ENOUGH!!!

[movieman1957]

So, when do we vote? In this day and age one day ought to be as good as another. I'm not saying the one we have is the best date but someone is always going to have something going on. We sure can't do it in the summer because of vacations. (Judith, I don't mean this to sound sarcastic to you.)

The polls are open til 8 or 9pm and you can do absentee ballots almost six weeks out and Maryland, at least, has tried to open up voting up to five days ahead of time.

I think any shortage of voting is just due to lack of interest or indifference.

[charliechaplinfan]

You can register for postal votes here. We always hold elections on a Thursday and the polling booths are in schools. I'm iffy about postal votes, there are way to cheat the system. In our town we trialled postal voting for all and then some other boroughs tried and then it was wide spread fraud was discovered.

I also like the satisfaction of going into the booth to cast my vote. I'm not niave enough to think that my vote is secret, the ballots have numbers and the numbers are recorded next to the persons address. That's why I am never canvassed by a Labour candidate because I never have voted for them.

The other thing that happens here is that candidates get taxis/buses for the old and infirm. There is an element of charity here, it's more so the candidates can be sure of their votes.

[bryce]

An article ran in the Telegraph a couple of days ago blaming Thatcher and her economic policies - many of which were hinted at earlier in this thread - for the collapse of many economies. Thatcherism and Reaganomics were bad - WHO KNEW!

Code: Select all

Headline
--------

Financial crisis: Bradford & Bingley nationalisation marks end of experiment


Subhead
-------

The imminent disappearance of Bradford & Bingley from the High Street marks the end of the bold experiment which saw a raft of former building societies compete as banks.


Body
----

It is the last of the 10 former mutual societies which joined the rush to float on the stock market to either fall prey to a takeover or face nationalisation.

Household names such as Halifax, Abbey National, Alliance & Leicester and The Woolwich all took advantage of new laws introduced by Margaret Thatcher in 1986 allowing them to transform themselves into banks in an effort to compete more strongly with their traditional rivals.

The move held its attractions for members of the former building societies who voted to demutualise, knowing that doing so would bring them a windfall of cash or free shares.

A new breed of investor nicknamed "carpet-baggers" - who opened accounts with several societies hoping to gain if they demutualised - was born.

For management, the metamorphosis authorised by the Building Society Act was also attractive, allowing them access to the international money markets rather than relying on customer deposits.

But new freedoms opened them up to a world of banking far removed from that of the traditional local building society.

When credit dried up on the international money markets, the new business models faltered, with Northern Rock the most high profile victim.

The subsequent decline in the buy-to-let mortgage market also took its toll.

A ready-made branch network with millions of customers on the books proved attractive to banks such as Spain's Santander which took over Abbey - formerly Abbey National - four years ago before adding Alliance & Leicester in July.

And early mergers, such as that between Halifax and Bank of Scotland, were not enough to fend off the effects of more challenging conditions.

For many, the former mutuals were a vital ingredient in the buoyant housing market of the 1990s and opening years of the new century but to others the experiment was a failure.

"It's fair to say that demutualisation has not served customers very well," said Ray Boulger of mortgage advisor John Charcol.

"By demutualising, the former building societies diversified away from their tradition business model and ended up relying on the wholesale market, which is what has got them into trouble." 

As for the debate, it was a draw. Obama had many opportunities he wasted and McCain was more prepared than anyone - his party most of all - expected. Moreover, people are angry, and they want a solution. Lumping McCain into the Bush camp is a bad move for Obama and building his entire campaign around it is a mistake. Furthermore, he needs to stop worrying so much about being seen as too left or liberal. Too much politicking. He needs to just be himself, like he had been for months until it was time to buckle down.

The Republicans don't want to win. If McCain wins and torpedoes the party even further we could see a new era of the Big City Democrat Machine. It'd be nearly impossible for the Republicans to salvage what they've been given. It's almost guaranteed that with the House election soon you'll see more walls painted blue, and if you get a Republican President in there against a blue Congress, and he doesn't play ball and the economy and the country tank further, he'll be blamed, no one else. The Repubs want Obama to win, because even if he does pull through and salvage things, he's still going to piss off the folks with sore butts from sitting on the fence, it's just the way things go. Obama has an uphill battle, all the bloody way.

