Is McCain Like Bush? It Depends on the Issue – NYTimes.com
McCain tries to distance himself from GW, but it just does not hold water. If you watch closely, he , McCain, tries to divert the attention away from Bush as often as possible. His stands will NOT hold up to scurtiny.
All media economic reporters are gonna tell the viewer just how good the economy is, but as usual they are talking to people with NO monetary problems.
A record number of US homeowners faced foreclosure on their properties in May, according to statistics published Friday. That same day, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released data showing a sharp increase in consumer prices for the month of May.
The latest foreclosure data released by the real estate research firm RealtyTrac showed a 4 percent increase in foreclosure filings in May over the previous month, representing a 65 percent increase over April 2007. One in every 519 properties in the US received a foreclosure filing in May.
As homeowners’ wealth plummets together with their home values, the cost of living has continued to increase. Consumer prices increased 0.6 percent in May, or at an annualized rate of 7.2 percent, significantly higher than the 4.2 percent rise seen during the past 12 months. The price increases were sparked by a sharp rise in energy and transportation costs. Energy costs—driven by spiraling oil prices—surged by 4.4 percent in May alone. Transportation costs spiked by 2 percent in May, as airlines and trucking firms passed high oil prices on to their customers.
Despite high “headline” consumer prices, the most recent figures were portrayed as reassuring by economists, who noted that “core” inflation remained under control. Core consumer prices—which are calculated by stripping out food and energy costs—rose only 0.2 percent in May, and in general have stayed at a relatively low 2.3 percent year-to-year rise.
It is important to understand the relationship between the population’s real income and the various measures of prices. Inflation—or more specifically the differential between its core and headline measures—is one of the major indices of the class struggle. From an individual standpoint, “core” (as opposed to headline) inflation is essentially meaningless because, after all, everyone eats and most people drive. But, on a social level, core inflation is more sensitive to wage demands. When rising prices lead workers to successfully struggle for higher wages, producers tend to pass on the extra costs in the price of finished products, thus pushing up core inflation.
If you are a working class occupant, then your economic future is not as rosy as the future for the monied few.
This is an editorial that was sent to me in an email–the source was not given.
Senate Republicans gave people a slap in the face June 10, voting to block a windfall profits tax on oil companies that are robbing us blind at the gasoline pump with $4.35 per gallon gasoline. Democrats mustered a majority, 51 senators, but GOP leaders rallied 43 senators to block the bill, effectively killing it.
It would have imposed a 25 percent tax on “unreasonable” profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which reported $36 billion in profits in the first three months of this year. The legislation would have given the government more power to curb oil company speculation and would have made energy price gouging a federal crime.
The AFL-CIO Working Families network called for a “Week of Action” to protest the price gouging. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said both George W. Bush and John McCain “have handed the reins of the economy over to Big Oil and other corporate interests whose only concern is maximizing their profit margins.”
Since Bush-Cheney seized office in 2000, the five oil giants have reaped $525 billion in profits and presided over gasoline prices that zoomed from $1.47 per gallon to well over $4 per gallon. Oil CEOs are wallowing in money. Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson reports $21.7 million income last year. Occidental Petroleum’s Ray Irani pocketed $34 million.
GOP presidential nominee McCain voted in 2005 against curtailing windfall profits for oil companies. In 2007, he was the only senator to miss a vote on an energy bill that repealed billions in tax subsidies for oil companies. McCain promises if elected to push through a new $3.8 billion tax giveaway for the oil companies. His election in November would ensure another four years of Bush-Cheney giveaways to Big Oil. Democratic nominee Barack Obama, by contrast, vows to “make oil companies like Exxon, pay a tax on their windfall profits.”
If this highway robbery continues, can calls for nationalization of the oil companies be far behind? Venezuela’s example of using nationally-owned oil wealth to lift the living standards of the people is becoming an ever more attractive alternative.
I have said that I would not be opposed to the nationalization of the oil industry…my state has a monopoly on the liquor sales and it generates mush needed revenue for state programs–so I say why not?
Unions that were neutral or backing Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries are quickly lining up in the Obama camp.
Among those that have just endorsed the Illinois senator’s presidential campaign are the United Auto Workers, the United Transportation Union and the Sheet Metal Workers. Also signaling that their unions will endorse Obama are Ed McElroy, president of the American Federation of Teachers and Gerald McAntee, president of AFSCME.
