Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

She did this time...

YouTube - Dems for Bailout: Pelosi #1 "anything goes mentality"

The speech he posted didn't include her ab-libs which is the part I saw. I guess she has to address the Speaker even though she is the Speaker (or more likely, who ever is acting as speaker when she is not).

[Galaxy]

Why do Dems dwell on the past? We are in Iraq, and we have to do it right. Did we screw up on it? Of course. However, we bought it, we broke it, now let's try to fix it. Learn from the past, but focus on the present and future. Same thing with the economy. I get this feeling from Obama (today's speech supported this).

[Arles]

What amazing to me is how duplicitous both sides are. The house republicans want no part of this because 80+% of their constituencies are for it. If you were elected by a community that is 80% against something, and vote for it, are you really reflecting the "will of the people"? It seems to me that a majority of the people are against it because of the size and all the "extras" thrown in.

Why not just do a bill for the $100-250 billion (dep on who you believe) that's needed now for the banking issue and pass that as a straight treasury loan (most likely payed back in 4-5 years). Then, people can debate the content and payout of the other $600 billion later. It seems that both sides know it has to be done and are trying to get as much political gain from the bill while also hoping for "the cover" of bipartisan support.

Interesting enough, sometimes the majority just has to stomach a bad pill for the good of the country. The republicans did it in the mid 90s and early 2000s, now it seems that is the democrats turn to do so. Welcome to the responsibility of being the majority.

As an aside, I'm finding myself hoping more and more for Obama to win the election simply for the fact that the media and political factions will start talking more positive about the country afterwords. For the past 18 months, the US has been beaten like a rented mule on nearly every aspect by the press (foreign policy, economics, you name it). If Obama is president, we'll have 9-12 months of the "new camelot" with a ton of uplifting stories. If McCain is president, it will be another year of negative beat downs. I don't know that the country can withstand that.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Arles

Why not just do a bill for the $100-250 billion (dep on who you believe) that's needed now for the banking issue and pass that as a straight treasury loan (most likely payed back in 4-5 years). Then, people can debate the content and payout of the other $600 billion later. It seems that both sides know it has to be done and are trying to get as much political gain from the bill while also hoping for "the cover" of bipartisan support.

I think that is a good plan.

[Flasch186]

Arles, thats not enough $ to stem the blood short term. It truly isnt. PLUS you need to reinstill confidence that the amount is enough to help the country through this. If you dont effect the psychology youre missing a pillar of the issue.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Arles, thats not enough $ to stem the blood short term. It truly isnt. PLUS you need to reinstill confidence that the amount is enough to help the country through this. If you dont effect the psychology youre missing a pillar of the issue.

But isn't that the amount this bill would actually give for the short term?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Why do Dems dwell on the past? We are in Iraq, and we have to do it right. Did we screw up on it? Of course. However, we bought it, we broke it, now let's try to fix it. Learn from the past, but focus on the present and future. Same thing with the economy. I get this feeling from Obama (today's speech supported this).

You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.

Oh wait, you were right, but let's not focus on the past.

Heh.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Arles, thats not enough $ to stem the blood short term. It truly isnt. PLUS you need to reinstill confidence that the amount is enough to help the country through this. If you dont effect the psychology youre missing a pillar of the issue.

Even the most generous of plans only had around $250 billion going out first (with the changed one now in the 150-200 range). So, if $200 billion isn't enough for the short term, the current bill that was just rejected won't do any good.

[GrantDawg]

Watched CNN for most of the day, then flipped it over to Fox News. Wow. You know it is one thing for a commentator to say that this bill failed because of Obama's lack of leadership, but when it is a reporter stating it as fact....

The other thing interesting to me is it seems everyone they have had on (right/left, whatever) is for this getting passed.

[Arles]

yeah, it's quite amazing. Everyone is saying this needs to get passed but most don't want to vote for it

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Arles

yeah, it's quite amazing. Everyone is saying this needs to get passed but most don't want to vote for it

That's because no one wants to be out in the cold without the political CYA. Bunch of bastards.. (both sides)

[GrantDawg]

BTW, this whole thing of "Barak's not doing enough" and "McCain's not doing enough"....it is pretty evident what happened here. McCain thought he could at least appear to take charge and take credit for getting this plan done and be all Presidential. But a) He over-played his hand by suspending his campaign and trying to cancel the debate. It ended up being very unpopular. b) He got there and saw the deal that was and then wasn't. He wasn't forging any consensus among the house GOP and anybody. c) His people started pointing out to him this bill is very unpopular. If he leads the way on this, he will get the blame for it.