Lastly, and please nobody take this the wrong way, I think many of you are falling into the trap the politicians want you to. You are buying into all of the BS and discussing the "heated issues" that they want you to pay attention to. (Come on, people, are we really discussing what day we should vote? There are better things to attend to) Oh, no! A bunch of companies that were built on sand (see: 80s excess and Reaganomics) sank. Big deal. Companies not directly hit by the banking "collapse" (it isn't) will see an opportunity to trim fat and they'll jump on it. In the end we'll come out of this "recession" (it isn't) stronger, leaner and more viable in the world market. This bailout is crap, and it's all a distraction. When will Bush and co. be brought up on charges for interfering with the Justice Department? Why is congress taking a "holiday" without having settled any issue they set out to? Oh, right, house elections are in a month.

Question: When will we hold these yammerheads accountable? Answer: We never will. Unless we: Burn it down, start all over. Because: The grand experiment failed. Why?: Busybodies, cowards, thieves. Who are they?: Your smiling elected representatives.

I've been reading too much autarchist "propaganda" lately.

[jdb1]

Bryce, I just can't buy into your Nihilist-Manichean vision. You always seem to be calling for the Great Flood before we've had a chance to caulk that ark and put on our waterwings. As I see it, this world is just too awash in shades of gray for any "all or nothing" solution to work. I'm not an advocate of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Indiscriminate slate-cleaning is too often the province of totalitarians and fascists. And no, I'm not callling you a fascist. I am saying that getting rid of the all bad guys before we are sure which ones are the good guys who can replace them is not a safe course.

Really, did you think this debate was about voting on a Tuesday? Come on - you must see that the question isn't what day, it's why is it so difficult. I'm glad that some of you can get to your polls without bother, -- you are lucky in that. But there are millions of us for whom that's not the case. Perhaps whatever powers that be are out there in Election Land worry that if it's too easy for us, they might lose control. I don't know. All I know is that the act of voting is, for far too many of us, a pain in the neck, and it's willful blindness to say that it isn't a factor in low voter turnout in this country. People do not like to do things unless they perceive them as easy. The American way is all too often the path of least resistance. If we could vote on a weekend in Spring, or if Election Day were a day off or at least a partial day off, voter turnout would take a decided uptick. Time to get Election Day out of the 19th Century, don't you think?

[ChiO]

Bryce said:

we could see a new era of the Big City Democrat Machine.

And you've moved to Chicago? Once again, we are ahead of (or, is it way behind?) the curve. A Model City, as it were.

Judith: I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into there being a difficulty in voting. If there is any difficulty, it is probably more difficult in rural areas, where one may have to drive miles to find a polling place, than in urban areas where -- at least in Chicago -- you trip over them and the greatest frustration is going to the church where you voted last time only to find out the polling place has moved to the school down the block. They open at 6am here and close at 7pm or later. Plus, there's "early voting" and "absentee voting". Absent an unexpected physical change in location or health, there just doesn't seem to be an excuse for not voting other than anger or apathy.

Why, here in Chicago, even the dead find their way to the polls -- early and often. And they are all Democrats.

[jdb1]

Bryce said:

we could see a new era of the Big City Democrat Machine.

And you've moved to Chicago? Once again, we are ahead of (or, is it way behind?) the curve. A Model City, as it were.

Judith: I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into there being a difficulty in voting. If there is any difficulty, it is probably more difficult in rural areas, where one may have to drive miles to find a polling place, than in urban areas where -- at least in Chicago -- you trip over them and the greatest frustration is going to the church where you voted last time only to find out the polling place has moved to the school down the block. They open at 6am here and close at 7pm or later. Plus, there's "early voting" and "absentee voting". Absent an unexpected physical change in location or health, there just doesn't seem to be an excuse for not voting other than anger or apathy.

Why, here in Chicago, even the dead find their way to the polls -- early and often. And they are all Democrats.

