Comments for McCain's economic plan boosts middle class »
Posted By Wolfie2007 1 year, 1 month ago in Business & FinanceJohn McCain's economic plan is designed from the ground up to raise incomes and create jobs for Americans - especially middle-class Americans - and get our economy moving again. It is in sharp contrast to Barack Obama's plan, which does not treat the middle class well and which will reduce jobs rather than create them. Let's compare the plans.
Read Full Story at sfgate.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 233
-
redtomatoComment removed: Spammer65 Replies
-
24%
Wolfie20071 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
Reply
The results are similar for other middle-class families. If that family earned $42,000, they would receive $4,350 more with McCain than Obama. If the family did not receive health insurance from the employer, they would do even better under McCain's plan, receiving a tax refund of $3,287. Under McCain's plan, the lower a family's income, the larger the percentage reduction in taxes.-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not true. Under McSame a family int eh 32-62000 they recieve 340 and some change under Obama that goes up to 1400. Obama has much more lucrative tax benfits for the middle class then McSame who gives his biggest breaks to the uber rich. The goes on a deficit spending spree to fund his pipe dreams energy plans.
Reply
-
32%
Wolfie20071 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
Reply
McCain's economic plan is comprehensive and helps the middle class in many other ways. By promoting domestic energy production, including nuclear power and exploration and production of oil and gas - which Obama has opposed - McCain will reduce the price of gasoline, electricity and heating oil. By promoting free-trade agreements, he will reduce taxes on job-creating exports and reduce the prices that middle- and lower-income families pay for food and clothing. In contrast, Sen. Obama opposes good trade agreements - voting against the Colombia free-trade agreement - that would create jobs in America.-
67%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Columbia "free trade agreement" has more to do with the US supporting the narco-trafficker government of Uribe than anything else. It is the sort of imperialistic hegemony that both Columbians and Americans would be better off without.
Reply
U.S. "Free Trade": Death, Drugs and Despair in Colombia
Pedro Arenas is not a person that most of the elites in the U.S.--in the mainstream media, inside the Beltway think-tanks, and in elected positions on Congress--would meet in order to understand the real crime of so-called "free trade." For the elites, so-called "free trade" is an unassailable concept, something that is as natural and obvious as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. But, for hundreds of thousands of Colombians like Arenas, so-called "free trade" is a question of life and death. And, in our name, our government--Republicans and potentially key Democrats--is pushing to sign death warrants for Colombians in the guise of a so-called "free trade" agreement between our two countries.
This might strike some as a bit hyperbolic. But, the proposed deal would, at the very least, push thousands of farmers off their lands. And, as likely, empower the paramilitary death squads that have flourished, in part through the U.S. financing of the "war on drugs, but also via the strengthening of the powerful business interests who fund some of the most violent political forces in Colombia. Here is the tale, in relative brevity, of the intersection between so-called "free trade," political violence, economic violence and drug cultivation.
.... Put simply, the deal would benefit business and political interests tied to the paramilitary forces. If you have any doubts about the links between the government and these right-wing paramilitary forces, check this out. In November 2006, two powerful senators and two members of Congress--allies of President Uribe - resigned because of evidence they had conspired with paramilitary groups. The Uribe government was rocked this past Monday when its foreign minister resigned:
The foreign minister of Colombia resigned Monday as the government of President Álvaro Uribe, the Bush administration's closest ally in South America, struggled with a scandal that has disclosed ties between paramilitary cocaine-trafficking squads and some of Mr. Uribe's most prominent political supporters....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/us-f...-
aacr1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
33%
Wolfie20071 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
Reply
The most worrisome aspect of Obama's economic plan is that he would raise tax rates in a weak economy. I know of no sensible economic theory that says that increasing taxes, or even planning to increase taxes, in a recession is a good idea. Rather, it is flawed economics. Raising taxes could turn a recession into a depression, and would significantly harm middle-class families. No matter how you look at it, McCain's economic plan helps the middle class much more than Obama's.-
75%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually fiscal responsibility and reducing the wealth transfers to super-rich gamblers are more likely to get us out of the economic mess created by "neo-liberals" ever since Reagan. We don't need any more of the profligate borrow and spend of the GOP that has mortgaged the future of us and our children.
