McCain: ‘The Issue Of Economics Is Not Something I’ve Understood As Well As I Should’
McCain: ‘The Issue Of Economics Is Not Something I’ve Understood As Well As I Should’
The New York Times’ Paul Krugman noted recently that, in a moment of candor, John McCain admitted economics isn’t his thing. “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” he said. But, “I’ve got Greenspan’s book,” he assured the audience.
If any needed evidence of McCain’s weakness on the economy was needed, simply witness how he has dealt with the need for economic stimulus. After last week’s debate in South Carolina, U.S. News wrote that the question of whether the economy needs a stimulus “vexed” the GOP front-runners, who “appeared unaware of the fiscal stimulus debate currently happening in Washington and being closely watched by Wall Street.”
At that debate, McCain said:
“I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession,” he said, “I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong and I believe they will remain strong.”
In the course of seven days, McCain appears to have reversed course, offering his own stimulus package:
“The fact is we have some tough times ahead,” McCain told supporters in Columbia. But he said the U.S. economy will rebound. “We will get through this rough patch,” he said.
Instead of offering direct middle-class relief for individuals, McCain is proposing cutting the corporate tax rate by 28.5 percent. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s top economic adviser, said his approach is to simply let someone else deal with the problems affecting working Americans. “The best course of action is to let the Fed handle it.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
59 Responses to “McCain: ‘The Issue Of Economics Is Not Something I’ve Understood As Well As I Should’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Just what we need…another moron in the White House.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:56 pmit’s like… they don’t understand… they haven’t figured out…
January 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pmthat these amazing voice recorders and picture making machines exist…
…
Hey, at least he’s honest. That’s actually kind of refreshing.
However, if he were to be elected president, one would hope that he’d get somebody on the team who DID understand economics. Unlike the current occupant of the WH.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pmIf he’s got Greenspan’s book - as I do - perhaps someone can ask him to comment on this observation by Greenspan:
[pg 74 of “Age of Turbulence”]
“My hiring of women economists was not motivated by women’s liberation. It just made great business sense. I valued men and women equally, and found that because other employers did not, good women economists were cheaper than men.”
I’ve read this passage several times, and the business logic is impeccable, but it reads like a post-feminist horror story.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:02 pm“McCain is proposing cutting the corporate tax rate by 28.5 percent”
Geez — between corporate welfare, corporate tax cuts, and state and local governments giving corporations the sun, moon, and the stars to locate in their neighborhood, why don’t we just fund big business 100%?
The reason we don’t do this, of course, is that “trickle down” doesn’t work.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pmSadly, both his statements are true. Depending on what region of the US you live in, and the industry you work in, you will either be fine, or hurting. If you are in energy of any type, you are fine. If you are in housing in all but a few markets, you are hurting.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pmJohn, just wait and parrot what George says. You can count on him for rational advice as you have before
January 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pmHe’s in good company… Some of Bush’s nuggets:
“It’s clearly a budget. It’s got a lot of numbers in it.â€
“I understand small business growth. I was one.â€
“If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow.â€
“A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an economic illness.”
January 18th, 2008 at 1:12 pmMcCain is trying Georgie’s strategy of saying, in effect, “vote for me - I’m a clueless dufuss”.
With the help of Diebold, it might even work.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:13 pmMcCain knows a lot about Savings & Loan stealing during the Reagan Administration. Wasn’t he one of the Keating Five that abetted in the theft?
January 18th, 2008 at 1:15 pmBush suddenly jumps on the idea to give money to people to stimulate the economy… so he can jam in 50 billion for corporations. Dick.
Here’s a better idea, one that gives money to businesses in terms of sales, and to people in terms of jobs, and creates additional cycles through the economy through supporting services: Build a dam.
Check the list of current hydroelectric projects in the world. The US is absent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Hydroelectric#Major_schemes_in_progress
The largest, a dam in China that will provide power for four cities the size of LA when running, costs about $25B.
It would help free our dependence from oil and spur the economy. For $150B we could build six.
..
When’s the last time America built something to last?
January 18th, 2008 at 1:18 pm#10 - They manufactured the hell out of the Iraq war and it could last “100 years” if McCain gets in office.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:20 pmLet George do it!
