Clueless about the economy
Find a Conversation
Clueless about the economy
| Tue, 09-16-2008 - 7:37am |
Does John McCain really believe that our economy is fundamentally sound? Is this guy out of his freakin’ mind? He is either too old or too stupid to be president. Umployment is down. Wages are down. The price of everything is up. The deficit is up. The national debt is up. Yeah, sounds like the economy is in great shape, John. Perhaps it is time for another tax break for those who make over $250,000 a year. We could use some of that Reagan trickledown voodoo economics about now.
Perhaps when McCain is elected, his new treasury secretary Phil Gramm will straighten all of us whiners out?
The guys seem to be clueless about the economy.
Perhaps when McCain is elected, his new treasury secretary Phil Gramm will straighten all of us whiners out?
The guys seem to be clueless about the economy.

Pages
Really?
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
<>
It doesn't nor did the article suggest that is does.
Guild Member since 2009
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
Obviously you didn't read my post. If you had, surely you would not have responded like this.
I read your entire post before responding to you. Please pay me the same courtesy. It is very informative:
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=16680.100
Guild Member since 2009
Well, what can I say? There is a simple explanation of how a bill becomes law, but I suppose some won't be able to understand it. I can only say that McCain may have been for deregulating Broadband Internet, (which btw, has nothing to do with this) but he has not been for deregulating the market, in fact, has been railing against the way it's been run for years.
Here's proof:
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=16680.92
Edited 9/17/2008 10:50 pm ET by chillychillychilly
Guild Member since 2009
Perhaps the bill wasn't the big bad bill that the Daily Kos tried to fool you into believing? That bill was OVERWHELMINGLY passed by both houses of congress. It was almost unanimous. Your web site has led you down the wrong path....Again.
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=16680.100
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=16680.92
Edited 9/18/2008 9:04 am ET by chillychillychilly
What did he do to me? He caused me to be certain that he was a man of no moral character at all. He betrayed my trust that in the face of an opportunity to serve himself or the greater good of the country, he can't be counted on, because he can't even prioritize the greater good of his marriage and child ahead of, well, we all know what.
The things a person does and does not do aren't "out of character," they ARE his character. Character is what we call "what you do when no one is looking" (except maybe looking from under your desk, and you thought they wouldn't tell).
We as American Citizens have every reason to expect the "leader of the free world" to demonstrate significantly more character than that. And we have every right to be concerned that if our president would be so "unrefined" as to put his body parts in places where they don't belong, in utter violation of the personal integrity and moral values that even HE admits he violated, that he may not have the strength of character to resist and eliminate corruption, bribery, quid-pro-quo favors, and other self-serving opportunities (that EVERY politician is presented with, don't kid yourself for a moment).
That wasn't an oopsie, the only time he ever lied, or the only time his judgment and character ever lapsed. It never is at his age and in his position. He had to be USED to getting his at everyone's expense--what he did and how he lied was FAR too easy for him, and he was FAR too comfortable denying it and justifying it afterward for a "first timer."
Clinton simply took an opportunity for him to get something for himself at the expense of the people closest to him. I don't rank as high as his wife and kid, so I can only imagine the number of ways he screwed over OUR COUNTRY because of some personal benefit to him.
I wouldn't marry a man who cheated on his wife. I wouldn't work for a man who cheated on his wife. I wouldn't want a man who cheated on his wife and then lied about it to work for my company, handling my clients, managing my investments, marrying my daughter or my mother. Why would I want him running my COUNTRY? Smart people think that way: if he does this dishonest and wholly unconscionable thing to his own wife, what's he gonna do to ME? Plain and simple: He's got no character. And I have every right to DEMAND that from a public official--without that, what on EARTH can I count on? And this is why I wish a farmer and a bricklayer would run for president and VP, because I don't trust a single politician as far as I could shoot 'em from a BB gun!
And I don't consider it a lapse of character or a lie to go to war (he's got other character issues I have a problem with), and neither do many of our soldiers and vets. There are many sides to this war, and I get that some people don't agree, but it wasn't a lapse of character, or anyone who ever voted for it or helped fund it in any way is guilty of the same lapse of character. And I think, as far as politicians, Ron Paul is the only one who can deny unequivocally that he has never voted to fund or forward this war in his career.
Pages