You can watch the debate below.
Here's my edited running commentary on the debate.
Obama: "8 years of failed policies, deregulation is at fault"
Lie! We HAVE regulation, the Dems blocked action on fannie mae.
Why doesn't McCain point out that regulation didn't save us this time - the Dems blocked effective regulation of fannie mae - there was an oversight group already in place, and the Dems ignored the proposals and warnings from this group. Regulation itself is not the answer. And deregulation was NOT the problem here. Government-started companies (Fannie and Freddie), with implicit U.S. backing fueled this fire until everyting burned to the ground. Bush, to his credit, tried to control Fannie Mae, but the Dems wouldn't allow it.
Obama spoke of the massive increase in spending under Bush. Does McCain not know that a lot of this came from the war on terror? Why didn't he say it? Sept. 11 changed a lot of things, including federal spending. We've spent a lot on the war on terror.
McCain's mortage buyout plan
Whoa - McCain drops the bomb right away - let's have the taxpayers buy all those bad loans and arbitrarily set the price of those homes, and not foreclose on the owners.
This is quite unbelieveable. This is more like a proposal Obama would make.
McCain is trying to out-liberal Obama, I guess.
It is clear now McCain is NOT running as a conservative. His proposal is very interventionist, very Democrat-like. He's trying to be a centrist populist.
Regarding McCain's buyout plan:
- how would his plan work exactly, and what would it do?
- would he save those who took out multiple mortgages on their house to buy cars and tv's?
- it would reward the very undeserving buyers who drove up house prices, bidding up and buying what they couldn't actually afford, making housing prices more expensive for all of us? They over bought, and now McCain wants to give them hundreds of thousands in home equity by repricing their loans. Governments are never good at centrally setting prices in any market any where. Just ask the old Soviet Union.
- These home owners in trouble: their homes will eventually rise in value - what then? Do they give the money back? Or will they simply realize hundreds of thousands in equity gains and then turn around and take out a 2nd loan, buying more things, and again putting themselves at risk of defaulting? Think of it - the government buys their bad load, and simply shaves off hundreds of thousands perhaps off the principal, effectively letting them buy that same home again at a lower price. Their neighbor isn't so lucky. Their neighbor paid an artificially high price for the home because of all of those home buyers that bought what they couldn't afford. Now, that neighbor is working hard to pay off that mortgage, and because he will NOT default on the loan, he gets no free equity from the government. UNBELIEVEABLE.
Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!! McCain fires back on this rant that Obama incessantly repeats: "McCain wants to give tax breaks to the biggest corporations and richest Americans."
Obama is going after small and medium-sized businesses all ove the country. That is going to hurt job growth.
Obama: 95% of americans will get a tax cut. And yet, he says this is a middle-class tax cut. How can the middle-class make up 95% of the population?
40% of tax payers PAY NO TAX!!!!!!!!! That can only mean he's going to give them back even more money (much of the bottom 40% actually gets money from the government in the form of cash back credits). As Newt Gingrich pointed out, this is welfare, not tax cuts.
McCain is clearly not arguing as a conservative but as a populist centrist. He keeps pounding on "Wall Street greed". Why can't anyone mention Main Street greed? Or did Wall Street hold a gun to Main Street's head and make them buy that expensive house?
- listen to O's language: "we're going to make sure that digital technologies are used to make companies more efficient."
Who does he think he is?? Does he not know that companies all over the world are already implementing technology for medical records? Private industry does this - not the gov. But listen closely to Obama - all his "changes" originate from big gov. and are mandated by big gov.
Remember Supply and Demand? Prices go up when there is short supply or too much demand. In healthcare, there is way too much demand. This is known, and this is understood by many economists. This is not yet known by most politicians. When seeing an expert only costs $20, you're going to see that expert more often. If you had to pay the true cost of it, you'd make a better cost-benefit decision about your health. We all pour tons of money into insurance premiums, and our companies turn around and tell us to go see the doc as often as we want. The inverse should be the case - lower premiums, and pay full price for each doc. visit. Insurance is for disasters NOT for anything and everything you want for a given service.
