Mccain votes for bailout bill with more pork?

keithjam

Isn't it true that to make the bailout bill more palatable for house republicans the bill was changed to add more pork?

Doesn't John Mccain hate pork? Why did he vote for the bill? He didn't let us know the names of the people who put the pork in the bill. He is just another politician with big promises and no follow through.

jimed14

keithjam wrote:

Isn't it true that to make the bailout bill more palatable for house republicans the bill was changed to add more pork?

Doesn't John Mccain hate pork? Why did he vote for the bill? He didn't let us know the names of the people who put the pork in the bill. He is just another politician with big promises and no follow through.

man, he really fucked himself by the "suspending the campaign" dramatics ... kind of pinned himself into a corner for getting this done ...

Honestly, I think he really could have changed the tide of this election by standing up and going against this bill, citing the pork as his reason ... would have been the popular thing to do ... so, maybe he is putting country first?

He baffles me. I think he baffles a lot of people. I think he's confused ... like cenile confused.

DriftingByTheStorm

keithjam wrote:

Isn't it true that to make the bailout bill more palatable for house republicans the bill was changed to add more pork?

Doesn't John Mccain hate pork? Why did he vote for the bill? He didn't let us know the names of the people who put the pork in the bill. He is just another politician with big promises and no follow through.

Because if this bill doesn't pass today, the DOW is losing another 1000 points, and the credit markets will no longer look like markets.

Banks are already denying borrowers with 680 credit scores for car loans.

inmytree

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Because if this bill doesn't pass today, the DOW is losing another 1000 points, and the credit markets will no longer look like markets.

Banks are already denying borrowers with 680 credit scores for car loans.

so what...? perhaps that person with a 680 should save some money and buy the car outright or buy a cheaper car...

and correct me if I'm wrong...the market goes up and down, plus there is no guaranteed return on any investment...Right..?

DriftingByTheStorm

inmytree wrote:

so what...? perhaps that person with a 680 should save some money and buy the car outright or buy a cheaper car...

and correct me if I'm wrong...the market goes up and down, plus there is no guaranteed return on any investment...Right..?

I'm using benchmarks brotha.

How about this.
The STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS NOW ABOUT TO ASK THE FED FOR BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE IT CAN'T COME UP WITH SHORT TERM FINANCING FOR GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS.

Look.
I'm sick of this denialist shit.
I don't give a fuck if we go down in a blaze of fire or rise like a phoenix.

I just can't stand listening to people on here act all self richeous like there are no LEGITIMATE concerns in all of this.

The COST of NOT doing this bailout could VERY EASILY EXCEED the cost of DOING it.

In fact, by SOME estimates it ALREADY HAS.

So say whatever you want to say,
but just know there are VERY REAL credit problems out there,
and the markets are VERY UNSTABLE right now,
and all this "big deal, so what" talk is irresponsible to say the least.

If you want to at LEAST acknowledge that there are some MAJOR concerns here, but you STILL don't want a bail out passed, maybe we can come to terms.

But this richeous attitude like there is no big hub bub is just flat shameful.

mammasan

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I'm using benchmarks brotha.

How about this.
The STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS NOW ABOUT TO ASK THE FED FOR BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE IT CAN'T COME UP WITH SHORT TERM FINANCING FOR GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS.

Look.
I'm sick of this denialist shit.
I don't give a fuck if we go down in a blaze of fire or rise like a phoenix.

I just can't stand listening to people on here act all self richeous like there are no LEGITIMATE concerns in all of this.

The COST of NOT doing this bailout could VERY EASILY EXCEED the cost of DOING it.

In fact, by SOME estimates it ALREADY HAS.

So say whatever you want to say,
but just know there are VERY REAL credit problems out there,
and the markets are VERY UNSTABLE right now,
and all this "big deal, so what" talk is irresponsible to say the least.

If you want to at LEAST acknowledge that there are some MAJOR concerns here, but you STILL don't want a bail out passed, maybe we can come to terms.

But this richeous attitude like there is no big hub bub is just flat shameful.

The cost of inaction will definitely be greater than the cost of the bailout, but myself for example, believe that the bailout is not the answer. I'm not saying we should do nothing and act like Nero while Rome was burning.

DriftingByTheStorm

mammasan wrote:

The cost of inaction will definitely be greater than the cost of the bailout, but myself for example, believe that the bailout is not the answer. I'm not saying we should do nothing and act like Nero while Rome was burning.

and i have NO problem with THAT argument.

