Obama to vote on bailout, McCain "may"
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 09-29-2008 - 12:42pm |
Obama To Vote On Bailout Package, McCain Says He Hopes To
NEDRA PICKLER | September 29, 2008 11:49 AM EST |
WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama plans to return to the Senate this week so he can vote for the Wall Street bailout package.
The Illinois senator is expected to support the plan, but hasn't committed yet since he's still examining the details. The $700 billion compromise legislation is up for a vote Monday in the House, with the Senate vote expected as early as Wednesday.
A spokesman for John McCain said the Republican nominee plans to be in Washington and hopes he'll be able to vote, depending on the schedule.
Obama was scheduled to campaign Wednesday in La Crosse, Wis. It was unclear if his morning rally there would still go on, depending on when the vote is scheduled, but campaign organizers said they hoped he could still attend.

Pages
Dems have the majority, and wrote it to their liking, but they can't stick together.
Because the dems wrote it to their liking, and they don't want to even vote for it.
Halliburton isn't in banking, but their stock is down, too.
I suppose it makes sense to put some blame on those who "bought" into over-reliance on credit. Caveat emptor, and all that.
But take a good hard look at those who were handing out credit, left and right, with a largesse which paid no heed to ability to pay. Do you think they did so for altruistic reasons? If so, I have a bridge to sell........!
Subprime loans weren't made because investors wanted an entree into heaven! They were made because the housing market looked to be going up and up and up. And the ability of people to pay for an asset which everyone was sure would continue to appreciate rapidly in value was NOT questioned. For the umpteenth time, I ask (not of you specifically) what part of SUB-prime did they NOT understand?!
If nothing else, this shows that laissez-faire capitalism does not work. It's disingenuous of Republicans to act all hoity-toity about signing a bailout bill when they were party to and colluded in the practices which landed us here. Makes me ill to see all the politicians acting, finally, at long damn last, as though they had to account for their actions or lack thereof. Maybe we should have referendums more often than every couple of years.
And one last question in regards to your comment about Democratic involvement and things which have gone unnoticed or ignored. Do you remember this speech from the dark days right after 9/11?
"We're an entrepreneurial nation. There's a lot of small business growth in America. You know, by and large, the banking system is very solid. The energy prices are reasonable. And now, we just got to be aggressive and make sure we do what we need to do at the federal level to provide a kick start to give people reason to be confident."
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/03/se.17.html
Maybe more crucial than caveat emptor is "caveat voter" especially in regards to voting Republican!
edited to correct an error in Latin.Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Facts stifle the will, hobble conviction.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Dems have the majority, and wrote it to their liking, but they can't stick together
Where do you come up with this?
The ones up for election probably voted no because the people in their district swamped them with calls this weekend against the bailout.
But take a good hard look at those who were handing out credit, left and right, with a largesse which paid no heed to ability to pay. Do you think they did so for altruistic reasons? If so, I have a bridge to sell........! >
If I led you to believe differently, I'm sorry. I squarely place blame on those that took credit they couldn't afford, those that gave credit to those that couldn't afford it, and those that regulated credit to those that couldn't afford it- regardless of political affiliation.
Pages