Comments for While the Dow Plunges, McCain Accuses Obama of Distracting Voters »
Posted By capj71 1 year, 1 month ago in NewsAs the Dow dropped another 369 points today, the reaction of John McCain was to continue to attack Obama’s character. It is laughable that McCain accused Obama of not talking about his record, and trying to distract the voters, when the McCain strategy is to ignore the economic crisis, and his own record.
Read Full Story at politicususa.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 72
-
-
93%
UnusualSuspect1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What else can they do?
Reply
They're behind in the polls, they can't talk about the economy, Ms Palin is not considered as strong as she was a month ago, they're pulling up stakes in states where they once were slightly ahead or tied (and are now behind)...
All they can do now is skirt the issues and attack negatively...sad...
-
-
94%
Charlson1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Negative character attacks is all McBush has. His economic positions were part of the reasons for our financial meltdown and he wants to stay off that issue. America is tired of hearing about his POW experience which is not a qualification to being president. His position on the Iraq War is untenable. America does not want or need another republican administration. Isn't our country in enough of a mess? Do we really want to sink our nation further into the quagmire we're in now?
Reply -
-
93%
RNactivist1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McSAme has nothing to offer the American people...only the same failed Bush policies....Mr. Deregulator, free marketeer. Mccain is the guy who helped set the house on fire and now wants to be the hero and put the fire out!! He's a liar and so is palin and his erratic accusation and behavior speaks volumes. Thanks but no thanks John and Sara we do not need 2 more unqualified liars in the white house, we have had 8 years of that already and we need a change....
Reply -
11%
truthlover1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll give up everything for Obama and Biden if you can prove to me and the American people that they are not liars. If they win the election, how sure are you we are not changing for the worse? Let's think very seriously about this particular election for this is like a bridge of no return.
Reply-
5%
4thchance1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's very clear to me.
Reply
Obama hangs out with and does business with terrorists, America haters, thugs and thieves. What else do we need to know about that creep. How do we know FOR SURE that Obama isn't some kind of radical terrorists himself. WE DON'T KNOW DO WE? As the ole saying goes..."you are who you hang out with." Well look at who Obama hangs out with.
Obama's claims that he had no idea about these creeps, that's PURE BS! How could he not know. When ever anyone brings up the name William Ayres, the very first thing that comes to anyone's mind is....Domestic TERRORIST. Ayres is Infamous for his bombings and radical hate America agenda, but yet, Messiah Obama claims he had no idea. Hey Obama, F-U, we are not that stupid.
Are you people really dumb enough, not to see that Obama may be the absolutely worst choice we could ever make for president? We don't know what he's REALLY all about, do we.-
89%
Progressive1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Are you people really dumb enough, not to see that Obama may be the absolutely worst choice we could ever make for president?"
Reply
The worst choice the American people ever made for president was Bush. That's why we don't want four more years of the last eight years.
."you are who you hang out with."
McSame has 177 lobbyists running his campaign. Who do you think will run the White House if he is elected?-
100%
dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"."you are who you hang out with.""
Reply
Seems McSame ran around with Keating. I guess if Obama should be labelled as supproting terrorists we hafve to lump McSame in with the fiancial profiteers that destroyed the economy, Why would we want that in the White House??
Oh btw feel free to ideintify any legislation that Obama supported that agrees with your statment he supprots terrorists. ROFLMAO, didnt think you could. -
tschrnywolfComment removed: Spam
-
-
0%
webb671 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think you are absolutely right. It simply amazes me at how many people that will go ahead and vote for this man.....It is terrifying that this man will be the President of this country. Nobody knows anything about him and will not believe what they do know as fact. I feel we will never know America as we have known in the past, I just hope we remain a free country but I even have my doubts about that.
Reply-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He didn't come out of nowhere. He was a State Senator for nearly 10 years and a U.S. Senator for nearly four. That's long enough for there to be plenty of public information about Obama.
