|
Monday, 29 September 2008 20:21 |
|
 Both sides have come out swinging claiming the others have caused the financial ruin of America by opposing the bailout. But that's simply political speak and not what really happened...
The vote was close, admittedly, and was 228-205, with a 12 vote shift away from it passing. But this wasn't something along party lines. More than two-thirds Republicans and forty percent of Democrats opposed the bill.
The Republicans blamed a speech by Pelosi for the bill not passing -
"We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."
On the other hand, Democrats blamed the Republicans for having hurt feelings -
"Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country." - Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
But both sides forget that the overwhelming majority of Americans are against the bailout! We aren't looking to bail out companies that made bad decisions based on problems originally created by government intervention. The American people are sick of elected representatives doing whatever they feel like without listening to those who represent them. I'll not be supporting any representative who voted for the bailout - Republican or Democrat. Our country wasn't founded on socialism, and adopting it in a rush to fix a problem that took decades to manifest itself is simply not prudent.
So lets sit back down and find a reasonable fix for the problem - but don't piss on our leg and tell us it's raining. Unfortunately the voice of the American people, and the votes of the House mean nothing, as the Fed pumped $630 billion into the financial system. Oh, didn't you know - the Fed can do whatever it wants, with no government oversight or accountability to the people.
|
|
Sunday, 28 September 2008 20:12 |
|
 This was a hectic weekend, but I finally had a chance to put some of my notes from the debate on here...
I watched the debate on CNN HD and was interested to see they had the audience reaction meter, even though Jim Leher said they were to be quiet - so what audience was it? A selected CNN audience off site, or did they have a button to rate on site...
CNN also had a scorecard from analysts with pluses and minuses throughout. They used Paul Begala, Bill Bennett, Gloria Borger, Donna Brazile, Alex Castellanos and John King.
While this was interesting, this was exactly the reason why I recommended watching the debate on PBS or C-Span, or listening on an unbiased source such as XM's POTUS '08. The problem that arises is you've got heavily partisan folks like Paul Begala and Donna Brazile for instance, which influences the opinions of the audience.
I really liked how Leher directed the candidates to speak to one another, rather than to him, but saw what appeared to be absolute hatred toward the other candidate - on both sides. Neither candidate was impressive when it came to the bailout as when asked what programs they would cut - both were squeamish and just stated what was important, although McCain focused on cutting spending. Were they afraid of upsetting certain voter groups by cutting a program? Probably, but it looked like weak leadership from the rest of us.
McCain got some huge points from me when he vowed to cut ethanol subsidies as I'm vehemently against them. McCain also was smart to bring up Obama's own statement of meeting leaders of hostile countries with no preconditions. Obama's response was essentially that as President he can meet with whomever he wants, and that McCain's advisor - Henry Kissinger - agreed with Obama. Kissinger wasn't too happy about this mischaracterization and said so:
"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."
Finally, I noticed that Obama was trying in vain to compare McCain to Bush and equating it as a third term. While folks such as myself will always feel this is untrue - McCain wasn't conservative enough for the base - and those heavily in the Obama camp will cite the 90% voting record with George Bush, the connecting of the two hasn't gone anywhere. The campaign has gone on for long enough where we know the basics of each candidate. Those left undecided are trying to fine-tune the issues, but won't be swayed by someone trying to redefine the other person. McCain is guilty as well, in painting Obama as inexperienced, but was able to pull it off somewhat better by keeping Obama on the defensive the whole evening, with Obama many times breaking the first rule of the campaign and telling your opponent they are right.
As mentioned before, the debate was, in hindsight, a draw, but if there had to be a winner, it was McCain. Furthermore, as the Drudge poll showed, an overwhelming majority of folks believe that McCain indeed did win. Of course, as is typical, those with a certain agenda to push will write off these as being biased, and cite their own polls/studies as being the correct ones.
|
|
Sunday, 28 September 2008 16:37 |
|
As someone in Michigan, many of my friends and family work for or have worked for the big three. However, the recent bailout loan to the auto industry is another step in the wrong direction. Call me skeptical, but these loan guarantees seem like they will never be repaid. There is nothing wrong with rewarding innovation and ingenuity, but the big three haven't done so in some time. The only positive I see is with GM investing money towards production of the new Chevy Volt.
While I wish bankrupcy on no company or individual, letting folks fail and then picking themselves back up makes them stronger. Who chooses which companies and individuals are too important to fail?
I desprately hope that I'm wrong, but history proves otherwise...
|
|
Saturday, 27 September 2008 19:48 |
|
 By now it should come to no surprise that the financial bailout is a mess. It should also be no surprise that the solution is more taxes.
We've played this game for too long. The answer to our problems is not to increase taxes, but to decrease spending.
How ironic is it that those in charge of much of this politically have also received the most contributions from the failed companies such as Fannie and Freddie. Of course they aren't going to be for legislation to crack down on the corrupt companies if they're essentially receiving a paycheck from them as well.
The ones in charge of this bailout have criticized John McCain for injecting "Presidential Politics" into the mix, while he's simply doing his job - you know, representing the people as an elected official. Adding another idea is not a bad thing - unless you're only interested in one side, which appears to be the case as the evening negotiations taking place have gone from being a 4 person bipartiasn team, to involving other senior Democrats, balancing out the talks with 9 Democrats, 2 Republicans and Secretary Paulson.
The Wall Street Journal has a nice breakdown of some of the major players:
Here's hoping that the members of Congress actually settle down and think for a small amount of time, rather than try to pull a fast one of the American Public and pass a deal over the weekend while we're all away from things. This is one of the biggest issues of our time, and we need to be looking at the long term consequences from any bailout over any short term ones. Unfortunately, politicians on both sides of the aisle all too often are only concerned with the short term to try and get re-elected.
|
|
Friday, 26 September 2008 22:11 |
|
As mentioned previously, here is the latest John McCain commercial:
|
|
