Aiemond said: The agreed bill never gave out 700 billion right away. It gave out only 350 before the companies came and needed more approval. Second, it had many different provisions than just the Paulson deal.
Here, I need some spin on this. McCain comes in and gives new bailout plan, it calls for tax breaks, deregulation and for wall street to pour the funds in to save the economy. Who the hell is gonna make the capital for bailout? I'm baffled.
Someone answer this questions. Who the hell is dumb enough to invest.
Apparently, members of congress and the executive branch are dumb enough (who use our money, by the way).
A bit more levity. The awkward Loan interview is very amusing. The first is a bit of liberal asshatting with some scraps of good points (Which is usual for Jon Stewart)
You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.
Aiemond said: The agreed bill never gave out 700 billion right away. It gave out only 350 before the companies came and needed more approval. Second, it had many different provisions than just the Paulson deal.
Here, I need some spin on this. McCain comes in and gives new bailout plan, it calls for tax breaks, deregulation and for wall street to pour the funds in to save the economy. Who the hell is gonna make the capital for bailout? I'm baffled.
Someone answer this questions. Who the hell is dumb enough to invest.
Apparently, members of congress and the executive branch are dumb enough (who use our money, by the way).
Because the govt is the last resort. The govt has to step in and fix the problem cause no one else will. There needs to be some more money so that banks start lending again.
Now Playing: The Witcher (PC)
Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, Wii, Xbox 360, Game Boy, DS
First, it is about whether they should be there. Leadership is setting an example and taking the lead (hence the name). Phoning it in doesn't cut it. Sorry it simply doesn't.
Second, the reason they should be there has nothing to do with the office they are running for but the office they currently occupy. While it is typically seen as not being a particularly big deal when someone misses out on routine duties because of the campaign trail that doesn't mean the biggest crisis in 50-80 years (depending on your view) should be treated anywhere near the same way. This is their job and if they have confidence in their ability to lead they should feel comfortable being part of that process (and Obama agrees with me on that).
Third, the suspension of the campaign was intended to create an air of urgency. The whole point he was making is that this is important enough to drop everything and get it done, again even Bill Clinton agrees McCain's suspension is born of good intentions and not partisanship..seriously the man spoke at the DNC...I think that should tell us something about how silly the argument is. The politicization of this is coming from everyone but McCain & Obama from what I've seen..but mostly the media. McCain has been busy all day in meetings and on the phone with very few exceptions and even Obama in the interview you linked says that if McCain thinks he can help he should be there.
I have to thoroughly disagree with you on whether it was the right call. The distinct impression I've had for about 2 days now is that they were going to ram this bill down our throats and screw us. I got a little substantiation to that, but I have yet to check into. Lindsey Grahm told Greta tonight that ACORN was being funneled cash through this bill and indicated that there were other problems as well.
(Fourth) Now I have to say you ignored the point about Reid and Paulson both requesting McCain's input/presence. Don't you find it the least bit sleazy that Reid asks for him by name then denounces him when he shows up? I simply am amazed by the ability of these politicians to ignore their own previous statements and say whatever works at that moment. The whining about McCain is, at least for now, nothing more than partisan blathering. Paying attention to it only serves to distract from the real issue, the issue that we should be focused on rather than worrying about whether McCain and Obama are going to have a debate that likely won't matter much if this deal doesn't get done.
(fifth)As for the bill McCain supposedly ruined...again read what I said and address it. It's a defunked argument. There was no bill, they had 5 senators who agreed on terms and the house was never on board. As I said the bill must originate in the house as a matter of constituinal law so the senators were overstepping their bounds and stretching the truth more than just a little bit when they claimed to have any sort of deal.
From left, Sen. John McCain, House Minority Leader John Boehner, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, President Bush and Sen. Barack Obama at the White House. (By Pablo Martinez Monsivais -- Associated Press)
(2) So every senator and house member should be there, or just every senator? This is not logical, the only ones who should be there are the ones who are on the banking and finance committee or the ones specifically chosen to go. Why? Because most Senators have no idea about economics (just like Obama and McCain). This is why we have committees, so that they can act fast.
(3) at the bolded part, Should a president be creating an air pf urgency when everyone is already panicking? You cite a heavily edited Fox News cut. Here is the whole comment:
Not a very concrete endorsement. Just Clinton stuttering, on a side note, I think that's the first time that Fox news had a chose to edit a clip to make Clinton look like a more eloquent speaker.
Then you take the intention of Obama's statement out of context. They were both there, and Obama then went on to say that it's not difficult to get on a plane to Mississippi and back for a 90 minute debate.
(4) I ignored the comment about Reid requesting McCain to be there because I never heard anything about that before, and only found sources to the contrary. I want to be as respectful as possible, so I didn't want to nitpick little mistakes.
The only comment that even comes close to sounding like that is this one
"We need leadership, not a campaign photo op. If there were ever a time for both candidates to hold a debate before the American people about this serious challenge, it is now," Reid said.
I am pretty sure that he meant the literal debate and not the one going on in Washington because the context of the article stated: "...even though Senate leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, has said it would not be helpful for McCain to come back."
(5) As for the bill McCain supposedly ruined, it doesn't matter if a single house republican doesn't vote for it if the President is supporting it and planning to sign it. Most are still behind it.