Reply
Just because you haven't done your research doesn't mean the rest of us haven't.
-
-
100%
Natureboy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Obama hangs out with and does business with terrorists, America haters, thugs and thieves."
Reply
They both do, boyo. They both just got done cheerleading the financial a$$rape of the American people via "bailout." And then they lauded their "bipartisanship," which in truth had more in common with sloppy seconds than anything else. Do you want to tell me either of them is anything more than a ho for Wall Street and the power elite? I wouldn't p!ss on either of them if they caught fire.
-
-
100%
saneman1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Changing for the worse? ROFLAMO!!! The U.S. has hit rock bottom. 1. The economy is in shambles. 2. The Dollar tanked to record lows. 3. The National Debt is at a point of no return. 4. The Iraq debacle is a Black Hole. 5. Gas prices through the roof. 6. Credit crisis and record foreclosures.
Reply-
-
100%
dissent1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
it's bad saneman but it is now actually a possibility that it can get worse, a whole lot worse, it's that bad. we're now at the point of no return. we're teetering on the edge. with obama there is hope that we may carefully thoughtfully move back to saner higher ground. mccain on the other hand is just the man to push it full speed ahead..... into the abyss :|
Reply-
-
100%
dissent1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
too late, the heart has been ripped out and diced into little pieces by unethical capitalist greed and guilty conscience socialist bailouts.
Reply
the world.... that's all them foreigners out there we've been policing, is all for obama. mccain to them is just more of the same caca we've made them step in. speaking of which, heard what's happened to iceland? it's bankrupt thanks to us and our subprime and derivatives roullette but it's now been bailed out by..... [drumroll].... russia. too bad nobody wants to give us any money anymore-
-
100%
dissent1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the banks won't loan to each other because they don't trust each other. the banks can't loan to each other because they don't have any money. they don't trust each other because they don't have any money. any other inane observations i can clarify for you?
Reply
and there's plenty who are handing out money just not to us..... no more credit. i thought i said that?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9%
4thchance1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We want Obama to step up to the plate and make it clear to us, on exactly what his involvements were with these terrorists and creeps he hangs out with. Obama's simply solution is to deny he knew they are bad people. That's about the biggest F*cking lie we have ever heard. He knew who he was hanging with, he knew what kind of people they are. SO WHY does he make up such stupid lies that only morons will beleive? We want some honesty from that creepy liar. Problem is, I doubt we will ever get any honesty out of Osama Obama. NONE!
Reply-
89%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We want McCain to step up to the plate and tell us exactly how his plans will help the economy, our foreign policy and the uninsured.
Reply
I doubt we will ever get honest answers to those questions, since McCain's campaign manager said the election would not be about issues, but personalities.
Unfortunately for you, Republicans' character assassination will not work this time. If you think Obama's a terrorist, then you'd better make plans to leave the country before he gets you.-
10%
4thchance1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain will do that tonight.
Reply
Leave my country when it may need me more then ever, are you NUTS!? Only you DemoRats say you will leave the USA if you don't get your way with the elections. Remember all the threats all you Dems were making, "moving to Canada if Bush is re-elected" Well how come you're still here?...Oh that's right, Canada told you demrods to stay the F out of their country...Ahahahahha!-
83%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fat chance that McCain will explain anything specific about his plans. He will tell you that cutting taxes and allowing business to remain unobstructed is the best way to save us money, and to rebuild the economy--even though that's what got us INTO this mess. He will give no specifics.
Reply
Just like he said he'd set up a regulatory agency to watch over Wall Street. THERE ALREADY IS ONE--it's called the SEC. McCAIN HELPED DESTROY THE SEC'S POWER, along with his TOP ECONOMIC ADVISOR Phil Gramm.
They not only weakened oversight of Wall Street, creating most of the mess we're in now, but they also DISALLOWED OVERSIGHT of energy futures trading, allowing Enron to swindle its employees and rob the citizens of California.
Look it up.
