This is not true. Good economies have a hard time correcting for things like:

-Artificial Increases in the Price of Labor.

-Tampering with Supply and Demand

-Using Public Money to protect markets and corporations

-Increasing Taxes

-Facism

-Using legislation to remove competition

-Revoking private property rights

-etc, etc, etc

Hes right. Thats just part of the capitalist fantasy. Ofcourse true democratic economics would not enforce global trade agreements etc. Democratic economics is what is starving people in poor countries right now, the cost of grains etc.

Republicans do not understand economics as well as they would like everyone to think they do. America got out of a recession with government projects (New Deal), South Korea subsidized their automobile industry until it was mature enough to compete on the global market, just examples of how government involvement has done a lot of good, something hardcore capitalists ignorantly think of as blasphemy. Market failure ring a bell?

If America really wants to turn their economy around they should take lessons from the Democratic Socialists in Scandinavia. Low business taxes with higher income taxes are superb for economic growth, and government control of education and healthcare continually provides a healthy, educated workforce.  Sorry Mr. Bush, but if your population cant afford a thousand dollars in text books each year in college that means they will have less educated, lesser paying jobs, and they will have less money to support the economy as well as you and your friends rich lifestyles. 

The fact people dont understand that your economic situation is almost entirely dependent on that of your neighbor's baffles me.  You might make a lot of money as the owner of a Porsche dealership, but if everyone around you cant afford a nice car then you are headed down poor street too.

Which would be great... except McCain wins under that line of thinking.
He wants low buisness taxes. Obama wants high buisness taxes.
While Obama's healthcare plan won't do anything but make a few more people buy healtcare from the private insurers.

John McCain actually is offering more subsidaries then Obama when it comes to buisness in the way of new technology and giving any buisness tax breaks on the technology it buys in it's first year.

He just wants to get rid of the harmful and wasteful programs like ethanol.

Lowering business taxes and lowering income taxes (which is what Republicans want to do isn't it) just creates less funds for the government.  You still have to fund your government, especially if you want to run a couple of costly wars and keep numerous government programs running.

I'll have to read more about the subject before I can be more knowledgable about McCain vs Obama stance on business taxes and subsidies, sorry to cut you short there.

You don't need nearly as many funds when you cut out all the wasteful spending that we do.  Seriously, it's worth reading up on what the candidates actually both plan to do rather then just buy into what one party says about the other.

ok, that is really confusing.  if the population can't afford text books now, how are they going to if you want high income tax?

As for the McCain v Obama thing, all I need to know is that Obama has a history of voting for gun regulation, and that isn't a good thing in my book.  And I don't know why you Europeans think universal health care is good.  You pay higher taxes for it, and in a decade or two when you have nearly as many people living off of the government as supporting it, you will be wracking up record deficits like the US is right now or they will raising your taxes even further.

@Sansui

I find it frankly appalling that rather than sympathize with the physical tortures he endured you instead sympathize with people who have supposedly been hurt by his words, words not even aimed at them. John McCain having a few utterances of the word gook over a 70+ year lifetime hardly makes him a racist, but your political agenda tells you to press forward and demonize the man despite that..as if you yourself have never uttered a racist term yourself...or like Obama hasn't. At least McCain has a damn good reason for it, even if it isn't a valid justification (and I don't think it is).  I'm agnostic myself but the phrase "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." springs to mind.

On the topic of this alleged warmongering by McCain:  Instead of acknowledging McCain's remarks as statements of cold facts you twist them to mean something more.  When someone says that wars aren't going away it doesn't mean they want war it means they recognize the world for what it is.  If you would rather he cuddle with you and tell you everything is going to be alright I think you dialed the wrong number, because that's your mum's job.  The reality of the world is that wars are going to happen, like it or not, that is the way things are. I don't even think you take this point seriously...I certainly hope not.

Moving on to the pro-life point I think you're coming apart at the seams here.  You admit the man has a record of voting pro-life but he is still somehow selling out to the pro-life crowd just because that wasn't a major campaign point in 2000?  Having a long record of pro-life votes is now not good enough to establish yourself as someone who is pro-life huh?  Interesting.

After reading the article you linked I have to admit it sounds exactly like you.  It makes vague references to events without citing anything specifically.  It doesn't bother to quote unless it can take a quote out of context, and in general makes no attempt to maintain neutrality on the issue. I'll let others who are interested take a gander, but the author outright refers to Alito as a "Radical Judge"...a position of far left liberals to say the least and only a small example of the author's inability to reign in personal bias for an attempt at a fair article (but that wasn't the point of the article anyways).

