Yes, one photo can tell you who not to vote for…
Posted by MJ on March 6, 2008
President George Bush in his continuing quest to destroy America and also his own party endorsed Republican nominee John McCain.
McCain, who would seem to have a impossible task in winning the Presidency is not helping himself by getting a endorsement from the worst President in our history who currently has an approval ratings under 30%. It would seem McCain is not picky about endorsements since welcomed Rev. John Hagee’s nod. Mr. Hagee has made intolerant comments about Catholics, women, African Americans, Muslims and LGBT Americans.
Remember McCain has the same economic polices as Bush and also would continue George’s War for a 100 years. This is the image you should see when think of John McCain…
from the Political Inquirer
WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance
awalkabout said
Seriously. When I heard McCain was going to the White House so Bush could point out they were on the same team, I’m thinking, “RUN, John, RUN!!”
Buffal0gal said
You’ve heard the old saying “you are what you eat…” right? Well, in this case its DENITATLY true, Bush and McCain are both WEENIES. =)
“WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (Reuters) – President George W. Bush may have given presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain the royal treatment at the White House on Wednesday, but the two men did not exactly have a meal fit for a king.
McCain, an Arizona senator, picked up the president’s endorsement for his candidacy while dining on something simple: a hot dog.
“He said he was having a hot dog, so I had a hot dog,” McCain, referring to Bush, told reporters on his campaign plane during a flight to Florida…”
in2thefray said
The 100 years thing gets played out like it’s a platform idea. That is just plain old dishonest.The economics policy,let’s see tax cuts and stock market at historical highs. Does a President actually have an impact on the economy ?
MJ "revoltingpawn" said
In2theray…
McCain still thinks he is fighting the Vietnam War and yes he will not bring the troops home anytime soon. No matter the trillion dollar price tag and still increasing that is destroying our economy.
Taxes cuts are at a historical low? What? Maybe for federal income taxes for people at the highest income bracket. Because of George’s wrong headed policy of tax cuts while waging war and then cutting aid to states most other taxes – state, property, local, school, and user fees have gone up.
What does the stock market have to do with real people? Maybe you have couple hundred thousand in the market but 99% of the people don’t. When a company ships jobs overseas their stock goes up so not really a good indicator of the health of our economy. The fact is the stock market is nothing but a rich man’s money making game.
What does affect the people is the housing mortgage crisis, the sharp increases in food, gas, and other prices. The no health care is another thing that is ruining people economically.
Yeah, the President has nothing to do with the economy. What again? LOL
in2thefray said
McCain doesn’t think he’s still fighting the Vietnam War again that’s a lie. Tax cuts are good for the economy and it’s been proven over and over. The stock market is at all time highs.When Clinton was in office the “highs” were something everyone was all psyched about I guess it doesn’t work both ways.The fact is the stock market drives the economy in many ways.Now we move on. The mortgage crisis was created by the people that signed the papers as much as anything.The people getting foreclosed on on homes they never could really afford are paying for their bad decisions. I have seen nothing but a gain in my property ownership. I am benefitting from my decisions. Inflation well it’s universal and real.How about a temporary reduction in the taxes on all those things,wouldn’t that help people ? Healthcare is expensive and won’t get cheaper except in quality if government is the one rationing it out. Lastly my question about the President. Tey get credit and blame for the economy. Except for taxation and regulation what real effect does the government have on the economy.
MJ "revoltingpawn" said
In2thefray…
Sorry McCain has said before that we pulled out of Vietnam to soon and so I guess almost 20 years of being there was not long enough for him. The way he talks it sounds like comparing Iraq to Vietnam and it does not look good for the troops coming home anytime soon.
The stock market is not at a all time high but have been dropping for almost six months…
http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=djia&sid=1643&time=6mo&Submit1=Refresh
Once again I don’t care about the stock market. The economic boom of the Clinton years was not about the stock market. It was about job growth and increases in real wages and still balancing the budget.
Reagan and Bush only have had any economic success by spending their way to it. George is the first President who has cut taxes and entered a war at the same time and now depending on which accounting method you use we now have a three to nine trillion dollar deficit. We could maybe survive that but with the American dollar being weak that puts our economic fundamentals in question.
The housing crisis is not just the result of people making bad decisions. Deregulation of the mortgage industry is what allowed those type of mortgages to exist in the first place. Your property has risen in value? You are very lucky and a smart invester since housing places have dropped dramatically across most of the country.
