let's see, a recent study has shown that Obama is getting 75% of the media coverage, and yet McCain is NARROWING the difference in the polls...with a full 3 months to go. If you're already declaring Obama president, I'm thinking you are going to be very sad in November. if the election had been last month, Obama would've won. but the longer he has to campaign, the more he has to talk. and the more he talks, the more people realize he's completely unqualified to be president.
That's not a hard one to figure out, though. While Obama has been getting more coverage, the vast majority of it has been negative.
That's not a hard one to figure out, though. While Obama has been getting more coverage, the vast majority of it has been negative.
CBS, NBC, and ABC have been mostly negative towards Obama?!?! I beg to differ.
that article linked is ridiculous. saying "Obama said he would still not support the troop surge knowing what he knows now" is not 'negative reporting', it's called 'stating a fact'. since when is reporting something factual called "negative reporting"?
CBS, NBC, and ABC have been mostly negative towards Obama?!?! I beg to differ.
that article linked is ridiculous. saying "Obama said he would still not support the troop surge knowing what he knows now" is not 'negative reporting', it's called 'stating a fact'. since when is reporting something factual called "negative reporting"?
This is the same organization that provided a study a few years ago that showed the media to be liberally biased, and conservatives waved it around and around saying "see, we told you so."
It's negative reporting because it implies that Obama was wrong not to support the surge, and is wrong in not acknowledging that he was wrong. So, have you stopped beating your wife?
What policy of Obama's is going to make the dollar "pop back"?
I'm eager to hear this one.
:cool:
Ask any real businessman what they think of Obamas economic policies,
and they will tell you he runs the risk of pushing us totally off the edge.
Raising taxes restricting the growth of enterprise and scaring investment OUT of the country,
and raising spending (oh, you really think all his pie-in-the-sky programs are coming free of charge?) will push the dollar off a cliff.
Not exactly recipies for making the dollar "pop back".
*chris crocker voice*
Leave Obama Alone.....
just leave him alone......
all you Obama haters.....
if you want to get to him you have to go through me...
leave him alone...
*sobs uncontrollably*
signed the moving train Obamatron fan squad
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
McCain I don't think is gonna win. I really don't think he will. Like I said, not unless Obama slips up.
The republicans I don't think even expect McCain to win, they just seem to be using him to build themselves up for the election after this one.
Obama's the long shot....there are lots of white folk that will not vote for Obama...also McCain hasn't yet started his attack campaign....give it another month.
Obama's the long shot....there are lots of white folk that will not vote for Obama...also McCain hasn't yet started his attack campaign....give it another month.
Yeah I hear yeah...But If I was a betting man I'd bet on Obama, but anything can happen for sure.
But I do believe that McCain is just a filler for the republican party and his own party does not expect him to win. But of course it does not mean that he will not win...
first off, I couldn't care less whether or not you "make fun of Americans", because you live in America Jr. you're an "American Jr", so you're really in no position to "make fun" of anyone.
next, McCain has 22 years of federal government experience (in addition to his military experience). Obama has 2 years of federal government experience. McCain has spent his whole career voting on both sides of the aisle. Obama has voted along party lines pretty much every time he voted.
now don't get me wrong here, I'm not voting for either one of them because I think they'd both be terrible presidents. but neither you nor Obama or anyone else wants to get into a "qualifications" argument with McCain, because you lose.
22 years of what? Instead of the number, why don't you elaborate on Senator McCain's congressional activities and achievements. STOP, before you even think to type it, I asked first.
Just because a person fought in a war, got captured and survived captivity does not mean they are qualified to be President. Being Commander-In-Chief is just ONE aspect of being President of the United States, Bush and his Administration's forgot.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
For someone who prides himself for reading alternative news and not being manipulated by major medias, you just used a 50 year old argument used by about every conservative government since ww2: "A left 'leaning government' will damage the economy by raising taxes".
Except that's not true, history has regularly taught us otherwise in several different countries.
For instance, after 8 years of a conservative govermnent in the US and major investments in the US again the US (and the whole world) is facing a very big financial crisis. You don't need to be a liberal (left) to do bad things to the economy.
