Will this hurt or help either candidate?

[IDrinkaRum]

McCain has said that he's suspending his campaign to go back to the Senate and help with crafting a bailout plan before tomorrow.

Obama has said that is ridiculous and as President (whomever it is), they will have to deal with more than one issue at a time. There is still no word (I think) from Obama as to whether or not he will back away from the debate he and McCain were to have on Friday.

Here are some news articles:

McCain to halt campaign
McCain wants to help out with bailout
Wall Street! Look out! McCain will be back to help!

[Boozy]

What a ridiculous move by McCain. He's also decided to suspend his campaign ads, and is urging Obama to do the same.

Did someone die? Are we in mourning over Lehman Bros. or something?

[IDrinkaRum]

According to McCain, if we don't fix this, we, as in the United States, will go into another Depression (no one will be able to buy or sell homes, businesses will not be able to pay their employees, banks will tank out, etc.).

[AFPheonix]

According to any of the financial guys I've been listening and talking to, we may have recession in some sectors, but we most certainly aren't going to be going into a full blown depression.

It's an interesting campaign tactic on Mccain's part, however. Heh.

[IDrinkaRum]

What I find interesting is that Obama says as President, one has to deal with many issues not just one at a time. However, Clinton partially shut down the government because congress didn't pass legislation that would have kept the government running.

To me, as President, Clinton put his mind to one issue and put the others on the back burner (not that he didn't care about those other issues, but this was more important). Which is what McCain is saying: "The possibility of a recession/depression is more important that posturing in front of people to get them to vote for one of us."

I'm not saying McCain is a hero for doing this. This could backfire big time against him.

I'm also not saying Obama is correct in thinking that this will right itself out and both he & McCain need to stay on the campaign trail. This could backfire against him too.

[AdminAssistant]

Personally, I think McCain might as well say, "B-but I don't like talking about the economy! I wanna talk about war! waaaah!" and hiding in a corner. The economy is not a strength of the Republican party. The debate on Friday will focus on the candidate's position on economy. And McCain cannot compete with Obama in that area. If McCain tries to be more moderate to appeal to "poor" people, he's gonna piss off the rich folks bankrolling his campaign. If he stays to the Republican line of 'trickle down economics', then he will lose the working class vote.

It's a scare tactic. We are not headed for a Great Depression. But a lot of the elite, the top 2% are finally having the same financial problems the rest of us have been having for years. I personally don't give three damns if some CEO loses his pwecious $9 million golden parachute. Dad had to sell the farm 7 years ago. Sorry if I don't have a lot of sympathy for these CEO's that have been twisting the American economy for their own good.

Sorry about the OT. But yeah, McCain is just biding his time on this one. He's not willing to take on the problem. Obama is.

[AFPheonix]

What I find interesting is that Obama says as President, one has to deal with many issues not just one at a time. However, Clinton partially shut down the government because congress didn't pass legislation that would have kept the government running.

To me, as President, Clinton put his mind to one issue and put the others on the back burner (not that he didn't care about those other issues, but this was more important). Which is what McCain is saying: "The possibility of a recession/depression is more important that posturing in front of people to get them to vote for one of us."

I'm not saying McCain is a hero for doing this. This could backfire big time against him.

I'm also not saying Obama is correct in thinking that this will right itself out and both he & McCain need to stay on the campaign trail. This could backfire against him too.

Keep in mind that we were in a different place during the government shut-down. We were not at war, we had an extremely good economy going. There was bull-headedness going on on both sides, but that tactic got the job done that benefited most everyone.
On this occasion, while Mccain may be trying to make himself look extremely noble by motoring back to the Senate, make no mistake that at 40 or so days out from the election, he's making a very calculated move to try and discredit his opponent. His calculus is that he's going to get more mileage and a bump in the polls for this move than he would have with any debate or campaign or advertising. It will be interesting to see if it works.
Obama is not saying that this will necessarily right itself, but he also knows that there's still 48 other Senators who can handle the legislation just fine, plus the entire House. He is supporting the bail-out if I heard right on the radio on the way home today. The incidentals of that decision can be made without those two.

[IDrinkaRum]

Ah yes, but sometimes, just one vote is needed. If they both had decided to not do anything and sit back and there were even stevens all around, the voting public would be up in arms. (I'm playing Devil's Advocate).

[BlaqueKatt]

Obama is not saying that this will necessarily right itself, but he also knows that there's still 48 other Senators who can handle the legislation just fine, plus the entire House. He is supporting the bail-out if I heard right on the radio on the way home today. The incidentals of that decision can be made without those two.

However they are still both being paid to be members of the senate and should be doing the job they are getting taxpayer money for, and set aside politics and "chumming" for votes. Their jobs right now are first and foremost to be US senators not campaign personalities/debators. And yes the president will have to deal with several things at once however the country should come first(Obama is not even returning to do anything to work on the issue-"just let the others deal with it, I have a campaign to run" is not a good attitude for a presidential hopeful to have), and campaigning should come second. If a major crisis occurs I would want the president to stop anything that's not urgent(an election campaign/debate is not urgent) to deal with the crisis at hand. If we had another attack on the scale of 9/11 would it be better to keep campaigning? What about another natural disaster-is campaigning more important? I'm still not voting for either one but this kinda tells me the campaign is more important to Obama than his current paying job as a senator.

Remember one of them is still going to be a senator after november-one is sloughing of his responsibilities already.

[Slytovhand]

Not being over there, so my 2 cents doesn't count, but....

I think McCain is just doing a nice PR stunt. And Obama isn't falling for it (though I'll bet you a stack of the population does).

