Letter to the editor:

Obama has plan that will help the economy

Sylvia Valencia, Las Vegas

Thursday, Oct. 9, 2008 | 2:04 a.m.

I am a retired teacher with a small pension. I am very worried about the economy, as I also depend on my mutual funds. I’m very concerned about my grown children and whether they will have jobs because Nevada has a 7 percent and rising unemployment rate. If they lose their jobs, will they lose their houses?

Since Sen. John McCain has no solutions for the economy, he is using personal attacks on Sen. Barack Obama. These attacks are unseemly for someone wishing to be president of our country.

We need Obama because he has a real plan to help our economy. He will give tax breaks to the middle class. No family making less than $250,000 will see a tax increase. This will give the average Nevadan an extra $84 a month, which can be used for whatever is needed. McCain has no plan to help the average Nevadan.

McCain wants to tax your health care benefits. Obama will work to give everyone health care, working with employers and employees to reduce their costs. He will set up a plan to help those without health care. Big drug companies and insurers will have to bring down costs to reasonable levels.

We need a president who will work for us, not against us.

Discussion: 23 comments so far…

By jfnance32

10/9/08 at 2:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Obama will give $1.95 a day more in middle class tax cuts than McCain.

Obama will tax the hell out of capital job creation investments. That will not help Las Vegas.

McCain wants to reduce taxes on capital job creation investments.

If you want $1.95 a day but have less jobs then vote for Obama.

I am going to vote for the guy that wants to create jobs. I am voting for McCain.
By tokaloshe

10/9/08 at 6:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Obama did not tell you that a national health care program would easily be five hundred billion dollars plus per year.
National health care would be run like the DMV,
you would have no choices.
jfnance is right, if Obama is elected unemployment will go up, more regulation on small business will close small business or force them to lay off more people.
By NVMakz

10/9/08 at 6:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

If you like a rampant nanny-state big-socialism solution; you'll love Barry Obama.

The main things that get reduced in a UHC system are availability, choice, options and finally, your health care itself in your elder years. After all, that big-cost heart operation COULD inoculate many hundreds of schoolchildren, you know? THOSE are decisions that a government accountant will make for you.

Instead of parroting Barry's electoral lies, think for yourself - vote McCain!
By Gordon

10/9/08 at 7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

McCain want to continue Bush's policies which have been proven to be a massive failure.

What you neocons don't seem to understand is that government building societies infrastructure is beneficial to all business'. Maintained roads, sewage/water treatment, health care, energy, communications, education, etc. All these things are vital to any business succeeding.

Compare Clinton's administration to Bush's administration. Which one worked and which one failed? It should be crystal clear to all voters that the Democrats are better at running government. Republicans have allowed corporations to rape society with no consequences. If you want to bankrupt our nation vote for McCain. If you want to get back on the right track vote for Obama.
By jfnance32

10/9/08 at 8:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

If you want to talk about raping our economy than one must read this article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12221294...
By Gordon

10/9/08 at 8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Nance: The theory has so many flaws WSJ put the article you posted in the 'OPINION' section. That in of itself shows how flawed it is being that Rupert Murdoch owns WSJ and has no problem spreading lies and propaganda, but this was to obvious of a fabrication for even him.

Those wanting a clear picture of our financial crisis, watch the 60 minutes piece aired last Sunday here: Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wFFCtx7U...
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT76vCHKz...

Make your own choice, an opinion piece in Rupert's WSJ or a nationally aired non-partisan and researched piece on 60 minutes.
By neiman1

10/9/08 at 8:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Watch what ran on CNN headline news last night about 4:50 p.m.
The ONE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nryS...
By jfnance32

10/9/08 at 8:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

60 minutes is obviously in the bag for Obama. You remember several years ago, they tried to pass fake Bush documents on the country.

Not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their deep ties to the Sub-prime market is appalling.

If you want to drink that kool-aid then go right ahead.

The Wall Street piece offers good information.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12221294...
By Gordon

10/9/08 at 8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Nance: 'Good information' is not placed in the OPINION section. LOL

60 Minutes is the highest rated and most respected news program. They finish in the top 10 of ALL TV programs for 4 decades.

Rupert Murdoch's propaganda machine including his flagship Fox News and WSJ are well known to be a 'joke' for news.

Keep up the name calling, that's all McCain and his supporters have left, nothing of substance.
By jfnance32

10/9/08 at 8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

60 minutes was also the one that help Clinton's girlfriend's problem during his first primary.

It is obvious that they are in the tank for Obama.

It is still good information back with stats from offical sources.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12221294...
By Gordon

10/9/08 at 9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wrong again Nance, There are NO/NONE/ZERO sources, let alone 'official' sources, in the OPINION piece. Do you even read the garbage you post?

The article has about 50% accurate information and 50% fabricated information to support their opinion. It is reminiscent of Fox News style of reporting, they don't present all the facts, they present selected facts mixed with lies to make a false case.
By jfnance32

10/9/08 at 9:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

It was written by a professor at Obama's old unversity: Mr. Calomiris is a professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School

You know the University where he refuses to release his records and he only mentions in two sentences in his auto-bio.

I wonder what he is hiding.
By jfnance32

10/9/08 at 9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Here are other sources that support the Wall Street facts and assertions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/125/goi...

http://relistr.com/real-estate/fannie-ma...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09092008/pos...

http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/080915/issues01...

http://www.fanniemae.com/ir/pdf/earnings...
By Gordon

10/9/08 at 10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

You are pointing out that the Republican administration's lack of oversight and deregulation is the cause of the problem in each of your articles (minus the WSJ). Just as the 60 minutes piece does, but 60 minutes explains the 'whole' story, not just subprime.

