It’s on! (aka: The Bailout Post)

For some reason, I have a hard time believing this debate is going to live up to the hype. But I’ll definitely be tuning in tonight regardless.

What are your thoughts going in? Will Palin have a stronger performance than her recent nightly news interviews? Will the gafferific Biden be able to stay out of his own way?

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “It’s on! (aka: The Bailout Post)

  1. i predict a riot.
    no, not really. biden will probably do to her what lloyd bentsen did to dan quayle in ’88. that’s my prediction. at least i hope he does…and not in a partisan way, but b/c i’m SICK of polite debates. i want to see bloooood! 🙂

  2. biden’s gaffes have been overblown….he’s been in the senate for a million years for a reason: people in delaware like his go get-um style.

    palin has failed the “pop quiz” interviews she’s been getting. but people didn’t elect her gov. because she was great at trivial pursuit. they like the fact that she puts her $ where her mouth is and kills wild animals.

    regardless, i think that they’ll BOTH do better than expected.

  3. Here are some of those “pop quiz” Trivial Pursuit questions that Sarah Palin has been recently asked:

    “What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of (Alaska) give you?” – Charles Gibson

    “Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.” – Katie Couric

    “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?” – CG

    “You said the US should absolutely launch cross-boarder attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan to ‘stop the terrorists’. Now that’s almost exactly Senator Obama’s position. Are you sorry you said that?” – KC

    “(McCain) has been in congress almost 26 years, almost always sided with less regulation, not more. Can you give me a specific example in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?” – KC

    “It is now well documented that you were for that bridge to nowhere before you were against it. (Care to explain?)” – CG

    “This year, you requested 3.2 million to study the genetics of harbor seals, money to study the mating habits of crabs. Isn’t that exactly the kind of thing that John McCain is objecting to?” – CG

    If anyone is curious how she answered them… here you go.

    I think it’s a stretch to pass them off as “Trivial Pursuit.” They’re pretty specific, and relate directly to her positions, policies and message. With the exception of that question about what newspapers she reads (to which she couldn’t name one), there haven’t been very many “pop quiz” questions.

    I can be reasonable and fair despite my differences. But to chalk up her abysmal performances in those interviews to “gotcha journalism” or triviality really let’s her off the hook far too easily for being unable to give a solid answer to any of the questions she’s been asked.

    At some point the whole cutesy hockey mom thing is going to wear thin. Recent polling numbers may suggest it already has.

    Tonight should be fun. Make no mistake. I’ll be holding my breath every time Joe Biden opens his mouth!

  4. biden seems real slimy. in that career politician kind of way. i mean the man has run for president about a dozen times. he’s probably really excited about the possibility of some crazy nutjob assasinating obama. but, obama had to pick a white guy, simple as that. edwards was the obvious choice, bringing that well needed southern demographic in, but he couldn’t keep it in his pants. so, biden was the next in line i guess. people have said he’s nuts for not picking hillary, but i’m sorry, the american people would not have voted for a half black dude with a muslim name and a very unlikable woman. though, imagine hillary -v- palin?!?! that’d be good times.

    the reality is, both of these VP candidates stand a likely chance of becoming president, imo. obama will need a pope-mobile and mccain is about as healthy as stephen hawking. who knows.

  5. And did you catch that the moderator is writing a book called “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama,” which is to be published by Doubleday on Jan. 20, 2009, the day the new president is inaugurated.

    I wonder, would Ifill have anything at all to gain from an Obama victory?

    It is a mistake to have her involved. She could either be accused of showing bias towards Biden, or overcompensating.

    What happened to journalistic integrity???

  6. 1. i hate it when politicians, or anyone for that matter, refers to themselves in the 3rd person. “joe biden, joe biden”. ugh. “GEORGE LIKES HIS CHICKEN SPICY!”

    2. at least darfur got mentioned. that was nice.

    3. i realize as a new englander, and having family who quite possibly have the thickest maine accents ever, i shouldn’t talk, but hot damn palin’s idaho accent is so irritating.

    4. my prediction was waaaaaaaaay off.

    5. i caught a clip of a palin post-debate rally, and she starts the stupid “U-S-A!” chant. IT’S NOT HULK HOGAN -V- THE IRON SHEIK IN 1985! it’s a presidential race. ugh.