So now it is, "The Dems have the vote. Just let them pass it." The GOP would love Obama to go in to take the lead on this, and let be all over him. And as for Obama? He wants it passed, but don't expect him to openly stump on it. He doesn't want this to be the "Obama plan" any more than McCain wants this to be the "McCain plan".

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.

Oh wait, you were right, but let's not focus on the past.

Heh.

I don't mean forget the past. But if your in a mess, put forth a plan to get out of it. Just don't dwell on it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

But isn't that the amount this bill would actually give for the short term?

no, you left out the confidence issue. without the confidence issue the amount of $ goes up, exponentially. IOW, after today's debacle the amount needed actually goes up from yesterday. We lost a trillion in Mkt value, today.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

no, you left out the confidence issue. without the confidence issue the amount of $ goes up, exponentially. IOW, after today's debacle the amount needed actually goes up from yesterday. We lost a trillion in Mkt value, today.

And I thought this was to stop the bleeding on the credit issue, not artificially prop up the markets.

[Flasch186]

The markets are simply a window and for those who dont know (perhaps you Arles) the stock market is just a small window. the Credit Market, TAF/R auctions, Credit default swaps, the fact that 4 institutions were taken over today in foreign countries (not including N. Rock months ago), LIBOR rates, etc.. Watch when Asian markets open.

Dont prop up a strawman when one doesnt exist. Take your queues from going to mall if you want or drive up and down the street and look at vacancies in strip malls, how about foreclosures (look closely, the lawns are overgrown, no blinds in the windows, business cards stuck in the fram of the front door), and you can file that in your journal. If you want it easier just watch CNBC.

I believe until I shut down the Financials thread I said the dollar would strengthen (it did), I said oil would pop (it has), I warned NoSkillz on the commodities bubble (i was right), my problem isnt knowledge it's patience and bankroll.

Anyways, how this effects the Pres. race? IMO, CRUSHING to McCain.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

no, you left out the confidence issue. without the confidence issue the amount of $ goes up, exponentially. IOW, after today's debacle the amount needed actually goes up from yesterday. We lost a trillion in Mkt value, today.

It does not. The amount is the bad loans, not market inflation. I didn't leave ouot the confidence issue either. Reread the proposal Arles gave. Paulson is asking for 250 billion right now. Give him that. Then you work on the rest and have it when it is needed.

[timmynausea]

Based on the recent polls, Obama appears to be pulling away in Pennsylvania with an RCP average now at +5.5. Despite his gain in national polls over the past week, though, most of the other toss-up states appear to be pretty much as close as ever. The most surprising thing to me is that both the recent North Carolina polls are Obama +2.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

It does not. The amount is the bad loans, not market inflation. I didn't leave ouot the confidence issue either. Reread the proposal Arles gave. Paulson is asking for 250 billion right now. Give him that. Then you work on the rest and have it when it is needed.

Im sorry, I disagree. He asked for 700b and they countered w/ 250b tethered which he said, 'ok' to. We lost 1.4 trillion in mkt cap and an immeasurable amount of confidence, today. The tab just went up IMO.

[larrymcg421]

Fox News/Rasmussen (LV)

PA: Obama 50-42
OH: McCain 48-47
FL: Tie 47-47
VA: Obama 50-47
CO: Obama 49-48

For Obama, it's looking pretty good. He has to hold PA (and the rest of the Kerry states) and just win one of these other four states. (This is assuming he's already gonna steal IA and NM, which seems very probably at this point.)

For McCain, not looking quite as good. He's got to win those bottom four states or find a Kerry state to pick off. NH is looking possible at this point, but that won't be enough (the best it will do is give him a 269-269 tie.)

Of course, I expect things to shift wildly over the next few days as the public reacts to the financial crisis and then the VP debate on Thursday.

[Flasch186]

VP debate is Thursday, I think.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Based on the recent polls, Obama appears to be pulling away in Pennsylvania with an RCP average now at +5.5. Despite his gain in national polls over the past week, though, most of the other toss-up states appear to be pretty much as close as ever. The most surprising thing to me is that both the recent North Carolina polls are Obama +2.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama

The RCP averages react slowly since state polling is done so infrequently that old polls are still on the books. For instance, Obama only recently took the RCP lead in North Carolina because a +17 McCain poll from Sep 10th finally fell off the averages.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

VP debate is Thursday, I think.