But mainly, McCain's strategy tonight will be to make the same smears you're making right now, and he will avoid the issues as well as he can.
It's his campaign's sole strategy, as STATED BY HIS CAMPAIGN MANAGER.
I'm worried about your mental health, 4thchance. Obama's not even president yet, and you're already babbling like a lunatic. By the time Obama leaves the White House, if you don't leave the country, you're likely to be in a rubber room. -
-
89%
jordan111 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Leave my country when it may need me more then ever, are you NUTS!?>>>>
Reply
uh uh. Look what you've done to this country, voting for george bush. Look WTF you've done. And you think this country 'needs you'? For what? The last nail in the coffin? -
Neutral
tschrnywolf1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
IT IS NOT JUST YOU COUNTRY. MORE THAN 250 MILLIONS OF US ARE AMERICAN TOO. :) RATHER, WHY DONT YOU AND YOUR RICH WARES AND FALSE TRICKS LEAVE? I UNDERSTAND TAXES IN EUROPE ARE VERY HIGH, OR USED TO BE. LIVING THERE IS VERY EXPENSIVE TOO.
Reply
THOSE WHO REJECTED BUSH WERE EXCERCISING FREE SPEECH. DID YOU LIVE THEIR PAINS AND NEEDS? NO. WHERE IS THE CHRISTIAN EVANGELIC SENSE OF EMPATHY? DID YOUR JESUS SAY NEVER TO JUDGE A MAN UNLESS YOU HAVE WALKED A HUNDRED MILES IN HIS SHOES? -
Neutral
tschrnywolf1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
IT IS NOT JUST YOU COUNTRY. MORE THAN 250 MILLIONS OF US ARE AMERICAN TOO. :) RATHER, WHY DONT YOU AND YOUR RICH WARES AND FALSE TRICKS LEAVE? I UNDERSTAND TAXES IN EUROPE ARE VERY HIGH, OR USED TO BE. LIVING THERE IS VERY EXPENSIVE TOO.
Reply
THOSE WHO REJECTED BUSH WERE EXCERCISING FREE SPEECH. DID YOU LIVE THEIR PAINS AND NEEDS? NO. WHERE IS THE CHRISTIAN EVANGELIC SENSE OF EMPATHY? DID YOUR JESUS SAY NEVER TO JUDGE A MAN UNLESS YOU HAVE WALKED A HUNDRED MILES IN HIS SHOES?
-
-
-
-
86%
quackpot1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
With the mess that we are currently in, for McCain to focus on these inane attacks shows how pathetic his offerings are.
Reply
It seems as if McCain, looking at the situation that the past seven-plus years of Republican control has delivered, just does not want the job. -
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
78%
hinsoncm1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The big problem McCain and the Republican Party have is the "Trickle Down" economic theory, while the Democratic Party, belive that "Bottom Up" offers a stronger economy. Currently, Bush's Trickle Down policy isn't working, and this is evident by the fact that to much wealth is being accumulated by to few people, while the middle class wages, buying power, is declining even though productivity is up. This, to me, is the basic issue regarding economic policies, and the role of the next president to explain to the citizens. Can McCain explain the current problem, why Tickle Down is stalled and what if anything he can do about it, and can Obama explain the problem as unsolvable, and introduce in an understadable way, introducing and implementing a whole new policy will improve our economy. And what would it take make a complete change in direction.
Reply-
0%
beavith11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
its not theory. its plain old macroeconomics.
Reply
i'm not sure what kind of eonomics the democrats believe in, because economics aren't a religion. you can believe what you want, but human nature is such that macroeconomics is a tried and true system to understand how we spend our money.
bottom up is nonsense. there is no such thing.
example. a poor person starts a business. bully for her! where does she get her money from? a bank. where does the bank get its money from? a wealthier person that deposits their cash in a bank account.. the bank lends it to the poor person to get started.
fast forward. that once poor person is now a success. her business has made her wealthy. what does she do with her profits? goes out and buys stuff and/or peuts cash in the bank for the bank to laon out to someone else to buy a house, start a business, send a kid to college.
the democrat plan would take money from that loop and penalize wealth and/or success. that makes it harder to start a business, get a home loan or send a kid to college.
the dem plan is absolutely DISeconomic.
