Rex Kickass Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 08:03 PM) This is one instance where I say flat out f*** the polls. Sometimes there are more important things. I don't think people grasp fully what a collapse of the financial sector would mean for their lives. They do need to fix this. I don't know if the bailout is the right answer, but I have yet to see anyone come up with something better. Chuck Schumer proposed breaking it up into $150 billion bites that would be administered by an oversight board, and additional funds would only be injected as needed. That sounds better to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) Reid calls McCain: A Democratic source says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just called John McCain, and told him on the phone that it "wouldn't be helpful" for him to return to Washington. Reid is an idiot. McCain AND Obama are going back to talk to Bush. This financial crisis will GREATLY effect the next president. Obama is certainly going to DC to go over things as well as McCain. http://www.wnbc.com/news/17551484/detail.html However, delaying the debate is another thing, McCain needs to go to the debate. He can do both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 06:18 PM) I agree with SS, I just want to see some oversight on how the money is spent. I also don't want to see no bid contracts on advising. Yea there is no way that we should just hand over 700 billion to wall street. This is now a taxpayer investment and decisions need to be made by representatives of the people. As far as I'm concerned AIG and such are gone. No bailout. However the government should step in to stabilize the financial situation. Is this going to grow government? yes, but it obviously needs to be done. Edited September 25, 2008 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 06:39 PM) Yea there is no way that we should just hand over 700 billion to wall street. This is now a taxpayer investment and decisions need to be made by representatives of the people. As far as I'm concerned AIG and such are gone. No bailout. However the government should step in to stabilize the financial situation. Is this going to grow government? yes, but it obviously needs to be done. The good news with AIG was as a nation we still got that 80% stake in the company. Which means we can hold it, take some losses now, but once things settle, sell off the assets and make a profit on it. The real problem here is that the stuff we'd be buying with that $700 billion right now is basically worthless. We'd be trying to say that the government can better judge the value of that stuff to be high than the market can right now. We're not getting anything that has tangible value for it if we buy it at the inflated prices that are necessary to shut down the mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Letterman tears in to McCain on air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 08:15 PM) Letterman tears in to McCain on air. meh the "i vote for who celebrities say too!" group is already totally voting Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 07:59 PM) meh the "i vote for who celebrities say too!" group is already totally voting Obama Is it at least worth noting that the campaign suspension crisis was such a big deal that McCain ran straight to Katie Couric? I think that's what legitimately pissed Dave off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 09:59 PM) meh the "i vote for who celebrities say too!" group is already totally voting Obama He wasn't really trying to sway anyone's opinion, he was mostly just disappointed/pissed off that he bailed on him the day of the show and he had to scramble to start trying to make up time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I actually think Letterman is some what hurt that McCain stiffed him when I think Letterman was really going to go all out in supporting McCain. McCain announced running for President on Letterman's show, and you can tell by how they keep saying that "We love the guy" Dave was really going to give him some quality press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 McCain pulled all of his ads. Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Prediction: McCain will arrive in DC tomorrow, after the framework of a deal has been done by Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 So, what does this mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 That's still unclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 09:01 PM) The good news with AIG was as a nation we still got that 80% stake in the company. Which means we can hold it, take some losses now, but once things settle, sell off the assets and make a profit on it. The real problem here is that the stuff we'd be buying with that $700 billion right now is basically worthless. We'd be trying to say that the government can better judge the value of that stuff to be high than the market can right now. We're not getting anything that has tangible value for it if we buy it at the inflated prices that are necessary to shut down the mess. There really is no difference between the worthless paper that makes AIG worthless and the worthless paper that makes the $700 billion worthless. Its the same commercial papers, just on a larger scale. We are getting the samething, just with a nameplate on the front door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I had never actually heard Barney Frank speak before last night, I am glad to see that Elmer Fudd still lives on, just a little more angry and partisian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Not sure if this was already mentioned in here: CNN's Dana Bash reports that McCain officials are "trying to negotiate with the Obama campaign and the presidential debate commission" to change next Thursday's planned vice presidential debate into a McCain-Obama affair. The VP debate would be postponed to another date. "That is what they are proposing," Bash reported. "[McCain officials] understand very well that both the Obama campaign and the debate commission have no intention of delaying Friday's debate, but...if there is no bailout deal by Friday, McCain has no plan to go to debate." Maybe