Reply
The GOP will start to sound credible again when they stop lying in political campaigns.
McCain's ads on taxes are just plain false - Washington Post
THERE IS a serious debate in this presidential campaign about the fundamentally different tax policies of Barack Obama and John McCain. Then there is the phony, misleading and at times outright dishonest debate that the McCain campaign has been waging -- most recently with a television ad.
...The facts? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that the Obama plan would give households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution an average tax cut of 5.5 percent of income ($567) in 2009, while those in the middle fifth would get an average cut of 2.6 percent of income ($1,118). "Your taxes" would go up, yes -- but not if you're someone who is sweating higher gas prices. By contrast, Mr. McCain's tax plan would give those in the bottom fifth of income an average tax cut of $21 in 2009. The middle fifth would get $325 -- less than a third of the Obama cut. The wealthiest taxpayers make out terrifically...
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/31/mccains-... -
50%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But didn't Bush cut taxes during for the least needy Americans while we're at war in two countries? What was his precedent for thinking THAT was sound fiscal policy? Had that ever been done in American history? In fact, had there ever been a war where a President handed out tax cuts galore, ENCOURAGED Americans to spend beyond their means (by being the poster child for layaway) and caused a conflict in oil rich regions of the world that DIDN'T result in a huge spike in oil prices? And yet STILL cons want to blame the horrific results of Bush's mind-boggling GOP enabled failure and incompetence on those on the left? Obama has it exactly right about the McCain camp. Cons, have you NO idea how erratic and just plain dangerously unstable your behavior has been these last 8 years? Cons?! ;-(
Reply
-
-
75%
tchef1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain's plan is just more trickle down economics that has led us to where we are today. Look around you, it doesn't work. If you want the economy to improve you have to get the money in the hands of those who will spend it. You can cut the taxes to the rich all you want but if the middle class doesn't have money to spend on things they need no one will buy the products and services that the rich have to offer.
Reply
The best way to create jobs is to have people who can purchase goods and services. -
50%
nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The best way to create jobs is to have people who can purchase goods and services."
Reply
What kind of logic is that?
How can people purchase goods and services if they don't have a job??
The jobs must come first or do you propose the government simply hand out checks so people can purchase goods and services???-
64%
tchef1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not talking about handing out checks. I'm talking about keeping more of the money earned by the middle class in their hands. What new businesses and jobs are the rich going to create if no one can afford their products and services. Right now the cost of living has gotten so high there is little money left to buy anything else. No money to go to restaurants, or see a movie. What good are the tax breaks for the restaurant owner if there are no customers? A healthy middle class makes a healthy economy.
Reply-
36%
nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tchef
Reply
Right now the middle class is suffering because the good jobs that paid well have moved overseas
If Obama raises the tax on businesses what will stop even more companies from moving their operations offshore????
You won't have a healthy middle class EVER if you keep chasing companies overseas
The incentives need to be in place to keep companies here and attract some to move back from foreign countries
What in Obama's tax plan would do that?-
-
30%
nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Did you ever read about the The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act signed into law on June 17, 1930?
Reply
In the opinion of most economists, the Smoot-Hawley act was partially responsible for the severity of the Great Depression
Want to try it again????
Ever hear the saying "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it"-
80%
ADAGUY1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tariffs were in place until the Reagan administration! Care to try again?
Reply
By the way, your quote "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" Should say "Those who cannot learn from history are destined to repeat it"
Just like voting twice for Reagan, then voting for Bush when he promised the same thing as Reagan, TWICE!-
29%
nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I prefer the George Santayana version "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Reply
Trade is more global now and the WTO is more active
Are you really that poorly informed??
2003: U.S. Tariffs on Steel Are Illegal, World Trade Organization Says
2008: The WTO has consistently ruled against the EU banana tariff policy
2007: WTO says Japan's tariff on Hynix chips illegal
Try Google
-
-
-
33%
nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL Sorry - I don't listen to Limbaugh and I don't use Wikioedia as a source
Reply
Try The Cambridge Economic History of the United States By Stanley L. Engerman
Economist and author Jude Wanniski later correlated these swings with the prospects for passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was then being debated in Congress
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was especially harmful to agriculture because it caused farmers to default on their loans. This event may have worsened or even caused the ensuing bank runs in the Midwest and West that caused the collapse of the banking system.
