Biden Says McCain Camp Ignoring Economy

Of course they are ignoring the economy.. McCain and Co. have come out and said that if they concentrate on the economy, they lose. It’s the failed policies of Bush that has got us into a recession, and McCain offers no change from those policies except in name only. He just doesn’t get it, and most likely never will.

Ignore it, yes please… no communist solution from the demo_C_R_A_P party….

Just how bad has the presidential campaign coverage been this year?
So bad that popular online columnist Michael S. Malone, aka ABC.com’s “Silicon Insider,” wrote Friday, “I’m deeply ashamed right now to be called a ‘journalist.’”

– Obama’s proposed economic plan will yield higher taxation on both small and large business, –
Funny then how the American Small Business League endorses Obama.. you would think that if they would be worse off, they would have gone with McCain!
http://www.asbl.com/showmedia.php?id=1002
And of course, the AFL-CIO has backed Obama as well, citing among other things his superior health plan, how it will cover more Americans and the amount of money it will save businesses:
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/thisistheaflcio/outfront/obamaendorsement.cfm
– More than forty percent of the tax relief Obama has proposed for “95% of Americans” will be in the form of credits to individuals who don’t currently pay taxes –
Oh, you mean like EIC and stuff like that we already do.. go figure.. Of course, with McCain giving the greatest tax cuts to the wealthy, the tax burden shifts to the middle class.. so you will wind up paying more taxes under McCain than under Obama.
– The Obama proposed tax burden levied on small, medium, and large cap businesses will drive the cost of goods and services higher for all Americans. –
Hmmm, ok, so we have small businesses exempt, and corporate tax structures left unchanged.. I guess some people have a different idea of what constitutes a burden.
– The paultry tax relief Obama has proposed will be dramatically insignificant relative to his proposed government spending, which will push our economy further into an already profound fiscal crisis. –
Oh, now I get it.. you don’t have a clue!
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/

Concerned American ,
McCain is not rasing anyones taxes infact he wants to lower taxes just as china has done because there economy has slowed down as well.

– Obama’s real economy issues he wont talk about –
Guess it’s the same reason McCain doesn’t want to talk about it either.. McCains proposals will raise the national debt significantly more since he isn’t generating any revenue.. love it when they discuss one candidates policy without putting it comparison with the others. Old trick, never worked except on those who are clueless enough to fall for it.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/

Concerned American ,,
We were slipping into a recession well before the housing market has been driving the cost of living through the roof.Supply and demand if eveyone now qualfies for a mortgage you put a huge demand thus causing the market value to go up also putting a demand on new home driving the cost of building materials.Also increasing the values of people in there home who refinanced pulled out equity and spent it like it was going out of stlye

Concerned American,
Again not true it has been proven by lowering taxes on buissness and people in general your actually gain more revunue.I know clinton was not going to raise taxes on the middle class as well largest tax increase to the middle class ever!!!!

Concerned American ,
And rasing taxes on any buissness is going to be felt by the consumer as it will be past right along.There are buissness models that you follow in buissness that are not going to change profit margins.

THE ECONOMY has been all that anyone has been talking about when, in fact, Islamo-Fascist terrorism and the protection of our country is even more important. It’s not going to matter how much gasoline costs if you’re dead. But I guess a guy whos name is Barack Hussein Obama isn’t going to want to talk much about the folks who have been attacking Americans for decades.

Independent REALIST
First Mccain gave us Sara Palin,Next he gave us fake Joe The Plumber,Now some sicko beating the crap out of her self and carving her face. it SCARES ME TO THINK OF WHAT WILL MCCAIN BRING US NEXT!

Sure he can there is so much waste in the budget that it is easy to find money. Start with the defense budget, 570 billion can easily be cut down to 300 billion, and still out spend every other nation in the world by 3.

– Sure he can there is so much waste in the budget that it is easy to find money. –
Then either one should have no problem, right? Of course, McCain would have to cut an additional $130 billion a year just to catch up to Obama without any cuts.. and those $18 billion in earmarks isn’t exactly going to do it.

Angie,
With 10 days left the sky is the limit. The only thing is, they have gone so low, I don’t know if anyone can go lower? I mean really, what is there?
Obama is a Muslim, he is a terrorist, he is a socialist, he is a communist, he is anti-american, he is black, he is going to raise your taxes, he is phoning it in, he will say anything to get elected, he has no experience, he is black, his pastor is anti-american…….
Is there much left for them to go with?
Nut jobs, and conspiracy theorists, that’s all McShame has left believing in him.
President Obama! Get used to it!

INDEPENDENT REALIST
Your forgot some saying his Birth Certificate isnt real,Next up he will probably be an Alien from Mars hahahahahahahah

Just for the record, Carter was dealing with an economy that was in shambles after the Viet Nam war was over and inflation took off. Reagan was able to take advantage of the efforts of Fed Chairman Volkner’s efforts to turn around the economy. Volkner is on Obama’s economic team. If he could do it once, he can to it again.

Angie,
I also forgot: the liberal media is in the tank for Obama.
No, just that there is so much more weird stuff coming out of the McShame camp that the press doesn’t have to work all that hard for stuff to report on.

REDDOG
What Victory please explain to me WHAT IS THERE TO WIN IN IRAQ? And Just what do you mean the Good of the World, the World has lost respect for us, other Countries look down at us for the Invasion of Iraq. I thought Bush already Declared Misson Accomplished then why are we still there what is there to WIN?

RED DOG
How is Mccain going to Fund his plans when he purposes a Spending Freeze?