Oh, wait! We’ve done that 12 of the last twenty years and look where we are!
This is another fine mess you’ve got us in, Stanley!!!
January 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pm#11 ~ I doubt we’ll be leaving anything lasting in Iraq, aside from the cottage industry of unexploded ordinance removal, which will mostly be farmed out to mom & pops with a high mortality rate.
.. Once upon a time I sent a mail to Bush about his ‘tax refund’ way back pre-911 when he carved up the surplus and mailed it to us… I told him it was enough money to rebuild every school in America over 50 years old.
Imagine where we would be right now, if all those schools had been built.
Do you even remember what you did with your check?
January 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pmHow to fix up the US economy: end wasting $2 billion per week on the wars on the Iraqi people and the Afghani people. Rescind the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%. Stop shipping our good manufacturing jobs to Mexico, China, India and other third world locations by ending NAFTA, WTO and other “free” (fascist) trade agreements that favor large corporations. Jack up the income taxes on U. S. corporations back to historic levels of the 1950s. Institute single-payer not-for-profit universal health insurance and universal health care. Close our borders and stop endless immigration which keeps undercutting and lowering wages of Americans. Raise the Federal minimum wage to “living wage” levels, of say, twelve dollars per hour.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:26 pm#13 - I think you missed my point (joke) about Iraq…but that’s OK. And, no, I don’t even remember if I got a check, let alone how much it was for or what I did with it.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pmCorporations already pay so very little in taxes….
this admission of not understanding economy one oh one is not very comforting….
will we ever get out of this mess?
January 18th, 2008 at 1:29 pmDo you even remember what you did with your check?
Comment by Bush is a four letter word — January 18, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
Hubby and I sent half to various causes and charities we support and spent the other half on hookers and smack.
Just kidding. We spent the other half on, well, crap we wanted. Don’t remember what exactly.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:33 pmOh and Bush is a worthless ying.
You know it’s true.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:35 pmDid not think you did.
LOL
The Best part, is when you cal lie to people and make them think that an average of $1200 is going to do it.
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1576
.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pmMcCain will recommend a Bomb Iran Stimulus Package.
-GSD
January 18th, 2008 at 1:47 pmMcCain will recommend a Bomb Iran Stimulus Package.
Self-described capitalist pig Jonathan Hoenig advocated this very thing on Fox News last year, claiming that the Dow index would soar if we bombed Iran. I seem to recall that Neil Cavuto is also on board with this preposterous idea.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:55 pmMcCain says……”we will get through this rough spot”.
Rough spot?? Is he joking?
Everyone I come in contact with in the construction business in particular are just about ready to use that penthouse suite they remodeled to jump.
Things are pretty bad out here and he calls it a “rough spot”.
These damn politicians are TOTALLY disconnected from the rest of us.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pmI got it. How about we eliminate all corporate taxes. We pretty much have that now with all their off-shore loopholes, might as well make it complete. That way the working people of this country could support it while the corporations get rich and we all go to the poor house.
Did you know that if the corporations were made to pay what they did when Eisenhower was President (the economy was pretty strong then and corporations weren’t going broke), we could pay off the massive debt that Bush has given us in a little more than a year? That’s a sobering thought.
McCain is dangerous and I certainly hope he never gets near the white house.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:02 pmHow has Congress done during the Bush years? Looks like Democrats are bad for the stock market and bad for the economy.
2001-2003 House of Representatives (D) and Senate (D)*
SP500 1/2/2001: 1320 SP500 1/2/2003: 879
Difference: -33.4%
2003-2007 House of Representatives (R) and Senate (R)
SP500 1/2/2003: 879 SP500 1/3/2007: 1418
Difference: 61.3%
2007-Now House of Representatives (D) and Senate (D)
SP500 1/3/2007: 1418 SP500 1/18/2008: 1333
Difference: -5.9%
107th House of Representatives: Hastert (R) 2001-2003
108th House of Representatives: Hastert (R) 2003-2005
109th House of Representatives: Hastert (R) 2005-2007
110th House of Representatives: Pelosi (D) 2007-present
107th Senate Majority Leader: Daschle (D) 1/3/2001-1/20/2001
Lott (R) 1/20/2001-6/6/2001
Daschle (D) 6/6/2001-1/3/2003
108th Senate Majority Leader: Frist (R) 2003-2005
109th Senate Majority Leader: Frist (R) 2005-2007
110th Senate Majority Leader: Reid (D) 2007-present
*Republicans had the Senate for 5+ months in 2001, splitting the Congress.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:03 pmCaption contest:
And next week I get an honorary 8th grade economics diploma!
