S/O - Economic differences between the two candidates?

[hsmamainva]

I was going to post this with the one below about the economy, but I didn't want to post a political comment among those who don't wish to discuss politics, so I started a new one!

 

There's an article on Yahoo about the economy and the remarks from the candidates on the campaign trail today. The first two paragraphs were interesting:

 

..........

 

The candidates split Monday on the strength of the U.S. financial system, with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) declaring in Florida that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" and the Obama campaign mocking the remark as out of touch with reality.

 

Sen Joseph Biden (D-Del.), the Demcorats' vice-presidential nominee, said in St. Clair Shore, Mich: "I could walk from here to Lansing, and I wouldn’t run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain."

 

..........

 

Here's a link to the entire article:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/13448

 

Thoughts?

[Renee in NC]

Sen Joseph Biden (D-Del.), the Demcorats' vice-presidential nominee, said in St. Clair Shore, Mich: "I could walk from here to Lansing, and I wouldn’t run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain."

 

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

I am one of those undecided voters (so no biases) and that made me LOL. As someone who deals with those people, let me tell you that perception is a BIG part of whether or not people want to spend their money!

[cathmom]

yeah, that cracked me up too!

 

Obama better say or do something amazing if he wants my vote, because right now I'm leaning McCain/Palin

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I was going to post this with the one below about the economy, but I didn't want to post a political comment among those who don't wish to discuss politics, so I started a new one!

 

There's an article on Yahoo about the economy and the remarks from the candidates on the campaign trail today. The first two paragraphs were interesting:

 

..........

 

The candidates split Monday on the strength of the U.S. financial system, with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) declaring in Florida that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" and the Obama campaign mocking the remark as out of touch with reality.

 

Sen Joseph Biden (D-Del.), the Demcorats' vice-presidential nominee, said in St. Clair Shore, Mich: "I could walk from here to Lansing, and I wouldn’t run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain."

 

..........

 

Here's a link to the entire article:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/13448

 

Thoughts?

 

I watched the Biden clip and read the campaign's response, and I'm not sure how it was "mocking." They disagreed strongly, that's for sure. I wonder why the writer of this article used that word, in particular.

[Plucky]

Yep, I don't care what they said the other day. I care about what they plan on doing about this now. I'm not convinced either has the answer.

[Chocobean]

I don't think a man who isn't even sure how many houses he owns should be president.

[Plucky]

deleted by me

[LisaKinVA]

In some ways, I almost view the two comments as trains on two different train tracks -- talking about different things entirely.

 

"Fundamentals of the economy are strong" to me, means that the basis for our economy is strong -- it doesn't deny that there are current problems, but that at the core, our economy is fine -- we have to weather certain changes...

 

The Obama/Biden camp don't challenge the "fundamentals of the economy" portion, but merely focus on how people feel right now. People feel stress and strain. Unemployment is high in some areas and barely registering in others. Housing markets are hurting in some areas and doing very well in others.

 

Overall, the economy is growing (which defies the definition of recession), but isn't growing robustly KWIM?

 

Anyhow... maybe it's just how I read the comments, and the fact I've never heard Obama/Biden say, "the fundamentals of our economy are bad" Just "the economy is bad right now."

[Mrs Mungo]

I have to agree that I think McCain is out of touch.

 

Have you seen McCain's health care plan? It's crazy. You would get taxed on the insurance benefits from your employer. So, if you make $1000 and you pay $100 and your employer pays $100 toward health insurance right now you get taxed on your $900 take home. If McCain has his way you'll pay taxes on $1200 even though you only made $1000. And it will cease being a tax benefit for employers, giving employers no incentive to provide insurance.

[astrid]

Greenspan said today that the U.S. cannot support the tax cuts that McCain is proposing in his economic plan. Read about it here.

 

Astrid

[Mama Lynx]

Greenspan said today that the U.S. cannot support the tax cuts that McCain is proposing in his economic plan. Read about it here.

 

Astrid

 

Let's look at what is being said in the article:

 

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the U.S. can't afford $3.3 trillion of tax cuts proposed by Republican presidential nominee John McCain without similar reductions in the federal budget.