McCain said he didn’t understand economic issues. McCain said if his campaign can’t change the subject, he loses.
So of course McCain doesn’t want to address the economy.
The closest he comes is taxation, and I doubt he understands that well, either. When did Republicans become so business dumb?

Reddog,
Presidents have limit control on the economy, but it is the way they act during their term that makes the difference. People were upset with Carter because he excepted the economy, and did things like turn down the thermostat at the white house, and turned to more fuel efficient limos for his staff. Not the kind of thing Americans want to see from their leaders, much like McShame did when he was freaking out when things turned south in early Sept.
Reagan looked presidential, and looked confident, the same is true with Obama. There is no magic bullet that a president can use other than surround him self with the right people. We saw that with Clinton.
Bush had an agenda and a failed philosophy. American all though they were rich, when all they were doing was running up their credit. The president never lead the country to bring them to their senses until it was too late.

– We have done great thing In Iraq to help stabilize a nation –
We stuck our noses in another countries business, spilled the blood of our solders in vein, and have got the world upset at our unilateral actions. We should have stuck to the mission, taken out Bin Laden and been done with that region. Period.
Right now, this country is in one of it’s most vulnerable positions in history. If a real war were to break out, one that actually threatened our freedom, we would be unable to defend ourselves thanks to how spread out our armed forces are and how much money we have already spent on a senseless war.

Paul ,
Building nuke plants is going to put people to work which means income for the country

Sara ,
Nobody is saying about not paying any taxes we are talking about reduction and its effect on revenue.

reddog: “I think many forget when we went to Kuwait the first time and we drove Saddam out and back into Iraq there were millions of people in Iraq that felt we turned our back on them…”
Hey reddog. I was in Kuwait at the time of that decision. What you’re not saying is that H.W. Bush’s administration also gave some signals that if the Shia moved against Saddam, we’d back them up. They did and we didn’t. That’s why they felt we let them down.
It was a reckless blunder by an administration that actually was pretty good for the most part on foreign policy.
Posted by: Paul | Oct 25, 2008 1:37:27 PM
I agree It was a blunder one I directly belive was giving in to pressure from The USA that belived we should not be in Iraq at that time and we needed to end that war as well!!!!

Reddog – true enough about jobs for nuke construction and operation. My point was this McCain spending freeze sounds like just silly campaign talk.
McCain hasn’t said what he’ll freeze. Just what he’ll exempt.
Also, I assume he doesn’t mean he’ll free indiscretionary spending. So we’re just talking discretionary money. The defense department is the lion share of that, followed by infrastructure and energy. So even taking McCain at his word, the only thing he’ll freeze of any monetary consequence is infrastructure, and the job loss from that will probably be larger than the job gain from the nuke plants.

You Dems feel pretty high and mighty playing the blame game don’t you? Why don’t you put on your intellectual hats and read this?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

Building nuke plants is going to put people to work which means income for the country –
25 nuke plant at say 1000 workers per plant (and that is a generous estimate).. not going to help much.
Injecting money by reducing the tax burden on the middle class would do much much more by increasing spending leading to increased sales, economic growth and increased job creation. And the wealthy would still get their cut by increased profits.
Posted by: Concerned American | Oct 25, 2008 1:41:40 PM
I am sorry I live on Long island maybe you have heard of shoreman nuclear power plant While building the facility there was 10,000 people employed not to mention the people it affects selling the material concrete plants, steel workers elctrical etc…

reddog – regarding Iraq, it wasn’t HW Bush bowing to domestic political pressure. Actually his approval numbers were soaring at the time, and he could have pretty much have done anything, so long as it worked.
It was because the president and his advisors, to include Powell and Baker, had decided that invading Iraq meant destabilizing the region, creating a power vacuum, and thus strengthening Iran.
Additionally the administration wanted to maintain the coalition of Muslim nations we had working with us. Remember they were all with us during Desert Storm, except for Iran from that region.
I remember driving into Kuwait City’s only remaining water distribution point, and past the Syrian tanks that were guarding it. You want a wild sensation? Try standing in a position protected by scores of Syrian armor.

reddog: “He is not reducing the burden of taxes he is giving handouts big diifrence”
What exactly is the difference? These people are still paying taxes when they buy anything with the extra money they’ll have. If it allows them to stay in their homes, they’re still paying property taxes?

Paul ,
You were there and I salute you for that I was here and I can remember that was alot of public oppisistion to us going any further than we did.I wish I was there I was unable to join the military.

reddog: “They are paying sales tax and again any tax that gets put on a buissness is getting put right back on the consumer”
Granted, but those sales taxes exist now. My point was that we all pay taxes, and income taxes aren’t the only vehicle for doing so. If anyone got a check, thus basically getting an income bonus instead of a tax, that person is still paying taxes.
Is McCain promising to end sales taxes? That would mean a massive federal decision to cut one of the primary means for states funding themselves. I do know McCain wants to freeze the gas tax, which of course would directly lead to a loss of infrastructure spending, jobs, etc.

reddog – if you’re interested, read the Generals’ War by Bernie Trainor. Though most of the book is about the military decisions associated with carrying out the president’s intent, some of it deals with the decision to stop at liberating Kuwait.

reddog – if you’re interested, read the Generals’ War by Bernie Trainor. Though most of the book is about the military decisions associated with carrying out the president’s intent, some of it deals with the decision to stop at liberating Kuwait.
Posted by: Paul | Oct 25, 2008 1:59:22 PM
I will thanks

reddog: “…but at the cost of inflation…”
I’m guessing you are still talking about the inflationary effects of a sales tax. Obama isn’t proposing a new national sales tax. Those sales taxes already exist.

