POTUS Debate II

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Given that the whole 'green' thing is generally about preventing the environment from getting worse, I think nuclear power counts. It's different from 'renewable energy.'

NTM

Nuclear power is green. Just not friendly leaf green ... more evil glowing kryptonite green.

[BrotherMan]

That's great, but what about nukular powar?

[Shelli]

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

I would actually be willing to watch a "debate" where Obama and McCain did just that...

That would rock. I can't imagine it ending well, though, with McCranky involved. "That One is so bad! That One is fucking retarded!" "John, stop old-raging!"

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

"Let's not raise ANYBODY'S taxes", but let's make employer-provided health insurance taxable income, which is the functional equivalent of a gar[g]antuan tax increase.

Stop harshing my McBuzz!

The "that one" response actually did surprise me, when I was pretty sure Slimeball McStupid had already hit the bottom.

That one? That one what, John? Is it that word that yguy is thinking but too chickenshit to use?

[Dingfod]

Magoo likes Meg Whitman of eBay for Treasury? We'll all have to use PayPal by the time she gets done. At least I won't have to carry around a pocketful of change.

[ChuckF]

If he likes Whitman for Treasury, I guess Phil Gramm will have to settle for Fed Chair.

[Dingfod]

I forgot to put the link in my previous post.

Link

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by BrotherMan

That's great, but what about nukular powar?

Nukuler (sp) power is silly putty green

[BDS]

McCain (thank goodness) wants to "Stabilize housing." He said so at least seven times. That's fine -- for Southern Californians, whose houses slide down steep, muddy embankments into ravines every time it rains. But what good will it do for those of us living on level ground? Our houses don't need to be stabilized -- they need to be paid for.

If Obama says, "Look" one more time, I'm not looking. He's like the boy who cried wolf. He's constantly telling us to look, and then there's nothing to look at. I suppose he could say, "Listen" -- but then he'd be required to say something worth listening to. "Look" is diversionary. He must think that if we're looking around, we won't notice that he has nothing worthwhile to say.

ONe more thing -- both candidates are eager to call for "sacrifices" from the American people. Great! I'm voting for whoever can make my life worse, so that I can maximally sacrifice. It seems to me that I can sacrifice on my own -- I want the President to run the country so well that I don't NEED to sacrifice.

[Adam]

Are there any details available of McCain's apparent plan to have the federal government buy up mortgages?

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by BDS

... I want the President to run the country so well that I don't NEED to sacrifice.

Dream on.

A Mr. Piper called, something about owing him some money or something.

[Watser?]

So long as they are not calling for human sacrifices...

Originally Posted by BDS

I want the President to run the country so well that I don't NEED to sacrifice.

The Greatest Generation this ain't.

[BDS]

I object to the religious overtones of “sacrifice”. I suppose it makes sense in some respects: we “sacrifice” our comfort and convenience by driving less and keeping our houses at 65 degrees in order to protect the environment for future generations. There is a moral (and "sacrificial") component to that.

However, buying something is not a “sacrifice”. If we decide we want National Health Care, we need not “sacrifice” to get it – we need only pay the money to get what we want, just like we pay money for everything else we want. If the economy goes into the tank because of mismanagement and malfeasance, our resulting hardship is not a “sacrifice”. But the candidates want to suggest that it is because it suggests some sort of moral value to hardship and suffering, which appeals to our Puritan ethos.

The candidates could said, “Under my administration, I will call on the American people to suffer economic hardship, to endure unemployment, and to fight unnecessary wars!” But they don’t. Instead, they call for “sacrifice.” It adds the tinny ring of moral righteousness to the general message of despair and hopelessness (and I thought Obama was all about "hope").

[BDS]

One more thing: I'm sick of candidates who support policies that are good for "hard working families". What about us lazy single people? Aren't any candidates going to speak on our behalf?

[Deadlokd]

I thanked you even though I'm not single. I would have loved to have had a candidate back when I was though.

Actually, that's not true. Nigel Freemarijuana runs for the Australian Senate every three years. He still hasn't been elected.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Adam

Are there any details available of McCain's apparent plan to have the federal government buy up mortgages?

From FactCheck.org:

"My" Mortgage Plan?

McCain made what he claimed was a new proposal to rescue over-mortgaged homeowners:
McCain: As president of the United States. ... I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes – at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those – be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

McCain added: "It's my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal. But I know how to get America working again..."

But in fact, the recently passed $700 billion rescue package already grants the treasury secretary authority to undertake just such a program. It requires the secretary to buy up troubled mortgages while taking into consideration “the need to help families keep their homes and to stabilize communities.” It also says “the Secretary shall consent, where appropriate (to) loss mitigation measures, including term extensions, rate reductions (or) principal write downs."

Obama himself had urged this as the package was being considered. He said on Sept. 23 that "we should consider giving the government the authority to purchase mortgages directly instead of simply purchasing mortgage-backed securities."

McCain said "his" proposal would be expensive, and his campaign quickly issued a news release giving numbers:

McCain press release: The direct cost of this plan would be roughly $300 billion because the purchase of mortgages would relieve homeowners of “negative equity” in some homes. ... It may be necessary for Congress to raise the overall borrowing limit.

Minutes later, McCain was attacking Obama for proposing what he said was $860 billion in new spending.