He just has no clue.
In the worst day for the financial markets since the Great Depression, this is what McSame has to say:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igAmVs0cvY8[/youtube]
He thinks our economy is strong.
About the Author (Author Profile)
Comments (35)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » McCain and the Freddie/Fannie Crisis | September 16, 2008
That’s not quite what he said. He said “the fundamentals of our economy are still strong.” But please. Keep talking down the markets cuz we definitely need a panic.
Depends on your what your definition of “still” is, right Sharon? And of course, Fannie-Freddie, Bear Sterns, Lehman, and record foreclosures and bank failures are all because of us big mouth liberals. If we’d just shut up, none of the would have happened, right? If only the republicans had been in charge for the last seven years then we’d have been fine. No wait…
I do note that Lehman Brother CEU Richard Fuld et ux were rather generous in his political contributions. . He did make a token contribution to McCain and one ‘cover your bets’ donation to the Republican Senate Campaign fund. For those who care to check, the wife (listed as unemployed) wrote her checks from Connecticut and hubby from NYC.
Just who are the money changers supporting?
Is George Soros unique?
Psst… guess what? The American people have known for some time that the economy was in trouble.
Anyone who buys groceries, pays their energy bills, puts gas in their car and watch their property values drop knows that the “fundamentals” of the economy aren’t “strong”.
So what are the fundamentals of the economy? If it isn’t banks and all of the credit instruments (for a nation — both its government and its people) are failing or struggling, that seems pretty fundamental to me. Most businesses need some access to credit, which is tightening. And even Greenspan (McCain’s economic idol) is telling the world that we are looking at record problems.
He was only talking about the fundamentals as they apply to those with over $5 million a year. Those fundamentals are still strong as long as you keep your job (oops there goes another Wall Street bank with high paying salaries.) Guess that theory doesn’t hold any water, either.
Oh well, same old McBushenomics.
Pandora, your response is perfect — especially since most Americans don’t see their paychecks increase to keep pace with the prices.
“But please. Keep talking down the markets cuz we definitely need a panic.”
Yes. I’m sure Delaware Liberal is so widely influential that the loose lips here will sink the entire economy. Asshat.
The way out of this mess is through wage inflation. For the last five years or so, instead of a price-wage spiral, we have had a price-price spiral. We have been seeing commodity inflation without corresponding wage inflation. This is what we mean when we speak of the decline in real wages. Everything is going up, but people aren’t getting raises.
But now, the Fed will be forced to choose between cutting interest rates to keep capital flowing, or raising rates to slow inflation (i.e., to protect the value of capital).
I think they will choose to cut rates, and let inflation roll. In that event, consumers will cut back on spending, and put a hurt on business. Companies will try to lay off people, but in the end they will be forced to increase wages if they want to keep their employees.
Once wages start catching up with commodity inflation, buying power will return and consumer spending will lead the recovery.
Art, there’s no sense in bothering to point out who the monied interests (bankers) are giving their money to in this cycle.
From OpenSecrets.org:
But yeah, it’s all those evil Republicans.
So — the moneyed interests are giving to the people who are not peddling the clueless AND tone-deaf claim that the economy’s “fundamentals” are strong?
Ok.
Nah, the Democrats are just as greedy as y’all try to say Republicans are. And just as culpable.
Barack Obama will be opportunistic enough to try to blame the whole thing on President Bush, hoping the MSM and you guys will keep arguing that McCain is just “out of touch.” Because, after all, “out of touch” is oh so much worse than “in the pocket.”
Umm, doesn’t McCain know that you have to wave your hand for the Jedi Mind Control trick to work?
Barack Obama will be opportunistic enough to try to blame the whole thing on President Bush
I certainly hope so.
McCain voted 90+% with Bush, so I hope Obama reminds us once or twice that Bush policies are to blame.
Sharon – how many repubs in Congress have gone to jail in the last few years for bribery? How many Dems? What is the party of Palin’s buddy indicted Senator “Series of Tubes” Stevens ? Does the name Abramoff ring a bell?
