Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They're already listed on the press release, which goes into more detail on the economists' credentials. Wikis are a starting point; you need to have to care enough to look further and learn more.
I think his list is bogus is all. If there were so many people supporting him, why aren't they more vocal about it?
Just like all other administrations the effect of a presidency often isn't felt until after he leaves office,clinton reaped the awards of the reagan/bush era and GW is having to deal with the poblems created by his predecessor are now coming to fruition....Examples: freddie and fannie rule changes, the deregulaion of wall srteet, the first bombing of Iraq , and more... all was clintons doings and GW had been rolled over by the snowball that clinton hand packed....Now no more of this and lets not vote for a ''Barrack hussien obama'' to get even with the rights and lets do whats good for AMERICA !!!
LOL. 8 Long Years of the Bush Suck Fest and his backers still try to pin everything on Clinton. Nice logic. What ever happened to "the Buck Stops Here" and "Accountability" in the Oval Office.
Right about 1 thing though; GW got "rolled over" all right. He has been rolling down the hill and draggin us with hiim for way too long.
Hear me out. I've done a lot of research recently on how the economy works. Here is my conclusion. Let me know what you think.
For the economy to recover, Americans and the American government need to do an about face. They need to:
- Stop borrowing
- Start paying back debts
- Stop consuming
- Start saving
- Start investing savings on productive uses
- Start manufacturing and exporting
Here are examples of how the Republicans have helped/will help:
- Deductions on equipment purchases
- Keeping taxes low on small business
- Keeping regulations low on small business
- Not taxing capital gains on RE sales if reinvested
- Raise caps on retirement investments
- Smaller government spending
- Advocating sound personal financial management
Here's how the Democrats have hurt/will hurt:
- Increased government spending
- Social programs like the Community Reinvestment Act that started the housing crisis
- Burdening small business: increased income taxation, mandated healthcare, lowered FMLA cap, etc.
- Lacking appreciation for the role of manufacturing: removing the equipment deduction, etc.
- Redistributing wealth through increased taxation, disencentivizing hard working Americans and employers.
- No emphasis personal accountability or sound personal financial management
Printing dollars and redistributing wealth through increased taxation are not the answers.
interesting thing about the democratic party. they used to be for tax cuts:
John F. Kennedy believed that "an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits." So he proposed income tax rate reductions, which the Democratic Congress enacted the year after JFK's death. Back then, Democrats were for them: more than 80% of Democratic senators and representatives voted for the Kennedy tax cuts.
My, how times have changed. Today the Democratic Party is so vehemently opposed to income tax cuts that when President Bush's reached their final vote in May 2003, only 4% of Democratic legislators (2 of 48 senators and 7 of 205 representatives) voted "yes."
i guess what obama is trying to say is that kennedy had no idea what he was talking about.
LOL. 8 Long Years of the Bush Suck Fest and his backers still try to pin everything on Clinton. Nice logic. What ever happened to "the Buck Stops Here" and "Accountability" in the Oval Office.
Right about 1 thing though; GW got "rolled over" all right. He has been rolling down the hill and draggin us with hiim for way too long.
Ok then you vote for Barrack hussein obama,I'm just telling ya like it is.
The Economic crisis is much larger than most think. The 700 billion will only scratch the surface and allow bank to continue loaning money the hopefully keep business afloat. The real problem is suprime and the credit swaps. The swaps are really insurance against the subprime failing. Unfortunately, they did not call it insurance, then it would have to have regulation and with it the financial backing to pay off if needed. The swaps do not have the backing, the banks were selling subprimes along with the insurance(swaps) to each other, all over the world. Making big bucks, big salaries, big bonuses for many years. On the US side it is the Republicans who pretty much allowed this to happen, my guess would be that most of the bankers are Repubs as well. So I don't think voting in another Repub Admin is a good choice. I don't know if the Dems will be able to handle it, but it is pretty evident the Repubs cannot. Incidentally the the real amount world wide is between 60 and 70 TRILLION, they don't know for sure, they can only estimate it.
interesting thing about the democratic party. they used to be for tax cuts:
John F. Kennedy believed that "an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits." So he proposed income tax rate reductions, which the Democratic Congress enacted the year after JFK's death. Back then, Democrats were for them: more than 80% of Democratic senators and representatives voted for the Kennedy tax cuts.
My, how times have changed. Today the Democratic Party is so vehemently opposed to income tax cuts that when President Bush's reached their final vote in May 2003, only 4% of Democratic legislators (2 of 48 senators and 7 of 205 representatives) voted "yes."
i guess what obama is trying to say is that kennedy had no idea what he was talking about.
The same 2003 the Republican Congress opted to allow the Pay as yo Go rules expire despite opposition from the Fed Chief?
I could be wrong, but isn't the Economist a British publication? The British are typically pro Democrat, no? So, the results could be biased... just sayin'...
Also, one of the more memorable statements my Economics Professor stated was, "a true economist would never be a Democrat."
I think his list is bogus is all. If there were so many people supporting him, why aren't they more vocal about it?
That's pretty lame. Legally, the economists' statement and list of signatories wouldn't be able to continue to be posted if it weren't accurate.
The bigger question - this was a PRESS RELEASE. Now, ask yourself, did you ever see any of the MSM cover this? CNN? CBS? NBC? ABC? the NYT? Washington Post? Uh... no. Why would that be? They're heavily biased in favor of Obama. We're not getting the facts from the MSM, we're getting pro-Obama spin. Obama supporters are getting played, and they're either too ignorant or too mesmerized to recognize it.
JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008 (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/c90681b9-5dfe-4de4-8057-ceedb30c228d.htm - broken link)
The Economic crisis is much larger than most think. The 700 billion will only scratch the surface and allow bank to continue loaning money the hopefully keep business afloat. The real problem is suprime and the credit swaps. The swaps are really insurance against the subprime failing. Unfortunately, they did not call it insurance, then it would have to have regulation and with it the financial backing to pay off if needed. The swaps do not have the backing, the banks were selling subprimes along with the insurance(swaps) to each other, all over the world. Making big bucks, big salaries, big bonuses for many years. On the US side it is the Republicans who pretty much allowed this to happen, my guess would be that most of the bankers are Repubs as well. So I don't think voting in another Repub Admin is a good choice. I don't know if the Dems will be able to handle it, but it is pretty evident the Repubs cannot. Incidentally the the real amount world wide is between 60 and 70 TRILLION, they don't know for sure, they can only estimate it.
A lot of people are at fault. Democrats and Republicans.
Just like all other administrations the effect of a presidency often isn't felt until after he leaves office,clinton reaped the awards of the reagan/bush era and GW is having to deal with the poblems created by his predecessor are now coming to fruition....Examples: freddie and fannie rule changes, the deregulaion of wall srteet, the first bombing of Iraq , and more... all was clintons doings and GW had been rolled over by the snowball that clinton hand packed....Now no more of this and lets not vote for a ''Barrack hussien obama'' to get even with the rights and lets do whats good for AMERICA !!!
You see, this is where the McCain supporters lose me...you want to make a point about the carry over effects/credit a prior presidency should get (like Bush Sr. for Clinton). A point worthy of debate. I might not agree, I'll debate though...then you close with the bigoted "Barrack hussein obama" thing...so who can take you seriously. You were never voting for the dark-skinned dude anyway.
To the point of prior presidencies impacting the following term (e.g. Bush Sr. was the reason why Clinton did so well)...how come it doesn't count when you compare another 4-year presidency, Bush Jr.'s first term, to the following term....his second in office???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