reddog: “…but at the cost of inflation…”
I’m guessing you are still talking about the inflationary effects of a sales tax. Obama isn’t proposing a new national sales tax. Those sales taxes already exist.
Posted by: Paul | Oct 25, 2008 2:02:20 PM
Okay if you raise a buissnes’s tax burden he passes that along to the consumer the cost goes up the sales tax goes up on it as well so it is two fold the product or service cost more as well as the sales tax on it

Reddog – how did you feel about the stimulus checks sent out this year? Do you consider them wasted money?
Posted by: Concerned American | Oct 25, 2008 2:06:53 PM
Yes I do they are and were a temporary relief of a larger scale problem

Reddog,
It wasn’t giving everyone a house that drove the prices up, it was getting away from having equity in the house when you move in that cause problems. If you don’t have money to loose, it’s easier to walk away. It was also the speculators who bought houses on zero down, and then turned them over a month later for a profit.
People need to take responsibility for what they do. The attitude that there was money for t he taking that ruined the hope of more people owning houses.

reddog: “Okay if you raise a buissnes’s tax burden he passes that along to the consumer…”
Oh, I see what you’re saying. I don’t agree, however. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics that Republicans are pushing as a truism now, I believe.
Raising taxes on true middle class people stifles growth, because that’s money a handful of these individuals might use for entrepreneurial efforts. We’re talking about people making well below the $250k level – true small business people.
Raising taxes on businesses actually promotes business growth, because the businesses will have an added incentive to invest in themselves and thus lower their tax exposure.
McCain frequently says that Obama’s taxes on those making $250k or more will force them to not hire new employees, etc. Actually its an incentive to hire new employees, because each is an additional expense, thus lowering profits to lower tax brackets.

– Yes I do they are and were a temporary relief of a larger scale problem –
Then why do you consider larger tax cuts for the middle class ‘handouts’? Same thing as the stimulus checks, although over a longer period.
Under McCain, the tax cuts would be less than under Obama, so in effect, you would be paying more taxes under McCain, therefore decreasing the effect of the economic injection or ‘stimulus’ than it would be under Obama.
Posted by: Concerned American | Oct 25, 2008 2:11:09 PM
Again a temporary relef to a larger scale problem

reddog: “People who got in with no money down because of the loans that fannie and freddie pushed on the banks…”
You’re going to have to connect those dots. I know that’s another Republican talking point now, but someone needs to explain to me exactly how Freddie/Fannie pushed loans on the banks.
Doesn’t it work more like the other way around?
To believe it works the way you say means that banks somehow were forced into less cash holdings and extending more and more questionable mortgage products on people – the type of products with flexible rates tied to some index or something.
Also, during last week’s congressional hearings on the crisis, the guys from the administration being questioned all acknowledged it was Fannie/Freddie that got us here.

You have to let freddie and fannie go. Its been proven over and over again that it was the private sector that screwed up. Freddie and Fannie played a part, but they weren’t the principle. It was Americans forgetting to control themselves when credit got to be too easy to get. People were getting zero down, interest only loans. People were buying houses to turn instead of owning. People were ridiculous in what they were willing to pay. It was called a housing bubble, bubbles pop, but still people kept wanting to buy a gold mine.
When house prices went up, people took the equity out and bought cars, and boats, and crap that they did not need. It was money on paper, the same type of practice that was done leading up to 1929. No one in the government was saying anything because the numbers looked good.
The ones to blame is the american people.

reddog: “I dont agree If my expenses go up I pass that along…”
No, you have to think like a business here. If you’re expenses go up because you’re hiring new employees who can perform the activities to increase your business, you don’t pass along the costs to the customer.
Passing along costs is a way of pricing yourself out of a market.
But if you have $300k in profits, you can hire a new employee to push up expenses and then lower profits to around $200k or so. And that new employee helps build the business.
Building the business adds additional profits. You continue to expand, keeping company profits at the level you are comfortable with.
The LLC is a great model here, because the company profits are directly relatable to personal taxes. But in other corporate models, there are other ways to shelter profits as well.
But let’s stick to the LLC. Let’s say the owner wants to keep his personal income at $200k. He can expand as fast or slow as he needs to in order to keep it there.
And eventually, he sells the business for $5 million instead of $2 million.

The thing about cutting taxes is that it’s time to pay the piper for all of the spending. Someone needs to prove that giving the rich more to play with will help the economy. You need a guarantee from the wealth that they will spend.
Just like drilling off shore for oil is going to help us here. No one is guaranteeing that the oil will stay in this country. Palin is on t he record saying she would sell the Alaskan oil to japan.
We can’t hope that those with money will do the right thing. We just witnessed the fact that thats not what they do.

Freddy and Fannie were enablers. We the people screwed up the economy by being greedy, and thinking that there was money for the taking.
Between the government spending, and the citizen’s recklessness spending habits is what got us in trouble.
There was no leadership at the top.

Banks were pushing mortgages like crazy. I could have wall-papered my entire house many times over with the unsolicited loan offers I got in the mail box. I’m guessing you could have as well.
That was a bank – not Fannie/Freddie pushing a loan on me when I never told them I was even interested in looking at refinancing.
And then because of tearing down the wall between banks and investment banks, those mortgages got sold off time and again, bundled, and eventually owned in the bank sense by mortgage backed securities.
There was no incentive to be conservative with loans, because no loan officer was going to get caught holding the bad loans – or so they thought. So they lent, and lent, and lent.