'trickle down' isn't stalled. bank to bank loans have screeched to ahalt because a bunch of Wall Street traders gamed the loan system to cause a bubble in credit. the bubble burst and here we are. if no one (banks) loans to each the system becomes unstable.
you talk about a change in direction? Os plan will grind the economy to a differnt halt than what we are facing today. actually, its not very different than what FDR during the depression. when capital formation needed a boost, he tore its heart out.
if O had one idea that promoted capital formation, i'd feel a whole lot better about him. every one, EVERY SINGLE ONE of his tax and fiscal policies requires him to take money from the rich (like Robin Hood) to give to the poor.
i always thought america was predicated on success, not on predatory fiscal and tax policy. call me a nut.
its not like McC has a whole pile of capital foramation ideas himself, but its nowhere the confiscatory plan that defines Obama.
for everyones benefit, vote McCain.-
100%
HateKoolAid1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for the simple to follow republican primer on how our economy works. However you left out the part where smoke and mirrors come in. Where does the part where CEO's get fat bonuses for running a company into the ground while the worker bees get pink slips?? Where do the predatory lenders fit into the scheme?? You say FDR ripped the economy apart and here all this time I thought he did a good job keeping this country together during the war.
Reply-
0%
beavith11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
glad to help! ; )
Reply
see the part where we see the Wall Street folks gaming the system? that's not smoke and mirrors. that's criminal abuse.
if you want to make lots of money work hard and become a CEO yourself.
your concern for the 'worker bees' is noted but you're looking at it from that class warfare perspective. work harder. you can attain anything you put your mind and effort to.
with regard to FDR, he pulled us through the depression by coming up with solutons on the fly. kind of like the 'bailout' that the Gov't just pulled off. nobody really knows what they are doing. they are literally making it up as they go. anyway the depression in 1929, as it lingered into the early 1930s (1932 i think) confiscated gold and raised taxes on the surviving 'wealthy' strangling a slow recovery,. his foreign policy actions leading up to WW2 were good. his economics policies weren't so good....
O wants to do the same thing.....
-
-
100%
sinophil491 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Trickle down economics has been given more than a fair chance under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. It has failed miserably. Tax cuts to the rich and the corporations have merely enriched them at the expense of the poor. Unemployment has shot up to about 7%.
Reply
The trickle up plan has already been proven to work. Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was a resounding success. He raised taxes on the top 1.2% of income earners and cut income and FICA taxes on the middle class and the poor. He cut taxes on up to 90% of small businesses. He increased the earned income tax credit for the poor. It imposed spending restraints on government agencies.
This remarkable bill passed through congress without a SINGLE Republican vote. In fact, Al Gore had to put in his vote in the Senate for it to pass.
What the OBRA did was to immediately decrease the budget deficit, so that the nation finally achieved a budget surplus in 1998-2001. It inaugurated 10 continuous years of economic growth. Bush enjoyed the last 2 years of growth before his own policies resumed ever increasing budget deficits.
Clinton also negotiated NAFTA and numerous bilateral trade bills (most notably w/ China). What these did was to significantly decrease import taxes here and for our goods exported abroad. These helped our trade and resulted in keeping consumer prices low for our consumers. What Clinton did has been called by economists the largest hidden tax cut in the history of the world.
Why did his economic and tax policies work so well? It put more money in the hands of the middle class and the poor. These are the consumers, the purchasers of goods.
This is what drove the Clinton economic engine.
When purchases and consumption goes up, then factory orders go up. When factories have more orders, they hire more people.
Under the Trickle down theory, if you give money to the rich and the factory, that increases jobs. IT DOES NOT.
