McCain's running against his own dismal economic record

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Grimble
    Sept. 22, 2008 11:18 a.m.

    I suppose that's the difference between Democrats and Republicans right now.

    When democrats say "restore confidence" they're talking about strengthening policies to make them more worthy of confidence.

    When republicans say "restore confidence" they're talking strengthening PR, regardless of whether confidence is warranted.

  • mark
    Sept. 21, 2008 1:00 a.m.

    So wrz, this current economic problem had nothing to do with large, essentially unregulated, financial institutions directing trillions of dollars into unsound credit instruments.
    Nothing to do with a U.S. economy that has created only five million new jobs in eight years, a declining median income of American households, decaying infrastructure, skyrocketing debt, change from a producing to a consumer economy, jobs offshored, wages and benefits cut, layoffs, Wall Street's focus on short term investment, rising fuel costs, an inept president.
    No, it all had to do with lack of confidence.

  • wrz
    Sept. 20, 2008 11:51 p.m.

    Grimble:

    I just watched on TV a program with essentially a Democratic panel discussing what they woud advise the president to do as he takes office in January.

    They almost all used the phrase "restore/maintain confidence." They seemed to think that confidence is among the top essential elements in much of the governance of this country including managing the finance industry.

  • Grimble
    Sept. 20, 2008 11:05 p.m.

    WRZ,

    Sure, but there's a point at which "confidence" becomes foolhardiness. You have to have something of substance there to have confidence IN.

  • Lewt
    Sept. 20, 2008 10:41 p.m.

    Ah. I now see wrz's wisdom, and must confess. I ruined the economy. No, really. I just didn't CONSUME enough when I had the chance, and there were moments, I confess, when I (sob) lacked confidence in the Bush administration. A man wearing a Kerry pin told me that stocks could (shudder) actually GO DOWN in value. Will you all forgive me? Please?

  • wrz
    Sept. 20, 2008 9:55 p.m.

    Grimble,

    The importance of confidence is frequently overlooked and/or downplayed in many cases... and can be disastrous if lacking in the economy.

    Here's a test. If you have a son or daughter, show constant lack of confidence in them and see what you end up with down the road.

    People won't invest if they have little or no confidence in the market.

  • @ Honesty and the economy
    Sept. 20, 2008 8:06 p.m.

    You really shouldn't do drugs. (this IS your brain on drugs).
    Obama has you buffalode and bambooseld. He is nothing what you think he is. Check out his upbringing and associates and be very afraid.
    I would put Palin against him anyday.

  • Grimble
    Sept. 20, 2008 7:41 p.m.

    WRZ,

    You seem to be trying to make a chicken/egg argument out of this in order to let the culprits sneak out the back door.

    It's really quite postmodern to say that the economy is based on confidence in the economy. You, and Phil Gramm, are saying that it's all in our minds. Have you been reading THE SECRET or something? Don't you (and Phil Gramm) get that confidence in the economy is itself based on the integrity of the economy. If the economy loses its integrity, having pretended confidence in it won't fix things.

    So far Bush has been able to B.S. his way out of a lot of things. But "confidence" is not going to do much for us here.

  • Honesty on the Economy
    Sept. 20, 2008 7:31 p.m.

    Barack Obama is getting my vote.
    1. He's basically honest, McCain isn't.
    2. He doesn't believe or cooperate welfare, McCain does.
    3. He may have friends in high places in business, but he's beholding to no one, unlike McCain who has friends, and workers in big oil and big business.
    4. Obama knows the economy is in trouble, McCain seems to just pretend to understand. (The economy is basically sound.)
    5. McCain has a PROVEN losing record in politics. He's hot-tempered and driven by greed. He thinks if you make a million you're middle class. He stumbles over questions such as how many houses do you own. He votes against children's issues.
    6. Obama has been been proven in some ways. He has proven he has brains and is willing to work to change the system. He is relatively NEW to the system and wants to make it better. He wants to get along with the middle East and work for alternative fuels. A "new" politician beats the "proven" in this race.

  • wrz
    Sept. 20, 2008 6:40 p.m.

    "Grimble | 3:05 p.m. I love how WRZ is telling the Republicans to get some political leverage out of this by blaming Clinton for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill."

    Clinton could have vetoed the bill. And should have.

    As for whiners... the Gramm of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill was right about whiners. The health of our economy is based on confidence in the system. Persistent whining and confidence gets set on its ear. Democrats have been whining for almost eight years now, about how bad the Bush economy is. The whining finally worked.

  • Honesty
    Sept. 20, 2008 6:15 p.m.

    I notice the liberals have nothing say about obama on this subject of the economy. The can only talk about republicans.

    Is this because Obama has no demonstratable economic experience?

    It would be crazy to give the keys to the car to someone who has never driven before and the liberals know so the keep quiet on thier own candidate.

    And go negative campaigning

  • Flummoxed in Zion
    Sept. 20, 2008 4:03 p.m.

    John McCain just seems like he hasn't been paying attention to anything for the last several years, and at whatever opportunity just recites some glib, amorphous generality hoping it relates to the topic. Then when he has to change the story, he assumes we haven't been paying attention too.

    Instead of "sound bites," I would like to hear the result of some actual thinking on the issues. His constant repetition of "reforming government" is beginning to sound like the Bush administration labeling things like "healthy forests" and "clean air" -- just call it something that sounds nice and keep doing the same damn thing. The only thing he describes is vetoing bills with earmarks. That's not reform, but he thinks he can fool us.

    Same thing with the economy -- he hasn't said anything to contribute to the conversation. If he doesn't research topics before making decisions any better than he did in choosing his VP pick, the thought of what he would do in the White House should scare everybody.

  • Grimble
    Sept. 20, 2008 3:05 p.m.