The UAW was neutral during the primary contests. The Steel Workers and the Mine Workers originally backed former Sen. John Edwards.
The latest moves bring the AFL-CIO very close to being able to make a federation-wide endorsement of Obama. The Change toWin federation has already done so. To endorse, the federation must have the votes of General Board members representing two thirds of its 9 million members.
Labor seems to be moving to the Obama column in the elections. As in the past, labor has come out in favor of a candidate only to be crapped on later. Hopefully, this will not be the case this time around. Personally, I am not that optimistic.
An agreement on a cease-fire with Israel is near, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said yesterday.
But Haniyeh announced yesterday that Hamas has already succeeded in getting Israel to separate the truce talks from a deal to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.
“The process of arriving at a cease-fire is close to conclusion,” he said, speaking to a gathering in Gaza.
“The truce must be mutual,” he added, stressing that Hamas continues to insist that any such deal include the reopening of the border crossings into the Gaza Strip. “It will begin in Gaza, and then spread to the West Bank.
Wait do you mean that if you talk with the enemy that a solution could be found to a generation of war? Now there is a concept that should be employed by the US—Wait!–is there not someone running who is saying this is the way to peace? Just thinking.
That is the question…….that the American voter will have to answer with their next general election vote.
If you tax the big oil companies that will just pass on the extra cost to the consumer…..thinking…..at present they have massive tax breaks……they have subsidies…..they make massive profits….and yet we are still paying throught the nose for their product…..where is any of that a good thing? Basically, the government lets them run wild and we still pay higher gas prices. So, if we demand a tax on their windfall profits, the price they pay will be past on to the consumer in higher prices….it is all so confusing.
So if we do not tax the oil companies we will have lower prices at the pumps, right? That has not been the case so far. If you are a supply sider then you believe that cutting taxes will make the economny grow and prosper—thinking—–with all the tax cuts and benefits that companies have gotten in the last 10 years, just how healthy is the economy now? Just ask the middle class and someone has a recent poll they say that they are no better off now than they were 4 years ago and 43% said they are actually worse off. Sounds like the supply siders are not delivering on their promises.
What to do? What to do? First, face the cold hard facts that these ever popular tax cuts are helping NO ONE in the middle class. Secondly, this country cannot afford a war. This country is suffering badly. Finally, the hard truth is that taxes are needed if this country is to move forward.
Democrats have been called “tax and spend” but think about that—is that not what is needed? The country needs to spend cold hard cash on the infrastructure. The spend part will create jobs, income, and revenue for the government.
Your answers are easy. Either stop the war and spend the cash where it is needed—this country or increase some taxes to generate the needed funds. Does not get any simplier than that. If you want this country to prosper again, then spend is what is necessary. Just something to think about.
Democrats in the Congress, who came to power last year on a call to end the combat in Iraq, will soon give President George W. Bush the last war-funding bill of his presidency without any of the conditions they sought for withdrawing U.S. troops, congressional aides said on Monday
Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last for about a year and well beyond when Bush leaves office on January 20.
A House of Representatives vote on the war-funding bill was expected this week. Anything the House passes would have to be approved by the Senate before the legislation is sent to Bush.
With the Pentagon running out of money to continue fighting the two wars, Congress is trying to approve new funds before its July 4 holiday recess.
With this bill, Congress will have written checks for more than $800 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with most of the money going to Iraq.
Since January, 2007, when Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate, they have tried to force Bush to change course in Iraq, mostly through troop withdrawal timetables and requirements that U.S. soldiers be more thoroughly trained, equipped and rested before returning to combat.
Just what did you vote for in 2006? Whatever it was–it is not getting accomplished.
Hopefully, by now all voters have heard the news that Al Gore has finally come out of his hole and endorsed Obama.
Gore, one of the most prominent figures in the U.S. Democratic party and known around the world for his push to combat climate change, publicly backed Obama for the first time at a huge rally in Detroit.
He recalled his own presidential bid in 2000 to urge his party to support the Illinois senator in the November election against Republican John McCain.
Highlighting Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, Gore said he and Obama spoke out publicly against the war in the months leading up to it.
“After eight years of the worst, most serious foreign policy mistakes in the entire history of our nation, we need change,” Gore said.
“From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure (Obama) is elected president of the United States,” Gore said in the letter.
So why did he endorse now? Was he promised something in return or does he truly believe Obama is the best person for the job? You thoughts?