What gets me here is i am seeing a LOT of people on here who have their heads so buried that they do not even understand the magnitude of the possible ramifications of this, and yet claim that the whole thing is a bunch of bullshit, and we should vote against it.

All i am saying is if you are going to argue against this thing, you should at LEAST understand the TRUE ramifications of what that means for the US and global economy.

But to sit here and say, "ah fuck, people just need to save more money to buy a car" is so fucking far off the chart insane it scares me.

This shit is going to BLOW UP IN OUR FACES a thousand different ways.
A guy was just on CNBC back from a trip to meet with Chinese diplomats, and he said they were aggressively concerned, and asking "tough questions" and demanding solutions.

The world is getting pissed off at us.
If we fuck this up, there could be (WILL be) not only serious financial fallout, but also potentially violent geopolitical fallout.

And we aren't even going to get in to the potential catastrophes of the bond\treasury situation with respect to this. But there IS the POSSIBILITY that if shit gets any more hairy that investors could lose faith in the US Government itself. Again, that is way out speculative stuff, but its certainly on the table at this point.

So if you want to argue against this thing, just be coherent in your points, and make sure you understand that this isn't just some stock exchange problem. This will be a massive mind fuck to EVERYONE everywhere.

Again: NOT DOING ANYTHING IS EXACTLY HOW THE GREAT DEPRESSION HAPPENED, AND THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THIS SCENARIO IS ANY DIFFERENT ... IN FACT IT IS ARGUABLY WORSE.

Pacomc79

mammasan wrote:

The cost of inaction will definitely be greater than the cost of the bailout, but myself for example, believe that the bailout is not the answer. I'm not saying we should do nothing and act like Nero while Rome was burning.

Harumph.... and I was all ready to ship you my lyre.

mammasan

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Again: NOT DOING ANYTHING IS EXACTLY HOW THE GREAT DEPRESSION HAPPENED, AND THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THIS SCENARIO IS ANY DIFFERENT ... IN FACT IT IS ARGUABLY WORSE.

Well couldn't it be argued that the government's actions during the Great Depression may have made matters worse.

DriftingByTheStorm

mammasan wrote:

Well couldn't it be argued that the government's actions during the Great Depression may have made matters worse.

If you are talking about the NIRA, then yes.
But as far as fiscal policy goes, they DID NOTHING.

And that is most often cited as the reason for the severity of the situation.
There was a deep and protracted contraction of the money supply. It went down about 25% in 2 years, and stayed down for almost 10.

This bill is aimed at addressing part of that problem.

I'm not passing judgement on it, or advocating for it.
I'm just trying to make people aware of what is going on, right or wrong.

mammasan

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

If you are talking about the NIRA, then yes.
But as far as fiscal policy goes, they DID NOTHING.

And that is most often cited as the reason for the severity of the situation.
There was a deep and protracted contraction of the money supply. It went down about 25% in 2 years, and stayed down for almost 10.

This bill is aimed at addressing part of that problem.

I'm not passing judgement on it, or advocating for it.
I'm just trying to make people aware of what is going on, right or wrong.

Well we can both agree that something needs to be done. A total credit freeze is not in the best interest of the public and I thing many people haven't starting feeling the crunch yet, which probably accounts for their unconcerned attitude to the issue.

inmytree

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

and i have NO problem with THAT argument.

What gets me here is i am seeing a LOT of people on here who have their heads so buried that they do not even understand the magnitude of the possible ramifications of this, and yet claim that the whole thing is a bunch of bullshit, and we should vote against it.

All i am saying is if you are going to argue against this thing, you should at LEAST understand the TRUE ramifications of what that means for the US and global economy.

But to sit here and say, "ah fuck, people just need to save more money to buy a car" is so fucking far off the chart insane it scares me.

This shit is going to BLOW UP IN OUR FACES a thousand different ways.
A guy was just on CNBC back from a trip to meet with Chinese diplomats, and he said they were aggressively concerned, and asking "tough questions" and demanding solutions.

The world is getting pissed off at us.
If we fuck this up, there could be (WILL be) not only serious financial fallout, but also potentially violent geopolitical fallout.

And we aren't even going to get in to the potential catastrophes of the bond\treasury situation with respect to this. But there IS the POSSIBILITY that if shit gets any more hairy that investors could lose faith in the US Government itself. Again, that is way out speculative stuff, but its certainly on the table at this point.

So if you want to argue against this thing, just be coherent in your points, and make sure you understand that this isn't just some stock exchange problem. This will be a massive mind fuck to EVERYONE everywhere.

