Senator Joe Biden for president---in the primaries

woiyo wrote:

that most people can not handel.

And this piece I have to disagree with.

What 'most' people cannot handle is living without that 30th pair of shoes, or that new plasma TV.

The problem is not the lendor in this cases, it's the borrower.

0 Replies

I think that you are ignoring the fact that lending standards have relaxed - tremendously - to the point where credit card companies issue cards to anyone at all. Anyone. B/c they know they will make more money off of defaults then they do off of people paying on time.

The Bankruptcy Bill raised the maximum interest rate to what, 29.9%? While allowing greater latitude for companies to change rates without notifying customers; giving them greater ability to raise rates based upon late payments for other, non-credit related bills, etc..

The truth is that there wasn't one American citizen who was helped in any way by the Bankruptcy Bill. Only the credit card companies and banks were helped. The fact that it's legal to assist someone in getting over their head in debt doesn't make it moral, and the Bankruptcy Bill makes it even easier for lenders to engineer debts.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The truth is that there wasn't one American citizen who was helped in any way by the Bankruptcy Bill. Only the credit card companies and banks were helped. The fact that it's legal to assist someone in getting over their head in debt doesn't make it moral, and the Bankruptcy Bill makes it even easier for lenders to engineer debts.

Cycloptichorn

I agree with you, but it is still ultimately the debtors fault, NOT the CC companies. Unlike other amoral businesses (health insurance, big oil for example), no one NEEDS to buy something on credit.

How many people do you know who were forced to pay 29.99% interest for anything? The fact is is that NO ONE is forced to use the card, but if you do, you agree to the terms.

And there are at least a few million people employed by credit card companies who were helped by this.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The truth is that there wasn't one American citizen who was helped in any way by the Bankruptcy Bill. Only the credit card companies and banks were helped. The fact that it's legal to assist someone in getting over their head in debt doesn't make it moral, and the Bankruptcy Bill makes it even easier for lenders to engineer debts.

Cycloptichorn

I agree with you, but it is still ultimately the debtors fault, NOT the CC companies. Unlike other amoral businesses (health insurance, big oil for example), no one NEEDS to buy something on credit.

How many people do you know who were forced to pay 29.99% interest for anything? The fact is is that NO ONE is forced to use the card, but if you do, you agree to the terms.

And there are at least a few million people employed by credit card companies who were helped by this.

Really? Somehow I highly doubt that the employees of these companies received a big fat raise.

You should see the healthcare arguments - people sometimes, yes, do have to buy things on credit, because they don't have any other option at the time. I agree with you that plasma tv's have their price and people shouldn't be buying them when they can't afford them. But it's ridiculous to say that the CC industry isn't predatory. It's highly predatory and parasitic. Just look at the way they prey upon college students and the poor; it's mafioso-style, the promise of easy and free credit, and they actively want you to get behind on your payments. They encourage it by doing everything they can, including mailing bills as late as possible.

In fact, if people actually paid their bills on time, your industry would fold. They rely upon late payments in order to jack up the interest rates and make more money. It's where the majority of profit comes from for the CC companies. So they have every incentive to screw people over and almost no incentive not to. The bankruptcy bill increases their ability to do so.

It's why I call Biden (D-MBNA). Big business is his true constituent and he doesn't really give a damn about the people in his district. CC companies as a whole profit billions of dollars per quarter; there was no real need for this bill other then to increase their profits at the expense

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo, I can't argue with anything you post (except employees seeing benefits, there are over 1000 jobs currently open in my company with pay higher than my own, and my personal pay, along with many of my associates as increased 30% in the last year). I see those numbers on our balance sheets everyday. It's no secret.

But the fault still lies with the consumer.

I sort of see it as the drunk driving argument. Sure, beer is easy to get, it's cheap, it's marketed to college kids, but it is still the person's fault if they drink too much and get behind the wheel. Sometimes they might have to drive (like if they are escaping from a rapist for example), but if a cop pulls them over, they are going to jail because it's illegal.

