I just think its funny that miyi complained about Democrats scaring voters that we're about to fall into a depression and its the government officials in office now that's scaring Americans that if we don't fall in line with their plan that the next Depression will happen.
I said Obama was equating this crisis to the Great Depression, not Democrats....I try hard not to lump people together...from what I understand, there are a lot of Democrats and Republicans against this bailout, for the very same reasons that a lot of American citizens are concerned how it will impact on their taxes.
Nobody is disputing the seriousness of the economic issue, but to go around scaring people that this will be the next Great Depression is counterproductive.
To Obama's credit, lately he's been much more optimistic and earlier today I heard him express his "optimism", that there might be progress in the bailout discussions.
From my understanding, they won't go along with the massive "700 billion" package that Treasury secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke is requesting...but it's been drastically reduced to something like an initial 200 billion or so, and if they need more, Congress will have to permit the other hundred billions remaining...so in other words, the initial document that Paulson and Bernanke proposed is reviewed by the legislatures and they said, "we won't give you a blank check".
So if the main concern about this is that the Feds will have increased their power and can do basically anything they want with the billions of dollars they're requesting, the legislators have provided the counterbalance to that, so that should be reassuring for most of us.
As for McCain's political maneuvering this week, on the one hand, I believe it was him who came up with the idea to have everyone, Republicans and Democrats, meet and discuss this issue, in order to make tweaks to the Paulson proposal, so that they can have a sensible package done as soon as possible, to restore market confidence.
Whether or not you think that is good or bad, is disputable. I'm not surprised that people such as Senator Harry Reid, would now attribute the inability to reach a conclusion to the agreement last night, to Senator McCain, for allegedly "injecting politics" into the discussions. Of course he'll say that, he's a politician and he is himself injecting politics into it.
There are others who will say, Senator McCain was needed because a lot of disconcerted House Republicans didn't even had a "say" on the so-called bailout, and for McCain to attend the deliberations in part, was an attempt to mobilize the Republicans to take part and contribute in the negotiations.
As to how much contribution McCain has provided to the legislation itself? who knows. I assume he didn't do much....and I would also assume the same is true with Senator Obama.
Another perspective to this is that McCain suspended his campaign in order to show Americans his commitment to the economic crisis, which a lot of his critics have accused him for not taking seriously. Yes, it's a political move on his part.
But for Harry Reid to accuse McCain as the root cause of why they didn't reach an agreement last night, is absurd.
As for the bailout itself....personally, I share my reservations about it, as with mrcongojack....I don't think it's a good idea to bail out these failed institutions.
The Bush administration is arguing, that if we rescue these institutions now, just to keep the economy from contracting further and un-freeze the credits, it will stimulate the economy, and hopefully, they predict, that in the long-run, the government might potentially make a profit out of all of this.
If in case they do make a profit, a lot of the legislators are saying, they need to refund those profits back to the taxpayers, which I think both sides agree on.
But like I said, personally, I believe we just ought to let these institutions fail. Let the market recover on its own, let's invest in alternative energy (plus environmentally safe "drilling"), because if we become energy independent, that means two things:
[1] as a national security issue, we would no longer be transferring wealth to OPEC, a collection of oil-exporting countries, the majority of which are hostile to America's interests.
[2] we would lead the world in energy markets, which in turn means profits.
Moreover, investing in alternative energy, I'm sure, does not cost 700 billion dollars!
At least 100 billion, maybe less. Had we started on the path to energy independence since the Jimmy Carter administration, we wouldn't be in such a predicament we are in today....with both the economic housing crisis, plus the energy crisis all happening simultaneously.
While drilling, environmentalists would argue, is still quite dirty, we now have the means to do these things in an environmentally safe way. It may not be satisfactory for the environmentalists no matter what, but we can't please everybody. We need to produce our own energy, as quickly as we can make it, and in the long run, we can perhaps switch to an absolutely clean energy without the need for drilling....but that's still years away, if not decades. We need short term fixes, as well as long term fixes.
How this is all tied with the economy? Well, one of the big factors why we're in this economic mess, aside from the fact that people bought homes they couldn't afford (with the help of some very generous but risky loans), these very same people was affected by the rising cost of oil.
Oil and food prices went way up in the last four years, and that impacted a lot of people...making some unable to afford to pay their mortgages, that led to home foreclosures all across the nation.
So if this current economic mess looks big right now, wait until oil prices skyrocket further....as China and India continue to increase their energy consumption, and we won't be able to stop them...what we are experiencing today will pale compared to what would happen with a full-blown energy crisis.
So we need to act now. Energy independence might even be the only way to recovering from this economic mess, who knows.
all that being said, I'm excited that McCain decided to resume the debates scheduled tonight. I wonder if they'll change the topic of the debate to the economy, instead of foreign policy, which was the initially agreed upon topic.
