McCain and Obama talk about the economy again

Do Joe Six-pack and Joe the Plumber know each other? And are they married to hockey moms?

"Update: Jay Newton-Small reports that the plumber's name is Joe Wurzelbacher. McCain clearly said Wurzelberger. Obama could have totally nailed him on that, but failed to go for the jugular. Inadequate debate prep, I guess."

I expect my next president to be able to state the names and occupations of everyone in the country who makes less than 1 million a year.

And since when are plumbers who make greater than $250,000 a year middle class? Look, I dont care if your business involves dealing with other peoples crap, or being governor of Alaska, if you are making 250k a year, I could really care less how much your being taxed.

Even the best economic brains are virtually if not completely caught speechless and stunned by the current meltdown, let alone two politicians who have dubious or little background on the subtly salient nature of global economy.

Both the presidential candidates might not be sure what they were talking about during the debate. Chances are they were regurgitating their advisors' advocates. Apparently, the one who could talk better wins.

Tough luck! The incoming president will have many more sleepless nights to find ways of curing the near terminal economic sickness. Terrible nightmares looming over the horizon!

I'm with Tan here -- neither of them knows squat about the economy, and most disappointing to me is that neither seem to be willing to address the question of dealing with the hardships that the coming recession will be causing tens of millions of Americans.

On health care, Obama's plan actually does fit together, but its a bad and unworkable, and his "cost reductions" aren't going to come close to reducing premiums by 25%. Of the two plans, McCain's has more potential to work -- if McCain would be willing to say that his tax credit could only be made available to insurance companies that met certain criteria -- but because McCain actually thinks that the "free market" is the answer to health care, his plan is as bad as Obama's.

On budget issues, I think McCain did far better than Obama -- a "spending freeze" is not a bad basis for a first year Presidential budget when that budget is out-of-control. And McCain is credible on the question of reducing costs at the DoD (and scored by pointing out that we have the most expensive education system in the world, and that throwing more money at it won't solve the problems)

On taxes, its a;most a wash -- Obama's middle class tax cut is as unrealistic as McCain's fat cat tax cuts are just plain stupid. Obama wins on taxes because McCain consistently fails to explain why the rich need lower taxes.

The Glenn Beck Contra-Indicator says the worst is over.

"Glenn Beck: Economy could get worse"

It's possible the GBCI is showing a false signal but..

Your column about how the fundamentals of the economy really are strong is the biggest load of crap I have ever read in my life

I really didn't you had this level of wankery in you.

You know damn well that all you've done is define fundamentals in a certain way -- that very few would agree is the definition -- and then say "hey, McCain and Palin were right."

It's just plain stupid. I have lost all respect for you.

Go rot in hell with Fred Hiatt and Ruth Marcus.

Tom Terrific surely has no health coverage and is suffering as a result. A clear demonstration of how weakened we fundamentals actually are.

"Well, calling it class warfare is invalid, but you can make a case for why higher taxes on high earners (and on capital gains) is bad economic policy."

Can't you make the opposite case with equal validity? I understand that there is persuasive empirical evidence that the economy and the stock market perform measurably better in Democratic administrations despite the tendency of Democrats to push higher taxes on high earners.

@TomT: Hmmm, I think the last time I got you this mad was when I said something nice about Rupert Murdoch. Next up: A post praising Bill Kristol!

Justin,

Wrt/ "McCain argued, correctly I think, that our energy strategy has to include more offshore oil and gas drilling and more nuclear power plants."

The first part of this statement is simply incorrect. And this is something that no oil-man/woman will be willing to discuss and talk about....but there is a fixed cost to get oil out of the ground. Period.

The problem has been that the fixed cost to get oil out of the ground in Saudi, Venezuala, Iraq, Iran and other extremely low-wage, easy access (sand / light sediment geo formations) and technology end-user nations requires far less in resources. Just go look up the cost to get a barrel for the Saudis. Add in shipping cost and even account for high-sulfur (low-yield crude) and what you will find is that it will always be cheap for these guys to beat us at getting out of off-shore platforms, Colorado or Canadian tar sands. At the current price of $69 a barrel, it will become unprofitable very soon to keep mining tar sands. Let alone going out into the continental shelf to drill through deep water, hard sediment, a layer of salt, etc...but I think you get the point.

Drill, baby, drill....is just silly because it must be put in a larger context. Further, it must be considered what the price of the product will be 10 years later when the first production comes online. I'm in oil/gas so I know what I'm talking about here.

Sorry, but I just can't let people go on thinking that getting oil out of the ground is as simple as digging a water well in your back yard. 1000x more complex, expensive and risky even under the best of circumstances.

Finally a bit more support from Jim Jubak's latest article today:

"Falling oil prices are also leading private-sector oil companies to cut back on investment in new production. Goldman Sachs (GS, news, msgs) calculates that $50 a barrel is the oil industry's cash cost. Below that level, oil companies with above-average production costs will seriously consider shutting wells, because pumping oil is a money-losing proposition."

All in all, a much better debate than the two previous, and the VP Debate. The candidates actually answered the questions, rather then just reiterate their talking points. They also took on each other's fundamental issues head on, which gave another perspective to it all.

@Bryan from Houston: Agreed. But I am sort of in the Rainwater camp, in that I think sub-$70-a-barrel oil is a temporary phenomenon