McCain, Obama deliver speeches on economic policy

Senator McCain spoke earlier this morning on the economy and Senator Obama spoke around noon on the same topic. It seems that some formal positions have finally been determined by both sides and they saw fit to speak today on the matter trying to give more detail regarding each of their respective positions.

Full videos of each speech are down below the update.

McCain spoke first today around 8am eastern time this morning. Here is over 10 minutes of his speech from MSNBC:

Transcript of McCain’s entire speech here.

Report on McCain’s speech from Yahoo News:

GREEN BAY, Wisc. – Republican John McCain said Friday the Federal Reserve needs to stop bailing out failed financial institutions.

The Republican presidential hopeful said the Fed should get back to “its core business of responsibly managing our money supply and inflation” and he laid out several recommendations for stabilizing markets in the financial crisis that has rocked Wall Street and commanded the dialogue in the presidential campaign.

The Fed engineered an $85 billion takeover of insurance giant AIG this week after seizing control of housing giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. McCain said that to help return the U.S. to fiscal solvency, the powerful central bank should instead focus on shoring up the dollar and keeping inflation low.

“A strong dollar will reduce energy and food prices,” McCain said to applause from the Green Bay Chamber of Commerce. “It will stimulate sustainable economic growth and get this economy moving again.”

The Arizona senator again criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for ties to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and for advocating tax increases McCain said would “turn a recession into a depression.”

Obama spoke around noon and I am currently waiting for the entire video, I will update the story later this afternoon with his entire speech as well and another report.


About 5 minute of Obama’s speech from MSNBC:

Report on Obama’s speech from Yahoo News:

CORAL GABLES, Fla. – Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Friday he backs giving “broad authority” to the Treasury Department to deal with the burgeoning credit crisis, but said he’s not spelling out details of his own plans to avoid roiling the markets.

Obama said at a Florida news conference that given the gravity of the situation, he will refrain for now from presenting a more detailed blueprint. He said any recovery plan should be guided by not rewarding reckless business leaders.

“What we have to do is make sure taxpayer money is not being used to bail out bad decisions,” he said. He refused to put a pricetag on a bailout he could support, but said it would not bar him from pushing for middle-class tax cuts that have been central to his campaign.

“I think now more than ever we have to have the broad-based middle-class tax cuts,” Obama said.

Obama huddled with key economic advisers to talk about a burgeoning credit crisis that is rapidly moving to the front of this competitive election season, seeking a balance between offering stability and blaming the crisis on what he said were failed economic policies that John McCain would continue.

Still looking for the full video of both speeches and I will updated later today accordingly.


Entire 26 minute video of McCain’s speech from CNN:

Entire 22 minute video of Obama’s speech from CNN:

Another report from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON – The financial crisis has turned into a tryout of sorts for the next president, an unexpected chance for Barack Obama and John McCain to shine — or stumble — just as most voters are deciding whom to back.

At times like these, when the real world intrudes on the carefully controlled campaigns, the spotlight shines even brighter on the presidential candidates. Their responses and postures may tell voters more about how they would act if elected than allegations of lies in advertising and quips about lipstick on pigs.

Both have got some work to do.

“People are confused, they’re scared and they’re angry, and neither of these guys is providing the security, maturity and experience to be able to calm those fears,” says Joe Gaylord, a Republican consultant. “If these candidates can rise out of their campaign mode and get into the president-of-all-the-country mode, people would feel more comfortable.”

The trick for each is not to look like he’s trying to score cheap political points off a crisis.

Last month, Russia’s invasion of Georgia provided a taste of how outside events can affect the presidential race. McCain seemed to hit his stride more quickly than Obama. In the financial meltdown, the opposite has been true.

Between now and Nov. 4, any number of other domestic or foreign events could intervene. For now, all attention has swung to the financial crisis that has spread worldwide. Despite Friday’s major actions by the federal government, even more economic troubles could be ahead, putting additional pressure on both Obama and McCain to map out solutions and prove they can handle adversity.

Both men are treading carefully as they use the Wall Street chaos not only to sell their economic plans but also to try to sound and act presidential before a nervous nation seeking leadership.

On Friday, Obama struck a stately stance as he acknowledged “difficult days” and said: “This is not the time for fear or panic. This is a time for resolve and for leadership. I know we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. That’s who we are. That’s what we’ve always done as Americans.”

After fumbling earlier in the week, McCain’s remarks had a more partisan edge. He claimed Obama “profited from this system of abuse and scandal” — even as he said: “It took members of both parties to get America into this mess, and it will take all of us, working together, to lead the way out.”

For now at least, the campaigns have returned to issues and substance after weeks of clashes over personalities and characters. Each candidate has accused the other of lying in campaign commercials, and there was a dispute over whether Obama was insulting GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin when he used the phrase putting “lipstick on a pig.”