From wall street investors who bought and sold debt.

Banks were writing bad loans because of deregulation allowing them to package those loans and sell as investments.
Had the regulations that had been in place since the 20′s not been lifted, then they would not have written those loans that they would then have to carry on their books. It gave them an out.. they could write more loans and dump them on the market.
Posted by: Concerned American | Oct 25, 2008 2:31:24 PM
Thats not true and it is true.The deregulation allowed them to sell them after the fact the bad loan came from fannie and freddie its kinda like this you dont need a fence unless you have a dog

And the bottom line, red dog, is that the Republican administration acknowledges that Fannie/Freddie weren’t central players in this crisis.
Only the Republican campaign is pushing that line, which has been picked up by the Sean Hannity’s out there, and then by the party members at large.

Independent, I’ve talked with reddog a few times before. Its often this way. Too bad conversations like this one aren’t the norm on these boards.

– its kinda like this you dont need a fence unless you have a dog –
Bad analogy.. Many states have ‘free roaming’ statutes in place.. therefore, if you want your neighbors cow out of your pasture, you must put up a fence to keep him out.
As for loans, not all loans were government backed. Banks could recover the money they loaned by packaging them up and selling to investors. They took a small hit on the long term interest they would have received, but recovered their money plus a small profit, allowing them to write more loans. I would see maybe 1 in 30 loans that were government backed.. the rest were typical home loans produced by local banks.

reddog: “Fannie Mae facilitates liquidity in the primary mortgage market by ensuring that funds are consistently available to the institutions that do lend money to home buyers.”
But I still don’t see how Fannie was forcing banks to operate recklessly.
Are you saying just because banks had access to additional funds that was enough – that in effect the private sector can’t be expected to operate responsibly when the addiction of easy cash is available?
That’s a pretty damning indictment of the private sector, if that’s what you are saying.

As for loans, not all loans were government backed. Banks could recover the money they loaned by packaging them up and selling to investors. They took a small hit on the long term interest they would have received, but recovered their money plus a small profit, allowing them to write more loans. I would see maybe 1 in 30 loans that were government backed.. the rest were typical home loans produced by local banks.
Posted by: Concerned American | Oct 25, 2008 2:43:42 PM
Well explain this how does fannie and freddie claim they are responsible for 70% of the home loans then

Paul ,
Fannie and freddie had unlimited resources ie the goverment to hand out money to banks to loan out to consumers they were getting bonuses based on loans sold If i told you sell these loans regardless of risk you could sell a hell of alot of them right

Independent realist
Have a grat day!!!

reddog: “Fannie and freddie had unlimited resources ie the goverment to hand out money to banks to loan out to consumers…”
I don’t think that’s true, but regardless – let’s say it is – the private sector should be more responsible. It should stick to its tried and true operating procedures, including in this case maintaining a balance of own cash reserves to the loans it extends.
If you’re saying it can’t stick to these responsible actions, then you’re acknowledging the private sector can’t be trusted without regulation, aren’t you?

As for McCains ‘speech’, the bill he referred to was introduced in 2005.. if he was so concerned, he should have said something about it then. It wasn’t until after a 2006 oversight report that he decided to add his name. The bill never made it out of a republican controlled committee chaired by Republican Shelby.

I don’t think that’s true, but regardless – let’s say it is – the private sector should be more responsible. It should stick to its tried and true operating procedures, including in this case maintaining a balance of own cash reserves to the loans it extends.
If you’re saying it can’t stick to these responsible actions, then you’re acknowledging the private sector can’t be trusted without regulation, aren’t you?
Posted by: Paul | Oct 25, 2008 2:52:51 PM
The CRA lowered the standard.

1/26/2005–Introduced.
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 – Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.
Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.
Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.
Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

In effect, I think you’re talking about two completely different problems. One is a loss of liquidity and the other is too easily available money.
In effect, let’s say we did see a Fannie-caused loss of liquidity three years ago. It actually might have helped us to prevent the severity of the current situation, no?
Posted by: Paul | Oct 25, 2008 2:59:04 PM
One allowed the other if you lower the standard of getting the loan risk based and you have someone fannie and freddie able to lend at 100 to 1 ratio you have a recipe for disaster

I think we’re going in circles. Fannie Mae’s lend ratio didn’t force Countrywide to lower theirs’.

And Fannie didn’t force banks to offer mortgages with no money down, to people who couldn’t afford them, and using sophisticated repayment plans tied to indices.

reddog: “Paul he wants proper regulation not over regulation there is a diffrence”
How many times has McCain described himself as a de-regulator?
reddog: “No but its kinda like this if you can sell a burger for a dollar because the goverment give you capital and I have to sell it a 2 dollars unless I lower the standard to meet the requirements then I to can sell it for a dollar.”
This is apples and oranges, and thus not a valid analogy I don’t think. Fannie Mae wasn’t allowing banks to offer cheaper re-payments because of government subsidization, thus getting a business advantage over other banks that didn’t have that subsidy.

reddog: “I am not saying it became law but he did try to do something about it regardless of party.”
The question is exactly what you mean by “it.” From what I read, McCain’s concern was Fannie cooking the books. Thus he agreed to sign on to a bill that created a new oversight agency.
This new oversight agency would not have prevented the crisis we now have.

reddog: “Maybe not at gun point the banks got fancy because the standards were lowered I am not saying the banks are not responsible as well.All I am saying is for these banks to compete they got money from fannie and freddie and as long as they sold it they made money.Fannie and freddie were the drug lords the banks were the drug dealers”
So in other words, the private sector can’t be trusted to act responsibly. At least that seems to be what you’re saying.
And if so, I suppose at least we’ve found common ground in that we both acknowledge some regulation is needed.
No one is for “over-regulation.” Of course the question is how much and what kind is the right balance.