Economic historians (especially Friedman and Schwartz) emphasize the importance of numerous bank failures
Prior to the Great Depression, a petition signed by over 1,000 economists was presented to the U.S. government warning that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act would bring disastrous economic repercussions. This did not stop the act from being signed into law
-
-
-
82%
ADAGUY1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Better yet, here it is, I looked it up for you!
Reply
Great Depression
# 2 Causes
* 2.1 Debt
* 2.2 Trade decline and the U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
* 2.3 U.S. Federal Reserve and money supply
* 2.4 Austrian School explanations
* 2.5 Business
* 2.6 Deficit Spending
* 2.7 Inequality of wealth and income
If you read the article, you will find out that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was not passed until after the fall of wall street in 1929.
It was believed to have made the depression WORES in other nations, not the US.
IT WAS NOT BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN THE CAUSE OF THE DEPRESSION!
-
-
-
-
71%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The real problem is the transfer of American's wealth to the super-rich, who have gambled it away rather than investing it productively. Jobs for Americans will come when we take the wealth back from the super-rich and give it to real americans to invest productively.
Reply
The end of voodoo economics
No one can say that current events are a one-off. The get-government-out-of-business brigade, the masters of the universe, have in their three decades of unbridled power produced the savings and loan bail-out, the Mexican bond bail-out, the Asian currency crisis, the Enron and other related scandals, the tech bubble, the Long-Term Capital Management collapse and rescue, a wage freeze for working Americans and now this.
And the irony is that these vile people who are now graciously agreeing to pocket a trillion dollars of taxpayers' cash have been arguing for three decades that government has no business in business, least of all in pension provision. In their famous phrase, it would pose a "moral hazard" for ordinary Americans to think that their government would look after them if in old age their income or their health failed them.
Those who have engineered these serial disasters, which have inflicted more damage on the US and world economy than Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, have not been pursued into the hills of Bora Bora. Governments have reduced their taxes as they reward themselves with more and more salary, bonuses and stock options. If the shares of the company they manage take a dive, they backdate their options. If the company fails, they take a golden parachute. And when all else fails, they come to the taxpayers, top hat in hand.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/09/28/the-end-...-
67%
Leemck021 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
hyperbola, you got that right, the dollar is used too much as paper and not enough in production for return on capital. We just don't hear that anymore. It has to be some ratio that the dollar's use for wealth accumulation or investments has to be balanced with capital creation or manufacture that actually increase the value of the dollar. This is where we must have much smarter and dedicated people than McCain/Palin; who 'actually are' in the party that proves their dedication to trickle down economics, 'no tax and spending' and incompetent government that let the rich run wild. As a minority party, McCain can better change the focus of his party as a Senator and then let somebody bring it back for another election as more in tune with all Americans, than it is now.
Reply
-
-
75%
tchef1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You have to have a demand for products and services to create jobs. With the middle class losing it's discretionary income the demand for goods and services are down. When demand is down that's when the layoffs start. I know I just had to layoff one of my employees. And if something doesn't turn around I may end up the only one left in the kitchen.
Reply
-
-
73%
lbrtyordeath1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's the same kind of logic involved in the "economic stimulus" packages. It's the same kind of logic that led Bush to tell us to go out and buy stuff after 911.
Reply
You're viewpoint is so upside down I barely can comprehend. "How can people purchase goods and services if they don't have a job?" Well.....um....economics 101, supply and demand, the higher demand for products there are the more people are needed to produce them. Umm...errr....and the Gov't handed out some pretty damn HEFTY checks to Wall Street, so I just......wow.
I don't even feel like arguing this anymore. I'm probably already beyond your grasp.-
-
63%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yep. The transfer of American's wealth to the super -rich started by Reagan has been a total failure (already under Reagan 40% of americans lost their savings and became net debopts). Far from investing productively for Americans, the super-rich gambled away our patrimony.
Reply
The BEST way to create jobs is to put wealth back into the hands of middle Americans, who will invest it far more productively than the super-rich.
