digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at firedoglake.com —

McCain’s Economic Policies Like A Third Bush Term? Yes

firedoglake.com — Can America afford a presidential candidate who has to bring along an economic adviser in order to be coherent on the subject? Not after the last few years of Bush Administration arrogance in the face of failures, it can't.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • thejimmyo, on 05/13/2008, -10/+80Our country is already $9 trillion in debt, and McCain's economic advisers freely admit that his plan "will make deficits expand."
    • pintomp3, on 05/13/2008, -7/+13he would just be continuing the great republican legacy:
      http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h52/Tiktaalik/Na ...
      • aussieNickuss, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Geez......Bill Clinton must have made a whopping big loan repayment in 2000.
        • coup, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1The graph is a little misleading because it shows increases in the national debt while most people expect bar graphs to show absolute amounts. It's not that Bill Clinton made a loan repayment in 2000 to bring the national debt to 1 billion, instead he increased the national debt by $1 billion dollars.
    • Chaotyk, on 05/13/2008, -2/+33$9 trillion? A little low, I'm afraid. The CIA World Factbook lists the USA's external debts as being $12.25 trillion.

      Not that any of us needed to be any more depressed and pessimistic than we already are.
      • happyseamonster, on 05/13/2008, -2/+8Translation: Our 'representative' government promised to China - one of the principle holders of our debt - future labor from American citizens. IE: Chinese financiers not only enslave chinese peasants, but us too. THESE PEOPLE ARE ***** CRIMINALS. Someday a real rain is gonna come...
      • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -13/+312.25 trillion includes the debt held by persons or corporations. Please actually know what External Debt is before using it as a propaganda piece.
      • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -7/+5When the emo's that run Digg.com digg down even facts, thats when I fear for America.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -21/+15You really need to read up on Obama and Clinton's plans as well, they ALL run deficits. At least McCain can hide behind the excuse that he's using tax cuts to give the money back to the people it belongs to, while your beloved leftists are blowing the money on a laundry list of Constitutionally questionable government crap.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/politics/27fi ...
      • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -8/+10One day you guys hate the NY Times. The next, you're basic your arguments off of it.

        Would you make up your mind?
        • hittnrun, on 05/13/2008, -10/+5Will Obama need to bring a military adviser with him every where he goes??? How about a world affairs adviser? Yeah, he pretty much knows very little about much, except how to be a cult leader with lots of koolaid drinkers in tow.
          • bjornski, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Well, as long as McCain keeps Lieberman standing behind him to correct him every time he ***** up, we should be okay then.
      • ronaldst, on 05/13/2008, -8/+7Very true. I expect Clinton, McCain or Obama's presidency to run the country more into debt. Not one of these three ever mentionned how they plan to fix the mess that is the federal government. They only went on to play with people's fears, doubts and insecurities.
        • aliengoods, on 05/13/2008, -2/+6Yeah, Obama's been all about fear. His "Hope" and "Change" themes scare the hell out of me.
          • ronaldst, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Those themes worked out well for Bush, right?
          • bjornski, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2@ronaldst

            Yeah, "Hope and Change" were exactly what we needed at the end of the Clinton presidency. If I remember right, the platform was all about "Compassionate Conservatism", which basically means helping them by doing absolutely nothing at all. That turned this country RIGHT around. Thank you.

            But at least he didn't have sex with a fat girl, huh?
      • thejimmyo, on 05/13/2008, -1/+9The Wall Street Journal (grudgingly) says that Obama's plan "adds up." Furthermore, he's been a consistent supporter of bringing back the PAYGO rules that were done away with earlier this decade. That way, we're not spending money in Congress unless we have the revenue to pay for it.
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120415201049297519 ...

        McCain's advisers, on the other hand, say things like this: ‘I would like the next President not to talk about deficit reduction’
        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14wa ...

        Again, the Wall Street Journal (not exactly a liberal source) says that McCain's plan will likely "bloat" the deficit unless he can start articulating where he'll get the revenue to pay for the war, his programs, and the general everyday functioning of our government.
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882415111033181 ...
        • bjornski, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Yup. The interest on our debt totals over $400 BILLION PER YEAR (on about $9.5 trillion debt). More than the war And McCains policies? We'd be hitting $12 trillion in debt in no time. That $400 billion would be closer to $600 billion PER YEAR.

          But not a damned person is talking about how to shrink that debt. Republicans REFUSE to do it, insisting on tax-cuts instead. It's like putting your mortgage payment on a Visa card. And this is the party of "fiscal responsibility".

          Republicans have already proven they know nothing about economics. I'm still waiting for Reagan's "Trickle down". Instead, I've just been "trickled upon".
      • thewump, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1Remove genitals and color and they are all pretty much the same
      • GreyHobbyHorse, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1Collectivism, Communism, Obama-ism all adds up to equal misery for all. Obama is like Democrat Jimmy "the dumb" Carter II and Jimmy Carter I was so bad that the misery index had to be invented to quantify how bad he was.
        • bjornski, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Well gee, you convinced me with your enlightening argument....
    • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -13/+7So I bit and looked at this CIA world factbook. But I didn't just stop by looking at our debt. I decided to look at other nations debt and found they have some extraordinary debt of their own. Our own buddy England has 10 trillion in debt. Almost all of the top countries in europe and japan have large debt at least considering the size of their populations. Just think about this for a second. Britain has 60 million people and ten trillion in debt and yet they seem to be doing just fine. We have 300 million people 9-12 trillion in debt and are doing just fine. We have five times as many people as Britian. Compared to the US, Britain is bursting with debt and yet they are just fine. I think this debt issue is a non issue and for that matter are common around the world. Of course some people say why does Ireland only have 2 trillion in debt and we have 12? They have 4 million people in Ireland? You upset now? I mean I am not saying we should jump up and down with joy to have this debt but it is obvious that the best economies of the world all deal with these issues. Some are far far worse off then ourselves debt wise. Here is the CIA factbook page he was refering to.
      https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world ...
      • thejimmyo, on 05/13/2008, -1/+9It's not sustainable.
      • drmangrum, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3Doing fine? Have you looked at the state of the world? People are losing their jobs. Parents are having trouble feeding their families. My mother, who owns her own small business, has decided to put a bed in her store because she can't afford the gas needed to commute.

        We aren't "doing fine." We're *****.
      • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -6/+5You see only bad where I see Only good things. People everywhere losing their jobs? please. Unemployment in US is 5%. That is the envy of the world. Parents having trouble feeding who? please. Thats a crock. If kids were starving in the streets at least the huffington post would have an article about it. Doom and Gloom thats all the liberals see. Thats all your media wants you to see. The democrat party is screaming for attention now. elect ME elect me. I can almost hear them on tv. And small businesses like your mother's? well she may not be around much longer. Small business doesn't have a very good sucsess rate. I won't tell you what percentage fail so you have something bright to think of since darkness is all you know.
        • drmangrum, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4First off, I'm not a liberal.

          If you choose to only look at the good then you're a ***** moron. The unemployment rate may be better than other countries, but it's still extremely high for the US. Salaries are down, expenses are up. Families aren't able to keep much of their money due to rising costs. Yes, parents are having trouble feeding their children. Watch the news, pick up a newspaper, you're obviously ignorant on the current state of the people. Nobody said kids were starving in the streets, but there is a huge difference between nourishing your children and feeding your children filler. People are having to buy prepackaged crap when they used to buy fresh food. This translates into escalating health care costs later; which, of course, people can't afford now.

          The media is ratings machines, nobody cares about them. The democratic party isnt screaming anything, the media is.

          Yes, most small businesses fail, but when business that were doing OK start to fail because people are SCARED to purchase any non-essentials or can't afford the gas for non-essential travel, there is a big damn problem.
        • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2First off, I'm not a liberal.