It makes McCain look like the good caring sort of guy (precisely as BK has just posted).

But... is he an economist? Is he actually qualified to work on a bailout? Does he really have anything all that important to add that people far more qualified, experienced and capable are unable to say?

And in the future?? The president is only 1 person... and from what I've seen, is very very rarely actually capable of doing anything other than spout a particular rhetoric and opinion... and then let everyone else figure things out. (pretty much any stardard politician's role - isn't it?? I mean, how often do you have a minister in charge of something that they've actually studied as a qualification and experienced 1st hand professionally?? I see a lot of lawyers, I don't see many with a PhD in Foreign Politics, for example).

If there's a vote that's needed, fine, get them both in to vote. But until then, let the 'experts' do their thing!


Slyt

[AdminAssistant]

(an election campaign/debate is not urgent)

Yes it is. I want to know, right now, how each candidate stands on this issue. How, if they were POTUS, they would address this. Because this is going to be a long-term issue. Whatever bill gets passed now is just a band-aid. Rest assured that Dub-ya & Co. will only want to fix this enough to get through January, so that it falls in the lap of the next guy in charge.

I want to see these two guys hash out their ideas, see where they agree and disagree. Even though I don't support McCain, I want to know where he stands. And, I'm anxious to see them debate. It's only 90 minutes. Oh, and Obama did go to Washington today to be briefed on the situation.

I heard today that people are even blaming Clinton for this. Yeah, all those years of a surplus were just killer on the economy.

[Fashion Lad!]

I heard today that people are even blaming Clinton for this. Yeah, all those years of a surplus were just killer on the economy.

I'm going to touch on that point first, and then I'll get to the matter at hand. In 1999, the Clinton Administration did put increased pressure on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to take on higher risk mortgages. (The American Dream to own a home, the Clinton Administration wanted to make that more accessible.)That is one of the reasons that we are in this mess. That's nearly 10 years ago.

So, we'll look closer to 2001. Ron Paul said this would be a problem.

Bush Fought to Regulate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae 5 Years Ago Until Democrats Stopped Him

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

Spetember 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Full Article: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea8_1221606601

Now... I'm definitely not putting the blame on Bill Clinton. But, I am blaming democrats in a large way.

CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, “This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this.” Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the ‘99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They’re all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?

BILL CLINTON: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Full Article: http://pastorblastor.wordpress.com/2...linton-agrees/

But, just so you know... this has been an issue since at least 1999. More information: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...bush-or-mccain

Now, on to the actual topic.
I honestly do believe that John McCain suspended his campaigning to do what he can to help the economy. I'm sure there is some politics involved, there's always politics involved. But for the most part, I do believe that he is doing this to put America first.

Now, I do believe that we're in a much bigger mess than what the politicians are telling us. I believe that they're not telling us everything so that we avoid panic and mayhem. Congress doesn't work this quickly and this diligently unless it's an absolute emergency. At this point, we're going to start seeing a credit freeze and that's absolutely no good.

So, I do believe that McCain is for the most part doing what he feels he needs to do for this country.

I don't think this will necessarily hurt Obama. The polls have been back and forth about every 1-2 weeks on who is in the lead.

I know that this wasn't because McCain is afraid of a debate. In fact, he's actually tried to get more presidential debates. But that's neither here, nor there now. It might help McCain, but I don't think it will hurt either candidate.

[Slytovhand]

Feel free to correct me here, but didn't the US gov't just throw billions (or is it now trillions) into a 'war effort' over the last few years... billions from an economy that's been in deficit for a couple of decades now?

Surely this has been a major contributor? (or is it that this was going to happen, and the war was a distraction for the public??)

(I'm always amazed at the miracles that governments can do... in some circumstances, yet not in others..)

[Fashion Lad!]

Feel free to correct me here, but didn't the US gov't just throw billions (or is it now trillions) into a 'war effort' over the last few years... billions from an economy that's been in deficit for a couple of decades now?

Surely this has been a major contributor? (or is it that this was going to happen, and the war was a distraction for the public??)

(I'm always amazed at the miracles that governments can do... in some circumstances, yet not in others..)

They did. They really did. But, this has been going on long before the war. And really, this was pretty much people unable to pay for their mortgages. That's what lead to most of this. The housing industry was key factor in this. The war did not help, but we would have been in this mess without the war. This is something that has been going on for years. And it started even before GWB took office. Not having a war might have just delayed the inevitable. But Bill Clinton said we needed to regulate these industries, Ron Paul told us this was going to happen back in 2001. And this was before 9/11. So, you really can't play the war card because if it is a factor in all of this, it's a pretty insignificant.

[IDrinkaRum]

What I want to know is why Obama and the Democrats don't think it's necessary to set up a committee or an oversight group into checking out the way Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae were dealing with their accounting practices. How were they giving out these loans to people who obviously couldn't afford it and couldn't pay it back. They had to have been hiding the non-payments for a while.

As for the debate tonight? I couldn't care less. I like seeing McCain going to the Capital and doing his job. Obama can sit on his duff wherever the debate is supposed to take place and half-heartedly call in some things he wants added to the bill and so forth. But for me, I already see how the two men will handle things. And I don't like what I'm seeing with Obama.

And also, why hasn't there been a vote in the house and senate and it sent to the president? the president has said he'll sign the darn thing! The democrats know this. what, they're shocked that they & the president agree on something? why do they keep adding things that don't need to be added just to get a "few more signatures"?

and besides, is this bill really needed? or are the president and our other representatives just yanking our collective chains?

enquiring minds want to know!