Yeah. Gonna be interesting. I hope they both say something really stupid.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The markets are simply a window and for those who dont know (perhaps you Arles) the stock market is just a small window. the Credit Market, TAF/R auctions, Credit default swaps, the fact that 4 institutions were taken over today in foreign countries (not including N. Rock months ago), LIBOR rates, etc.. Watch when Asian markets open.

As someone who works for a US arm in a Japanese company, I'm well aware of the impacts to Asia. As you should know, the Asian markets already opened and it wasn't nearly as bad as many had predicted:

World markets fall as US bailout seen taking time - Yahoo! News

Dont prop up a strawman when one doesnt exist. Take your queues from going to mall if you want or drive up and down the street and look at vacancies in strip malls, how about foreclosures (look closely, the lawns are overgrown, no blinds in the windows, business cards stuck in the fram of the front door), and you can file that in your journal. If you want it easier just watch CNBC.

That's OK, I prefer to talk down to people when discussion things. It makes me feel more "right"

I believe until I shut down the Financials thread I said the dollar would strengthen (it did), I said oil would pop (it has), I warned NoSkillz on the commodities bubble (i was right), my problem isnt knowledge it's patience and bankroll.

I bolded the important part. Just get enough cash into the situation to start the credit cleanup (as many said, $200 million would be plenty) and then hammer out the rest over the next few months. Regardless of what congress does in the next three days, the Dow will be back over 11,000 by Thanksgiving and all will be fine. The world markets will also recover independent of whether it's a $100-200 billion now and a different bill later or whether it's the full $700 billion.

The biggest issue is to the world right now is fear about US unemployment going up (which was there before this whole banking thing started). If US demands on imported goods go down, that will hurt the world.

Anyways, how this effects the Pres. race? IMO, CRUSHING to McCain.

I'm just glad to see you can be objective on all this and not take sides when looking at the facts.

[SirFozzie]

Arlie: Except that with 25% more of people trusting Obama over McCain when it comes to economic issues, you have to think that this IS a problem for McCain

[larrymcg421]

Another interesting thing on RCP is their current electoral map has Obama at 249 without tossups. That means he has a RCPO average of +3 or higher in states with 249 electoral votes. They currently have him winning IA, NM, and CO among Bush states. From there, his winning scenarios would be:

*Florida by itself gives him 276
*Ohio by itself gives him 269 and the House elects him.
*NC and Nevada gives him 269 and the House elects him.
*Winning any two of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, and North Carolina gives him between 269-277 electoral votes.

What's interesting is that many of these scenarios come without Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire, all of which are currently listed as tossups. So there are plausible winning scenarios where he could lose three Kerry states and still win the election. That would have been unthinkable earlier on.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Arlie: Except that with 25% more of people trusting Obama over McCain when it comes to economic issues, you have to think that this IS a problem for McCain

IMO, McCain's pretty much done unless the "I won't vote for a black guy" thing is way under blown. If the republicans continue to handle this the right way, he will probably lose. IMO, that's fine. It's more important to make sure we don't panic and make a terrible decision on this bailout and have Obama as president than quickly get a bill through to help McCain.

This bailout is becoming the economic version of going into Iraq back in 2003. Once it's done, we have to face the bill and it won't be pretty. I'd rather get this right and have Obama as president than rush through and get an albatross around our neck for the next 4-7 years.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

As someone who works for a US arm in a Japanese company, I'm well aware of the impacts to Asia. As you should know, the Asian markets already opened and it wasn't nearly as bad as many had predicted:

World markets fall as US bailout seen taking time - Yahoo! News


That's OK, I prefer to talk down to people when discussion things. It makes me feel more "right"


I bolded the important part. Just get enough cash into the situation to start the credit cleanup (as many said, $200 million would be plenty) and then hammer out the rest over the next few months. Regardless of what congress does in the next three days, the Dow will be back over 11,000 by Thanksgiving and all will be fine. The world markets will also recover independent of whether it's a $100-200 billion now and a different bill later or whether it's the full $700 billion.

The biggest issue is to the world right now is fear about US unemployment going up (which was there before this whole banking thing started). If US demands on imported goods go down, that will hurt the world.

I'm just glad to see you can be objective on all this and not take sides when looking at the facts.