          But I do read several liberal news sources such as the New York TImes. I have not seen one single article about starving children or anything of that sort. And oh no Americans aren't going to buy non-essential crap. Whatever will we do? OMG people can't buy non-essential gas? Seriously are you listening to yourself? Just read your own posts. Its sickening to think in America there is someone who thinks buying non-essential goods that benefit foriegn mass producers or non-essential gas that only benefits the Middle east and wherever is a good thing. People like you are why we are in Iraq right now. BUt you wont see the light. Just keep yelling this and believing your values are right:
          DOOOOOM DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -12/+5I also highly recommend you visit this site:
      http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ...
      I think If I can't change your mind your buddy John F. Kennedy can.
      • thejimmyo, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7Now you're citing a source that regularly argues against the existence of evolution, and even goes so far as to call it an "element of witchcraft."
        http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2121

        Its editorial page is littered with hyper-paranoid columns about how all Christians would be imprisoned in the future if Hillary Clinton were President (I'm not too comfortable with the idea of a Clinton Presidency, either - but come on).
        http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=587 ...
      • thejimmyo, on 05/13/2008, -1/+6With regard to the Kennedy quotes within your ridiculous news source, it's perhaps worth noting that Kennedy was President at a time when we didn't have a ridiculous national debt, with snowballing interest rates. Perhaps he could better afford to cut into revenues in order to boost economic growth. Also, I'd be interested in what tax rates he was specifically arguing over at the time of those quotes.
      • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2Those quotes are legit regardless of the source. They were in fact spoken by Kennedy.The important point here is that once upon a time, in the not-too-distant past, there was a Democratic president who was not obsessed with class warfare, as today's Democrats are. He was willing to cut tax rates for all taxpayers, including those at the very top of the income distribution. Today's Democrats don't actually want to cut taxes at all. They only want to send out government checks to people who don't pay income taxes and call them tax cuts, while denying tax relief to those who pay the vast bulk of the federal government's bills.
    • djghosttrain, on 05/13/2008, -4/+5can you give me a source / quote from a McCain economic advisor?

      I'm not fan of McCain; I think people should start leaving their sources when they make claims on digg in general
    • icepick602, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2have you read any of Obama's economic policies? they are more expansive than McCain's
    • DSPoh, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2I am a Veteran voting for Obama and I know I'm hijacking this comment a bit, but unfortunately I am fairly new on Digg and am having a hard time spreading the word about an important Veteran issue; the New GI Bill. John McCain is the only Presidential candidate who has not signed off on it. That's right, the only Presidential candidate whom is also a Veteran has not signed off on a bill that would tremendously help our troops.

      A vote is finally going to be made on this issue, but it will be extremely close, so Digg, the troops need your help.

      Please Digg: http://tinyurl.com/5h4exx

      The troops really need help! Please help spread the word.This is how you can really support the troops! That, and voting for Obama of course =).
    • year2000, on 05/13/2008, -2/+0*****
  • TeddySanFran, on 05/13/2008, -19/+65McCain is D A N G E R O U S
    • CryRightardCry, on 05/13/2008, -14/+9And dumb and deluded.
    • ericmerrill, on 05/13/2008, -5/+6Bumper sticker material, right there.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -7/+10All politicians are dangerous because you really don't have an effective check on their power. The best you can do is recall them after they've cast their vote and done the damage. Just look at the Democratic 110th Congress, if anyone had a mandate to change it was them. Somehow I don't think the people who voted for them wanted the Patriot Act re-authorized and the war in iraq fully funded. Government doesn't work, it hasn't for a long time, so the smaller it is the less damage it can do.
      • MeHow, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Thats why we need to instate anarchy, then all the power is to the people.

        All who disagree with me, are afraid to take the power into there own hands. :P
        • WiredLain, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1No, focus your efforts on state, city, county governmental policy were you vote and voice counts for more.
    • happyseamonster, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67ANtTZpCmE&NR=1
    • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -11/+4"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

      – John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

    • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -11/+4"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

      – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
    • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -11/+3"In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."

      – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
    • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -11/+3"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."

      – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
    • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -13/+2Even more quotes from the libs favorite president here:
      http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ...
    • MrCobaltBlue, on 05/13/2008, -4/+5All 3 of these Stooges are dangerous, its just who you like more. Moe, Larry, or Hillary.
    • aliengoods, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7Hey LukasSmith, why don't you post something once in awhile. I need my every-comment fix of your opinions.
      • Forsakenmantra, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4I also enjoy how he makes every sentance and link a WHOLE new post. Reported for spamming.
      • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -6/+1They are called quotes my ignorant friend. Each of my posts is unique therefore you have no argument. Just digg down John F. Kennedy and be quiet.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -4/+5I don't know whether to jump for joy or celebrate that the libtards are digging down John F. Kennedy. Im jumping I guess.
      • mateo60, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Everyone that isn't a crazy right-winger is a liberal? (The WorldNetDaily link made me conclude the "crazy right wing" part.) Most people didn't respond to your quotes because they're kinda thin evidence and not worth arguing about. JFK was wrong in those quotes. He was also right a lot of the time. If he were alive today, would he be a big "trickle-down supply sider"? Probably not, we're in debt $9 Trillion. Tax rates are lower than they've been in decades and that's caused economic growth..... funded by the Chinese, who will stop loaning us money eventually.

        You're expecting people to come back with an argument while all you're doing is plastering quotes from your right wing paper. I used to read that back before I realized that it's not news, its a propaganda filled echo chamber.

        A fun WorldNetDaily Quotes that took me about 10 seconds to find:

        "President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks, welfare-pampered blacks" (of waiting for the federal government to save them from Hurricane Katrina.)
      • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2They are quotes from John F. Kennedy. Prove me wrong. And no you haven't already. just because you say this site i found is a right wing paper doesn't mean John F. Kennedy didn't say them. As for that quote on the bottom sounds silly but I have seen even sillier statements submitted as articles on digg.com from huffingtonpost firedoglake and rawstory. Are those partisan news sources? You bet your ass they are. Totally leftarded news.
        • mateo60, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2I don't dispute that he said them at all. I also said in my comment that JFK was off base in those statements. There is something to be said about supply side economics, but taken too far, supply side economics causes things like $9 Trillion dollar deficits and a weak dollar.
          You just used the word "lefttarded" and hope to be taken seriously?
    • Gorgamel, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2R E S P E C T find out what it means to me.
  • AshScholl, on 05/13/2008, -17/+61The neocons are using idiot McCain to continue their agenda.
    • tierpinho, on 05/13/2008, -4/+14idiot? try calculated, greedy warmonger
    • AudioPhil3, on 05/13/2008, -6/+2Ashley come home!! Your baby needs you.
    • Cyrus042, on 05/13/2008, -8/+6Neo-Conservativism is a foreign policy ideology. It has nothing to do with social or economic policy.
      • chaosium, on 05/13/2008, -1/+10War policy and the war on terrism affect social/economic policy to a critical degree.
      • happyseamonster, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7US foreign policy affects all aspects of domestic life. Including blow back, and the subsequent loss of rights. It wrecks our economy etc. They use health, education etc funds to bomb people and poison the middle east for generations.
      • Cyrus042, on 05/13/2008, -4/+1If you adopt that perspective than you also admit social/economic policy impacts foreign policy as well and that there is no independent factor in any public policy. The point remains that Neo-Conservatism in concept, is purely a foreign policy position despite the internet's wishes to attribute it to people they don't like as a pejorative term. That's the reality here, regardless if people want to spin it in to something else.