 

Greenspan, a lifelong Republican and longtime friend of McCain, said on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital With Al Hunt'' that ``I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money.''

 

McCain has said he would balance the cost of most of his tax cuts with budget reductions, while providing few details beyond eliminating earmarks and other pork-barrel spending, which have totaled about $171 billion since 2001. Democratic nominee Barack Obama is proposing fewer tax cuts and more ambitious spending programs.

 

Here is what I see: We can't afford the tax cuts unless they are balanced with reductions in the federal budget. McCain says he would reduce the budget, although he ought to provide us with more details as to how. Obama, while he is promising fewer tax cuts, plans to spend more of the U.S.'s money.

 

McCain's proposal, outlined April 15, would extend President George W. Bush's tax cuts, reduce the top corporate rate, repeal the alternative minimum tax and double exemptions for dependents. That would be offset by eliminating pork-barrel spending, freezing a portion of the budget and saving from Medicare spending, McCain said at the time.

 

I'm all for eliminating the pork-barrel spending, and I know that Medicare is fraught with abuses. I do not yet understand the implications of freezing a portion of the budget. I would certainly like to see someone attempt to cut the waste, pork, and various other misuses of my tax money.

[Mama Lynx]

I don't think a man who isn't even sure how many houses he owns should be president.

 

Chocobean, do you have anything to add about the economic plans of either candidate?

[Chocobean]

Chocobean, do you have anything to add about the economic plans of either candidate?

Oops, I was replying to the subject line, about their *personal* economic differences. Sorry if that was inflamatory and unhelpful. Allow me to try again.

 

It's true I don't live in the States, but my company does most of our business in it, so I do have an interest in it, primarily in the environmental and technology aspects of the economy.

 

here's a little comparison of their economic platforms with minimal "flare" on the webpages:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Obama_economy.htm

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/John_McCain.htm

 

One of the candidates promised to eliminate special interest business deductions, such as for the oil and gas industry, to double federal funding for basic research, and to raise minimum wage. He also seems to take an interest in the manufacturing industry, which really is the backbone of our economies. Altho I don't agree with the Farm Bill which he pushed: I agree with the other candidate that we don't need more agriculture/fishery/forestry subsidies.

[LisaKinVA]

I just heard the context of McCain's speech, and he did specify the fundamentals of our economy, which he called strong to be things like: the American Worker (productivity), Innovation, Entreprenuership... can't remember them all, but that is the gist of what he felt was strong.

 

It should also be noted, that McCain said, our economy is in crisis (and went on to elaborate about that as well).

 

So yup, my initial assessment regarding the two comments is pretty much correct.

 

The fundamentals (foundation) of our economy are strong (as defined by the McCain speech early today), however, the walls are shaky, windows are broken, as a hurricane sweeps over the land. But, we have the ability to rebuild on a strong foundation. KWIM?

[Mama Lynx]

Oops, I was replying to the subject line, about their *personal* economic differences. Sorry if that was inflamatory and unhelpful. Allow me to try again.

 

It's true I don't live in the States, but my company does most of our business in it, so I do have an interest in it, primarily in the environmental and technology aspects of the economy.

 

here's a little comparison of their economic platforms with minimal "flare" on the webpages:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Obama_economy.htm

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/John_McCain.htm

 

One of the candidates promised to eliminate special interest business deductions, such as for the oil and gas industry, to double federal funding for basic research, and to raise minimum wage. He also seems to take an interest in the manufacturing industry, which really is the backbone of our economies. Altho I don't agree with the Farm Bill which he pushed: I agree with the other candidate that we don't need more agriculture/fishery/forestry subsidies.

 

Thanks for the links!

 

And I apologize for being a bit short. I was both running out the door, and, well, I'm tired of these discussions veering off from discussing the facts at hand. I was afraid that was about to happen. Thanks for taking it well. :001_smile:

[astrid]

I just heard the context of McCain's speech, and he did specify the fundamentals of our economy, which he called strong to be things like: the American Worker (productivity), Innovation, Entreprenuership... can't remember them all, but that is the gist of what he felt was strong.

 

It should also be noted, that McCain said, our economy is in crisis (and went on to elaborate about that as well).

