Economy now front and center in 2008

Continuing the debate over the economy today, both candidates were offering statements and positions on the current economic news. For Obama, the past few days have represented an opening, to some extent, on an issue where voters seem to favor him over McCain.

Report from Fox News:

Casting himself as a man of action amid ongoing turmoil in the U.S. financial markets, John McCain said Thursday that if he were president, he would fire Securities and Exchange Chairman Chris Cox.

The Republican presidential candidate accused Cox, the former GOP congressman, of betraying the public’s trust in the wake of a series of financial collapses of major investment and insurance firms on Wall Street.

“You can’t wait any longer for more failures in our financial system,” McCain told voters at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

McCain’s certitude did not move Barack Obama or his Democratic supporters, who pounced on McCain’s proclamation.

“Now all of the sudden he has become a populist,” Obama said of his rival at a rally in Espanola, N.M. “I think (calling for Cox’s firing is) all fine and good but … you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other-way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path. Don’t just get rid of one guy, get rid of this administration, get rid of this philosophy.”

New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who sits on the finance and banking committees, said McCain ought to explain his own policies rather than calling for firings.

“Calling for someone to be fired in the middle of this crisis might sound really nice, but it doesn’t do anything to help people and calm the markets,” he said.

The prolonged back and forth over is part of a heightened effort this week by the campaigns to cast one one another as bereft of ideas for saving an economy that has seen the federal government shell out billions in taxpayer money to lift up foundering financial behemoths.

Obama said Thursday he was calling on the Treasury and Federal Reserve to “use their emergency authorities to maintain the flow of credit, to support the availability of mortgages and to ensure that our financial system is well capitalized.” He said he would unveil new proposals Friday after meeting with senior economic advisers.

Specifically, McCain called for the creation of a public-private entity that would identify weak financial institutions in need of help.

Report from CBS News on McCain bashing President Bush’s economic policies and Wall Street’s actions:

Report from NBC News on the economy taking over the campaign:

We’ll continue to cover the economic back and forth as it continues. The longer this discussion continues, clearly the better for Obama since polls favor him on economic issues. McCain, for his part, has been coming out strong on the economy both criticizing Bush and Wall Street, we’ll see if that benefits him in the coming days.

On a personal note, I have been absent for the past 48 hours or so with a family medical issue. Everything is doing better now and we’ll be back to normal operation.

  • The economy isn’t going to be fixed solely by either side but by both sides working together.

    I like some of the stuff that McCain is saying but his message(s) are still being overshadowed I feel by Sarah Palin’s presence. And now that it’s looking like Obama is bouncing back in the polls, his message could be even further lost.

  • Dreadsen


    She is over shadowing him alright!
    In one of her rallys when she left people started getting up leaving and McCain was still there! LOL!
    And instead of her saying a McCain and Palin administration she said Palin and McCain administration!
    The hell with pitbull with lipstick analogy this is Dick Cheney with lipstick!
    She already used executive privilege to keep from disclosing emails and has people in her administration ignoring subpoenas!
    This is taking the phrase “more of the same” to new areas!

  • Dreadsen

    Ron Paul tells us the real problems. Something neither one of the other two candidates have told us.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I have concluded that the gas price crisis was set up to distract from people’s opposition to McCain’s pro-war stance. Obama’s responses are pathetic about his opposition to “drilling here and drilling now”, while McCain’s sound promising to most Americans regarding the gas situation. Considering the backing McCain has from the oil barons, it makes sense that the oil barons who control the media and economy would shift public opinion through the high gas prices.

  • What if:

    Instead of Obama opposing any new drilling and instead of him super-taxing these oil companies on the profits they’re making now, why not have an agreement where they can drill in new certain areas and the majority of profits made from that goes back to the tax-payer?

  • Babs

    Pudding, be careful, you’re suggesting the same thing Palin did in Alaska, and it worked on a state level because of state ownership of the product. 😉

    Obama is getting a bump over the economy because he’s not been called so far on his real record, or his real association with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    “With the exception of Senator Chris Dodd, Barack Obama has received more money from mortgage giant Fannie Mae during his three years in office than any other politician in the United States has received in the company’s entire history. Senator Obama talks a lot about not taking money from lobbyists, but he does not seem to mind taking record sums of cash from corrupt corporate executives at Fannie Mae. The truth is that Obama holds these greedy corrupt executives in such high regard that he decided to have one of them, Jim Johnson, lead his search for finding a vice presidential running mate.”

