McCain takes credit for deal

[oreo]

Democrat senate leader Harry Reid--along with Chuckie Schumer told John McCain to get out of town. Remember?

 

[CA95380]

How many times have democrats given blacks credit for absolutely nothing, or made excuses for them?


there--changed a few words to help you

Well, that clears up a lot. Thanks

 

[elvis]

How many times have democrats given blacks credit for absolutely nothing, or made excuses for them?


there--changed a few words to help you

I think the issue is that Obama represents the opposite party of Bush, so his supporters make excuses for him, no matter what he's done or hasn't done.

 

[frazzledgear]

If McCain is given and accepts credit for the deal, should he then be given and accept credit for the deal failing?



Today, John McCain blamed Barak Obama for the bill failing.
McCain: Obama to Blame For Bailout Failure

McCain got enough Republicans on board to get this bill passed and have it come off as a bipartisan bill as the Democrats wanted -IF ONLY the Democrat leadership had done their part and gotten Democrats on board! Nearly 100 House Democrats refused to vote in favor of this bill! They only needed SEVEN MORE DEMOCRATS to get it passed -and couldn't do it. They couldn't even get five of the House leadership positions to get in line and Pelosi couldn't even get 5 other Democrats from her own state to vote for it.

In order to get ANY bill agreed to and passed by both houses of Congress -especially passed in a bipartisan manner - it REQUIRES the leadership in both parties in BOTH houses to work intensely together. So where was Obama? He claims to be part of the Senate leadership, so much so he is out there posing as some kind of SUPREME leader! He was NOWHERE to be found when both sides believed it critically important to hammer out a bill that both parties could vote for and get it passed in a bipartisan manner.

McCain did his part -he got enough Republicans to vote for it that with the Democrat vote, it would be a bipartisan bill. Obama didn't lift a finger to get anything done. This was a failure of Democrat leadership and in Obama's case, there was ZERO leadership of any kind.

Obama is no leader at all and proved it.

 

[elvis]

McCain got enough Republicans on board to get this bill passed and have it come off as a bipartisan bill as the Democrats wanted -IF ONLY the Democrat leadership had done their part and gotten Democrats on board! Nearly 100 House Democrats refused to vote in favor of this bill! They only needed SEVEN MORE DEMOCRATS to get it passed -and couldn't do it. They couldn't even get five of the House leadership positions to get in line and Pelosi couldn't even get 5 other Democrats from her own state to vote for it.

In order to get ANY bill agreed to and passed by both houses of Congress -especially passed in a bipartisan manner - it REQUIRES the leadership in both parties in BOTH houses to work intensely together. So where was Obama? He claims to be part of the Senate leadership, so much so he is out there posing as some kind of SUPREME leader! He was NOWHERE to be found when both sides believed it critically important to hammer out a bill that both parties could vote for and get it passed in a bipartisan manner.

McCain did his part -he got enough Republicans to vote for it that with the Democrat vote, it would be a bipartisan bill. Obama didn't lift a finger to get anything done. This was a failure of Democrat leadership and in Obama's case, there was ZERO leadership of any kind.

Obama is no leader at all and proved it.

The country won't see it that way. His numbers, unfortunately, continue to climb.

 

[frazzledgear]

Democrat senate leader Harry Reid--along with Chuckie Schumer told John McCain to get out of town. Remember?

They didn't tell him that because he wasn't doing what was needed to hammer out a bipartisan bill. It was because Reid and Schumer are both so partisan (among the worst for that), they didn't want him getting any credit for his efforts. Instead of worrying about what McCain was doing with House Republicans, they should have been worried about keeping better track of their own fellow Democrats in the House and getting THEM on board.

 

[frazzledgear]

The country won't see it that way. His numbers, unfortunately, continue to climb.

There won't be any polls out that reflect what people think about the failure of this bill to pass in the House until Thursday. But since the majority of people did not approve of it anyway and neither party has stepped forward to explain to people why it is beneficial for THEM that this passes -I fail to see how Obama's absenteeism will benefit him. He has been campaigning in FAVOR of this bill without doing a bit of work to help it pass -and always saying he supports it to a crowd that is dead silent in response. So he isn't even doing a good job of explaining to his own supporters why he supports it. And of course, Clinton out there saying its Democrats fault we are even at this point isn't going to help Obama either.

 

[DavidS]

No, I don't really want McCain to win by cheating. I am frustrated because McCain won that debate the other night, and yet the country thinks he lost. I cannot understand the attraction to Obama.
The democrats have given Obama credit for absolutely nothing for two years now. The democrats want to give the most important position in the world to someone who has very limited experience. How many times have democrats given Obama credit for absolutely nothing, or made excuses for him?