 

So yup, my initial assessment regarding the two comments is pretty much correct.

 

The fundamentals (foundation) of our economy are strong (as defined by the McCain speech early today), however, the walls are shaky, windows are broken, as a hurricane sweeps over the land. But, we have the ability to rebuild on a strong foundation. KWIM?

 

Actually, McCain said early today that the fundamentals of our economy are strong. It was only later in the day, after the media called him on it, that McCain backpedaled and said that he was actually talking about American workers, and claimed that for Obama to say that the economy was in trouble meant that he didn't have any faith in American workers.

Another example of the man who said last spring that he was going to run a clean campaign, without negativity. That was just plain inaccurate and he knew it. Heck, even Karl Rove stated over the weekend on Fox News Sunday that "McCain has gone, in some of his ads, similarly [one] step too far in sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100% truth test."

 

Astrid

[Herding Cats in NC]

Another example of the man who said last spring that he was going to run a clean campaign, without negativity. That was just plain inaccurate and he knew it. Heck, even Karl Rove stated over the weekend on Fox News Sunday that "McCain has gone, in some of his ads, similarly [one] step too far in sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100% truth test."

 

Astrid

 

This is a bit off topic, but since you brought it up....;)

 

The point Rove was trying to make in this interview was that he thought both candidates have been going to far. Here's a link to the article that corresponds to the interview above:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/14/rove-both-campaigns-ads-are-over-the-top/

 

Here's a link to the Obama ad he refers to:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/why-doesnt-mcca.html

 

Whether or not you believe McCain's war injuries impact his computer use ('cause that'd be another conversation), I think it'd be a stretch to call this a positive ad. Nor do I believe McCain's ads have been positive.

 

I guess I'm just cynical -- I expect these types of ads - and more of them -as the election nears. Personally, I just assume any claim in any political ad is distorted. :D

[astrid]

This is a bit off topic, but since you brought it up....;)

 

The point Rove was trying to make in this interview was that he thought both candidates have been going to far. Here's a link to the article that corresponds to the interview above:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/14/rove-both-campaigns-ads-are-over-the-top/

 

Here's a link to the Obama ad he refers to:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/why-doesnt-mcca.html

 

Whether or not you believe McCain's war injuries impact his computer use ('cause that'd be another conversation), I think it'd be a stretch to call this a positive ad. Nor do I believe McCain's ads have been positive.

 

I guess I'm just cynical -- I expect these types of ads - and more of them -as the election nears. Personally, I just assume any claim in any political ad is distorted. :D

 

I guess to my way of thinking, this is really disappointing coming from McCain, who himself was the target of a really awful smear campaign in 2000, and who stood up earlier in the year and made a strong committment that he would "take the high road" and not engage in smear campaigns. It didn't take him long to break that one.

 

astrid

[sassenach]

I have to agree that I think McCain is out of touch.

 

Have you seen McCain's health care plan? It's crazy. You would get taxed on the insurance benefits from your employer. So, if you make $1000 and you pay $100 and your employer pays $100 toward health insurance right now you get taxed on your $900 take home. If McCain has his way you'll pay taxes on $1200 even though you only made $1000. And it will cease being a tax benefit for employers, giving employers no incentive to provide insurance.

 

Really? Can you link me to that info?

[Jane in NC]

Really? Can you link me to that info?

 

Shannon asked the question concerning the McCain health insurance proposal.

 

The New York Times reported on it here.

 

I realize that many people here do not trust the New York Times, so you can also read about it on FactCheck.org.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Jane

[1cat2ferrets]

I can't stand McCain AND Palin. Who do you think put the economy in the state that it's in now? Yes, Bush and the Republicans. I've had enough of the past 8 years and want a change. We're gonna give Obama a chance and see how he does. Can't be much worse.

 

Do any of you have HBO? My DH and I watch Bill Maher and feel exactly as he does. He calls McCain "a 200yo man" and Palin "a catagory 5 moron." I couldn't agree more.

 

No flames, please. This is my personal opinion and I think I'm entitled to it.:D

[Marie in Oh]

Yep, I don't care what they said the other day. I care about what they plan on doing about this now. I'm not convinced either has the answer.

