Wednesday, October 8, 2008

A Liberal Move by McCain

John McCain proposed that government use $300 billion dollars of the $700 billion dollar bailout package to buy up bad mortgages and re-negotiate these mortgages so homeowners who would otherwise face foreclosure would be able to stay in their homes. This was one of the first things he talked about in the debate last night, and it is something that conservatives should not be happy about. For obvious reasons, this is something that liberals have pushed for a long time. It is a step away from Conservatism towards Liberalism. I can understand how he would lean towards ‘bailing out’ homeowners instead of bailing out large corporations, but that is not the bill he voted for. The bill he voted for does not include this provision. We need people in Washington who will speak up about the changes they would like to see in a bill BEFORE they approve the bill. If you are a “conservative” who is going to approve a bailout bill (I don’t see how you can call yourself a conservative when you vote for a bill with such huge tax implications for the taxpayer) you would think that this idea would be brought up and debated before it is approved. I am calling out McCain on this one, even though his support of the bailout is cause enough to be unhappy with his economic policies.


jpberthiaume said...

The bailout was bad, but when you look at it politically you can understand why he didn't try to tack this mortgage buyout onto the bill last week. The buyout already didn't have great Republican support, and if he puts a halt to his campaign in order to "work on" the bill and then stands in the way by trying to add another $300 billion into it, it entirely blows up in his face and he is seen as more irrelevant than he already is (to whatever level that is).

Then again, a lot of Americans aren't that bright and maybe $1 trillion would have seemed like less than $700 billion (because 1 IS less than 700).

I'm not arguing with your premise -- just that politically it would have been harmful for either candidate to tack anything onto the bill that would have made it less likely to pass. You and I know it's bad, but most of America thinks "something" is better than "nothing."

Budsy Jean said...

Fortunately, a lot of Americans are finding out that: 1) They are a lot brighter than the politicians and elitists think they are (yes, most actually DO know the different between $1 trillion and $700 billion); 2) They have more control over their finances and their government than they think they do; and 3) They are realizing, quite painfully, that the fraudulent ideologies of the puppet show that is stringed before them by the two major parties are obviously completely disassociated with the reality of their everyday life.

I again agree with you, DC. The Reps and Dems have lived in the same 'fat cat' world as those on Wall Street. I've heard more and more of those lowly, ignorant, "not bright" people say that they would love to vote for a third party candidate because the two major parties are so out of touch with reality. ("How many houses do I have?" "$500,000 to $250,000 or less per year is middle class?") I thoroughly encourage them to check out the third parites. There are multiple ways to view an issue (not just two) and there is no such thing as a wasted vote!

I think that this will be an interesting election.

jpberthiaume said...

Well, if you have empirical evidence that people are brighter than I think, great -- I'd love to see it. All I know is that more than 50% of people currently say they are going to vote for Obama. Those people are way, way, way too far away from your third party candidates than they would need to be for you to even dream of wooing (and, quite frankly, probably don't know the proverbial difference between $1 trillion and $700 million).

I agree with 2 and 3, for the most part (there are decent candidates on each side, and one side has a decent platform that simply is not adhered to).

How many houses a person has is completely irrelevant, and many of them were investment-type houses. You might as well be asking "how many stocks" do you own. Bringing up ridiculous, pointless stuff like that is where people like you tend to lose people like me (who would consider voting "3rd party" if the "3rd party" were closer to the "2nd party). It shows that you, neither, are all that bright when it comes to political matters, and you aren't going to win elections on principle alone (you need to also be politically savvy, as sad as that is). You proclaim to be above the other two parties, but still sink to their level in your criticisms.

You can't convince me that voting for someone who has no chance of winning is anything but wasted votes. At the end of the day, you need to choose someone who has as close of priorities as you and who can win. Otherwise you risk letting things slide so far from your ideals that someone in the mold of John McCain looks GREAT in 4 years. If you elect John McCain, you are in a position, in four years, to say "we need to take where John McCain got us and go five steps further." Five steps from Obama is eons away from where you want to go. Voting for someone who can't win in November is going to damage everything you have worked for in getting the 3rd party to be considered.