Yesterday's 500 point plunge of the DOW underscores the free pass the MSM gives to John McCain on issues of substance. For example, the MSM simply lets McCain repeat his line that he is for reform, while not mentioning his tight connection with Phil Gramm, who is responsible for the deregulation that lead to this mess. Indeed, McCain's comments almost appear to blame the crisis on the relatively light regulation that exists. In other words, the problem is still too much regulation!
Here is one of the few articles I have found that actually compare and present the economic policies of Obama and McCain. Good luck finding anything similar:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/15/MNRI12RK2N.DTL/snip
Rising unemployment, falling real incomes and resurgent inflation are exacting a tremendous toll, putting the economic security of tens of millions of Americans at risk. The disparity of wealth and income between those at the top of the economic scale and everyone else is greater than at any time in decades. And the next president will take office in the teeth of the worst housing crash since the Great Depression.
The two major-party candidates offer sharply varying prescriptions for how to stabilize housing, fix the economy and put the standard of living for working people and the middle-class once again on a rising path. The differences between Obama and McCain are deep-seated, both in their philosophies and their likely policies.
Voters will have a choice between the two dominant economic philosophies that have defined American politics for decades, represented by Democrats and Republicans. For all the focus on personalities, Obama and McCain are not unique. When it comes to economic policy, both are firmly rooted in the main current of their parties.
McCain hews to the Reaganite philosophy that the free market works best to manage the economy. He believes that economic growth cures most ills, benefiting rich, poor and middle class alike. Government should promote growth by cutting taxes across the board and getting out of the way of business. He seems more genuinely committed to small government than the Bush administration and recent Republican majorities in Congress, which stuck to the party's program on taxes, but didn't follow through on spending.
Obama is guided by the notion that growth alone doesn't automatically provide people health care, help them pay for college or offer them training for 21st century jobs. Government should use its powers of taxing, spending and regulating to reduce inequality and benefit people at the bottom and middle of the income spectrum. He would cut taxes for most households, but raise them for those with the highest incomes.
* * *
Both candidates promise to slash the deficit or even bring the budget back to balance during his term in the White House. Independent experts scoff.
"Both will simply dig the fiscal hole deeper and put us more into hock to foreigners," Sawhill said. "McCain's proposals are even less fiscally responsible than Obama's."
The Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, calculates that Obama's tax cuts would reduce revenues by a total of $5.4 trillion from 2009 to 2018. McCain tax plans would dig a deeper $7.4 trillion hole based on policy documents provided by his campaign and reach a staggering $11 trillion if the candidate's promises made in stump speeches are taken at face value.
Goolsbee counters that Obama would trim the deficit by ending the Iraq war and removing subsidies now going to Medicare and student loan providers, among other steps. McCain would rely on economic growth and unspecified spending cuts to eliminate the deficit, Holtz-Eakin said.
/snip
The article is actually fairly generous to McCain, since it assumes that McCain will follow-through on his promises to cut spending.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
