PDA

View Full Version : Elections Economic disaster waiting to happen.


jidar
09-16-2008, 08:13 AM
How is this even a close race? The incumbent party is a failure by every measure, and people still want to keep the GOP in.

Do we worry about economic policy at all or are we more concerned about downs babies and having a beer with our candidate?

Imagine you could lay most of the subprime mortgage crisis on the policies spearheaded by one man. It's arguable of course, but if you had to pick one thing that allowed the subprime crisis to happen you would point at the banking and finance deregulation that occurred in 1999. Deregulation that rolled back laws put in place after the great depression to prevent the kind of problems we're experiencing right now.

Now imagine that same man was also prime mover behind deregulation in the finance sector that allowed the Enron scandal to happen, including the deregulation without oversight that allowed Enron to manipulate the California power grid with rolling blackouts to increase their profits. In fact, his wife was on the board of directors of Enron when this went down, and they made millions from Enron.

Now imagine that man was up until a month or two ago a co-chair on the Mccain campaign until being forced to step down for telling America that the economic crisis was all in our heads. Yes he did step down but he still frequently travels with Mccain and still serves as a principle economic advisor to the campaign. He's a longtime close friend of Mccains, far closer than most associations in Washington in fact, and should Mccain become president this guy probably would be placed in control of the Treasury Department.

That mans name of course is Phil Gramm.

"If McCain gets in," frets Lynn Turner, a former chief sec accountant, "we'll have more of the same deregulatory mess. I like John McCain, but given what I know about Phil Gramm, I wouldn't vote for McCain."

You can get the full story here.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

BigChiefFan
09-16-2008, 08:16 AM
It's amazing how many just vote political affiliation over what's good for the country.

ROYC75
09-16-2008, 08:21 AM
How is this even a close race? The incumbent party is a failure by every measure, and people still want to keep the GOP in.

Do we worry about economic policy at all or are we more concerned about downs babies and having a beer with our candidate?

Imagine you could lay most of the subprime mortgage crisis on the policies spearheaded by one man. It's arguable of course, but if you had to pick one thing that allowed the subprime crisis to happen you would point at the banking and finance deregulation that occurred in 1999. Deregulation that rolled back laws put in place after the great depression to prevent the kind of problems we're experiencing right now.

Now imagine that same man was also prime mover behind deregulation in the finance sector that allowed the Enron scandal to happen, including the deregulation without oversight that allowed Enron to manipulate the California power grid with rolling blackouts to increase their profits. In fact, his wife was on the board of directors of Enron when this went down, and they made millions from Enron.

Now imagine that man was up until a month or two ago a co-chair on the Mccain campaign until being forced to step down for telling America that the economic crisis was all in our heads. Yes he did step down but he still frequently travels with Mccain and still serves as a principle economic advisor to the campaign. He's a longtime close friend of Mccains, far closer than most associations in Washington in fact, and should Mccain become president this guy probably would be placed in control of the Treasury Department.

That mans name of course is Phil Gramm.

"If McCain gets in," frets Lynn Turner, a former chief sec accountant, "we'll have more of the same deregulatory mess. I like John McCain, but given what I know about Phil Gramm, I wouldn't vote for McCain."

You can get the full story here.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

Uh, everybody wants to blame Bush, this happened because of something stupid, in 1999. Wouldn't this be Clinton's fault then .


Reality, No, but that is the principals the democrats want you to believe in.... blame it on the person during that term.

Bad regulations, bad plan, tried to open up the economy in a unsecured way .

jidar
09-16-2008, 08:45 AM
Uh, everybody wants to blame Bush, this happened because of something stupid, in 1999. Wouldn't this be Clinton's fault then .


Reality, No, but that is the principals the democrats want you to believe in.... blame it on the person during that term.

Bad regulations, bad plan, tried to open up the economy in a unsecured way .

Unfortunately by that time Clinton was a lame duck who was treading water. He gets the blame of course because he brought that shit on himself, and had he not been so busy getting busy he could have done something about it, but to be fair this sort of deregulation isn't the type of thing he was a proponent of.


If you want to talk about bipartisan politics though, this is a good example. Here is someone directly responsible who is actively seeking power right now in the upcoming election. Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter. What you're seeing here is a case where you can be pretty honest with yourself, do you want to vote on partisan identity or do you want to vote on issues?

patteeu
09-16-2008, 09:09 AM
When I think about what can be done to keep the American economy strong, putting democrats in charge of both the Congress and the White House at the same time is about the last thing that comes to mind.

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 09:11 AM
I suspect that Obama will get about a 5-6 point bump over the next week or so, and it will continue to trend in that direction until the election.

Barring a huge blunder or revelation, this race is now Obama's to lose.

patteeu
09-16-2008, 09:12 AM
I suspect that Obama will get about a 5-6 point bump over the next week or so, and it will continue to trend in that direction until the election.

Barring a huge blunder or revelation, this race is now Obama's to lose.

Based on what poll? Where is he now?

***SPRAYER
09-16-2008, 09:13 AM
It's amazing how many just vote political affiliation over what's good for the country.

When was the last time you voted for a Republican?

ChiTown
09-16-2008, 09:14 AM
I suspect that Obama will get about a 5-6 point bump over the next week or so, and it will continue to trend in that direction until the election.

Barring a huge blunder or revelation, this race is now Obama's to lose.

It's amazing to me, given ALL the idiocy from the Bush Administration, that this race could even be close. What that says to me, is that people have serious doubts as to whether Obama can lead. JMHO, but this race will be close all the way to election day.

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 09:14 AM
When I think about what can be done to keep the American economy strong, putting democrats in charge of both the Congress and the White House at the same time is about the last thing that comes to mind.

Well, the Republicans surely haven't handled things very well now have they. The Dems are gonna get their chance, it would appear.

The silver-lining for you, is if they aren't careful....they could just screw things up even worse, with control of the Presidency and Congress. Guess we'll see.

Republicans with any political acumen whatsoever will begin preparing for 2012 very soon.

patteeu
09-16-2008, 09:15 AM
When was the last time you voted for a Republican?

I think he voted for George W. Bush, but I could be mistaken. Of course, that was before he refined his ability to survey the political landscape and come to informed conclusions. It looks like he's going to have to go through another election cycle under the same conditions this time around.

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 09:16 AM
Based on what poll? Where is he now?

I said....over then next week or so. Get back to me by the 25th or 26th. The polling will trend his direction in the interim.

patteeu
09-16-2008, 09:17 AM
Well, the Republicans surely haven't handled things very well now have they. The Dems are gonna get their chance, it would appear.

The silver-lining for you, is if they aren't careful....they could just screw things up even worse, with control of the Presidency and Congress. Guess we'll see.

Republicans with any political acumen whatsoever will begin preparing for 2012 very soon.

To be honest, I don't consider that a silver lining.

patteeu
09-16-2008, 09:18 AM
I said....over then next week or so. Get back to me by the 25th or 26th. The polling will trend his direction in the interim.

Yeah, I know what you said. I'm trying to pin you down to something that can be evaluated. So what poll, where is he now, and when can we check on the results?

BucEyedPea
09-16-2008, 09:18 AM
It's amazing to me, given ALL the idiocy from the Bush Administration, that this race could even be close. What that says to me, is that people have serious doubts as to whether Obama can lead. JMHO, but this race will be close all the way to election day.

Exactly! Add in the fact the high amount of dissatisfaction with the chosen-ones and undecided voters out there. It really shouldn't be this close at all, even poll-wise...but an 'effing landslide.

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 09:18 AM
It's amazing to me, given ALL the idiocy from the Bush Administration, that this race could even be close. What that says to me, is that people have serious doubts as to whether Obama can lead. JMHO, but this race will be close all the way to election day.

I agree; but this economic stuff will convince many that Obama will....at least....be a change. Period.

:shrug:

oldandslow
09-16-2008, 09:22 AM
I suspect that Obama will get about a 5-6 point bump over the next week or so, and it will continue to trend in that direction until the election.

Barring a huge blunder or revelation, this race is now Obama's to lose.

I said 3-5 before the RNC, and I still believe that.

The love affair with Palin is dying with indies.

The economy is too bad for a change in the Presidency to not happen.

ROYC75
09-16-2008, 09:40 AM
I agree; but this economic stuff will convince many that Obama will....at least....be a change. Period.

:shrug:

The only thing proven change so far would be a democrat instead of a republican in the WH. That does not promote change for Americans. Obama hasn't ran any business and only has his democratic peers to follow up on
to give us the usual tax and spend methods of the past. Redistribution of funds, taken from the rich and given to the people by way of BIG GOVERNMENT.

With the current housing and banking failures, the recent hurricanes and oil market that is unstable, it's just a matter of time before taxes are raised anyways to offset the deficit. Cutting spending will be a primary reason as much as increasing revenues to curb this national debt. Will our military have to suffer ?

Both candidates are screwed when it comes to promising tax breaks right now .

gblowfish
09-16-2008, 09:49 AM
I lost about $6000 in one day on my mutual funds.
Thanks Bushco!

ROYC75
09-16-2008, 09:53 AM
I lost about $6000 in one day on my mutual funds.
Thanks Bushco!


Yep, he's the debil ...... that evil bastard .

I gotta ask this, how is this only Bush's fault ?

gblowfish
09-16-2008, 10:01 AM
Yep, he's the debil ...... that evil bastard .

I gotta ask this, how is this only Bush's fault ?

Buschco is more than Bush. It's McCain, Phil Gramm, Cheney, the US Treasury. You know, the guys running the show for the last 8 years.

The day after 9/11 I lost a few bucks, but nothing like this.

bkkcoh
09-16-2008, 10:10 AM
When I think about what can be done to keep the American economy strong, putting democrats in charge of both the Congress and the White House at the same time is about the last thing that comes to mind.

Would definitely agree with that. Regardless of the party in the White House, it is bad to have the same majority in congress. The minority party becomes obstructionist regardless of what is attempted to be done. It would be nice to have congress do what is best for the country instead of what is best for their party or their constituents (with very few exceptions), especially when earmarks are concerned.

I suspect that Obama will get about a 5-6 point bump over the next week or so, and it will continue to trend in that direction until the election.

Barring a huge blunder or revelation, this race is now Obama's to lose.

What is your basis for this statement? If Obama was thought to be a choice that was head and shoulders better then McCain, he would already be farther ahead in the polls and he would be getting over 50% of the support. When was the last time that a poll came out and he had > 50%?

jidar
09-16-2008, 10:26 AM
When I think about what can be done to keep the American economy strong, putting democrats in charge of both the Congress and the White House at the same time is about the last thing that comes to mind.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Nobody spends like a republican at war.

bkkcoh
09-16-2008, 10:34 AM
Then you haven't been paying attention. Nobody spends like a republican at war.

Except a democrat trying to equal the economic playing field with all sorts of wealth distribution policies.


:D

Both parties are terrible at being responsible in their spending on items, regardless of what or who.

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 10:36 AM
Yeah, I know what you said. I'm trying to pin you down to something that can be evaluated. So what poll, where is he now, and when can we check on the results?

I'll go with the RCP poll of polls.....McCain by 1.8% presently.

I'm guessing Obama by 2-3% by the end of next week, and rising.

I said 3-5 before the RNC, and I still believe that.

The love affair with Palin is dying with indies.

The economy is too bad for a change in the Presidency to not happen.

With the economy, I'm thinking that I may be losing my bet with Hamas now.....he said 300 electoral votes for Obama.

I thought it was gonna be closer; this economy is gonna make me Hamas's bitch (avvy & sig for 6 months.)

:banghead:

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 10:41 AM
Yeah, I know what you said. I'm trying to pin you down to something that can be evaluated. So what poll, where is he now, and when can we check on the results?

I'll go with the RCP poll of polls.....McCain by 1.8% presently.

I'm guessing Obama by 2-3% by the end of next week, and rising.


....

What is your basis for this statement? If Obama was thought to be a choice that was head and shoulders better then McCain, he would already be farther ahead in the polls and he would be getting over 50% of the support. When was the last time that a poll came out and he had > 50%?

My gut. I think there are still many "undecided"s, with whom this economy will push them toward Obama. JMHO

jidar
09-16-2008, 10:53 AM
Except a democrat trying to equal the economic playing field with all sorts of wealth distribution policies.


:D

Both parties are terrible at being responsible in their spending on items, regardless of what or who.

I really don't think there is that much of a comparison. A glance at the differences in budget deficits is all you need to see.
People bitching about democratic spending are complaining about few bucks while the guy in the suit behind them is cleaning out their bank account.

bkkcoh
09-16-2008, 10:59 AM
I really don't think there is that much of a comparison. A glance at the differences in budget deficits is all you need to see.
People bitching about democratic spending are complaining about few bucks while the guy in the suit behind them is cleaning out their bank account.

But if you look at the amount of money that has been spent in that area and the net good it has done. It would be hard to say it was money well spent.

Wouldn't it?

I am not against giving people a hand-up, but a hand-out is pretty sad.

patteeu
09-16-2008, 11:08 AM
I'll go with the RCP poll of polls.....McCain by 1.8% presently.

I'm guessing Obama by 2-3% by the end of next week, and rising.

:thumb:

patteeu
09-16-2008, 11:16 AM
I really don't think there is that much of a comparison. A glance at the differences in budget deficits is all you need to see.
People bitching about democratic spending are complaining about few bucks while the guy in the suit behind them is cleaning out their bank account.

At almost every point along the path of the past 8 years, democrats have consistently called for even more spending than the out-of-control Republicans. They wanted more funding for No Child Left Behind. They wanted a bigger and more expensive Prescription Drug entitlement. They even wanted to spend more on the war at times, most recently with their attempt to appear pro-troop by outspending Republicans on a new GI bill.

And while it's true that Bush and the Republicans deserve the lion's share of the responsibility for the cost of the Iraq war, the dem POTUS candidate promises to divert what is currently a temporary expense into new permanent domestic spending.

tiptap
09-16-2008, 11:36 AM
Consider it the peace dividend.

Amnorix
09-16-2008, 11:39 AM
I agree with everyone else that is saying that it's quite shocking that this race is even close. I can't begin to explain it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 11:44 AM
It's pretty easy to see why it would trend that way--

#1) McCain is in his second post-convention week, which will be when his bounce totally evaporates
#2) People trust Democrats on the economy more than Republicans, and McCain has a huge library of video that shows his ineptitude regarding fiscal matters
#3) Phil Gramm is his economic advisor, was behind the GLB, McCain voted for it, Biden against it, and Obama wasn't in the senate. That's a huge advantage.

jidar
09-16-2008, 11:46 AM
At almost every point along the path of the past 8 years, democrats have consistently called for even more spending than the out-of-control Republicans. They wanted more funding for No Child Left Behind. They wanted a bigger and more expensive Prescription Drug entitlement. They even wanted to spend more on the war at times, most recently with their attempt to appear pro-troop by outspending Republicans on a new GI bill.

And while it's true that Bush and the Republicans deserve the lion's share of the responsibility for the cost of the Iraq war, the dem POTUS candidate promises to divert what is currently a temporary expense into new permanent domestic spending.

right. There is no way, no way in hell, the democrats are going to increase spending enough to compare to the cost of the Iraq war right now.

You keep pretending like a few social programs costs trillions, it doesn't. You could double the entire education budget for less than that and nobody is trying to double anything.

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 11:46 AM
I agree with everyone else that is saying that it's quite shocking that this race is even close. I can't begin to explain it.

Obama's inexperience and race play much bigger factors than many want to admit.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 11:46 AM
I agree with everyone else that is saying that it's quite shocking that this race is even close. I can't begin to explain it.

I think that the vast majority of it stems from the fact that most of the populace is ignorant and will believe the first thing they see on television. The dearth of critical thinking allows for the success of Rovian politics.

jidar
09-16-2008, 11:48 AM
Obama's inexperience and race play much bigger factors than many want to admit.

The experience issue should be minor. He's not significantly less experienced than many historical candidates. I guess it's not the reality that matters though, just what people believe from watching Fox News.

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 11:50 AM
I think that the vast majority of it stems from the fact that most of the populace is ignorant and will believe the first thing they see on television. The dearth of critical thinking allows for the success of Rovian politics.

Is that any different, really, from any election? :shrug:

Seriously. I've lowered my expectations of the average American voter considerably, over the past 30-35 years. They aren't too bright, generally; and they are usually pretty complacent.

Yea....for Jackson's 'Politics for the People,' right? ;)

Mr. Kotter
09-16-2008, 11:51 AM
The experience issue should be minor. He's not significantly less experienced than many historical candidates. I guess it's not the reality that matters though, just what people believe from watching Fox News.

Oh, I agree; but the perception is today....that one's resume' ought to be more weighty.

DaneMcCloud
09-16-2008, 11:54 AM
I agree with everyone else that is saying that it's quite shocking that this race is even close. I can't begin to explain it.

I honestly believe it comes down to where you live. Cities versus rural areas.

Two completely different ways of life.

I'm not implying one is better than the other, just that there are big differences between the two ways of life, which in turn require different needs.

Cannibal
09-16-2008, 11:56 AM
How is this even a close race? The incumbent party is a failure by every measure, and people still want to keep the GOP in.

1.) Jesus.
2.) Obama is rumored to be Muslim.
3.) Obama is half white and half black.
4.) Outraged Hillary supporters who vote based on genatalia.
5.) Obama has a "strange" name and his middle name is Hussein.

I am not just spouting hyperbole, those really are the 5 biggest reasons this race is as close as it is. Notice that none of them have anything to do with policy.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 11:56 AM
Is that any different, really, from any election? :shrug:

Seriously. I've lowered my expectations of the average American voter considerably, over the past 30-35 years. They aren't too bright, generally; and they are usually pretty complacent.

Yea....for Jackson's 'Politics for the People,' right? ;)

No, it's not. Most Americans are ignorant. They are much happier not knowing anything and being told what to think than figuring out what they believe and why. No one in this country asks why unless they are referring to something that they can consume.

In America:

Why did Paris Hilton wear a sheer top? > Why is our country in the state it is in?

Carlota69
09-16-2008, 11:57 AM
When I think about what can be done to keep the American economy strong, putting democrats in charge of both the Congress and the White House at the same time is about the last thing that comes to mind.

With this congress? It'll be Republican again in no time.

jidar
09-16-2008, 03:35 PM
How the west was won.

BIG_DADDY
09-16-2008, 03:39 PM
Yea it's shame the Dems had to bring a candidate to the table that is that far to the left.

jidar
09-16-2008, 03:49 PM
Yea it's shame the Dems had to bring a candidate to the table that is that far to the left.

what the hell are you talking about?

Silock
09-16-2008, 03:52 PM
If you really were concerned about the economy, you wouldn't be voting for either Obama or McCain.

jidar
09-16-2008, 04:34 PM
If you really were concerned about the economy, you wouldn't be voting for either Obama or McCain.

Well that's a decent point.

I frequently find myself at odds with being practical and just being revolutionary. The practical side of me says it's either republicans or democrats and I'd rather take a chance of getting it right than a known failure on the republican side.

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 04:38 PM
If you really were concerned about the economy, you wouldn't be voting for either Obama or McCain.

and who would we vote for that had a chance to win

KILLER_CLOWN
09-16-2008, 06:44 PM
If you really were concerned about the economy, you wouldn't be voting for either Obama or McCain.

QFT!

***SPRAYER
09-16-2008, 07:03 PM
If you really were concerned about the economy, you wouldn't be voting for either Obama or McCain.

What is the alternative?

Exactly, there is no alternative. All we can do is sit back and watch the inevitability of a military dictatorship.

I'm giving it ten years, max.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2008, 07:47 PM
what the hell are you talking about?

O.M.G.!:eek:

memyselfI
09-16-2008, 07:56 PM
It is close because the DEMS chose the least experienced, tested, and qualified candidate as their nominee leaving people to choose between him and a candidate they remember liking for some reason in the past but don't currently think much of.

Now, they are left with looking for a reason, ANY REASON, to vote for John McCain instead of a political novice with a questionable past and who has a very liberal belief system. Enter Sarah Palin and you have many people forgetting why they disliked John McCain and now have their reason to support the ticket.

I don't believe the Sarah Palin effect is so much about HER per se as it is a reason, ANY REASON, to vote for McCain for those looking for a reason. Now it could be a vote for him vs. simply a vote against NObama.

HolmeZz
09-16-2008, 08:11 PM
It is close because the DEMS chose the least experienced, tested, and qualified candidate as their nominee.

What were John Edward's experiences, tests, and qualifications for President? What made him suitable to be President and not Obama to you?

HolmeZz
09-16-2008, 08:13 PM
what the hell are you talking about?

BIG DADDY'S favorite kind of Democrats are Republicans.

I called him out months ago when he was denying he was going to vote for McCain. Now it's a foregone conclusion.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 08:13 PM
It is close because the DEMS chose the least experienced, tested, and qualified candidate as their nominee leaving people to choose between him and a candidate they remember liking for some reason in the past but don't currently think much of.

Now, they are left with looking for a reason, ANY REASON, to vote for John McCain instead of a political novice with a questionable past and who has a very liberal belief system. Enter Sarah Palin and you have many people forgetting why they disliked John McCain and now have their reason to support the ticket.

I don't believe the Sarah Palin effect is so much about HER per se as it is a reason, ANY REASON, to vote for McCain for those looking for a reason. Now it could be a vote for him vs. simply a vote against NObama.

You do realize that Palin's favorables vs. unfaves are a staggering +1, right?

HolyHandgernade
09-16-2008, 08:18 PM
My God, I actually feel like we are headed towards an "Idiocracy".

"I like money."

The Presidency is never about experience. That has always been a political angle ALWAYS employed by the side that believes they have it. The Presidency, for better or worse, is about trust. Who do you trust to weigh and make the right decisions? That speaks to wisdom, and while experience certainly has the ability to increase one's wisdom, it doesn't necessarily lead to it.

This race will come down to how well these candidates can get people to trust them. Will they fall for the "Grandfather Knows Best" style of Reagan. Or, will they go with the "Messiah", hoping the charisma and the daring of youth can lead them out of the wilderness. For better or worse, those are the charactures, and the candidate who can use that persona in a more effective way to gain trust, will win.

I think latent racism could be offset by new voters and I don't think its as big of a factor as some fear. Its the trust factor to the swing voters and non-partisans. I think there's a fair amount of moderate Republicans that will vote across party lines in "the privacy of the voting booth" as well.

-HH

Friendo
09-16-2008, 08:21 PM
What were John Edward's experiences, tests, and qualifications for President? What made him suitable to be President and not Obama to you?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dyl0j3WU6Y&feature=related

Fish
09-16-2008, 08:59 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/txDWRR5WRFQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/txDWRR5WRFQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Gets good at the 45 sec mark......

patteeu
09-17-2008, 07:46 AM
Consider it the peace dividend.

Yeah, except that your candidate wants to squander that dividend instead of paying off the bills generated by the war that you lefties used to pretend to be concerned about.

patteeu
09-17-2008, 07:50 AM
It's pretty easy to see why it would trend that way--

#1) McCain is in his second post-convention week, which will be when his bounce totally evaporates
#2) People trust Democrats on the economy more than Republicans, and McCain has a huge library of video that shows his ineptitude regarding fiscal matters
#3) Phil Gramm is his economic advisor, was behind the GLB, McCain voted for it, Biden against it, and Obama wasn't in the senate. That's a huge advantage.

#3 is a McCain-esque lie. Phil Gramm is no longer a McCain adviser.

And on top of the lie, I don't think it's got much political punch anyway.

patteeu
09-17-2008, 08:12 AM
right. There is no way, no way in hell, the democrats are going to increase spending enough to compare to the cost of the Iraq war right now.

You keep pretending like a few social programs costs trillions, it doesn't. You could double the entire education budget for less than that and nobody is trying to double anything.

You might think that if you haven't been paying attention to what democrats actually do when they have the power to do what they want.

The total budget authority for the war in Iraq so far is under $600 billion (http://zfacts.com/p/447.html) and that's after over 5 years of war. So we're really talking about $100-$200 billion per year, not "trillions".

Estimates of new spending based on analysis of Obama's campaign promises range from $200 billion/year (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/2/14/obamas-trillion-dollar-spending-plan.html) at the conservative end to $343 billion/year (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141) from the National Taxpayer's Union to $547 billion/year (http://www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2008/obama_proposes_over_500_billion_new_spending_and_tax_cuts) at the top end.

StcChief
09-17-2008, 08:17 AM
motherjones.... enough said

patteeu
09-17-2008, 08:24 AM
O.M.G.!:eek:

It's kind of shocking to see so many people around here who are so far left that they don't recognize Obama's socialism with a smile for what it is.

ChiTown
09-17-2008, 08:37 AM
It's kind of shocking to see so many people around here who are so far left that they don't recognize Obama's socialism with a smile for what it is.

:clap:

banyon
09-17-2008, 08:43 AM
#3 is a McCain-esque lie. Phil Gramm is no longer a McCain adviser.

And on top of the lie, I don't think it's got much political punch anyway.

Only because he is too toxic to be part of the campaign. You want to lay some moolah on him being part of the McCain Administration in a significant way?

***SPRAYER
09-17-2008, 08:55 AM
It's kind of shocking to see so many people around here who are so far left that they don't recognize Obama's socialism with a smile for what it is.

I think most people are clueless as to how close we are teetering to an economic disaster. Neither McCain or Obama can or will do anything to prevent it.

At this point I no longer care who wins, because it really won't matter.

patteeu
09-17-2008, 08:58 AM
Only because he is too toxic to be part of the campaign. You want to lay some moolah on him being part of the McCain Administration in a significant way?

Right, but regardless of the reason for Gramm disassociating himself from McCain's campaign, the fact remains that 'Hamas' lied. And it's a lie about something that's trivial so that makes it a McCain-esque lie.

I think Phil Gramm would be a good choice for Treasury Secretary.

mlyonsd
09-17-2008, 09:00 AM
What was the name of that Fanny Mae exec that was advising Obama before getting kicked under the bus?

Mr. Kotter
09-18-2008, 02:38 PM
I'll go with the RCP poll of polls.....McCain by 1.8% presently.

I'm guessing Obama by 2-3% by the end of next week, and rising.




48 hours later.....Obama now leads by 1.9%

It took less time than I thought; sorry, patty....my bad. ;)


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Guru
09-18-2008, 03:03 PM
It's amazing how many just vote political affiliation over what's good for the country.
Why? Because some people won't vote for your candidate?

J Diddy
09-18-2008, 03:04 PM
Why? Because some people won't vote for your candidate?

qft

Calcountry
09-18-2008, 03:19 PM
When I think about what can be done to keep the American economy strong, putting democrats in charge of both the Congress and the White House at the same time is about the last thing that comes to mind.
In fact, McCain should elevate the notion of him holding a Veto pen to keep Nancy Pelosi in check.

They could run the stuff she and her buddies, Rangel, and Shumer, and Reed are for, then show McCain holding the veto pen. Oh, and as a Bonus, McCain with a Veto pen clearly denotes a departure with Bush.

Calcountry
09-18-2008, 03:20 PM
Why? Because some people won't vote for your candidate?
Because a lot of people won't vote for his candidate.

Calcountry
09-18-2008, 03:21 PM
Based on what poll? Where is he now?Forget it, it is just a suspicion he has. Kotter is very suspicious.

Guru
09-18-2008, 03:22 PM
Because a lot of people won't vote for his candidate.
And those people are automatically wrong because of that?

Baby Lee
09-18-2008, 07:25 PM
Dick Vermiel's failures doesn't mean Herm Edward is the answer. Seems an appropriate analogy here.

And FTR, that's an approach -v- approach analogy. Vermiel's the present, and Herm's the future in a different direction.

It's not a 1-1 Bush-Obama analogy.

Just wanted to make that clear before the moaning.

patteeu
09-19-2008, 05:28 AM
48 hours later.....Obama now leads by 1.9%

It took less time than I thought; sorry, patty....my bad. ;)


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

I guess when you shotgun predictions, you're bound to get one right every now and then. But you're not there yet. :p

Mr. Kotter
09-19-2008, 07:24 AM
I guess when you shotgun predictions, you're bound to get one right every now and then. But you're not there yet. :p


2.1% this morning..... ;)

patteeu
09-19-2008, 08:37 AM
2.1% this morning..... ;)

OK, you've achieved the threshold. Now we have to see if it keeps rising. If it does, I'll certify your prediction as prophetic.