January 18th, 2008 at 2:06 pmCorrection: From 2001-2003, the congress was split…
We obviously need a Republican majority. A Democrat or split Congress is bad for the economy and stock market.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:08 pmDo you even remember what you did with your check?
Comment by Bush is a four letter word @ 1:24 pm
just found this at C&L:
Bush didn’t push his permanent tax cuts too hard…
January 18th, 2008 at 2:25 pmBy: John Amato on Friday, January 18th, 2008 at 11:15 AM - PST
So, how did you spend that 300.00 rebate check you got from long ago? I doubt individuals will give it back to the economy. The reason—Bills, bills, bills…. Anyway, all you economists please comment on the Bush economy speech…
[…]
http://www.crooksandliars.com/ 2008/ 01/ 18/ bush-didnt-push-his-permanent-tax-cuts-too-hard/
McCain knows a lot about Savings & Loan stealing during the Reagan Administration. Wasn’t he one of the Keating Five that abetted in the theft?
Comment by QUALAR — January 18, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Good call QUALAR, he was the ONLY Republican of the Keating five. I had forgotten all about that. It will be good to save this tidbit for when he gets the nomination. Sssshhhh.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:34 pmWe obviously need a Republican majority. A Democrat or split Congress is bad for the economy and stock market.
Comment by muckdog — January 18, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
ROTFL!! What a STUPID COMMENT! The stock market has NEVER reached the same value (adjusted for inflation) under bush that it was under Clinton. As for the economy, the CURRENT PROBLEMS are STRUCTURAL in nature (unlike previous declines) brought on by REPUBLICAN DRIVEN DEREGULATION of the financial markets. You know NOTHING of economics - TARD, so STFU CHILD!
January 18th, 2008 at 2:52 pmMcCain is proposing cutting the corporate tax rate by 28.5 percent…????
Listen McInsane, just what do you think those “Corporations” are going to do with the extra money? Give their employees a raise? Not on your life would they do that, that money would go right to the guys at the top and to share holders, Corporate Greed has no morals and will continue to screw us till a revolution happens, till then it’s Frank M’oron’ way of thinking, “I got mine, F the lot of you.”
Repukes make me sick.
Buck Fush
January 18th, 2008 at 2:59 pmBush to proprose broad tax cuts
January 18th, 2008 at 3:51 pm#31, didn’t you read the numbers? Bush has been at the mercy of Congress when it comes to the market and economy. The only time the economy and market did well was when Bush had a Republican majority in both the House and Senate. Anytime the Democrats have any power at all, the market and economy tanked!
Refer to post #24. The truth shall set you free.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:07 pmIt’s the economy, stupid!
Remember?
January 18th, 2008 at 4:24 pm“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects of the Constitution or Confederation; not from any want of honor or virtue, as much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.” John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1797.
Today, two hundred years later, his statement still holds true. And because of this the United Stats has allowed and continues to allow the Federal Reserve, a paper corporation, to control the flow of money; making it tight and creating unemployment or printing more and creates inflation.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution states that the Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of any foreign coins. As you may know, this is not the case anymore. The United States government has no power to issue money, control the flow of money, or to even distribute it; that belongs to a private corporation registered in the State of Delaware, the Federal Reserve Bank, created by Congress in 1913.
Former presidents Jefferson and Jackson believed a central bank is not only unconstitutional but also causes inflation by printing money with no backing causing US citizens to issue T-bills to support the created money. Unfortunately it is our children that pay for the treasury bills we issue to prop up the markets. Any money the Fed releases to “curb market jitters over sub-prime woes” is a tax on unborn children who will be paying the interest on the debt we have accrued.
