It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Voting records speak for themselves

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:47 PM
reply to post by drwizardphd

Thank you wizard.

ya know, just when im getting fed up with arguing with either side (far right or far left)
an intelligent person like yourself comes along and refreshes things.

The hard part about educating america is most americans think TV has information that is set in stone, and wont believe what you show them, unless it comes from Sean Hannity or Chris Matthews

This very thread is proof of that

The most popular threads in this forum are ones that bash the candidates for physical attributes and religious beliefs, instead of their political standing

I am glad there are still some people who can read facts and say "oh, i didnt know that, that changes my opinion slightly"

instead of


its so annoying

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:15 PM
This is a civil thread, but, I dunno, something about the rah rah barack way it is written really makes me wonder, with the date of joining, if this OP isn't one of the deployed counterattack people sent out from his campaign.

The more of the OP's threads I read, the more I am inclined to think so.

Just thinking out loud here

[edit on 6/14/2008 by llpoolej]

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by llpoolej


Rah Rah barrack?

You can be certain that im not from the Obama campaign...proof may come at a later date

Did you even read my post and all the stupid things i pointed out about obama?
Oh thats right, you didnt read it because it dispels your notion based on ignorance of the issues

its okay

ignorance is bliss

sometimes i find it hard to discuss both sides of the issues as well, but if you want to be fair about things, its what you must do.

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:53 PM
O to tha B to tha A to tha M to tha A...


posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:37 AM
Ya know

When i first started my membership here at ATS, i was against Barack Obama. I have to admit, most of my political ideology came from radio and TV. I believe that i was still objective somewhat in my decision (IE: i didnt buy into everything anyone had to say)

Then i came here. For a short while i was for Obama
Then the pictures came out about him not saluting the flag
i was against him again

Then i realized

My flip flopping came from the inventors of flipology themselves: The media.

So - instead of giving up- i went and checked things out for myself, and ran across a wonderful website, non-partisan, middle of the road stenographer. They record everything a politican does/says/dreams of doing

and the info is there for the taking
its not subject to manipulation, unless you are insinuating that the candidates meant things other than they've said. A politican should be well spoken, because to say one thing, and mean another, to the difference in 1 life lost and 1,000,000,000 lives lost

(refer to original post if you want the website)

And now, after i compared the two candidates
i was able to say "Obama"

Because his record - for the most part - is consistant. There are some flops in there, but on minor issues (imo)

i look at mccain, and he's all over the spectrum.
But the kicker?
He actually had the audacity to say that he believes people not born in this country should be allowed to run for president

you have to stand in awe at the ignorance and flamming stupidity of that statement. It takes a certain kind of person to seriously think that's a viable solution to any problem. That kind of person...doesnt belong in the white house

Im just serioulsy disappointed that there are those who would rather ignore facts and continue to gossip

They avoid me like the plague because i believe, mostly, i throw facts at them (on both sides of the argument) and they hate me, and fear me, at the same dang time.

When will someone come along that can challange the reasons i chose Obama?
I mean - if you agree with me, then no need to challange me
but if you disagree with me
there has to be reasons why

and it cant be some stupid mud slinging

if you, as an intellectual, have an opinion, it should be backable by some sort of credible evidence. If its not, then its called trash talking, and its not needed here.

I was issued a challange in a u2u

"create an anti-mccain thread"

i dont watn to create any threat thats anti-anything except for anti-ignorance

I never created a "pro-obama" thread in the sense that others have made "pro mccain" and "anti-obama"

I really hope this particular post isnt considered inappropriate
its more my feelings on how this particular forum (decision 2008) has turned out.
It started out as a good, specific place, to discuss the issues of the election. You know, the probelms we face, and potential solutions for such

but it turned into a small-time Jerry Springer episode of insults, ignorance, and ignores.

So, right now, im taking my stand

I'm voting for Barack Hussein Obama

I've stated the reasons why, and backed my reasons with irrefutable evidence.

If you disagree with me, i challange you to tell me why.
Otherwise all we're reading is someone else's ranting

ranting has its own forum
and its in BTS, check it out.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 09:59 AM
Thanks for the heads-up about this thread BH.

Good thread Mr. Wiggin. It'll take some time to go through everyone's pro and cons. The only thing I can say is what some people think are good, others will think are bad .. and vise-versa.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
and for me: the verdict is clear.

