Yes, welcome, IdahoMauleMan. I disagree with you almost 100% but your post was thoughtful and well-written.
Ah, the sign of the meager minded.
Yes you did fail. Will it be the story of your life?
Welcome to the boards! It’s always good to have another intelligent voice, especially one who’s willing to speak for the minority opinion here.
What I find most interesting in your post is the acknowledgment that President Clinton, despite his Democratic affiliation, actually respected economic virtues and free market capitalism. In other words, democrat does not necessarily mean socialist.
I wonder how you feel about the Republican behaviors over the last 8 years. Do you feel that their huge budget deficit spending undermines the traditional Republican mantra of smaller government and lower taxes (as George HW Bush proved, after 8 years of bad budgeting, eventually even a Republican has to raise taxes to compensate)?
I’m not trying to change your mind about Obama or McCain. But, given what you’ve written, I wonder what about opinion of the recent administration.
No. My grammer is very very old. Which is the problem. I have lived what you read.
My perfection is the fine art of life unperfected.
See the point is to get some to look a little into what you think you believe.
Only fool leaps before they look. Today in the rush to be perfect means look after the leap.
Is “hope and change” your battle cry with out glimps into the history of it’s use?
Of course youth has no history to percieve diffrently. Nore does it care to burdon itself with the knowlage.
It was used many years ago. Hope and change was given to the Russians by Karl Marx.
Over 20 Million lives later one would think this catch phrase would ring a sound of alarm. Yet it wont. Is that you want to find out what Russia experianced? To this day they still live with that fools folly.
Maybe your discontent is from not getting your email on the blackberrie fast enough. Maybe your car isnt the finest or you had to look for a coin or two when short. What is it that makes a American want to give up freedom?
Cause Obama is a communist. He grew up as a communist. Read his damn book.
Self proclaimed. Theres that leap.
He started his campian in the home of William Ayers. A man unrepentant a self proclaimed domestic terrorist AT WAR with America. Bombed the Pentagone and several police stations. His time spent as the organizer was spent with Ayers.
Alright now the ground work is firmly yours. You go from here, just go ahead and get me diffrent… What you “feel” dont count. Obamas "mass email was an open lie to his supporters. Cant handle it? Then tell me now.
I can wait for you to find out by other means.
After all this obama history wont be hidden much longer.
I’d give it a grade of C or D. But I also think the jury should stay out for a while on a presidency. It would be interesting to pick up this conversation again in 2012 and recalibrate our opinions. My opinions of Reagan, GHWB and Clinton have certainly morphed a bit over time. Yours might, too. Or not. 
I think Bush did one good thing for which he doesn’t get nearly enough credit. Lowering taxes on personal income, capital gains and dividends. The expiring credits for inheritance taxes and 529s were also pretty clever. That game isn’t over yet, but I think he gambled that they would become so popular that there wouldn’t be any way in hell a Republican or Democratic Congress would ever let them expire when the due-date arrived. So far, that seems to be the way the wind is blowing.
Bush took over an economy that had to deal with a popping dot-com bubble and the impacts of 9/11. Normally that would have been pretty disastrous. But GDP growth and job growth have stayed reasonably healthy throughout the last 7 years. I certainly wouldn’t have thrown a protectionist sop to the steel producers like he did (and for God’s Sake…why are we still subsidizing factory farming to the tune of $300+ billion!!!) but overall I think he did more good than harm during some potentially tricky times.
The biggest criticism of the tax cuts seems to be that the rich got richer. They did. The top 10% of income earners do indeed have more of the pie. But they also pay more, in taxes, on both a percentage basis and real-dollar basis than before the Bush tax cuts. The pie got bigger, and the government got their share of the bigger pieces. People hate to hear that, but it’s true. There is also a complexity to the population shifts between income groups, further complicated by immigration, that I think gets lost in this particular debate.
I’m a supporter of a progressive tax code - but progressive ultimately means how much the government GETS, not how much it TRIES TO GET by increasing marginal rates. Higher marginal tax rates always mean reduced incentives to work and invest in the long run. Which means lower government revenues. Take a look at California and NYs budget numbers if you want to see ugly. And it’s going to get uglier.
We also have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Want to stop outsourcing jobs and building plants overseas? I know I do. I have at least one good, proven idea about how to go about it. But enough for now.