When the Fed injects more money into the system, then you have more money chasing the same number of goods which causes inflation. Inflation exists from the uneven change in the volume of money, say, when it is printed and given to a defense contractor. For the moment the contractor’s suppliers do not realize the money volume has changed, the recipient of the printed money experiences increased purchasing power. The workers end up receiving the wage in old money, but then are faced with prices in the new money after the vendors adjust to the new money supply. Inflation is the enemy of our prosperity as it causes the cost of living to go up faster than the pay increase for the large majority of people.
Generations ago it was free for citizens to turn their gold and silver into money, which increased the money supply as a wealth to the people. Now dollars are created out of thin air and loaned into circulation as debt against future production, not exchanged into circulation as production performed. Money has been switched from an evidence of wealth to an evidence of debt. The whole principle and function of money has been switched.
Thomas Jefferson was concise in his early warning to the American nation, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
Back in 1963, then president John Kennedy wanted an end to the Federal Reserve System and with a simple stroke of the pen he ordered the U.S. government to restore its Constitutional mandate of controlling the money. President Kennedy was dead three weeks later. When President Lyndon Johnson took office, he immediately rescinded Kennedy’s order and the Federal Reserve won another round.
Slavery is the price of ignorance.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:47 pmTo: Morondog
From: Anybody that understands causative versus correlational relationships
Correlation does not equal causation.
Thanks you.
cross-posted from the same place you last posted this drivel, suckdog
January 18th, 2008 at 4:51 pmthis headline would also be true: “Roger_Roger: ‘The Issue Of Economics Is Not Something I’ve Understood As Well As I Should’”
January 18th, 2008 at 5:00 pm#39 Correlation does not equal causation.
So you don’t believe the economy does better with a Democrat at President, either.
Glad to get you on record.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:26 pmNice try, muckdog. Amazing how conservatives will absolutely NEVER assume responsibility for ANYTHING wrong. The collapse of the dollar, the trade deficit, the declining middle class, the unprecidented difference between rich and poor, the collapse of our manufacturing, the unprecidented debt and deficit and the fact that we are now the world’s biggest debtor nation are all the result of the modern conservative/libertarian movement. In 1980, we were the world’s biggest creditor nation. Then came Reagan, and 28 years later, we are the biggest debtor nation in the world. You can torture the data all you like, but your movement is OVER. Nobody is buying your lame attempt to, as usual, blame Democrats for everything.
My favorite whining, simpering remark of yours: “Bush has been at the mercy of Congress when it comes to the market and economy.”
Right. Come November, you can have a good cry and shut the hell up.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:37 pmIn the late 1800’s, we had the “robber baron” era. That led to the various “panics” of the 1890’s, which led to Teddy Roosevelt’s progressive era of child labor laws, progressive taxation, inheritance taxes and conservation of natural resources. In the “roaring 20’s” we had another era of unbridled, unregulated corporate power which led to the crash and the great republican depression, which led to the New Deal - the New Deal created the strongest middle class in American history. Now, after 28 years of “supply-side” bullshit, we’re going to get the “panic of 2008″ which will lead to another era of progressive, liberal policies - universal healthcare, campaign finance, regulations on corporate power, renewable energy, etc. etc.
And sociopaths like Muckdog will be whining all the way.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:42 pmNow, after 28 years of “supply-side†bullshit, we’re going to get the “panic of 2008″ which will lead to another era of progressive, liberal policies - universal healthcare, campaign finance, regulations on corporate power, renewable energy, etc. etc.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — January 18, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Gee, Col. Jack, you almost sound like you are rooting for a crash. If there is no crash, your era of progressive, liberal policies won’t happen…I am sure you don’t want the economy to tank for political reasons, though.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:53 pmjohnfive: “Former presidents Jefferson and Jackson believed a central bank is not only unconstitutional but also causes inflation by printing money with no backing causing US citizens to issue T-bills to support the created money.”
Here’s a thought: why don’t we TAX the wealthy instead of borrowing money from them through T-bills. That’s the way we did it in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. That’s why we had prosperity and the strongest middle class in history.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:53 pmKeltoi, I’m not rooting for anything but progressive policies. I’m just reminding everyone of history. I’m reminding them of what ALWAYS happens when you don’t regulate capitalism. When capitalism goes unregulated, it always evolves into monopoly and corruption. As the Father of Capitalism reminded us in Wealth of Nations, for a society to function properly, capitalism MUST be regulated. If anything, I’m trying to remind people that there is room for optimism. Every time we’ve had an era like this, it hasn’t worked, but we’ve come through it stronger by reacting with strong progressive policy.
