McCain more trusted on the economy?

JolietJake

JolietJake

Banned
I was reading this article earlier: http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080530/pl_rasmussen/mccainobamatrustmore20080530

It says that McCain is more trusted among men when it comes to the economy, among women it says Obama has a 7 point lead.

Now, didn't McCain once remark that he didn't know much about economics? How can you trust a guy on an issue, when even he admits he knows little about it?

Article about McCain and economics:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/12/mccain-economic.html
 
mccain20supporterszh3.jpg
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I was reading this article earlier: http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080530/pl_rasmussen/mccainobamatrustmore20080530

It says that McCain is more trusted among men when it comes to the economy, among women it says Obama has a 7 point lead.

Now, didn't McCain once remark that he didn't know much about economics? How can you trust a guy on an issue, when even he admits he knows little about it?

Article about McCain and economics:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/12/mccain-economic.html[/QUOTE]

Maybe that's the point. I'd rather have a leader that admits to not knowing about a topic and then presumedly will rely on advisors that truly are experts in the field to help with policy decisions rather than a leader that doesn't know jack but puts on the persona as if he/she does. Is any President an expert on the economy? Or health care? Or world politics? Or on any of the myriad of issues that he/she has to deal with?
 
[quote name='dopa345']Maybe that's the point. I'd rather have a leader that admits to not knowing about a topic and then presumedly will rely on advisors that truly are experts in the field to help with policy decisions rather than a leader that doesn't know jack but puts on the persona as if he/she does. Is any President an expert on the economy? Or health care? Or world politics? Or on any of the myriad of issues that he/she has to deal with?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because relying on experts has worked so well the last seven years
 
I rather have a president that has some clue what he (fuck Clinton) is doing and then hires people in the best of his feild.

Whatever happened to having presidents that know what the fuck is going on? That go out of style with the Pogs?
 
None of us know how anyone will handle the economy when they become president but I can sure as hell tell you I like McCain over Obama or Hillary if only for the fact that he says what he wants to do (by comparison to the other possible candidates).
 
It's a shame but he is still far more competent and honest than that snake oil salesmen, who has literally no idea nor the legislative experience, yet still puts on that phony "I am far superior and have better judgment than you" persona.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Maybe that's the point. I'd rather have a leader that admits to not knowing about a topic and then presumedly will rely on advisors that truly are experts in the field to help with policy decisions rather than a leader that doesn't know jack but puts on the persona as if he/she does. Is any President an expert on the economy? Or health care? Or world politics? Or on any of the myriad of issues that he/she has to deal with?[/quote]

I'd rather have a guy who has been a success in some field other then politics (like a responsible corporate leader, or a equinanimous military leader)
 
Someone tell dope that we are not so much expecting a nominee to be an expert but rather to have at least have a basic working knowledge of the subject (which is not an impossible task) how do you know which advisers to listen to if you cannot even manage that?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Someone tell dope that we are not so much expecting a nominee to be an expert but rather to have at least have a basic working knowledge of the subject (which is not an impossible task) how do you know which advisers to listen to if you cannot even manage that?[/quote]
Exactly, I trust he will croak soon, but that's about all I trust he can do.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Someone tell dope that we are not so much expecting a nominee to be an expert but rather to have at least have a basic working knowledge of the subject (which is not an impossible task) how do you know which advisers to listen to if you cannot even manage that?[/QUOTE]

What evidence is there that he does not have a basic knowledge of economics?

Also why the personal attacks? I don't recall ever personally attacking you (or any other poster on this site) since I don't feel insulting someone who disagrees with you ever advances the discussion. Also for whatever it's worth, I actually think Obama seems to have the best grasp of the economy as he is the only candidate to acknowledge that a temporary repeal of the gas tax would be a mistake.
 
[quote name='Magehart']None of us know how anyone will handle the economy when they become president but I can sure as hell tell you I like McCain over Obama or Hillary if only for the fact that he says what he wants to do (by comparison to the other possible candidates).[/quote]

What great things will McCain do for the economy?