Oh do I agree we need regulation I am with you 100% .I blame fannie and freddie for making it available at any cost I blame the bank for being greedy

– I am not saying it became law but he did try to do something about it regardless of party –
As did Obama.. in March of 2007 he addressed his concern to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Paulson, urging them to, among other things, look at
“What standards investors should require of lenders, particularly with regard to verification of income and assets and the underwriting of borrowers based on fully indexed and fully amortized rates.”
and saying:
“Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short-term post-purchase interventions in certain cases.”
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070322-obama_urges_ber/

reddog: “they were cooking the books lending at a even higher rate of capital to risk level”
The part I think McCain was specifically focused on was that the cooked books would show a better financial strength that would lead to faulty executive bonuses.

Paul ,
If proper accounting had been done fannie and freddie could not of loaned money to these banks

reddog – I’m not sure Fannie loaning money to these banks enabled them to offer so many loans.
There was a lot of bank to bank lending as well, which is the rate the LIBOR tracks.
And as we’ve seen, these banks were extending themselves beyond the ratios of cash to loan they’ve always operated with.
If what you’re saying is a good representation on the way it really works, then you’ve made your point. I’m not sure it is.
Paulson, Bernanke and company don’t seem to think that Fannie was central to the crisis, for just this reason. The panel of three testifying before Congress all said this. One said that Fannie was at most a contributing factor, but not the central factor.

reddog: “Obama wants more goverment on so many things.”
Is that true? I know Obama wants effective regulation while McCain kind of toggles between calling himself a de-regulator and co-signing things like this one.
But how are you measuring “more government?” By spending?
Because despite McCain’s bluster, I think McCain has proposed a comparable if not even more additional government spending.
I saw a comparison once between their tax and federal spending proposals, and it was pretty illuminating.

McCain is proposing the government buy up bad mortgages directly, despite Paulson already having some authority to do this under the bailout.
Is that less government?
McCain is proposing $300 billion to build nuclear power plants. Think about that one. He’s not saying the private sector will be allowed to build them – he wants the federal government to build, thus partially nationalizing the energy industry.
Is that less government?

reddog: “Regardless of whos in office come Jan 20 we as americans will be paying for this clean up for years to come”
Agreed. The next administration is probably a failed one before it even begins.
And as for the “years to come” part, I was thinking about how we might pay off the national debt, which has soard from $5 trillion to over $10 trillion under this current president.
I’m thinking if we made a concerted national effort, we maybe could do it at this point in 75 years.
And that’s 75 years of recession if not depression, because of the money we’d be pulling out of the economy.
Still, I’m thinking we ought to at least start that, despite the near-term hardships it would cause. This is because I really do believe the debt is our biggest national security threat. Even bigger than a nuclear armed terrorist.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480790550265061.html
paul,
Did you read this article

yeah me too thanks for the info On the book at least not to many quacks today

– Did you read this article –
I did.. and did you notice that nowhere does it compare spending to McCains proposals..
If you look at the just the tax and health plan of each candidate, the tax policy center estimates that McCain will raise the national debt by $5.5 trillion over 10 years, and he still has not said how he is going to ‘fix’ social security, so that is not included in those figures.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Karl Marx, circa 1888
“Spread the wealth around.” Barack Hussein Obama, 2008

While I think it’s important to focus on the economy, I think this argument goes further in certain states. I looked at some of the most competitive states and their unemployment rate here:
http://demockracy.com/the-electoral-college-and-unemployment/

Zero is a socialist. It’s not a charge.
Karl Marx’s ideals are carved into Zero’s bones, just as they are carved on Marx’s tombstone.
If you do not understand, google it and you will find where Zero’s “change” comes from and what it means.
Posted by: d0 |
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/obama-alters-ta.html
———————————-
Carl Marx quote:
“I am not a Marxist”
Zero is a closet Marxist but neither he nor his followers (the sheep) will ever admit it.

DAMN IT, WILL YOU TELL THEM TO WAIT A MINUTE? I NEED TO FINISH MY SMOKE IN THIS HEAR BATHROOM IN THE WHITEYHOUSE, I’LL BE RIGHT UP THERE FOR THAT MEETING IN A MINUTE! OH TELL MY KIDS TO QUIT SWINGING FROM THE CHANDELIERS TOO! AND DON’T LET ANYONE IN THE LINCOLN BEDROOM, WE ARE HAVING A CRACK PARTY AND GAY SEX!

DAMN IT, WILL YOU TELL THEM TO WAIT A MINUTE? I NEED TO FINISH MY SMOKE IN THIS HEAR BATHROOM IN THE WHITEYHOUSE, I’LL BE RIGHT UP THERE FOR THAT MEETING IN A MINUTE! OH TELL MY KIDS TO QUIT SWINGING FROM THE CHANDELIERS TOO! AND DON’T LET ANYONE IN THE LINCOLN BEDROOM, WE ARE HAVING A CRACK PARTY AND GAY SEX!
yep, and then we’ve got his kids swinging on the chandeliers in the White House, while he’s doing coke and sneaking cigs in the bathroom before a meeting. And the revival of affirmitive action, slave reparations and all kinds of horrors.

