McCain Policy: The Economy , page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 12:58 PM by Grafilthy
Looks like McCain's own economic adviser is lacking a little faith in his economic prowess.....straight from the mouth of Carly Fiorina herself...


"Well, I don't think John McCain could run a major corporation, I don't think Barack Obama could run a major corporation, I don't think Joe Biden could run a major corporation. It is a fallacy to suggest that the country is like a company. So, of course, to run a business, you have to have a lifetime of experience in business, but that's not what Sarah Palin, John McCain, Joe Biden or Barack Obama are doing."


source
At least she has a better idea of the state of affairs than her boss...


11/27/07: "I think the fundamentals are strong"

1/10: "I think the fundamentals of this economy are strong"

1/17: "Our economic fundamentals are strong"

3/11: "The fundamentals of our economy are strong"

5/5: "The fundamentals of our economy are strong"

6/5: "The fundamentals of our economy are very strong"

Really...cause'...



-Unemployment 6.1% vs 4.2%

-Budget deficit of $357-billion vs $281-billion budget surplus

-National debt at $9.7-trillion vs $5.8-trillion

-Gas $4/gallon vs $1.27

-Inflation at 5.37% from 2.74%

-Real Wages down 2%

-Consumer Confidence Index .57 vs historical high of 145

Add to this grim picture the crisis over 400,000 U.S. home foreclosures, a mortgage meltdown, and multiple Wall Street bankruptcies. Seriously, I'd like a bowl of some of that crack McCain's been smoking if he truly thinks the "fundamentals are strong."

And all of this and more has been accomplished in 8 short years.....with John McCain going along for the ride over 90% of the time.....
Why is this even an argument??? These are the same people who bankrupted our country, running on the change ticket! Awesome.


reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 03:32 PM by jam321
reply to post by Bunch


First of all I agree that there are problems with Nafta like lack of unions, low wages, environmental concerns. But President Clinton was aware of this when he signed it. Clinton's own words on the day of signing.

First of all, because NAFTA means jobs.
American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe
that, I wouldn't support this agreement.


So when people say that this trade agreement is just
about how to move jobs to Mexico so nobody can make a living, how do
they explain the fact that Mexicans keep buying more products made in
America every year?


source


I believe the 3 million the article you posted is jobs going overseas not just jobs to Mexico, Obama has quoted 1 million. I would probably agree with his estimate.

Said Obama, "One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio.


source

Here is an article with some more info to consider about Nafta.

source


I think it is good for Obama to try to amend it to our advantage but the odds are highly unlikely. Hopefully, if he becomes President, he will remember all of this when he is negotiating his own Free Trade Acts.



reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 04:28 PM by jsobecky
reply to post by buddhasystem


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by jsobecky
[Behind the support centers, someone had to create and design the hardware and software that needs call support. That's where we excel


We do? That's big news, considering the outsourcing rush in these areas as well.


That's not news; that's fact. Americans have always been the leaders in design of electronics. Manufacture is different.

Failure to do that will result in a $400 eMachine to cost $700 to cover the additional labor costs.


Guess what, this is just as well. We'll have more prosperous workers here, and maybe they still should be able to buy a $700 computer.


And where will they get the jobs?

[edit on 17-9-2008 by jsobecky]


reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 05:11 PM by jam321
reply to post by Grafilthy


Was there really a surplus? GAO report seem to question this. They don't give an opinion but they highlight discrepancies.

The U.S. Government is again reporting an accrual-based surplus, which this year is $46 billion.


Source pdf file

this is on the first page from the Secretary of Treasury message.

Reconciling Operating Results With Budget Results The government did not have an effective process to obtain information to reconcile fully the reported $46 billion excess of revenue over net cost and the reported unified budget surplus of $237 billion. Consequently, it could not identify all items needed to reconcile these amounts.


source

click on complete report and look on page 30. Seem to come up with two different surplus amounts.

Because we were unable to determine the reliability of significant portions of the accompanying U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2000, we are unable to, and we do not, express an opinion on such consolidated financial statements.


As a result of material deficiencies in the government’s systems, recordkeeping, documentation, and financial reporting, readers are cautioned that amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and related notes may not be a reliable source of information.


source

click on complete report page 28

And the government has the audacity to question businesses accounting methods. Seems like the government has problems of its own when it comes to financial reporting.


reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 06:03 PM by Grafilthy
reply to post by jam321


Jam-
If you go beyond the cherry picking....you begin to see the complete picture. We are in this position because we are "staying the course" at every opportunity. The "conservative" policies of the current administration have drastically reduced the average Americans ability to have a fighting chance. Corporations send jobs out.....and we give them tax breaks. This is the only administration in American history that has attempted to fight a war without a tax increase. John McCain's economic policies are a continuation of the Bush policies, even though they are tried and true bad for our economy. Are we really expected to take another bite even though we already know we are eating crap?????


reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 06:55 PM by jam321
Grafilthy, you make some valid points because the economy does stink. The debate is whether the Bush policy is really to blame or could be the other forces that government can't predict or make room for. Example, how much of our unemployment is related to the slowdown of other countries economy? Are the number of banks failing really due to bad loans or years of cooking the books.

