It's The Economy Stupid

Pocono Joe

Why aren’t the Democrats way ahead in the polls in the US Presidential election? This is a year, with Bush’s approval rating way down, high oil and food prices, housing and credit decline, etc, etc, they should be trouncing the Republicans.

I guess the American people aren’t as stupid as we are made out to be. Obama is proposing massive tax increases to fund his health-care plan and energy proposal. Deep down we know that tax hikes won't help the economy.


A very good read
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039919493892941.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

How about we try and keep the responses limited to "why the Dems aren’t way ahead of the Repubs" (signed: hopeful but not optimistic :rolleyes:).

FatherTed

It depends on where you see the tax cuts:

According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

jank

Why arent the Dems so far ahead is becuase people are still polarised by the bush presendcies and the 2 extremes of both parties are pulling the traditional voters and politics with them.

irish_bob

the democrats are not trouncing the republicans and they should be considering how unpopular bush has been throughout
if hillary had been the nominee i believe they would be , obama is seen by many as all style and little substance

BenjAii

I suppose no one will know until it is over in November, polls only tell so much and the latest has Obama 8 points ahead, after several dead heats; though it remains to seen will there be a Palin bounce for McCain.

This reminds me a little of Britain's election in 1979. Despite the Labour governments disastrous record (probably not as truly bad as the Republicans incompetence on the economy) Margaret Thatcher was behind in the polls, despite being the "change" candidate.

I feel pity for America if it does vote for McCain.

is_that_so

I don't think it's a question of pity. Look at how we voted ourselves.

Obama is not trusted by some people and others remain unconvinced by him. This has echoes of 2004 all over again. Kerry was about the best they could come up with and he turned out to be inept in the end. If McCain manages to disassociate himself as far as possible from Bush and produce some coherent economic policies that Americans believe will work then he may well win. It may also come down to which set of personalities they like best.
I'd have a beer with McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden any day .

Hobbes

irish_bob wrote: »

the democrats are not trouncing the republicans

True but Obama is now ahead in 3 of the key states.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/states.poll/index.html?iref=topnews

If you go by the futures market then Obama is in the lead by 60%.

alastair

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I guess the American people aren’t as stupid as we are made out to be. Obama is proposing massive tax increases to fund his health-care plan and energy proposal. Deep down we know that tax hikes won't help the economy.

Well - any neutral reading of the tax policies of McCain and Obama shows precious little difference between the figures, and only a tepid attempt at wealth redistribution from Obama. There's also the matter of both platforms relying on implausible revenue projections. So maybe the 'stupid' Americans are the ones who run around crying about 'massive tax increases'?

My theories about the lack of a resounding lead from the Democrats?

1. The Democrats haven't managed any more than 51% wins for a long time now. You'd be surprised if that dynamic changed in one election.

2. He's a black man. Racism isn't a dead issue in the US. Nor indeed would I see a black candidate as an easy sell here or in the Uk or France.

3. There are those who insist on spreading slurs around - he's a muslim, he kills babies, he's a 'hard left' ideologue, he'll introduce 'massive tax increases', etc - you know the type Swiftboat tactics.

4. McCain has a bit of perceived distance between himself and the Bush legacy. And he seems like a nice guy.

alastair

is_that_so wrote: »

Obama is not trusted by some people and others remain unconvinced by him. This has echoes of 2004 all over again. Kerry was about the best they could come up with and he turned out to be inept in the end.

Kerry wasn't inept - he just wasn't particularly likeable.

is_that_so

I think he was both. Any serious candidate would not have allowed the Swift Boats saga to sink him(pun intended). What's more he didn't seem to have a serious policy beyond "I'm not Bush".
Here's a piece on a group that many liberal Dems forget about; the Blue Dogs and a suggestion that they could well be in the ascendancy in the Senate.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/blue_dogs_have_their_day

Manic Moran

Why aren’t the Democrats way ahead in the polls in the US Presidential election?

Because they're idiots. They had a number of extremely viable candidates when the nomination process started including Richardson and Edwards who would have absolutely wiped the floor with any Republican opponent, and the two they ended up with in the finals were either incredibly polarising (Hillary) or the furthest to the left of any (Obama) with little substance behind him. This vs the Republicans who picked the only candidate of their lot who had any chance at all. The Democrats should have been able to surf into the White House on the ride of Anti-GOP sentiment, and have somehow managed to utterly balls it up.