Obama does not want to talk about the economy to hard-working regular people like Joe the Plumber. But, he’ll talk about the economy to the teleprompter. Obama/Biden would like to just brush these hard-working Americans under the rug because Obama’s policies will kill jobs and the incentives for people to want try to work harder in this country. The harder we work, the more they will have their hands in our pockets. I guess Obama thinks that the bailouts were not enough to ask the taxpayers to be held accountable for and there are many hard-working Americans who did not gamble with the subprime loans. Obama’s new empty little catch phrase is “let’s build the economy from the bottom up.” Yeah, let’s punish small businesses and kill jobs and also become a nation with even more dependence on Government assistance. Biden is right about only one thing, Obama does not have the experience to lead.

Does Obama have NPD?
September 30, 2008
The 2008 presidential election in America is the most crucial election in this country’s history, not because the issues are that critical but because of Sen. Barack Obama. The Democratic presidential candidate’s language, posture and demeanor suggest that he may suffer from narcissistic personality disorder, or NPD. NPD is a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration and a lack of empathy. The following are some of the symptoms of NPD that can be seen in Sen. Obama:
He subtly misrepresents facts, opportunistically shifts positions, ignores data that conflict with his fantasy world, is overly confident and acts presidential despite commensurate merits and his modest life achievements, considers himself above the law, talks about himself in the third person, has a messianic vision of himself and his “mission,” displays false modesty while often evincing haughtiness, sublimates aggression, holds grudges and behaves as an eternal adolescent. These are narcissistic traits as seen in Sen. Obama by Dr. Sam Vaknin. The author of “The Malignant Self Love,” Vaknin states, “Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist.”
NPD is the prime disorder experienced by all the madmen of history – from Hitler to Stalin, Mao, Kim, Pol Pot, Osama, Khomeini, Saddam and Idi Amin. These men wreaked havoc and killed millions. They looked normal. Few suspected their insanity until it was too late.
Obama shares something else with these infamous narcissists: a chaotic childhood. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse, such as the neglecting of his or her emotional needs.
Pathological narcissism is not run-of-the-mill narcissism – someone with a hedonistic or self-centered sense of self – but rather someone with a very weak sense of self. A child who feels inferior, due to real or perceived social rejection, will try to compensate his feeling of inferiority by a subconscious neurotic mechanism, which the pioneering psychiatrist Alfred Adler coined “Superiority Complex.”
Such a person compensates his devalued and injured self with puffery, pomposity and by projecting a false image of majesty and authority. He retreats into a bubble universe of fantasy, in which he is loved, respected and omnipotent. All children create such a fantasy world. Narcissists simply don’t leave it. Since, due to their extreme feeling of inferiority, they don’t fit in the real world, they refuge into this bubble world of fantasy and never get out. This world of pretence becomes to them as real as the real world, to the point that they can’t tell the difference. When Obama acts presidential, he is simply acting out his childhood fantasy of omnipotence and grandeur. Emotionally, he is still a hurt little boy neglected and unloved, in the body and mind of a grown up man.
Narcissists have the emotional maturity of a child, or even an animal, but the intellect of a man. They feel like a beast, but think like a human. What makes narcissists dangerous is their lack of conscience, combined with their superior intelligence and their superb performance ability that fool many. They are predators that outsmart you.
To a narcissist, reality and fantasy are intertwined. He does not just pretend to be omnipotent, omniscient and superior to others; he actually believes it to be so. His delusions of grandiosity are real to him. That is why Obama acts presidential, despite his nugatory life achievements, lack of experience and complete ignorance in economic, political and military matters, as his flip-flopping shows. Obama is a cipher, but in his mind and those of his worshipers, such as Oprah Winfrey, he is “the One,” the messiah who holds the key to all human sufferings.
Narcissism is not just a character flaw, but a mental disorder. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and they are intelligent, when in reality they live in a bubble world of fantasy. It is this incoherence, this disjunction between reality and fantasy that makes them overly confident, self-assured and authoritative.
Narcissists disguise their feeling of inferiority by projecting unusual calmness, confidence, assertiveness, dominance and focus, and almost always possess superb thespian, communication and oratorical skills. These are traits that make one charismatic and attract a stampede of votaries like flies to sugar. Narcissists are needy people who crave attention. They develop these skills and act them out with regal exquisiteness to attract love, respect and admiration. They are performers, actors, slick chameleons.
Sadly, all the grace, exuberance, equanimity, charm, positive energy and magnetism that narcissists project, are pretence. They have the same function that the Styrofoam Greek columns at the Democratic National Convention had – to impress. The world of the narcissist is the magical world of smoke and mirrors. He is an illusionist.
NPD, and people’s lack of understanding of it, has made it possible for many insane individuals to rise to the pinnacles of power. It is to this disorder that we owe most of the carnage of history.
When the Bible describes Satan, it gives a textbook definition of narcissism. Narcissists are charming, charismatic, intelligent, persuasive, but deceitful and ruthless. They can seduce multitudes.
When World War II ended and its horrors became known, the world said, “Never Again.” “Never Again” can only work if we choose our leaders wisely. Once a madman is in power, it is already too late.
In an article entitled “Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuhrer,” I have shown many narcissistic traits that can be observed in Sen. Obama. Should the senator have NPD, all issues in this election would pale in comparison to what is at stake.
Imagine someone with the mindset of Hitler, Khomeini or Kim Jong-il in the White House, with Congress and Senate at his feet. Can you think of a more dreadful scenario?
In the case of Hitler, the only issue that really mattered was his sanity. Instead, the Germans were hoodwinked by his charisma, his oratorical skill and his vacuous promises of change. They paid a hefty price for their negligence. Shouldn’t we learn from their mistakes?
It makes no sense that cops and pilots should be required to take psychiatric evaluation prior to being trusted with a gun or an aircraft, whereas there is no such requirement for those aspiring to run a country and be commander in chief, in charge of weapons of mass destruction.
It is time for the people of the world to demand that those who want to become head of any country submit to rigorous mental checkups. Millions of lives depend on the sanity of these leaders. If the physical health of presidential candidates is important, how much more important is their mental health?
There is no basis upon which to assume Obama would become a murderous tyrant, but there are a number of disturbing traits he shares with murderous world leaders that are worrisome. He can dispel our fears by submitting to a mental checkup.
In the spirit of fairness, I am asking all candidates to submit to this test. Psychiatric evaluation for leaders seeking positions of authority must become mandatory in all countries. Without it we are playing Russian roulette with war and our lives. Imagine how many millions of lives would have been spared only in the last century if aspiring leaders were screened and madmen barred from gaining power.
If you agree this is a vital issue, which transcends all other issues, whatever your political affiliation, I urge you to please sign this petition (follow link below) and invite others to do the same. If enough people become concerned about Sen. Obama’s mental health, they may think twice before casting their votes for him.
Knowledge is Power. Power be with you.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=76552