There is no cherry picking, just people who have different opinion and views depending on how they see the issue. I point out the surplus. Do you not agree that after reading the GAO report that their is a chance that even the government may be misrepresenting its figures? This could lead many to really believe that there was this surplus and government just blew it when there wasn't any. Personally, I hold them all accountable. Everything they feed us now will be useless by the time they take office cause many things will change by then. In addition many of their plans are so vague that we are left guessing as to what they intend to do or are trying to piece it together speech by speech.

As far as the economy, both have good points and bad points. Unfortunately many prefer to act like their candidate has the only best plan and don't like it when people criticize their candidate plan. I believe we need to hear the good and the bad. I value what you say and expect to hear more from you.

Now, could you please tell me what tax break corporations get. If possible give me a specific name or number to do some research on.


reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 07:46 PM by savagediver
Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Bunch


Originally posted by Bunch
This is a repeat of Bush economics, the wishful thinking that if we give more money to BIG corporations they would return the favor by creating more jobs here in the U.S. The reality is that the companies dont care about doing any favors, they only care about their bottom line as they should.


Question: Who will create new jobs if not for private enterprise? The gov't?

Another point: Democrats have been attempting to paint a McCain victory as "four more years of Bush". There is no basis for that assumption.

However, Bush's record regarding jobs and the economy is satisfactory. But this thread is not about Bush; it is about McCain.


Maybe I just dont understand trickle down economics.There have been years and years of this since Bush came into office and where are all the jobs this method of economics creates?

www.bls.gov...


September 05, 2008
The unemployment rate rose from 5.7 to 6.1 percent in August, and nonfarm payroll employment continued to trend down (-84,000). In August, employment fell in manufacturing and employment services, while mining and health care continued to add jobs.


August 26, 2008
From January 2005 through December 2007, 3.6 million workers were displaced from jobs they had held for at least 3 years. The number of displaced workers was about the same as the January 2003 to December 2005 level, 3.8 million.

I really would like for someone to show me where are all these jobs that have been created since the corporate tax reduction enacted by bush.I am lacking in economics smarts so I would appreciate it if someone could give me some figures here on how the trickle down economics have worked so great for us.


reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 09:03 PM by jsobecky
reply to post by buddhasystem


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by jsobecky
That's not news; that's fact. Americans have always been the leaders in design of electronics. Manufacture is different.


a) even design of electronics is at least partially outsourced -- just google "ic design outsourcing"
b) and that is a tiny sliver of the whole chain (such as complete product cycle). NB: memory manufacturing facilities are mostly located in Asia


Once the design, wafer, and PG issues have been solved, manufacturing of IC's and components and system integration and final assembly and test procedures can be done by copycatting. The Far East countries are famous for this; we are the creative force and they are the copycat/labor element. We must strive to continue to be the leaders in education and creativity.

And where will they get the jobs?


Well, I hoped you'd understand that this would be due to keeping jobs here as opposed to beeding them in outsourcing frenzy.


I certainly do not understand this. I have been making the point over and over that if you force a production line to use higher-cost labor, the marketplace will eat you alive in no time. It is not as simple as "keeping the jobs in the country".


reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 09:32 PM by jsobecky
reply to post by savagediver


Originally posted by savagediver
I really would like for someone to show me where are all these jobs that have been created since the corporate tax reduction enacted by bush.I am lacking in economics smarts so I would appreciate it if someone could give me some figures here on how the trickle down economics have worked so great for us.


First of all, you need to understand that the segment of private enterprise that creates the most jobs in the US is small business, not large corporations. Small business account for at least 2 out of 3 new jobs created each year.

But small businesses are subject to a lot of "churning". They start up, expand, and close up continuously. And believe it or not, they need to create about 10 new jobs to create *1* net job, due to the constant flux.

Small businesses rely on capital investment to start up and expand. Where do they get this money? From banks, venture capitalists, and investment firms. Where do those people get their money from? From even larger investments and markets.

The money begins to trickle down..

Small businesses are the hardest hit when taxes increase. They fail, and the job loss trickles upward.

Large corporations can manage tax increases better by passing costs down to the consumer, but that means less money to loan to small businesses. The result? Fewer small business creation.

One depends upon the other. That is why Obama's plans scare me.

