McCain Blames 'Greed' for Recession

[seeker_two]

So when is it time to criticize McCain?   

Criticizing McCain is, like, sooo Bush era.  Please.   

McCain is Bush; they're both warmongering, borrow and spend big government authoritarians.  A McCain presidency would be no different than a third Bush term.

More like a second Bush 41 term than a third Bush 43 term.....

...are you reading his lips, yet?.....

[Perd Hapley]

Wow, I hadn't thought about that.  You might be right. 

[Jamisjockey]

And Hillbama intend to tax the everloving hell out of anyone that makes a decent living, and institute programs that cost more than the Iraq war to add to the deficit/national debt.

Hillbama are both disasters waiting to happen.  That doesn't make McCain any better and is damn sure no reason to support him.  All three are rejects.  You want to support him because he has an 'R' after his name, go right ahead.  R's don't represent the American people any more than D's IMO.

Didn't say I did.  However, he more closely resembles a position that is closer to my views than Hillary or Barack.  As much as I enjoy throwing my vote to 3rd party candidates.....I'd rather not allow either of the (D)'s to win this time.

[Modifiedbrowning]

All three are rejects. 

Yes, but one of them is going to be the next POTUS. I would rather have McCain than the other two, even though I don't agree with most of his policies.
I don't agree with anything that the Democratic candidates have to offer.

[Perd Hapley]

Modified, don't bother.  The man just called three sitting senators "rejects."  Even though two of them will almost certainly be rejected chosen as their party's presidential candidate.  Even though one of them will be rejected chosen as the nation's president.  He's obviously not interested in a real discussion, just in slinging pejoratives. 

[Dannyboy]

Gee, imagine that.  John McCain taking a liberal position

How is personal accountability a liberal position?

That's odd.  I don't remember see the words "personal accountability" anywhere in that piece.  He blamed, "greedy Wall Street investors" for our recession.  Now, if those words had come from Hillbama, we could assume that could also be read as; rich, white men.  That being the "liberal position."  Hence, McCain has taken a liberal position.

For the record, I don't think it's greed so much as rampant materialism.

[Jamisjockey]

Gee, imagine that.  John McCain taking a liberal position

How is personal accountability a liberal position?

That's odd.  I don't remember see the words "personal accountability" anywhere in that piece.  He blamed, "greedy Wall Street investors" for our recession.  Now, if those words had come from Hillbama, we could assume that could also be read as; rich, white men.  That being the "liberal position."  Hence, McCain has taken a liberal position.

For the record, I don't think it's greed so much as rampant materialism.

Both parties are certainly to blame.  However, our government spending every dime it takes in, plus trillions it hasn't earned, thereby weakening the dollar, was as big a factor as the crashed housing market. 

[Dannyboy]

Gee, imagine that.  John McCain taking a liberal position

How is personal accountability a liberal position?

That's odd.  I don't remember see the words "personal accountability" anywhere in that piece.  He blamed, "greedy Wall Street investors" for our recession.  Now, if those words had come from Hillbama, we could assume that could also be read as; rich, white men.  That being the "liberal position."  Hence, McCain has taken a liberal position.

For the record, I don't think it's greed so much as rampant materialism.

Both parties are certainly to blame.  However, our government spending every dime it takes in, plus trillions it hasn't earned, thereby weakening the dollar, was as big a factor as the crashed housing market. 

I don't care who's to blame.  In the article, McCain blamed "greedy Wall Street investors."  That's the liberal position.  That's my point.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

[The Annoyed Man]

Didn't say I did.  However, he more closely resembles a position that is closer to my views than Hillary or Barack.  As much as I enjoy throwing my vote to 3rd party candidates.....I'd rather not allow either of the (D)'s to win this time.

How is 'tax and spend' any worse than 'borrow and spend'?  A McCain government will spend every bit as much as a Hillbama government, just on different things, like wars. The problem is spending, not taxation.  In fact, I submit that 'borrow and spend' is even more destructive than 'tax and spend', because it lays debt on future, unborn generations.  Do you have children?  By condoning/supporting/promoting 'borrow and spend' (which you do by voting for Republicans), you assure they will each inherit many thousands of dollars of your debt.  As will their children and grandchildren.  You're already bitching about paying 7.65% of your wages in social security taxes, and blaming the boomer generation for it.   Do you think the massive debt you leave will be any better accepted by your children?  Above and beyond that, it is ethically and morally wrong to saddle your children with your debt.

The current Republican administration has raised the national debt from, what, some 3 trillion dollars to some 9 trillion dollars in eight years.  This Republican president signed the biggest entitlement program ever, Medicare Part D, into law.  You bitch about social programs, but you and I voted the people into office who gave us Medicare Part D, didn't we?