Credit is easy to get, and initially pretty cheap, but it's still the person's fault if they use to much and get behind on payments. Sometimes they might have to use the card (kids food), but if they break the rules, they're going to pay.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Cyclo, I can't argue with anything you post (except employees seeing benefits, there are over 1000 jobs currently open in my company with pay higher than my own, and my personal pay, along with many of my associates as increased 30% in the last year). I see those numbers on our balance sheets everyday. It's no secret.

But the fault still lies with the consumer.

I sort of see it as the drunk driving argument. Sure, beer is easy to get, it's cheap, it's marketed to college kids, but it is still the person's fault if they drink too much and get behind the wheel. Sometimes they might have to drive (like if they are escaping from a rapist for example), but if a cop pulls them over, they are going to jail because it's illegal.

Credit is easy to get, and initially pretty cheap, but it's still the person's fault if they use to much and get behind on payments. Sometimes they might have to use the card (kids food), but if they break the rules, they're going to pay.

Perhaps you aren't aware, but when it comes to drunk driving, if the bartender/restaurant which serves them alcohol violates the legal limit of what they can serve, they take responsibility as well.

That's the whole problem; the CC industry refuses to assume any sort of risk or responsibility for their poor decisions. It is easy for the poor person to get a card they can't afford and to buy things they can't afford, b/c they CC companies - and the bankruptcy bill - make it easy for people, knowing they won't be able to pay.

At one time it was understood that the CC companies wouldn't give out cards to people with bad credit, because their accounts were too risky and it was considered a bad investment. The Bankruptcy Bill changed that. Now lenders are insulated from the risks they take. There is no more Moral Risk on their part, as they can just wait and collect ever-mounting fees in perpetuity. There's no reason for them to have any sort of discrimination whatsoever when it comes to assigning credit.

I feel this is a perilous situation. What was the purpose or necessity behind raising the maximum interest rates? Who exactly is helped by this? The CC companies, and nobody else.

It would be easy enough for you to say that the fault always lies with the consumer in every case, no matter what the problem is. Obvious this isn't true. We have laws which are set up to keep people from being preyed upon by companies who are unscrupulous; the Bankruptcy Bill weakened those laws to nobody's benefit.

Credit used to be reserved for people who had something to back it up. Now that we've essentially legalized Usury, everyone has something to back it up - their future earnings. I personally have a moral problem with allowing an industry to prey upon people and somehow pretending it's entirely people's fault for being dumb enough to be preyed upon.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Cyclo, I can't argue with anything you post (except employees seeing benefits, there are over 1000 jobs currently open in my company with pay higher than my own, and my personal pay, along with many of my associates as increased 30% in the last year). I see those numbers on our balance sheets everyday. It's no secret.

But the fault still lies with the consumer.

I sort of see it as the drunk driving argument. Sure, beer is easy to get, it's cheap, it's marketed to college kids, but it is still the person's fault if they drink too much and get behind the wheel. Sometimes they might have to drive (like if they are escaping from a rapist for example), but if a cop pulls them over, they are going to jail because it's illegal.

Credit is easy to get, and initially pretty cheap, but it's still the person's fault if they use to much and get behind on payments. Sometimes they might have to use the card (kids food), but if they break the rules, they're going to pay.

Perhaps you aren't aware, but when it comes to drunk driving, if the bartender/restaurant which serves them alcohol violates the legal limit of what they can serve, they take responsibility as well.

That's the whole problem; the CC industry refuses to assume any sort of risk or responsibility for their poor decisions. It is easy for the poor person to get a card they can't afford and to buy things they can't afford, b/c they CC companies - and the bankruptcy bill - make it easy for people, knowing they won't be able to pay.

At one time it was understood that the CC companies wouldn't give out cards to people with bad credit, because their accounts were too risky and it was considered a bad investment. The Bankruptcy Bill changed that. Now lenders are insulated from the risks they take. There is no more Moral Risk on their part, as they can just wait and collect ever-mounting fees in perpetuity. There's no reason for them to have any sort of discrimination whatsoever when it comes to assigning credit.

I feel this is a perilous situation. What was the purpose or necessity behind raising the maximum interest rates? Who exactly is helped by this? The CC companies, and nobody else.

It would be easy enough for you to say that the fault always lies with the consumer in every case, no matter what the problem is. Obvious this isn't true. We have laws which are set up to keep people from being preyed upon by companies who are unscrupulous; the Bankruptcy Bill weakened those laws to nobody's benefit.

