While many may be gearing up for an election based on Iraq, Iran, and National Security we might want cool our jets and gear up for a full fledged economic debate. It was 1992 when Bill Clinton campaign strategist James Carville posted a simply stated sign in the office with a phrase that now has legendary status.
"It's the economy, stupid!"
And so it was during the opening week of the 2008 Presidential General Election Campaign that first Barack Obama, followed by John McCain, sparred on their plans to spur a slumping economy.
Obama hit McCain on the economy and gas prices:
Obama took part of his speech from headlines across the nation, noting that the average price of gas just hit $4 a gallon for the first time. The news followed an unusually sharp spike in the unemployment rate on Friday.
Repeatedly linking McCain to Bush, Obama said, "our president sacrificed investments in health care, and education, and energy, and infrastructure on the altar of tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs."
Obama criticized McCain for originally opposing Bush's first-term tax cuts but now supporting their continuation. He said he would increase taxes on oil companies while McCain would reduce them.
"At a time when we're fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can't afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we're paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil," Obama said. "That isn't just irresponsible. It's outrageous."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25063183/
McCain said small businesses would bear the brunt of Obama's proposed tax increases. He called for phasing out the alternative minimum tax and allowing businesses to write off some new investments.
"I don't want to send any more of your earnings to the government," the Arizona senator said.
"I believe that the best way to help small businesses and employers afford health care is not to increase government control of health care but to bring the rising cost of care under control and give people the option of having personal, portable health insurance," McCain told the NFIB group. Workers would be able to keep their insurance "even when they move or change jobs," he said.
Obama said the McCain plan would help only the wealthy.
"He's offering a tax cut that won't ensure that health care is affordable for hardworking families who need help most," Obama said. "And his plan could actually put your coverage at risk by undermining the employer-based system that most Americans depend on."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25076642Traditionally, Democrats (like FDR, JFK and Bill Clinton) benefit from economic-based elections. Traditionally, teenagers like you are not considered. But this could be a Change election (one that brings in new voting blocs). Is the econonomy your number one issue?
Bloomberg reports that while the nation's unemployment rate is officially inching toward 6 percent, it is over 18% for teens:
"June 7 (Bloomberg) -- American teenagers looking for summer jobs are facing the worst prospects in five years as retailers and restaurants trim payrolls in response to a slowing economy.
The teenage jobless rate soared to 18.7 percent in May, the highest since June 2003, from 15.4 percent the month before, the Labor Department said yesterday. The increase was the biggest since the department began keeping the statistics in 1948. Overall, the unemployment rate rose half a point to 5.5 percent.
Bookseller Borders Group Inc., clothing store Talbots Inc. and movie-rental chain Blockbuster Inc. are among the companies trimming payrolls as consumers rein in spending. The tough job market for teens is another sign of the widening effects of the economic downturn that began with a slump in housing and spread to the financial industry. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=akGs8tvX5fUk&refer=us
Blog your economic summer story here. Remember, you're not stupid. Your pocketbook, gas tank and your vote (if you are 18 by Nov.5) count.
9 comments:
Well Im kinda annoyed. After searching for a job for a year now I still have yet to get an offer. And since college is only a few months away me and my parents are doubting if one will come soon. So now I basiclly work on the house or work on my boardgame im currently developing. It will be a boring summer.
Also both Barrack Obama and John McCain dont know what they are doing. One wants to raise taxes and give people money while the other wants to keep them low and not give people money. Didnt Keyens (I think thats his name) say that in Recession we should have low taxes AND give people money? Why cant anyone just do both?
If you ask me, this is a good time for us to go to college and stay there for a few years. When my parents graduated from college in 1974 and 1976, they entered the worst job market since the 1930s. I'm hoping the job market in 2012 or 2013 or 2014 is better than it is now. Part of the problem is we're not defending the dollar. We need to make deep cuts in, if not eliminate, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, and quite a few welfare programs. This could help restore confidence in the dollar, which is part of the problem.
