AFL-CIO to Target McCain

[Carlos_E]

Republican Presidential candidate John McCain can expect to see AFL-CIO workers at his event today in New Hampshire.

And, according to AFL-CIO political director Karen Ackerman, he will be seeing a lot more of them in the weeks and months to come.

The labor union announced on a conference call today that it was launching its own $53 million campaign to define McCain as the wrong candidate to lead the country on economic issues.

"Working families know very little about where he stands on pocketbook concerns," Ackerman said. "All that changes today."

The program Ackerman described includes efforts to reach voters at the workplace, through door-to-door canvassing, phone calls, on line contacts, and direct mail. She said 100,000 flyers about McCain's economic record were already on their way to workplaces, and 500,000 more would be distributed during the next month. She said the efforts would target "13 million union household voters," and would focus on 23 battleground states. Five states, in particular, will get attention: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

The AFL CIO has also launched a new website, at mccainrevealed.org.

Ackerman described the effort as "cutting edge" and said it would include microtargeting efforts. But it will also include a more personal approach, including, she said, an AFL-CIO presence at every public McCain campaign event. That part starts today, with workers expected to press McCain on trade issues during his planned appearance in Exeter, New Hampshire, she said.

Officials at the Republican National Committee called on the Democratic presidential candidates to reject the efforts by the AFL CIO.

“The AFL-CIO’s campaign against John McCain clearly demonstrates their priorities lie in attack politics as opposed to focusing on American families," said Alex Conant, the RNC press secretary. "Voters looking for something new will find it in John McCain’s campaign to help working families -- not the AFL-CIO’s partisan attacks. Considering Senators Obama and Clinton’s frequent denunciations of special interests, they must reject the unions’ campaign against Senator McCain.”

[BITTAPART2]

oh is Mcain running in this election LOL

[RA]

Who else would you pick? Leaving the economy up to democrats is like having stevie wonder drive your cruise ship.

[BITTAPART2]

someone who wont die in the next 2 years, you should be voting for his succesor rather than him, assuming he picks one that can still use the bathroom without emptying a bag. and BTW we left the economy up to Clinton who inhereted a HUGE deficit from the first Bush, and he turned it into the biggest surplus of our history, George W Bush has thrown us into one of the worst economic shortcomings of our time, so you tell me, why do you feel this way? are you talking about the rich mans economy or the nation as a whole?

[SMCengineer]

Who else would you pick? Leaving the economy up to democrats is like having stevie wonder drive your cruise ship.

Is there a republican running?

[Tock]

Who else would you pick? Leaving the economy up to democrats is like having stevie wonder drive your cruise ship.

Ya, right.
Like the US economy is doing real well right now, under the Republicans . . .

[RA]

haha, Touché

Is there a republican running?

[RA]

Why do you think there are so many foreclosures now? Dems came up with this brilliant scheme to have the banks give people money who couldnt afford it and they were allowed to borrow 100-110% of the home value. Almost all economic policy failures can be traced back to Democrat legislation.

Ya, right.
Like the US economy is doing real well right now, under the Republicans . . .

[Pooks]

NEWSFLASH: AFL-CIO workers use sickdays to skip out on AFL-CIO rally.

Even though the workers were already out of sick days, they still all banged in, under union contract, their discipline for this action will be the first of 200 possible verbal warnings, not to do it again.

[RA]

We had years and years of growth under Reagan and Bush Sr. thanks to Rep economic policy. At the end of Bush Sr.'s term we had a slight recession which every expert said was going to be short lived and it was.

Now, can you name me one thing that Clinton did that truly sparked economic growth?

someone who wont die in the next 2 years, you should be voting for his succesor rather than him, assuming he picks one that can still use the bathroom without emptying a bag. and BTW we left the economy up to Clinton who inhereted a HUGE deficit from the first Bush, and he turned it into the biggest surplus of our history, George W Bush has thrown us into one of the worst economic shortcomings of our time, so you tell me, why do you feel this way? are you talking about the rich mans economy or the nation as a whole?

[BITTAPART2]

We had years and years of growth under Reagan and Bush Sr. thanks to Rep economic policy. At the end of Bush Sr.'s term we had a slight recession which every expert said was going to be short lived and it was.

Now, can you name me one thing that Clinton did that truly sparked economic growth?

The budget went from deficit to surplus on Clinton’s watch and lower spending played a key role. He even abolished an entitlement program through welfare reform. By contrast, the deficit has exploded under Bush, in part because spending has risen well above what can reasonably be justified by the recession, Iraq, and homeland security. And he is the first Republican president in history to create a new entitlement program (for prescription drugs).Furthermore, Clinton was a far more committed free trader than Bush has been. Clinton rammed the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress — at considerable political cost to himself — while Bush imposed steel tariffs, raised agriculture subsidies, and in the process torpedoed the Doha Round of trade negotiations. It is a rare week when the Bush administration doesn’t promulgate some new anti-trade measure — usually against China. I have plenty of examples of hoe Clinton brought George Bush Sr.s' economy into the largest surplus of ALL TIME.