Credit used to be reserved for people who had something to back it up. Now that we've essentially legalized Usury, everyone has something to back it up - their future earnings. I personally have a moral problem with allowing an industry to prey upon people and somehow pretending it's entirely people's fault for being dumb enough to be preyed upon.

Cycloptichorn

You make it sound like EVERYONE who is late on a payment is bumped up to 29.99% interest.

The facts are that the CC companies do take risks, and while the % of bankruptcy has decreased, the percent of charge-offs have increased. If you don't know, charge-offs are almost a complete loss to the CC company (with the exception of the tax write off hovering somewhere near 10%, and the pennies on the dollar they get for selling the debt, they still incur roughly a 85% loss on that debt).

And easy credit has it's consumer advantages as well. Say you have one of those CC at 29.99%, how hard is it to open another one and transfer the balance to a 0% for a year?

Please tell me what purchase has to be made on a credit card that could be avoided if people were more intelligent about money and what they could realistically afford? Education is the answer, but again I AGREE WITH YOU that some regulation could help.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Cyclo, I can't argue with anything you post (except employees seeing benefits, there are over 1000 jobs currently open in my company with pay higher than my own, and my personal pay, along with many of my associates as increased 30% in the last year). I see those numbers on our balance sheets everyday. It's no secret.

But the fault still lies with the consumer.

I sort of see it as the drunk driving argument. Sure, beer is easy to get, it's cheap, it's marketed to college kids, but it is still the person's fault if they drink too much and get behind the wheel. Sometimes they might have to drive (like if they are escaping from a rapist for example), but if a cop pulls them over, they are going to jail because it's illegal.

Credit is easy to get, and initially pretty cheap, but it's still the person's fault if they use to much and get behind on payments. Sometimes they might have to use the card (kids food), but if they break the rules, they're going to pay.

Perhaps you aren't aware, but when it comes to drunk driving, if the bartender/restaurant which serves them alcohol violates the legal limit of what they can serve, they take responsibility as well.

That's the whole problem; the CC industry refuses to assume any sort of risk or responsibility for their poor decisions. It is easy for the poor person to get a card they can't afford and to buy things they can't afford, b/c they CC companies - and the bankruptcy bill - make it easy for people, knowing they won't be able to pay.

At one time it was understood that the CC companies wouldn't give out cards to people with bad credit, because their accounts were too risky and it was considered a bad investment. The Bankruptcy Bill changed that. Now lenders are insulated from the risks they take. There is no more Moral Risk on their part, as they can just wait and collect ever-mounting fees in perpetuity. There's no reason for them to have any sort of discrimination whatsoever when it comes to assigning credit.

I feel this is a perilous situation. What was the purpose or necessity behind raising the maximum interest rates? Who exactly is helped by this? The CC companies, and nobody else.

It would be easy enough for you to say that the fault always lies with the consumer in every case, no matter what the problem is. Obvious this isn't true. We have laws which are set up to keep people from being preyed upon by companies who are unscrupulous; the Bankruptcy Bill weakened those laws to nobody's benefit.

Credit used to be reserved for people who had something to back it up. Now that we've essentially legalized Usury, everyone has something to back it up - their future earnings. I personally have a moral problem with allowing an industry to prey upon people and somehow pretending it's entirely people's fault for being dumb enough to be preyed upon.

Cycloptichorn

You make it sound like EVERYONE who is late on a payment is bumped up to 29.99% interest.

The facts are that the CC companies do take risks, and while the % of bankruptcy has decreased, the percent of charge-offs have increased. If you don't know, charge-offs are almost a complete loss to the CC company (with the exception of the tax write off hovering somewhere near 10%, and the pennies on the dollar they get for selling the debt, they still incur roughly a 85% loss on that debt).

And easy credit has it's consumer advantages as well. Say you have one of those CC at 29.99%, how hard is it to open another one and transfer the balance to a 0% for a year?

Please tell me what purchase has to be made on a credit card that could be avoided if people were more intelligent about money and what they could realistically afford? Education is the answer, but again I AGREE WITH YOU that some regulation could help.