And I also think, on the dollar, that many things can affect the value of the dollar : a president's decisions of course but also movements outside the US, thanks to globalization, chinese foreign policies for instance will have an affect on your money.
a. The Bush administration has been anything but "conservative".
b. you didn't actually make a valid argument against my premise
c. saying "yeah but the repubs fucked it up too" does not mean that Obamas policies will not be equally or more devastating.
d. the reason this country is economicaly fucked right now has to do with systemic issues in the banking system directly related to fiscal policy. it has nothing to do with George Bush or "conservative" "economic policy"
e. almost every motivation to keep money in the US financial markets has evaporated over the last 8 months. we don't need to add tax hikes to the list of disinsentives.
f. you didn't say a word about social programs (like national civil defense force or health care or SS or so forth and so on) ... given Obama seems to have dropped his plans for any significant shift in war policy, where is this money coming from, besides printing more of it?
g. this is all cart before horse, as i still harbor significant doubts that Obama will actually be the next president.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
McCain has spent his whole career voting on both sides of the aisle.
I wasn't aware that his 100% siding with Bush over the last couple years is considered on "both sides of the aisle". And McCain's "maverick" label that he earned in the late '90s & early '00s should be thrown out the window considering he's reversed his opinion on many of those issues, also known to the right as "flip-flopping", but that's not important when it's their own candidate, right?
hahaha! indeed it does sound weirdly tempting...but the question is, are you really willing to trade long term health for some short term ass candy?
of course not.
however, it is obvious that you and i, amongst others, have very different pov in regarding how to secure this 'long term health.'
i thought the clinton years, overall, were damn fine years for this country. so i'd take more of that, absolutely. if you view those years as 'shitting pop tarts and cotton candy'...as i said, sign me up!
of course not.
however, it is obvious that you and i, amongst others, have very different pov in regarding how to secure this 'long term health.'
i thought the clinton years, overall, were damn fine years for this country. so i'd take more of that, absolutely. if you view those years as 'shitting pop tarts and cotton candy'...as i said, sign me up!
The Clinton years had it's highs for sure. But while it was alrite in America it was bad for many other countries because of America.
So a return to the bubbled american life would not be good long term.
Remember after 9/11 the first average american kinda reactions were (other than "what the hells an afganistanis pa?" was "why did this happen? because we are free?"
you know, that kinda thinking. let's not get back to that.
---
The Clinton years had it's highs for sure. But while it was alrite in America it was bad for many other countries because of America.
So a return to the bubbled american life would not be good long term.
Remember after 9/11 the first average american kinda reactions were (other than "what the hells an afganistanis pa?" was "why did this happen? because we are free?"
you know, that kinda thinking. let's not get back to that.
---
i never viewed it as 'bubbled american life'...but seeing as i am an american, perhaps i was too deep in my bubble?
seriously, i get what you're saying, and i do agree that what you refer to is not a good thing, but i still say, overall....i'd take the clinton years over the last 8, and many others as well, hahaha....and hell, of the rest of the world i would guess the clinton years were probably still better than the last 8. some may think it's all a lesser of two evils cop-out, i don't see it like that. however, sure....i'll agree, leave the past behind, learn from it, move on...in a NEW direction, to a better place. for this country and absolutely, the world at large.
btw - i don't think the 'average american' thought that. i think that was BS spin, media crap. while sure there are a good deal of not well-informed people out there in the world, not just the states, i think for most...while shocked.....did not take that pov. i am a NYer, work in NYC, know many effected personally, and hell no...i know NO one who thought like that. however, another topic entirely.
i never viewed it as 'bubbled american life'...but seeing as i am an american, perhaps i was too deep in my bubble?
seriously, i get what you're saying, and i do agree that what you refer to is not a good thing, but i still say, overall....i'd take the clinton years over the last 8, and many others as well, hahaha....and hell, of the rest of the world i would guess the clinton years were probably still better than the last 8. some may think it's all a lesser of two evils cop-out, i don't see it like that. however, sure....i'll agree, leave the past behind, learn from it, move on...in a NEW direction, to a better place. for this country and absolutely, the world at large.
btw - i don't think the 'average american' thought that. i think that was BS spin, media crap. while sure there are a good deal of not well-informed people out there in the world, not just the states, i think for most...while shocked.....did not take that pov. i am a NYer, work in NYC, know many effected personally, and hell no...i know NO one who thought like that. however, another topic entirely.
Yeah, I was living in Florida at the time It's all I would hear all day. well around most of the southern states and whatever. Other parts just got all into the flag waving and pride kinda stuff and also lined up behind Bush right after 9/11...