So to recap the negative trends in the current economy…
inflation (food, gas, etc. and not Lexus car prices)
weak American dollar
bankruptcies skyrocketing and housing prices in the toilet
shrinking middle class and wages
record budgetary and total deficits
You are talking about tax cuts and the stock market? LOL
You fail to understand there are two different economies in this country. The rich have their own economy and the middle class and the poor another. Guess which one is being hurt by these trends?
You are correct that health care is expensive and in fact we spend more per person then any nation with a single-payer system that covers everyone. Countries that cover all their citizens don’t ration health care but provide what they can afford. I guess our system of health care for not everyone is better.
McCain, at least has admitted he does not know much about economics.
in2thefray said
The market is over 10k on what scale are you measuring it not being at a high ? US in Vietnam 10 years.First the Clinton years saw fake markets ala the NASDAQ bubble,speculation etc.Also it is generally accepted that his first term economic positives were actually Reagan Bush backlash. Something that gets overlooked in the housing sector is the true and false valuation of the properties in the first place.People are crying today bout loosing value in their home. They leave out that they experienced 10 years of rising value. For illustration a 160k home is valued at 390k In the “falling economy” the house is valued at 355k. The loss is not real,you’re going down from the overblown value. The irony is towns and cities are crapping that they may have to adjust there property taxes.Shrinking middle class ?// HAHAHAHAHA! Only if you’re Obama and consider someone making 75k “rich”. As far as McCain and economics yeah you’re right. Let’s hope Obama starts admitting his shortcomings sooner than later. I may have to blogroll you,you at least explore and discuss. Take care and have a great weekend.
MJ "revoltingpawn" said
In2thefray…
Your last comment was very confusing but will try to respond.
“The market is over 10k on what scale are you measuring it not being at a high?”
I am not measuring anything but my link pointed to a CNN money source which from the graph can see the Dow Jones Industrial Average has been dropping for almost six months from a 14k high.
No idea what you mean by fake markets and I don’t care about stocks. Once again the real story about the Clinton economic success was increased labor demand and real incomes that has not happened during the Bush years. Clinton had also slowed federal spending that everyone seems to have forgotten.
I agree that housing prices in many parts of the country were over inflated. This was caused in part by increased monies injected into the market by lower income people being sold bad mortgages. Deregulation has been a big reason for our current economic mess and Clinton shares part of that blame. People are losing their houses and the banks get a bailout. Nice!
I realize capitalistic economies go in cycles. Reagan and Clinton benefited little from that and George suffered little from because of but the problem is the next downturn. Because of ongoing war, high deficits, weak dollar, and depressed job market the next recession is going to hit us really hard. This all can be tied to Bush’s economics polices which McCain seems to support continuing. You are right that sometimes the President takes to much blame and I feel sorry for the next President because they will have a impossible job.
Can’t believe you are unaware of the shrinking middle class that has been happening for decades.
How did this conversation turn to Obama? If he does have shortcomings why would he admit to them? George Bush himself has been quoted to say he can’t think of any mistakes he has made. LOL
in2thefray said
I’ll give up on the market since you don’t care. The middle class is being redefined my Obama point was that he considers for tax purposes 75 k is “rich” meaning 75 k doesn’t get his “middle class tax cut”. Now I don’t know where you live but in the metropolitan Northeast 75k isn’t rich. @75k being rich the middle class $$wise is what ? 40-60k ? Give me a break. it’s been nice talking to you.
MJ "revoltingpawn" said
in2thefray…
In the about section it informs I live in Buffalo, NY which is in the highest tax state and a economically depressed area. I wish made 75,000 a year but do live nicely within my means. I would agree that in our over consumption society 75,000 a year may not be a lot for some people.
Sorry, once again depending on how you do the accounting we are in the hole up to 9 TRILLION dollars and with a ongoing war thinking people making 75k and more a year can tighten their belts for right now. Let’s worry about the majority of people who are making less and trying to provide for their families.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
“In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.00. The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) in the year 2006 was $26,036. In the year 2005, there were approximately 113,146,000 households in the United States. 19.01% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000, 12.7% fell below the federal poverty threshold and the bottom 20% earned less than $23,202.”
Hell, 75k a year sounds like a lot now. Those damn facts…
Matthew J. Podoba said
In2thefray,
To your question in your first comment, “Does a President actually have an impact on the economy?”
In 2000, Bill Clinton released 30 million barrels of oil from the U.S. strategic reserve with an eye on driving down rising energy prices.
Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E5D61F3BF930A1575AC0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)
It worked to the chagrin of many conservative financial analysts, who lined up (predictably) to criticize the decision as foolish.
Of course every major economic downturn this country has ever seen has either started or come to fruition during a Republican administration, so I guard against listening to any of their macro economic rhetoric, to be honest.
