Who said what? Say, what?

Ok, the debate, which everyone is putting down as one of the worst of its kind, so lets just key up some phrases and then identify who said it. I will be using the RealClearPolitics transcript.

First up this bit:

"I think everybody knows now we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And a lot of you I think are worried about your jobs, your pensions, your retirement accounts, your ability to send your child or your grandchild to college."

"Worst financial crisis since the Great Depression"? Yup, Sen. Obama. And the Great Depression was all about retirement accounts, your ability to send your children to college, and...

Say, what?

The Great Depression was about not having enough jobs, loss of faith in the banking industry, runs on the banks, and not having enough money to keep a roof over your head. Does anyone remember the term 'soup kitchens' for those without work and who couldn't even buy enough food? Bread lines? Thousands of unemployed sitting outside factories hoping that, maybe, a job might get posted up today?

No?

That is not only hyperbole, it is grandstanding and clearly mis-stating history. Sen. Obama, you just lost in the American History 101 zone. This is nowhere NEAR the problems of the Great Depression, not even close by a long shot. This might be the largest 'crisis' since 'Stagflation' of President Carter's era, or the Wall Street Bust of 1987, or the collapse of the Tech Bubble that started in 2000. Although 'Stagflation' probably takes the cake amongst these.

Second up comes this lovely bit:

We've got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform prosperity and peace in the world. And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we're going to have to do something about home values.

Someone is running for President of the World!

Say, what?

And that is... Sen. McCain.

Hey, I thought he was running for President of the United States... but I guess he is going to take reform to all these other countries like China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria... maybe even France and Germany! And then we will teach them about reform, peace and prosperity!

Are you sure these guys don't have the same guys writing their talking points?

Now we get to 'bi-partisanship' on the third bit which features both candidates on who they want in the Treasury and I will obfuscate who is which with a [redacted]. First the one candidate:

Well, Warren would be a pretty good choice -- Warren Buffett, and I'm pleased to have his support. But there are other folks out there. The key is making sure that the next treasury secretary understands that it's not enough just to help those at the top.

Now the other candidate:

A supporter of Sen. [redacted] is Warren Buffett [chairman of Berkshire Hathaway]. He has already weighed in and helped stabilize some of the difficulties in the markets and with companies and corporations, institutions today.

Hey! If Warren Buffet is so smart, then why isn't he telling these guys that letting the financial institutions handle this and clear out the bad actors is the way to go? That there is good, personal responsibility like Mr. Buffett has shown and that we need more of that and less 'federal help'? Perhaps Mr. Buffett doesn't believe in a non-activist government?

Yes it was Sen. Obama first and Sen. McCain second, both talking on who would be good to have in the Treasury. From what I've seen Warren Buffett is a nice guy... and I'm damned glad he is on the OUTSIDE of Washington looking IN. Put him in Treasury and his credibility tanks... and you had better damned well make sure his large and deep financial connections via holdings are put so far away out of his reach that there is not even the slightest hint of impropriety.

Fourth bit:

Sen. [redacted] is right that we've got to stabilize housing prices. But underlying that is loss of jobs and loss of income. That's something that the next treasury secretary is going to have to work on.

Say, what?

Current seasonally adjusted unemployment rate as of 03 OCT 2008 for SEP 2008 is 6.1%. Last seen in MAY-SEP 2003 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics where it peaked at 6.3 and then declined. It was also seen in the period of NOV 1990 to JUL 1994, JAN 1980 to JUL 1987, NOV 1974 to APR 1978, OCT 1960 to NOV 1961, FEB to DEC 1958 and MAY 1949 to MAR 1950. Plus a few months scattered in the non 6.1% and above periods. Two things of interest in this: those periods just after the 1950 and just after the 1961 end periods featured the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Yes there are unemployment raises and dips, but, apparently, a Nation at war doesn't have as much problem with unemployment because people are employed in supporting it.

As the modern armed forces quip goes: 'The Marine Corps is at war, America is out shopping.'

