1. Obama WILL raise taxes. McCain is right when he says that as has been independantly confirmed. He might not raise YOUR taxes, but overall he proposes a 600 billion tax increase.

2. Obama has even less experience with the economy than McCain does.

3. When Obama says he will raise other people's taxes, not yours, he shows his lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the economy. It doesn't matter if he cuts YOUR taxes but then raises corporate and small business taxes that more than offset the tax cuts he's proposed, because a net increase in taxes of 600 Billion will cripple the economy.

4. All of the current economic turmoil is due to the Housing Crisis not the fundamentals of the economy.

5. The Democrats, not Republicans, have controlled the Senate and House of Representatives for 2 years while this mess was brewing. Both parties are to blame, but Congress has far more direct control over the economy than does the President.

6. The Democrats were pushing for lax mortgage standards - the cause of our problems - because they wanted more poor people and minorities to have a shot at the American Dream of owning a home.

7. The Fundamentals of our economy are strong. GDP is up, unemployment is historically low (though rising), inflation is historically low, productivity is at an all time high, etc, etc. We are facing a crisis, to be sure, and our long term debt situation is a massive problem that must be dealt with, but the fundamentals of our economy are strong as Bloomberg accurately states.

It helps McCain for about 2% of the population.

If they are the only ones to vote -- then he's a shoo-in.

Would you please cite your sources for your statement that "productivity is at an all time high", "inflation is historically low", and "unemployment is historically low".

I'll wait....

michaelp0429:

1. Obama WILL raise taxes. McCain is right when he says that as has been independantly confirmed. He might not raise YOUR taxes, but overall he proposes a 600 billion tax increase.

Obama will roll back tax cuts for the wealthy. Overall, the average person will see more money from their paychecks with Obama than McCain.

2. Obama has even less experience with the economy than McCain does.

Neither has very much, but Obama has a slightly better grasp of economics.

3. When Obama says he will raise other people's taxes, not yours, he shows his lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the economy. It doesn't matter if he cuts YOUR taxes but then raises corporate and small business taxes that more than offset the tax cuts he's proposed, because a net increase in taxes of 600 Billion will cripple the economy.

He doesn't say that. But he IS aware that you can't spend billions on war without paying for it. Republican policies of 'borrow and spend' only create massive deficits and a weak dollar. "Cripple the economy" talk is just fearmongering.

4. All of the current economic turmoil is due to the Housing Crisis not the fundamentals of the economy.

The economy has been badly damaged by this crisis, but it's true that massive deficits, a weak dollar, and borrowing has damaged the fundamentals of the economy.

5. The Democrats, not Republicans, have controlled the Senate and House of Representatives for 2 years while this mess was brewing. Both parties are to blame, but Congress has far more direct control over the economy than does the President.

Dems have not actually had much control over the Senate. What were Repubs doing for the preceding 12 years?

6. The Democrats were pushing for lax mortgage standards - the cause of our problems - because they wanted more poor people and minorities to have a shot at the American Dream of owning a home.

Democrats don't run banks, loan agencies, and investment firms. Those people were far more involved in the current crisis than the Democratic Party.

7. The Fundamentals of our economy are strong. GDP is up, unemployment is historically low (though rising), inflation is historically low, productivity is at an all time high, etc, etc. We are facing a crisis, to be sure, and our long term debt situation is a massive problem that must be dealt with, but the fundamentals of our economy are strong as Bloomberg accurately states.

Mere whistling past the graveyard, GOP-style.

The democrats have had control of the house for the last 18 months and they've had a slight majority in the Senate.

The deregulation that has brought this about is something that started when Phil Gramm was in the senate and he owns a lot of the problem. Might be why he wants to say that the problems are all in our heads.

The value of the dollar isn't falling because of housing. It is falling because the Bush administration has run the debt up by $4 trillion, the most expensive president we've ever had.

How will McCain fix things with more tax cuts and more borrowing?

It will fix things for John McCain.

Keep in mind, too, that the way Obama talks about the economy/labor is the way McCain talks about religious issues: with full on pandering to the lowest common denominator.

No rational person thinks it would be a good idea to bring factory jobs back to Ohio and subsidize them for the next three generations. Even Obama's economic advisors admit that they don't seriously believe NAFTA should be taken apart.

It's hard to trust Obama on the economy because he doesn't even believe what he says about it.