      • chaosium, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2"The point remains that Neo-Conservatism in concept, is purely a foreign policy position despite the internet's wishes to attribute it to people they don't like as a pejorative term"

        So in other words you're too stupid to understand context and externalities. Keep voting Republican!
    • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -6/+7Well, if their agenda is war and patriot act powers, they'll do fine with Obama or Clinton too, seeing as those two louts voted with McCain to tow the Bush party line on those two items.
  • dakine01, on 05/13/2008, -14/+51McCain's "leading Economic advisor" aka the Senator From Enron, also helped to propel the current housing sh*tpile.

    Yeah, those are real good credentials.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -12/+4Does that make Obama's advisor the Mayor of Candyland, because he's passing out the taxpayers money like its candy?
      • Drogoganor, on 05/13/2008, -2/+11But...but...but...Obama!

        Cop-out.
      • chaosium, on 05/13/2008, -2/+7Oh look, it's mister "i'd vote bush in a third term".
        • ogbar, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1McCain is pretty far from Bush (but dont let any facts spoil the bumpersticker)
        • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -1/+0Please locate where I ever said I supported Bush, the only candidate I can recall speaking favorably of is Ron Paul and generally I only bash candidates, like Clinton, Obama and McCain, and often times I assail them for towing Bush's line on the Patriot Act and war funding.
        • chaosium, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1"McCain is pretty far from Bush"

          Not far enough.
      • aliengoods, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2I dugg you down, but I did appreciate the originality of your username "Barackalypse". You could have also gone with "Obamageddon", but neither would make your case as you didn't cite a single example to support your theory.
  • egregiousfdl, on 05/13/2008, -12/+66Like Bush? You'll love McCain, who by his own admission knows nothing about economics.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -14/+8As opposed to the two Democratic geniuses who seem to think you can fix the economy by taxing and borrowing and spending it on social programs and other government giveaways.
      • InfamousAtheist, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3By "other government giveaways," you mean paying down our national debt, right?
        • dpazar2, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Or just making the government bigger than it already is by taxing us more to fund these new pork belly accounts.
      • jon30041, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1I think Democrats tend to think taxing is fine. I agree. It means you actually HAVE the money, whereas borrowing on credit has been the Republican stance these past eight years.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/13/2008, -8/+3You people don't seem to know much about economics either.Bush tax cuts helped the economy. Only the liberal media believes otherwise. Even John F, Kennedy thought tax cuts were the best thing to do. How low his party has sunk. They not only want to stop tax cuts they want to increase taxes. Screw them. Anyhow here is an article on the subject from the wall street journal that you must read. Of course expecting Americans to read a full article is too much effort. Thats why crapnews like firedoglake keep their articles so short. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/? ...
      • MrCobaltBlue, on 05/13/2008, -0/+7Know what else helps the economy? A stable currency.
      • jj2me, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Tax cuts (without attendant spending cuts) help the *current* economy, at the expense of future debt. There is no free lunch.

        "The taxes you paid on your recently filed 1040 included roughly $4,300 to cover your household's annual share of the interest payments on the $9.4 trillion in public debt owed by the U.S. government."
        http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Jub ...

        With your many posts, you seem intent on convincing people that debt is good. Don't you care about America's future strength (what else is a nation's strength, really, other than a fundamentally sound economy and currency)?

        P.S. Debt-financed investing in infrastructure (transportation, research, eduction, and the like) *can* be a good thing for elevating a future economy. We have, however, not seen much of this in the last 20 years by either party.
    • MrCobaltBlue, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1But he does like Sunshine.
    • Gorgamel, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4Better than the candidates that know nothing and don't admit it I'd say.
  • thezettabytes, on 05/13/2008, -10/+44Nice to see that Digg is slowly pivoting its attacks from Clinton to McCain. We have had a nice load of anti-McCain stories on the front page since th IN/NC primaries. He was getting a free pass up until now.
    • visionaryIX, on 05/13/2008, -23/+6I agree. I'm burying every single anti McCain article that hits the front page.

      As much as I wouldn't vote for him, I respect him (perhaps for what he was) - and I'd like to see the odd positive article about him for a change.
      • pintomp3, on 05/13/2008, -2/+22i respected the john mccain of the 2000 election, not this sell-out. he has flipped his stance on everything from torture to bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and cozied up to the same hateful religious right that he once denounced as "agents of intolerance". he is nothing like the maverick image he is still trying to sell.
        • visionaryIX, on 05/13/2008, -10/+2It wouldn't matter whether Barrack was running against Jesus. We'd still get negative articles about him.
        • thatsmyaibo, on 05/13/2008, -0/+8His talk is ***** to get the conservative Republican vote. He is far from a conservative but he does need the registered Republican vote. All candidates are doing it and have done it. It's more a popularity contest than what is actually better for the country.
    • paigeinphilly, on 05/13/2008, -3/+0Yup....the FREE PASS has been revoked!!!


      Obama/ Webb 08
  • MrTito, on 05/13/2008, -13/+2Stop snitchin'
    • bigsteve, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I want to carry a paintball gun and tag everyone I see in Philadelphia with those god-damn shirts on...
  • tierpinho, on 05/13/2008, -5/+34bomb bomb iran song -- need i sing more? just draft impeachment papers now
  • pintomp3, on 05/13/2008, -8/+25mccain's claim to fame is being a war-time hero. america has had enough of war.
    • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -4/+12You consider what he did to be heroic?

      Get caught, spill his guts, make anti-American videos for his captors in exchange for better treatment.

      Some hero.
      • wootup, on 05/13/2008, -4/+5"spill his guts, make anti-American videos for his captors in exchange for better treatment."

        Torture will make anybody do anything, that's why it's such a useless (and unethical) interrogation method. If you want to call out McCain for his actions in Vietnam, how about criticizing the fact that he took part in an unnecessary, illegal and immoral war on the other side of the world, dropping bombs from his fighter jet and slaughtering people? The fact that he gave in to torture - as every human being eventually does - is irrelevant.
      • willaggs, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4Buried for lies. Don't be a ***** because you don't like his policies, and know what you are talking about.
    • jack104, on 05/13/2008, -6/+2You guys are full of *****. Typical liberals with your heads shoved so far up your own @$$e$ you can fart and exhale in one motion. None of you have any right to dock McCain, you people have never spent time in a NVA prison camp. Some of the things the North Vietnamese did to those captured Americans is just despicable. To top it off, McCain was given the opportunity to leave because his father was the admiral in command of sea operations, McCain denied the opportunity because he would not abandon his friends.
  • Consh, on 05/13/2008, -20/+5What happens when Digg ceases to have a target to focus their rage on?

    Diggrage, if you will.
    • jack104, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1My sentiments exactly, this website has its own agenda.
    • icepick602, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Interesting stories will once again appear on the front page, instead of election spam... I can't ***** wait till November
  • ericmerrill, on 05/13/2008, -17/+6Wait, this isn't an anti-Hillary ad! Nor does it feature a story about Obama climbing a tree to save a kitten. Not political at all. What the hell, diggers.
    • JavertHolmes, on 05/13/2008, -7/+5The Digg populace must slowly become acclimatized to moving from hating Clinton to McCain. This is one of the opening volleys in the next 6 months of special interest propaganda to hit the front page.
      • ericmerrill, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5Yes...we must ween our hatred.

