Many of McCain’s 300 economists ‘don’t actually support’ his full economic agenda.
Many of McCain’s 300 economists ‘don’t actually support’ his full economic agenda.
On Monday, after Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) released an economic plan promising to balance the federal budget by 2013, his campaign released a statement signed by 300 economists who were said to “enthusiastically support” the plan. But as Politico reports today, “a good many of those economists don’t actually support the whole of McCain’s economic agenda.” In fact, the statement released by the campaign neglected to mention parts of McCain’s plan that have drawn criticism from many economists:
The statement they signed is 403 words long—and there is no mention of the gas tax holiday or the deficit, which the Congressional Budget Office projects will approach $400 billion this year.
But the Jobs for America plan is a 15-page document that touts a gas tax holiday proposal on the second page and prominently features the promise that “John McCain will balance the budget by the end of his first term” on the fourth page. The press release accompanying the economists’ statement claimed it was “in support of John McCain’s Jobs for America economic plan.”
But some of the economists interviewed by Politico, like the University of Iowa’s William Albrecht, vigorously disagree with these aspects of McCain’s plan. “He’s not going to balance the budget,” Albrecht said. One economist even said he was supporting Obama.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
McCain lied, sky still blue…carry on…
July 9th, 2008 at 10:17 amoops.
but wanna bet how many mentions this gets on general electric’s media outlets. i’m taking ‘0′.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:19 amIf they do not agree with the entire plain, if some some support Obama, if others do not believe that it will accomplish its stated goals; then why the hell sign it. Do these people not understand the potential impact on the election this fall?
July 9th, 2008 at 10:19 amUm, why did they sign it…?
July 9th, 2008 at 10:23 amI get the feeling that the entire McSame campaign is based on the premise that no one in the mainstream media will actually fact-check anything that McSame says. And those on the fringe who do throw the BS flag everytime McSame manages to contradict himself, flip-flop, outright lie or some stunning combination of all three, are going to be subjected to the wrath of the MSM for daring to counter the accepted view of McSame
July 9th, 2008 at 10:25 amOn Monday, after Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) released an economic plan promising to balance the federal budget by 2013….
Funny thing about this promise. He will only make it on paper. He refuses to make it out loud where he can be filmed and then held to his word. I guess McCain has figured out that YouTube thing and will be more careful about what he allows to be on tape.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:26 amMcCain’s economic plan also included not paying real estate taxes for 4 years, cutting Federal revenue by lifting the gas tax and a 100 year war plan against American citizens.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:26 amMcCain just got the endorsement of the fifth dentist, who doesn’t recommend sugarless gum to her patients who chew gum.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:26 amOf course he’s not going to balance the budget, he’s a republican. It’s the atypical leaving out of major pieces that, when included, will not result in balance.
Who was the last republican President to balance the budget?
July 9th, 2008 at 10:31 amIn fact, republicans always break records set by previous republicans on debt and deficit. Why would anyone think that this republican will be different?
Funny things about Economics professors: They’re often considered the most conservative in the realm of the liberal arts, but too liberal to teach in business schools.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:35 amOf these 300 economists there are some that do support a Bush/McCain economy. We are living out a Bush/McCain economy and if it is working out so well we should vote for another four years of the McBush/McCan’t Economy…he he he!.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:38 amIs “Foreclosure Phil” included in these 300 economists?
July 9th, 2008 at 10:42 amMark of the changing times: It used to be: What do you call 500 lawyers on a sinking ship? Now it is what do you call 300 economists on McSame’s sinking ship?
A damn good start!
July 9th, 2008 at 10:42 amMcStain is as clueless as inspector Clouseau.
A feeble, inept, senior citizen you’d avoid like the plague if you saw him behind the wheel of an auto.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:46 amJJ, don’t be such an ignorant pussy, READ THE LINK dickhead:
In interviews with more than a dozen of the signatories, Politico found that, far from embracing McCain’s economic plan, many were unfamiliar with — or downright opposed to — key details.
No wonder your such a loser?! When you depend on others to do your homework, you become unable to think for yourself, which explains A LOT.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:48 amwho cares what 300 michael browns think?
We know where we are and why…..because the same 300 economists help get us here.
There are competent people out there but they won’t be found around mccain any more than they were found around bush.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:51 amHey jabberjaw — notice how that’s enough to derail the credibility of the entire list. If you knew how to read, you would see that the “one” Obama supporter isn’t the overarching rebuttal, but that fact that these 300 economists don’t support every element of his plan.
I’m also sure that there are way more than 300 economists who would support Obama’s economic plan.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:53 amI think one of the reasons for the lack of full support is that many economists don’t have all that much faith in the “then a miracle occurs” step in the process.
For those of you unfamiliar with the famous Sidney Harris cartoon, click on this link and enjoy…
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php
July 9th, 2008 at 11:02 amIf the statement the economists signed was missing key elements to balancing the budget, why would they sign it?
July 9th, 2008 at 11:11 amjabberjaw Says
July 9th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Ooooooh, just 1 out of the 300 economists is now reported to say by a political blog that he is having second thoughts and may support Obama. Wow. 0.33%. Amazing. Stop the presses.