NTM

alastair

Yeah. Edwards would have been a real winner. :rolleyes:

Shouldn't Obama be either without substance, or too far to the left?

bobbyjoe

Obama is always portrayed as being without substance and just using slogans. Yet he has many policies and ideas all laid out.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

It is more to do with how he is portrayed by the media and the soundbites they use than anything.

irish_bob

alastair wrote: »

Yeah. Edwards would have been a real winner. :rolleyes:

Shouldn't Obama be either without substance, or too far to the left?

the story that recently broke concerning edwards extra marital affair would have sunk edwards

alastair

irish_bob wrote: »

the story that recently broke concerning edwards extra marital affair would have sunk edwards

That was my point.

FatherTed

Meanwhile unemployment has gone from 4.7% to 6.1% now. The Dems just need to hammer that for the next 2 months.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/05/news/economy/jobs_august/index.htm?postversion=2008090509

Pocono Joe

FatherTed wrote: »

Meanwhile unemployment has gone from 4.7% to 6.1% now.

And higher taxes on businesses will improve those numbers how exactly?

Hobbes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And higher taxes on businesses will improve those numbers how exactly?

Reality check.

America is in debt. No wait, America is in serious debt.

When you are in debt do you (a) generate revenue to pay your bills or (b) get more credit cards and spend on those?

This is what I can't fathom with the Republican party. They just seem to like to keep spending and spending without any real money to back it.

Pocono Joe

Hobbes wrote: »

Reality check.

America is in debt. No wait, America is in serious debt.

When you are in debt do you (a) generate revenue to pay your bills or (b) get more credit cards and spend on those?

This is what I can't fathom with the Republican party. They just seem to like to keep spending and spending without any real money to back it.

Lets try and stick to the question here... How exactly will increasing taxes on business help to improve the unemployment figures?

Manic Moran

irish_bob wrote: »

the story that recently broke concerning edwards extra marital affair would have sunk edwards

True, but it was unknown at the time of the nominations and was not a factor during the selection process.

NTM

BenjAii

This race is Obamas to lose.

After 8 years in power under Bush, the Republicans have a record of near 100% failure in every aspect of American life.

The best McCain can do, is try and pretend he belongs to another party, to distance himself from the incompetence and mismanagement of the Republicans; but he doesn't even have any policies.

Palin won't make much difference, McCain is at the utter nadir the right has brought American life to. If my some freak Obama f**** it up, it would only be more of the same & more downhill for America if he did become president.

Hobbes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Lets try and stick to the question here... How exactly will increasing taxes on business help to improve the unemployment figures?

It's a flawed question. You see because he never actually mentioned tax increases when he was complaining about the unemployment increase. You did. I guess you were trying to imply that Obama was going to raise taxes.*

But you can see so far (from that report) that huge tax cuts for the rich has done nothing to help unemployment either.

You need to increase taxes to pay your debts. Sad fact but true.

* As for Obama and raising taxes, anyone with the ability to read his website will see that the tax increases are targetted at those who have been milking the system and more likely to have the money to pay for it.

Oddly enough that same website link shows how each candidate is planning to change each area (+/- tax, etc). pretty good overview.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/news/0806/gallery.election_issues/index.html

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote: »

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/news/0806/gallery.election_issues/index.html

QFT.. I just finished reading this. I think this is probably the best breakdown I have seen so far side by side.

You may still agree to disagree but personally from reading that Obama is actually going to be more use to the common US citizen then those who are rich.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because they're idiots. They had a number of extremely viable candidates when the nomination process started including Richardson and Edwards who would have absolutely wiped the floor with any Republican opponent

The Edwards scandal? The sequel to Gary Hart?

axer

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Lets try and stick to the question here... How exactly will increasing taxes on business help to improve the unemployment figures?