At least this is giving the campaigns some “meat and potatoes” issues to discuss. We’re past the nonsense for the time being as there is serious news which is now being addressed. Obama must be pleased that the debate is now back between himself and Senator McCain instead of discussing Gov. Palin.

Which message is resonating more with the voters? I’m not really sure, we’ll see how this plays out in the coming days. The election is so fluid that the topic of the economy could change next week with some other event, who knows.

  • Babs

    Ok, I’m lost on Obama’s speech. I don’t follow it. Am I having a senior moment?

  • JD

    “Am I having a senior moment?”

    Its ok Babs… McCain’s entire speech is a senior moment.

  • Babs

    ha ha, JD. McCain’s speech I got – his language is to the point. I heard another portion of Obama’s on the tube that was a little clearer, I didn’t agree with him but I got it. This video left me saying “huh”? Maybe I’m just so used to hearing him bash McCain that when he actually talks about something I’m stunned. He made a U-turn on me.

  • JD

    Babs – “I didn’t agree with him but I got it.”

    I am glad we are back to talking about the issues, again. I was running out of one liners and was going to have to start googling some new ones.

    So let me ask what didn’t you agree with specifically?

    Also, I thought both McCain and Obama hit the nail on the head in saying that there needs to be accountability in the market and not just bailouts.

    I feel too often corporations hate the government involvement unless they are failing then they come crying back. If we are willing to let citizens go bankrupt then we should be doing the same for companies.

    Babs – “Maybe I’m just so used to hearing him bash McCain that when he actually talks about something I’m stunned.”

    I thought it was interesting that McCain went after Obama for his Tax cuts but then went on and talked about how he was going to give 5000 dollars to every family to help them afford healthcare.

    It is like they are saying the same thing but both parties are pawning it off like they are different from each other.

    But I like Obama more.

  • Babs

    On this issue, we agree. They are both saying basically the same thing, and it’s all hypothetical. Very easy to say what you think should happen or what you would do “if it were you”, but no different than if you or I say it. None of us have the authority to do anything about it. The job is being done by the current President, and yes, we actually have one.

    I do know that McCain was right two years ago, and had he been successful in his attack about F/F, maybe this wouldn’t have happened – at least to them.

    And I do think that there’s not enough regulation of Wall Street and Banking corps that are so large they can ruin our economy with their mismanagement to the point of literally throwing us into another Depression. The business down the street mismanages, they bankrupt and start over – some creditors get burned, and they learn to be more careful who they give credit to. These corporations are different, but should they be? Doesn’t F/F almost compare to a monopoly? And aren’t monopolies a dangerous thing?


    I am happy to see McCain got out there first and gave his speech. He gave a great speech and I believe was very much right to the point and has a good formula for this economy. On the other hand Obama gave a great speech to, but i do not believe in the ways he does, and i do not believe in raising tax after tax after tax, in this situation, especially raising taxes on small businesses, who are the ones that really fuel our economy.

  • Babs

    I don’t either, O_S, I just read a new news article titled “Obama laments National Debt, but backs billions for UN”. I just don’t understand his logic. He’s proposing $50 BILLION dollars for World Poverty, when our own country is next door to bankruptcy. Where is his head on this one?? Is he raising taxes so we can line the pockets of the rich in other countries?

    “Johns Hopkins professor Steve Hanke said such spending would merely drive up American debt, while doing almost nothing for the world’s poor.

    “It goes down a bureaucratic rat-hole, lining the pockets of people who are connected to the power structure,” said Hanke, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “It’s basically a system to redistribute income from middle class people in the United States to rich people in poor countries. It never reaches those people who are living on a dollar a day.”

  • Mel

    Following is the FACT CHECK
    McCain’s speech was Partially true, but misleading. Donations don’t come from companies. A list of employee contributions puts Obama second, but a different list including lobbyists and directors shows McCain getting more.
    If you look at the FACT CHECK about the tax related accusation by McCain, you will see his claims are misleading, not the whole truth.

  • nyth

    I don’t quite remember the numbers, but don’t we spend nearly $50 billion a week in Iraq? Now, I agree that giving $50 billion to “the poor” is nothing more than a publicity stunt, solving nothing. But really, isn’t giving money – some of it which might actually help people in need out – better than spending it on napalm?

    Don’t get me wrong, I think that a vote for either major candidate is a vote for war.


    I say look at it like this. Small businesses run and fuel America. As a small local hardware store owner I know that with Obama’s tax hikes my business is going to be hurt severely. I think all small business owners should know and go over all the taxes Obama is going to raise on us. Those taxes ain’t no tax cut for my middle class family. Will it be for yours?

  • Ed Read

    hey people !

    nyth just hit right on the center of the center of the issue, good for him !.

    I’m glad to finally read someone smart.