All it does is enrich the rich and increase the profit margins of the factories. If there are no orders coming in to the factories, why would they hire more people? All that would do is increase their sales inventory in their warehouses and that decreases profits.
Trickle down or supply side economics belongs in the dustbin of history.
You claim that only Obama's plan is "confiscatory." In a sense Obama's plan is just that; BUT SO IS McCAIN'S. The only difference is that Obama's makes sense and puts more discretionary income in the hands of those who need it more and who will stimulate the economy more. McCain's plan would merely fatten the fatcats and make the economy even more stagnant than it already is. Moreover, huge numbers of people would be hurt even more than is happening now.
FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT, VOTE FOR OBAMA.-
0%
beavith11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
thank you for a very thoughtful response.
Reply
your history is great, but it reaches rather self serving conclusions.
first of all, you must be relatively young. 7% unemployment is not earthshaking. previous dem policies (Jimmy Carter specifically) would have been thrilled with 8%. heck, they US was running under 2% for a while when theorists thought 4% was theoretically impossible. i digress....
no. the wealthy haven't 'enriched' themselves a the expense of the poor. you (and the democrats as a party) confuse growth in total assets as being ripped from the poor. here's an undisputable truth: assets appreciate. that's called growth.
you say:
Why did his economic and tax policies work so well? It put more money in the hands of the middle class and the poor. These are the consumers, the purchasers of goods. "
i must disagree. what you seem to be saying is that the 'wealthy' don't come into the equation. that is your (and the democratic party's) mistake. its all a 'cycle of life' money spun off from the rich buying something like say a yacht (not a great example) make jobs for multitudes, while a WalMart sells lots of little things. both and ALL make the economy. with regard to Clinton and the dems, they surfed on the post Cold War peace dividend and tech bubble. they were lucky, not smart . you're trying to sort one class of buyer from teh economy and saying that's the important part. the economy is the aggregate. if i said the rich wer eth eonly ones that mattered, that would have th esame weight as your statement. they aren't and it isn't....
then you go on to say:
"Under the Trickle down theory, if you give money to the rich and the factory, that increases jobs. IT DOES NOT.
All it does is enrich the rich and increase the profit margins of the factories. If there are no orders coming in to the factories, why would they hire more people? All that would do is increase their sales inventory in their warehouses and that decreases profits."
here's where you really go off the tracks. its to long to explain it, but you are wrong on so many differnt levels. maybe if i get a chance i'll try and tease this chestnut apart.
dustbin of history? i hope not. everything else sucks way worse....
O's plan is confiscatory well beyond McCain's
my fingers hurt. i'll try and get back later....-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Income inequity (aka "growth in total assets as being ripped from the poor"), has grown. Sure, total wealth has increased. But not only has it not increased proportionally, some have seen NONE of the benefits.
Reply
Jimmy Carter, under whose administration unemployment was greater, inherited a failing economy similar in many ways to the one the next president will inherit.
The true fallout on workers won't be seen for a while, but it'll be devastating.
As for trickle-down, if our national character were more inclined toward long-term success (beyond the lifetime of most stakeholders), it *could* have an impact. Currently (and at least since the '80s when "trickle-down" became accepted, owners, directors, stockholders, have all been in it for the short term, knowing they'll get their money and without care for the future success of the company or its employees.
So they take the excess profits without spreading the wealth.-
0%
beavith11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
income inequity is you worrying about what your neighbor makes. if you make the better mousetrap, why is that my problem? why should i want a share of your success? that cuts both ways.... the benefits of success belong to the successful, don't you think?
Reply
JC's problem's were to some extent fed to him, but he didn't react until 1979 when he installed a Friedmanite (Milton Friedman the father of 'trickle down theory) Paul Volcker to the fed. that was his sole accomplishment
'trickle down" is not magic. its simple macroeconomics. its politically neutral.
what you seem to be railing about, if i understand it correctly, is Wall Street's focus on quarterly results. that's got nothing to do with anything. japanese companies take a longer term view. buy japanese stocks, if you don't like the way american companies are managed. or, buy american stock and go to the stockholder meetings and get the management group change their strategy.
there is no such thing as excess profits. period. let me say it again. there is no such thing as excess profits. that money is saved and reloaned, or spent on capital improvement, or paid out in some sort of dividends. your belief is that the money gets burned or eaten or destroyed. it doesn't. it lives on to be used by other people.-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"the benefits of success belong to the successful, don't you think?"