Again: NOT DOING ANYTHING IS EXACTLY HOW THE GREAT DEPRESSION HAPPENED, AND THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THIS SCENARIO IS ANY DIFFERENT ... IN FACT IT IS ARGUABLY WORSE.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say we shouldn't do anything...of course, you can assume I said that, but that's up to you...

I keep hearing all this doom and gloom, this "oh no, the sky is falling"....well, just today, Citi's bid for Wachovia fell through, and won't need gov't intervention...I guess the market can fix it...

And I stand by my point, if someone can't get a loan, so what...? make other plans...buy a used car...save some god damn money...680 sucks for a credit score...that's on them and the choices they made...

and I'd be willing to bet with a 680 they could get a loan, but there rate would be fairly high, and they may have to put some money down...:eek:

I see this current crisis as fall out from the bursting of the housing bubble...and the rise in energy prices and food prices...people are tapped out...we are already in a recession....trust me, they'll be saying so in couple weeks...this bailout will not stop this...

the days of easy money are over and should have been over a long time ago...

I'm sorry, I don't buy the doom and gloom, I'm sorry I think this is not a "crisis" and I'm sorry that I see this as a simple money-grab by the powers that be...

DriftingByTheStorm

inmytree wrote:

I keep hearing all this doom and gloom, this "oh no, the sky is falling"....well, just today, Citi's bid for Wachovia fell through, and won't need gov't intervention...I guess the market can fix it...

Actually, it didn't "fall through".
Wachovia broke their "exclusivity agreement" with Citi, and is now in talks with Wells Fargo to be bought by them instead. And Citi is getting ready to sue them for it.

So you've distorted that issue.

And you've totally ignored every story i've posted for you showing you legitimate credit concerns. Three of the most prominent being a state government that can't float bonds, General Electric which can't roll over short term credit, and The State Of California, which now is trying to borrow 7 Billion from the Federal Government.

But you flat ignore those stories, and fixate myopicaly on consumers looking to upgrade their lexus.
:rolleyes:

You need to at least acknowledge that the bleak picture here extends just a "bit" further than some poor shmuck looking to buy a hot ride on credit.

If you can manage that much, we might be able to reach consensus on the issue.

And just so you know i'm not totally against your position, i do NOT disagree about this being a powergrab. It IS. But it is ALSO coincidentally in the interest of the everyman to get this done. It is just the unfortunate reality we are faced with.

I'm not sure you really understand the screw trap that the banking sector has us in. If you want to talk about a powergrab, why don't you look back to the Federal Reserve act itself, and realize that the WHOLE SYSTEM is a giant powergrab DESIGNED TO FACILITATE THIS PROCESS.

This bailout isn't some anomalous occurrence that we stumbled in to. It is the end result of a system engineered to off-put the responsibility and liability of the large banking titans on to the general public, and designed TO MAKE IT NECESSARY (or, as you argue, seemingly so).

But make no mistake that a failure to reach some agreement on how to flush this out will result in further pain for everyone.

Whether you agree with it on principle or not.

inmytree

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Actually, it didn't "fall through".
Wachovia broke their "exclusivity agreement" with Citi, and is now in talks with Wells Fargo to be bought by them instead. And Citi is getting ready to sue them for it.

So you've distorted that issue.

And you've totally ignored every story i've posted for you showing you legitimate credit concerns. Three of the most prominent being a state government that can't float bonds, General Electric which can't roll over short term credit, and The State Of California, which now is trying to borrow 7 Billion from the Federal Government.

But you flat ignore those stories, and fixate myopicaly on consumers looking to upgrade their lexus.
:rolleyes:

You need to at least acknowledge that the bleak picture here extends just a "bit" further than some poor shmuck looking to buy a hot ride on credit.

If you can manage that much, we might be able to reach consensus on the issue.

And just so you know i'm not totally against your position, i do NOT disagree about this being a powergrab. It IS. But it is ALSO coincidentally in the interest of the everyman to get this done. It is just the unfortunate reality we are faced with.

I'm not sure you really understand the screw trap that the banking sector has us in. If you want to talk about a powergrab, why don't you look back to the Federal Reserve act itself, and realize that the WHOLE SYSTEM is a giant powergrab DESIGNED TO FACILITATE THIS PROCESS.

This bailout isn't some anomalous occurrence that we stumbled in to. It is the end result of a system engineered to off-put the responsibility and liability of the large banking titans on to the general public, and designed TO MAKE IT NECESSARY (or, as you argue, seemingly so).

But make no mistake that a failure to reach some agreement on how to flush this out will result in further pain for everyone.