        Digg is such a fascinating little democracy. It's only a matter of time before somebody writes their doctoral thesis on it. I wonder if it'll be dugg, or buried.
        • Bhima, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4It was written long before Digg came to existence... it's called "Lord of the Flies"
  • Ryan166, on 05/13/2008, -21/+15And when have socialist economic policies like that of Obama/Clinton ever worked? Lets face it, were f*cked no matter who gets voted potus.
    • pintomp3, on 05/13/2008, -2/+14they seemed to have worked pretty well in most of europe. the free-market policies didn't workout so well in chile under pinochet.
    • Drogoganor, on 05/13/2008, -4/+15Pretty well actually, take a look at Clinton's surplus
      • Ryan166, on 05/13/2008, -12/+3Clinton never created a budget surplus. But actually a $281 billion deficit.
      • kreneskyp, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2if you factor in that republicans can't stand having extra money lying around thereby forcing bush to spend the entire surplus and then some, then yes you're absolutely correct.
    • 140Suffolk, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Europe is moving away from the socialist anti-American anti-Bush stance. That's why they elected pro-market pro-American pro-Bush leaders in Germany, Italy, and France.
  • URnotheonly1, on 05/13/2008, -16/+10Democrats blocked the energy bill
    • URnotheonly1, on 05/13/2008, -12/+2and lets not forget their legislation that mandated mortgages to people who weren't qualified
    • Drogoganor, on 05/13/2008, -2/+13Both lies, big surprise there.
      • URnotheonly1, on 05/13/2008, -11/+4drink some more koolaid
        • URnotheonly1, on 05/13/2008, -9/+1When Bill Clinton gave that pen to Sanford Weill, it symbolized the ending of the twentieth century Democratic Party that had created the New Deal. Although the 1999 law did not repeal all of the banking Act of 1933, retaining the FDIC, it did once again allow banks to enter the securities business, becoming what some term "whole banks."

          The repeal of one of the most important pieces of legislation in this nation's history came about as a result of another Clinton "triangulation," the wobbling attempt to find the middle of the road that has somehow managed to pass for a philosophy with many Democrats for over two decades. As former Clinton former campaign Richard Morris once described it, you move a little to the left, a little to the right. I'd love to hear Clinton give that explanation to a foreclosed home owner today...
        • kreneskyp, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4they made it easier for banks to loan money. They didn't mandate that they loan the money, The did not in any way force them to loan money to people who couldn't afford it.

          The banks knowingly made bad loan decisions. Then they polished these turds and pushed them on other people.

          you're argument is like saying the expiration of the brady bill is the government forcing people to go on murder sprees.
        • InfamousAtheist, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Hey UR, you're supposed to cite when you quote someone else's words. Your post reeks of plagiarism.
    • Forsakenmantra, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1You really like responding to your own comments.
  • beyondinfinity, on 05/13/2008, -10/+34God Help us if the Republicans win again in Nov...
    • URnotheonly1, on 05/13/2008, -13/+7why, won't get your welfare?
      • oggdogg, on 05/13/2008, -1/+13We're getting that now, thinly disguised as a small tax-rebate!
        • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2I wonder if URnotheonly1 is "above" cashing his welfare check....
      • barnett25, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Didn't you get the memo? Republicans are no longer about smaller government and personal accountability. That's now the Libertarians.
      • paigeinphilly, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1welfare?...remember we Dems are being cast as the "elitist" group...ya know...educated...making money...eating organic & free range....

        make up your dang mind will ya?

        Obama/ Webb 08
    • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -9/+6Actually it was the Democrats that won last November (2006) to take control of Congress. That Congress has an 11% approval rating, the lowest ever, and even master moron Bush rates 29%. Why the liberal masses here seem to think that electing one of the Senators from that Congress is going to cause change is beyond me. Voting for any one of the three candidates is as bad as voting for Bush a third time seeing as those three louts backed him on the Patriot Act renewal and the continued Iraq was funding.
      http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1 ...
      • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7Just how large is that margin of majority in Congress? You speak as if 100% of the members are Democrats, and it's ALL THEIR FAULT!

        *****. They hold a very slim majority, and the Republicans still holding their positions are fighting like hell to make sure NOTHING gets accomplished.

        Every single Republican in Congress shares in that 11% approval rating. in fact, they're causing much of it.
  • OC73, on 05/13/2008, -26/+4McCain’s Economic Policies Like A Third Bush Term? No.
  • JavertHolmes, on 05/13/2008, -16/+8Every US election story that reaches the front page = Web 2.0 equivalent of two minute hate (see: Wikipedia: two minutes hate, 1984). Does anyone with an IQ over 100 really believe that Hillary Clinton and McCain are the next two antichrists while Obama can do absolutely no wrong? Give me a break.

    If you think Digg is any more "Fair and balanced" than Fox news in its election coverage then you should promptly remove your head from your own interior.

    • Drogoganor, on 05/13/2008, -4/+14"If you think Digg is any more "Fair and balanced" than Fox"

      I love this facile comparison.

      Who said it was fair and balanced? Digg reflects the opinions of its readers. Seems like republicans want to shriek bias so as to get more favourable coverage for their candidate.
      • JavertHolmes, on 05/13/2008, -8/+5I'm not a republican. I'm actually a liberal. I still think the stories are stupid. If McCain, Clinton, or Obama ever really does something wrong then it'll go unnoticed due to being lost in a ***** of other crap that makes it to the front page. I think *that* is the most unfortunate part.

        Digg doesn't necessarily represent the opinions of its readers either. People game the site.

      • JointVenture, on 05/13/2008, -4/+2Excuse me? Have you seen how fast a huffpost gets on the frontpage?

        Digg stories are easily manipulated by shouts and web pages like huffpost that emphasize digg with big boxes at the top that say SUPPORT US DIGG THIS.

        Wake the ***** up, social networking is just a clean way of saying GROUPTHINK, and yes it seems the youth/20 somethings are more of a electronic herd than older demographics.

        Just look at KITTENS, do you really think they are that cool or is it because the group tells you they are?
  • bc289, on 05/13/2008, -3/+16All of the candidates' economic policies are bad. And talking about deficits, I think it will widen under all candidates, including the beloved Obama. He wants higher taxes, but his spending plans are pretty big too.
    • dpazar2, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4At least McCain knows that there is lots of fat (not needed branches of Government) to be trimmed and will do it. These are easy ways to save money, ways to save money without raising taxes.
      • WiredLain, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Yeah I can suggest a big honking peace of governmental fat to slice off and do away with. It's called the Iraq War.
  • Drogoganor, on 05/13/2008, -11/+28Oooh, fragile little conservatives. Quick, bury it! It portrays McCain in a bad light - it must be biased! Shoot the messenger!
    • thatsmyaibo, on 05/13/2008, -10/+13Well be honest, an Obama story that portrays him in a negative light would never make it to the front page. Digg = leftist center of information. This isn't a slam on any candidate left or right but let's be honest, digg is 1-sided.
      • Drogoganor, on 05/13/2008, -5/+9That's democracy bitch, take it like a man.
        • AlexWills, on 05/13/2008, -4/+3The leftists certainly don't every election.
        • thatsmyaibo, on 05/13/2008, -5/+3I understand it's a democracy but the convoluted people like you think that digg is representative of the world outside of their mom's basement. What's popular on digg does not reflect actual popular opinion...bitch.
      • dpazar2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1wel...it is a blog from one person's point of view...to say there is no bias is plain ignorance.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -1/+15Conservatives hate McCain too.
  • jerrycurley, on 05/13/2008, -18/+5I hope firedoglake keeps this up. Having them against McCain is a sure way to get him elected.
    • Drogoganor, on 05/13/2008, -0/+8Yeah I'm sure the general public knows who the ***** firedoglake are.
      • thatsmyaibo, on 05/13/2008, -6/+3Exactly. It's just a hardcore left wing blog that diggers eat up because it shares their views. The world outside of digg is a very different place.
        • Drogoganor, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7Outside of Digg, McCain is still getting flogged in the polls. Sorry.
          • thatsmyaibo, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1Proof?
          • jerrycurley, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0Yeah...uhhh...proof? Because he is not. He is losing by a bit. But not even close to "getting flogged" as you say.
        • Delphium226, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2boohoo
    • alacrity2005, on 05/13/2008, -0/+8McSame doesn't have a chance in hell of getting elected. He's this years Bob Dole. Ask the continued series of republicans who've lost prime offices how much of a chance Bob/John has. The ONLY reason John/Bob isn't in the toilet already is because it's been Obama v Clinton for ALL the press coverage and attention and anything involving McSame has been distinctly back seat. When it's Obama v McSame he's going to drop like a stone. Can you imagine what the debates will look like...? Grampa Munster McStiff vs Young, Vibrant, Well Spoken Bobby Kennedy. Lambs to the slaughter.
      • 140Suffolk, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Yeah. Responsible war-hero against born-Muslim white-hating slavery-reparations-supporting high-taxing socialist backed-by-Hamas phony. Bring it.
        • alacrity2005, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1You SO don't have a clue how this race will be cast. It will be brought, and you will not like the result, little man.
      • jerrycurley, on 05/14/2008, -1/+0Yawn...another 12 year old RonPaulian making himself look juvenile and foolish with silly name calling like McSame, McStiff etc.