The Democrats haven't given Obama credit for doing anything, simply because Obama hasn't done anything. Listen, I want the guy to win and all, but that's because of his ideas and the people who he has helping him refine his ideas. No one has made excuses for Obama.. so I don't really know what you're talking about.

As far as the debate, many people feel it was a draw, others feel Obama won, but slightly. At first I felt McCain won, but then I saw how snide and arrogant McCain was by scoffing at Obama. If you watch McCain in interviews over the weekend, you'll see how frustrated he is. He scoffs at almost every other question given to him, he answers others with "that's foolish" he hasn't given us anything concrete. Obama gave us a 4-point plan. It failed. Neither candidate is really doing anything, but Democrats are usually better at the economy than Republicans are.. i.e. Clinton. Clinton didn't really do anything to help the economy, it was the invention of the internet and dot-com bubble that created so many jobs and sent the market roaring.

Neither candidate really offers us anything substantial to hold onto. Yeah McCain was a POW, great. Thanks for your service, you're a hero. Doesn't qualify you to lead the country. McCain spent 22 years in Congress - mostly trying to de-regulate the economy... well, here we are in a de-regulated economy... 780 points down. McCain's central theme is to cut wasteful government spending... ok, but that's $18 billion a year out of 1.2 trillion budget. If we cut earmarks by 100%, the budget would then be 1.182 trillion. Barely makes a dent. And he wants to lower taxes for the people who give the most money to the government. Spending is going to increase no matter what, and revenue will decrease in a recession. I'm sorry, but that's creating a recipie for disaster. Cutting taxes a few % for the rich isn't going to do much. Cutting taxes for the largest percentage of people who spend money -- well that will do something to help our economy.

 

[elvis]

There won't be any polls out that reflect what people think about the failure of this bill to pass in the House until Thursday. But since the majority of people did not approve of it anyway and neither party has stepped forward to explain to people why it is beneficial for THEM that this passes -I fail to see how Obama's absenteeism will benefit him. He has been campaigning in FAVOR of this bill without doing a bit of work to help it pass -and always saying he supports it to a crowd that is dead silent in response. So he isn't even doing a good job of explaining to his own supporters why he supports it. And of course, Clinton out there saying its Democrats fault we are even at this point isn't going to help Obama either.

I missed what Clinton said.

 

[Modbert]

The country won't see it that way. His numbers, unfortunately, continue to climb.

I must ask elvis, does this keep you up at night wide awake?

 

[DavidS]

Democrat senate leader Harry Reid--along with Chuckie Schumer told John McCain to get out of town. Remember?

Well then I guess since Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer have the ability to control McCain's whereabouts, they should be blamed. Kind of a Spock's brain mind control device that tells McCain where to be? Funny, I thought Republican strategists did that.

 

[DavidS]

McCain got enough Republicans on board to get this bill passed and have it come off as a bipartisan bill as the Democrats wanted -IF ONLY the Democrat leadership had done their part and gotten Democrats on board! Nearly 100 House Democrats refused to vote in favor of this bill! They only needed SEVEN MORE DEMOCRATS to get it passed -and couldn't do it. They couldn't even get five of the House leadership positions to get in line and Pelosi couldn't even get 5 other Democrats from her own state to vote for it.

In order to get ANY bill agreed to and passed by both houses of Congress -especially passed in a bipartisan manner - it REQUIRES the leadership in both parties in BOTH houses to work intensely together. So where was Obama? He claims to be part of the Senate leadership, so much so he is out there posing as some kind of SUPREME leader! He was NOWHERE to be found when both sides believed it critically important to hammer out a bill that both parties could vote for and get it passed in a bipartisan manner.

McCain did his part -he got enough Republicans to vote for it that with the Democrat vote, it would be a bipartisan bill. Obama didn't lift a finger to get anything done. This was a failure of Democrat leadership and in Obama's case, there was ZERO leadership of any kind.

Obama is no leader at all and proved it.

#1 - Please provide a link that provides evidence that McCain got 60 Republicans to vote yey.

#2 - The Democrats said they wanted 100 Republicans on board. 90 at the minimum.

 

[elvis]

The Democrats haven't given Obama credit for doing anything, simply because Obama hasn't done anything. Listen, I want the guy to win and all, but that's because of his ideas and the people who he has helping him refine his ideas. No one has made excuses for Obama.. so I don't really know what you're talking about.