As for the agreement numbers with Bush I fail to see how illustrating the point was childish.  I wasn't even attempting to claim them as valid, I was simply showing that anyone can write those numbers and a source would be appreciated. 

This issue of the Bush agreement numbers is a great example of why such claims need links.  The FactCheck.com article does not support the claim that McCain has voted with bush 100% of the time. The article does say that he has voted with bush 95% of the time, while also pointing out that Obama has voted with House Democrats some 97% of the time in the same time period (Obama also voted with Bush 40% of the time himself).  The article goes on to say that its hard to say if the number is even significant ultimately leaving it to the reader to decide. So I'll do the same, you can choose between this:

McCain voted w/ Bush 95%. Bush currently has a ~32% approval rating.

Obama voted w/ Dems in Cong 97% of the time. Congress currently has a ~20% approval rating.

Approvals - Source - Gallup

Voting percentages are from the FactCheck article.

Its amazing what happens when you put some context on things rather than just a single sided spin.

Now onto the videos from Steven, and this is a classic example.  I think you should read what Steven wrote again because his videos and this response show exactly the kind of warping and twisting I'm talking about.  The first video is deliberately taking the event out of context and the second shows things in context.  I love the second video because it takes the woman nearly a minute and 40 seconds to ask the question and the first video (which is only 30 seconds long anyways) somehow manages to condense the entire question into a single sentence.

The entire thing is absurd and I find it laughable that you even point to this as an example because it truly does make my point.   But you go beyond that when you linked to moveon.org.  One of the worst things to happen to American politics is moveon.org because they spew the kind of hatred and propaganda that you're spewing right now..and you link to them....it would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

Your entire mantra about McCain boils down to a pile of crap thrown at the wall to see what sticks...and you know something will eventually stick. The entire post is gotcha politics at its worst, and you dive right in ready to play the game that makes people loathe politics and not want to vote. You are part of the problem in every way. 

I have no delusions of being unbiased, and I have no desire for anyone else to be unbiased.  I just have a very big problem with folks like you who are willing to twist, warp, and lie about the words of others so long as it serves your purpose.

The funny thing is you think I'm in full support of McCain when I don't even really like the guy.  I disagree with his abortion position, I hate his GW policies, I think he is older than dirt, I think he needs to get up to date with technology, I disagree with him on a number of economic issues, etc...etc...  The reason I plan to vote for McCain is because I dislike Obama more.

You conveniently fail to mention that government intervention in the economy has also done some negative things. In regards to New Deal projects ending the Depression, I vehemently disagree with that sentiment. The New Deal policies actually prolonged the Depression. Such policies as the National Industrial Recovery Act caused wages to stay artificially high and prevented firms from hiring. Government intervention in the economy contributed to the onset of the Depression. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was a disaster and so were most of the economic policies of the Hoover administration. That the New Deal is in essence an extrapolation of Hoover's policies does not bode well for it. The rest of your post is confusing and prevents me from replying.

I didnt say that all government intervention was positive, I said that not all government intervention was bad.  Your opinion on the New Deal is off, in economics there is a 'job multiplier' effect where one persons income creates income for other people.  By hiring workers to build government projects (Hoover Dam is best example) people were given income that they used to support other people's income which got the economy going again.

Here's a link so that explains market failure and when government involvement is needed.  Its a nice introductory encyclopedia so if you dont understand a topic you can click around for other definitions and examples until you understand it better.

http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=M#marketfailure

Market failure

When a market left to itself does not allocate resources efficiently. Interventionist politicians usually allege market failure to justify their interventions. Economists have identified four main sorts or causes of market failure.

• The abuse of MARKET POWER, which can occur whenever a single buyer or seller can exert significant influence over PRICES or OUTPUT (see MONOPOLY and MONOPSONY).

• EXTERNALITIES – when the market does not take into account the impact of an economic activity on outsiders. For example, the market may ignore the costs imposed on outsiders by a firm polluting the environment.

• PUBLIC GOODS, such as national defence. How much defence would be provided if it were left to the market?

• Where there is incomplete or ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION or uncertainty.

Abuse of market power is best tackled through ANTITRUST policy. Externalities can be reduced through REGULATION, a tax or subsidy, or by using property rights to force the market to take into account the WELFARE of all who are affected by an economic activity. The SUPPLY of public goods can be ensured by compelling everybody to pay for them through the tax system.