        Honestly...just a tip...that ***** won't fly hen you get to high school. Luckily for you, you have 2 more years before that happens.
        • alacrity2005, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Really?? That ***** has been working GREAT for Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and pretty much the entire right wing for the last 16 years. Sorta stings when your own tactic is used against you though, doesn't it. And just so you know... Hate Ron Paul, and the pathetic, weak "high school" taunts make YOU look more like you're in High School than me.

  • Cyrus042, on 05/13/2008, -3/+19The government, specifically the executive administration has very little control over the economy. The power that the government does have is mostly vested in non-partisan positions. A sour economy always finds its way into elections regardless of why or how it happened. Can the government be held responsible for the sub-prime mortgage and hedge trading? Well, if you do, then you might want to blame the deregulation that occurred before Bush was in office.

    The fact of the matter is that in reality, no president has ever been significantly influential to the economy. It just doesn't work that way. Also, I think its odd that FDL is critical of the fact that McCain had Gramm speak at a town hall meeting with him. Candidates do this all the time, they bring surrogates with them to help stump, or they bring them to round table discussions. All the candidates do and should have economic advisers.

    On Feb 22nd, Obama had 4 foreign policy advisors participate in a town hall round table discussion in Texas. Again, there's nothing wrong with this.

    Source : http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stat ...
    • ethornquist, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4Rather than bash McCain, I tend to agree with Cyrus042. Does presidential policy cause the economy to change? To some degree . . . but this post seems more correct than most would admit.
    • sloppychris, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4What economics qualifications do you have? Proclaiming facts of the matter, etc.
      • Cyrus042, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3It's an informed observation that also includes the consistent opinions of various professors. The government, specifically the legislative branch can impact the economy but it really only happens through tax policy which even then is not a prime variable and believe it or not, taxes don't often change. (Let me make the qualification that prohibitive taxes would no doubt dramatically impact the economy, but let's assume that tax rates are typical) The government can attempt to give the economy a rudder or sails, but it really doesn't drive the economy, and it really shouldn't.


        For the executive branch, the President can impact the economy through bureaucratic policy means but again, it's not always a direct impact. Administrations can try and drive legislation, and if they're successful, you could argue it was their responsibility. However, unless the President is making incredibly dramatic steps through some huge program (See New Deal policies), which even then is also the responsibility of legislature (approval of budget) then chances are that they have little influence.

        Here's a Newsweek article that elaborates on my point: http://www.newsweek.com/id/108382/page/1

        Also notice in the article: the Presidents whom the author cite as exercising control over the economy are really doing so through the Federal Reserve, which does not serve at the pleasure of the President and is therefore not beholden to the executive branch. (Congress does have limited oversight, but does not set budgets etc) So in a sense, I think he gives too much credit to the Nixon, Carter since they had no direct impact on the Feds decision making. For example, Bush may have asked the Fed to drop interest rates following the subprime crisis, but ultimately, Bernanke et al make that decision independently.

        The fact of the matter is that the economy is almost entirely impacted by events outside the governments control. New commodities, new products, new methods of delivery. The internet for example, contributed much to the economic boom in the late 90s. Oil prices may change depending on foreign wars, environmental disaster. All sorts of things change the economy, and they're way beyond the control of any one person or group of persons.
        • WiredLain, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Oh, like the government couldn't take away all the perks corporation have been getting since they are outsourcing american jobs. Like hey couldn't raise and add tariffs on imported products that these same corporations produce.
      • sloppychris, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the thought out answer, though I do disagree. I'll read the article you linked.
    • AzDraon, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Just wanted to say Thank you Cyrus for being the first one to post an intelligent remark on this. It hurts my head when I read these articles and no one says anything about how misleading not only the article is, but even the ignorance on the subject of economics people can be.

      To answer sloppychris's question for Cyrus, he does not need any economic qualifications in order to state this simple fact. Anyone that has taken more advanced econ courses in college knows this. (Don't mean to insult, no one but Econ Major's really need to take adv. econ classes)
    • FecalHurler, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3A well written post. However, the current housing crisis can somewhat be attributed to the government. For example, though I can't quote the exact regulation, I read that the Fed's lightened their oversight of the housing division, meaning that banks had more control over who they gave loans and mortages to. Bear Stearns is a perfect example of someone who used this easing of regulation to their advantage (I believe it's called the 'too big to fail' rule). Knowing they would get backed by the Fed, they knowlingly gave loans to unqualified lenders. NAFTA is another example of how Federal regulations are really hurting this economy. Must I mention the war, as well? I agree that people blame the government too much, but there are plenty of ways in which they're making things worse instead of better.
      • Cyrus042, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3The housing crisis is, and always be the fault of private banks, businesses and individuals. Speculative lending was not the fault of the government, however, let me qualify that it may have made it easier through some deregulation. During the Clinton administration some deregulation occurred that made it easier for banks to operate in lending (I also cant remember the specifics), but it essentially occurred during a period of economic growth, and it was felt that the regulation was prohibiting greater growth. (Regulation works in both ways, and thats important to remember)

        If I remember correctly, "the too big to fail" rule is the reason why the Fed reserve helped bail out Bear Stearns because they were entangled with so many other lending/banking institutions and the perception was that if Bear Stearns failed, then it would be followed by economic disaster. So really, they were too big to let them fail, they had to stay in business or else smaller banks would also fail with them. (At least this was the argument/perception, I make no claims to know whether this would or would not occur)

        I doubt that any of the lending institutions knew how bad it would get, and I think that after the loans became bundled that many incorrectly assumed that they potentially could yield big gains (In reality, it couldn't, it wasn't high risk it was pure risk). As we know, those bundled loans were all bad. Know, we need to note that Bear Stearns didn't make the loans to individuals. This is a big tangled mess, you can look it up if you want greater clarification because it's too much to explain here, but in essence it involved the buying and re-selling of bundles of loans that were made by small banks and private mortgage brokers.

        On NAFTA, and free trade agreements in general, I have to disagree. There is no doubt that FTAs can severely impact specialized economies in some areas, (ex. Rustbelt) but on the whole, they do bring greater growth to the nation. The problem is that these FTAs have become political. For example, the Columbian FTA was shot down, but did you know that much of what we import from them are tariff free? That FTA would almost entirely be our gain, it would remove the barriers to our exports to them.