Steady as she goes on Iraq?

Double down with Iran?

Permanent tax cuts for the rich?

Suspending the gas tax that is used to keep roads in adequate repair?

Allowing corporations to push the remainder of the cost of healthcare completely onto the worker without giving them an immediate pay increase?
 
[quote name='dopa345']What evidence is there that he does not have a basic knowledge of economics?[/QUOTE]

His own words. Also the policies he supports (for today anyway) namely being tax cuts in the face of bankruptcy...
 
[quote name='dopa345']What evidence is there that he does not have a basic knowledge of economics?

Also why the personal attacks? I don't recall ever personally attacking you (or any other poster on this site) since I don't feel insulting someone who disagrees with you ever advances the discussion. Also for whatever it's worth, I actually think Obama seems to have the best grasp of the economy as he is the only candidate to acknowledge that a temporary repeal of the gas tax would be a mistake.[/quote]
He claims to know the basics, but i could probably stump him with just the knowledge gleamed from my single macro economics class.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']He claims to know the basics, but i could probably stump him with just the knowledge gleamed from my single macro economics class.[/QUOTE]

You can probably stump him with any non-pancake related question.
 
The only economic policy position of McCan's I agree with: no bailouts for homeowners who took irresponsible loans, who purchased homes even though it was well beyond their means to do so. My tax dollars already support subsidize enough incompetence. Let's not add stupid investors to the list.
 
[quote name='Serik']The only economic policy position of McCan's I agree with: no bailouts for homeowners who took irresponsible loans, who purchased homes even though it was well beyond their means to do so. My tax dollars already support subsidize enough incompetence. Let's not add stupid investors to the list.[/QUOTE]

IIRC the plan was to bail out the big companies but not the little guys.

The people who were merely irresponsible and not say completely shady are guilty of only listening to Greenspan and other supposed gurus.
 
how can you have faith in a man who still stands by g w bush and he wants to still stay in Iraq which experts say that it will cost us 3 trillion dollars...... all money used to pisses the rest of the world off and not used to fund students for college or on families in poverty or give incentives to stop out sourcing to other countries...... how can some one who continues failed republican politics fix our economy...... i also fine it ironic that he wants to spend more money on the war but cut taxes, he is a nice enough guy....a great war hero but will not change (fix) enough of what has happened over the past 8 years
 
[quote name='smurfbob']how can you have faith in a man who still stands by g w bush and he wants to still stay in Iraq which experts say that it will cost us 3 trillion dollars...... all money used to pisses the rest of the world off and not used to fund students for college or on families in poverty or give incentives to stop out sourcing to other countries...... how can some one who continues failed republican politics fix our economy...... i also fine it ironic that he wants to spend more money on the war but cut taxes, he is a nice enough guy....a great war hero but will not change (fix) enough of what has happened over the past 8 years[/quote]


Don't use logic. Remember you're talking about a nation that voted for Bush....... twice.
 
And you assume John Kerry would've done any better? Surely you jest.

You can't trust McCain or Obama with the economy. I don't know why you think it's just McCain. McCain says he'll keep the Bush tax cuts, but he's also for putting our gas standards to back where they were in 1990. With oil as high as it is, it's just stupid. Now Obama...he's part of the crowd who wants to sue Opec. That'll make the amount of oil we get increased real fast...not.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']And you assume John Kerry would've done any better? Surely you jest.

You can't trust McCain or Obama with the economy. I don't know why you think it's just McCain. McCain says he'll keep the Bush tax cuts, but he's also for putting our gas standards to back where they were in 1990. With oil as high as it is, it's just stupid. Now Obama...he's part of the crowd who wants to sue Opec. That'll make the amount of oil we get increased real fast...not.[/quote]



If I put a smiley face on pooh, it would have done a better job then Bush. Honestly I don't think its Bush's fault. He's just a puppet to the likes of Rove and Dick.

And my opinion is solely from observing Bush for the past 8 years and having never heard 1 ounce of intelligence come out of his mouth. Which makes me wonder, has anyone ? Please post Youtube video of Bush not saying intelligent things.
 