It has nothing to do with anything other than my consistent analysis that aligns with the polling that the economic crisis hurts McCain. this was doubled down upon by his 'pausing the campaign' move. IMO it didnt work and over the next week that will get more and more airtime in the mainstream media. Hence the 'crushing' part. Honestly I dont know he'll shed that since most American's polled already viewed it in this light prior to the past week.

My analysis of the situation as I see it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Arlie: Except that with 25% more of people trusting Obama over McCain when it comes to economic issues, you have to think that this IS a problem for McCain

thank you. It wasn't bias, it was analysis and polling (if you call the polling factual).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

IMO, McCain's pretty much done unless the "I won't vote for a black guy" thing is way under blown. If the republicans continue to handle this the right way, he will probably lose. IMO, that's fine. It's more important to make sure we don't panic and make a terrible decision on this bailout and have Obama as president than quickly get a bill through to help McCain.

This bailout is becoming the economic version of going into Iraq back in 2003. Once it's done, we have to face the bill and it won't be pretty. I'd rather get this right and have Obama as president than rush through and get an albatross around our neck for the next 4-7 years.

I didnt see this post before responding to your partisan comment. We agree I see and you see it isn't bias.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Arles

IMO, McCain's pretty much done unless the "I won't vote for a black guy" thing is way under blown. If the republicans continue to handle this the right way, he will probably lose. IMO, that's fine. It's more important to make sure we don't panic and make a terrible decision on this bailout and have Obama as president than quickly get a bill through to help McCain.

This bailout is becoming the economic version of going into Iraq back in 2003. Once it's done, we have to face the bill and it won't be pretty. I'd rather get this right and have Obama as president than rush through and get an albatross around our neck for the next 4-7 years.

I'm totally with you (except I am a Obama supporter, so that's a good bonus).

[gstelmack]

What ticks me off reading the reports today is all the finger-pointing, especially by Dems at Repubs. Dems, you CONTROL the House, and only 60% of your side voted for it. You could have past this all on your own without a single republican voting for it. Why did 40% of your own party's reps reject it?

[Flasch186]

because the entire house wanted it to be bipartisan (maybe for 'who's willing to walk the plank' sake) and somewhat of a mandate to the US (confidence, I dont know if you all understand it's importance) and to the world.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

What ticks me off reading the reports today is all the finger-pointing, especially by Dems at Repubs. Dems, you CONTROL the House, and only 60% of your side voted for it. You could have past this all on your own without a single republican voting for it. Why did 40% of your own party's reps reject it?

Already answered. It was a brokered deal that both parties would vote 50-50, so that it is a bipartisan effort. The Dems did, and Rep didn't.

[Flasch186]

because it's not a 'sure thing' that it will save us (Y2J) but it's the best thing we have going at the moment and the moment is very very very tenuous and short.

[GrantDawg]

Btw, I was just watching Rove rant on that point. "Peloise couldn't even get so and so to vote this bill..." etc. etc. The thing is, she by agreement wasn't supposed to need their vote. It is actually becoming pretty clear the Republicans wants this to become completely on the the Dems to help steal seats in the House. What's more important, doing the right thing or getting more power? In politics, the answer is always power.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

What ticks me off reading the reports today is all the finger-pointing, especially by Dems at Repubs.

Even though the bill was going to pass before Republicans took their ball and went home after Nancy Pelosi was mean to them?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

What ticks me off reading the reports today is all the finger-pointing, especially by Dems at Repubs. Dems, you CONTROL the House, and only 60% of your side voted for it. You could have past this all on your own without a single republican voting for it. Why did 40% of your own party's reps reject it?

Prior posters have good points, but don't underestimate the political end. If every day this bill wasn't passed hurt Obama instead of McCain, the democrats
probably would have forced it through. However, they now can say they are "trying" and wait for a full bipartisan bill knowing most of the full fallout will impact McCain.

[Flasch186]

What? They delivered more than the votes needed on their side of the "bargain already brokered". They did MORE than the agreement called for. The GOP balked at the moment of no return which is crazy since they couldve balked hours prior. The conspiracy theory would be the GOP sabotaged McCain. Tonight would be completely different if the GOP just did what they said they'd do.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

What? They delivered more than the votes needed on their side of the "bargain already brokered". They did MORE than the agreement called for. The GOP balked at the moment of no return which is crazy since they couldve balked hours prior. The conspiracy theory would be the GOP sabotaged McCain. Tonight would be completely different if the GOP just did what they said they'd do.

