The president of the United States needs to be able to address many issues at the same time. If John McCain has to postpone his election campaign to focus on just one issue, albeit important, then what will happen when several critical issues need to be address simultaneously? Will only one get addressed? Imagine if there were another "missle crisis" right now...what would Senator McCain do? Will he tell Sarah Palin to handle one of the two issues? She is completely unqualified for either! With today's technology, we can all participate in many things from anywhere in this country (or the world for that matter). This economic crisis is an outstanding test for both presidential candidates to show they CAN do more than one thing at a time. The debate MUST go on if McCain wants any chance of winning this election.
That makes no sense at all. I suspect that "blame the dems" was your intention before the candidates were even announced, and before any of the issues were broached. Starting with your conclusion is a VERY backward way to think, if you'll pardon me for saying so.
The US has all that, but it is being mismanaged to a massive extent. Look at the decaying rust belt... Mismanagement can do massive harm to any economy in a very short time.
McCain's statement seems straight-forward enough. We have natural resources, excellent industrial assets, excellent transportation, excellent communication, a skilled labor force, and we control much of the world's intellectual property. McCain believes that a few corrupt finance leaders in the country have affected our prosperity in the short term, but that we haven't lost any of the infrastructure that makes us a financial super-power. In short, we can recover from this.-What is weird or "redefining" about the belief that America's (unparralleled!) financial infrastructure is still intact?
Good point Bcc.I think that he can make our economy stronger by treating the privileged and upperclass like they're untouchable and letting the bottom fall lower as always.
So you're trying to redefine the terms as well? I'm not saying that the American people are not strong. Barack Obama isn't saying that either, and I'm pretty sure McCain knows that full well. I agree with Obama when he says these mischaracterizations are wasteful distractions.-When McCain says, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong," his meaning is well-understood. He's saying what he's BEEN saying, that the economy is in good shape. Or do YOU believe that we're just a "nation of whiners" as Phil Gramm so contemptuously described us?
They also were strong in the 1920s. But high level incompetence and corruption (mostly incompetence, but then again the science of economics was in its infancy) caused a stock market bubble, a crash in commodities, and then a crash in the stock market, and a depression. There are fewer excuses now, because we have known what happens when markets are out of control for some time. Those behind the deregulation that happened during the 1980s, 90s, and this decade went too far. Proper, sound regulations are necessary to stop corporations from doing stupid things in order to boost profits short term, boost share prices, and increase the take home pay of top executives into the stratosphere.-An economy that is underpinned by as much debt as the US has, cannot really be regarded as strong. All that debt will have to be repaid at some point. I do not think ANYBODY wants the US government to become bankrupt.
It just gets weirder and weirder. McCain, after having his "fundamentals of our economy are strong" statement questioned, redefined what the word "fundamentals" means. He explained that it refers to working people like me. Funny, I've never been called a "fundamental" before (or a fundamentalist for that matter.)
The president of the United States needs to be able to address many issues at the same time. If John McCain has to postpone his election campaign to focus on just one issue, albeit important, then what will happen when several critical issues need to be address simultaneously? Will only one get addressed? Imagine if there were another "missle crisis" right now...what would Senator McCain do? Will he tell Sarah Palin to handle one of the two issues? She is completely unqualified for either! With today's technology, we can all participate in many things from anywhere in this country (or the world for that matter). This economic crisis is an outstanding test for both presidential candidates to show they CAN do more than one thing at a time. The debate MUST go on if McCain wants any chance of winning this election.
That makes no sense at all. I suspect that "blame the dems" was your intention before the candidates were even announced, and before any of the issues were broached. Starting with your conclusion is a VERY backward way to think, if you'll pardon me for saying so.
LOL!
better start blaming the dems and alan greenspan
The US has all that, but it is being mismanaged to a massive extent. Look at the decaying rust belt... Mismanagement can do massive harm to any economy in a very short time.
McCain knows nothing about Economics as he so rightly admitted. And to put faith in the people who got us where we are today is utterly absurd.
very well said drowlord....
is that so?
McCain's statement seems straight-forward enough. We have natural resources, excellent industrial assets, excellent transportation, excellent communication, a skilled labor force, and we control much of the world's intellectual property. McCain believes that a few corrupt finance leaders in the country have affected our prosperity in the short term, but that we haven't lost any of the infrastructure that makes us a financial super-power. In short, we can recover from this.-What is weird or "redefining" about the belief that America's (unparralleled!) financial infrastructure is still intact?
Good point Bcc.I think that he can make our economy stronger by treating the privileged and upperclass like they're untouchable and letting the bottom fall lower as always.
I'm glad we straightened out who believes in the American people and who doesn't.
i do think many in the USA are whiners....but not because of phil gramm....
so do you not believe the american people are strong? or samll businesses? or entrepreneurs?
So you're trying to redefine the terms as well? I'm not saying that the American people are not strong. Barack Obama isn't saying that either, and I'm pretty sure McCain knows that full well. I agree with Obama when he says these mischaracterizations are wasteful distractions.-When McCain says, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong," his meaning is well-understood. He's saying what he's BEEN saying, that the economy is in good shape. Or do YOU believe that we're just a "nation of whiners" as Phil Gramm so contemptuously described us?
They also were strong in the 1920s. But high level incompetence and corruption (mostly incompetence, but then again the science of economics was in its infancy) caused a stock market bubble, a crash in commodities, and then a crash in the stock market, and a depression. There are fewer excuses now, because we have known what happens when markets are out of control for some time. Those behind the deregulation that happened during the 1980s, 90s, and this decade went too far. Proper, sound regulations are necessary to stop corporations from doing stupid things in order to boost profits short term, boost share prices, and increase the take home pay of top executives into the stratosphere.-An economy that is underpinned by as much debt as the US has, cannot really be regarded as strong. All that debt will have to be repaid at some point. I do not think ANYBODY wants the US government to become bankrupt.
It just gets weirder and weirder. McCain, after having his "fundamentals of our economy are strong" statement questioned, redefined what the word "fundamentals" means. He explained that it refers to working people like me. Funny, I've never been called a "fundamental" before (or a fundamentalist for that matter.)
Not if it involves keeping the status quo