Nope. I don't agree. My point is that the mechanism for us to vote could be a lot easier, having elections on a weekend at a more clement time of year, for example, and that people use the present election timing as an excuse not to vote. In New York, every registered voter gets a notice several weeks before an election telling them when it is to be held, where their polling place is located, even their election district designations so they can go to the right booth at the polling place. The polls are open from 6 AM to 9 PM, and still people don't vote. Perhaps you and I would never dream of not voting and feeling that our opinions were in the mix, no matter what the circumstances, but there are, obviously, millions in the US who don't vote, and any old excuse will do for them. I am saying that this apathy is in part a result of holding elections at what many consider to be an inconvenient time. I have spoken to hundreds of people in my lifetime who express interest in the issues, but feel that they just can't spare the time to go to a polling place. Granted, it's an excuse, but it's a prevelant one.

[charliechaplinfan]

Bryce, I have to take issue with the article you've reproduced from the Telegraph which is as right wing a newspaper as you can find in the broadsheets.

Yes, Margaret Thatcher changed the laws so that building societies could become banks but only one did so whilst she was in power and the Abbey had a very good business model. All the others changed into banks during this current government's reign. This isn't what has done for all these building societies come banks, what has really done for them is when Gordon Brown handed all financial responsiblity to the Bank of England. Before this the Chancellor set the base rate of interest but of more importance, he did away with the regulation of the lending. Therefore the traditional mortgages of three times one salary were challenged by some institutions.

Northern Rock had a very dodgy businessplan, it offered mortgages to homeowners at 125% of the house value???

The Halifax/HBOS is Britain's biggest mortgage lender. What did for this bank is the rumour and speculation on the stock market that it couldn't service all it's debts. I feel sorry for HBOS because it's demise was really brought about by rumour. It's highly geared towards it's secured lending and with the inter bank lending being frozen, it had to offered a life line by Lloyds bank.

Bradford and Bingley offered lots of buy to let mortgages to would be property developers, also they needed no proof of income. Another dodgy businessplan. Again it failed, because of the freeze in the bank money markets.

They didn't fail because they'd become banks but because they had taken too many risky business decisions. The Halifax is a slightly different case.

Britain is a country obsessed with property owning. One channels early morning TV programmes are about home ownership, home auctions, property developing. How much are our properties worth. In the 12 years I've lived here my house had gone up threefold, salaries haven't matched this, therefore it is much harder for people to get a foothold on the property ladder. It needed readjusting and an adjustment was bound to happen at some point.

I don't know what all this will mean in the longterm, it's almost unthinkable what has happened.

Judith asked a question about how we are doing through this current crisis, fine so far but I work for one of our larger banks. (touch wood) and have bought shares in the company through the years. I hold my breath every morning that they aren't mentioned in the news.

One thing I hope will come out of this is that the money men who have taken huge bonuses running these businesses when things have been going well are not let off scott free, afterall their workforces won't have the nice fat pay off.

[bryce]

And you've moved to Chicago? Once again, we are ahead of (or, is it way behind?) the curve. A Model City, as it were.

Not yet! Next week, though. Thank identity thieves. As much as it might pain me (or might not - will I enjoy arguing with the big city democrats more than big city republicans?), I feel it's a fair trade. I move into the bluest of blue cities, yet within a month of us moving there will be more concerts worth attending and films worth seeing than in the past two years combined in Dallas. That's a trade I'm willing to make!

Plus, I despise all politics equally. Make no difference whether it is red or blue in nature - it's still politics.

Regarding voting, it's not difficult. People are apathetic. You could make voting as easy as pressing a button on your refrigerator and you could bet that just as many people wouldn't vote, or would cast the same ill-informed opinion as always. Plus, as pointed out above, the dead find their way to the polls here in Texas, too - hey! maybe Illinois and Texas aren't that different, eh? - and then the winner brags about the crime later, quite often too. Apathy is a symptom I'm completely at ease with. Legally, your job is required to let you take off to vote. I forget how many hours you get, but you do get them. You could pay people to vote and I guarantee you they still wouldn't show. It's just how people are.

Now, I'm not calling for the Great Flood. I'm fairly indifferent to the whole ordeal called government. Not a single law enacted in the last hundred years directly affects me to any uncomfortable degree. All together they probably equal a minor inconvenience that I'm fairly oblivious to. Nor do I think a revolution would win - you have to have just the right situation to pull one off correctly and we're not there, yet. Nor am I calling for a cleansing, a great purge, or any of that nonsense. Nor am I calling for an all-or-nothing approach. I'm not really calling for anything, to be honest. Simply saying the system is broken, I don't plan to vote because neither candidate suits me, any law congress or anyone else enacts which bothers me I'll disobey consequence be damned, and should one day someone decide to take up arms against the government - literally or figuratively - I'll be happy to join in.

