Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (272337)	10/4/2008 2:41:22 AM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793927

"Some of his comments that he has made about the war that I think may — in my world– disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief." October 3rd, 2008 12:18 PM Eastern Cameron Interviews Post-Debate Palin by Shushannah Walshe ST. LOUIS –- Fox News' Carl Cameron conducted the first post-debate interview with Sarah Palin this morning. The extensive interview went over last night's Vice-Presidential face off, her debate prep, campaign strategy, media access and the hits she has been getting for not having more access to the media, and of course the much talked about and criticized interview she did with CBS's Katie Couric. Palin told Carl that she was "annoyed" at some of the interviews she has done, "Ok I'll tell you honestly the Sarah Palin in those interviews is a little bit annoyed because it's man no matter what you say you are going to get clobbered. If you choose to answer a question you are going to get clobbered on the answer," Palin said. "If you choose to try and pivot and go on to another subject that you believe that Americans want to hear about you get clobbered for that too." She then aimed to defend herself for some of the criticism she got for the Couric interview. She was blasted for not answering Couric's question on any of the periodicals she reads or even a Supreme Court decision that she disagreed with. She defended some of the circular answers she gave the CBS anchor saying that she did not get to cover some of the topics she saw as important, "But in those Katie Couric interviews I did feel that there were a lot of things that she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a V.P. candidate stands for. What the values are represented in our ticket. I wanted to talk about Barack Obama increasing taxes, which would lead to killing jobs. I wanted to talk about his proposal to increase government spending by another trillion dollars." She then slammed Barack Obama calling him disqualified to be President of the United States, "Some of his comments that he has made about the war that I think may — in my world– disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief." Palin said, "Some of his comments about Afghanistan and what we are doing there supposedly– just air raiding villages and killing civilians. That's reckless. So I wanted to talk about things like that. So I guess I have to apologize about being a little annoyed, but that is also an indication of being outside that Washington elite and being outside the media elite also and just wanting to talk and just wanting to talk to Americans without the filter and let them know what we stand for." Stay tuned to Fox News all day as Carl Cameron reports on his interview with Palin. Also keep checking back here as this is just the first installment of my blogs on their tete a tete embeds.blogs.foxnews.com

To: John Carragher who wrote (272337)	10/6/2008 11:12:14 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793927

I think I've decided that I'm against the idea. It basically makes a system where you have fully insured full reserve (non-leveraged) banking, and uninsured fractional reserve banking (well not necessarily uninsured, but not insured by the government). Whether or not having more deposits not insured by the government is a good thing, I'm against this proposal because I think it would exaggerate economic swings. In boom times, people would shift more of their money to the higher interest accounts with no government insurance. I bad or scary times people would shift more to the insured accounts, and since the insured accounts can not be used for fractional reserve banking, it effectively contracts the money supply. So your expanding the money supply in good times and contracting it in bad times. Which would tend to give you bigger booms and bigger busts. Even if it doesn't effect the average growth rate at all (and that's uncertain, and if effected, I don't think the effect would be likely to be positive, at least not significantly so), the bigger busts would be very painful. I might accept bigger busts if it meant the average growth rate was noticeably higher, (which would make a huge difference in the long run), but I don't see that this idea contributes to such a thing.