Hmmm…has anyone seen Barack’s grades?
Posted by: Grand Old Party
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-drops-328.html?cid=136350495#comment-136350495
————————————–
Snorting cocaine, especially just before exams helped him graduate from Harvard.
Barack Hussein Obama’s brain is permanently damaged because of his cocaine addiction.
It is interesting that the left-wing-liberal media clowns spoke so much in the past about President Bush’s alcohol abuse but they are downplaying Barack Hussein’s cocaine addiction.
AMERICA DO NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA – COCAINE AND OTHER DRUGS HAVE FRIED HIS BRAIN!
(still waiting for Obama’s complete medical records)
OBAMA HAS NOT RELEASED HIS COMPLETE MEDICAL RECORDS. HE HAS ONLY RELEASED AN ONE PAGE “DOCTOR’S REPORT”…
I WONDER WHY? MENTAL ILNESS? DRUG ADDICTION? (WE KNOW HE WAS ABUSING DRUGS BUT NOT FOR HOW LONG, ETC)
************
CNN TRANSCRIPTS:
CNN PRESENTS
Fit To Lead: An Historical Overview Of The Health Concerns, And Medical Care Of The U.S. Presidency
Aired October 11, 2008 – 20:00 ET
Partial CNN transcipt regarding Obama’s medical records (for the complete CNN trancript follow URL below).
GUPTA: In May, the Obama campaign released a statement from his doctor of 21 years. It was a one-page summary of his medical records.
Here’s what it said, “Senator Obama has been in excellent health. He has been seen regularly for medical check ups and various minor problems like upper respiratory infections, skin rashes and minor injuries.”
Dr. Ellis says there is no reason to doubt the official statement.
CNN TRANSCRIPTS – FIT TO LEAD
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:x83l0w2ylrwJ:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/11/cp.01.html+CNN+OBAMA%27S+MEDICAL+RECORDS+FIT+TO+LEAD&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

There goes the neighborhood. Looks like the Russians have invaded.

I personally like it when people refer to Obama by his full name: Barack Hussein Obama. It has a nice ring to it. Only the ignorant and uneducated would cower in fear and hatred over someone’s middle name.
Say it again: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA! The next president of the United States.

Joe Biden will be the president, after Obama go to jail for missleading the Amercan people,he is not even American citizen, was born in Kenya, and taking all of us for a fool.He lied obout everything.

Natasha, give me a call at 1-800-225-5324, we need to talk.

Hey Joe Biden, when are you going to tell us, how much money Obama spent on those Greek columns, man…
The Cost of the Barackopolis
By by John McCormack
October 23, 2008
Yesterday I wrote that the Democratic National Convention Committee spent $140,000 on podium “production”–which I thought seemed to include the cost of of Obama’s Greek-columned stage (aka the Barackopolis) at Invesco Field where he delivered his acceptance speech. DNCC spokeswoman Jenni Engebretsen writes in an email that these expenses were “related to podium functions and personnel rather than podium structures,” and she does not know how much the stage at Invesco cost.
Greg Pollowitz points out this article, which reported that “Convention expenses paid by the committee included $14.1 million for construction costs, including the stage and lighting, at the Pepsi Center and $5.3 million at Invesco Field.” How much of that $5.3 million was spent on Obama’s Greek columns is unknown. I took a look at the FEC report, but, shockingly, there isn’t an itemized expense for “gaudy Greek Styrofoam columns.” I guess the DNC was a bit smarter than the RNC this time.
The Weekly Standard
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/10/the_cost_of_the_barackopolis.asp

“If you don’t think John McCain is just as dangerous in the White House as George W. Bush, think again.”
** retired four-star General Wesley Clark
“McCains temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him.”
** Former Senator Bob Smith (R-NH)
“I don’t want this guy [McCain] anywhere near a trigger.”
** Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM)
“The thought of him being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded”.
** Senator Thad Cochran (R-MI)
“I’ve served with the man 26 years. Do I have the ability to speak with experience about someone who has abused everyone he’s dealt with? Someone who does not have the temperment to be president, who’s wrong on the war, wrong on the economy, wrong on nuclear waste. What am I supposed to do? Walk around talking about what a great guy he is? I
don’t believe that.”
** Senator Harry Reid – US Senate Majority Leader

McCain has no new spending programs in mind so that’s a moot point. Obama on the other hand…!
Neither guy will ‘fix the economy’. A bunch of you out there are still buying into the MSM lie that Clinton did ‘something’ (but folks are at a loss to explain exactly what) to make the economy thrive (which had its ups and downs anyway).
Once again, Congress controls the purse strings, not the White House. I tell ya, this government interference in the form of these Fannie and Freddie GSEs with the Liberal Democrats at the helm are really what’s messed us up from the S&L bail outs of the ’80s and ’90s to the present.