I know this is patently ‘anti-Keynesian’ and probably the Republican equivelent of a cactus enema for you to hear, but that aside, what do you think?
Sounds like the President effecting the economy to me.
I don’t hear any such talk from Mr. Bush with his self-stated goal of working to prevent an economic slow-down.
Curious.
A few other things you may have forgotten about Bill Clinton and others effecting change in the U.S. and world economy…
Clinton enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a single republican vote
Clinton negotiated the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997
Clinton dedicated the surplus to save Social Security and reduce the national debt
Clinton extended Medicare solvency from 1999 to 2025
Clinton acheived the lowest poverty rate on record
Clinton acheived the lowest welfare enrollment on record
Clinton made the Earned Income Tax Credit law
Clinton developed National Economic Empowerment Zones to foster growth
Clinton passed the Workforce Investment Act (a $2500.00 education grant I myself took advantage of to build my career and become an upper middle income professional, buy two homes, and you guessed it…help drive spending and thus the economy)
Then there’s all of that record job creation, housing boom, stock market boom, record low unemployment, record expansion of private investment, record low cosumer prices.
I trust you have heard of the ‘New Deal’ as well. You know, that whole thing where FDR pulled us out of the Depression (and no it wasn’t market correction, so don’t even get me started please).
Teddy Roosevelt pushing construction of the Panama Canal?
Hoover electing to do nothing regarding the 1929 crash?
Any of these ring a bell?
Don’t take my word for it. I’m an evil liberal Communist Democrat who wants affordable healthcare and gas somewhere on the $2.75 radar instead of where it is now and where it’s projected to go!
Let’s see what some other, more conservative folks had to say about Clinton’s policies.
“My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton’s] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation’s history.”
— Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan’s re-nomination announcement
“The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits.”
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994
One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the “best economy ever” is that “on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit.”
— Goldman Sachs, March 1998
“Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity.”
— Business Week, May 19, 1997
Source: http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html
But why re-hash all those bitter memories right?
Does the President have any real effect?
Apparently not if the president’s surname is ‘Bush.’ You are spot on correct there ‘my friend.’
Ohh, I just felt like John McCain for a fleeting moment…sorry.
Anyways, I put forward that if one take only a moment to actually critically analyze the problems one faces and enact common-sense economic policies, it’s astonishing what one can achieve.
I hope this helps you.
Shouting Thomas said
Ah! I was drawn here by Stuff White People Like.
So, you haven’t got the news! The Soviet Union failed. The great Utopian struggle turned out to be genocide and a sentence of poverty and dictatorship.
This is the site of the ultra-stupid… the impenetrably idiotic.
There is only one question to ask here. Why do they call this political affiliation “progressive?” Since you stand for the absolutely failed, miserably discredited old Utopian faith, shouldn’t you call it “backwardism?”
Not that I really expect an answer. What can you expect from a knucklehead who doesn’t even know that he’s a Stalinist?
It’s just never been done right before… correct? With the publisher of this blog as the new Stalin… this time it will all work out.
MJ "revoltingpawn" said
Shouting Thomas…
I was going to disapprove your comment since was irrelevant to the post and appears to be a personal attack but was wondering why you are talking about the old Soviet Union? What does it have to do with being progressive or my blog?
Sounds like you had been drinking little to much when wrote that comment but if like to explain your self just keep in mind my rules on comments that can be found on the “about” page.
http://ideasandrevolution.net/about/
Shouting Thomas said
*** COMMENT DELETED ***
Congratulations, Shouting Thomas you are the first deleted comment on this blog. Not only did you not explain your last comment but labeled me a Stalinist(?) again and continued with more name calling. I looked at your site and seem to have a passion for music and maybe you should stick with that since seem to be ignorant of political matters.
Your future comments will be deleted also unless you can sober up and contribute something relevant and intelligent to the discussion.
in2thefray said
MJ will attest to you that I don’t agree w/ him but I hope even though we’ve (he and I ) have had heated discussion we’ve been honest in our views and passions. I would agree with the Clinton things but I would have to ask : What the Contract With America didn’t cause any of that ? Eisenhower was a Democrat ? TR was a Republican ! Carter and Ford share the blame for the 70′s ?. Reagan mean anything,he did do more than deficits. New Deal no ! WWII yes. So although I see merit in any number of your points I can’t agree with all of them. I could also turn a blanket phrase of Wilson,FDR, and Johnson all Democrats all got us into wars.As for Bush of who I’m not a big cheerleader of. 9/11 and 2 wars and the economy plugged along very well. With that last one. If W only was experiencing the wake of Clinton (which post dot com bubble is unlikely) Clinton enjoyed Reagan /Bush wake right ? I don’t agree with either of those really myself.