Because if you are late on Card A, you will not GET that 0% or 5% rate offering. These CC Companies prey on your credit score and I doubt if you are late, you will be getting that offer.

Morally, I agree that ultimately, the consumer should have the discipline to not go over their heads. Yet, CC supply the drug (money) and then wait to pounce if you are 10 days late.

The lender should bear some responsibility in this regard for making a loan they they KNOW they would never make if it was the CEO's money being loaned.

Same with the so called mortgage crisis. The lender should be FORCED to renegiate the mortgage into a fixed rate at current market rates and not foreclose.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Cyclo, I can't argue with anything you post (except employees seeing benefits, there are over 1000 jobs currently open in my company with pay higher than my own, and my personal pay, along with many of my associates as increased 30% in the last year). I see those numbers on our balance sheets everyday. It's no secret.

But the fault still lies with the consumer.

I sort of see it as the drunk driving argument. Sure, beer is easy to get, it's cheap, it's marketed to college kids, but it is still the person's fault if they drink too much and get behind the wheel. Sometimes they might have to drive (like if they are escaping from a rapist for example), but if a cop pulls them over, they are going to jail because it's illegal.

Credit is easy to get, and initially pretty cheap, but it's still the person's fault if they use to much and get behind on payments. Sometimes they might have to use the card (kids food), but if they break the rules, they're going to pay.

Perhaps you aren't aware, but when it comes to drunk driving, if the bartender/restaurant which serves them alcohol violates the legal limit of what they can serve, they take responsibility as well.

That's the whole problem; the CC industry refuses to assume any sort of risk or responsibility for their poor decisions. It is easy for the poor person to get a card they can't afford and to buy things they can't afford, b/c they CC companies - and the bankruptcy bill - make it easy for people, knowing they won't be able to pay.

At one time it was understood that the CC companies wouldn't give out cards to people with bad credit, because their accounts were too risky and it was considered a bad investment. The Bankruptcy Bill changed that. Now lenders are insulated from the risks they take. There is no more Moral Risk on their part, as they can just wait and collect ever-mounting fees in perpetuity. There's no reason for them to have any sort of discrimination whatsoever when it comes to assigning credit.

I feel this is a perilous situation. What was the purpose or necessity behind raising the maximum interest rates? Who exactly is helped by this? The CC companies, and nobody else.

It would be easy enough for you to say that the fault always lies with the consumer in every case, no matter what the problem is. Obvious this isn't true. We have laws which are set up to keep people from being preyed upon by companies who are unscrupulous; the Bankruptcy Bill weakened those laws to nobody's benefit.

Credit used to be reserved for people who had something to back it up. Now that we've essentially legalized Usury, everyone has something to back it up - their future earnings. I personally have a moral problem with allowing an industry to prey upon people and somehow pretending it's entirely people's fault for being dumb enough to be preyed upon.

Cycloptichorn

You make it sound like EVERYONE who is late on a payment is bumped up to 29.99% interest.

The facts are that the CC companies do take risks, and while the % of bankruptcy has decreased, the percent of charge-offs have increased. If you don't know, charge-offs are almost a complete loss to the CC company (with the exception of the tax write off hovering somewhere near 10%, and the pennies on the dollar they get for selling the debt, they still incur roughly a 85% loss on that debt).

And easy credit has it's consumer advantages as well. Say you have one of those CC at 29.99%, how hard is it to open another one and transfer the balance to a 0% for a year?

Please tell me what purchase has to be made on a credit card that could be avoided if people were more intelligent about money and what they could realistically afford? Education is the answer, but again I AGREE WITH YOU that some regulation could help.

To begin, I think that people who are sitting at 29.9 on one card probably have a more difficult time transferring to another card at a zero balance then you might think. It isn't as if the new company can't see the rates they have on other cards. But, you probably know more about that then I do.

I think that health-care related stuff is often put on credit; many times it's sudden and unplanned and people have no other choice.

While the Bankruptcy Bill may not have been the worst bill ever passed, it in fact acted as a deregulating influence on the CC companies; a step in the wrong direction, which benefited no consumer in any way, and one which I will never forgive Biden for championing. I think it's patently wrong to support profits for Big Business over your own constituent's well being.