That part came from Sen. Obama, who is raising the specter of a huge unemployment problem while it was the policies that were put in place by President Carter and that President Reagan tried to deal with that caused the 1980-1987 unemployment era with all sorts of 'jobs programs' and 'worker support' and the federal government trying to tell people how to do their jobs. That went north of 10% nationally and I remember how all those nice 'ideas' raised those problems even higher on a local basis during the 'Rust Belt' era. And from what I've seen of his 'economic plan' on mandates in health care, involvement in the housing market, and all sorts of other, lovely government expenditures like his new Interior Security Department that will be the size of DoD, that some folks might begin pining for the fiscal soundness of President Carter.

Now, here's the deal: is the 'housing crisis' a CAUSE or an EFFECT of government policies in lending to people who can't hold a steady job?

And if you have people who can't 'make ends meet' because they can't hold a steady job, then why should they seek to OWN a home? If there is a decline in jobs or even a period of low wage growth and the mortgages continue to balloon out of all proportion to what people can earn you see problems in the housing market. Because these people shouldn't have tried to own a home IN THE FIRST PLACE.

To 'stabilize' the housing market you get the federal policies on lending OUT of the picture, let the market CORRECT itself, and abolish the institutions on the federal side that CAUSED these loans to be made. The job market will then sort itself out, the 'bad loans' will hit the economy and the economy will RECOVER ON ITS OWN without any of the 'help' that got it into this mess IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You want to stabilize jobs? Good.

Get out of dictating unsound monetary and fiscal policy on the part of the federal government so that people have to realize that being able to own a home is an exercise in LIBERTY not a RIGHT.

Number five on the 'say, what?' area:

So this rescue package means that we will stabilize markets, we will shore up these institutions. But it's not enough. That's why we're going to have to go out into the housing market and we're going to have to buy up these bad loans and we're going to have to stabilize home values, and that way, Americans, like Alan, can realize the American dream and stay in their home.

Yes, going into the housing market to buy up loans of those who were encouraged to give and get them on an unsound financial basis is to be *rewarded*.

Say, what?

That is from Sen. ACORN... no, wait... Sen. McCain! Yes, he is running with the ACORN bail-out plan, who are one of the leading causes of this 'crisis' and now seek to profit from the 'bailout' by getting lots of federal funds to 'help poor people' that they encouraged to get such unsound loans IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Yes, we have two candidates that can't figure out anything in economics because they are convinced that it is too difficult to figure out. Just give the money away and it will all be fine....

Taxpayer money.

Your money and mine.

Number six, a description of 'socialism':

You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

Government comes in, relieves you of your responsibility, acts responsible FOR YOU, then forces YOU to take a deal you could never have gotten on your own. All due to YOU being fiscally irresponsible enough to seek a loan above your means.

Say, what?

That comes from Sen. McCain.

When I say Sen. McCain is a Democratic Socialist, this is what I mean.

Number seven, and its a doozy:

And then long-term we've got to fix our health care system, we've got to fix our energy system that is putting such an enormous burden on families. You need somebody working for you and you've got to have somebody in Washington who is thinking about the middle class and not just those who can afford to hire lobbyists.

So the medical lobbies and energy lobbies aren't that powerful, huh? Can't scrape up a lobbyist between them?

Going to the OpenSecrets Lobbying Spending database we get the top lobbying areas by sector for 1998-2008.

#1 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate - $3.2 billion

#2 Health - $3.04 billion

#3 Misc. Business - $2.9 billion

#4 Communication/Electronics - $2.6 billion

#5 Energy & Natural Resources - $2.1 billion

Say, what?

Who is the solon of wisdom that wants to give more lobbyists for the #2 and #5 lobbying areas more power in Congress?

The quote is from Sen. Obama.

If you thought $3.2 billion in lobbying to get us a $700 billion bailout was bad, just imagine what happens when over $5 billion gets applied to Health and Energy. Because Sen. Obama seems to have forgotten that these groups ALREADY HAVE LOBBYISTS. And Congress is definitely NOT 'looking out for the middle class'. Nor can a President easily STOP THEM.

And note that neither of these swell bozos wants to get rid of Fannie and Freddie, cut AIG loose, and remove the Congressionally mandated lax federal regulations and laws regarding lending. They both want to KEEP the current lobbyists in positions of power and empower two more of the largest to take a larger say in how the government runs OUR LIVES.