Y'all need to understand that we now have two parties. Socialists (formerly Democrats) and Democrats (formerly Republicans).

Republicans really don't exist anymore. They (McCain) will continue to grow government and increase spending, just like Democrats, so what's the difference.

The republicans are the democrats of my grandparents day. The democrats "change" plan they are selling is more or less really just "Let's be like Europe".

I think it's funny that many countries such as Russia are reversing their socialist policy (example- lowered taxes to a flat tax) while we seem so desperate to embrace one.

One thing is certain - anyone with socialist/liberal leanings really has nothing to lose in this election.
 
Thats not entirely true, but whatever you want to think. As a liberal I'd hate to see us stay in Iraq much longer after the next election, if McCain wins we all know we'll be they for at least another 4 years. I'd say liberals at least have something to lose on that issue.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Thats not entirely true, but whatever you want to think. As a liberal I'd hate to see us stay in Iraq much longer after the next election, if McCain wins we all know we'll be they for at least another 4 years. I'd say liberals at least have something to lose on that issue.[/QUOTE]

That's true. But I'd also say there are more issues Obama and McCain are close on than not.

Edit: Caveat - Let me just say that the ONLY thing I can think of about McCain that I do happen to like is that fact that he admits he'll never try to run for re-election. I'm so sick and tired of the second half of presidency's being wasted on campaigning.
 
:bow:[quote name='homeland']Don't use logic. Remember you're talking about a nation that voted for Bush....... twice.[/quote]
No we didn't.:roll: Oil tycoons ushered him in thanks to good ol Jeb.
 
[quote name='Msut77']IIRC the plan was to bail out the big companies but not the little guys.

The people who were merely irresponsible and not say completely shady are guilty of only listening to Greenspan and other supposed gurus.[/quote]

Agreed, there was greed and incompetence up and down. But that still doesn't excuse people from buying into the hysteria like idiots. Like Joe Kennedy said about the stock market pre-Depression: it was time to get out when the shoe-shine boy was giving stock tips. In the months before the housing market imploded, books on home flipping topped every best seller list; cable channels had shows on flipping homes and making easy money. Real estate and easy loans was where the action was!

I was reminded of WIRED's cover story just before the dot-com crash, the one about how the "Long Boom" will never end. Ha.

Your post brings up a good point about the parties of today: both have no problem stealing America's wealth and redistributing it their cronies. The Dems have unions and social programs; the GOP has corporations and the rich. And both have farmers. So come November, be sure to vote based on which group you want to receive the most handouts.
 
[quote name='Serik']But that still doesn't excuse people from buying into the hysteria like idiots.[/QUOTE]

There is a distinction between people who were buying property and starting developments and people who just wanted to live in a house which has been drummed into their heads as part of the American dream for years.

There was a bail out and surprise, surprise not for people who only made the mistake of listening to people who supposedly knew better. Not so long ago Greenspan was literally a deity.
 
[quote name='Serik']The only economic policy position of McCan's I agree with: no bailouts for homeowners who took irresponsible loans, who purchased homes even though it was well beyond their means to do so. My tax dollars already support subsidize enough incompetence. Let's not add stupid investors to the list.[/quote]

There should be no bailout for:

1.) The morons who bought houses way beyond their means or took out huge HELOCs thinking that houses would appreciate in value indefinitely.

or

2.) The moronic lenders who gave near $1 million loans to these people with no or little money down... it would only take simple mathematics to realize that these people would have 0% chance of paying back these loans when interest rate went up!

On the bright side, the individuals who bought the houses don't really lose that much, well except for a house they couldn't afford anyway, their downpayment (usually 0 or trivially small), the few monthly payments they were able to make, and their credit score. They can just return the depreciating property to the lender, who stands to lose about $200,000 to $300,000 per forclosure as of this current time in California... not that I feel sorry for them... they deserve it! :bomb:
 
[quote name='BigT']There should be no bailout for:

1.) The morons who bought houses way beyond their means or took out huge HELOCs thinking that houses would appreciate in value indefinitely.

or

2.) The moronic lenders who gave near $1 million loans to these people with no or little money down... it would only take simple mathematics to realize that these people would have 0% chance of paying back these loans when interest rate went up!