Here's an interesting article on the many and various ways in which the CC companies do each and every trick they can to screw cardholders out of their money:

http://www.bcsalliance.com/creditcard_profits.html

As you may be able to tell, I'm not a big fan of credit cards. They mostly exist as a method of transferring money from the poor to the rich.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

The lender should be FORCED to renegiate the mortgage into a fixed rate at current market rates and not foreclose.

I think that they are going to do this anyway, only the force applied will be from their pocketbooks and not from legislation.

If these houses foreclose, then the bank has to try to sell them to a market that is already flooded, the bank would then have to either sit on the property for 12-18 months or be forced to sell it for less than the outstanding mortgage.

It makes more business sense to renegotiate with the home-owners so the money still flows in.

If this were the housing market of 4-5 years ago, where houses were on the market for days rather than months in some markets, then of course the banks would kick them out of the house....but alas, we're not in that market.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

To begin, I think that people who are sitting at 29.9 on one card probably have a more difficult time transferring to another card at a zero balance then you might think. It isn't as if the new company can't see the rates they have on other cards. But, you probably know more about that then I do.

If their credit is bad then it will be tough if not impossible. I have a large problem with the credit reporting system as it exists today, and I think many of your problems may lie there. That being said, having bad credit often does not result from a 1 time problem (such as medical bills). CC companies cannot see the rates that a particular consumer has, their information is strictly limited to credit reporting data, which does not include interest rates. And even then, they are extremly regulated in what they can do with that credit reporting data from the FCCA act passed a while back.

Quote:

I think that health-care related stuff is often put on credit; many times it's sudden and unplanned and people have no other choice.

I could see buying something from Target or the Pharmacy, but if you're talking about emergency room visits or the like, then that's educational as well, no way I'd ever put that on a credit card.

Quote:

While the Bankruptcy Bill may not have been the worst bill ever passed, it in fact acted as a deregulating influence on the CC companies; a step in the wrong direction, which benefited no consumer in any way, and one which I will never forgive Biden for championing. I think it's patently wrong to support profits for Big Business over your own constituent's well being.

While I don't think it's simply a matter of choosing big business over your constituent's well being, I agree with what you said. I just think it's more gray than the picture you painted here.

Quote:

Here's an interesting article on the many and various ways in which the CC companies do each and every trick they can to screw cardholders out of their money:

http://www.bcsalliance.com/creditcard_profits.html

Again, no secret, and a similar list could be created for just about any business. It's rules like these why I don't use credit cards, or if I do, they are only used when I already have the money in the bank to pay them off when the bill is due.

Quote:

As you may be able to tell, I'm not a big fan of credit cards. They mostly exist as a method of transferring money from the poor to the rich.

I know what you mean, but you could say the same for any 'for profit' business.

0 Replies

Musharraf and Bhutto turn to Sen. Biden before talking to Bu
Musharraf and Bhutto turn to Sen. Biden before talking to Bush
November 11, 2007
BY ROBERT NOVAK Sun-Times Columnist

President Pervez Musharraf and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto each placed telephone calls from Pakistan to Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to discuss the country's crisis before either talked to President George W. Bush.

On Saturday, Bhutto emphasized to Biden the need for parliamentary elections in January with Gen. Musharraf remaining as president but leaving the army. Musharraf called Biden on Tuesday and asked that their conversation be kept confidential. Biden got the impression Musharraf could accept January elections although he had triggered the crisis by suspending the constitution.

Biden, seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, wants the Bush administration to get actively involved in resolving the situation. He wants development now of a post-election power-sharing agreement between Musharraf and Bhutto.

0 Replies

Biden and Clinton Shine at Debate
Biden and Clinton Shine at Debate
by Ari Melber
Posted November 15, 2007

Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton shined in the presidential debate on Thursday night, as the leading Democratic candidates traded their sharpest barbs to date.

Biden outlined the most specific foreign policy agenda, advocating a reduction of Pakistan's military funding to force fair elections, and a new focus on eliciting support of the Pakistani middle class to counter militant extremism. He declared that he was the only candidate "on stage" to offer a regional plan since President Musharraf declared martial law, referring to a New Hampshire address last week, and stressed that unlike Obama and Clinton, he had actually voted to cut funding for the controversial Guantanamo prison. Then Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, showed voters his commitment to confront the Bush Doctrine, recounting how he "personally" warned the President that an attack on Iran without congressional authorization would lead to impeachment.