Of course, not everyone fell into order. But i think it's fair to say that majority did. But maybe i'm wrong,
i never viewed it as 'bubbled american life'...but seeing as i am an american, perhaps i was too deep in my bubble?
seriously, i get what you're saying, and i do agree that what you refer to is not a good thing, but i still say, overall....i'd take the clinton years over the last 8, and many others as well, hahaha....and hell, of the rest of the world i would guess the clinton years were probably still better than the last 8. some may think it's all a lesser of two evils cop-out, i don't see it like that. however, sure....i'll agree, leave the past behind, learn from it, move on...in a NEW direction, to a better place. for this country and absolutely, the world at large.
btw - i don't think the 'average american' thought that. i think that was BS spin, media crap. while sure there are a good deal of not well-informed people out there in the world, not just the states, i think for most...while shocked.....did not take that pov. i am a NYer, work in NYC, know many effected personally, and hell no...i know NO one who thought like that. however, another topic entirely.
There was quite a lot about the Clinton years that constitute as 'fucked up american policy'...just because life was easier then than it has been under Bush doesn't excuse or make either right. They both had their fair share of horrible. I don't feel we should settle for slightly less horrible.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
a. The Bush administration has been anything but "conservative".
True enough that example was not a good choice. However left governments never lead to the economic breakdown that was usually promised by outed conservative govermnents.
b. you didn't actually make a valid argument against my premise
I don't pretend to understand correctly everything happening in the economy in our globalized world. But I disagree with the argument taxes=destruction of the economy. I don't know how high the dollar will be in a year/year and a half but if it does collapse, I doubt it will be because of Obama's taxes.
c. saying "yeah but the repubs fucked it up too" does not mean that Obamas policies will not be equally or more devastating.
Completely agree. Actually I believe any government (not advocating major changes like Ron Paul) would probably fuck up in the current climate.
d. the reason this country is economicaly fucked right now has to do with systemic issues in the banking system directly related to fiscal policy. it has nothing to do with George Bush or "conservative" "economic policy"
Strongly disagree here. Obviously the "laissez-faire" policy mostly used by "conservative" governments shows some kind of limits. And no this isn't a problem linked to the fed as almost every western country is hurt and almost every western country doesn't have the "fed".
e. almost every motivation to keep money in the US financial markets has evaporated over the last 8 months. we don't need to add tax hikes to the list of disinsentives.
Will lowering taxes change anything? I strongly believe lowering your debts could help more than lowering your taxes.
f. you didn't say a word about social programs (like national civil defense force or health care or SS or so forth and so on) ... given Obama seems to have dropped his plans for any significant shift in war policy, where is this money coming from, besides printing more of it?
He will probably need to print more money. I'm not saying that's smart. I think raising taxes should be used to lower the debt not to fund wars. I wasn't defending Obama (I don't vote in the US), I was arguing against an old cliche you used.
g. this is all cart before horse, as i still harbor significant doubts that Obama will actually be the next president.
I actually believe he will. What makes you think he won't?
This talk of Clinton balancing the budget is laughable...who had control of Congress then? Who has control now? Since 2006, things domestically have gone in the shitter. Wonder why?
Both parties are fucking us over. The sooner we all realize this, the better...
Meanwhile, I'll be patiently waiting for Obama to be elected and the immediate economic turnaround that the media will announce. I can't wait for him to take my money (and people like me who actually work and achieve) and pass it on to deadbeats. B/c he knows who to give it to better than I. I'm just a little person.
There was quite a lot about the Clinton years that constitute as 'fucked up american policy'...just because life was easier then than it has been under Bush doesn't excuse or make either right. They both had their fair share of horrible. I don't feel we should settle for slightly less horrible.
i never suggested we should. nor did i say everything during the clinton years was all peachy, but simply given the OPs first post, especially how he worded it, said i'd take that. i do think the clinton years were far 'better' for lack of a better term. i also find bush's share of 'horrible' FAR worse than clinton's but differing perspectives. in the post you quoted i agreed we should move beyond the past and work towards a better tomorrow. how we choose to get there is where i think many of us disagree. a-ok by me. i definitely don't think we should settle, either.
Yeah, I was living in Florida at the time It's all I would hear all day. well around most of the southern states and whatever. Other parts just got all into the flag waving and pride kinda stuff and also lined up behind Bush right after 9/11...
Of course, not everyone fell into order. But i think it's fair to say that majority did. But maybe i'm wrong,
yikes!
well of course, many bought into what was being sold....FEAR. a very sad part of american history to be certain. the fact that such a tragedy set into motion present events is even more sad. so i wouldn't so much as say you're wrong, just that you're not enitrely right. like most things..shades of grey....
However left governments never lead to the economic breakdown that was usually promised by outed conservative govermnents.