That attitude annoys many people to no end. Mostly people who still think you can work within the system and win. Nearly every government borne of blood has been broken within a lifetime - long before those who bought it with blood, sweat and tears have expired. In fact, those who bought it generally have to commit crimes to get their way and keep it going as long as they possibly can. They have to lie, cheat and steal, and usually keep everyone out of the groundwork who doesn't share their exact ideals. All for a good cause. Sadly, elected representation is broken by definition, and in its current form far more broken than it should be.

Our founding fathers had it right when they wrote the constitution and the declaration of independence. They kept it simple, and they tried their best to limit what the government could do. "Congress shall make no law..." "The right of the people to be secure... shall not..." "A well regulated Militia... shall not..." You give anyone an inch, especially those in power, and they'll take ten thousand miles. It's human nature. It's also human nature to yearn to be governed. The brilliant ones know this, they know the sole fault of government, especially elected ones, lie with the people they govern, and they try their hardest to limit what the government can do, again, for the sake of the populace themselves.

I doubt many, if any, of you will agree with me, especially since I'm speaking all in political theory now. In this very thread there are many examples of people who want to limit what I can do, without knowing who I am or what I am made of, mostly because they themselves can't handle whatever it is they want to ban outright.

Anyway, it seems that every time I post I derail this thread. It's why I haven't been lately. Plus, discussions like these are better for around the dinner table or at the bar. I just don't think it's important who is in office at any given time, or who is going to be elected four years from now. We should be thinking about the big picture, about how we can get America back on track, and that involves a lot more footwork on our parts and a lot less blind belief in the power of elected officials. They can't fix anything, they can only make it worse. Who do we blame if Obama screws up? Us. It's about time we took responsibility for ourselves and stopped blaming things like NAFTA, the stock market, the government and any of the many other scapegoats we all use on a daily basis - all of which only enable us to screw up, but we're the ones actually screwing up. The end of this post ties in to the beginning, and if you're not tired of wading through my endless blithering, you can see why.

[mrsl]

Lot of reading here today. I had to shuck the corn before I posted my thoughts though. I do think voting should be done in a more clement month such as May, but to be brutally honest, you know I'm retired, that's fine, I have no reason not to vote as long as I can get a wheel chair there with me. You folks who work in offices and start at 8:00 with an hour for lunch and breaks all day, as well as sit at your desk most of the day, may not find it too hard to vote, but hey, the guy who gets up at 5:00 a.m. to make his shift at 7:00 a.m., with a half hour for lunch and two 15 minute breaks in the factory, then heads home at 4:00 and stops off at the voting booth and has to stand in line for an hour, after having been on his feet on the factory line all day, has it a little harder to face. That was me and both my husbands. I was mentally tired, but they were physically tired. Maybe I'm being a little bit more literal than I should, but we do all need our down time. This is all too true in a year when we have candidates as Bryce says, neither of which gives him any kind of urge to put his vote in there.

I can't heartily agree with him, but to each his own, as we say, but no matter what, even though much of our trouble is our own, we still need a leader to direct us out of the hole we're in, and with his past in helping lower income families help themselves, Obama may just be the perfect guy to do that for us.

As I said last week, I don't want to re-write the whole Constitution, but there are some items that should be updated in a way other than a separate amendment.

Anne

[jdb1]

Now, I'm not calling for the Great Flood. I'm fairly indifferent to the whole ordeal called government. Not a single law enacted in the last hundred years directly affects me to any uncomfortable degree. All together they probably equal a minor inconvenience that I'm fairly oblivious to. Nor do I think a revolution would win - you have to have just the right situation to pull one off correctly and we're not there, yet. Nor am I calling for a cleansing, a great purge, or any of that nonsense. Nor am I calling for an all-or-nothing approach. I'm not really calling for anything, to be honest. Simply saying the system is broken, I don't plan to vote because neither candidate suits me, any law congress or anyone else enacts which bothers me I'll disobey consequence be damned, and should one day someone decide to take up arms against the government - literally or figuratively - I'll be happy to join in.