  7. to my beloved Downtown Tim Brown
    1. i agree

    2. i agree…i thought it was funny that biden indicated the line hadn’t been crossed yet for our intervention in Darfur…maybe he meant militarily…maybe he meant we should use diplomacy to work with these otherwise intelligent and rational folks

    3. yes, she’s somewhat nasally…but hey, so am i

    4. yeah, it was pretty cordial and i felt like joe was calm and respectful and she handled it okay for knowing so little only two months ago. both were surprising to me

    5. i hope dave mills drives up there and starts his reintroduction to you by saying “Pokey, are you gonna get Tim?!”

    But seriously, point 5a: it is similar to a 1985 Wrestlemania event with its production, its acting, the “fans”

    and 5b: i’ll chant U-S-A any day and be proud of it, unlike half this country that feels like they’re too good or too smart or don’t want to be associated with the US or that somehow it’s not classy. maybe it’s not. but to me it shows the big difference between the two candidates/parties. the democrats are all wrapped up in obama (despite his assertions otherwise) and the republicans are wrapped up in national pride. there’s negatives to both.

  8. was anyone else astounded at biden’s assertion that the federal government should be allowed to lower people’s principal on their mortgages? what?

    as far as this whole bailout thing is concerned i am really disheartened. i can’t believe the way the american people are firmly against in LARGE majority and it is passing. the inevitable crash will not be fun but that is a free market. it will hurt people who took risks and invested lots of money, and it will hurt people who are in a lot of debt, but that is a free market, and those were free decisions. i am sure i don’t understand, but i think this bailout is the WRONG decision, and i wish mcain had stood up for what he usually stands for, small government, and voted against it.

  9. It wasn’t the federal government, it was bankruptcy courts.It’s nuance, but the difference is relatively significant.

    I’d be interested to read what others who are a whole lot smarter than me about things like law and money have to say about the idea. It’s intriguing. It’s certainly in the best interest of the banks not to have a mortgage go into foreclosure. If some kind of agreeable middle road could be reached between the parties, through the courts, in the event of a bankruptcy, it could be a win/win. I think the idea merits discussion.

    I wouldn’t think it’s too dissimilar from when people negotiate down their principle with the credit card companies when they default on their payments. The credit card companies can be negotiated with, and in the event of a bankruptcy I’m pretty sure the courts can adjust the principle in those cases.

    Foreclosures hurt all parties involved. And they have a ripple effect throughout the entire economy, as we’re seeing a blaring example of now. If we can find a way to drastically cut the number of foreclosures that we’re seeing, I’m all for it.

    As far as the bailout goes, I’m not convinced it’s the solution. Maybe more like a really big band aid. But I’m also not convinced that it’s the worst idea in the world either.

    I heard an economist on the radio the other day say that (and unfortunately I can’t provide any source info) in the past, the vast majority of government bailouts have worked, and yielded a gain in the long run. The only significant money loser we’ve had in the past is the S&L bailout. (But it’s best not ask John McCain his role in all of that ).

    We’re all to blame for the financial mess we’re in. Predatory lenders, irresponsible buyers, the American way of bigger is better (in regard to size/quality of homes), etc. To quote Rev. Wright, “America’s chickennnnnsss are comin’ home to ROOST.”

    It is a bit ironic though that the bailout sounds like SO MUCH money (and it is), but it’s actually about equal to what’s been spent to date on an unnecessary war in Iraq.

  10. and it could probably be argued that other bailouts and their so called ‘sucess’ are part of the reason we are here in the first place. deep in debt and needing to bail more banks out.
    what really bothers me though is that they say calls into the house from the american people were 50 to 1 in opposition to this bailout, but obviously the representatives are not representing the people.

  11. except we are going to spend this 700 billion in one foul swoop.

    It’s “one fell swoop.” But I guess if you’re that opposed to the bailout it could be considered a “foul swoop.”

    And that’s certainly the concern. But we’re also acquiring assets that have alot of earning potential, while immediately bringing a much needed increase in regulation to Wall Street.

    I can see the pros and cons.

    But let’s face it, two things are for sure:

    1) None of us here really have any clue what we’re talking about when it comes to it.

    2) It’s going to happen whether we like it or not.

  12. you gotta go read some of what ron paul says about it, it’s really eye opening, and nice cause it’s someone actually explaining it because no one else will or does for some reason.

  13. Getting back on topic…

    I thought that when Palin wasn’t dodging questions, she did a good job. I could live without all the cutesy winks and eye rolls, but that’s her schtick and it seems to work for her, so hey – play it up!