You're right about that. Again, the economy isn't meant to be ruled by a political party. Economies are supposed to be capable of working independent of federal government policy. The limits placed on federal government in the constitution (and baring constitutional amendments) should have prevented it from being able to so vastly affect the broad US market. Unfortunately the government itself is now a monster. That being said the preeminent factor affecting the general business climate in America for the last 100 years (and baring war) has been the Federal Reserve and its policies.
But I disagree with the argument taxes=destruction of the economy. I don't know how high the dollar will be in a year/year and a half but if it does collapse, I doubt it will be because of Obama's taxes
Taxes don't automaticaly mean the destruction of the economy. In the current climate though, they can only hurt. You are strangling an already suffering consumer as well as putting downward pressure on business.
Economicialy speaking, taxes hikes can only serve to decrease market productivity.
Completely agree. Actually I believe any government (not advocating major changes like Ron Paul) would probably fuck up in the current climate.
Sadly, even Ron Paul would fuck this one up.
Especially Ron Paul in the short term.
The market gears would come to a stand still if the inflation machine were shut down.
Strongly disagree here. Obviously the "laissez-faire" policy mostly used by "conservative" governments shows some kind of limits. And no this isn't a problem linked to the fed as almost every western country is hurt and almost every western country doesn't have the "fed".
This is a problem with the Fed. The entire Western world is run by the same financial system. Its the Fed or the ECB or the pick the appropriate central bank for your country. Most of the global fall out is directly related to housing contractions related to "below market" interest rates given to commercial banks via the central banks ("the fed") ... this flood of cheap credit only came to banks that LENT money in the first place. This mechanism, coupled with delibrately shoddy automated underwriting practices (the credit approval process, like for buying a home) caused the housing "bubble". The central banks, owned by the commercial banks, wanted to invest, but conventional loans were stretched thin, and so they decided to take even riskier "subprime" loans in order to get more income on their books. They didn't give a flying fuck about the consequences, because as far as they were concerned, if the poor sap couldn't pay his mortgage, they would just get the house at the end of the day anyhow. Unfortuantely for them, it looks like the entire system is still tinkering on the brink of collapse. They may have gone to far.
Will lowering taxes change anything? I strongly believe lowering your debts could help more than lowering your taxes.
Actualy "lowering your debts" is the WORST thing we could possibly do, ironic as it is. Debt=money. You MUST understand that, to get how this system works. There is NO MONEY that is not LENT MONEY -- ie. DEBT. Paying down debt = DELETING money. Deleting money = monetary contraction. Monetary contraction = recession ON A GOOD YEAR. In a year where the bubbles are all bursting, and the 4 trillion dollar backbone of the housing market (Fannie\Freddie) is on the verge of collapse, monetary contraction = guaranteed EPIC FAILURE.
He will probably need to print more money. I'm not saying that's smart. I think raising taxes should be used to lower the debt not to fund wars. I wasn't defending Obama (I don't vote in the US), I was arguing against an old cliche you used.
Its not an old cliche, its a truth. You just don't see economies normally so affected by tax raises on the people because this is offset with "free money" provided in the form of low interest rates to the corporations.
Again, in today's climate, it could be catacalysmic.
The consumer in general can not handle the burden.
And business can't be helped by it.
Obama will do what he is told. Assuming he is elected.
I actually believe he will. What makes you think he won't?
National Security.
And i think that the real powers in this country aren't 100% on board with Obama. I think there is a faction that believes that is the right way. And a stronger more desperate faction that thinks he is not "on the level" (or "in the pocket") enough to be the right president currently.
He is young. He thinks he has his own ideas.
And on some level, i think he truly believes he actualy gets to be president.
And they don't like that.
McCain is a marching man, and he takes orders well.
And even on the facade he is the better "business" candidate.
Note i didn't say the best for your financial interests,
but they are the best for Wall Street -- more of the same.
And he likes war.
He likes 'em big and long.
And there are still a good few months until the elections.
A few months where anything can happen,
and something surely will.
I still have my eyes on the DNC for starters.
:eek:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Obama's the long shot....there are lots of white folk that will not vote for Obama...also McCain hasn't yet started his attack campaign....give it another month.