______________________________________________________________
Nice try spinning that 0.33% of economists support Obama. A bit inaccurate, as these 300 economists weren’t just random economists plucked off the street and polled — they were 300 economists who signed a statement of support for McCain’s economic plan. And just because one said he supported Obama doesn’t mean there aren’t more from that group who do.
The article doesn’t mention how many economists (or other experts) in Obama’s camp actually support McCain.
But that’s not the main point of the article you are trying to distract from, which is McCain misleading voters that these economists support something that many actually don’t. Do you have anything to say on that point?
July 9th, 2008 at 11:17 amSame old pig slop that all repubs are smearing today. The republicans and democrats are just alike. Sorry, that is just another lie. Try again. Please try to be realistic if you wish to be taken seriously.
We would not be where we are today if a democrat had been elected in 2000. Democrats are not republicans, period.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:17 amjabberjaw — you’re part of the RNC strategy this season. You’re not fooling anybody here.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:23 amThe statement they signed is 403 words long—and there is no mention of the gas tax holiday or the deficit, which the Congressional Budget Office projects will approach $400 billion this year.
They should have included some pictures.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
July 9th, 2008 at 11:24 amjabberjaw — shove the talking points up your ass and get lost.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:24 am“Many of John McCain’s economists ‘don’t actually support’ his full economic agenda”
Like about 98% of them?
July 9th, 2008 at 11:27 amjabberjaw
For anyone on the fence….jj is trying to pick a few bad apples to make the case that all democrats are just like republicans. Sorry jj. Just aint so.
Speaking of bad apples, have you surveyed what the republicans have done to our nation in the last 8 years?
July 9th, 2008 at 11:30 amWhat kind of clowns would sign a document they didn’t fully agree with knowing it would go on public display? A bunch of tenured clowns. Reminds me why I never took my econ profs too seriously.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:33 amSounds like McCain has done a good job demonstrating how lazy and stupid these economists are.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:37 amC’mon, there’s at least six that do! Of course, they’re on the payrolls of the oil, telecoms and/or other corporations.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:43 amjabberjaw Says:
Fred: “Democrats are not republicans, period.”
Lieberman was a Democrat and still caucuses with the Democrats.
Reagan was once a Democrat.
Thanks for proving Fred’s point. If the parties were identical, no one would have to switch parties, would they?
July 9th, 2008 at 11:44 amEven though he realizes that he knows nothing about economics, McCain is such a maverick, he doesn’t even listen to his own economic advisors.
Damn my economic advisors, full speed backward!
July 9th, 2008 at 11:48 amjabberjaw, why does Ralph Nader take money from the RNC?
July 9th, 2008 at 11:49 amIs this ‘jabberjaw’ prick still babbling?
What is it that you want? Should I throw you some change for a bag of Cheetos so you can bug off?
July 9th, 2008 at 11:49 amThanks for playing jj. I guess you would have us believe that if Al Gore had been elected in 2000 that:
we would still be in this disasterous war
Our economy would be tanked as it is today(dow at close to 2000 levels
sub-prime caused by deregulation, predictable
health care crisis
steady loss of jobs
ect.
Oh, and do you really think Katrina would have happened the way it did if a democrat with a competent person running fema? Seriousl, you are a moonbat.
I warned you that I was going to call you that if you kept up your nonsense.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:52 amjabberjaw said:
If the parties were not identical, it would not be so easy to switch parties.
The parties are not identical, there are clear differences between them. The problem however is in their simularities, they both get their money from the same place. Which underscores the need to get the money out of politics. Publicly financed campaigns would go a long way toward this goal.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
July 9th, 2008 at 11:55 amjabberjaw Says:
If the parties were not identical, it would not be so easy to switch parties.
What is that supposed to mean? It makes no sense at all, but I guess that’s not a surprise.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:55 amjj, If you can’t mount an effective argument then there is no need to be childish….but that’s how bush has taught you so I guess i shouldn’t be too surprised.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:02 pmI have to get back to work now. By the way jj, I own my own business and I am a democrat. I was more sucessful under Clinton because it is hard for legitmate businesses to compete with cronyism, backstabbing and crooks which is business as usual for conservatives.
It would be nice to see some sense of pride in honest business practices for a change…..coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:05 pmFunny how the “third party” supporter only mocks the Democratic candidate.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:14 pmgummitch Says:
Funny how the “third party” supporter only mocks the Democratic candidate.
Wasn’t he saying he was a progressive just a few days ago?
July 9th, 2008 at 12:25 pmjabberjaw Says:
“…if you actually want a candidacy that stands steadfast for shifting the power from the corporations back to the people and doesn’t pander to the right or shift to the middle, then there is another candidate to consider.”
Damn Straight!!! The only problem is that she will be elected as Vice-President this time.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:46 pmIn reading down this list of comments, there’s not one intelligent thought on the merits of either candidates economic plan. Democrats/Liberals believe government is the source of our economic prowess in the world, when it is freedom, capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit that drives it. By continually inserting itself in a bigger and broader way, government is indeed impeding the growth of our economy. Higher taxes, more regulation, wealth redistribution, and more forms of welfare spending by our government are toxic ingredients for any economic model. Keynes famously said that he “reserves the right to change his mind.” My guess is that he would have abandoned “Keynesian” economics long ago. It simply doesn’t work.
Someone please tell me specifically how Obama’s economic policies will grow our economy and continue/strengthen our competitive positioning in the world.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:19 pm