Vote for McCain to stop a massive bailout of the irresponsible!

[Anonymous]

I think that I’m probably a cross between a Dem and a Republican. I do NOT support bailouts in any form or fashion. However, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man. The Republicans only care for big businesses, high-earners and those that are wealthy. Screw the people who need help like those who are mentally ill. As long as they are keeping money in the pockets of those who are enjoying wealth, the lady who is dillusional and can’t help herself can rot on the street. Morally, I have a problem with that and so do a lot of people like me.

We need a national healthcare system. Other countries have them, obviously it can be done. Repubs would rather spend billions fighting wars we have no business fighting than to take care of American citizens. That’s where our responsibility lies.

What bugs me is Bush signed off on bailouts which is something I understand a Repub president should never do. But, we all know what an idiot he is, so that’s not surprising.

Thank God I didn’t vote for him.

[CA renter]

Guess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:

Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.

More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08182007.html

[CA renter]

Guess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:

Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.

More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08182007.html

[CA renter]

Guess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:

Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.

More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08182007.html

[CA renter]

Guess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:

Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.

More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08182007.html

[CA renter]

Guess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:

Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.

More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08182007.html

[bob007]

Ignoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.

[bob007]

Ignoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.

[bob007]

Ignoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.

[bob007]

Ignoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.

[bob007]

Ignoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.

[bob007]

Ignoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.

[bob007]

Ignoring his rhetoric I expect McCain to pullout the US troops from Iraq. He is a soldier. He will seek a honorable way out.

[blahblahblah]

However, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man.

Man I wish that were still true. Maybe in the days of FDR and JFK but I don’t think so anymore. President Bubba gave China permanent favored-nation trading status to keep his Arkansas Wal-Mart buddies happy, so now we don’t make anything here anymore and instead buy all of our goods from a communist hellhole that uses slave labor to keep costs down. And good old President Bubba dropped the NAFTA atomic bomb on Mexican agribusiness, forcing tens of millions of poor farmworkers north in search of food. As an added bonus to make them even more miserable he extended the border fence 700 miles inland to make their trek northward horrifically dangerous. These two acts damaged America (and Mexico) as much as anything Bush has done to our economy while simultaneously strengthening China. Most of us in the middle class thought everything was great during the Clinton years because our tech stock portfolios looked fantastic, but in actuality it just took a few years before the real damage from his policies would be felt.

In Bubba’s defense I will say that his wars were smaller and killed fewer people, but only by a little. His nonstop 8-year bombing of Iraq and the continuation of Gulf War sanctions killed hundreds of thousands.

We are so screwed. I don’t care who we vote for, there is going to be more war, more debt, more bailouts for rich bankers, and more misery for the common American. Obama might be the only one that would do anything different but who knows. God help us.

[blahblahblah]

However, I want a democratic president in the white house becuause unlike Republicans, they care for the common, working-class man.

Man I wish that were still true. Maybe in the days of FDR and JFK but I don’t think so anymore. President Bubba gave China permanent favored-nation trading status to keep his Arkansas Wal-Mart buddies happy, so now we don’t make anything here anymore and instead buy all of our goods from a communist hellhole that uses slave labor to keep costs down. And good old President Bubba dropped the NAFTA atomic bomb on Mexican agribusiness, forcing tens of millions of poor farmworkers north in search of food. As an added bonus to make them even more miserable he extended the border fence 700 miles inland to make their trek northward horrifically dangerous. These two acts damaged America (and Mexico) as much as anything Bush has done to our economy while simultaneously strengthening China. Most of us in the middle class thought everything was great during the Clinton years because our tech stock portfolios looked fantastic, but in actuality it just took a few years before the real damage from his policies would be felt.

In Bubba’s defense I will say that his wars were smaller and killed fewer people, but only by a little. His nonstop 8-year bombing of Iraq and the continuation of Gulf War sanctions killed hundreds of thousands.

We are so screwed. I don’t care who we vote for, there is going to be more war, more debt, more bailouts for rich bankers, and more misery for the common American. Obama might be the only one that would do anything different but who knows. God help us.

[Author]

Posts