Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Obama Criticizes McCain for His Lack of Economic Solutions
blogs.abcnews.com — At his first campaign event after a short family vacation in the US Virgin Islands, Obama hit at McCain's economic speech. “John McCain has admitted he doesn't understand the economy as well as he should. Yesterday he proved it in a speech he gave on the housing crisis.” Obama told a town hall audience Wednesday in Greensboro, North Carolina.
MakiMaki- 162 diggs
- digg it
- cashman57, on 03/26/2008, -13/+6Here we have one economic mental midget being critical of another.
BHO has absolutely no macroeconomic expertise and his stated plans for the country are a recipe for economic disaster.
He wants to continue warring and continue the empire, tax more, spend more, increase the size of government and the military plus give away billions of borrowed dollars to other nations.
He has voted for deficit budgets and voted emergency funds which are off-budget and has absolutely no clue why his stated plans are a disaster.
This is one area he should not delve into because he's as clueless as the other Senators.- fedupamerica, on 03/27/2008, -4/+5Proof please. You cant just post a position unless you can back it up.
- chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2Are you new? Right wingers do that every day on these boards.
- neognostic, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I borrowed this from another thread on Digg, but it is useful here. Please note how during the last 3 Republican administrations, that the debt went much higher, but during Democratic administrations, the debt went down or held stable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S. ...
- Pentalaimon, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1Your constant spamming of unreasoned nonsense in as many articles as you can does nothing to support Pon Paul, you give his supporters a bad name.
As for McCain, I'd rather have the government spending $30 billion on "special interest groups" like education than the $2000 billion the war in Iraq has cost the economy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.ir ...
- fedupamerica, on 03/27/2008, -4/+5Proof please. You cant just post a position unless you can back it up.
- JimmySpaza, on 03/27/2008, -11/+4Obama's solution to economic problems is to get the government even MORE involved in the business of business. Now THAT is a stupid idea...since the government cannot even manage the money that it collects from us taxpayers much less that of banks, investors, businesses, etc.
This is one of the reasons why Obama has been labeled as a liberal...because he is one. See, a liberal believes that government can fix almost any problem, certainly an economic one. But, I say keep the government away and leave people and businesses alone. The best thing government can do is NOT help us...but leave us alone.
Stick to protecting the nation, printing and coining money, establishing weights and standards, handling international relations...you know, the stuff that the Constitution tells it to do.- lpmiller, on 03/27/2008, -3/+7no, a liberal believes that government involvement in the process is better then just giving money to companies and hoping that greed lights the way. Not having oversight is what got us into this mess to begin with. There is not a company suffering from the mortgage crisis that couldnt' have prevented their own problems if they only practiced smart lending practices. Since they apparently aren't smart enough to do that, then yes, the government does need to be involved, since it's the government that apparently is stuck bailing them out. You rail on liberals for wanting to be involved in business, but conservatives have us PAYING for business to stay in business when business screws the pooch. Seems to me, it's more effective to prevent the pooch screwing in the first place then to pay for it through the nose after the fact.
- chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4"the stuff that the Constitution tells it to do."
... establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty...
"Promote the general welfare" isn't new.- JimmySpaza, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2That's the overall purpose of government...at least in the United States. The 10th Amendment later restricted the federal government to ONLY those functions specifically laid out for it as specified earlier as federal roles. Period. End of story.
The federal government cannot do those things retained by the States. When they do, they are in violation of the U.S. Constitution...and having some liberal judges on the Supreme Court say it's OK doesn't make it so.- chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4"having some liberal judges on the Supreme Court say it's OK doesn't make it so"
uhhh... yeah it does, Spaz. Are you sure you've read the Constitution?
- chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4"having some liberal judges on the Supreme Court say it's OK doesn't make it so"
- JimmySpaza, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2That's the overall purpose of government...at least in the United States. The 10th Amendment later restricted the federal government to ONLY those functions specifically laid out for it as specified earlier as federal roles. Period. End of story.
- wynja, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Right, cause letting big companies like Bearn Stein do what they want has worked out well for us in the past.
The rub is that everyone somehow thinks we live in a free market society. We do not. A free market is defined by competition and innovation. Today's multinational conglomerates are so large that they simply buy out the competition and bury innovation in frivolous IP and copy right lawsuits.
- fedupamerica, on 03/27/2008, -8/+3Yeah. Obama's New Deal Style of Economics will be great. We can't pay for the programs we have now, much less the new ones he plans to implement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_o ...
Just what exactly is his economic plan? Is there one?- DrDragun, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Boosting pay to teachers by cutting from NASA ***** me off, though I'm certainly not going to base my entire opinion on a Wikipedia article. His reform platform includes boosting transparency on some areas of defense spending and trying to purge "bundle bills" from pork-barrel type spending should help a little with cleaning up the books and saving a little money.