Me too ... RON PAUL.

If I can't write him in, then I'm probably not voting for a POTUS.
I can't stomach either McCain or Obama for POTUS.
(Of course... Hillary could pull a Jezebel and so I should say that
I wont' vote for her either.)

I'll be back to post my own pros and cons (probably mostly cons for both Obama and McCain!
). Busy day today .... be back later.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 10:11 AM
Dude, you're so wrong... j/k.

Very well done. BH turned me on to this thread.

I like how you say what you like, and what you don't like. All too many of us don't...

Personally, I'm torn about which of the two main candidates I despise more.

I'm still studying both, who knows I might actually come up with something I can stomach.

Flagged and starred.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:49 AM
I'm sorry, i dont have an opinion. I cant bring myself to form one , i can still taste Bush, Cheney, the NWO, and as with any trauma, its going to take some time to get over it for me.

I'll just leave it at that- and keep out the government bashing out of respect for my friends in this thread.

I think only time will tell. I do pray that those of you who will be voting will make the right choice.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
My flip flopping came from the inventors of flipology themselves: The media.

So - instead of giving up- i went and checked things out for myself,

I LOVE this! It's the key, I believe to denying ignorance! It's also why I changed my vote to Obama. Because I researched and found out what he's about. Don't be driven by the people who earn a living convincing others of how they SHOULD feel. Get into it and find out how you really DO feel!

And yeah, be proud of your candidate! Rah, rah, Obama!
You betcha!

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

thanks for making the case to vote FOR obama...your help is much needed in pointing out more disparities

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:53 AM
One thing you have to be careful about when looking at a person's voting record.

Many times, someone will "tack on" another piece of legislation, or funding to an exisiting bill to try to get it through the house. For instance, at face value a bill may be about funding the troops, but if you read it clearly, it also has a provision to spend trillions on some space weapon system.

So, a member of the house sees this, and thinks...well, I wanted to support this funding for the troops, but I'm not going to support the add on, so he votes no. Then you hear in the news that so and so didn't vote to support our troops...booo him.

It happens all the time, so when checking a candidate's voting record, and you see him voting one way or another on a bill, just be sure to check the wording of that bill very carefully, and see if it has anything added on to make them vote the way they did.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:16 PM
reply to post by sensfan

i agree 100% with you

of course, however; i believe that my source of information provides exactly what you're talking about. Under neath every topic listed there is a link that refers you to quotes about each candidates voting opinion.

It tells you what they said about it, why they voted, etc, or atleast it tries to do it for everything.

So thats why i started this thread, i felt as though the unbiased source of the information was an untapped gold mine. I *thought* it could help steer the direction of the decision 2008 forum...which in some way it has.

And yes, i said i choose obama - but ill say it again....atleast i gave reasons for it
(to all those doubters!)

I thank everyone fro their feedback, and im interested in reading more of pro's and con's from the rest of you.

Im gona go lay back down now, DayQuil kicking in.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 06:46 PM
Mr. Wiggin,

I think this is an excellent idea and I applaud the effort. This is way more sensible than the emotional back and forth going on in many of the discussions.

Benevolent Heretic,

Thanks for the heads up about this thread.

I see this as an excellent way to gather my thoughts regarding this cycle’s batch of candidates. I’m currently of the mind to vote for “None of the Above” by picking my own third choice to fill in. I’m not truly satisfied with either of the main Candidates.

I do not see any vote as being wasted, even when not voting for a viable candidate. If more people would vote their true feelings, then our refusal to vote for the unsatisfactory candidates would have more weight; more meaning.

I’m also going to use as my main source. For the most part I will use actual quotes from the candidate. Since it is not as cut and dried as “Pro” or “Con” for me; I hope you will forgive me if I change the format a bit. I’ll give the quotes and comment as an afterword.


Barack Obama:

This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on...
….What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.

At least he is trying to consider the other side’s point of view, but he appears to be uncommitted on this issue. I can’t help but wonder, is this Obama’s true stance, or is this his way of doing a dance around this issue. The cynic in me says it is the latter.

If he truly understands the “Pro-Life” side, he must also understand that to say yes to abortion on demand is to say yes to infanticide. I’ve noticed that point is often lost on the “Pro-Choice” proponents. It is tantamount to asking someone to agree that the purposeful taking of a human life is OK.