Number eight, socialist economics and how it works:

Well, Oliver, first, let me tell you what's in the rescue package for you. Right now, the credit markets are frozen up and what that means, as a practical matter, is that small businesses and some large businesses just can't get loans.

If they can't get a loan, that means that they can't make payroll. If they can't make payroll, then they may end up having to shut their doors and lay people off.

Yes, businesses get loans to pay their employees. They don't do manufacturing, sales, production and such to get income... you see, without credit these big and small companies can't borrow enough to pay people... that is how socialists imagine capitalism works.

That came from Sen. Obama.

Say, what?

Of course you can MAKE PAYROLL without a loan - that is what sales and profit are all about. By adding work value to an item and selling it at the cost of that work plus original materials plus profit to keep overhead & maintenance going, along with any longer term plans sustained, you can, indeed, make payroll. In tough times it is expansion and longer term plans that get cut first to sustain current production and maintaining overhead. Extras get cut out, like 'freebie' lunch programs or other incentives. Or added 'non wage benefits' get cut, like 'health insurance'.

Oh, wait a second, Sen. Obama wants to MANDATE health coverage, thus removing flexibility from businesses and ensuring a good costing of health benefits gets done. And because government will say this MUST BE A PART OF EXPENDITURES businesses will have an ever increasing burden in their infrastructure that they will be unable to do anything with during tough economic times. While it may help in the overall economy, trying to 'share the burden' means that smaller businesses carry a larger proportion of the load because they don't have the infrastructure to properly cope with such MANDATES. Even exempting 'small businesses' there is a great gulf and wealth of businesses between 501 and 5,000 people that serves as a major backbone to the US economy.

Number nine, running down the American worker as we are today:

The point is -- the point is that we can fix our economy. Americans' workers are the best in the world. They're the fundamental aspect of America's economy.

They're the most innovative. They're the best -- they're most -- have best -- we're the best exporters. We're the best importers. They're most effective. They are the best workers in the world.

And we've got to give them a chance. They've got -- we've got to give them a chance to do their best again. And they are the innocent bystanders here in what is the biggest financial crisis and challenge of our time. We can do it.

"We've got to give them a chance to do their best again"?

After saying that we are the best, most productive, most talented people on the earth?

Apparently we are 'innocent bystanders' in this mess, right?

I don't know about you, but as a person who took out a loan that could be afforded, at a good rate and gets payments in promptly and pay down the capital part of that debt, I don't feel like an innocent bystander.

I feel like the TARGET as I am the one who pays my taxes and will have MY money going to those who should have KNOWN BETTER and been REFUSED loans.

Who is the bozo who says we are 'the best' and that we can 'do their best again' who are unwitting patsies in this?

Sen. McCain said that and if it weren't wholly unintelligible I wouldn't be offended. I understand it and I'm insulted. Yeah, Sen. Obama has said the same, they are 'bi-partisan' on this and they have BOTH insulted me.

Number ten, forgetting history:

No, I am confident about the American economy. But we are going to have to have some leadership from Washington that not only sets out much better regulations for the financial system.

The problem is we still have a archaic, 20th-century regulatory system for 21st-century financial markets. We're going to have to coordinate with other countries to make sure that whatever actions we take work.

All of the regulation concepts started in the 20th century and continued on, being 'updated' by those wanting to INCREASE regulation and provide 'incentives' for people to act fiscally irresponsible. A 21st century financial market needs LESS OF THAT not more or 'better'. All of the insanity that we have NOW is because people think they could make it 'better' and more 'fair' by taking out personal fiscal responsibility.

Say, what?

Who has forgotten this recent history? Sen. Obama is the source of that inanity.

Again.

Number eleven, promising but not telling:

You know, you may have seen your health care premiums go up. We've got to reform health care to help you and your budget.

We are going to have to deal with energy because we can't keep on borrowing from the Chinese and sending money to Saudi Arabia. We are mortgaging our children's future. We've got to have a different energy plan.

