Yes, I agree that McCain should have fought the pork in the bailout, and maybe fought the bailout a bit harder.
the folks at work were saying that the 300 billion McCain wants to spend on buying up mortgages is already in the 700 billion.
Chris
· 1 year ago
Nah, I much prefer to keep the candidates we have now in this election. No need to start over :)
If McCain were my candidate I would want a redo too.
I thought it was common knowledge that when the government cuts taxes it only applies to people paying the taxes in the first place. So when Obama says his plan cuts taxes for 95% of the people it means 95% of people paying taxes. Right? It's impossible to cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes.
To Alice, yes the $300 billion additional McCain wants to spend socializing our markets is already included in the $700 billion. Obama mentioned that in the debate. McCain, however, wants an additional bailout. Either he doesn't understand what the original bailout is or he wants a second one. Him not understanding the original bailout is surprising since he suspended his campaign to solve this crisis. One would think he would know the ins and outs of the original bailout. It's obvious he wants a second bailout at the expense of the tax payers. Either that or he's just totally insane.
McCain says he'll cut spending, sure. All his spending cuts he'll supposedly freeze will be gobbled up 5 times over with his newest proposal to initiate a second government funded bailout worth at least $300 billion. Remember, in the debate he said he would have the treasury buy up the mortgage debt IMMEDIATELY. Any spending freeze he would enact would come no where near $300 billion. George Bush economics all over again. Enough is enough.
Lisa
· 1 year ago
Don't blame me. I voted for Fred. ;) I blame the Huckabee voters for McCain's nomination.
Maybe McCain will change his mind about the $300 billion. This policy could be subject to review after he's elected. Maybe he's making promises he doesn't intend to keep. All politicians do it. After all, someone floated those Lieberman / Ridge rumors and we ended up with Sarah Palin. Maybe it's just another massive head fake like his VP pick. I'm not happy with McCain, but he's the only one with a chance of stopping the election of Barack Obama, and that's a good enough reason for me.
Chris
· 1 year ago
I miss Fred. He was energizing :)
If Obama had proposed another $300 billion bailout in addition to the already $700 billion, I hardly think you would be saying 'well maybe he'll change his mind. It's just campaign speak.' With all due respect, you would call it what it is and that is a socialist expansion. The headline of every right wing website and news media outlet would be declaring Obama a liberal socialist for proposing anything near what John McCain did Tuesday night.
Quite the opposite happened though. The supposed conservative Republican, small government maverick lays out a plan to use $300 billion of tax payer money to buy up bad mortgage debt. In other words, we the tax payers become the rescue agents for the nationalization of the banking industry. That's not capitalism and it's not conservatism. Obama immediately said he opposed the plan and not a mention that McCain's a socialist and Obama is not.
Lisa
· 1 year ago
There's a lot of wishful thinking going on with McCain supporters right now. We are looking at the possibility that McCain might continue to screw up the election for himself by making terrible policy proposals aimed at the middle class that he would actually implement as President. I personally don't want to think that way. Don't give me grief about hoping McCain's just pandering to get more votes. I came out strongly against his additional $300 billion bailout. I have given you no reason to believe I see McCain's proposal any differently than the original bailout.
Props to Obama for seeing which way the political wind is blowing with the American people on any more bailouts. That takes outstanding leadership on his part. Seriously, though, how much courage does it take to agree with most Americans that more bailouts would be the wrong way to deal with our economic crisis?
Chris
· 1 year ago
Wishful thinking is much different than calling someone a socialist, which is what the right wing would have done if Obama had proposed McCain's $300 billion additional bailout, and you would have linked to it.
You came out strongly against it? Where?
Obama voted for the $700 billion bailout even though the American people largely opposed it. He's against McCain's second additional $300 billion bailout for the banking industry because it's flat out stupid. If Obama pandered to the polls like you're suggesting he would have voted against the $700 billion bailout. If he's pandering, he's very inconsistent with it. On the other hand, John McSame just can't make government big enough.
Lisa
· 1 year ago
I linked to IBD's article, which I thought made a valid point about Obama and the Global Poverty Act -- and I have no intention of getting into that again. I thought it was worthy of discussion. The difference is that I think I know what to expect from Barack Obama as far as his economic views, and I don't exactly know whether McCain is pandering to the panic or whether he really buys into the usefulness of his $300 billion.