He knows that when he says things about NAFTA or that we currently have record unemployment that he's just blowing smoke (it's high at 6.1%, but it was higher in the first two years of the Clinton administration, about the same as three years into the Clinton admin, much higher at the end of the original Bush administration, and our current unemployment is very low when compared to other G8 nations.)

It's hard to take him seriously when he's just pandering to organized labor. It's not like McCain has anything better, but it's not as though Obama shines on the issue.

I applaud you havelc. They both are making claims that they have to know are bogus.

McCain saying no new taxes and keeping the cuts to the upper income levels is a plan that will not result in those things he claims. At least he says he will balance the budget in 4 years. Another claim that is more fantasy than reality.

Now Obama is taxing corporations and saying that he is giving cuts to the middle and lower class tax payer. Sort of like handing someone a five dollar bill as you slip their wallet out of their pocket. That cut only works if they have a job which they may not and if they do the cost will more than suck up any savings in taxes they may get. Of course then Obama can blame big bad business.

Understanding the impacts of different economic policies is very difficult so they know they can say pretty much what they want. Each says what their base wants to hear. Most people here do not have a clue about how financial matters are handled in a business. To suspect they might understand how things really work in this country is a factor they count on.

I think your rational thinking is to be commended but will go mostly unappreciated.

I agree this is rational thinking. However, there's no way that anyone -- whether you're middle class or in the top 2% or whatever -- will escape this current economic mess without having to pay at least a little for it. Right or wrong, we're all going to have to foot the bill for this -- whether it's in taxes, smaller raises, retirement funds that take a beating in the market, etc.

And in some ways, we deserve what we get. This sub-prime mortgage crisis was brought on by corporate greed. Not the Republicans, and not the Democrats. Just greedy corporations making loans to people that were foreclosures waiting to happen just so they could get the fees and increase their earnings.

So yes, the lenders are partially responsible for this mess, but the people who took out all those loans are responsible too. It's hard for me to muster up much sympathy for alot of the people who are in foreclosure now. Some of them were naive first time buyers who were subjected to predatory lending practices, true, but plenty of them were people who should have known better than to buy more home than they could afford. My husband and I both make a very nice living and we could probably live in a much bigger house in a much swankier neighborhood if we wanted to. But we don't. We made the decision to not get into a situation where our mortgage was an albatross around our necks and therefore live in an older home in a development built in the 1970's.

I'm not sure either Obama or McCain has the answer. But after hearing McCain say yesterday -- after the spectacular crash and burn of Lehman and after watching the Dow drop over 500 points -- that he still felt the fundamentals of the economy are strong further confirmed my suspicions that the guy is completely out of touch. Couple that with Palin's total lack of understanding about economic issues (evidenced by the fact that she thought Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both government entities before the government stepped in and took them over, rather than private companies) means that Obama has my vote. At least he's aware of the world around him, which is more than I can say for McCain.

You sound quite rational and I like alot of your argument. While many companies and the people that worked for them were greedy ,this crisis was brought on the government as well. Congress,mostly democrats,kept hectoring these mortgage lenders to make loans on houses to poor people. So the banks as long as the government was going to pick up the tap if anything went wrong,just forgot everything they know about credit risk and handed out loans indiscriminately. Poor people cannot afford to live in houses,until as such time as they become less poor and can afford to make a sizable down payment and can realistically meet their mortgage payments.This is the way life is,maybe it is unfair but it is reality. My son and daughter both employed making a middleclass salary cannot afford a house as of now,so they rent. Nothing wrong with this and there is no shame invovled. Politicians promising the impossible dreams to people are the ones most responsible for the housing mess. Obama is the king of pied pipers and therefore is dangerous and in no way should you vote for him if are serious about our economy

To some extent I agree with the last few posts. I think banks tried to make more fees and I have to think that some blame has to go to these mortgage brokers.

I am sure that govt gets their share of the blame too. Were they not really watching what was going on. For Fannie and Freddie to insure a loan is it possible that there were no standards that needed to be met. I know that in the stock market there are rules that are going unenforced that would if enforced would cut down on volatility. If there were no standards then why were they not legislated.

I also think that there was a good deal of pressure to give out loans to low and middle income who were questionable.

Lastly, the buyer. Everything is spelled out in the documents. I do not care how little you understand you have to know a variable rate loan amount can change or that the payment is more than you can afford. We really lay too little blame at the feet of those who really are to blame for a foreclosure.