Here is some news you might not know: Legal campaign contributions are not “bribes”.
By your definition, McSame is both “out of touch” and “in the pocket”.
Anon, Barack Obama voted with President Bush half the time. Does he get to have half the blame for everything you guys think is wrong with the economy?
Anonone, Sarah Palin fought against her party in Alaska, which sort of resembled the Chicago machine. How many times did Barack Obama stand up to the Democrat leadership in Congress.
I never used the word “bribe”; that’s your word. But to argue that, somehow, mysteriously, the problems on Wall Street have nothing to do with Democrats who voted for these policies–and to whom the lion’s share of money has been given in this election cycle–is specious and deceitful.
Barack Obama has significant ties to the subprime mortgage community.
(Original post at Patterico’s Pontifications).
Barack Obama voted with President Bush half the time. Does he get to have half the blame
Well, if it turns out those postoffices were named in error, I’m throwing Obama under the bus.
And look!
Sharon can’t quite define what strong fundamentals” are, so we are on to whatever wingnut crap she can wave as a distraction.
Or maybe she is stipulating that McCain is quite wrong on this.
Sharon, as anonone commented in another post, time for the Republicans to man up and take the blame.
Dwight Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln would all be ashamed.
Why would Obama stand up to his party when his party is right? Your arguement there is just dumb. And Sarah Palin is just a serial liar and is under criminal investigation (with which she refuses to cooperate after saying that she would).
By the way, since she called herself a dog with lipstick, is it OK if I call her that, too?
Your ignorance is beyond the pale. The Democrats haven’t been in charge the last 7 years. Specifically, what “Democrats who voted for” policies are you talking about?
Sharon can’t quite define what strong fundamentals” are, so we are on to whatever wingnut crap she can wave as a distraction.
How about all the businesses, large and small, which are functioning well even in a shaky economy? You’ve been crying for months that the economy was falling apart, and yet the proposals you have wouldn’t have solved it (hey, alternative fuels in 10 years…that’ll solve gas prices today!). More regulation and red tape. More government control (not counting the backing Freddie and Fannie always had with taxpayer money). Oh, yeah. Those are great ways to run an economy.
Look, I understand why you guys are so desperate to point the finger and say it’s all George. Bush’s. fault. But your guy has been neck-deep with subprime mortage lenders for years and has never tried to reform that industry. Why should he? They pay him!
Sharon, as anonone commented in another post, time for the Republicans to man up and take the blame.
Hey, I don’t mind Republicans taking their share of the blame for this mess. But your Democrats have run Congress for the past 2 years. At what point do you guys take responsibility for your part in governing?
Why would Obama stand up to his party when his party is right?
But his party hasn’t been right, dude. They want to increase taxes when that’s the worst thing for a slowing economy (even Obama is backing away from that talk now). They want more regulation and control by the government, which results in more taxpayer money going into the same industries you are now castigating.
And Sarah Palin is just a serial liar and is under criminal investigation (with which she refuses to cooperate after saying that she would).
Funny, I doubt that investigation would be going full boar if she weren’t the Republican V.P. nomination. Not to mention the accusations that the investigation is, in fact, partisan. And anybody who backed the Clintons shouldn’t be talking about serial liars. Seriously.
Your ignorance is beyond the pale. The Democrats haven’t been in charge the last 7 years.
Sorry, Democrats have run Congress the past 2 years. You can’t now deny culpability when your party did nothing–NOTHING–to avoid the problems you’re now shrieking about.
blah blah blah blah blah
Take your trolling elsewhere.
Indeed — besides, the Congress does not manage the FDIC or the SEC or any of the regulatory levers from the Treasury in DC — George Bush does.
Funny how when asked a question you run right home to the wingnut talking points.
They want to increase taxes when that’s the worst thing for a slowing economy
Actually, that’s not true. Technically, increasing the deficit is worse for a slowing economy (you can look it up).
If taxes are not excessive (they aren’t), then raising taxes modestly will begin reversing the deficit, which will have a slight real impact and a large psychological impact on investors, and an immediate impact on the dollar and on interest rates.