He is only raising taxes on the rich not on businesses which has worked favourably in the past.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html

irish_bob

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And higher taxes on businesses will improve those numbers how exactly?

hes proposing to raise taxes on the top 5% , there are many business owners among the other 95%

the top income tax rate in the usa is 35% , this is extrordinarily low for a country with so many billionaires

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irish_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you know i like your style in many ways donegal fella , personally i loathe the whole culture that exists in the public service in ireland and i believe that entrepreneuralism should be encouraged at all times but where you and i disagree is on the gop in the usa , i dont believe that the republican party have a monopoly on providing incentives to the private sector etc and personally speaking i am always suspicious of irish americans who support the gop , the republican party were never a party who gave a crap about anything irish , they were the quientestential w.a.s.p party and i honestly think any irish american who votes for them is really a bit of a turn coat , akin to taking the soup or the queens shilling

BenjAii

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I doubt Palin will attract many Hilary voters. They will find it hard to overcome her absolutist stance on abortion. Most Hilary voters weren't evangelical Christians, Palin is largely preaching to the converted.

This election will be decided by moderates and independents in swing states. Its McCain who needs to win them over. So far he is not doing much of a job, having put almost no distance between himself and the colossal failure that is 8 years of Repulican misrule under George Bush.

National polls are misleading, the reality of US voting is that it is decided state by state with their electoral college votes.

For sometime this has all been to Obamas huge strategic advantage and the reality is that on this basis for some time EVERY polling orginisation predicts on current trends he is to be next President, not McCain. Follow this link for a summary of the facts.

is_that_so

Really shocking bias in that piece. What it doesn't point out is that Obama has problems with certain sectors of the electorate, blue collar workers in particular to whom McCain is not unattractive. Disappointingly it also fails to point out that it is the same set of swing states that pop up in every election.
I'd suggest this as a better source as it does the same thing except it is not biased toward any candidate.

BenjAii

is_that_so wrote: »

Really shocking bias in that piece. What it doesn't point out is that Obama has problems with certain sectors of the electorate, blue collar workers in particular to whom McCain is not unattractive. Disappointingly it also fails to point out that it is the same set of swing states that pop up in every election.
I'd suggest this as a better source as it does the same thing except it is not biased toward any candidate.

While he is certainly pro-Democrat; your link comes to the same conclusion. Even with the post-convention bounce, McCain is still behind in electoral college votes.


More importantly, McCain who tries to paint himself as a maverick is offering nothing new. His policies are the same as the failed Bush policies. Even his strategy is exactly the same as Bush with Kerry in 2004. Spread falsehoods ( Obama wants to raise taxes), get the evangelicals out (Palin) and paint Obama as an out of touch elitist.

If this is the best he can come up with, he is going to need to be lucky, he's going to have to fool a lot of people who are looking for something different.

is_that_so

BenjAii wrote: »

While he is certainly pro-Democrat; your link comes to the same conclusion. Even with the post-convention bounce, McCain is still behind in electoral college votes.

Yep I did say that, but posted it as it is a better quality link. In fact I am sorry I gave that Guardian piece any credit at all. It is really badly-written and most of us here could have written better.

More importantly, McCain who tries to paint himself as a maverick is offering nothing new. His policies are the same as the failed Bush policies. Even his strategy is exactly the same as Bush with Kerry in 2004. Spread falsehoods ( Obama wants to raise taxes), get the evangelicals out (Palin) and paint Obama as an out of touch elitist.

If this is the best he can come up with, he is going to need to be lucky, he's going to have to fool a lot of people who are looking for something different.

Doubt can be a big winner in elections as we found out here. McCain doesn't need to get down to the lows of previous GOP campaigns. A simple "Do you trust this guy?" can hit home for some.
Obama didn't win in Ohio nor in PA which do have blue collar voters. Both are extremely tight. Either of those two tends to be part of the final decision. Virginia may be up for grabs and even NH could be in the mix. I don't think Obama can take Florida and the likes of CO and NV are not clear for now due to the possible Palin effect. Roll on the first Presidential debate at the end of the month.

Pocono Joe

When it comes time to pull the lever in the voting booth, the majority of Americans vote from emotion. Few know the vast plethora of issues and ultimately choose a candidate who relates favorably to the individuals greatest concerns. And this year I believe it will come down to the economy.

I do not have data backing up what I am about to put forward, so I guess you can say it's just emotions.

