It's The Economy Stupid

is_that_so

BenjAii wrote: »

While he is certainly pro-Democrat; your link comes to the same conclusion. Even with the post-convention bounce, McCain is still behind in electoral college votes.

Yep I did say that, but posted it as it is a better quality link. In fact I am sorry I gave that Guardian piece any credit at all. It is really badly-written and most of us here could have written better.

More importantly, McCain who tries to paint himself as a maverick is offering nothing new. His policies are the same as the failed Bush policies. Even his strategy is exactly the same as Bush with Kerry in 2004. Spread falsehoods ( Obama wants to raise taxes), get the evangelicals out (Palin) and paint Obama as an out of touch elitist.

If this is the best he can come up with, he is going to need to be lucky, he's going to have to fool a lot of people who are looking for something different.

Doubt can be a big winner in elections as we found out here. McCain doesn't need to get down to the lows of previous GOP campaigns. A simple "Do you trust this guy?" can hit home for some.
Obama didn't win in Ohio nor in PA which do have blue collar voters. Both are extremely tight. Either of those two tends to be part of the final decision. Virginia may be up for grabs and even NH could be in the mix. I don't think Obama can take Florida and the likes of CO and NV are not clear for now due to the possible Palin effect. Roll on the first Presidential debate at the end of the month.

Pocono Joe

When it comes time to pull the lever in the voting booth, the majority of Americans vote from emotion. Few know the vast plethora of issues and ultimately choose a candidate who relates favorably to the individuals greatest concerns. And this year I believe it will come down to the economy.

I do not have data backing up what I am about to put forward, so I guess you can say it's just emotions.

Although the democrat promises sound good, people here have been through decades of empty promises from both sides of the isle. Ultimately they know that it's Mr. Smith that provides them with their jobs, not Mr. Government. And if Mr. Smith feels that the taxes, aggravation and government interference is not worth the effort, then it's the individual's jobs that will ultimately pay the price.

Few here want a cradle to grave welfare system. It goes against the American way, and they realize it would be very expensive and wasteful. Government doesn't create jobs, people create jobs. As individuals cope with job loss, rising costs, and economic uncertainty, there is an emotional disdain towards the rich. But deep down people realize it's the rich that create the jobs. By November 4th, people will have had beaten into their psyche that that if the rich decide the only way to win - is not to play the game, it's the average individual that will ultimately lose. If the rich start a business, which creates jobs, and it fails, the rich bear the total cost of that loss. And if they start a business and it succeeds, the fruits of their labors will be relatively small due to higher government regulation and higher taxes, is unattractive. In addition, if the rich decide that the tax rates are too obsessive on capital gains, coupled with death taxes, they will not invest funds which also creates jobs, and will find ways to shelter their income - which does not create jobs. It will also be beaten into their brains that historically the government gets more revenues when taxes are kept lower. And most alarming, they will be hearing more and more that the rich will wait out a democratic executive/legislative/judicial controlled government.

You can argue all the points made, but on November 4th, this is what will be in our hearts and minds.

FatherTed

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Show me where the Obama campaign has said this.

Then McCain picks a VP running mate who is younger than Obama, better-looking than him, more experienced than him—and she's a woman.

Disaffected Hillary voters are flocking to the McCain/Palin ticket in droves.

No they're not!

And the Democrats are getting desperate, as shown by how eager they are to attack Sarah Palin on every conceivable front.

Remember Democrats telling women that they could "have it all"—motherhood, career, and political success? Remember Hillary putting "eighteen million cracks" in the glass ceiling? And then along came a conservative woman candidate for high office—who was promptly told by Democrats that her place was in the home, not out on the campaign trail upstaging their precious Messiah.

What a double standard!

Show me where anyone from the Obama campaign said "her place was in the home".

Stop making stuff up!

FatherTed

Pocono Joe wrote: »

When it comes time to pull the lever in the voting booth, the majority of Americans vote from emotion. Few know the vast plethora of issues and ultimately choose a candidate who relates favorably to the individuals greatest concerns. And this year I believe it will come down to the economy.

I do not have data backing up what I am about to put forward, so I guess you can say it's just emotions.

Although the democrat promises sound good, people here have been through decades of empty promises from both sides of the isle. Ultimately they know that it's Mr. Smith that provides them with their jobs, not Mr. Government. And if Mr. Smith feels that the taxes, aggravation and government interference is not worth the effort, then it's the individual's jobs that will ultimately pay the price.