That is why Clinton’s 1993 tax increases produced a boom… Clinton convinced despairing investors that the US was finally serious about paying for its spending.
It appears Sharon doesn’t understand what she is talking about!
par for the course.
And the Palin investigation began weeks before she was nominated…so again, wishful thinking without foundation.
You know, Sharon, you’re too easy. And I don’t mean that in a good way:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070425-obama_durbin_in/
These problems started more than two years ago. And to say the dems have done nothing is just ignorant when they enacted the first comprehensive ethics and reform policies in more than a decade in their first year. Also:
“Republican Mike Oxley, the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee noted that the House passed a bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis by issuing stronger regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
“All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.” […]
“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.
Oxley recalls that the bipartisan legislation “faced hostility from the Bush administration,” but also “lacked a champion in the [Republican] Senate.”
from http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/barney-frank-mccain-reform/
You’ll also read there that mcsame has done nothing to improve regulation and oversight.
And the Palin investigation was going full-bore before she was the nominee. She only refused to cooperate after she was nominated. And it was initiated by a Republican.
It is the repubs that bail-out private companies with tax dollars, not the dems. With the repubs it is always socialism for the rich.
You can start blaming the dems two years after Bush is out of office. Of course, we know you’re still blaming the Clintons for everything.
Funny thing about taxes these days is that true fiscal
conservativesminds believe that there must be an increase in tax revenue. How else are we going to start lowering the deficit?The question rises about whom will pay: The ones (200k+ earners and larger corps) who had every advantage thrown their way by Bu$hCo (and DLC) or the middle and lower classes?
Taxes will rise, guaranteed. Our choice of who will pay is as simple as Obama v McCain.
“blah blah blah blah blah
Take your trolling elsewhere”
Nice response to Sharon Nemski……..
Von – What happens if raising taxes doesn’t = raising tax revenue? Obama was confronted with data telling him that raising capital gains tax not only stifles investment, but that it also decreases overall tax revenue. Given that, he still wants to raise capital gains taxes (talk about sticking blindly to ones ideology)
California has been imposing all manner of taxes on the rich with promises that it would provide the state with revenue. It has not. The state has record deficits (I wonder why…?) Now they’ve proposed taxes on rich folks trying to leave the state. Why? Well They need the tax revenue from the rich, and the rich don’t want to pay ridiculously high taxes.
Mike W.
I know that you might be challenged with mathematics since it generally deals with facts, but I want to explain to you why the repub mantra “reducing taxes always raises revenue” is wrong. Taken to the extremes, then zero (0%) taxes should lead to infinite tax revenues and 100% taxation should lead to no tax revenues.
Now I am going to make a big assumption that you are smart enough to see that doesn’t make sense. So what we are discussing is a marginal level of taxation that optimizes tax revenue without hurting the economy. Your perspective that lower taxes are always good for the economy and government is simply foolish. Unlike repubs who suck at economics, in ’93 Clinton and the Dems raised taxes to a level that simultaneously maximized tax revenue and GDP, job growth, and productivity. Obama has got it right – mcsame and you are just wrong.
I am sorry if you can’t understand this.
Obama’s position and mine too, is to close the ‘capital gains’ loophole for wealthy investors – ex: someone takes stock, cashes out in lieu of salary (payroll tax).
As for an increase in Capital Gains tax – like everything in economics, there’s a balance. What some of the skeptics have said is over-taxing CG might cause the effects you site, but not just increasing it will cause it. I’m sure there’s someone around who can explain it better than me, but it’s not a ‘witch hunt’ on the wealthy – it’s about making our tax structure fair for all.
Proper balance, not either/or.
Talking about fair taxation, here’s a question I posed a while back:
Which economic stratum utilizes/benefits more from tax revenue…the poor, middle class or upper class?
Think about it.
“Talking about fair taxation, here’s a question I posed a while back”
Fair? A progressive tax system by its very nature cannot be “fair.” A flat tax on income would be the closest thing we could get to “fair.”