McCain and Obama Focus on the Economy

Reader Comments
Back to article

Show Advice,shot process tool marriage exercise report method structure once myself brain great mistake model day close match administration about television government division right base itself secure feature college following module answer nuclear meeting yet certain strange launch individual corner neither committee democratic level grant better hospital patient reduce old rapidly now do phase end customer library contact the bottom mark contribute formal unit wood several drink demonstrate important cover real natural signal treatment impossible very difficulty than we prisoner female payment sound book represent weak remind pay editor create nor

hotel tuerkei of 6:54AM January 21, 2010

The truth about Georgia...
http://osgenocide.ru/
http://osetian.com/

Sergey of MN 2:16PM August 26, 2008

The truth about Georgia...
http://osgenocide.ru/
http://osetian.com/

Sergey of MN 2:16PM August 26, 2008

It is necessary to note who is speaking or writing when on the subject of "the economy". Most anybody considered important enough by any media to present their view is comfortable with his/her own economical status. But for the other 95%, cost increases without comparable pay increases (let alone those with no income or fixed income), "the (depressed or recessed)economy" is real and pressing. The theories that whatever incentives that will "improve the economy" months or more down the road do not offer help or hope to the hurting.

Bill Gale of TN 10:18AM August 04, 2008

I enjoyed the informative article by James Pethokoukis, as well as the accompanying "Where They Stand" info. However, I'd like to see some coverage of other candidates and parties, too. I realize the GOP and Dems dominate, but US News & World Report and other of the mainstream media should not be perpetuating that leadership duopoly.
Sure, I expect you to give Obama and McCain more coverage than the others, but please run at least an article or two on the other parties and their candidates. With voter disgust so high, it seems the right thing to do in serving your readers. There are more choices out there, and Americans should be informed about them.

Bob Giramma of CA 1:40PM August 01, 2008

Looks, like in all my revising "...insure domestic Tranquility..." got left out of the preamble to the Constitution I was quoting. I'd still say spending there is covered by having courts.

Nicole M of UT 6:34PM July 28, 2008

If the next president would be Senator McCain, then he would follow the same foreign policy as President Bush. His domestic policy is dictated by the same group who has leaded the President Bush. Rich would continue to be richer, the middle class follow the same trend of the past 7.5 years and some will join the lower economic status of the poor.
If the next president would be Senator Obama, then he will inherit the present economic and foreign policy status of the present Administration.
Those who have voted for him would expect a rapid change for better in all things that have made them reject President Bush. It will not be a rosy picture for a while; the inertia of the present status is hard to change overnight. Would these voters be patient for the change to take place?
Senator Obama Administration would have hard tasks ahead. His Administration would be more successful if Senator Obama would also have the current support of the Senate and the House.
Would the public allow his Administration time and space to bring about the changes in domestic and foreign policy issues?

Saint Michael Traveler of CA 3:09PM July 28, 2008

McCain wants to give corporations tax credits and Obama wants the government to create more jobs?! What about reigning in the record-setting spending? What about slashing some of the entitlement programs and pork projects that are slowly bleeding our country to death!?! I understand it's political suicide to say the costs of programs like Medicare and Social Security are killing us, but it's like all the mail and telemarketing calls I get for worthy causes--if I donated to them ALL, I'd go broke! They're all great, but you can't afford to do it all. You have to pick what really matters.
What does our nation NEED? If we follow the CONSTITUTION maybe it will tell us what the limits of government are to be: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution for the united States of America." Sounds like we can afford courts, a DEFENSIVE military (not preemptive strike forces), the ability to create charitable organizations (not BE a charitable organization), and a REQUIREMENT to live within our means! It's past time to get our federal budget under control.
Such a shame these two are our "viable" presidential options.

Nicole Menssen of UT 2:56AM July 27, 2008

The next to last paragraph reveals the Tax Policy Center projecting that McCain's plans will increase the national debt a trillion more than Obama's plans over 10 years (assuming Congress passed any of them). Couple that with the over-riding theme that McCain wants to help corporations more than individuals and the obvious bubbles up. McCain, through either "design" or "cluelessness" wishes to have the federal government (taxpayers) give a free net trillion to corporations.
As for healthcare, McCain says merely shift the cost burden of it to individuals (most of whom are nearly broke) so they will buy less of it. If you're sick? Aw, that's a shame, ain't it?

Daniel David of NM 2:13PM July 26, 2008