Although the democrat promises sound good, people here have been through decades of empty promises from both sides of the isle. Ultimately they know that it's Mr. Smith that provides them with their jobs, not Mr. Government. And if Mr. Smith feels that the taxes, aggravation and government interference is not worth the effort, then it's the individual's jobs that will ultimately pay the price.

Few here want a cradle to grave welfare system. It goes against the American way, and they realize it would be very expensive and wasteful. Government doesn't create jobs, people create jobs. As individuals cope with job loss, rising costs, and economic uncertainty, there is an emotional disdain towards the rich. But deep down people realize it's the rich that create the jobs. By November 4th, people will have had beaten into their psyche that that if the rich decide the only way to win - is not to play the game, it's the average individual that will ultimately lose. If the rich start a business, which creates jobs, and it fails, the rich bear the total cost of that loss. And if they start a business and it succeeds, the fruits of their labors will be relatively small due to higher government regulation and higher taxes, is unattractive. In addition, if the rich decide that the tax rates are too obsessive on capital gains, coupled with death taxes, they will not invest funds which also creates jobs, and will find ways to shelter their income - which does not create jobs. It will also be beaten into their brains that historically the government gets more revenues when taxes are kept lower. And most alarming, they will be hearing more and more that the rich will wait out a democratic executive/legislative/judicial controlled government.

You can argue all the points made, but on November 4th, this is what will be in our hearts and minds.

FatherTed

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Show me where the Obama campaign has said this.

Then McCain picks a VP running mate who is younger than Obama, better-looking than him, more experienced than him—and she's a woman.

Disaffected Hillary voters are flocking to the McCain/Palin ticket in droves.

No they're not!

And the Democrats are getting desperate, as shown by how eager they are to attack Sarah Palin on every conceivable front.

Remember Democrats telling women that they could "have it all"—motherhood, career, and political success? Remember Hillary putting "eighteen million cracks" in the glass ceiling? And then along came a conservative woman candidate for high office—who was promptly told by Democrats that her place was in the home, not out on the campaign trail upstaging their precious Messiah.

What a double standard!

Show me where anyone from the Obama campaign said "her place was in the home".

Stop making stuff up!

FatherTed

Pocono Joe wrote: »

When it comes time to pull the lever in the voting booth, the majority of Americans vote from emotion. Few know the vast plethora of issues and ultimately choose a candidate who relates favorably to the individuals greatest concerns. And this year I believe it will come down to the economy.

I do not have data backing up what I am about to put forward, so I guess you can say it's just emotions.

Although the democrat promises sound good, people here have been through decades of empty promises from both sides of the isle. Ultimately they know that it's Mr. Smith that provides them with their jobs, not Mr. Government. And if Mr. Smith feels that the taxes, aggravation and government interference is not worth the effort, then it's the individual's jobs that will ultimately pay the price.

Few here want a cradle to grave welfare system. It goes against the American way, and they realize it would be very expensive and wasteful. Government doesn't create jobs, people create jobs. As individuals cope with job loss, rising costs, and economic uncertainty, there is an emotional disdain towards the rich. But deep down people realize it's the rich that create the jobs. By November 4th, people will have had beaten into their psyche that that if the rich decide the only way to win - is not to play the game, it's the average individual that will ultimately lose. If the rich start a business, which creates jobs, and it fails, the rich bear the total cost of that loss. And if they start a business and it succeeds, the fruits of their labors will be relatively small due to higher government regulation and higher taxes, is unattractive. In addition, if the rich decide that the tax rates are too obsessive on capital gains, coupled with death taxes, they will not invest funds which also creates jobs, and will find ways to shelter their income - which does not create jobs. It will also be beaten into their brains that historically the government gets more revenues when taxes are kept lower. And most alarming, they will be hearing more and more that the rich will wait out a democratic executive/legislative/judicial controlled government.

You can argue all the points made, but on November 4th, this is what will be in our hearts and minds.

So only rich people create jobs when republicans are in power to reduce their taxes. Nice theory but in practice:
Unemployment Rate
1992-12 7.40% (End of Bush I)
2000-12 3.90% (End of Clinton)
2008-9 6.1% (Current under Bush II)

snow scorpion

I was reading this article just yesterday. This thread seems like an appropriate place to share:

5 myths About Those Civic-Minded, Deeply Informed Voters

1. Our voters are pretty smart.

... by every measure social scientists have devised, voters are spectacularly uninformed. They don't follow politics, and they don't know how their government works.