    I love how WRZ is telling the Republicans to get some political leverage out of this by blaming Clinton for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill.

    The last thing the GOP wants to do is remind anyone of that bill, because the Gramm in Gramm Leach Bliley is Phil Gramm, the guy who McCain picked as his head economic advisor -- the same guy who said the downturn was "psychological" and that we were a "nation of whiners."

    So, yeah, I don't think they'll go there.

  • Mark B
    Sept. 20, 2008 1:57 p.m.

    Now wrz is claiming insider status in the Democratic ticket. I think he's been reading too many thrillers.

  • wrz
    Sept. 20, 2008 12:45 p.m.

    "set up | 8:37 a.m. - First, Social Security is set to fail!"

    This just in. B. Hussein Osama wants 95% of all Americans to get a tax reduction. How, you asked (noting that 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes anyway)? By reducing payroll taxes, of course. Everybody pays payroll tax. Even the working poor. What are payroll taxes, you asked? Basically Social Security and Medicare. You mean the two government programs that are going broke and set to fail? Well, errrr uhhh, yes.

  • wrz
    Sept. 20, 2008 12:31 p.m.

    Lew, the Keating five issue is backup ammo to be used in the last week or so of the campaign, as needed.

    Also, get this. If the race is close a week or so out, Joe Biden will find a way to back out allowing Osama to pick Hillary for veep which would result in a veritable landslide. Abortion minded women, who now are castigating Palin despite her being a woman candidate, would stampede to Hillary. Love game, love set, and love match.

  • wrz
    Sept. 20, 2008 12:23 p.m.

    "Lew Jeppson | 1:24 a.m. - Indeed, but if the Obama team was awake they would be comparing the present securities/banking scandal with the Keating Five (includes McCain for those who don't remember) savings and loan mess."

    If the Republican team was awake they would shout from the house tops about Democrat Bill Clinton signing into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. This act allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate, one of the major contributors to the current melt-down.

  • Joe Moe
    Sept. 20, 2008 12:03 p.m.

    I strongly favor McCain on other merits, but since NEITHER candidate can count economics as a strong suit, all we can do is hope that whoever gets elected makes a very wise pick for Sec. of the Treasury, and a strong economic team to surround him, and that the new president will listen to them.

    Hope. That's my slogan this election year.

  • :-)
    Sept. 20, 2008 11:08 a.m.

    The party of personal accountability won't being holding McCain or Palin personally accountable for a thing. What a classic use of the tactic called "The big lie."

  • Lewt
    Sept. 20, 2008 10:25 a.m.

    If something like this happened under President Sarah Palin, to whom would she turn for advice? Newt Gingrich, John Hagee, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson or Phyllis Schlafley?

  • And with Palin
    Sept. 20, 2008 9:12 a.m.

    you get eggrolls.

    I wish Obama would start focusing on the fact that McCain has been in office for close to 3 decades. This is hardly the fault of the last 2 years. This is a result of bad policy, and McCain 'reaching across the aisle' just once too often.

    Oh, and McCain was not indicited with Keating 5. That' one is a straw dog. But MCCain is clearly part of the problems.

  • set up
    Sept. 20, 2008 8:37 a.m.

    we are being set up to accept more govt. regulations and more govt. intrusion into our lives.
    Hear me now the govt. usually isnt the answer! It has its place, but that place should be as minimal as possible. The author states that McCain wanted to go along with Bush and take, I think it was around 2% from our social security checks and let us personally invest this. First, Social Security is set to fail! Second, this is a great idea to me and to millions of other Americans.
    More, the cantidates are not great on economics? Apparently that is not what Americans want, or else they would have gotten behind Romney. Duh!

  • excepy for economic disaster
    Sept. 20, 2008 8:03 a.m.

    The Oil bubble was speculation by Lehman and soon to be bankrupt investment banks trying to raise the losses by speculating on oil. Bush and Cheney knew that, but wanted to postpone it until after the elections. Then bang....egg on the face and they are holding the bag as the conservative legacy of 8 years of power! They go" all in" with social security, medicare and nationalize!

  • Kevin
    Sept. 20, 2008 7:36 a.m.

    What's the difference between socialism and a free market? Freedom, obviously, and risk. The difference is that in socialism risk is mandatory, in a free market, it's voluntary.

    If government controls the markets, our retirements, etc., all risk is concentrated in one organization, the government, which is backed by taxpayers. In a free market, the risk is spread out over those who choose to take risk.

    Many participants, like homeowners, don't understand risk necessarily, but it's still voluntary.

    In the case of Fannie and Freddie, government decided to charter entities where upside risk, profit, is enjoyed by shareholders and employees, but downside risk is covered by the taxpayer.

    Now government has taken control 70% of home mortgages. They are borrowing to bail out failed financial companies and concentrating more and more risk on the taxpayers. They are effectively competing against the taxpayer while billing them for this service.

    We've gotten the sales pitch that this was an utterly necessary bailout, and that things would have been worse and more expensive. But the government has taken on risk that is not deterministic. If this action blows up, we all pay. Either way, we're all less free.

  • Neither candidate
    Sept. 20, 2008 6:12 a.m.

    could pass a freshman introduction to economics exam. Neither candidate has advisors who could as well. Neither could anyone who says that the cause is not enough regulation and the solution is more regulation. The problem was not enough of the right kind and too much of the wrong kind. Unfortunately the right kind of regulation runs counter to Washington culture and the wrong kind fits in nicely. Guess which kind we are going to get?

  • Lew Jeppson
    Sept. 20, 2008 1:24 a.m.

    Indeed, but if the Obama team was awake they would be comparing the present securities/banking scandal with the Keating Five (includes McCain for those who don't remember) savings and loan mess. Amazingly, they haven't which means they're dead to the world - not a good sign.