Whether you agree with it on principle or not.

fine...it did not "fall through"....how about this, the deal has not be finalized and it may get done with gov't intervention, thus the market will take care of it...

how about skipping the condescending bullshit...you act if your some king know-it-all...if your so fucking smart, then quit responding to me...how about that...

yes, I understand this situation is dire...but this ballout will do nothing to address the credit situation...I've yet to see any evidence of anyone being denied credit...not one example....just conjecture, just a bunch of chicken little bullshit...

thus, it's you who is distorting this situation...

I contend, what we are seeing now is a correction....albeit a hard one...but a correction....plain and simple...

when I invest, I know something....there is no garentee that I will see a return on my investment....I guess that's too much for some to stomach..

sometimes, in order to grow, something has to shrink....stick that one in you're pipe and smoke it...

sweet adeline

it would be cool if one of them said, "to quote jules winnfield from pulp fiction: i don't dig on swine."

hitman23

keithjam wrote:

Isn't it true that to make the bailout bill more palatable for house republicans the bill was changed to add more pork?

Doesn't John Mccain hate pork? Why did he vote for the bill? He didn't let us know the names of the people who put the pork in the bill. He is just another politician with big promises and no follow through.

Didn't Obama and Biden vote yes as well? They could have voted against it too. If they felt there was too much pork in the bill, they could have said "hold on - there's too much pork in here - we're voting no". But they didn't. Why not mention that?

That says you are probably a close minded person who just wants to bash McCain.

OlDiamondback

hitman23 wrote:

Didn't Obama and Biden vote yes as well? They could have voted against it too. If they felt there was too much pork in the bill, they could have said "hold on - there's too much pork in here - we're voting no". But they didn't. Why not mention that?

That says you are probably a close minded person who just wants to bash McCain.

"I got an old ink pen, my friends, and the first pork barrel-laden earmark,
big-spending bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. You will know their
names. I will make them famous and we’ll stop this corruption,"

I wonder if he were President, would he veto this bill? I mean, he is a man of his word. Right?

Give me a break.

mammasan

hitman23 wrote:

Didn't Obama and Biden vote yes as well? They could have voted against it too. If they felt there was too much pork in the bill, they could have said "hold on - there's too much pork in here - we're voting no". But they didn't. Why not mention that?

That says you are probably a close minded person who just wants to bash McCain.

While I'm equally disappointed in Obama and Biden for voting yes, McCain is another story. He has constantly, and it reflects in his record, been against pork barrel spending, so why not stick to his guns now. Why approve a bill that is overloaded with earmarks? It exemplifies another poor decision, in a line of poor decisions, by John McCain.

hitman23

mammasan wrote:

While I'm equally disappointed in Obama and Biden for voting yes, McCain is another story. He has constantly, and it reflects in his record, been against pork barrel spending, so why not stick to his guns now. Why approve a bill that is overloaded with earmarks? It exemplifies another poor decision, in a line of poor decisions, by John McCain.

You said it perfectly! That was my point. I too am disappointed in all for voting on it, but the original poster made it seem like Obama and Biden voted against it.

I'm just saying lay out everything, not just the side you are against.

JSBE

Ol'Diamondback wrote:

"I got an old ink pen, my friends, and the first pork barrel-laden earmark, big-spending bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. You will know their names. I will make them famous and we’ll stop this corruption."

i believe this is the OP's point, a direct quote from the first presidential debate. i also believe that the OP was pointing out that it is hypocritical for mccain, who is SO against "pork barrel" spending in washington votes yes on this bill. i mean, if he is supposedly SO against pork, why did he vote yes?

DriftingByTheStorm

inmytree wrote:

yes, I understand this situation is dire...

Really.
Because that wasn't the tune you were singing 5 minutes ago.

inmytree wrote:

...but this ballout will do nothing to address the credit situation...

And besides hot air, what is that statement based on?

inmytree wrote:

...I've yet to see any evidence of anyone being denied credit...not one example....just conjecture, just a bunch of chicken little bullshit...

What part of THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CAN'T GET CREDIT TO PAY 7 BILLION IN BILLS didn't you understand, buck-o?

Or the story about GE (formaly thought of as one of the most sound companies in the world) NOT BEING ABLE TO GET SHORT TERM CREDIT, and needing to sell stock to cover the balance?

I gave you 4 or 5 solid articles, which you patently dismissed.
It's not my fault you don't want to see what is in front of you.

inmytree wrote:

thus, it's you who is distorting this situation...

:rolleyes:

sure, buddy.