What is Biden for: Biden is the backup for Obama because he doesn’t have the intelligence to run this country and Biden will have to take over while Obama stands in back of him. Maybe Ayers can give Obama some pointers on how to handle the Americans like he did in the 60′s. Obama keeps talking about the economy. What economy. There are thousands of people employed and living well. There may be people living on the street however many of them are too lazy to work and want to live on the government’s money. We need to stop the welfare system so they will get off their butt. And stop the Link cards. There are people selling them for cash to buy drugs. Taxpayers shouldn’t be supporting these loafers and the government should take action.

Independent Realist: Get use the fact that Obama is not black. You better ready your history over again. Obama is Mulatto, the offspring of a black father, white mother. The blacks are well aware of this but they refuse to accept that name. Too bad. He is what he is and he can’t change that. Blame his mother for not marrying a white man to begin with.

Mariann: Guess what? I am a black college student, who isn’t into drugs or anything else. I am working on my associates in culinary, and no it isn’t an easy degree to obtain. It upsets me that people like you want to put down college students like me, because we are making our own choices. AND YES BARACK IS BLACK, BECAUSE ANYTIME YOU HAVE BLACK IN YOU (NO MATTER HOW SMALL), YOU ARE A BLACK PERSON.
Comments like yours and many others on here are doing nothing, but creating more hate.

The economy and energy independence is all that McCain has been talking about. He actually says HE WILL do what he promises. All Obama can see is, WE”LL LOOK INTO IT or IT WILL BE CONSIDERED.
Biden: please just go have some coffee at your favorite eating place, Katie’s Restaurant. (It’s been closed for 15 yrs, but don’t tell Biden, let him sit there and wait for service for the next 9 days)

Will the neo-communists censor the Net?
Anybody who is listening or reading knows that a President Barack Obama would yank America toward socialism by the largest margin since FDR’s New Deal. Thanks to Joe the plumber, we know Obama wants to redistribute wealth, spread it around like it belongs to the government instead of the people who earned it.
Draconian tax increases are just the tip of the socialistic agenda Obama has waiting for us. Obama’s cheerleaders, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other leftists, plan an all-out assault on the First Amendment. Sadly, that doesn’t mean that they’re going to cease the unending gaseous gaffes. Instead, it means they want to go back to pre-Ronald Reagan days when the government controlled what was said on radio and TV.
The Democrats, as they did in 1934 prompted by FDR, want to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine, which has nothing to do with fairness in communication. This doctrine simply allows the government to decide whose speech is free and whose isn’t. It forced broadcasters to give equal time to what the government deemed were opposing views.
President Ronald Reagan saw the evil behind the Fairness Doctrine and vetoed a bill in 1987 that would have made it law. The bellyaching from the far left has persisted since then, especially since my friend Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio with his style of talk radio. Thin-skinned liberals can’t take Rush’s straight talk, so they want to shut him down. That’s why some call the latest push for the doctrine the Hush Rush law.
I know this sounds like something from Nazi Germany or Castro’s Cuba, but it’s already in the hopper. New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman let the cat out of the bag about the left’s plans to silence its dissenters, according to Brian Maloney of Radio Equalizer.
“With the possibility of a Democratic Party supermajority after the upcoming elections, Jeff Bingaman may soon get his wish to quash dissenting viewpoints,” Maloney reports. ”During an interview with KKOB Albuquerque host Jim Villanucci, Bingaman overtly stated his full support for imposing Fairness Doctrine restrictions on free speech which would effectively shut down talk radio as we know it today.”
If the leftists succeed under the nightmare scenario with Obama in the White House, this time it won’t just be about radio and TV, but could include content on the Internet. You got it – the jackbooted thugs from the left will monitor what you and I write on the Web and let us have it if they don’t think it’s “fair.”
Jeff Poor of NewsBusters wrote about this scary socialistic scheme, reporting that FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell ventured that the feds under the governmental Democratic trifecta (presidency and both houses of Congress) could thrust itself into regulating speech on the Internet.
“He told the Business & Media Institute there’s a possibility the next Congress and administration might attempt to package the renewal of the Fairness Doctrine with Net neutrality regulation,” Poor wrote.
“‘I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view,’ McDowell said, suggesting some conservatives might support Net neutrality legislation based on corporate censorship fears. ‘I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.
“‘Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,’ McDowell said. ‘So, will websites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their website to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?’”
The Democrats, who look more and more like neo-communists, should tread lightly here. I don’t just say that because I’ve made my living on talk radio. This is truly a First Amendment issue, so Pelosi and the rest of her minions better break out that Constitution they swore to protect and read up.
The Supreme Court did rule in an earlier day that the previous incarnation of the Fairness Doctrine was constitutional. But the Supreme Court concluded in another case that the doctrine “inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241),” according to an article at the Heritage Foundation.
Obama and the Democrats’ new deal is a bad deal for every American who believes in the Constitution and the First Amendment. It is a dangerous step to the left that will stifle free expression and, ultimately, democracy.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78863