This rhetorical game you conservatives play is getting very tired. We’ve all heard it before - if I say our policy in Iraq is a disaster, you accuse me of “rooting for defeat.” If I say our economic policy is a disaster, you accuse me of “rooting for a crash.” Nonsense.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:59 pmRepublicans have been pushing tax cuts for the wealthy for 3 decades. During these three decades they also pushed through the largest tax INCREASE in history, the doubling of the Social Security Tax in 1983, but that was OK with conservatives because it was the working class that was paying and not the wealthy. Now, in response to the current recession which, no matter what they say, is in danger of turning into a full-blown depression, Bush’s answer is….. tax cuts for the wealthy!
Face it, conservatives. Your modern conservative/libertarian movement is through.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:11 pmMy favorite McCain crackpot “the world is flat” moment:
“Tax cuts increase revenue….. and they must be offset by spending cuts!”
January 18th, 2008 at 7:18 pmWouldn’t you like to know where Dick Cheney puts his money?
Well, as it turns out, Kiplinger Magazine ran an article based on Cheney’s financial disclosure statement and, sure enough, found out that the VP is lying to the American people for the umpteenth time. Deficits do matter and Cheney has invested his money accordingly.
T
he article is called “Cheney’s betting on bad news†and provides an account of where Cheney has socked away more than $25 million. While the figures may be estimates, the investments are not. According to Tom Blackburn of the Palm Beach Post, Cheney has invested heavily in “a fund that specializes in short-term municipal bonds, a tax-exempt money market fund and an inflation protected securities fund. The first two hold up if interest rates rise with inflation. The third is protected against inflation.â€
Cheney has dumped another (estimated) $10 to $25 million in a European bond fund which tells us that he is counting on a steadily weakening dollar. So, while working class Americans are loosing ground to inflation and rising energy costs, Darth Cheney will be enhancing his wealth in “Old Europeâ€.
This should put to rest once and for all the foolish notion that the “Bush Economic Plan†is anything more than a scam aimed at looting the public till. The whole deal is intended to shift the nation’s wealth from one class to another. It’s also clear that Bush-Cheney couldn’t have carried this off without the tacit approval of the thieves at the Federal Reserve who engineered the low-interest rate boondoggle to put the American people to sleep while they picked their pockets.
Reasonable people can dispute that Bush is “intentionally†skewering the dollar with his lavish tax cuts, but how does that explain Cheney’s portfolio?
It doesn’t. And, one thing we can say with certainty is that Cheney would never plunk his money into an investment that wasn’t a sure thing. If Cheney is counting on the dollar tanking and interest rates going up, then, by Gawd, that’s what’ll happen.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:33 pmBush knows nothing about economy as was shown with all his failed business given to him by his Daddy. Now old man McCain is clue less. The Saudi King really hopes a Republican gets in office it will be so easy to take over the USA. The example of how stupid Americans are was shown in Michigan when Mitt promised to bring back the car industry and the next day the ex Michigan Congressman was indicted for funding Terrorist. Rev. Huck shows a floating cross aka bookshelf then lies and says if anyone saw a flying cross it was God’s will. Rome fell and now the USA will fall.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:49 pmThis rhetorical game you conservatives play is getting very tired. We’ve all heard it before - if I say our policy in Iraq is a disaster, you accuse me of “rooting for defeat.†If I say our economic policy is a disaster, you accuse me of “rooting for a crash.†Nonsense.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — January 18, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
It is a very unhappy situation that if the party in power oversees successful policies, the minority is glum and quiet, while if the opposite is true and America falters, the minority party is noisy and exultant.
You despise Bush and the Republicans. You despise their policies. I don’t think you can write off the last 28 years of supply-side economics as uniformly bad - lots of people have made good livings in the US since 1980. Things weren’t so great 1976-1980 from an economic standpoint.
I think the greatest mistake we make is to think the President controls the economy. The forces at work in this global economy, with technology mutating the whole equation faster and faster year after year, no human being or institution can control it. Things have changed since Teddy Roosevelt, Colonel.
All that said, I do have a terrible feeling about the economy. Nominate your candidate well, Democrats….