    I knew this wasn’t going to live up to the hype. And you got what you thought you were going to get from both candidates. Palin couldn’t hang with Biden’s wealth of experience and knowledge about what vote had what attachment and who supported it when. But Biden couldn’t hang with Palin’s “well whoopdeedoo” appeal.

  14. the bailout is like giving a crackhead a crapload of crack. simple as that.

    and i’ll chant u-s-a during olympic or international hockey games. that’s about it 🙂

    p.s. voting for re-authorization of the patriot act (eyes roll, here timmy goes again with this patriot act silliness!) as mccain (and obama) did is not voting for small govt. that’s pure statism right there.

  15. “Palin couldn’t hang with Biden’s wealth of experience and knowledge about what vote had what attachment and who supported it when. But Biden couldn’t hang with Palin’s “well whoopdeedoo” appeal.”

    so it was the same as the presidential debate then. mccain should have crushed obama in a foreign policy debate, and yet he didn’t. i still think he won by a slight margin, but felt let down because he should have beat him down like the cowboys will against the bengals this sunday. in the same way, i wasn’t sure how palin would hold up last night and despite skirting some issues, she did quite well. i have liked when obama or biden competely tank on something they say, they are just tired(obama’s bristol speech)or misspoke(biden’s FDR), but with palin it is always inexperience. back to my point – biden probablt won, but i thought they both did well. i come away felling a little better overall about the candidates.

    their policies however i am not comfortable with. why do we need a pull out date of iraq? please someone explain to me why we would tell our enemies when we are leaving. wether we should be there or not can’t be the issue. we ARE there. if we leave before there is astable government then we leave the door wide open for that weak government to be overthrown. we will always have many enemies. after afganistan/pakistan there will be others (n. korea, iran, possibly and more scary russia and china) by the time we move from country to country it allows the previous countries to strengthen their army and their hatredtoward us. if we stay and establish a government that is self sustaining, we may have one less threat, and possibly establish some allies. if we get out in 16 months thats great, but to set a date is foolish. i am glad mccain hasn’t set a date. well, that is one opinion on one issue. i don’t have the time shane and tim have to blog all day/everyday. i have to go back to work.

  16. The calls to representatives were actually closer to 100 – 1 against the bailout.
    And now Arnold and California want a 700 billion dollar bailout (apparently heavier taxes on buisness and the wealthy is not a good thing as they are leaving California for less taxed markets)

    In the end I think Palin did rather well considering what was expected.

    I think this whole election comes down to different ideologies and approaches to government. The canidates are drastically different in thier approaches to solving problems and the voters need to see who they align with here. I started out leaning one way in all of this and now Im the farther along opposite direction. I wish there was a viable third party, a middle ground but there isnt. (Dont send me any mail Tim!)

    This whole process in the end is very discouraging to me. There is so little truth to be had and we are concerned more about mass appeal then the facts. Palin was chosen specifically for her younger soccer mom conservative christian look to balance Old Mccain. Biden was chosen to be the old experienced Mccain for Obama who is the rock star “savior” of the country.

    I find it funny that the best ticket from this mess before us probably would have been McCain / Biden leaving obama and palin open for more stupid snl sketches.

  17. California isn’t asking for a $700 billion bailout. Schwarzenegger hinted at a need for a $7 billion loan. You’re off by about 10,000%.

    Not that I’d be in favor of it, but it wouldn’t be unprecedented. President Ford bailed out New York City to the tune of $9.4 billion (adjusted for inflation) in 1975.

    (apparently heavier taxes on buisness and the wealthy is not a good thing as they are leaving California for less taxed markets)

    One could interperet it that way. Or you could look at the leadership of California, and at the Federal level and conclude that Conservative Economic policies are disastrous. All depends on your skew I suppose. 😆

  18. Sadly today when the voted that bill into law to bailout I was sad cause I wanted all the people who bought things they couldnt afford to really hurt along with the idiot banks who lent them the money.

    The point everyone is missing in all this is that as long as we let people make up values for things (oil, houses, stocks) we will have problems like this that crop up.

    They should have let them all fail no matter how hard everyone would have suffered rather than borrowing to prolong the fall. Somewhere my buddy Alex Hamilton is crying softly of the rapid onset of American Socalism oddly enough brought on by a republican president. Btw I dont care if you would like to see it as a commodity that we are purchasing from someone in the end we will either gain or lose (there is no one else to bail the government out) on these properties whereas atm we are making sure the people who lost on them the first time around get away with it. I talked 2 weeks ago with Norm Colmen our Senator when he came to speak to a little town hall meeting of republicans and I spoke to him about the same thing but they all have somehow decided that the market cant possibly correct after the poorly run large companies collapse which just isnt true.

