The Fundamentals of the Economy According to John McCain

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
So McCain tried to cover up this oft-repeated blithering idiot blunder by adding this caveat:

“My opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals of America are strong…. Our workers have always been the strength of our economy, and they remain the strength of our economy today.”

Oh, so he meant he has pride in American workers.

riiiiiiiiight.

What a load of shit. It's another absurd position to take that sounds good to idiots and those with no intellectual depth perception, much like the idiotic statements and positions of the Bush administration. It's the sort of straw man that changes the argument, and it's simply a stupid thing to suggest. Everyone has faith in American workers; what a lame-ass and patently transparent thing to say.
 
stopping making an issue of verbiage


PALIN: Well, it was an unfair attack on the verbiage that Senator McCain chose to use. The fundamentals that he was having to explain afterwards, he means the work force, he means ingenuity of the American people. And of course, that is strong, that is the foundation of our economy. So that was an unfair attack based on verbiage that John McCain used. Certainly, it is a mess, though.
 
I came to this thread half expecting two words:

They're strong!

As a matter of strategy, Obama needs to take advantage with a clever economy catchphrase.
 
[quote name='camoor']I came to this thread half expecting two words:

They're strong!

As a matter of strategy, Obama needs to take advantage with a clever economy catchphrase.[/QUOTE]

In the wedding singer, the scene where a very inebriated Steve Buscemi is told "YOU'RE A MORON!" by his irate father - that is one I'd like to use back-to-back with McCain and Palin's repeated gaffes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBB6pmixR4Q
 
Remember when McCain spent like an entire year offering American workers 50 dollars an hour to pick lettuce and then mocked them?
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']Why can't Obama say "It's the economy you dumbass?!"[/quote]

Because it'd be a one way ticket to loserville, population Kerry, Gore, Dole, Bush 41, Carter and Mondale. You don't use the word "ass" as a Presidential candidate I'm afraid. Also, direct attack and such.

Also, let us not forget who signed the original NAFTA into law. Although, only Perot was against it at the time.
 
[quote name='KingBroly'] You don't use the word "ass" as a Presidential candidate I'm afraid.
[/quote]

Right.... let's see, Bush called some reporter an asshole while he was running and Mr. Dick told some Congressman or Senator to "fuck OFF!" of the Senate or House floor, so year right.
 
I think Obama would do well by saying, "My opponent thinks the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Has he noticed anything about the economy in the last year?"
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']stopping making an issue of verbiage


PALIN: Well, it was an unfair attack on the verbiage that Senator McCain chose to use. The fundamentals that he was having to explain afterwards, he means the work force, he means ingenuity of the American people. And of course, that is strong, that is the foundation of our economy. So that was an unfair attack based on verbiage that John McCain used. Certainly, it is a mess, though.[/QUOTE]
I've never heard the term "fundamentals of the economy" used to describe the American worker. It's been used to describe many things, tons of statistics, but never the worker. President Bush has been saying the same thing for how many years now? Was he referring to the American worker the whole time too?

That's a load of horse shit.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I've never heard the term "fundamentals of the economy" used to describe the American worker. It's been used to describe many things, tons of statistics, but never the worker. President Bush has been saying the same thing for how many years now? Was he referring to the American worker the whole time too?

That's a load of horse shit.[/QUOTE]

McCain is trying to hide behind American workers the way Bush hides behind the troops.

It is disgusting and cowardly.
 
[quote name='Msut77']McCain is trying to hide behind American workers the way Bush hides behind the troops.

It is disgusting and cowardly.[/quote]

Like Carlin said, politicians routinely hide behind three things: the flag, children, and religion.

I think this falls under "the flag"
 
I think the American public will see through this one. You can say whatever you want about foreign policy and terrorism and people have no way of putting into context other than the fact that we haven't been attacked yet. We can all put the economy into context by looking at gas prices and the price of milk, bread, and other simple foodstuffs.
 
myke myke myke. you need just one big "i hate mccain" thread. you keep making things very every thing that comes out of his mouth. youre outpacing level1 in his glory days.
 
