PDA

View Full Version : McCain seen as best choice for economy



Perilloux
06-15-2008, 08:30 AM
McCain seen as best choice for economy (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1334411920080613)
Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:54pm EDT

By Jennifer Ablan

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain's tax policies have given him an edge as the better man for the economy, various Wall Street experts said at this week's Reuters Investment Outlook Summit.

But, against a backdrop of job losses and deteriorating home values, Wall Street is backing McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama with cold, hard cash.

McCain plans to extend the Bush administration's tax cuts, eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, and slash corporate taxes. Obama, who has derided the Arizona senator's plans, has pledged to raise taxes on the wealthy and introduce a broad range of refundable tax credits.

"My personal opinion is I would argue that McCain is probably the better candidate for the economy and that is more or less because of his tax policies," James Caron, head of global rates research at investment bank Morgan Stanley in New York, said at the Reuters Summit this week. "In this environment that we're in right now, the last thing you want to have is higher taxes and taking money out of the consumers' pockets," he added.

mourningdove
06-15-2008, 12:22 PM
McCain plans to extend the Bush administration's tax cuts, eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, and slash corporate taxes.

Eliminate the Alternative Tax.....I hope so, whoever wins the election.

gator
06-15-2008, 12:27 PM
Yea right.

Continue with a three trillon dollar a year federal budget, a ten trillion dollar debt, more deficit spending and a 56 trillion dollar a year future entitlement debt. Yea, McCain is a great choice to straighten out the economy. :confused:

The only person I know that would be worse is Obama, however, both are disasters.

lacarnut
06-15-2008, 12:45 PM
It is my opinion that Obama's economic policies of raising taxes on individuals and corporations, eliminating trade treaties, etc. would spin us into a depression. McCain would do just the opposite.

CLibertarian
06-15-2008, 01:17 PM
It is my opinion that Obama's economic policies of raising taxes on individuals and corporations, eliminating trade treaties, etc. would spin us into a depression. McCain would do just the opposite.

While I'm no fan of McCain, I agree.

gator
06-15-2008, 01:52 PM
It is my opinion that Obama's economic policies of raising taxes on individuals and corporations, eliminating trade treaties, etc. would spin us into a depression. McCain would do just the opposite.

We are already losing our wealth and heading for a depression and none of McCain's NeoCon big government policies will do anything to slow it down. Just because Obama will make it happen a little faster doesn't mean McCain is acceptable.

vetwife
06-15-2008, 02:06 PM
Gator is so spot on with Mccain.
Depression now or later? Only more wars to pay for with Mccain.

lacarnut
06-15-2008, 02:50 PM
We are already losing our wealth and heading for a depression and none of McCain's NeoCon big government policies will do anything to slow it down. Just because Obama will make it happen a little faster doesn't mean McCain is acceptable.

Who is acceptable to you? How do you know that McCain will take us into a depression. I am willing to take a chance by voting for him in hopes that the economy will improve. McCain has stated that he is for smaller government with less taxes. I know damn well that Obama's economic plan will taken us down the wrong road.

gator
06-15-2008, 02:52 PM
Gator is so spot on with Mccain.
Depression now or later? Only more wars to pay for with Mccain.

Not only wars to make Israel safe and everybody else in the world but spending for earmarks, entitlements, pork and union contracts and everything you can think of at the tune of $3 trillion a year.

McCain himself said the other day there was not any way he could even balance the budget in his first term of office and that is if he gets everything he plans from a Democrat control Congress, which is unlikely.

If any of the NeoCons think anything will change under McCain then they are doing their usual denial.

He is a slightly better choice than Obama but that is not saying much.

gator
06-15-2008, 02:59 PM
Who is acceptable to you? How do you know that McCain will take us into a depression. I am willing to take a chance by voting for him in hopes that the economy will improve. McCain has stated that he is for smaller government with less taxes. I know damn well that Obama's economic plan will taken us down the wrong road.

I have said dozens of times that nobody is acceptable. The system is too broke and no elected leader is going to change anything. It just ain't going to happen.

We are just fooling ourselves by getting on the bandwagon of any one stupid politician, especially one with a history of a big governmental mentality.

The only way to restore the Republic and the Constitution now is to go through a revolution to tear down what we have and start all over. Our Founding Fathers understood that we may have to do this from time to time.

We now have three thrillion dollars a year that is controlled by less than a thousand millionares and they are not going to give it up easily. We have to kick them out and change the rules so the next batch don't do the same thing.

lacarnut
06-15-2008, 03:07 PM
Not only wars to make Israel safe and everybody else in the world but spending for earmarks, entitlements, pork and union contracts and everything you can think of at the tune of $3 trillion a year.

McCain himself said the other day there was not any way he could even balance the budget in his first term of office and that is if he gets everything he plans from a Democrat control Congress, which is unlikely.

If any of the NeoCons think anything will change under McCain then they are doing their usual denial.