The Bitter Fruits of Deregulation
In the 21st century the US economy has produced net new jobs only in low paid domestic services, such as waitresses, bartenders, hospital orderlies, and retail clerks. The kind of jobs that provided ladders of upward mobility into the middle class are being exported abroad or filled by foreigners brought in on work visas. Today when you purchase an American name brand, you are supporting economic growth and consumer incomes in China and Indonesia, not in Detroit and Cincinnati.
In the 20th century, economic growth resulted from improved technologies, new investment, and increases in labor productivity, which raised consumers’ incomes and purchasing power. In contrast, in the 21st century, economic growth has resulted from debt expansion.
Most Americans have experienced little, if any, income growth in the 21st century. Instead, consumers have kept the economy going by maxing out their credit cards and refinancing their mortgages in order to consume the equity in their homes.
The income gains of the 21st century have gone to corporate chief executives, shareholders of offshoring corporations, and financial corporations.
If we add state capitalism to the Bush administration’s success in eroding both the US Constitution and the power of Congress, we may be witnessing the final death of accountable constitutional government.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/09/26/the-bitt... -
50%
Leemck021 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tchef, thank you, and now to introduce the Great Depression brought to by by the GOP. Fannie Man my eye, this is the price for having the Rubber Stamp congress started by Newt that stopped democratic rule for so many years. McCain may be a Maverick but the GOP isn't going to change for that.
Reply -
-
60%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, the Government is the source of new business activity.
Reply
Just look at George W. Bush ... even though he and his partners had plenty of money to build the baseball stadium they wanted ... they went ... hat in hand ... to the Government.
They got Arlington to raise taxes to pay for BUSH and Co's stadium.
See?
Republicans only support Capitalism when they are making profits.
When they are enduring losses ... they support Socialism ... you know ... bailouts.
More evidence of Republican Moral Vacancy ... a Moral Vacancy that ... inexplicably ... you continue to support.
Why, droppy? -
67%
sinophil491 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
drop - Savings POTENTIALLY can stimulate economic growth if there is a demand for more goods. However, if there is no demand, there is no stimulation.
Reply
The overwhelming portion of demand comes from the middle class and the poor. These classes have traditionally been the group called "consumers."
When consumption goes up, that means there are more factory orders. More factory orders means more jobs and more factories being built. More consumers means more cars being built, more appliances, more homes being purchased.
More tax cuts to the rich and the corporations means more profit to them. That's all it means.
If there is no demand, there still will be no new jobs. As a matter of fact, the fewer jobs and the lower the income means that those factory workers won't be able to afford the products that they themselves make.
That is why supply-side economics, trickle down economics, voodoo economics etc. that Reagan and Bush are so fond of DOES NOT WORK.
-
-
-
100%
IanFraigun1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you believe that show me one single instance in this countries history where employees were hired to create products that nobody was buying. Maybe a startup company or a new process, but if the products are not purchased quickly those people will be turned out without work.
Reply
The other comments were right. You need to have consumers with money to buy the products or there can never be long term employement available to make those products.
-
-
64%
miklkit1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We call him McSame because he is just more of the same discredited BU**SH**.
Reply
This is what he represents.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html-
-
60%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What about George W. Bush's crazy Relgion?
Reply
You know ... Christianity that has been twisted into a perverse political ideology .... look what that perversity has led our nation to.
But I am sure you don't care.
Most of my fellow Christian Conservatives appear to be rooting on the demise of our nation ... so they can build a Christian Nation based upon Sharia Law but with a more hardline interpretation of the Bible. -
-
-
67%
Teech1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain's plan loots what the Bushtapo has not yet stolen from middle class working people.
Reply
McCain taxes any employer contribution to health care as regular income. He gives you a nickel and then takes away 5 dollars and calls that a benefit.
McCain continues corporate communism by rewarding corporations that have sent jobs offshore and stolen the cash from pension plans to fund parachutes and inflated salaries for CEO's.
Socialism is bad, unless it is to bail out McLame's big business contributors.
McCain can lie all he wants, he's used to it. Palin can continue to lie about opposing inventments in Darfur when ABC and others have clearly exposed her for a Bush class liar.
McCain can continue his efforts to block the Troopergate investigation in Alaska. Anything to perpetuate lies and obstruct justice.
McCain continues with the deficit spending and all the policies that have created the worst financial meltdown in U.S. history.