Clinton, who had struggled to counter some attacks in the last debate, held strong the entire evening. She assailed Obama for failing to "step up" on universal health care and challenged Edwards' record on the issue from the 2004 Campaign. Then, casting herself as the true Democratic fighter in the ring, Clinton chided Edwards for adopting mud-slinging tactics "right out of the Republican playbook." It worked. Obama was overshadowed for much of the debate, only finding his voice near the end while discussing Iran and habeas corpus. Edwards' arguments showed some strain under pressure. He questioned Clinton's honesty and record as a "Corporate Democrat," but then assured the audience that his criticisms were not "personal."

Given Obama's sluggish performance, it's striking to see that he actually spoke more than any other candidate (18 minutes). This was the kind of performance that might give a campaign manager heartburn: a speaker who sounds worse in a small field, when the audience hears extended remarks. Yet CNN was still touting an "Obama-Clinton Slugfest" when the debate ended, and the emerging conventional wisdom, as Chuck Todd explains, is that Thursday night "will be known as the debate that seemed to sharpen the contrast between Clinton and Obama and create a gap between the big two and everyone else."

The gap for the "big two" is nothing new, of course, and it has little to do with debate performances. It's based on celebrity, fundraising and media attention, which reinforce each other in an autocatalytic political process that has left serious and more seasoned candidates in the dust. The media may be so beholden to this story about "the big two" -- remember when it was three? -- that what candidates actually do at debates will not be allowed to get in the way. But for voters who actually listened on Thursday, Joe Biden offered a bold and specific alternative foreign policy for the United States.

0 Replies

Joe Biden latest news
Latest Biden news:

State Senator Quirmbach Endorses Joe Biden

Last night at a house party in Ames, IA, Sen. Joe Biden received the endorsement of Iowa State Senator Herman C. Quirmbach. Senator Quirmbach becomes the twelfth Iowa State Legislator to endorse Senator Biden.

Joe Biden at the Drexel Debate

Joe Biden participated in last night's Democratic candidate debate at Drexel University, once again demonstrating the kind of leadership and vision that we need in the White House. From the most important issues of the day to challenging Republicans on national security, Joe Biden has been the straight-talker in this race. Click here for post-debate reactions.

AP - Biden Unveils Health Care Plan

The AP's Amy Lorentzen reports from Des Moines as Joe Biden unveils his health care plan for America. She writes, "Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Tuesday called for expanding access to health coverage for all children and adults, but stopped short of mandating universal coverage. Biden's plan would also improve coverage for catastrophic illnesses, modernize the health care system and encourage wellness."

Biden First Democrat to Receive Newspaper Endorsement

The Storm Lake Times in Iowa writes: "We have seen all the Democratic presidential candidates, except for two, up close and personal: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson. Biden is our choice for the nomination for the powerful personal story he shares, for his deep knowledge of international affairs, and for his long record of exemplary service in the United States Senate." Click here to read the full endorsement...

Press-Citizen Op-Ed: Domestic Violence Lawyers Needed

Joe Biden introduces his National Domestic Violence Volunteer Act which would harness the skills, enthusiasm and dedication of legal professionals to infuse 100,000 new volunteer lawyers into the justice system to represent domestic violence victims. He writes, "I believe this initiative builds on the best of American ideals -- volunteerism, technology know-how, collaboration between the private and public sectors and our unwavering commitment to justice and service."

Iowa State Rep. McKinley Bailey Endorses Joe Biden

Today at the Iowa State Capitol, Sen. Joe Biden received the endorsement of State Representative McKinley Bailey, a returning Iraq war veteran. At 26, he is the youngest serving Democratic member of the Iowa State Legislature. Bailey appeared along with Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and explained why Iowans should support Sen. Biden for the Democratic nomination for President.

Boston Globe - Biden's Gutsy Proposal for Iraq

Boston Globe columnist Scot Lehigh writes about "Biden's Gutsy Proposal for Iraq." From Lehigh: "In a presidential race where some of his Democratic rivals have adopted Iraq positions that appear tailored to curry favor with the activists, while others have struck stands that seem designed to minimize political exposure, Biden has offered a genuinely bold and gutsy proposal."