    See when you take away winning and losing from all things you end up with a population of people that want something they shouldnt have at all. Bill Clinton wanted 70% home ownership which is a great thing in theory but when only 50% of those people can actually afford long term the houses they buy you end up with a big problem really quick. A good housing market can as you all know disquise such a thing but in the end if you cant sell for profit and you cant cover the mortgage you lose said house.

    And OFFENSE meant to everyone that did buy too much home or take a stupid mortgage cause I hope they all lose their houses which will finally adjust the market where a house you build for 65k doesnt magically cost 1mil because some insurance adjuster says it does. Sure salarys will come down all across the board but if costs of all these things are based on actual and not theoretical worth it wont matter if we make far less cause for once we will actually get what we are paying for.

    YOU DONT DESERVE A HOUSE you have to earn one. I dont know how I live in a society where people think that they are entitled to shit. Nothing should be given to anyone that isn’t the poor or the weak because that breeds people that feel entitled to things they are not at all. For once I wish I lived 60 years ago with a group of people who worked for everything they had. Everyone likes to talk about how FDR was so great with all his programs but it was something far easier to do when the people then wanted to work and earn things themselves which is so far gone now its unreal.

    People always ask me how I am so anti everything government aided and the simple true answer is cause I don’t qualify for any bit of it, but I pay for all of it. I made to much money working construction to pay for my college as I went to get government aid so I paid it in cash (this only happened btw cause I wouldn’t mask my income and paid taxes on it). I couldn’t qualify for a loan to help with getting into a house in a million years because I make to much (which isn’t actually that much) I have a hard time paying my mortgage every month but I can pay it and save at the same time cause I planned for it to cost me a certain % of my total income with Janet and didn’t go over that when I initially purchased. I didnt buy a house that I would have to be able to sell on a balloon mortgage because my father (tax and treasurer for a dallas company) taught me that you only do a loan like those when you are buying a house you could afford to pay the difference off the second the percent switched. What this means is these types of loans are for wealthy people not for poor people yet we allowed banks that we now bail out to change this around.

    Did everyone really miss the fact that these banks were counting on people losing their homes but thought they would be able to sell them for good profit????? Its ok though now that they cant we will use what will end up being risk or money from the same people they looked to rip off to bail them out.

    This was stopped only once by the house but they were weak in their convictions and allowed this to pass on the second try.

    AND THE WORST PART IS?
    Both these idiots McCain and Luther Obama Jr supported it.

    Feel free to move this if you put up a new topic for this stuff cause I will post there tons to save Janet from more of what has been 2 weeks of ranting about this at home.

  19. yeah if biden wants to talk about making things “fair” (and like your mother hopefully told you, life isn’t fair) what seems unfair to me is how those of us who didn’t borrow too much, or spend too much, etc, have to pay to bail out those who did.

    i really think either canidate could have won the election by holding out and voting against the bill. people would have loved it. i am sure they have their reasons, but i think they’re crazy.

  20. @ tilley – the trick is to work in a group home with 12 adult insane males. you get some free time to blog…though the time that isn’t free is life threatening and overall, well, insane 🙂

    @ pdog – dude, i think i might agree w/ you. i know, right! it’s true, the irresponsibility of people spending money they did not and do not have is being overlooked. but, i still think giving wall street a bailout is like giving a crackhead crack. i mean, i didn’t go buy a house for $500k so why should i be taxed to bail out the robber barons? but, i guess we all get taxed for things we don’t support (for me there’s the whole war thing and 51% of my taxes going toward the military infastructure…not that i don’t support our men & women in service, but 51% is just plain ridiculous, imo).

  21. Has anyone else caught this gem? I’m sure it’s on the top of your must have list…

    Seriously, a book already? She’s been a national figure for all of 5 weeks. It’s just bad marketing – they won’t even get the paperback sales before the election is over…

  22. Frankly I’ve given up on Christian publishers. They’re churning out so much “cash in on pop culture under the banner of faith” nonsense these days. It’s like a faith-based Esquire.

    Zondervan has this. Thomas Nelson has this and (most egregiously) this.

  23. yeah, like lynn spears is a wonderful example of christian parenting (or just parenting in general)! my Lord help us!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s