I'm working at the Robert R. McCormick Mansion at Cantigny. By the time anyone reads this post, I should be guiding tours on Thursday and Saturday afternoons, so if anyone wants to drop by, feel free to do so! I'd love to see my fellow WVHS alums. It's a very interesting house. It ties in pretty well with my intent to go into journalism.
I'm working at a kids' playland/party place called Airtastic. Interestingly enough, I hosted a party yesterday for a boy who was turning 4, and he had an Obama party, a theme which he seemed really excited about. They had campaign oriented decorations and goody bags, and the boy even got an Obama t-shirt as a gift. I think it said "barrack and roll". Talk about reaching young people. Unfortunately the kid won't even be eligible vote for Obama in 2012. It seemed to be a case of extreme political socialization at work - the father was wearing an Obama t-shirt.
How about that D.C. decision? I guess the Second Amendment has been incorporated now.
I was reading a little of the majority opinion, and Scalia actually cites a brief of amicus curie written by a linguist. The brief apparently discusses how the grammatical phrasing of the second amendment affects its meaning.
It's interesting how there have been two relatively significant cases settled recently - this decision about handguns as well as the one about the death penalty for child rapists - each by a 5-4 margin, but by a different set of 5 and 4. The 'liberals' got the best in one decision, and the 'conservatives' in the other. Kennedy was in the majority both times. It looks like he's the man who will decide how this court will be remembered; his opinion will be the key factor in deciding any controversial or divisive case.
I was hoping that a post would be made about the hand guns and then I could just blog about that, but Jeremy had to go and ruin it. Any ways, Kennedy had been the swing vote for most of the 5-4 cases, and about 15 minutes after that the ruling came out, the NRA challenged the hand gun ban in Chicago. I am super excited (I have a lot of guns to buy). As far as it being challenged, when I read the oral arguments, it was obvious that it would be a 6-3 or 5-4 decision. The phrasing of the Constitution is clearly vague enough that a more liberal court would have gone the other way, and really Heller's lawyer was horrible and has yet to read the constitution. I will probably read the complete decision.
As to the original post, gas prices are making me very angry. The cost of gas is way too low. There should be a $2 tax or so added to the gas price in order to help take care of the pollution it is creating. While I am currently employed and gasoline is killing me, I am more worried about being able to breath.
Since Wolak hasn't said anything about DC v. Heller, I'm just going to put in my opinion, partly to show off my new blog profile (ha ha!). I had some trouble getting it to work in the past.
The DC gun ban penalized law-abiding citizens for the actions of a few psychos, as does every other gun ban. That's why they're called criminals. They don't abide by other laws, so why should they obey gun laws? All gun bans do is disarm citizens. On average, police take about six to eight minutes to respond to a call. That's a lot of time, time which a handgun can buy you. Most of the time, you don't even need to shoot because the mere presence of a gun is enough to drive burglars away. I recently read an account in "American Hunter" about an eightysomething year old guy who had two burglars break into his house. He warned them he was armed, but the burglars laughed him off-until he racked the slide on his SIG .357! The two guys in question ran off. Don't tell me guns don't reduce crime. They do.
I am going to have to disagree with you Garrett. Guns do not belong in any one's hands (unless they are government troops patrolling the city streets to make sure all of us are safe in our homes). Furthermore, power corrupts people and guns are pure power.
And I think this witty example proves my point; if a man shoots another man, the gun has killed a person, and this is just like when I miss spell a word in an essay. When I miss spell it is 42% the pencil's fault, 19% all of my English teacher's faults, and a solid 39% the fault of every republican.
Read my comment on DC v. Heller on the post above. I'm glad to see you guys keeping our government, and myself honest. Back to blogging this week with lots to catch up with.
Jeremy great observation of political socialization at work. Did you get into a debate with the dad, or did you just focus on your tip potential?
I didn't say anything about my personal political leanings. I was focused on the economics of the situation.
Post a Comment