January 18th, 2008 at 8:07 pmRepublicans have been pushing tax cuts for the wealthy for 3 decades. During these three decades they also pushed through the largest tax INCREASE in history, the doubling of the Social Security Tax in 1983, but that was OK with conservatives because it was the working class that was paying and not the wealthy.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — January 18, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Hmmmm….who was in charge of Congress in 83? Was Tip O’Neil a Republican? That was a lot of beers ago, I guess it’s possible.
BTW, SS is a government created benefit. The wealthy don’t need it, but still pay into it. The “working class” (Oh, FEEL the dialectic nostalgia!) is the primary beneficiary of SS - why would the government just give them a pension if they HADN’T paid into it? That is why O’Neil agreed to the hike - it was necessary and fair.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:13 pmYou despise Bush and the Republicans. You despise their policies. I don’t think you can write off the last 28 years of supply-side economics as uniformly bad - lots of people have made good livings in the US since 1980. Things weren’t so great 1976-1980 from an economic standpoint. Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 18, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
ROTFL!! That’s CRAP!! Do some economic research! Democratic presidents have experience a 5.4% economic growth compared to 1.6% for Republican presidents since 1930 - and that INCLUDES the great depression! So STFU or LEARN SOMETHING before you SPOUT OF YOUR IGNORANT RAMBLINGS AGAIN - KillToy!
I think the greatest mistake we make is to think the President controls the economy. The forces at work in this global economy, with technology mutating the whole equation faster and faster year after year, no human being or institution can control it. Things have changed since Teddy Roosevelt, Colonel. Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 18, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
Then WHY do DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS EXHIBIT THREE TIMES THE AVERAGE GROWTH of REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS?
All that said, I do have a terrible feeling about the economy. Nominate your candidate well, Democrats….
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 18, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
And you SHOULD, because we are finally getting the BLOWBACK from the supply side RayGun FAILURES! But you TARDS have been TOO STUPID, TOO GREEDY and TOO IGNORANT to even see it coming! You create a NEW DEFINITION FOR DUMB!
January 18th, 2008 at 8:14 pmHmmmm….who was in charge of Congress in 83? Was Tip O’Neil a Republican? That was a lot of beers ago, I guess it’s possible. Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 18, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
And he gave away much, because the president, the media and wall street all pressured him to do so - or do you FORGET that - Killtoy?
BTW, SS is a government created benefit. The wealthy don’t need it, but still pay into it. The “working class†(Oh, FEEL the dialectic nostalgia!) is the primary beneficiary of SS - why would the government just give them a pension if they HADN’T paid into it? That is why O’Neil agreed to the hike - it was necessary and fair. Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 18, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
Many RICH PEOPLE end up in TRAILER PARKS, so not only is your ASSUMPTION FALSE, but the concept of INSURANCE (that’s what SS is) is LOST on you - MORON!
January 18th, 2008 at 8:16 pmHere Killtoy, are some statistics I shared with muckb!!ch earlier. Your IGNORANCE is INEXCUSABLE!