For his economic policy, I suppose you would start off saving $150b/yr by cutting deployment in Iraq. However I'm disappointed that both Democrats want to boost healthcare spending, which is already some 20% of the entire federal budget. Other than that I guess his policies are simply to hold ground with the current status quo against calls by Republicans to cut Social Security, etc.- smotpoker, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2fedup keeps asking the same questions like he gives a ***** about the answers. It is obvious he doesn't, he just wants to pretend he is making some sort of point.
The NASA cuts do some bad IMO at first glance, but you have to admit very little actual progress is made for the amount invested. Given the great advances in nearly every other field of technology you would think more of them would be benefited and been implemented in the space program by now. No doubt a ***** are due to inflated prices Boeing and others know they can get away with currently. With lowered budgets a lot of companies will simply have to lower their profit margins to accomidate
Furthermore his tax cuts to middle class and capping insurance/banking charges will do more to stimulate the economy I think than cutting taxes for the rich and giving a $200 stimulus check here and there... call me crazy- fedupamerica, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1I think you are just frustrated because I wont join the Obamabots in their soul train. Kennedy would disagree with you on your assertion that NASA has made very little progress. Our national defense now depends on NASA. Our future depends on NASA, both in military defense and natural resources. BTW: His tax cuts are not for the middle class and more Government regulation never helps a free market economy. Sorry. Run along and play with your Obamabot friends now. we are having a serious discussion.
- fedupamerica, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Wikipedia is a very credible source. Its an encyclopedia for crying out loud
- smotpoker, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2fedup keeps asking the same questions like he gives a ***** about the answers. It is obvious he doesn't, he just wants to pretend he is making some sort of point.
- chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -4/+2The New Deal got America through the Great Depression that the Republicans caused the last time they had complete control over the government.
Some of us read our history books.- kemp34, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Actually, the New Deal kept the Depression going longer than it would have in a free market economy. Most history books you have likely read are written by Keynesians and other socialist-liters. It has all been disproven by Von Mises and other classical economists.
- chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Yeah, we know. Reality has been disproven by right wing theory. That's why the economy is so great right now.
- kemp34, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Actually, the New Deal kept the Depression going longer than it would have in a free market economy. Most history books you have likely read are written by Keynesians and other socialist-liters. It has all been disproven by Von Mises and other classical economists.
- wynja, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Not very bright are you. He plans on paying for this the same way Clinton paid for things. By cutting military spending back to reasonable levels. You know, maybe only twice what anyone else in the world spends instead of more than the remaining top ten spenders combined.
- kemp34, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Cutting military spending would be good. So would cutting domestic spending.
- DrDragun, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Boosting pay to teachers by cutting from NASA ***** me off, though I'm certainly not going to base my entire opinion on a Wikipedia article. His reform platform includes boosting transparency on some areas of defense spending and trying to purge "bundle bills" from pork-barrel type spending should help a little with cleaning up the books and saving a little money.
- fedupamerica, on 03/27/2008, -10/+2BTW: Obama still hasnt answered for taking donations from a known American Terrorist, William Ayers. http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/15/obamas-ter ...
- DrDragun, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5It's like Ron Paul keeping the money from that nutjob white supremacist. He basically said "Well he was dumb for giving me the money because I don't share his views, and now I'm not going to give it back to a guy like that because any time I can part a nefarious hate monger with his money I'll gladly take the opportunity."
Looking over your profile most of your arguments are well-resoned but this one is spin. Discipline man, you can nail him on enough legit things, you don't need to spin up something like this. If a terrorist gave ME his money I'd gladly keep it and not return it, it might keep him from financing his evil schemes. - neognostic, on 03/27/2008, -1/+140 year old events, never found guilty of a crime and is a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and he gave money to a campaign. Is this the best you can do? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
- fedupamerica, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1No. But its fun to sling mud like these obamabots are doing.
- DrDragun, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5It's like Ron Paul keeping the money from that nutjob white supremacist. He basically said "Well he was dumb for giving me the money because I don't share his views, and now I'm not going to give it back to a guy like that because any time I can part a nefarious hate monger with his money I'll gladly take the opportunity."
- suzywang3000, on 03/27/2008, -9/+3Obama economic plan like Mao economic plan.
- chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5Yeah. Are you sure about that? Can you point out the similarities for the rest of us?
- MadKennyP, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4John McCain was right. He DOESN'T know the economy as well as he should.
- rebotfc, on 03/27/2008, -4/+1I think this shows us Obama's qualities as a president, he isn't going to wait until 'day one at the oval office'. Instead he works hard NOW he will plan and strategize to solve the countries problems right thru the election.
- kemp34, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Big government (including the actions of the Federal Reserve) have put us in the economic problems we are in. MORE BIG GOVERNMENT is definitely NOT the answer. That being said, the "Casino Crony Corporatism" that we currently have is not a status quo that you will find me defending. We need true free market credit, currency and banking. No more FDIC and fractional reserve fraud. No more Iraq War wealth evaporation. No more huge entitlement ponzi schemes. Put the economy back in the hands of hard working, prudent individuals. Downsize DC.
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by