We havn't been hearing THIS since February. :rolleyes: "Obama will never win. White folks won't vote for 'im, Blah... Blah... Blah..." What happened? i forgot. Oh, now i remember. Plenty of white folks voted for him and... HE WON! "Oh you just wait 'til them republikins start their attackin'. That Barack Hoosain Obamma won't be able to take it, heh, heh." Ummmm. have you forgotten that Hillary Clinton already stole all their bullets and fired about every round they had at him and... HE STILL WON.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
We havn't been hearing THIS since February. :rolleyes: "Obama will never win. White folks won't vote for 'im, Blah... Blah... Blah..." What happened? i forgot. Oh, now i remember. Plenty of white folks voted for him and... HE WON! "Oh you just wait 'til them republikins start their attackin'. That Barack Hoosain Obamma won't be able to take it, heh, heh." Ummmm. have you forgotten that Hillary Clinton already stole all their bullets and fired about every round they had at him and... HE STILL WON.
No one is saying Obama doesn't have a chance.
What we are saying is your over-optimism is a bit naive.
All this election needs is one "good" terr'ist event world wide,
hell, maybe even a disease outbreak or bio-attack,
and McCain could be the next overlord ... er ... i mean, president.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
No one is saying Obama doesn't have a chance.
What we are saying is your over-optimism is a bit naive.
All this election needs is one "good" terr'ist event world wide,
hell, maybe even a disease outbreak or bio-attack,
and McCain could be the next overlord ... er ... i mean, president.
i was refering specifically to the post that said Obama was a longshot because white people wouldn't vote for him and republicans would attack him.
Dumb.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
i was refering specifically to the post that said Obama was a longshot because white people wouldn't vote for him and republicans would attack him.
Dumb.
yeah i'll give you that.
Obama is attracting self-loathing whiteys left and right.
no problems there.
He is still only 4 to 12 points ahead in the polls though.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Write it down. It's not because Obama is black (half), and isn't because of his name, but it will be because of fear. Whether you like McCain or not (I don't), he is FAR MORE QUALIFIED to be President and is therefore the less risky choice. Yeah, Obama smoked Hillary in the Primaries - a lot of people were afraid of her - she's a little too mean and bitchy, and Obama is sharp and charismatic. But come November, the states Obama HAS to win (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Texas) will vote for McCain.
The reason: Obama's only national experience is a three year Senate term, during which he did virtually nothing. He missed as many votes as he cast and voted as non-controversially as possible, when he did. So here is his resume:
Barack Obama: 3 years, US Senate (2004-2007)
McCain, even though I think he's out of touch, is far more prepared to be President:
4 years US House (1983-1987)
19 years, US Senate (1988-2007), Committe on POW/MIA, Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman of Senate Commerce Committee, countless bill sponsorships on everything from campaign finance reform to tax reduction.
Primaries are the time we Americans play games with our votes, but come the General Election, the electorate has a history of not making risky moves, just look at our past Presidents. All have serious legislative or executive experience:
-GW Bush was the Governor of Texas for six years, plus grew up in the White House
-Clinton was the Arkansas Attorney General, and the Governor for eight years
-Bush senior was Vice, Head of the CIA, US Rep to the U.N. and assorted other things
-Reagan was California Governor for 8 years, and ran unsuccessfully for Pres. in '76 (he lost the primary by about he same margin as Hillary did and spoke at the convention like Hillary will)
-Carter - Governor of Georgia , State Senator for 10 years
-Ford - Vice President, 25 years in the House (8 years as House Minority Leader).
So, going all the way back to Nixon, who also had significant experience - we only elect as President candidates with significant legislative experience (Ford, Bush Sr), candidates with executive experience (Clinton, Reagan, Carter, GW Bush) and Vice Presidents (Bush Sr, Ford).
Also remember that in August 2004 (this time the last election), John Kerry had a double-digit lead over Bush, all it took to make the electorate lose their stomach was "swift boats".
Obama seems sharp to me, and I think he will have his time - he's young and he'll be active in politics for years to come. But there is NO WAY he wins this election. The Republicans play games in Presidential elections until late September/early October and then all hell breaks loose. There will probably be a serious foreign policy crisis to remind Americans how important it is to have someone with a background in foreign affairs. They will skewer Obama over his lack of experience, inconsistencies in voting record and policy platforms, they will succeed in labelling him as "elitist" - because he acts the role, they will blast him over his Vice Presidential choice (no matter who it is) and use that as proof of his lack of sound decision-making ability, and finally they will take the few things he DID in the Senate and use that to make him look like a "Globalist" who is willing to give U.S. sovereignty to the UN, which will create all the doubt needed about Obama's loyalties and priorities. In the meantime, McCain will contrast himself as much with Bush as with Obama, and in November McCain will be elected by an electorate that is afraid of Obama and certain McCain is not as shitty as Bush.