Fannie and Freddie do NOT ORIGINATE the loans; they rely on proper underwriting by lenders/brokers/banks. Lack of oversight created a 'free for all' environment and underwriting regulations were not followed.

Fannie and Freddie were bailed out with 200 billion of 1.8 Trillion in bailouts. The entire subprime combined does not total 1.8 Trillion. Deregulation allowed Subprime to be mixed with AAA, which is why nobody wants ANY mortgage backed securities. If subprime had been kept seperate of AAA, as it was prior to Bush, then subprime would never of been part of the problem.

Trying to pin the blame on Fannie and Freddie is a Fox News doing, not what the facts say. EVEN if Fannie and Freddie were the problem; no problems existed prior to the Bush administration. So even if your argument was correct the blame still falls on the republican Bush administration.
By jfnance32

10/9/08 at 10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

I agree that is more than just Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the fuel to the sub-prime poor quality loans.

Greedy loan companies were making bad loans. Normally that would be risky.

But Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were buying that crap left and right. There was no risk for these companies because Freddie and Fannie were buying up the bad loans.

These greedy loan companies would generate the crappie loan and then sell it at a profit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wanted to induce this market because they were trying to get more and more minorities into homes.

They removed the normal market forces that would have reduce the demand for bad sub-prime loans.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created a big market for the any-that-goes loans.

They increased the market demand for the purchases of bad sub-prime loans, especially starting in 2004/2005 when the sub-prime market really exploded.

McCain tried to stop this in 2005 but a straight party line vote by Democrats put the brakes on that.
By NVMakz

10/9/08 at 1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

"Nance: 'Good information' is not placed in the OPINION section. LOL"

Good information IS explained better and argued out on OP-ED pages. To deny this is asinine and shallow. You are wrong and shallow as well denying this fact.
xx
"60 Minutes is the highest rated and most respected news program. They finish in the top 10 of ALL TV programs for 4 decades."

If ones wants to "See B.S"., go to CBS. "60 minutes" has been run by social communists like Don Hewitt, Rather, Wallace (even his son, Chris, says Mike W is nutz, and he has many times) - Schieffer, Bradley and Stahl for most of those years. To rely on this OP-ED show as your gold standard and bad-mouth better sources of op-ed only shows the indoctrination and brainwashing that "See B.S." had had its effect.

The "See B.S." ratings have been almost laughable for the last 5-6 years at least. To rely on this for news and accuracy (LOL) makes me smile. Too bad, chief!
xxxx
Rupert Murdoch's propaganda machine including his flagship Fox News and WSJ are well known to be a 'joke' for news.

FOX kills the socialist cable stations in ratings, content and gravitas and has for the last decade or more. One can see almost EVERYBODY newsworthy on FOX. Your silly and stupid "jones" against FOX is a lie to yourself and a joke reading it from you OR the other social communists around this forum.
xxxxx
Keep up the name calling, that's all McCain and his supporters have left, nothing of substance.

You're a joke! Thanks for the laughs.
xxxx

Facts: Congressional LIBERALS watered down the requirements and QUOTAS of crap mortgages the FMs must accept. To blame "regulation" and the Bush Administration is wrong and flushes your own cred, whatever is "left", down the drain. Bad Debt forced upon banks due to liberal guilting and lies for 15 years piling up until the liberals spring this on America to influence an election is despicable and anti-American.

Liberals would rather lose a war and tank an economy = than lose an election. This is the sorry phase the Liberal Socialist Democrat party (LSDs) have shriveled to.
By Gordon

10/9/08 at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

NVMakz: More neocon rants, name-calling and smears; yet nothing of substance. You fit right in with the McCain/Palin campaign.
By NVMakz

10/9/08 at 2:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Thanks for rolling over to be voluntarily swamped in our exchange today.

I counted 13 legit points of view in my last post here. You attempted to answer NONE.

I answer you straight-up and direct - and you run and whine in non-response?

Well, I guess so!
By redferret

10/9/08 at 2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Once again, -100 points for "keeping track of point".
- 100 for putting words in peoples mouths.
- 100 because if this was a public debate you would come off as angry and a bully.
By JustTheFactsJack

10/9/08 at 3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

McCain quotes;

"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book."

"It's easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have." --speaking at the ServiceNation forum in New York, Sept. 11, 2008
By redferret

10/9/08 at 5:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

I also find it extremely amusing that anyone or anything not militantly republican gets cast by NVMakz as a "socialist" (cue spooky music and wolf howling in the distance). So I was bored and looked up the word that seems to get bandied about pretty regularly:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

While the case can be made that we are in the nebulous middle stage of Marxist development towards Communism, I don't think there is a big well of violent revolutionary fervor coming from the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie.
So I really do think that socialism has become the next boogieman.
In any case I digress. The main thrust here is that if you go by the first definition, then the Bush Administration has actually set the ball in motion for true socialism thanks to the bail out. While I honestly don't think that is the case, the fact that neo-cons keep on trying to tar everyone else as a socialist, is all the more hilarious. Especially considering their posterboy set that ball in motion. Good job W.
By spartacus84

10/9/08 at 6:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

If you're happy with the last eight treacherous years and you want the richest of rich to receive greater tax breaks, then sure, go ahead: vote McCain, my friends.
By tokaloshe

10/9/08 at 10:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question