Obama or McCain?

[Slickery]

Hillary

[GBSLambo]

Originally Posted by never gone

"I have a great belief that the fundamentals of our economy are very strong."

That statement alone by McCain scares the heck out of me. He also voted with Bush 98% of the time so I do NOT see how that will equate to any kind of change what so ever. Is Obama the second coming? Of course not but I do truly believe that of the 2 candidates, Obama really does want change. McCain will just be an extension of Bush and that would NOT be good imo.

The only real change Obama is going to bring is war to are door steps instead of overseas. He don't have experience at doing doing anything that matters. He really is scary.

[Heatgain]

Originally Posted by GBSLambo

The only real change Obama is going to bring is war to are door steps instead of overseas. He don't have experience at doing doing anything that matters. He really is scary.

Well said.

[User Name]

Originally Posted by GBSLambo

The only real change Obama is going to bring is war to are door steps instead of overseas. He don't have experience at doing doing anything that matters. He really is scary.

Yes, Hussein Obama will charter planes Air Force One from Afwanyastan to Amerika (both said with an accent) to bring the Talibans on our soil. Oh wait... who needs AF1, just go to Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn or Dearborn, Michigan and you can find many Talibans.

[lexusgs]

McCain also.

[lexusgs]

Originally Posted by never gone

"I have a great belief that the fundamentals of our economy are very strong."

That statement alone by McCain scares the heck out of me. He also voted with Bush 98% of the time so I do NOT see how that will equate to any kind of change what so ever. Is Obama the second coming? Of course not but I do truly believe that of the 2 candidates, Obama really does want change. McCain will just be an extension of Bush and that would NOT be good imo.

There is nothing scary about that statement as it is correct, people still have jobs to go to, government still functions, banks are still open and your money is not all gone, you can still get gas and go to the store to get food and supplies. That is what McCain meant and it is true until it was spun by the liberal media. He was trying to say this is a very serious issue and deserves out highest attention but our basic fundamentals are still strong and functioning and nothing to panic about or thing the sky is falling.

McCain did not vote with Bush 98% of the time. Where are you getting that? Even Democrats and Obama say he only voted 90% of the time, most of those votes were after 9/11 and for homeland security and other measures to keep America safe and fight terrorism and increase our military strength. McCain has disagreed with Bush and the Republican administration numerous times and is not afraid to take on his own party, he is not called a maverick for nothing and has a clear record of doing that. Obama on the other hand is the one who when he actually does vote on something instead showing no leadership and playing it safe with a "present" vote he has made 133 times while a Senator instead of yes or no votes consistently in the high 90 percentile with Democrats and is generally in the 97-98 percentile which was pointed out recently by George Stephanopolis during a interview. It is Obama who is the one with the highest one sided only agreement with his own Dem party and is the most liberal Senator with no history of siding against his party and very little history of even bi partisanship. The Democrats and Democratic Congress Obama consistantly sides with just about 100% of the time currently has a single digit 9% approval rating and would love to have Bushes approval rating which is in the mid to high 30 percentile rating. Keep in mind the economy was in pretty good shape before Democrats took over Congress 2 years ago and it has significantly faltured under a Democratic Congress compared to a thriving economy under Bush and a Republican Congress the previous 6 years despite a major terrorist attack in 2001 and 2 wars.

[crofa]

Wow!!!! Someone that has facts to back up his statements instead of repeating what the media puts out. Good job lexusgs. So, who will come back with different "facts" with the numbers to prove what lexusgs just said is wrong???

[Bunky]

Originally Posted by lexusgs

T Keep in mind the economy was in pretty good shape before Democrats took over Congress 2 years ago and it has significantly faltured under a Democratic Congress compared to a thriving economy under Bush and a Republican Congress the previous 6 years despite a major terrorist attack in 2001 and 2 wars.

I do not see how you can blame the democrats. It sounds you do not hold the Bush Administration accountable for anything.

The seeds of the current credit crisis started after the 9/11 when the Fed relaxed credit to prop up the economy and a manipulation of the market by the financial sector.

You can argue that we have not had a domestic attack but we have lost 4000+ serviceman in Iraq (more than lost in 9/11) and 30,000 more wounded. I think that warrants some note.

[Heatgain]

Originally Posted by crofa

Wow!!!! Someone that has facts to back up his statements instead of repeating what the media puts out. Good job lexusgs. So, who will come back with different "facts" with the numbers to prove what lexusgs just said is wrong???

I have two facts. Just to give you some perspective, the first election in which I was old enough to vote was Kennedy/Nixon.
Economically, I (and the US), have suffered under every Republican administration.
I have never seen my country so divided, so polarized, more than in the past 8 years.
That being said, I am far from an Obama fanatic, or even a Democrat fanatic, but I've had enough off the Republicans "trickling down" on me and the country. I just can't afford any more years of rich Republicans thriving while the country burns.
It's frightening to me when, if one opposes an administration's policies, one is branded by them as "Anti-American." I can't even understand how so many can swallow that drivel and parrot sound bites fed to them while they themselves are suffering the consequences of such "leadership".
I picture our founding fathers spinning in their graves.

