McCain: "Economics is Something That I've Really Never Understood"

[Diuretic]

Get your facts straight. If liberals run the media, then they probably know a good bit about economics.

I would think the people that run the big corporations that own the smaller corporations that produce the mass media in the US would know a bit about economics

 

[Paulie]

McCain's repeatedly acknowledged that he knows nothing about the economy. And he proves it whenever he talks about it.

And Obama and Hillary DON'T? Do YOU have any knowledge in economics to even point out the ones who DON'T? Because I constantly see you post in "Economy" only when it happens to refer to Ron Paul, where you feel comfortable in making a post that you feel makes some kind of sense.

You know damn right well that the only one who actually has any economic knowledge is Ron Paul.

The rest only refer to their "advisors", or in McCain's case, his "friends". The worst part about THEM though, is that they're the SAME DAMN PEOPLE who've been "advising" presidents for DECADES. And look where we are NOW.

Should I assume that in your world, things were peachy keen during Clinton, because we had a balanced budget?

 

[Paulie]

Get your facts straight. If liberals run the media, then they probably know a good bit about economics.

I'm ashamed to know you as a one-time Ron Paul supporter. What the fuck kind of statement is that right there? What does running the media have to do with having economic knowledge?

 

[midcan5]

John McFlip should just come out and say, 'jeez I just love voodoo economics, worked for Reagan and Bush.'

But John McSame, you forgot the deficits they both created.

"Oh yea told you I didnt know nuttin." John McFlop

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah considering, OBL said that we were just a 'paper tiger'. He said anytime the US suffered causalities they would just run away. Couldn't have anything to do with 9/11 huh? Him viewing us as weak?

Nope. 9-11 would have happened anyway whether those other things happened or not. The US being perceived as "weak" thanks to Clinton is just a right-wing strawman attempt to blame Clinton for 9-11. Makes the neocons feel good and takes the blame away from their poster boy Bush for taking his eye off the ball..

 

[mattskramer]

One thing he does have right about the economy he doesn't believe in earmarks...which he has 0 dollars in earmarks. While Obama and Hillary have funded their 'own bridges to no where'. As President Mccain will not stand for pork barrell projects, which is one reason why the federal defecit is jacked. That along with social spending consuming 56% of the federal budget.

McCain and Earmarks:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-earmark/

 

[jreeves]

McCain and Earmarks:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-earmark/

Lmao...think progress.org...come on at least attempt to be credible.

Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) is an independent voice for American taxpayers. TCS is dedicated to cutting wasteful government spending and subsidies in order to achieve a responsible and efficient government that lives within its means.
http://www.taxpayer.net/about/

McCain R AZ $0 $0 $0
Clinton D NY $98,000 $342,403,455 $1,209,611,755 Only diff w/ Schumer co-sponsored nav system study $787K
Obama D IL $3,334,520 $98,648,720 $106,520,720

 

[jreeves]

Nope. 9-11 would have happened anyway whether those other things happened or not. The US being perceived as "weak" thanks to Clinton is just a right-wing strawman attempt to blame Clinton for 9-11. Makes the neocons feel good and takes the blame away from their poster boy Bush for taking his eye off the ball..

Yeah sure something that took years to plan, and a new president who has been in office for about 6 months is to blame....Lmao

 

[maineman]

Yeah sure something that took years to plan, and a new president who has been in office for about 6 months is to blame....Lmao

how many times have I heard about Clinton being blamed for the FIRST attack on 9/11?

Bush was warned. He blew it off, stayed on vacation and played golf.

 

[Taomon]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/12/mccain-economic.html

McCain: "Economics is Something That I've Really Never Understood"

John McCain says that when it comes to economics he will have to rely upon others because, though he's tried, he doesn't really get it himself:

McCain said ... "The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should. I understand the basics, the fundamentals, the vision, all that kind of stuff,'' he said. "But I would like to have someone I'm close to that really is a good strong economist. As long as Alan Greenspan is around I would certainly use him for advice and counsel."

McCain said his staff hates it when he discusses his shortcomings on economics, even though he has read widely and studied the subject. "I've never been involved in Wall Street, I've never been involved in the financial stuff, the financial workings of the country, so I'd like to have somebody intimately familiar with it," he said of a potential vice president.
________________________________________________________________

But give that guy a war and he can handle it....FOR 100 YEARS IF NEED BE!