Mccain's statement was one of the most blatant and condescending instances of back peddling I've ever seen.

I'm not putting any faith in the O-Man, but McCain and Palin have not hinted at any sign of potential capability. "Fixin" and "shakin' up" the economy? It's like she's telling you she doesn't even want to put the effort in to try and pretend she knows a damn thing.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I'm not putting any faith in the O-Man, but McCain and Palin have not hinted at any sign of potential capability. "Fixin" and "shakin' up" the economy? It's like she's telling you she doesn't even want to put the effort in to try and pretend she knows a damn thing.[/quote]

That's not fair, Palin has plenty of experience shakin' things up.

45-40_Shake_nBake_kl.jpeg
 
What really gets me is how hypocritical it all is. The McCain campaign does this all the time. "I said [one thing], but what I meant was actually [completely different thing]!"


"We have to make sure our politicians are held accountable! That's what's wrong with taxes/earmarks/the war/the economy/your job/whatever you care about!! Accountability!"

"Oh, that thing I said? I didn't say that. What are you talking about? What I said was this. ...executive privilege!! Executive privilege!!"
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']myke myke myke. you need just one big "i hate mccain" thread. you keep making things very every thing that comes out of his mouth. youre outpacing level1 in his glory days.[/QUOTE]

I've been thinking for a while now that we could use two sticky threads, for criticism of each candidate.
 
Why do you guys hate new threads? I hate big super threads, I much rather have hundreds of threads just a couple pages long.

I also hate stickies.


IMO this is fine and topic-worthy.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Why do you guys hate new threads? I hate big super threads, I much rather have hundreds of threads just a couple pages long.

I also hate stickies.


IMO this is fine and topic-worthy.[/quote]

Good point, long threads are a pain to scan through.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Why do you guys hate new threads? I hate big super threads, I much rather have hundreds of threads just a couple pages long.

I also hate stickies.


IMO this is fine and topic-worthy.[/quote]

I also agree.

In addition, if there is any valid criticism of Obama, I don't want to have to wade through pages of whining about nonsense like the sex education myth or "lipstick on a pig" to find it.
 
Agree as well. I hate catch all threads as they're a pain to wade through for people like me who just check the forum once or twice a day, if even that often.
 
Then it's decided. We'll have several new threads a day being critical of McCain or Palin (since that represents the balance of political leanings in this forum). Why not, it's successful so far.

Besides, a critical of Obama thread would likely only have crickets.
 
I think it represents media coverage in general... there's much more news about Palin / McCain right now, as there has been since Obama's acceptance speech. Can you name any significant piece of news about Obama since Palin's announcement?
 
[quote name='Koggit']That's a non-issue fabricated by the McCain campaign... which we discussed.[/QUOTE]

it was worthy of its own thread though.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Then it's decided. We'll have several new threads a day being critical of McCain or Palin (since that represents the balance of political leanings in this forum). Why not, it's successful so far.

Besides, a critical of Obama thread would likely only have crickets.[/quote]

So make a good Obama thread. If he were as moronic as his competition there would be plenty of them.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']So make a good Obama thread. If he were as moronic as his competition there would be plenty of them.[/QUOTE]

Some have tried. When you already like the guy, people are just going to defend him regardless of what he, biden, or the democrats do.

This forum is a Republican BBQ, and mostly always has been. Which is fine, I hate them just as much.
 
There are plenty of conservatives here. Obama just doesn't say as much stupid stuff as McCain. He's more cautious and politically smart about what he says in public for the most part. Not saying that's a good thing per se, as somone that doesn't like him could just say he's just always telling people what the majority wants to here.

Yes, people like me will defend Obama most of the time, but that's because there's usually a way to do so. Even for the staunchest republican, it is tough for them to agree that the economy is fundamentally strong--hence little debate over his comments in this thread as it was groan worth to most dems and republican's alike.
 