We've created healtcare all-you-can-eat buffets and it's driving up the prices. It's the same as if people have paid their $12.95 for the buffet, and now they're going eat all day!
Obama: "Healthcare is a right." Well, at least he said it truthfully. I don't think Clinton (you pick which one) could've been so straightforward in a debate.
OK - how much healthcare is a right? I have a tummy ache - should do I have the right to have it fixed, courtesy of all other tax payers? My "right" becomes everyone else's obligation.
What if I'm 200lbs overweight and have a lot of health problems because of that. Taxpayers should pay for that? What about STD's? AIDS?
Read Thomas Sowell - you see that a lot of problems in life are dealt with by trade-offs, not "solutions". The Anointed always think a perfect "solution" is around the corner. A perfect "solution" in healthcare is impossible, and trying to attain it would bankrupt the country. But I think we could make wise trade-offs and help cover those who can't afford it (we already do this, but perhaps we can do it better, and in a way that doesn't place the burden on counties and individual hospitals).
Dems have it easy when it comes to buying the votes of the public - no unhappiness, no sickness, free everything, tax those evil rich people. Vote us in and you'll get your kickbacks.
War and The Use of Force, Foreign Policy
Obama - the Iraq war is "an enormous strain on our budget." This from a guy who wants to immediately spend an additional TRILLION when he gets in office.
Why are libs only concerned about spending when it has to do with our defense?
Have they ever complained once about spending money on their constituents? Or how expensive fannie mae is now? Or how expensive soc. sec. is?
Nope - only national defense is a burden when it comes to spending.
McCain is lucky that more of the debate didn't focus on the financial crisis.
Pakistani sovereignty - do people not understand that there are some subjects that our leaders cannot speak of?
Of course we need to pursue al-Qaeda - and of course, our gov. shouldn't talk about that publicly so that we don't fuel terrorism in Pakistan. Obama totally blows this answer and McCain nails it.
Obama: Biggest national security priority: al-Qaeda and kill bin laden. Hmm. About 8 years too late on that one, Obama. How about the wider war on terror? How about nukes in Iran? Al-qaeda and Bin Laden are the top priority? I wonder if that will change when Iran has nukes or Israel is forced to attack before they do?
Lame Brokaw question: Is Russia today an evil empire?
What kind of lame, utterly useless and ultimately divisive question is that??? What a cad. How about ask a real question while some 50 million of us are watching????
This question was a cycnical trap for McCain. Libs went crazy when Reagan said this of the Soviet Union. So Brokaw was just fishing for a gaffe. Nice try, Mr. Balanced.
Iran - I'm actually surprised by McCain's tough talk. One could've never spoken in a national debate like that before Sept. 11, 2001.
Obama is actually blaming Bush for North Korea developing more Nukes and Iran creating centrifuges???? How can he even be serious? Clinton talked and talked to North Korea and signed deals, and gave them nuclear technology because they were so "good". The problem is, they lied, had always intended to develop nukes, and then mocked us once they acquired them. So much for sitting down and talking. I guess Obama believes he can sit down and talk to liars and those who only understand strength and force. But good luck, Senator Obama, in talking to these thugs. History's record doesn't reveal happy events after such folly. As Thomas Sowell asks, has anyone ever considered how many millions have died because of "peace" movements?
I thought McCain was terrible in the first debate, and decent in this one.
Obama, as much as I oppose his candidacy, is sounding a little more presidential after 2 years of campaigning.
Man, I can't stand these sound-byte debates.
"OK, candidate, tell me in 2 minutes what you'll do if Iran nukes Israel and WW III starts."
Surely we as a nation have a little more time to devote to the future of our country than 2 minutes per question.
Here's a real debate - let them go at it on the issues, and let a moderator only make sure that equal time is given to each, and move along to the next issue after the current one is exhausted. Useless 2-minute format, where jabs and quips are more important than substance.
I'm not too into "who won" the debate, but please do post your comments in the comments link below on what you thought of the debate.
For me, I can't stand it when candidates blather on with populist rhetoric and platitudes. Just tell me what you think and how you'll deal with the subject at hand, and what the effect of your policies will be. Newt Gingrich could mop the floor with both of these guys.
If you like this article, click the buzz button below.