The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)

We are facing perhaps the greatest financial crisis in the entire history of our country; a crisis that could entail the collapse of thousands of businesses, the firing of millions of Americans, the break up of families, people going hungry, etc. and you're foremost concerned about punishing a few CEOs? Your opinion of the bailout shouldn't be based on a desire to punish bad businessmen, it should be based on a desire to make sure that the rest of us don't get hurt by their poor decisions.I think I'm missing something here. If the government buys up all bad assets and mortgages and gives the financial sector a lift with taxpayer money, do the taxpayers just end up paying off the bad loans over time and this all goes away? Or are there still going to be long term ramifications of the government holding bad assets?

And whats the deal with the Global Economy? Are other markets having the same sort of issues as we are?

Trying to help low income individuals become home owners is "politically correct?" It might be stupid, but I don't think it's politically correct. Also, I don't know how race, including charges of racism, has any role in this debate.

As for the causes of the crisis, you yourself said there is a lot of blame to go around.

Are you saying that you don't believe that the notion of giving out loans to people who don't deserve them isn't politcaly correct? It was based on the idea that these people needed us to help them because they are so downtrodden and we have so much more than them. That is the epitome of political correctness. Instead of givng out crap loans to people who didn't have any business getting a loan why didn't we try to figure out how to get lower income people to make more money.

And I agree racism has nothing to do with this.

I guess you got what you wanted out of the debate, it's human nature. Unfortunately you're in the minority.

Obama has not introduced a single piece of legislation aimed at lowering taxes eh? What tax would like him to reduce?
So you don't think taxes should be reduced?

So you don't think taxes should be reduced?


No I don't think they should be reduced and I believe Americans (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/Financial_Literacy/Dec07_taxes_poll_national_a1.asp?caret=81a) are on my side (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84112,00.html).

No I don't think they should be reduced and I believe Americans (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/Financial_Literacy/Dec07_taxes_poll_national_a1.asp?caret=81a) are on my side (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84112,00.html).

You're missing my point in your earlier quote. I recognize that we will never pay for all of these expenditures without revenue (taxes). My point is that Obama is claiming that he will reduce taxes for 95% of the population, yet he has never introduced legislation to accomplish this since he's been in the senate. You don't have to be president to introduce legislation, you just have to do your job while you're in the senate. It seems to me he's treated his time in office as a good place to kill time until the election. That's my misgiving as it relates to Obama and it's probably the biggest reason I'm hesitant to give him my vote despite the myriad positive factors in his campaign.

To clarify, I love most of what Obama is promising to do, but based upon his lack of initiative as a senator, I have no reason to believe he will actually follow through.

I think I'm missing something here. If the government buys up all bad assets and mortgages and gives the financial sector a lift with taxpayer money, do the taxpayers just end up paying off the bad loans over time and this all goes away? Or are there still going to be long term ramifications of the government holding bad assets?

And whats the deal with the Global Economy? Are other markets having the same sort of issues as we are?


All this talk of tax payers getting their money back is hogwash. The debt ceiling has been increased again (http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/24004-bushs-tax-cuts-don-t-work-3.html#post459606) to 11.3 trillion (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080920/financial_meltdown.html) to pay for this bailout. Are we ever going to pay this shit off? Not unless we commit to paying more than the interest and I don't ever see that happening. Are these companies ever going to pay back the tax payer? I wouldn't hold my breath. They'll find a way to screw tax payers.

We are facing perhaps the greatest financial crisis in the entire history of our country; a crisis that could entail the collapse of thousands of businesses, the firing of millions of Americans, the break up of families, people going hungry, etc. and you're foremost concerned about punishing a few CEOs? Your opinion of the bailout shouldn't be based on a desire to punish bad businessmen, it should be based on a desire to make sure that the rest of us don't get hurt by their poor decisions.

I think we are really blowing this out of proportion. No legitimate economist has said that we were headed for another depression if we didn't pass a bailout. (perhaps I'm wrong, but I haven't seen it.) Mass sectors of the populace were not making runs on banks and depleting them of their funds. Yes, there is economic hardship but from my way of thinking that requires a national "tightening of the belt" and frugality. This is just an ugly precedent that's been set and I truly worry for the future consequences of this "bailout." Look a little closer, AIG is now asking for BILLIONS (again, that's not just a word, it's a massive effing number) more. What happened with that? Simple, they realized they could get it, so why not ask? Do you really believe that this isn't going to continue? The cookie jar is open, my friend, and every greedy, unethical corporate type with the authority to do so is going to shove their slimy fist inside. It's human nature, you can't escape it.
This bailout was pushed through in EXACTLY the same spirit as the patriot act. Massive scare tactics and a sudden sense of urgency on the part of the government. I don't understand how no one can see the parallels.

You're missing my point in your earlier quote. I recognize that we will never pay for all of these expenditures without revenue (taxes). My point is that Obama is claiming that he will reduce taxes for 95% of the population, yet he has never introduced legislation to accomplish this since he's been in the senate. You don't have to be president to introduce legislation, you just have to do your job while you're in the senate. It seems to me he's treated his time in office as a good place to kill time until the election. That's my misgiving as it relates to Obama and it's probably the biggest reason I'm hesitant to give him my vote despite the myriad positive factors in his campaign.

To clarify, I love most of what Obama is promising to do, but based upon his lack of initiative as a senator, I have no reason to believe he will actually follow through.

We all have priorities and preferences, like fighting nuclear proliferation. Your implication is that since he as never introduced a bill to reduce taxes he won't reduce taxes once elected. It's a fallacy and a jump.

You know, I love children but I don't have any. Does this mean I don't really like children or that I won't want any once I get married? This is silly stuff beneath discussion.

We all have priorities and preferences, like fighting nuclear proliferation. Your implication is that since he as never introduced a bill to reduce taxes he won't reduce taxes once elected. It's a fallacy and a jump.

You know, I love children but I don't have any. Does this mean I don't really like children or that I won't want any once I get married? This is silly stuff beneath discussion.

Your specific job for the last 3 years hasn't been procreation. His has been legislation. It's only beneath discussion because it doesn't mesh with your view. You can't tell me with a straight face that you think someone that has had years of opportunity to do something, has not, but all of a sudden it will become a priority (enough of one to make campaign promises about) once in the oval office? Sorry, not buying it. It's bullshit and if that is, what else about this great campaign of hope is? That's what scares me. i couldn't honestly care less if he reduces taxes or not. I'm not starving.

Obama is absolutely fantastic when it comes to "I will" but there's not much there when it comes to "I did." The fact that every Obama supporter i've spoken with wants to sweep that under the rug bothers me.

Your specific job for the last 3 years hasn't been procreation. His has been legislation. It's only beneath discussion because it doesn't mesh with your view. You can't tell me with a straight face that you think someone that has had years of opportunity to do something, has not, but all of a sudden it will become a priority (enough of one to make campaign promises about) once in the oval office? Sorry, not buying it. It's bullshit and if that is, what else about this great campaign of hope is? That's what scares me. i couldn't honestly care less if he reduces taxes or not. I'm not starving.

Obama is absolutely fantastic when it comes to "I will" but there's not much there when it comes to "I did." The fact that every Obama supporter i've spoken with wants to sweep that under the rug bothers me.

Fair enough, he should have introduced a bill that matches his tax proposal in the senate. I guess McCain falls in the same category? He did say the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea back in the day too.


You know there's so many things to do in the senate besides propose tax cut legislation, but hey, that's what seems important to you so run with it. Personally, If a candidate says "I will...." I take their word for it though I may not agree. At this point that's the only thing they can do.