Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
Full Post
Posted Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:39 PM

GROSS: McCain Said the Economy's 'Fundamentals' Are 'Strong.' Was He Right?

Andrew Romano

My Newsweek colleague Daniel Gross asks whether there's any excuse for McCain's gaffe about the economy.

John McCain set off a firestorm yesterday when he said, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong," while also noting that these are tough times. McCain, for whom the economy is not comfortable terrain, was simply repeating a formulation he's used before. In August, he told radio host Laura Ingraham: "I still believe the fundamentals of our economy are strong. We've got terribly big challenges now, whether it be housing or employment or so many of the other — health care. It's very, very tough times."

Commenting on the seaworthiness of the nation's economic ship even as it is being swamped by gale-driven waves is a staple of the modern presidency. When there's upheaval in the markets, or a discouraging run of economic news, the president or the treasury secretary trudges out to tell us to remain calm...

Advertisement

It's easy to see why leaders resort to such banal, swaddling language in times of stress. It's a way of changing the conversation, redirecting attention away from the debacle du jour and tapping into Americans' basic pride and faith in their system. Yes, some of the numbers are less than optimal. But this too shall pass. A few windows may have been blown out, but the foundation of the building is just fine. One rarely hears protestations of soundness when the economy is doing well – the numbers and the markets speak for themselves.

The question remains: Are the fundamentals sound? Was McCain right, or hopelessly rosy-eyed? It depends on which fundamentals you want to emphasize. There are times when all the fundamentals are unsound, as was the case in 1931. And there are times when all the fundamentals appear to be sound, as was the case in the mid- to late 1990s. The rest of the time, the fundamentals reside somewhere between the two poles (the left pole signifying we're totally screwed and the right pole signifying that happy days are here again).  Today, we're closer to being totally screwed.

Consider. The U.S. needs to create about 150,000 jobs per month just to keep pace with growing population. When payroll jobs fall for eight straight months and the unemployment rate spikes, and when new weekly unemployment claims remain above 400,000, the economy may not be fundamentally sound.

When inflation in the past 12 months has run at 5.4 percent, well over the twice the level with which central bankers are comfortable, the economy may not be fundamentally sound.

When foreclosures are running at record rates and housing prices fall by nearly 16 percent year over year, the economy may not be fundamentally sound.

When the two largest financial institutions in the nation, which guarantee about half of the mortgages, fail and have to be taken over by the government, when the fourth-largest investment bank files for Chapter 11, and when the Federal Reserve effectively nationalizes a massive insurance firm that is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the economy may not be fundamentally sound.

In an economy where consumption constitutes 70 percent of activity, retail sales falling two months in a row may indicate that the economy may not be fundamentally sound.

When industrial production decreases, the economy may not be fundamentally sound.

When the nation's three major automakers, some of the largest remaining manufacturing entities, report sales declines of over 20 percent and beg the taxpayers for loans, the economy may not be fundamentally sound.

The litany of bad news has to be weighed against good news, of course.

When gross domestic product grows at a 3.3 percent annual rate despite weathering a series of shocks, the economy may be fundamentally sound.

When inflation shows signs of moderating and the prices of important commodities return to more reasonable levels, the economy may be fundamentally sound.

When exports rise 20 percent from year-ago levels, the economy may be fundamentally sound.

When $3.5 trillion is parked in money market mutual funds and corporations have vast piles of cash sitting on their balance sheets, it's an indication that money remains available for investment and consumption, and that the economy may be fundamentally sound.

On the whole, however, a reasonable observer would have to conclude that, on balance, the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are less than sound. And even John McCain has recognized his mistake. After a day of withering criticism, he abandoned his previous position. Now he's calling the situation "a total crisis."

READ THE REST HERE.

Tag(s):
You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: willnotvoteobama (September 18, 2008 at 9:36 AM)

If there is anyone out there that doesn't know this; this is the best visual presentation I ever saw. just remember who did this when you vote....

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,

That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,

That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and

That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and if we get a Social Security check every month we are finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government and now to                                         Dwight Eisenhower

34th. President, Republican,

in 1958 the first year that Congress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.

If I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress. And From what I understand, the Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.  Then comes              Lyndon Johnson 36th.President,a Democrat

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson a Democrat, and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party. Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Albert Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S. Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right!  (Jimmy Carter) a Democrat, and the Democratic Party. Voted to give

Immigrants who moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! TheDemocratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people read this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will


Posted By: caraprado (September 17, 2008 at 4:52 PM)

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/cynicism-of-mccains-vp-choice.html

Monday, September 15, 2008

The Cynicism of John McCain and his VP Choice

If you read Jeffrey Goldberg's excellent piece on McCain in the new Atlantic, one fact stands out clearly. McCain's stance on the war is inviolate--it involves what for him are principles of honor that stretch back immediately and directly to his own experiences in the Vietnam war, and to those of his father in World War II. Just one example of many in the first-rate article:

   "I told Swindle [a cellmate and friend of McCain's] that McCain had argued to me that he doesn’t think about Vietnam overly much when he thinks about the wars of today.