No doubt. They decided to save their own asses, and left McCain hanging.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

What? They delivered more than the votes needed on their side of the "bargain already brokered". They did MORE than the agreement called for. The GOP balked at the moment of no return which is crazy since they couldve balked hours prior. The conspiracy theory would be the GOP sabotaged McCain. Tonight would be completely different if the GOP just did what they said they'd do.

So there was a deal where neither side hung their ass out on the line while still passing the bill? Fabulous stuff.

If you don't believe in the bill, don't vote for it. If you do, vote for it. It's a simple system. The Democrats put a bill out there that their own party couldn't even fully support, then bitched when it didn't pass and pointed fingers. There's only one party in Congress that could decide to block or pass this bill and it was the Democrats. If the bill was all that, they should have voted for it. Instead, they tossed up a half-ass bill with half-ass support and acted shocked that it didn't pass. It rings very hollow.

[Flasch186]

youre ignoring a very critical thing, convenientally. this bill needs to be passed by equal sides to instill confidence to the people (who dont pay attentioin to the intricacies) like we do, and those in the rest of the world, that the entire gov't, both parties, are paying attention, and neither side wants to assume total risk since the bill isn't a 'sure thing'. Think what you want, blame whomever you want, but that is a fact and the fact that the GOP didnt deliver what they said they would in the back hall will have us all suffer the consequences, unless something gets passed quickly, and when i say quickly, i mean Quarter ends in the next week and numbers report the following.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

Interesting enough, sometimes the majority just has to stomach a bad pill for the good of the country. The republicans did it in the mid 90s and early 2000s, now it seems that is the democrats turn to do so. Welcome to the responsibility of being the majority.

Could you point me to a couple of things that were unpopular at the time that the GOP did from, say, 1997-2005, for the good of the country? I'm just looking for, let's throw out there, 3. And not something that was popular at the time and unpopular after (like Iraq). But something unpopular with the whole country (not just Dems) where the GOP congress bravely bit the bullet?

SI

[Flasch186]

'Ill find one and get back to ya.' - Tina Fey

[DaddyTorgo]

Flasch - you'll never convince those on the right of the necessity of it being a brokered deal. they will continue to buy into the "spin" of the right that the dems shoulda passed it on their own without any republican involvement, notwithstanding the fact that a 50/50 deal was agreed upon and the house republicans essentially backed out at the last minute.

you can talk till you're blue in the face but there will be continue to be a segment that thinks that the party in power should have pushed it through without the other side.

[Mac Howard]

Neither party comes out of this with any credit. Two thirds of Republicans put their ideology and a third of democrats their re-election before the interests of the American people. The American people themselves appear to be staggeringly ignorant of the seriousness of the current financial situation.

It's like watching a train wreck - unfortunately I suspect I'm on one of the later carriages just waiting for the impact!

700 billion? You just lost 1.2 trillion in one day! Even if you don't have shares then your pension plans, health schemes etc. are all paying for this.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Could you point me to a couple of things that were unpopular at the time that the GOP did from, say, 1997-2005, for the good of the country? I'm just looking for, let's throw out there, 3. And not something that was popular at the time and unpopular after (like Iraq). But something unpopular with the whole country (not just Dems) where the GOP congress bravely bit the bullet?

SI

I was referring to the government shutdown of 1995, which many attribute to costing Gingrich re-election and Dole a real chance at the presidency.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

'Ill find one and get back to ya.' - Tina Fey

I think you've officially become the court jester of this thread. Well done!

[Flasch186]

oh comeon that scene was funny as heck, you gotta admit.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So there was a deal where neither side hung their ass out on the line while still passing the bill? Fabulous stuff.

If you don't believe in the bill, don't vote for it. If you do, vote for it. It's a simple system. The Democrats put a bill out there that their own party couldn't even fully support, then bitched when it didn't pass and pointed fingers. There's only one party in Congress that could decide to block or pass this bill and it was the Democrats. If the bill was all that, they should have voted for it. Instead, they tossed up a half-ass bill with half-ass support and acted shocked that it didn't pass. It rings very hollow.

That's not at all what happened. The bill was negotiated between the WH, the Senate and the House. The bill voted on today contained concessions designed to placate each group. When it came time to vote the House Republicans either couldn't carry out their promised number of votes or backed out.

If the Dems want to pass a bill they can, but it will contain a hell of a lot of language that House and Senate Republicans would find unacceptable. I still don't know if the bill was worth passing, but the days of negotiations were aimed at getting enough of a unified front so that nobody would take the entirety of the heat.