He is a slightly better choice than Obama but that is not saying much.

You did not answer my question. Who is your first choice? If it was Fred, he was not ready for prime time and you can not dig up R.R.

No one in their right mind would expect him to balance the budget in his first term because the budget for 09 has already been voted on plus the Prez does not have line item veto power like Governors do. He can make a dent in decreasing it though; Obama sure as hell will not.

gator
06-15-2008, 04:19 PM
You did not answer my question. Who is your first choice? If it was Fred, he was not ready for prime time and you can not dig up R.R.

No one in their right mind would expect him to balance the budget in his first term because the budget for 09 has already been voted on plus the Prez does not have line item veto power like Governors do. He can make a dent in decreasing it though; Obama sure as hell will not.

I never had a first choice. Everybody running was for big government in some way or another.

I did not think Paul would make a very good President and I disagreed with him on several issues but I voted for him as a protest against the NeoCons.

I have given up. We are too far out of control for the system to work or be changed by any one conservative leader.

They bad guys have already won. They have destroyed our Republic for money and power and we let them. There is nothing we can do now except watch our country go to hell in a hand basket.

The problems permeate all branches of Federal, State and Local government, including the Legislatures, Executives and Judicial. It is just as bad on the state and local level as it is on the Federal level.

SaintLouieWoman
06-15-2008, 05:38 PM
While I'm no fan of McCain, I agree.
So do I. Obama would be a disaster.

lacarnut
06-15-2008, 05:44 PM
I never had a first choice. Everybody running was for big government in some way or another.

I did not think Paul would make a very good President and I disagreed with him on several issues but I voted for him as a protest against the NeoCons.

I have given up. We are too far out of control for the system to work or be changed by any one conservative leader.

They bad guys have already won. They have destroyed our Republic for money and power and we let them. There is nothing we can do now except watch our country go to hell in a hand basket.

The problems permeate all branches of Federal, State and Local government, including the Legislatures, Executives and Judicial. It is just as bad on the state and local level as it is on the Federal level.

I don't think it is as bad as you indicate but have to agree that almost all politicians have this spend like there is no tomorrow mentality.

BTW, no one can balance the budget because items like Social Security are off budgets. If you included those items, we have not come close to balancing the budget in many, many years. In other words, Clinton's balanced budget was just smoke and mirrors of a governmental accoounting system that would land any CEO president behind bars if those practices were adopted. We are asshole to appetite in debt.

LogansPapa
06-15-2008, 08:20 PM
War - in various locations, maybe even on the African continent, will define McBush's administration. The debt will be shoved out to another time and a generation after the new president's death. He won't care coming in to office and, in eight years - he most definitely won't give a damn going out. Military contracts will proliferate, for all his buddies and somebody else's grand-children will pick up the tab.

Eyelids
06-15-2008, 09:23 PM
Wait, McCain wants to lower taxes and increase spending? What planet are we on?

If you like the Iraq war and all of Bush's (McCain and Bush are identical) massive spending sprees you're going to have to put up with higher taxes. This is not me bashing Bush policies or even touching whether the war is justified, its just the reality of the situation. You cant increase spending and cut revenue, that results in bankruptcy over time. The economy will never be strong if we keep letting the dollar get raped.

lacarnut
06-15-2008, 11:01 PM
Wait, McCain wants to lower taxes and increase spending? What planet are we on?

If you like the Iraq war and all of Bush's (McCain and Bush are identical) massive spending sprees you're going to have to put up with higher taxes. This is not me bashing Bush policies or even touching whether the war is justified, its just the reality of the situation. You cant increase spending and cut revenue, that results in bankruptcy over time. The economy will never be strong if we keep letting the dollar get raped.

What planet are you living on; revenues have been increasing ever since Bush took over. Let's see, that was when you were 10 years old. Correct. McCain said he was going to cut spending. Once again, you have your facts mixed up.

BTW, Obama's spend and tax increases will put us in a depression or a deep recession like the days of the peanut farmer with 17% home mortgage rates.

Eyelids
06-16-2008, 12:19 AM
]What planet are you living on; revenues have been increasing ever since Bush took over.[/B] Let's see, that was when you were 10 years old. Correct. McCain said he was going to cut spending. Once again, you have your facts mixed up.

BTW, Obama's spend and tax increases will put us in a depression or a deep recession like the days of the peanut farmer with 17% home mortgage rates.

PROOF.

Niether presidential candidate will plunge us into a recession, as usual you have no idea what you're talking about. And the trillion dollar mistake is not a way to cut spending.

biccat
06-16-2008, 09:50 AM
And the trillion dollar mistake is not a way to cut spending.
Medicare? Social Security? Welfare? Union contracts for government services?

You're going to have to be more specific.

lacarnut
06-16-2008, 10:01 AM
PROOF.