Average stock market growth - 1927-2000
under Democratic presidents 13.4 % (Dow)
under Republican presidents 8.1 % (Dow)
Annual stock market return: (1900) 1927 - 2000
Democratic Senate
10.5 % (S&P 500)
Democratic House
10.9 % (S&P 500)
Republican Senate
9.4 % (S&P 500)
Republican House
8.1 % (S&P 500)
Annual stock market return: (1900) 1927 - 2000
Democratic President
12.3 % (S&P 500)
Republican President
8.0 % (S&P 500)
Annual stock market return: 1927 (through) 1998
Democratic President - ~ 11%
(value weighted CRSP index minus 3 month Treasury Bill)
~ 2% (value weighted CRSP index minus 3 month Treasury Bill)
Increase in National Debt: 1962-2001
Total debt increased by Democratic Presidents
$0.72 trillion (20 years)
Total debt increased by Republican Presidents
$3.8 trillion (20 years)
Yearly budget deficit: 1962-2001
$36 billion -Democratic Presidents
$190 billion -Republican Presidents
Non-defense Federal Government Employees: 1962-2001
Rose by 59,000 under Democratic Presidents (16 % of total rise
over 40 years)
Rose by 310,000 under Republican Presidents (84% of total rise
over 40 years)
Percentage growth in Non-Defense Federal Spending: 1962-2001
8.34 % under Democratic Presidents
10.08 % under Republican Presidents
Percentage growth in Total Federal Spending: 1962-2001
6.96 % under Democratic Presidents
7.57 % under Republican Presidents
GDP growth: 1930-2000
5.4% under Democratic Presidents
1.6 % under Republican Presidents
Inflation: 1948-2001
Under Democratic Presidents
3-yr lag: 3.33 %
4-yr lag: 3.07 %
5-yr lag: 3.20 %
Under Republican Presidents
3-yr lag: 4.36 %
4-yr lag: 4.60 %
5-yr lag: 4.48 %
Unemployment: 1947-2001
4.8 % under Democratic Presidents
6.3 % under Republican Presidents
Employment gains per year: 1953-2001
1.684 million/year under Democratic Presidents
1.279 million/year under Republican Presidents
Democratic Presidents and Congresses are BETTER at the economy, no matter HOW the data is sliced! Poor little muckdog, DEFEATED by FACTS and REALITY ONCE AGAIN! IMPEACH CHENEY/BUSH - The Time for Incompetent Republican Rule is OVER!
January 18th, 2008 at 8:17 pmSorry, Colonel, you were saying?
January 18th, 2008 at 8:21 pmSorry, Colonel, you were saying?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 18, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
Sorry TARD, you had your FINGERS IN YOUR EARS? ;)
January 18th, 2008 at 8:30 pm“However, if he were to be elected president,”
Comment by missmolly
Never gonna happen
January 18th, 2008 at 9:10 pm“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,”
That’s ok, Mr. McCain. You can take consolation that neither do the people voting Republican. Which is the reason they vote the way they do to begin with…
January 19th, 2008 at 12:05 amThe coming “Bush Recession.” Me rikey. Gotta nice ring to it.
January 19th, 2008 at 2:32 amTHE BUSH RECESSION
THE BUSH RECESSION
THE BUSH RECESSION
THE BUSH RECESSION
THE BUSH RECESSION
None of the candidates on either side strike me as knowing much about economics. I’m sure they’ll all rely on advisers.
That said, I think TP gets it wrong on the suggestion that McCain reversed course. They didn’t share the entire quote from the SC debate, but following those remarks McCain said, “This is a rough patch.” That’s the same as what he said the other day.
The facts demonstrate that cutting corporate tax rates can both boost the economy and increase revenues, although not always. I think it’s a good proposal. However, what any of the candidates say about the stimulus is basically irrelevant, since it may be too little, too latefor a fix to the economy’s woes.
Finally, as the Times’ editorial board argues, it isn’t just the GOP that has been slow to address the economy. The Democrats “have been slow off the mark, but they’re catching on,” writes the Times’.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:11 amNot sure what you folks are talking about? Pot, meet kettle! Call Bush a moron if you are still in 3rd grade, but you need to look in the mirror.
OK, so you probably think Bill Clinton was a decent President. You are wrong…he set us back many years. We are fortunate that we have Bush to avert the economic crisis course that Clinton worked so hard to put us on for eight years. Yeah, right, Clinton gave us the strong economy…lol…lol…lol!!!!
Fact is that Reagan and Bush 1 were responsible for the policies that were put in place that gave us the strong economy of the 1990’s. And if you disagree, may I encourage you to look at where the economy was in 1980 before Reagan came into office. Also, look at where it was headed in the last months of Billary’s fiasco regime. Pretty clear now, eh?
OK, so George W. Bush came into office as Bill left us in shambles, both in the economy and world order, i.e. terrorism. Well, Bush dealt with both decisively. I’m sure the liberals would love to see everything go to hell in a handbasket, just to pour more hate onto our President and gain the power they so desire. At least the Republicans never wished ill will upon our country just for political gain or to say nanny-nanny-boo-boo. How childish and immature to have this shortsighted selfishness and hatred.
Get over it. By the way, please inform me of the economic advantage that either Hillary or Barack provide related to McCain? They are neophytes in the political policy arena and I don’t see how you can claim superiority or equality on this issue at all!
February 9th, 2008 at 8:22 pm