Isn't the average American worker uneducated and unproductive? I mean, isn't a big reason for what's going on right now due to the fact that you had uneducated people with no real skills working jobs that paid $20+ an hour with great benefits, and then when globalization opened up labor in other markets, those jobs went away?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Yes, American workers are generally uneducated and unproductive but you can thank a crappy education system and unions for that.[/QUOTE]

Well, sure, you can blame the unions for making sure blue collar workers earned a wage that ANY American working 40+ a week deserves.

That made child and underpaid third world labor more appealing, of course. But while Unions played a role in keeping American workers paid well, the move to cheaper labor was inevitable. Corporations don't give a shit about you, or anyone. So, barring Americans accepting Mexican and Chinese wages for making your Nikes, manufacturing moving out of the US and into other countries happened irrespective of Unions.
 
My personal experience with unions is that it makes for a lazy worker. I've been to some hospitals where certain groups are unionized and they drag everything down.

At White Plains Medical Center in NY, the housekeeping staff is unionized. This means that we've had to delay surgery because one person was at a union meeting and the other guy was at dinner. We couldn't ask him to cut his time short or to split up his lunch so we had to sit. You'd think, why not just pick up a mop and do it yourself? Well, that's what I did. The next week I spent two hours in a conference room with hospital administrators and union officials trying to convince them that I wasn't personally trying to undermine the union and it's employees. I was given a stern warning that doing work that was under the union's domain would be a violation of state and federal labor laws and I could be prosecuted. Now that was probably bologna but you get the gist.

The best thing about it was the smug look on the guys when they realized they had more power than the surgeons did. Turnover time actually went up and profit went down in the year after the event.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, sure, you can blame the unions for making sure blue collar workers earned a wage that ANY American working 40+ a week deserves.

That made child and underpaid third world labor more appealing, of course. But while Unions played a role in keeping American workers paid well, the move to cheaper labor was inevitable. Corporations don't give a shit about you, or anyone. So, barring Americans accepting Mexican and Chinese wages for making your Nikes, manufacturing moving out of the US and into other countries happened irrespective of Unions.[/quote]

Right, the good news is that blue collar job wages have pretty much stabilized. The bad news is that this represents the effect of outsourcing. Basically, any jobs that can be outsourced have been outsourced - the remainder of blue collar jobs in the US these days are mostly roles such as police officer, plumber, home contractor, waitress, and all of the other jobs that can't be done elsewhere. Sure there are a smattering of jobs in the old manufacturing industries (mostly consisting of putting together parts made elsewhere) - but the amount of these jobs and their pay have both decreased significantly.

The question is, now that the corpos have wrung all that profit out of the blue collar workers, will they go after the white collar jobs? If so, what kind of America will we be left with, will we continue to march towards the huge wealth gaps that currently exist in other countries of the world? Is it a good thing to have American workers scraping by, working three jobs including a "part-time" walmart gig with no health insurance while the rich can't even keep track of how many houses they own?
 
American workers can always go old school and start their own businesses. Kind of like back in the day? I'd rather fail on my own than slave for the man. My business isn't doing that great but the long term plan is to get big enough to get some blue collar workers and wring every penny out of them.
 
[quote name='depascal22']My personal experience with unions is that it makes for a lazy worker. I've been to some hospitals where certain groups are unionized and they drag everything down.

At White Plains Medical Center in NY, the housekeeping staff is unionized. This means that we've had to delay surgery because one person was at a union meeting and the other guy was at dinner. We couldn't ask him to cut his time short or to split up his lunch so we had to sit. You'd think, why not just pick up a mop and do it yourself? Well, that's what I did. The next week I spent two hours in a conference room with hospital administrators and union officials trying to convince them that I wasn't personally trying to undermine the union and it's employees. I was given a stern warning that doing work that was under the union's domain would be a violation of state and federal labor laws and I could be prosecuted. Now that was probably bologna but you get the gist.