[jfelbab]

To set the facts straight on this current financial crisis and its root causes:

This financial crisis began under Bill Clinton. It was his expansive home ownership program to make housing loans and available to those who could not afford them that was the seed that caused this crisis. His program: “The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream”. This program and the immense political pressure applied to make the program look successful was the ticking time bomb that finally exploded the whole financial system of our country. Part of his program stated:

For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.

Source:Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

This is where the term "NINJA" loan started from. (No Income, No Job or Assets)

A woman in my area who had a job earning $20,000 a year was approved for 8 interest only home loans and bought 8 properties. She, as you would expect, lost them all to foreclosure but how do you suppose she got approved for those 8 home loans with no assets, no down payment, and insufficient income to even pay for one? The loans were part of the “The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream” program and added 8 more foreclosures to the huge list that we are now all going to be paying for.

As far back as 2001, the many Republicans, including Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, warned congress of this exact fate. All proposals brought to the table by fiscally responsible republicans were repeatedly blocked by the leading democrats in congress. Why? I believe it was because they were getting sweetheart loan deals and huge cash campaign contributions from F&F.

One only need to follow the money trail to find out who was on the take. F&F contributed to top democrats to buy their support.

The top five recipients of campaign money from F&F (1998-2008)
1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT (Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee)
2. Kerry, John S D-MA
3. Obama, Barack S D-IL
4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY
5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA

Obama and his democrat buddies never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Never has this been more true than now in the face of a financial crisis in this country. A financial crisis Obama and his party created. What do Obama and Barney Frank have in common besides being Democrats. They both were listed in the top 25 recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and they both are hypocrites. Obama is number 3 on the the list and Barney Frank is 16. Obama, the candidate of change, was in bed with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac yet he criticizes John McCain, who along with George Bush, tried to fix the problem.

From a Wall Street Journal Online article:

This is stunningly naive. Recent statements by Barney Frank (D., Mass.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), a powerful member of the Senate Banking Committee, make clear that Congress will never let them be privatized, broken up, slimmed down, nationalized or any of the other options hopeful reformers are putting forth today. Fannie and Freddie in their current form are just what Congress wants: an inexhaustible source of campaign contributions and funds for favored groups.
How Paulson Would Save Fannie Mae - WSJ.com

Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

Senate sponsors

Sen. Charles Hagel [R, NE]
Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R, NC]
Sen. John McCain [R, AZ]
Sen. John Sununu [R, NH]

House bill sponsors:

Rep. Richard Baker [R, LA-6]
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4]
Rep. James Barrett [R, SC-3]
Rep. Roy Blunt [R, MO-7]
Rep. Geoff Davis [R, KY-4]
Rep. Tom Feeney [R, FL-24]
Michael Fitzpatrick [R, PA]
Rep. E. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5]
Rep. Paul Gillmor [R, OH-5]
Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R, TX-5]
Rep. Walter Jones [R, NC-3]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11]
Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R, NC-10]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18]
Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R, CT-4]
Rep. Frank Wolf [R, VA-10]

Notice that there were no Democrat sponsors.

This bill, co-sponsored by non other than John McCain, would have stopped this madness, but it was again stopped by democrats.


Just about 60 days ago, speaking on the health of F&F, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said at a Capitol Hill press conference:

The economics are fine in these institutions and people need to know that. There's no reason "to talk about failure. This is not a time to be panicking about this. These are viable, strong institutions.

Sen. Dodd calls Fannie, Freddie 'fundamentally strong' - MarketWatch

[Bunky]

The bill in question never really made it to a House vote.

It could have passed if the Republican leadership wanted it passed since they had control of all of Congress over Democrat onjections so there were a number of Republicans that may not have wanted this either. I am not sure it would have prevented anything now except that the government would likely had to bail them out anyway as we did with AIG, etc. The difference was loan guarantees but CEO's salaries, etc. would be the same.

It could have been reintroduced the next year as well. There is definitely a lot of this that is not known.

[Heatgain]

That's it! Maybe that's why the country and I have suffered economically under every Republican administration in my (long ) lifetime.
It was the Democrat's previous administration and their silly surpluses and thriving economy causing these multitude of problems in 8 years under our present leadership.
Never even considered that. Silly me.
Personally, I'm not thrilled with the Democrat's choice either, but 4 more years of this? No thanks.
That all being said, I come here for detailing, not politics. At least this thread, albeit navigating in dangerous waters, has remained civilized. That's a good thing.