 

This is how I have felt all along.

[sassenach]

deleted

[sassenach]

Shannon asked the question concerning the McCain health insurance proposal.

 

The New York Times reported on it here.

 

I realize that many people here do not trust the New York Times, so you can also read about it on FactCheck.org.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Jane

 

Thanks Jane!

[LisaKinVA]

Actually, the current credit crisis , was put into motion by the Clinton Administration... loosening all of those mortgage rules, to make it easier for people in sub-prime to obtain credit to purchase homes. It is the collapse of the sub-prime markets (and some greed-driven speculators, and banks with predatory lending are also responsible), which has caused much of the current economic crisis.

 

Then, of course, the Bush Administration didn't exactly ride in on a "white horse" to re-regulate either (but neither did the Democratic-controlled Congress.

 

There is ample blame to go around. While things seemed hunky dory, no one complained. Only when the proverbial s*** hit the fan did most people become concerned.

 

Honestly... whoever thought NINJa (no income, no job) loans were a good idea?:confused:

 

And yes, please note, that the article linked is an op-ed piece... I'm just too dog-gone tired to do much research today.

[Jean too]

Lisa, thanks for pointing this out. Here is a link http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/whose-policies-led-to-the-credit-crisis/

that discusses what happened in 2003 when Bush tried to reign Freddie and Fannie in. There is a link within to a 2003 article from the NYTimes about what Bush tried to do and what the dems said about it then.

[Jane in NC]

Actually, the current credit crisis , was put into motion by the Clinton Administration... loosening all of those mortgage rules, to make it easier for people in sub-prime to obtain credit to purchase homes. It is the collapse of the sub-prime markets (and some greed-driven speculators, and banks with predatory lending are also responsible), which has caused much of the current economic crisis.

 

Then, of course, the Bush Administration didn't exactly ride in on a "white horse" to re-regulate either (but neither did the Democratic-controlled Congress.

 

 

I decided to do some research on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act which you correctly noted was signed by then President Clinton. Senator McCain voted for the act whereas Senator Biden voted against it. You can read the roll call here.

 

Jane

 

ETA--just realized that the other poster may not have had the so called "Financial Services Modernization Act" in mind in her message. Sorry--did not mean to put words into her mouth. Nonethless, this act is being pointed to by some experts as the beginning of the current problem.

[Jenny in Atl]

I decided to do some research on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act which you correctly noted was signed by then President Clinton. Senator McCain voted for the act whereas Senator Biden voted against it. You can read the roll call here.

 

Jane

 

ETA--just realized that the other poster may not have had the so called "Financial Services Modernization Act" in mind in her message. Sorry--did not mean to put words into her mouth. Nonethless, this act is being pointed to by some experts as the beginning of the current problem.

 

I always chuckle when the talking heads refer to Clinton (Bill) as the most "Republican" Democratic President in recent years.

[Mrs Mungo]

Shannon asked the question concerning the McCain health insurance proposal.

 

The New York Times reported on it here.

 

I realize that many people here do not trust the New York Times, so you can also read about it on FactCheck.org.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Jane

 

I'm sorry, Shannon, I haven't been on much the last week or so. Trying to get our household in order. :tongue_smilie: But, yes, Jane gave you the links to get the basic gist. :)

[sassenach]

I'm sorry, Shannon, I haven't been on much the last week or so. Trying to get our household in order. :tongue_smilie: But, yes, Jane gave you the links to get the basic gist. :)

 

No worries! I think I'm just going to follow Jane around the board. She pulls up links on every single issue. Does that make me lazy? :D

[LisaKinVA]

Just found this from the Congressional Record... regarding the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. The purpose of this bill was to correct the gross wrongs going on at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The bill was killed in committee. The full primary source can be found here (Thomas)

 

From John McCain (emphasis mine):

 

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

 

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

 

This bill was re-introduced in 2007, as S. 1100. Current and past co-sponsors of this bill include Sen. Haegel (NE), Dole (NC), McCain (AZ), Sununu (NH), and Martinez (FL). It's been sitting in committee since April 2007.

 

So, maybe a few people were trying to look out for us after all... it's just sad that neither Reps or Dems moved forward with any type of change.