« Politico.com: Paul Kanjorski “at risk of losing in November”
Iran’s missile tests divide Obama and McCain »

Economists: McCain would have more positive impact

“The Reuters news service asked 29 economic firms which presidential candidate would be better for stock markets, which have been hit by inflation, high energy prices, the housing collapse and financial sector troubles. Twenty-one of those economists said McCain’s economic agenda would have a more positive impact on stocks…”

Hmmm…go figure! And also another shock that this gets no media coverage. Time and time again, we have seen McCain come out on top on the issues. However, the media is always afraid to touch it.

read more | digg story

About Michael Ubbens

Mike Ubbens is a senior Political Science and Secondary Education major at Susquehanna University. Mike is originally from Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania. Last year he served as the State Treasurer for the federation, and is currently the Chairman of the Susquehanna University College Republicans. Upon graduation, Mike hopes to attend law school.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 24th, 2008 at 1:17 pm by Michael Ubbens and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “Economists: McCain would have more positive impact”

  1. upyernoz Says:
    July 25th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

    i guess you guys missed he fact that the mccain campaign doesn’t actually have the full support of the economists it claims signed on to its proposal:

    In interviews with more than a dozen of the signatories, Politico found that, far from embracing McCain’s economic plan, many economists were unfamiliar with–or downright opposed to–key details.
    Photo: AP

    The endorsement could hardly have been stronger. On Monday, John McCain’s campaign released a statement signed by 300 economists who “enthusiastically support” his “Jobs for America” economic plan, providing a heavyweight testimonial to the presumptive Republican nominee’s “broad and powerful economic agenda.”

    There’s just one problem. Upon closer inspection, it seems a good many of those economists don’t actually support the whole of McCain’s economic agenda. And at least one doesn’t even support McCain for president.

    In interviews with more than a dozen of the signatories, Politico found that, far from embracing McCain’s economic plan, many were unfamiliar with — or downright opposed to — key details. While most of those contacted by Politico had warm feelings about McCain, many did not want to associate themselves too closely with his campaign and its policy prescriptions.

  2. Megan Ritter Says:
    July 25th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    Thanks for adding to the discussion, upyernoz! However, there are several things I would like to point out:

    1. The article you link to references an entirely different data set than Mike’s. Mike is citing an independent study by Reuters news service - certainly no friend to the McCain campaign. The Reuters study asked 29 economic firms who would have a more positive impact on the economy. 21 of them chose McCain, and 6 chose Obama. Your article is attempting to discredit a news release from the McCain campaign. Your argument might carry more weight if you had exciting evidence to discredit the study actually at hand, released by a nonpartisan news organization that has been at this political stuff for rather a long time.

    2. If 300 economists signed on to support McCain’s plan, and maybe 12-15 turn out to not be in such solid support of it, this begs the question: In what statistical world is 12 out of 300 still not a bad average? If 300 signed on, and The Politico managed to find a dozen who maybe weren’t so secure with the plan, then that says a little more about professional ethics in the field of economics than it does about the McCain campaign. After all, that still leaves roughly 288 economists in full support of the McCain plan.

  3. Mike Ubbens Says:
    July 27th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

    Upyer - I applaud your effort to combat this particular article, but I think you’ve failed to do so in citing an article written before the one I have, and also in citing an article of which is not related to the REUTERS study.

    The article that I am talking about was published on July 23rd. Yours: July 9th.

    This is beside the fact that you are in some way trying to show a relationship between two completely different articles. This makes your argument completely invalid.

    Again, this kind of argument is very related to the Obama campaign. Completely failing to address the topic at hand, they switch the topic to one no longer relevant, or refuse to acknowledge they are wrong (cue: Iraq War, Energy).

    Hopefully people are beginning to realize this kind of charade, coming from a campaign for “change” and “hope”.

    I welcome you to challenge the article at hand, but bringing in an article no longer relevant is not going to help you in any way.

Leave a Reply