McCain promises to keep spending 10 billion per week in Iraq to enrich his Halliburton and Big Oil cronies.
McCain offers NOTHING more than 4 more years of the worst presidency in the history of democracy.
And on and on and on and on. Lies, lies, lies, and more lies on top of that.
In November you will learn that the American voters have finally come to admit the horrible mistake they made in the past two elections. -
29%
GLee1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
68%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's an easy one GLee ... all Obama has to do is ratchet down the Massive, Unprecedented, Wild n Crazy Spending that the Republicans promoted during the Bush years!
Reply
Hey, here's a question ... why are you worried about what Obama MIGHT do ... but you never voiced the slightest concern while Bush was bankrupting our nation and borrowing $1.4 TRILLION from our Ideological Nemesis ... the COMMUNISTS in China?
I guess you are more interested in supporting an extremist Right Wing Ideology than protecting our nation .... our flag ... our freedoms.
Is that it?-
62%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OmegaTomato ...
Reply
He's already said he's going to leave the troops in for 100 years.
I think you need to go back and re-jigger your figures.
100 years at $130 BILLION a year ... well, I'm no math wizard ... but I think that's $130 TRILLION.
All McCain offers is more spending on Military Contractors ... ... ... and of course, an unpredictable character .. .. .. weak morals .. .. .. and a pugnacious temprement that will likely result in ADDITIONAL wars.
Of course, I realize that my fellow Christian Conservatives will start salivating at the hint that we might have more warfare on the horizon ... ... ... but really, this is not going to help our nation.-
75%
DeauxNut1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"He's already said he's going to leave the troops in for 100 years"
Reply
Is this any different than the American Military prescence in Germany that has been there since WWII going on 64 years now? How 'bout the American Military prescence in Japan?-
50%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's way different from those. Remember those were conflicts America was behind and we sacrificed, rationed, etc and behaved as if we really cared and believed in our reasons for being there. We shouldn't need a gigantic military presence anywhere and probably wouldn't if we weren't constantly antagonizing the rest of the international community.
Reply
-
-
64%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well GLee, we could start by cleaning up the massive corruption associated with the Pentagon. That would give us trillions.
Reply
The Pentagon Bailout Fraud
... In other words, sometime in 2009 the direct costs of the war the Bush administration once predicted would cost perhaps $50-60 billion in total will stand at more than $800 billion, or $100 billion above the cost (if all goes well, which it won't) of the bailout of the financial system now being proposed in Washington.
Estimates of the true long-term costs of the President's war of choice, including payments of health care and veterans benefits into the distant future, soar into the budgetary stratosphere. They range from the Congressional Budget Office's $1-2 trillion to an estimate by economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes of up to $4-5 trillion. So we're talking somewhere between one-and-a-half and seven bailouts-worth of taxpayer dollars flowing into the morass of disaster, corruption, and carnage in Iraq.
There has been much moaning, air-sucking, and outrage about the $700 billion that the U.S. government is thinking of throwing away on rich New York bankers who have been ripping us off for the past few years and then letting greed drive their businesses into a variety of ditches. In fact, we dole out similar amounts of money every year in the form of payoffs to the armed services, the military-industrial complex, and powerful senators and representatives allied with the Pentagon.-
67%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
........Our annual spending on "national security" -- meaning the defense budget plus all military expenditures hidden in the budgets for the departments of Energy, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, the CIA, and numerous other places in the executive branch -- already exceeds a trillion dollars, an amount larger than that of all other national defense budgets combined. Not only was there no significant media coverage of this latest appropriation, there have been no signs of even the slightest urge to inquire into the relationship between our bloated military, our staggering weapons expenditures, our extravagantly expensive failed wars abroad, and the financial catastrophe on Wall Street. ...
Reply
...Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on present and future wars that have nothing to do with our national security is simply obscene. And yet Congress has been corrupted by the military-industrial complex into believing that, by voting for more defense spending, they are supplying "jobs" for the economy. In fact, they are only diverting scarce resources from the desperately needed rebuilding of the American infrastructure and other crucial spending necessities into utterly wasteful munitions. If we cannot cut back our longstanding, ever increasing military spending in a major way, then the bankruptcy of the United States is inevitable. As the current Wall Street meltdown has demonstrated, that is no longer an abstract possibility but a growing likelihood. We do not have much time left....