Speaking of that, I've heard it mentioned over and over....this notion that, McCain suspended his campaign to avoid debating Obama on foreign policy.....lol...that's just silly.
oh, and also, mrcongojack, you're right....this bailout completely contradicts conservative ideals, particularly economic ideals, which is a hands-off approach to the economy.
But on the other hand, I can see why Bush is receptive to this idea. He'll be criticized no matter what...either he acts now, or if he doesn't, he'll be seen as callous, like he's been perceived during Hurricane Katrina.
I wouldn't go so far as to say, this is like Communism....because in fact, the legislators are saying to the Feds, hey wait a minute, we won't be giving you a blank check...besides, Wall Street won't allow it. (that's the beauty of checks and balances by the way...I'm glad we still have it in this country....no matter how divisive it is, it's ultimately a good thing).
The only reason why Wall Street is pleading for this bailout right now is because it benefits them.....as soon as they start making money again, this romance between Uncle Sam and Wall Street will be short-lived.
But then again, a lot of people are saying that this is a new era for capitalism....the need to regulate big business is inevitable. And that's the kind of shift we are seeing happening right now. We might see more intensive regulation, as opposed to having less of it, in the future.
Both McCain and Obama are virtually identical, from what I've been reading. For example, both are heavily pro-regulation.
EDIT
I've seen the debates. Being as objective as I can, I'd have to admit, that Obama held his own. Neither candidate has really demonstrated to us anything new, because much of what they've discussed during the debate are "recycles" from past campaign stump speeches.
Both sides lied repeatedly and/or distorted, overstated, or mischaracterized the opponent's arguments/positions.....well, that's politics. It may fool the average Joe, but with all these various fact-checking websites and the internet blogs, neither candidate is immune to corrections.
Just as Obama, in my opinion, held his own on foreign policy, I think John McCain, surprisingly, with all his political stunts this week (postponing the debate in order to participate in the "bailout" negotiations, which apparently former President Bill Clinton defended him for), demonstrated that he is adequately committed, as expected from a Presidential candidate, with the current economic crisis we face. That's what he needed to do in order to allay prior doubts to his economic credentials. By exchanging jabs with Obama on economic issues in these debates, he showed that he is quite knowledgeable of the economic crisis than we give him credit for. I thought his idea of "cutting spending", coinciding with our current economic crisis, is not only "smart", but necessary. But at the same time, Obama does have a point in advocating increased "taxes"......because where else will the government collect revenue, other than through taxes?
Although I sharply disagree with Obama's tax policies for taxing the "rich" (250,000 + income earning bracket), because all that would do is that the rich, who are mostly business-owners and have employees under them, having their taxes further increased usually means that they'll only pass those burden onto the consumers (or their employees, by laying them off). The quickest and most efficient means to make profit is either to pass the cost onto consumers, or "fire" people, and under Obama's plan, that's what will ultimately happen, and virtually we all suffer, no matter what. Rich, or poor. But that's just a personal "side note", because I'm trying to be as objective as possible.
On Foreign policy, I think Obama did a good job hammering at McCain at how he was wrong to have taken us to Iraq and we took our "eye off the ball" on Afghanistan.
Apparently, that narrative have received wide acceptance in the mainstream, although it's still very much in heavy dispute among intellectuals. Obama, no doubt, scored points on that, towards the average Joe.
Similarly, McCain did a good job pinning Obama for his stubborness to acknowledge that the surge worked.
What McCain did effectively last night was his repeated bolstering of his foreign policy experience, which I think is a double-edged sword.
That only creates an opening for Joe Biden to hammer at Sarah Palin on foreign policy issues, in the upcoming VP debates next week.
Hopefully, Palin's recent visits with world leaders such as Saakashvili (Georgia's President), Yushchenko (Ukraine's President), Jalal Talabani (Iraqi President), Asif Ali Zardari (Pakistani President), Manmohan Singh (Indian Prime Minister), and even former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, have at least boosted Palin's foreign policy credentials....although I'd have to admit, they are pale compared to Biden's experience. Nevertheless, Palin did what she had to do, and it's better than nothing.
But what I think made the biggest difference in the Presidential debates, is Obama seemingly almost losing his composure. I'm used to seeing him so cool, calm, and relaxed, but this time around, I've seen his temperament tested, and evidently McCain got under Obama's skin a little bit.
That's strange. I kept hearing from the Obama camp that their strategy was to make McCain lose his temper....instead, it seemed to work the other way around.
Overall, I think McCain didn't do quite enough to win this debate decisively, which is what he needed. Obama held his own, and he exceeded expectations. Literally, McCain won slightly.
Psychologically and momentumly-speaking, Obama won this debate.
Hopefully Palin gives McCain another "game-changer" performance next week.
All she needs to do is hold her own, and meanwhile, Joe Biden needs to prevent another catastrophic foot in the mouth incident.
I think it's going to be very exciting to watch them two....I've already seen clips of Palin in past debates....she does surprisingly well. I wouldn't want to underestimate her, if I'm her opponent.