…. what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence…
…. we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.

A safe, sensible statement that I think most could agree with. For me the term “age-appropriate education” is very important and he should have gone further and included that the Parents should have a say and be involved in the process. I find no quotes attributed to Obama recognizing or emphasizing Parental Rights in these issues, which troubles me greatly.

Q: What is(Sp) your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion…?
A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue…
…the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it…
… can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.

I think his true feelings come into the light of day in this statement. Partial-Birth Abortion is a topic which tends to bring out peoples true feelings. Not even medical science argues that late term fetuses are not viable human-beings.

I find this issue of Partial-Birth Abortion to be on the level of atrocities committed by Hitler. One of the first things I did was to talk to a number of MD’s about this type of abortion and whether or not it would ever be a necessity. The three I spoke to… one being a nephew… agreed that there is no case possible where a Cesarean Section is not a better, safer choice. That means to me, the only reason for these abortions is the killing of a viable human being, that is capable of easily surviving an early birth through a Cesarean Section. In other words; purposeful Infanticide. No different than throwing a newborn in a dumpster in my opinion.

Some of his votes I find troubling:
*Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.
*Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

This is a MAJOR sticking point between my views and Obama’s. He clearly is strongly in favor of the Nanny-State. Removing a Parents Rights is a very strong step in the direction of a Stalinist or Maoist inspired form of government. Only a Judge should have the power to remove parental rights and only if it is proven that the child is in danger. PERIOD!!!

I should mention here that I do approve of stem cell research as do both Obama and McCain. My only caveat on this topic is that it should be privately funded, so that those who do not agree are not forced to pay for something they don’t approve of.

John McCain:

As far as McCain is concerned, I’m going to leave it at I agree in general with his stances on abortion with one exception being actual Federal funding of stem-cell research for the reason I mentioned above.

I am currently of the opinion that the government should separate itself entirely from the abortion debate. There is no way that we will ever come to a consensus on the issues surrounding abortion. No tax money should ever be used for this purpose and the government should remove itself from moral issues such as this. It is now being used as yet another way to divide us, rather than unite us.

I also believe that anyone performing an abortion on an underage child, without full parental knowledge and permission, should be prosecuted and a parent’s right’s need to be fully protected. The systematic removal of a parents rights to decide how to raise their children, is one of the greatest dangers we face as a society today.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 06:46 PM

Barrack Obama:

…we can't deliver on the kinds of health care reforms that Clinton and I are looking for. McCain is willing to have these troops over there for 100 years. The notion that we would sustain that kind of effort and neglect not only making us more secure here at home, more competitive here at home, allow our economy to sink.

Pure political drivel! His pretending to have not understood what McCain meant is evidence that he is more of the same. I’m as opposed to having yet another spin-meister in the White House as I am to continuing the war. To try and somehow connect the health care issue to the war is spin at its highest level. The sub-prime fiasco and the price of oil are the cause of our current state of affairs and I believe he knows this. That means he is nothing new and just another Bozo on the Political Bus.

Obama proposes the following:
*Create a Credit Card Rating System to Improve Disclosure.
*Establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to Protect Consumers.
*Cap Outlandish Interest Rates on Payday Loans and Improve Disclosure.

A GIANT YES on this one. This issue hit’s a home run with me. My only issue would be that the interest cap of 36% he proposes should be closer to 25%. It is time usury was dealt with.

Here is a great example of the problem I see with Obama and his attempting to be on more than one side of issues or to back up his stances with his votes –

***Obama did vote against--and Clinton voted for--an amendment that would have placed a 30% cap on the interest rate that could be charged…
…Obama was standing next to Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-MD, the senior Democrat on the banking committee and the leader of those opposing the landmark bill….

… Sen. Mark Dayton of Minnesota, sponsor of the amendment, said on the Senate floor that such a cap "is still consumer abuse" but is much better than rates of more than 300%, which he said were being charged by some loan operations in the country.***

So is he for or against this usury by the banks? His vote says he is on the banks side and his rhetoric says the opposite. More of the same old beltway spin he claims to oppose?

…I two years ago introduced a provision that would eliminate predatory lending, something that I had already helped to get passed at the state level.