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/09/29/the-pent...
-
-
-
-
71%
NoWayMan1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
first, this is simply an op-ed piece. this is not an article, nor is it a hard news story.
Reply
In fact its written by one of John McCain's economic advisors.
now, the first point the piece makes is that the McCain tax plan will increase the exemption for children from $3,500 to $7,000 per child, and he will provide a refundable health care tax credit of $5,000 for every family.
That sounds great. But what this piece fails to mention is that in McCain's plan, you will be taxed, as income, on the money that goes to your helath plan through your employer. Which means for each $5000 McCain claims to save for you, he will then take $12,000. AND, 20 million people will be dropped from their existing plan.
So, this piece, from John B. Taylor, an economic adviser to John McCain, is obviously slanted.
also, when it comes to bashing Obama's tax plan, McCain is simply lying:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_d...
------
BOTTOM LINE: I'll go with the 4 Nobel Prize winners in Economics who have officially endorsed Obama and say his tax plan will have a better net benefit for the American people.-
redtomatoComment removed: Spammer22 Replies
-
-
65%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay ... I cannot get any youtube link to work.
Reply
They work ONCE ... and then no more.
OmegaTomato ... if you want proof that you are a LIAR regarding your efforts to SPIN Phil Grahm's words ... just type in the keywords youtube, grahm, & whiner.
You will be rewarded with numerous examples of Phil Grahm saying our economy is strong and the only problem is Whining Americans.-
28%
lovemylibs1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a fun youtube exercise. Watch this ad from Barack Obama scolding McCain for saying the fundamentals of our economy are strong:
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6reQLzgywzk
Now watch Obama say that we have the long-term fundamentals to make this economy work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ac3oWW7Ilw
Now remember that McCain made his statement first and was pilloried for it. Obama said it several days after McCain, after he used McCain's words in an ad that was supposed to mean something, dontcha know.-
-
40%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
luvmylisp and other con nuts here are usually deadl silent when the videos of McCain saying creepy, zany, untruthful and just plain bizarre things or behaving extremely confused are shown to them. Apparently they believe if they don't talk about their unstable candidate's oddball statements and behavior no one will notice that he's dangerously erratic and not fit to manage the allowance Cindy gives him. ;-(
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
-
-
-
24%
Wolfie20071 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here are a couple of Noble Prize winning economists for Obama. I would let either of these two count beans for me. Note, the fist one says we have to stop worrying about deficit reduction.
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk8XpLHG_4A-
-
20%
Wolfie20071 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Noway
Reply
I assume from your reply you wouldn't want the nobel prize nuts counting your beans either. LOL
I thought you hated and despised wealthy folks like Buffet. Warren Buffet's opinion of political candidates isn't nearly as good as his ability to make money. Of course, a lot of money can be made when a country falls apart. I suspect Buffet like a buzzard will swoop right in to get the goodies when Obama brings us down. I also suspect Buffet knows Obama will wreck the country. Did you notice how fast he moved on the banks?-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you're trying to discount the endorsement of 4 Nobel prize winners in economics. endorsements the McCain camp would kill for right now. pretty stupid.
Reply
and Buffet's endorsement holds weight in the business community. that's just the truth.
and why would I hate rich people? that's a pretty shallow assumption since you know nothing about me. and then consider the fact that you've got a man like buffet, who gave $30 billion to charity.
not all rich people are asssholes, and not all asssholes are rich people.
-
-
-
33%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A) That's from April of this year (and we only see part of the interview)
Reply
B) The first thing the NYU guy says is that we have to be prepared for changing circumstances (things look a little bleaker today than they did in April, no?)
C) That's why he supported Obama's approach over Clinton's or McCain's
-
-
68%
nikkibabe1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
His Economic plan is what Bush has done last 7 years. The guy who recycled his economic plan, Mr. Graham said that recession is only in people's minds and Americans have become a bunch of whiners.
Reply
Fundamentals of the American economy are strong. Bush's economic policies have really boosted the nation.