And please don't start with the 'this is the most important election in your lifetime' crap.  I've already heard all that fearmongering in 2000 and 2004.   We still got big government and massive record debt, most of it with Republicans in the congressional majority.

Individually, we have almost no power.  Collectively we have the only thing politicians want-our vote.  If we keep doing what we've always done, we'll get what we've always got.  I cannot in good conscience vote for anything as destructive as huge bloated government, whether it comes from D's or R's, although I'd rather we pay our own bills than pass our war debt on to future generations.

The only power I have is to withhold my vote.  If enough of us do that, we'll be in the power position to take back this government.


 

[roo_ster]

The only power I have is to withhold my vote.  If enough of us do that, we'll be in the power position to take back this government.

You can't take back anything but the remote control if you go home and refuse to get in the ring.

Even if the dude at the top of the ticket is really a dud, there are plenty of races down-ticket you can influence, especially in the primaries.

But, you have to get in the ring, not stay home.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Hey, I've heard enough of Paddy's nutty political beliefs.  If he wants to stay home and not vote, I'm all for it.

[Jamisjockey]

RileyMCpaddy....are you saying you're planning on not voting, or just not voting (D)/(R)?
By not voting, you're not denying either party the win, you're just giving up to the leftists/rightists of those parties who will vote, no matter what.
If you're voting 3rd party...that I can respect.  Its a true protest vote.
Here's how I see it.  Hillary vs. Mccain....I'll vote 3rd party.
Obama vs. Mccain, I'll vote (R) McCain.  Obama is more socialist than Hillary, and his Hug thy enemies approach is sickening. 

[wmenorr67]

The only power I have is to withhold my vote.  If enough of us do that, we'll be in the power position to take back this government.

Would you rather live in a country where you didn't have that option?

[seeker_two]

The only power I have is to withhold my vote.  If enough of us do that, we'll be in the power position to take back this government.

Would you rather live in a country where you didn't have that option?

Do you believe that we live in a country where we do?.....

[wmenorr67]

One in this country can choose to vote or not.

There are hundreds of countries where one cannot vote.

[The Annoyed Man]

I am not walking away in disgust, never again to participate in our political process.  I am instead leveraging my vote as a commodity.  Back during the 2004 campaign when when I was still a lifelong Republican, GWB was running for re-election, I had an opportunity to speak with the chairman of the California Republican Party.  I criticized our party's big government, big spending practices and asked if that would continue in a 2nd Bush term.  His answer was something along the lines of 'it doesn't matter; you have nowhere else to go.  What are you gonna do, vote for Kerry'?  as though he thought that was funny.  I cannot describe how much that pissed me off.  I'm still pissed off.  So pissed off, I've re-registered 'no party affiliation'.  This is after Republican party membership since 1968.

Few of us are happy with Bush.  Even fewer of us are happy with McCain.  It just gets worse.  I'm not represented, are you?  Then why give your vote to people who don't represent your interests and values?  Oh, yeah.  I forgot.  'The Democrats are worse'.  Of course the Democrats are worse.  That's why we are (or were) Republicans.   But if it's necessary to become big spending big government Republicans in order to defeat Democrats, what's the point?

Lemme cut to the bottom line.  I'd like enough of us to withhold our vote this election to make an impact.  The likely result will be a Democrat in the Whitehouse.  The Republican party will ask why we didn't vote for them?

We'll answer 'because you spend too much, and make government too big and intrusive'.

The Republicans will say 'but the Democrats are worse'.

We'll say 'yes, but they're not the ones out of power, you are.  If you want to be back in power, you'll have to make some commitments'.

IOW, Republicans are (for now) our last best chance of returning this country to the People.  They simply need to receive the correct instructions and incentive from us.  We can do it.

It will take probably no more than one election cycle, at worst, two.  IOW, in 8 years, we can reverse runaway government growth and spending, and return this country back to the middle class.

Or, vote for McCain.   Your choice.

[The Annoyed Man]

Modified, don't bother.  The man just called three sitting senators "rejects."  Even though two of them will almost certainly be rejected chosen as their party's presidential candidate.  Even though one of them will be rejected chosen as the nation's president.  He's obviously not interested in a real discussion, just in slinging pejoratives.

And you're obviously not interested in representative government. Yeah, I think all three are rejects; none are POTUS material.  But if you want to support McCain because he has an R after his name, go right ahead.  Just be sure to bleat loudly as you enter the polling booth.  You should be forced to vote in a bent over position, too.