Reply
That depends on how much compassion you have for the less successful.
" 'trickle down' is not magic. its simple macroeconomics. its politically neutral."
And emotionally neutral. It cares nothing about human suffering.
Supply and demand is the same way. In order for demand for survival necessities to decrease, it means people do without them, and sometimes don't survive. I guess that's okay with you.
"what you seem to be railing about, if i understand it correctly, is Wall Street's focus on quarterly results. that's got nothing to do with anything."
Really? Then why would company officers raid their employees' pension funds? Why are shareholders so willing to pay these people so much? Who do you think owns the most votes/stock to influence the companies?-
0%
beavith11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
compassion? let's stay on task here. do or do not the benefits of success belong to the successful?
Reply
publicly traded companies have a, theoretical, fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders. that's capitalism. compassionate capitalism is kind of like the CRA changing lending rules to allow more people to own homes, even though normal lending rules had to be thrown out the window. you can do one or the other. doing both causes problems.
somehow, you've worked supply and demand into some question of survival? what ?
its been illegal to raid pension funds since the Pension Mortgage Guaranty Trust was set up after Litton Steel failed and took its pension with it in like 1980... ??? what are going on about.....-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm on task, just not your task.
Reply
Compassion toward the less fortunate leads to protections from greed of the more powerful.
That's the drawback with what you'd like to call pure, unadulteated capitalism.
Let me spell out the supply and demand thing. H-E-A-L-T-H-C-A-R-E. People can't do without it. They die, or they live greatly diminished lives (and contribute less to society while becoming a financial burden on the rest of us, if you want to put it in cost-benefit terms you understand) if they can't afford it. In order for people to do without in order to reduce demand enough to drive the cost down, they DIE.
Yet for some reason, some people think it's a good idea to deregulate it and leave it up to the law of supply and demand.
I'm not talking about the CRA, though it has very little to do with the CAUSE of the trouble our economy is in today. If anything, the mortgage bubble based on bad mortgages is simply a SYMPTOM of the lack of oversight of lenders. And there's NOTHING wrong with outlawing redlining--qualification for mortgages should be based on borrowers' credit.
It certainly is illegal to raid pension funds. That doesn't help employees of Tyco International.
Or Enron--its company officers duped employees into buying their stock with pensions and 401(k)s, inflating the stock's value so the officers could sell theirs before it collapsed. Other companies' pension funds took large positions in Enron stock, based on the false information. That's a complicated way of raiding retirement funds. (Just think of where that money ended up, if you don't think you'd call it that.) Yes, SOME of their officers went to prison. Others didn't.
Proper oversight could have prevented it (and manipulation of the energy markets) from happening in the first place.
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
beavith11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
round two.... you say:
Reply
"All it does is enrich the rich and increase the profit margins of the factories. If there are no orders coming in to the factories, why would they hire more people? All that would do is increase their sales inventory in their warehouses and that decreases profits."
no. look. don't be insulted. this paragraph is nonsense. a high profit margin is good. the business would expand. that would usually translate into more capital investment and more jobs. if inventory increases, that's bad for the business.
the rich don't exist in a vacuum. all the money they 'have' and everything they buy go into the aggregate economy. enriching the rich enriches us all.
you haven't made a case for relegation of macroeconomics to any dustbin. there is nothing else that explains human economic behavior as well.
then you go on to say:
"....Obama's makes sense and puts more discretionary income in the hands of those who need it more and who will stimulate the economy more. McCain's plan would merely fatten the fatcats and make the economy even more stagnant than it already is. Moreover, huge numbers of people would be hurt even more than is happening now."
no.