So, good luck middle class. You are going to get better, lots of jobs, incomes, lower costs and cheapest gas under MCCain. -
20%
Wolfie20071 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Funny thing about Bush's economic plan it was working really well until liberal democrats took over congress in 2006 promising to change things. Boy, did they ever, the economy nose dived into the toilet and now they claim they can fix it. What a joke, they broke it and now they say they can fix it.
Reply-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
40%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But didn't McCain say the economy was basically sound one moment and then within a matter of hours the next thing we knew, he was saying "Stop the world. Super McLib is here to save the world (just don't ask me to multi-task)"? And Bush and his wipes have been saying for years that everything is wunnerful. Then, suddenly we hear him sounding like he's doing a guest spot on one of those old Western Union commercials. "Um, America? Forget what I said last week. We're up sh*t's creek. Please give me 700 billion dollars today (no questions asked) or the world will implode overnight." ROTFLMAO. If things were going so freaking great, your chimpy hero would not have been blindsided and suddenly be looking at the world's economy teetering on the brink of doom. You cons are an absolute hoot. LMAO ;-P
Reply-
-
40%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nice dodge (as usual you cons only seem to be able to operate in broadast modest). What does that have to do with the questions *I* asked? The problem with your dodge is that Democrats have been warning for years about the recklessness of Bush's fiscal policy and in 2006 the GOP paid the price. And you know DAMN well there was no "lockstep" (and you cons sure didn't have a problem with lockstep for the first six years of the Bush administration, DID YOU?)
Reply
This took weeks to accomplish and people in both parties changed their minds. The only reason more Republicans weren't on board is because they know what happened the last time they supported Bush when he spent obscene amounts of our money. Cons know that if the "bailout" was only for corporations, you'd all be gung ho and most definitely in lockstep. The Democrats realize that there much more at stake than home foreclosures. If Bush and con supported Republicans hadn't spent the last 20 years trying to destroy the middle class and racking up trillion dollar wars, we wouldn't need a 700 billion dollar bailout.
Now. Back to my question you so cowardly dodged. Did Bush and McCain BOTH not insist up until they were BEGGING for 700 BILLION dollars that everything was fine and that the economy was on solid ground? Did they both not give the American people the impression that things were basically fine with the economy? Please answer the question (preferably without dodging, lying, or obfuscating). Thanks.-
25%
lovemylibs1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Awe, c'mon messyG, you know that McCain's statement about the economy being "fundamentally sound" was said in the same context as Obama's statement about the "long-term fundamentals" of the economy. I'll bet you don't even know the second part of the sentence that McCain uttered:
Reply
"But these are very, very difficult times."
I know you didn't see that part in the MSM. Only the first half was reported by most of the liberals.
You're welcome...-
50%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL...You can't even admit that Bush and McCain LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH all those months and months they were saying everything was just fine and on solid ground. You're totally useless. I have no use for you, luvmylisps. ROTFLMAO. I knew you were nutless. You only know how to operate in broadcast mode and (you cannot admit when you're wrong and when you've been duped and lied to by Bushco). That is not how a DISCUSSION works, you complete moron. Go waste someone else's time with your nutless McCain blustering and shilling. I've had my fill of hearing it for a lifetime.
Reply-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When will admit you were wrong about McCain's statements on Sept. 15th about the economy? When will you admit you were wrong about McCain's words about 100 years? When will you admit you were wrong about the media being in the tank for Obama. When will you admit you were wrong in not giving credit to McCain for helping to bring this issue to light in 2004 and trying to do something about it? When will admit you were wrong in making this a partisan issue when it is crystal clear that democrats and republicans have dirt on their hands on this one?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user5 Replies
-
-
-
60%
lloydm651 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll say it, the economy was in pretty good shape until the bust.I seen the housing boon doggle a long time ago,and warned people it was going to fail.In June of 06 I wrote a letter to my paper,the Dallas News that we were in for a spill.I was in the business for fifty five years.We have here in the metroplex countless thousand of laid off workers,not employees just worker.These folks chose to work off the books,and now they whimper,and moan because they can't draw benefits.Sort of like the home buyer who decided to buy a bigger house in the hope it could be refinanced in a year,or so.That my stupid friend is not buying a home,it is pure, and simple speculation.When you feel like gambling I suggest a casino,you know going in the house always wins.
Reply-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
lloyd - I disagree. The economy was NOT in good shape.