    The Bush administration & surrogates, like McCain, created this economic meltdown with their war economy policies that is putting in very serious danger not only the U.S. but the Americam continent (I mean all the countries tied to the U.S. one in this continent)

    That’s why is so necessary to elect to have a Real Change, that means to vote for Obama and expose all the lies McCain is saying.

  • O_S, you’ll have to explain your logic (don’t laugh everyone…LOL) because from what I can gather Obama is all too keen to shaft the the top 5% of companies that make record profits NOT the small businesses.

  • Pats

    nzpudding, I agree with you. Throughout the campaign Obama talked about taxing the top 5% of companies that make record profit each year. Please O_S explain furhter.

  • PeoplePower

    Let me add to that request, O_S and others who agree with O_S.

    I keep seeing you say that Obama is going to tax small business. Where are you getting that from and what makes you think he’d tax your hardware store?

    Of course, if your hardware store is making huge profits (doubt it, but this is hypothetical), then you probably owe a little more in taxes…And I *do* mean *HUGE* profits! I can’t put a number on it, as I don’t know how much profits are made at a typical hardware store.

  • PeoplePower

    Folks –

    I’m *largely* opposed to corporate bailouts, but I can also empathize with the harm it would do to the workforce.

    That being said, if a major financial company went belly-up, there are tons of other companies in that sector that could hire a majority of the failed-company’s workers. So a good number of them could find another job, or maybe start their own company. Still, certainly some would suffer, but that’s a part of the system we live in.

    What really needs to be set right is the huge disparity between CEO pay and a regular worker’s pay. Before Reagan took office, the scale was about 40-to-1. Kinda high, but the CEO has a big responsibility. Now it’s somewhere in the 440-to-1 range. That’s extraordinarily excessive!

    I know directing a company is difficult work, but the company wouldn’t exist w/o the workers…

    At the very least, if a company goes belly-up, the person who gets all the credit for the good times should get most, or all, of the blame for the bad.

    The cry of supporters of this huge wage gap say that the CEO guides the company to be better. Why should they have such an extraordinary golden parachute if they guide the company off a cliff?

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I am not deceived by McCain’s attempts to sound like a proponent of free markets. Look who his pal is: Phil Gramm.

  • Dreadsen

    Ralph Nader talks about ending corporate welfare.
    There is definitely an inconsistency in this rally against welfare.
    If people are going to complain about people living high off the hog they should look at the amount of money we send to all these foreign countries.
    If you are against welfare for people in need IN OUR country then you have to be outraged at the poor people in need in OTHER COUNTRIES who we continue to send money to.
    So we send money to poor in other countries even countries who are considered not friendly.
    We give loads of money to corporate companies who have probably mis managed their businesses the same way some poor people mis manage their lives. If we are going to point at someone in poverty and say they deserve to starve and die because they are not taking responsibilities in their lives then the corporations need to DIE who also are not taking responsibility.
    When these people see and understand how no one cares for their well being but they care for people in other countries and large corporation you can’t help but understand the anger.
    That’s why i don’t understand now fiscal conservative ideas have been changed over the years.
    If you are for welfare then support all of it across the board.
    If you are against it then rally against all of it with the same passion.


    Have you looked at every tax Obama is going to raise, and I mean every one. It is deadly to small businesses and I mean deadly.

  • You’ll have to provide links O_S as to where you get your information, and I mean proper links not some far-right lets-twist-the-facts propoganda nonsense links either.

    What I find amusing is the fact that people who don’t like Obama saying he’s going to raise their taxes (when they don’t provide any evidence) yet the Republican government this past week has spent $Trillion of tax payers money on bailing out giant corporations where the executives are getting $millions in salaries and they hardly mention it.

  • Melvin

    Well NZ,

    I do have to agree on that last post. With the current request of 700+ ***BILLION*** from the administration. The tax payers are taking a very big hit again.

    The first step that should be taken when our government bails out any company is the immediate termination of EVERY EXECUTIVE. The nullification of any bonuses. The placement of entire new board of directors. Lets face it the current people obviously didn’t do their jobs and shouldn’t get money for it.

  • Babs

    Small businesses will be affected by Obama’s tax package in more than one way. First of all, when he says he will raise corporate tax, understand that small businesses are also corporations in most cases, so they are included in his corporate tax hikes. More taxes on small corporations means less money in the budget for expansion and hiring, and higher prices on the retail side – both of which affects the general economy and YOU, the consumer. If they’re not incorporated, like many farmers are not, and file individual taxes, they are likely to be subjected to the higher tax rate that will be applied to the $250,000 tax bracket. In the case of the farming industry, this will also affect labor numbers and drive up the price of their products, which in turn affects the general economy and YOU.

    These are just two areas, but are the areas that affect me personally, so it’s the areas I’ve studied most closely. Someone else may be able to add more to the discussion.