MJ "revoltingpawn" said
in2thefray…
Sorry could not understand your comment at all and what your were trying to say? You normally are coherent…
The only part could make out is that Democrats in the past have gotten us into wars also. OK? The question is not who entered us into any given war but whether it was justified, in our national interests, was a last resort, or was in self-defense. The Iraq invasion and Vietnam conflict (we need to stop saying war since Congress never declared war for either) do not pass.
in2thefray said
My remarks were in response to Mr. Padoba. Let me try to clear it up for ya.
He stated
I pointed out a number of Republicans that were in office contrary to his position and now I’ll add Coolidge.My mention of the Democrats I listed is also aimed at his point.
The negotiations Clinton got into were driven by the CWA. He skillfully pushed it to the shutdown.His various Clinton Economy greatest hits ie Goldman Sachs and Greenspan. Those all encompass things like NAFTA and the laissez- faire policies that are hallmarks of Republican Administrations.
My comment about wars was in direct reflex to the blanket statement about GOP and economy. I countered with the wars and Dems. Now to you. WWI was not in our best interest. WWII yes and as I said before it not the New Deal is what ended our Depression and Roosevelt Recession.Specifically FDR secretly ramping up the defense industry prior to hostilities. I’ll give him thumbs up since the hostilities were coming no matter what. Korea not previously mentioned but Truman (D) I’ll say yes in our best interest. Vietnam,Kennedy and Johnson not.Gulf I see Korea. Afghanistan yes and Iraq II no.
As for some of the quotes from Mr Padoba:
nara please include this:
That’s the predecessor to the NASDAQ bubble burst.Others
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG928.cfm
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/taxpol.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pdtx82.html
MJ "revoltingpawn" said
in2thefray…
“Iraq II no”
That’s the smartest thing you have said on my blog.
Matthew J. Podoba said
In2thefray (Comment 15)
If you’re going to debate the finer points of presidential economic policies, you should consider doing it while you are sober.
A few things…
All of the things I spoke of were initiated before the ‘Contract with America’ came into existence.
One of six sharpest recessions occured under Coolidge from 1923-1924. Duration 14 months, -4.1 GDP, 5.5 percent unemployment, 94% of industry with shrinking employment
source: http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Recessions.html
Two sharp recessions under Eisenhower. One from 1953-1954. Duration 10 months with -3.1 GDP growth, and a second from 1957-1958. Duration of the second 8 months with a -3.3 GDP.
source: http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Recessions.html
Reliable data does not exist for TR, however his predecessor was ‘business friendly, and oversaw a gradual economic downturn. These policies were adopted by TR with very similar results.
Again, only sharp recession in the 1970′s under Nixon starting in 1973 and continuing until 1975 into the Ford administration. Here we had 16 month duration, -4.9 GDP and a whopping 9.0% unemployment rate! Carter actually saw no recession. The next one was Reagan from 1981-1982. 16 month duration, -2.6 GDP growth, and 10.8% unemployment.
source: http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Recessions.html
Additionally, if you read anything on economic history, you would know that Democrats have generally cleaned up Republican economic messes (Wilson from Taft, FDR from Hoover, Kennedy from Eisenhower, Carter from Ford, Clinton from Bush Sr.)
I wonder who will clean up W’s economic shit storm? Hopefully Obama.
You gotta do better than this.
Matthew J. Podoba said
In2thefray (Comment 17)
Vietnam actually was started under the Eisenhower administration. Kennedy was trying to formulate a policy to get us out. Johnson went the other way with a more ‘hawkish’ policy. You do not have a good command of political history I think.
Better luck in the next round my friend. I enjoy the back and forth though. Gives me something to do while I wait for the kid’s to get on the bus.
in2thefray said
Matthew.I’m chewing on the economics. I have to disagree with you on JFK making any effort to “get out of Vietnam” His policies seem very consistent with the containment policy. He not Ike had upped the ante with deployment of Green Beret which marked a departure from the $$$ and advisory actions (MMAG) under Ike.We’ll never know if JFK would’ve gone where Johnson went but his Vietnam policy was in line with his global stance against Nikita et al.I do know this though I’m quite done with the smug rudeness of you towards my history ed. By bye.
in2thefray said
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/Vietnam.htm
LinZi said
Keep up the good work! Look forward to reading more from you in the future. I think it will be also nice if you add “send to email” tool so people can forward the articles to their friends easily.