On the bright side, the individuals who bought the houses don't really lose that much, well except for a house they couldn't afford anyway, their downpayment (usually 0 or trivially small), the few monthly payments they were able to make, and their credit score. They can just return the depreciating property to the lender, who stands to lose about $200,000 to $300,000 per forclosure as of this current time in California... not that I feel sorry for them... they deserve it! :bomb:[/QUOTE]

Two has already happened, to the extent that almost every major brokerage/investment/banking firm had invested in the housing market. Do you even have a point or are we just talking about punishing somewhat gullible people (which seems to be the impetus behind that course of action)?
 
Gullible people shouldn't be immune from the consequences of their actions. Bailing out the gullible only encourages future idiocy. What you call punishment I call responsibility for ones actions.


As always, the market needs to take its course, however painful it may be. Had the Fed allowed the dot-com recession to play out, we might not even have this mess.
 
[quote name='Serik']Gullible people shouldn't be immune from the consequences of their actions. Bailing out the gullible only encourages future idiocy. What you call punishment I call responsibility for ones actions.[/QUOTE]

You are the type of person that would spit on a child who fell from their bike rather than help them up.

As always, the market needs to take its course, however painful it may be.
Click to expand...

You have no clue what you are talking about, any market based solution went bye bye months ago.
 
[quote name='Serik']Gullible people shouldn't be immune from the consequences of their actions. Bailing out the gullible only encourages future idiocy. What you call punishment I call responsibility for ones actions.


As always, the market needs to take its course, however painful it may be. Had the Fed allowed the dot-com recession to play out, we might not even have this mess.[/QUOTE]

I like you.
 
So Msut, your argument is this: Greenspan, Bush, and the masters of the universe on Wall Street led legions of ignorant buyers around by the nose with the promise of easy credit. They took the bait, got screwed, and should therefore be bailed out by the same government that fucked them? On my dime?

No one should've been bailed out: not the banks, not the (ex)homeowners, nothing. Greed, poor investments, and living beyond one's means should never be rewarded.

What about me? Where's my reward for renting an apartment because I can't afford to own a home? Unlike the other idiots, I didn't take easy credit to get a house in some Lennar p.o.s. suburban hellhole.

I also blame the media for making a sob story out of this. According to them, good ol' Joe and Jane America are being kicked out of their perfect little home with the white picket fence by the predatory lenders. Oh no! Where are the stories on the home flippers and the frenzied investors who wanted to make an easy buck? On the renters who foolishly jumped into home ownership?

Bailouts cost money. We already have an enormous deficit, to say nothing of the impending crisis with entitlement payments like Social Security. By printing more money to bail out idiots, the government devalues the dollar. And that leads to higher oil prices, among other things.
 
[quote name='Serik']On my dime?[/QUOTE]

Completely and utterly fucking irrelevant.

No one should've been bailed out
Click to expand...

Can you make a response without resorting to an alternate universe?

You literally got nothing.
 
Serik,

You have to remember that people on the extreme left would love nothing more than a life that operated on one continuous "bail-out" by a government. That's basically their goal.
 
How is it irrelevant? I'm a taxpayer and therefore have an opinion on what should and should not be funded by my tax dollars.

A quick summary of the implications of bail outs. The Fed bailing out Bear Stearns is a moral hazard through and through. Hell, the president of the Richmond Fed said as much.

The US is already running deficits and sitting on $9.4 trillion dollars in debts, to say nothing of personal, city, and state debts. Bailouts cost money and the left (and the fucking GOP nowadays), unfortunately, thinks that money comes from thin air. Printing more money devalues the dollar, contributes to inflation, and, as I said, makes oil more expensive. It also insulates people from suffering the consequences of poor judgment.

