McCain’s misguided role model on deficit reduction

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just a couple of months ago, John McCain acknowledged, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." For some reason, he's been trying to prove this point ever since.

Yesterday, for example, McCain made a campaign stop at an investment firm in Westport, Conn., where a voter asked how McCain plans to balance the federal budget. (McCain has vowed, repeatedly, to eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term in office.)

"Basically, which is it?" the man asked Mr. McCain. "Straight talk: Do you want to raise taxes, cut entitlement spending, cut defense spending, or have a deficit?"

Mr. McCain did not explain how he plans to balance the budget, but spoke generally about hoping to stimulate the economy — and cited President Reagan.

"I don't believe in a static economy," Mr. McCain said. "I believe that when there's stimulus for growth, when there's opportunity, when people keep more of their money — and the government is the least efficient way to spend your money — that economies improve."

"When Ronald Reagan came to office," he said, noting that few in the audience were old enough to remember, "we had 10 percent unemployment, 20 percent interest rates, and 10 percent inflation, if I've got those numbers right. That was when Ronald Reagan came to office in 1980. And so what did we do? We didn't raise taxes, and we didn't cut entitlements. What we did was we cut taxes and we put in governmental reductions in regulations, stimulus to the economy…."

There's so much wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

[GaryC 7]

Just a couple of months ago, John McCain acknowledged, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." For some reason, he's been trying to prove this point ever since.

Yesterday, for example, McCain made a campaign stop at an investment firm in Westport, Conn., where a voter asked how McCain plans to balance the federal budget. (McCain has vowed, repeatedly, to eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term in office.)

"Basically, which is it?" the man asked Mr. McCain. "Straight talk: Do you want to raise taxes, cut entitlement spending, cut defense spending, or have a deficit?"

Mr. McCain did not explain how he plans to balance the budget, but spoke generally about hoping to stimulate the economy — and cited President Reagan.

"I don't believe in a static economy," Mr. McCain said. "I believe that when there's stimulus for growth, when there's opportunity, when people keep more of their money — and the government is the least efficient way to spend your money — that economies improve."

"When Ronald Reagan came to office," he said, noting that few in the audience were old enough to remember, "we had 10 percent unemployment, 20 percent interest rates, and 10 percent inflation, if I've got those numbers right. That was when Ronald Reagan came to office in 1980. And so what did we do? We didn't raise taxes, and we didn't cut entitlements. What we did was we cut taxes and we put in governmental reductions in regulations, stimulus to the economy…."

There's so much wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

To start with the story is by the carpetbagger. That is what is most wrong with this.

[Dan J 277]

As long as McCain keeps borrowing for the war, any type of economic growth he may generate will be negated borrowing and loss in the value of the dollar. Thats basically what happened to Bush. But he has a mortage/housing bubble which sort of obfuscated the picture.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As long as McCain keeps borrowing for the war, any type of economic growth he may generate will be negated borrowing and loss in the value of the dollar. Thats basically what happened to Bush. But he has a mortage/housing bubble which sort of obfuscated the picture.

Yep. Once the press hounds are at his heels over specifics, he's going to fumbling for his cane.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

As long as McCain keeps borrowing for the war, any type of economic growth he may generate will be negated borrowing and loss in the value of the dollar. Thats basically what happened to Bush. But he has a mortage/housing bubble which sort of obfuscated the picture.

Yep. Once the press hounds are at his heels over specifics, he's going to fumbling for his cane.

It's a shame. If it were not for his stance on the war, his age, core policies, and extreme conservative views... I would consider voting for him. For now, he'll just have to settle with my respect and attentiveness to his POVs. We need a third party.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Sheriff Uling

[mawilson 2,133]

As long as McCain keeps borrowing for the war, any type of economic growth he may generate will be negated borrowing and loss in the value of the dollar. Thats basically what happened to Bush. But he has a mortage/housing bubble which sort of obfuscated the picture.

So, in a way, Alan Greenspan is responsible for the war. The Greenspan Fed slashed the

interest rates to their lowest level in decades, which created the housing bubble and allowed

Bush to finance his federal budget deficit very cheaply.