If he believes this, then again I have to ask, why did he vote against a helpful measure when he had the opportunity and why did he support the banks interests instead of those of the consumers?

Right now we've got a whole host of corporate loopholes and tax havens. There's a building in the Cayman Islands that houses supposedly 12,000 US-based corporations. That's either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world, and we know which one it is.

Sounds good in print, but it does not reflect his real intentions or the reality of our system. Any tax burden placed on business will be immediately added to the price the consumer pays and he seems to have no interest in protecting small businesses operating as sole-proprietorships. The effect of his eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts would not harm the so called Big Business, but it would hurt small business owners and make it even more difficult for others to realize the American Dream by starting their own business. If he intended on excluding small business from this Robin Hood scheme, he would say so openly. He knows rescinding the tax cuts will only harm the poor and those struggling to start their own businesses. It is truly a shame so many of our voters are so naïve about economic affairs.

Sometimes markets fail, and that's when labor laws and government regulation are necessary correctives.

When has government ever got involved with the market that it has not made matters worse than they already are. Let us not forget that the Democratic Party controlled Congress for 40 YEARS under this tired, failed view of economics that Obama wrongly presents as something new.

We can restore a law that was in place during the Clinton presidency--called Paygo--that prohibits money from leaving the treasury without some way of compensating for the lost revenue.

Once again, more proof he wants to return to the tired, old idea’s of yesteryear and truly does not have any intention of this “change” he constantly talks about.

Our rural communities are the backbone of Illinois. Yet, factories have closed, jobs have disappeared, and homes and farms have been foreclosed upon. Effective federal programs are necessary to protect the rural economy.

Pure political pandering with no substance. Tell them what they want to hear, seems to his mantra.

Obama adopted the CBC principles:

The CBC is focused on economic empowerment issues including:
New Markets and Small and Minority Business Development. The CBC will seek to increase opportunities for minority and small and disadvantaged businesses by expanding contracting opportunities in the public and private sectors, increasing access to capital, creating tax incentives for capital improvements, removing outdated and restrictive regulatory barriers, and streamlining and enhancing procurement tools to encourage minority and small business utilization.
Trade and Global Economic Empowerment. The CBC will work to ensure that the benefits of the dynamic global marketplace extend to minority businesses, and Africa and developing countries. To this end, the CBC will propose and support trade and investment initiatives designed to bridge the global digital divide, create jobs, improve infrastructure, promote sustainable development, and raise living and work standards for people of color around the globe. Moreover, the CBC will work to ensure that America’s international trade agenda and priorities also meet these goals.
Increasing Affordable Housing Opportunities. The CBC’s goal is to increase the nation’s homeownership rates. Home ownership is one of the best wealth creation vehicles for minority families. We will work with lending institutions and community organizations to ensure that minorities are afforded every opportunity to realize the dream of owning a home.
Source: Congressional Black Caucus press release 01-CBC10 on Jan 6, 2001

Whatever happened to the concept of equal rights under the law? What about equal opportunity regardless of race, religion or social class? Pandering for the minority vote? You betcha!

John McCain:

On the issue of Bear Stearns, every financial expert I know says that if it had failed, it would have rippled throughout the entire financial community and would have caused greater problems which eventually would have come down on the average citizen if our economy continues to decline the way that it's been doing.

Wrong! All business should stand or fail based on merit or performance. It is the heart of Capitalism and the nature of the beast that businesses that make bad choices should learn to change or fail based on those choices.

Of course there's a role for government, but it's not to reward greedy speculators. It is not to reward people who misbehave…

Now he is back on track, however this contradicts his view on Bear Stearns.

You could argue that Americans overall are better off, because we have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment and low inflation and a lot of good things have happened. A lot of jobs have been created. But let's have some straight talk. Things are tough right now.

Seems to be an honest assessment, that is based in reality.

We need to make the Bush tax cuts permanent

Yes, we do.

I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated…
….Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well-versed in economics.

Evidence that saying what people want to hear is ingrained in the psyche of the candidates on both sides of the aisle.

Of course, any nation that no longer has economic strength sooner or later will lose its military strength, so it's a national security issue..
…If oil reaches $100 a barrel, which many people think it may, $400 billion of America treasure will go to oil-producing countries. Some of those monies will go to terrorist organizations….

So where is the evidence he has made any attempt to address this issue while serving in the Senate?