[Pooks]

The budget went from deficit to surplus on Clinton’s watch and lower spending played a key role. He even abolished an entitlement program through welfare reform. By contrast, the deficit has exploded under Bush, in part because spending has risen well above what can reasonably be justified by the recession, Iraq, and homeland security. And he is the first Republican president in history to create a new entitlement program (for prescription drugs).Furthermore, Clinton was a far more committed free trader than Bush has been. Clinton rammed the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress — at considerable political cost to himself — while Bush imposed steel tariffs, raised agriculture subsidies, and in the process torpedoed the Doha Round of trade negotiations. It is a rare week when the Bush administration doesn’t promulgate some new anti-trade measure — usually against China. I have plenty of examples of hoe Clinton brought George Bush Sr.s' economy into the largest surplus of ALL TIME.

FALSE..
Spending went up..
The reason we almost had a surplus is because Tax revenue went up...

The Internet boom, caused incredible economic expansion, that led to record high corporate tax revenue for the govt.. and also regular people who owned the stocks and were employed by those companies benefits also = more tax revenue for the govt..

This had nothing to do with the president.. it was a chain of events that was set in the 80s and the emergence of the personal computer and the internet.

If anything Clinton's taxation hampered these companies from making a profit, and led to the downfall of some when the bubble burst. If you're paying high taxes for 8 straight years, and than in the 9th year you have it rough, but guess what there aren't any savings because you gave a ton of it to the gov't...

for them to spend on BS projects that have very little or nothing to do with your company.

[RA]

You didnt answer my question.

The budget went from deficit to surplus on Clinton’s watch and lower spending played a key role. He even abolished an entitlement program through welfare reform. By contrast, the deficit has exploded under Bush, in part because spending has risen well above what can reasonably be justified by the recession, Iraq, and homeland security. And he is the first Republican president in history to create a new entitlement program (for prescription drugs).Furthermore, Clinton was a far more committed free trader than Bush has been. Clinton rammed the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress — at considerable political cost to himself — while Bush imposed steel tariffs, raised agriculture subsidies, and in the process torpedoed the Doha Round of trade negotiations. It is a rare week when the Bush administration doesn’t promulgate some new anti-trade measure — usually against China. I have plenty of examples of hoe Clinton brought George Bush Sr.s' economy into the largest surplus of ALL TIME.

[BITTAPART2]

You didnt answer my question.

decreased spending/increased taxes on the wealthy/opened trade restricitons. How can you aregue that the economy wasnt better under Bill Clinton than it was under BOTH Bushs'? I dont get this, it is in black and white. Bush SR. deficit...Bill Clinton surplus...George W. deficit(huge deficit).The only argument people who dislike Clinton have is that he had nothing to do with, it...if that is the case than why do canidates even talk about the economy if they arent at all responsible for it? So everything good that came out of a dmocrats Presidency was because of someone else and all bad things that happened and are happening more now since bush took office are Clintons fault? Everything Bush has done wrong he isnt responsible for either right?

[Pooks]

decreased spending/increased taxes on the wealthy/opened trade restricitons. How can you aregue that the economy wasnt better under Bill Clinton than it was under BOTH Bushs'? I dont get this, it is in black and white. Bush SR. deficit...Bill Clinton surplus...George W. deficit(huge deficit).The only argument people who dislike Clinton have is that he had nothing to do with, it...if that is the case than why do canidates even talk about the economy if they arent at all responsible for it? So everything good that came out of a dmocrats Presidency was because of someone else and all bad things that happened and are happening more now since bush took office are Clintons fault? Everything Bush has done wrong he isnt responsible for either right?

there was a bull market between 2003 -2007

Thats 4 out of the 8 GWB years...
remember everyone and their momma were driving brand new suv's????

it wasn't that long ago at all...

the other 4 years of GWB...
well this year there has been a correction in the house market after a long run up in values from the mid 90s till now... also national debt got ratched up.. so gov't is now printing cash, to eliminate debt n bail those people n companies out.. BAD YEAR UNLESS U OWN PROPERTIES,, and have a secure job, with pay raises as the dollar devalues.. than the gov't will basically pay off the home for you..

and from 2000-2003
We dealth with the reccession that started in the last year of Clinton's presidency when the bubble burst, and than 9/11/01 also hurt the economy.. but with the bush tax cuts by 03 a bull market was up and running.

[BITTAPART2]

so Bushs economy was better run than Clintons? I have to ask you out right because i think your eluding to that. also, pooks, you mentiones earlier that housing was booming during the begining of W's tenure......because banks were making them very very easy to attain and giving out ARMs to everypne and their mother,, so under his watch we did see a huge boom in new houses being built, where did that leave us? well obviously in a mortgage crisis.