"who need it more?" in the olden days, you young whippersnapper, if we wanted to make more money, we got a second a job, got a better job, or improved ourselves to move to that bigger office. now, if you vote for a politician, that guy is going to offer a hanout? whatever happened to Kennedy's "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?"
it doesn't fatten the fatcats. or make the economy stagnant. as long as O keeps saying 95% of taxpayers will pay less, when he means that 5% of taxpayers will pay for everything, attests to his idea that class warfare is OK. taking for the rich will only make it worse, because wealth and savings that would have otherwise gone into the economy, will be diverted to gov't use.
maybe you believe that gov't knows better than you how to spend your money, but i sure don't.
-
-
-
0%
beavith11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
quick. somebody. call Stockholm. Have them rescind Nobel prizes in economics. dissent says 'macroeconomics doesn't work.'
Reply
oh brother....
hey! i've got an idea! let's try communism. no. let's try naziism! no. let's try socialism!
the roblem is that none of them work because none take into account human nature.
its been said that democracy is the worst political system in the world, but its better than everything else.
that works for capitalism, too....-
-
-
100%
blowback1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For someone who presumes to have such an advanced
Reply
understanding of economics you appear to have some
difficulty discerning the difference between 'borrowing'
and 'buying.'
No, they don't have to invest in us.
They no longer have any reason to.
Soon enough though, they will in all likelihood
be buying us.
That would be the most effective way to recoup their losses
from the money we have borrowed from them and a failing
currency they are left holding.
Morgan Stanley and a 9.4 billion stake is a recent example.
The world's leading bank is now Chinese; 3 of the top 5 are also
Chinese.
You may have trouble comprehending this in light of your
advanced economic comprehension of capitalism, communism
and Nobel Prizes.-
0%
beavith11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you're reading different things. that's good. you are mixing different concepts that don't apply. you're wrong.
Reply
seriously. all i can do is make a recommendation. take a macro class. bone up on 'foreign direct investment".
if they take our money when we buy goods, when the sun sets, they are holding cash. we have the stuff they built for us.
what do they do with the cash? the companies put it in a bank. that money gets lent out for a fee. or, they can buy companies, or material, to make more stuff, that in the end gets them more cash.
look at China. with 1.1 billion people they have 400 MILLION unemployed. the factories that they build make jobs for those chinese. the PRC is growing at 10+% a year, thanks to our infusion of cash. it allows them to grow out of the 3rd world status peacefully as a capitalist country.
its been said that china and the US are shackled together. we help each other.
i comprehend it fully. it seems that you are somewhat information lite....
i have great faith in economics and none in Obama.-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What you're getting at is called "balance of trade." When a country exports more than it imports--as we do--that country bleeds money. They call it a "trade deficit." It's NOT considered a good thing.
Reply
That should be covered in Econ 101.-
100%
blowback1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No it is not a good thing.
Reply
Neither is the national debt
which is not the trade deficit.
The national debt is public debt
or government debt borrowed
to fund such things as tax cuts,
wars and the military
industrial complex.
It is money owed
by the US government.
Not the private sector.
It is now 10 trillion +.
The interest alone is
one of the US government's
major expenses.
beavith1 thinks this is good.
It's not.
Surplus is good.
Debt is not so good.
Econ 101.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
67%
Natureboy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, they have a clue, alright. They know that the trick is to baffle working class America with your bullsh!t while doing the bidding of the wealthy and the corporations. Its amazing, some poor schmucks still hold out hope for the composite entity called ObamaCain despite the fact that it voted to screw us on the bailout.
Reply
-
-
ClockworkorangeComment removed: Abusive1 Reply
-
75%
reallypsst1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The next president is going to have to come clean and then clean house. And than he needs to have the BALLS to stop the war,ten billion dollars a month is insane. We need that money here to rebuild this nation.both political parties have got to be held accountable. CORRUPTION EQUALS DEREGULATION EQUALS US THE LOSERS !