As president of the United States, I'd take an old veto pen that Ronald Reagan gave me, and I'd veto every single pork barrel bill that comes across my desk. quote]

Yes, please do!

Here is one I know about 
The lie –

$233 million for a bridge to nowhere.

The truth-

McCain's TV ad cites "$233 million for a bridge to nowhere," calling the cost "outrageous." Funding for the "bridge to nowhere," also known as the Gravina Island bridge in Alaska, was tacked on to a 2005 transportation bill.
Whether it was truly a "bridge to nowhere" is debatable: Gravina Island, while it has almost no permanent population, is also home to the Ketchikan International Airport, which processes about 200,000 passengers a year. Alaskan officials hoped that the bridge would simplify airport access and allow development on Gravina. The bridge was not the only or the most expensive project attached to the transportation bill, and it may not have been the most frivolous. But it became a symbol for government pork.

In light of the furor over the "bridge to nowhere," Alaska's governor opted to use the money for other pursuits. The bridge was never built, but McCain has been using it as his prime pork example since 2005.

Source: AdWatch of 2007 campaign ad, "Outrageous" Nov 20, 2007

Another example of how most politicians will even turn on their own and resort to spin (lies or exaggerations) if they feel it will get them elected. Alaska and its needs are often misrepresented by both sides due to the fact they don’t see Alaska as being relevant to their own political futures.

I can see that to truly do this in all honesty would require many more posts. I’ve barely scratched the surface of the reasons I can’t bring myself to vote for either Obama or McCain. I think I’ll leave it at my thoughts on these two issues for the moment.

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:44 PM
So far we've had some great comparisons

i wonder if the two main contenders in the pro-mccain corner would want to give us their pro's and con's?

Jaime and JetxNet. Im interested to see if you would like to contribute to a thread that is based on voting histories alone, and nothing else?

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Great post!
Thanks to you and BH for supplying us with sources of where the candidates stand on the issues. It helps to have the side-by-side comparison at your fingertips.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:04 PM
Thanks for this thread, a very interesting read so far. The people need to decide which candidate is best for this country on their own, not because the media swayed them to vote for one or the other (or not at all in most cases).

I think you all will find this site rather interesting:

Open Secrets Campaign Financing

You want to find out where the candidates are getting most of their support (ie cash) from? Check that link. You'll be very surprised guaranteed. Well, maybe not.

Info on Obama

Info on McCain


posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:11 AM
Well, excellent use of colored fonts to post propaganda.

How many people bothered to follow the links provided?

One link goes to the google home page, the other link goes to an anonymous web site, and even then the policies the op contributes to the candidates does not match what is on the web site.

Here is the information on John McCain's Budget and Economy positions.

* Use veto power to reduce government spending. (Jan 2000)
* Distribute surplus: 23% tax cuts; 62% Social Security. (Jan 2000)
* $9B of pork in current budget bills; cut subsidies. (Oct 1999)
* For Balanced Budget Amend., & off-budget Social Security. (Jul 1999)
* List of budgetary spending priorities. (Jul 1998)
* Supports Balanced Budget Amendment. (Jul 1998)
* Apply surplus to Social Security, Medicare, tax cuts & debt. (Jul 1998)

Gee, this doesn't follow at all what the op posted.

Surprisingly, the site does not give Obama's positions on the Budget and Economy.

So, op, where are the links that back up your claims?

Obama on the budget and economy from what I know.

Obama wants to obligate a certain percentage of our nations GDP to give the the United Nations for charity without our governments oversight. In other words, Obama wants to give trillions to world wide charities while ignoring working class families in the U.S..

What does Obama want to do for the working class in the U.S.? From all my research I have not found anything that Obama plans to do to look after the general welfare of working people in the U.S.. Obama's healthcare plan punishes people for working hard and getting ahead by cutting any healthcare assistance in response to increases in income.

Who do I support, after being a life long democrat, after looking at the true positions of the candidate, McCain over Obama. I have no desire to resurrect the welfare state as Obama intends.

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
Well, excellent use of colored fonts to post propaganda.

It's clear from several things you said in your post that you didn't REALLY read it.

One link goes to the google home page,

And says to do your research. It's a clever way of saying "Google it" for yourself.

the other link goes to an anonymous web site, and even then the policies the op contributes to the candidates does not match what is on the web site.