You want to know where I strongly opposed the new bailout. How about the part where I said McCain was tone-deaf to conservatives, or where I said that he should have opposed the original bailout and voted against the pork? The original post was clear enough that I wouldn't support the extra $300 billion. But apparently you need it spelled it out for you so here ya go -- I strongly oppose McCain's socialist bailout. Strong enough for ya? :P
Barack Obama had cover to vote for the bailout, because McCain did. But he knows that any other proposed bailouts wouldn't have popular support, so he was free to disagree with McCain on his $300 billion extra.
Chris
· 1 year ago
The usefulness of the discussion remains the same. For Barack, he's a socialist and his actions are expected. But for McCain it's blurry as to whether he's just pandering or if he's really just a big government, tax and spend Republican. The difference being Obama does not get the benefit of the doubt and McCain does.
Finally I understand your position on McCain's socialist bailout. Did you really use the word socialist because you believe in its usefulness or are you pandering to me? :)
Next time I'll require you to draw me pictures because yes I'm that slow....calm down girl I'm only kidding :)
All Comments
the folks at work were saying that the 300 billion McCain wants to spend on buying up mortgages is already in the 700 billion.
If McCain were my candidate I would want a redo too.
I thought it was common knowledge that when the government cuts taxes it only applies to people paying the taxes in the first place. So when Obama says his plan cuts taxes for 95% of the people it means 95% of people paying taxes. Right? It's impossible to cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes.
To Alice, yes the $300 billion additional McCain wants to spend socializing our markets is already included in the $700 billion. Obama mentioned that in the debate. McCain, however, wants an additional bailout. Either he doesn't understand what the original bailout is or he wants a second one. Him not understanding the original bailout is surprising since he suspended his campaign to solve this crisis. One would think he would know the ins and outs of the original bailout. It's obvious he wants a second bailout at the expense of the tax payers. Either that or he's just totally insane.
McCain says he'll cut spending, sure. All his spending cuts he'll supposedly freeze will be gobbled up 5 times over with his newest proposal to initiate a second government funded bailout worth at least $300 billion. Remember, in the debate he said he would have the treasury buy up the mortgage debt IMMEDIATELY. Any spending freeze he would enact would come no where near $300 billion. George Bush economics all over again. Enough is enough.
Maybe McCain will change his mind about the $300 billion. This policy could be subject to review after he's elected. Maybe he's making promises he doesn't intend to keep. All politicians do it. After all, someone floated those Lieberman / Ridge rumors and we ended up with Sarah Palin. Maybe it's just another massive head fake like his VP pick. I'm not happy with McCain, but he's the only one with a chance of stopping the election of Barack Obama, and that's a good enough reason for me.
If Obama had proposed another $300 billion bailout in addition to the already $700 billion, I hardly think you would be saying 'well maybe he'll change his mind. It's just campaign speak.' With all due respect, you would call it what it is and that is a socialist expansion. The headline of every right wing website and news media outlet would be declaring Obama a liberal socialist for proposing anything near what John McCain did Tuesday night.
Quite the opposite happened though. The supposed conservative Republican, small government maverick lays out a plan to use $300 billion of tax payer money to buy up bad mortgage debt. In other words, we the tax payers become the rescue agents for the nationalization of the banking industry. That's not capitalism and it's not conservatism. Obama immediately said he opposed the plan and not a mention that McCain's a socialist and Obama is not.
Props to Obama for seeing which way the political wind is blowing with the American people on any more bailouts. That takes outstanding leadership on his part. Seriously, though, how much courage does it take to agree with most Americans that more bailouts would be the wrong way to deal with our economic crisis?
You came out strongly against it? Where?
Obama voted for the $700 billion bailout even though the American people largely opposed it. He's against McCain's second additional $300 billion bailout for the banking industry because it's flat out stupid. If Obama pandered to the polls like you're suggesting he would have voted against the $700 billion bailout. If he's pandering, he's very inconsistent with it. On the other hand, John McSame just can't make government big enough.
You want to know where I strongly opposed the new bailout. How about the part where I said McCain was tone-deaf to conservatives, or where I said that he should have opposed the original bailout and voted against the pork? The original post was clear enough that I wouldn't support the extra $300 billion. But apparently you need it spelled it out for you so here ya go -- I strongly oppose McCain's socialist bailout. Strong enough for ya? :P
Barack Obama had cover to vote for the bailout, because McCain did. But he knows that any other proposed bailouts wouldn't have popular support, so he was free to disagree with McCain on his $300 billion extra.
Finally I understand your position on McCain's socialist bailout. Did you really use the word socialist because you believe in its usefulness or are you pandering to me? :)
Next time I'll require you to draw me pictures because yes I'm that slow....calm down girl I'm only kidding :)