As far as the debate, many people feel it was a draw, others feel Obama won, but slightly. At first I felt McCain won, but then I saw how snide and arrogant McCain was by scoffing at Obama. If you watch McCain in interviews over the weekend, you'll see how frustrated he is. He scoffs at almost every other question given to him, he answers others with "that's foolish" he hasn't given us anything concrete. Obama gave us a 4-point plan. It failed. Neither candidate is really doing anything, but Democrats are usually better at the economy than Republicans are.. i.e. Clinton. Clinton didn't really do anything to help the economy, it was the invention of the internet and dot-com bubble that created so many jobs and sent the market roaring.

Neither candidate really offers us anything substantial to hold onto. Yeah McCain was a POW, great. Thanks for your service, you're a hero. Doesn't qualify you to lead the country. McCain spent 22 years in Congress - mostly trying to de-regulate the economy... well, here we are in a de-regulated economy... 780 points down. McCain's central theme is to cut wasteful government spending... ok, but that's $18 billion a year out of 1.2 trillion budget. If we cut earmarks by 100%, the budget would then be 1.182 trillion. Barely makes a dent. And he wants to lower taxes for the people who give the most money to the government. Spending is going to increase no matter what, and revenue will decrease in a recession. I'm sorry, but that's creating a recipie for disaster. Cutting taxes a few % for the rich isn't going to do much. Cutting taxes for the largest percentage of people who spend money -- well that will do something to help our economy.

If Bush's tax breaks were only for the rich, how is it that I only made 70 grand last year and yet received $2600 more than I would have under Clinton? I can't stand Bush, but I get tired of hearing that tax breaks were only for the rich. The bottom bracket under Clinton was 15 percent. Now it's 10. That's a 33 percent reduction. For those in the top bracket, it went down from 39 to 35. That's about a ten percent reduction. I think it was Clinton who signed the bill deregulating the banks and you blame the republicans. Help me understand where you're coming from.

 

[Modbert]

#1 - Please provide a link that provides evidence that McCain got 60 Republicans to vote yey.

#2 - The Democrats said they wanted 100 Republicans on board. 90 at the minimum.

David, you know asking for evidence and facts is wrong in a argument. You have to run around in circles like chickens with their heads cut off while screaming about how the other loves America less.

Oh wait I'm sorry, I confused this argument with the Republican playbook. My mistake.

 

[DavidS]

If Bush's tax breaks were only for the rich, how is it that I only made 70 grand last year and yet received $2600 more than I would have under Clinton? I can't stand Bush, but I get tired of hearing that tax breaks were only for the rich. The bottom bracket under Clinton was 15 percent. Now it's 10. That's a 33 percent reduction. For those in the top bracket, it went down from 39 to 35. That's about a ten percent reduction. I think it was Clinton who signed the bill deregulating the banks and you blame the republicans. Help me understand where you're coming from.

No one makes $10,000 a year and pays taxes. I used to make $30,000 a year and never paid taxes. Bush's tax cut of 5% on the bottom did diddly squat. And I didn't say that Bush's tax cuts didn't do anything. McCain's tax cuts won't.

It was Gramm who was the architect of that bill. Gramm, being McCain's economic advisor.

 

[DavidS]

David, you know asking for evidence and facts is wrong in a argument. You have to run around in circles like chickens with their heads cut off while screaming about how the other loves America less.

Oh wait I'm sorry, I confused this argument with the Republican playbook. My mistake.

How is asking for facts wrong in an argument? If someone says "McCain got 60 republicans to vote yes" I need to see evidence that all 60 of those Republicans were going to vote no beforehand and what McCain did to make them vote yes.

 

[Modbert]

No one makes $10,000 a year and pays taxes. I used to make $30,000 a year and never paid taxes. Bush's tax cut of 5% on the bottom did diddly squat. And I didn't say that Bush's tax cuts didn't do anything. McCain's tax cuts won't.

It was Gramm who was the architect of that bill. Gramm, being McCain's economic advisor.

If someone makes $10,000 a year and pays taxes, then I'd like to meet that person to tell them they're getting screwed over.

 

[Modbert]

How is asking for facts wrong in an argument? If someone says "McCain got 60 republicans to vote yes" I need to see evidence that all 60 of those Republicans were going to vote no beforehand and what McCain did to make them vote yes.

I was being sarcastic David. Figured you'd catch on.

I agree with you though, don't get me wrong.

 

[elvis]

I must ask elvis, does this keep you up at night wide awake?

I think it's past your bedtime.

 

[DavidS]

If someone makes $10,000 a year and pays taxes, then I'd like to meet that person to tell them they're getting screwed over.

First of all, you pay taxes out of your paycheck. Unless you declare yourself an independent, which almost no one does, you get about 25% of your paycheck taken out. At the end of the year, you get your W2 form and you see "I paid $2500 in taxes" go to an accountant who says "Nope, you should've only paid $1000 in taxes" and you get a $1500 tax return.