Few here want a cradle to grave welfare system. It goes against the American way, and they realize it would be very expensive and wasteful. Government doesn't create jobs, people create jobs. As individuals cope with job loss, rising costs, and economic uncertainty, there is an emotional disdain towards the rich. But deep down people realize it's the rich that create the jobs. By November 4th, people will have had beaten into their psyche that that if the rich decide the only way to win - is not to play the game, it's the average individual that will ultimately lose. If the rich start a business, which creates jobs, and it fails, the rich bear the total cost of that loss. And if they start a business and it succeeds, the fruits of their labors will be relatively small due to higher government regulation and higher taxes, is unattractive. In addition, if the rich decide that the tax rates are too obsessive on capital gains, coupled with death taxes, they will not invest funds which also creates jobs, and will find ways to shelter their income - which does not create jobs. It will also be beaten into their brains that historically the government gets more revenues when taxes are kept lower. And most alarming, they will be hearing more and more that the rich will wait out a democratic executive/legislative/judicial controlled government.

You can argue all the points made, but on November 4th, this is what will be in our hearts and minds.

So only rich people create jobs when republicans are in power to reduce their taxes. Nice theory but in practice:
Unemployment Rate
1992-12 7.40% (End of Bush I)
2000-12 3.90% (End of Clinton)
2008-9 6.1% (Current under Bush II)

snow scorpion

I was reading this article just yesterday. This thread seems like an appropriate place to share:

5 myths About Those Civic-Minded, Deeply Informed Voters

1. Our voters are pretty smart.

... by every measure social scientists have devised, voters are spectacularly uninformed. They don't follow politics, and they don't know how their government works.


2. Bill O'Reilly's viewers are dumber than Jon Stewart's.

Liberals wish. But a 2007 Pew survey found that the knowledge level of viewers of the "The O'Reilly Factor" and "The Daily Show" is comparable, with about 54 percent of the shows' politicized viewers scoring in the "high knowledge" category.

So what about conservative talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh's audience? Surely the ditto-heads are dumb, right? Actually, according to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Rush's listeners are better educated and "more knowledgeable about politics and social issues" than the average voter.


3. If you just give Americans the facts, they'll be able to draw the right conclusions.

Unfortunately, no. But the evidence from the past few years proves that a majority can easily be bamboozled.


4. Voters today are smarter than they used to be.

Actually, by most measures, voters today possess the same level of political knowledge as their parents and grandparents, and in some categories, they score lower.

Here's what makes these numbers deplorable -- and, in fact, almost incomprehensible: Education levels are far higher today than they were half a century ago, when social scientists first began surveying voter knowledge about politics. (In 1940, six in ten Americans hadn't made it past the eighth grade.) The moral of this story: Schooling alone doesn't translate into better educated voters.


5. Young voters are paying a lot of attention to the news.

Again, no.

Pew again measured public knowledge of current events and found that the young (aged 18 to 29) "know the least."

And some other statistics are even more alarming. How many young people read newspapers? Just 20 percent.

But surely today's youth are getting their news from the Internet? Sorry. Only 11 percent of the young report that they regularly surf the Internet for news. Maybe Obama shouldn't be relying on savvy young voters after all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irish_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i like mc cain but if i had a vote , i wouldnt vote for him , not because im a big fan of obama ( wanted hillary to win ) but because i think if the democrats loose again , we could be looking at one party rule for a long time to come

i just think you have to remember your roots and the roots of the irish in the usa is certainly not with the republican party , they were always a very exclusivly w.a.s.p party and would had zero sympathy for the arriving irish , italian or polish immigrants from europe in the 19th century , ive nothing in common with them. i think the democrats are anything but socilist so i dont get why you disregard them as an option so forcefully , im no socilists myself but i think in the usa while the message is anyone can make it to the top if they work hard enough , it seems those who come from poor backrounds have little chance of going to a good school unless there gifted at sports or something ,college is extremly expensive and the minimum wage is so low , most on it need to work more than one job , the massive divide between rich and poor is i think one of the reasons that the prison population is so high compared to other western countries , surely housing so many prisoners is a huge burden on the state yet most americans seem to see this cost as preferable to paying for a national health service , i guess its just the american way , i think there is a 3rd way between the american way and the statist french one , maybe i should plan a trip to sweeden some time and report back