        Historically, FTA have been bipartisan, but lately for some reason, they've become politicized and some how anti-FTA sentiment is populist. As for the war, I'm not sure how it could be negatively impacting the economy. Historically wars contribute to economic growth because of the increased employment for defense contractors. Wars are also typically funded by deficit spending regardless of the economic climate and are not really taken from other slice of the budget pie. (I.E. War spending doesn't necessarily result in less spending for other projects) Again, in general, they typically bring greater economic growth.
        • FecalHurler, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Thank you. I appreciate the informative response... I will try to look into some of the things you've mentioned. I Dugg you up.
          However I must respectfully disagree about the war's impact on the economy. Things are different now then they were during WW2, where what you are referring to was taking place. I also do not see how the work done by Haliburton and the like really help the economy in any major way. In my view (and perhaps one that is too simplistic) all I see are dollar signs, and more unneccesary spending. I'll also admit that I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it not taking money from other areas of the budget... I'm no Eco major, I'll admit, but I do know that money has to come from somewhere. Either we're borrowing it all, or using it from our own budget.
    • Donwangugi, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2FDR had a huge sway over the economy by creating jobs with some of the plans in the New Deal. Additionally, the governments policies concerning the war, and spending has laid the dollar bare. One of things that makes the current subprime crisis so bad is that the Fed is between a rock and a hard place. With inflation continuing in many sectors of the market, specifically commodities. The fed is still attempting to make money more liquid. This could result in a much worse economic situation.

      There are things the president, and the government can do to combat these economic woes. Yet no steps have been taken.
      • Cyrus042, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1FDR did impact the economy in ways that is untypical for any President because of the extreme economic crisis during that time. What happened at that time is unique and doesn't really represent what the average President has the capability to do.

        I don't see how war spending has "laid the dollar bare". The value of the dollar is completely a result of international faith in the dollar mostly spurred by the perceived and somewhat real economic issues in the US. Most of this is the result of the contraction of credit and the decline of investment and spending. Yes, inflation is increasing because the Fed is attempting to re-expand credit as to avoid further contraction. So the declining dollar is a result of at least these two factors. (Again, I don't see the correlation to the war) Oil prices are increasing because first, it's an international commodity is immediately susceptible to a weakening currency (as we've noted), and also possibly because some increased demand (I do not believe this makes a large impact, but it is no doubt a factor, albeit in my opinion, smaller).

        Domestic commodities and local services are not as susceptible to a weakening dollar because simply, were all in the same economic boat so to speak.

        Again, all of the things you noted are a result of the Fed and private businesses/individuals. I believe the Fed are doing the right thing in expanding credit. (Make no mistake, they will raise the prime rates once things turn up). As I've noted in a separate comment, the Fed is not at the behest of the President. So I reaffirm my original claim that the President has very little control, and that the control the government does have exists in non-political positions: The Fed.
  • dildoolielly, on 05/13/2008, -9/+13Alcoholics fund John McCain's endeavors

    Cindy McCain is an Arizona businesswoman and the wife of U.S. senator John McCain. She is also the daughter of a prominent Arizona liquor distributor.

    --Real "Family Values" here, folks!

    Since 2000 she has been the chairman of Hensley & Company, the Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship founded by her father in 1955.

    --What large alcohol or tobacco company would Jesus chair?

    She met John when he was still married

    John McCain was old enough to drink when Cindy was born

    --These people should not be running the country. These people are corporate whore lobbyists, self-righteous nutbars and the world's biggest hypocrites. They represent large corporate interests, not the American people. They are not for "Democracy", they are for a plutocracy. Which is why they should never be allowed anywhere near the seat of Gov't or anywhere near our CHILDREN!!! They belong in treatment counseling or in the looney bin
    • AlexWills, on 05/13/2008, -5/+6Under Cindy McCain, sales doubled for the company. How is this sort of business experience and philantrophy she has shown over the years in a spouse worse than the opposition's lack of pride in her own country until her husband became electable?
    • dpazar2, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4Corporate... even though McCain's voting record shows him voting against Pharmaceutical giants in order to get generic drugs on the market and extended rebates to those using medicaid.
    • bigsteve, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3I'm no McCain supporter but I don't think her father's involvement in liquor distribution has anything to do with his viability as a president. Also, Anheuser-Busch as a company spends a ton of money distributing pro-education and pro-environmental grants and donations. About $60mil since 2002, not too shabby.

      And Jesus loved him some wine.
    • ogbar, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1**--These people should not be running the country. These people are corporate whore lobbyists, self-righteous nutbars and the world's biggest hypocrites. They represent large corporate interests, not the American people. They are not for "Democracy", they are for a plutocracy. Which is why they should never be allowed anywhere near the seat of Gov't or anywhere near our CHILDREN!!! They belong in treatment counseling or in the looney bin**

      McCain is Hardly a lobbyist whore... unlike Obama and Clinton. And self Righteous? Have you ever listened to how liberals like to tell you whats good and bad for you and try to control you through taxation and laws? Your side wants nothing but big government to run our lives and people to be dependent. And near our Children? Dya know the breakdown of who between libs and conserves give the most to childrens charities? (any charity that is).
  • javlin4u, on 05/13/2008, -2/+6I suppose this is more of an observation than an actual comment BUT, anyone else notice the McCain ads on Digg?

    Subtle endorsement or just business...?
    • ethornquist, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3Business, I'd guess. Leave the endorsements to Faux News.
      • ogbar, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You people are so funny in how you hate fox news. the only major news station with views that aren't Obviously slanted to the left. Leave it to liberals to try to smear and smash opposing voices that don't follow their agenda
    • Spartycus, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3If its an endorsement, they arent doing it very well... lol
  • dildoolielly, on 05/13/2008, -6/+20""I enjoyed shooting rockets and dropping bombs and shooting off guns,.....Nobody in their right mind wouldn't enjoy that. . . . Nobody deserves to get paid for that." --John McCain

    Not only is McCain too old to be President in this very desperate time of our Nation's history, McCain, IS DAMAGED GOODS sad but true.

    I've met him...he's a great American but he suffers from post traumatic stress syndrome. Very real...with very real consequences.

    God Bless him...but John McCain spent too much time locked up in a tiger cage, abused and tortured ....and that long term trama never goes away. He can not be elected.

    He is damaged goods. It's sad but true.
    • JointVenture, on 05/13/2008, -0/+6Some would say a man abandoned by both his parents is "damaged goods".

      Who knows what kind of psychological damage is simmering beneath the smiles and hand shakes.
    • nastronomical, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2errr prove it.
    • dpazar2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3So when you met him, how did his PTSS show? I would like to hear this.
  • masterm1nd, on 05/13/2008, -15/+12And... socialism will be better?
    • ethornquist, on 05/13/2008, -3/+5Uh . . . what. Tell us a bit more
      so us dumb hayseeds can understand
      your comment.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/13/2008, -7/+8McCain is basically a half socialist, which is bad for economy. The two alternatives to McCain, are basically full blown socialists, which is even worse. I don't get it, arguably the most important issue, and all three possible candidates fail at it.
        • Bhima, on 05/13/2008, -4/+5This is obviously some new use of the word "Socialist" that us socialists don't use.
        • Delphium226, on 05/13/2008, -4/+4@Bhima

          The definition of 'Socialist' is anything a repugger doesn't agree with, e.g. 'That man stole my biscuit! He must be a socialist!' or 'That woman has one leg shorter than the other and is pregnant outside of wedlock! She must be a socialist!''
        • metaknite, on 05/13/2008, -3/+4My definition of a socialist is anyone who thinks the government should be involved in the running of the economy/personal lives of its citizens. I have friends who gladly call themselves socialists and are supported to the overthrow of capitalist America. They also are Democrats. I do not mean to imply causality but there definitely is a correlation.
        • absurdist, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1"When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean; no more, no less."
          -Humpty Dumpty
        • masterm1nd, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4Why do you support socialism and socialist candidates, than talk about like it's a bad thing when I mention it?
    • FredFredrickson, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3Socialism? Who said anything about socialism?
      • 140Suffolk, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3Obama wants us to send billions to the UN for "world poverty". Taking from the ones who earn it and giving to the ones who don't. That's socialism. Of course the UN apparatchniks will grab it all anyway.
        • FredFredrickson, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Billions to the UN for "world poverty" is better than trillions to Iraq to slaughter people and steal resources. Get your ***** straight, son.
          • 140Suffolk, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I don't think so. Betcha America doesn't think so either.
  • AlexWills, on 05/13/2008, -8/+5What about Nancy Pelosi's opposition to the free trade agreement with Colombia? Is it any wonder why unemployment stays low in eras of Republican control in congress?
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/13/2008, -4/+18Let's be realistic, we can't afford any of these candidates, or any of their counterparts in congress. Nobody has propsed any of the massive spending cuts and government reform we need, except for fringe candidates.

