Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
On Oct 5, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Jeffrey Larson wrote: > let's not forgot all thosepoor California yuppies, unable to flip > their 1000 square foot 2 million dollar > homes before their balloon payments came due. Since that's pretty > close to my demographic, I thank you for your concern. I was tempted to rest my case on the above comment alone. But... > The inconvenient truth is that the economy is a lot more complicated > than most people believe. Since I know many of you are simply too > busy to read an article that might challenge your beliefs, here's an > excerpt that says it better than I can: > > 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. No one ever said that "a single piece of legislation was responsible" for this, or anything in politics for that matter. I certainly did not. But, what has finally come to a head concerning the specific subject, and over a very extended period of time, is a series of legislation that gradually eroded away a variety of previous safeguards and such, and usually via the hands of "conservative" Rethugs. Remember: The Rethugs have been at this ever since The New Deal and have been constantly chewing away at it, kind of like termites. (And, there was a specific reason *why* the The New Deal *had* to be created in the first place. Yup! Another previous and huge economic mess created, and one that was mainly "courtesy" of the Rethugs. Sound "familiar"? It should.) > > Check history for more details. > > Always wise advice. Indeed. Revisit it again, and often, and also much farther back in time, and more in depth and details. > To get elected, Obama is going to need the support of a large > number of > independent swing voters in key states. Incendiary rhetoric on blogs > (and mailing lists) is something the right loves to trot out as > examples > of "left wing lunacy", which like it or not resonates with a lot of > independents. At this point, and particularly after the smug and chirpy Ms. Palin's "performance" the other night, I think it a safe bet to know for whom those independent swing voters in key states will now cast their votes for. (Hint: Not for "The Beauty and the Beast") > Obama would be well served if passionate debaters on the left would > frame their arguments in a more diplomatic, informed, and dare I > say it, adult fashion. Ya mean to do the "same" as so many of those "adults" on the Rethug side of the aisle are so well known for? And, especially their well paid "talk" show mouthpieces? (Think: Rush "Federal narcotics violator" Limbaugh, BS O'Reilly, Michael "Savage" Weiner, Pawn Vannity, et al, ad nauseam.) Some more "good" advice. Thanx. > This will be my last post on the subject on LD, I think we've > overstayed > our welcome. But I'm also on loopers-delight-off-topic in case > anyone > feels like baiting me over there :-) > > Jeff I did not feel that another point of view in response was any kind of "baiting". But, if ya feel that "special", then I may(?) have to drop into LDOT as well, if / when I feel inclined to do so. :-) Cheers, -Rev.Fever