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irish_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

while you seem to believe that the high prison population is down to americas zero tollerance towards recreational drugs , i think it also has a lot to do with the fact that there is widespread ghettoisation particulary among black areas and as we all know , a disproportionate amount of prisoners come from the black community , my point about americans perferring there tax dollars being spent on prisons as opposed to a national health service was meant so suggest that perhaps money would be better spent on social programmes in genral including a health service than simply on locking people up who are products of social problems , its a fact that there is a link between poverty and crime , you dont have to be a left winger to believe that, ameircans believe in a culture of accountability and working for your wages so i would like to think that if they did create the likes of a national health care plan , it wouldnt end up like the mess we have in ireland where the health service exists 1st and foremost to keep as many public servants as possible in jobs , the unions quiet and thus the same public servant empolyee voters returning goverments at each election

Pocono Joe

If you are still under the delusion that Obama’s economic plan is superior to McCains, then don’t read this article. It will only add to the growing phenomenon gripping the Far Left, Liberals, and many in the Democratic party… P.S.R.S. (Post Selection Remorse Syndrome).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122126282034130461.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Hobbes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

If you are still under the delusion that Obama’s economic plan is superior to McCains, then don’t read this article.

Hmmm, an opinion piece written by two Republicans. Even McCain is BS'ing about Obamas economic plan and even got owned on TV recently.

Here is more interesting one.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html

McCain camp seems more intent on sleeze then offering solutions.

Pocono Joe

Today, John McCain has called for a high-level commission to study the current economic crisis and claimed that a corrupt and excessive Wall Street had betrayed American workers. He also is rightfully pointing out that "I warned two years ago that this situation was deteriorating and unacceptable," and added that "the old-boy network and the corruption in Washington is directly involved and one of the causes of this financial crisis that we're in today. And I know how to fix it and I know how to get things done."

Today, Barak Obama is blaming Republicans for everything wrong with the economy, and is heading to the five-star Beverly Wilshire to host a dinner costing attendees $28,500 dollars each.

If the roles were reversed, I'd bet most everyone here would calling for a suspension of the election, to be replaced with a coronation of Obama.

BenjAii

Pocono Joe wrote: »

added that "the old-boy network and the corruption in Washington is directly involved and one of the causes of this financial crisis that we're in today. And I know how to fix it and I know how to get things done."

I see he is up to his old tricks of identifying the culprits (the people how have been in power the last 8 years), but pretending they are not the Republicans.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Today, Barak Obama is blaming Republicans for everything wrong with the economy, and is heading to the five-star Beverly Wilshire to host a dinner costing attendees $28,500 dollars each.

I believe both candidates are required to raise phenomenal amounts of money as it is impossible to conduct a political campaign in the US otherwise, so what is your point here ?

Pocono Joe

BenjAii wrote: »

I see he is up to his old tricks of identifying the culprits (the people how have been in power the last 8 years), but pretending they are not the Republicans.

No, Mccain acknowledges that some of the culprits are Republicans, and intends to put a stop to it. But lets not forget about Andrew Cuoma as HUD Secretary under Clinton, Barney Frank, and the "Big 4" campaign contribution recipients from Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac, C. Dodd, J. Kerry, B. Obama, and H. Clinton.

I guess McCain is the only one that offers REAL change.

BenjAii

Joe, although McCain is claiming he saw this coming and the need to fix it, his website doesn't back him up.

Looking through his economic policies, I found this on addressing the issue of speculation in the oil market.

To make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.


It appears to say all is well with the rest of Wall Street regulation, that would appear to directly contradict what he is trying to claim credit for now ?

FatherTed

Pocono Joe wrote: »

No, Mccain acknowledges that some of the culprits are Republicans, and intends to put a stop to it. But lets not forget about Andrew Cuoma as HUD Secretary under Clinton, Barney Frank, and the "Big 4" campaign contribution recipients from Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac, C. Dodd, J. Kerry, B. Obama, and H. Clinton.

I guess McCain is the only one that offers REAL change.

John McCain has also received campaign contributions from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. As has Barack Obama.

Pocono Joe

BenjAii wrote: »

I believe both candidates are required to raise phenomenal amounts of money as it is impossible to conduct a political campaign in the US otherwise, so what is your point here ?

Just another valid dig at Obama.

Obama pledged last February that he would accept public financing, which comes with spending limits, if he became the Democratic nominee, and McCain did likewise.

McCain kept his pledge, Obama didn't!

Just another factor in "who we should believe in" to run the country.

BenjAii

Found this on Barack Obamas website, so unless he has been very quick in slipping this in today, he is the one who can claim foresight on this issue (albeit he is more focussed on the consumer, and not the stupid investment banks who got too greedy for their own good).

Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.

Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies: Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual's mortgage payments. Obama believes that the subprime mortgage industry, which has engaged in dangerous and sometimes unscrupulous business practices, should not be shielded by outdated federal law.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#home-ownership

alastair

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Just another valid dig at Obama.