As for the semantics, it's a bill, as soon as a legislative idea is being considered by a congressional commitee it's called a bill. They are working on a bill. Just like authors work on novels. Painters work on paintings. Just because it's not finished, maybe not even number yet doesn't mean it's not a bill. Often they are called drafts, but they are drafts of bills.
In case anyone wants to read the full text of Paulsons request, you can find it here:
The thing is, the last poll on the bail out was before WaMu; I think that his killing the bill, by leading some of the more squeamish republicans to basically walk out, will be a disaster IF things get worse before something gets passed.
1) I never implied or stated they weren't both there. But one of them was there because he was requested by the president and one of them wasn't. One of those is leadership one is not..I'm sure folks can figure it out.
2) Who said every senator needed to be in the meeting? Remember we are talking about leadership...and yes senators who also happen to be the party leader should be there..really a simple concept. As for the Bush invitation, McCain was announced that he was going, if anything the Bush invitation was a ploy to force Obama to go and do his job. Now all of the senators and representatives should be in Washington working within their caucuses at a bare minimum, but in the meetings we need our leaders and these guys are THE leaders of their party.
3) Actually no I watched the very video you linked to, but thanks for assuming. The part I was referring to was not ambigous however. The part I cited from clinton was his statement about McCain not doing it simply as a political ploy or to avoid the debate, which he did say. And yes an air of urgency is clearly needed. If they are trying to add crap about ACORN into the process they clearly don't get how urgent it is.
As for taking Obama's comment out of context...you're joking? I damn near quoted him. He said if he thinks he has something to add to the process he should be there. McCain clearly does, so he is. What exactly is out of context about that? The only context missing is that Obama was hemming and hawing around the comment because he doesn't personally want McCain there but he still knows that is the reasonable position...which is why I find it frankly startling that people are arguing the point...I have literally no doubt whatsoever that they should both be there working on this, if there are two people in the country who can get this deal done its them. The debate is back on now anyways so I'm not even sure what the objection is anymore.
"We need the Republican nominee for president to let us know where he stands on what we should do.”
5) Ok if we want to play symantics we can call it a bill but there was still never a deal any more than Paulson had a deal or you or I have a deal. Everything I've seen says there was a small number of people who were onboard and hadn't sold really anyone else. It had an uphill battle to win support with or without McCain. Frankly, until we get someone saying "Man I would have voted for that if McCain hadn't showed up" this is all just baseless political wrangling.
As for him leading republicans to walk out, I hadn't seen anything to indicate he lead that effort. Source? I hope he did though, from what I've seen and heard I think we can do a whole lot better than what we've seen so far and we have at least until sunday night to get it right, so I'm in no rush to see a deal get done just yet.
PS - Just so we are on the same page you do know the dems could have passed the paulson plan but chose not to because the republicans weren't on board right? They are trying to get this done bipartisanly..mostly so they don't shoulder all of any potential blame....but also for show to help confidence (which is a real concern).
Obama called McCain to talk about issuing a joint statement. Thatt was Obama's idea. McCain called him back in a few hours and said they should go to Washington to help. Then without letting Obama know, McCain went public with his crazy scheme. It could easily be that he was trying to one-up Obama, who was trying to play nice with McCain and stay out of Congress's way.
Hey Rocket.... is it any wonder we "Obama fans" get riled up with people like bigjon on the prowl? I've never once started a political thread, but I've been baited into plenty by this guy.
For every bigjon, there are five ultra-liberals on this board who slam McCain at every opportunity. Just think of some of the ridiculous threads over the past few weeks surrounding McCain and, in particular, Palin.
Are there obnoxious conservatives on this board? Of course. But they're few in number compared to the multitude of vocal liberals around here.
QFT - And we should know...we have to read drivel from both sides of the political(stupidity) spectrum as mods. When these debates get going both sides seem to ignore basic reason and instead tend to argue from bigoted indignation. Often times ignoring the gigantic piece of common ground that ends up serving as "the elephant in the room". And when the absurdities get pointed out on either side they reply with a "that's politics" before returning to their slogans of "no more politics as usual".
Luckily Montana has been doing a great job lately policing this stuff and getting to it before me (/thumbs up), I truly appreciate not having to get my stress levels up when I typically come to the site to relax =P Thanks Montana!
Thanks Sqrl, I do try. And it means so much to hear it from you...I think I might have a tear in my eye!
I agree with Rocketpig that both candidates are basically, down to their core, full of shit. And it's not their fault. Before they ran for president, they were two of the greatest politicians in the country. McCain was a moderate who wasn't afraid to disagree with his party and stick to his beliefs over those whom he worked with, and Obama was the only black in the senate with great ideas for the state of Illinois. But now look at both of them. They've both become so desperate to win that they resort to attacks that range from petty and pathetic to over the top and ridiculous. And this has happened with nearly every election, so I guess we should be used to it by now. I only hope that whoever loses can still go back to the senate and help move the country forward.
That's why I'm voting for Obama. I think McCain would be better for the country in the senate next year than Obama would. I just also happen to think that Obama would be better for the country in the White House than McCain would.
Voters do not seem to have rallied behind McCain after this move based on recent polls.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