2. Bill O'Reilly's viewers are dumber than Jon Stewart's.

Liberals wish. But a 2007 Pew survey found that the knowledge level of viewers of the "The O'Reilly Factor" and "The Daily Show" is comparable, with about 54 percent of the shows' politicized viewers scoring in the "high knowledge" category.

So what about conservative talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh's audience? Surely the ditto-heads are dumb, right? Actually, according to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Rush's listeners are better educated and "more knowledgeable about politics and social issues" than the average voter.


3. If you just give Americans the facts, they'll be able to draw the right conclusions.

Unfortunately, no. But the evidence from the past few years proves that a majority can easily be bamboozled.


4. Voters today are smarter than they used to be.

Actually, by most measures, voters today possess the same level of political knowledge as their parents and grandparents, and in some categories, they score lower.

Here's what makes these numbers deplorable -- and, in fact, almost incomprehensible: Education levels are far higher today than they were half a century ago, when social scientists first began surveying voter knowledge about politics. (In 1940, six in ten Americans hadn't made it past the eighth grade.) The moral of this story: Schooling alone doesn't translate into better educated voters.


5. Young voters are paying a lot of attention to the news.

Again, no.

Pew again measured public knowledge of current events and found that the young (aged 18 to 29) "know the least."

And some other statistics are even more alarming. How many young people read newspapers? Just 20 percent.

But surely today's youth are getting their news from the Internet? Sorry. Only 11 percent of the young report that they regularly surf the Internet for news. Maybe Obama shouldn't be relying on savvy young voters after all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irish_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i like mc cain but if i had a vote , i wouldnt vote for him , not because im a big fan of obama ( wanted hillary to win ) but because i think if the democrats loose again , we could be looking at one party rule for a long time to come

i just think you have to remember your roots and the roots of the irish in the usa is certainly not with the republican party , they were always a very exclusivly w.a.s.p party and would had zero sympathy for the arriving irish , italian or polish immigrants from europe in the 19th century , ive nothing in common with them. i think the democrats are anything but socilist so i dont get why you disregard them as an option so forcefully , im no socilists myself but i think in the usa while the message is anyone can make it to the top if they work hard enough , it seems those who come from poor backrounds have little chance of going to a good school unless there gifted at sports or something ,college is extremly expensive and the minimum wage is so low , most on it need to work more than one job , the massive divide between rich and poor is i think one of the reasons that the prison population is so high compared to other western countries , surely housing so many prisoners is a huge burden on the state yet most americans seem to see this cost as preferable to paying for a national health service , i guess its just the american way , i think there is a 3rd way between the american way and the statist french one , maybe i should plan a trip to sweeden some time and report back

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irish_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

while you seem to believe that the high prison population is down to americas zero tollerance towards recreational drugs , i think it also has a lot to do with the fact that there is widespread ghettoisation particulary among black areas and as we all know , a disproportionate amount of prisoners come from the black community , my point about americans perferring there tax dollars being spent on prisons as opposed to a national health service was meant so suggest that perhaps money would be better spent on social programmes in genral including a health service than simply on locking people up who are products of social problems , its a fact that there is a link between poverty and crime , you dont have to be a left winger to believe that, ameircans believe in a culture of accountability and working for your wages so i would like to think that if they did create the likes of a national health care plan , it wouldnt end up like the mess we have in ireland where the health service exists 1st and foremost to keep as many public servants as possible in jobs , the unions quiet and thus the same public servant empolyee voters returning goverments at each election

Pocono Joe

If you are still under the delusion that Obama’s economic plan is superior to McCains, then don’t read this article. It will only add to the growing phenomenon gripping the Far Left, Liberals, and many in the Democratic party… P.S.R.S. (Post Selection Remorse Syndrome).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122126282034130461.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Hobbes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

If you are still under the delusion that Obama’s economic plan is superior to McCains, then don’t read this article.

Hmmm, an opinion piece written by two Republicans. Even McCain is BS'ing about Obamas economic plan and even got owned on TV recently.

Here is more interesting one.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html

McCain camp seems more intent on sleeze then offering solutions.