Obama pledged last February that he would accept public financing, which comes with spending limits, if he became the Democratic nominee, and McCain did likewise.

McCain kept his pledge, Obama didn't!

Just another factor in "who we should believe in" to run the country.

Heh. McCain signed up for public financing when he hadn't a brass farthing left in the coffers. It didn't stop him trying to backpedal when he looked like getting back in the race. The only reason he didn't pull out (as he attempted to in March) was because the FEC wouldn't allow him.

Pocono Joe

alastair wrote: »

The only reason he didn't pull out (as he attempted to in March) was because the FEC wouldn't allow him.

Can you substantiate that claim? The last I heard was the FEC affirmed McCain's right to bypass the public financing system and the strict spending limits that come with it.

alastair

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Can you substantiate that claim? The last I heard was the FEC affirmed McCain's right to bypass the public financing system and the strict spending limits that come with it.

You're right - in response to McCain asking to opt out of Public Financing (after opting in), the FEC changed the rules of the game. So McCain no more kept to his pledge (which was all he could afford at the time) than Obama did.

Pocono Joe

alastair wrote: »

So McCain no more kept to his pledge (which was all he could afford at the time) than Obama did.

Huhhhhhhhh???? Did McCain accept campaign finance or not?

alastair

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Huhhhhhhhh???? Did McCain accept campaign finance or not?

McCain pledged to public financing from the start.
He didn't apply for public financing until he ran out of his cash (when his campaign looked like a dead duck)
When he started to look like a fore-runner amongst the Republican candidates and the private money started to flow again he asked to be removed from public financing. He hadn't pulled down any public money at that stage, but he had allegedly borrowed on the strength of receiveing that public money down the line. The FEC rules would have had forced him to stick with public financing if he had, so they had to make a ruling on whether he could leave or not. They voted in his favour. The FEC also agreed to a change of rules which could allow a return to public financing late in the day.
So McCain's pledge to campaign on the basis of public financing only lasted as long as he was broke. Quite the, eh, flip flopper.

Pocono Joe

Your explanation is a tad wrong, but that's okay. A simple YES would have sufficed.

alastair

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Your explanation is a tad wrong, but that's okay. A simple YES would have sufficed.

We can agree that on this issue McCain's pledge is about as useful as Obama's.

BenjAii

Bush & McCains assurances that everything is basically OK with the American economy may just be about to be shown up as even more clueless and out of touch.

The London Times & NY Times, both reporting AIG now looking more likely than not to go bankrupt and that this will be a "catastrophe" to dwarf what has happened so far.

Bush is probably busy reading a kids book about goats.

Pocono Joe

Bush and McCain realize we are facing a national crisis, and both of them are doing and proposing solutions to the problem. I doubt either McCain or Obama could do anything different than what Bush is currently putting into action. But the difference between the republicans and the democrats in this matter is the Republicans feel The world only comes to an end once - and this ain't it.

Pocono Joe

alastair wrote: »

We can agree that on this issue McCain's pledge is about as useful as Obama's.

No, I guess we can't.

Both pledged to take campaign financing. In the end, McCain took the campaign financing when he didn't have to, and Obama opted out of campaign financing.

It's quite simple you see.


"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

Pocono Joe

Ben, I appreciate you looking up both the McCain and Obama's website regarding the issue. Probably in a few days it will be on McCains'. I was going on what I saw on both FoxNews and MSNBC this morning (I like to watch both sides of the spectrum). It was interesting that both channels reported that McCain did in fact see this coming and fought for the need to fix it two years ago. Interesting how Fox reported it will pride in the commentator's voices, and MSNBC reported it with disdain in their voices. Bias all the way around! Unfortunately nothing has been done for years by either the Reps or Dems when they were in control of the Executive and/or Legislative sectors of government. I guess there is plenty of blame to go around. The blame game is just part of politics, unfortunately is serves no purpose and takes away from the real problem which is making tough decisions and getting us out of the immediate crisis.

Historically during recent elections when there is a downturn in the economy, it bodes well for the Democrats, but when there is a crisis it goes well for Republicans. I guess we will have to see how the situation of the economy stands on November 3th. (that was also reported this morning and I don't have a link for it, other than the two news channels).

turgon

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Both pledged to take campaign financing. In the end, McCain took the campaign financing when he didn't have to, and Obama opted out of campaign financing.

Maybe Im misinterpreting you or the issue - Mccain took money when he didnt need it but Obama didnt??