATION) just not working, is the same that saying is all that regulation (the lack of), then you are missing something.

Amanda: The Fed is regulation.

Basically he is arguing that the whole banking system is regulation.

Believe it or not, a world existed before 1913.

And, yes, printing money is regulation. Only Congress is Constitutionally allowed to coin money. They have outsourced it to the Fed, which is illegal.

Printing money is a HUGE piece of legislation, though. Every time they monetize debt, we're all made poorer. And as wages can't keep up with wages, it affects the poor greatly. Then we tack on more regulation to help the poor, which costs us a bunch. Then we have deficits and monetize some more.

The only system I believe to be free, MFer, is when a fixed amount capital is allocated through price mechanisms---not a limitless supply allocated by price floors, ceilings, and such.

Believe it or not, a world existed before 1913.

@YG Unless you are part of the wealthiest 1%, you are basically a serf, and we've just experienced the largest securities fraud in recorded history, so that argument doesn't work so well. We don't have child labor in the US, but it's pervasive in China, India and Africa and if Google, the oil industry and the largest banks in the world absorbing each other isn't a monopoly, maybe we should get in touch with Parker Brothers and re-write the rules to the game.

People are fightin' over which hand puppet Punch (Dem) or Judy (Repub) they want to appear to lead them to the slaughter.

Great, another Turd Sandwich vs. Giant Douche election.

So basically you are saying that Greenspan believed and practiced heavy regulatory policies like nobody else(?)...because in fact (mmmm here is where things don't go your way) he believed and practiced free market to the extreme of not forseeing or regulating the creation of bubbles

...So you say we has a moderate while being the most free market advocate in the Fed Reserve...?

Subversion seems to rule your equations.

Yup, so did monopolies, child-labor, insider trading, unsafe conditions at a workplace, securities fraud. Sorry to burst your romantic-past bubble.

Those are all boogeymans.

Monopolies are not inherently bad; many economists agree on this. What's always bad is the regulation to try and prevent or break up monopolies.

Child labor is also not necessarily bad. So kids used to work in the fields in this country? Gasp! They should've been sitting in a inner city classroom doing nothing and then dropping out at 16 and being jobless. The notion that everyone in this country has to go to college and graduate with a white collar job in hand is a romanticized view, yg.

As for unsafe working conditions and safety regulation, google: George McGovern hotel regulation. Having politicians try and figure out what the safest environment is in a workplace is futile. Every environment is different; a car plant differs from a sewing mill that differs from a floor of cubicles. Also, when people complain about the outsourcing of jobs, look no further than the high costs of running a business in this country. How many permits do you need to build a building then have workers? How much money do you have to pay for their payroll taxes? Why do I have to pay them $6.75/hour--or whatever the federal min wage is--when the job isn't worth that?

Insider trading and fraud are crimes no matter how you spin it. When libertarians say "no regulation" it still makes defrauding people, murder, stealing, and rape crimes. But you make my point: Insider trading and fraud still exist in 2008 and is probably even worse. When you create all these rules, you also create all of these loopholes. When you create bureaucracy, you also create more people to have the wool potentially pulled over their eyes.

"we just know to keep our opinions to ourselves around Park Slope and NYC in general."

I keep my mouth closed about politics at work. Outside of work...forget it...I'll argue and debate anyone, especially those around my age, college students who aren't using their brains and are blindly voting for Sen. Obama.

Here's an idea..black and hispanics shouldnt take out loans they cant pay.

Faack. Just wrote a huge response and it said "registration required."

Basically, it's laughable that you think Amanda has said facts. She cited quotes and injected her opinions; it's all opinions. To bring econometrics into this debate is irrelevant, zodak. So you can say you agree with her, but it's subjective.

Anyway, Amanda did not care to address why HUD, CRA, Fannie, Freddie, and printing money is not regulation. She also has not justified why Greenspan's irresponsible monetary policy is not to blame.

Free-market capitalism is based on the markets allocating capital through price mechanisms. A centrally planning market is when the capital is not fixed and you set price floors and ceilings, as well as inject other regulation.

Clearly, we're not a free-market and you're just advocated for more planning and more control when that's what got us into the mess in the first place.

ok so hate is everywhere but can we stop with the kool-aid thing already, references to mass suicide are a bit over the top.
Obama will turn out to be way more conservative then you think btw.

#39 I love when people cite random websites as some sort of source of "information" where they learned these "facts." A random blog is the same, evidence-wise, as a sandwich board on a maniac. Just because something has been typed does not make it true.