    McCain has begun this morning to fight back, we’ll see how it goes:

    McCain also laid out Obama’s voting record on taxes in an economic speech this morning. Seems he voted to increase taxes 94 times in his tenure. Seems he just recently voted in favor of a tax increase for people making as little as $42,000 a year. Is that the new line now, down from $250,000 to $42,000? Where’s the truth?

  • Dreadsen


    That is a similar argument I have been trying to present on here but they see this as Government intervention or regulation. Look now we see all kinds of Government intervention and regulation now.
    I think the government should regulate the Oil companies similar to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. They sell the Oil internationally for the international price. But for their citizens they only pay 40 cents a gallon for gas.

    The Pro drill argument is let the oil companies drill and they will sell it to us for the going international price but because of the increased supply on the global market the price will drop. This doesn’t take into consideration that if we add a large significant supply Opec will decrease production and it is possible that they will decrease to the point that we see no price increase. The oil companies can make a huge amount of money if the Oil is drilled here and refined here even if we only end up paying $1.00 a gallon. They deal they should make is that they can drill more if they are allowed to regulate their domestic sales so we aren’t paying the same price as if it came from the global market.

  • Dreadsen


    “McCain also laid out Obama’s voting record on taxes in an economic speech this morning. Seems he voted to increase taxes 94 times in his tenure. Seems he just recently voted in favor of a tax increase for people making as little as $42,000 a year. Is that the new line now, down from $250,000 to $42,000? Where’s the truth? ”

    The truth is for us to see the details and facts on this alleged $42,000 tax increase. McCain is going to add a tax to pay roll heath care which didn’t exist before. But over all on his tax plan people will be paying less in taxes then they are now. Now someone could just say “McCain is going to increase taxes on people making as low as minimum wage” Because if you are on minimum wage but have health care benefits then technically he would be increasing your taxes. But his entire plan over all would still decrease their over all taxes. all over his new Tax ad which just came out yesterday.

  • Dreadsen

    OH another thing

    “Pudding, be careful, you’re suggesting the same thing Palin did in Alaska, and it worked on a state level because of state ownership of the product. ;)”

    That is an excellent idea but you know the idea of the Government owning it has also been shot down. They should point out what Alaska did as an example. But how much are they paying per gallon in Alaska? If they are paying just as much as we are then that means even though the state owns the product they are still selling it at international prices. Which means the savings aren’t going to the consumer. So Alaska could be used as an example of why more drilling just won’t help. If my thoughts are correct.

  • Babs

    Dreadsen, while I respect factcheck as a fairly reliable source (and some don’t) they have misrepresented this:

    “The ad claims that Obama will tax “life savings.” In fact, he would increase capital gains and dividends taxes only for couples earning more than $250,000 per year, or singles making $200,000. For the rest, taxes on investments would remain unchanged.”

    If you look at McCain’s new ad, the reference there was obvious. It’s referring to the vote – not the promise – of Obama, when he voted to increase taxes on incomes of $42,000 or more. That certainly will include retirees drawing any kind of pension to live off of in their “golden” years. I can give you about 20 personal examples of that. Some of these retirees live in assisted care facilities. Assisted Care costs range from $2000 to $4000 per month, and insurance nor medicare will cover the cost of that. So their life savings pays this if they’re lucky enough to have saved this much money. Once the money is transferred out of savings or pensions, they are then taxed as normal income. The ad is correct.

  • Dreadsen

    Babs it says this is what we WILL pay. Any other time they are referencing a vote ( like the sex ed ad) they specify that it is a vote. So it is not obvious that they are talking about his vote. They are definitely trying to portray that this is the promise.
    Now are we going to look at things which McCain has voted for in the past and say that this is what he is actually promising to do in the future?

  • Babs

    No, Dreadsen, you’re splitting hairs. Did you look at the new ad? Did you listen to the press conference this morning? Once again – OBAMA VOTED TO RAISE TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS WHO EARN MORE THAN $42,000 A YEAR. That’s a FAR cry from $250,000, and exposes Obama’s lies in that he may campaign for $250,000, but he voted for $42K.

  • Babs, if Palin has suggested and already done what I said then that’s bordering socialism.

  • Dreadsen


    We are going by his tax proposal which is his tax plan.
    His tax proposal does not tax anyone who makes $42,000
    His proposal is people over $250,000 so we can not use a vote in the past to prove that his future proposal is a lie.

    Is this the ad you are talking about? Where they say we WOULD pay? I take that as Future tense and not past tense.

    Now if your point is that based on a past vote ( which i would like to see the details of this vote) that you feel his tax proposal for the future is a lie and that he’s going to raise them anyway then that is fine. But lets not misrepresent his tax plan or that he has made any kind of proposal for the future that will actually increase a tax on people making $42,000.