Comments
he did use the word "vigor" recently...
by the way, where did you hear he was going to invade Iran...? I missed that...
http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%207_29_08.htm
And, as was pointed out to me earlier, though they claim to be nonpartisian, this study was done by a fairly conservative organization.
CBS, NBC, and ABC have been mostly negative towards Obama?!?! I beg to differ.
that article linked is ridiculous. saying "Obama said he would still not support the troop surge knowing what he knows now" is not 'negative reporting', it's called 'stating a fact'. since when is reporting something factual called "negative reporting"?
It's negative reporting because it implies that Obama was wrong not to support the surge, and is wrong in not acknowledging that he was wrong. So, have you stopped beating your wife?
*chris crocker voice*
Leave Obama Alone.....
just leave him alone......
all you Obama haters.....
if you want to get to him you have to go through me...
leave him alone...
*sobs uncontrollably*
signed the moving train Obamatron fan squad
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i never said that Obama was going to attack Iran but he has been talking tough about them when he talked with Jewish people
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Yeah I hear yeah...But If I was a betting man I'd bet on Obama, but anything can happen for sure.
But I do believe that McCain is just a filler for the republican party and his own party does not expect him to win. But of course it does not mean that he will not win...
22 years of what? Instead of the number, why don't you elaborate on Senator McCain's congressional activities and achievements. STOP, before you even think to type it, I asked first.
Just because a person fought in a war, got captured and survived captivity does not mean they are qualified to be President. Being Commander-In-Chief is just ONE aspect of being President of the United States, Bush and his Administration's forgot.
a. The Bush administration has been anything but "conservative".
b. you didn't actually make a valid argument against my premise
c. saying "yeah but the repubs fucked it up too" does not mean that Obamas policies will not be equally or more devastating.
d. the reason this country is economicaly fucked right now has to do with systemic issues in the banking system directly related to fiscal policy. it has nothing to do with George Bush or "conservative" "economic policy"
e. almost every motivation to keep money in the US financial markets has evaporated over the last 8 months. we don't need to add tax hikes to the list of disinsentives.
f. you didn't say a word about social programs (like national civil defense force or health care or SS or so forth and so on) ... given Obama seems to have dropped his plans for any significant shift in war policy, where is this money coming from, besides printing more of it?
g. this is all cart before horse, as i still harbor significant doubts that Obama will actually be the next president.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
sooooooooo made me laugh. awesome!
hey, if that's what was going on during the clinton years, i'll take it.
bring on the pop tarts and cotton candy obama!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I wasn't aware that his 100% siding with Bush over the last couple years is considered on "both sides of the aisle". And McCain's "maverick" label that he earned in the late '90s & early '00s should be thrown out the window considering he's reversed his opinion on many of those issues, also known to the right as "flip-flopping", but that's not important when it's their own candidate, right?
Madison Square Garden 6/25/08
hahaha! indeed it does sound weirdly tempting...but the question is, are you really willing to trade long term health for some short term ass candy?
of course not.
however, it is obvious that you and i, amongst others, have very different pov in regarding how to secure this 'long term health.'
i thought the clinton years, overall, were damn fine years for this country. so i'd take more of that, absolutely. if you view those years as 'shitting pop tarts and cotton candy'...as i said, sign me up!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
The Clinton years had it's highs for sure. But while it was alrite in America it was bad for many other countries because of America.
So a return to the bubbled american life would not be good long term.
Remember after 9/11 the first average american kinda reactions were (other than "what the hells an afganistanis pa?" was "why did this happen? because we are free?"
you know, that kinda thinking. let's not get back to that.
---
i never viewed it as 'bubbled american life'...but seeing as i am an american, perhaps i was too deep in my bubble?
seriously, i get what you're saying, and i do agree that what you refer to is not a good thing, but i still say, overall....i'd take the clinton years over the last 8, and many others as well, hahaha....and hell, of the rest of the world i would guess the clinton years were probably still better than the last 8. some may think it's all a lesser of two evils cop-out, i don't see it like that. however, sure....i'll agree, leave the past behind, learn from it, move on...in a NEW direction, to a better place. for this country and absolutely, the world at large.
btw - i don't think the 'average american' thought that. i think that was BS spin, media crap. while sure there are a good deal of not well-informed people out there in the world, not just the states, i think for most...while shocked.....did not take that pov. i am a NYer, work in NYC, know many effected personally, and hell no...i know NO one who thought like that. however, another topic entirely.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Yeah, I was living in Florida at the time
Of course, not everyone fell into order. But i think it's fair to say that majority did. But maybe i'm wrong,
Not to mention how he wants to expand and modernize the military and increase troops by 90,000. What a peacenik, this guy!