Yes, there were a few counter points to the Laffer curve theory in the late 90’s under Clinton. I personally chalk that up to bubble-year outliers and unusually cheap input costs during an oil glut. We can save that long story for another day.
On every other dimension, my opinion is that Bush has been ineffective or made things worse. The intent behind ‘No Child Left Behind’ was noble, but the end product hasn’t had any impact that I can see. Even though the government was awash in tax revenue from 2003-06, the budget deficit got worse due to the Iraq war and his inability (or lack of desire?) to expend much personal capital on controlling spending.
This seemed to be his M.O.O. as governor of Texas, too. As well as his Dad for that matter. Give the opposition a piggy bank to play with, don’t challenge them too much on spending, and use that goodwill to get your ‘real priorities’ through. Except I’m not sure what his ‘real priorities’ were, other than the invasion of Iraq.
It’s definitely time for a change. Except I don’t see much good change coming in either one of the candidates. Fortunately, we are blessed with talented and diverse people who love freedom, millions more who are (literally) dying to get in, and have the best Constitution ever designed in the history of mankind. So I think we’ll probably muddle through just fine.
Ah, no, but I know how hard it is to see straight when you look through a filter.
He will appoint leftist judges. I don’t see the word activist in my post anywhere.
He is for more gun control. Hell, I don’t own a gun, but I like to know my rights are safe. When the guy more or less says he can’t take guns away because Congress won’t let him, it sure sounds like he’d like to if he could.
I do not aprove of his Iraqi policy (like, you know, trying to delay troop pullout for political gain :D)
His voice is condescending, but like I said, that’s a personal annoyance thing.
Liberals don’t need me to piss them off; they’re pissy when they get up in the morning.
Thanks for making shit up.
Just for my edification, you think “leftist” judges practice “judicial restraint”? Or is it that you don’t have a problem with activist judges, as long as they are conservative.
Gotcha. Guns good. I got that the first time.
Well, at least this time you actually offered a rationale other than your vague dislike for his “foreign policy”. Good on you! Nevermind you’re inaccurate about him delaying troop pullouts for political gain, but hey, baby steps for you is good.
I understood completely. You’re a hater. It’s good to make peace with it.
Pure genius that is.
I fear you misunderstand. Everything I originally posted was correct. You just want to play word games and fling more insults. Enjoy that.
Not crazy about McCain, but in comparison to Obama’s brand of liberalism, & socialism McCain wins every time.
I’m much a personal responsibility voter and Obama is all about Government “taking care of me” no thanks, I’d rather do it on my own.
We need fewer program, not more.
Fewer bills/laws, not more (just try enforcing the laws we already have)
Fewer lawyers involved, not more.
Fewer lifelong politicians, not more (also a strong advocate of term limitations)
We need line item veto on the Federal level, as it is in some states
Gun control is not the answer - What we need is criminal control
We also need to maintain a strong defense
I’m not crazy about abortion, and absolutely detest late-term murder.
Seal the borders, but also fix the immigration system so it can be a portal instead of a roadblock
I don’t see Obama aligning with any of my desires and wishes.
This, I don’t get. You read as an order of magnitude smarter than ** blackcatrun** and I seriously doubt you’re trolling. Do you agree or disagree that welfare given to individuals is far outweighed by most other government expenditures, including welfare given directly to corporations? Do you agree that the Republican mindset of privatization of wealth and socialization of risk is a direct cause of multiple financial crises, including the current one? Given that McCain has been somewhat independent of his party in the past, do you think it’s possible that his policy will turn out to align with the Bush/Rove mentality, just as his campaign has? Assume, for a moment, that the two pairs of candidates have an equal grasp of economics. We know that Phil Gramm is McCain’s economic advisor and favorite for Treasury Secretary. Do we want the person second-most responsible for the current financial meltdown to be in charge of the economy?
Do you honestly believe that Obama rallying the middle-class and below to stand up for their economic interests against the wealthy and powerful to be a more significant form of class warfare than the long-term reapportioning of wealth upwards, made possible by the whole of Republican policies?
And yes, labor unions have largely devolved into corrupt cronyism. But they are the last stand for the average working American to maintain rights in the workplace. And if you won’t accept that argument, just match all of the special interests on the left person for person and influence for influence against all the crazies on the right: Christian fundamentalists, oil companies, racists, John Birchers, etc. Which party is more beholden to odious masters?
Welcome!
Hey Pot! This is ArizonaTeach.
You’re black!
This kind of thing (like Bricker’s recent episode) makes me feel very sorry about these boards.
Obama never called Palin a pig. You have been listening to too many propaganda messages either by email or else where.
The flaw in McCain’s party comments go to show that their purpose to get elected is to smear Obama. Obama was referring to McCain’s policies as being the same as Bush’s and only the pople who go by the ads put out by Mcain take that as a slur on Palin which it was not.
Monavis
Three year old Democrats? We must lower the voting age!
-Joe
Ha ha! That’s funny! I guess he’s a Muslim, too, right?
This board is dedicated to fighting ignorance. Maybe you should look for some greener pastures.
Bear in mind that I haven’t decided who to vote for, or whether I should vote at all (see my open thread on the subject, if you want). However…
I like McCain. Politics aside, he reminds me of Yitzhak Rabin or Ariel Sharon, the same kind of crusty old fart who actually gets things done. While Obama - through no fault of his own - reminds me of the slick, young, well spoken type of politician we haven’t had much luck with around here lately.
I wouldn’t exactly call it excitement, but a lot of what Americans see as detriments, I consider advantages.
I do, indeed. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Fannie and Freddie’s mixed mission is one huge reason for the huge credit crisis. Blaming Republicans for it is a tad disingenuous. Both parties slopped at the lobbying trough for years. As far as I know, Barney Frank is still trying to push more volume through the entities. You can stack up a litany of cites going back to the 90’s where he cheerled their growth. And their were a few warnings from the Bush Administration to cut back. They didn’t really push that hard, though. Probably because Republican congressmen/women weren’t really interested.
Given that McCain has been somewhat independent of his party in the past, do you think it’s possible that his policy will turn out to align with the Bush/Rove mentality, just as his campaign has? Assume, for a moment, that the two pairs of candidates have an equal grasp of economics. We know that Phil Gramm is McCain’s economic advisor and favorite for Treasury Secretary. Do we want the person second-most responsible for the current financial meltdown to be in charge of the economy?
Do you honestly believe that Obama rallying the middle-class and below to stand up for their economic interests against the wealthy and powerful to be a more significant form of class warfare than the long-term reapportioning of wealth upwards, made possible by the whole of Republican policies?
[QUOTE]
I don’t agree that wealth has been ‘reapportioned’. That implies some sort of redistributionist policy taking from the poor and giving to the rich. As I said in an earlier post, the amount of tax revenue the government has garnered from the well-off has increased, not decreased, during the Bush administration. The amount of personal filers at the bottom end owing no Federal income tax on a 1040 has increased, not decreased, during the Bush administration.
I’m against any politican that stokes class warfare. By that, I mean anyone who tells a large swath of electorate (poor, middle-class, men, women, whatever) that he’s going to help them…but don’t worry, we’re going to do it by sticking it to that guy over there! That guy. Over there. We’ll make him pay!
Proactively creating divisions in the electorate is a dangerous and uninspiring game, and is fundamentally at odds with what I believe is great about America. 51% voting to take from the other 49% is not what freedom and liberty are about.
No, your grammar is very, very bad. Anyone educated English-speaker 50 or 100 or 200 years ago would have said so. Shakespeare would have said so.
Shakespeare would have wept.
This isn’t the pit, so I’ll say this a diplomatically as I can, BrainGlutton…I think those posts are an attempt to get a rise. Very few people with the skills to at least operate a PC spell that badly unless its on purpose. Unless maybe they’re someone’s kid using their computer. Either way, I can’t take them serious…even if the grammar was acceptable they wouldn’t make much sense. A lack of cites for the outrageous claims made kind of seals the worth of them. “zero”
If at all possible, guys, would you please try to restrain yourselves from convincing others that their preference is incorrect? There are plenty of forums in which to do that.
I was solely interested in getting a gauge of how many folk (at least on these boards) were very attracted to McCain the individual.
ISTM that the strongest support so far is Alessan’s:
**I like McCain. Politics aside, he reminds me of Yitzhak Rabin or Ariel Sharon, the same kind of crusty old fart who actually gets things done. **
Of course, all things considered I imagine personal appeal might be a poor criteria for choosing one’s leaders.
True, but you can’t deny that it’s been a pretty important factor in Barack Obama’s success.