Pocono Joe

Today, John McCain has called for a high-level commission to study the current economic crisis and claimed that a corrupt and excessive Wall Street had betrayed American workers. He also is rightfully pointing out that "I warned two years ago that this situation was deteriorating and unacceptable," and added that "the old-boy network and the corruption in Washington is directly involved and one of the causes of this financial crisis that we're in today. And I know how to fix it and I know how to get things done."

Today, Barak Obama is blaming Republicans for everything wrong with the economy, and is heading to the five-star Beverly Wilshire to host a dinner costing attendees $28,500 dollars each.

If the roles were reversed, I'd bet most everyone here would calling for a suspension of the election, to be replaced with a coronation of Obama.

BenjAii

Pocono Joe wrote: »

added that "the old-boy network and the corruption in Washington is directly involved and one of the causes of this financial crisis that we're in today. And I know how to fix it and I know how to get things done."

I see he is up to his old tricks of identifying the culprits (the people how have been in power the last 8 years), but pretending they are not the Republicans.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Today, Barak Obama is blaming Republicans for everything wrong with the economy, and is heading to the five-star Beverly Wilshire to host a dinner costing attendees $28,500 dollars each.

I believe both candidates are required to raise phenomenal amounts of money as it is impossible to conduct a political campaign in the US otherwise, so what is your point here ?

Pocono Joe

BenjAii wrote: »

I see he is up to his old tricks of identifying the culprits (the people how have been in power the last 8 years), but pretending they are not the Republicans.

No, Mccain acknowledges that some of the culprits are Republicans, and intends to put a stop to it. But lets not forget about Andrew Cuoma as HUD Secretary under Clinton, Barney Frank, and the "Big 4" campaign contribution recipients from Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac, C. Dodd, J. Kerry, B. Obama, and H. Clinton.

I guess McCain is the only one that offers REAL change.

BenjAii

Joe, although McCain is claiming he saw this coming and the need to fix it, his website doesn't back him up.

Looking through his economic policies, I found this on addressing the issue of speculation in the oil market.

To make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.


It appears to say all is well with the rest of Wall Street regulation, that would appear to directly contradict what he is trying to claim credit for now ?

FatherTed

Pocono Joe wrote: »

No, Mccain acknowledges that some of the culprits are Republicans, and intends to put a stop to it. But lets not forget about Andrew Cuoma as HUD Secretary under Clinton, Barney Frank, and the "Big 4" campaign contribution recipients from Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac, C. Dodd, J. Kerry, B. Obama, and H. Clinton.

I guess McCain is the only one that offers REAL change.

John McCain has also received campaign contributions from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. As has Barack Obama.

Pocono Joe

BenjAii wrote: »

I believe both candidates are required to raise phenomenal amounts of money as it is impossible to conduct a political campaign in the US otherwise, so what is your point here ?

Just another valid dig at Obama.

Obama pledged last February that he would accept public financing, which comes with spending limits, if he became the Democratic nominee, and McCain did likewise.

McCain kept his pledge, Obama didn't!

Just another factor in "who we should believe in" to run the country.

BenjAii

Found this on Barack Obamas website, so unless he has been very quick in slipping this in today, he is the one who can claim foresight on this issue (albeit he is more focussed on the consumer, and not the stupid investment banks who got too greedy for their own good).

Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.

Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies: Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual's mortgage payments. Obama believes that the subprime mortgage industry, which has engaged in dangerous and sometimes unscrupulous business practices, should not be shielded by outdated federal law.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#home-ownership

alastair

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Just another valid dig at Obama.

Obama pledged last February that he would accept public financing, which comes with spending limits, if he became the Democratic nominee, and McCain did likewise.

McCain kept his pledge, Obama didn't!

Just another factor in "who we should believe in" to run the country.

Heh. McCain signed up for public financing when he hadn't a brass farthing left in the coffers. It didn't stop him trying to backpedal when he looked like getting back in the race. The only reason he didn't pull out (as he attempted to in March) was because the FEC wouldn't allow him.

Pocono Joe

alastair wrote: »

The only reason he didn't pull out (as he attempted to in March) was because the FEC wouldn't allow him.

Can you substantiate that claim? The last I heard was the FEC affirmed McCain's right to bypass the public financing system and the strict spending limits that come with it.