[Manedwolf]

Modified, don't bother.  The man just called three sitting senators "rejects."  Even though two of them will almost certainly be rejected chosen as their party's presidential candidate.  Even though one of them will be rejected chosen as the nation's president.  He's obviously not interested in a real discussion, just in slinging pejoratives.

And you're obviously not interested in representative government. Yeah, I think all three are rejects; none are POTUS material.  But if you want to support McCain because he has an R after his name, go right ahead.  Just be sure to bleat loudly as you enter the polling booth.  You should be forced to vote in a bent over position, too.

So by not voting, you're making yourself completely irrelevant to the entire American political process.

Whatever floats your boat.

[The Annoyed Man]

So by not voting, you're making yourself completely irrelevant to the entire American political process.

Whatever floats your boat. smiley

You missed the point.  If enough of us withhold our vote for one election cycle, we will have an impact.  That is not 'irrelevance'.  'Irrelevance' is me voting Republican, when California's electoral votes will go to the Democrat.  In any event, any single vote is 'irrelevant'.  Your vote is irrelevant to the 'entire American political process'. 

[Manedwolf]

So by not voting, you're making yourself completely irrelevant to the entire American political process.

Whatever floats your boat. smiley

You missed the point.  If enough of us withhold our vote for one election cycle, we will have an impact.  That is not 'irrelevance'.  'Irrelevance' is me voting Republican, when California's electoral votes will go to the Democrat.  In any event, any single vote is 'irrelevant'.  Your vote is irrelevant to the 'entire American political process'. 

No, actually, it just means that less people vote, and the total for who wins the White House comes from a smaller number of people. It doesn't change anything.

[The Annoyed Man]

So by not voting, you're making yourself completely irrelevant to the entire American political process.

Whatever floats your boat. smiley

You missed the point.  If enough of us withhold our vote for one election cycle, we will have an impact.  That is not 'irrelevance'.  'Irrelevance' is me voting Republican, when California's electoral votes will go to the Democrat.  In any event, any single vote is 'irrelevant'.  Your vote is irrelevant to the 'entire American political process'. 

No, actually, it just means that less people vote, and the total for who wins the White House comes from a smaller number of people. It doesn't change anything.

Right.  Because to change anything takes balls.  Which both the current Republican party and their constituency lack.  Evidenced by your idea of a 'win' is a McCain presidency. 

Pitiful, Manedwolf, just pathetic.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So by not voting, you're making yourself completely irrelevant to the entire American political process.

Whatever floats your boat. smiley

You missed the point.  If enough of us withhold our vote for one election cycle, we will have an impact.  That is not 'irrelevance'.  'Irrelevance' is me voting Republican, when California's electoral votes will go to the Democrat.  In any event, any single vote is 'irrelevant'.  Your vote is irrelevant to the 'entire American political process'. 

No, actually, it just means that less people vote, and the total for who wins the White House comes from a smaller number of people. It doesn't change anything.

Right.  Because to change anything takes balls.  Which both the current Republican party and their constituency lack.  Evidenced by your idea of a 'win' is a McCain presidency. 

Pitiful, Manedwolf, just pathetic.

Chill out, Riley/Paddy.  Perhaps you could take a few deep breaths and then address Maned's point, instead of attacking and insulting him.

He made a good point, ya know.  Even if 90% of the population stayed home on election day, nothing would change.  Politicians would still be elected.  Even if 99.999% stayed home, there'd still be enough votes cast to send a full crop of politicians to Washington.

[The Annoyed Man]

Even if 90% of the population stayed home on election day, nothing would change.  Politicians would still be elected.  Even if 99.999% stayed home, there'd still be enough votes cast to send a full crop of politicians to Washington.

As there is every election.  I'm talking about laying out for one election cycle in order to make our wishes known and our power felt.  But if you're too shortsighted to take the long view. or too paranoid and impatient about the possibility of a Dem Prez, then I guess you deserve the slow ride to hell.  Because that's where the Republican Party is taking you.

[wmenorr67]

I don't vote for a person because of the letter after his/her name.  I vote for the person who comes closest to my ideals and will represent them.  In this case it would be McCain.

Do I wish there was another option?  Yes but it isn't happening this year.  Hell I would rather vote for Lieberman but he isn't running.

And when it comes to spending.  What difference does it make.  No matter who is in power the spending is going to get done.  The debt will never be paid off.  So for what it is worth I rather have more money in my pocket than someone else's.

[wmenorr67]

'Irrelevance' is me voting Republican, when California's electoral votes will go to the Democrat.

That maybe correct for now but there is a couple of states that have already passed laws giving their electoral votes to the canidate who wins the national popular vote.  Be interesting to see how they hold up in court if they are challenged.  But if more states do that then your vote may actually mean something.