CNN - Citing Iraq plans, Richardson Adviser Defects to Biden Campaign

CNN's Political Ticker reports: Citing Richardson's plan for Iraq, "which would immediately remove all U.S. forces from Iraq, the campaign's South Carolina state co-chair Fletcher Smith said Biden's plan to divide Iraq into three federal regions is a more responsible plan. 'To me it's the only way this problem is going to be resolved,' Smith said in a phone interview Saturday morning."

0 Replies

Candidates get ideas from Biden
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Candidates get ideas from Biden
Press-Citizen OpEd:
November 16th, 2007 by Erin Medlicott

"Biden Is The Candidate Who Will Restore The U.S. To A Position Of Trust And Respect"

Nov. 16: An OpEd in the Press-Citizen (Iowa City) from Joan and Michael Hazell, "Candidates Get Ideas From Biden." They make the point that often other candidates take Sen. Biden's ideas and use them for their own talking points. Highlights follow, with Web link to full OpEd, below.

There are a few intelligent and articulate candidates running for presidential office in the Iowa primaries, but one candidate truly has a unique combination of attributes and skills to offer at this especially critical time both nationally and internationally. Delaware Sen. Joe Biden has the deepest background in foreign relations with countries around the world and has developed bipartisan interpersonal relationships that can serve well in times when decisions need to be made on situations that move quickly and with profound consequences.

Biden has offered well developed, realistic plans for many complex situations that are frequently hailed as excellent by many other candidates and then quietly adopted into their own talking points. He brings a positive energy to offering forward-looking, wise solutions that promote a broad base of participation and reveal a comprehension of the many facets of the issues facing us both domestically and globally. He is not responding to the polls as some others do, he is responding to the issues and to the concerns of the people and stating what he can bring to them in terms of solutions.

Biden has experienced and acted on it all and is ready to serve immediately at the highest level. We agree with what many other candidates have been saying in the debates and in interviews -- "I/we agree with Joe" -- and hope you will take time to note the integrity and quality of his proposals and responses in this very serious, direction setting election.

Biden is the candidate who will restore the presidency to a position of competency and the United States to a position of trust and respect around the world.

Joan and Michael Hazell
Coralville

0 Replies

BBB, good job. You convinced me. I'm supporting Biden from now on.

If I were you I would post especially some of the more recent articles in other political forums.

I think after his debate performance, there's a good oppurtunity for him to pick up steam.

If ONLY Biden had ran for president in 2004, instead of backing down to let his close friend John Kerry run, the past four years could have been far better.

Biden proposed over three years ago, on Bill Maher's show, that Iraq needs to be split into three sections to prevent a civil war. It turns out, he was right on the money and since no one else listened, a civil war happened exactly as he predicted.

The guy has new fresh ideas and has been right consistently again and again.

As far as fixing problems is concerned, I think he is the one person best equipped to do it, with Clinton as a close second.

0 Replies

Centroles
Centroles, sadly, the media does their usual thing. Focus on the horse race and the so-called top tier of candidates based on their money raising ability and their poll ratings. If Biden was given more attention time, his poll ratings would rise. Same goes for candidate Chris Dodd.
Kuchinich get attention only because he is controversial and not main-stream. Bill richardson is a good governor for New Mexico, but he is a terrible debater. Biden is the better debater than all of the other candidates simply because he knows what he's talking about and makes it easy for people to understand.

Joe Biden is uaually given little attention by the debate moderator and journalist questioners. Despite this favoritism, Biden always finds a way to present lucid, carefully thought out solutions. But the Media isn't interested in that. They only want to focus on who is winning and losing and who gets in the best wallop against a competitor.

I would like debates to be conducted by non-journalists. How about some questioners who have expertise in specific issues, etc? It would be a whole lot more interesting and revealing of the candidates.

What do you think?

BBB

0 Replies

Senator D-MBNA doesn't have what it takes to be prez - an ability to inspire and lead folks.

The most he can hope for is to please his corporate overlords...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Senator Joe Biden for president---in the primaries

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know