Fundamentally, bail outs wreak of America's sense of self-entitlement: that everyone somehow deserves taxpayer aid to subsidize their idiocy. But the free ride is coming to an end whether any of us like it or not.
 
[quote name='Serik']How is it irrelevant? I'm a taxpayer and therefore have an opinion on what should and should not be funded by my tax dollars.[/QUOTE]

You can have opinion on it, but your opinion is irrelevant in as much as it based on what you pay.

Ostensibly this is supposed to be about what is the "best" solution (long term, short term whatever) it has been pointed out before you have no idea what you are talking about and are reduced to mewling cries of MINE and a need to punish who ever the fuck reich wingers feel like punishing right this second.

Now if only there was some other way to reduce the deficit and stop hemorrhaging money perhaps... wait... I don't know leave Iraq?

We could build single American a McMansion (on Mars) for the amount of money we spent in Iraq.
 
I agree that there are there are better uses for my tax dollars than bombing Iraqis.

I also think that big mortgage brokers like Bear Sterns ought to suffer the consequences of thier risky lending practices. They were leveraged to the teeth and the house of cards crumpled. It's their fault.

At the same time, I do think that something should be done to help prudent homeowners having a hard time paying thier mortgage b/c of the economy, gas prices, whatever. Not a bail-out per se but perhaps some sort of assistance; even if it's just policy changes as it relates to the economy (e.g. books not bombs).
 
"Prudent" homeowners shouldn't be having problems. They should have stable jobs that are unaffected by the economy. They should have a mortgage they can easily afford with gas being .50 cents or so a gallon higher than it was this time last year and food being a bit more pricey.

That's part of being prudent--buying something you can afford when we hit economic speed bumps like these.

Point being I just don't think there are many "prudent" (to hammer the semantics) home owners really struggling to keep their house right now. Definitely not enough to need finanancial government assistance IMO. The people having problems are those who bought too much house for their income/job securities.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I agree that there are there are better uses for my tax dollars than bombing Iraqis. [/quote]

I agree. The best use I can think of is for me to keep those tax dollars. The throught of my hard earned 1/3 of everything going to help pay for $7,000 hammers for a contractor in Nebraska, $12,000 filing cabinets for a weather station in Alaska, and federal employee pay for holidays I don't even get, makes my stomach churn.

It's also important to remember that the war, and many other things, are not entirely funded by taxes anymore. The federal reserve is literally printing money to fund government projects now. That's much worse, than using our income tax.

I also think that big mortgage brokers like Bear Sterns ought to suffer the consequences of thier risky lending practices. They were leveraged to the teeth and the house of cards crumpled. It's their fault.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

At the same time, I do think that something should be done to help prudent homeowners having a hard time paying thier mortgage b/c of the economy, gas prices, whatever. Not a bail-out per se but perhaps some sort of assistance; even if it's just policy changes as it relates to the economy (e.g. books not bombs).
Click to expand...

I'm with dmaul on this one.

This whole issue actually hits home. I made a risky house investment last year in Arizona, intending to flip it. My builder stole $100,000 of my construction loan and it has completely fallen through. My immaculate credit is on the line now, as a foreclosure looks inevitable. But you know what? As much as the possible consequences scare me, I deserve what I get. That's why it upsets me all the more that the Fed will bail out the big guys. All parties involved should suffer for dumb decisions, including me.
 
The common theme here is that all parties involved (troubled buyers, lenders, the government) are spending beyond their means. It's a recipe for the fiscal destruction of this Republic. The rest of the world has no obligation (or benefit, really) to prop up spendthrift Americans.
 
[quote name='Serik']The common theme here is that all parties involved (troubled buyers, lenders, the government) are spending beyond their means. It's a recipe for the fiscal destruction of this Republic. The rest of the world has no obligation (or benefit, really) to prop up spendthrift Americans.[/QUOTE]

Actually the government has a vested interest (and by government I mean state, federal and local) in people living in houses instead of having miles of ghost towns and the occasional squatter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top