Reply-
100%
Natureboy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Unless a plummeting asteroid takes out both Obama and McCain, there is no fscking chance that our next president will stop the war or fix the economy. McCain and Obama are both the enthusiastic b!tches of the ruling class. Ain't no change comin' ain't no "mavericks" moving into the white house.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
benighseComment removed: Spam
-
benighseComment removed: Spam
-
Neutral
tschrnywolf1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
MCPALIN ARE CATCHING INVISIBLE BUTTERFLIES :) INSANE PATIENTS OFTEN DO THAT. THE POLITICAL MACHINE POLL IS INACCURATE. WHEN SENATOR OBAMA WON THE PRIMARIES, THAT SITE SAID HILLARY HAD WON! JUST CRAZY "EVIDENCE", MORE LIKE MISINFORMATION. SHAME ON THE BLOGGERS!
Reply -
Neutral
tschrnywolf1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
PALIN RUINED HER POST-DEBATE PERFORMANCE TWO DAYS LATER. SHE HAS DONE THAT BEFORE. MCBUSH PICKED A VERY UNPREDICTABLE VP. WHAT IS REALLY DISTRACTING HIM, I THINK, IS HOW TO SPIN HER MESSES AND RESCUE HER. HE WAS THE ONE WHO SUSPENDED HIS CAMPAIGN TO RETURN TO WASHINGTON. HE HIMSELF SAID HIS RETURN WAS CAUSED BY SEVERAL REASONS. SO DEALING WITH THE ECONOMIC CRISIS WAS ONLY ONE MOTIVE.
Reply
OBAMA LATER COMPLIED AND MCCAIN GAVE A DRAMATIC SPEECH ABOUT RECONCILIATION AMONG ALL PARTIES. THEN PALIN PUT ON THE BOXING GLOVES AND EVERY SO SWEETLY RUTHLESSLY ATTACKED OBAMA FOR THINGS HILLARY HAD ALREADY USED. SO BORING!
THAT PALIN KNOWS HOW TO HIT BELOW THE BELT WITH HER MECANICAL SMILE. VERY GROSS SPECTACLE. -
Neutral
orndorffter1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
AMERICA...SHE'S IN ALOT OF TROUBLE RIGHT NOW AND SHE NEEDS TO GAIN BACK WHAT SHE ONCED HAD, BUSH PUT HER(AMERICA)IN SUCH A TROUBLESOME STATE OF BEING THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE YEARS TO DIG OURSELFS OUT OF THIS MESS. GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ALL HER PEOPLE WHO ARE SO CONSERNED OF THE HURTING THATS BEEN PUT ON US,I REALLY DONT KNOW FOR SURE IF THE ONE I AM VOTING FOR IS THE ONE OR THE OTHER MANIS THE ONE WHO CAN GET US OUT OF THIS MESS, I'M JUST NOT SURE EITHER MAN CAN HELP US AT THIS POINT. BUT SOMEONE NEEDS TO PICK AMERICA BACK UP AND WIPE HER TEARS. I DO KNOW THE REPUBLICANS GOT US WHERE WE ARE TODAY, I JUST HOPE WE GET THE RIGHT MAN TO DO THE JOB. LITTLE MISS PALIN HAS CAUSED McCAIN TO DROP IN THE POLES, MCcAIN IS ANGERY BECAUSE HE HAS TIES IN THE DOW AND HE HAS NOT REASURED THE PEOPLE ON HIS POLICY ON ECONMY HEALTH CARE OR THE MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE. WE NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HIS FOREIGN POLICYS. WE HAVE TWO MEN FIGHTING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE JUST HOPE FOR THE BEST THAT WE GET THE RIGHT MAN OR WE ARE GOING TO FALL HARDER THEN BEFOE.
Reply -
tschrnywolfComment removed: Spam
-
tschrnywolfComment removed: Spam
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.