For a good primer on small business importance, see this:

findarticles.com...


reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 09:57 PM by savagediver
reply to post by jsobecky


I did have my own business for 14 years and never incorporated, bad mistake but I was really on the border with how I could incorporate so I just didnt mess with it.That was a bad mistake, when the business went down ( finally sold it about 5 years ago) I was liable for all the debt.Still paying off on one of the business credit cards I had.I know I was hit awful hard with taxes and guess being in bussiness was not my cup of tea as I was just concentrating on the sales and product etc and didnt look for loopholes or breaks.I will have to agree that taxes on small business is alot more of a burden than on big business.

All taxes aside the bigger issue that I can see is our spending.I need to learn more about what goes on in Washington , but it seems to me that every bill that gets passed has all sorts of extras built into it.Seems like nothing can get done as an item that stands alone, it always has stuff tacked onto it.It appears that many times in order for someone to vote for a piece of legislation that they have to also vote for a bunch of little earmarks or what have you to vote for what they wanted to vote for in the first place.To me this is moronic, maybe I just cant wrap my little brain around it.I just think that when something is up for a vote just that item and that item alone ought to be whats up for the vote.

I also think we should not have gone to Iraq.That is putting a big dent in our wallets.I dont think we have even begun to see the pain that this little fiasco is going to cost us.We never finished what our goal was in Afganistan and even if Iraq would have had wmd I dont think it was a reason for us to go to war there.I think the war on terror is being used poorly, it is an opened ended thing that can never be stopped.

I guess my point is no matter who wins the presidency and no matter who gets tax breaks or who gets taxed, until we can curb our spending and quit running around policing the world we are screwed financially.I am not an isolationist but I do think we need to reign in our use of our military.It should be used only as a last resort.....the war in Iraq was a waste of lives,resources and money.

I also think that there needs to be regulation of the markets.Phil Grahm and some others passed through deregulation in ther late 90's and I think the market melt down,credit crunch and the housing bust is a direct cause of this.

Thanks for your response josbecky....will try and read up on this and try and educated myself some more.Sure wish the economy wasnt so darn hard to figure out.It has too many intricacies for me to grasp at the moment.


reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 11:01 PM by jsobecky
reply to post by savagediver


Originally posted by savagediver
All taxes aside the bigger issue that I can see is our spending.I need to learn more about what goes on in Washington , but it seems to me that every bill that gets passed has all sorts of extras built into it.Seems like nothing can get done as an item that stands alone, it always has stuff tacked onto it.It appears that many times in order for someone to vote for a piece of legislation that they have to also vote for a bunch of little earmarks or what have you to vote for what they wanted to vote for in the first place.To me this is moronic, maybe I just cant wrap my little brain around it.I just think that when something is up for a vote just that item and that item alone ought to be whats up for the vote.


You sure got that right. It's despicable and amounts to extortion in my mind. And you are also right about our spending -it's way out of control.


Thanks for your response josbecky....will try and read up on this and try and educated myself some more.Sure wish the economy wasnt so darn hard to figure out.It has too many intricacies for me to grasp at the moment.


I wouldn't sell myself short if I were you. You have the intelligence to ask the right questions and to see when things are out of whack.



reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 01:48 AM by poet1b
Personally, I think McCains advertisements are right on the money, Washington is broke, and so is Wall Street, and they need to be fixed. This is my opinion of what the biggest problem with our economy boils down to. Everyone is a crook these days, that includes liberals as well as conservatives. The biggeset problem is that the GW regime was leading the pack of corruption.

I think McCain actually has integrity, I think he seriously wants to reform Washington and Wall Street, and I think his Veep choice follows that concept. I think McCain is the best candidate to achieve this goal. Obama isn't talking about doing this, he is talking about reaching across the isle, and that isn't going to fix these problems. We need a maverick, not a preacher.

Did Obama bring up the earmark problem. I don't remember it being a big issue until Palins GOP into speech. I think earmarks are one of our nations biggest problem, because they breed corruption all the way around, and vastly increase fed spending. Reducing earmarks would be a very good place to start.

I won't deny that free market tax breaks only seem to have aided our corporations in moving U.S. job overseas, but at the same time, I also recognize that these businesses had to move overseas, because the difference in labor costs would have eaten them alive if they hadn't moved to lower skilled labor costs to cheaper markets. What makes me mad about the whole situation is that the middle class seems to have been stuck with the tax bill for paying for the huge military that protects these overseas manufacturing assetts.

Why is the U.S. middle class being forced to pay for policing the entire planet, and all the international charity as well. Obama's stances on these issues are no better than McCains.

What is the real difference between Obama's and McCain's economic plans?