The best thing about it was the smug look on the guys when they realized they had more power than the surgeons did. Turnover time actually went up and profit went down in the year after the event.[/quote]

My limited experience with unions is similar. But it's not like most corporations are any better.

I think the Japanese have some very interesting ideas and strategies regarding integrating the worker into the business process and using the worker's perspective to drive business improvements. I think far too often many people view the employer-worker relationship as a zero-sum game and this old thinking has to go.
 
I don't know if this is too off topic, but... I have a feeling the wealthy and influential wish to sink the lower classes as low as possible before the bottom drops out. Although if the poorer folk here in the U.S. are left in ruin, I suppose foreign investments would keep the rich afloat. So perhaps the sky is the limit in terms of outsourcing.

What a predicament.

McCain and Palin disgust me with their pandering, Baraka is trying really hard to convince everyone he's not as disgusting as his associates. Part of me feels like it really doesn't matter whose in the White House, even if you strap a rocket scientist to a careening missile it's still probably going to explode.
 
American corporations have the same processes but it get bogged down in red tape.

EDIT -- The poor have nice things because they make them feel good for even a minute. Same thing with cigarettes, beer, and lottery tickets. Again, the corporations profit off the poor's lack of financial self control.

EDIT 2 -- My brother-in-law works for 10 bucks an hour but has to buy every video game for full price the day it comes out. Also, he never trades in or sells his games. He literally has a small house worth of money sitting in his videogame collection but he can't stop buying games for $60. I've told him about this site and Goozex but he won't do it. He's never been given the basic financial education that could lift his family out of the lowest of the middle class so he can't see that just an extra $50 a month could make a huge difference down the road or put his kids through college in ten years.
 
[quote name='depascal22'] My brother-in-law works for 10 bucks an hour but has to buy every video game for full price the day it comes out. Also, he never trades in or sells his games. He literally has a small house worth of money sitting in his videogame collection but he can't stop buying games for $60. I've told him about this site and Goozex but he won't do it. He's never been given the basic financial education that could lift his family out of the lowest of the middle class so he can't see that just an extra $50 a month could make a huge difference down the road or put his kids through college in ten years.[/quote]
QFT. Just putting 50 into savings a month adds up down the road. I'm teaching this to myself and my bro right now also.
 
[quote name='evanft']Isn't the average American worker uneducated and unproductive? I mean, isn't a big reason for what's going on right now due to the fact that you had uneducated people with no real skills working jobs that paid $20+ an hour with great benefits, and then when globalization opened up labor in other markets, those jobs went away?[/quote]
You won't find many well educated people wanting to work in some sort of manufacturing job. Why the hell would they want to? Somebody still has to do those jobs though, that's where the less educated come in.
 
[quote name='depascal22']American corporations have the same processes but it get bogged down in red tape.

EDIT -- The poor have nice things because they make them feel good for even a minute. Same thing with cigarettes, beer, and lottery tickets. Again, the corporations profit off the poor's lack of financial self control.

EDIT 2 -- My brother-in-law works for 10 bucks an hour but has to buy every video game for full price the day it comes out. Also, he never trades in or sells his games. He literally has a small house worth of money sitting in his videogame collection but he can't stop buying games for $60. I've told him about this site and Goozex but he won't do it. He's never been given the basic financial education that could lift his family out of the lowest of the middle class so he can't see that just an extra $50 a month could make a huge difference down the road or put his kids through college in ten years.[/quote]

I don't think you can draw generalizations across the board just because your brother-in-law is not very bright about his finances.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']You won't find many well educated people wanting to work in some sort of manufacturing job. Why the hell would they want to? Somebody still has to do those jobs though, that's where the less educated come in.[/QUOTE]

Definitely true. Problem is the less educated American's are willing to work for the low wages the uneducated in other countries are. Thus jobs get shipped overseas, and now we have fewer and fewer jobs for our uneducated and unskilled workers.

Personally, I don't have a lot of sympathy. Just the nature of not getting an education or learning a skilled trade and global, capitalist society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top