the main objective in all of this is to stall for Palin and give her more time to learn on the job. This is becoming a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 25, 2008 -> 07:34 AM) Not sure if this was already mentioned in here: Maybe the main objective in all of this is to stall for Palin and give her more time to learn on the job. This is becoming a joke. Was it you that said something about Palinbot 3000 needing more time to finish the download of Neoconservative software v 2.0? I lol'd at that while I was at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Will the liberal media continue the debate without McCain and give Obama basically a free commercial? Maybe give some long shots of an empty chair? Invite one of the other candidates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 25, 2008 -> 07:04 AM) Was it you that said something about Palinbot 3000 needing more time to finish the download of Neoconservative software v 2.0? I lol'd at that while I was at work. Yeah that was me. My conspiracy theory is looking more feasible with this news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 So do you think there is still a rift between Clinton and Obama? I still think they want Barack to lose so Hill can run again in '12. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...clinton-do.html Bill Clinton: Don't 'Overly Parse' McCain Request to Delay Debate Email Share September 25, 2008 8:26 AM ABC News' Nitya Venkataraman Reports: Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward. Appearing on Good Morning America Thursday, Clinton told ABC News' Chris Cuomo that McCain's push to postpone the debate would only be a good political move if both candidates agreed. McCain announced on Wednesday that he would "suspend" his presidential campaign to come to Washington to help negotiate a financial bailout bill "We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama. "You can put it off a few days the problem is it's hard to reschedule those things," Clinton said, "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that." If the debate moves forward as planned for Friday night, Clinton says "they should be able to talk about this some of the debate because it is a security issue." The former president thought Bush's address Wednesday night on the economic crisis had a "positive reaction". "I thought it was the clearest statement of why we're in the fix we're in, at least what the nature of it is and why some national action is needed," Clinton said. He said that both Democrats and Republicans "should move as quickly as they can" on the president's economic rescue plan but that both parties "want to know exactly how this $700 billion is going to be invested..to stabilize the system." President Bush's bipartisan meeting on the economic crisis will take place at 4pm at the White House, both Obama and McCain will be in attendance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 25, 2008 -> 08:34 AM) So do you think there is still a rift between Clinton and Obama? I still think they want Barack to lose so Hill can run again in '12. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...clinton-do.html Interesting. If that is true, that he does want a McCain victory, he's risking his position as the de facto soul of the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 25, 2008 -> 08:34 AM) So do you think there is still a rift between Clinton and Obama? I still think they want Barack to lose so Hill can run again in '12. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...clinton-do.html No, the Clinton's are 100% behind Obama, especially Bill. They would much rather he win than McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelst...mccain-got-invo Schieffer: Paulson Pleaded for McCain to Save Bailout Photo of Mark Finkelstein. By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive) September 25, 2008 - 07:53 ET * * [Printer-friendly version] So much for a "stunt." John McCain got involved in the bailout negotiations after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Sen. Lindsey Graham yesterday that the bailout plan would fail unless McCain came in and brought balky Republicans aboard. That's what Bob Schieffer reported on this morning's Early Show. Schieffer's account stands in stark contrast with the allegation by Dems like Barney Frank and their MSM cohorts that McCain's moves of yesterday were nothing more than a political "stunt." Here was Schieffer speaking with the Early Show's Maggie Rodriguez at 7:05 AM EDT today: BOB SCHIEFFER: I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you've got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you've got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don't do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that's how, McCain, apparently, became involved. Continued Schieffer . . . SCHIEFFER: He has gotten what he wants, he's going to have this meeting, kind of a summit today with the president and Barack Obama. I'm told that the leaders of both parties are getting close to having some kind of a bill. The question, though, is whether rank-and-file Republicans, especially, are going to vote for this. And that's where McCain comes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 25, 2008 -> 08:37 AM) Interesting. If that is true, that he does want a McCain victory, he's risking his position as the de facto soul of the party. Nothing there indicated to me that he actually wants McCain to win. I don't really know how someone could draw that conclusion from that. However, he has been sending subtle messages to the Obama campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 25, 2008 -> 09:36 AM) Nothing there indicated to me that he actually wants McCain to win. I don't really know how someone could draw that conclusion from that. However, he has been sending subtle messages to the Obama campaign. Its not just that one piece. Its been the Clinton's behavior ever since it because clear that Barack was going to be the nominee. They have pretty well undercut him every chance they got, even when it didn't make any sense. Something like this is just another piece of that puzzle IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts