1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

The Economy

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Sihouette, Sep 16, 2008.

  1. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The economy.

    McCain says its base is "still strong"

    Obama disagrees.

    Neither seems to understand the basics of economics and are really treading in dark waters when it comes to the specifics.

    Meanwhile let's look at what the Clintons (yes, both of them) did with it:

    Read my signature.
     
  2. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Senator Obama has repeatedly complimented both the Clintons and agrees with them fully on the benefits of a surplus, rolling the Bush tax cuts for the rich back to Clinton administration levels and on the need to overhaul our healthcare system... and they are out campaigning hard for him. In fact Senator Clinton was just here in Ohio and I thought gave a great speech.

    I look for her to be a major player with the Obama administration in working on a healthcare plan and quit possibly more as in some high level appointment.

    I don't get the divisiveness. We're now in a battle with John McCain... I thought?


    We read it. Your previous one too. Let's work together now!;)
     
  3. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yeah yeah. I think Biden should step down and let Hillary step in. We can do no good without a solid win. A solid win. We cannot just inch forward and slip back day by day in the polls. We need a solid and unbreakable lead in order to forward our collective agenda for change.

    The simple fact is, and everyone knows it, is that both Clintons will be up to their eyebrows in helping out to bring the titanic around.
     
  4. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    I've been around the block a time or two but you have this bitter thing down better than anyone.:)

    Come on. The ticket is OBAMA/BIDEN. It's a strong ticket. It would have been a strong ticket with OBAMA/CLINTON... but I can tell you McCain never would have picked Palin then.

    McCain would have went with a man with experience & no scandal to try and be in a position to argue Obama just wants to bring the scandals of the past back to Washington.

    I know it's unfair. Hillary did nothing wrong back then but that still would have been the neo-con attack line. Plus they'd be trying to make hay over her Bosnia war zone story & NAFTA support snafu.

    Hillary & Bill are on board with the Democratic team... and we want you to be there too!;)
     
  5. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    Have you noticed after he got Hillary out of the race he stopped talking about health care?

    a couple of weeks ago he gave an interview saying he wouldnt raise taxes on the rich (how he planned to pay for health care) no one questioned him. I posted about it and no one wanted to talk about it.

    I think its odd that he kept talking about health care health care till Hillary was on the side lines and now he never talks about it. It was important to him for the sake of winning Hillary voters, not for the sake of health care. Heck that is how he got the Edwards voters too, and Edwards (now useless) endorsment, by promissing to make health care a major part of his plan

    Dont get me wrong, I am not into socialized medicine but I think we as a nation should vote on it even if I dont personally want it and he took that option off the table like it was a minor thing.
     
  6. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,862
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Do you think he took it off of the front burner because of Hillary, or was it because the other side was painting his policy as a dramatic increase in the government?

    I don't think universal health care has gone away, BTW, it's just been taken out of the spotlight for now.

    I agree that we need a (rational, non partisan, but that's expecting too much) debate about health care. It's getting to the point that the only people who can afford to get sick are those on welfare, those with a job that provides health insurance, people in jail, or those with an astronomical bank account. Forget about the people trying to get a small business to work, or who are in an entry level position.

    And that 18% of the GDP going to health care could be put to better use.
     
  7. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    I honestly don’t think health care was ever a real issue for him, but it is what was getting Hillary and Edwards both attention. He needed those votes, so it became a big issue for him too, he talked about it daily. After Edwards and Hillary left the stage, I don’t think he has mentioned health care more than a few times.

    He sort of broke it to us in an interview a while back. Originally he said he would pay for the health care with money saved by pulling out of Iraq, then he said that he would use that money to go to Afghanistan, then he said he wouldn’t borrow it from China at all because we cant afford it, another time he said he would use that money for roads and bridges.

    When cornered on how he would pay for health care after he said he wasn’t using Iraq money for it, he said by ending the bush tax cuts and a putting a new tax on the rich. That was an ok answer till a week or so ago, in another interview he said because the economy is bad he won’t end the bush tax cuts he will let them stay till they naturally expire.

    This poses a little problem because a few months ago when saying he would end the bush tax cuts, he was asked wont this hurt the economy and he said no. But now he is saying raising the taxes will hurt the economy. He irritates me because he won’t stick to a story. I have a hard time keeping up

    Anyway, this is the money for health care, so health care will have to wait, but honestly I don’t think it was ever a big issue for him to start with, it was how to get Hillary and Edward voters.

    It honestly doesn’t bother me but I do wonder how much it bothers former Edwards and Hillary supporters
     
  8. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obama's compliment is BS - he is proposing $2 trillion in new spending - he will put the US FARRRRRRRRRRRRRR more in debt.
     
  9. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    of course you do, you think sea should part for Clinton as well.
     
  10. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Fact is the Clinton's are working together quite well with the Obama campaign. And it's Bush that screwed us all over spending up to $12 BILLION DOLLARS per month on his invasion & occupation built on lies... tax cuts in time of war... and love of almost total deregulation. You run your economic house on unheard of big debt overseas and do some stupid things here at home and you get the Bush Republican economic catastrophe!

    Shoring up Social security needed done regardless of who was President and a revamping of our heathcare system is seen as vitally necessary by the majority of Americans as well.

    For that matter the McSame campaign has promised to spend money all over the place as well (hint: It's a campaign). With McSame we get these glorious Bush economic policies continued plus McSame's additions to spending he talks about plus a much quicker trigger finger on the War Button plus at 72+ if he goes down we have natural disaster Palin groping her way along in the dark.

    All bad... all out of touch... more Bush with even less competent people running things!
     
  11. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA


    You do realize that Obama is going to expand the deficit right? Remember he also sponsored a bill that would have sent $800 billion over seas. So all this talk about he would be spending money at home, his actions have yet to back that up.

    I remember we tried to make it private, but it was killed.

    Every campaign is going to spend money. No one can fault them for that. McCain will continue to spend as President as well. The issue here however is that Obama supporters somehow believe we are going to have all this money to spend domestically when we are not going to. Almost 3/4 of the money we would have saved if there was no war, he would sent overseas to fight poverty.
     
  12. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think it will make much difference really Lib, the US is already stony broke.

    $2 trillion is just a very small fish in the US ocean, when compared to the $ 43 trillion 'real and accounted for' debt you are already carrying. Not to mention the 8.5 billion the government (or I should say you) have just borrowed from the Federal Reserve to prop up AIG.

    I find it astounding that you still have Economists over there telling the public at large that all is well, that everything will be fine and dandy a few months down the line (consumer confidence alone cannot possibly get the US out of this enormous black hole).

    This desperate scrabbling about, injecting money into the stock markets and bailing out companies is not going to heal the enormous fracture that exists, all it does is splint it if you like.

    How can the economy recover when, just like the UK your economic growth depends almost entirely now on the service industry, in particular economic services and housing market. Consumer confidence can play no real part at the moment.

    Your manufacturing base has, just like the UK, all but disappeared

    Those 'financial' wizards who felt it was perfectly acceptable to lend, sell and borrow against debt endless times have in fact rendered the US bankrupt and no matter how many times the 'experts' tell us it is just a glitch in the markets and all the other bull**** they keep spouting, it is going to get far worse.

    Correction has to come and it will be absolute hell in my opinion, it will take the US possibly a century to recover. Economic growth has to be based on tangible assets, not thin air and the false economics of the last two decades.
     
  13. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Not amused is completely correct of course.

    Our situation is extraordinarily dire. And my original point is that since neither Obama nor McCain understand the bare bones of how a nation's economy works, they are like hiring McDonald's fry cooks to cater a french ambassador's dinner.

    The Clintons have taken a wrecked economy before, invested in development of base US industry and jobs and watched the economy climb back not only to health, but to a surplus.

    The GOP is all about greed and short-sided profit. The only reason they grab for power is to divide the fat amongst the already rich and string along the working classes just long enough to get re-elected by the faithful and the stupid.

    This democratic candidate, Obama, is very handsome and well-spoken. But he is short on the raw material and education to be applying for the job in question. He'd better get experts like the Clintons on board and on board fast. Their record with the previously wrecked economy is THE BEST RESUME' for the job we voters are hiring for.

    The Clintons cannot part the sea, but that's not the job we need them to do right now. That job, they are absolutely over-qualified for..
     
  14. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,862
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Not according to this non partisan study.

     
  15. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Following along with that "part the sea" metaphor. I'll bet the Clintons can part a sea of red tape and special-interest corporate lobbiests to turn this country back around. ;)
     
Loading...

Share This Page