Give me a break!
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 09-21-2008 - 9:38am |
So now the McPain campaign is saying that the Obama campaign is 'using the economic crisis' to advance their campaign. Just curious - isn't this another way for the McPain campaign to use the economic crisis??? Kind of like the pot and the kettle thing going on here? Maybe it is just sour grapes since McPain sounded out of touch when he said last week that the fundamentals of the economy were sound? Then on the other hand McPain is criticizing the Obama campaign for not coming out with a plan right away - wouldn't that be using the crisis as well?
McCain: "We must not bailout the management and speculators who created this mess. They had months of warnings following the Bear Stearns debacle, and they failed to act.â€
McCain also called for “strong and effective regulation†of the financial services industry, which he has done repeatedly over the past few days of the financial meltdown, but something he has not always supported. McCain called for deregulation of the banking industry in his support of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which knocked down the obstacles between banking, investment and insurance companies."
Palin: "“Disappointed that taxpayers are called upon to bailout another one,†she said. “Certainly AIG though with the construction bonds that they’re holding and with the insurance that they are holding very, very impactful to Americans so you know the shot that has been called by the Feds its understandable but very, very disappointing that taxpayers are called upon for another one.†"
I guess if you can't utter a coherent statement or feel you have to rush in to issue a statement before considering the implications you might need to deflect the negative attention you receive from your actions. Personally, I prefer a president who takes the time to check with financial advisors before issuing a statement that later has to be back peddled.

Pages
Or another way to look at it:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=10466
And I asked a poor man if I could work for him, and he said no, he had no money.
Uh huh, check this out from your link:
"The lowest growth period, at 2.61 percent on average, was 1986 to 1992 -- after the Democrats, already in control of the House, took over the Senate and largely stymied President Reagan's reform agenda while blocking President Bush's more responsible initiatives."
Looks like more blame the Democrats to me. To Clinton's credit, he didn't try to blame the first World Trade Center bombing on the prior administration. Clinton understood that he was accountable for what happens on his watch.
And by the way, how do you explain the current meltdown after the Republicans controlled Congress and even the Senate too until the last election? For a long period recently the Republicans controlled everything.
Your math doesn't add up.
And by the way, I still don't get your comment about a poor man. More people like yourself do better under Democrats than Republicans. Some people, not including you, have a big chip on their shoulder, watch a lot of Fox, and get whipped up over things like gay marriage, so at the end of the day they vote poor rather than better off. Their choice of course.
There is plenty of blame to go around. It's been building for awhile.
Like Fannie mae and this guy, and when he was there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines
OK, say there are two people. One has a small business or small company and is doing well so he is in a high tax bracket. The other is a lower income person living paycheck to paycheck. Which one would you go to if you were needing a job?
>>>>>How can you blame Mccain or Bush when someone signs a balloon note? I'm sorry those borrowers were irresponsible.
AMEN!!!
EDITED TO ADD: To address those who consider this "blame the victim," I agree that this is blaming the victims: except that they were victims only of their own ignorance. If ignorance were synonymous with victimhood, statutory rape would no longer be a crime, since, "I didn't know" is most often attempted as a defense.
"Victims"--who signed a financial document without knowing what they are obligated to pay? Not in my book.
Edited 9/23/2008 1:00 am ET by nikkiwantsmore
"There is plenty of blame to go around."
Uh huh. When Republicans make fudge "there's plenty of blame to go around" but when Democrats mess up it's all their fault. In other words, Republicans have no accountability. We've seen this game in many forms my farmboy friend. If it looks like a pig . . .
"How can you blame Mccain or Bush when someone signs a balloon note?"
You think all of a sudden America got stupid? Whereas millions of Americans were relatively responsible up until Bush's term, now they just totally independently went off the deep end so we can argue they got what they deserve. Let's cut em loose! Let's cut our nose off to spite our face! Let's blame them for everything so we can say Bush and McCain were pure and clean.
Can we please come back to the real world? There was fraud. There were aggressive lending practices. The regulators, Bush and the Republican House and Republican Senate turned a blind eye. McCain says he's a deregulator who is always against deregulation. Why do you think he didn't push anything through?
Your version doesn't add up in reality.
Well, Bush led us all to believe there were WMD's, and there were not. He even joked about it at his Billionaires Dinner party, looking under the tables, I didn't find it funny at all, but of course his "base" got a big laugh over it. Probably none of their blood and treasure were in Iraq.
Yes, the people who took loans were misled they could afford them. Maybe both husband and wife had decent jobs at the time, they were probably told the loan more than likely wouldn't increase more than 1%. They were essentially LIED to. Just so the ones who did the loans ccould get their golden parachute.
While I am not laying all of the blame on irresponsible borrowers, they should bear part of the blame.
Pages