We've got to invest in college affordability. So we're going to have to make some investments, but we've also got to make spending cuts. And what I've proposed, you'll hear Sen. [redacted] say, well, he's proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut.

That came from President Clinton... no, wait, it was Sen. Obama! Almost sounded like 1992 again... having a candidate promise all sorts of spending without telling you how he is going to pay for it.

Say, what?

Here's the deal: for every mandate, government program and promise on energy, the plans of these two, fine bozos are not that far apart. I know. I've looked at them. They suck.

One guy promises to 'cut government programs' which then turns out to be pork and the other promises to 'cut spending' which turns out to be more spending and inability to lay a finger on anything worth cutting. I've got a good list of entire government Departments that we don't need because they haven't done the things they were set up to do.

Dept. of Education - reading rate exactly at the same level of 1958 when poor Johnny couldn't read.

Dept. of Agriculture - the largest Congressional slush fund ever devised.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - more slush funds for Congress.

Dept. of Energy - why do we have recurring energy 'crises' if this Department can't figure out how to get decent energy at an affordable price? Kill it.

These places add regulation, add government overhead, add unaccountable bureaucracy, add unaccountable payouts and don't do the jobs they are set to do. Don't get me started on SSN or Medicair/Medicaid as they should have helped people to find a better way to pay for their retirement and for their health needs WITHOUT billions from government and increasing price supports to the medical industry.

Did I just say something dirty?

Government pricing pushing the cost of medications and the providing of medical services UP? Because it DOES. Providing a tax break for businesses to provide a 'non wage benefit' is one thing. Pumping money into a system that can't track all the payments, can't figure out good health policy, and then decides what you deserve to get or not is not a system that will either keep prices down or ensure that you get a large say in your own health care. Sen. Obama plays up 'letting you keep your doctors' while I have the experience of good doctors LEAVING health insurance groups out of DISGUST for their practices and costs.

And the people who are going to be in charge of 'reform'?

Congress and bureaucrats. See the housing 'crisis'? Guess who was in charge of 'reform' for those...

I will stop here on the debate analysis.

I actually wouldn't listen to this drivel live. I wanted to keep my dinner down, my blood pressure even and my disgust in check. That is because, no matter how the 'performance' the actual meat that is being proposed is rancid and maggot infested, and that comes from both candidates and both parties. I am expected to check my good sense at the door for 'bi-partisanship' or for 'hope & change'.

So sorry, but fifth graders could have come up with these talking points and been more lucid in presenting them. Probably think them out about as well, too, as these two campaigns.

I refuse to vote for putting childish ideas and nonsense in the seat of the Executive Branch of the United States. I want good reasoning based on sound historical understanding that creates good policy from which plans are derived.

That should be simple as it is what executives DO.

Instead we get the rampant communist with a pretty face, Sen. Obama, running on a 'government can do it all' platform and then glosses over the cost of others having tried that. And we also get a social democrat, Sen. McCain, who just can't come to say that there is anything wrong with having so much government that reaches so deeply into the lives of average citizens with so little oversight and controlled by politicians who know what is 'good for us'.

One is soft on terrorism and wants to ruin the economy and leave the Nation defenseless.

The other is strong against terrorism, wants to invite in millions of people from around the world and not bother to check who they are, subvert the defenses of the Nation by not bothering to see who 'all gods children' are that are here and keep the ruinous parts of the economy going.

They both don't give a damn about your money, and see that government intervening in the lives of ordinary Americans is 'necessary'... for the good of government. Neither of these swell fools can ever say that government is now the SOURCE of many problems and must be REDUCED significantly and the tools of manipulation in our economy REMOVED from the hands of politicians. Note that the Federal Reserve not only didn't stop the 'Great Depression' but may have actually helped to cause it via its lending policies. Why is such a tool left in the hands of government? Regulation is to set the bounds of good practices, not 'fine tune' whatever is regulated: that is for the people and their businesses to work at within the bounds of good policy. These two Emirs of Incumbistan want to increase the role of government, increase regulation and have YOU pay for letting politicians meddle with social engineering on the people of the United States.

One can't understand capitalism.

One can't understand socialism.

They alternate on those daily on which is which.