rzemanfl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-08 06:22 PM
Original message |
When I saw Obama's speaking in Reno today over the Internet |
|
I came to these conclusions: 1) There will be a "rescue" bill this week, passed, if necessary, mostly or entirely with Dem votes in the House. 2) McCain will be made to look like an ass in the process (even more than now). 3) That people generally will absorb and accept the "neighbor's house on fire" argument (which has some similarity to the way FDR sold Lend-Lease). 4) President Obama comes out of this looking good, McCain looks stupid and Bush is a dead duck who will be forced to thank the Dems for acting in the best interest of their country.
|
Pirate Smile
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-08 06:27 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I agree. I liked the "Your Neighbor's House is on Fire" argument. Yeah, you can know |
|
he is an irresponsible asshole who deserves it and/or caused it but you know you have to put it out or else it will cause your house to burn down too. After the fire is out, you can go after the arsonist or reckless neighbor but you don't do that while ignoring the sparks flying onto your own roof.
|
Dr Fate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-08 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Is there a part that helps the non-millionare neighbor pay for the smoke damage to his house? |
|
Edited on Tue Sep-30-08 06:41 PM by Dr Fate
If this is our metaphor, then I'm running with it.
Do I get some cash in the form of a bailout to help me pay for the smoke damage to my own house, or am a merely compelled to just pay for & renovate the millionare guy's house?
I guess I'm just supposed to use my own personal money to pay for the smoke damage- Interesting that the millionare neighbor cant do the same
This metaphor is cute, but it assumes that only the "other neighbor"-the millionare- has fire damage that needs to be payed for by someone.
I dont mind helping my millionare neighbor put out a fire before it burns my house- but I think he should be the one who pays the expenses.
Explain why Obama or any DEM would find this is unreasonable.
|
grantcart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-08 06:28 PM
Response to Original message |
2. yep they kept a bunch of democrats back just to keep the pressure on McCain |
|
now if anybody has lost money in the stock market they can thank McCain for injecting presidential politics into it.
Obama never uses up all of his ammunition. All through the primaries he held stuff back so that he could keep control of the media cycle. The super delegates was a good example of this.
|
Dr Fate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-08 06:39 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I dont mind helping a millionare put out the fire in his house. When will he help me with mine? |
|
I've got some "fires" of my own that need to be put out- but not one politician or millionare seems to care.
And why cant the millionare pay the expenses inviolved with putting out his fire- instead of the innocent bystanders?
The metaphor isnt as air-tight as it could be.
Serioulsy- anyone can agree with putting out a fire- the argument is who is obligated to handle the expenses.
Perhaps the person who started the fire?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 08th 2024, 04:22 PM
Response to Original message |