From what I read, Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich, which I can agree with, but Obama's plan is to raise taxes on the top 10 percent of all income earners, and 1 in 10 people are not rich. The top 90% to 99.9% of income earners are upper middle class business people who create most of the jobs in this country. Raising taxes on this group of income earners is a very bad idea. McCain does not want to raise taxes on these people, but he also doesn't want to raise taxes on the top .01%, and I would like to see that happen. Still, I would rather not see taxes raised on the upper middle class, and smaller business owners, than I would like to see taxes raised on the truly rich.

Obama wants to help the poor with things like health insurance and college intuition, which I think is nice, but as income levels go up, Obama wants to cut aid, and I disagree with this. The working poor should get just as much aid from the government as the poor. People should not be punished by lower aid from government for working hard to get ahead. McCain plans on giving everyone the same amount of aid, and that is a more fair way of doing things.

The biggest issue is illegal immigration. The GW admins record on illegal immigration is an abomination, and Obama's position isn't much better. Liberals seem to want to encourage illegal immigration, and don't care how it affects the working poor, and that is extremely sad. Uncontrolled illegal immigration creates social problems, greatly increases government costs, lowers wages, and increases housing costs, and these two last issues are the biggest problem facing our country right now, and illegal immigration is one of the biggest factors. McCain is the only candidate who has come out against illegal immigration, and is willing to start taking a stand, and in this area, the GOP has a lot better stance.

These are the key reasons why I support McCain over Obama. For my sources you can look up each candidates website, as they state these positions there.





[edit on 18-9-2008 by poet1b]


reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 11:13 AM by maybereal11
reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com


REGULATION?? How is the American Public supposed to disregard everything he has stood for and said to date?

He is NOW talking about STRICTER REGULATION in light of the recent financial crisis while what...simply hoping the American attention span is less than months, weeks, days?!!

He has done NOTHING BUT TALK ABOUT DEREGULATION FOR HIS ENTIRE CAMPAIGN TO DATE AND NOW IS ACTING LIKE HIS RECORD AND CAMPAIGN PLATFORM NEVER EXISTED ON THE MATTER.

Wanting to win is OK. Wanting to win at all costs is NOT.

Where the hell is the Straight Talk Express?

www.boston.com...

WASHINGTON - Responding to the turmoil on Wall Street, John McCain said flatly yesterday: "We need strong and effective regulation."

"After all the years of tearing down the regulations that govern financial institutions, it rings hollow to claim that he will build them back up," said Elizabeth Warren, professor of bankruptcy law at Harvard Law School. "This economy is the direct consequence of the deregulation that John McCain fought for day after day, year after year, since the mid-1980s."

McCain Embraces Regulation After Many Years of Opposition
www.washingtonpost.com...

A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth.

..... the Republican presidential nominee is scrambling to recast himself as a champion of regulation to end "reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed" on Wall Street

John McCain vs. John McCain on Regulation
As the New York Times wrote this morning, while McCain has “struck a populist tone” in advocating regulation, “his record on the issue, and the views of those he has always cited as his most influential advisers, suggest that he has never departed in any major way from his party’s embrace of deregulation.” In fact, in 1995, “Mr. McCain promoted a moratorium on federal regulations of all kinds.”
thinkprogress.org...




[edit on 18-9-2008 by maybereal11]


reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 11:23 AM by Grafilthy
reply to post by poet1b


From what I read, Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich, which I can agree with, but Obama's plan is to raise taxes on the top 10 percent of all income earners, and 1 in 10 people are not rich. The top 90% to 99.9% of income earners are upper middle class business people who create most of the jobs in this country. Raising taxes on this group of income earners is a very bad idea. McCain does not want to raise taxes on these people, but he also doesn't want to raise taxes on the top .01%, and I would like to see that happen. Still, I would rather not see taxes raised on the upper middle class, and smaller business owners, than I would like to see taxes raised on the truly rich.

And from their own mouths....


The campaigns respond

Jason Furman, a newly appointed senior economic adviser to Obama, said his preliminary response is that the report's findings bear out what Obama's campaign has been saying: that he's for the middle class.

"Middle-class families get tax cuts that are three times larger from Obama than from McCain," Furman said. "And the McCain plan gives nearly one-quarter of its benefits to households making more than $2.8 million annually - the top 0.1%."

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior economic adviser to McCain, noted that the report does not take into account the spending reforms - such as eliminating earmarks - that are central to McCain's strategy to support tax relief and help reduce the deficit.


DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT A CONTINUATION OF BUSH'S ECONOMIC POLICIES WOULD CREATE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 12:43 PM by jam321
reply to post by nh_ee


All Mr. Buffet has to do is to make the decision to not claim any expenses and pay his fair share of taxes. Simple as that. Other than that they need to find a way to repeal that tax law that has been in effect for over half a century that separates profits made in country and overseas. They don't pay taxes on profits made overseas.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^