    And I know people are gettting sick of this, but it's painfully obvious and true and needs to be highlighted...... check out California's year to year budget (the growth is mind boggling and unsustainable), HUGE deficits, and overall public sector performance... like their counterparts, democrats don't know anything about economics either. Republicans have shown how incompetent they are on the federal level when given total power.... all I'm saying, vote for who you want, but the differences are minute at best... any candidate is going to help grow the government at 8-12% a year, doubling inflation easily

    More than anything both parties have been turning "pissing away money with low return" into an artform.
  • cserviss, on 05/13/2008, -3/+5We are in SERIOUS TROUBLE if this guy gets any more of his dirty hands in U.S. politics...

    None of the candidates are perfect, but please, some are just obviously wrong, stay awake America!!!!
    • ogbar, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1huh? Dirty hands? I can assume you're for Obama... and he is as dirty as anyone else... doesn't receive money from lobbyists (yea... uh huh), he had No idea Rev. Wright was a racist, anti American hate monger (yep yep), etc etc...
  • GrodyChamp, on 05/13/2008, -11/+11Good old firedoglake, home of completely unbiased "reporting".....

    Digg makes me ***** sick these days. It's dumbass 20 somethings sucking eachothers dicks. Get off the kool aid douchebags.
    • ethornquist, on 05/13/2008, -1/+10Digg is a social news network. The pro-Obama folks are digging stories,
      the McCainiacs are writing hate messages like yours, and every so
      often the Ron Paul folks take Digg for a joyride. If you come to Digg for
      unbiased news, them you don't understand Digg.

      Sincerely,

      An American
    • RainDrizzleFog, on 05/13/2008, -0/+13I love it when idiots on Digg bash Digg. GTFO.
      • pjpete, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I wish I could digg this comment more than once!
  • JointVenture, on 05/13/2008, -11/+8You 20 something first time voters are a good laugh, you think you know everything there is because you just took a political science course.

    History tells us what happened the last time 20 somethings ran a country, I think its called Cambodia.
    • BuzzFriendly, on 05/13/2008, -1/+11You know what the 20 somethings see? Just how well the 30, 40, 50+ have screwed the US economy and world standing of the US. One does not need a political science class to see that.
      • JointVenture, on 05/13/2008, -3/+3You can always move to one of these perfect nations you daydream about.

        Have you ever lived outside the USA?
        • BuzzFriendly, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Guam,Norway, South Africa and Turkey. You? Besides I said nothing about perfect countries, so stop making more statements that continue to make you look foolish with an obvious lack of education. If there was a vaccine for stupidly, I would be happy buy you one.
    • soinie, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3Another right wing twit with no sense of history or facts who heard of Pol Pot only because Rush Limbaugh mentioned him and Hilary Clinton in the same sentence and who originally thought Pol Pot was some type of super weed from Panama.
      • JointVenture, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1I live in Bangkok 6 months of the year ya *****. I dont listen to Rushy, and Im not a Republican.

        I've been to PP, have you?
    • FredFredrickson, on 05/13/2008, -0/+320-somethings want something besides a sequel to Bush, and you blame them for the problems we have? Someone's got a case of senile dementia, it seems.
      • JointVenture, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2I'm not that old, and I'm not at all surprised that 20 somethings would respond the way they have, I would have done the same when I was in my 20's.

        I also once believed in Santa Claus and then I grew up.

        If you think you know ALL you need to know when you are in your 20's you've got a long hard road ahead of you.

        I didn't blame 20 somethings for anything in the past, I am a little concerned about the mistakes we might make in the future because of the knee jerk emotional decisions that might be made by inexperienced, blog educated, and social networked minds.
        • FredFredrickson, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Yes, 20-somethings are all a bunch of naive retards, who will one day "awaken" and suddenly realize the errors of their ways and start voting conservatively. Santa Claus indeed! /sarcasm

          Back in reality, I don't think that 20-somethings are the only ones who are fed up with all the ***** Republicans have put us through over the last 7 years.
  • thedunlap, on 05/13/2008, -0/+7Anyone who thinks the gas tax is a "good" idea shouldn't be allowed to run for office. Clearly it will just bring prices back to the same place as demand subsequently increases. Hillary is also a supporter of this, and has said things to the end that economists are "elitists" and her plans (that contradict those "elitists") would work if people would just do them correctly....
    • korvan504521, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3Are you talking about the gas tax we pay, or the proposed gas tax on the companies? Because I think a gas tax is a good way of distributing the transit system's cost over those who use it. The problem is that it should be required that state departments use the money from it only for transit related tasks.
      Road Construction, Mass Transit, Maintenance, Safety Studies, that sort of thing.
      • Nevarius, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I agree. Our infrastructure is showing its wear, its age and its about time that we fix it.
  • themagellan, on 05/13/2008, -10/+8I'm no supporter of Mccain or hillary, but the way digg users post news is just terrible. You are no better than the biased main stream media. The way you state your topics as obvious questions suck.


    ***** it. you ***** suck dude die.
  • nastronomical, on 05/13/2008, -8/+8Ok, Prove it! With facts and evidence to backup this horible thread. I know it's hard for the sheeple of Digg to do so...but i still gotta ask you to prove it!!
    • Delphium226, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1So says he/she/it who never substantiates any of the bull he/she/it posts.
  • BuzzFriendly, on 05/13/2008, -5/+7What's the problem with McCain economic policies? They are perfectly suitable for further ruining the US economy.
  • DesignFan, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2You have to admit he has not said anything different at this point. I think if he does not he will be doomed in the election.
    • mizike, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Why? You fools elected Bush. Twice. As soon as he starts screaming about terrorism and 9/11, the votes will come pouring in.
      • jon30041, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1... I was 17 in at the time of the last General, so I couldn't vote. Illinois went to Kerry (positive) and Gore (I think) both of the past two elections.

        ***** you, my state didn't get duped by a Bush. We did, however, get duped by a Blagojevich.
  • TriTech, on 05/13/2008, -3/+4I've been a strong supporter of McCain since 1999; but I don't think we can afford him in 2008. I think he will be surrounded by the same idiots that have brought us to this sorry state of domestic economy and foreign policy.
    • RepubOperative, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You mean like we must quit giving impoverished minorities and white trash loans so that they stop bankrupting the banks?
  • liuite, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2I am sure he will continue Bush's environmental policies as well. oil companies are drilling and building pipelines illegally in Alaska due to record profits.
  • stealthc, on 05/13/2008, -5/+5Let me get this straight Digg: you make fun of McCain for knowing nothing about economics, and you also make fun of Ron Paul for his comparatively transcendent economic literacy?