Niether presidential candidate will plunge us into a recession, as usual you have no idea what you're talking about. And the trillion dollar mistake is not a way to cut spending.

You made the first statement regarding increasing spending and cutting revenues. You prove that revenues have decreased under Bush's 2 terms. You are just a partisian dumb ass because revenues are increasing.

Llike I said before how many hours of accounting (governmental accounting) and years of auditing experinece in government have you had?

Eyelids
06-16-2008, 12:27 PM
You made the first statement regarding increasing spending and cutting revenues. You prove that revenues have decreased under Bush's 2 terms. You are just a partisian dumb ass because revenues are increasing.

Llike I said before how many hours of accounting (governmental accounting) and years of auditing experinece in government have you had?

you make a claim and want me to prove it for you? fuck off.

YupItsMe
06-16-2008, 12:35 PM
you make a claim and want me to prove it for you? fuck off.

Revenues went up when John Kennedy cut taxes.

Revenues went up when Reagan cut taxes

Revenues went up when Bush II cut taxes.


This is a really simple way to look at it, but I think quite appropriate for you.

35 % of a million and a half dollars is more than 40% of 1 million dollars.

lacarnut
06-16-2008, 12:50 PM
you make a claim and want me to prove it for you? fuck off.

You made the claim that revenues decreased. Fuck you and the jackass you rode in on. Why don't you go play with your mental midget liberals friends at DU.

God Bless America, and I have always been proud of my country unlike the dip-shit racist candidate you are supporting.

LogansPapa
06-16-2008, 01:16 PM
God Bless America, and I have always been proud of my country unlike the dip-shit racist candidate you are supporting.

And there friends, is the election of 2008 in a nut-shell. :p

Eyelids
06-16-2008, 01:29 PM
You made the claim that revenues decreased. Fuck you and the jackass you rode in on. Why don't you go play with your mental midget liberals friends at DU.

God Bless America, and I have always been proud of my country unlike the dip-shit racist candidate you are supporting.

What game are you trying to play? Are you afraid your points arent true and just deflecting everything my way?

You only care about America until you start paying for it, you're a hunk of shit for an American so take your pride and shove it where your 'wife' puts it.

lacarnut
06-16-2008, 02:02 PM
What game are you trying to play? Are you afraid your points arent true and just deflecting everything my way?

You only care about America until you start paying for it, you're a hunk of shit for an American so take your pride and shove it where your 'wife' puts it.

I don't have to play games with a mental midget like you. I just state facts like revenues have increased while you say they have decreased during Bush's terms. You can not prove it.

I am more of an American than a racist piece of shit like you will ever be and that includes your racist candidate. Sorry bastards like you don't love this country like I do; that's why I don't want Obama and his un-american bitch wife in the W.H.

Eyelids
06-16-2008, 02:27 PM
Only a complete tool would vote for somebody on the basis of patriotism.

lacarnut
06-16-2008, 03:06 PM
Only a complete tool would vote for somebody that is not patriotic.

Fixed

If you do not love this country, get out.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-16-2008, 03:10 PM
For the Record:

The slowdown of federal reciepts was due to the recession that Bush inherited.

Federal Receipts were falling BEFORE the Bush tax cuts and his policies went into effect. They ONLY began growing again AFTER the 2003 tax cuts accelerated the main aspects of the 2001 cut that were "Phased in" - or instituted the ones that had not yet been put into place.

In 2000, Federal Receipts were $2,025.5 Billion
In 2001 Federal Receipts were $1,991.4 Billion (The first set of Bush's tax cuts pass in June and budget not passed until October)
2002 Federal Receipts were $1,853.4 Billion

in 2003 Federal Receipts were $1,782.5 - the 2nd Bush tax cut was passed which implemented the main provisions of the first cut.

2004 1,880.3 Revenues began growing after tax policies began taking effect.


Source 2008 ERP. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/

ralph wiggum
06-16-2008, 03:31 PM
For the Record:

The slowdown of federal reciepts was due to the recession that Bush inherited.

Federal Receipts were falling BEFORE the Bush tax cuts and his policies went into effect. They ONLY began growing again AFTER the 2003 tax cuts accelerated the main aspects of the 2001 cut that were "Phased in" - or instituted the ones that had not yet been put into place.

In 2000, Federal Receipts were $2,025.5 Billion
In 2001 Federal Receipts were $1,991.4 Billion (The first set of Bush's tax cuts pass in June and budget not passed until October)
2002 Federal Receipts were $1,853.4 Billion

in 2003 Federal Receipts were $1,782.5 - the 2nd Bush tax cut was passed which implemented the main provisions of the first cut.

2004 1,880.3 Revenues began growing after tax policies began taking effect.


Source 2008 ERP. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/

Don't confuse the silly liberals with facts, CS. :D

Molon Labe
06-16-2008, 04:51 PM
Pardon me....but this article is B.S.

How about NONE OF THE ABOVE is good for the economy.