And the economy is one of the most important issues in this election.

Bush just bailed out one of the large investment firms for the housing bubble...and millions of Americans will still lose their homes.

 

[jreeves]

how many times have I heard about Clinton being blamed for the FIRST attack on 9/11?

Bush was warned. He blew it off, stayed on vacation and played golf.

Nope, your wrong Clinton gave a higher importance to Serbia than he ever gave to AQ that's the proof.

 

[mattskramer]

Lmao...think progress.org...come on at least attempt to be credible.

Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) is an independent voice for American taxpayers. TCS is dedicated to cutting wasteful government spending and subsidies in order to achieve a responsible and efficient government that lives within its means.
http://www.taxpayer.net/about/

McCain R AZ $0 $0 $0
Clinton D NY $98,000 $342,403,455 $1,209,611,755 Only diff w/ Schumer co-sponsored nav system study $787K
Obama D IL $3,334,520 $98,648,720 $106,520,720

So the web site might be biased but I ask you a straight forward question:

In 2006, did the senator teamed up with fellow Arizona senator Jon Kyl (R) to funnel $10 million toward the University of Arizona for an academic center named after the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18earmark.html?pagewanted=print

"If it doesn't meet the technical term of earmark, it would probably meet the public idea of one," said Pete Sepp, a vice president at the National Taxpayers Union, who is an ally of Mr. McCain in the fight for new rules.

Mr. McCain's efforts to win money to establish the William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence at the University of Arizona illustrates the pervasive push in Congress for money to send back home, as well as the struggle to pin down exactly what constitutes an earmark to be covered under the new rules.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/273/

In 2006, McCain co-sponsored with fellow Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl a bill that asked for $10-million for an academic center at the University of Arizona named in honor of William Rehnquist, the former U.S. Supreme Court chief justice. The project died in committee.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/one-two_punch_for_gop.html

Also, in 2006, he proposed legislation that would give $10 million to the University of Arizona to create a center honoring former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. But was that pork-barrel spending? Answer: It depends. An Arizona Republic editorial said this wasn’t pork because it wasn’t slipped into some bill in the dead-of-the-night, but was a separate piece of legislation. A Chicago Tribune editorial, meanwhile, criticized McCain, saying the request was “not much better” than a hidden earmark, and a New York Times article included this assessment by Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union: "If it doesn't meet the technical term of earmark, it would probably meet the public idea of one." As a separate authorizing bill (that died in committee), it doesn't meet CAGW's definition of pork.

 

[jreeves]

So the web site might be biased but I ask you a straight forward question:

In 2006, did the senator teamed up with fellow Arizona senator Jon Kyl (R) to funnel $10 million toward the University of Arizona for an academic center named after the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18earmark.html?pagewanted=print

"If it doesn't meet the technical term of earmark, it would probably meet the public idea of one," said Pete Sepp, a vice president at the National Taxpayers Union, who is an ally of Mr. McCain in the fight for new rules.

Mr. McCain's efforts to win money to establish the William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence at the University of Arizona illustrates the pervasive push in Congress for money to send back home, as well as the struggle to pin down exactly what constitutes an earmark to be covered under the new rules.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/273/

In 2006, McCain co-sponsored with fellow Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl a bill that asked for $10-million for an academic center at the University of Arizona named in honor of William Rehnquist, the former U.S. Supreme Court chief justice. The project died in committee.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/one-two_punch_for_gop.html

Also, in 2006, he proposed legislation that would give $10 million to the University of Arizona to create a center honoring former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. But was that pork-barrel spending? Answer: It depends. An Arizona Republic editorial said this wasn’t pork because it wasn’t slipped into some bill in the dead-of-the-night, but was a separate piece of legislation. A Chicago Tribune editorial, meanwhile, criticized McCain, saying the request was “not much better” than a hidden earmark, and a New York Times article included this assessment by Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union: "If it doesn't meet the technical term of earmark, it would probably meet the public idea of one." As a separate authorizing bill (that died in committee), it doesn't meet CAGW's definition of pork.

McCain has certainly made a crusade out of attacking the special projects of other members of Congress, and especially the hundreds of secretive "earmark" appropriations that increasingly have been slipped into spending bills at the request of House and Senate members, without public hearings or debate. And nobody is accusing him of using such tactics. In fact, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste, says the anti-pork watchdog group doesn't know of any instance in which McCain has asked the appropriations committee for an earmark.