    Obaaaaaama 08 indeed.
    • trikstep, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2OBAMA IS ANOTHER CFR HENCHMAN. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
    • zuma777, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1stealthc is being sarcastic see how stealthc stretched out the a's as in baaaaah like a sheep trust me on this and check out his podcast top of center then you'll know the beauty of the joke here.
  • BrewmasterC, on 05/13/2008, -4/+6Ron Paul's is way better. Cut back to year 2000 spending levels, stop the fed from distorting the market, try to get the treasury to back our dollars with some hard assets, and in veto veritas.
  • jayscot, on 05/13/2008, -9/+6Bush's failures? He fails at being a good conservative.
    Bush succeeds in keeping us from having to fight a war in our back yard.
    • Dwebtron, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2the only war i'm going to fight in my backyard would be against ticks and deer, maybe my neighbor who's an accountant over who's Christmas lights look better. I'd rather fight them than Iran/Iraq's any day
  • soinie, on 05/13/2008, -3/+3McCain is George Bush's brain on crack.
  • skrowl, on 05/13/2008, -9/+7Yeah, damn George W Bush. We've had GDP growth every quarter since he's been in office. Yet, somehow, the economy is in shambles because my TV tells me it is!
    Really, what metrics are they using to say the administrations economic policies have failed?
    • 140Suffolk, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2They're pulling it bleeding out of their buttocks. That's what metrics.
    • wayzup, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1GDP includes military/defense spending so the $520 BILLION we've poured into the non-Congressionally declared wars count as a positive in terms of our economy's main measuring stick. Sure, those funds would have been allocated elsewhere had we not illegally invaded Iraq and occupied Afghanistan but the billions of missing dollars, the ridiculously over-estimated and taken advantage of no-bid contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries and the other related costs of those wars (vet health & psychological biils, sub-contracts, bribes, etc) not going toward the GDP would have us in the 4 year of recession domestically. In order to inaccurately describe our economy as OK and say we're not in the middle of a recession/depression, we have no choice but to continue spending billions & billions on a country that does't want us there.

      But hey, at least CNN/MSNBC/Faux News can get talking head politicians like McCain to say "a recession is two quarters of negative GDP growth so we're all good" so the neocon followers can sleep better at night. If even half of them knew what goes into figuring the GDP, their opinions would be vastly different.
  • Skooma714, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5To be fair so will Obama's probably.

    President is only the top of a large pyramid, and that pyramid will be largely unchanged next Febuary.
  • JebBlack, on 05/13/2008, -2/+7What is the difference between Hillary, Obama & McCain's economic plan? They'll all continue to allow the Federal Reserve to screw you in the arse ad infinitum.
  • dvs249, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2I'm glad McCain has an Economic adviser. None of the presidential candidates know enough about macroeconomic policy to have a coherent plan. He is just able to admit that he doesn't know enough about economics. Do Hilary and Obama have doctorates in economic policy? Anybody shaping policy like that should.
  • AvangionQ, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2"Can America afford a presidential candidate who has to bring along an economic adviser in order to be coherent on the subject? Not after the last few years of Bush Administration arrogance in the face of failures, it can't. Especially when that adviser (and rumored to be a leading contender for a McCain Treasury Secretary spot) is former Senator Phil Gramm (TX-Enron), whose out of touch tendencies led to many a Molly Ivins ribbing back in the day? So what is McCain's economic strategy? Hell if I know -- or anyone else for that matter -- because it's one big mish-mash, other than the fact that he likes to throw out "spend less and tax the wealthy less for trickle down" platitudes like some magic fairy dust. Sounds like someone has a case of Jack Kemp-itis, without actually comprehending its ramifications on anyone not living in a gated community (YouTube) with deep water yacht slips." ... considering that the economy will be a political hot-button issue, John McCain will be forced to examine his position on the subject and give a definitive answer to his critics by the time the Democratic nominee is selected ... John McCain's free pass with the press will be but a short lived respite and should be nothing less than an opportunity for him to gather the requisite intelligence on our economy, then tell the country his plan ... and that should be a make-it or break-it moment for the Republican party ...
    • ender7074, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0Obama has the free pass with the press. Dont ever forget that.
  • jack104, on 05/13/2008, -6/+2Wow. Sensorship at its finest. If you say something even slightly against Obama or slightly in support of McCain and his HEROIC ACTIONS IN VIETNAM. Your comment gets buried. This website is no better than CNN or Foxnews.
    • Shadic, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Maybe if you could properly spell what this website is apparently suffering from.
      • jack104, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0I'm sorry, what did I misspell that detracts from the point I was trying to make?
  • ender7074, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4Obama wants to increase spending by about a trillion dollars. Thats a trillion above what we already spend. Yah, that'd be great for the country.....
    • basefx, on 05/13/2008, -1/+0At least it's money going to worthwile programs that need serious reform, not just being burnt up in an unnecessary foreign conflict.
      • ender7074, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0That has to be in the top ten dumbass comments I've ever seen. So we run the country broke because its for what some people would feel is "worthwhile"? Maybe some of us think that spreading freedom is worthwhile and is worth spending money on. A hellouva lot more worthwhile than watching trillions of dollars be pissed away on worthless pork barrel social BS programs. You idiots go on and on about Bush's spending but when the fact that Obama wants to add a trillion dollars to that, you're ok with it? Jesus you people are completely insane.
      • basefx, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0I don't even know where to begin with you. "Spreading Freedom"? You can't be serious, I thought that was just a ridiculous slogan but for you to fall for that garbage hook line and sinker is pathetic. I bet you think the mission was "accomplished" as well. Oh yes.. things are so great over there they have to bribe belligerents to stop fighting while still having to do normal peace keeping work. Bombing the infrastructure and giving away insane amounts of money in contracts to shoddily rebuild it, all par for the course huh? Meanwhile in this country, education reform is pork barrel spending? Health care reform is pork barrel spending? Providing care for the very soldiers wounded "spreading the freedom" is pork barrel spending?
  • amightywind, on 05/13/2008, -4/+4McCain is wisely maneuvering to grab Hillary supporters who will not back Obomber. As a conservative what I hear from him is troubling, but it is a smart strategy.
    • trikstep, on 05/13/2008, -4/+2DONT YOU KNOW MCCAIN IS A CFR HENCHMAN, HE DOESNT GIVE A ***** ABOUT YOU OR YOUR FAMILY. HES AN NWO BOY JUST LIKE OBAMA AND HILLARY. HE KNOWS WE'RE ALL BEING SCREWED OUT OF OUR LIBERTIES AND HE WELCOMES IT. BETTER CHECK YOUR FACTS. THIS WHOLE POLITICAL GAME IS A SHAM, TO KEEP YOU DISTRACTED FROM THE TRUTH.
      • amightywind, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I should have guessed. Ron Paul. I am impressed at his fund raising capability, but the guy is a total wacko.
    • 98percentcogdis, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1You are a mighty wind alright! What did he say that was not factual? Do you honor the Constitution? Do you think that the Executive Office should adhere to it? Do you know of any breaches of it by the current administration, either by executive order or signing statements? The power of the executive branch has grown far beyond what the Framers of the Constitution allowed. Or are you one that believes that our Constitution is a "living" document, one that evolves in accordance with changing times?
      That aside, how is Ron Paul a 'total wacko?' You can't make a blank statement like that and leave us all hanging!!! Is it because he is a constitutionalist? Because he wants to return some control to the US Treasury? Because he wants to phase out a defunct Social Security system? Because he would like to see a much smaller Federal Government, and many decisions returned to State Government as was the plan of the Framers of the Constitution? Or maybe it's because of the wacko idea of doing away with Federal Income Tax. As Ron Paul says," Abolishing the income tax and replacing it with nothing, would cut government revenue by about 40%, and to imagine what it would be like to live in a country with a federal budget 40 percent lower than the federal budget of 2007, it would be necessary to go all the way back to ...1997." It currently costs us $1.4 billion every day just for the interest on our national debt, because our Federal Government refuses to live within it's means.
  • HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Our debt is higher than ever, but so is our GNP. People forget that.
    • wayzup, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1That wouldn't be because of the $530 billion+ that we've spent on Iraq/Afghanistan now would it? Those monies count toward thd GNP/GDP. On top of that, if you're looking at REAL GNP, they take out inflation altogether so the weakening of the dollar and the raising cost of living isn't even considered...both of which are going through the roof for the diminishing middle class in the US.
  • cheeseysynapse, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1If only
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THI