[BITTAPART2]

also i believe the war in Iraq (that finaly most of the country understands was stupid) helped lead us into a recession bro, i cant blame it all on housing, national debt was jacked up when billions of dollars everyday go to fund this futile war. Pooks, you make good points and i appreciate your responses having actual knowledge behind them, unlike others who just kick and scream and cant back up their ideas.props to you

[Pooks]

also i believe the war in Iraq (that finaly most of the country understands was stupid) helped lead us into a recession bro, i cant blame it all on housing, national debt was jacked up when billions of dollars everyday go to fund this futile war. Pooks, you make good points and i appreciate your responses having actual knowledge behind them, unlike others who just kick and scream and cant back up their ideas.props to you

Yup u're right it did.

but u have to know how the system works, to know why it works, and where it is going.

the people that bought homes between 99 and NOW..
as long as they're smart people that have good jobs will make out on this reccession...

the government is going to print out massive amounts of bills, causing inflation.

Which means you'll be making less money at work.. but also it means, your debt on the mortgage will lose value also..

If u're a smart person, u know this, so u will ask your employer for a raise to keep up with inflation, and if u're in a union, or an educated person over time u are going to get that.. U'll get those raises..

before you know it..
U're suddenly making $50 an hour.. cause thats really equal to $30 an hour today..
but on the flip side, your mortgage is still in pre-massive-inflation values..

so the government and the inflation will pretty much pay off your house for you.. and the people that will lose out on the deal will be people who failed to get higher paying jobs or fail to acquire property before the massive inflation..

so once the economy is stable..
the people that owned property before inflation will be looking to buy their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th properties.. with the equity in their 1st house.. WEALTHY PEOPLE!! right haha

now..
If u did not own a home before massive inflation.. U will still be looking to buy your first house once the economy becomes stable again..

We live in a democracy.. the MAJORITY RULES..
and the MAJORITY in this nation with influence.. congressman, bankers, are people who own property.. this has nothing to do with Democrat, or Republican this has to do , with how it all works.

[lotaquestions]

GWB had to face two things that no other president had to face, the greatest terrorist attack(911) and the greatest natural disaster in american history (katrina). both wich were causes of alot of govmt spending.

[BITTAPART2]

^^^ oh and GWB did a wonderful job at reacting to those events....he read "my pet goat" and dint budge from his chair for almost 10 minutes after the attack, then he attacked Iraq because of it, then Katrina, does anyone onthis site live in Mississippi or Luisianna? ask them how quickly Bush reacted to that disaster, the blodd of a lot of people are on his hands...period, he has done a piss poor job as president.

[BITTAPART2]

Yup u're right it did.

but u have to know how the system works, to know why it works, and where it is going.

the people that bought homes between 99 and NOW..
as long as they're smart people that have good jobs will make out on this reccession...

the government is going to print out massive amounts of bills, causing inflation.

Which means you'll be making less money at work.. but also it means, your debt on the mortgage will lose value also..

If u're a smart person, u know this, so u will ask your employer for a raise to keep up with inflation, and if u're in a union, or an educated person over time u are going to get that.. U'll get those raises..

before you know it..
U're suddenly making $50 an hour.. cause thats really equal to $30 an hour today..
but on the flip side, your mortgage is still in pre-massive-inflation values..

so the government and the inflation will pretty much pay off your house for you.. and the people that will lose out on the deal will be people who failed to get higher paying jobs or fail to acquire property before the massive inflation..

so once the economy is stable..
the people that owned property before inflation will be looking to buy their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th properties.. with the equity in their 1st house.. WEALTHY PEOPLE!! right haha

now..
If u did not own a home before massive inflation.. U will still be looking to buy your first house once the economy becomes stable again..

We live in a democracy.. the MAJORITY RULES..
and the MAJORITY in this nation with influence.. congressman, bankers, are people who own property.. this has nothing to do with Democrat, or Republican this has to do , with how it all works.

I own my own business so I guess there will be no asking for a raise, there will be me in my once lucrative business twiddling my thumbs as i have been for the past 2 months.

Also I live in Charlotte,NC....I have seem MANY MANY MANY people in my million dollar neighborhood with MBA's (I would consider them smart BTW)from Harvard bisuness loose their job at Wachovia or BOA, thousands of people, I see it everyday, I talk to these people, I just employed a guy to clean my friggin office that used to be a senior VP of Evergreen financial, it is bad, a lot of people cant get jobs bro, and a lot of these people have children and mortgages and car payments etc, they are in a really bad place, and they are looking for work. They cant find work, My bro in law just bit the bullet and stopped using Indian labor for his IT company so that he could do his part for the country, good for him IMO he started a company with 2k and is a multi-milllionare that has never had more than 20 employees, 3/4 of which were in India.