This company going under is because of how the company was run. There are lots of companies that have been around a long time that fade from existence. That is the way it goes. Look at the size of IBM. Should we jail someone there.

Oh and McCain explained what he means when he says the fundamentals. He says to him it means the American worker and small business entrepreneurship, or something along those lines.

Consider this fact when you think about other issues. The average earnings of a two adult household was something around 70K. That is a NEW RECORD. So all you people out there talking about how bad it is, if you are a married couple you have set the earnings record so times for you are better than they ever have been. After all a new earnings record is something to be proud of. But it sounds to me that perhaps Obama should include you in the list for more taxes. After all you are in the middle of record earnings so you should be able to afford giving some back to your country.

1. The first problem is that the republicans continue to borrow to pump money into the economy. Reagan tripled the national debt. Bush 43 has doubled it. That is why the dollar is worth so much less today than it was a couple of years ago.

2. Look up Phil Gramm and the "Enron loophole" or the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley act" and you will see why banks and brokerages are going under.....then ask how Wendy and Phil Gramm got rich on Enron stock after she was the commish on the CFTC and then a director for Enron.....

The republicans have been screeming for deregulation and they got it. The government didn't push lenders to make loans. The companies pushed the government out of the way so that they could make the most out of a rising real estate market. They wanted their piece of the rise in equity and were taking it in the form of increasing interest rates and in points and fees.....

Gramm got over $1m in campaign contributions from the securities industry while he was chairman of the Senate committee on Banking. He got $750k from UBS as a lobbyist while trying to kill restrictions on predatory lending tactics from brokers.

There is blame to go around, but the bulk of it belongs in John McCain's back yard.

It's a historic FACT that the income gap decreases whenever a DEMOCRAT is in office.

By definition, that means the middle class actually benefit.

The income gap historically, widens, each time a Republican takes office.

That would be considered a detriment.

So, what's with all the repub 'raise taxes' talking points? Obama has said over and over again, the middle class gets a break, the rich don't.

I don't see a problem with that, or anything to be afraid of, since I make nowhere near $250,000 per year.

Mirth wrote: "I don't see a problem with that, or anything to be afraid of, since I make nowhere near $250,000 per year."

I am afraid that is the problem with the plan. Many people support it because hey I get to pay less taxes and the rich guy pays for it great.

Where is your sense of fairness and what is right. Why should we depend on those with more to pay our way. I think I reached maturity when I realized that it is not mom and dads responsibility to pay my way.

I am no where near the 250K and never was. I will get all those handouts, free stuff and tax refunds all complements of the top 5 or 10%. I just do not see how that is fair.

I heard something today that caused me to think. Obama made more than 200K for a while yet until the last two years did not take this extra money he is asking those with high incomes to give in taxes, and give it to charity or use it for the things he is pushing in his campaign.

The rich do not need someone to tell them to give their money to uses that benefit society, they can do it on their own. Obama had a choice and chose not to do that. Sounds like a committed person to me.

I am not so sure about your historical fact but since I do not have time to see if you are indeed correct I cannot show any reason to suggest it is not correct.

1. Obama and his wife have been paying back student loans and have only just recently hit an income level that makes them well off. I'm not sure what your point is about their "extra money", but their donations to charity are their business.

2. You assume that any tax increases that Obama has in mind are for welfare or giveaways. The fact is that they are investments. Student loans and decreases in costs to get a college education makes for a better trained work force. Universal healthcare is to help us compete against countries (like Canada) that provide cheap health care or China that provides free (even if it stinks) medical care. Our cars cost more because health care costs are too high.

You suggest that Obama should contribute his money to educating somebody's kids or to providing health care to someone who doesn't have it. Why even bring up points that don't have to do with solving a national problem? You don't win any debating points with nonsense.

As for my sense of fairness....I make enough money that I'll get hit by the tax increases. I didn't ask Bush for the tax cuts and clearly recognized them for what they were, payment for votes. The money was borrowed. Who was going to pay it back? The tax cut that I got in 2002 was worth $17,000 to me. How much did you get? Borrowing to do tax cuts, if targeted to the rich, are not going to spur an economic recovery. If I get $17k and go to Europe on vacation....who wins? If my 4 neighbors each get $3k per year, they go buy cars.....maybe even American cars. Instead, if we use the money to make healthcare costs lower for the people who make American cars, more people buy American cars.

You may have come to the realization that your mom and dad shouldn't be paying your way, but you will still be a republican as long as you think your children should pick up the tab.