What's so great about him again?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
There was quite a lot about the Clinton years that constitute as 'fucked up american policy'...just because life was easier then than it has been under Bush doesn't excuse or make either right. They both had their fair share of horrible. I don't feel we should settle for slightly less horrible.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
continuing wars (Afghanistan) is another thing though...
and technically we are at an "economic war" with Iran, so if military strikes were necessary he'd just be "continuing" it, not "starting" it...
Completely agree. Actually I believe any government (not advocating major changes like Ron Paul) would probably fuck up in the current climate. Strongly disagree here. Obviously the "laissez-faire" policy mostly used by "conservative" governments shows some kind of limits. And no this isn't a problem linked to the fed as almost every western country is hurt and almost every western country doesn't have the "fed".
Will lowering taxes change anything? I strongly believe lowering your debts could help more than lowering your taxes.
He will probably need to print more money. I'm not saying that's smart. I think raising taxes should be used to lower the debt not to fund wars. I wasn't defending Obama (I don't vote in the US), I was arguing against an old cliche you used.
I actually believe he will. What makes you think he won't?
Both parties are fucking us over. The sooner we all realize this, the better...
Meanwhile, I'll be patiently waiting for Obama to be elected and the immediate economic turnaround that the media will announce. I can't wait for him to take my money (and people like me who actually work and achieve) and pass it on to deadbeats. B/c he knows who to give it to better than I. I'm just a little person.
i never suggested we should. nor did i say everything during the clinton years was all peachy, but simply given the OPs first post, especially how he worded it, said i'd take that. i do think the clinton years were far 'better' for lack of a better term. i also find bush's share of 'horrible' FAR worse than clinton's but differing perspectives. in the post you quoted i agreed we should move beyond the past and work towards a better tomorrow. how we choose to get there is where i think many of us disagree. a-ok by me. i definitely don't think we should settle, either.
yikes!
well of course, many bought into what was being sold....FEAR. a very sad part of american history to be certain. the fact that such a tragedy set into motion present events is even more sad. so i wouldn't so much as say you're wrong, just that you're not enitrely right.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
You're right about that. Again, the economy isn't meant to be ruled by a political party. Economies are supposed to be capable of working independent of federal government policy. The limits placed on federal government in the constitution (and baring constitutional amendments) should have prevented it from being able to so vastly affect the broad US market. Unfortunately the government itself is now a monster. That being said the preeminent factor affecting the general business climate in America for the last 100 years (and baring war) has been the Federal Reserve and its policies.
Taxes don't automaticaly mean the destruction of the economy. In the current climate though, they can only hurt. You are strangling an already suffering consumer as well as putting downward pressure on business.
Economicialy speaking, taxes hikes can only serve to decrease market productivity.
Sadly, even Ron Paul would fuck this one up.
Especially Ron Paul in the short term.
The market gears would come to a stand still if the inflation machine were shut down.
This is a problem with the Fed. The entire Western world is run by the same financial system. Its the Fed or the ECB or the pick the appropriate central bank for your country. Most of the global fall out is directly related to housing contractions related to "below market" interest rates given to commercial banks via the central banks ("the fed") ... this flood of cheap credit only came to banks that LENT money in the first place. This mechanism, coupled with delibrately shoddy automated underwriting practices (the credit approval process, like for buying a home) caused the housing "bubble". The central banks, owned by the commercial banks, wanted to invest, but conventional loans were stretched thin, and so they decided to take even riskier "subprime" loans in order to get more income on their books. They didn't give a flying fuck about the consequences, because as far as they were concerned, if the poor sap couldn't pay his mortgage, they would just get the house at the end of the day anyhow. Unfortuantely for them, it looks like the entire system is still tinkering on the brink of collapse. They may have gone to far.
Actualy "lowering your debts" is the WORST thing we could possibly do, ironic as it is. Debt=money. You MUST understand that, to get how this system works. There is NO MONEY that is not LENT MONEY -- ie. DEBT. Paying down debt = DELETING money. Deleting money = monetary contraction. Monetary contraction = recession ON A GOOD YEAR. In a year where the bubbles are all bursting, and the 4 trillion dollar backbone of the housing market (Fannie\Freddie) is on the verge of collapse, monetary contraction = guaranteed EPIC FAILURE.
Its not an old cliche, its a truth. You just don't see economies normally so affected by tax raises on the people because this is offset with "free money" provided in the form of low interest rates to the corporations.