   “'Bulls--t,' Swindle said. 'He’ll say Vietnam didn’t affect him, that he doesn’t think about it, that he’s aloof from it. But I see it. It’s there.'”

This is the issue on which McCain is inflexible, certain, fully invested, passionate.

It is equally clear that as a result, he views all other issues as malleable, political issues--stances that can be easily taken, and easily changed, tactically-- in order to win a campaign and thus deal with the issue that, to him, matters.

This is utterly clear in his choice of Palin, where his Vietnam-and-since cynicism about political necessities is manifest--one of feeding the bread and circuses desire of the electorate, giving them, so easily fooled, as they were so easily fooled by the media in Vietnam, what they need, in order to be able to deal with the important issue.

The choice of a remarkably unqualified Vice Presidential choice is simply a political necessity. The attitude towards the public, and the media, in this choice, as in many of the public representations and statements of his campaign, is one of an extraordinary, world-weary, cynicism: Feed the beast with whatever fantasies and half-truths it takes. The fundamentals of the economy are sound. We'll take care of it later.

Goldberg:

   "In my conversations with McCain, however, he never appeared greatly troubled by his shifts and reversals. It’s not difficult to understand why: tax policy, or health care, or even off-shore oil drilling are for him all matters of mere politics, and politics calls for ideological plasticity. It is only in the realm of national defense, and of American honor—two notions that for McCain are thoroughly entwined—that he becomes truly unbending."

This is no doubt rooted in McCain's eternal certainties, drummed in by three generations of such certainty. And there is no doubt strength and decency--as well as these "family values"--that drive this commitment to an ideological core.

The question is this: Do we need another president with such a core of ideological inflexibility, rigidity and unwillingness for self-reflection, linked to a long past conflict--and who is willing to resort to half-truths, deceptions, and distortions in its service?

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/cynicism-of-mccains-vp-choice.html


Posted By: caraprado (September 17, 2008 at 4:51 PM)

Cite:<br>

Head of State<br>

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/cynicism-of-mccains-vp-choice.html<br><br>">http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/cynicism-of-mccains-vp-choice.html<br><br>

Monday, September 15, 2008<br>

The Cynicism of John McCain and his VP Choice<br><br>

If you read Jeffrey Goldberg's excellent piece on McCain in the new Atlantic, one fact stands out clearly. McCain's stance on the war is inviolate--it involves what for him are principles of honor that stretch back immediately and directly to his own experiences in the Vietnam war, and to those of his father in World War II. Just one example of many in the first-rate article:<br><br>

   <blockquote>I told Swindle [a cellmate and friend of McCain's] that McCain had argued to me that he doesn’t think about Vietnam overly much when he thinks about the wars of today.<br><br>

   “Bullshit,” Swindle said. “He’ll say Vietnam didn’t affect him, that he doesn’t think about it, that he’s aloof from it. But I see it. It’s there.”<br><br></blockquote>

This is the issue on which McCain is inflexible, certain, fully invested, passionate.<br><br>

It is equally clear that as a result, he views all other issues as malleable, political issues--stances that can be easily taken, and easily changed, tactically-- in order to win a campaign and thus deal with the issue that, to him, matters.<br><br>

This is utterly clear in his choice of Palin, where his Vietnam-and-since cynicism about political necessities is manifest--one of feeding the bread and circuses desire of the electorate, giving them, so easily fooled, as they were so easily fooled by the media in Vietnam, what they need, in order to be able to deal with the important issue.<br><br>

The choice of a remarkably unqualified Vice Presidential choice is simply a political necessity. The attitude towards the public, and the media, in this choice, as in many of the public representations and statements of his campaign, is one of an extraordinary, jaded, cynicism: Feed the beast with whatever fantasies and half-truths it takes. The fundamentals of the economy are sound. We'll take care of it later.<br><br>

Goldberg:<br><br>

   <blockquote>In my conversations with McCain, however, he never appeared greatly troubled by his shifts and reversals. It’s not difficult to understand why: tax policy, or health care, or even off-shore oil drilling are for him all matters of mere politics, and politics calls for ideological plasticity. It is only in the realm of national defense, and of American honor—two notions that for McCain are thoroughly entwined—that he becomes truly unbending.<br><br></blockquote>

This is no doubt rooted in McCain's eternal certainties, drummed in by three generations of such certainty. And there is no doubt strength and decency--as well as these "family values"--that drive this commitment to an ideological core.<br><br>

The question is this: Do we need another president with such a core of ideological inflexibility, rigidity and unwillingness for self-reflection, linked to a long past conflict--and who is willing to resort to half-truths, deceptions, and distortions in its service?<br><br>

Cite:<br>

Head of State<br>

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/cynicism-of-mccains-vp-choice.html