Reply
Under Clinton, the median (not mean) income rose from $36,959 in 1993 (the year he took office) to $51407 (the year Bush took office). This was a rise of 4.8% per year.
Under Bush, the median rose from $51407 in 2001 to $58407 in 2006 (the last year I could find statistics). This is an average of 2.7% per year.
For the same periods of time, the inflation rate under Clinton for 8 years was 2.6%. The inflation rate for Bush for 6 years was 2.7%.
So compared to inflation, income under Clinton had REAL gains. While under Bush the first 6 years, income was stagnant. The last 2 years, I bet the statistics have become far worse.
The poverty levels under Clinton decreased from a high of 13.7% to 11.3% in 2000. Under Bush the poverty levels again started rising to 12.3% in 2006. The number of poor rose from 31.1 million rose to 36.5 million. The income gap also has increased under Bush.
The mortgage crisis and the credit crisis the past 18 months have simply added a bigger exclamation mark to Bush's horrible economic legacy.-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I forgot to mention that I looked at median income, the point where half of the people make less and half make more, rather than the mean income. The mean income is meaningless because the mean has been pushed considerably higher by the upper 1% of earners whose income took a tremendous jump.
Reply
-
-
-
70%
bonaroo1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The issue at this point, both economically and politically, is one of trust. If Republicans had plans that worked, why haven't they been using them. It doesn't take a genius to see that. I don't understand who believes that McCain, who has supported the same failed policies of Bush, can now offer up something that really makes a difference.
Reply-
67%
reallypsst1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree MCcain doest have any real fix for the country , what is his motive at age 72 money , power, what is driving this relic of the old hardliners to run this nation, he still doesn't get it, the rich don't need help . People need to wake up and smell the coffee , we saw what wealthy politicians think of the poor , that means you the middle class this country is moving closer to becoming a third world monarchy were there is only the rich and the poor.
Reply
-
-
63%
most_reasonable1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McSame admits he doesn't know anything about economics. He relies on advisors like Phil (American middleclass are a bunch of whiners) Gramm. The same "adviser" that spearheaded the elimination of banking oversight and our current crises.
Reply -
50%
ETproductions1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The TRUTH about new RepubliCon economics and tax policy. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Reply -
-
80%
cleare1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
hasn't everyone had enough of "trickle down" & "voodoo" economics?
Reply
mccain's economic plans promote the same philosophy of deregulation and tax cuts for the rich that originated with the reagan administration and continue to this day. the trickle down theory has proven to be effective only in transferring wealth from the middle class to the uber-wealthy. it has also effectively brought our economy to it's knees --- or flat on it's back.-
-
-
-
100%
cleare1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
it's called "supply side" economics. some folks refer to it as "Reaganomics". it basically says: "build it and they will buy". in other words, create a supply, then create a demand for it. it created the "consumer" based economy, based on perception, not on actual worth.
Reply
it also says that money is best accumulated by the rich, who then invest their money and create jobs, thus trickling down into the economy. only problem is, wages haven't kept up with the cost of living, while executive compensation has skyrocketed.
i argue that a better result would occur if the money was spread amongst the american population, who would buy goods & services and save money, which would be invested. this would base an economy on actual value of commodities & services. call it "trickle up".
i only have a lower division macroeconomics course to my credit, and the ideas are relatively complex, but i think i have the crux of it. -
50%
sinophil491 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wolfie - Let's start with a rich guy with $100 and a poor guy with $1. Now let's double the rich guy's income to $200 so that he can pass $1 down to the poor guy. The poor guy now has $ 2.
Reply
So both guys have doubled their incomes. Got it?
Great situation?
NO, NO, NO, NO!!!
The income gap at the beginning was $99 (100-1). The income gap after the doubling is $197 (199-2).
So the rich get richer; the poor get poorer.
The gap widens at any percentage you choose up to a split of 50.5 to 49.5%, although gap widens more slowlyas you change the percentage split.
This is why trickle down economics DOES NOT WORK.
-
-
-
60%
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"No matter how you look at it, McCain's economic plan helps the middle class much more than Obama's."
Reply
That should really be "No matter how you look at it, so long as you look at it my way, and not the way non-partisan groups have analyzed the tax plans..." -
-
JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.