That attitude annoys many people to no end. Mostly people who still think you can work within the system and win. Nearly every government borne of blood has been broken within a lifetime - long before those who bought it with blood, sweat and tears have expired. In fact, those who bought it generally have to commit crimes to get their way and keep it going as long as they possibly can. They have to lie, cheat and steal, and usually keep everyone out of the groundwork who doesn't share their exact ideals. All for a good cause. Sadly, elected representation is broken by definition, and in its current form far more broken than it should be. . .


Anyway, it seems that every time I post I derail this thread. . . .

Let's see -- first off, I categorically disagree with your assertion that you cannot win by working within the system. The only way things have been effectively changed in this country is on the occasions when one group or another formed a viable political power base within the system. That's why, so far, although we may have come close a few times (as in the labor unrest of the early 20th Century), we haven't had any revolutions since the War Between the States. Even in the face of those labor troubles, the ultimate concessions won were won through legislation passed by the existing government, not by the overthrow of said government. The African-American community got the majority of its civil rights demands met by working within the system as a political force in the 1960s, and now that that faction as a whole seems to have lost its way and with it its political clout, not much else has been gained.

You may not really be advocating revolution, but your rhetoric certainly makes you sound as though you are. Your posts here, Bryce, always sound as though you are ready to throw up your hands in defeat and move into a cave in the Idaho wilderness. To my mind, anyone who so articulately voices such intense feelings about how very bad everything is should be finding a way to change things. And, I don't think you are in any way derailing this thread just because I don't agree with you. I'm always very interested in your point of view; I just wonder whether you are channeling your frustrations into working toward making things a little better.

Are you familiar with one of historian Lord Acton's pronouncements? My high school social studies teacher had that one, written out in fancy calligraphy, posted in front of the class above the chalkboard. It said: "Evil will win when men of good will do nothing." I'm just an overworked single parent with little disposable income and less time, but I try to do what I can to keep that idea alive.

[klondike]

Your posts here, Bryce, always sound as though you are ready to throw up your hands in defeat and move into a cave in the Idaho wilderness.

WHOA!
Bryce, don't start packing!
I've spent a week or so, collectively, camping in a cave in Idaho, and I gotta tell ya, I think you'll want to wait until about, oh, late April or so.
This time of year, you'd have to be burning a lot of kindling to heat your pimitive abode, and that would draw attention from the Gem State Fish & Game guys, who infamously lack any sense of humor . . come to think of it, they're nearly always Republicans . . so they're ya go . . you'd be back in that same old rhetoric tar-pit!

[Dewey1960]

Klondike sez: CONNIE & CHET IN 'O8 !

Geez, wouldn't that be great!

[Marta]

I've been reading this thread with great interest, my friend Alison had told me about it and I felt compelled to post my reply. I am an American citizen living the UK as a resident since 2003. I am also a registered voter in America and I received my ballot in the post last week. It was the first presidential election I had voted in since 2000. I voted and sent the ballot back in the envelope provided. I have very strong feelings about this election, my family has always been a Democratic family, but I am fortunate enough to see both sides of it. But this time I'm sticking with the Democrats. I'm well aware of John McCain, he's someone i remember very well, he's someone that I don't like particularly. I have to say that if he wins I will be scared for America. I watched the first debat with him and Obama and all he seemed to do was dismiss Obama and talk over him. He strikes me as very arrogant and a know it all. His whole demeanor screams "Look at me, I'm 70-plus years old, I know it all, I'm Repulican too!" It makes me sick!!! And as for Sarah Palin, well, I will be restrained when I say that she has no clue as to what she's doing. McCain may have well had the word "desperation"tattooed on his forehead when he picked her. Pathetic!!!!

And for the record, this thread has been great to read. I love to see everyone's opinion and how we all can talk about this like adults, unlike other places I used to frequent!!!

Thank you.

[charliechaplinfan]

Marta, I knew you'd have to leave a comment, knowing how much you love Sarah. Always nice to hear from you

[Marta]

Marta, I knew you'd have to leave a comment, knowing how much you love Sarah. Always nice to hear from you

LOL!!! Yes I love her very much, I told you that over the phone this past weekend!!!! It's always nice to talk to you as well.