Nope, it's goes to a website called ON THE ISSUES, and you can click on various candidates to see their positions and voting records on MANY issues.

Here is the information on John McCain's Budget and Economy positions.
Gee, this doesn't follow at all what the op posted.

Check out the dates. All your positions are from 1998-2000. The OP's are mostly from 2006-2008. Just goes to show that McCain is a different person now than he used to be. :shk:

Surprisingly, the site does not give Obama's positions on the Budget and Economy.

Yes, it does. You're just not using the site properly. You may want to check it out and see if you really know his positions and voting record as well as you think you do. Just a suggestion.

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:40 PM
Yeah I read the first and second post, it is all quotes out of context, combined with commentary that jumps to major conclusions based on out of context statements.

The op claims that he provides links to back up his statement, providing a link to googles home page is just insulting, I could provide a link to the local library as well.

The web site the op does link to has a lot of information but, who created the web site, never seen it before. I have to admit this web site is very thorough.

The positions I posted are the ones the site provides under Budget and Economy, all I did was post the compete list of positions the site provides. For some reason on that page Obama's postions are not listed. Hey, no problem, I'll take the time to look at the site more thoroughly.

What I do know is the the op cherry picked his data to make Obama look good and McCain look bad.

Here is the full quotes on bailing out Bear Sterns, and not bailing out speculators. When you read the full quote McCains positions are very reasonable.

Bailing out Bear Stearns necessary to protect economy
Q: You said, "It's not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they're big banks or small borrowers." What about Bear-Stearns?

A: On the issue of Bear Stearns, every financial expert I know says that if it had failed, it would have rippled throughout the entire financial community and would have caused greater problems which eventually would have come down on the average citizen if our economy continues to decline the way that it's been doing.
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 "Choosing the President" interviews Apr 6, 2008

Key is to not to bail out homeowners who speculated
Q: You gave a speech recently in which you said, "It's not the duty of government to bail out & reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they're big banks or small borrowers." What would you do to help the thousands of Americans who right now are in the process of losing their homes? Or do you feel, as you said in your speech, that's not the duty of government?

A: Look, Americans are hurting right now. They don't know if they have to get another job. The challenges are enormous right now. The key to it is not to bail out people who speculated or people who engaged in unsavory practices. The key to it is get the lender and the borrower together. We know how hard that is because of identifying the lender, but there's ways to do it. Of course there's a role for government, but it's not to reward greedy speculators. It is not to reward people who misbehave. And it certainly isn't a huge expenditure of taxpayers' dollars which, in the long run, could exacerbate the problems that exist
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 "Choosing the President" interviews Apr 6, 2008

Sounds pretty reasonable to me, looking at the whole quote, please explain what is wrong with McCains reasoning?

Now lets compare the full quotes with what Obama has said.

Help the homeowners actually living in their homes
It is important to make sure that we're not helping out the speculators, but instead are helping out the homeowners who are actually living in their homes, who have the capacity to make the payments if they're not seeing a huge increase in their mortgage payments. But understand this, this is not new. We have a history in this country of preying on low-income peoples because they don't have access to banks. The Community Reinvestment Act is oftentimes not enforced as it should be. We've got to open up bank branches. We've got to give people access to financing so that they're not going to a payday loan operation. I two years ago introduced a provision that would eliminate predatory lending, something that I had already helped to get passed at the state level. We've got to give ordinary working people access to financing. Part of the reason that they are borrowing on their homes, they're borrowing on credit cards, is that the banks and financial institutions have dominated policy in Washington.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

This is the closest comment I could find by Obama on the same issue. There is nothing from Obama that I could find about failing financial institutions on this website. Gee, is seems that Obama is encouraging debt, and that is not a good idea. Obama's whole comment here seems to be muddy, and clearly not thought through, and that is Obama's problem with most of his ideas. I think Obama's plans to go after predatory lenders is a good idea, and that is his best issue, but McCain also feels that their needs to be reforms and improvements in how banks are regulated, and that abusers should be punished. When you read the whole quotes, McCain comes off as having thought through the issues much better, while Obama seems pretty fuzzy about what to do.

Sorry, but quoting out of text comments and ripping the candidate for the out of text comments is just old fashioned garbage. Maybe you think it is praise worthy, but I don't.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in