This is off of your own post.

 

[mattskramer]

McCain has certainly made a crusade out of attacking the special projects of other members of Congress, and especially the hundreds of secretive "earmark" appropriations that increasingly have been slipped into spending bills at the request of House and Senate members, without public hearings or debate. And nobody is accusing him of using such tactics. In fact, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste, says the anti-pork watchdog group doesn't know of any instance in which McCain has asked the appropriations committee for an earmark.

This is off of your own post.

You might be right. I just get annoyed by absolutist rhetoric. I think that there is at least one instance – perhaps with some convoluted way of thinking about it – where it can be argued that McCain got a desired earmark. I might be wrong. Still, even with just one earmark, McCain would have a good record in comparison to other candidates in this area.

 

[jreeves]

You might be right. I just get annoyed by absolutist rhetoric. I think that there is at least one instance – perhaps with some convoluted way of thinking about it – where it can be argued that McCain got a desired earmark. I might be wrong. Still, even with just one earmark, McCain would have a good record in comparison to other candidates in this area.

His career is well documented on eliminating wasteful spending that was my point.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I wonder how many presidents have fully understood economics to the T. While a little big incriminating...at least he's honest. I like that in a president...Democrat or Republican.

Presidents have virtually NO control over the economy anyway, so it really doesn't matter how much they know or don't know. About all they can directly do appoint the chairman of the Federal Reserve but even Congress has to confirm it. And the Fed, as we have seen, has, at best, a peripheral, fringe effect. Especially in this day and age, no one country, even the US, has a great deal of control over the economy. The main reason is move governments move at a glacial pace and the things they do like adjust central bank interest rates they do so in such small increments as to have no real effect.

Government had nothing to do with subprimes, nothing to do with the Investment Banks on Wall St starting to distrust each other and cease lending money to anyone, even themselves. No government policy had any effect on Wall St over leveraging and speculating on currencies, commodity markets, and mortgage backed securities, junk bonds and low rated munis. And no government had an say over marginally qualified home buyers buying homes grossly over priced and far more than they could ever afford nor other home owners paying off credit cards and cars with their home's equity.....

 

[maineman]

Nope, your wrong Clinton gave a higher importance to Serbia than he ever gave to AQ that's the proof.

Bush was warned. he blew it off and played golf. that is a fact...

and on whose watch did the first 9/11 attack occur?

 

[Paulie]

McCain proved in a debate not too long ago that he had no clue what the Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets was, aka the Plunge Protection Team. He was asked about it by Ron Paul, and he fumbled for words and rambled on about absolutely NOTHING that had to do with it, and then named "his friends" who he trusted for economic advice, some of the names actually being people ON THE PPT. He's a fucking moron. In a time like this during economic/market crisis, I expect a potential president to KNOW this shit.

The PWGFM/PPT would be that group of people who are right now doing everything they can behind the scenes on a daily basis to keep the market from crashing.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah sure something that took years to plan, and a new president who has been in office for about 6 months is to blame....Lmao

Y'all seemed quick to blame Clinton for the first WTC bombing when he'd only been in office a month. GW had 9 months (sheesh, you can't even count right) grace. And are you saying that Bush admin were just toothless wonders for that nine months and had gathered no intelligence in that time? Also, are you admitting for the nine months of GW's presidency before 9-11 that the terrorists still saw the US as a paper tiger? Why didn't Bush spend the first nine months trying to dispel that myth by attacking terrorist cells abroad? Oh, that's right, he didn't!

 

[maineman]

Y'all seemed quick to blame Clinton for the first WTC bombing when he'd only been in office a month. GW had 9 months (sheesh, you can't even count right) grace. And are you saying that Bush admin were just toothless wonders for that nine months and had gathered no intelligence in that time? Also, are you admitting for the nine months of GW's presidency before 9-11 that the terrorists still saw the US as a paper tiger? Why didn't Bush spend the first nine months trying to dispel that myth by attacking terrorist cells abroad? Oh, that's right, he didn't!

because BUSH was way more concerned with Star Wars than he was about Al Qaeda. Hell...Bush was more concerned with PORNOGRAPHY than he was about Al Qaeda.

The DAY BEFORE 9/11, Asscroft cut the DoJ Anti-terrorism budget by $51M.

Condi had to cancel a speech she was going to give on 9/11.... about Star Wars.