Again, in today's climate, it could be catacalysmic.
The consumer in general can not handle the burden.
And business can't be helped by it.
Obama will do what he is told.
Assuming he is elected.
National Security.
And i think that the real powers in this country aren't 100% on board with Obama. I think there is a faction that believes that is the right way. And a stronger more desperate faction that thinks he is not "on the level" (or "in the pocket") enough to be the right president currently.
He is young. He thinks he has his own ideas.
And on some level, i think he truly believes he actualy gets to be president.
And they don't like that.
McCain is a marching man, and he takes orders well.
And even on the facade he is the better "business" candidate.
Note i didn't say the best for your financial interests,
but they are the best for Wall Street -- more of the same.
And he likes war.
He likes 'em big and long.
And there are still a good few months until the elections.
A few months where anything can happen,
and something surely will.
I still have my eyes on the DNC for starters.
:eek:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
We havn't been hearing THIS since February. :rolleyes: "Obama will never win. White folks won't vote for 'im, Blah... Blah... Blah..." What happened? i forgot. Oh, now i remember. Plenty of white folks voted for him and... HE WON! "Oh you just wait 'til them republikins start their attackin'. That Barack Hoosain Obamma won't be able to take it, heh, heh." Ummmm. have you forgotten that Hillary Clinton already stole all their bullets and fired about every round they had at him and... HE STILL WON.
No one is saying Obama doesn't have a chance.
What we are saying is your over-optimism is a bit naive.
All this election needs is one "good" terr'ist event world wide,
hell, maybe even a disease outbreak or bio-attack,
and McCain could be the next overlord ... er ... i mean, president.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i was refering specifically to the post that said Obama was a longshot because white people wouldn't vote for him and republicans would attack him.
Dumb.
yeah i'll give you that.
Obama is attracting self-loathing whiteys left and right.
no problems there.
He is still only 4 to 12 points ahead in the polls though.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The reason: Obama's only national experience is a three year Senate term, during which he did virtually nothing. He missed as many votes as he cast and voted as non-controversially as possible, when he did. So here is his resume:
Barack Obama: 3 years, US Senate (2004-2007)
McCain, even though I think he's out of touch, is far more prepared to be President:
4 years US House (1983-1987)
19 years, US Senate (1988-2007), Committe on POW/MIA, Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman of Senate Commerce Committee, countless bill sponsorships on everything from campaign finance reform to tax reduction.
Primaries are the time we Americans play games with our votes, but come the General Election, the electorate has a history of not making risky moves, just look at our past Presidents. All have serious legislative or executive experience:
-GW Bush was the Governor of Texas for six years, plus grew up in the White House
-Clinton was the Arkansas Attorney General, and the Governor for eight years
-Bush senior was Vice, Head of the CIA, US Rep to the U.N. and assorted other things
-Reagan was California Governor for 8 years, and ran unsuccessfully for Pres. in '76 (he lost the primary by about he same margin as Hillary did and spoke at the convention like Hillary will)
-Carter - Governor of Georgia , State Senator for 10 years
-Ford - Vice President, 25 years in the House (8 years as House Minority Leader).
So, going all the way back to Nixon, who also had significant experience - we only elect as President candidates with significant legislative experience (Ford, Bush Sr), candidates with executive experience (Clinton, Reagan, Carter, GW Bush) and Vice Presidents (Bush Sr, Ford).
Also remember that in August 2004 (this time the last election), John Kerry had a double-digit lead over Bush, all it took to make the electorate lose their stomach was "swift boats".
Obama seems sharp to me, and I think he will have his time - he's young and he'll be active in politics for years to come. But there is NO WAY he wins this election. The Republicans play games in Presidential elections until late September/early October and then all hell breaks loose. There will probably be a serious foreign policy crisis to remind Americans how important it is to have someone with a background in foreign affairs. They will skewer Obama over his lack of experience, inconsistencies in voting record and policy platforms, they will succeed in labelling him as "elitist" - because he acts the role, they will blast him over his Vice Presidential choice (no matter who it is) and use that as proof of his lack of sound decision-making ability, and finally they will take the few things he DID in the Senate and use that to make him look like a "Globalist" who is willing to give U.S. sovereignty to the UN, which will create all the doubt needed about Obama's loyalties and priorities. In the meantime, McCain will contrast himself as much with Bush as with Obama, and in November McCain will be elected by an electorate that is afraid of Obama and certain McCain is not as shitty as Bush.